Saturday, October 30, 2004


Well first Kerry got the Yasir Arafat endorsement and yesterday he picked up the Osama bin Laden endorsement. This no doubt will energize his base of Michael Moore type lunatics. How embarrassed are Moore and the Democrat lunatic fringe that OBL has chosen to lift any number their insane talking points for his own? Sadly they are probably not embarrassed at all. In fact, they will probably trumpet the OBL tape as vindication of everything they have been saying.

It’s too late in the campaign for Kerry and the media to come up with new lies so they have been forced to hammer away at the old debunked ones. In light of the OBL tape, Kerry continues to harp on the out sourcing of military ops in Tora Bora. Gen. Franks has told the Kerry camp, without calling them liars, that they are mistaken and don’t know the facts. Well, the first time you make a charge absent the facts, it’s a mistake. When you repeat the same charge after being informed of facts that do not support your charge, it becomes a lie.

Kerry is not the only one criticizing Gen. Franks’ Afghan war plan. Joe Lockhart all but called Franks a liar and shill for the Bush campaign. Prissy little Gen. Wes Clark also criticized Franks, at a safe distance of course. No doubt Franks would like to get the three of these Monday morning carping powder puff military geniuses in a locked room. I can hear Franks’ slow deep voice as he takes off his watch and shirt, “OK, what’s it going to be girls, one at a time or all once?”

If OBL’s endorsement wasn’t enough for Kerry, earlier in theday a US Army ordinance officer briefed at the Pentagon that he personally had destroyed in excess 7,000 tons of explosives while in Iraq – 250 tons from the Al Qaqaa facility. Clueless media dopes zeroed in the fact that the Major could not guarantee that the explosives he destroyed in Al Qaqaa were part of the 377 tons noted in the debunked NYT story. What they had no interest in understanding was that the Major’s presentation shot huge holes in Kerry’s claim that there was no plan to deal with Al Qaqaa. Obviously there was a plan to round up lose munitions. Also, these Kerry surrogates kept the NYTrogate story on life support by ignoring what a tiny % of the total the missing munitions represented. In a country awash with tons of munitions, the US military has destroyed or secured 400,000 tons. But our heroes in the press are only concerned about the tiny % that is supposedly missing – that nobody really knows if it’s missing or not. This is like the 6 year old that gets 50 birthday presents but spends the day crying because he didn’t get a red balloon.

Kerry is most at home criticizing the military. In the closing days of his campaign he decided to return to his strength. And just as in 1971 when he falsely accused the American fighting man of being a war criminal, he will not let facts get in the way of his trashing our military this time around either.

Thursday, October 28, 2004


John Kerry may be putting the final nail in his own campaign coffin. Left with nothing to bolster his flagging campaign, Kerry has taken to hysterically repeating a quickly debunked NYT story about 380-400 tons of explosives missing from Iraq. Given the plethora of weapons and explosives in Iraq, missing 300-400 tons is kind of like Kerry’s billionaires wife, Teresa being off $10 on her checkbook balance. Sure, it’s annoying but in the big picture it doesn’t mean much.

Now, not only has the premises of the story, that the US failed to secure the explosives, has been debunked but it appears that the Russians might have helped Saddam move the explosives to Syria before the war. If this true, what else did they help move? How about Iraq’s WMD? Enough doubt is raised in the minds of thinking people for them to say to themselves, “Hey maybe this was the right war at the right time for the right reason.” Everybody including John Kerry and Bill Clinton said Iraq had the WMD. What happened to them? If Vladimir Putin comes forward with information about Russian involvement in the movement of weapons to Syria not only will it be the death knell for Kerry’s campaign we will also have a replacement for Iraq on Bush’s list of countries that make up the axis of evil. It may be unlikely that Putin would admit to such shenanigans, but after Beslan who knows.

This story also exposes Kerry’s weakness with regard to his now famous “global test”. Kerry wants to dither with the UN and old European allies while they loot the oil-for-food program and allow time for Saddam to relocate and hide his most valuable weapons. Where would we be right now if France, Germany and Russia had supported our UN efforts? The leaders of these countries placed their personal enrichment ahead of world security. Given that, any “global test” with these players is going to be filled with trick questions and graded on a curve that makes it impossible for the US to pass.

Last, this issue puts Kerry on the side of the UN and IAEA chief and Barney Fife impersonator Mohamed ElBaradei against our own commanders and troops. Kerry ever the pandering internationalist put the word of incompetent UN bureaucrats trying to effect our election above the professionalism of our own forces. In 1995 the US asked the UN to destroy the very explosives now missing. The UN refused. Now their shorts are in a knot because the explosives are missing. If they weren’t important enough to destroy when we had the chance, why are they important now in a country awash with dangerous weapons? Simple, the NYT along with CBS, John Kerry and the UN want an issue with which to attack President Bush. Like all of their other efforts to dates, this too has backfired and damaged the man it was intended to help. By repeating the lie over Kerry makes his situation worse. Would an apology be out of the question?

Wednesday, October 27, 2004


It’s no surprise that the left-leaning media in this country are so far into the tank for Kerry that they can’t see daylight.

It’s no surprise then that CBS would spend five years trying to nail down a bogus story on President Bush’s National Guard service.

It’s no surprise that when that story didn’t pan out as CBS had hoped they relied on fake documents from a mentally unstable Bush basher to resurrect their phony story.

It’s no surprise that when confronted with overwhelming evidence that the documents were fake CBS would stand by their story.

It’s no surprise when the pressure mounted to unbearable levels CBS would initiate an investigation but withhold the results of that investigation until after the election for the ironic reason that the investigation might influence the election.

It’s no surprise that ABC would spend thousands of dollars traveling to Vietnam to interview Vietnamese communists under the careful observation of government watchers to prop up John Kerry’s version events, while ignoring 250 American vets for 9 months.

It’s no surprise that the media would ignore John Kerry’s demonstrably false claim to have been in Cambodia Christmas of 1968.

It’s no surprise that the media would portray the SWIFVETS as liars for telling the truth and Kerry as a martyr for lying.

It’s no surprise that the media asked not one question about John Kerry’s meetings with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong representatives in Paris while a member of the US Naval Reserve.

It’s no surprise that the media never pressured John Kerry to sign a SF 180 releasing all of his military records.

It’s no surprise that the media never questioned John Kerry about lying about being at VVAW meeting where the assassination of US senators was discussed.

It’s no surprise that the NYTrogate story just happened to break on the same day that John Kerry was caught in another lie this time about meeting with all of the UN Security Council before the war.

It’s no surprise that the media has yet to ask him about that lie.

It’s no surprise that CBS 60 Minutes planned to run the same NYTrogate story on the Sunday before the election.

It’s no surprise that media has ignored the obvious holes in the premises of the NYTrogate story. Like, how one “loots” 380 tons of supposedly “sealed” of explosives in combat zone – a task that would take 100 men a week to accomplish with perfect intelligence.

It’s no surprise that John Kerry would side with the UN and IAEA against the professionalism of US troops in the NYTrogate matter.

It’s no surprise that NBC is backtracking on its story refuting the NYT account of Al Qaqaa.

It’s no surprise that The Guardian would stick its frail, upturned, pointy Brit nose into the election business of Clark County, Ohio.

It’s no surprise that John Edwards thinks he and Kerry can make the lame walk.

It’s no surprise that John Kerry tries scare people with talk of Social Security cuts, implementation of a draft and a health care crisis.

It’s no surprise that union thugs are engaged in voter intimidation and shooting up, vandalizing, and robbing Bush/Cheney campaign offices.

It’s no surprise that the DNC published instructions on how to claim voter disenfranchisement before it occurs.

It’s no surprise that the DNC has already brought 9 suites against the state of Florida for disenfranchisement of minority voters.

The only surprise in any of this is that through it all a majority of the American people still support President Bush. The only surprise is that it’s not working.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004


I don’t like polls. If my guy is ahead, I dread that poll is hopelessly wrong and the poll will drive down turn out for my candidate, and energize turn out for the other guy. If my guy is down, I dread the poll is deadly accurate and the poll will energize turn out for the other guy, and demoralize turn out for my guy.

Another reason I don’t like polls is that every poll is paid for by somebody and everybody has an agenda. So, if a media sponsored poll shows good news for Kerry, I’m skeptical. If a Heritage Foundation poll shows good news for Bush, I’m skeptical. I’m skeptical that the wording and sequencing of poll questions were arranged in manner that favors the candidate that favors the poll buyer’s agenda. The sample can also be manipulated to favor the buyer’s bias. Also, how honest are the people who answer the polls? I know a guy who lived in a three bedroom house. When he got his census form, you know the long obtrusive one; he indicated he lived in house with 57 rooms including 13 bathrooms because in his words, “It’s none of the government’s damned business how many rooms are in my house.” Last, polls don’t take into account voter fraud.

To my untrained eye there are a number of curious things about “the polls”.
- Bush has doubled his support among black voters.
- Bush has substantially increased his support among women voters.
- Bush has doubled his support among Jewish voters.
- Several States that Gore won are currently in Bush’s column (WI, IA, HI)
- Several states that Gore comfortably won are currently toss ups (MN, PA, NJ)
- Several states that Gore handily won are currently a lot closer (CA, IL, CT)
- Democrats say that Bush’s nation wide 2-4 point lead is because of higher than usual support among southerners.

Given the circumstances of Bush’s across the board improvement over 2000, borne out by “the polls”, one would think Bush would have a comfortable lead somewhere. But he doesn’t. Why?

Could it be that poll sponsors want it that way? Most of the polls are sponsored by news agencies. This is a rather odd phenomenon of news agencies making their own story. They commission a poll so that they can lead with a report on their poll. So, if the left leaning media are buying most of the polls, and the poll reflects the agenda of the buyer, the polls will tend to favor Kerry. Thus Bush is making huge inroads in blue states and blue voter bocks but remains tied with Kerry – same as 2000. But how can Bush simultaneously be stronger in the south than 2000; make stronger showing in blue states and among blue voter blocks than 2000 and yet it be tied same as 2000?

Could it be that the media are trying to push John Kerry by making the race appear closer than it is? I don’t know. Vice President Cheney said on Monday he thought Bush would win 52% - 47% (But who’s paying for HIS polling?). I’ve decided that even left leaning media outlets and pollsters value their reputations more than helping Kerry. So, I’ve decided to ignore the polls until Thursday or Friday. By then I believe that any inclination to push Kerry will be subordinated to getting the story right. Pollsters and media organizations will want bragging rights in the next election cycle so they’ll want to get it right.

I guess, by the end of the day on 2 Nov, all any of us can do is go vote and wait for the returns the final poll and only one that counts.

Monday, October 25, 2004


In spite of an FBI report to the contrary, the CIA recently concluded that there is no credible evidence that terrorists will attempt to disrupt our election. If that makes you feel safer remember the CIA missed: a) Iraq’s1990 invasion of Kuwait, b) Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, c) North Korea’s start up its nuclear program, after Clinton negotiated its end d) Iraq’s WMD. This list is not meant to slam the CIA. After all, how was the CIA supposed to know Saddam didn’t have WMD when Saddam didn’t even know he didn’t have the WMD he thought he bought?

But the CIA report that there is no indication that our election will not be disrupted by terrorism misses some obvious evidence. Nearly every day there are reports of another Bush/Cheney campaign office being shot up, vandalized, robbed or over run by union thugs. If these things were occurring at abortion clinics, John Kerry would be declaring it the work of religious right-wing terrorist nuts. But, John Kerry and Terry McAuliffe have remained silent on the assault on Bush campaign offices, because it’s Democrat terrorists inflicting the terror.

How low has organized labor sunk? The guys that used to take on armed National Guardsmen, police forces and armed strike-breakers are reduced to drive-by shootings at campaign offices and shouting at old ladies waiting in line to vote. Kerry and McAuliffe should have condemned the violence weeks ago but should do it now before someone is seriously hurt or killed.


To my old-fashioned way of thinking, a nation that relies on its women for its defense is akin to a husband who would nudge his wife when he hears something go bump in the night and says, “Aren’t you going to check that out?” So, when I read where the US Army is negotiating with the Pentagon’s civilian leaders to eliminate the women-in-combat ban so it can place mixed-sex support companies within warfighting units, I was a bit disappointed.

Then I considered the media hysteria surrounding the capture of then nineteen-year-old Pfc. Jessica Lynch. What the Iraq war proved to me was that everyone in the war zone regardless of what sex they happened to be were in danger of becoming casualties but, women casualties, also had the potential to be front page stories. This tells me that the press and American people aren’t quite comfortable with idea of sending their daughters off to defend the home front.

Why else would the capture of one GI Jane trump the deaths and heroic deeds of hundreds of GI Joes? Sadly, at some point the stories of women like Pfc. Lynch are going to become common place and their heretofore front page stories will be relegated to the list of killed and captured on page B 26. What will that say about us as a nation? Equality! All citizens honor America by coming to her defense. Well, it doesn’t sound quite so bad when you put it like that.

Friday, October 22, 2004


Two men are hunting. They pop up from a blind and fire on the flock. Only one bird falls. They walk over to the fallen bird. The man who missed bends over to pick up the dead bird. The man who brought the bird down says, “Dude, get your hands off my bird.” It’s unlikely that a man will let another hunter carry his fallen game - your young son sure - but not your hunting buddy. Further, it’s unlikely that a man would agree to carry anyone else’s game. “Hey, you killed it. You carry it. You clean it.” is the hunting buddy motto.

So how do we explain the picture at the link? A) Kerry is the one who missed. B) The guy carrying the bird is the ultimate sycophant – “Let me carry it boss. Let me carry it boss. Please. Please. C) Kerry is such an elite, effete, snob he made the other man carry the bird. “You there, pick up that bird. I’m John Kerry and I don’t carry dead game. Besides I need the wacko PETA animal rights vote and can’t be seen carrying a dead animal. You carry it, so I can hold this shotgun over my head like Charlton Hesston at an NRA convention because I need the gun owner votes as well.”

To say this whole event was nothing more than a silly photo op, is like saying John Edwards is little more than a pretty-boy trial lawyer who during his ONE senate term has spent more time on his hair than senate business. I suppose there might be one coal miner that has been under ground for the last two years who will see the picture and say, “Looky there. Boy that Kerry is just like you an me aint he.” Of course, Kerry had to tap into his wife’s dead husband’s dough to buy a hunting outfit and shotgun that probably costs more than the man would make in a year in the mines. Everybody else who sees this phony baloney bull excrement will say, “Who’s he trying to kid.” Further, the pictures will backfire. By Friday afternoon, some bright ad team will turn this into a Dukakis in the tank type ad - something with Elmer Fudd would be funny. Cheney is already refering to this event as the "October disguise".

How much more can the state of Ohio take? The Buckeyes are on a three game Big Ten losing streak. The Guardian is assaulting the folks in Clark County with a dopy letter writing campaign trying tip the scale toward Kerry. Now, Kerry dresses up for Halloween as a hunter. As Dan Rather might say, Courage! Ohio, Courage! The election is almost here!

Thursday, October 21, 2004


In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia on CNN, John Heinz Kerry said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no." If the “global test” is the sewer lid tied around John Heinz Kerry’s noticeably thin neck, this statement is his falling overboard with that sewer lid into a deep churning body of water.

For a pro like Carl Rove, this is like a Gretzky break-away on an empty net in ice hockey. About Wednesday next week this quote will be juxtaposed against Heinz Kerry’s “global test” comment from Heinz Kerry’s stunning “victory” in the first debate. The odd thing about this statement is that there is none of the Heinz Kerry nuance and an absence of the ever present BUT that Heinz Kerry has heretofore used to appeal to all sides of any argument.

U.S. soldiers dying for the UN is worth it. U.S. soldiers dying for America is unequivocally not. If Heinz Kerry believes that UN but not American efforts are worth dying for, by extension he must believe that the UN as a deliberative body must trump the U.S. congress. This comes from a man who seeks to be commander and chief of all of AMERICA’s armed forces. Who will he nominate as Secretary of Defense Kofi Annan?

That is only half of the idiocy of the Heinz Kerry statement. How about the idea that Heinz Kerry doesn’t believe that America “can affect the outcome”? Is that the kind of attitude we want from our leader? “Why, I’d like nothing more than to strike a death blow to Pan Islmo Terror Fascism, but the UN is controlled by satraps, dictators, thugs and the French. And the UN has said we just need to reduce terrorists to nuisance. Now we all know that America is incapable of affecting any outcome on its own don’t we?”

No thanks. I’ll take the clarity of George Bush’s “You’re either with us or against us.”

NOTE: I know that Kerry doesn't go by Heinz Kerry, but I thought I'd give a bit of credit to the guy who is paying for everything.


Q: You'd be different from Laura Bush?
A: Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good. But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things. And I'm older, and my validation of what I do and what I believe and my experience is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about.

Another good reason to vote for Bush is that THK and her gigolo husband John would return to relative obscurity spending THK’s dead husband’s money. Does America really need a Marie Antoinettesque first lady? These people drive a fleet of SUVs and jet around in a G5 aircraft while imploring us to putt-putt around in two cylinder autos because “we” must be environmentally conscience. “We” must save fuel and reduce pollution. No, the Kerry’s don’t mean “we”, like them and us. They mean “we” - as in you and me, but not them. The Teresa Heinz Kerry’s are clueless elitist snobs living high off the hog on a dead man’s money.

They own five mansions worth a hundreds of millions, fully staffed while warning the rest of us about urban sprawl. John Boy jets here for a snowboarding photo op, jets there for a windsurfing photo op, rides his $8,000 bicycle for a photo op – all of this, of course, when he’s not toting a shotgun in Ohio for a photo op. All of this, perhaps even John Boy’s entire presidential campaign, is made possible by John Heinz’s money.

If the truth were told on all sides of this, I think the principals would agree that between the four of them, the Teresa Heinz Kerry’s and the George Bush’s, Laura Bush is the ONLY one among them that has had a real job to which the average American can relate.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004


Hugh Hewitt is holding a symposium at his website asking for 250 words on why one should vote for Bush and what's wrong with Kerry. My 250 words are in the next blog under. On the way home today, I thought, I could have done it in one word – Danny.

Danny is my 8 year old son and he is the best reason I can think of to vote for President Bush. I’d like to hope that the war on Pan-Islamo-Terror-Fascists can be won in the next ten years, before Danny comes of age. I am certain that taking four years off from the fight under a feckless, poll driven Kerry administration will put Danny square in the middle of the fight. That’s all-right. If called upon to shoulder a share of the nation’s burden, I’m confident that he will do his duty, but I would hope that he could reach voting age in an America under a green or blue terror alert warning.

I am convinced that President Bush offers our best hope for effectively prosecuting the war on the psychopathic jihadists intent on bringing America to her knees. There is nothing in Bush’s performance since 9-11 to indicate that he will do anything but relentlessly purse this murderous ilk and the nation-sates that sponsor them. President Bush has been steadfast and resolute and will remain so for the next four years if reelected.

Conversely, there is nothing in Kerry’s 30 year public career to indicate that he will do anything but appease the terrorist, demoralize our military, and weaken America’s leadership position in the world. He sided with the North Vietnamese during the Paris peace talks. He voted against every major weapons system being used in the war today. He advocated (continues to advocate in the case of the bunker buster) a nuclear freeze. He sided with Sandinista communists in Nicaragua. He voted against intervention in Kuwait. He voted against a bill supporting the very troops he voted to commit to combat. During the campaign, Kerry has demonstrated that he is the candidate that will make America’s defense contingent upon a “global test” and something called “truth standards”.

So, I’m going to vote for Danny. I’m going to vote for the man. (Click! You won't be disappointed.)

Monday, October 18, 2004


In less than four years, President Bush has:
- Averted a long deep recession with sound economic policy.
- Passed the most comprehensive education bill ever.
- Brought corporate crooks to justice.
- Rallied the nation after 9-11.
- Freed 25 million people in Afghanistan.
- Brought democracy to Afghanistan.
- Freed 25 million people in Iraq.
- Turned Iraq over to an interim government.
- Put Saddam Hussein in the dock.
- Is aggressively hunting down terrorist.

In 20 years in the senate, John Kerry has:
- Voted for abortion to include a federally funded partial birth abortion for a minor without parental notification.
- Voted against funding major weapons systems to include:
MX Missile, B-1 Bomber, Anti-satellite system, Star Wars [Strategic Defense Initiative], AH-64 Helicopters, Patriot Air Defense Missile, Aegis Air-Defense Cruiser, Battleship Reactivation, AV-8B Vertical Takeoff and Landing Aircraft, F-15 Fighter Aircraft, F-14A Fighter Aircraft, F-14D Fighter Aircraft, Phoenix Air-to-Air Missile, Sparrow Air-to-Air Missile
- Voted against the 1991 Gulf War.
- Proposed cutting the intelligence budget by $6 billion.
- Voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion.
- Voted at least 126 times against tax cuts totaling more than $5.3 trillion.
- Voted 73 times to reduce the size of a tax cut.
- Voted 67 times for smaller tax cuts (Democrat alternatives).
- Voted 11 times against repealing tax hikes.
- Voted with Ted Kennedy 98%. (The other 2% allowed him edge Kennedy out as the most liberal member of the senate.)
- Voted for the $87 billion, before voting against it.


After Dan Rather was beaten like an ¢89 steak for his effort to pass off fake (using the word “forged” would give the perpetrator’s too much credit for their effort) documents that might as well have been written by a seven year old with a red crayon on a yellow tablet for all of their believability, you’d think the mainstream media might try to better hide its unvarnished support for John Kerry. If anything, it’s getting worse.

After airing Mary Mapes’ five year effort to break the Bush National Guard story, CBS’ five year effort was torpedoed in 30 seconds by a group of PJ wearing bloggers. Rather, Mapes and CBS were pummeled by the bloggers like that scene in the movie Scarface where Al Capone takes a baseball bat to some of the help for conspiring to take him out.
So while Dan is still recovering, he gets a call from Ted Koppel:

Ted: Dan this is Ted. How are you feeling?

Dan: Lower than snakes belly in a wagon rut. Lower than a well digger’s butt in Death Valley. Lower than whale excrement in the Marians trench. Lower than…

Ted: Ok, Ok I got it. Well, tune into Nightline on Thursday and I’ll show you how to pass bull excrement off as journalism.

Dan: First, in case you haven’t noticed, nobody watches Nightline, but don’t do it Ted. They’ll expose your obvious bias for what it is.

Ted: Who are “they”?

Dan: THEM!! You know!! The BLOGGERS ahhhrrrgggggg!

Ted: Hello, Dan? Dan? Are you there? Courage Dan, courage!

So undaunted, with Halperin memo in hand, Ted went forward with his, “What the Communist Vietnamese Think About the Swiftvets for Truth” piece on Nightline Thursday last week. The point of the rather pathetic story about Kerry’s Silver Star was to make John Kerry into a bigger a hero than even his over inflated opinion of himself already claims. So, Ted thought it would be a good idea in this effort to talk to bunch of communist in Vietnam. This strikes me as sort of like asking Mets fans what they think of Bill Buckner.

Had Ted just said, “Well there you have it ladies and gentlemen, communist prefer Kerry.” He might have escaped evisceration until the morning. But not only did he want to prop up Kerry with communist testimonials, he wanted to drag down the American Swiftvets. So he goofed and asked one on to the show. His bigger mistake was thinking that he could bully John O’Neill into saying that communist Vietnamese under the watchful eye communist party bosses were as reliable as American Vietnam vets on both sides of the Silver Star issue.

John O’Neill so successfully removed Ted’s entrails and fed them to him, that Ted and Nightline producers had to scramble for the last word without the pesky O’Neill introducing the truth into the story:

TED: One of our own producers, this morning, raised a question that I suspect a number of you may have on your mind. Why, just when the Presidential candidates are starting to focus on real, substantive issues devote yet another program to what John Kerry did or didn't do in Vietnam?

Here's why. Questions have been raised about John Kerry's character and honesty. We were offered the chance to set the record straight on one, discreet chapter in Mr. Kerry's war record. We didn't know what we were going to find when our crew went into Vietnam. You have the right to expect that we would have reported it, either way. And we would. Because not reporting something you know can be just as much of a political statement as reporting it. Imagine how outraged supporters of Mr. Kerry would have been if we had concealed what we found!

Our interviews don't prove that John Kerry deserved his Silver Star. But they are consistent with the after-action report and his citation for bravery. Finally, once we've checked things as thoroughly as we can, we're in the business of reporting what we learned, not concealing it.
That's our report for tonight. I'm Ted Koppel, in Washington. For all of us here at ABC News . . . good night.

Nice try. But like when Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall, all of ABC’s producers and all of ABC’s spinners couldn’t put Ted together again. If Ted had been placed into a triage line after O’Neill’s assault, he would have been dead last right behind a high school freshmen’s biology frog.

Sunday, October 17, 2004


“Yes, Brave Sir Robin turned about And gallantly he chickened out.” So goes a line from Monty Python’s Brave Sir Robin Ran Away. Maybe the good people in Minnesota should start calling their senior Senator Mark Dayton, Brave Sir Robin.

Senator Dayton, uh…er, Brave Sir Robin last week closed his Washington DC office for the recess citing security concerns. I’m sure the dust in Tora Bora that was once Osama bin Laden is being carried bit lighter on the wind today because of Brave Sir Robin’s decision to run like a squirrel. When it’s safe for Brave Sir Robin to come back to Washington in, oh 30-40 years, he can run leadership seminars. His agenda will look something like this:

I. Knowing when to run away
a. All situations are dangerous
b. Always be ready to run away
c. Run away first, ask questions later
d. You can’t run away if you’re dead

II. Knowing how to run away
a. Like a squirrel
b. Like a rabbit
c. Like an elected official

III. Why running away is important
a. Save your own worthless hide
b. Create hysteria among the population during an election cycle
c. Embarrass political opponents (Be CAREFUL! This often backfires and you yourself will end up looking like a craven political opportunist!)

Yes Brave Sir Robin gives new meaning to term “Girly Man”. If Brave Sir Robin doesn’t have the uh…guts to do his duty, then maybe he should turn his office over to someone that does. You can reach Brave Sir Robin here. I don’t know if his bunker is e-mail equipped or if or when he comes out to see if any of us are still alive.


In the blog two down, I ask why John Kerry’s mother would feel compelled to remind her son about integrity – three times – on her death bed. The Mary Cheney dust up may explain it.

In the Wednesday debate, Kerry said this, "If you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as." After the debate, when it was clear he had fouled up and Elizabeth Edwards tossed gas onto Kerry’s already flaming backside with her clueless two-cents on the subject, Kerry began back peddling like Pee-Wee Herman in the ring against WWE champ The Undertaker.

Kerry, ever the one for nuance (aka, Bull excrement), tried to explain away his foul up with a line of crap that he "was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue?" Where in the first quote does he mention anything about “strong families dealing with this issue”? This would be akin to someone at the supermarket checkout line shouting, “Look! Haley’s Comet!” When you look, he stomps your foot and pushes his cart ahead of yours. When you demand to know why he stomped on your foot, he says he was only trying to be helpful by straightening your tie. You and everyone who saw the incident are completely dumbfounded by the situation but the guy responsible is just waiting in line whistling a happy tune as if nothing untoward has happened. Along comes the dolt’s wife who hears about the incident and says, “You’re just over reacting and are ashamed because your foot hurts.”

None of this makes any sense to sane people. The two take aways:

1. John Kerry’s mother, if she did remind him three times on her death bed about integrity, had good reason.

2. People who heap great praise on John Kerry for winning the three debates are ignoring:
- “The global test” - debate one
- John Kerry’s support for a federally funded partial birth abortion for a minor without parental notification – debate two
- John Kerry’s gratuitous injection of Mary Cheney – debate three


I was alerted by a friend that wackos at The Guardian, a leftist London newspaper, were trying to influence our election by encouraging the people of the world to write a letter to a Clark County, Ohio voter. Given the leftist nature of The Guardian, I would expect those letters to lean heavily in favor of John Kerry. Well here is your chance to let The Guardian know how you feel. Go here and send them a note. My note to the fair minded people at The Guardian is below:

Hey Jonathan,
Good luck with your effort to influence the American election. I hope that you reach every voter in ClarkCounty. Check out the Clark County seal here What do you notice? Does that man look as if he needs any advice from anyone atThe Guardian? When the good people of Clark County hear from a bunch of neutered socialist Brits with bad teeth (NOT a comment on all Englishmen just the pinheads who would engage in this stupid stunt - the political equivalent of soccer hooligans I think.) trying to tell them how to vote, I suspect they'llknow what to do. That is why I hope you reach every voter. I don't think you know who you are dealing with.
Doug Schumick
Stuttgart, Germany
Born and raised in Franklin County, Ohio

Friday, October 15, 2004


Nearly every morning as my young son trundles off to catch his school bus I remind him, “Go straight to the bus stop. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200. Go straight to the bus stop.” I do not remind him out of habit or because he thinks it’s funny. I don’t remind him because I’m certain he will trudge dutifully and determinedly, no matter what the distraction to the bus stop. I remind him because if, when heads to the bus stop, he sees his buddy pitching stones into a puddle, he is likely to stop and partake of the fun. He will continue that activity until he sees the blue smoke of school bus exhaust headed up the road without him. Then he’ll come in and say, “I just stopped for minute and missed the bus.”

I remembered this when Kerry was telling us about what his mother told him, on her death bed no less, “Integrity, integrity, integrity!” First, I don’t believe it. I think he’s lying. I don’t believe it because Jim Rassmann uses the same line in a different context in his campaign pitch for Kerry. I don’t believe it because a dying mother is much more likely to say, “I love you.” Or “I’ll miss you.” Or “Be strong.” Or “Take care of those grandchildren.” Or one of ten million other things that don’t include the use of the word integrity three times.

But let’s say that Kerry, for the first time in his life, got the truth out on the first take without nuance or the need for further clarification. What does that say about him? What does it say about Kerry that his own mother, maybe the person who knew him best, was compelled to remind her son about the requirement for integrity. If the story is true, and I don’t believe it is, it means his mother, on her death bed, was so concerned about her son’s integrity that she needed to remind him, not once but three times. That’s creepy.

Thursday, October 14, 2004


Well thankfully, mercifully it’s over. I’ll bet there are still some self-serving boneheads somewhere offering themselves up to pollsters as “undecided” voters. I think this group ought to be referred to as “people too stupid to be allowed to vote.”

I didn’t think it possible but Schieffer was more in the tank for Kerry than Lehrer. For example, Schieffer and Kerry were the only ones laughing at Kerry’s jokes. W got him with a sarcastic remark about the credibility of news agencies. Schieffer’s questions were clearly designed set the ball on a tee for Kerry to hit out of the park. Bush again got all the high hard ones. This made Bush’s clear victory even more impressive that he handled both Kerry and Schieffer. Tonight just confirmed what we know, the mainstream media are openly rooting for and helping Kerry. The good news is that tonight might accelerate their decline into oblivion.

The take-away lines from tonight:

John Kerry was again forced to defend his “global test” comment from the first debate that he “won” so handily and sounded absurd in the process, saying he would never have the “global test” he advocated in the first debate. First rule of digging your self into a hole – stop digging. Tonight Kerry called in a backhoe to dig deeper. While saying he never had any “global test” he talked about “truth standards”. What is that? What are Saddam Hussein’s truth standards? What are Koffi Annan, French, German, and Russian - give us money from the oil for food program and we’ll shut down the Security Council – truth standards? Or is it the hate America first truth standard where we can trust the Saddam, the UN, French and Germans but not an American President? Rove will zero in on this. But lets face it it’s less than 20 days until the election and there are so many targets out there that there’s not enough time to engage them all. You have to shoot the biggest bulls.

Is anyone else tired of hearing Kerry drone, “I have a plan.” His plans seem to consist solely of saying he has a plan. Granted, two minutes isn’t much time to detail a “plan” but it is tiresome to hear over and over, “I have a plan.” It’s like being at the Rocky Horror Picture Show. The moderator says, “Senator Kerry, you have 90 seconds.” and everyone in theater yells in unison, “I have a plan.” President Bush mastered the sound bite nature of Presidential debates when he noted that a of list complaints is not a plan.

After the president noted Kerry’s liberal voting record, Kerry says, “Anyone can play with votes.” That response is only slightly better than “I actually voted for it before I voted against it.” The president had none of it and successfully hung the liberal millstone around Kerry’s pencil thin neck noting votes for increased taxes and busting spending caps while voting against tax cuts. The coup de grace was when Bush noted that Ted Kennedy was the conservative senator from Massachusetts.

Did anyone think it odd that Kerry was talking about iris scanners and thumb prints to stop illegal immigration? How does that work senator? Do all of the illegals line up at the border crossing to be finger printed? If they did would they still be illegals? Bush noted he was not for amnesty but that Kerry voted for amnesty for illegals in 2003.

Assault weapons question got Bush a bit tangled up. Started off poorly but recovered by saying the way to reduce gun crime is put criminals in jail. Kerry shows his liberal credentials again by advocating gun bans and comes off phony as Pam Anderson’s breasts when talks about being a hunter. I wish the president would have said, “Assault weapons? Depends on who has them. Criminals – bad, honest law-abiding citizens - good. Bob, do think those dads at Beslan wish they’d had an assault weapon or two to protect their children? Do you think a responsible teacher or two at Columbine High School with assault weapons would have been a bad thing on that tragic day? Given what we know about Beslan, do you think it would be a bad idea for responsible NRA trained adults to start looking over our schools?”

Last, if you didn’t know it, Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary is a lesbian. Edwards mentioned it and Kerry brought it up tonight for no apparent reason. Or was there? Are Kerry and Edwards trying to peal away some conservative voters by noting the VP’s daughter’s sexuality? I’d like to see Mary step up and say something along the lines of, “If Senator Kerry wants to make my sexuality an issue in this race then I’d like to make his gigolo status an issue. What kind of craven pathetic excuse for a man dumps his multi-millionaire first wife and mother of his children for the wife a dead senate colleague who is worth billions – a woman who has such low regard for Kerry that she refuses drop the name of her long dead first husband?”

Wednesday, October 13, 2004


What we will see tonight:

A question on stem cell research.
To Bush: Was it a mistake of your stem cell research policy to confine Mr. Reeve to a wheelchair for 10 years and then to a slow and certain death?
To Kerry: When elected will you and John Edwards travel the country healing the sick or will you develop a federal program to bring the sick to Washington so you can heal them there?

A question on military records.
To Bush: Will you admit and apologize to the American people for deserting during your tour in the National Guard?
To Kerry: Tell us again about your heroism when you rescued Jim Rassmann under a hail of enemy fire?

A question on taxes.
To Bush: Your tax policy has led to deficits as far as the eye can see, the greatest decline of American influence and prosperity in the history of the nation, reduced wages, increased rates of cancer, a more severe hurricane season than we’ve seen in years and a Yankee’s win last night, won’t you agree with all Americans that those tax cuts were a mistake?
To Kerry: Your plan to tax only extraterrestrials in the form of perpetual clean energy sources has been hailed by everyone but the president as a stroke of genius. Do you think the American people are worthy of you?

What you can really expect is more of the same. The president will hammer Kerry’s liberal record and Kerry will respond with a hearty, “Labels don’t matter. What matters is blah blah blah…” Kerry will have voted for all of the tax cuts before voting against them. Kerry will continue to insist that taxing only those that make more than $200,000 will pay for Utopia. Bush will paint Kerry into an ever shrinking corner based on his liberal voting record during 20 years in the congress. America and both candidates are probably thinking two debates were plenty.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


The democrats are taking the campaign promise to a new level. John Kerry’s cheap date and running mate John Edwards is promising that paraplegics like Christopher Reeve will walk again if Kerry is elected. What’s next, raising the dead? This all reeks of campaign desperation to me. How could anyone make such an idiotic claim? Is Edwards so full himself that he actually believes what he just said? Or is he just full of his own excrement?

A couple of points:

One president in the history of the United States has made federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research. That president is President Bush.

There is no ban on stem cell research. Anyone with a billion or so dollars, like, oh, I don’t know, Kerry’s wife can invest all they want.

There is no scientific evidence that embryonic stem-cell research will have any near or far term affect on spinal cord injuries.

Monday, October 11, 2004


‘’We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance,'’ Kerry said. ‘’As a former law-enforcement person, I know we’re never going to end prostitution. We’re never going to end illegal gambling. But we’re going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn’t on the rise. It isn’t threatening people’s lives every day, and fundamentally, it’s something that you continue to fight, but it’s not threatening the fabric of your life.”

It’s hard to believe that someone clueless enough to say that will probably end up getting at least 45% of the vote on Nov 2. (He will of course deny having said it by Mon noon.) If you call terrorists nuisances, you know like, “Those damned nuisances flew planes into the World Trade Center.” How do you refer to someone who calls your house and asks, “Is your refrigerator running?”

One of my major problems with John Kerry is that I’ve always considered him an elitist snob. What else could you call someone, not participating in the Tour De France, but thinks he needs to ride an $8,000 bicycle? Now, according to Kerry, the guys fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq are engaged in some kind of “police action” (Where have we heard that before?). Those damned nuisances are chopping off heads and blowing up cars in Iraq and are killing hundreds of school children in Russia. In Israel the damned nuisances are blowing up buses and pizza parlors. Aahh, if we could just get back to where we were on Sep 10 when the damned nuisances were only hijacking an occasional airliner or blowing up the occasional embassy - if we could just get to some sane level of terrorism. It's idiotic! Tolerating pre 9-11 terrorism is exactly what caused 9-11.

There are a lot of terms that come to mind to describe our enemy in today’s war, pan-Islamo-terror-fascist is descriptive. Words like nuisances, trouble-makers, and rabble-rousers don’t make my list. The fact that Kerry chooses one of these terms to describe an enemy that would kill us all in our sleep if they could is proof of his total lack of understanding as to the nature of the conflict in which we are engaged. Kerry’s likening of our troops’ efforts in winning that conflict to that of law-enforcement officers’ breaking up a prostitution or gambling ring is an affront to their heroic service.

Saturday, October 09, 2004


Well I have President Bush and Vice President Cheney three-for-three, although Laura and I might be the only ones who think the first debate went the president’s way. Notice that as recently as last night Kerry was still trying to explain that a “global test” has nothing to do with other nations or international organizations, huh, OK, riiight. So, now we don’t know any more than when he first uttered the phrase. I suspect, and always have, that for Kerry the “global test” is the approval of France, Germany and UN. Global test is going to dog Kerry until Nov. 2.

But last night’s debate clearly favored the president. He had all the substance of the first debate and combined that with some pretty effective style points. Bush was the big winner because he was able to tie the “liberal” anchor around Kerry’s neck. You know it was working when Kerry’s only defense was, “Labels don’t matter.” Well, when you’re named the most liberal member of a congress that includes Teddy Kennedy, yes they do.

Much of the foreign policy portion was a repeat. The president made the same points from the earlier debate with a bit more style. He effectively pointed out Kerry’s hypocrisy on coalition building. The president restated the need to be consistent on the war on terror. Kerry, laughably, said he had one position on Iraq. Oh yea, when the president said if Kerry were in charge Saddam would still be in power. Kerry’s brilliant come back was, “not necessarily”. Kerry could have been weaker but only if he’d said something like, “I’d have held a summit with Saddam.” The president painted Kerry into a corner by noting that Kerry’s objections are all post war, post 9/11 investigation, post intelligence failure report, and now post WMD report, making Kerry out to be the ultimate Monday morning quarterback.

The real take away line though was the president’s rejoinder referring to Kerry’s 20 year record in congress, “You can run but you can’t hide.” The president effectively painted Kerry as the tax-and-spend liberal he is and did it without the endless repetition of the first debate. The president also uncovered Kerry’s liberal record in the following areas:

Taxes: Kerry looked into the camera and said the only thing he could say, I will not raise taxes on the middle-class. The president pointed to Kerry’s 20 years of voting against the very tax policy he was now proposing. The president didn’t call Kerry a liar, as Kerry is fond of calling the president. Instead the president pointed to the 20 year record. He said that Kerry just wasn’t credible. The president also noted that Kerry’s spending proposals far exceed his revenue proposals and that means higher taxes for everyone – anyone surprised?

Tort reform: The president managed a three-for on this subject. Noting that Kerry not only voted against tort reform but also exposed Kerry’s absenteeism in congress when Kerry said he was for tort reform, after voting against it, the president asked, well why didn’t he show up and vote for it? The last jab the president got in on this subject was his reference to Kerry’s running mate John Edwards. The president noted in a taunting manner, He’s even got a trial lawyer on the ticket.

Healthcare: The president pegged Kerry’s healthcare reform as Hillerycare II. He also skillfully tied the healthcare reform to tort reform so Kerry couldn’t mention one without the president hammering him on the other. You cannot have healthcare reform without tort reform. You cannot take Kerry’s half-measures on tort reform and fix healthcare. Having an ambulance-chaser on his ticket made it particularly difficult for Kerry in these areas.

Abortion: If there was a clear 2nd deck grand slam homerun shot, it was the president’s stand on federal funding for abortion. After assuring us in the very first question that he wasn’t wishy-washy, Kerry spent two minutes wishing and washing about the abortion question. He’s “personally” against it, but he can’t speak or vote against it. The president might have taken some pleasure watching Kerry twist himself tighter than the rubber band on a dime-store toy as he got off another excellent rejoinder, “I’m still trying to decipher that.” The president flatly stated he was against federal funding for abortion and spoke from the heart about a culture of life. Who, in their right mind could be against a culture of life? OK, other than NARAL. The president then pressed the advantage by noting Kerry’s support for partial birth abortion. While the abortion question may break about 50-50, the vile, grotesque and disgusting practice of partial birth abortion doesn’t. The president buried Kerry under a dump truck load of his support for the unsupportable and threw in a “you can run but you can’t hide” for good measure. After burring Kerry, the president steam-rolled the pile, noting Kerry’s lack of support for parental notification. So when the whole thing was said and done Kerry was exposed as supporting a federally funded partial birth abortion for a minor without the notification of the girl’s parents. I think America breaks about 99 to 1 against Kerry’s position.

So, I think Kerry was a big looser – AGAIN – but Kerry’s not the only one. Jim Lehrer has got to be feeling pretty low as well. With the exception of Ifill’s black women with aides question, and last night’s what three (hmm …only three?) mistakes have you made question, Lehrer is a distant third in the moderator department. It is pretty sad for Lehrer when the "unskilled" masses can do a better job of questioning the candidates than supposed “professional journalist”.

Thursday, October 07, 2004


As the MSM continues to harp on Kerry’s brilliant win in the last debate while the candidate himself tries to explain, re-explain, nuance and fudge just exactly what he meant about a “global test”. Even the silver tongued pretty boy, John Edwards had trouble explaining how the “global test” isn’t really a test, maybe just a pop-quiz, and even if it is a real test, it’s more continental than global.

Their logic goes something like this - John Kerry is for a strong America. John Kerry would never give another nation veto power on American security but (Have you noticed that there is always a “but” with this crowd. I voted for the war but against funding it. I voted for the Patriot Act but want to change it. I voted for No Child Left Behind but want to repeal it. Al Qaeda is in 60 countries around the world but was never in Iraq. etc. etc. etc. etc.) we must work with the UN and the international community. We can’t continue to go it alone when American security is at stake. blah, blah, blah. So while Kerry gets adulation on style from the media, he is getting hammered on substance by Bush.

Friday night’s debate will be even trickier for Bush than the first. The so-called Town Hall format is a set-up against the incumbent. Think about it, a forum of supposed “undecided voters” asking the candidates questions. Why are they undecided? Conventional wisdom says that this election is a referendum on the current administration. If that is true, who are the undecided voters? They must be people who have a problem with the administration. That being the case, we can look for Kerry to field softball questions, a la Jim Lehrer, “Well, just how tall are you senator?” while Bush gets the high hard ones like, “Have you stopped beating the prisoners at Abu Gahraib?”

Bush can still win. He has to stay focused and include a bit of offense this time around. Bush did an admirable job defending his record in the last debate. But, the impression was that he played defense all night. This left the impression that he was drubbed. Friday he will need to defend his record while contrasting Kerry’s liberal and dismal record on defense, taxes, and social issues. If Bush said Kerry was the most liberal member of the senate 50 times, it wouldn’t be enough.

Other possible zingers could include:

“You were privy to the same intelligence as I was, if you’d ever bothered to show up for the committee meetings.”

“You’ve irritated our allies now to the point that even the French and Germans say they won’t send troops to Iraq.”

“If you can’t stand up to Howard Dean, how are you going to stand up to the McDonald’s dude when he shorts you your fries at the drive through?”

Monday, October 04, 2004


I suppose if John Ashcroft showed up at the East Mt. Zion Evangelic Church and assaulted Democrats for their demonization of Evangelic Christians; said Democrats would demand revocation of that church’s tax exempt status. So why are John Kerry and every other Democrat candidate allowed to campaign in America’s black churches? Is there a double standard here? I think there is?


In two posts below, I wrote that John Kerry must be made to answer the following question, “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?”

Well, on Thursday night’s debate he started to answer the question, though he hadn’t actually been asked:

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.

Sunday, October 03, 2004


When discussing the development of a nuclear bunker busting bomb during the debate Thursday, John Kerry intoned, “not this president”. Well, given Kerry's vote against every major weapons system now being used in the war on terror (Isn't that the dog that didn't bark Thursday?), is it really all that surprising the he would be against this one?

The Defense Department saw a need for this type of weapon when they were frustrated finding a conventional one that would burrow deep enough to destroy Osama’s and Saddam’s buried defense infrastructure. If we have trouble with a weapon for Afghanistan, which is not particularly well or long developed technically in such things, and in Iraq, where the terrain is particularly in our favor, how are we going to fair in the rugged terrain of North Korea where the North has been working decades on burying its weapons systems and command and control assets?

Kerry’s position is one of moral equivalence. He believes that the US can no more be trusted with such weapons than the Mullahs in Iran. That is sort of like saying that the sheriff has no more right to have a gun than the bank robbers. In Kerry’s world the sheriff has less of a right to a gun – canceling the bunker buster - while he would help put guns in the hands of the robbers – giving Iran nuclear fuel.

Rove is hammering "the global test" right now but, he will have an ad up before the next debate that list all of the weapons systems that Kerry has voted against, showing how they are being used in the war on terror and ending with the tag line, "Now John Kerry wants to tie our hands against North Korea." Or, “John Kerry trusts Iran with nukes more than his own country.”

Friday, October 01, 2004


Well, was anyone surprised? I doubt it. The debates were just about as expected. I think that that is a good thing. Americans have a clear picture of where these two men stand on the important issues of foreign policy. The differences are rather stark.

To me the key was that Bush wants America to continue to lead the world. Kerry wants “global tests”, “key allies”(read France and Germany), and summits everywhere but North Korea where thinks, inexplicably, that we should go it alone. Bush puts great faith in the “transformative power of liberty” to change people’s lives. Kerry puts great faith in the power of the UN to change people’s lives. Bush wants America to lead a coalition of countries willing to bring liberty to the Middle East. Kerry wants to give-up and turn it all over to the UN. Who, by the way, won’t have anything to do with it.

On style, if you look at how it was said rather what was said, I suppose you have to go with Kerry. Although, to me he comes off as an arrogant, self-centered, aloof, elitist, snob – but I’m predisposed to that opinion. Bush seemed to me to have been told to “play nice”, passing up many opportunities to hammer Kerry. But the debate is over and Kerry will change his position on things before Wednesday next week. Fact checkers will be hard at work and note half a dozen Kerry fact errors before the Sunday news shows. Bush will have an ad up by Friday afternoon hammering Kerry’s “global test” position. I can hear the ominous voice now over eerie “woman walking alone on a dark street in a horror movie” music, “Terrorists are killing Americans. But John Kerry thinks America must meet ‘global tests’ before defending ourselves. George Bush thinks that’s a load of crap.” - or something.

The media spinsters will be out in force towing Kerry’s line talking about Kerry winning on points. I disagree, but hey, that may be true. What’s going to happen over the next few days though, irrespective of who you might think won on points, is that Bush has Kerry’s UN, “key allies”, “global tests” comments with which to hammer Kerry. I didn’t see any similar lightening rods for Kerry to use against Bush. So, Kerry might win on points but will be seen as the looser after the post-debate ad war.

UPDATE: Heee's backtraking and not's even Wednesday

UPDATE: The global test ad

UPDATE: Fact checkers are busy already. Kerry is more susceptible to errors in facts because he’s always trying to show that he’s the smartest guy in the room. Bush argues more on principle alone.

Outsourcing Troa Bora
Stopping NYC subways
Never said Bush lied