October 24th 2004
George Will got it right: “When poll taxes, meretricious literacy tests, hositle sheriffs and mobs stood between blacks and ballots, blacks were disenfranchised. To be disenfranchised is to have something done to you, not to do something to yourself” — like turning up at the wrong polling place, or having been convicted a felony or two.
October 23rd 2004
John Kerry:
“Today, for far too many women, the American Dream seems a million miles away, because you’ve barely got time to sleep, and when you’ve barely got time to sleep, you’ve barely got time to dream,” said Kerry, who called for a higher minimum wage, equalizing pay for men and women doing the same job and expanding the availability of healthcare.
Teresa I-Still-Use-My-Dead-Republican-Husband’s-Name Kerry:
“But I don’t know that [Laura Bush has] ever had a real job — I mean, since she’s been grown up.” (Hat tip, Blogs for Bush)
So unless you’re a teacher, librarian or housewife, the Kerrys are on your side, gals! Punch that D-chad!
October 23rd 2004
Today the Los Angeles Times reported on a changed dynamic in Florida:
In the last four years, Republicans have added 462,000 new registered voters; Democrats have gained 458,000.Based on new registration figures, Republicans represent 37.8% of voters, and Democrats 41.4%.
But experts say a surge in registered independent voters signals a new wild card in Florida presidential politics.Since 2000, more than 532,000 independents have registered here, raising their percentage statewide from 15.5% to 18.3% of voters. And the campaigns for both Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry predict they’ll attract the lion’s share of those independent ballots come November.
At first blush, a 4,000 registration edge in a state Bush won by 500 votes last time around doesn’t give the Times much room to call this a wild card. But the paper’s not flashing it’s left wing credentials here, because some analysits say Indepents break about 5-3 against the incumbent. On the other hand, Jeb Bush is very popular … popular enough to have coattails.
Pundits: Ready, aim (or not), analyze!
October 22nd 2004
Ah, let’s celebrate elitism! Let’s bemoan America’s pinheaded oafishness! And let’s do it in the LA Times. Writing today, Chilean op/ed writer Ariel Dorfman opined,
Is John Kerry too intelligent to be president of the United States?
It was what I felt instinctively the first and only time I met him, at a lunch at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, in 1998. He was subtle, full of cultural and historical references, elaborating each fine argument at length, with perception and nuance. I commented to one of his aides afterward that I regrettably thought his brains could turn out to be the biggest impediment to a man like him ever occupying the White House.
Dolrfman then goes on to recount how as a 10-year-old, he alone straw-voted for Adlai Stephenson, “one of the most lucid and cultured men in America,” while his 27 classmates voted for Ike, who (brace yourself, this is really unbelievably shameful), “preferred playing golf to reading a book.” Surprise! Dorfman doesn’t think much of Bush: “… it seems inconceivable to me that someone as incompetent, incoherent and obtuse as Bush could possibly command almost half the votes of his fellow countrymen.” (This after bemoaning that Bush is ahead in the polls; I think that should be “more than half,” not “almost half,” Ariel.)
After an incredibly self-indulgent expose on the history of American electoral anti-intellectualism, delivered with a hint of elitism not dissimilar from the hint of Brut I used to sport in seventh grade, Dorfman concludes:
One can only hope that his fellow Americans, so many years later, will not be afraid of choosing as their leader a man who believes that the best way to defeat the multiple terrors of today and tomorrow is with an intelligence of which no human should ever be ashamed.
Now I might not be too bright, Ol’ Buddy, but I think the best way to defeat them multiple terrors is with a big, nasty army. And I think George Bush is more than intelligent enough to figger that out. But if you feel that way, you be sure to go ahead and face down that Mullah feller with your smarts.
As Dennis Prager would say of Dorfman’s hypothesis, it’s so stupid, only an intellectual could believe it.
October 22nd 2004
Bear with me; the title will become understandable in the last few graphs.
New Republic Senior Editor Ryan Lizza writes of the four strategies the Bush administration is using in the final days of the campaign. They are:
Nothing really amazing there. But as they say on late-night TV, but wait, there’s more. In the discussion of Bush/Cheney attacks sits this paragraph:
As Bush continues to play the attack dog, Cheney’s chief job seems to be to scare voters. In 1964, Lyndon Johnson had “Daisy.” This year, Bush has Cheney. Before the war in Iraq, it was Cheney who said, “We believe [Saddam Hussein] has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” In Ohio this week, Cheney returned to the theme. “The biggest threat we face now as a nation,” he said, “is the possibility of terrorists ending up in the middle of one of our cities with deadlier weapons than have ever been used against us–with biological agents, or a nuclear weapon, or a chemical weapon of some kind, able to threaten the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, not just three thousand. And that’s the ultimate threat. And, for us to have a strategy that’s capable of dealing with that threat and defeating it–you’ve got to get your mind around that concept.”
I looked for Lizza to get his mind around this in the next paragraph, but that’s all there is. To him, the thought of a catastrophic terrorist act on our shores is so sensationalistic as to merit no further comment; it is, de facto, damning. How can anyone who lived through 9/11 and has tracked the attack plans detailed in Islamofascist materials our troops have confiscated see this as merely a scare tactic? But Lizza’s not alone.
I was asked by an environmental reporter just last week how the Bush and Kerry administrations would vary on environmental issues. At first I was taken aback, because even though I make my living off environmental issues, I don’t think of this election in environmental terms. But I quickly realized the environmental significance of the 2004 election and answered: “The biggest environmental threat our nation faces is the detonation of a nuclear or biological weapon by a terrorist on our shores. That’s why Bush should be the environmentalists’ choice.” Not surprisingly, the reporter was startled at the thought.
So it’s true: Kerry owns the head-in-the-sand vote.
October 22nd 2004
As Inspector Annan leads the raid into Rick’s Cafe Internationale, delegates scramble as his investigators sweep up documents from the tables. Inspector Annan, not-too-inconspicuoulsy pocketing a few papers that might incriminate his son, approaches Rick: “I am shocked, shocked, to see self-interest going on here!”
What’s Volker going to say and when’s he going to say it? The early briefing yesterday was tantalizing in its timing. Why would the UN direct a partial report just two weeks before the election, since the report undermines Kerry’s determination that a broader coalition could have been built under his leadership (leadership that’s been lacking in the management of his campaign)? The Volker briefing showed, just as the Duelfer report did, that missing coalition partners Russia and France were major oil-for-food players. Voelker said the two nations were tied to oil-for-food to the tune of $27 billion.
On the heels of Iraqi criticism earlier this week that the U.N. has failed to support democratic elections, Annan’s response seems shell-shocked: “If governments were to sell their votes because some of their companies … were to do business with Iraq or elsewhere, I think it would be a very sad state for the Security Council and for the world. I do not believe it.” Believe it, Kofi.
October 21st 2004
The Advancement Project, purveyors of minority voter fraud fear-mongering, has come up with phantom cops as a big voter disenfranchisement boogeyman in November. Sorry, computer woes (don’t ask) keep me from including a link, but this is from tonight’s CNN Lou Dobbs report. Lott’s guests: John Lott from the American Enterprise Institute, who expertly fires a cheat-seeking missle at Edward Hailes Jr. from the Advancement Project.
LOTT: I think a lot of the discussion about disenfranchising African-American voters, in particular I think it’s been fairly sad, because I think there have been a lot of myths in Florida, for example. I mean, you have the Commission on Civil Rights did an extensive set of hearings, they weren’t able to identify even one person.
DOBBS: Not one?
LOTT: No.
HAILES: Lou, that’s absolutely false. And Mr. Lott is actually in the minority of people around the world to really believes nothing bad happened in Florida and in other places around the world. We did see systemic irregularities, problems with identifiable victims who were disenfranchised and we’re going to do everything we can this time to make sure that citizens of color in particular are not disenfranchised the way they were during the 2000 election. So Mr. Lott simply wrong.
LOTT: Even the Democrats on the Civil Rights Commission were not able to point to a single case of voter intimidation in Florida. They had possibilities that might have existed. But the only cases that people could even point to that were even remotely were similar would be like a police officer’s car who was a mile from the polling place. Nothing that the police officer intimidated people or talked to people or threatened them and he was a mile from the polling place. And no evidence, not one case where they could point to somebody who, because of intimidation, didn’t vote.
HAILES: Well, let’s look to the future. Our concern is that there may be make-believe, wanna-be law enforcement, fraud cops showing up in minority precincts claiming that fraud is an issue and intimidating voters. And we’re not going to let that happen. We have a cadry of well-trained lawyers who will make sure that our communities are not disenfranchised.
Incredible. Deprived of anything factual on which to base his argument, the quick-on-his-feet Hailes invents make-believe, wanna-be cops, then threatens them with real lawyers. Isn’t it terribly racist of Hailes to assume that minorities are stupid, and will fall for this?
October 21st 2004
In “In But Not Of,” Hugh urged us to start a blog, but it took his Bush vs. Kerry Vox Blogoli to take me to my tipping point. Thanks for the new addiction, Hugh!
Why not Kerry? Why Bush? The reasons flood my mind so clarity is almost impossible. Here’s what bubbles to the top today.
He bleeds pale blue. My terrific step-dad Bill is a retired career diplomat who’s already cast his absentee ballot for Kerry. He sends me long foreign policy journal articles that belittle the Bush doctrine and promote internationalism — but to me, they all seem hopelessly pre-9/11, just as Kerry does. As with everything, internationalism has its place, and as with every issue, Kerry is out of place. Yesterday’s Washington Post piece on Kerry’s position on the use of force says it all. It’s OK to die for the U.N.’s pale blue, but not the red, white and blue:
In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, [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.”
“Some false presumption that we can affect the outcome?” It’s as if he hasn’t changed a single synapse since Vietnam. Remember Bush in the classroom on the morning of 9/11 — you see the realization hit him instantly, as his eyes betray the thought: “This changes everything.”
Gracelessness under pressure. Kerry’s behavior and judgment worsen as the polling gap holds and the finish line nears. You have to wonder: If he can’t handle the pressure of a close presidential race with any more character than this, what can we expect if he should get to lead the country?
Just one example of Kerry flailing is the claim that Bush imposed a 17% Medicare premium increase. The increase was not imposed by the president, but was mandated by the balanced budget agreement signed by Clinton, when Kerry — not Bush — was in office. On this, and on Mary Cheney, Christopher Reeve, Social Security, minority access to the polls, flu shots and the draft, the Kedwards team is showing their true colors: do anything to win. That’s what devils and despots do, not leaders.
Bush’s mom didn’t have to say “integrity” to him three times.
Let’s never forget the Secret Service guy. How one treats someone who serves, be it a waitress or a special agent, is a true window into the soul. When the presumptive nominee (I always thought “the presumptuous nominee” was closer to the point) berated his Secret Service escort for allegedly tripping him on the ski slopes, decent people crossed Kerry off their list.
George Bush is the kind of guy firefighters give a bear hug to. Can you imagine him slamming the little guy?
So here’s the box score on policy, integrity and character: Bush 3, Kerry 0. And I haven’t even gotten to Theresa and Little John yet.
October 20th 2004
The Los Angeles Times:
Poll Gauges Blacks’ Take on Kerry
By Michael Finnegan, Times Staff Writer
African American adults overwhelmingly prefer Sen. John F. Kerry over President Bush in the Nov. 2 election, but support the Democratic candidate less strongly than they favored Al Gore in 2000, according to a poll released Tuesday.
The Orange County Register:
Bush improves his standing among blacks
Poll reveals African-American support for president has doubled in four years.
By WILLIAM DOUGLAS Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON – Support for President George W. Bush among African-Americans has doubled in four years, according to a poll released Tuesday.
October 19th 2004
John Kerry whored for votes in the last debate when he brought up Tora Bora. OK, he whored for votes in just about every answer from outsourcing to outing, but with Tora Bora, Kerry’s panderous activities were busted by the vice squad in the persona of Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks.
Writing in today’s New York Times, Franks figuratively ordered Kerry to hit the deck and give him 20, saying, “the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history. ” He discredited Kerry’s “outsourcing” claim — one of the most insulting slurs the Senator has hurled at the military in this campaign — and refuted Kerry’s “eye off the ball” charge against the President. But best of all, he slapped the condom of truth over some false numbers Kerry has been spouting:
As we planned for potential military action in Iraq and conducted counterterrorist operations in several other countries in the region, Afghanistan remained a center of focus. Neither attention nor manpower was diverted from Afghanistan to Iraq. When we started Operation Iraqi Freedom we had about 9,500 troops in Afghanistan, and by the time we finished major combat operations in Iraq last May we had more than 10,000 troops in Afghanistan.
But I have to ask: Why are we reading this in the New York Times? Why are we hearing it from Gen. Frank, not the president or vice president? Bush’s New Jersey speech was a terrific litany of Kerry’s weaknesses on defense, but Gen. Frank showed that numbers offer superior firepower to rhetoric. C’mon, Bush/Cheney, fire off some cheat-seeking missiles!
The Obama administration told us that not only would they be very good at spending unfathomable sums of money, but they’d also be maestros at turning that cash into jobs for a job-hungry America. Like so many White House words, the Big Job Promise is turning out to be nothing more than hype-fuel for the [...]
With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.
"Thank you for the Voice of the Victims films. The students really liked it, and it means so much to them to hear real stories and not watch a cheesy drama like so many other videos."
— a high school teacher.
The most powerful film about drugs of choice and choices about drugs.
