Friday, October 15, 2004


"John Kerry is probably going to lose this election, despite the "Vote for Change" rock tour, despite Air America, despite Kitty Kelley's fraud hyped on national media, despite Soros's hit pieces, despite Fahrenheit 9-11, despite the Nobel Prizes and Cannes Film Awards, despite Rathergate and ABC Memogate, despite the European press, despite Kofi Annan's remonstrations, despite a barking Senator Harkin or Kennedy, despite the leaks of rogue CIA Beltway insiders, despite Jimmy Carter's sanctimonious lectures, despite Joe Wilson, Anonymous, and Richard Clarke — and more. You all have given your best shot, but I think you are going to lose.

"Why? Because the majority of Americans does not believe you. The majority is more likely to accept George Bush's tragic view that we really are in a war for our very survival to stop those who would kill us and to alter the landscape that produced them — a terrible war that we are winning.

"When all is said and done, it still is as simple as that."


: Link

Kerry's foreign policy, the fifth

"This president chose to go it alone," John Kerry is fond of saying.

Well, looky at one of the world's leaders says about our presidential election:

TOKYO (Reuters) - The No. 2 official in Japan's ruling party sharply criticized U.S. Democratic challenger John Kerry's North Korea policy Friday, adding that he hoped President Bush would be re-elected.

"For instance, Mr Kerry wants to handle the North Korean issue bilaterally, which is out of the question. We're now in the era of multilateralism."

: Link

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Crying wolf!

Crying wolf!
Originally uploaded by ralphphillips.
From Drudge -->

Democrats are encouraging their minions to make accusations of voter fraud, even if none exists, apparently....


Jonah at his goodest

If I wasn't so stupider, I might disagree with this. But as it is, it's brillianciness.

Must read:

: Link

Kerry's Foreign Policy, Take IV

From NYT...

"German officials on Wednesday reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led force in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a published interview with the country's defense minister, that the policy might change."

(Hat tip: Instapundit)


Kerry's Foreign Policy in Action, Take IV

From NYT...

"German officials on Wednesday reaffirmed their policy of not contributing troops to the American-led force in Iraq and rejected speculation, prompted by a published interview with the country's defense minister, that the policy might change."

(Hat tip: Instapundit)


This is very interesting

Click Link and look at the "CAN I TALK TO YOU LATER?" post.

I thought something was up last night, just in reading body language (not lips). My wreckless speculation: "John, you gotta stop with that Tora Bora stuff. You know as well as I that he's dead. Quit using this as a campaign issue...please...for the sake of our intelligence operatives and our foreign policy in general."

Now, if that's not conspiratorial fodder, I don't know what is!!!!

: Link

Laura v. Teresa

Veruca, First Oompette
Originally uploaded by ralphphillips.
Kerry frequently invokes the name of Laura Bush, stressing how much he admires her. That's admirable, noble and all of that (plus, much deserved). But doesn't it also serve as a frequent reminder of how much America loves the First Lady and how little we like, um...what's her name?

Further, in a question about his wife, Kerry talks about his mother. Odd. And then he goes on to recall how her deathbed words to him were "Integrity, integrity, integrity." Is that strange? I suspect MY mother would say something along the lines of "just be yourself."

To most, that's a compliment.


Man, I hope those rich people are stinkin' RICH!

Was it just me, or is Kerry going to pay for EVERYTHING by rolling back the tax cut on those filthy rich money mongers making $200,000 or more?

The following issues all elicited this same tax-raising solution:

Health care
The War

I mean, is there enough money in that kitty to pay for ALL of Senator Kerry's proposals? Of course not. "Soak the rich" does not sound fiscal policy make.

Beware: Guess where Kerry would look when all the money dried up from his first tax increase. Mind your pittance!


Hey, I got one!

Jonah at The Corner says, "Funny how the conventional wisdom was wrong. Bush was at a disadvantage on foreign policy and stronger on domestic -- the opposite of the way it was supposed to work."

Welly well well, I predicted this LONG ago, here (click Link for proof):

: Link

RE: Absenteeism

If that rash is where I think it is, Finster, you can keep that end of yours right where it is.


Terry McAuliffe, SuperDolt

How the DNC can be proud of this man as their leader is beyond me.

In my favorite post-debate moment, Alan Colmes and he were waxing philosophic on Kerry's storied Senate career. Why, he's authored 56 bills, ya know— not 5! He's an accomplished politician, they said, with a career to be proud of!

Throw it over to Hannity, who asked Terry to look directly into the camera and name for the Americans just one piece of legislation that Kerry pushed through or authored. T-Mac looked like a guilty husband whose wife just found porn in the VCR. Stammering, nervous, dumbfounded, guilty. He had no answer! This is leader of the Democratic party and he can't name one piece of legislation authored, supported or passed by the man that he claims is fit to be leader of the free world! This is a man who claims that Kerry has a distinguished career in the U.S. Senate...then, what is it?!

Not only would he not look into the camera to address America, he kept rifling his stock "There's been plenty of bills" answer. Hannity wanted one. He couldn't come up with one. Stammer, stutter, dodge, parry, obfuscate, change the subject.

Truth is, Terry doesn't know. And he doesn't much care. Kerry's only record that matters to T-Mac, and every other liberal, is that he has a 20-year proven track record of not being George W. Bush. Not enough, my man....not enough.



Bush went from incredulous scowl to dorky smirk and laughter. I personally find that side of his personality endearing and comical. I'm sure it PO'd liberals to no end....more reason to like it all the more. Will it play with undecideds? Don't know and don't much care.

My favorite moment is when he looked directly at Bob Schieffer of CBS News, the moderator, and said (in response to a ridiculous Kerry claim) he wasn't sure one should put much weight in a news network's criticism of the President — I had to laugh out loud at that, in light of Rathergate and all (not to mention the ABC Mark Helperin memo). He also came across as much more personable with his off-the-cuff response to the question about what he's learned from the strong women in his life: "Listen to 'em!" Kerry had a nice answer about marrying up and how some might say he's done it better than anyone. The punchline seemed like an afterthought that just happened to make its way into his head, but it was good nonetheless.

Bush finally called Kerry to the carpet for his 20-year non-record in the Senate. Good stuff. He also said, "A plan is not a litany of complaints. And a plan is not to promise of a bunch of programs you can't pay for." Awesome. Bush punched back last night and was very effective at it. He was forceful, confident and armed with a few facts and figures of his own. Unlike Kerry, however, it wasn't an overwhelming deluge. At various times, he was self-deprecating (good), stern (very good), confident in his convictions (always good) and informed (great).

He wasn't the most eloquent orator on the dais, but, then, he never is. Even when he's up there with his daughters. All in all, good show, W.



Remember that I Love Lucy episode when the candy conveyor goes out of control and Lucy just can't keep up with the candy coming out? That's the feeling I got when watching Kerry last night. I do think he's strongest when pointing out facts and figures (flawed, as they often are), but last night he was all over the map. He went from one statistic to another to another to another to another so fast and with such random abandon that I doubt much of anything he said stuck with the average viewer. One just couldn't keep up. Nothing stuck with me...I can't tell you one thing he said last night...honestly...other than he has a "plan" for this and for that. What those plans are, are still a mystery. It was to his detriment that he tried to sound like Encyclopedia Brown, rather than sticking to the question and hitting a few solid points home. It came across as, "This is my last chance to win you over, so I better get it all in now!"

By the time the fact checkers were able to catch up to some of his more bodacious claims, it turns out many were wrong. This, unfortunately for Kerry, is what many will be left with: "Man, he spewed out a lot of "facts," but the fact checkers disputed many of them at the end of the night....were any of them true?"

Nearly every network called him on his claim that Bush hadn't met with any minority groups. Nice try, John. He also booted the question on gay marriage, much like Edwards. Not a great night for him, but I doubt this debate mattered much.


Wednesday, October 13, 2004


Posting has been light on my end recently ... apologies.

As soon as this rash clears ... I'll be holding up my end again.


Horton Hears a Who ...

Ralph, I see you've attracted quite a following. Congratulations.

Judging by your hate mail below, seems you've struck a nerve.

I'm still confruzalled as to how we have ANY lefty readers, let alone any who feel compelled to respond. But hey, the more the merrier.


Why is it that...

...when President Clinton went to war in Bosnia without a U.N. Security Council vote, that wasn't "going it alone," or "rushing to war?"

...awarding a no-bid contract to Haliburton in Bosnia was a non-issue, but awarding a no-bid contract to Halliburton in Iraq is an outrage?

...bombing idle aspirin factories indiscriminately was not considered by Kerry to be "the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time," but fighting terrorists in Iraq is?

...blindly lobbing Scud missiles into Iraq in 1998, in response to inspectors being kicked out, was not met with any resistance from Kerry, but a tactical war won in three weeks, was a "war with no plan?"

...Kerry simultaneously insists there were no WMDs in Iraq while blasting the president for not securing the nuclear facilities during the invasion?

...The New Republic "broke" a story that Bush had a secret plan to work with Saudi Arabia to lower gas prices in time for the election, but it just cost me over $2 a gallon to fill my tank today?

...TNR "broke" a story that Bush would "produce" bin Laden in time to steal the limelight from the Democratic convention, yet UBL is still at large today? (Answer: he's likely not.)

...the media gives John Edwards a free pass when he insists parapalegics will walk again if Kerry is elected president?

...Dan Rather still has a job?

...liberals who insist the media aren't biased can't grasp the argument enough to make the distinction between news programs that claim to be unbiased and opinion-based talkshow hosts?

...Kerry, liberals and the media are able to keep a straight face?

...nothing rhymes with "orange?"


Lest we forget

A horrible reminder of one of the reasons we went to Iraq.

Libs, tell me again how the world was better off with Saddam in power...

: Link

Tuesday, October 12, 2004


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

"This is so different from the President’s view and my own, which is in those days, when we were fooling ourselves about the danger of terrorism, we were actually in the greatest danger. When you don’t confront correctly and view realistically the danger that you face, that’s when you’re at the greatest risk. When you at least realize the danger and you begin to confront it, then you begin to become safer. And for him to say that in the good old days – I’m assuming he means the 90s and the 80s and the 70s -- they were just a nuisance, this really begins to explain a lot of his inconsistent positions on how to deal with it because he’s not defining it correctly. "


: Link


"This matters: We have to get back to the place we were.

"But when we were there we were blind. When we were there we losing. When we were there we died. We have to get back to the place we were. We have to get back to 9/10? We have to get back to the place we were. So we can go through it all again? We have to get back to the place we were. And forget all we’ve learned and done? We have to get back to the place we were. No. I don’t want to go back there. Planes into towers. That changed the terms. I am remarkably disinterested in returning to a place where such things are unimaginable. Where our nighmares are their dreams.

"We have to get back to the place we were.

"No. We have to go the place where they are."


: Link


That's the sound of Kerry really stepping in it...

"It seems to me that our attitudes towards what is a not deeply threatening level of terrorism (which, I agree, is more than zero) should be vastly different from our attitudes towards what would be a tolerable level of prostitution or illegal gambling. And the difference is so great that I wonder whether the person who makes such an analogy is missing something."

: Link

Memo II for Eric Alterman...

Scott Norvell reports from Kabul:

"It was a regrettably typical comment from an American reporter in this part of the world. "At least it's news," he said of the Afghan election scuffle over the weekend. "Otherwise, this is just a success story."

"God forbid it be a success story.

"But that's what it was here, no matter how hard the international media tried to spin it. There were no car bombs raining body parts all over the polling stations. There were no last-minute assassinations. There were no drive-by shootings. The best they could come up with for "news" was grumbling from hopelessly trailing opposition candidates about washable ink and threats of a boycott. The media's disappointment was palpable."

: Link

"What (Paul Bremer) Really Said"

Did everyone see this? I hope so. If not, please click the link.

"In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

"The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism.

"Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

"A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision."

(Hat tip: Ralph Phillips the First)

: Link

That ABC Memo


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

"The current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

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

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

Great article here:

: Link

Paging Eric Alterman

What liberal media, you ask?

This one, right heyah....

"An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

Please click Link to Drudge...

: Link

Kerry's "nuissance" comment

Ah...remember the good ole days? ...When terrorists would only strike once every other year? And casualties numbered in the scores or hundreds? The days of embassy bombings? The days of WTC bombings? Or submarine bombings? The days when such attacks were met with swift, deliberate rhetoric, or maybe even the bombing of an idle aspirin factory?

That was great. Just a nuisance, death and mayhem was. I mean, at least the killing was at an "acceptable" level. I wish we would get back to that, as Kerry suggested in a recent NYT interview.

Kerry: Unelectable.

: Link

Monday, October 11, 2004

Glass fully empty

So, Shiites loyal to al Sadr are laying down their arms...and the first free election in Afghanistan in a cajillion years...and what news does my morning paper bring me? The Afghan elections are tainted!!! Howzabout leading with the news?!?!?!? "Afghanistan holds free elections for first time in a cajillion years; women vote freely"

Turns out, it wasn't that big o' deal (this tainting), at least not as big as the Detroit Free Press would have me believe (view Link).

Great take from John Hillen at The Corner: "Wonder what the Washington Post headline would have been on July 5, 1776? 'City Hall bell cracked in Declaration celebration?'"

: Link

Glass half empty, glass half full

Isn't it fun to watch headline writers conspire with reporters to inject opinion into supposedly objective news?

Two headlines from today's Roto-Reuters:

"Bush Rhetoric Becoming More Aggressive"

"Kerry Vows to Fight for Middle Class"

Pedantry aside, but it's like this EVERY day...I Yahoo homepage links to Reuters and AP everyday.

I'll give you a headstart on tomorrow's headlines:

"Bush insists complete and utter debacle in Iraq and failing economy both to be raging successes"

"Kerry hits campaign trail to save working poor and defenseless kittens"