FLASH: IRAN NUCLEAR MENACE

Fox News reports tonight:

'To shouts of "Death to America," Iran's parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran's nuclear activities.'

Americans should consider well the choice that lies before them on Tuesday.

A nuanced, global-test-taking, UN-approval-seeking Senator with a multi-decade record of making the wrong choices on matters of national security - or a principled leader with a track record of handling the unexpected with decisiveness.

Think well, America. The future of your children and grandchildren rests in your hands on Tuesday.

The Top Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004

From the Media Research Center comes this interesting list. It won't take a lot of mental gymnastics to guess who's #1. Read the whole thing.

#10 Equating New Terrorism Warning to LBJ’s "Gulf of Tonkin"
#9 Misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission on Iraq/al-Qaeda Links
#8 CBS Promotes Fears of a New Military Draft
#7 CBS’s Byron Pitts Promotional Kerry Coverage
#6 Swooning Over Edwards’ Image, Ignoring His Liberalism
#5 The Networks' Outrageous Convention Double-Standard
#4 Spinning a Good Economy into Bad News
#3 Pounding the Bush National Guard Story
#2 Ignoring, then attacking, the Swiftboat Veterans
#1 Dan Rather's Forgery Fiasco

The Top Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004

FLASH

PoliPundit reports the following:

The internals of the Washington Post/ABC News Poll - I have just learned the following about this poll: President Bush is only .2 from the 50% mark in the poll. Undecided voters favor the President 47%-36%. Among union voters, Kerry’s support is less than the Democratic candidate’s support in 2000. This bodes very well for the President in the Midwest and Pennsylvania.

It's time for a long look in the mirror

...Does [the UBL tape really] sound any different from the arguments in Fahrenheit 9/11? I could be proven wrong, but I now have drastically revised my prediction of what's going to happen on election night. A Bush landslide is now exponentially more likely, as every voter walks into the voting booth with the topic of terrorism on his or her mind. It's far and away Bush's strongest issue. There are times when America wants the eloquent, nuanced multilateral, French-speaking, consensus-building, flexible and cautious negotiator. And then there are times when the country wants the plain-spoken butt-kicking aggressive unilateralist cowboy. Guess which time this is? ...There was an old saying about politics stopping at the water’s edge. There was a reason for this, and for the concept of the “loyal opposition.”... No party wants to be seen as putting foreign interests ahead of their own citizens’ interests, so they have to be on guard that their arguments aren’t providing fodder for foreign powers with different interests than America. Over the last three years or so, we have seen that concept obliterated. We’ve seen a truly unparalleled deluge of criticism of the president that well beyond policy differences... This rhetoric has been picked up by the British left, the European left, the Arab press, and anti-American interests around the globe. And — to my knowledge — not one Democrat, not one voice on the left has said, “Hey, we know you hate Bush, but stay out of it. He’s our president, leave the criticism of him to us.” ...this tape should cause many on the left to stare into the mirror for a long time and ask, “What have I turned into? How did I become so reflexively partisan, so blinded by rage, so intemperate in my rhetoric that my own arguments are being echoed by a man who planned and enjoyed the mass murder of Americans?” “How the hell did I reach the point where I agree with Osama bin Laden on Bush?” ...

National Review: IT'S TIME FOR A LONG LOOK IN THE MIRROR

[UPDATE]: Compare and contrast - Kerry and Bin Laden Talking Points

Congressman Tancredo's visit to Beslan

Did you know that Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO) recently visited Beslan to deliver messages of support from his constituents (Columbine High School included)? Probably not, as the story was completely ignored by the mainstream media. His blog is heart-rending and describes exactly what we can expect from Islamic Extremists in this country: attacks on the innocent, even schoolchildren, anywhere, anytime. Even in a rural community in the middle of nowhere. Like Beslan.

...Sunday Afternoon – Hospital Visit in Moscow Today was hard, tomorrow will be harder. Today we visited two hospitals in Moscow where many of the survivors were being treated after being triaged out of Beslan. Room after room is filled with children with their broken bodies and damaged minds. In every room there is a parent, aunt, brother or grandma keeping watch - waiting for the wounds to heal. In every room there is a story of heartbreak. In the first visit we meet a 16 year old boy who lies in very serious condition. This young man had the courage to grab the gun of a terrorist who had been shot and proceeded to kill another terrorist who was shooting at fleeing children. He then placed his body over a small girl for protection from the onslaught of bullets and shrapnel meant for her. In the next room, two sisters ages 8 and 10 lay in good spirits… It’s the 8 year olds birthday today, and my wife sings happy birthday to her in Russian. The little girl smiled, and lit up the room. Her aunt was sitting in the back of the room, and began to cry. I wish I could say the woman’s tears were for joy from the little girls smile. However they were tears because she knew of the pain yet awaiting both girls. They had lost both parents in the tragedy, but did not know it yet. It became more difficult as we made the move from room to room to hear the stories of these children’s bravery, and got to know these survivors and their families personally. We met the mother of a 12 year old girl who lies quietly as she unfolded a piece of gauze to show the ball bearing that the doctors took out of her daughters’ lung. Apparently the terrorists had packed the bombs with ball bearings to add to the shrapnel’s effect...

Congressman Tom Tancredo: Visit to Beslan

The 'Nuisance' is Back

It's always interesting when a New York Times op-ed not authored by Bill Safire pounds Kerry for his shifting opportunism. David Brooks groks what's really happening in the candidate's mind when it comes to the UBL tape.

It's quite clear from the polls that most Americans fundamentally think Bush does get this. Last March, Americans preferred Bush over Kerry in fighting terrorism by 60 percent to 33 percent, according to the Gallup Poll. Now, after a furious campaign and months of criticism, that number is unchanged. Bush is untouched on this issue. Bush's response yesterday to the video was exactly right. He said we would not be intimidated. He tried to take the video out of the realm of crass politics by mentioning Kerry by name and assuring the country that he was sure Kerry agreed with him. Kerry did say that we are all united in the fight against bin Laden, but he just couldn't help himself. His first instinct was to get political. On Milwaukee television, he used the video as an occasion to attack the president... ...Even in this shocking moment, this echo of Sept. 11, Kerry saw his political opportunities and he took 'em. There's such a thing as being so nakedly ambitious that you offend the people you hope to impress. But politics has shaped Kerry's approach to this whole issue.

The Nuisance is Back

UPDATE!: The Belmont Club believes that UBL is offering terms of surrender:

...It is important to notice what he has stopped saying in this speech. He has stopped talking about the restoration of the Global Caliphate. There is no more mention of the return of Andalusia. There is no more anticipation that Islam will sweep the world. He is no longer boasting that Americans run at the slightest wounds; that they are more cowardly than the Russians. He is not talking about future operations to swathe the world in fire but dwelling on past glories. He is basically saying if you leave us alone we will leave you alone. Though it is couched in his customary orbicular phraseology he is basically asking for time out. The American answer to Osama's proposal will be given on Election Day. One response is to agree that the United States of America will henceforth act like Sweden, which is on track to become majority Islamic sometime after the middle of this century. The electorate best knows which candidate will serve this end; which candidate most promises to be European-like in attitude and they can choose that path with both eyes open. The electorate can strike that bargain and Osama may keep his word. The other course is to reject Osama's terms utterly; to recognize the pleading in his outwardly belligerent manner and reply that his fugitive existence; the loss of his sanctuaries; the annihilation of his men are but the merest foretaste of what is yet to come: to say that to enemies such as he, the initials 'US' will always mean Unconditional Surrender. Osama has stated his terms. He awaits America's answer.

UBL's surrender proposal

U.S. Team Took 250 Tons of Munitions from Al-Qaqaa

Once again, I'm shocked... SHOCKED... that the mainstream media hasn't effectively covered the latest information from the Pentago regarding the "missing" explosives.

A U.S. Army officer came forward Friday to say a team from the 3rd Infantry Division took about 250 tons of munitions and other material from the Al-Qaqaa arms-storage facility soon after Saddam Hussein's regime fell in April 2003. Maj. Austin Pearson said at a Pentagon news conference that he was tasked in the days after the fall of the Iraqi regime with a mission to secure and destroy ammunition and explosives. He led a 25-man team called Task Force Bullet...

U.S. Team Took 250 Tons of Iraqi Munitions

Quote of the Day

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war. When I signed up for the Swift Boats they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patroling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing." John Kerry, Boston Globe, 1986

FLASH

KerrySpot reports the following interesting news, reportedly from a senior-level campaign insider:

FROM A SOURCE CLOSE TO THE CAMPAIGN [10/28 02:07 PM] Just heard from a source close to the campaign, tuned in to the conversations at the highest levels. According to the Bushies, the last few days have seen a huge burst of momentum in their numbers. They think Bush is ahead by a few points nationally. They expect the next round of tracking polls to show a bit of a bump. The internal polls show a significant lead in Florida (outside margin of error) and Arkansas is out of play, with a Bill Clinton visit or without. As for most of the other big ones - Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, internal polls show all too close to call. Michigan is seriously looking like a pickup - Bush and Cheney could be there four times in the last four days. An exit poll of those who have already voted show Bush ahead by 15 points! [UPDATE: This is ahead 15 points overall, nationwide, not just in Michigan. Obviously, those who have already voted are only a small, small segment of the electorate at large, so one should not read too much into this number. But it is interesting.] Undecided voters appear to be breaking Bush’s way - some days he has a slight lead, other days it’s right around 50-50. (Note this would be considerably better than the 1/3 calculated that Bush needs here. Finally, the ammo dump story appears to have left the Kerry campaign deep in al-Qaqaa. Tommy Franks is going to enter this story and rip Kerry and the New York Times a new one. The Kerry folks are acting like they realized they have botched this story, and want to shift back to domestic topics. Lockhart, Bill Richardson on Imus — when asked about al-QaQaa, they dodge the question and quickly try to bring up other issues. The campaign is going to avoid the Russian angle and go with the straightforward, “As the facts mount in this story, American people have a choice between believing Kerry-NYTimes-CBS or believing Bush and the Troops.” This source close to the campaign didn’t say it, but I wonder if the Bush administration wants to deal with Russia in its own manner, and not have whatever diplomatic confrontations are going on behind the scenes complicated by a furious American electorate blaming Russia for hiding Iraq’s weapons and explosives.

Kerry attacking the Military... again

John Kerry now closes his presidential campaign exactly as he opened his political life: Attacking the United States military. Thirty-three years ago, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he indicted the soldiers of Vietnam as war criminals, the heirs of Genghis Khan. This week he embraced an already discredited account of missing munitions to attack the reputation of the 3rd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. Make no mistake, that is exactly what Kerry is doing when he asserts that deadly weapons went unsecured and unreported as these two divisions rushed to liberate Baghdad. And not just these divisions, but every officer and soldier who had a hand in drawing up the war plan... ...That the story was floated by a Bush foe in the U.N. bureaucracy at the IAEA did not discourage Kerry. Nor did the evident pretzel logic of condemning the war while bemoaning the huge danger of Saddam's arsenal. The facts on the myth of the missing munitions are available at The Belmont Club and Instapundit, but facts did not matter to Kerry at all, nor the reputations of the soldiers he charged with allowing massive amounts of deadly munitions to go missing... ...Bush has set up the campaign to be a referendum on his response to the attacks of September 11 and his conduct of the global war on terror. It is ending exactly where it should, as a vote of confidence on him and the military he leads. With five days left, Americans would do well to recall Winston Churchill's critique of Cordell Hull's fatigue in a late night planning session in the early stages of World War II. Hull began to excuse himself and head for bed, citing the lateness of the hour. Churchill bellowed his dismay: "Why, man, we are at war!" Indeed. Vote accordingly.

Hugh Hewitt: Commander-in-Chief

African-Americans abandoning Kerry

Anything but strong turnout and overwhelming African-American support for Kerry could doom his chances. In 2000, record black turnout in Florida helped turn Florida into a virtual tie that took Republicans by surprise. This year, the mobilization effort is far greater, with a major focus on getting people to vote early. But for all the anecdotal evidence of heavy African-American turnout, there are hints that Kerry might not be doing as strongly as he needs to be. At a John Edwards rally in St. Petersburg on Saturday, white people held "African-Americans for Kerry-Edwards" placards. A St. Petersburg Times/Miami Herald poll released Sunday showed Bush more than doubling his support from black voters since 2000, with 19 percent support...

St. Petersburg Times: Clarion Call

Link o' the Day

Jeff Jacoby: John Kerry: Preacher-man

Some keepers: collection of Kerry "endorsements"

James Taranto has collected some... uhmmm... interesting Kerry endorsements (hat tip: PoliPundit):

“I know few people enthused about John Kerry. His record is undistinguished, and where it stands out, mainly regrettable. He intuitively believes that if a problem exists, it is the government’s job to fix it. He has far too much faith in international institutions, like the corrupt and feckless United Nations, in the tasks of global management. He got the Cold War wrong. He got the first Gulf War wrong. His campaign’s constant and excruciating repositioning on the war against Saddam have been disconcerting, to say the least. I completely understand those who look at this man’s record and deduce that he is simply unfit to fight a war for our survival. They have an important point–about what we know historically of his character and his judgment when this country has faced dire enemies. His scars from the Vietnam War lasted too long and have gone too deep to believe that he has clearly overcome the syndrome that fears American power rather than understands how to wield it for good."–Andrew Sullivan, endorsing John Kerry, The New Republic, Oct. 26 “I can’t remember ever voting for anybody I disliked as much as I do John Kerry, at least not for president, but vote for him I will. I didn’t have much use for Al Gore either, but I don’t remember any real sense of hostility before punching the hole next to his name. . . . I can’t persuade anybody to vote for a candidate for whom I can muster so little enthusiasm, but there must be an awful lot of people out there who are going to cast votes next week for Kerry who are, like me, discouraged by the prospect and needing one of those you-are-not-alone talks."–Mark Brown, endorsing John Kerry, Chicago Sun-Times, Oct. 27 “I remain totally unimpressed by John Kerry. Outside of his opposition to the death penalty, I’ve never seen him demonstrate any real political courage. His baby steps in the direction of reform liberalism during the 1990s were all followed by hasty retreats. His Senate vote against the 1991 Gulf War demonstrates an instinctive aversion to the use of American force, even when it’s clearly justified. Kerry’s major policy proposals in this campaign range from implausible to ill-conceived. He has no real idea what to do differently in Iraq. His health-care plan costs too much to be practical and conflicts with his commitment to reducing the deficit. At a personal level, he strikes me as the kind of windbag that can only emerge when a naturally pompous and self-regarding person marinates for two decades inside the U.S. Senate. If elected, Kerry would probably be a mediocre, unloved president on the order of Jimmy Carter."–Jacob Weisberg, endorsing John Kerry, Slate, Oct. 26

And these are the Kerry endorsements. Wow.

Kerry Endorsements

Why active military favors President Bush 3-to-1, part 72

Former New York City Police Commission Bernard Kerik --Police Commissioner on 9/11-- spent four months in Iraq after the fall of Baghdad. I interviewed him on the myth of the missing munitions today: HH: "Have you been following this story?" BK: "I have." HH: "What's your reaction to this?" BK: "I think it is a lot of the same that's been going on over the last month or so, some of the scare tactics, you know --social security, the draft, the personal attacks on Mary Cheney, on Laura Bush. I think this is a campaign where John Kerry is desperate. I think he is looking to say anything that will get him a vote, and he jumped right on these headlines yesterday by the New York Times, that there were 380 tons of weapons, of explosives missing, without realizing the facts You know...Keep in mind, and I know this broke last night, and it really hasn't got as much play as the Times' article yesterday, NBC had embedded reporters in with the 101rst airborne when they went into that camp the day after the fall of Baghdad. The weapons were not there. John Kerry has been saying for the last year --depending on what day you talk to him-- he's been saying there were no weapons, Saddam was not a threat. OK, well, yesterday he's screaming and yelling that Saddam was a threat with the weapons that are missing. Bottom line: There aren't any weapons or munitions missing that we didn't secure. What John Kerry doesn't know or doesn't understand is that we seized more than 280,000 tons that were detonated already. We seized another 160,000 tons that are pending detonation. You know, Hugh, every day that I was in Iraq, every single day, for the four months I was there, every aftrenoon at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, there were massive explosions out by the international airport. It was the U.S. military blowing this stuff up. People have to realize that all of Iraq was a weapons cache. The whole country was saturated with explosives. And this is what President Bush meant when he talked about the threat. This was a part of that threat. We have been addressing the issue since we got there. The problem is that John Kerry just doesn't have a clue." The other problem that Commissioner Keric didn't mention is that John Kerry instinctively trusts the U.N. bureaucracy at the I.A.E.A. to do its job better than the 101rst Airborne. No wonder the troops that are either serving in Iraq or have served there prefer George Bush by a three to one margin over John Kerry.

Hugh Hewitt: John Kerry trusts UN bureaucrats more than the 101st Airborne

I'm shocked... SHOCKED...

Editor & Publisher Magazine reports:

A new study for the non-partisan Project for Excellence in Journalism suggests that in the first two weeks of October, during the period of the presidential debates, George W. Bush received much more unfavorable coverage from some media than Sen. John Kerry. In the limited sample (which included four newspapers, two cable news programs and seven shows on broadcast networks), more than half of all Bush stories were negative in tone, during this period. One-quarter of all Kerry stories were negative, according to the study.

New Study Suggests Some Media Favored Kerry in First Two Weeks of October

Viet Cong approved of Kerry's behavior

Thomas Lipscomb reports for the New York Sun on the discovery of Viet Cong documents that show the VC had its eye on the young John Kerry, and not because he was second to no man in hunting them down. The documents, first archived in 1971, show that the Communists at the least followed Kerry's antiwar activities with approval and encouragement... ...Does this mean that Kerry accepted marching orders from the Viet Cong in 1971? No, or at least the documents discovered so far don't reach that conclusion explicitly. It does show, at the least, that John Kerry was a dupe of the VC/Hanoi Communists of the first order. The best one can conclude from the record is that the VC used Kerry as a pawn to undermine American resolve to fight the war, which allowed them to push the US out of Southeast Asia and eventually resulted in a Communist bloodbath in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Kerry told us last week that he would go after terrorists with the same enthusiasm that he went after the Viet Cong. The only conclusion that one can draw from the historical record is that John Kerry will chase them to Paris to negotiate our surrender on their terms.

Viet Cong approved of Kerry's behavior

Reality or 'politics of fear'? Depends on who says it.

Dick Cheney came under fire last week from the Left for his reference to the greatest threat confronting the United States: an extremist group getting their hands on a nuclear weapon and detonating it in one of our cities. Of course, I don't see any similar comments from the Left regarding Clinton SecDef William Cohen's remarks:

..."The greatest nightmare we have to go on is a nuclear bomb going off in one of our major cities," Cohen told the gathering of federal and private-sector information technology executives. It is a "brave new world where terrorism and technology are merged," he added...

Reality or 'politics of fear'? Depends on who says it.

WaPo's Broder on the Candidates

Hmmm. It could mean trouble when the Washington Post's David Broder, a moderate liberal, says the following about Kerry:

...[We] know much... about [Kerry's] liabilities: a tendency to overstudy issues, procrastinate and avoid hard choices; a willingness to be swayed by conflicting advice; an awkwardness in dealing with colleagues and staff; and a frequent impression that decisions are being guided by opportunism rather than firm beliefs... a man whose habits of mind and of action are far removed from the challenges of the White House...

To be fair, he's not praising Bush much either.

WaPo's Broder on the Candidates

Suddenly, Michigan is in play

Two weeks ago, Democratic operatives began telling reporters that Michigan was in the bag. They were wrong. Last Thursday, a poll in the Detroit News put President Bush ahead in Michigan by 4 points. A Knight-Ridder survey showed the race is a virtual tie. This came as a shock to the Kerry camp, which has concentrated its efforts on other Big Ten industrial states. Kerry could win both Ohio and Pennsylvania and still lose the election. If he loses Michigan. There are signs that Democrats are belatedly figuring this out. Last Sunday, Al Sharpton was dispatched to Detroit on an urgent mission to the city's churches... ...Kerry does have the official support of one group. The Arab-American Political Action Committee, located in Dearborn, has endorsed him. How much this will help the Democrats is an open question. Michigan's large Arab-American community runs the gamut from pro-Hezbollah radicals to conservative Christian Lebanese and includes many Chaldeans - Iraqi Christians - who are very grateful to Bush for bringing down Saddam Hussein.

Suddenly, Michigan is in play

Links o' the Day

Preacher Ted [Kennedy]

Full-page ad in the Washington Post from a private citizen

Taking on water

In early 2004, John Kerry was positioned to capture the Democratic nomination. The junior senator from Massachusetts had enjoyed a long career in Congress, albeit without sponsoring noteworthy legislation or serving on key committees with distinction. That said, Kerry's long record of public service spelled stability to many in the Democratic Party. And his Vietnam war service didn't seem to hurt, given the hardware with which he returned, including a silver star, a bronze star and three purple hearts.

In the spring, as the hierarchy of Democratic candidates began to shake out, Kerry's centrist positions gained momentum. Sown from a late-nineties trend towards hawkish-ness consistent with President Clinton's willingness to commit troops to far-flung locations -- Kerry appealed to the centrists of the party: a long-time dove turned hawk, just in time to confront the threat of global terrorism and WMD's in the possession of rogue states.

But onto the stage, from literally out of nowhere (Montpelier?), stepped Howard Dean: a true leader among the Left Bank of American politics. The former Governor of Vermont had, though force of will and an Internet-savvy cadre of backers, mobilized the hard Left of the party in a way not seen for decades. His primary message, an absolutist philosophy that rejected the Iraq war -- and perhaps any war at all -- resonated with his zealots. Dean disputed the notion that Iraq was connected to the global war on terror.

Kerry, who had beaten the drums of war while tensions escalated with Saddam Hussein, was now confronted with a monumental decision. A carefully cultivated hawkish stance now stood at odds with Howard Dean's unnerving momentum. A change was needed: the nomination hung in the balance.

In retrospect, Kerry did exactly what he had to do in order to regain his lost momentum. He veered left on the critical issue of the war, swerving back in front of the governor and recapturing the doves who required better credentials than Dean could muster. It was a savvy move by Kerry's team and one that also turned out to be the single most catastrophic mistake of the campaign.

Veering away from the center, in hindsight, is an egregious error for either party during the general election. The centrists of both parties, reminded of the devastating attacks of September 11th each time they see the Manhatten skyline, are committed to waging and winning the war on terror. Little sympathy can be mustered by most Americans for Iraq's government, whose affiliation with -- or outright sponsorship of -- the murderous posse of Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam, Hamas and Hezbollah resulted in the murder of Americans and others throughout the world

A "perfect storm" has indeed swamped the Democratic party. Population shifts, a successful faith-based appeal to minority voters by the GOP, along with the hijacking of the party by the Michael Moore-led Deaniacs, have all conspired to leave John Kerry -- and the entire party -- foundering. Only a return to the center can successfully inspire mainstream America to hitch their wagon to the Donkey. It may happen next year, or ten years from now, but it is inevitable if the Democratic party hopes to slow the momentum of the Grand Old Party.

Sacrificing Israel

Troubling storm clouds are gathering on the horizon, as Israel puts all options on the table vis a vis Iran's nuclear capability. As well they should, given Iran's promise to nuke Israel into rubble. The latest analyis indicates that Israel may have Iran in its gun-sites.

The future of Israel, in fact, might be in doubt regardless if John Kerry is elected president. Charles Krauthammer reads between the lines when John Kerry promises to "rebuild our alliances". That really means one thing, in his opinion, and he has a good case: it means
sacrificing Israel.

Election 2004: Perfect Storm

Gerry Daly of dalythoughts.com crunched some Harris Poll numbers to see what it would take for John Kerry to overtake President Bush due entirely to increased turnout. He found that Kerry will need 9.6 million new voters. And he doesn't mean new voters between the ages of 18-21 who've never been able to vote for president before. He means "nearly 10 million people, aged 22 and over, who did not vote in 2000 but are going to this year." "Maybe," Daly writes, "there is such antipathy towards George W. Bush that will bring voters out even more than the candidacy of Ross Perot did [in 1992]. We'll know in less than two weeks. If there are, then the Harris poll suggests that Kerry is in the ballpark. If these votes do not materialize, the Harris poll suggests that it will be a short night a week from Tuesday." ... The Horserace Blog, meanwhile, uses a poll by the Center for Policy and Economic studies to look at the black vote: "According to this poll, Kerry is underperforming among blacks by roughly 14 percent of the vote, a statistically significant difference. What would that mean if these numbers hold for the next month?" The answer: "If there were a perfect replay of Florida, Kerry's total would shrink by 122,312 votes. If there were a perfect replay of Ohio, Kerry's total would shrink by 62,207 votes (making Nader's absence on the ballot this year wholly irrelevant). If there were a perfect replay of Michigan, Kerry's total would shrink by 56,542 votes. If there were a perfect replay of the national vote, Kerry's total would shrink by 1,459,966. In other words, Bush would win the popular vote by about 1 million votes! John Kerry simply cannot win this election if he performs among blacks 14 percent worse than Gore did."

John Podhoretz: Perfect Storm

Democrats have all but given up on the South

When John Kerry arrives in Reno today for his sixth visit to Nevada this year, he will underscore a dramatic shift in the geography of the race for the White House. Kerry, in a virtually unprecedented move for a Democrat, is relying more on the West than the South in his plan to reach the 270 electoral votes needed for victory. Once the party of the "Solid South," Democrats this year are not actively contesting any state in the region except Florida in the presidential campaign...

LA Times: Democrats have all but given up on the South, an unprecedented move

Bush Scaring Seniors Again

My frail, 94-year old grandmother was rudely awakened at about one o'clock this morning by a very frightening phone call. "HOWDY!" the loud voice said in a thick Texas drawl. "I'm George Bush! I just wanted to call to let ya'll know that when I'm re-elected, the first thing I'm gonna do is take away your social security. All you old geezers will be out on the street with the rest of the gutter trash!" "Bull***t," Gramma shot back. "No, bull***t, ma'am. No siree," Bush responded. "This is George Dumbya Shrub, the pee-Resident select, and I'm going to cut off your medicare, raise the prices on your prescription drugs, kill your poodle and burn your house down. Yeee-haaaaaaaw!" "I'm hanging up," Gramma warned him. After a brief pause, the caller changed tactics. "Paralysis got you down?" he asked. "Vote for John Kerry, and you'll get up out of that wheelchair and walk again." "I'm not in a wheelchair!" Gramma replied. "Alzheimers, eh? Too bad Dumbya banned stem cell research, or your brain wouldn't slowly be turning into goo as we speak." "Oh Jeezus!" Gramma groaned. "Ah, an Evangelical, are ya? Did you know that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian?" "You're making me sick." "Well, Gramma, you better hope it's not the flu, 'cause Bush is withhol-" "Lawrence, is that YOU?" Gramma growled, cutting him off in midsentence. "You little sh*t! How'd you get my number?" "Err...ummm..BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION!" the mysterious, yet enlightened caller stammered. "WHERE'S OSAMA, YOU CRAZY OL' BAT?" *click!* Alas, look at what it's come to. Bush has polarized this nation to such a degree that reich-wing grandparents are rudely hanging up on their own grandchildren, and getting unlisted phone numbers so you have to hire a private investigator to track them down. Some grandparents are even changing all the locks on the doors, and getting big guard dogs to keep friends and family from pulling out their Bush/Cheney yard signs and tp'ing their trees. All this thanks to a man who promised to be a uniter, not a divider.

Bush Scaring Seniors Again

Pithy Line o' the Day

Hugh Hewitt: "How do you ask a goose to be the last goose to die for a campaign stunt? How do you ask a goose to die for a photo op?"

Flash Animation o' the Day

Florida Presidential Election Voting Simulator

Bloody Iraq

If you know anyone who isn't convinced that the War in Iraq is part and parcel of the war on terror, send them here. Of course, John Kerry thinks Iraq is a "profound diversion" from the war on terror. Personally, I think he knows better but, with him, it's all about political expediency. Review the facts and then let me know.

Nelson Ascher: Why I won't vote for Bush

An attack that manages to ground all US and most of the world’s air traffic and close down the stock markets around the planet is something qualitatively different from a bomb in an Ulster pub. Human life is fragile, so is democracy, the world economy, globalization etc. The US can absorb U$ 1 trillion in damages. The rest of the world cannot. The US can survive a nuke in Manhattan. Brazil can survive a nuke in Sao Paulo. But Brazil cannot survive a nuke in Manhattan. What most of the world’s anti-Americans fail to understand is that whatever harms deeply the US harms us even more. Were Africa to suddenly disappear, it wouldn’t make much of a change in the life of New Yorkers. Were NY to disappear, Africa would go along... ...So, this is what I have to say for those who think that Americans have overreacted to 9/11. Actually they have under-reacted. One more attack on America and Latin America will be condemned to a further hundred years of solitude and misery. There are around 200 countries in the world today. Think that every floor of each WTC tower was one of them. The richest were those closer to the ground, the poorest the highest ones. If the base crumbles, the hundredth floor is unable to stand alone in thin air. Besides, the closer people were to the ground, the safer they were. The whole world is the WTC and those who inhabit its higher floors want to see the building collapse. That’s as clever as setting fire to the floor below your own... ...The actual damage of a terrorist attack has less to do with its dimensions than with the when and where. A single, tiny blood clot can kill a 200 pound guy. On the other hand, though some people consider the possible nuking of a Western city a nasty thing that should cause no overreaction, the truth is that a nuke cannot logically be answered by anything less than at least two nukes. How long would any US president remain in the White House if, after the nuking of, say, LA, he went to national TV to say: we’ll find the culprits, capture them, send them to the Hague and you can all be sure they’ll spend the next ten years behind bars?

Nelson Ascher: Why I won't vote for Bush

Links o' the day

ABC can't find any Democrats voting for Bush

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20041020-121512-3016r.htm

Undecided Voters Break Towards The Challenger?

Why John Kerry shouldn't be president. By John Kerry

The Five Bills John Kerry Passed during his two decades in the Senate: S.791: Authorizes $53 million over four years to provide grants to woman-owned small businesses. (1999) S.1206: Names a federal building in Waltham, Massachusetts after Frederick C. Murphy, who was killed in action during World War II and awarded (posthumously) the Medal of Honor. (1994) S.1636: A save-the-dolphins measure aiming "to improve the program to reduce the incidental taking of marine mammals during the course of commercial fishing operations." (1994) S.1563: Funding the National Sea Grant College Program, which supports university-based research, public education, and other projects "to promote better understanding, conservation and use of America's coastal resources." (1991) S.423: Granting a visa and admission to the U.S. as a permanent resident to Kil Joon Yu Callahan. (1987) Just Being John "I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, 'I'm against everything'? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f*ck it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did." -- John Kerry in Rolling Stone "I don't fall down," the "son of a b*tch knocked me over." -- John Kerry after falling when a Secret Service Agent accidentally got in his way on March 19, 2004 "Noting my physical discomfort beside him in the backseat, Wade asks Kerry, "Sir, have you ever considered getting a bigger car?" Kerry shoots back, "No, but I have thought about cutting all your f***ing legs off at the knees." -- From the John Kerry For President website in an article called "The Lighter Side of John Kerry". -- "I don't own an SUV," said Kerry, who supports increasing existing fuel economy standards to 36 miles per gallon by 2015 in order to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil supplies... Kerry thought for a second when asked whether his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, had a Suburban at their Ketchum, Idaho, home. Kerry said he owns and drives a Dodge 600 and recently bought a Chrysler 300M. He said his wife owns the Chevrolet SUV. "The family has it. I don't have it," he said." -- The Guardian, April 23, 2004 -- "I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, cause it's important." -- John Kerry, 3/29/04 -- "President Clinton was often known as the first black president. I wouldn't be upset if I could earn the right to be the second." -- John Kerry, March 2004 -- "I'm a Christian. I've read the Bible and I know you can find the clauses that go both ways (on gay marriage). I'm not here to argue that with you." -- John Kerry on March, 2004 -- "I'm a liberal and proud of it". -- John Kerry on July 21, 1991 Iraq -- "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president." -- John Kerry 12/20/03 -- "...(T)he satisfaction we take in (Saddam's) downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." -- John Kerry, 9/20/04 - "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]." -- John Kerry, 12/15/03 -- "...(W)e must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists." -- John Kerry 9/20/04 -- "If you don't believe ... Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me." -- John Kerry, USA Today on 2/13/03 -- "If you think I would have gone to war the way George Bush did, don't vote for me." -- John Kerry, Jan 2004 -- "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq - Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." -- John Kerry, 7/29/02 -- "It's the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." -- John Kerry, 9/06/04 -- "John Kerry said yesterday that he will treat the war on terror "primarily" as law-enforcement action..." -- Washington Times, April 19, 2004

Why John Kerry shouldn't be president. By John Kerry

Jimmy Carter: Military Genius

It's been a long time since I've been exposed to the miltary genius of our 39th President -- so long that I've forgotten how idiotic one can be and still be elected to the White House. Fortunately, we have Hardball to allow us to bask in the undimmed genius of Jimmy Carter. Yesterday, Carter managed to write off the Revolutionary War as a mistake, and that was his opener for his interview with Chris Matthews...

Jimmy Carter: Military Genius

Tommy Franks: the truth about Tora Bora

President Bush and Senator John Kerry have very different views of the war on terrorism, and those differences ought to be debated in this presidential campaign. But the debate should focus on facts, not distortions of history. On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. How did it happen? According to Mr. Kerry, we "outsourced" the job to Afghan warlords. As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality...

Tommy Franks: the truth about Tora Bora

So Much For The Truce!

The cease-fire that Spain bought with Islamists with their capitulation after the Madrid bombings appears to have been an illusion, as predicted. Spain announced that it captured seven terrorists plotting to bonb their High Court, according to Reuters: Police arrested seven suspected Islamic militants in raids across Spain on Monday to foil a planned bomb attack on the High Court, judicial sources said. The arrests came seven months after train bombs killed 191 people in Madrid. The seven suspects, including four Algerians and one Moroccan, were arrested in the southern region of Andalusia, the Mediterranean city of Valencia and Madrid. Further arrests could be made in the coming hours as part of the operation against a radical and violent Muslim network, the Interior Ministry said in a statement. Perhaps the Spanish electorate will understand now that appeasing terrorists only leads to more terrorism, a lesson that Europeans learned the hard way 60 years ago. The Islamic lunatics don't want to be left alone, as many Europeans assume; they want to take over all of the old ummah, which includes most of Spain, especially Andalusia. The political success of the Madrid attacks has emboldened the fanatics to press their advantage, and the so-called "cease fire" announced by Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of Spain's withdrawal from Iraq only exists while tactically important for the next attack. Maybe this will wake the Spaniards to the dangers of withdrawal and appeasement. I suspect the Socialists will be spinning this as a major victory on their behalf, which it is -- tactically speaking. Strategically, however, the Socialists have committed a huge error in backing down from the terrorists and fleeing Iraq, where establishing a functioning democracy would have a positive effect on stemming radicalism and terrorism. For American voters, the same choices have been given to us in this election. Let's not allow ourselves to be fooled that leaving the Middle East would result in a safer America or a safer world.

So much for the truce

Bush in New Jersey

PoliPundit points us to one of Bush's best speeches regarding the fundamental differences between himself and John Kerry. Powerful, true and ultimately damning for the Senator from Massachusetts.

...Over a 20-year career in the United States Senate, Senator Kerry has been consistently wrong on the major national security issues facing our country. The Senator who voted against the $87 billion for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq is the same Senator who has voted against vital weapons systems during his entire career. He tried to cancel the Patriot missile, which shot down scud missiles in Operation Desert Storm. He opposed the B-1 bomber, which was critical to victory in the Afghan campaign. He opposed the B-2 stealth bomber, which delivered devastating air strikes on Taliban positions. He opposed the modernized F-14D, which we used against terrorists in Tora Bora. He opposed the Apache helicopter, which destroyed enemy tanks and anti-aircraft missile launchers in Iraq. The Senator who is skeptical of democracy in Iraq also spoke with sympathy for a communist dictator in Nicaragua in the 1980s, and criticized the democracy movement as “terrorism.” His misguided policies would have impeded the spread of freedom in Central America. The Senator who claims the world is more dangerous since America started fighting the war on terror is the same Senator who said that Ronald Reagan’s policies of peace through strength actually made America less safe. The same Senator who said the Reagan presidency was eight years of “moral darkness.” In this campaign, Senator Kerry can run from his record, but he cannot hide...

PoliPundit: Bush in New Jersey

Links^H o' the Day

The Truth About Iraq

Kerry's Mideast

InstaPundit points us to Martin Peretz' savvy take on Kerry, Israel and the mess bequeathed by Bill Clinton's ill-fated appeasement of Arafat.

MARTIN PERETZ is very unhappy with the look of Kerry's mideast policy: I've searched to find one time when Kerry — even candidate Kerry — criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring. . . . This muddled foolishness reflects Kerry's sense of politics as desperate theater. . . . Kerry seems to have nostalgia for the peacemaking ways of Clinton. But what Clinton actually bequeathed to George W., says Benn, was "an Israeli-Palestinian war and a total collapse of the hopes that flourished in the 1990s…. The height of the peace process during the Clinton era, the Camp David summit in July 2000, was a classic example of inept diplomacy, an arrogant and rash move whose initiators failed to take into account the realpolitik, misunderstood Arafat and brought upon both Israelis and Palestinians the disaster of the intifada. Ouch. Read the whole thing.

Martin Peretz on Kerry's Mideast Policy

Links o' the Day

Medienkritik vs. George Soros

Humor from Tim Blair: The Terrifying Face of the Left

Vladimir Putin: "I consider the activities of terrorists in Iraq are not as much aimed at coalition forces but more personally against President Bush. International terrorism has as its goal to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term. If they achieve that goal, then that will give international terrorism a new impulse and extra power." (PoliPundit).

Rumsfeld on the GWOT

Interesting summary of the current state of the war on terror... from SecDef Donald Rumsfeld.

...A little over three years ago, al-Qa'ida was already a growing danger. Its leader, Osama bin Laden, was safe and sheltered in Afghanistan. His network was dispersed throughout the world and had been attacking US interests for years. Three years later, more than three-quarters of al-Qa'ida's key members and associates have been detained or killed, bin Laden is on the run, many of his key associates are behind bars or dead and his financial lines of support have been reduced. Afghanistan, once controlled by extremists, today is led by Hamid Karzai, who is at the forefront of the world's efforts in support of moderates versus extremists. Soccer stadiums once used for public executions under the Taliban are today used, once again, for soccer. Libya has gone from being a nation that sponsored terrorists, and secretly sought nuclear capability, to one that renounced its illegal weapons programs, and now says it is ready to re-enter the community of civilised nations. Pakistani scientist AQ Khan's nuclear-proliferation network – which provided lethal assistance to nations such as Libya and North Korea – has been exposed and dismantled. Indeed, Pakistan, once sympathetic to al-Qa'ida and the Taliban, has under President Pervez Musharraf cast its lot with the civilised world and is a stalwart ally against terrorism. NATO is now leading the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and is helping to train Iraqi security forces. The United Nations is helping set up free elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Over 60 countries are working together to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Three years ago, in Iraq, Saddam Hussein and his sons brutally ruled a nation in the heart of the Middle East. Saddam was attempting regularly to kill US and British air crews enforcing the no-fly zones. He ignored 17 UN Security Council resolutions. Three years later, Saddam is a prisoner, awaiting trial. His sons are dead. Most of his associates are in custody. Iraq has an interim constitution that includes a bill of rights and an independent judiciary. There are municipal councils in nearly every major city and in most towns and villages. Iraqis now are among those allowed to say, write, watch, and listen to whatever they want, whenever they want...

Donald Rumsfeld: Lessons of Cold War, relearned, promise victory over terror

Message from Iraq

Courtesy Powerline and Mudville Gazette:

...To start with, Senator Kerry may be a very good man and quite patriotic. Also we have to respect the almost 50% of the American people who lean towards the democrats. I don’t know much about domestic issues in the States so naturally, as might be expected, the position of any Iraqi would be mainly influenced by the issue that most concerns him. Thus, regardless of all the arguments of both candidates the main problem is that President Bush now represents a symbol of defiance against the terrorists and it is a fact, that all the enemies of America, with the terrorists foremost, are hoping for him to be deposed in the upcoming elections. That is not to say that they like the democrats, but that they will take such an outcome as retreat by the American people, and will consequently be greatly encouraged to intensify their assault. The outcome here on the ground in Iraq seems to be almost obvious. In case President Bush loses the election there would be a massive upsurge of violence, in the belief, rightly or wrongly, by the enemy, that the new leadership is more likely to “cut and run” to use the phrase frequently used by some of my readers. And they would try to inflict as heavy casualties as possible on the American forces to bring about a retreat and withdrawal. It is crucial for them to remove this insurmountable obstacle which stands in their way. They fully realize that with continued American and allies’ commitment, they have no hope of achieving anything. On the other hand if President Bush is reelected, this will prove to them that the American people are not intimidated despite all their brutality, and that their cause is quite futile. Yes there is little doubt that an election victory by President Bush would be a severe blow and a great disappointment for all the terrorists in the World and all the enemies of America. I believe that such an outcome would result in despair and demoralization of the “insurgent elements” here in Iraq, and would lead to the pro-democracy forces gaining the upper hand eventually. Note that we are not saying that President Bush is perfect, nor even that he is better than the Senator, just that the present situation is such that a change of leadership at this crucial point is going to send an entirely wrong message to all the enemies. Unfortunately, it seems to me that many in the U.S. don’t quite appreciate how high the stakes are. The challenge is mortal, and you and we are locked in a War, a National Emergency; and in such circumstances partisan considerations must be of secondary importance. If you lose this war, you are no more, and you will have to withdraw within you boundaries cringing and waiting for terror to strike you in your homeland, afraid to move around, afraid to travel, afraid to do business abroad. You will have to see all your friends abroad annihilated and intimidated and nobody will have any confidence or trust in you anymore. And you will have to watch from far with bitterness the forces of darkness and evil taking over in many parts of this earth, with feelings of impotence and inability to do anything about it. In other words you would lose all credibility, and the fiends of terror and obscurantism would go triumphantly dancing the macabre dance of mayhem and death, and darkness would descend and obliterate the light and the hope. You think I am exaggerating, you think I am being paranoid? I just pray that destiny would not prove all these things; I pray that these horrors will not come to pass. And all this for what? For failing to confront few thousands ex-baathists and demented religious fanatics and some common criminals, concentrated in some rural areas of a country of the size of just one of your states; and that for a nation that has defeated Natzism, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Empire! Well if Senator Kerry is such a good man, and he may well be, then it would be prudent to wait just another four years to elect him, after the job is done. And if this is interference in your national affairs by a foreigner, I am not going to give you any apology for it. Salaam

Message from Iraq

Greatest Generation... or Last Generation?

In that this will be my last column before the presidential election, there will be no sarcasm, no attempts at witty repartee. The topic is too serious, and the stakes are too high. This November we will vote in the only election during our lifetime that will truly matter. Because America is at a once-in-a-generation crossroads, more than an election hangs in the balance. Down one path lies retreat, abdication and a reign of ambivalence. Down the other lies a nation that is aware of its past and accepts the daunting obligation its future demands. If we choose poorly, the consequences will echo through the next 50 years of history. If we, in a spasm of frustration, turn out the current occupant of the White House, the message to the world and ourselves will be two-fold. First, we will reject the notion that America can do big things. Once a nation that tamed a frontier, stood down the Nazis and stood upon the moon, we will announce to the world that bringing democracy to the Middle East is too big a task for us. But more significantly, we will signal to future presidents that as voters, we are unwilling to tackle difficult challenges, preferring caution to boldness, embracing the mediocrity that has characterized other civilizations. The defeat of President Bush will send a chilling message to future presidents who may need to make difficult, yet unpopular decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the decisions. America has always been a nation that rises to the demands of history regardless of the costs or appeal. If we turn away from that legacy, we turn away from who we are. Second, we inform every terrorist organization on the globe that the lesson of Somalia was well learned. In Somalia we showed terrorists that you don't need to defeat America on the battlefield when you can defeat them in the newsroom. They learned that a wounded America can become a defeated America. Twenty-four hour news stations and daily tracing polls will do the heavy lifting, turning a cut into a fatal blow. Except that Iraq is Somalia times 10. The election of John Kerry will serve notice to every terrorist in every cave that the soft underbelly of American power is the timidity of American voters. Terrorists will know that a steady stream of grizzly photos for CNN is all you need to break the will of the American people. Our own self-doubt will take it from there. Bin Laden will recognize that he can topple any American administration without setting foot on the homeland. It is said that America's WWII generation is its "greatest generation." But my greatest fear is that it will become known as America's "last generation." Born in the bleakness of the Great Depression and hardened in the fire of WWII, they may be the last American generation that understands the meaning of duty, honor, and sacrifice. It is difficult to admit, but I know these terms are spoken with only hollow detachment by many (but not all) in my generation. Too many citizens today mistake "living in America" as "being an American." But America has always been more of an idea than a place. When you sign on, you do more than buy real estate. You accept a set of values and responsibilities. This November, my generation, which has been absent too long, must grasp that 100 years from now historians will look back at the election of 2004 and see it as the decisive election of our century. Depending on the outcome, they will describe it as the moment America joined the ranks of ordinary nations; or they will describe it as the moment the prodigal sons and daughters of the greatest generation accepted their burden as caretakers of the City on the Hill. Matthew Manweller is a political science professor at Central Washington University.

Manweller Op-Ed

Honest Question for Kerry Supporters

What in John Kerry's background or record convinces you to vote for him? Use the comments, below, to respond.

Jon Stewart Pounds Crossfire

[Update]: B points out that Stewart was lambasting ideologues on both sides of the aisle and, having watched the segment, I agree with him. I do not consider myself a spinmeister (proof: Ann Coulter has never been featured on my blog :-) and refuse to intentionally slant the news towards my guy through cheap trickery. So, watch the segment and judge for yourself.

I'm sorry I missed this startling and uncomfortable exchange. Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's Daily Show, mercilessly pounds Carlson and Begala of CNN's Crossfire. And let me say for the record that I will meet Begala anywhere, anytime to debate John Kerry's fitness to lead this country.

...I made a special effort to come on the show today, because I have privately, amongst my friends and also in occasional newspapers and television shows, mentioned this show as being bad. ...And I wanted to -- I felt that that wasn't fair and I should come here and tell you that I don't -- it's not so much that it's bad, as it's hurting America. ...CARLSON: Kerry won't come on this show. He will come on your show... Here are three of the questions you asked John Kerry... You have a chance to interview the Democratic nominee. You asked him questions such as -- quote -- "How are you holding up? Is it hard not to take the attacks personally?" ... "Have you ever flip-flopped?" et cetera, et cetera. ...Didn't you feel like -- you got the chance to interview the guy. Why not ask him a real question, instead of just suck up to him? ...STEWART: Yes. "How are you holding up?" is a real suck-up. And I actually giving him a hot stone massage as we were doing it. ...STEWART: You know, it's interesting to hear you talk about my responsibility... I didn't realize that -- and maybe this explains quite a bit... ... is that the news organizations look to Comedy Central for their cues on integrity. ...STEWART: It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it. CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery? STEWART: Absolutely. CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you... STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. ...I don't doubt for a minute these people who work for President Bush, who I disagree with on everything, they believe that stuff, Jon. This is not a lie or a deception at all. They believe in him, just like I believe in my guy... ...I think they believe President Bush would do a better job. And I believe the Kerry guys believe President Kerry would do a better job. But what I believe is, they're not making honest arguments. So what they're doing is, in their mind, the ends justify the means.

Jon Stewart pounds Crossfire

Milton Friedman and the Economists weigh in

Leading economists have a message for America: John Kerry favors economic policies that, if implemented, would lead to bigger and more intrusive government and a lower standard of living for the American people. That was the conclusion released in a statement Wednesday by 368 economists, including six Nobel laureates: Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell, and the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics - Edward C. Prescott. The economists warned that Sen. Kerry's policies "would, over time, inhibit capital formation, depress productivity growth, and make the United States less competitive internationally. The end result would be lower U.S. employment and real wage growth."

Milton Friedman and the Economists weigh in

Facing our own Madrid

From Baghdad and Lt. Col Powl Smith:

...In the same way that al Qaeda changed the outcome of the Spanish elections last March with a single catastrophic bombing in Madrid, the enemies of a free Iraq are increasing the tempo of attacks in order to feed the media, and therefore the American people, a steady diet of blood and carnage in order to convince us that "it just isn't worth it."... ...the real target of the increased insurgent attacks--their strategic grand prize--is American public opinion. The real reason for the surge in violence this fall? The U.S. presidential election... ...the truth is, in Iraq today, America is facing its own Madrid. Whether you are Democrat, Republican, or independent, it should anger you to the very core that our enemies are trying to slaughter American soldiers, innocent Iraqis, and indeed, just about anyone they can find, every day in order to frighten us into retreating. Winning this war will thus ultimately require more than conventional military might. It is in ourselves -- as individuals and as a nation -- that we will find victory or defeat.

Facing our own Madrid

MSM at its best

From WindsOfChange:

So this is what [ABC News'] Mark Helperin means when he says: "...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." Over on ABC's 'Noted Now' website, a quote from my own Governator: SCHWARZENEGGER SAYS BOTH BUSH AND KERRY EVASIVE IN DEBATES: "Both of them did not answer some of the questions, which I think is upsetting to me. I think it is much better to be straightforward with the people.... You know like Kerry did. Bush did the same thing in some instances, not really get into it and answer it." So I click along to the linked Reuters story and get this (the deleted words are in bold): "Both of them did not answer some of the questions, which I think is upsetting to me," Schwarzenegger told KGO radio in San Francisco. "I think it is much better to be straightforward with the people." "I mean if you get a question about Iran and about the nuclear power and what you are going to do in the future with this nuclear power, and you don't even answer that question, I think it's a mistake, You know like Kerry did," he continued. "Bush did the same thing in some instances, not really get into it and answer it."

ABC: A Biased Conspiracy

Hugh Hewitt's List

I think fundamentally, this is going to be a race that is a choice, and I think what you see even in the Gallup poll, your poll, when you ask them on the important issues "Who do you trust more, who do you trust more to deal with Iraq?" the public trusts the president more; "Who do you trust more on the war on terror?" the public trusts the president more; even on the economy which has been a signature issue of the Kerry campaign, it is almost dead even. So I think still, fundamentally, this is a race where the public is going to decide who has better plans, better vision, on these issues. And right now, on two of the three biggest issues, we have an advantage, and on the other one it is basically tied. I put the question to my callers: What is the choice on 11/2. here's a list of their responses: Churchill v. Chamberlain Reagan v. Carter offense v. defense advance v. retreat resolve v. dithering blunt talk v. nuance England and Australia v. France and Germany Allawi in power v. Saddam in power leader v. talker White House v. waffle house tax cut v. tax hike private sector growth v. public sector growth cheeseburger v. escargot honest humility v. prideful arrogance "Let's roll" v. roll over Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia September 12 v. September 10 Battle Hymn of the Republic v. Kumbaya Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews Osama running from us v. Osama coming at us 10 gallon stetson v. the magic hat Saving Private Ryan v. Gigli Laura v. Theresa John Wayne v. Jane Fonda Ray Lewis v. Jerry Lewis Safety blitz v. Prevent defense Global freedom v. Global test "Blood, sweat, toil, and tears" v. "Peace in our time." Lambeau Field v. Lambert Field Old Glory v. white flag road warrior v. road kill Sun Tsu v. sun tan The Great Santini v. Forrest Gump Victory v. Vichy Compass v. windsock Fire power v. flower power Baghdad '03 v. Dien Bien Phu '54 Monday Night Football v. Sex in the City USS Missouri v. USS Minnow Brett Favre v. Ryan Leaf putting down insurrections v. botox injections A man who kept his promises v. A kept man who promises Axis of Evil v. nuisance Tour de force v. Tour de France Lawrence Taylor v. James Taylor Crawford v. Martha's Vineyard Shock and awe v. hem and haw Semper Fi v. simpering

Hugh Hewitt's List

Quick debate reaction

I think many of us underestimated the president. Informed, glib, funny and self-deprecating, Bush pounded Kerry continually -- and deservedly -- on his twenty-year record in the Senate. Out of the mainstream of American politics, sitting on the Left bank, watching the "...Conservative Senator from Massachusetts, Teddy Kennedy". Kerry, in two decades time, has sponsored virtually no successful legislation of impact and that fact alone had the Senator retreating... hemming and hawing about amendments, names not appearing on bills, and the like. Isn't it time for dinner, Senator?

As for the polls, KerrySpot has some interesting history. Since the 2000 elections, the pollsters -- for a variety of reasons -- have been dramatically underestimating GOP turnout. Need the stats? On a state-by-state basis, here are the dramatically incorrect results of the pollsters. Based upon these sorts of estimates, a 3 point margin for the president could literally mean a blowout victory for GWB.

Update from Fred Barnes:

Now here's a strange twist on the debate. Bush was the winner in a focus group of uncommitted voters conducted by pollster Frank Luntz last night. The 23 voters thought Kerry, not Bush, won the debate. But they split 17 to 5 in favor of Bush on whom they now plan to vote for (one will vote Libertarian). "They still don't trust what John Kerry is saying," Luntz said, though they thought he said it well.

Never

Powerful commentary from the Weekly Standard's William Kristol. John Kerry's track record -- when it comes to national security -- is truly appalling. And there's no perfuming that skunk.

NEVER HAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE elected as president a candidate with a record on national security issues resembling that of John Kerry. Consider some of the distinctive national security choices Kerry has made over the years... ...Fall 1984: The American people have never elected president someone who, in his first successful bid for federal office, chose to make support for a unilateral nuclear freeze and for major cutbacks in America's defense programs the centerpiece of his campaign. The freeze and the cutbacks would have weakened U.S.-European ties, emboldened the Soviet Union, and strengthened the hand of hardliners in the Kremlin. Kerry has never said that the position he took at this turning point in the Cold War was mistaken... ...January 12, 1991: The American people have never elected president a senator who voted against an authorization for the use of military force, in this case in pursuance of a United Nations-approved policy to eject Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Senator Kerry complained in 1991 that we were engaged in "a rush to war." It turned out that Saddam had been only months away from acquiring nuclear capability. Kerry now cites the first Gulf War as a success for the purpose of contrasting it with the recent one--but he has never acknowledged that his judgment in opposing that war might have been in error...

Never

VodkaPundit LiveBlogs the Debate

Entertaining...

... 8:10. I'd like to hear Bush say, "I'm going to nuke the next motherf'er who even looks at our country sidewise - twice if he's in the French cabinet." And I'd like to hear Kerry say, "I'm going to tax you bastards back to the Stone Age." Something, anything, to generate some sparks... 8:18. "Everything is a gift from the Almighty," Kerry just said. Now, I know every politician panders. But when Bush talks religion, much as it usually annoys me, I buy it. When Kerry says something like he just did, it makes me wish a thunderbolt would hit him, emblazoned with the words, "Take THIS gift, sucker." Because he's treating me like a sucker - and I'm not even religious...

VodkaPundit LiveBlogs the Debate

Links o' the Day

Philadelphia Inquirer: Democrats, with help from media, have waged an all-out war on Bush

The Guardian: God Forbid, a Success Story

Rating the Moderators - Now, fresher than ever!

Update: I thought Bob Schieffer did a creditable job. In my heart of hearts, I was fearing the worst.

In spite of the fact that Hugh Hewitt retired his old symposium question (rating the moderators of the debates), I plowed ahead just out of casual interest. How did the questions stack up?

I rate each question from 1 to 9, with 1 being skewed towards the challenger and 9 being biased towards the president. An average score of around 5 would indicate a centrist agenda on the part of the moderator. Here are the debates with the most recent one listed first:

Third Presidential Debate - Schieffer

[5] Question 1: Will our children and grandchildren ever live in a world as safe and secure as the world in which we grew up?
[4] Question 2: we find ourselves with a severe shortage of flu vaccine. How did that happen?
[7] Question 3: how can you keep [taxes] pledge without running this country deeper into debt and passing on more of the bills that we're running up to our children?
[2] Question 4: what do you say to someone in this country who has lost his job to someone overseas who's being paid a fraction of what that job paid here in the United States?
[7] Question 5: is it fair to blame the administration entirely for this loss of jobs?
[2] Question 6: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
[9 ] Question 7: NYT reports that some Catholic archbishops are telling their church members that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you... reaction?
[4] Question 8: Health insurance costs have risen over 36 percent over the last four years according to WaPo. Who bears responsibility for this?
[9] Question 9: Massive health plan... where do you get the money?
[1] Question 10: Social Security... has to be fixed. Where do you get the money?
[9] Question 11: Greenspan... SocSec must be recalibrated... aren't you leaving another problem for our children to solve?
[5] Question 12: 8,000 people cross our borders illegally every day. How do you see it? And what we need to do about it?
[5] Question 13: Minimum wage stuck at $5.15 an hour now for about seven years. Is it time to raise it?
[1] Question 14: Appoint Judge... Roe v. Wade?
[1] Question 15: ANG and backdoor draft relief?
[3] Question 16: Congress... extend the ban on assault weapons, that you'd sign the legislation, but you did nothing to encourage the Congress to extend it. Why not?
[5] Question 17: Affirmative action: Do you see a need for affirmative action programs?
[5] Question 18: What part does your faith play on your policy decisions?
[5] Question 19: Attitude on polarization?
[5] Question 20: What have you learned from strong women?

Average: 4.7, slightly skewed towards the challenger, total 94

Second presidential debate - Gibson

[9] Question 1: Sen. Kerry, Are you wishy-washy?
[1] Question 2: Mr. President, do you sincerely believe you had a reasonable justification for invading Iraq?
[5] Question 3: Sen. Kerry, would you have a different plan than the president for Iraq?
[1] Question 4: President Bush, what is your plan to repair diplomatic relations with other countries?
[5] Question 5: Sen. Kerry, what will you do about Iran if the United Nations doesn't take any action?
[5] Question 6 : President Bush, how will you maintain our military strength without a draft?
[9] Question 7: Sen. Kerry, why haven't we been attacked since September 11 and how do you propose to assure our safety?
[1] Question 8: President Bush, why did you block the importation of drugs from Canada?
[9] Question 9: Sen. Kerry, you're concerned about the rising cost of health care -- why did you chose a running mater who has made millions suing medical professionals?
[5] Question 10: President Bush, please explain why your spending plans are superior to Sen. Kerry's.
[7] Question 11: Sen. Kerry, will you pledge not to raise taxes on families making less than $200,000 during your first term?
[3] Question 12: President Bush, how would you rate yourself as an environmentalist?
[5] Question 13: Sen. Kerry, how can the U.S. be competitive in manufacturing and still pay the wages Americans have come to expect?
[1] Question 14: President Bush, why are our rights being weakened by the Patriot Act, and what was the justification for it?
[7] Question 15: Sen. Kerry, wouldn't it be wise to use stem cells obtained without destroying an embryo?
Question 16: President Bush, who would be your next choice for the Supreme Court?
[7] Question 17: Sen. Kerry, how can you assure a voter who believes abortion is murder that their tax dollars would not support abortion?
[1] Question 18: President Bush, please give three instances when you think you made a bad decision, and what you did to correct it.

Average: 4.5, skewed towards the challenger, total 81

Vice-presidential debate - Ifill

[1] Question 1 -- The report you requested said there was no link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.
[9] Question 2 -- Would a Kerry-Edwards administration have left Saddam Hussein in power?
[1] Question 3 -- Your plan for bin Laden and other terrorists?
[9] Question 4 -- What did Kerry say about "global test"?
[7] Question 5 -- Is Cheney saying a Kerry presidency would be dangerous?
[3] Question 6 -- Is it naive to try to internationalize Iraq effort?
[5] Question 7- Can any administration get accurate intelligence on terrorism?
[1] Question 8 -- Should sanctions be lifted against Iran?
[5] Question 9 -- What should be done to end Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
[5] Question 10 - What will your administration do to ease joblessness and poverty?
[7] Question 11 - Can Kerry guarantee not to raise taxes and cut the deficit?
[3] Question 12 - How can Cheney support Bush administration's ban on same-sex unions?
[7] Question 13 - What is Kerry and Edwards' stance on gay marriage?
[9] Question 14 -- Has John Edwards, a former trial lawyer, been part of the problem of higher medical costs?
[3] Question 15 -- Is Edwards being personally attacked when Cheney talks about legal reform and the president talks about a trial lawyer?
[3] Question 16 -- What can the government do about AIDS?
[7] Question 17 -- What qualifies Edwards to be vice president?
[5] Question 18 -- Without mentioning [the presidential candidates] by name, how are you different from the other vice presidential candidate?
[7] Question 19 -- Is changing positions bad?
[3] Question 20 -- How can the divisions in the United States be bridged?

Average: 5, right down the middle, total 100

First presidential debate - Lehrer

[5] Question 1 -- Who could best prevent another 9/11?
[7] Question 2 -- Would a Kerry win increase risk of terror?
[1] Question 3 -- What 'colossal misjudgments' has Bush made?
[3] Question 4 -- Who's top target, bin Laden or Saddam?
[3] Question 5 -- How would you improve homeland security?
[4] Question 6 -- Criteria to bring troops home?
[6] Question 7 -- Are U.S. soldiers dying for a mistake?
[3] Question 8 -- What was the 'miscalculation' in Iraq?
[1] Question 9 -- When has Bush misled the public?
[3] Question 10 -- Has the war been worth the loss of life?
[3] Question 11 -- When will the war in Iraq end?
[4] Question 12 -- Would Bush lead another pre-emptive war?
[5] Question 13 -- What is Kerry's position on pre-emptive war?
[5] Question 14 -- Are diplomacy, sanctions effective?
[5] Question 15 -- Why not send troops to Sudan?
[7] Question 16 -- Does Bush see Kerry character flaws?
[5] Question 17 -- What is the most serious threat to national security?
[2] Question 18 -- Did Bush misjudge Putin?

Average: 4, heavily tilted towards challenger, total 72

To answer Hugh's question... which moderator was most centrist:

First place: Ifill, 5.0 centrist
Second place: Schieffer, 4.7 slightly Left
Third place: Gibson, 4.5 centrist Left
Last place: Lehrer, 4.0, heavily Left