a running commentary by our trusted contributors...

[10/29/04 Friday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 3:49 pm [link]
We've Been Warned. The terrorists keep practicing psyops on us. They cut the audiotapes, film the videos, play this stuff on the Internet and farm it out to their tame media like al Jazzerra to spread it around. Not surprisingly they like psyops. It is a classic component in a war that the terrorists wage on the West. Even the acts of brutality and violence (e.g., the beheadings of hostages, train explosions, car bombs and suicide bombers) are themselves psychological operations of a kind.

Now, on the eve of a hotly contested US elections (though in truth can anyone remember a 'lukewarmly' contested presidential election?) the terrorists are at it again, this time with what appears to be a renegade American spokesman. Just listening to the cheezy accent makes you want to laugh. But the message inside that impersonation is anything but funny.

The 'streets running red with blood' theme is a recurring one among the Islamists. It deserves to be taken seriously. We forget 9-11. We forget that the terrorists hoped to kill upwards of 50.000 of us in those buildings. We forget the agonizing sight of our countrymen forced to make a choice between burning to death, suffocation or plunging almost 100 stories to the ground. Did you wonder What would I have done? I did. And thinking back on it I still do, and say a whispered prayer for those falling through dreadfully empty space.

I wish the media were not so 'sensitive' about showing those shots because we forget far too easily. It serves to distill to the very essence what these terrorists want from us: choose, infidel, how you will die. That is their message. Not sensitivity, not negotiations, not discussion, not compromise: death, pure and simple.

But if the media are too chicken to show the 9-11 film, then this latest tape from the terrorists serves to remind. Listen hard to the tape, especially those who like to parse and discover nuance. Have you doubts about this man intentions and his movement's willingness to use mass killing weapons? Are you, like the Democrat candidate for president, comfortable handling those people as 'criminals' and a 'nuisance'? Are you one who wants to 'respond to any attack' which means you are willing to wait till next time, till 'the streets run red with blood' before America takes action? If the answer is yes, then vote for John Kerry.

But if you would rather fight a war that kills terrorists and protects us rather than investigate crime and suffer the next attack; if you would prefer to take that war to the enemy making his streets run red with blood - then I'm with you. I'm pulling my lever for the man who puts American security before vanity, who is willing to risk popularity by standing on principal, and who's got the backbone of steel to bring us to victory: GW Bush.

We've been warned.

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 9:05 am [link]
Bush Needs Popularity Too How important is California for President Bush?

Early on I was a 'believer' in the possibility of a Bush win in California. My reasoning was simply, voter turnout, or the lack thereof.

I believed (and I still do in many areas) that the Democrat Party was not excited about US Senator John Kerry. Noticed I said 'excited' rather than 'in love with'. I believed it was below the admitted acquaintance level during the early portions of this campaign.

After the first debate in Florida, where Kerry out performed the President in format, style and presentation (not content), the Democrats started to actually 'like' their John Kerry and the 'low voter turnout factor' was adjusted, to my dismay.

But there is still purpose for Bush in California.

Due to the high turnout of registrations nationwide and the well organized GOTV mission by the Republican Party over the past three years, the number of votes in this election will be near 105 million. This is an increase of 12 to 15 million votes over 2000. (Notice I didn't say voters or citizens here)

For the Bush Team, there is a reported 'surge of support' in states that he didn't win in 2000 and was not predicted to win for 2004. This surge is affording the Bush voters a new mission.

If President Bush wins the Electoral College tally with a ballpark of 280 votes, the next area of focus for the media and the Democrats will be the popular vote. I know it doesn't mean a 'hill of beans' according to the Republic's Constitutional rules and protocol, but it could mean everything when we are talking about all of the prepared lawsuits that will be filed come midnight of November 2nd.

In California and New York alone, President Bush is poised to gain 2.0 million votes this year versus 2000. Two of these are states he cannot win, but voters can seal the win come November 3rd. So, if you're in New York, California, New Jersey or even the 'now in play' Michigan's and Hawaii's...get out and vote. The winning states will bring the victory...but the popular vote can silence the anarchy and save our Republic from crisis!

[10/28/04 Thursday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:11 am [link]
Keep steady: The new terror warnings are disconcerting, of course, but the American people are not cowards -- we will carry on as always. The effect, of course, is to remind everyone why it's imperative that President Bush remain in office. Is there anyone who really believes that John Kerry will take as hard a line as the President?

In the meantime, Kerry is being revealed as the desperate say-anything type he is, as he appears to have been willing to take the word of an anti-Bush U.N. type, ensconced in the pages of The New York Times, about the efficacy and competence of the 101st Airborne, who were charged with securing the munitions at Al Qaqaa. That tells you what four years of Kerry would be like, right there.

Now is not a time for faint hearts of any kind. It's a time for steadiness and resolution. Some polls may be encouraging, some may not be. But it's vital that EVERYONE do his or her part to make sure that we have a strong, determined leader who trusts the American people and the American military over the UN high command and the "international community." [Liebau Blog]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, CRO contributor] 12:01 am [link]
Trendy British Leftist Calls for Assassination of George W. Bush For a decade the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby has written a startling year-end column about "hate speech of the Left," in which he collects some of the most vile and virulent statements from supposed humanitarians. (To see these, go to the most recent column, from December 2003, and note there the listing of prior columns.)

The Left's hatred of George W. Bush already years ago reached pathological depths but the envelope keeps getting pushed further and further. Perhaps the most noxious piece of writing comes in today's Guardian, where the newspaper's television critic, Charlie Brooker, writes an unbelievable article, "Dumb show," that culminates in a call for the assassination of the U.S. president: "John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?"

Comment: The degradation of political debate has -I hope - now reached rock bottom.

Update: The irresponsible editors at the Guardian latterly woke up to the problem that calling for murder of the American head of state has brought on them. Here is their lame excuse, posted in the place of Brooker's article:

The final sentence of a column in The Guide on Saturday caused offence to some readers. The Guardian associates itself with the following statement from the writer.

"Charlie Brooker apologizes for any offence caused by his comments relating to President Bush in his TV column, Screen Burn. The views expressed in this column are not those of the Guardian. Although flippant and tasteless, his closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action - an intention he believed regular readers of his humorous column would understand. He deplores violence of any kind."

Ironic joke, indeed.

Brooker and his editors stand exposed.

[10/27/04 Wednesday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:09 am [link]
Support the Troops - Count their Votes! While some Democrats, including the candidate and his running mate, deliberately fan the flames of racial enmity by speaking fatuously of urban legend of 'one million disenfranchised black voters n the 2000 elections,' there is a conscious effort of the part of some operatives and politicians to avoid counting the military vote. Recent military personnel polls have been heavily weighted (69% and higher) in favor of President Bush. These are votes that Democrat Party true believers would prefer remain uncounted.

As a result, certain states - among them most shamefully the seat of liberty, Pennsylvania - are aggressively issuing instructions that screeners make every effort to disqualify military ballots on whatever technical grounds they can discover or drum up. That they are doing so in a time of war while hypocritically mouthing platitudes about troop support demonstrates that regardless of how low they sink there are always new depths these people can reach.

One of the most satisfying acts that I had while on active duty was the act of voting. I voted absentee from Vietnam, Okinawa and Korea among other exotic locales, and took special pains to encourage my soldiers to vote also. After all, who better to participate in democracy than those defending it?

Lest we forget, in the highly emotional election of 1864 Lincoln brought troop units back to their home states to vote because in the midst of war the military knew who was leading them to victory, and who to compromise and appeasement. It is the same today. The proponents of weakness and vacillation intend to disenfranchise the very people who are fighting to keep us safe and bring our gift of freedom to the oppressed world.

We must protest this voter abuse most aggressively. Please contact Pennsylvania and other disputed states, even if you are a non-resident you are still an American. Demand that the precious votes of our military be counted, each and every one! Use the Internet and talk radio to make your voices heard. You know that the mainstream media will ignore this illegal and abusive action. We must carry the cause and we can!

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Republic in Crisis In a column dealing with the "Value of the Vote", look at the headline of the LA Times Sunday; "Storm Clouds Gathering Over the Legitimacy of This Election".

This is exactly the battle plan for the Democrats - and has been since they discovered this 'de-valuing of the vote' in 2000. Create the doubt, organize the shadow groups to perpetrate the rules and laws, scream intimidation when someone represents the rules and then sue every close election.

Reminds you of a backyard 'pick-up' baseball game when you were young, those who could never win the game would always attempt to change the rules during the contest.

Look at this statement:

"How can we run a foreign policy … arguing that we are the shining example of what it means to be a democratic government when on the most basic element of democracy, the casting and counting of votes, we get it wrong twice in a row?" said Ivo Daalder, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.

Another message from the liberal left...we are no better than a Third World Nation ourselves. Who should we blame for this?

In 1968, it was a Nixon Campaign that decided not to contest a close (concerning) vote in Illinois. The reason was a respect for the Republic. The Nixon Team said they respected the Republic too much to take the vote through the courts and turn the nation on its ear.

Not now...since 2000, it has been about voter disenfranchisement, intimidation, fraud, no receipt touch screen voting and establishing a 'legal team' for election night.

I'll agree with one point in this column, if this election is close...our Republic is in crisis come November 2nd. Whatever happened to the Patriots who cared more about the Republic than about their own power grab? I guess that went out with the tossing of the medals.

[10/26/04 Tuesday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 9:05 am [link]
Murder in the Sand: Upwards of 50 unarmed Iraqi military cadets were dragged from their busses on the way home and forced to lie face down in the sand as terrorists from al Zarqawi's al Qaeda related gang shot them dead, firing rounds into the backs of their heads. Another act of bravery by the terrorists. No doubt about it. When the terrorists go after unarmed men, women and children, and helpless hostages they are the toughest guys on the block. The fact that their bodies litter the alleyways of Fallujah and Najaf and the Sunni Triangle shows what happens to them when they try to fight real soldiers. That's one reason that they are pulling these assassination and terrorist strikes. They are incapable of fielding any kind of coherent force.

This gruesome murder is yet another example of the desperation of the terrorists. Unable to make significant gains the movement has turned against the very Iraqi people it purports to represent. This kind of stuff won't work. We've seen it before in El Salvador and elsewhere. The communist FMLN murdered a similar group of Salvadoran troops - unarmed, shot in the face - as the wheels began to come off the revolution. When the insurgency begins to feed off itself it is doomed. This is already happening in Iraq. It is only a matter of time before these thugs are chased into Syria or Iran where the hunt can continue until they are killed.

We need to stay the course and make certain that we have leadership in the White House that will do exactly that.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:15 am [link]
Times for Kerry: Well, well, well. Trying desperately to help Kerry find traction, the New York Times Monday printed a story purporting to show that 380 tons of powerful convention explosives had gone missing from Iraq through U.S. negligence.

Now, however, according to the Drudge Report, NBC News is reporting that the stockpiles were missing before Americans got into Iraq.

[And this from CNN - NBC News reported that on April 10, 2003, its crew was embedded with the U.S. Army's 101st Airborne Division when troops arrived at the Al Qaqaa storage facility south of Baghdad. While the troops found large stockpiles of conventional explosives, they did not find HMX or RDX, the types of powerful explosives that reportedly went missing, according to NBC.]

John Kerry and John Edwards spent the day discussing the Times piece on the campaign trail. Will they apologize for slandering the President and US troops for "incompetence"? Don't hold your breath.

Just one more example of the Times' electioneering. [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:11 am [link]
'Blue Helmet' versus 'Free Market' Consider the obvious; John Kerry is spending his last days campaigning with former President Bill Clinton in Pennsylvania. President George W. Bush is asking Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to stump for him in Ohio.

It is no secret that Bill Clinton has his sights set on becoming the next UN Secretary-General, following Kofi Annan. John Kerry has already offered the "Global Test" and "Truth Test" in this campaign, running our national defense and security through the United Nations and the world's opinion. This is nothing more than the "Blue Helmet Tour" directed by Kerry and Clinton.

On the other side of the Swing State border, Ohio is being visited by Bush and Schwarzenegger. Here we have two political leaders representing the free market enterprise, capitalism and 'owning one's own liberty and freedom'. When it comes to defense, one has lead the war on terrorism for three years, the other remembers what it looked like when a dictator was on the prowl and running roughshod over the globe.

A stark difference wouldn't you say?

[10/25/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 8:40 am [link]
Win by cheating is well underway! On my radio show for the next two weeks, I'll be talking about "Voter Fraud" and the Democrat's drive to hundreds of lawsuits that will come from their efforts to create - what I labeled nearly two years back as the "De-valuing of the Vote". Plant the seeds of mistrust and theft, the 'shadow organizations' to do the dirty work, then prepare the lawsuits and run the election through the judiciary!

Look at what we have today, here is my "Urgent: Top Ten Fraud List"

1. COLORADO: ACORN Worker Gets Girlfriend To Sign Up Friends To Vote 40 Times, And 25 Times Herself. “Kym Cason admitted to signing up three of her friends to vote 40 times to help her boyfriend, who earned $2 for each voter he signed up for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. She said she forged their signatures and filled out their information to the best of her knowledge. She also signed herself up to vote 25 times.” (“Investigation Reveals Potentially Fraudulent Voter Forms,” The Associated Press, 10/12/04)
2. COLORADO: Gerald Obi Admitted To Colorado 9 News That He Was Pressured By Groups To Register To Vote 35 Times. (9 News Website, http://www.9news.com, Accessed 10/12/04)
3. FLORIDA: Former ACORN Worker Sues Organization, Claims Group Illegally Copied, Sold, And Suppressed Registrations. “An activist group was sued in Miami-Dade circuit court this week by a former employee, who has accused top officials of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now of violating a slew of election laws. Mac Stuart, of Opa-locka, has accused the organization, known as ACORN, of illegally copying voter registration applications and selling them to labor union groups, allowing people to sign petitions who were not registered voters and suppressing Republican voter registration applications.” (Jeremy Milarsky “Ex-Worker Sues Activist Group,” Sun-Sentinel, 10/21/04)
4. MINNESOTA: Ex ACORN Employee’s Car Contained Voter Registration Cards In Trunk. “When police at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport stopped a man for running a stop sign late last month, they found an unusual stash in his car trunk: More than 300 voter registration cards that had been filled out but never submitted to the Minnesota secretary of state. The motorist allegedly told police that he was an ex-employee of ACORN…” (Patrick Sweeney, “Stash Of Voter Cards Probed,” Saint Paul Pioneer Press, 10/8/04)
5. MISSOURI: Project Vote/ACORN And ACT Submitting Faulty Registrations. “Sleuths at the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners are trashing hundreds of faulty voter registrations, most of them collected by voter drive groups like Pro-Vote and America Coming Together. … KMOV presented [Commissioner David] Welch with a list of names of voters who apparently registered twice, using variations of their names - registrations that had not yet been flagged.” (KMOV Website, http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/100604ccktKMOVVote.7e36f2b.html, Accessed 10/7/04)
6. NEW MEXICO: ACORN Registration Forms Found In New Mexico Apartment During Drug Bust. “A search of a northeast Albuquerque apartment as part of a drug investigation led to the discovery of about a dozen voter registration forms, police said. The forms were filled out and had dates from late last month, Albuquerque police said. Authorities had not determined the authenticity of the forms. The occupant of the apartment, a Cuban national, was arrested on drug charges. He told authorities he obtained the documents while working for the Association of Communities Organized for Reform Now or ACORN.” (“Albuquerque Police Find Voter Registration Forms At Albuquerque Apartment,” The Associated Press, 10/16/04)
7. NEW MEXICO: 13 Year Old Registered To Vote By ACORN. “But then there's the case of Glen Stout's 13-year-old son, Kevin, who received a voter registration card in the mail last week. … On Tuesday, Stout and [Rep. Joe Thompson] stood outside ACORN’s door at 411 Bellamah Ave. N.W. and blamed the group for faulty voter registration cards. ‘We have proof,’ Thompson declared. Part of that proof, they say, includes a copy, produced by Thompson, of young Stout’s voter registration form, turned in by Christina Gonzales, a former ACORN employee.” (Shea Andersen, “More Glare On Voter Sign-Ups,” Albuquerque Tribune, 8/25/04)
8. OHIO: Fraudulent Cards Submitted By NAACP Voter Fund, Worker Paid Crack Cocaine In Exchange For His Efforts. “Elections officials knew something was wrong when they got voter registration cards for Mary Poppins, Dick Tracy, Michael Jordan and George Foreman. … They notified the Defiance County sheriff, who arrested Chad Staton on Monday on a felony charge of submitting phony voter registration forms. Investigators also were looking into allegations that he was paid with cocaine in exchange for his efforts. Staton, 22, had fraudulently filled out more than 100 voter registration forms, Sheriff David Westrick said. … According to Westrick, the NAACP's National Voter Fund had submitted the false registrations to the elections board in Cleveland.” (“Man Arrested After Voter Forms Turned In For Mary Poppins, Michael Jordan, Ohio Officials Say,” The Associated Press, 10/19/04)
9. OHIO: In Lake County, Man Dead For Two Decades Registered To Vote And Elderly Woman’s Signature In Question. “At least one Lake County voter would have made quite a comeback to cast a ballot Nov. 2. He has been dead for more than two decades, elections officials said. In a seemingly lesser miracle of wayward democracy, an elderly nursing home resident who only scrawls a shaky “X” when signing official documents suddenly regained a firm, crisp cursive signature when she registered. … [Lake County Elections Board Director Jan Clair] said that the registration of the deceased man was filed by the National Voter Fund, the registration arm of the NAACP, and the woman in the nursing home was registered by the group Americans Coming Together, known in this state as ACT Ohio.” (Michael Scott, “Dead Man On Voter Rolls Sparks Inquiry,” [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 9/23/04)
10. OHIO: Jive Turkey Sr. Registers To Vote. “Among the tens of thousands of new voters who registered in Cuyahoga County, Jive Turkey Sr. wasn't hard to spot. Turkey's registration (which included a colorful middle name) is among 1,284 suspicious voter applications that Cuyahoga County election officials plan to turn over to prosecutors to investigate for potential fraud. … Republicans have pointed to these instances as proof that Democrat-friendly groups, such as America Coming Together and Project Vote, which led massive voter-registration campaigns, tainted the political process.” (Scott Hiaasen, “Fowl Play” [Cleveland] Plain Dealer, 10/22/04)

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 8:15 am [link]
A President who will tell the truth! John Kerry: Truthfulness is "the fundamental test of leadership."

John Kerry: "I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable."

He said it as recently as the second presidential debate. He said it in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations last December. He lied. And perhaps now we know why his mother's last words to him were, "Integrity, integrity, integrity." It may have been a warning, of sorts, from the woman who knew his weaknesses (and his strengths) from childhood forward.

Most disturbing, this seems to be part of a pattern -- from his charges about the "war crimes" allegedly committed in Vietnam, to the Christmas Eve in Cambodia fairy tale, to the "secret plan" for a draft. This truly is is a man who either (1) Can't tell truth from fiction or (2) Really will say anything to get elected. I can't decide which is scarier.

Bill Clinton's pathological inability to tell the truth did damage to America and its politics. To elect another truth-challenged President -- and now, in time of war -- would increase that destructiveness exponentially.

Kerry has no business being anywhere near the levers of power. [Liebau Blog]

[10/22/04 Friday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 7:05 am [link]
Holding the Regime Accountable. In the midst of the campaign it passed under the radar for many people, but last week President Bush signed into law the North Korea Freedom Act, which remarkably had passed unanimously both Houses of Congress. In a nutshell this law makes it imperative that human rights issues be addressed equally with weapons proliferation issues in dealing with the aberrant, dysfunctional North Korea regime of Kim Jong Il.

Directly and indirectly the NKFA puts pressure on both the Peoples Republic of China and South Korea to clean up their respective acts regarding North Korean defectors as they are known in the community. This is necessary because there are far too many instances of forcible repatriation to North Korea by the PRC of the defectors. This is tantamount to a death sentence for the majority who are sent to concentration camps upon return. Many others languish in Chinese prisons but count themselves fortunate that they are in China which they regard as a virtual paradise compared to the abysmal conditions common in North Korea.

A long, tenuous underground railroad now stretches from the broad, wind-scoured plains of Manchuria to the humid jungles of Vietnam and Thailand, a dangerous escape route that most of the defectors must traverse if they are to achieve freedom. Recently almost 450 North Koreans were flown from Saigon to Seoul on a mercy mission by a South Korean government that has also turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the plight of their Northern brethren. While the ruling party wishes the refugee question away, the Grand National Party, the conservative opposition, is publicly challenging them to honor their moral responsibilities to their fellow Koreans.

Many American citizens are involved in the rescue effort including the indomitable Suzanne Scholte of the Defense Forum Foundation in Washington, DC who has been amazing in her energy and example in saving defector's lives. If you are looking for a worthy cause you can find few more deserving of your assistance.

Unfortunately several American citizens - native and naturalized - now are being held in Chinese prisons for assisting North Korean defectors. We won't raise names here for fear of jeopardizing their welfare, but action is being taken on their behalf. Most of the pressure on China to release these American prisoners for the 'crime' of helping the less fortunate comes at the initiative of the North Korea Freedom Coalition (that includes Scholte among several others) through Capitol Hill. Senators Brownback and Lugar and Congressmen Hyde and Cox are among the most involved members in this regard.

We've heard a lot of nonsence in this campaign including extravagant promises and unfounded criticism. Be advised that the Bush policy in dealing with North Korea is the most viable and effective. We must be multi-lateral, keep firm pressure on, and address all issues equally. A Kerry policy is simply a return to the appeasement and accommodation of Clinton/Carter and will permit the already dangerous situation to deteriorate further.

(You can learn more about the Koreas by reading Gordon's hot-selling, entertaining new book, Separated at Birth: How North Korea became the Evil Twin)

[10/21/04 Thursday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:05 am [link]
The Globalist: This is absolutely horrifying.

"Kerry's belief in working with allies runs so deep that he has maintained that the loss of American life can be better justified if it occurs in the course of a mission with international support. In 1994, discussing the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia, he said, "If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

So it's okay for Americans to die under the U.N. flag, but not under the Stars and Stripes? Doesn't he have it backwards?

Senator Kerry seems to have confused procedure with substance. Procedurally, it's preferable to have allies to help win and to share the burdens. But substantively, having allies doesn't make a war more or less right. The issue is why we're fighting at a particular time and in a particular place, not with whom. And the reason we fight is (or should be) the justification for any American loss of life. After all, if the entire U.N. decided tomorrow that we should all invade Israel and return it to the Palestinians, would the fact that "everyone" decided to do it together under make it right, and justify the loss of American life in such an outrageous scheme? Or would America be right to defend Israel, even if no one did it with us?

Senator Kerry is someone who apparently didn't listen when his parents said, "If everyone else jumped off a bridge, would that make it right?"

And in the Post story linked above, note the use of an unsourced quote, attributed only to a "Republican," complimenting John Kerry. The praise lacks any real substance -- why was so important as to justify a blind quote from a nameless "Republican" who "admires Kerry"? [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Housewives, Relax Liberated Woman 'Got Your Back'! Desperate Democrats say and do desperate things. In an interview published Wednesday in USA Today, the newspaper asked the wife of Democratic candidate John Kerry if she would be different from Laura Bush as a first lady.

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job ˜ I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."

Heinz Kerry said she sees her age as a benefit she is 66 and Bush 57. "I'm older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about," she said.

Tuesday, on ABC's "The View", Teresa told a story of looking into the eyes of Laura Bush after the third and final debate and telling her, "it'll be over soon...it'll all be over very soon." They she gave her a hug of comfort, "much like a mother does for her daughter".

After Teresa's outburst to USA Today, she offered this statement; "I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are. I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

One wonders what she would be like as the First Lady. What kind of statements would this woman offer over four years of microscopic attention? Another area of danger and great concern for America.

From the pages of the hot new sitcom, "Desperate Housewives", Teresa ignores Laura Bush's 'work' and success as a MOTHER, as well as a librarian and teacher.

Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, criticized Heinz Kerry's remarks as "indicative of an unfortunate mind-set that seeks to divide women based on who works at home and who works outside the home."

A trend from the liberal left; a stay-at-home-mother does NOT know what the real world is like. They should be ignored and patronized...pat them on their heads, call them 'Security Moms' and encourage them tol leave the heavy lifting to the liberated woman of America.

[10/20/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 9:05 am [link]
Arnold Turns: It looks like Arnold's going to support state-funded stem cell research. Funny, there's another proposition on the ballot that would eliminate partisan primaries, so that the general electoin ballot would contain the names of only the top two candidates, regardless of party. And the governor supports that one, too.

Coincidence? Of course not. If there's an open primary, Arnold Schwarzenegger doesn't have to bother with the Republicans . . . he can be as liberal as he wants, without the fear that he could be denied his party's nomination.

Something's smelling rotten in Sacramento. And the stench, for once, isn't coming from the Legislature.

[Chuck McVey] 9:04 am [link]
Go East: 95 Percent of the time, Fareed Zakaria just misses the point. He is smart, he is erudite, but he is not wise. But like that Skinner rat that pushes the lever for the 5 percent reward, I read him. Given those odds and this piece (What Bush and Kerry Missed - The West has long taken Asia for granted...), I guess I can skip reading him for the rest of the year.

So while the American Left is looking to a Western Europe that is in sharp decline, and while we are engaged in a war of civilizations in the Middle East and Kerry wants to capitulate, China keeps moving around under the covers.

For example… the high-tech military… remember the recent shutout of American frontline jet fighters by the Indian Air Force?

[10/19/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:09 am [link]
It's John Kerry v. Reality. Tommy Franks sets him straight on his Tora Bora prevarications (here). That's after Richard Lugar complained about Kerry misusing his comments (here). And that's after the nation's largest police labor union called on Kerry to stop misrepresenting their support (here). Kerry doesn't seem to do well under pressure, does he? [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:08 am [link]
Where is the Governor Wrong? He has endorsed Props 71 (Stem Cell Research) and 62 (Open Primary Elections) for this November 2nd. In both cases, I believe the governor is wrong.

Prop 71 for Stem Cell Research is $3 billion for 'venture capitalist's who own stock in stem cell research companies who will be offered the (our) money for this research. They will sell their stocks as soon as Prop 71 passes, with little success toward research and development.

(On a moral front, I'm also against embryonic stem cell research, adult stem cells are comparatively more successful and morally, ethically sound.)

In representing Prop 62, the governor is opening up the state for a single party domination versus competition. You take out the 'party platform and muscle' out of the equation and you hand the "majority party" the 'eternal domination' at the time of this propositions passing.

BTW...what would we do at budget time? With the party establishment inside of a constitutional super majority budget vote, this state has the ability for dramatic change - like the recalling of a governor at the time his majority party wanted to raise taxed during a $38 billion hole!

Prop 62 is a too radical, better to go with re-districting and a part time legislature...it's coming folks, hang on!

[10/18/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Florida's New Problem: New Problem in Florida...get ready for major problems on election night IF this election is close! Last Friday I did an entire show featuring callers who have been threatened and feared by "Anti-Bush" voters.

Hugh Hewitt says it best with the title of his new book, "If It's Not Close They Can't Cheat"...well...here is another story from Drudge featuring the balloting in Florida.

I'm greatly concerned about violence (rioting) come election night. This campaign has been emotional and passionate. The viewpoints are more than opinions, they are full of identity. We could see a threat to the Republic if cooler heads don't prevail in close contests throughout the country.

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
Kerry, "The World Wants Bush Out!" Most European publications are hard to determine, but this column in the Daily Times is a very interesting read. John Kerry is again touting his 'global impact' for the US in this election.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry late Friday proclaimed that the world wants President George W. Bush out of the White House and the return of the United States “they know and love.”

In a new swipe at Republican Bush’s muscular foreign policy, Kerry renewed his pledge to return the United States to the internationalism that marked its foreign policy for the second half of the 20th century. “The world is waiting for the United States of America they know and love,” Kerry told some 5,000 supporters at a rally that capped a day-long bus tour of this midwestern state.

“The United States of America is most effective ... when we have friends and allies by our side and we move with other nations.”

[10/15/04 Friday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Maybe Bush... Mickey Kaus has one of the pithiest and most insightful comments coming out of last night's debate: "My gut tells me that, contrary to voluminous polling data, many voters are looking for reassurance that it's OK to reelect Bush. If so, I think he gave them that reassurance."

One of the most lasting issues in coverage of the debate is Kerry's slimy reference to Mary Cheney. But apparently, the Democrats don't know when it's time to cut their losses. Elizabeth Edwards, who until now hasn't put a foot wrong, chimed in this morning with the following assertion: "She's overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs… I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences."

Wow, great way to make things worse. Attacking a mother who's standing up for her daughter isn't the best way to win votes or sympathy. It was a low down, sneaky trick on Kerry's part -- and the best way for the Kerry-Edwards people to get behind it would be to apologize if any offense were inadvertantly caused.

But they won't -- and now lots of middle of the road voters have a solid reason to justify their hitherto-indefinable dislike for the Kerry-Edwards team. [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
KOVR 13 and "Stolen Honor" KOVR Channel 13, the Sacramento Sinclair Broadcasting TV Station, has confirmed that "Stolen Honor" will be televised on Saturday, October 23 starting at 7PM. It will run for the hour, with a short roundtable discussion to conclude.

Dan Mellon, the TV Station's GM, was none to happy with his 'mother company' and Mark Hyman's (VP of Affiliate Relations) mandating this release. Mellon shared his displeasure by stating, "30% of his people support the idea, 30% disagre strongly and 40% don't care at all...so it is really a small percentage that really cares about this documentary."

Well, isn't that some 'fuzzy math'. Mellon's is obviously focusing on the 30% that are supportive. Maybe he should consider that 60% have a strong opinion out of the gate - before seeing the film. Seems to me that 60% is a majority Mr. Mellon.

[10/14/04 Thursday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Bush is the Real Strong Closer A clear win for President Bush. Yes, he was a little flummoxed (understandably) by the bizarre question about the flu vaccine, and he should have explained a little better about why the minimum wage costs jobs, he could have emoted a bit more about affirmative action (explaining how he supports opportunity for all people, as all people should), but I quibble.

President Bush landed the heavy blows and Kerry didn't look so good. Kerry was pale and sweaty, and kept going back to answer previous questions -- not a sign of confidence. Just as "I've been consistent" is a signifier that, in fact, Kerry hasn't been consistent on whatever issue is at hand, he kept saying "I respect" everything that he, in fact, has shown little sign of respecting, such as the right to life or the importance of religious faith. (And while Kerry was quoting the Bible, he got it wrong, saying "Thou shalt love thy God with all thy heart and body and soul" -- it's all thy heart, all soul and all thy mind).

The story of Kerry in the debates has been the story of pandering. He won't raise taxes, but he's going to give health care to everyone, and he won't raise taxes on anyone over $200,000 but he's going to raise the minimum wage to $7.00. Where is the "leadership" or the "tough choices"? AWOL, just like any meaningful Kerry legislation in twenty years in the Senate.

Where Kerry really lost it was on abortion and gay marriage. About whether homosexuality is a choice, President Bush was willing to say "I don't know" -- but to explain that the issue is the sanctity of marriage, and the willingness of activist judges to redefine it against the will of the people. Kerry took the low road by discussing Mary Cheney -- reflecting, I believe, the stereotype on the left that holds that the "religious right" will be upset about Cheney having a gay daughter). And what was interesting was to hear Kerry talk about situations where women find out they are married to gay men -- kind of an odd digression, designed (as most of his pitch was) to appeal to women.

On the abortion/stem cell question, he basically admitted that he disagrees with Church teaching, and said in one breath that "I cannot legislate an article of faith" but then went on to say, in effect, that everything he does has to be "guided by faith but not based on it" (huh)? President Bush also landed a solid blow on Kerry about opposing the ban on partial birth abortion.

In fact, Bush came after Kerry tonight -- in a very low-key, woman-friendly way -- and landed a lot of blows on him:

--Bush will stay on offense in war on terror; Kerry is for a "global test"
--He nailed Kerry on voting against tax cuts 127 times, and for busting the budget caps 277 times;
--Kerry opposed DOMA;
--Kerry voted against the partial birth abortion ban;
--Kerry has no record of leadership on health care -- 20 years and no bills;
--Kerry plan will cost $1.2 trillion and lead to a government takeover of health care, which in turn will lead to rationing and less choice;
--Kerry voted to tax social security;
--Kerry voted for amnesty for illegal immigrants;
--Kerry has no plan to relieve what he has called a "back door draft"
--Kerry voted against the first Gulf War, despite all the countries in the coalition.

It's interesting that usually it's the challenger who's talking about the future; tonight, it was the President. All Kerry has done is criticize the past, and for all the dialogue about "I have a plan", well, we didn't hear one about anything except health care, and that was shown convincingly to be deeply flawed.

Kerry has no plan:

--On Iraq (at least one that's different from the President);
--For Social Security;
--On immigration reform (aside from the age-old invocation of cracking down on employers).

And the questions that Bob Schieffer thought might be hard for the President -- on the role of religion in his leadership, and on women -- the President knocked out of the park. He was warm, self-deprecating, and his answer on the religious question allowed America to look right into his heart. He connected; he was fantastic.

Thank you, Mr. President. Great job. [Liebau Blog]

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, CRO contributor] 12:01 am [link]
Gitmo Recidivists There's been a hue and cry about releasing the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so this is now taking place. But two recent developments concerning former inmates should prompt the U.S. government to rethink this incautious policy:

• Abdul Ghaffar, an Afghan, returned to Afghanistan and rejoined the Taliban as a commander. He was killed in a raid by Afghan security forces on Sept. 25 in Uruzgan.
• Slimane Hadj Abderahmane, a Dane, 31, announced on Danish television on Sept. 29 that he plans to hide from the Danish authorities until he can get to Chechnya where he will fight the Russians in the jihad there. As for the agreement he signed with the U.S. authorities promising not to engage in terrorist activity, he said, "This document is toilet paper for the Americans if they want it."

The Wall Street Journal reports (for a free posting of the editorial, try this) that a total of 202 prisoners have been released from Guantánamo - 146 released and 56 transferred to the control of their home governments. It then goes on to argue:

The Taliban and others swept up during the Afghan War were gradually transformed in much of the media coverage into misunderstood innocents being held by a U.S. government bent on ignoring the Constitution. Never mind that there's a war on, and that most of these men are determined and deceptive killers.

This political campaign culminated in this year's Supreme Court decision that gave the Guantánamo prisoners the right to challenge their detentions in federal court. About 70 prisoners have done so already. Sandra Day O'Connor notwithstanding, we still find it hard to imagine that a federal judge can do a better job than the executive branch of deciding whether or not a prisoner remains dangerous.

Thanks in part to the Supreme Court, another prisoner who will soon be free is Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S.-born enemy combatant who is to be shipped home to Saudi Arabia but will not be put under detention there. Hamdi was captured on a battlefield in Afghanistan in 2001 with an AK-47 in his hands. Let's hope the next time we hear about him it won't be because he too is once again trying to kill Americans.

[10/13/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Apologies? Professor Keith Burger-Jackson comments on the whole "Bush won't apologize" meme on his blog AnalPhilospher.blogspot.com. Professor Burgess Jackson opines that "until you persuade President Bush that he made a mistake, he has nothing to apologize for," and I tend to agree.

It's hard to believe the whole left-liberal insistence that women, in particular, are offended by the President's refusal to apologize. The myth being propagated is that the President is reminding women of a trait they dislike in their own husbands. But if -- as we were told -- women were charmed throughout the '90's by a skirt-chasing, promise-breaking, smooth-talking southern President who left a string of maligned or abandoned women in his wake, it's hard to believe that they are holding their Presidents to the same standards to which they hold their husbands.

There is one other way to think about this entire matter. There are apologies, and there are expressions of empathy. The former ("I'm sorry I lost my temper") is an admission of fault and an implicit request for forgiveness. The latter ("I'm sorry you have a headache") is not an admission of fault -- rather, it's a recognition of another person's feelings.

By separating the two functions of "I'm sorry," the President might be able to lay this whole situation to rest as follows:

"I'm not sorry that I made the decision to invade Iraq -- I believed then and I believe now that it was vital to help keep American families safe. But am I sorry that people have died? Of course; one of the most difficult things any President does is to send our nation's finest young people into combat -- and then try to comfort their families if they are called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Am I sorry that our intelligence -- the same intelligence as my predecessor and my opponent relied on -- was flawed? It goes without saying, and we are going to get that fixed. Am I sorry that -- as in every previous military engagement America has undertaken -- things haven't always gone perfectly? No question. I regret all of those things, and I take responsibility for everything that takes place on my watch.

But I will never apologize for pushing for every single measure that, in my judgment, will help prevent another attack against innocent civilians in our homeland." [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
Shelley's Abuse of the Military VoteMore news on the Kevin Shelley abuse of HAVA Funds in California. I have been investigating the oversight of the HAVA Funds for the military absentee vote and David Drucker of the LA Daily News has stumbled upon the issue as well. Read his column here.

The California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials said measures passed by Congress in 2002 to ensure that ballots are accurate and that all votes are counted have not been properly implemented by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, who already faces accusations of misusing voter education funds to enhance his image and help the Democratic Party. Required actions to improve voter access for the disabled and military personnel serving overseas also were not taken, officials said.

Required actions to improve voter access for the disabled and military personnel serving overseas also were not taken, officials said.

Now, three weeks before the Nov. 2 presidential vote, county elections officials say Shelley has failed to implement several HAVA requirements, leaving California's 58 counties unable to comply with many provisions of the 2-year-old law.

Not establishing a contact office at the state level to provide voter-registration and absentee-ballot information to military personnel serving overseas. Although overseas voting began Sept. 3, there is still no such office, despite a Jan. 1, 2004, deadline for its creation.

Miller said a military personnel clearinghouse has been operational since Jan. 1, but a surprised McCormack said registrars were not made aware of this.

Said Trout: "If that's the case, it must be a military secret."

[10/12/04 Tuesday]

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 1:05 pm [link]
Interesting? Well, yes, I guess so. In a Tuesday WSJ op-ed piece, former Mass governor WIlliam Weld (loser to John Kerry in a Senate race) commented on a Kerry presidency (I know, it's as hard to write those words as to read them). In discussing how Kerry might do in the war on terror (words not actually used by Weld) he referred to 'far greater reliance on diplomacy in international affairs, [than Bush] which could strike some as overcautious or insufficiently muscular, but it would be interesting to see what would happen.' (emphasis mine).

Did Governor Weld think it 'interesting' when the Twin Towers went down, or when innocents had their heads brutally cut off? Does he find car bombs and possible chemical, biological or nuclear attacks on America 'interesting'? Considering the utter seriousness of the situation his phraseology and impersonal, distant speculation strike me as banal at best and clueless at worst.

I've consistently said that 'moderate' Republicans are more dangerous than liberal Democrats. Weld does nothing to change my mind with this nonsense. Fortunately Weld finally recovers his senses when he concludes his rambling discourse with the prediction that 'after George Bush has lost the debates on style, he will win the election on substance.' And non-entities like Weld will fade away until the next election cycle.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
The Kerry's Tax Dodge Side-step: The Drudge Report has linked to this story in The Wall Street Journal (subscribers only). It looks like John and Teresa Kerry have availed themselves so thoroughly of creative tax laws designed to benefit the "top out of sight" wealthy that they paid an effective tax rate of only 12.8% on their income for 2003. The average middle class taxpayer paid 20%, and President and Mrs. Bush (who had 1/10 of the income that the Kerrys reported) paid 30.4%.

Now, Kerry has never been known for his generosity. As Byron York reported here back in March on National Review Online,

In 1995, according to published reports, Kerry reported a taxable income of $126,179, and charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he reported income of $127,884, and charitable donations of $2,039. In 1993, he reported income of $130,345, and contributions of $175. In 1992, he reported income of $127,646, and contributions of $820. In 1991, he reported income of $113,857, and contributions of $0.

Granted, his wallet opened a little farther after 1995, when he married Teresa Kerry. But it seems as though Kerry thinks taxes are for "the little [rich] people" who make $200,000, not those who enjoy a $6 million yearly income like he does. Could that be why he has no aversion to raising taxes on "the rich"?

One more thing: The other night, in answering the question about abortion, John Kerry said, "I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith." Then how is it that he can vote for a progressive income tax that forces "the rich" to pay a higher percentage of their income than the middle class does? Isn't that nothing more than an "article of faith" with Kerry, that those who have more should pay more?

Well, judging from the Journal piece today, maybe not... [Liebau Blog]

[Cliff Kincaid columnist & Don Irvine] 12:01 am [link]
George Soros and John Kerry:The first of many anti-Bush ads purchased by George Soros appeared in the Wall Street Journal at the end of September. Some of the questionable statements made in the ad concern Soros himself. He described himself as someone who “accumulated a large fortune through an international investment fund.” In fact, he is a billionaire and his “investment fund” is not available to investors like you or me.

There are some interesting facts about the ad itself. It was two full pages. It was placed in the “gutter” of the paper, which is the section that enables the two pages to be opened and pulled out at once. One page alone costs $177,000. The special placement was another 25 percent. So the full cost of the Soros ad was over $400,000. Similar ads will run in newspapers in a dozen or more cities. The Journal is supposed to insist that the ads it publishes, like its news stories, are backed up with facts. But Soros accused Bush of managing “to suppress all dissent” after 9/11. That’s false and absurd. It also appears that the facts are being suppressed about Soros and what his “investment fund” is all about.

This “investment fund” is actually a hedge fund. The Securities and Exchange Commission points out that “…unlike mutual funds, hedge funds are not registered with the SEC. This means that hedge funds are subject to very few regulatory controls. In addition, many hedge fund managers are not required to register with the SEC and therefore are not subject to regular SEC oversight… The SEC can take action against a hedge fund that defrauds investors, and we have brought a number of fraud cases involving hedge funds.”
In September 1998 the Federal Reserve bailed out Long-Term Financial Management, a very large hedge fund about to go bankrupt, with over $3.6 billion. The Fed intervened because it was concerned about the impact on world financial markets if the hedge fund failed. A manager of a New York-based hedge fund, the Sterling Watters Group, was recently indicted on charges of financial fraud.

What would Soros demand from a Kerry Administration in return for his backing of Kerry and the Democratic Party? A possible answer is continued lax or absent oversight and scrutiny from the SEC. In fact, one of the Soros companies is a member of the Managed Funds Association, which describes itself as “the global voice for the hedge fund industry,” and is now actively fighting an SEC proposal to impose more regulation on hedge-fund managers. The MFA represents 34 hedge funds that manage some $800 billion.

Some of the biggest Kerry supporters and fundraisers are hedge-fund managers. They include Orin Kramer, a partner at Kramer Spellman LP, a New York-based hedge fund, and James Chanos, the President of Kynikos Associates. Chanos was one of several wealthy Kerry backers who attended a New York Kerry fundraiser in the Park Avenue apartment of Blair Effron, vice-chairman of UBS Investment Bank. The Wall Street Journal noted that Kerry Is “courting” the super-rich while “using populist corporate-bashing rhetoric to woo the party’s liberal base…” The super-rich includes Soros.

[10/11/04 Monday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:02 am [link]
Metaphors of terrorism: If you want to be ready for the week ahead, settle in and read this piece in The New York Times Magazine about Kerry's views on the war on terror. And then pass the piece on to anyone who might not understand what's at stake in the upcoming election.

Here are some of the "money quotes":

(1) ''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise."

This is reminiscent of Teresa Kerry's earlier comment on the July 8 edition of Larry King Live, where she noted "I think most Americans subconsciously believe something [another terror attack on the United States] is going to happen. It's a matter of when, and it's a matter of how... but, you know, Europeans have lived that way, and other people around the world have lived that way. Americans have been very safe, at least as a nation." (emphasis added).

For the Kerrys, it appears that terrorism is something that Americans should just learn to accept, like prostitution or illegal gambling. The goal is to make sure that terrorism doesn't increase -- not to stop it entirely. And if the Europeans have had to live with it, why should America be any different?

But what exactly does he mean that we should "get back to the place we were"? Are we to retreat into the ignorant complacency of the '90's -- at least until another attack is launched on American soil?

(2) How would Kerry wage a more "effective" war on terror? ''I think we can do a better job of cutting off financing, of exposing groups, of working cooperatively across the globe, of improving our intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, of training our military and deploying them differently, of specializing in special forces and special ops, of working with allies, and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

On August 7, 2004, John Kerry said the following: “I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror . . .." After being roundly ridiculed, he tried to "clarify" the remark, but he obviously meant what he said.

Kerry has always seen the war as a law-enforcement operation. During the Democratic debate that took place in Greenville, South Carolina on January 29, 2004, he argued, "The war on terror is...occasionally military. ... But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."

Senator Kerry, law enforcement is for criminals. War is for terrorists. Criminals break the laws. Terrorists who shoot children in the back and cut off the heads of bound hostages don't recognize the existence of law. You try and incarcerate the former. But you must kill the latter.

(3) And finally, don't forget that along with any President, you get the President's team: ''We're not in a war on terror, in the literal sense,'' says Richard Holbrooke, the Clinton-era diplomat who could well become Kerry's secretary of state. ''The war on terror is like saying 'the war on poverty.' It's just a metaphor." (emphasis added).

This is truly chilling. Three years ago, more Americans are murdered en masse than at Pearl Harbor, but there's not a war on. It's just a "metaphor." Let's ask Ted Olson, or the loved ones of any of the people murdered so senselessly and so brutally on 9/11 if they think those who died were just crime victims, like people who get mugged in the street.

Criminals seek money or power so that they can make money, or else they are psychopaths who murder for some deranged personal purpose of their own (like Jeffrey Dahmer or Ted Bundy). The terrorists are out to impose a murderous, oppressive and totalitarian Islamofacist ideology across the world -- yes, much as Hitler and Stalin were. And anyone who can't grasp that simple distinction has no business being anywhere near the levers of power.

Read this piece. It is a reminder of just how high the stakes in 2004 are. President Bush believes that when terrorists -- who subscribe to an ideology that embraces death and sanction the mass murder of innocents -- target America, we must hunt them down and kill them. Kerry believes that we must reason sweetly with them, in conjunction with the diplomats of the United Nations, and send law enforcement officers to apprehend them.

It's clear Kerry's views creeped out even the Times Magazine reporter -- no right-wing conservative he. Here's how the piece concluded:

"[Kerry's] less lofty vision might have seemed more satisfying -- and would have been easier to talk about in a political campaign -- in a world where the twin towers still stood."

Amen to that. Kerry's is a vision of a 9/10 America that, sadly but truly, is no more [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
Bush's Inaugural Promise How could a quote like this be missed this far into an election?… From the George W. Bush Inaugural Address on January 20, 2001:

"We will build our defense beyond challenge, lest weakness invite challenge."

"We will confront weapons of mass destruction, so that a new century is spared new horrors."

"The enemies of liberty and our country should make no mistake: America remains engaged in the world by history and by choice, shaping a balance of power that favors freedom. We will defend our allies and our interests. We will show purpose without arrogance. We will meet aggression and bad faith with resolve and strength. And to all nations, we will speak for the values that gave our nation birth."

Some 240-plus days before 9/11 and this is the presentation of leadership from George W. Bush. Has he fulfilled his inauguration address and promise in this category? You decide come November 2nd.

[10/7/04 Friday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:01 am [link]
Duelfer Report: There's a lot in this BBC summary of the key points from the Iraq Survey Group. (All quotes below are from this linked summary.)

But if you are trying to boil the discussion down to its essentials for people who don't intend to spend a long time studying the issue, here's what seems to me to be the easiest to explain:

"Saddam Hussein's goal was evading and ultimately ending UN sanctions that severely restricted what he could import into Iraq."

To achieve that end, he was busily bribing those in France, Russia and elsewhere whom he believed could help him achieve that goal. That's why both Russia and France were trying to get sanctions lifted virtually up until the beginning of the war.

"Senior Iraqi officials believed Saddam would restart a nuclear programme if UN sanctions imposed after the end of the Gulf War were halted."

AND

"Saddam Hussein never abandoned his intentions to resume efforts in chemical weapons when UN sanctions were lifted and conditions were judged favourable."

AND

"[Iraq] kept a few samples that would have been useful in starting a biological weapons programme, and it had a group of scientists knowledgeable about such weapons."

So Saddam didn't currently have nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- but he was intent on possessing them just as soon as HIS coalition of the "coerced and the bribed" succeeded in getting sanctions lifted (by the latter) so that the weapons could be developed (by the former).

Over time, if no weapons were found, how could the US have justified keeping sanctions in place? And that's what Saddam was counting on.

The bottom line: We went to war against Saddam Hussein to make sure that weapons of mass destruction didn't fall into the hands of terrorists. If we hadn't gone to war in 2003 and sanctions had been lifted, Saddam would certainly have developed those weapons. And if we had waited to fight until we had airtight proof that Saddam possessed the weapons, the only difference would be that Saddam would have used those weapons on our troops -- and possibly given them to terrorists when it became clear he would lose.

Given that Saddam intended to develop the weapons, how can John Kerry argue that it was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"? It seems that he's arguing that it would have been better to wait until Saddam had prohibited weapons and then take them away. Which is a little bit like a policeman saying that it's better to wait to apprehend a criminal AFTER he commits a murder, when there's blood on his hands, because it's easier to get a conviction. That' missing the point, isn't it? [Liebau Blog]

[10/6/04 Thursday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:05 am [link]
Shelley Ignores the Military Votes California Secretay of State Kevin Shelley has used federal dollars from the "Help America Vote Act" (HAVA) for partisan political activity to benefit himself, US Senator John Kerry and the Democrat Party.

While numerous investigations continue to circle Shelley's office, a new development of Shelley's abusive mismanagement of federal funds set aside for the military is ready to break in Sacramento.

To this point, Shelley's illegal operation hasn't grabbed the ire of the citizens of California - this 'new revelation' should wake up California.

Kevin Shelley has used nearly half a million dollars in HAVA fund for political consultants hired by his office. One of the contracts went to his campaign treasurer and another to a member of the California Democrat Party.

Shelley's selfish priorities and his partisan political activity distracted his office from ensuring that the HAVA, and its federal funding, were used to help county registrars prepare for the November election. Shelley's political misuse of the HAVA Funding has drawn the attention of the Federal Elections Assistance Commission, but citizens have not grasped the magnitude of Shelley's scandalous operation in the state's office.

Now there is a ANOTHER concern brewing involving Kevin Shelley's reluctance to oversee federal funds for California citizens vote and voice...it seems that Shelley's office, while busy spending the HAVA funds to spread his name recognition, voter registration for the Democrat Party and paying off political consultants for John Kerry and other Democrat candidates...Shelley HAS NOT fulfilled the HAVA requirement for informing, educating and preparing the vote and ballots of California's military members serving overseas.

Shelley used federal funds for his personal political desires, but never fulfilled the HAVA requirements for our military members and their right to vote through absentee ballots.

As the facts reach the surface in a story that is still being researched for full impact, I wondering what the Golden State thinks of its Sect of State denying our military the federal funding set aside to better educate, prepare and provide for their votes...the votes of those who are currently serving California in this war on terrorism, risking the ultimate sacrifice on a daily basis.

Support the troops, demand that Kevin Shelley be impeached immediately!

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:04 am [link]
Bush Prep: Here's some unsolicited advice about prepping President Bush for Friday's debate: Don't let him listen to any more of Kerry's attacks on him. This item in The Washington Times notes that there was a "trick to pump Bush up: Aides cut a highlight tape of Kerry's personal attacks on the president."

If I had been President Bush, and had listened to lies and distortions being told about me over and over again -- well, I'd be irritable, too. On an "on" day and well-rested, the memories of the slurs in the personal attacks might just add a shot of adrenaline. But on an "off," tired day like the President had last Friday, they might just make someone downright irritable -- like "here we go again with this garbage."

Hearing a little can inure one to the attacks that are coming; hearing it repeatedly can just make someone angry. And it's important that the President doesn't give the mistaken impression that he's personalizing the race. It needs to be about the American people, and who will keep them safe - not a grudge match between two men who clearly don't like each other.

President Bush knows what John Kerry has said about him. It's time for him to get ready to bring the fight to John Kerry and his record of appeasement in the Senate. [Liebau Blog]

[10/6/04 Wednesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:10 am [link]
Post-VP debate: It was a treat to have the opportunity to be on LA’s 790 KABC with Al Rantel to comment after the debates. In the 8:30 half hour, Mr. KABC joined in, as well -- which was fun.

My analysis? The best simile would be that of a grave Great Dane sweeping a yappy Chihuahua aside with one sweep of his mighty paw (it's hard to believe there's only a 12-year age difference between the two men). Edwards didn't collapse -- but he certainly did nothing to further the illusion of momentum that the Kerry campaign has been trying to create since last Thursday's debate.

It was clear that, for Cheney, none of this was "about him." He didn't waste time responding to Edwards' inaccurate attacks on Halliburton -- or on his own Congressional record. And he didn't use all his rebuttals, which seemed to signify an attitude of confidence in the efficacy of his own previously stated answers.

The best moment of the debate was when Cheney, in righteous wrath, rebuked Edwards for failing to count the lives of Iraqis that have been lost in the effort to establish a terrorist-free democracy. And brought up Kerry's disgraceful treatment of Prime Minister Allawi.

"Rebuke" is the appropriate word -- where Edwards appeared to "attack" repeatedly, Cheney seemed to scold Edwards from a position of superior experience and authority. Nor was it a great moment for Edwards when Cheney pointed out his record of absence from the Senate; it highlighted just how little experience in public affairs Edwards actually has. Edwards' attack on Cheney's record didn't get him far; frankly, that's old news.

Edwards' mantra/soundbite was designed to be that experience doesn't equal judgment (clearly, he was expecting Cheney to tout his own experience more than he did), but the problem is this: He couldn't explain what Kerry's now-famous "global test" is, and he kept insisting that "we have a plan" -- without ever stating ANY plan's particulars, either on the domestic or foreign affairs side. When pressed, the two points he presented for the Iraq "plan" was to speed up the training and speed up the reconstruction. That's the best they've got???

Cheney speaks to the American people like they're adults; it's actually refreshing to see someone who isn't worried about how "nice" people think he is, so long as he gets the job done. In contrast, Edwards approaches voters like they're a jury that can be convinced by honeyed words alone. For all the press who has tried to document the President's alleged use of "code words" to appeal to people of faith, it's worth pointing out that Edwards subtly picked up on Dean's appeal ("you have the power") in his closing statement -- a clear extended hand to the Deaniacs who might be disenchanted with the ticket.

The upshot? A clear and convincing Cheney victory -- or at least a performance decisive enough to return Kerry/Edwards to the defensive. For me, at least, after awhile, Edwards' "southern fried schtick" started to wear a little thin. And he certainly didn't look like someone who should be sitting at the head of the table in the Situation Room. Which, again, reminds us that he was picked not for his knowledge or experience, but for his "charm." And that returns us to the point that Kerry is more serious about winning the election than winning the war on terror. [Liebau Blog]

[Chuck DeVore - columnist] 12:09 am [link]
VP Debate "...how can we expect them (Kerry and Edwards) to stand up to al-Qaida?" The best line in tonight's Veep debate, came from the Vice President when he discussed Senators Kerry and Edwards flip-flopping on the vote for the $87 billion for Iraq. Cheney explained how former Vermont Governor Howard Dean was leading the race for the Democrat's nomination based on an antiwar platform when Kerry and Edwards, both then candidates for President, reversed their initial votes to support President Bush:

"If they couldn't stand up to pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to al-Qaida?"

Other great moments in the debate Mr. Cheney clearly won include the Vice President's slam on Sen. Kerry's "global test" Cheney said that Kerry's comment was part of a record that led Kerry to oppose the first Persian Gulf War in 1991 and "always being on the wrong side" of defense issues.

Even the moderator posed a question to Sen. Edwards that was prefaced with the fact that Edwards had the least government experience of any nominee for VP for the last 10 elections! Along the same lines, the Vice President said, "Frankly, senator, you have a record that's not very distinguished," citing Edwards for a pattern of absences during his single term in the Senate and mentioning that debate night was the first time Cheney had ever met him -- and Dick Cheney is the presiding officer of the Senate!

The Cheney-Edwards debate gave me the impression of a high school debate champion arguing with a very effective, wise and experienced vice president who actually could -- God forbid -- function as President if the need ever arose.

Chuck DeVore is the Republican nominee in California's 70th Assembly District. www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Gordon Cucullu - author, columnist] 12:05 am [link]
Troops, Troops, Troops: In the presidential debates and in the news we are hearing a lot about troop strength in Iraq. Mostly we hear 'not enough.' What we don't seem to recall is that at the time of the attack the US and UK plan called for the 4th US Infantry Division to attack south from Turkey along with a reinforced brigade of UK troops. That attack would have decimated the Sunni-based Republican Guard divisions in the infamous Sunni Triangle along with the residual Baathists and Feydayeen Saddam who now comprise the majority of the terrorists attacking us. It would have brought the war home to many of the Sunni supporters of Saddam who escaped with relatively little damage and missed seeing the awesome power of a full-blown US campaign.

Once Turkey pulled the plug on using it as a launching platform the best we could do was to bring the 4th up from the south. The division actually entered Iraq after major combat was over. We dropped the 187th Airborne Brigade into northern Iraq to pin down the Guard divisions (and keep Turkey honest in regard to a rip-off of Kurdish territory while units were occupied elsewhere). That was a vital stroke but not enough to decimate the enemy sufficiently.
The complaints and accusations aimed at Rumsfeld and the Pentagon planners and hence at Bush, have enough of a germ of truth to be believable but are not complete enough to be comprehensive and totally honest. And that, in a nutshell, encapsulates the entire Democrat campaign strategy.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:01 am [link]
Why Iraq: According to this article in the New York Sun, Saddam Hussein was using a secret oil voucher distribution system to bribe countries to support Iraq's bid to eliminate sanctions AND raise money for the purchase of prohibited weapons. The article also notes that Saddam was only 6 months away from having mustard gas, and significant quantities of nerve agents within two years. He also had the brainpower within his dictatorship to assemble a nuclear bomb.

The piece makes several things abundantly clear. John Kerry and other Democrats want Americans to believe that, before the war, Saddam was somehow "contained" or "in a box." The terms are misleading, as they imply inactivity. As information continues to trickle out, it's becoming increasingly clear that Saddam was VERY active -- he was engaged in a secret bribery campaign to get the sanctions lifted, so that he could, indeed, purchase or reconstitute his weapons programs as soon as no one was looking. And some of these weapons could have presented a significant threat pretty quickly (especially if the mustard gas or nerve agents were passed on to terrorists to be used in, say, Manhattan during the Thanksgiving Day Parade or some event like that).

If the US had allowed the status quo to continue -- and don't forget that Saddam's army was firing on our planes almost daily -- it would have become very difficult politically to resist the call for sanctions to be lifted, especially if no WMD were found by the credulous Mr. Blix and his happy gang. And six months later, Saddam could have provided terrorists with mustard gas.

But it's the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." Right. Remarks like that show Kerry and Edwards are not only opportunists and flip-floppers (remember that Edwards, too, voted for the war and then against the $87 billion appropriation -- and called Saddam an "imminent threat"), they are deeply unserious about America's safety. [Liebau Blog]

[10/5/04 Tuesday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:05 am [link]
Shameless Self Promotion Moment: For those in Los Angeles, I will be on KABC (AM 790) radio with host Al Rantel to analyze the vice presidential debate tonight immediately after it concludes.

On to the debate itself: Edwards is a smooth talker, and not to be underestimated. He is likable and glib. Even so, he has a much more difficult task than the Vice President. In some sense, it doesn't matter to Cheney whether he's "liked" as long as he's effective -- he's not planning to run for anything in four years. But Edwards is all about 2008, which is why he's been so reluctant to play the traditional role of a vice presidential candidate and engage in sustained attacks on the opponent (he was, after all, completely AWOL in the whole Swift Boat debate during the month of August . . . don't want to run those negatives up before the next primary campaign season!).

Tonight, he must walk a tightrope. Again, he doesn't want to drive up his own negatives and lose his image as the "positive" candidate; at the same time, he must be tough enough that he doesn't alienate and disgust the Democratic partisans who, in 2008, will have a lot to say about how well he does in those early primaries (including the earliest -- the "money primary"). Jack Kemp lost a lot of Republican good will during his debate with Al Gore in 1996; lots of disappointed partisans concluded that he cared more about seeming like a good guy than in having his ticket win. Edwards won't want to make the same mistake.

All this analysis, of course, sets aside the fact that it seems pretty obvious, barring some unforeseen event, that Hillary Clinton will be the 2008 Democratic nominee (whether that's good for the Dems is a subject for another day). What's going to be interesting is watching how Edwards threads the needle on this one -- and watching Cheney likely eviscerate him with a minimum of fuss. Good hair and an ingratiating style get you only so far. [Liebau Blog]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:01 am [link]
Recalling Recall: This Thursday, October 7th, is the one year anniversary of the "Recall Election" that saw California complete the historical removal of Governor Gray Davis for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

From the birth of the Recall, (February 3rd on 1380 KTKZ), to the election landslide victory by Schwarzenegger on October 7th, the conversation was, "What will happen to the direction and the future of California 'IF' this recall actually works and Davis is removed from office?"

Add to the mix the consternation surrounding Arnold Schwarzenegger's insertion into the race on the "Tonight Show" with Jay Leno, trumping conservative Republican Tom McClintock...the prognostication was 'bashfully hopeful' at best for a successful 2004 in Sacramento.

As we look back this Thursday the recall effort is a huge success. California's budget 'red ink' has faded from $35 billion to $11.5 billion in one fiscal year of maturity, self control and government accountability! The state is growing revenue through sales and business is coming back to the Golden State with dreams of acquiring more gold once again.

After Arnold took out the "Schwarpie" this past week and vetoed more liberal legislation in the "Belly of the Beast" since Ronald Reagan, the citizens of California should be proud of themselves. This governor has the trust of nearly 68% of the voters in this state. He IS a fiscal conservative and he is exactly what the doctor ordered for the 'liberal virus' that infects the Capitol and the majority leadership in the legislature.

Happy Anniversary California, pat yourself on the back!

[10/4/04 Monday]

[Eric Hogue - radio talk show host KTKZ - Sacramento] 12:02 am [link]
Is Kerry a Real Life Sedgewick Bell?   Surrounding the story of John Kerry using a 'cheat sheet' during last Thursday's debates, I was drawn to a movie called "The Emperor's Club", starring Kevin Kline as Professor William Hundert.

The story centers on a politican's son (Sedgewick Bell) who breaks every rule and performs every cheating angle to get what he wants the most - respect and evetually, political power!

During the movie Professor Hundert (Kline) offers a strong quote in reference to a young Sedgewick Bell, Hundert syas, "A man's character is his fate."

If this story of John Kerry's 'cheating angle' is true, John Kerry has become the embodiment of Sedgewick Bell.  

[Daniel Pipes - author, activist, CRO contributor] 12:01 am [link]
The British Response to a Hostage: Taking I noted recently in Two Opposite Responses to Terrorism the supine reaction of the French government when two of its citizens were abducted in Iraq, specifically the fact that for a while during this episode, "Islamic organizations effectively took charge of the country's foreign policy."

Not surprisingly, the abduction of a British citizen in Iraq, the engineer Kenneth Bigley, led the Blair government to go even further down the road toward servility and dhimmitude. It rounded up two Islamists, Daud Abdullah and Musharraf Hussain and, in the description of the Times (London), frantically rushed them to Baghdad on Sept. 24. There, they enjoyed the protection of their government, "ferried to meetings outside the relative safety of the American-protected green zone by the British Embassy, wearing bullet-proof jackets and protected by armed British guards."

Abdullah and Hussain then spoke at a televised press conference. And what did they have to say?

They addressed the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the Tawhid wal-Jihad group and someone described by the Times as "the mastermind behind scores of suicide car bombings that have killed hundreds of Iraqis as well, as the beheading of several foreign hostages." Abdullah declared that by releasing Bigley, "You will not only be rewarded by Allah, but your sins will be covered up and you will be forgiven for all your wrongdoings." He proceeded to attack his own government and sponsor: "Whatever the mistakes, errors, sins or crimes the British Government committed, we do not believe a British national should be held responsible."

For good measure, the delegation brought a letter from Yusuf Islam, the former Cat Stevens recently deported from the United States for his support of terrorism; Islam called for Bigley's release "in the name of Allah."

Fortunately, one British Muslim leader spoke out against this nonsense, that being Labour peer Baroness Uddin . "I hope that we have arrived at a juncture in grown-up politics where we do not have to rely on futile gestures like this, or a stunt like this, to demonstrate how seriously the Muslim community abhors the actions of such terrorists and how they are truly British citizens."

[10/1/04 Friday]

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 2:20 pm [link]
Democrats don't get it. Their bloggers are howling over a new video the party has put out called the "faces of frustration." They think they can make President Bush in '04 look like the jerk that Gore was in '02.

Nice try. But for all the confused Dems out there (how's THAT for some Kerryan condescension?) here's the difference: Gore was sighing to imply that then candidate-Bush's responses were ignorant and stupid. The move played fine at the time among the pundits, but regular people found it arrogant and nasty.

Last night, President Bush was irritated and frustrated by a man who has two positions on every issue -- but worse than that, one who slanders our allies (the "coalition of the coerced and the bribed") and our mission ("the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time") even as fighting rages on and our troops' lives are at stake.

Frustrated? You bet. Angry? Absolutely. President Bush doesn't appreciate Kerry making a difficult mission more difficult by emboldening our allies and disheartening our troops. THAT's what The White House should be making clear this morning.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 9:20 am [link]
Debate Round 1.1: It does occur to me that all the crowing about how well Kerry did is premature. After all, what was his big achievement? A month before the election, he has managed to articulate a coherent -- though dishonest -- critique about current policy in Iraq. Big deal. What would HE do there? He can't "outsource" (a word he likes to use) since his allies in France and Germany have already said they won't help no matter who's president. Will he just withdraw? He says not, but he makes it clear that he has no stomach for "going it alone" (with the 30 other counties that are there). The only place he wants to "go it alone" is in talks with North Korea . . . as John McCain pointed out, he's adopted a policy that no other US President has shared -- that we should be engaged in bilateral negotiations with a country that wants to blackmail us.

All we do know is that he doesn't see America as any different than our adversaries -- or at least not different enough that we can be trusted with "bunker buster" nuclear missiles. What is THAT? We were the only country who had a nuclear bomb after WWII -- but I guess Kerry thinks something's changed, and if Iran can't have it, neither should we.

In a larger sense, he doesn't see anything exceptional about America. We shouldn't be in Iraq unless Germany and France are with us. We shouldn't be contributing more money to rebuild Iraq (and spread democracy in the region) than any other country. His would have been a nice approach in the days of the Marshall Plan . . . I guess the only exception is bribing North Korea and Iran for a temporary "halt" of their nuclear ambitions -- exactly the kind of approach that hornswaggled Jimmy Carter et al back in 1994 in N Korea.

Give me a break. We learned nothing from Kerry last night -- except that he's a good debater. That's nice, but it won't keep our families safe.

[Carol Platt Liebau - editorial director CaliforniaRepublic.org] 12:01 am [link]
Debate Round 1.0: A lot of ink is always spilled talking about "the advantages of incumbency." But there is also an advantage to being a challenger: No accountability. You can tell everyone that "we can do better" or that "I would have done that differently" or "this would not happen on my watch." You can redirect the "tax cuts for the rich" to homeland security, or health care, or whatever sounds good at the moment. And you don't have to defend the tough choices that come with leadership.

Did Bush put away the election last night? I don't think so. For an hour and a half, Kerry reined in his condescension and did a credible job of sounding like he had some clue about foreign policy -- at least today. There are at least two good ads that could come out of this, though. One is the line where he says, "I have been consistent on this policy" [on Iraq]. All an ad would have to do is say, "Really?" and then show his long history of flip flops. The other is when Kerry started to talk about "global tests." The President made it clear that the only test he's interested in is protecting the American people. That pretty much puts it in a nutshell.

The debate was close to a draw, which is good for the President. But Kerry did well enough to give his spinners some talking points for the next couple days, and to keep people like Josh Marshall from taking cyanide.

But there is one acid test, and it came, actually, from Chris Matthews. He said, "Can you explain Senator Kerry's position on Iraq in a couple of sentences?" And the answer is still no. The takeaway seems to be that he voted for a war that he has deemed to be the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that with this opinion, through the sheer force of personality, he will convince others to join us in the debacle.

And, by the way, President Bush (the supposed moron) caught Senator Kerry (the supposed genius) in at least two mistakes: One is when he forgot that Poland was part of the Coalition of the Willing. Nice oversight from the alleged Master of Diplomacy. The other was when Kerry condemned the US for entering into unilateral sanctions against Iran -- and it turned out that it happened under Clinton.

Pretty much the status quo, I think. Kerry may get a slight bounce, but in time, people will understand that any favorable impression they got of him was the political equivalent of cotton candy: Some of what he said may have seemed sweet, but there's no substance in the end.

Go to CRO Blog September 2004

Go to CRO Blog archive index