The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Ah, the good Senator took a few hours away from the nationwide Wendy's bus tour to visit with journalists at the Unity 2004 Conference for Journalists of Color, where he uttered this line...

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and
brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history.

A more sensitive war on terror? Does he plan on offering the terrorists counseling? A teddy bear? Cookies?

Look, anyone can make a simple misstatement. So maybe I should forgive that line. But here's Kerry during the Q&A, later in the session:

Specifically, what would you have done if you had been caught in a Florida
newsroom -- or, I'm sorry, a Florida classroom on September 11, 2001? Would you, given the power of hindsight, have taken the nation to war, as President Bush
has said he would, given hindsight? And lastly, what would you do to get the
nation out of Iraq, specifically?

KERRY: Great question. And I appreciate... (APPLAUSE) I'm going to
take a minute on this question, because it's one of the most important questions
facing the nation, obviously.

First of all, had I been reading to children and had my top aide whispered
in my ear, "America is under attack," I would have told those kids very politely
and nicely that the president of the United States had something that he needed
to attend to... (APPLAUSE) ... and I would have attended to it. (APPLAUSE)

Thanks for the gratuitous cheapshot, Senator. Nice positive campaign, and it's good to know that you seem to think, along with Michael Moore and the rest of the idiots, that Bush needed to jump up and walk out of the classroom to prove something. Also, am I supposed to believe this? This is John Kerry, the man who voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it. Wouldn't he be more likely to tell the kids what he said, then re-consider it sixteen times before he left the room?

Let's get back to his answer...

Secondly -- and this is important, ladies and gentlemen, because Americans
want to know that the person they choose as president has all of the skills and
the ability, all of the mental toughness, all of the gut instinct necessary to
be a strong commander in chief. I'm asking you to trust our nation, our history,
the world, your families in my hands, and I understand that. It's a big ask, and
it's a tough judgment you have to make. But I believe, in this case, there is a
very clear choice.

I come to the job of commander in chief with the rare, gratefully, but
important experience of having fought in a war. And the war that I fought in was
a war where we saw America lose its support for the war, where the soldiers came
back having had to do what our soldiers are doing today, carry an M-16 in
another country, try to tell the difference between friend and foe.
I know what it's like to go out at night on patrol and you don't know what's around the next corner. I know what it's like to write home to your family and tell them,
"Hey, everything's OK," even though in your gut you're scared stiff and you
don't know if it is OK.

And I believe we need a commander in chief who understands the test before
you send young people to war. You got to be able to look parents in the eyes if
they lose their son or daughter and say to them, "I tried to do everything in my
power to avoid this, but we had no choice as a nation, as a people, because of
the challenge to our country, to our fundamental values from a threat that was
real and imminent."

Keep in mind, Kerry supported Bill Clinton throughout Clinton's eight years in the White House. Apparently, he never thought to raise this objection while Clinton was in office. But let's continue...

I believe in my heart of hearts and in my gut that this president fails
that test in Iraq. And I know this because I, personally, and others were deeply
involved in the effort with other countries to bring them to the table. I met
with the Security Council of the United Nations in the week preceding the vote
in the Senate.

I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because, had I been president,
I would have wanted that authority, because that was the way to enforce the U.N.
resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his development of weapons of mass destruction. But the president said he would go to war as a last resort.
The president said he would exhaust the remedies of the U.N. The president said
he would build a legitimate international coalition.

Aaah, so our allies are "illegitimate." Guess what, Senator? You just insulted Great Britain, Australia, Poland, Spain, and at least twenty other countries. And let's make something clear -- I'd rather have every one of these countries on my side before France. The left's obsession with lining up more allies seems to forget that we had allies. Forget the fact that even some of those who opposed the war, like Russia, have openly stated that they agreed that Iraq presented a threat to the United States. Let's ignore all that and listen to more from Ketchup Boy:

And here we are, several years later, having made an end-run around the United Nations, alienated our allies, put our soldiers at greater risk than they needed to be, asked the American people to pay almost $200 billion, because we didn't have the patience, we didn't have the maturity to exhaust the remedies available to us and truly build that coalition and understand the nature of the threat.

My friends, I believe there is a firm conviction with which I approach defending our country. And that is that the United States of America, through all of our history, has set up a standard: The United States doesn't go to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to. And that's the standard that I will apply to the presidency. (APPLAUSE)

Excuse me? Has he even studied American history????? Did we have to go to war in Bosnia? The Persian Gulf? Grenada? Vietnam? Korea? World War I? The Spanish-American War? The Mexican War? If the history teachers in public schools could actually do their job, Kerry might not get away with this line. What a joke.

And as for an "end-run" around the U.N., we're back to coded language. What Kerry's saying is, if we follow all the U.N. procedures and rules, and they refuse to agree to go to war, then we can't go to war to defend ourselves. Let's see what else this scholar says...

Now, might we have wound up going to war with Saddam Hussein? You bet we
might have -- after we exhausted those remedies and found that he wasn't
complying and so on and so forth. But not in a way that provides -- you know, 90
percent of the casualties are American, and almost all of the cost.

And the American taxpayer, just think of that $200 billion for the schools,
for health care, for the things that we could be doing in America. The choice,
it seems to me, is clear.

Now, what do we do to get out of there? What do we do to achieve our goals
legitimately? Well, let me tell you.

Is there anybody sitting here in this room who doesn't believe that every
Arab country in fact has a real and legitimate interest in not having a failed
Iraq, in not having a civil war on its borders? But they're not at the table.

Um, nice work using the word "Arab" since that leaves out Iran, which has every interest in having an unstable Iraq. Oh, and I guess we now have a "failed Iraq." The former dictator's being put on trial. An interim government is in place. Elections are scheduled. Sorry we're going so slow, Senator -- this isn't a four month process, like your service in Vietnam. As for the Arab nations in question, does anyone doubt that they are terrified at the prospect of a free and democratic Iraq? Dictators don't enjoy the idea of freedom next door.

And on the rest of this drivel, can someone explain how much time Kerry would have given Saddam before going to war? We exhausted all our remedies and found out he wasn't complying with the U.N. resolutions. We believed he was a threat. Kerry believed he was a threat -- that's why he voted for the war. His idiotic formulation that he voted to give the President the power to do something basically says he granted the President a blank check -- which indicates a serious lack of judgment from a guy who protested the Vietnam War.

More from Teresa's husband...

Is there anybody here who believes that Europe, with its own Muslim
populations and its own geopolitical issues, as well as its global responsibilities, doesn't have an interest in not having a failed Iraq and a civil war? But they're not really at the table. And the fact that they're not, I believe, underscores dramatically the failure of diplomacy and statesmanship by this administration.

So here's what I will do; it's what I've always wanted to do, it's what
I've proposed for months: We need to have an international conference in which
we put these global issues on the table. We need to be prepared to have a
high commissioner who is responsible for the management, decision-making and
helps in the transformation so it's not an American transformation.

So that's the grand vision. An international conference -- because we all know how much those vehicles accomplish. Can we send John Edwards, with all of his vast international expertise, to represent us? Or maybe Jimmy Carter?

The failure of diplomacy bit is the most disingenuous part of this speech. Those European nations who refused to support us made their risk calculations. They didn't want to stand up to their Muslim populations, and they enjoyed the profits they were making from illicit deals with Saddam. They believed that the U.S. would be the target of aggression by radical Islamists in the future, while their appeasement would keep them safe from reprisal. So they chose not to support the war. Diplomacy doesn't change that risk calculation. Once the war was over, their decisions again factor into play their own domestic concerns and the opportunity to play power broker. Apparently, we need to give away power to people who wouldn't support the war, so they can impose their will on Iraq. Makes sense, since France and Germany have had so much success implementing new governments. But let's let Kerry finish...

We need to have a sharing of the decision-making and the responsibility,
and we need to have a sharing of the reconstruction so that other people
actually have an interest in coming to the table. And I believe that what
America needs now more than anything is a new president with new credibility,
with a fresh start for America, to bring people to the table and to leverage
appropriately our global interests in standing up for success in Iraq and for
having a shared responsibility about how we respond to terror.

The United States of America should never have allowed itself to be
isolated by Islamic extremists. We should be isolating extreme Islam. And that
means reaching out to moderate clerics and mullahs and imams and conducting a
foreign policy not just dependent on our military might, but a foreign policy
that's dependent on the power of American ideas and ideals and principles and
values. Working with other countries, my friends, in my administration
will not be the sign of weakness it is for these people. It will be a sign of
strength. And I will make America stronger.

Please excuse me while I vomit.

We're isolated because we're willing to take a stand. Liberals take pains to point out that our country had a ton of goodwill after September 11th and have seemingly squandered it. Let's start with the opening point -- we had to have 3,000 Americans killed and billions in damages done to earn that goodwill! If the tradeoff next time is a nuke in Chicago, I'd rather be hated than pitied.

Next, we're not just isolating extremist Islam -- we're tracking it down and killing it. Moderate Muslims have their chance to talk with us and work with us -- look in Afghanistan and Iraq, where Sistani and others are busy condeming the bombing of Christian churches.

Finally, Kerry thinks he will have increased credibility... to do what, exactly? He doesn't say, since he's already said his war plan is secret. But beyond that, he thinks he will be accorded more respect than the current President. Does anyone believe that a man who can't explain whether he voted for the war, whose constituency is rabidly against the war and the use of U.S. military power, and who has implicitly stated that the U.N. should have a veto on the use of U.S. military power will garner respect from the rest of the world?

We know the answer to that question. He served in Vietnam!

Jokes aside, Kerry's statements on Iraq are devoid of substance. What's worse is that the lack of substance may be all that he has.

The X-Rated Prosecution

I meant to post this yesterday, but didn't have time. I think Scott Peterson's guilty as sin, but the prosecution is losing my confidence when it decides that it needs evidence like this to convict him:

Donald Toy, who works for satellite television provider Echostar, testified earlier that Peterson added the Playboy channel to the Petersons' satellite service on Jan. 8, 2003 -- about two weeks after Laci disappeared.

"After approximately five days it was dropped, and the TENXtsy channels were added," Toy added.

TENXtsy is a "24-hour, uncensored adult channel delivering the wildest and most explicit situation the adult world has to offer," according to the Dish Network Satellite TV Web site.

Prosecutors argued that when Laci Peterson ordered the couple's satellite service in March 2001, she did not include adult channels, and that her husband's pornography orders indicate he knew she was not going to return.

Let me get this straight. Is there an acceptable time period for Peterson to have waited before ordering porn? Is there a three month rule? Are the prosecutors really suggesting that Scott killed Laci because he wanted to watch porn?

Look, all this proves is that Peterson's a slimeball. The prosecution has plenty of evidence that helps it prove that he's a slimeball, and should help it prove that he's a murderer. You know, I always thought prosectors in California got a bad rap for the Rodney King and Reginald Denny cases, to say nothing about O.J. But maybe it's deserved if they're stuck to using this kind of evidence.

Kerry Served in Vietnam... and Now It May Haunt Him

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have their new ad out against John Kerry, and it is really rough on Kerry. I'm not sure what the impact will be, especially since the ad is scheduled to get limited airplay.

My opinion... Here's the thing. I hated McCain-Feingold for any number of reasons, and I don't particularly like the so-called 527 groups that are running ads against Bush. I'm sure someone's going to complain about this ad and say it's a dirty smear by the GOP, even though the group itself has no affiliation with the GOP (just like Moveon.org has no affiliation with the Democrats). In the end, all of these independent groups will be financed by money that would have been with the parties. You can't keep cash out of politics.

But what's good for the other side has now become good for the GOP. The press spent tons of time on Bush's National Guard service, and Kerry has made his Vietnam service a main running plank in his campaign. To me, this is a legitimate line of attack on Kerry, if his campaign wants to run on this point (and the DNC struck me as one long testament to Kerry's service in Vietnam). This ad responds to that.

I think it's probably not specific enough, but it calls into question all the laurels Kerry has had thrown his way as a Vietnam war hero. Again, I never believed this was relevant, but it's Kerry's only selling point thus far in his campaign for President. He set himself up to be attacked on it. Is the ad devestating? Probably not, since it's running in August and it's not like the Bush DUI revelation at the last minute in 2000. But Kerry's now going to have to spend time countering charges from his shipmates, rather than just basking in their accolades. It's hard to make your case for President and criticize the incumbent when you need to devote resources to this effort.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

David Broder of the Washington Post is no conservative. Following Kerry's speech at the Boston Botox Party last Thursday night, Broder wrote this column, which appeared in the Sunday Post, where he basically gave Kerry a passing grade for his efforts:

Students of political rhetoric generally agree on the elements that make for a successful convention acceptance speech. Over the years, the best of them have had some or all of these ingredients: a fresh and powerful personal narrative, strong ideas, memorable phrases and a rhythm that builds to an emotional climax.

John Kerry's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention on Thursday night fell short in all these respects.

And yet preliminary indications are that it worked well, not just inside FleetCenter and here in his hometown but with many in the national television audience. The first feedback I heard was almost uniformly positive.

Plenty of other media pundits gave Kerry even stronger marks. But after a nearly a week of weak polling showing no discernible bounce, Broder may have been overstating Kerry's uninspring performance. He seems to say so here:

This week, polls showed Kerry and the convention apparently had failed to move the dial on this election very far. The Washington Post-ABC News poll showed Kerry leading President Bush by 2 points among those most likely to vote. "By historical standards," said Washington Post polling director Richard Morin, "Kerry's post-convention bounce is modest, at best."

And Tad Devine, Kerry's media adviser, declared, "We never expected great movement in the polls." Of course not. That's why they scripted every moment of the four-night convention, including most especially Kerry's own speech.

As one of the distinct minority of journalists who was not blown away by Kerry's performance, I was not surprised at the apparent lack of progress by the Democratic challenger. I thought it was pretty clear that Kerry had not bombed but also that he had not hit a home run — and I said exactly that on PBS' "Washington Week" on Friday evening and in a column written in the predawn hours on Friday for Sunday papers around the country.

What strikes me now is that many of my colleagues — and perhaps the Kerry campaign itself — are missing the significance of Kerry's lost opportunity.

Broder goes on to point out that Kerry failed to define himself in any meanigful way, other than saying he served in Vietnam. He also chose to challenge the President on his strongest issues -- his leadership in the War on Terror and his values. Kerry basically wants voters to believe that he is a stronger leader and his values are more in tune with theirs. Yet he provides no specifics as to what he would do differently from Bush as a leader, and offers only platitutdes about his values.

In short, Kerry accomplished little to nothing at the Democratic Convention (other than turning Barack Obama into a national star), despite having stage-managed everything exactly as he wished. Perhaps Bush will accomplish little more in New York in three weeks; in fact, incumbents generally get a much lower bounce than the challenger. But Kerry hasn't set the bar very high. As Broder notes, Kerry doesn't get a chance to reach most voters again before the debates.

Then again, maybe he should cancel the debates. The less we see of him, the better chance he has.

At Times Like This, We Miss Milli Vanilli

I love the fact that some of the most passionate Bush-haters are actors and rock musicians. Many of these people are truly gifted artists. I actually have no problem with these folks attempting to use their talents to promote ideas they believe in. But as recently demonstrated by Sean Hannity's dismantling of Janeane Garofalo, the artists in question can't usually back up their views with intelligent reasoning.

Now, we're on to musicians, a number of whom have rallied behind the banner of America Coming Together, one of the many left-wing organizations whose general guiding philosophy seems to be that "Bush is Bad." Since these particular musicians agree with the statement, they've decided to hold several benefit concerts trying to register voters who agree with them.

Now I could care less what these folks have to say on political issues. For one thing, I'm an intelligent adult capable of making my own decisions (as long as Dick Cheney has finished programming the right-wing conspiracy's agenda into my brain, of course). For another, if I need help figuring out whom to vote for, I'm not going to consult Eddie Vedder for advice, no matter how much I like Pearl Jam's music. Personally, I think he should be consulting me for advice on political matters, seeing as how I've graduated college and law school (and I'm giving Eddie credit for graduating high school, although that may not be true).

But apparently Eddie and his bandmates, along with Bruce Springsteen, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne and some other folks, think that if they play several concerts in battleground states, they might rally votes to the cause of defeating the evil demon known as Bush (we assume they want people to vote for Kerry, although this seems somewhat unclear, since most of ACT's propaganda simply disses Bush and fails to even mention the King of Condiments). Fine and good -- that's their right. What's funny is the message board set up following the announcement. The vast majority of the posts seem to reflect anger from folks who are swearing never to buy records from these artists again, and slamming these simpletons for their idiocy. I only kept track through #160, but my favorite post is #84:

Musicians,

If you want to impress me; wake up at 6am, spend an hour in the car, work
for the next 9-10 hours, get back in the car for the hour commute home (at
15mph). Repeat this 5 days a week for the next 30 years and you got my
full attention.

Here’s some free advice that you won’t get from your publicists, lawyers,
advisers, etc.;
“We don’t care!”

Nobody respects a selfstyled expert. Get a friggin college degree in
political science if your going to use your soapbox for politics. It’s
something us grown-ups refer to as “credibility”. In short, you don’t have
any. However, If I want to find a good night club or cocaine dealer,
you’ve again got my attention.

Honestly, we’re sick of your unaccountability. Everyday you jerks
should look yourselves in the mirror and count your blessings.

I don't agree with all the sentiments here (what am I, other than a self-styled expert?), but they're pretty much dead-on why the Left fails to understand that star power doesn't help them win over undecided voters. These folks, by and large, think celebrity gives them some special insight on political issues, when in fact they know nothing more than your average Joe, and in many cases even less. And maybe this is why all those Dems had trouble with butterfly ballots in 2000; heck, anyone stupid enough to think they should listen to Stone Gossard's opinion in deciding whom to vote for probably can't find the polling place.

Oil-for-Terror?

Claudia Rossett of the Weekly Standard has done some serious digging on the U.N.'s corrupt oil-for-food program in Iraq, the story the mainstream press seems willing to ignore (a tip o' the hat to The Key Monk for pointing me to Rossett's work). The basic gist of the program was to allow Iraq to sell oil to purchase food for its people; unfortunately, Saddam set up the program to funnel profits from oil sales to himself, with something akin to a wink from the U.N. The General Accounting Office has estimated that Saddam earned as much as $10 billion in illicit profits for himself.

But Rosset goes a bit further in connecting the dots on the story -- all the way to al Qaeda. She points out that the scum of the Earth weren't exactly rolling in dough when they arrived in Afghanistan:

In 1996, Sudan kicked out bin Laden. He went to Afghanistan, arriving there pretty much bankrupt, according to the 9/11 Commission report. His family inheritance was gone, his allowance had been cut off, and Sudan had confiscated his local assets. Yet, just two years later, bin Laden was back on his feet, feeling strong enough to issue a public declaration of war on America. In February 1998, in a London-based Arabic newspaper, Al-Quds al-Arabi, he published his infamous fatwa exhorting Muslims to "kill the Americans and plunder their money." Six months later, in August 1998, al Qaeda finally went ahead with its long-planned bombing of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Bin Laden was back in the saddle, and over the next three years he shaped al Qaeda into the global monster that finally struck on American soil. His total costs, by the estimates of the 9/11 Commission report, ran to tens of millions of dollars. Even for a terrorist beloved of extremist donors, that's a pretty good chunk of change.

The commission report says bin Laden got his money from sources such as a "core group of financial facilitators" in the Gulf states, especially corrupt charities. But the report concludes: "To date, we have not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attack. Al Qaeda had many sources of funding and a pre-9/11 annual budget estimated at $30 million. If a particular source of funds had dried up, al Qaeda could easily have found enough money elsewhere to fund the attack."

Some might say there's no link established, just a set of circumstances. But Rossett points to more circumstances:

Oil-for-Food was set up as a limited and temporary measure, starting
operations in late 1996 with somewhat ad hoc administration by the U.N., and a
mandate that had to be renewed by the Security Council every six months or so.
Less than a year into the program, however, on October 15, 1997, U.N. Secretary
General Kofi Annan consolidated Oil-for-Food into what was effectively a
permanent U.N. department--the Office of the Iraq Programme (OIP)--headed by a long-serving U.N. official, Benon Sevan. The Security Council still had to renew
the mandate twice a year, but the process became routine.

...It was a busy time for al Qaeda as well. That same day, February 23,
1998, Osama bin Laden published his "Kill the Americans" fatwa. An intriguing
feature of this fatwa was its prominent mention of Iraq, not just once, but four
times. Analysts at the CIA and elsewhere have long propounded the theory that
secular Saddam and religious Osama would not have wanted to work together. But
Saddam's secular style seemed to bother bin Laden not a whit.

His fatwa presented three basic complaints. Mainly, he deplored the infidel
presence in Saudi Arabia (i.e., the U.S. troops stationed there during and after
the Gulf War). He also cited grievances about Jerusalem, while not even
bothering to mention the Palestinians by name. The rest of his attention, bin
Laden devoted to Iraq and "the Americans' continuing aggression against the
Iraqi people" as well as "the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by
the crusader-Zionist alliance" and--here is the specific reference to U.S.-led
sanctions--"the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war."

Two paragraphs later, bin Laden picked up this theme again, calling Iraq
the "strongest neighboring Arab state" of Saudi Arabia, and then citing Iraq,
yet again, as first on a list of four states threatened by America--the other
three being Saudi Arabia (bin Laden's old home and a big source of terrorist
funding), Egypt (birthplace of the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood and of bin
Laden's top lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahiri, who also signed the fatwa), and Sudan
(bin Laden's former base).

UNTIL 1998, Iraq had not loomed large in bin Laden's rants. Why, then, such
stress on Iraq, at that particular moment, in declaring war on America? It is
certainly possible that bin Laden simply figured Iraq had become another good
selling point, a handy way to whip up anger at the United States. But it is at
least intriguing that the month after bin Laden's fatwa, in March 1998, as the
9/11 Commission reports, two al Qaeda members visited Baghdad. And in July 1998, "an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

The next time someone says there's no link between Saddam and al Qaeda, let's remember that the 9/11 Commission established that links did exist. Let's further remember that not all of the evidence on matters such as this can be clear-cut -- if we had acted on limited intel to arrest a group of men carrying boxcutters into airports on the morning of September 11th, it might have been difficult to convict them of attempted mass murder. And finally, before anyone says that corruption in the Oil-for-Food program might have been discovered and the program shut down without a war, let's remember that no one knew about the corruption, and the U.N. didn't even shut down the program after Saddam booted the inspectors.

It doesn't take a lot of imagination to envision some of that $10 billion finding its way into bin Laden's pockets and funding 9/11. The real question is whether any such discovery would convince people of why it was important to go into Iraq, even if we never find WMD.

Who Does John Edwards Play?

Allah Pundit strikes again. You know, the movie also made a ton of money, was loved by Hollywood and won an Oscar. Yet every moviegoer with half a brain knew that L.A. Confidential was the better movie. I would add that Good Will Hunting was better as well, but I'm sick of Ben Affleck.

What Would Kerry Say?

Byron York of National Review offers a brilliant version of what John Kerry would say if we were attacked and Tom Ridge hadn't issued that warning the other day. Keep this in mind the next time Howard Dean opens his mouth and inserts his foot with lines like this:

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President
Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, a former rival
of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday.
"His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe,
therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes
Tom Ridge," Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, added, referring to the
homeland security secretary. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is
real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in
it."

Okay, we all know Dean is full of crap. But here's the problem with Dean's formulation of when Bush should release the information. Dean acknowledged tonight on Hardball (kudos to National Review's Rich Lowry, who provided an early transcript at The Corner) that Bush and Ridge had the information in mid-July, but he's concerned that the release of the information was timed to kill John Kerry's "bounce" from the Boston Botox Party (a.k.a. the Democratic National Convention).

Let's start with the fact that polling data demonstrated little, if any, bounce for Kerry (Gallup published its poll showing a negative bounce) and that most of the polls were conducted prior to Ridge's announcement. Unless the people being polled all work for Homeland Security, the World Bank, or Citicorp, one wonders how the announcement could have affected anything other the Democratic Party surrogates' attempt to spin the lack of a bounce. Also, let's think about something -- if Ridge issues the same announcement one week earlier, he does it on the eve of the Botox Party, killing press attention for Kerry and engendering more speculation. Two weeks earlier... it still impacts the DNC, doesn't it? And what about three weeks earlier... oh, wait Kerry just named Edwards. It's got to be politically timed!

Give Kerry some credit for not jumping on Dean's bandwagon, as noted by the Detroit News. However, one should also note that Kerry has backtracked to Dean's position on other issues for political purposes, specifically on the Iraq War. At least his language here is pretty strong, although nowhere near as strong as the language employed by Joe Lieberman.

In the end, Kerry's getting briefed on the intel being used to make this determination, and he hasn't raised a stink about it. And he won't, since he has plenty of left-wing nuts, led by the Governor of Ben & Jerry Land, to make the case for him.

The Sports Rant

by the world's least dangerous man

It's bad enough that I have to live in DC and listen to constant updates about the Redskins, especially since the local sportstalk station runs the updates with the tagline "Return to Glory." It would be tolerable only if they used Bon Jovi's "Blaze of Glory" as the theme song. Come to think of it, the last time the Redskins were good, Bon Jovi probably had a hit album. But I digress.

One of the many reasons for e-starting this endeavor was so that I could write more about sports. Of course, the abuse of John Kerry and the Democrats has taken prominence, but now the Phillies have begun their annual plunge out of contention, and I can see the start of football season approaching. The abuse of Redskins fans shall begin soon. Actually, that works perfectly -- the Redskins and Kerry are both overhyped, ridiculously rich and can only brag about accomplishments that took place over a decade ago.

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Once again, John Kerry ventures into the world of sports. And this time, it's not cycling, it's college football. Presumably, Kerry wishes he could have stuck to cycling, but this time, it's his own fault.

Apparently, the Rich Man of Relish has been extolling Ohio football to great cheers during his trip through the Buckeye state. On Monday, Kerry continued in this vein, as noted here:

"I just came here from Bowling Green," Kerry told the crowd to subdued applause. "I was smart enough not to pick a choice between the Falcons and the, well, you know, all those other teams out there. I just go for Buckeye football, that's where I'm coming from."

Only one problem. Kerry was now speaking in Michigan.

Granted, Kerry tried to fix the error, but this is the sort of comment that's unforgivable. Michigan and Ohio State aren't just rivals, they're blood enemies. Ohio State coaching legend Woody Hayes once pushed his car across the state line, since he did not want to purchase gas in Michigan and help the enemy.

But hey, these are only swing states in the Midwest. I'm sure Kerry won't lose by 537 votes or anything.

The Wedding Update

by the world's least dangerous man

This update is brought to you by the Hershey Hotel, since that seems appropriate for the obvious reasons.

362 days to go...

The long-awaited meeting of the families produced no real fireworks; in fact, everyone had a great time. Of course, the same thing happened in The Godfather -- the meeting ended in peace, with everyone agreeing to go on their merry way until Michael settled all family business at the end. For the record, I am still trying to figure who will set up the meeting where I will be assassinated, so I don't trust any of you.

Jokes aside, great day for everyone to get together, and Alli's parents did a wonderful job hosting the festivities, with a ton of good food. My parents got a full tour of the hotel that they thoroughly enjoyed, and they got to meet a good portion of Alli's family. We even had the requisite "All Indians Know One Another Moment." Alli's brother-in-law Suneel has an uncle who was once the roommate of my uncle. Surprisingly, I believe both are engineers. Shocking, I know.

We also began the discussion of several key issues related to the wedding that evening, after everyone had left. No real revelations here, although I enjoyed it when my future mother-in-law checked to see if I was "spacing out." Not yet, but give me time.

The only other enjoyable moment came when one member of the family (who shall remain unnamed) noted that she heard I was supporting W for President. My response involved noting that I actually contribute to the campaign. I think I heard someone else whisper in response, "Well, I guess no one's perfect."

This One's For Johnny, Part IV

The saga continues, with a picture of Kerry's discussion with the Marines shown here. You know, Senator, it's not polite to point.

Maybe Kerry was trying to steal from the Saturday Night Live skit where Bill Clinton (played brilliantly by the late, great Phil Hartman) sampled everyone's fare when he stopped while jogging at McDonald's. Which brings to mind one question -- just who will play John Kerry on SNL this fall?

The John Kerry Post of the Day

My latest discovery about my favorite cheese-eating surrendermonkey-looking Ketchup King cum Presidential candidate:

Ah, now we're finally getting some details about how the esteemed King of Condiments plans to get us out of Iraq. Well, maybe not details, but he assures us he has details, as noted in the Washington Post:

But when questioned about saying Thursday in his acceptance speech, "I know what we have to do in Iraq," he would not tip his hand.

"I've been involved in this for a long time, longer than George Bush," he said. "I've spent 20 years negotiating, working, fighting for different kinds of treaties and different relationships around the world. I know that as president there's huge leverage that will be available to me, enormous cards to play, and I'm not going to play them in public. I'm not going to play them before I'm president."

Reminded that he sounded like Richard M. Nixon, who campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam, Kerry responded: "I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power."

Kerry previously has discussed his desire to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq but declined to attach any timetable to that goal. He spoke more extensively about Iraq after his acceptance speech, suggesting he has an exit strategy.

You know, if Bush even suggested that he had a "secret plan" to get the troops out of Iraq, we'd be preparing for the reporters to barbecue him at the next press conference. No time table, no details -- but we're just supposed to trust him? On what basis? He served in Vietnam?

Here's the other part of the article I love, showing just a tad bit of partisan reporting:

As the long caravan headed north on Interstate 75 through western Ohio on Sunday, Kerry and Edwards occasionally slowed the buses to acknowledge groups of supporters lined up along the road, holding signs and waving U.S. flags. Kerry and Edwards continued to draw sizable and enthusiastic crowds, with an estimated 8,000 people here on a hot and sunny afternoon.

Bill May, 61, a registered Republican and military veteran who voted for Bush, said he probably will vote for Kerry in November. "It's time for a change," May said, "and I don't think Bush can do what needs to be done in Iraq."

Keith Kreager, 56, a veteran and Democrat who voted for Ronald Reagan, said he supports Kerry. "The president is indecisive," Kreager said. "He went after the wrong person. Instead of Osama, he attacked Saddam, when he's been a threat for years and there wasn't anything there."

A new poll showed that Kerry had received no real bounce in the polls from last week's Democratic National Convention in Boston. A CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll showed that among likely voters, Bush led Kerry by 50 percent to 46 percent, with independent Ralph Nader at 2 percent. In a pre-convention poll, Kerry led Bush 47 to 46 percent. Among registered voters, Kerry and Bush were tied. It is unusual for a candidate not to gain ground from his convention.

So let's see. The Post says Kerry and Edwards are drawing large crowds (although we don't know the source for the number, or even if 8,000 is a large number for a pre-planned rally of this sort), and let's make sure we get quotes in here from people who are supposedly political moderates for anecdotal evidence. We'll put this stuff ahead of the scientific numbers in the polls, which show Kerry struggling to get any bounce, no matter how much favorable press coverage he gets. I'm not saying the CNN-USA Today Gallup Poll is right (in fact, I highly doubt Bush got a bounce off the DNC) -- but it's probably more important evidence of what's going on then quotes from two people.

Wait... maybe THIS is the unintentionally funniest line in the article...

On domestic issues, Kerry gave a "rock hard" pledge not to raise middle-class taxes if he becomes president, though he said a national emergency or war could change that.

Reminded that the country is at war already, Kerry said, "We're going to reduce the burden in this war, and if we do what we need to do for our economy, we're going to grow the tax base of our country."

Heck, it's now a "rock hard pledge" not to raise the taxes, less then one week after he promised a middle class tax cut. But we already know his out when he opts to try and raise taxes -- there's a war on, for crying out loud!

Jokes aside, there's something truly disturbing about the Democratic candidate for President when he doesn't know that we're involved in a war.

The Market Take on the DNC

It's all so easy when you break it down scientifically. Forget polls -- a better barometer may be what the futures markets, in the form of the Iowa Electronics Markets, have to say about how well John Kerry did last week. Based on the graph, Kerry's campaign may want to avoid any more primetime appearances by their candidate.

This One's for Johnny, Part III

One last word (for now) about the goldmine of material known as John Kerry's visit to Wendy's. I know the New York Post has had its share of reporting misfires lately, but I'm wondering about Kerry's wisdom if this piece is true. I mean, even I know not to interrupt Marines while they're eating.

This One's for Johnny, Part II

You know, I don't eat at Wendy's all that often. But a few observations of this Wendy's love-fest seem to be in order, and let's start with this article from Arizona Daily Sun.

First, last week I posted an item that compared Kerry to fellow "Renaissance Man" P-Diddy. Now he's hanging out with Ben Affleck. Word has it Chris Judd may be on tap for the next portion of the bus trip. Yes, the polls don't show much of a significant bounce for Kerry, but at least he's doing well in the crucial demographic of J-Lo's ex-men.

Next, I like the fact that Kerry's entire response to Bush's criticism of his Senate record is to (a) say Bush is being negative, and (b) criticize Bush's record. Oh, wait, Kerry did point out his support of fisheries programs. Kids, you may want to try the same approach the next time Mom and Dad tell you to clean your room. Tell them you think they should "embrace the politics of hope" and that their own room isn't that clean.

Third, I love this passage:

Teresa Heinz Kerry, apparently unfamiliar with the Wendy's menu, pointed at a picture of chili and asked the cashier what it was before ordering a bowl.

As for John Edwards' apparent love of Wendy's... there are suspicisions that this little love affair with Dave Thomas' gift to the world may have a lot to do with grabbing votes in Ohio, where the chain was founded and is considered a state institution. So many good lines, so little time.

Finally, read this piece from the Mid-Hudson News. Apparently Kerry was still hungry after Wendy's. I wonder if he had the grilled diver sea scallops or the shrimp vindallo.

Deal of the Week

See, spam is a really bad idea.  Look at this e-mail I received, headlined "Deal of the week." 

Hey,Last week, Tracy and me were talking about my prbolem and he said that he tried this new thing from this site and it worked great for him.valkyrie van [SITE DELETED] ellis give me your thoughts on it and shoot me back an email and tell me what you found out if any.Any input would be appreciated it.

Later,

Doss

lacuna brochure deforestation cocksure severalfold sputnik anheuser tollgate annotate diffeomorphic amphibology arenaceous bernard fifteenth withdraw pliancy compleat bogus benthic incompetent puc ridge needn't frolic impunity redden whiten lucia rangy jeres cagey ta cinnamon photo pedagogic chit.

Now how am I supposed to figure out whether I should take this deal?