Well.... damn. I see that Osama bin Killin is still alive. Quite honestly, this surprises me. After this long without seeing the old goat, I really thought he was under a couple tons of rock somewhere in Afghanistan. Big surprise that he should show up 4 days before our election. Though the fact that he just put out a squirrelly little videotape instead of blowing something up in New York City should tell you something. We have severely crippled this man's capabilities.
Now, maybe he understands that another attack at this point would just inflame our resolve against him. Honestly, if he's trying to influence our election, he did about the smartest thing he could do. But I don't think his grasp of the American psyche is nearly that deep. I think if he was in a position to attack us before the election, he would have done so. Now you gotta wonder who the guy in the turban was, promising that "blood will run red in the streets." His message seems to contradict that of the Big Boss, who says that they won't mess with us, as long as we don't mess with them.
Hey, I got news for you, pal. You already messed with us. You remember that little thing with crashing jetliners full of people into skyscrapers full of people? Remember 3,000 Americans dead? You took your shot, so to go around trying to imply that this is OUR doing just isn't going to wash. It's too late for that. If you think this little commercial is going to frighten us into giving up this war that you started, you don't understand America at all. We want you dead, and we will get you. If you know what's best for you, you'll get back into that cave.
10.30.2004
10.29.2004
Pretender in Chief
You know Kerry's world is crumbling when even Tom Brokaw isn't buying into his act anymore.
From Bill Kristol's Campaign Memo at the Weekly Standard:
SOME PEOPLE WORRY that John Kerry doesn't know what he will do once in power. But that's not the half of it. Kerry doesn't even know what he would have done had he already been in power.
Last night, Tom Brokaw gently pushed Kerry into yet another remarkable instance of utter incoherence. Brokaw, to his great credit, managed to make the key point about the "missing munitions" story that almost everyone else seems to have missed: If John Kerry had been president, no munitions would be missing in Iraq. They'd all be under the control of Saddam Hussein!
Kerry's handlers unfortunately had not prepared him for so basic a point, and the result is a new Kerryism that ranks up with there with his famous, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
From Bill Kristol's Campaign Memo at the Weekly Standard:
SOME PEOPLE WORRY that John Kerry doesn't know what he will do once in power. But that's not the half of it. Kerry doesn't even know what he would have done had he already been in power.
Last night, Tom Brokaw gently pushed Kerry into yet another remarkable instance of utter incoherence. Brokaw, to his great credit, managed to make the key point about the "missing munitions" story that almost everyone else seems to have missed: If John Kerry had been president, no munitions would be missing in Iraq. They'd all be under the control of Saddam Hussein!
Kerry's handlers unfortunately had not prepared him for so basic a point, and the result is a new Kerryism that ranks up with there with his famous, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Stolen Honor
I know people who think the Swift Boat veterans are lying for political purposes. I know people who think that John Kerry's record in Vietnam should never be questioned because "our veterans deserve better than that." What I don't understand is why Kerry is deserving of this respect, but the men who served with him are not. I don't believe that most people who are slandering the Swift Vets have really paid any attention to what they're saying.
I defy anyone to go watch the 40-minute video Stolen Honor, or these 5-minute short videos and honestly tell me that these men have no credibility. These are simply men who saw John Kerry's dishonesty up close, and were slandered by his lies. These men simply want their honor back, and they don't want the man who took it from them to become president.
I defy anyone to go watch the 40-minute video Stolen Honor, or these 5-minute short videos and honestly tell me that these men have no credibility. These are simply men who saw John Kerry's dishonesty up close, and were slandered by his lies. These men simply want their honor back, and they don't want the man who took it from them to become president.
No kidding
This guy gets it.
Final paragraph:
"Any conservative who stays home next week has only himself to blame for a Kerry win. If you care about your principles — if you believe conservative ideas and values matter — you have only one choice. Vote for President Bush on Tuesday . . . and do everything you can to bring everyone else you know to the polls as well. The stakes could not be higher. "
But if you're thinking about not voting, you should probably read the whole thing.
Final paragraph:
"Any conservative who stays home next week has only himself to blame for a Kerry win. If you care about your principles — if you believe conservative ideas and values matter — you have only one choice. Vote for President Bush on Tuesday . . . and do everything you can to bring everyone else you know to the polls as well. The stakes could not be higher. "
But if you're thinking about not voting, you should probably read the whole thing.
How quickly we forget...
Charles Krauthammer is a genius. His column today talks about something that's been bumping around the back of my mind in several pieces for a few weeks now. But I couldn't put it together.
Now, anybody who has ever talked with me about Iraq knows that I'm a huge supporter of what we're doing there. I think it was something that had to be done... both to "drain the swamp" of terrorism funding, and to remove a murderous madman from power. But just for a second, let's assume that the people who are against this war are right, and the whole thing was a mistake.
Even if that were true, Bush's record in the terrorism war would still be 1-1. Afghanistan was a complete and unqualified success on half a dozen different fronts. People forget all the predictions of disaster, and all the obstacles we had to overcome there. But we did, and we replaced a murderous, totalitarian, terrorist regime with a democracy where women now freely walk the streets and people are actually VOTING. Even if Iraq was a mistake, doesn't Bush deserve a huge amount of credit for that?
As Krauthammer says:
"Who do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire'' during its second week, and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything'' differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now."
Now, anybody who has ever talked with me about Iraq knows that I'm a huge supporter of what we're doing there. I think it was something that had to be done... both to "drain the swamp" of terrorism funding, and to remove a murderous madman from power. But just for a second, let's assume that the people who are against this war are right, and the whole thing was a mistake.
Even if that were true, Bush's record in the terrorism war would still be 1-1. Afghanistan was a complete and unqualified success on half a dozen different fronts. People forget all the predictions of disaster, and all the obstacles we had to overcome there. But we did, and we replaced a murderous, totalitarian, terrorist regime with a democracy where women now freely walk the streets and people are actually VOTING. Even if Iraq was a mistake, doesn't Bush deserve a huge amount of credit for that?
As Krauthammer says:
"Who do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire'' during its second week, and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything'' differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now."
10.28.2004
Video
This is a great video. Complete with the Blues Brothers' rendition of "Rawhide" and everything...
Telling it like it is...
GWB sez:
"This week Senator Kerry is again attacking the actions of our military in Iraq, with complete disregard for the facts. Senator Kerry will say anything to get elected. The Senator's willingness to trade principle for political convenience makes it clear that John Kerry is the wrong man for the wrong job, at the wrong time."
Nice.
(hat tip to KJL and The Corner)
"This week Senator Kerry is again attacking the actions of our military in Iraq, with complete disregard for the facts. Senator Kerry will say anything to get elected. The Senator's willingness to trade principle for political convenience makes it clear that John Kerry is the wrong man for the wrong job, at the wrong time."
Nice.
(hat tip to KJL and The Corner)
Hypocrisy
I've had a long-running discussion with a good friend of mine who absolutely hates George Bush with every fiber of his being. He's told me on more than one occasion that he hates hypocrisy in politicians more than anything else. Today, he sends me this e-mail:
Let's see, Kerry is all over the TV saying Bush has failed in his duty as C-in-C because he failed to secure the mountain of ammo that is now missing. Some of Kerry's own advisors have said we don't have all the facts so its not clear when the ammo went missing. In return Bush attacks Kerry for jumping to conclusions before all the facts are determined. So Kerry is guilty of being a typical scumbag, exaggerating (lying?), overblown, say anything politician.
I know you can see where I'm going with this:
Without determining all the facts, Bush jumped to the conclusion that it was vital to invade Iraq, which has resulted in over 8000 American casualties. What's the word I'm looking for? Hypocrite?
Of course, charges of hypocrisy will always strike an immediate chord with true fans of "The G-Man"... aka Jonah Goldberg. I give the G-Man full props for helping to shape my opinion on the subject, and thus this response to my misguided friend...
Here's what I think about hypocrisy.
Somewhere in the last couple hundred years or so, the word "hypocrite" has attained a severely negative stigma that it doesn't necessarily deserve. Or maybe the label of hypocrite has always been bad, but somehow we've watered down the meaning of it.
Being a hypocrite isn't a good thing, to be sure. But some people would rather be labeled a liar, a fraud, a thief or any number of worse things, than to be called a hypocrite. Reasonable people say that nothing else infuriates them the way hypocrisy does. Why is that? What is a hypocrite, exactly? The strict definition would probably be somebody who criticizes others for things he does himself. Lately, we seem to have expanded upon that definition to say a hypocrite is "a person who criticizes other people for actions that MAY be similar to something he has previously done himself."
Here's what I think. Hypocrisy, to most people, is little more than perceived inconsistency between previous statements and current statements. And by that measure, we're ALL hypocrites, to some degree. Bush is a hypocrite. Kerry is certainly a hypocrite as well. You're a hypocrite. So am I. You simply can't avoid occasionally saying something that can be construed by someone as inconsistent with what you said 3 years ago.
If you're going to criticize Bush for being a hypocrite on "jumping to conclusions," that's fair. But if hypocrisy is supposedly the most important measure by which you judge a candidate, then YOU are being hypocritical if you don't criticize Kerry as well. He has only contradicted himself a couple hundred times. Let's look at a couple examples:
John Kerry, September 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.
John Kerry, January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Kerry based these statements on the very same evidence that George Bush had. But once he became a presidential candidate, and once he understood that he'd never get the Democratic nomination unless he was anti-war, he changed his tune:
John Kerry, April 2004: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."
And of course, we're well aware of his continued refrain of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." But that's not what you SAID, Senator.
Second example:
John Kerry, September 2004: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Of course, we all know by now that Kerry did, in fact, vote against the bill to support the troops. He later tried to explain this incredible hypocrisy with the famous line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And later, he even had the nerve to criticize Bush by saying:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."
That's exactly right, Senator. So why did you vote against the $87 billion to buy (among other things) BODY ARMOR???
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's some pretty messed up, hypocritical (stuff) right there. What I want to know is... if hypocrites are at the top of (your) sh- list, how can you vote for this guy?
End of my response to my buddy. My point.... Bush is not perfect and has been hypocritical on occasion. But anybody voting for John Kerry has zero room to be complaining about hypocrisy. Best to keep that one in your pocket if credibility is of any importance to you.
Let's see, Kerry is all over the TV saying Bush has failed in his duty as C-in-C because he failed to secure the mountain of ammo that is now missing. Some of Kerry's own advisors have said we don't have all the facts so its not clear when the ammo went missing. In return Bush attacks Kerry for jumping to conclusions before all the facts are determined. So Kerry is guilty of being a typical scumbag, exaggerating (lying?), overblown, say anything politician.
I know you can see where I'm going with this:
Without determining all the facts, Bush jumped to the conclusion that it was vital to invade Iraq, which has resulted in over 8000 American casualties. What's the word I'm looking for? Hypocrite?
Of course, charges of hypocrisy will always strike an immediate chord with true fans of "The G-Man"... aka Jonah Goldberg. I give the G-Man full props for helping to shape my opinion on the subject, and thus this response to my misguided friend...
Here's what I think about hypocrisy.
Somewhere in the last couple hundred years or so, the word "hypocrite" has attained a severely negative stigma that it doesn't necessarily deserve. Or maybe the label of hypocrite has always been bad, but somehow we've watered down the meaning of it.
Being a hypocrite isn't a good thing, to be sure. But some people would rather be labeled a liar, a fraud, a thief or any number of worse things, than to be called a hypocrite. Reasonable people say that nothing else infuriates them the way hypocrisy does. Why is that? What is a hypocrite, exactly? The strict definition would probably be somebody who criticizes others for things he does himself. Lately, we seem to have expanded upon that definition to say a hypocrite is "a person who criticizes other people for actions that MAY be similar to something he has previously done himself."
Here's what I think. Hypocrisy, to most people, is little more than perceived inconsistency between previous statements and current statements. And by that measure, we're ALL hypocrites, to some degree. Bush is a hypocrite. Kerry is certainly a hypocrite as well. You're a hypocrite. So am I. You simply can't avoid occasionally saying something that can be construed by someone as inconsistent with what you said 3 years ago.
If you're going to criticize Bush for being a hypocrite on "jumping to conclusions," that's fair. But if hypocrisy is supposedly the most important measure by which you judge a candidate, then YOU are being hypocritical if you don't criticize Kerry as well. He has only contradicted himself a couple hundred times. Let's look at a couple examples:
John Kerry, September 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.
John Kerry, January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
Kerry based these statements on the very same evidence that George Bush had. But once he became a presidential candidate, and once he understood that he'd never get the Democratic nomination unless he was anti-war, he changed his tune:
John Kerry, April 2004: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."
And of course, we're well aware of his continued refrain of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." But that's not what you SAID, Senator.
Second example:
John Kerry, September 2004: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
Of course, we all know by now that Kerry did, in fact, vote against the bill to support the troops. He later tried to explain this incredible hypocrisy with the famous line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And later, he even had the nerve to criticize Bush by saying:
"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."
That's exactly right, Senator. So why did you vote against the $87 billion to buy (among other things) BODY ARMOR???
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's some pretty messed up, hypocritical (stuff) right there. What I want to know is... if hypocrites are at the top of (your) sh- list, how can you vote for this guy?
End of my response to my buddy. My point.... Bush is not perfect and has been hypocritical on occasion. But anybody voting for John Kerry has zero room to be complaining about hypocrisy. Best to keep that one in your pocket if credibility is of any importance to you.
Well, well, well...
Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - October 28, 2004
This explains the missing explosives. And it sure makes you wonder if this is what happened to all of Saddam's WMD, too. If this is true, I think it means two things:
1. The Russkies got a lot of 'splainin to do, and...
2. Bush gets a big boost. Kerry is finished.
This explains the missing explosives. And it sure makes you wonder if this is what happened to all of Saddam's WMD, too. If this is true, I think it means two things:
1. The Russkies got a lot of 'splainin to do, and...
2. Bush gets a big boost. Kerry is finished.
10.27.2004
Backtrack
I should do my math homework before posting. After doing some studying and playing with electoral vote maps, I'm going to have to soften my prediction that Bush wins by 100 electoral votes. That just doesn't appear possible, even if he picks off several blue states, as I think he will. Kerry can keep it closer than 100 just by winning California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and most of the northeast.
I still think it will be a comfortable win with almost none of the drama of 2000. I still think Bush will win a couple blue states that nobody expects him to, like maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan. And I still think he takes the popular vote by 3 percent or better. But a 100-electoral vote margin would really require a dream scenario.
I'm new at this, but I will learn to rely less on emotion and more on fact and logic. That's not in my nature. :-)
UPDATE: The LA Times has a cool electoral tracker map. (Right side of the page, about halfway down.) Try it out and see what you get. Right now, I've got it at 296-242.
I still think it will be a comfortable win with almost none of the drama of 2000. I still think Bush will win a couple blue states that nobody expects him to, like maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan. And I still think he takes the popular vote by 3 percent or better. But a 100-electoral vote margin would really require a dream scenario.
I'm new at this, but I will learn to rely less on emotion and more on fact and logic. That's not in my nature. :-)
UPDATE: The LA Times has a cool electoral tracker map. (Right side of the page, about halfway down.) Try it out and see what you get. Right now, I've got it at 296-242.
Comments!
My first unsolicited comment… and good stuff, too…
If there is a disdain that the press has with the White House/Bush it may be have something to do with the fact that this administration has been very secretive when going about their business. Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially. He does not do well without a script to read from (or a bug in his ear??) :-)
Regarding the press, they do a horrible job of informing the general public, it is not relegated to just one political party. All of our news seems to come with a point of view. How I long for the days of Walter Cronkite. Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.
I want spin free information. I am not a sheep that needs to be fed, I am just a US citizen seeking informational nourishment.
Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.
So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore. If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him.
Is that the case today?
Point by point response:
“Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially.”
It would be foolish to say that Bush’s lack of oratory/presentation skills hasn’t been a factor here. People naturally try to avoid what they don’t do well. But I have to dispute the notion that he’s never been forced to answer a tough question. Despite what you think about who “won” the debates (I’d submit that they tied in the second and Bush won the third one hands down) Bush answered the tough questions very well. On the other hand, the moderators were throwing Kerry softballs. Bush gets nothing BUT tough questions.
A lack of charisma and speaking skills is a legitimate criticism of a president. But I don't think it's a very important one. I would love it if George Bush was a slick and polished public speaker. But given the choice between style and substance, I'll take substance every time.
Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.
Once again, the idea that nobody is asking tough questions is just not right. Of course mistakes have occurred in Iraq. War is hell. Nothing goes as planned. We had some big time screw-ups in World War II, but our less than perfect performance didn’t change the fact that we had to win.
Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.
I’d probably amend that to say that “this administration will not cooperate with any press that actively works against him.” CBS used fake documents to try to make up a bogus story about his National Guard service. Now the New York Times has run with a story about Bush’s incompetence for allowing a stash of high explosives to be “stolen.” Except it turns out that the explosives were already gone by the time our troops showed up. And CBS had planned to put this on national TV the Sunday before the election. Bush has no reason to believe that these people will accurately portray what he says and does. He has every reason to believe that they’re using their influence to get him out of office. A president can keep the American people informed without CBS and the New York Times. What incentive does he have to “cooperate” with them?
So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore.
The idea that the press doesn’t want him to be president is a given. The point I’m trying to make is that this same media is supposed to be “objective” and presents itself to the public as such at every turn. That is plainly not the case. If CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. all want to come out and say that they despise the President and want to see him defeated, I’m perfectly fine with that. But they won’t do that because people will no longer see them as an objective source with no agenda. The fact is, they DO have an agenda. They’re more concerned with influencing people’s votes than they are with providing fair and unbiased news coverage.
If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him. Is that the case today?
To a certain extent, yes. And I think that you’re seeing it happen right now. Despite facing about 80 percent negative media coverage (my guess), the President is leading the polls. He’s going to win this election. People are seeing through the BS. But the true override will happen about 20 years from now. Ronald Reagan was attacked by the press every bit as savagely as Bush has been. Now, the world sees what Reagan did and the press has been forced to change its tune about him. I think history will be equally kind to the Bush presidency.
Thanks for your comments…
If there is a disdain that the press has with the White House/Bush it may be have something to do with the fact that this administration has been very secretive when going about their business. Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially. He does not do well without a script to read from (or a bug in his ear??) :-)
Regarding the press, they do a horrible job of informing the general public, it is not relegated to just one political party. All of our news seems to come with a point of view. How I long for the days of Walter Cronkite. Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.
I want spin free information. I am not a sheep that needs to be fed, I am just a US citizen seeking informational nourishment.
Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.
So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore. If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him.
Is that the case today?
Point by point response:
“Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially.”
It would be foolish to say that Bush’s lack of oratory/presentation skills hasn’t been a factor here. People naturally try to avoid what they don’t do well. But I have to dispute the notion that he’s never been forced to answer a tough question. Despite what you think about who “won” the debates (I’d submit that they tied in the second and Bush won the third one hands down) Bush answered the tough questions very well. On the other hand, the moderators were throwing Kerry softballs. Bush gets nothing BUT tough questions.
A lack of charisma and speaking skills is a legitimate criticism of a president. But I don't think it's a very important one. I would love it if George Bush was a slick and polished public speaker. But given the choice between style and substance, I'll take substance every time.
Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.
Once again, the idea that nobody is asking tough questions is just not right. Of course mistakes have occurred in Iraq. War is hell. Nothing goes as planned. We had some big time screw-ups in World War II, but our less than perfect performance didn’t change the fact that we had to win.
Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.
I’d probably amend that to say that “this administration will not cooperate with any press that actively works against him.” CBS used fake documents to try to make up a bogus story about his National Guard service. Now the New York Times has run with a story about Bush’s incompetence for allowing a stash of high explosives to be “stolen.” Except it turns out that the explosives were already gone by the time our troops showed up. And CBS had planned to put this on national TV the Sunday before the election. Bush has no reason to believe that these people will accurately portray what he says and does. He has every reason to believe that they’re using their influence to get him out of office. A president can keep the American people informed without CBS and the New York Times. What incentive does he have to “cooperate” with them?
So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore.
The idea that the press doesn’t want him to be president is a given. The point I’m trying to make is that this same media is supposed to be “objective” and presents itself to the public as such at every turn. That is plainly not the case. If CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. all want to come out and say that they despise the President and want to see him defeated, I’m perfectly fine with that. But they won’t do that because people will no longer see them as an objective source with no agenda. The fact is, they DO have an agenda. They’re more concerned with influencing people’s votes than they are with providing fair and unbiased news coverage.
If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him. Is that the case today?
To a certain extent, yes. And I think that you’re seeing it happen right now. Despite facing about 80 percent negative media coverage (my guess), the President is leading the polls. He’s going to win this election. People are seeing through the BS. But the true override will happen about 20 years from now. Ronald Reagan was attacked by the press every bit as savagely as Bush has been. Now, the world sees what Reagan did and the press has been forced to change its tune about him. I think history will be equally kind to the Bush presidency.
Thanks for your comments…
RIP, Rodney
This is a good place to start.
I don't often mourn the passing of a celebrity these days. But I'll make an exception for Rodney Dangerfield. I still laugh at Caddyshack and Back to School. And when my good buddy Dave starts up with his Rodney imitation, I always bust a gut. I enjoyed the man's work, and I'll miss him. Now, maybe he'll get some respect.
Here's a good article on Rodney.
(Thanks for the reminder, BP.)
I don't often mourn the passing of a celebrity these days. But I'll make an exception for Rodney Dangerfield. I still laugh at Caddyshack and Back to School. And when my good buddy Dave starts up with his Rodney imitation, I always bust a gut. I enjoyed the man's work, and I'll miss him. Now, maybe he'll get some respect.
Here's a good article on Rodney.
(Thanks for the reminder, BP.)
Help!
This thing is totally politics-heavy already, and that's not the way I want it. I want to write about sports, music, movies, TV, radio... all that stuff. And I'll be looking for some of that to add very soon.
Topical suggestions from the peanut gallery, of course, are completely welcome. Go over there on the right side of the page, and select the link to this post. ("Help!") Then go to the bottom of the page and select "Post a Comment."
Topical suggestions from the peanut gallery, of course, are completely welcome. Go over there on the right side of the page, and select the link to this post. ("Help!") Then go to the bottom of the page and select "Post a Comment."
Media Campaigning for Kerry
When you read your newspaper or watch TV news coverage about this election, you probably think you're getting an objective point of view that doesn't favor one candidate or the other. You would be wrong. Make no mistake about it, most of the mainstream media is very liberal and desperately wants John Kerry to win this election. Their "news" stories, which most people assume to be objective, are almost invariably tilted to make Kerry look good and Bush look bad.
As Linda Chavez writes today, "The media rule seems to be if a story might hurt George W. Bush, play it up big; if it might help Bush, bury it; and if might hurt John Kerry, ignore it altogether."
Think this is paranoia, or Republican propaganda? Think again, because people in the media occasionally even admit that it's true. See Brent Bozell's column today... particularly the final two paragraphs:
In July, Newsweek's Evan Thomas said the media would favor and promote Kerry and Edwards as "young and dynamic and optimistic and all," and "that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." At the Democratic convention, New York Times columnist John Tierney asked a sample of 50 Washington-based journalists who they favored, and they said Kerry, by 12 to 1. In May, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 34 percent of national reporters surveyed described themselves as liberals, while only 7 percent said they were conservative.
A majority of 55 percent told Pew pollsters the media weren't critical enough of President Bush, while only eight percent thought they were too critical. How critical is critical enough for the national press? Enough to get President Kerry elected.
So if you're relying on information from the media in trying to decide between these two candidates, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by relying only on the TV networks and most U.S. newspapers. Seek out the other point of view. Watch FOX occasionally. Read some conservative news and opinion websites like Townhall or National Review. There is a whole other world out there, and it's a lot different from the one that the mainstream media is painting for you. Your choice is to either seek out the other side of the argument, or take their word for it.
As Linda Chavez writes today, "The media rule seems to be if a story might hurt George W. Bush, play it up big; if it might help Bush, bury it; and if might hurt John Kerry, ignore it altogether."
Think this is paranoia, or Republican propaganda? Think again, because people in the media occasionally even admit that it's true. See Brent Bozell's column today... particularly the final two paragraphs:
In July, Newsweek's Evan Thomas said the media would favor and promote Kerry and Edwards as "young and dynamic and optimistic and all," and "that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." At the Democratic convention, New York Times columnist John Tierney asked a sample of 50 Washington-based journalists who they favored, and they said Kerry, by 12 to 1. In May, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 34 percent of national reporters surveyed described themselves as liberals, while only 7 percent said they were conservative.
A majority of 55 percent told Pew pollsters the media weren't critical enough of President Bush, while only eight percent thought they were too critical. How critical is critical enough for the national press? Enough to get President Kerry elected.
So if you're relying on information from the media in trying to decide between these two candidates, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by relying only on the TV networks and most U.S. newspapers. Seek out the other point of view. Watch FOX occasionally. Read some conservative news and opinion websites like Townhall or National Review. There is a whole other world out there, and it's a lot different from the one that the mainstream media is painting for you. Your choice is to either seek out the other side of the argument, or take their word for it.
10.26.2004
Prediction
I decided to finally get this thing rolling and commit to it now, because I want to have something publicly on record before November 2.
I think Bush is going to win... big. I think he'll win the popular vote by at least 3 percent, and the electoral college by at least 100 electoral votes. Maybe that doesn't sound like a landslide to you, but I think that's a pretty significant margin in a race that everybody says is going to be "extremely tight." I make this prediction not as a reaction to any poll, because I'm generally a skeptic of polls. I've been saying this for months, before any polls started showing up. I've said the same thing through the highs and lows of both candidates. It's just a gut feeling I have about how the American people really think.
I'm under no illusions about the general popularity of George W. Bush. I'm fully aware that a significant chunk of the country completely loathes the man, and another significant chunk is ambivalent at best. But when it comes time to actually cast votes in a time of war, I just don't believe that most Americans will want to trade him in for the likes of John Kerry. No matter how much some people may dislike Bush, I just don't think enough of them will be able to cast a ballot for what is easily the worst presidential candidate since Dukakis. If Hillary had summoned the guts to run this year, I'd be worried. If the Democrats had nominated any other candidate in the field, (even Howard Dean) they'd have a real shot at this. But they nominated a guy who just can't be trusted in a time of war. If this was 2000, it might have worked. But not this year.
No need for in-depth analysis of all that right now. I just wanted to throw that out there first thing. Bush wins big on November 2. It probably won't be the last time that I stick my neck out on the chopping block...
I think Bush is going to win... big. I think he'll win the popular vote by at least 3 percent, and the electoral college by at least 100 electoral votes. Maybe that doesn't sound like a landslide to you, but I think that's a pretty significant margin in a race that everybody says is going to be "extremely tight." I make this prediction not as a reaction to any poll, because I'm generally a skeptic of polls. I've been saying this for months, before any polls started showing up. I've said the same thing through the highs and lows of both candidates. It's just a gut feeling I have about how the American people really think.
I'm under no illusions about the general popularity of George W. Bush. I'm fully aware that a significant chunk of the country completely loathes the man, and another significant chunk is ambivalent at best. But when it comes time to actually cast votes in a time of war, I just don't believe that most Americans will want to trade him in for the likes of John Kerry. No matter how much some people may dislike Bush, I just don't think enough of them will be able to cast a ballot for what is easily the worst presidential candidate since Dukakis. If Hillary had summoned the guts to run this year, I'd be worried. If the Democrats had nominated any other candidate in the field, (even Howard Dean) they'd have a real shot at this. But they nominated a guy who just can't be trusted in a time of war. If this was 2000, it might have worked. But not this year.
No need for in-depth analysis of all that right now. I just wanted to throw that out there first thing. Bush wins big on November 2. It probably won't be the last time that I stick my neck out on the chopping block...
Wazzup
I’m quite sure that the world doesn’t need my opinions. My friends don’t need my opinions either, but that’s never stopped me from force-feeding my friends. So I’m expanding the franchise.
I’ve started this stupid blog at least 10 different times, and I’ve always quit after one post. Not this time. I’m going to do it and I’m going to keep doing it, for many reasons. For one thing, people tell me I have talent for writing, and I happen to enjoy it. So that seems like a good combination. I also have some twisted psychological need to convince people who disagree with me that they are wrong... or at the very least, misinformed. And this seems like a good place to try and do that. :-)
I suspect that I’ll fill this space mostly with commentary on the politics of the day. (Full disclosure: I’m just a wee little bit right of center.) Maybe some sports and pop culture stuff as well. Here goes nothin’.
I’ve started this stupid blog at least 10 different times, and I’ve always quit after one post. Not this time. I’m going to do it and I’m going to keep doing it, for many reasons. For one thing, people tell me I have talent for writing, and I happen to enjoy it. So that seems like a good combination. I also have some twisted psychological need to convince people who disagree with me that they are wrong... or at the very least, misinformed. And this seems like a good place to try and do that. :-)
I suspect that I’ll fill this space mostly with commentary on the politics of the day. (Full disclosure: I’m just a wee little bit right of center.) Maybe some sports and pop culture stuff as well. Here goes nothin’.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)