The Echo Chamber

Loss of Focus

2004-12-01T05:17:00.000-08:00

Those who know me as a friend and a minister will be quick to testify as to my passion about political opinion. There is a greater passion in my life, however, that centers around my call to Christian ministry and though I try not to mix much opinion into spiritual matters, I wish to comment and seek dialogue on a matter that has bothered me for a great while. This article from the Baptist Press relays the happenings this past weekend of a "Meet the Press" panel on family values. The SBC representative is Richard Land who heads up the Southern Baptist Ethics Commission. I take no exception to Land's actual performance on "Meet the Press", in fact I've personally heard Land speak and he may be one of the more tolerant voices I've heard. Instead, examine the title of the article:

SBC positions gain national hearing on ‘Meet the Press’

Doesn't seem too troubling, except that these really aren't propietary positions. We Southern Baptists cannot claim the moral and even theological tenets of our doctrines as our own. In fact, the SBC's biggest boast is that we are a "people of the book" (BIBLE) and indeed I feel that's true. I worry, however, that our need to gain national spotlight for these views as SBC views have created a perception in America, that we are out for nothing more than political points. That feeling isn't helped by the own political bickerings within our convention. Articles such as this, and this reveal a use of energy on issues that have nothing with sharing the gospel. I realize that religion is a very personal issue to everybody. It is to me as well, but I would love to hear from other normal Baptist lay people and from those who are not Baptist as to what perception they think we're leaving a non-Christian world. One would hope that such a honest question might be asked at higher levels too.

Our Heroes in Fallujah

2004-11-22T07:04:00.000-08:00

Go now and read one Marine's letter home to his father. One quote:

Cpl Mitchell is a squad leader. He was wounded as his squad was clearing a house when some enemy threw pineapple grenades down on top of them. As he was getting triaged, the doctor told him that he had been shot through the arm. Cpl Mitchell told the doctor that he had actually been shot "a couple of days ago" and had given himself self aide on the wound. When the doctor got on him about not coming off the line, he firmly told the doctor that he was a squad leader and did not have time to get treated as his men were still fighting. There are a number of Marines who have been wounded multiple times but refuse to leave their fellow Marines.

It is incredibly humbling to walk among such men. They fought as hard as any Marines in history and deserve to be remembered as such. The enemy they fought burrowed into houses and fired through mouse holes cut in walls, lured them into houses rigged with explosives and detonated the houses on pursuing Marines, and actually hid behind surrender flags only to engage the Marines with small arms fire once they perceived that the Marines had let their guard down. I know of several instances where near dead enemy rolled grenades out on Marines who were preparing to render them aid. It was a fight to the finish in every sense and the Marines delivered.

Please read the whole thing. Hat tip to "Grumpy Old Man."

Shrub in a "Scrum"

2004-11-21T06:15:00.000-08:00

This shoving match between the Secret Service and Chilean security was reported like it was no big deal.

The story that most of the news services agreed on was that the President was separated from his lead Secret Service agent momentarily by some overzealous Chilean security officers. There was some pushing and yelling. Bush jumped in - was resisted for just an instant, but then was able to pull his agent into the room. Problem solved.

Eager to be diplomatic, the White House downplayed the incident, "Chilean security tried to stop the president's Secret Service from accompanying him," said White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan. "He told them they were with him and the issue was resolved."

Reporters have alternatively described the President's mood afterward as "irritated" and "proud of himself." Probably both descriptions are right. But there was more to this incident than generally reported. The Washington Times has the real story:

Mr. Bush and first lady Laura Bush arrived at 8 p.m. local time yesterday at the Estacion Mapocho Cultural Center for the official dinner of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit.

After the first couple posed for photos with Chilean President Ricardo Lagos and his wife, the four entered the doorway with a line of Chilean security guards and uniformed police closing quickly behind him.

The president's lead agent approached the line of men as quickly as it closed and demanded to be allowed through. Within a few seconds, the confrontation began to escalate with voices being raised and shoving in all directions.

"You're not stopping me! You're not stopping me!" yelled the agent, as captured by several television cameras. "I'm with the president."

During the fracas, another Secret Service agent was roughly pulled from the tumult and pushed against a concrete wall by Chilean security…

Mr. Bush calmly turned right as the other three continued on and inserted himself into the fight. The president reached over two rows of Chilean security guards, grabbed his lead agent by the shoulder of his suit jacket and began to pull…

A few Chilean guards turned their heads and noticed that the arm draped over their shoulders was that of the president, and the line softened. Mr. Bush pulled his agent through, who was heard to say, "Get your hands off me" as he passed roughly through the doorway.

Mr. Bush then adjusted his shirt cuff and said something to the first dignitary he passed as a grin crossed his face.

According to Secret Service sources, the man Mr. Bush pulled through is a high-level agent and one of the president's personal favorites…

All of this is much better reporting than I read elsewhere, but then it really got interesting:

The Secret Service source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the president's security detail and that the Chileans had argued about security procedures all day and that he wasn't surprised to see last night's skirmish unfold.

The Chileans, he said, were determined to take charge of security, but the president of the United States is the only world leader who takes his bodyguards with him wherever he goes. Normally, foreign countries defer to that demand. The Chilean security detail resisted, the source said, and was determined to take a stand at the dinner.

"That's what the argument this afternoon was about," he said. "I saw this coming."

Chilean security knew that the Secret Service always accompanies the president and knows how to identify them by the pins on their lapels, the source said, but blocked them anyway.

I understand the White House's desire to be diplomatic about this incident, but the fact that Chilean Security Agents purposefully separated the President from his security detail is very troubling.

This was about honor, not intrigue, but we are a country at war and there are people who would like to assassinate the President. Our Secret Service protects our President wherever he goes. If some Banty Rooster security force is too macho to accept that, then that country should not get a Presidential visit. Period.

The Secret Service should learn from this incident and make sure that this sort of conflict is worked out long before the President arrives.

One news service described this incident as a "scrum." I had never heard this word before in my life. From the context I was sure it simply meant "scuffle," but I looked it up.

It’s a Rugby term - "a play in Rugby in which the two sets of forwards mass together around the ball and, with their heads down, struggle to gain possession of the ball." The British have taken this term out of Rugby to apply it to any "disordered or confused situation involving a number of people" particularly, I assume, when there is a struggle.

"Scrum" is a apt description of what happened. The "ball" being fought over wasn't the agent, the "ball" was the right to guard the President. The President must have known about this conflict in advance. Knowing this, he was brave to insert himself into the fight. Doing so quickly pacified the situation.

This could have escalated, everybody involved was armed.

UPDATE I: Here's a video link found at Dean's World.

UPDATE II: A commenter pointed me to this AP story:

An elaborate state dinner with 200 people Sunday was downgraded to an official working dinner, reportedly because Chilean President Ricardo Lagos balked at Secret Service demands for guests to walk through metal detectors.

I beginning to doubt whether this is just about honor. There is some bad blood between this President and the current leadership of Chile. I hope that the President and his Secret Service are careful and that he gets home soon.

The Rest of the Trip...

2004-11-12T11:21:00.000-08:00

Although Phil billed me as the blogger who drove all the way from Shreveport, Louisiana to attend the Rocky Mountain Blogger Bash, I actually did a few other things while in the area. It had been awhile since my family and I had been to Denver, so we made the most of our short stay.

Fortunately, I didn't have to drive the whole way myself. My wife and I drove with our three sons over to Dallas Thursday afternoon where we picked up two of her brothers. One brother, Mark, was a big help driving, while the other brother Lonnie helped out with the kids.

Seven people is a crowd, even for a full-sized van. We managed the cramped quarters by encouraging the kids to sleep as we drove through the night. We three drivers kept each other company, catnapped, and traded out every two or three hours.

We took I-35 north out of Dallas through Oklahoma to Salina Kansas. In Salina, we turned west on I-70 and drove all the way to Denver.

This is empty country. The West is limited by water, not space. There are places in Kansas so remote that I could look 360 degrees around and out toward the horizon and see maybe one or two building lights - and most of those were probably just lonely farm houses.

With gas stations popping up at 60-mile intervals...maybe, we were careful to watch the gauge. After a close call we decided to never let our gas fall below a quarter-tank.

We arrived in Denver around 9:30 Friday morning. After a McDonald's breakfast, we found our hotel and asked to check in early. The front desk was fine with that.

Our hotel, the Englewood, Colorado Sleep Inn, was a great deal at $45 per room per night. Hard to beat - it even came with continental breakfast and a heated indoor pool. We crashed for a couple of hours, and then the kids and I went down to the pool for a swim.

That night we met Phil and his wife at the Trail Dust Steak House.

This place is famous for it's "no neck-tie" policy. Offenders have their ties cut off in an elaborate ceremony and get a free drink as a trade. There's a live band, dancing, a balloon guy, and - this is what my kids loved the best - an incredible two-story slide.

With all those distractions, the place might be able to get away with substandard food. But it was really good. The mesquite-grilled sirloin was awesome. If you go, make sure to order the sweet potato. My wife gave me a bite and then tortured me as I made do with a regular baked potato.

After a great visit with the Bowermaster's (and tearing my kids away from that big slide) we called it a day.

The next morning we got up and drove out to the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo in Colorado Springs. This zoo is the United States' only mountain zoo. It's arranged on about five terraces snaking upward from the entrance. What a workout! The view of Colorado Springs down in the valley was spectacular from almost any point in the zoo.

The animals were obviously well taken care of and were in spacious enclosures. My kids' favorites were the giraffes and the gorillas.

The gorillas were separated from visitors by only a sheet of glass. These old guys would meander over to the glass and make faces at the kids. My one-year-old had a laughing fit over that.

About 2:00 that afternoon we left the zoo and drove the three or four miles over to Seven Falls.

We approached the falls through an amazing mile-long box canyon. I regretted we were stuck inside our vehicle for that mile. With cliffs within arm's reach of the road rising 900 feet, I wished for a glass-topped van.

This photograph of the falls is okay, but it doesn't really do justice to the experience of being there. At the base of the falls, the rock formation fills your world. Looking up, you will almost fall over to see to the top of the cliffs. 224 steps rise from the base of the falls to the top.

Thinking of the zoo workout and the skiing I had planned for the next morning, I passed on the stair climbing. My brother-in-laws didn't hesitate. They climbed to the top and ragged me for missing out.

At about 4:00 p.m. we hurried back to Denver for another dinner with Phil and Suraya and the blogger bash.

The next morning we checked out of the hotel and drove an hour and a half to Loveland Pass for some pre-season skiing. This ski area is on I-70 at the Eisenhower tunnel.

We had a little trouble starting out. We had checked our one-year-old in day-care at the base of the mountain and tried to get our 7-year-old and 5-year-old to ski with us. The bunny slope was closed and they weren't offering lessons for the little guys. We tried to take them up and teach them ourselves, but that just didn't work. The boys were relieved when we let them join their baby brother in day care.

We adults had a great time! Lonnie, who was also a first-time skier, took to the mountain with little difficulty. In this early season the mountain is limited to just a few runs. But the slopes that were open had plenty of coverage and were well groomed. At the end of the day some small icy patches were beginning to show on the last slope above the chair lift. Otherwise, conditions were perfect.

Loveland had some of the friendliest service I've experienced on a ski slope. In the past I've dealt with a lot of surly, impatient ski-bum types who are only interested in earning their way back onto the mountain. The folks at Loveland seemed to actually enjoy their jobs.

We left the mountain tired and hungry. Our last stop in Colorado before heading back home was The Buffalo Restaurant in Idaho Springs. The Buffalo steaks were good (not as good as the cow at Trail Dust), but pricey. Since none of us had ever had Buffalo before, it was worth it for the experience.

After that we gassed up and hit the highway for home.

A Trip to the Rockies

2004-11-09T08:49:00.000-08:00

I attended the Rocky Moutain Blogger Bash this weekend. Being from Shreveport, Louisiana, I'm hardly a Rocky Moutain Blogger, but the "Bash" aspires to be more than a local party, and I, frankly, aspire to get linked by the likes of Stephen Green, Zombyboy (David to his friends), ColoradoPsycho, Protein Wisdom, Colorado Conservative, or even Talk Left (if only to disagree).

You read right. This was a bipartisan blog party held within a week of the most bitterly fought presidential campaign in memory. There are no greater passionate partisans than bloggers, so you might be wondering how this was accomplished.

In a word: Song. Whenever passions threatened to flare up, people would start singing. First it was old standards, next it was television shows. I distinctly remember "Love Boat" and that "Tell Me More" song from "Grease."

Corny...you betcha, but it worked and, personally it was an antidote to the tensions of the last few ~~weeks~~ years. This was a great starting point for the new political discourse that Phil is calling for.

Speaking of Phil, I finally got to meet he and his wife in person on this trip. He is just as intelligent, funny, and interesting a guy as you would expect from reading The Speculist. And, like me, he married well.

Thanks Phil for being such a good host!

Some Minor Hysteria

2004-11-03T09:35:00.000-08:00

The sleeper issue of this campaign was "moral values" as tagged by the NEP exit polls. This broad category includes anything from a candidate's perceived integrity and ethical standards to his personal and religion to his stands on social issues. In relation to our political system I believe that the majority of the American people identity their moral values with some combination of those three. Today, however, there are those who want to claim that the "moral values" of those who supported Bush are based on nothing but homophobia. Andrew Sullivan claims that the Republicans based their campaign on "gay bashing" and stirring up homophobia.

The single most important issue for Republican voters, according to exit polls,
was not the war on terror or Iraq or the economy. It was "moral values." Karl
Rove understood the American psyche better than I did. By demonizing gay
couples, the Republicans were able to bring in whole swathes of new anti-gay
believers into their party. With new senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn, two of
the most anti-gay politicians in America, we can only brace ourselves for what
is now coming.

Now, there were some definite instances where some Republicans crossed the line. Coburn and DeMint had a few each. Yet, to go to the extreme and paint all of us as hating gays is wrong. I do not believe that homosexuality is natural or a born trait. As a Christian I believe the Bible when it states that homosexuality is a sin. With that said, I DO NOT HATE GAYS!!! Most Christians do not hate gays. Why is this important? Well, the more that Sullivan and his ilk paint Christians as "religious right, homophobic wackos" the more they invalidate our point without the benefit of decent public discourse.

I find this article from the Washington Blade interesting. The evidence is that gays voted for Bush by as wide a margin this year as they did in 2000. It gives me hope that perhaps not all of the homosexual community is going to be as vitriolic as Sullivan in the upcoming public debate on gay marriage. That is important because at least half of the country doesn't think gay marriage is right, and to invalidate their belief before the discussion even begins dooms any attempts at civil compromise.

Taking the Pledge

2004-11-02T13:33:00.000-08:00

Jeff Jarvis has published an excellent proposed Post Election Pledge. I'm especially jazzed about point 3:

: Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better.

I would love to see the blogosphere become the starting place for a whole new kind of political discourse in this country. Maybe it wouldn't be all that new, in fact. How newfangled does any of this sound:

Collegiality
Conservatives and Liberals can and should be friends. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio driving back from voting. He had a string of conservative listeners (his base) call in and talk about their despair in dealing with liberal friends and family. Each one bemoaned the fact that they "can't talk to these people." Here's a thought — why not find something besides politics to talk about? I doubt any of these people realize that they, too, might be "impossible to talk to" from certain points of view. If you, or the people you're talking to, can't discuss these matters without getting upset, try a different subject. Sports, weather, movies.
Just this morning I was asking Stephen why we spend so much time talking about politics and hardly any talking about food? That's the kind of thing that has to change.

Presumption of Good Will
This one will be hard to bring back after decades of demonizing the other side. The various political machines have done an extremely effective job. Glib, unthinking condemnations of the people who make up the opposition are such standard fare that most people don't even realize they're doing it. Also, fear sells. It's easier to get people enthusiastic about preventing The End of All Things than it is to get them to support The Kinds of Policies the Make Sense to People Like Us. But it would be truly powerful if we all started giving each other the benefit of the doubt. Optimism could sell, too, after all. And how wonderful it would be if we all didn't have to feel that we're engaged in a life-or-death struggle with the folks next door (or down the street.) Maybe we could even get back to that place where we recognized that our disagreement is a key part of the process.

Humility
What if it wasn't all about being right and winning and putting the other guy in his place? What if there was some deep little corner of our souls where we all allowed a truly dangerous notion to dwell:

I could be wrong.

Lord knows that I don't much care for that idea. Even as I was typing it, I was thinking more about how it applies to others than it does to me. My views are reasonable, after all. It's all those unreasonable people who need to acknowledge that maybe they're wrong.

Yeah, well...what if?

What if each of us — even though we're the reasonable ones, the people least in need of doing so — were to incorporate this idea into our thinking...if only to set an example for everyone else? What if we created an "I could be wrong" meme? What if the whole blogosphere decided that, while it's cool to be passionate and certain in your beliefs, it's even more cool to allow a little bit of leeway?

Wouldn't that be something. The blogosphere is already forcing the mainstream media to return to and uphold professional standards that were slipping away. Why couldn't the blogosphere do the same for our political discourse as a whole?

The Other Races

2004-11-01T08:21:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow night is going to be interesting. At this point I think polls are useless, we are flying in the blind here. I still stand by my prediction of a Bush victory in the 290's, but I'll be glued to the television all night.

It’s a general election though, and there are a number of other races that I'll be watching closely. In particular, I'm going to be watching the Senate races in South Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Alaska, North Carolina, Colorado, and South Dakota.

All of these races are tight, but all are in states that Bush will easily win. It is possible that Bush could lose his election (knock on wood), but still have coattails sufficient to sweep Tom Daschle out of the Senate and give Republicans as comfortable a majority there as they have in the House of Representatives.

Where's the Line?

2004-10-31T17:05:00.000-08:00

Today one of our pastors gave a message on voting according to Biblical principles. He had done his homework on how far a pastor can go without crossing the line of separation between church and State, and he intentionally came right up to it. According to the demographics of our congregation, he was mostly "preachin' to the choir." He set up his points using Scripture that illustrates how God is not partisan, but has standards. He reminded us to be "salt and light." He urged us to vote without compromise for candidates who stand for financial freedom, moral clarity and religious freedom. And he went into quite a bit of detail about abortion, gay marriage, the role of government versus the church and inidividuals in caring for the poor. It was very clear which candidates he was supporting, even though he never mentioned any candidate by name.

During second service, I and the rest of the music team were in the lobby waiting to lead music again at the conclusion of the message--we'd already listened to the sermon during the first service. A man we all know well walked out in tears, just devastated. He said, "This church has been the best thing that ever happened to me. But if this is the direction it's headed, then I don't belong here. This is right wing bigotry."

I don't think it was the church's stand on abortion, gay marriage, etc., that distressed him--those could hardly have been a surprise. I think he feels that the pastor, by encouraging him to vote accordingly, was crossing a line.

I would be interested in your thoughts and advice on how to reach out to this man and his family so that we don't lose him from our church family.

Here's the sermon if you'd like to hear it.

The Home Stretch

2004-10-31T14:41:00.000-08:00

Here we are two days away from the general election and I've been on the sidelines for the past week. It was nice, I missed all the ups and downs of the last minute poll watchers. Why? Well, it's not about polls now, its about grass-roots organization and getting people out to vote. One only has to watch the fluctuations of the many electoral maps available to see the daily switch in polls. (I.E. Electoral-vote.com) Just check the archives. My point is that the polls are a HORRIBLE way to judge a campaign. I've spent the last two days reassuring fellow Bush fans to not listen to the media. The media was claiming that the Dems had a chance to take back the Senate in the mid-terms elections of 2002. The DNC even alluded to getting the House. Certainly the polls backed up those theories, but on election day, the voters shoved the polls back where the MSM don't shine. Not to be crude, but I look for a replay of the midterms and maybe more. Those who are backing this president are nursing a far greater desire to see HIM in the White House than those who are backing Kerry just so Bush won't win. Voter turnout is going to the big story of this campaign and I look for Republican and independent turnout to be some of the highest in history, while the Democratic turnout will slag. Final prediction: Bush will win with at least 290 electoral votes. If either PA, MN, or MI go for Bush then look for his EV count to top 300.

Scenarios: How the Race Can Be Won

2004-10-22T12:48:00.000-07:00

Slate is asking today whether Bush has given up on Ohio. This is a silly question since he's ahead, slightly, in that state.

The author goes on to suggest that Bush isn't worried about Ohio because he can win without it. To see if he's right, let's play with the numbers. The states in play are:

New Mexico...........5 votes
Iowa.....................7 votes
Wisconsin............10 votes
Ohio...................20 votes
Florida................27 votes
New Hampshire.....4 votes

This according to the latest Tradesports electoral map. Pennsylvania is notably absent from this list. The President has been campaigning hard for Pennsylvania, but according to Tradesports, he should be spending his energies elsewhere.

Slate is right that Bush could win without Ohio. If Bush takes Iowa, Wisconsin, and Florida he wins 271-262 with Kerry taking the other tossups (New Mexico, Ohio, and New Hampshire).

Slate also said that Bush can't win without Florida. This is not exactly true. With 27 electoral votes, Florida is one powerful fence-sitter. It is conceivable though that Bush could win 273-265 by taking all the other toss-ups: New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Hampshire.

Here's a nightmare: 269 - 269. This could happen two different ways (that I can see). Bush takes New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Florida; but loses Iowa, Ohio, and New Hampshire. Or, Bush takes New Mexico, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio; but loses Florida and New Hampshire.

In a tie the election would be decided in the Senate. With the Senate as evenly divided as it is, Cheney could possibly cast the deciding vote. Can you imagine the Bush-hatred on the left if that happened? We wouldn't hear the end of it for a generation.

Removing the tossup states from the count, Kerry is holding 238 electoral votes, and Bush has 227 votes. This would seem to be an advantage for Kerry (and it is), but it helps Bush that of the tossups, he's slightly ahead in two and tied in the other four.

Tradesports is currently showing an electoral vote count of 274 - 238. This vote count excludes New Hampshire, New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin because they are too close to call. Because Bush is above the magic number "270," losing the four tied tossups wouldn't change the outcome. The final count would be 274-264 Bush.

The 2004 Poll Watcher helped me calculate vote counts for this post.

The Unspoken Words

2004-10-22T08:37:00.000-07:00

Instapundit agrees with this analysis by Charles Krauthammer on Kerry's unspoken intentions towards Israel. First Krauthammer speaks about the difficulty in pulling off what Kerry has promised to do.

The mere appearance of a Europhilic fresh face is unlikely to so thrill the
allies that French troops will start marching down the streets of Baghdad.
Therefore, you can believe that Kerry is just being cynical in pledging to bring
in the allies, knowing that he has no way of doing it. Or you can believe, as I
do, that he means it.

I believe that Kerry may actually mean it. In the context of his past and his very outspoken globalism, one can only conclude that like it or not, the man really is a "peace-loving citizen of the world" at heart. Now the problem I see developing for the Dems is that the moderate section of their party; the one that claims Joe Lieberman and all Jews; thinks that Kerry is being cynical is a calculated political move. Why do I even pose the thought? Well, Krauthammer answers with his analysis of Kerry's silent intentions.

Think about it: What do the Europeans and the Arab states endlessly rail about
in the Middle East? What (outside of Iraq) is the area of most friction with
U.S. policy? What single issue most isolates America from the overwhelming
majority of countries at the United Nations? The answer is obvious: Israel. In
what currency, therefore, would we pay the rest of the world in exchange for
their support in places such as Iraq? The answer is obvious: giving in to them
on Israel.

We already know that the only time the Kerry campaign has been expressly pro-Israel was in the Vice-Presidential debate through the mouth of John Edwards. Even then, one must remember that Edwards is an evangelical, a Southern one at that, and because of this religious tie will feel more of a bond with Israel than a staunch Roman Catholic might. (For a great primer on this topic read this article) Otherwise John Kerry has flip-flopped in verbal silence on Israel several times. (CBS Example) In the end, none of us can be sure of Kerry's intentions, however, I suggest that simply look at the man and listen to his words over the past year and half. Then ask yourself this question, "Can I see this man changing his mind and selling out Israel for political points overseas and at home?" I don't know what your answer is, but I know mine.

The Roe Effect in Action

2004-10-21T11:34:00.000-07:00

Channel One, the news network that high-school students across the country view within their classrooms, sponsored a mock election called "One Vote 2004." 1.4 million students participated.

President Bush won by a landslide. The President took 393 electoral votes compared to 145 for Kerry. The President also took the popular vote 55-45%.

While I think the President will win on November 2, I don't think it will be by this large of a margin. I'm on record saying that the President's electoral count will be in the 290's. So what's with the kids?

James Taranto of "The Wall Street Journal" has a theory he calls "The Roe Effect:"

our theory is that abortion is making America more conservative than it otherwise would be.

We base this on two assumptions. First, that liberal and Democratic women are more likely to have abortions. Second, that children's political views tend to reflect those of their parents...

I'd also add that conservatives are more likely to have children under any circumstance. They tend to get married more often and younger, they start having children younger, and they have more kids. They just tend to be more family-oriented. For a counter-example, look at the demographic trends of much of Europe.

For a pro-lifer like myself this is sweet poetic justice. Is it really so surprising that liberal hostility to family values eventually results in fewer liberal kids?

Using the Free Media: Bush Could Learn From Kerry

2004-10-20T08:10:00.000-07:00

I usually agree with Hugh Hewitt. I almost always agree with Hewitt's views on Kerry and his campaign. I don't, however, see "fraud" in Kerry making advertising spots that he releases to the news media, but then subsequently doesn't buy time for.

I confess ignorance of most of the campaign finance law. Therefore, this is not an analysis of whether the practice is legal. Assuming the practice is legal, I see no ethical problem with it. In fact, it's a politically shrewd move that the Bush campaign would be wise to follow. The Bush campaign claims that, to date, they haven't done this. They really should.

Here's how it works: Kerry or his campaign see an issue. It could be an issue brought up by the Bush campaign, or it could be an issue that Kerry wants to bring up. Either way, Kerry commissions an advertisement, announces it to the media, and the various news outlets run the ad on their news shows with a little placard at the bottom of the screen announcing that it’s a Kerry advertisement. News commentary should follow.

Kerry might be done with the ad after that. Or, if the Kerry campaign thinks running the ad might be helpful, then they run focus groups on the ad. Kerry wants to know before he spends campaign money whether the ad will move the numbers in his favor in particular swing states.

This is just smart. Creating an ad, even a polished, ready-for-primetime spot, is relatively inexpensive compared to buying airtime. When Bush announces a new spot, Kerry quickly prepares and releases a response ad. This means that no new Bush ad is run on the news without the follow-up: "But the Kerry campaign responded with their own ad, [roll tape]."

This means that Kerry's position will always be part of the conversation during the discussion. Conversely, Kerry might initiate a volley with an ad he never intends to run. Since Bush is not creating non-running ads, he either is not ready with a response, or the response is an old ad, or its a verbal response from the Bush campaign (which is usually less polished than the Kerry ad), or it's an ad the campaign feels compelled to air somewhere.

I'm sure Hewitt's position is that this practice is misleading to the media and the public - that part of the reason the news organization runs the ad is to let the public know that the campaign is purchasing airtime for the ad you are about to view.

The news media shouldn't assume this. The only assumption that seems warranted is that the ad accurately reflects the position of the campaign that made it.

Political ads are unethical if they are not labeled as ads (like the typical CBS news broadcast), or if they are patently untrue (like the typical CBS new broadcast and many of Kerry's ads). It is not unethical to make ads for the free media that are not later run at the campaign's expense. It's smart, shows flexibility, and should be done by the Bush campaign.

If Kerry is resorting to non-run ads in lieu of news conferences and interviews, then that should be criticized.

The Breck Girl

2004-10-19T04:13:00.000-07:00

Ready for a laugh?

"John Edwards and his Hair."

Extracting News From NPR

2004-10-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

Every weekday morning I drop my two older children off for school – one on one side of town, one on the other – then I head off for work in a third direction. This takes time, so when I quickly tire of the local DeeJay's morning show, "Morning Breath," I turn reluctantly to NPR.

I do this because the local commercial talk radio stations don't get cranked off until 9:00 a.m. or so. I can't explain the economics of that. Why talk radio basically ignores morning drive time is something someone should take up with Rush or Hannity. Anyway, I turn to NPR and hear the latest Democratic Party talking points passed off as news on a taxpayer supported network. I found that galling.

Here's the story I heard this morning, "Kerry Volunteers Woo Pa. Swing Voters." Actually, the story is about how both parties are engaged in vigorous get-out-the-vote campaigns in a swing state. Apparently the headline author only heard the Kerry part of the story.

A practiced conservative NPR listener can sometimes pick out some actual news from even NPR's biased reporting. Here's what I learned:

The Kerry campaign is having to rely on out-of-state volunteers. The Bush volunteers tend to be more local.

The out-of-state v. local volunteers may indicate that there isn't as much local excitement for Kerry as for Bush.
The out-of-state Kerry campaign volunteer who was interviewed asked "who in the world would be voting for Bush?" but has seen since her arrival in Pennsylvania that there are many voters who are passionate about Bush.

How effective can a Kerry volunteer be with swing voters if she can't even imagine the motivations of a Bush voter? This is also a problem within the larger Kerry campaign. It exists in a cocoon of yes-men and Democrat true-believers. The best campaign volunteer (and campaign) knows and understands the arguments of the other side, and is prepared to answer them.
The Kerry campaigns is having to fight hard (spend money) to keep a state that went for Gore by 4 points.

...and Gore lost. It appears that Kerry has to win both Florida and Pennsylvania to win. Bush can win if he takes either. The RealClearPolitics map has Bush ahead in Florida, and tied in Pennsylvania.
The local Bush volunteer is comfortable enough on the issues to stray from the script as needed.

Also, Steven Den Beste sees a trend in the popular vote toward Bush in the closing weeks.

All good news.

The Choice, Part 2

2004-10-16T05:47:00.000-07:00

I thought of another description of our choice on November 2:

GI Joe v. Ken

Remember that great commercial a few years back with GI Joe driving up in a Nissan to Barbie’s house? He whistles, a thrilled Barbie comes running out leaving Ken - tennis sweater knotted around his preppie neck - alone and jealous.

Here’s the commercial zipped and unzipped.

Everybody loves an action hero. We want a leader who is sure of himself and his beliefs. We want him to gather the facts, apply judgment, and act decisively.

Now’s not the time for uncertainty and nuance. Sure this is a macho and jingoistic attitude. But a woman doesn’t have to be Barbie to understand this too. The gender gap is shrinking.

Another Calculated Error

2004-10-15T21:00:00.000-07:00

In last Wednesday's Presidential debate both candidates were asked the following the question:

Both of you are opposed to gay marriage. But to understand how you have come to
that conclusion, I want to ask you a more basic question. Do you believe
homosexuality is a choice?

The President responded with a decently open and honest response. Money quote:

You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice
to make in America and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and
dignity. It's important that we do that.
And I also know in a free society
people, consenting adults can live the way they want to live.
And that's to
be honored.
But as we respect someone's rights, and as we profess tolerance,
we shouldn't change -- or have to change -- our basic views on the sanctity of
marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important
that we protect marriage as an institution, between a man and a woman.

When asked to respond, Kerry chose to do THIS:

We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's
daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was,
she's being who she was born as.

In defense of the candidate he probably had no idea what a colossal mistake this was, but as a man with any form of integrity, he should have stayed await from nonetheless. Instead, Kerry took the cheap shot, echoing what his running mate said in the vice-presidential debate:

Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and
his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't
have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the
fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a
wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their
children, who want their children to be happy.

Yet, again the reference to Mary Cheney is unmistakable. I've come to believe that the Kerry campaign thought they could use this reference to somehow dig at the Bush base. The unhappy result for them, however, is that it has absolutely eroded into a full-blown controversy. Here are some links to bring you to speed. Wash Times on Kerry's failure to apologize, Wash Post poll on voter response to the comment, NewsDay story on Cheney's response.

I don't where all of this will lead. I'll predict this: the MSM will continue to spin this one toward the Kerry side, with the Cheney's being TOO outraged. Meanwhile, I think the damage is done to Kerry's image with women and young undecideds especially. An evening talk with my mom a Dem. made that clear. No matter what Kerry says from this moment on, people will remember this sly stab at his opponent's child and the electorate takes those trangressions more heavily than the media want to admit.

...If You Ain't Got That Swing

2004-10-14T14:33:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week I mentioned the political insulation that Democrats have with respect to certain interest groups.

Democrats are politically insulated from criticism about racism (and, to a lessor extent, sexism) by virtue of their hegemony with those voters.

A problem with this feeling of political insulation is that a Party can begin to mistreat its own constituencies on the theory that “where are they going to go?” For years blacks have complained about the lack of advocacy for their issues within the Democratic Party. Yet they stick with the Democrats. An old song comes to mind,

“You ain’t got a thing if you ain’t got that swing.”

If blacks aren’t willing to swing to the other Party, they won’t be fully valued by either Party.

A group that demonstrates “that swing,” Hispanics, witnessed the President and Senator Kerry both tripping over themselves last night to not to be offensive to Hispanics on the subject of Illegal Immigrants.

But gay voters were treated entirely differently. This was Kerry’s answer to the question, “Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?”

KERRY: We're all God's children, Bob. And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as.

The mentioning of Cheney’s daughter was entirely unnecessary to answer the question. It was gay-baiting.

Kerry saw this as a one-way ratchet in his favor. By bringing up this particular lesbian he might peel some social conservatives off the President. He certainly didn’t expect that this would get conservatives to vote for him, but he hoped to keep a few homophobe conservatives home on election day.

On the other hand social conservatives in his own party - some union workers, some blacks - would get the message that the Bush/Cheney ticket is not really socially conservative. “If you were considering Bush, don’t. Cheney loves his lesbian daughter.”

Forgotten in all of this are gay voters. Kerry’s not worried. Where are they going? Like blacks, gays are sticking with him regardless how poorly he treats them.

What Kerry said is exactly equivalent to:

We’re all God’s children, Bob. So, you asked if I think interracial marriage is okay, I say certainly. And I think if you were to talk to Mr. Bush’s daughter, who is dating a black man, she would tell you that she’s being true to herself.

Nobody likes to be tossed around as a slur, but that’s what Kerry did to gays in last night’s debate.

The question remains whether this tactic will be considered sleazy by the larger electorate. Edwards floated the trial balloon during the Vice-Presidential debate. Afterward the mainstream media said little. Kerry felt safe.

This may be another example of how a partisan media handicaps Kerry by giving him a false sense of security. One FoxNews talking head described a “chill” descending on the students in the hall when Kerry made this statement. Multiple groans were reported in the press room.

But only time will tell whether Kerry takes a significant hit from this. It would serve as a valuable character lesson to future candidates if he does.

UPDATE: "Reference to Mary Cheney Assailed"

PLAGIARISM ALERT: the "ain't got that swing" idea was applied to swing voters in a column I read a year or two back. I don't know who wrote it or when or where I read it. I have tried to find it. If you know who it was, please leave a comment.

The Choice

2004-10-13T14:09:00.000-07:00

Hugh Hewitt is asking, "What's the choice on 11/2?" He's received dozens of answers. Here are my favorites:

Churchill v. Chamberlain
Reagan v. Carter
Cheeseburger v. Escargot
"Let's roll" v. Roll over
Thanksgiving in Baghdad v. Christmas Eve in Cambodia
Pat Tillman v. Michael Moore
Brit Hume v. Chris Matthews
007 v. Austin Powers
Heart of America v. Le Car
10 gallon Stetson v. The magic hat
Laura v. Theresa
John Wayne v. Jane Fonda
We the people v. We are the world
Arnold v. Gray
Mini skirt v. Burkah
God Bless America v. God-less America
Compass v. Windsock
Composure v. Poser
Boots on the ground v. Hands in the air
Safer shores v. Manicures
A grand slam v. French toast
Sanity v. Vanity
Bunker busters v. Spit balls
Iron v. Irony
High and inside v. Intentional walk
Winner v. Whiner
Head coach v. Monday morning QB
Manwich v. Lean cuisine
A hearty handshake v. Throwing a kiss
Texas-raised v. Taxes-raised
Crawford v. Martha's Vineyard
Man's man v. Tan-in-a-can
Shock and Awe v. Hem and Haw
A man who kept his promises v. A kept man who promises

And the winner is...
Big Rocks v. Botox

But I have two more I'd like to add:
Toby Keith v. Dixie Chicks

(Hugh had Toby Keith v. Milli Vanilli, but this just feels more "right.")

and...
Saddam caught hairy v. "Not necessarily"

Electoral Maps

2004-10-13T12:08:00.000-07:00

Awhile back I emailed out links to a couple of electoral maps. I'm repeating those links in this post, but I found a couple more maps worth watching.

A Dem runs Electoral-Vote.com, but he updates constantly and seems honest with the data.

ElectionProjection.com is run by a Republican, but it's not updated as often.

The Iowa Electronic Markets graph is not an electoral map at all, but it is interesting. This is a regularly updated graph of the popular vote.

The RealClearPolitics map is updated more often than "Election Projection" and seems nonpartisan.

The TradeSports map is interesting because it's a map that reflects odds given in a betting pool for the outcome of the election in each state. It actually tracks very close to the other maps (people must be doing their research before laying their money down) so I always give it a look.

This goofy looking map advertises that it is updated regularly, but for the moment seems to favor Kerry overly. One thing I like about it is that it gives you the ability to play around. You can change states from one column to the next with a single click - seeing instantly how the vote count changes. This will be nifty on election night.

I'm enough of a political junky now that I check all these maps regularly. With the election this close, they can change drastically from day-to-day.

America Can't Afford an Ex-President Kerry

2004-10-08T11:56:00.000-07:00

Fast forward to November 3, 2004. In this possible future we've just elected John Kerry as President. We Republicans retire to lick our wounds and consider what went wrong. We resolve to accept the outcome with greater class than the Democrats did four years ago.

Taking office Kerry promises to rebuild our stature in the world. But he finds it a struggle to differentiate his Presidency from that of Bush. He finds he is unable to bring in "Old Europe" allies to help in Iraq. In fact, many present coalition partners peel away early.

Although he'd like to resurrect Kyoto, he finds it is utterly dead.

Terrorists, emboldened by his election, begin to regroup and plan major operations again. And so he has to preempt those plans – even he can't completely abandon the Bush doctrine.

He finds he can't recognize the International Criminal Court - and on and on. In short he is unable to do most of the things his supporters on the left would like him to do.

I'm not suggesting that a Kerry Presidency would be indistinguishable from Bush. In fact, much of what makes the Bush positions work is the resolve of Bush himself. The threat of force is not much of a threat if it is not believed.

But we survive it. We might or might not be hit again by a major attack. This attack might or might not have happened under Bush. Kerry might or might not respond forcefully enough. Whatever. We get through the next four years, we as a country realize our mistake and replace Kerry with a moderate Republican like Rudy and get back to the "hard work" of winning the War on Terror.

Then what? How would our position in the War on Terror be worse then, at the beginning of a Rudy administration, than it is today under Bush? We'd be worse off in many ways.

The War on Terror would be prolonged. Even among Kerry supporters, few are convinced that Kerry would fight the war as energetically and with the same resolve as Bush. Kerry would get bogged down in nuance and endless diplomacy with parties that do not wish our country well. During his tenure he would have failed to enthusiastically support the emerging democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He would not have been much of a friend to Israel. It is likely that during his tenure he would have pressured Israel to take down the security fence (even though it proved its value in ending an intifada). He'd no doubt set up "peace" summits pressuring Israel to bargain for peace by limiting it's defense. His positions would have weakened Israel.

Real allies – the "bribed and coerced" – like Britain, Australia, Poland, and Italy would feel burned. Whether through omission – failing to finish the job in Iraq – or commission these alliances would be damaged. If the people of these countries conclude their sacrifices were rendered worthless by American leadership under President Kerry, it would be hard to rebuild those alliances later.

Having lost present allies and having failed to recruit new ones, American would be standing alone.

But that's not all. At some time during the intervening years Jimmy Carter's post-Presidential career would be winding down. Just in time John Kerry, a new Presidential Appeaser, would be ready for Nobel prize winning coddling of dictators.

America can ill afford another ex-President as disastrous as Jimmy Carter. Time and time again, Mr. Carter has shown that there is not a dictatorship too odious to appease. Whether it's in Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba. He has attacked American foreign policy during times of war and actively counseled countries against cooperating with the Bush administration in the War on Terror. Carter sought to legitimize the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party by pulling out a chair for Michael "they didn't deserve to die, they voted for Gore" Moore.

John Kerry would be exactly that kind of ex-President. Why? Because he has a track record of doing exactly these kind of things. As a private citizen he met with North Vietnamese representatives in Paris during the Vietnam war. His voting record in the Senate is one of appeasement. His campaign rhetoric is untempered, as it should be, by wartime considerations. And, also like Carter, he has shown an unwillingness to reign in irrational elements of his party like Whoopie Goldberg.

Our country does not need another Jimmy Carter either in or retired from the White House.

"Those Without Swords Can Still Die Upon Them"

2004-10-06T07:50:00.000-07:00

Michael Moore should have listened to Eowyn. [Video Link]

Bwahahahaha!

Why Kerry Will Lose, Part 3

2004-10-06T03:44:00.000-07:00

Awhile back I said:

Bush can lose either Pennsylvania or Florida and still win a close reelection. But if he loses both, then he's going to have a hard time making it up elsewhere. If he wins both, I don't see how Kerry can make it up.

Over at "Right Side Redux" Justin offered this analysis yesterday:

Bush is ahead in every state that he won in 2000 with the exception of NH. Bush is also ahead in WI (way ahead!) and Iowa. Meanwhile Kerry has to defend: NM, OR, MN, PA. These states are all in the toss up pile...

Even if Kerry wins all of the toss ups, the score would then be 291 to 247. In such a scenario Ohio does nothing for Kerry.
247 + 20 = 267 for Kerry

291 - 20 = 271 for Bush
He needs to win either Ohio and Iowa
247 + 20 + 7 = 274 for Kerry

291 - 7 - 20 = 264 for Bush
or just Florida
247 + 27 = 274 for Kerry

291 - 27 = 264 for Bush
to have a chance. But again, this assumes that he wins ALL of the toss up states.
[Arithmetic added to this quote]

Going to the "Electoral Vote Predictor" map, I note that of the tossups mentioned by Justin - NM, OR, MN, PA - all are currently leaning Kerry by tiny margins except New Mexico.

But Kerry has to win all the tossups just to have a shot at staying in the game. Who would have thought that Republican-leaning New Mexico - with its 5 electoral votes - could be so important?

Why Kerry Will Lose, Part 2

2004-10-05T11:03:00.000-07:00

This morning Leo Morris described Edward's "two America's" speech as follows:

They [the Kerry campaign] pitch it [the "two America's theme] as an antidote to the "politics of greed," one America peopled by hardworking dupes forever taken advantage of by the other America, occupied by the lazy ruling class with an evil amount of money.

It looks like Edwards would also divide us into sane America and insane America:

SEN. JOHN EDWARDS (D-NC) (clip of a speech): "I'd say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you've lost your mind."

I'm wouldn't have been surprised to have heard that Edwards or Theresa had said this in a private conversation, but to say it in a speech is remarkable.

This is an indication of how impenetrable the cocoon around this campaign is. These people have surrounded themselves with yes-men. Admittedly, this is hard to avoid, but these yes-men are far-left haters. These people think that the red states are full of know-nothing hicks that really shouldn't be trusted with the vote. I can't say it any plainer than Edwards did. He thinks we're insane.

You cannot win races like this. Imagine a marginal Bush voter. Perhaps someone who is elderly who has been scared by the Democrat's Medicare rhetoric or someone who thinks stem cell research is a good idea. They voted for Bush last time, think they are going to vote for him again, but these issues have them considering Kerry. Then they hear this comment from Edwards.

Which candidate is more attractive now to that voter?

And is this going to impress the swing voters?

2004-10-04T07:19:00.000-07:00

So many photoshopping opportunities...so little time. Photo obtained via Drudge.

Historical Perspective

2004-10-01T11:02:00.000-07:00

This article from CNNfyi (circa October 2000) provides some great perspective on the punditry's view of who wins debates. I find it interesting that the media still believes it can say who won the debate within five minutes of it's end. In fact, it is important for us to remember that a debate really has four dimensions to it. Each dimension is distinct and can be "won" independently of the others. The four as I label them are: Style, Technique, Substance, and Public Perception. To frame my view of these debates it is necessary to first explain these four criteria.

First is style. The style category constitutes how the debater handles himself within the discourse. It can include his posture, his facial expressions, his tone of voice, his attitude, and generally anything else that makes up the non-verbal element of the debate. Technique is the element of a debater's performance that consists of his rhetorical devises, his reactions to his opponent, and the positioning his uses in framing his argument. The third category is substance. Substance is one the most important, in fact it goes hand in hand with the last category. For now, however, let us treat it separately. Substance is the actual content of what the debater has the say. This is the lasting element of his performance. It also is what will be dissected and analyzed and used to try and win over undecided voters. The last category of the debate is unique to the world politics and is the most important one: public perception. Along with substance, the way that voters perceive a candidate is perhaps that most lasting impact of a debate. With these categories in mind, one can apply them and analyze last night's debate.

On style, John Kerry won hands down. I am a big Bush supporter but Kerry handled himself well, and he was calm and collected. Bush leaned too much and didn't take the same care in his facial expressions as Kerry did. With that said, style is the most fleeting of the categories. It doesn't last and it's impressions don't last. That is why you will see a lot of Dems trying to keep the "images" of the candidates in the public's mind. As far as Technique goes, both candidates did well. They made their points and responded to remarks of the other. Bush did surprisingly well, I thought, compared to his 2000 performances. In substance there exists no contests: BUSH WON! This is also why the DNC will focus on his expressions. They cannot compete and attack him on what he said. This is the area in which Bush most impressed me. For a man who was painted as an "idiot" in 2000 he came out swinging and did a great job. Finally, public perception is harder to call. It takes time to judge this category but I feel it will be somewhat neutral depending on how well the RNC and the Bush campaign capitalize on Kerry's verbal mistakes. Overall, I agree with those who say it was a tie and that (no matter what anyone says) is a boon to Bush. John Kerry had to come out and convince the American that he is not a waffler but a strong leader. He did not do that and even if Bush sounded repetitive he drove home the fact that Kerry's beliefs are driven by the wind of political polling.

Update: A more detailed analysis of some of Kerry's remarks will be posted later.

The Debates...

2004-10-01T04:08:00.000-07:00

Most of the talking heads are calling the debate a tie and strongly hinting that a tie goes to the challenger.

I'm not buying that at all. True, Kerry didn't look like he'd just risen out of a coffin or a pumpkin patch, and he was somewhat articulate. But what he said will not get him elected.

At this point most candidates, left or right, would be moving to the middle to try to secure the undecideds. With a little over a month to go, Kerry apparently still feels the need to firm up his base. He actually tracked left last night. A "global test" for preemption? How can you say you recognize America's right to defend herself and then say that right depends on outsiders? A right is a right, not an unsigned permission slip.

Here's where Kerry lost it:

With respect to Iran, the British, French, and Germans were the ones who initiated an effort without the United States, regrettably, to begin to try to move to curb the nuclear possibilities in Iran. I believe we could have done better. I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide the nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they weren't willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together.

He wants to sell nuclear fuel to Iran as part of his nuclear nonproliferation plan? Yeah, and let's sell hashish to schools as part of a "just say no to drugs" plan.

Scary Kerry.

UPDATE: To sum it all up:

Kerry thinks we have the right to launch a preemptive attack, provided we pass a global test (the U.N. says it's okay for us to exercise our right).
He is critical of the President for going to Iraq without allies - when we had allies, but...
Thinks we should have done our own fighting in Afghanistan, and...
Wants to go it alone in dealing with North Korea (because that worked so well for Madeleine Albright and Jimmy Carter last time).
He thinks nuclear nonproliferation means we can't develop a new bunker-busting nuke, but...
We should deliver nuclear fuel to Iran.

I just have to believe that this debate will look less and less like a loss for Bush as what Kerry actually said sinks in.

The Great Pumpkin

2004-09-29T11:27:00.000-07:00

I guess things could be worse for the newly orange John Kerry. He could be blue like Stan Jones.

Stan Jones was the ~~smurf~~ Senate candidate who turned blue a couple of years back from drinking a health elixer that contained colloidal silver.

Kerry was an odd looking guy to begin with.

Kerry walks into a bar. Bartender asks, "Why the long face?"

But now add orange tan-in-a-can and botox and an ungodly Ross-from-Friends-level teeth whitening.

Didn't these guys learn anything from Al Gore's Tammy Faye Bakker makeup fiasco at the last set of debates?

Kerry Might Have Just Lost Florida

2004-09-29T05:29:00.000-07:00

I've spent all morning thus far, trying to find the transcript for all of John's Kerry interview on Good Morning America. Here is all ABC has posted thus far. My disappointment comes because I heard a sound bite this morning on ABCNews (radio) from Sen. Kerry in which he criticized Pres. Bush for "cleaning up debris(brush) in Florida instead of cleaning up problems in America." If this quote gets out in the media and Kerry happens to sound it again, Florida will be gone. After four hurricanes in the past two months, the concensus is that Floridians are too tired, stressed, and distracted to care about the election. Ironic for such a key swing state. Yet, if the people here this attack by a man who has barely visited their state during such a hard period, I predit their response will swiftly move Florida out of the swing state category and into Bush's column.

Instalaunch!

2004-09-27T11:53:00.000-07:00

...just not at this blog.

Here's my post on the space tourist industry that caught the eye of a certain law professor.

Keep scrolling for Phil's take on the same news.

Stem Cell Debate

2004-09-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

Elizabeth M. Whelan and Henry I. Miller have published an even-handed article on the arguments for and against embryonic stem cell research, "Politics and the Debate Over Stem Cell Research."

You'll want to read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Here's a column by Ramesh Ponnuru seeking to answer Whelan and Miller.

Selling Doom

2004-09-24T08:17:00.000-07:00

Mark Steyn hits another one out of the park this morning in "The Doomed Defeatist." Link requires free registration. As you probably guessed from the title, his column is about John "C3PO" Kerry.

Desperate for payback for his month of SwiftVet hell, the thin-skinned Kerry demanded that his campaign went on the attack about Bush's fitful National Guard service back in the Vietnam era. Nobody cares. But Dan Rather and CBS did a big story on whether Bush failed to show up for a physical in the War of 1812, and the Kerry campaign promptly lost most of September because Dan's case had been built on laughably fake memos supplied as part of a convoluted deal involving the network, a man of dubious mental stability and key Kerry campaign contacts including Joe Lockhart, the former Clinton press secretary who was brought on board to get Kerry out of last month's mess, not land him in this month's...

If you look at the broader picture, the Democrats made a disastrous error in the years since 9/11. One reason they've been in decline for a decade is that, on all kinds of matters, they're in thrall to unrepresentative interest groups - to the radical feminist lobby on abortion, to the teachers' unions on education, to the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton ethnic-grievancemongers on black issues. These groups effectively exercise a veto over any serious thinking on the relevant issue. Since the Afghan campaign, the party has allowed a new grouping - the Michael Moore crowd, MoveOn.org, the Hollywood Left - to swell into a veto on any serious thinking about war and national security. If you want the relationship distilled into a single image, fish out a picture of Michael Moore sitting next to Jimmy Carter in the Presidential box at the Democratic convention. A weak vacillating man at the head of a party deeply ambivalent about the war is not the kind of guy who's going to be putting the screws on Musharraf or the Saudis.

And, just in time for the change of policy, comes a new ad from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth focusing on another cheery snapshot from the John Kerry scrapbook of 35 years ago. This one is about Kerry's trip to Paris to meet negotiators from the North Vietnamese communist government and the south's Provisional Revolutionary government. He was a Naval Reserve officer at the time, and many of my correspondents regard it as treason. I'm not in favour of having Senator Kerry put on trial and executed; soccer moms and other swing voters may see that as over-reaching. But John O'Neill, the Swiftees' spokesman, says, "It would be like an American today meeting with the heads of al-Qa'eda." Even if that line doesn't catch on, the ad is nicely timed with Kerry's Iraqi withdrawal strategy to paint the senator as the candidate of American defeatism, then and now.

Can Steyn write or what?

R2D2 Would Win in a Landslide

2004-09-23T11:08:00.000-07:00

Warning: If you're drinking a soft drink, take your last swallow and put the can down before reading further. Otherwise you will blow it out your nose:

...with all the political crap flowing through the news wires…I'd thought I'd take time to check in on some old childhood friends--namely the Star War Trilogy which just came out on DVD...

But as I tried to get into those stories again, my mind kept going back to the spin I'm faced with on a daily basis. Something was nagging me. I couldn't quite put my finger on it, but then it dawned on me. Threepio, with his constant negativity and bitching, was starting to sound like John Kerry...

THREEPIO:
We'll be destroyed for sure. This is madness!
We're doomed!
Secret mission? What plans? What are you talking about? I'm not getting in there!
Are you sure this things safe?
How did I get into this mess? I really don't know how.
No more adventures. I'm not going that way.
That malfunctioning little twerp. This is all his fault! He tricked me into going this way, but he'll do no better.

And R2D2 is the very essence of Dubya. Sure you can't understand what he's saying half the time, sure he kind of swaggers when he walks, but if you've got to take on the Death Star or search the spooky swamps of Dagobah for an ally, he's the one you want with you, not C3PO.

UPDATE: James Taranto runs even further with this meme.

Home Schooling

2004-09-23T09:04:00.000-07:00

We (Kathy, Matt, Dan, Phil, and I) are having an interesting discussion on home schooling at Beyond Words.

Election News

2004-09-21T11:19:00.000-07:00

I hope that election night this year won't be as long as in 2000! I was worthless the day after election day. So this year I'm developing a system so that I can "call" the race early:

If Bush takes Maine or New Hampshire, then Kerry's in trouble. These states only have 4 electoral votes each, but if Kerry can't win solidly in the Northeast, it may be an early indication of how the rest of the evening will go for him.
Bush can lose either Pennsylvania or Florida and still win a close reelection. But if he loses both, then he's going to have a hard time making it up elsewhere. If he wins both, I don't see how Kerry can make it up.

So I'll watch these states carefully and then go to bed early happy in the knowledge…who am I kidding? I'll be up until ~~CBS~~ FoxNews calls it.

One sign that it might be another long night is this erratic Electoral Vote Predictor. Bush is still ahead 256-239, but he is no longer polling the 270 votes needed to win.

I don't think this is an indication of how well the Kerry campaign is doing or how poorly the President's campaign is doing. Rather, this dramatic 99-vote swing demonstrates how close the race still is. Small changes, like a fading RNC convention bounce, can mean a big difference in the electoral count.

Glenn Reynolds is looking at some different polls.

Over the weekend there was a minor sequel to the Cheney-Edwards conflict when Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert commented:

"I don't have data or intelligence to tell me one thing or another, [but] I would think they [the terrorists] would be more apt to go (for) somebody who would file a lawsuit with the World Court or something rather than respond with troops."

When asked in a follow-up question if he believed al-Qaida could operate better with Kerry in the White House he said "yes."

John Edwards immediately shouted "Fear Mongering!"

The same day (are these guys coordinating their messages at all?), Kerry came out saying "Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions, and if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight."

In other words...

Reelecting Bush = Everlasting War. And, presumably the end of human civilization and the rise of The Planet of the Apes.

YOU MANIACS. YOU BLEW IT UP. DAMN YOU. DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!

I actually don't think either statement amounts to fear mongering - at least not in any unethical sense. After 9/11 it is entirely proper to debate which party will make the country safer.

I just happen to agree with Cheney and Hastert.

Odds and Ins

2004-09-20T04:19:00.000-07:00

In my “Why Kerry’s Losing” post I said,

Considering all of [my brilliant analysis from earlier in the post], it's not really surprising that, according to the Electoral Vote Predictor, Bush is now ahead 311 to 223.

I'm guessing that this will probably even out some by the election. My prediction is that Bush will win with electoral votes in the 290's.

I might still be right about that, but this morning’s Electoral Vote Counter has Bush up to 331 with New Hampshire edging (barely) over into his column.

I’ve written a semi-review of “Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow” over at The Speculist.

Also at The Speculist, Kathy Hanson has posted part 5 of the novella that she and I are collaborating on. Here’s “part 1.”

A Debate

2004-09-20T03:44:00.000-07:00

I hope my title is not misleading. So far there's only been my original post, "Why Kerry's Losing," a comment by "arash," and my response.

I've contacted arash, hopefully he'll respond. For now, here are the comments:

ARASH:

My thoughts are that being able to wage an effective war against terror depends upon more than a blind allegience to our national policies. In fact the dogmatic approach that this current president and administration have applied in launching a unilateral war without the necessary international support of some key allies has weakened our position in many of the Middle Eastern countries that had supported us and created a greater reason for even the most moderate of Arabs to question the U.S. tactics in fighting this war.

To undertsand the enemy's position is not the same as admitting defeat! To gloss over the reasons for the attack and to not address those issues by blanketing the situation by saying that 'the evildoers hate our freedoms' is quite upsetting.

So here we are mired in a situation in Iraq for no apparent reason (or at least none of the ones that were given). We have created what ammounts to another Palestine, in which enemies are created daily by constant strife. We have in effect repeated a history whose lessons we continue to ignore.

Feel free to e-mail me should you choose to respond as I doubt I will happen upon your blog again.

My response:

Arash:

Thanks for stopping by. We welcome debate.

Citizenry should never have blind allegiance to national policy. It's not unpatriotic to debate or to protest policies that you think are bad for the country. I do think some of the "Bush is Hitler," "I support the troops...when they shoot their officers" tripe is unpatriotic. But judging from the sane tone of your comment, I'm not counting you among those people.

I am suggesting that, with eyes wide open, aggressive engagement of terrorists abroad is keeping us safer at home.

By "key allies" I assume you mean allies like France, Germany, and to some extent, Russia. Are you aware that the announced purpose of French foreign policy is to "counter American hegemony?"

Many, including John Kerry, are arguing that we've squandered the good will of the world after 9/11.

I wander at what point, exactly, this "good will" was squandered. Many point to the war in Iraq, but I would place it earlier. The "good will" was gone after we went to Afghanistan. The "good will" of France (and others like Germany and Russia) requires a humbled, defeated, and victimized America. Once we responded militarily, we ceased being victims and lost their "good will."

In other words, the "good will" was not solidarity. It was pity at best and schadenfreude at worst. They agreed that it was a shame that innocents suffered and died, but also thought that we deserved it. If the U.S. learned her lesson, then maybe September 11 might not have been such a bad thing.

What have we lost by squandering that "good will?" For a country that has not accepted defeat and surrender, it was worthless to begin with.

There is truth to your argument that our actions abroad can create terrorists. If you are some on-the-fence potential terrorist and your terrorist uncle gets bombed, you might go looking for some revenge. But let me suggest that an appearance of weakness on our part and success in a spectacular attack on Osama's part drive recruitment much more. Potential terrorists might be willing to lay down their lives, but even they want to feel like their death accomplished something. They want "glorious" deaths, not "cannon-fodder" deaths.

Our lack of action in seriously dealing with Osama before 9/11 invited terrorism more than perceived wrongs. But by keeping the pressure on since 9/11, I believe that we have prevented follow-up attacks.

I agree that it's not weakness to learn about the motivations of your adversary. But just because we learn that they find our material success humiliating doesn't mean we should stop being successful. Just because they find equality of the sexes, freedom of speech, democracy, and capitalism somehow distasteful doesn't mean that's going to stop either.

But that's the end result of multiculturalism as it is currently embodied. The multiculturalists say that all cultures are of equal value. So if one culture somehow humiliates other cultures, then IT must be the problem. Wrong. Right making might. We are a powerful country precisely because of the attributes that they find so distasteful.

You said that we went to Iraq for no apparent reason, or at least not the reasons given. Well, I disagree.

It appears that we may have been wrong about the weapons of mass destruction. I actually think we may yet find these weapons. Nevertheless, literally everyone, including the intelligence services of other nations and even Senator Kerry, thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, Saddam did have these weapons. He used them on his own people in the 1980's.

Many would have you believe that there was no connection between Saddam and terrorists. This is just not true.

We know of at least one terrorist training camp 30 miles south of Baghdad where they used a 707 fuselage to train in airline hijacking. You'll find more evidence here.

Even with all the problems that we've had in Iraq, do you really believe that our country would have been safer with Saddam in power? Don't you believe that the Iraqi people will ultimately be better off without him (if they're not already better off)? Please keep in mind the mass graves when you answer.

Ultimately it is hoped that an Iraqi democracy in the heart of the Arab world will help spark reform in the region. Surely reform holds more promise than terrorism. That's the hope. And as far fetched as it may sound, I believe that this hope is better than sitting at home hoping that being inoffensive will buy us peace from people who would die to kill us.

My comment was changed only to add hyperlinks to the URL's included in the comment. I'll do the same for arash if he responds with URL's.

Why Kerry's Losing

2004-09-16T08:50:00.000-07:00

On August 18th the Pew Research Center released a poll showing that…

a majority of Democrats (51%) believe that "U.S. wrongdoing in dealings with other countries might have motivated the 9/11 attacks." Republicans, on the other hand, "reject that view even more decisively than three years ago (76% now, 65% in late September 2001).

This raises a serious question. If a majority of Democrats assign blame to the United States for 9/11, can they be trusted to aggressively wage the War on Terror? Specifically, can the Democratic Party's first (Kerry) and fourth (Edwards) most liberal senators be trusted with the war?

This is not a question of patriotism, but a question of motivation and the setting of priorities.

I don't need to answer this question. A majority of American people - Republicans plus persuadable Independents and Democrats - have already decided that the Democratic Party is not the best party to wage this war. This issue wins for the President and loses for Kerry every time it's brought up.

So Kerry has to fall back on domestic politics and hope for a 527-style attack that sticks to the President. An improving economy, Ra^thergate, and a disorganized Kerry campaign aren't helping.

Considering all of this it's not really surprising that, according to the electoral vote predictor, Bush is now ahead 311 to 223.

I'm guessing that this will probably even out some by the election. My prediction is that Bush will win with electoral votes in the 290's.

The Genius of the Hitler Technique

2004-09-15T21:20:00.000-07:00

I don't have much time tonight. It's late and I've been in class, at work, and at church from 6:00AM to 10:00PM. My main motivation tonight was to go bed and enjoy waking up next to my wife after a good 7 hrs of rest. That was before I made the mistake of reading the CBS statement (I missed it earlier) hoping to find, within it, a shred of journalistic integrity. As many of you knew before this humble post, disappointment was happily waiting for me. This post by Ernest Miller is a better response to CBS than I could put together, but I do have one thing to say: ARE YOU KIDDING ME!!! SERIOUSLY, ARE YOU STINKING KIDDING ME!!!!
This is CBS' idea of an admission. That might even be slightly defensible except that it's not an admission of error. Today, CBS trotted out and said, "you should believe it because WE say so!" No longer does CBS feel it should function as a reporter of the news but "rather" as a shaper of American opinion. I don't know if this frightens anyone else, but it does me.
The title of this post is provocative on purpose because I want to allude to a connection between history and the hypocrisy of the left. Despite his obvious evil nature, Adolph Hitler was perhaps one of the most effective propagandists this modern world has seen. In fact, Hitler perfected a technique in which he believed that if you told a big enough lie enough times, then people would begin to believe it. I find it sadly ironic, yet telling that after three years of comparing this President to Hitler the left has reached the climax in using Hitler's most enduring propaganda tool. This CBS memo scandal is but piece of it. Consider that in the past month the left (including the DNC, MoveOn PAC, CBS, etc) has resurrected every piece of mud that they originally slung at George Bush 4 years ago. CBS has ruined it's credibility in order to fill the airwaves with the lie that Bush somehow went AWOL from the Guard and has been covering it up for the past 30 years. MoveOn and the DNC have both jumped on this sinking bandwagon in order to air ads that use CBS's false claims to tell America that Bush got his daddy to get him into the guard and then partied all the way through. Finally, Kitty Kelley has published a book in which calls the President AND first lady drug addicts; claims that Laura Bush sold drugs; and states that President beat his wife! It's unreal! I think that the left really believes that if they say enough, the rest of us will just buy it for the same reason that you heard on CBS tonight, "because WE say so."
Thank God for the technology we hold the freedom to have and use, because it has produced a way beyond the hypocritical propaganda of the left and much to their chagrin has created a powerful system of accountability to the facts in today's media. I tip my hat to all of you who blog and have blogged for years. You may be called amateurs by the MSM, but so where the members of the Continental Army. In this media revolution the Internet and everyone who is willing to Google and blog will be the Minute Men of truth. (Okay enough of the emotional analogies, but I seriously do thank each blog that offered a fair level of journalistic review.)

Varied Interests

2004-09-15T13:32:00.000-07:00

Today I wrote a new post for The Speculist about the first photograph of a planet orbiting another star.

And at Beyond Words I wrote about Peggy Noonan.

Just don't ask me to connect the dots.

Thinking Out Loud

2004-09-14T15:13:00.000-07:00

John Podhoretz is no longer holding back his opinion of the Killian memos:

The documents aren't just forgeries, they're bad, blatant, ludicrous forgeries. They're forgeries so easily detected that in the space of a few hours after CBS released computer photographs of them on the Internet, they had already been pegged and deconstructed.

So, how in the world did the forger expect to get away with it? Rich at "Shot Across the Bow" has an interesting theory.

His idea is that some Clinton loyalist within the Kerry campaign concocted the poorly forged documents, passed them to their willing accomplices in the press, knowing that they would be quickly discredited once reported. This would lead back to the Kerry campaign, which would sabotage Kerry in time for Hillary to be Torricellied in for 2004.

Rich has Rather knowingly sacrificing the short time he has left in his career for the benefit of Hillary.

This is a fascinating theory, but I've got doubts. First, I don't think Rather would sacrifice his legacy even for a political party he believes in. I think Rather is guilty of allowing partisanship to cloud his judgement, but I don't think he planned to be a patsy. That just seems out of character. It is marginally more likely that Rather knew or suspected the documents were fakes but thought the world would believe him anyway. The most likely scenario was that Rather was fooled.

But by whom and why? Rich's idea that the forger knew and wanted the forgery to be discovered is interesting. It is hard to fathom the stupidity of some guy typing the memo in Microsoft Word giggling to himself that he's going to fool the world. Surely he had to think the forgery would be found out.

DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has already floated the theory that Karl Rove might be behind the forgery (funny that the DNC is basically admitting that these documents are forgeries before CBS). The RNC would have much to gain by a scandal that led back to Kerry. But I don't buy that either. Dan Rather couldn't know he was receiving documents damaging to Bush from the RNC or a pro-Bush group. He would have known something suspicious was going on.

In order for Rather to believe the documents enough to be duped, he'd have to believe that they either came directly from the Texas Air National Guard, or were dug up by some group adverse to Bush. That would be the Kerry campaign itself, the DNC, or maybe some left leaning 527 group like MoveOn.

If Rove is such a genius that he was able to fool Rather into believing a memo he leaked came from anti-Bush forces, then Glenn Reynolds was right. Kerry should just give up.

And no, I don't think a Clinton loyalist did this to get Hillary in the race in 2004. It's too late to pull the Toricelli option. I doubt Hillary could even get on the ballot in all states at this point. Of course she wouldn't need to get on the ballot everywhere, just the blue states and the battleground states, but it's just not logistically possible to pull off such a switch at this point.

And why would she go to all the trouble just to lose? Hillary would have no chance of winning this time, especially if the Dems were consumed in scandal. Hillary is not stupid, she's going to wait to take her shot in 2008.

She wouldn't get a shot in 2008 if Kerry wins. Why not sabotage Kerry to insure a clear field for 2008? This seems much more likely than Rich's theory, but there's still a problem. Why take the risk since Kerry is in trouble anyway?

Again, in order for Rather to accept the documents he would have to believe his source was capable of digging up dirt on Bush that had remained buried through a congressional campaign, a gubernatorial campaign, and a presidential campaign. He'd have to believe his source was some powerful individual on the left. And if we are saying that it's a Clinton loyalist trying to hurt Kerry, it would have to be a Kerry campaign insider loyal to Clinton – someone like James Carville.

But planning for a memo you write to be discovered as a forgery is just plain nuts for someone like Carville. He'd have to know that when it fell apart he'd be outed by Rather, not just the Kerry campaign.

This theory has the same problem as the theory that Rove leaked the documents. If someone – from either side – leaked the documents knowing and hoping they would be discovered as forgeries, he'd have to find a way to make it look like the documents came from some other believable person. Otherwise the forger could expect a sentence in a federal penitentiary. We are talking Lex-Luther-level evil genius here.

So I'm not buying it. I guess I'm back to shaking my head at the stupidity of somebody thinking they could pass off these third-rate forgeries for the real thing. And once he fooled the gatekeepers he had reason to hope the forgery would never be discovered, at least not until after the election.

And he would've gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for you snooping kids!

UPDATE: Rich writes to say that his post was a parody. It's my Emily Litella moment...Oh. Never Mind!

I guess it's a measure of how bizarre this whole story is that a parody actually sounds like a serious theory.

So Who Really Does Play Dirty?

2004-09-13T17:36:00.000-07:00

This story by Newsweek describes the negative atmosphere of this Presidential election as being the worst ever. I can't believe I'm agreeing with such a liberal publication, but they're right. This is one big difference, however, in their story and what the reality of this election has been. The Bush campaign is a well-run unit (unlike his father's in 1992) and there exists no doubt that the RNC retains the services of some amazing political "bull-dogs". The direction of Republican attacks though has been primarily upon John Kerry's record, his votes, his views, and his inerrant and flip-flopped opinions on virtually every issue. The attacks leveled at the President from Senator Kerry and the DNC, however, are primarily centered upon the man, George Bush. They've called him a cocaine addict, a drunk, a liar, a traitor, stupid, an abuser, a deserter, and host of others diatribes all intended to demean him as a man. The Newsweek peice does not speak about the content of the "slime" being hurled by each campaign. Instead, it puts the character assault of the left as equal to any, ANY, criticism of John Kerry by the right. My feelings on this subject are obvious yet I challenge any liberal to catalog the criticisms of John Kerry alongside the attacks of George Bush and show an equality of actual content. On a final note, the bias of the media has been discussed in each post so far on this blog. It's worth repeating again that never before has the Mainstream Press showed such open and vitrious nepotism toward one party or candidate. One only has to compare the treatment of the Swift Boats vets' story to that of the Bush Guard stories to see a clear and distinct difference. I hope that any of you who happen upon these humble ramblings will take the initiative and research the reporting with an open mind and open eye. Vote for any candidate you want, but please for the future of our nation, vote informed.

Update: For any visting this tonight, I haven't added all the links yet to the various attacks on President Bush. Stayed tuned tomorrow for those.

Why's Dan Sticking With His Story?

2004-09-13T14:21:00.000-07:00

CBS News has to know that the Killian documents are forged. So what is wrong with these people? Why haven't they admitted it so that they can retain a shred of dignity and begin to repair the damage?

Stanley Kurtz's analysis of this mystery is the most convincing I've read so far.

Abbreviated version: The audience of CBS News has grown more and more liberal over the years. The mainstream media as a whole grew liberal during the 70s, which drove away the first wave of conservatives, which created the need for alternative sources of news, and these alternatives began to be created in the 80s. Once conservatives had alternatives they left mainstream media news in mass, especially the most liberal network, CBS.

Rather's remaining audience really believes Rather's pathetic defense: the veracity of the documents is less important than the seriousness of the issues they raise. Who cares if it's true? It's what they've chosen to believe.

Let me go off topic just a second to announce I just "found" a document that "proves" Dan Rather personally armed John Hinkley, Jr. and told him Jodie Foster would be his girlfriend if he shot President Reagan. Sure the documents are still warm off my printer, but the charges are so serious that Rather should be compelled to prove them untrue.

The Killian document scandal has only polarized the potential audience further. CBS knows it isn't getting the conservatives back, so why bother carefully vetting stories that either hurt conservatives or help liberals in the future? Why bother retracting this story now if most of the remaining CBS audience is dying to believe it anyway?

In fact, if CBS News admits these documents are forgeries, it will have an ethical obligation to divulge its source. If it's the Kerry campaign or the DNC, then Kerry is finished in this election, Rather's career is over, and the remaining CBS audience will hate CBS for losing the election for Kerry.

The only good news is that intelligent people have been placed on notice. If, regardless of your party you have any interest in objective truth, don't look to CBS News.

Scandals, Scandals, Scandals.

2004-09-10T11:18:00.000-07:00

The forged document scandal is a serious problem for CBS. The fact that Dan Rather went on CNN about an hour ago saying that the documents are valid and that there won't be an internal investigation will only make it worse.

CBS, you'd better wake up and smell the coffee. It's over, the documents are clearly forged. Rather is down to arguing we should believe him instead of our lying eyes. You show me typewriter available in 1972 with proportional fonts, shrunken superscripted "th's," word wrap, and auto centering and I'll buy you lunch. In a fancy restaurant of your choice. In Paris, France.

And the fact that all of these things can be found and exactly duplicated in Microsoft Word removes all doubt.

I don't know whether to admire the gall of this forger, or shake my head at his laziness. It's not that hard to find a vintage typewriter.

But there are so many other scandals to choose from! We have former Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes claiming that as Lieutenant Governor he pulled strings to get Bush into the Texas National Guard. There's a small problem. Bush was sworn into the guard in 1968, Barnes didn't become Lieutenant Governor until 1969.

Another problem. Barnes denied the allegation that he helped Bush get into the National Guard when it was first brought up in 1999.

The New York Times, no friend of the Bush family, reported in February 2004 that Barnes, who acknowledged he played a role in getting Bush into the guard unit only after he was under oath, said he had no contact with anyone in the Bush family. A 1999 news article quotes Barnes saying, "I never spoke to Congressman Bush about his son," calling a magazine's report he had pulled strings at the elder Bush's request "false."

And what about the Associated Press "fake boos" scandal? This one is a whole week old, so it's in danger of being forgotten.

To refresh your memory, the AP reported as follows:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery." "He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally. Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

Nobody booed. Not one person. Instead, there was cheering for Mr. Clinton. Listen to this.

So, out of bias, this AP reporter lied about the boos, then added bias to the bias-inspired lie by saying Bush did nothing about the nonexistent boos.

I wrote the AP this email:

Dear Associated Press:

I have long suspected the AP of liberal bias, but now I am fully convinced.

You reported that when President Bush told his audience that President Clinton was in the hospital, "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

This is a complete fabrication. There was not a single boo. Not even a scattering of "boos," and the complete opposite of "Bush's audience of thousands...booed."

Liberal spin is one thing - something sadly I've grown accustomed to with your publications. Outright lying is another matter. In a straight news story I expect
to get the truth.

Perhaps I'm asking too much of the AP. Thank God for
the "New Media."

Sincerely,

Stephen Gordon

P.S. I suggest soul searching. Why is your reporter portraying a Republican crowd as so hateful? Could it be "projection?"

And no, I haven't heard back from them.

UPDATE:

From the CNN interview with Dan Rather (hat tip to Drudge):

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DAN RATHER, CBS NEWS ANCHOR: I know that this story is true. I believe that the witnesses and the documents are authentic. We wouldn't have gone to air if they would not have been. There isn't going to be -- there's no -- what you're saying apology?

QUESTION: Apology or any kind of retraction or...

RATHER: Not even discussed, nor should it be. I want to make clear to you, I want to make clear to you if I have not made clear to you, that this story is true, and that more important questions than how we got the story, which is where those who don't like the story like to put the emphasis, the more important question is what are the answers to the questions raised in the story, which I just gave you earlier.

Ignore the man behind the curtain!

It's not the veracity of the evidence that's important. It's the seriousness of the charge.

Wrong, Dan. If the evidence is fake, why should we believe the charge? In fact, why should we believe CBS News about anything until its house is put in order?

A Break in the Silence

2004-09-10T08:37:00.000-07:00

I had resolved to sit on the blogging sidelines during this election. I'm in grad school full-time , after all, and serving in a full-time ministry position plus I have a new wife at home who deserves some attention too. Yet, this week's events have determined that the bench is not the place for anyone in this political season. As the news story about 60 Minutes' "forged" memos continues to unravel, the political agenda of the mainstream media has been revealed like never before. Not too say that the media hasn't picked favorites before, but during my short life and the four presidential campaigns I have closely followed, I have yet to see such an unbridled attempt by the mainstream press to affect an election to this extent. The response ( also here, and here) of the blogosphere has been truly remarkable and should be given credit for blowing this story out of the foggy waters of partisanship and getting the truth out to the public. The lesson for voters is this: We can no longer sit passive, assuming that we are being fed the truth by our news outlets. Instead, we must make the choice to look deeper and find the real story before we make up our minds.