But Why Did He Ask John? Why?:

Okay, McCain's reaction to the New York Times reporter wasn't exactly "hostile." Still, one wonders about Kerry considering him as a running mate in 2004. My follow up question to McCain would have been: "Okay, your answer was 'categorically no' but why do you think John Kerry considered you and thought you'd be interested in the first place?" Then I would have asked him why he's always so angry.

P.S. I honestly can't believe we're having an election year where I'm defending the New York Times treatment of a GOP presidential candidate. Sigh...

Read more...

A Recommendation We Can't Ignore

Well, if Yasser Arafat's posse thinks Kerry's okay...what's not to like? :-)

(Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin)

Read more...

Kerry the Lesser

One of my dearest friends in the entire world who is a liberal in every good sense of that word, compassionate, tolerant, giving, and free of bigotry, sent me a link to an article on Salon.com that lays out the reasons Why Conservatives Must not Vote for Bush. The author's reasons boil down to the following:

1. Bush isn't a true conservative, which is defined as "a commitment to individual liberty, limited government, constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility", but rather puts power over principle.
2. Bush is running us into debt and the red ink is flowing mightily.
3. Kerry has more war experience. (Yeah, I got a chuckle outta that too!)
4. Bush's foreign policy has failed (no WMD, Iraq in shambles, Taliban virtually back in control of Afghanistan, no Osama stuffed and mounted in the Lincoln Bedroom, etc. etc.)

After reading it, I still remain firmly in W's camp, and he is going to get my vote. There are three things I want in a President in the following order:

1. A Foreign Policy Hawk who will carpet bomb the bejeezus out of anyone who looks at the U.S. cross-eyed (including France). This attribute is non-negotiable.
2. A Social Libertarian (not l-i-b-e-r-a-l, there's a difference, look'em up).
3. A Fiscal Conservative. This can take a backseat if it conflicts with #1 or #2.

Does Bush fit any of these categories perfectly? Nope. Does Kerry? NOPE!

The money quote from the article is:

A Kerry victory would likely be bad for the cause of individual liberty and limited government. But based on the results of his presidency, a Bush victory would be catastrophic.

I'm puzzled by the author's logic. He seems to be exhorting conservatives to "deny their votes to Bush" because voting for W. would be very, very, very bad for the country, but voting for Kerry would only be very, very bad for the country. Apparently with a candidate like Kerry, you play the hand you're dealt.

I do think there are liberals out there who understand the defining issue of this generation, and Ed Koch is one of them. Here's his refreshing take on our situation:

What has propelled me to the side of President Bush is his resolute, uncompromising behavior and dedication to winning the war against terrorism. In last Friday's debate, the president summed up his philosophy in three sentences. He said: "And abroad we are at war. And it requires a president who is steadfast and strong and determined. I vowed to the American people after that fateful day of September the 11th that we would not rest nor tire until we're safe."

Senator John Kerry summed up his philosophy and lack of dedication to the fight in the first presidential debate when he called the war in Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time," and "But if and when you do it, Jim [Lehrer], you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test, where your countrymen, your people, understand fully why you're doing what you're doing, and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons."

If Senator John Kerry is elected, I have no doubt our determination to hunt down terrorists who threaten the security not only of the U.S. but also of our allies will diminish. Terrorists have had major successes in imposing their demands on nations like Spain, the Philippines and Turkey, all of which have given in to terrorist threats by removing military or civilian personnel from Iraq.

When I make these points to my fellow Democrats living in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio (the latter of which I will be visiting this week), they respond, "Yes, but we disagree with the president on so many domestic issues." I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue, from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom.

Fortunately, in the U.S., it is the Congress that decides all of these domestic issues, while the foreign policy of our country is largely the province of the president. So, my advice to my fellow Democrats is vote for your Democratic senators and representatives, knowing that even when it comes to the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices, if the Democrats in the Senate retain 41 votes, no candidate they oppose can be confirmed.

It is my hope that history will record that in the year 2005, Western civilization soundly defeated the Islamist fanatics, as it did at the gates of Vienna in 1683.

Four more years...four more years...four more years...

Read more...

Mary Beats Kerry

Okay, I have to admit that after the last debate I was giving Kerry a pass for mentioning Mary Cheney and her sexual orientation. I didn't understand what all the hubub was about and on its face the comment didn't seem slanderous or hurtful. Of course I momentarily forgot that this is a political campaign and nobody says anything just to be nice, especially a liberal.

As I read more about it and heard it discussed among friends and the pundits, it dawned on me how wrong it was exploit her as "fair game" in this mudslinging contest. Kerry sought to remind Ma & Pa Square-State that there is a living, breathing L-E-S-B-I-A-N at the heart of the Bush-Cheney campaign. Gasp! Shock! Lordy Mercy!

Once again Kerry has managed another self-inflicted wound - only this one won't lead to a purple heart, just a red face. As Zev Chafets points out in his New York Daily News column, people vote for their political party first and their morality second; the ideals are very often not congruous. For Americans, the issues aren't nearly as black and white as we like to contend. We definitely know how to prioritize our values. Here's the punch line:

Politically, Kerry won't benefit from playing the Mary card. But that doesn't mean he hasn't accomplished something of value. Many conservative Christians are for the first time publicly embracing an avowed homosexual. This puts them in touch with their real priorities and values - including that cardinal Kerry virtue, nuance.

Mary Cheney may be gay, but it turns out there are worse things. At least she isn't a Democrat.

Amen.

UPDATE! This is priceless...

Read more...

Who's Endorsing Who?

So Dubya's "hometown" paper passed him over for Monsieur Kerry? Well look what the Lowell Sun from the good Senator's stomping grounds in Massachusetts thinks about him...here's a little taste of it:

John Kerry, on the other hand, has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense.

We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.

In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.

Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.xxxNo doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.

Amen.

Read more...

He must have gone to Willy Wonka's Tanning Factory

Whatta hoot! From Blogs of War

Read more...

The First Debate Redux

After sleeping on it, mulling it over with my morning coca-cola, and reading some others' opinions, I still call it a draw.

Both candidates failed to add any depth to their oft' mentioned "plans" for Iraq.

President Bush totally glossed over the obvious challenges we're facing in Iraq. But I still don't think it merits being called a quagmire. I was really hoping that he would be blunt about the situation; but I guess that's not possible during a campaign.

Kerry made way too much out of Osama Bin Laden being the one who attacked us on 9/11 and not Iraq/Saddam The fact that Bin Laden has not been captured or confirmed dead does not in anyway mean that the War on Terror is misguided or off-track. The fact that we've begun cleaning out the viper's nest in Iraq while still working to stabilize Afghanistan is called "strategy"; kind of like focusing on Germany before Japan in WWII.

Kerry's most ludicrous mantra is how quickly he will bring home the troops. All the different timetables he’s proposed are unrealistic. I say “all the timetables” because I’ve heard him offer several different scenarios: 4 months, 6 months, 1 year. Whatever he finally decides on is far too quick. Iraq is a long term commitment.

North Korea seems to have pushed everyone’s buttons as well. But dealing with NK requires a totally different strategy. We’ve seen from the way NK blatantly violated the agreement during the Clinton administration that they only view negotiations as a stalling tactic. We need China and the other regional powers at the table with us. Kim Jong Il wants the bilateral talks because he knows it will be easier to drag them on and on; or that it will be more believable to simply walk away from the table calling the USA alone impossible to deal with, rather than six nations acting together.

Both candidates spouted incorrect statistics and offered no real solid info on how they plan to lead over the next four years.

Here’s the factcheck.org take on the debate:

Read more...

The First Debate

I'm tired at the moment so I may edit this opinion after I sleep on it.

My first impression? It was a draw. There weren't any big moments. Bush held his own in that endearing and clumsy way he has with words. Kerry just repeated the campaign rhetoric from the past week.

I doubt this debate "swung" any of the swing voters.

Read more...