October 19 - November 23, 2004

October 19, 2004 (11:45pm)

Because He Could notes:

• youngest governor in state’s history


• “Hope” as metaphor

Chapter 2, Running on Empathy: “Clinton’s uncanny capacity for empathy is the key to understanding him — both his strengths and his weaknesses” (16). “As always with Clinton, if you want the truth you have to parse the language, to read b/w the lines” (17). “Bill Clinton...had no real experience with which to understand the struggles of average hard-working Americans. To fill this void...Clinton used his amazing ability to empathize emotionally, and to incorporate data intellectually, to understand the world around him” (23).

Clinton Presidency Questions: (1) were 1996 welfare reforms primarily the brainchild of Clinton or the Gingrich Congress? (2) results of NAFTA, Clinton’s trade policies. (3) Was Clinton responsible for reductions in crime? (4) Was Clinton responsible for the reductions in poverty? (5) How successful were Clinton’s diplomatic undertakings? (6) To what extent did Clinton contribute to the economic prosperity of the ‘90s? What argument is made by his sycophants? (7) How large was Clinton’s failure to confront global terrorism? How much blame should he accept? (8) Was the “Gorelick wall,” created during the Clinton administration, new (as Republicans claim)? If not (as Democrats claim), why was it necessary to pass legislation that restated the current institutional status quo?

October 20, 2004 (6:19pm): Time Magazine, October 25, 2004.
Cover Story: “Is God in Our Genes?” Is religion part of nature’s evolutionary scheme? Scientists are asking whether spirituality might be embedded in our DNA. By Jeffrey Kluger.

Recently, Dick Morris expressed admiration for the Bush’s political savvy. He recalls how they initially focused on painting John Kerry as a “flip-flopper.” However, during and after the debates, their strategy shifted. Now depicting the Senator as a “MA liberal” on the “far left bank” of American politics, the Bush people have allowed Kerry to boast of all the new changes he would bring to office. At least temporarily, they have remained silent to Kerry-Edwards’ promises that people like Christopher Reeve will get up and walk when the Democrats are elected b/c of fewer restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research; or that Kerry will provide all Americans with universal health-care. Now, if Kerry tries to go back on some of his promises, the Bush campaign can say “See, we told you. He’s a flip-flopper.” According to Morris, this strategy of emphasizing the flip-flopping and then the liberal leanings of the Democratic candidate effectively boxes Kerry in.

(Let Freedom Ring, 182) according to AMA, w/ all that modern medicine has to offer, partial birth abortion is never needed to save the life or health of the mother. (185-6) Norma McCorvey = Jane Roe in Roe vs. Wade (1973). (219) Tax Freedom Day (the day when Americans have earned enough money to pay off their annual taxes) in 2000 May 1; during Clinton-Gore years, federal tax burden grew by 45%. (241) Clinton twice vetoed Republican welfare reform bills before eventually passing. (244) rate of return on Social Security is 2%.

Beary, Kevin. “African Roots: Slavery was Widespread on the African Continent Long Before Europeans Appeared—and indeed, is still practiced there.” National Review. March 10, 1997.

October 29, 2004 (11:04am)
Supreme Court Decisions
Lee v. Weisman (1992)
Marsh v. Chambers (1983)
Justice John Paul Stevens Profile

Bush on Saddam’s Capture
Paul Bremer on Saddam’s Capture
1960 and 1988 Presidential Debates
2000 VP and 1992, 2000 Presidential Debates

President Nixon and Chuck Colson on John Kerry


November 2004

November 1, 2004 (12:52pm)
The Malkin Media Diversity Test


November 3, 2004 (9:15pm)
Flynn Files
Daniel Flynn - “American Academia is an Intellectual Ghetto” 9/21/04
Because campuses forgo intellectual diversity in favor of superficial diversity, real diversity suffers and consequentially truth suffers too. Despite diversity becoming something of a mantra on most campuses, colleges and universities embrace intellectual conformity more than any major American institution.

*Federal Election Commission reports for the 2004 presidential campaigns demonstrate the overwhelming bias of faculty and administrators. A full 100 percent of contributions from William and Mary, and 97 percent from Harvard, went to the Kerry campaign. Of the top 20 institutions contributing or employing contributors to the Kerry campaign, five are universities — Berkeley, Harvard, Stanford, Michigan, and MIT. George W. Bush's top 20 contributors, unsurprisingly, lists not a singe academic institution.
*The political affiliations of college faculty reveal a profession devoid of intellectual diversity. Faculty registered as Democrats outnumber Republicans by ratios of 14 to 1 at Ithaca College, 12 to 1 at UCLA, 25 to 1 at Dartmouth College, and 31 to 1 at the University of Colorado. A Luntz poll following the 2000 election reported 84% of Ivy League professors voting for Gore, and just 9% voting for Bush. There’s reason to believe the results will be even more lopsided this time around.

Noam Chomsky is Michael Moore with his brain on steroids. In the late ’70s, he deemed stories of Pol Pot’s killing fields capitalist propaganda. Later, he fantasized a conspiracy between ex-Nazis and U.S. government officials to shape the post-World War II world. Prior to the war on terrorism, Chomsky maintained that the U.S. was “in the midst of apparently trying to murder 3 or 4 million people” in Afghanistan, predicting mass starvation and death. Despite Chomsky’s disastrous track record as historian and prophet, at least one study found him to be cited in scholarly journals in the social sciences and the humanities more than any living person.

*The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, published by Harvard University Press, is the work of eleven scholars that ignited a continental firestorm when it first hit bookstores in France in 1997. The authors estimate the century's death toll at the hands of Communist governments (excluding wars) at 100 million people. Country by country, deaths by the state in China stand at 65 million, in the USSR 20 million, Vietnam 1 million, North Korea 2 million, Cambodia 2 million, Eastern Europe 1 million, Latin America 150,000, Africa 1.7 million, and Afghanistan 1.5 million. Additionally, the international Communist movement murdered about 10,000 people throughout the world. Despite the irrefutability of its main thesis, there is plenty within its pages to argue about. The figure of 20 million deaths in the Soviet Union is far smaller than past credible estimates; 65 million deaths-by-government for China is slightly higher than the previous high estimate. The omission of Ghana, for instance, is all the more glaring due to the book's painstaking thoroughness. Forced abortion in China is scarcely mentioned. The infamous "Bloodbath" in North Vietnam is omitted and thus seemingly denied.
*"One can hardly exaggerate the moral disaster of [religion]. We have to thank the Soviet Union for the courage to stop it."
—W.E.B. Du Bois

The Hypocrisy of Noam Chomsky


November 11, 2004 (5:00pm) Time Magazine 11/15/04

2004 National Exit Polls
Most Important Issue:
Iraq 15%
Economy 20%
Moral Values 22%

Bush
White Males 61%
Married Women 54%
Veterans 57%
weekly Churchgoers 58%
Moral Values Most 79%
Terrorism Most 86%
Blacks 11%
Hispanics 42%
Not Married 40%
First-Time Voters 45%
Disapprove of Iraq 11%
Economy/Jobs Most 18%

Kerry
38%
45%
42%
41%
18%
14%
89%
55%
59%
54%
87%
80%
All 11 states voting on gay marriage rejected it, supporting constitutional bans; Kerry made 36 visits to Ohio: the most by any candidate to one state; 630,000: total # of TV campaign commercials aired this election season; $1.45 billion: total spent at all levels on campaign advertising this year; $140 million: amount raised by liberal 527 groups during the campaign; $75 million: amount raised by conservative 527 groups; 2,256: # of lawyers Democrats sent to Ohio to monitor voting. All 5 Presidents who’ve run for re-election during a war have won; a big turnout wasn’t good for Democrats this time; no Republican has ever won w/out carrying Ohio; If consumer-confidence index at election time is above 99, the incumbent’s party remains in office: since 1968, only Al Gore had been the exception. But the low October figure of 92.8 didn’t hamper Bush;

“In Victory’s Glow,” by Nancy Gibbs. 15 million more voters; 193,00 polling places; no non-southern Democrat has won presidency in 44 years; 55% said country was moving in wrong direction; 49% job approval; 97% approval among Republicans surpassed Reagan; “Critics who saw his faith in contagious democracy as naive may have missed the point that the American people have always been attracted to the idea;” “through his radical assertion of presidential power, showed what a difference it makes who is the in the White House;” (reminiscent of Andrew Jackson)

*Joe Klein’s article, “The Values Gap”

November 20, 2004 (1:09am)
Garrison Keillor - NPR radio host, after Kerry lost election, joked about Fundamentalist Christians not being allowed to vote.

November 23, 2004 (2:56pm)
Yesterday (I think), Rush Limbaugh predicted that Hillary would NOT be the Democratic nominee in 2008. This was interesting b/c most of the other commentators, including Hannity, are absolutely convinced that it will be the New York Senator.

Several weeks ago, I watched either Booknotes or BookTV on the C-SPAN 2 website, and the interview was with a Republican Congressman from Oklahoma who gained election with the 1994 “Contract with America” class (Tom Coburn, now a senator). The man had written a book criticizing how Washington turns outsiders into insiders, and he described that b/c of constant reelection concerns, House members tend not to fulfill campaign promises. He commented on Newt Gingrich (whom he characterized as brilliant in intellect — a truly great thinker — but flawed in leadership as House Speaker), Dick Armey, and Trent Lott (the OK Congressman expressed his frustration with the MS Senator over the inability to get needed legislation passed, and Lott basically said, “after the election, we can start getting things done again”), among other prominent political leaders at the time. The ex-Congressman’s primary argument was for implementing term limits which, in his opinion, would eliminate much of the partisanship that prevents the Congress from acting in the best interests of “the people.” I find opinions like this (for example, the call for one 6-year term instead of two 4-year terms for the U.S. President), fascinating. While such monumental and consequential changes in term limit laws (or lack thereof) strike me as highly unlikely, I think Coburn makes a very good point. Election woes plague all of our elected representatives and inevitably lead to government officials not looking out for the public. I believe this to be true for Democrats and Republicans alike. Perhaps one day in the not so distant future, operations on Capital Hill will become more transparent and open to the public.

Following the overwhelming Republican victory in the 2004 elections, a significant number of prominent voices within the Democratic leadership (even James Carville) have expressed an understanding that their party has become out of touch with mainstream America, especially on “moral issues.” I believe this characterization is painfully accurate. Yet, there remains a very vocal and powerful segment of the Democratic party (especially in the elite media) that seems unable or unwilling to grasp this fundamental truth, and instead, appears to be turning back to the same, old tactics of moral relativism and academic condescension — tactics which, I feel, play a large role in terms of fueling the ire of many “red state” voters towards liberal, New England elites. I’m not sure if this should make me feel happy, furious, or just incredulous. My partisan side says, “let them do it; it will help Republicans win more elections in the future.” At the same time, the hypocrisy of Democrats who claim to be “tolerant,” “open-minded,” and members of the party most closely aligned with regular, middle- and lower-class Americans, makes me, at times, quite contemptuous. Finally, Northern elites whom I perceive as being blinded by ideology and as having abandoned rationality fall into the category of “intellectual morons” (to quote Daniel Flynn). I view such people as utterly incorrigible, and as such, I try not to let their lunacy to affect me.
However, I did have a relatively new thought today. Liberals define themselves as being committed to the principle of diversity (ethnic, opinion, religion, etc..) and as defending tolerance for opposing viewpoints. It’s worth noting that I have no doubt that these self-images are (in most cases) both genuine and well-intentioned. Nevertheless, I’ve observed a prejudice on the part of some (but not all) well-respected, (in my respects) good-hearted liberals which, in my opinion, undercuts the core values liberals stand for. Some of the clearest examples of this prejudice can be found in articles of syndicated columnists like Maureen Dowd, Michael Kinsley, Julianne Malveaux, Frank Rich, and Anne Quindlen, in the rhetoric of Washington officials like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and John Edwards, and in the commentary of political activists like Michael Moore, Al Franken, and Bill Maher. Yet, my belief, based on personal experience with my liberal peers and an overall perception of American politics, is that many liberal Democrats (not just media elites) are guilty of holding this prejudice. What kind of prejudice am I talking about? Basically, it’s a mentality of moral superiority and condescension towards conservative social values (pro- life, traditional marriage, religion, etc...) which leads to the ostracization of Southerners, Mid-Westerners, and those portions of the country where conservative thought enjoys majority acceptance. I’m still playing around with what term I should designate to describe this type of prejudice... (Southist, conservativist, politicist, liberal/progressive/democratic supremacist, hypocrite of tolerance, tolerance hypocrite, *liberal charlatan - when we think about what “liberalism” is supposed to mean, it is clear that many are actually charlatans of U.S. notions of liberalism/progressivism, the bigotry of “liberal open-mindedness,” ideological bigotry/prejudice/discrimination). The new thought I had wasn’t that some liberals are deeply hypocritical. It was that this form of prejudice deserves a formal label - that it is real and should be recognized just as any other type of bigotry (racism, sexism, homophobia) gains definition.

Major Points of Disagreement: Conservatism v. Liberalism,
Instances of Liberal Bigotry
(1) Abortion — anti-choice v. pro-life; utilization of a woman’s “constitutional right” and manipulation of Roe v. Wade decision - right to privacy v. a woman’s reproductive rights;
(2) Pro-traditional marriage  anti-gays/homophobia/hatred of gays; nature v. nurture argument: you can nurture homo/heterosexuality, to say people are simply born gay or straight is an oversimplification; when this truth is recognized, liberals might find it easier to understand our resistance to gay marriage and simultaneous support for gays as people; Supreme Court overriding public will;
*(3) Morality: relativism v. absolutism — good v. evil, “understanding” criminals and why people do bad things v. punishing them; moral relativism when judging the international community but moral absolutes at home: the double standard; some people are “evil” v. the actions of people illustrate that “evil” does exist and is a real concept;
(4) Religion/Christianity - “imposing” beliefs on others; wall of separation; establishment of religion or acknowledgment of God? Ignorance of historical evidence as to intention behind 1st Amendment; failure to acknowledge great benefits that come from belief in a higher power, failure to show respect for the deeply held but different beliefs of others; more than favoring wall of separation: perceivable hostility to anything religious;
(5) Personal responsibility v. welfare entitlements and income redistribution: the distortion of conservative intentions; race-card, threat of racist label;
(6) 4th Amendment (?) and right to bear arms — selective protection of the Constitution; selective attention to historical basis of certain parts of the Constitution;
x(7) philosophy that small government is best v. taking school lunches from children/medicine from seniors/housing from minorities etc...
x(8) Spiritual morality v. economic morality
(9) Iraq — lies v. bad information; appeasement/Clinton v. confrontation/Bush; price of freedom v. free freedom; role of morality in Iraq war; neo-conservatism v. imperialism: the problem of liberal selectivity in applying moral absolutism or relativism in analyzing the U.S. or the international community, helping minorities/women/poor etc... but not deposing dictators who oppress groups traditionally receiving much attention from liberals;
(10) Patriot Act/Iraq — failure to acknowledge the good intentions of the Bush Administration/ the positives of the Act; exaggeration of intensity and frequency of wrongs committed due to the Patriot Act and failure to provide perspective as to what dangers we would be facing w/out it; misunderstanding of the terrorist threat; Vietnam mentality: self-fulfilling prophecies of military failure: the line b/w well-intentioned dissent that takes place in a free society and deliberate attempts to undermine the war effort (ideologically driven to aid U.S. military defeat);
(11) United Nations and International Community — our obligations; international law; the line b/w working together with foreign nations and preserving American interests; effectiveness (successes v. failures) of U.N.; Oil for Food, Rawanda, Somalia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Haiti, etc...; Abu Ghraib; moral equivalency: U.S. v. International Community; globalism v. isolationism; assistance v. occupation;
(12) Taxes
(13) Health Care — medicaid, medicare, stem-cell research,
(14) Affirmative Action - definition of “affirmative action” not universal: overcome current discrimination v. make up for past racism? equal opportunity v. equal outcome? color-blind v. color-conscious? ideally, should it be race based or economically based? The line between equal opportunity and socialism?
*(15) Constitutional Rights: Judicial v. Legislative v. Executive — exploitation of “rights” purportedly guaranteed by the Constitution/constitutional interpretation (abortion, religion) to legislate from the bench against overwhelming public opinion;
*(16) What is America/What is America all about?
(17) Nationalism, Patriotism, Internationalism, and Perceptions of America: its place in the world community, basic character/goodness,


liberals tend to value the perceived “other” (for lack of a better phrasing): for example, they support gays, women’s rights, diversity and accommodate reprehensible foreign countries b/c, by nature of being a “liberal,” they’re inclined to side with or come to an understanding with/acceptance of what is differs from traditional American culture, regardless of the particular merits of the differing party/view. Thus, while their efforts to understand the international community and see things from other perspectives are noble, their tendency to embrace the other side when they shouldn’t is an unfortunate side effect. The same goes with social issues like gay marriage, abortion, sexuality, affirmative action, etc...

What is America? (16)
(7)Big v. Small Federal Government, capitalism v. socialism?
(5)Responsibility to provide public needs/welfare
(14)Affirmative Action
(13)Health Care
Welfare
(12)Taxes

[much of “What is America” falls into category of “morality” too]

Morality (3)
Absolutism v. Relativism
Good v. Evil?
USA v. UN
Excusing bad behavior
Anything Goes Culture
Hip-Hop Music
Religion v. Secularism in America
Spiritual v. Economic Preoccupation
Gay Marriage
Abortion

you can’t stereotype blacks (they commit more crimes, have more out of wedlock births, score lower on standardized tests etc...) but you can stereotype the fanatic “religious right” that voted Bush into office and the gun-toting, evangelical, backward, intolerant white South.

October 13 - October 14, 2004

October 13, 2004 (1:26am)
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debates 2003 12/10/03 ABC News & WMUR-TV sponsored; shortly following Gore’s endorsement of Howard Dean. Edwards says, “we will not take money from Washington lobbyists in this presidential campaign.”

Charles Pickering on 60 Minutes

October 13, 2004 (10:23pm)
*Kerry and the Democrats always talk about how Bush sides with the evil “big corporations.” What corporation is bigger and more powerful than the U.S. federal government?

Ted Kennedy Speech on Iraq Policy (1/14/04)
Ted Kennedy on Iraq and Bush Administration (3/5/04)

October 14, 2004 (9:13am)
*3rd Presidential Debate: 10/13/04
President Bush in response to whether or not he thinks homosexuality is a choice or from birth: After admitting that he doesn’t know, Bush for the first time provides a good explanation for the proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He says that the proposal was in response to activist judges whom he feared were redefining the definition of marriage in a way inconsistent with predominant views and basic values of Americans. Bush doesn’t want the judiciary making decisions that should be left to state legislatures or the legislative branch in general. When Kerry gets his chance to respond, he almost immediately makes use of the fact that VP Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian. This is remarkable considering that John Edwards, in the VP debate, also brought up Cheney’s daughter’s sexuality. In the post-debate analysis, several commentators express outrage over Kerry’s and Edwards’ despicable exploitation of Cheney’s daughter, saying that this is the lowest form of politics. I tend to agree. The Kerry/Edwards team knows that the Republican base overwhelmingly disapproves of gay marriage and homosexuality in general, and I think bringing up a sensitive, deeply personal issue in the Cheney family oversteps what should be considered fair game.

*Time Magazine(10/18/04): Joe Klein, “No Pain? No Gain for Either Candidate.” Concerning Bush in the 2nd Presidential debate, Klein writes, “His last half hour, when stem-cell research and abortion were discussed, was his best.” Klein goes on to say, “The abortion question, asked by a young woman near the end of the debate, was a micro-history of the entire campaign. Kerry offered a labyrinthine answer. He was against abortion (as a Catholic) before he was for it (as a public servant). This is known in political circles as the Cuomo dodge... the President responded. ‘We’re not going to spend federal taxpayers’ money on abortion’... That was, in effect, the state of the campaign before the debates began: Kerry muddy, Bush simple and clear.” Klein later writes, “The most embarrassing moments for Kerry concerned taxes. At one point, he appropriately chided Bush, ‘This is the first time the United States has ever had a tax cut when we’re at war.’ But then, in the very same answer, he said, ‘I want to put money in your pocket...I have a proposal for a tax cut for all people earning less than the $200,000.’ This is infuriating, a textbook example of Kerry trying to have it all ways.” Klein concludes that, “Kerry has seemed the more graceful, intelligent and, yes, likeable guy in the first two debates, but there is a threshold he has not yet crossed: he has not demonstrated the political courage necessary to be President in tough times.”

Charles Krauthammer, “The Case for Fearmongering: Do candidates alarm people when they talk of danger? They should.” Lately, Vice-President Dick Cheney received a fair amount of criticism for saying that electing John Kerry would increase the chances of America getting “hit again” by terrorists. For example, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi commented, “It is completely inappropriate and dangerous for the Vice President to, in effect, threaten the American people, to be part of instilling fear into our country.” John Edwards said, “Dick Cheney’s scare tactics crossed the line.” Krauthammer addresses these criticisms while reminding us that Democrats have used the very same scare tactics: “Senator Edward Kennedy thunders that re-electing Bush will make a nuclear 9/11 more likely.” In conclusion, Krauthammer states, “The ‘90s are over. It’s not the economy, stupid. It’s Hiroshima—on American soil. If that doesn’t scare you, it should. We could use more fear in this election, not less. Cheney should be commended for his candor. Kennedy too.”

*Duelfer Report on Iraq’s WMDs: Key Findings Adobe File

Political Figures: Black Listed
Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry campaign chairman - says Mary Cheney’s sexuality is “fair game.”
Paul Krugman, New York Times - dismisses the fact that Russia, Germany, France etc... all thought Iraq had WMDs by saying it was all politicized; at the same time, he and fellow liberals complain that those same countries weren’t more eager to sign on in Iraq, ignoring the role the Oil for Food scandal undoubtedly played.
Frank Rich, New York Times film critic - leads charge against Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ.”
Dennis Kucinich, Congressman (D-OH) - accuses U.S. soldiers of sniping Iraqi civilians.
Al Franken, comedian/satirist - speaking at Vanderbilt, Franken calls Charles Pickering a racist.
Jimmy Carter - says U.S. elections don’t pass the international standard, yet when asked to monitor them, like he does for second and third world countries throughout the world, he says he doesn’t have the time. Not to mention the utter ridiculousness of the charge, but shouldn’t the legitimacy of U.S. elections be Carter’s top priority unless he just wanted to set up an excuse for John Kerry’s defeat come November 2?
Bernie Ward, radio talk-show host. America not greatest, freest country God ever gave man.
Henri Brooks (TN state legislator, refused to recite Pledge of Allegiance; American flag is symbol of racism)
Ted Turner - says Christianity is for losers.
Chris Dodd, Senator (D-CT) - one of the leaders in calling for Trent Lott to step down as majority leader in the Senate; yet Dodd later does something very similar, praising ex-KKK member Robert Byrd, saying he would be right for this country at any time during its history. Hypocrite?
Ted Rall - cartoonist
Ramsey Clark - said you could call Jesus a terrorist too b/c he was hard on money lenders.
Political Figures: General, Historical, no longer holding office
George Tenet, CIA director
Louis Freeh, FBI director
James Woolsey, CIA director
Jamie Gorelick (D) general counsel of Department of Defense (1993-1994); deputy attorney general (1994-1997); member of 9/11 Commission.
Lee Hamilton (D-IN) 34 years in U.S. Congress until 1999; Vice-chair of 9/11 Commission.
Dick Ben-Veniste
Slade Gorton (R-WA) U.S. Senate (1982-2000); member of 9/11 Commission.
Thomas Kean (R-NJ) NJ governor (1982-1990); President of Drew University (1990-present); Chairman of 9/11 Commission
Bob Kerrey (D-NE) Nebraska governor (1984-1988); U.S. Senate (1988-2000); member of 9/11 Commission.

Clinton Administrations
Al Gore, Vice-president
Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State
Janet Reno, Attorney General
Sandy Berger, National Security Advisor
William Cohen, Secretary of Defense
Robert Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury
Leon Panetta, Chief of Staff
George Stephanopoulos, White House advisor
Richard Holbrooke, U.S. permanent representative to U.N.
Dick Morris
James Carville
Paul Begala
Joe Lockheart

1st Bush Administration
Dick Cheney, Vice-president
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Steven Cambone, Under Secretary of Defense (?)
Condoleeza Rice, National Security Advisor
John Ashcroft, Attorney General
Colin Powell, Secretary of State
John Snow, Secretary of Treasury
Andrew Card, Chief of Staff
Don Evans, Secretary of Commerce
Tom Ridge, Department of Homeland Security
Scott McClellan, Press Secretary
Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority head (Iraq)
Dan Senor, senior advisor to Bremer
Karl Rove
Karen Hughes

2nd Bush Administration
Dick Cheney, Vice-president
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State
Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General

October 14, 2004 (2:31pm)
70% military casualties in Iraq are white.
±70% of black children are born out of wedlock.
Rev. Jesse Jackson fathered an illegitimate child.

October 14, 2004 (4:31pm)
Christopher Reeve dies the other day: In this context and following the 2nd debate, John Edwards says that, when John Kerry is elected, people like Christopher Reeve “will get up and walk again” b/c of Kerry’s commitment to stem-cell research. Of course, this is totally inconsistent with the facts, not to mention outlandish. Is Kerry God now? For people like Reeves who suffer from spinal chord injuries, advances in stem-cell technology will be of no benefit. Morever, stem-cell research is in its early stages of development, and no one really knows what could be possible in the future.

October 7 - 12, 2004

October 7, 2004 (4:35pm)
John Kerry Flip-Flops:
DNC (7/29/04) - “I will be a commander in chief who’ll never mislead us into war”
Face the Nation (9/23/01) - “It is something that we know, for instance, Saddam Hussein has used WMD against his own people, and there is some evidence that there are efforts to try to secure these kinds of weapons and even test them”
The O’Reilly Factor (12/11/01) - “He is and has acted like a terrorist and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable... I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I’ve said that for a number of years, Bill, I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections when ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11th.”
Hardball (2/5/02)
Larry King Live (12/14/01): KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places...KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein. I think we...KING: We should go to Iraq?KERRY: Well, that -- what do you and how you choose to do it, we have a lot of options. Absent smoking gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the immediate events of September 11, the president doesn't have the authorization to proceed forward there.
San Francisco Chronicle (9/6/02) "We're not getting enough to make an informed decision," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
New York Times Kerry op-ed (9/6/02) “If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community’s already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act.”
Face the Nation (9/14/03) - Interviewer: “If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?” Kerry: “I don’t think any United States Senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That’s irresponsible. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now.”
(S, 1689 10/17/03) vote against $87B
S.J. Res. 2 (1/12/91) vote against Gulf War
1st Debate: “The reason for going to war was WMD, not the removal of Saddam Hussein.”
CNN: “Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off w/out Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer w/ his capture don’t have the judgement to be president.”
Says we should increase funding for the war, but criticized the president for spending $200B on the war.”
Kerry brags in Detroit about owning a bunch of SUVs, but when asked about his comments on earth day, he first denied them only to later revise his answer to “my family owns a suburban.”

So, is Kerry a Flip-Flopper? My answer:

When asked whether he thought Saddam would cooperate and allow weapons inspectors back in, or if it would require the U.S. to use force, Kerry said that, although he didn’t envision Saddam ever fully complying, it was necessary for the U.S. to first pursue a route of renewed inspections through the U.N. If, or when this process failed, then he presumably would’ve approved preemptive action in Iraq. Kerry predicated his contention that Saddam posed a serious threat to the U.S. and the world on the dictator’s history as a terrorist and terrorist supporter, and specifically, on the possibility that he might leak WMDs to hostile third parties. The Senator voiced agreement with the President’s decision to treat terrorists and nations harboring them without distinction and to make this a global war. Kerry’s argument to pressure Iraq did not originate from an impression that there were ties between Hussein and al-Qaeda.
John Kerry also said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” in December of 2001 that without a smoking gun linking Hussein to 9/11, the President had no authorization for the use of force in Iraq. This strikes me as somewhat inconsistent with his earlier statements. If Kerry endorsed the Bush Administration’s stance on the global war on terror, then the fact that Saddam Hussein was a terrorist, whether or not he had links to al-Qaeda and 9/11, was enough to call for aggressive measures. Kerry’s statement also provokes the question, “whose authorization did the President need?” From Congress? From the international community? Although I strongly disagree with the senator’s wisdom, I think I understand his position. Kerry asserts the president’s right to defend the nation with or without the consent of the global community, but only after exhausting all possible options in the U.N. In principle, there’s nothing wrong with this stand. In reality, however, the U.N.’s incompetence and inefficiency render it virtually worthless and even potentially dangerous to the U.S... (not finished)
Michael Moore on “The O’Reilly Factor” Transcript

3/16/04 “I actually did vote for the $87B before...” 7/12/04 - says he is proud that he and Edwards voted against.

October 8, 2004 (6:09am)
Donald Rumsfeld Speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (10/4/04)

*The 911 Commission Report Summary

October 11, 2004 (12:16pm)
2nd Presidential Debate: Kerry claims he always said Iraq was a threat; later in the debate he criticizes Bush for diverting resources from Afghanistan and focusing on Iraq where there was no threat.

Rush Limbaugh: last year Kerry’s paid 12.5% in taxes; Bush paid ±30%

October 12, 2004 (11:26am)
In April Kerry buys into Bob Woodward’s conspiracy that Bush plans on cutting a secret deal with the Saudis to lower oil prices before the election. Today, Kerry accuses Bush of keeping prices high so his rich oil buddies will reap huge profits. This, of course, is completely ridiculous; not to mention it contradicts his previous statements. Why on earth would the President intentionally spike oil prices right before an election? It makes no sense. And Kerry, no doubt, knows this. So why toss around such accusations he obviously can’t reasonably believe himself?

*I just remembered something from the Democratic Primary Debates/Forums: while several of the candidates criticized Bush’s tax cuts, saying they benefitted the wealthy and did little for the middle class, Joe Lieberman corrected them. The Connecticut senator said something along the lines of: “Now let’s be honest. President Bush’s tax cuts have given middle class families, on average, over a thousand/several thousand dollars. It’s inaccurate to say his cuts don’t benefit the middle class.”

October 1-6

October 6, 2004 (8:05pm)
Hannity and Colmes: Poll Tracker scrolls through polls on the bottom of the screen; Kerry seems to be winning certain key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico, Iowa, which he wasn’t winning before the debates; this worries me very much, even though I still believe Bush will win. It also doesn’t help that I had a dream, or rather a nightmare, a few nights ago that John Kerry won the election. I was surprised at how upset I was when I woke up.

October 1, 2004 (10:33pm)
Real Time with Bill Maher, Guests: Call-in, Dixie Chicks, Tucker Carlson. Panel, George Carlin, Steve Moore, Katty Kay.

Tucker Carlson (Crossfire) - supported Bush when Iraq War a success; now believes we overestimated Iraqis' desire for freedom, war not going well; undecided voter. "You'll never hear me attacking a reporter if what's being reported is true. Period." "Reporter has the right to report the truth. Period." even if truth endangers troops.

On Religion: Carlin rants about how religion is responsible for more death, war, guilt, etc.. Christians are superstitious, mentally ill. Audience roars in applause after this. Katty Kay: worries her that President has to go to church; doesn't understand why he feels he has to go to church; only 20% British churchgoers, Americans 80%. Carlin: Gov't spends every waking minute trying to tilt the system against the little guy. It's rich vs. poor and that's the way it always will be. Maher: "poor think that one day they will be rich." Moore: that's what makes America a great country.

October 5, 2004 (8:13pm)

Vice-Presidential Debates

Moderator asks John Edwards: if John Kerry had been President, would Saddam Hussein still be in power? Edwards responds with the typical, "We would've pressured Hussein, but we would've done it the right way etc.." Cheney gets his 90 second rebuttal but never calls Edwards on his lack of response. Why didn't he just say, "What Senator Edwards just said was a confusing way of answering, ‘Yes. Saddam would still be in power'?"

"You have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test" - Kerry on going to war (1st debate).

8:21 pm, Cheney fucks Edwards up, bad. $96B not $200B. %50 U.S. casualties, not 90%. Download the transcript for this portion of the debate. Cheney finally brings up Kerry's Senate voting record! Praise Jesus! Brings up how they voted against $87B when Dean was winning the primaries. If they can't handle Dean pressure, how can they handle bigger pressures... Edwards brings up the fact that Cheney voted to cut defenses when he was Secretary of Defense in 1988. Brings up Halliburton... Cheney: for war when good, against it when bad... Edwards: Kerry has been absolutely consistent from the beginning. Weapons inspectors needed time to do job. They would've figured out he had no weapons, no connection to Al-Qaeda... Moderator: French/German officials have said they have no intention to send troops no matter what, but that's been a big part of your campaign... Edwards: sidesteps the question of internationalizing effort. Says success brings troops, Kerry will have success... Cheney: they have no plan to internationalize; says Gulf War coalition wasn't stronger; Kerry called "coalition of the coerced and the bribed;" demeans sacrifice of allies by saying "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time;" brings up how Kerry criticized Allawi... Edwards: 1st Gulf War cost $5B; Now it's $200B no matter what Cheney says; %90 coalition casualties... Edwards: what Cheney says is inconsistent w/ facts on ground; says administration opposed 9/11 Commission, Department of Homeland Security, they weren't aggressive enough; says they would put into effect all of 9/11 Commission's recommendations... Cheney: tries to link Al-Qaeda to Iraq with Zarqawi; earlier he mentioned $25,000 Saddam offered to families of suicide bombers... Moderator: asks Cheney about how he said businesses should be allowed to do business with Iran (download Cheney's answer off internet)... Edwards: says there are some 60 countries with Al-Qaeda members in it; are we supposed to go after all of them? Says Cheney, when CEO of Halliburton, played millions of dollars of fines for false financial information; brings up contracts they got in Iraq, how they're under investigation... Cheney: factcheck.com has real information on Halliburton... Edwards: download answer off of internet. Cheney: said Edwards has one of the worst records in the Senate; he's never there; missed 33/36 judiciary meetings; says Cheney, as VP, is president of the Senate and this was the first time he met Edwards... Edwards: 1/10 who voted against head-start, against MLK holiday, etc... (download transcript)... Cheney avoids rebuttal. Download this part of what Moderator says about how Edwards didn't answer her question about Israel.

IFILL: ... I want people to understand exactly what it is, as you said, that Senator Kerry did say.
He said, "You've got to do" -- you know, he was asked about preemptive action at the last debate -- he said, "You've got 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 can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons." What is a global test if it's not a global veto?

EDWARDS: Well, let me say, first, he said in the same segment -- I don't remember precisely where it was connected with what you just read -- but he said, point blank, "We will never give anyone a veto over the security of the United States of America." What he's saying is we're going to go back to the proud tradition of the United States of America and presidents of the United States of America for the last 50 to 75 years. First, we're going to actually tell the American people the truth. We're going to tell them the truth about what's happening. We're not going to suggest to them that things are going well in Iraq or anyplace else when, in fact, they're not. We're going to make sure that the American people know the truth about why we are using force and what the explanation for it is. And it's not just the American people. We're also going to make sure that we tell the world the truth. Because the reality is, for America to lead, for America to do what it's done for 50 years before this president and vice president came into office, it is critical that we be credible. It is critical that they believe that when America takes action, they can trust what we're doing, what we say, what we say at the United Nations, what we say in direct conversations with leaders of the world -- of other countries. They need to know that the credibility of the United States is always good, because they will not follow us without that. And unfortunately, we're seeing the consequences of that right now. It's one of the reasons that we're having so much difficulty getting others involved in the effort in Iraq. You know, we've taken 90 percent of the coalition causalities. American taxpayers have borne 90 percent of the costs of the effort in Iraq. And we see the result of there not being a coalition: The first Gulf war cost America $5 billion. We're at $200 billion and counting. John Kerry will never give up control over the security of the United States of America to any other country. We will not outsource our responsibility to keep this country safe.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 90 seconds to respond.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, the 90 percent figure is just dead wrong. When you include the Iraqi security forces that have suffered casualties, as well as the allies, they've taken almost 50 percent of the casualties in operations in Iraq, which leaves the U.S. with 50 percent, not 90 percent.

With respect to the cost, it wasn't $200 billion. You probably weren't there to vote for that. But $120 billion is, in fact, what has been allocated to Iraq. The rest of it's for Afghanistan and the global war on terror.

The allies have stepped forward and agreed to reduce and forgive Iraqi debt to the tune of nearly $80 billion by one estimate. That, plus $14 billion they promised in terms of direct aid, puts the overall allied contribution financially at about $95 billion, not to the $120 billion we've got, but, you know, better than 40 percent. So your facts are just wrong, Senator.

You also have a situation where you talk about credibility. It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor. You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time during the course of the campaign. Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that's where you're at. But you've not been consistent, and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror.

EDWARDS: May I respond briefly?

What the vice president has just said is just a complete distortion. The American people saw John Kerry on Thursday night. They don't need the vice president or the president to tell them what they saw. They saw a man who was strong, who had conviction, who is resolute, who made it very clear that he will do everything that has to be done to find terrorists, to keep the American people safe. He laid out his plan for success in Iraq, made it clear that we were committed to success in Iraq. We have to be, because we have troops on the ground there and because they have created a haven for terrorists.

IFILL: Mr. Vice President, you have 30 seconds.

CHENEY: Your rhetoric, Senator, would be a lot more credible if there was a record to back it up. There isn't. And you cannot use "talk tough" during the course of a 90-minute debate in a presidential campaign to obscure a 30-year record in the United States Senate and, prior to that by John Kerry, who has consistently come down on the wrong side of all the major defense issues that he's faced as a public official.

October 6, 2004 (8:05pm)
Hannity and Colmes: Poll Tracker scrolls through polls on the bottom of the screen; Kerry seems to be winning certain key states such as Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, New Mexico, Iowa, which he wasn't winning before the debates; this worries me very much, even though I still believe Bush will win. It also doesn't help that I had a dream, or rather a nightmare, a few nights ago that John Kerry won the election. I was surprised at how upset I was when I woke up.