Bush – Wired?

The rumor-mill has been abuzz for days with accusations that President Bush was wearing a ‘wire’ during the first debate.

The president’s tailor, Georges de Paris, put the rumor to rest by stating “the bulge was nothing more than a pucker along the jacket’s back seam…”

There was never a wire and no one should have even suspected that the President was wearing a wire. If you watched debate #1 you would have no doubt. No one could have performed that terribly and be wearing a ‘wire.’ Good night!

Read The Seattle Times story.

Kerrytonium Toxicity

Today scientists revealed the new element Kerrytonium (Kt).

Kerrytonium is an extremely unstable element, and short-term exposure can lead to irrational thought and delirium.

In reality Kerrytonium does not exist, but it could in the fog of the 2004 presidential campaign. Saturday John Kerry blamed George W. Bush for failing to head off a flu vaccine shortage. The Washington Times has John Kerry quoted as saying “If you can’t plan to have enough of that vaccine, what are they doing with respect to the other things that could potentially hurt America in terms of bioterrorism, chemical terrorism, other kinds of things?”.

This latest charge by Sen. John Kerry might indicate that his political ship is taking on water and desperation is sinking in. Heretofore, his charges against the President have had a tinge of plausibility. But, his latest charge appears as nothing more than a wildly flung bone with not the slightest hint of plausibility.

The last debate may have damaged Kerry’s ship more than anyone realizes…

Comment On John Howard’s Re-election

THIS IS A COMMENT FROM AN AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN LIVING IN THE USA:

Well, the Aussie elections are over and John Howard wins a record-tying fourth term. When I left Australia 11 years ago, unemployment was at 7%, Anyone who could have brought that figure down to less than that would have won any re-election.

Today, with Howard’s realistic free market policies, unemployment has approached 5.7% and is trending downwards. The country is more prosperous than it ever was and is engaging the Asian markets competitively. It also has a saner immigration policy that the United States.

I heartily congratulate Australia’s Prime Minister John Howard for winning an unprecedented fourth term.

Please note America, that John Kerry’s sister Diana, was assigned by her brother to go to Australia to campaign against Howard. So, despite the Kerry family’s obsessive attempt to unseat the Australian prime minister and overthrow his government (due to PM Howard’s unflinching support of President Bush’s and the US coalition of nations’ Iraq policies) it was to no avail. If you look at the historical records,the Kerry family has a continous and unchanging habit of working with both the enemies of the US and the far-left of other countries. This proclivity began with John Kerry’s covert meetings with Vietcong leaders during the Viet Nam war. He supported them at the time when America’s men were dying in combat trying to protect the south from the Communists. We can reasonably deduce that Mr. Kerry’s disposition toward weakening or outright neutering America continues to this day, what with his desire to allow the obstructionist French and Germans and the corrupt UN, the veto power to prevent our pre-empting terrorist coddling dictators.

Let us be realistic about it though —- the upcoming US presidential election is not necessarily concordant with the Australian elections. However, I cannot help but wonder if this does not show a similar trend. The world has become a much smaller place and elections in other US alliance countries might show simlar concerns between freedom loving people.

Why did Kerry send Diana to officiously meddle into Australia’s politics ? Might he not see a concomitant link between their elections there and our coming elections here ?

Please observe, the leftists (AKA communists and socialists) have been working hand in hand world-wide, to topple the governments of freedom loving nations; working towards the establishment of a leftist-run world government. This should not come as a surprise because the spirit of Karl Marx has not really died and his dream of the global dictatorship of the proletariat seems to have suffered ( in the minds of his adherents, many of whom still dwell in the ivory towers of the universities worldwide ) a temporary if only fleeting setback.

Well, for now, thanks to the eloquence and steadfastness of John Howard, the Aussies ( and my family for that matter ) did not buy into this subterfuge . The Australians saw through the attempted leftist takeover ( e.g. Latham trying to bribe them with more government goodies courtesy of their own hard earned dollars ) and voted accordingly. Considering their dogged efforts to influence the Australian electorate, the Kerry family must take John Howard’s victory as a major defeat in this global battle between liberal and conservative ideas. So back to the very intriguing question ” Could this Kerry family setback in Australia despite their very best effort, portend a loss for him this November ? Every freedom loving, conservative American should hope so.

I found something noteworthy in the second presidential debate at St Louis. John Kerry (in response to a question from an ‘undecided voter’) looked directly into the camera and unequivocally stated: “I’m pledging I will not raise taxes. I’m giving a tax cut to the people earning less than $200,000 a year.” That did it for me. I started to chuckle loudly trying to suppress a guffaw with my wife looking at me as if I choked on pop-corn.

This statement has to be taken in the same vein as Dubya’s father’s pledge :”Read My Lips, No New Taxes”. MSNBC’s Tim Russert and leftist Tom Brokaw were appalled by Kerry’s comment. When politicians say they are not going to raise your taxes, and play to class envy by implying that ordinary Americans should never pursue their dreams of greater prosperity ( i.e., you commoners don’t deserve to earn more than $200,000, much less create a small or large business that employ people worth that much ), you better get your guard up and watch your bank account. Why ? because what he is really saying underneath is this —- “Today, the rich, and when it is not enough, I can always redefine the term “rich” downwards.”. This happend with Bush Sr, it happened with Clinton in 1993, and given Kerry’s Senate voting record and his years as Lt. Governor of Massachusetts, I don’t see why it won’t happen again.

President Bush 41 was unable to keep that promise and was, subsequently, defeated by Clinton. Clinton said he would give a middle class tax cut and then retroactively redefined the term rich to include almost every middle class tax payer. This resulted in the 1994 congressional revolution that overturned 40 years of Democratic control.

Tim Russert’s post-debate comments to Chris Matthews were “I never thought I’d see another ‘Read my lips, no new taxes,’ Chris. Never in my lifetime!” A similarly aporetic Brokaw said “…John Kerry is now firmly committed to never raising taxes on anyone who makes less than $200,000, period.” ( to which I say, yeah right !).

So, if even Kerry’s mainstream media mates are skeptical about him keeping his promises, you know that something is afoot. This is the same ploy that the defeated Mark Latham did with the Aussies — “Tell them anything they want to hear, we can always change our minds and tell them we have to be ‘flexible’ AFTER we are in power”. This of course gives a more novel understanding to the term — flip-flop, a more insidious kind.

If the Aussies were able to see through Mr. Latham’s highfalutin charade, chicanery and underhandedness, will the Yanks ( as the Aussies affectionately call the Americans ) equally see through George W Bush’s leftist competitor? Will US voters finally realize the truth of the unswerving, steadfast and consistent leadership of President George W. Bush in opposition to the swing-with-the-polls, ‘I’ll say anything to win’ message of John Kerry?

The coming election in November will give us the answer. Whatever the result will be, those who vote for their government deserve everything they get.

Links Update:

Click over to INDC Journal and read what Bill is saying.

Presidential Debate #2

A terrific performance tonight by both President Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry. The debate was incredibly ‘robust’ compared to debate #1 with Bush practically brushing aside Charlie Gibson at one point to respond to John Kerry. It was hard to believe the change that visibly occurred in George W. Bush’s performance.

John Kerry reiterated the same campaign positions so in that he has been quite consistent.

The questions posed to the candidates could not have made the choice any clearer to Americans:

  • If you want a ‘liberal’ president, vote for John Kerry.
  • If you want a ‘conservative’ president, vote for George W. Bush.

The most glaring difference I noted between Kerry and Bush were their stands on abortion. John Kerry came out of the debate clearly as the pro-choice candidate, while George W. Bush cemented his image as the pro-life president even with his limited support of embryonic stem cell research.

I still believe that we have the right team in the right place at the right time. Kerry posits that the solution to Iraq and terror is as simple as getting the allies together again. John Kerry is either ‘naive’ or being disingenuous for continuing to posit that.

The stinging truth is that allies such as France and Germany have no intention of sending troops to Iraq even if Kerry is elected. Like it or not, the United States must solve the Iraq issue with the coalition allies that it now has.

One thing that bothers me is the voters labeled ‘uncommitted.’ How can someone truly be ‘uncommitted’? A person certainly knows in which direction they lean and I certainly don’t believe a debate is going to change anyone’s mind.

President Bush and presidential candidate John Kerry both performed well, but neither was the clear winner. A 50/50 draw seems apparent.

Links update:

Paul at WizBang! has some interesting ‘live blogging’ commentary.

(Dis) Unity

It troubles me when I read or hear that someone has critized the president for his perceived failure to unite the country and congress.

How can a man unite a people and a congress that hold so many intractable positions? We hold so many that considering them is like looking at a ‘buffet line’ of religious and political beliefs. I will take a helping of ‘church and state separation’ and some of that ‘tax relief’, please. Some beliefs should ‘NEVER’ be compromised; I have a few of my own but they can be discussed.

What troubles me is that we simply cannot discuss our positions rationally and without emotional attachment. Our heartfelt beliefs are so dear to us that whenever someone dare express an opinion diametrical to our own, we perceive it as an attack upon us. Then we launch into a vicious attack upon our counterpart. The congress is no different; it does represent ‘us’ after all.

I believe that we can explain our positions and express our differences without resorting to name-calling and the like, but it does take an effort—Sometimes, a lot of effort.

I have conservative beliefs, but I want to hear and consider my counterpart’s positions as well. They are important to me. If I were only to consider voices similar to mine, it would be a bit like the movie ‘Castaway’ and less interesting. How would I ever learn a ‘new’ thing like that?

We may never achieve ‘real’ unity, nor perhaps should we (that’s another story). But, we can come together and talk about what we value, and come away enriched by the experience.

Now, to get ‘W’ and Michael Moore together…Anyone have an Advil?

U.S. Values A Threat?

IHT—The French president warned that the world’s different cultures could be “choked” by U.S. values.

Read the International Herald Tribune story

Perhaps President Jacques Chirac of France is actually ‘lamenting’ the loss of his own country’s heritage. Europe as a whole is facing the same threat, but it has nothing to do with the United States, and everything to do with immigration and a declining native population.

Did Kerry Cheat?

I would like to take this opportunity to update a story that ran a few days ago:

INDC Journal:

“What he takes out of his pocket … I’m almost 99% sure that it’s a pen. It’s a black, oblong object,” a FOX News producer told INDC Journal.

Let’s leave it at that. The debate rules were violated in letter, but not intent, and any charges of cheating against the Kerry campaign are undeserved and inaccurate.

A ‘big’ thanks to INDC Journal for staying with the story.

Dick Cheney, The Good Man

Vice President Dick Cheney was not at all the mean ole codger that the main stream media has led us to believe he was.

The Dick Cheney I saw at the Vice Presidential debate tonight was a friendly man, open to conversation, polite, even jovial at times. He was the type of man you’d meet for dinner at the local diner and talk about what Dan Rather had to say that day. As it turns out, the media elite had him figured all wrong.

Mr. Cheney, it was a pleasure to meet you tonight…

Check out the commentary at Wizbang!.

Link update: Also take a look at INDCJOURNAL. There is some great commentary there about the debate.

Vice Presidential Debate Analysis

A special thanks to Gwen Ifill for offering a more balanced question line.

Dick Cheney was clearly in control. He was calm, comfortable, resolute, and in control of the facts. Listening to the Vice President speak gave me complete confidence that we have the right team in the right place at the right time. Complete confidence…

John Edwards appeared nervous and fidgety. He stuck to the Kerry/Edwards campaign line and left viewers without an increased feeling of confidence. His responses to the questions posed by Gwen Ifill left more questions and more uncertainties than he resolved.

Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush are the clear winners of this one and only Vice Presidential debate.

Link update: Check out what Michelle Malkin has to say.