Distilling the misreadings of the masses and debunking those who would lead you into darkness.

 
What Am I Doing Tonight?

Just sitting in my recliner and watching mindless TV.

For some reason I thought this would be a good post. You see, so many of us have worked our butts off for months, for free with the sole purpose of getting information out to help the President get re-elected. Every night and day, many of us would scour the web for any news story we thought needed to be blasted across the Internet. Many of you sent us tips. Many others gave great ideas in the comments sections. "Posters" came and went, each one picking up the slack as each of our careers got in the way.

My job when this began was at Goldman Sachs in lower Mantattan and my office (47th floor of 1 New York Plaza -- a few blocks away from the old twin towers) could look into the pit that is ground zero. My co-workers were all there that day (I didn't work there at that time and was in San Francisco on 9/11). No one ever talked about ANYTHING other than the most tangential things they did that day or what they saw (the 2nd plane flew right over their building and into the 2nd tower). When I began blogging well before the election, I would blog about the war on terror and regularly felt I was blogging for them. Someone needed to set right what the tragedy of 9/11 changed in so many of these people. Clearly George Bush was that man. So my blogging more and more was about supporting him in any way possible. Although Goldman NEVER explicitly condoned my blogging, they all supported me. I started the unofficial Bush-Cheney 2004 blog when the President announced he was running for re-election. I was thrilled with the immediate publicity (ABC News picked up on it on day one!) but knew I lacked the techical expertise to match the DeanforAmerica types (hey, I had a real job!). Anyway, thanks to an unnamed friend (who deserves more credit than any post could ever give him) he hooked me up with Matt Margolis who had picked up the mantle and started this group blog at BlogsforBush and we took off like a rocket.

Unfortunately when I switched jobs, my blogging became sporadic at best. The demands on my time from 7am to 7pm was constant. I still snuck in a blog post here and there but there was no way I could blog like I had much earlier in the Democratic primaries. My boss kinda knew what I was doing but he was a big Bush guy so he turned a blind eye -- I just couldn't go to the well too often or he'd get pissed. We sit on a trading floor for one of those huge global banks so we can see what each other is doing at all times. My job also precluded me from ANY publicity and I had to turn down many interviews and "pundit" opportunities since my real job has potential conflicts of interest with little know companies . . . like say . . . Halliburton! My lack of blogging made me feel guilty as I wanted to make sure I had done everything to get people to volunteer or write letters to the editor (the end of that weekly post by me nagged at me every single damn Friday) or do whatever is needed to help the President. I got to meet many of you and found everyone to be fabulously enthusiastic, talented and devoted to the cause. I met celebrities, TV pundits and politicians of all levels thanks to this blogging and each time it energized me more and more (anecdotal point to blow any credibility I may have, I had had a number of drinks when I posted the original "Web of Connections" post that Saturday evening...)

We fought the good fight and we won. And last night at about 2:45am when I popped the champagne bottle on the main stage and sprayed the crowd at the NYC Election Watch party, it was more than a release of the pressurized alcohol. It was a release of all my emotions, obsessions and hopes for the last 18 months. I really hope Scott or Gail got a good photo of it :).

After thousands upon thousands of e-mails and a couple thousand blog posts, it is all over, and I am exhausted.

So I am sitting in my recliner.

And I am happy.


posted by KP at 9:32 PM

 
Ronald Reagan 1911-2004



We shall not look upon his like again...
posted by KP at 11:59 AM

 
Democrats keep falling for the trap of George W Bush as "idiot", and Dick Cheney only makes them more and more gullible.
posted by KP at 9:29 AM

 
Here is a run-down of Dick Cheney's deferments from service in Vietnam
posted by KP at 9:24 AM

 
Battleground House of Congress Update: The Senate

The lay of the land is still precarious but the Republicans hold a slight advantage at maintaining control of the Senate.
posted by KP at 9:13 AM

 
Battleground Voting Block Update: Catholics

The LA Times looks at the clearly divided Catholic vote (no surprise much like the divided opinions on the Catholic Church) and has some interesting insights into voter opinion.
posted by KP at 9:06 AM

 
Battleground State Update: Florida

Here is an extensive write-up on the Hispanic vote in Florida and their diverse opinions on political issues.
posted by KP at 8:52 AM

 
Just as a reminder, I am doing most of my blogging at BushCheney2004 and Blogs for Bush.
posted by KP at 10:39 AM

 
Democratic Strategist Concedes: "If this election is about terrorism, Bush wins."

The "doom and gloom" campaign of the Democrats seems to have fallen on deaf ears with the American public:

Democrats once thought a bleaker outlook in Iraq would help their nominee convince Americans that the time has come to find another Commander in Chief . . .

As one Democratic strategist says, "No matter how bad Bush does on the war and 9/11, just having voters think about it kills us." Another puts it more bluntly: "If this election is about terrorism, Bush wins."

Kerry strategists acknowledge they have little hope of overcoming Bush's advantage on questions of strength and security.

And even their pro-Kerry ads have gone over like a lead balloon:

In the other [television ad], [Kerry] attacks Bush's Iraq record and promises to "reach out to the international community" to share the burden there — a position that most voters will find to be indistinguishable from Bush's of late. Those are not the kinds of spots that will help cement the support of voters like Krystal Brown, an 18-year-old nursing student at the University of Arkansas. "I am against Bush," says Brown. "I am going to vote for — what is his name?"

At the same time, the Bush ads have resonated with their target audiences quite nicely:

Meanwhile, the Bush campaign has done a lot of work filling in the picture of Kerry for voters. Democrats are discovering that when they ask voters in focus groups about their candidate, the answers frequently come back as nearly verbatim lines from the Republicans' anti-Kerry ads. To the degree voters have an impression of Kerry at all, Democratic strategists say, it is the Bush campaign's caricature of a calculating politician who flip-flops on issues and yearns to raise their taxes.

So let's see, if you are the Kerry campaign you can't talk about the economy (or the "Bush Boom" as we like to call it) and now you can't talk about the war on terrorism. When you look at the priorities of the country today if the Kerry camp concedes those two maybe he can win the "Ted Rall" vote which should amount to about 2% of the vote.



posted by KP at 8:37 PM

 
Bush Bus Tour to Visit Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin

The President is actively visiting the battleground states to make sure his message reaches the public:

President Bush plans a stop in Lucas County on May 4 as part of a four-state campaign swing that represents the next step in focusing his attention on key battleground states in the Midwest, sources close to his re-election campaign said yesterday.

In addition, Mr. Bush will campaign in Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin as part of a bus tour that begins May 3, a source inside the campaign said. His re-election campaign already has spent millions on television ads in several Midwestern states.

"The President is looking forward to getting out of Washington again and meeting people across the Midwest," the source said. "He is looking forward to discussing his positive agenda of winning the war on terror and growing the economy."

Make sure you keep up with all the campaign events in your area to show up and support the President.
posted by KP at 8:21 PM

 
Bush Campaign to Begin New Ads Showing Kerry's Weak Record on Defense

The Presidential election is six months away, but as John Kerry continues to flip-flop on his positions, the Bush campaign is aggressively showing American voters what John Kerry's career is the Senate has meant to military readiness:

The tough television attack advertisements, combined with a speech Vice President Dick Cheney will deliver in Missouri on Monday, reflect what both sides see as an increasingly critical question: whether Mr. Kerry can convince Americans that he would be a strong enough president in a time of war. The advertisements will begin Monday night and will be broadcast on stations in nine states and on some national cable networks.

...

Mr. Bush's new advertising campaign includes nine spots specifically tailored for nine swing states in which some of the weapons programs Mr. Kerry has opposed are made. The advertisements are to coincide with speeches in those states by senior Republicans, some of whom will be accompanied by medal of honor winners.

In a version of the advertisement to run in Florida, for instance, the announcer says Mr. Kerry opposed "Apache helicopters, C-130 Hercules and F-16 fighter jets, components of which are all built here in Florida." A spot for Maine says he "wanted to cancel Aegis Warships built here in Maine at Bath Iron Works."

...

Mr. Kerry's voting record does include many votes to cut weapons systems. He ran for the Senate in 1984 on proposals to eliminate 27 weapons systems and to make reductions in 18 others. Mr. Kerry has said many defense bills he voted against later were ridden with pork. Still, although he has complained that Mr. Bush's campaign has taken his votes out of context, he told The Boston Globe last year that some of his stances were "stupid in the context of the world we find ourselves in right now and the things that I've learned since then."

Nonetheless Mr. Bush's strategists said they would continue to lord those moves over him to raise questions about his credibility when it comes to fighting terrorism.

Something tells me the most memorable line of the campaign may end up being John Kerry's "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it." The Bush campaign could never have more succiently summed up their opponent so I guess John Kerry is good for something . . . self-sabotage.
posted by KP at 8:14 PM

 
Republican National Committee Rolls Out New Ads on Kerry's Record

Ron Brownstein had en excellent piece last Friday (I was indisposed for the last 4 days so I am now catching up) highlighting the new ads coming from the RNC. His excellent reporting focuses on how these ads contrast Kerry most specifically with Southern voters, but I think any reasonable interpretation reveals these ads show Kerry is out of touch with the mainstream of America:

Earl Black, a Southern politics expert at Rice University, said Thursday's attack on Kerry might represent "a shot across the bow" that foreshadows the arguments Republicans will use later against Kerry in the South and in rural communities across the Midwest.

"None of those issues are explicitly Southern," Black said. "In a lot of rural, small-town America, many of those issues would resonate, and since a lot of voters don't really know much about Kerry at this point, those issues are going to be part of the battle to define him." ...

The RNC study attempts to portray Kerry as outside the Southern mainstream by highlighting votes by him that differed from current and former Democratic senators from the region. In compiling that case, the document reprises some issues the Bush campaign has already emphasized in its advertising.

For instance, it notes that Kerry's vote last year against Bush's request for $87 billion to fund reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan put him at odds with Sens. Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-Ark.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.). It contrasts Kerry's vote against Bush's 2001 tax cut bill with support for the measure by Democratic Sens. John B. Breaux and Mary Landrieu, both from Louisiana.


The study also spotlights Kerry's opposition to subsidies for tobacco farmers and disaster relief for cotton farmers. But the document's key new thrust is its focus on social issues. These include Kerry's votes:

? Against banning the late-term abortion procedure that critics call partial-birth abortion.

? Against a constitutional amendment to ban burning the American flag.

? Against a requirement for organizations receiving federal funds to notify parents before performing abortions for minors.

? Against a federal death penalty for drug-related murders.

? Against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which said states did not have to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.

? For a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

But I guess the Bush campaign would be wrong for actually making John Kerry run on his record . . . at least that's what the Democrats are hopelessly arguing.
posted by KP at 10:29 AM

 
"I Would Die For You"

The carping from the critics of the liberation effort in Iraq often site the statements from Bush Administration that our troops would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqis, often deriding the statement that we would be welcomed by them "waving flowers". Well, it sounds like the Iraqis have far stronger feelings than simply "welcoming" our forces as liberators:

As the stragglers rejoined us in the meadow, the Kurds lit up cigarettes, and we told jokes about the Saudis, glutting ourselves on the perfect air. And in a pause between rounds of laughter, I learned from one of the other men that the sergeant who had kept up with me - out of pride and to protect me, if necessary - hadn't just been shot once through the jaw. He had been wounded 20 different times.

My attempt to impress the Kurds had been stupid. And thoughtlessly cruel. It must have cost that sergeant real pain to make that brief forced-march. But he had smiled all the way.

When we said goodbye later on, the sergeant touched his heart and told me, "You are an American. You are my brother. I would die for you."

Read the whole thing and do what you can to support those that have put their life on the line for freedom and democracy around the globe.
posted by KP at 10:48 PM

 
Reactions to Bush's Prime Time Press Conference

The President did an excellent job tonight. He was focused and had a clear message: We have a tough mission in the war on terror, we are fighting it and will continue to do so, Iraq is no longer an ally of the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and whoever else is with the terrorists in this battle. The United States will transfer the authority to the Iraqis on a schedule of our choosing and not a schedule of the terrorists.

All in all he layed out his continued argument for why we must hold steadfast and support the troops and not give comfort to the terrorists (something his often critics fail to realize). His answers to the questions were clear and direct. Osama bin Laden is responsible for 9/11 and that is where our focus should be. Even on the ones designed to trip him up, he deftly manuevered around those landmines without giving his critics more ammunition. Most specifically the question regarding his biggest mistake was clearly designed to have the President give the press and Democrats a stick with which to beat him from now until election day. Needless to say, ask any campaign advisor, his non-answer was the best reponse. Bravo!

Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit was "live-blogging" and has some copious notes and thoughts. Easily the best round-up so far.

Jeff Jarvis picks out some key graphs to highlight and offers his usual worthwhile commentary.

Everyone keeps saying it looks like the President listened to Jay Rosen, so why don't you check out what Jay actually said.

Michelle was in The Command Post chat room I was in and has some great quotes (although she missed the one about the press asking President Bush in November if he will apologize to America for getting re-elected...hehe).

Edward Yee has some live blogging commmentary worth reading.
posted by KP at 11:29 PM

 
Democrats in Florida Sink to Incredible Lows -- Suggest Shooting Donald Rumsfeld

Matt Drudge has the exclusive:

CAMPAIGN RAGE: FLORIDA DEMOCRATS PLACE NEWSPAPER AD CALLING FOR RUMSFELD HIT; FUNDRAISING FOR KERRY

Campaign 2004 turns extreme in Florida with the placement of a newspaper ad calling for physical retribution against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld!

"We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days,' and pull the trigger," the ad reads.

MORE

The call-to-arms fundraising ad, placed by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club in the current issue of the GABBER, a local St. Petersburg paper, asks readers to make an urgent donation to the John Kerry campaign.

Club Vice President Edna McCall told the DRUDGE REPORT Tuesday morning: "We want to get our country back. In Iraq, we're in deep trouble. If we don't try to get this situation cleared up, we are finished."

When asked if the ad was a challenge to inflict violence on Rumsfeld, McCall explained: "'Pull the trigger' means let Rumsfeld know where we stand, not to shoot him!"

"We are getting raped, and they are planning to steal the election again."

McCall said her club is in direct contact with John Kerry campaign.

"We're all working together."

The publisher of the GABBER says running the ad with the passage "pull the trigger" was a mistake that "slipped through" during the editing of this week's edition.

Matt Margolis has the actual advertisement here.
posted by KP at 3:29 PM

 
My Bush-Cheney 2004 Blog Gets Some Ink

Jennifer Smith, a journalism major at NYU, wrote up a nice story about bloggers in lower Manhattan for "Voice" magazine. And she interviewed yours truly about the whole blogging experience:

Republiblogger

Few topics incite more heated discussion in the liberal bastion of New York City than support for President George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

"Blogs like mine exist to distill what we do see as a liberal slant in the reporting of the facts," said Kevin Patrick, a 33-year-old conservative who maintains www.Bushcheney2004.blogspot.com. "We feel compelled to get the facts out there, make sure it?s being put in the proper light."

Patrick, an attorney on Water Street, said he has received negative feedback on some of his posts. His November 2003 commentary about a cartoonist who sketched the widows of Sept. 11 victims elicited a flurry of responses, many of which called him 'oil-loving, blood-sucking' and the Antichrist, he said.

He said one of the benefits of his blog is the opportunity to meet other Republican bloggers. "I know of blogger weddings," he said. "People develop phenomenally intimate relationships through e-mail and postings. Many of the blogs are confessionals, like diaries."

She did a great job on a short deadline. Thanks for the write-up Jenn!
posted by KP at 1:04 PM

 
Ms. USA Supports the Effort to Liberate Iraq

Good to see a public figure with strong beliefs:

A Republican, she told Reuters she would use her position to help explain America's involvement in Iraq. "What needed to be done had to be done," she said.

Now I was rooting for Ms. Tennessee but had I known of her stance Ms. Missouri would have been my favorite. The following two quotes from the article don't hurt either:

At a party following the event, Fennessey described her social life as "totally single and looking."

...

The winner's prize package includes a $200,000 crown, free accommodation in New York City . . .

Well, if she needs a "friend" in New York City, I would be happy to help!
posted by KP at 11:22 AM

 
What We Have Learned From Dr. Rice's Testimony So Far

First, her opening statement amplified the difference between grandstanding (Richard Clarke) and governing (Rice and the Bush Administration) -- hat tip K.Lo.

Second, we see that the Bush Administration transitioned on September 4th, 2001 from the previous Administration's passive strategy on terror to a more aggressive approach to Al-Qaeda:

This new strategy was developed over the Spring and Summer of 2001, and was approved by the President's senior national security officials on September 4. It was the very first major national security policy directive of the Bush Administration — not Russia, not missile defense, not Iraq, but the elimination of al-Qaida.

Although this National Security Presidential Directive was originally a highly classified document, we arranged for portions to be declassified to help the Commission in its work, and I will describe some of those today. The strategy set as its goal the elimination of the al-Qaida network. It ordered the leadership of relevant U.S. departments and agencies to make the elimination of al-Qaida a high priority and to use all aspects of our national power — intelligence, financial, diplomatic, and military — to meet this goal. And it gave Cabinet Secretaries and department heads specific responsibilities. For instance:

It directed the Secretary of State to work with other countries to end all sanctuaries given to al-Qaida.

It directed the Secretaries of the Treasury and State to work with foreign governments to seize or freeze assets and holdings of al-Qaida and its benefactors.

It directed the Director of Central Intelligence to prepare an aggressive program of covert activities to disrupt al-Qaida and provide assistance to anti-Taliban groups operating against al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

It tasked the Director of OMB with ensuring that sufficient funds were available in the budgets over the next five years to meet the goals laid out in the strategy.

And it directed the Secretary of Defense to — and I quote — "ensure that the contingency planning process include plans: against al-Qaida and associated terrorist facilities in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control-communications, training, and logistics facilities; against Taliban targets in Afghanistan, including leadership, command-control, air and air defense, ground forces, and logistics; to eliminate weapons of mass destruction which al-Qaida and associated terrorist groups may acquire or manufacture, including those stored in underground bunkers." This was a change from the prior strategy — Presidential Decision Directive 62, signed in 1998 — which ordered the Secretary of Defense to provide transportation to bring individual terrorists to the U.S. for trial, to protect DOD forces overseas, and to be prepared to respond to terrorist and weapons of mass destruction incidents.

Third, we have learned that the non-partisan spirit of the 9/11 Commission, if it ever existed, is now clearly gone. Jeff Jarvis has some good insights on the partisanship of Richard Ben Veniste and Bob Kerrey:

Richard Ben Veniste, on the other hand, is an ass, acting like a prosecutor getting his moment in the TV sun. He's hostile and political. That kind of behavior is both unproductive, it harms the mission of the commission and its reputation and thus the veracity of the report it will issue.

: Kerrey is acting like Dennis Miller did when he interviewed Eric Alterman. Petulant little boy.

: Kerrey also goes political. Rice said Bush was tired of "swatting flies" and wanted to go after al Qaeda. Kerry asked what flies he swatted and says he didn't swat any. "How the hell could he be tired?"
Rice gives it back a few minutes later and quotes a Kerry speech saying that the best thing we could do after the attack on the Cole was to go after Saddam Hussein. "It's an asymmetic approach... It was a brilliant way of thinking about it. It was thinking about it strategically, not tactically."

But apparently we all knew yesterday what reactions would be so I am not sure this should be surprising.
posted by KP at 10:48 AM

 
Fundraising Advantage of President Bush Disappearing?

As is much publicized, President Bush has raised enormous amounts of money for this most important election:

President Bush's reelection campaign has exceeded its fund-raising goal of $170 million nearly five months ahead of schedule, cementing its cash advantage over Democrat John Kerry in the hard-fought presidential race, Bush campaign officials said on Friday. (emphasis added)

Cemented? Hold on there for a second.

What is rarely reported is all the 527 organizations (like MoveOn.org and MediaFund) exploiting campaign finance loopholes to help the Democrats meet and even pass President Bush's fundraising. Of course, they claim they there is no coordination between the Kerry campaign and these 527 organizations because that would be illegal. Even the most forgiving Political watcher has to raise an eye-brow and suspend reality to believe the claims that Democrats have no coordination with these groups.

Well, the Kerry campaign smashes right through the suspension of reality you need to believe there is no coordination by hiring MoveOn.org's Zack Exley as the director of online communications and organizing! Mark Noonan over at Blogs for Bush has a great write-up.

The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party knows no bounds ...
posted by KP at 11:50 PM

 
Who Do You Want Quarterbacking The Nation?






Anyone want to bet Kerry was generally the "last pick" in playground sports?
posted by KP at 12:26 PM

 
Richard Clarke's Lies Continue to Unravel His Story

If you read nothing else, be sure to read THIS today.
posted by KP at 12:26 PM

 
Who is Ed Gillespie?

The Washington Post looks at RNC Chairman, Ed Gillespie, and finds some interesting tidbits about a man whose career is the defintion of dogged determination and razor sharp wit:

Politics today is about the primacy of packaging, and Eddie Gillespie, who started as a kid in the RNC basement, cold-calling for dollars, is one of the finest packagers the Republican Party has called up in years....

[H]e started life as the son of a poor Irish immigrant, and he uses this biography, earnestly, in every party-expansion speech.

The assembled listen raptly, nodding as Gillespie describes how his father came to America "with nothing but the clothes on his back. He worked in a number of very difficult jobs on his way to saving enough money to buy his own small business with my mother, the J and C Market, J and C standing for Jack and Connie. They saved enough money to make my brother and sisters and I the first generation of Gillespies to ever attend college. So I know the importance of bringing new people into the political process, and we are getting very much better at that as a party."

"The fact is that we understand that Hispanics care deeply about the need to create more jobs in the economy, to improve our public schools, to make health care more affordable, to provide a prescription drug benefit for our senior citizens and" -- here he tucks in the No. 1 message last -- "to win the war against terror."

When Ramon Tallaj, a Dominican doctor and GOP fundraiser, has his chance at the microphone, Tallaj declares of Gillespie and his personal narrative, "He is same person like us." ...

At Catholic University, he majored in political science and worked as sports editor for the student paper. On the side, Gillespie parked cars in the Senate parking lot, where he heard about an internship in the office of Rep. Andy Ireland, a Democrat from Florida. The congressman's press secretary "quit or got fired," recalls Gillespie, and suddenly, as a college senior, he was acting press secretary. ...

Gillespie's particular love and perhaps greatest talent is selling policy. "He doesn't let it out very often," says former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, who worked with him on the Hill, "but Eddie is really wonkish."

Elizabeth Dole: "He was my architect of the Dole plan," her outline of her issue positions as a successful North Carolina candidate for the Senate in 2002, with Gillespie as her strategist. "It was brilliant in its simplicity. I held it up all the time, handed it out. And then he said, 'Why don't you hold your plan in one hand, and a blank piece of paper in the other, and say here's my opponent's plan?' It got to be kind of funny, and people started coming around and asking me to sign the blank piece of paper."

Barbour remembers the slogan "chicken-fried steak break" to restore a tax deduction for "a very small universe of people -- rivermen, pilots and truckers. He made it about truckers, and their chicken-fried steak."

You might laugh at this, but it is brilliant, if not socially useful. It's pure Washington. It's about winning.

Be sure to read the whole thing about the man leading out Party's Committee to new heights!

(Ed. note: I too worked those same phones in the basement of the RNC . . . not exactly the glamour job!)

posted by KP at 1:17 PM

 
The Ted Rall Wing of the Democratic Party

Today "Kos" has a truly despicable post (he changed the post so here is the screenshot) regarding the tragic murder and mutilation of American civilians in Iraq:

I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them.

"Well so what?" you say, this is just some left-wing blogger with a disgusting opinion. What does that have to do with Presidential politics? Well it turns out a lot.

You see, Kos is a big-time fundraiser for the Democrats:

» His blogads alone have raised over $40,000 for Kentucky Congressman Ben Chandler.

» On March 29th, Kos was invited and attended the Democrat "unity" dinner with Kerry (see the photos on his site).

» Kos has raised nearly $50,000 for the Kerry campaign and over $60,000 for the Democratic National Committee (check out the box on the left of his main page).

» DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe has personally called and thanked Kos for his work. (I'd like to hear Terry respond to this)

» John Kerry's Blog actually links to Kos (How about a comment regarding your support of Kos, Mr. Senator?)

» Kos' current fundraising effort is for South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth...I wonder what the S. Dakotans think about her associations? Feel free to ask her what she thinks?

We've see this before. The Democrats embrace these leftists who aren't against President Bush but more appropriately very much against the freedom and American way of life. How soon we forget the Howard Dean's embracing of Ted Rall only to profusely edit their own comments when the light of this assocaition his the maintream.

Democrats argue that their criticism of Bush is deemed unpatriotic by the "Right." Of course they are wrong. Criticism is part of the discourse we fight for every day in Iraq, Afghanistan, Taiwan and in our own small way in the blogosphere. What is unpatriotic is rooting and supporting the villians and scoundrals who murder freedom loving patriots world-wide only to watch Democrats and their ilk embrace the 'Kos'es and Ted Ralls (check out the comments section of Kos' post!) who find a welcome home in the Kerry Campaign and the Democratis fundraising machine.

Markos, you should be embarrassed. But you are not and neither is the leadership of the Democratic Party. Now, that is unpatriotic.

Update: Glenn Reynolds has an exhaustive post on both the Left's shared despicable opinions and the blogosphere's reaction.

Update II: You are a reflection of the company you keep and check out who associates with Kos (Great post Michael!)

posted by KP at 2:15 PM

 
The Bush Boom Hits The Jobs Market

As we have said ad naseum, job growth is a lagging indicator and with the blistering pace of the economy these last few quarters it was only a matter of time before payrolls caught up. Well the chicken has come home to roost and with the Kerry Campaign's prospects inversely related to these numbers, Kerry et al have to be none too pleased:

U.S. nonfarm payrolls grew by a surprising 308,000 in March, the largest gain since April 2000, the Labor Department estimated Friday.

The gain in payrolls far exceeded the 122,000 expected by economists surveyed by CBS MarketWatch. Economists had been waiting in vain for months for hiring to pick up to match the explosive growth in U.S. gross domestic product over the past nine months.

Payroll growth in previous months was also revised higher, by a total of 86,000 jobs. January's gain was revised from 97,000 to 159,000 while February's was revised to 46,000 from 21,000.

Over the past eight months, payrolls have grown by 759,000, about 95,000 a month.

For the first time in 44 months, employment in the manufacturing sector did not fall; it was unchanged. Construction added 71,000 jobs, likely a partial rebound from bad weather in February.

Payrolls in services rose by 230,000 jobs, including 47,000 in retail. Temporary help services jobs fell by 2,000.

Private payrolls rose by 277,000, as 31,000 government jobs were added, most in education.

Of 278 industries, 61 percent reported higher payrolls in March, the largest percentage since July 2000.

Heh.

posted by KP at 9:07 AM

 
Why These Blogs and Your Sacrifices Matter

Let's look at the media landscape of the past week:

» The New York Times and major media outlets have darn near canonized Richard Clarke for writing a "Bush bashing" book about his time in the White House despite Clarke's huge credibility problems.

» The "non-partisan" 9-11 Commission has been aflutter in partisan wrangling (thanks Tim Roemer!).

» The AFL-CIO is announcing a nationwide ad buy designed to damage Bush on jobs and the economy.

» A new nationwide TV ad by the MoveOn PAC will air tonight on CNN and FOX criticizing President Bush by alleging Bush downgraded the threat of terrorism prior to 9/11.

» The morning talk-shows continue to fawn over Al Franken's liberal radio show with free publicity no conservative show would EVER get (heck, Rush Limbaugh was a full-blown phenomena before the major media took notice -- and even then it was only to criticize him!).

And today's New York Post editorial nails it:

Franken says the nation needs a counterweight to the "domination" of conservative talk radio in particular, and of right-leaning big media in general.

Let's see.

On the right hand, there's basically Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity.

And on the left, there's:

ABC, BBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, HBO, Showtime, National Public Radio, MTV, BET, PBS, Christiane Amanpour, Paul Begala, Gloria Borger, Ed Bradley, Aaron Brown, Tom Brokaw, Margaret Carlson, James Carville, Bob Costas, Walter Cronkite, Katie Couric, Sam Donaldson, Charlie Gibson, Jeff Greenfield, David Gregory, Bryant Gumbel, Al Hunt, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppell, Matt Lauer, Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, Terry Moran, Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann, Dan Rather, Cokie Roberts, John Roberts, Charlie Rose, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Mark Shields, Leslie Stahl, Hannah Storm, George Stephanopoulos, Nina Totenberg, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Brian Williams and Judy Woodruff.

Al should fit right in.

Well, the "counterweight" Al Franken et al complain about is YOU and ME! Despite all of the above media obsessed Bush bashing and John Kerry fawning, in recent national polls by CNN and state polls like the Philadelphia Daily News/CN8 Keystone poll, President Bush continues to rise while John Kerry continues to fall. That is because of the many volunteers who sign up at the campaign's website, the bloggers who remain vigilant in correcting the lies of the leftist media, the deluge of letters-to-the editor written by average citizens, the monetary donations to the campaign, the turnouts at Bush 2004 meet-ups, participating in official campaign events or simply conservative focused social events like Karen Hughes book tour (tonight at Barnes & Noble on Union Square -- I'll be there!).

Keep fighting the fight because we are winning this battle. For economic strength at home and security world-wide everything we do matters.

God Bless,
Kevin
posted by KP at 10:57 AM

 
David Frum is On Fire Today

I do think it was rather petulant of Richard Clarke to complain on “Meet the Press” that the administration is out to “destroy” him. Clarke hurls a series of terrible accusations at the administration and its senior staff – and is then outraged when they reply that Clarke is wrong? Or when they point out that what he says today contradicts what he has said in the past? Or that he might possibly have other motives than those he acknowledges? Or when they note that he seems strangely tolerant of far worse mistakes by the previous administration?

...

This administration came into office to discover that al Qaeda had been allowed to grow into a full-blown menace. It lost six precious weeks to the Florida recount – and then weeks after Inauguration Day to the go-slow confirmation procedures of a 50-50 Senate. As late as the summer of 2001, pitifully few of Bush’s own people had taken their jobs at State, Defense, and the NSC. Then it was hit by 9/11. And now, now the same people who allowed al Qaeda to grow up, who delayed the staffing of the administration, who did nothing when it was their turn to act, who said nothing when they could have spoken in advance of the attack – these same people accuse George Bush of doing too little? There’s a long answer to give folks like that – and also a short one. And the short one is: How dare you?

posted by KP at 3:20 PM

 
Cracking the Democrat's Code: Definition of Character Assasination



From the friendly guys at Cox & Forkum.
posted by KP at 2:34 PM

 
Richard Clarke Lied Under Oath in Front of Congress? . . . Maybe

We all know Democrats don't think lying under oath is that big of a deal (see: William Jefferson Clinton) but I doubt Congress is going to look too kindly on Richard Clarke if the nation's top terrorism official is lying under oath just to "play politics" and sell books:

WASHINGTON - Top Republicans in Congress sought Friday to declassify two-year-old testimony by former White House aide Richard Clarke, suggesting he may have lied this week when he faulted President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of the war on terror.

"Mr. Clarke has told two entirely different stories under oath," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said in a speech on the Senate floor.


The Tennessee Republican said he hopes Clarke's testimony in July 2002 before the House and Senate intelligence committees can be declassified. Then, he said, it can be compared with the account the former aide provided in his nationally televised appearance Wednesday before the bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.


House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., said he supports the move. "We need to lean forward in making as much information available to the public as possible, without compromising the national security interests of the nation," he said in a statement. Hastert said the initial request had been made by Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican who heads the House intelligence committee.


The developments marked the latest turn in a Republican counterattack against Clarke, who has leveled his criticism against Bush in a new book as well as in interviews and his sworn testimony before the commission.

Stay tuned...
posted by KP at 5:03 PM

 
Shhhh . . . Don't Tell John Kerry, the Bush Boom Continues

Gross domestic product (GDP) increased at a 4.1% annual rate. For the uninitiated, GDP is a measure of all the goods and services produced in the U.S. This has been the standard to measure economic growth in the US for the last few decades (when they switched from GNP to GDP).

The biggest underlying trend that makes these numbers so good is the contrast of which components of GDP are higher than original estimates and which numbers are lower than original estimates:

Main Components whose actual #s are lower than previously thought:
First, federal government spending increased by 0.7% (less than half the 1.6% earlier estimated).
Initial jobless claims climbed by 1,000 last week (economists had expected claims to rise by 4,000)

Main Components that are higher:
This contrasts business spending which advanced by 10.9% (higher than previous estimates of a 9.6% increase).
Spending by consumers rose at a 3.2% annual rate (higher than an earlier estimate of 2.7%).
Consumers' spending on durable goods increased 0.7% (versus previous reports of a 0.1% drop).

So basically the private sector has briskly outpaced the government spending moreso than economists had predicted. This contrasts the necessary deficit spending of the Bush Administration in 2002 and early 2003 when the government outspent the private sector keeping the economy afloat while the private sector washed-out the remnants of the 2001 recession and the economic shocks of 9/11. With this type of private sector investment, in any economic model, the next thing to pick up at an almost equally (if not surpassingly) rapid of a rate would be hiring in the private sector.

This underlying trend should give us confidence that the strength of the economy is being driven by the right levers and the out-of-work who are looking for jobs should be receiving great news in the months to come!

NB: "the economy's performance in the second half of 2003 marked the fastest back-to-back quarterly increases since the first two quarters of 1984" -- and how did that election year turn out???
posted by KP at 10:02 AM

 
So What Was Dick Clarke's Opinion Before He Had a Book to Sell?

From his interview with Jim Angle in August 2002:

RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration.

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, mid-January, to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent.

And the point is, while this big review was going on, there were still in effect, the lethal findings were still in effect. The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided.

So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

The sixth point, the newly-appointed deputies — and you had to remember, the deputies didn't get into office until late March, early April. The deputies then tasked the development of the implementation details, uh, of these new decisions that they were endorsing, and sending out to the principals.

Over the course of the summer — last point — they developed implementation details, the principals met at the end of the summer, approved them in their first meeting, changed the strategy by authorizing the increase in funding five-fold, changing the policy on Pakistan, changing the policy on Uzbekistan, changing the policy on the Northern Alliance assistance.

And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course [of] five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

JIM ANGLE: You're saying that the Bush administration did not stop anything that the Clinton administration was doing while it was making these decisions, and by the end of the summer had increased money for covert action five-fold. Is that correct?

CLARKE: All of that's correct.

posted by KP at 1:34 PM

 
What Credibility to Richard Clarke's Charges on 60 Minutes?

So 60 Minutes does a puff piece on a guy who is writing a book that is highly critical of President Bush and his Administrations handling of terrorism, Al Qaeda and the Iraq liberation...surprise, surprise, surprise. First off, the author and critic Richard Clarke served the Ronal Reagan, George Bush I, Bill Clinton and George Bush II White Houses before being demoted and ultimately 'retiring' during Bush II's first term. During that period he oversaw Al Qaeda growing from a loose band of soldiers in Afghanistan to the world-wide terror network we now know them to be.

Throughout this time as a senior advisor in counter-terrorism what was he doing? Apparently he was focused on cyber-terror and not actual terrorism as this critical piece from February 2003 argues. As that piece shows, Clarke's legacy in counter-terrorism was one of continued miscalculations:

The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror. Years ago, Clarke bet his national security career on the idea that electronic war was going to be real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and Iraq have shown, real action is still of the blood and guts kind.

In happier times prior to 9/11, Clarke -- as Bill Clinton's counter-terror point man in the National Security Council -- devoted great effort to convincing national movers and shakers that cyberattack was the coming thing. While ostensibly involved in preparations for bioterrorism and trying to sound alarms about Osama bin Laden, Clarke was most often seen in the news predicting ways in which electronic attacks were going to change everything and rewrite the calculus of conflict...

Clarke's career in subsequent presidential administrations was a barometer of the recession of the belief that cyberspace would be a front effector in national security affairs. After being part of the NSC, Clarke was dismissed to Special Advisor for Cyberspace Security on October 9th in a ceremony led by National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice and new homeland security guru Tom Ridge. If it was an advance, it was one to the rear -- a pure demotion.

But as we know, he wasn't always wrong. In 2000 when the USS Cole was bombed by Al Qaeda Bill Clinton's cabinet was conveened on how to respond and their actions are appaling impotent:

Al Qaeda's bombing of the billion-dollar U.S. destroyer fulfilled Dick Clarke's prediction of the terrorists seeking U.S. military targets. Hours after the attack, Clarke presided over a meeting of four terrorism experts in the White House Situation Room. He and the State Department's Michael Sheehan agreed this almost certainly was bin Laden's doing, but the FBI and CIA representatives wanted more investigation.

That deadlock preceded a meeting of Cabinet-level officials that same day. Clarke proposed already targeted retaliation against bin Laden's camps and Taliban buildings in Kabul and Kandahar. At least, they would destroy the terrorist infrastructure. A quick strike might also get Osama bin Laden. "Around the table," Miniter writes, "Clarke heard only objections." As related by Clarke, the meeting exemplified ministerial caution...

At the Cabinet-level meeting, only Dick Clarke wanted retaliation. Indeed, he was viewed as a hothead, always demanding bombs away.

As related in the book, President Bill Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno and CIA Director George Tenet all refused to seriously retaliate against Al Qaeda for their murder of American servicemen:

Reno thought retaliation might violate international law and was therefore against it. Tenet wanted to more definitive proof that bin Laden was behind the attack, although he personally thought he was. Albright was concerned about the reaction of world opinion to a retaliation against Muslims, and the impact it would have in the final days of the Clinton Middle East peace process. Cohen, according to Clarke, did not consider the Cole attack "sufficient provocation" for a military retaliation.

As related in this Gary Aldrich column:

After the USS Cole bombing, Bill Clinton had a prime opportunity to kill Osama, and possessed solid evidence about his location.

In fact, according to Miniter, Clinton passed up 11 other chances to kill Osama Bin Laden. Some would say Clinton?s failure to take out this deadly terrorist is his real legacy.

So, how many times did Clinton fail to act against the growing threat of Usama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda? On at least 16 major occasions, according to Rick Miniter's book, "Losing bin Laden":

1. Did not follow-up on the attempted bombing of Aden marines in Yemen.

2. Shut the CIA out of the 1993 WTC bombing investigation, hamstringing their effort to capture bin Laden.

3. Had Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key bin Laden lieutenant, slip through their fingers in Qatar.

4. Did not militarily react to the al Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

5. Did not accept the Sudanese offer to turn bin Laden.

6. Did not follow-up on another offer from Sudan through a private back channel.

7. Objected to Northern Alliance efforts to assassinate bin Laden in Afghanistan.

8. Decided against using special forces to take down bin Laden in Afghanistan.

9. Did not take an opportunity to take into custody two al Qaeda operatives involved in the East African embassy bombings. In another little scoop, I am able to show that Sudan arrested these two terrorists and offered them to the FBI. The Clinton administration declined to pick them up and they were later allowed to return to Pakistan.

10. Ordered an ineffectual, token missile strike against a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory.

11. Clumsily tipped off Pakistani officials sympathetic to bin Laden before a planned missile strike against bin Laden on August 20, 1998. Bin Laden left the camp with only minutes to spare.

12-14. Three times, Clinton hesitated or deferred in ordering missile strikes against bin Laden in 1999 and 2000.

15. When they finally launched and armed the Predator spy drone plane, which captured amazing live video images of bin Laden, the Clinton administration no longer had military assets in place to strike the archterrorist.

16. Did not order a retaliatory strike on bin Laden for the murderous attack on the USS Cole.

Clarke's charge that Bush and his Administration were focused on linking Iraq to 9/11 is baseless everywhere except in the conspiratorial mind of the Left. President Bush has stated repeatedly that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror:

Our strategy in Iraq has three objectives: destroying the terrorists, enlisting the support of other nations for a free Iraq and helping Iraqis assume responsibility for their own defense and their own future.

First, we are taking direct action against the terrorists in the Iraqi theater, which is the surest way to prevent future attacks on coalition forces and the Iraqi people. We are staying on the offensive, with a series of precise strikes against enemy targets increasingly guided by intelligence given to us by Iraqi citizens.

It is not retaliation for 9/11 but an effort to prevent the NEXT 9/11. Colin Powell's speech before the UN Security Council in February of 2003 lays out in excruciating detail the deception of the Iraqi government towards weapons inspectors and violations of Security Resolution 1441.

While President Bush has explicitly stated there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein can be directly linked to the 9/11 terrorist acts, there is mounting evidence that Saddam Hussein had serious ties to Al Qaeda. But the takeaway from all of this and Richard Clarke's charges are quite simple:

1. The lack of focus on Usama Bin Laden happend long before George Bush took office
2. At no time has the White House argued that they are invading Iraq because of Iraq's involvement in 9/11
3. In our War on Terror, liberating Iraq eliminated one of the greatest sponsor of terror in the Middle East
4. The Bush Administration would have been negligent had they not agressively looked for links between Al Qaeda and ANY country--especially one like Iraq with a dictator known to sponsor terrorism
5. Links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda continue to be uncovered

These are the topics that should be discussed, not the baseless accusations of some jilted former counter-terrorism czar who has an axe to grind because he was demoted following his decade long negligent focus on the real terrorism threat of Al Qaeda.
posted by KP at 10:58 AM

 
The New York Times Employees Overwhelmingly Support Democrats

Notorious muckraker (in the worst sense of the word) Michael Petrelis has done exhaustive research on the campaign contributions of current and former employees of the New York Times:

The Times’ code of conduct, as laid out in the Ethical Journalism handbook that was revised in January 2003, explicitly prohibits staff from making political donations.

“Staff members may not themselves give money to, or raise money for, any political candidate or election cause. Given the ease of Internet access to public records of campaign contributors, any political giving by a times staff member would carry a great risk of feeding a false impression that the paper is taking sides,” states the code. [1]

After reading this rule, I searched Federal Election Commission records on the web for Times staff and experienced dismay, seeing that dozens of staff members made political donations over more than two decades. [2]

Focal points of staff FEC files:

-- Most recent donations: Michael H. Sussman, web producer, donated in December 2003, Sarah Lyall, London bureau, gave in September 2003. While Janet Maslin, book critic, and John Rockwell, music critic, wrote out checks in March 2003.

-- Number of Pulitzer Prize awardees: Two. Barry Bearak, 2002 winner for international reporting; and Paul Goldberger, awarded a prize in 1984 for criticism.

-- Six people contributed to the Democratic National Committee.

-- Two members gave to a Green Party candidate.

-- One donated to the Republican National Committee, back in 1992.

-- Number who chipped in for Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Senate campaign: 4.

-- Only two staff members wrote checks for Sen. Charles Schumer.

The paper’s code of conduct, of course, does not apply to the extended Sulzberger family. However, I must point out family members’ donations because they listed the New York Times as their employer on FEC forms. Contributions from Sulzberger relatives illustrate the breadth of political giving on the part of people connected with the paper.

A few highlights of the family’s contributions:

-- Most recent donation: On February 3, 2003, from Cathy F. Sulzberger.

-- Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., wrote out a check for $500 in September 1999 to the Handgun Control Voter Education Fund.

-- Single largest donor: Marion S. Heiskell; sister of Arthur Sulzberger, Sr.

In the Times’ Guidelines on Integrity, staff members are to “do nothing that might erode reader’s faith and confidence in our news column. This means that staff members should be vigilant in avoiding any activity that might pose an actual or apparent conflict of interest and thus threaten the newspaper’s ethical standing.”

And even further down in the original link are reams of listings of political contributions overwhelmingly to Democrats. Is anybody really surprised?
posted by KP at 10:45 AM

 
Staged Media Controversy Over Bush's Ads Showing Images from 9/11? I'm Shocked, Shocked!!!

No surprise that the supposed "outrage" over the images from 9/11 in President Bush's ads was actually the work of left-leaning media savvy special interest organizations. What is surprising is how easy a small group of PR people actually got this ball rolling and the lazy media bit on the story "Hook Line and Sinker." Matthew Continetti, in the Weekly Standard, does the heavy lifting the left-leaning journalists all failed to do:

Neither is it anything new, of course, when a small group of people with excellent public relations skills and a political axe to grind are able to manipulate an unskeptical media. Which seems to be what happened in the case of the Bush television ads. For much of the controversy can be traced directly to a press release issued by the Institute for Public Accuracy, or IPA, at a little after 2:00 P.M. on March 4.

The IPA is a five-person media clearinghouse located in the National Press Building. According to GuideStar, a website that tracks nonprofits, the group "promotes the inclusion of outlooks that usually get short shrift." It does this by issuing press releases. It has been issuing press releases since April 8, 1998. These go out to about 7,000 journalists and television producers. They promote speakers and experts whose outlooks are generally of a far-left bent. When I asked Sam Husseini, the IPA's communications director, whether the outfit was left-liberal, he told me, "I'm so far beyond labels, just give me the facts." But the IPA's facts are often questionable (mass starvation in Afghanistan, a massacre at the Jenin refugee camp in April 2002, and so on), and their opinions are always hard-left...

The IPA release on March 4 was brief--under 500 words--and little more than a list. It highlighted three potential stories and sources for journalists. One was the upcoming trip to Afghanistan of a mother whose firefighter son was killed in the September 11 attacks. Another was an Afghan women's rights activist's comments on International Women's
Day, which took place on March 8.

But the lead item was the Bush ads story, featured in the subject line of the email: "Firefighters and 9/11 Families on Bush Ads." Journalists were pointed in two directions. First, they were alerted that Harold Schaitberger, the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, was outraged at the Bush ads. As is typically the case with such press releases, a helpful quote from Schaitberger was included. "I'm disappointed but not surprised that the President would try to trade on the heroism of those firefighters in the September 11 attacks. The uses of 9/11 images are hypocrisy at its worst."...

Second, the IPA press release directed reporters interested in the Bush campaign ads to Adele Welty, David Potorti, and Colleen Kelly, members of a group called September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows...

Sifting through the news coverage of the controversy over Bush's ads, one finds the same individuals--Schaitberger, Potorti, and Kelly--quoted again and again. Schaitberger and Kelly are both quoted in a Boston Globe story that ran on March 5. Schaitberger and Kelly Campbell, a spokeswoman for September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, were the sources for the Washington Post's account. Kelly, Potorti, and Jeff Zack, a spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters, are quoted in the AP dispatch on the Bush ads. Potorti is quoted in USA Today's story.

In fact, members of Peaceful Tomorrows are often quoted without any mention of their group affiliation. In what looks like an egregious case of lazy reporting, multiple news outlets treated members of Peaceful Tomorrows as if they were nonaffiliated people-on-the-street in order to make the controversy over the Bush ads seem widespread.

As we all know now, it turns out Schaitberger endorsed John Kerry months ago and was actually agressively campaigning with Kerry for weeks (an inconvenient fact left out of the "news" write-ups).

As for September 11 Families for Peaceful Tomorrows, they have unusual ties to John Kerry as well:

Peaceful Tomorrows receives money and support from a bevy of left-wing foundations. Among them is the Tides Center, which is a project of the Tides Foundation, which is a recipient of generous grants from the Heinz family endowments, one of which, at least, is chaired by Teresa Heinz, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. (Spokesmen for the Heinz endowments are quick to say that the money they provide to the Tides Foundation and Center is directed solely towards environmental projects in western Pennsylvania.) Peaceful Tomorrows is only one of many Tides Center projects. Others include the Ruckus Society, a radical antiglobalization group, and the Iraq Peace Fund, which provides support to such anti-Bush groups as MoveOn.org and Democracy Now.

Funny how the "controversy" is given immediate validity while the purely partisan motivations are blindly ignored.


posted by KP at 5:30 PM

 
The Coalition of the Bribed, the Coerced, the Bought and the Extorted

Are these the leaders John Kerry "met with" who said they were hoping he would beat George Bush?

A year ago John Kerry described the nations that would liberate Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and the extorted." It turns out that may be a better description of his own antiwar camp. From Jacques Chirac's and Vladimir Putin's political cronies to Tony Blair's own Labour Party, many of the most vocal opponents of enforcing U.N. resolutions turn out to have been on the take.

Could be. But then again, Kerry's not talking about the very issue he brought up . . .
posted by KP at 2:14 PM

 
The President is Getting Warmed Up

We all saw the release of the President's first TV ads yesterday, but this is only the beginning of what promises to be a difficult battle. The Wall Street Journal (subscription requires) has an excellent piece on the comparatively enviable position John Kerry is in versus, Walter Mondale in 1984, Michael Dukakis in 1988 and even Bill Clinton in 1992:

After vanquishing John Edwards to secure his party's nomination, John Kerry woke up Wednesday in stronger political condition at this stage of the campaign than any Democratic challenger of the past two decades. His surprising array of assets includes unity within a normally fractious party, a positive introduction to the American public and a narrow national lead over President Bush.

"I don't think there's ever been anyone healthier," says Democratic pollster Paul Maslin, who advised Howard Dean's campaign. Adds nonpartisan opinion analyst Karlyn Bowman: "It is rare that a primary campaign strengthens the nominee. This campaign has clearly done that." . . .

[I]t already is clear that the Massachusetts senator begins running the general-election marathon with less baggage than Mr. Mondale set out with in 1984. The former vice president was battered as an old-style, interest-group Democrat that year by primary rival Gary Hart, and later lost to Mr. Reagan in a landslide.

Four years later, Michael Dukakis was forced to struggle with a persistent challenge from rival Jesse Jackson throughout the spring and early summer. In 1992, Bill Clinton emerged as nominee-in-waiting wounded by the Gennifer Flowers scandal, as well as attacks on his truthfulness.

All three of those men trailed their Republican general-election opponents in early-March polls. Mr. Kerry, by contrast, has pulled ahead of Mr. Bush in several national surveys on the strength of solid support from the Democratic rank-and-file.

While the polling still cautions a slim lead for "the No. 1 Senate liberal" it is good to see President Bush taking the gloves off occasionally to paint Kerry accurately:

it already is clear that the Massachusetts senator begins running the general-election marathon with less baggage than Mr. Mondale set out with in 1984. The former vice president was battered as an old-style, interest-group Democrat that year by primary rival Gary Hart, and later lost to Mr. Reagan in a landslide.

Four years later, Michael Dukakis was forced to struggle with a persistent challenge from rival Jesse Jackson throughout the spring and early summer. In 1992, Bill Clinton emerged as nominee-in-waiting wounded by the Gennifer Flowers scandal, as well as attacks on his truthfulness.

All three of those men trailed their Republican general-election opponents in early-March polls. Mr. Kerry, by contrast, has pulled ahead of Mr. Bush in several national surveys on the strength of solid support from the Democratic rank-and-file.

posted by KP at 11:54 AM

 
Read Drudge for all the latest Kerry Scandal headlines...
posted by KP at 11:40 AM

 
Kerry to Cede U.S. Sovereignty to the United Nations?

At least that's what he said in 1970:

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

And about those intelligence failures by the agencies created to protect us? Well, it looks like Kerry's career in the Senate of weakening our Intelligence and Defense organizations was an opinion he held at that time also:

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

Not exactly the visionary back then and his voting record in the Senate reflects his desire to emasculate the United States in favor of 3rd parties like the United Nations. I wonder at what point the Democrats get "buyers remorse" from the Ketchup Man?
posted by KP at 10:47 AM

 
David Brooks Writes Bush's Talking Points Today

The New York Times must regret hiring David Brooks, because week-in and week-out he has been skewering the Democrats and strengthening the Republicans. Today is no exception with an exceptionally well argued "translation" of George Bush's positions from his "Meet the Press" appearance with Tim Russert:

I have staked the security of this nation on two propositions; this election will be about whether those propositions are true. The first is that the war on terror means we have to escalate our alert status. We cannot wait for our enemies to launch their attacks because we are a nation already at war. We cannot wait for countries like France, China and Russia to see things our way because we are a nation at war.

I made a decision that we would take the fight to the enemy every day, and that every sin we would commit — and we would inevitably commit some — would be a sin of commission, not a sin of omission. We would not repeat the mistakes of the previous decade.

The second proposition is that 9/11 was not a discrete crime. Something so horrible could not grow from a small cause. I concluded that this war is a global, ideological and moral war. Some liberals have trouble grasping evil, and always think that if we could take care of the handguns or the cruise missiles or the W.M.D., our problems would be ameliorated. But I know the problem lies in the souls of our enemies....

I said I have found my mission and my moment, and it has cost me. It has cost me some of the bonds I had with average Americans. The secret of my political success was that voters sensed I was basically like them. But this mission, while elevating, is also a cocoon. I see Americans going about their business, watching the Super Bowl and reacting to it all. But I couldn't watch most of the Super Bowl and I didn't have a reaction to the whole halftime fiasco because I had to go to bed and be ready for the continuing war the next day. They say there is a cultural divide between the military and society. There is, and suddenly I am on the other side.

I look around and observe that many of my fellow Americans don't seem to be living on Sept. 12, the way I am. And if they don't feel in their bones the presence of war, I don't know what argument I can use to persuade them.

Be sure to read the whole thing (hat tip to my buddy JR).
posted by KP at 10:24 AM

 
So, Who Is Upset That A Homicidal Dictator Has Been Captured?

Why the grassroots "Ted Rall" Dean supporters, of course! Their original threads are here, here and here. Check out some of the choicest quotes, compliments of Dean's World:

"I can't believe this. I'm crying here. I feel that we now don't have a chance in this election."

"HEY GUYS WAKE UP!!!
THERE IS NO SUCCESS EXISTS IN THE UNJUSTIFIED WAR WHOEVER WAS CAPTURED!!"

And here are few others, compliments of Compliments of Resurrection Song:

This is great news- with Saddam gone, our Islamic brothers can send the beasts of the Bu$h Nazi war machine to their graves without the taint of Saddam's rule.

Posted by Muslims4Dean at December 14, 2003 12:24 PM

And this is the best the Democrats have to offer?

posted by KP at 1:52 PM

 
Why Are There Gas Lines in Iraq?

Andrew Sullivan asks that today and the answer is quite simple as the gas lines are an outgrowth of the exponential increase in prosperity in Iraq since Saddam has been deposed. There are gas lines in Iraq because there are a minimal amount of gas stations to support what WAS a limited amount of vehicles due to the sanctions against the Iraqis and the over-burdensome tariffs and duties on all vehicles under Saddam. In addition to that, as everyone now knows, Saddam let the country's infrastructure crumble into abysmal disrepair before the US invaded. What has happened since then is a massive influx of vehicles due to all of the tariffs having been lifted and Iraqi car salesmen's ability to sell many more cars because of a) far lower prices and b) far increased Iraqi pay (sometimes 30x greater than during Saddam's reign). Here is a New York Times piece on the growth in vehicles:

IT IS a family ritual played out in second-hand car markets across the globe - a father buying a car for his son...

Aadel Kadhem, 43, and his 23-year-old son Mohammed walked around a pair of black BMWs, opening the doors, staring through the windows. Mr Kadhem snr paints cars for a living, and his income has risen ten-fold since the fall of Saddam Hussein’s government, he said, allowing him to squirrel away £1,700 for a car for his son.

"The situation is still tight for us, but we have a bit to play with," Mr Kadhem snr said. "In the past, the government wanted to fight against the citizens; they wanted this country to be underdeveloped. But my income now is much stronger than before."

Jamal Nasir, the owner of the Black Gold, the car shop, looked on with a glint in his eye and a smile on his lips.

"Because of small salaries before, many people couldn’t buy cars," he said. "Now I sell to all sectors of society. It’s the wheel of life. Everybody’s working, getting better salaries than before." ...

Still, an entire swathe of middle-class society, particularly government workers like doctors, teachers and administrators, has experienced a tremendous jump in income since the United States-led occupation began.

That is driving an exultant boom in demand for luxury goods - cars, televisions, fine clothing, expensive perfumes...

Import tariffs have been scrapped until the end of the year. The UN trade embargo is gone. Stores have sprung up all over the city. Before the invasion in March, for example, people in Baghdad bought cars from two large bazaars. Now they go to dozens of small shops like Mr Nasir’s.

Large trucks carrying used cars are a common sight at border crossings. A spokesman for the oil ministry estimated that 250,000 cars had entered Iraq since spring.

Would it be too much for the media to report stories like this to explain the logical reason why there are gas lines in Iraq? But as you can see if you read the original story and not just my exerpts, the writer for the Times couldn't just report on an economic boom, but threw in at least two 'digs' about "explosions in the distance" and "fears of crime in the streets" due to their new wealth. I guess to the writer it was better for the Iraqis when they had nothing because then no one would want to steal from them. Sheesh.
posted by KP at 7:12 AM

 
Howard Dean's Grassy Knoll

Since traditional media has taken a 'pass' on Howard Dean's reckless furthering of conspiracy theories that would implicate the President in treasonous behavior, a number of columnists and bloggers are picking up the slack. Beginning with his NPR visit on Dec. 1 Howard Dean brought up the outlandish theory that the Saudis tipped off the President regarding the impending 9/11 terrorist attacks. When subsequently questioned on furthering these theories by Fox News' Chris Wallace, Dean didn't back-off but merely stated that he himself didn't believe it although he found nothing wrong with bringing up the treasonous theory. Hugh Hewitt's main graph reflects on the media turning a blind-eye to their idealogical equal:

Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney or any administration official were to vocalize any of the assorted Clinton conspiracy memes from the far reaches of the internet, whether about Vince Foster, or the Mena airport, or the list of Clinton associates who have met untimely ends. How furious would the reaction be, and for how long would it endure?

This seems to be a theme as Roger Simon pointed out:

Do you think for one moment that if thousands had been marching for Saddam... for the fascists... excuse me "insurgents"... it wouldn't have been front page news? I don't. What's going on?

Just as the media isn't covering the Iraqi protests, they are turning a bling eye to this reckless behavior. Behavior that has apparently shown up in near-unbelievable form previously, as Robert Novak points out:

Unlike George McGovern in 1972, Dean's core problem is not ideological. It is loose lips: fabricating the story of a patient impregnated by her father, seeking support from pickup truck drivers with Confederate flags, and seemingly exulting in his draft deferment for a bad back. Nothing so worries old-style Democratic politicians, however, as proclaiming the apocryphal warning from Saudi Arabia.

Traditional media may be giving this guy a 'pass' but the American public has long moved past these outlets for their information as evidenced by the success of cable news and blogs themself. If the 2002 elections weren't the loud wake-up call for the Left and their media lackeys, 2004 will be deafening experience.
posted by KP at 2:51 PM

 
Clip 'N Save from "The Note"

Here's a Note clip 'n' save for between the holidays, and into next year.

In parentheses after each item, we list those people who should be Noting more carefully what's going on out there; in brackets are those who are already paying quite a bit of attention.

--------------------------------------------CLIP HERE-----------------------------------------

1. The Dust-up in Durham, the year's final Democratic presidential candidate debate on Tuesday, Dec. 9, in Durham, New Hampshire is certain to be the most watched Democratic debate yet.

And it will certainly have the most impact on the Democrats and independents of the Granite State, who have the biggest say in determining the party's nominee. More on the December Debate below, in its own new section. (Robert C. Wright; Josh Wachs) [Judy Reardon; all Googling monkeys; James Pindell]

2. If you needed any more evidence of the Gang of 500's unique and overriding obsession with process stories, ask yourself how many real Americans care where Mike Allen was standing when it began to dawn on him that he wouldn't be spending Thanksgiving with his nephews; about the color of the floor of the Air Force One hangar at Andrews; or about the swapping out of the Fox crew for the CNN crew in the pool. (Howard Dean; Tom Daschle; Hillary Clinton) [Dan Bartlett; Trish Enright]

(Look!!! The Note agrees with The Pod!!! LINK)

3. With the State of the Union coming one day after the Iowa caucuses, will that take any anchors away from Des Moines, or simply lead to a mass charter from Fleur Drive to Reagan? And will the Hawkeye winner(s) get all the bounce of a dead cat? (Steve Murphy; Jim Demers; Miles Lackey; Elizabeth Edwards; Monica Fischer) [Phil Alongi; Tony Podesta; Al From; Doug Sosnik]

4. In the State of the Union, what will President Bush say about:

a. Social Security personal retirement accounts? Sunday's Los Angeles Times had Brownstein and Chen IN SEPARATE PIECES (!!!) on how the White House might push off of Medicare for this … . LINK and LINK, and today the Wall Street Journal ed board says proper Social Security reform should be aggressively pursued by the president as penitence for his liberal cave in on Medicare.

b. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?

c. The deficit? See Ron Brownstein's column today for a to-the-woodshed-Mr.-President take on the Bush-Cheney-Snow deficits. LINK

(Nancy Pelosi's communication staff; any Democrat asked to sit in the First Lady's box)

[Mike Gerson — still the most underrated member of the Bush White House, particularly now that Joe Hagin had blown his cover with the whole Iraq thing]

5. Speaking of the State of the Union, that will be a good time for the president and the nation to review how he is doing on his core campaign promises. Sure, his critics might quibble about whether the "done" things are actually "done," but, as POTUS talking points, what is done is done.

Done: education reform, tax cuts, Medicare reform, a prescription drug benefit, vast increases in military spending, restoring honor and dignity to the Oval Office

Pending: Social Security reform, tort reform, energy policy

Not so much: a changed tone in Washington, a humble foreign policy, reduction in the size of the federal government

6. Watch the quiet (and not so quiet) battle between those Democratic elected officials/super delegates who move toward public support of Howard Dean and those who implicitly or explicitly join the Stop Dean movement.

John Breaux's shot across the Burlington bow on "This Week" yesterday was not the first time you will hear anti-Dean boogeyman stuff like that, and Gina Glantz isn't the last person getting on the Dean bandwagon. — in fact, some intriguing B-I-G names have already secretly signed up. (Daschle; Teresa Vilmain; Steve Rosenthal) [Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Tom Davis, Tom Reynolds]

7. With no winner-take-all events and no one with a real clue as to how the Big Media will weight the results of the various February contests, don't be surprised to see a muddy field going into March, unless Dean sweeps Iowa and New Hampshire. Check out Kevin Phillips' math and Gore scenario from yesterday's Los Angeles Times!!! LINK

(Wachs; Terry McAuliffe; Alongi; the McAuliffe children) [David Axelrod; Craig Smith; Nick Baldick; Steve Murphy; Paul Johnson; Mary Beth Cahill]

8. Watch Democratic fundraising in the fourth quarter. If Wes Clark really raises over $10 million, and Dean raises around $15 (give or take several million), what does that do to everyone else's buys in January and February? (station owners in major markets; Bill Carrick) [Jamie Whitehead; Eli Segal]

9. The Note was snookered by Burlington when we previously bought into the notion that Busta Caps was being done almost exclusively as a bet on the come to have money in the spring and early summer to compete with President Bush. Turns out, it is a LOT about flooding the zone in Iowa and New Hampshire. (Laura Capps; John Lapp; Bill Burton) [Joe Trippi; Joe Trippi; Steve McMahon; Joe Trippi]

Adam Nagourney of the New York Times took us to school over the holiday weekend on this. A true must-read. LINK

10. We have yet to see if the new Team Kerry can turn things around, or how much of his own money the Senator will plow into this deal, but both are key open questions. LINK

See Glen Johnson's wicked good Sunday Boston Globe profile of Michael Whouley — an excellent piece except for the glaring omission of the words "corporate clients." LINK (Karen Hicks; Reardon; the Shaheens) [Cam Kerry; DSG corporate clients]

11. When are the Bill-Frist-turn-around stories going to start? (Bill Frist) [Bill Frist]

12. All December, White House and Cabinet policy aides will be working on the budget, to be unveiled in January amidst the huge new deficit figures.

And all December, White House and Cabinet communications aides will be working on a sequencing plan for how to do approved leaks of different aspects of the budget for maximum political effect and to take advantage of the laziness of the press corps. (the DNC communications and research shops; Cabinet secretaries; bored Wall Street Journal reporters) [Robert Pear; Judy Keen]

13. How should we square Wes Clark's stated unwillingness to attack his Democratic rivals with his attack on Howard Dean's post-collegiate skiing? (Gert; the volunteers; the RNC research folks) [Mark Fabiani; Chris Lehane; Kym Spell]

14. What's going on with those two criminal investigations with political potential — the DOJ look at the Edwards' campaign fundraiser at that Little Rock law firm and the DOJ look at the Wilson leak? (Jennifer Palmieri; Andy Card; Tom Edsall) [Tab Turner; The Davids]

------------------------------------------------CLIP HERE------------------------------------

posted by KP at 4:44 PM

 
Why the French Government is Really Our Enemy, Part 72

"Follow the money" is an old adage, and it means that economic interest will eventually explain much human behavior. That France opposed the removal of Saddam Hussein because he owed millions to French banks is proof of this. Less well known, but much more troubling, are key French financial links with other U.S. enemies. They raise the belief that the Franco-American conflict over Iraq was just one slice of the action. For France was not just Baathist Iraq's largest contributor of funds; French banks have financed other odious regimes. They are the No. 1 lenders to Iran and Cuba and past and present U.S. foes such as Somalia, Sudan and Vietnam.

This type of financing is shared by Germany, France's partner. German banks are North Korea's biggest lenders, and Syria's--and Libya's. But France is the most active. In Castro's sizzling gulag, French banks plunked down $549 million in the first trimester this year, a third of all credit to Cuba. The figure for Saddam's Iraq is $415 million. But these pale in comparison with the $2.5 billion that French banks have lent Iran. The figures come from the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, and were interpreted by I?igo Moré for a Madrid think-tank, the Real Instituto Elcano. As he says, "one could think that Parisian bankers wait for the U.S. to have an international problem before taking out their checkbooks." French banks seem to be almost anywhere U.S. banks are absent. They lend in 57 such countries, and are the main lenders in 23 of those. (His report can be read at www.realinstitutoelcano.org.) The report offers reasons why Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin really ought to stop using the phrase "our American friends" every time he talks about the U.S.

It looks like the disdain for France is spreading to all walks of international life.
posted by KP at 8:37 PM

 
The Most Important Man of the 20th Century? Probably (Philip Jenkins, 10/15/03, Dallas Morning News)

When the history of our time is written, Pope John Paul II will be featured not just as one of the towering figures of the age but also as an authentic revolutionary. That is to say he presided over a change in global attitudes so profound and so rapid that it is difficult to remember that people ever thought or acted differently.

...


The Catholic Church was the first institution to experience true globalization, and John Paul was the first world leader to take full account of the implications of that phenomenon. From the first, he realized that Christianity no longer was a "Western" religion and that the church had to respond to those vast new constituencies. If liberals have detested John Paul, that generally has been because they still operated from an obsolete and provincial worldview centered in the West – or even within the United States.

For John Paul, spiritual truths have been what matter above all things, and a world correctly ordered to divine truth naturally would move toward justice and peace. But this supernaturally oriented figure also has launched revolutionary changes in secular affairs. Again, think of the world in 1978, when two superpowers competed for supremacy and when many influential Americans believed that their country faced gradual decline in the face of Soviet power.

Well, you remember the Soviet Union, a country that no longer exists. It was founded upon an ideology that now is hard to defend with a straight face. Many leaders and institutions contributed to destroying Soviet communism, but no one can doubt that John Paul provided the anti-Communist resistance with its spiritual and intellectual justification. Certainly, the Soviet leaders saw the pope as their deadliest foe, even more lethal than Ronald Reagan or Margaret Thatcher. Especially in Eastern Europe and Latin America, the Catholic Church acted directly and decisively to challenge totalitarianism. Once upon a time, Josef Stalin asked, scoffingly, "So, how many divisions has the pope?" Today, we might answer that we know very well where the pope's followers are, but just where are the heirs of Stalin?

When we try to summarize the achievements of Pope John Paul II, we might think of an anthem that was popular in an earlier era, with a title that summarized the revolutionary hopes of a world renewed and transformed: "The World Turned Upside Down." They played it when British forces surrendered at Yorktown in 1781. In more senses than one, John Paul has turned the world upside down.

posted by KP at 11:02 AM