The Kerry Candidacy. . .There's no There There. . .

Once again, someone says what I've been thinking, and says it much better than I could. . .enjoy your reading.

Imagine that. . .

A balloon advertising for Kerry crash lands in New York's Central Park. How ironic! A Kerry balloon that didn't have enough hot air. Who'd a thunk it?

UBL's Surrender Proposal

In addition to a transcript of UBL's latest video offering, Belmont Club shares an insight gleaned from this weak attempt to influence the American election. Wretchard feels that UBL ". . .is basically asking for time out."

UBL has obviously been affected by the war he foolishly started. He has been emasculated, and is bewildered and confused. Are those references to Michael Moore? UBL may not be finished as a terrorist, but he may be closer to the end than he knows. . .

Thomas Sowell says,"Stop and think"!

This is a great article! Dr. Sowell, in a well written article, cites some reasons for the apparent shift in the black vote toward the Republicans. He sees that shift as an encouraging sign.

Political inertia is powerful, but the time is overdue for more black voters to look beyond the rhetoric and images to the realities that affect themselves and their children.

Kerry learns negotiation. . .

This article cites documents that potentially illuminate the thoughtful and wise man that the democrats would like to send to the whitehouse. More evidence that this man's integrity is mostly imagined.

Kerry's tripping, again. . .

First it was a trip to Cambodia that was "seared" in him. . .in his imagination. . . now it's discussions with Security Council members during a trip to the U.N. in 2002. These discussions apparently never took place. One wonders how much of what this man can be believed. We might be best off not believing anything he says. . .

From the NY Times. . .

To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

This is from the New York Times. The Times has long been pushing the Kerry candidacy, so as cited on Blogs for Bush, this must have been more than painful for them to publish.

Brits Have Lost It.

On November 2, the entire civilised world will be praying, praying Bush loses. And Sod's law dictates he'll probably win, thereby disproving the existence of God once and for all. The world will endure four more years of idiocy, arrogance and unwarranted bloodshed, with no benevolent deity to watch over and save us. John Wilkes Booth, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Hinckley Jr - where are you now that we need you?

This is from an article in The Guardian", a British rag that has obviously gone well past civilized limits. Finishing an article full of lies and name-calling with a call for assassination is inexcusable.

The Big Lie

I was interested to read this article. Once again someone else says what I've been thinking. . .better than I could say it. Hats off to Joseph Perkins!

Kerry's "nuanced" integrity on display again. . .

John Kerry and his surrogates are going around the country warning of Bush's secret plan to reinstate the draft after he is re-elected. This shows that Kerry is actually the man with the plan. I admire Blogs for Bush for citing this example of Kerry's integrity.

Double Standard

Power Line draws attention to the myopic way our government is enforcing its own rules. It seems that if you see the world in one way you are penalized for certain actions, while if you see it in another (politically correct) way you are rewarded for similar actions.

It's time to see clearly and act justly.

He still doesn't get it

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' Kerry said. ''As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Johnny still doesn't understand. We can never go back to 9/10 again. How can you tell the 3000 people that died at the hands of those terrorists that they were the victims of a "nuisance"? Our problem is not a "law enforcement" problem. Approaching it as such, as the Clinton administration did, is what made 9/11 possible. Kerry's basic misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism is the one thing that makes him most unfit to command.

Dennis Prager: How Kerry won

Dennis Prager: How Kerry won

This is a great article which says what I've been trying to say and says it much better than I have been able to do. Please read the article and see if it protrays the man you really want in the Whitehouse.

Kerry the diplomat

Kerry with his new, stronger alliance. . .

Kerry, inaccurate and misleading. . .

Read here.

The man known for exceptional command (and I use that term loosely) of facts in foreign policy matters made a number of "mistakes" during the first debate the other night. Now, were the "mistakes" due to less than exceptional command (and I use that term loosely) of the facts, or were they due to a "nuanced" approach to the truth?

I am pretty certain that a man who can hold, and strongly defend, several positions on each of the most important concerns facing our country has a very different approach to the truth than the approach my mother taught me. As others have pointed out before me, he may make a great "debater-in-chief," but I am more sure now than ever before that I am not interested in seeing him assume the position of commander-in-chief.

Yes, but. . .

Kerry during the debate last night:

-"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."

-"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."

-"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."

-"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."

-"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."

-"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."

-"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."

-"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."

-"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."

James Taranto as cited on Blogs for Bush points out the nearly every sound statement that Kerry made was followed with a "but." Elsewhere it was pointed out that in most cases everything that precedes the "but" in a statement can be discounted and everything that follows the "but" is what really counts for the speaker. If that logic is applied to what Kerry said last night, he exposes himself as a great pretender, full of half-truths and sophistry. Still unfit for command.