Saturday, August 28, 2004

The Problem With The Democrats

Watching the Democrats over the past few years I have come to the conclusion that they have lost it. Their party does not seem to be one of ideas and dialogue, but rather one of conspiracy theories, name calling, or just complaining.

How many in the Democratic Party can embrace the likes of Michael Moore and the Rev. Sharpton is beyond me? In years past nobody like Moore or Sharpton would be tolerated in either party. Yet today Moore is considered somewhat of a hero among the Democratic faithful, and was even given the "honor" of sitting with former Pres. Carter at the Democratic Convention. Shockingly Sharpton was allowed to give one of the keynote speeches at the convention. While I admit he is entertaining, there can be no doubt that his past activities in New York City are troubling.

Moore was given this place of honor for his movie Fahrenheit 911 which the Democrats call an important documentary, but what should really be considered a piece of fiction at best, or at its worst what Kerry would call "a smear". How people can go to a movie like that and take what is presented as fact is disappointing at best. Does the Left dislike Bush so much that they can take the "facts" presented in this movie at face value? I recommend going to this site to see how much of what Moore presents in his film is incorrect. If the Democrats or anyone else disagrees with Bush, lets have a discussion of ideas and values not the name calling or innuendo so typical of the likes of Moore.

As former New York City Mayor Ed Koch said:

"Moore's propaganda film cheapens debate, polorizes the nation" World Tribune, June 28, 04

Today I was watching a Fox News show that had one Republican backer (I do not remember his name) and Susan Estrich. While I typically disagree with Susan politically I find many of her positions to be well reasoned. Today unfortunately they were not. The topic was 527's and what if anything should be done about them. The discussion started with an overview how Kerry called on Bush to disavow the Swift Boat Vets, and how instead Bush called on all 527's to stop their activities. Susan went on to point out how attorney Benjamin Ginsberg worked both for Bush and for the Swift Boat Vets and as such it proves that Bush is behind the ads. Furthermore since the ads were a "smear", Bush should focus on that 527 only and not worry about the rest.

Now this is the typical argument I have heard from the Democrats lately, so Susan's argument wasn't that different. What bothered me however is when it was pointed out that there are attorneys working for both and the Kerry campaign Susan said there was a difference.

What was that difference? Well according to Susan the Swift Vets are using smear tactics and ads are truthful. Even though I should be used to this, I was stunned! While many of the ads and activities are over policy differences they have been fast and loose with the truth in many instances.

Here are a few items pulled today from with some comments.
We now know Rumsfeld personally approved a policy that "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners," violating their fundamental human rights under the Geneva convention.
Must I point out that the latest report on the abuses clearly show this is not the case?
But the facts need no clarification. Despite repeated warnings from the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, President Bush and his administration hyped and distorted the threat that Iraq posed. And now that reality is setting in, the President wants to pin the blame on someone else. We can't let him.
Both the 9/11 Commission and the Senate Report (both bi-partisan) state that Bush acted on faulty intelligence. Neither report blamed bush for hyping or distorting the report.

The above examples are just from the front page of Clearly based on the reports that are now out these statements are false. So how someone like Susan can out of hand claim that the Swift Boat ads are a smear but is providing good once again beyond me.

The problem with the Democrats today are beliefs and statements such as this. Each passing month the rhetoric only gets worse. A change is in order to bring this party back into the mainstream of American values. I would welcome the chance to have an actual debate with a Democrat again as opposed to listening to what Michael Moore has said, that Bush is a fascist, that the war in Iraq was for oil, or that Bush lied.

Come on Democrats! Lets start having a real debate again over ideas and is much more interesting and much less divisive on the nation as a whole. Name calling, innuendo and conspiracy theories only cheapens the debate and in the long run hurt OUR country.

We are waiting...

Sunday, August 22, 2004

The Mainstream Media And Kerry vs. Bush?

The story about the Swift Boat Vets (SBV's) continues to get more interesting. After ignoring the story over the past 10-11 days the press are now finally talking about it. Unfortunately the mainstream press does not seem to be interested in investigating the claims of the group. Much of what we are seeing can only be described as a defense of Kerry and what he did in Vietnam.

Shouldn't the press take a closer look at the claims to see which are valid, which are questionable, and which are incorrect, etc?

Unfortunately they seem to be happy to point out any discrepancy in the claims of the SBV's. Once they do this the general attitude seems to be that the rest of the claims can be dismissed as well.

There is no doubt that not every claim of the SBV's can withstand close scrutiny. However it is equally true that not all Kerry's claim can withstand the light as well. For example, now that the SBV's have come out, Kerry has had to back off his decades old Cambodia story. What else doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

As such, if the mainstream press were really doing their job, they would take a close look at the claims offered by both sides.

If and when the mainstream press does that, both the left and right should admit a few things.

National Review online has said it best. The following quotations are taken from the Kerry Spot

In order to generate more light than heat about what John Kerry did and didn't do back in Vietnam, each side ought to agree to some ground rules and points to concede.

Stuff the Right ought to concede:

* If you sat down and talked politics with each one of the Swift Boat Vets, you would probably find almost of them are Republicans and/or conservatives.
* Almost all of the Swift Boat Vets have disliked, and in some cases, hated Kerry since his 1971 testimony.
* Jerome Corsi has written all kinds of stuff on that would make the average soccer mom's hair stand on end.
* The Swift Boat Vets don't speak for everybody; there are 13 or so guys who served under Kerry who thought he was the greatest thing since sliced bread.
* According to the records, Kerry was posted at An Thoi, not too far from the Cambodian border, for about one week in December 1968. Theoretically, he could have crossed the border during that time period, although there's scant evidence beyond Kerry's claims.
* The case of the Swift Boat Vets would be helped if one of their members, Jack Chenoweth, would show his diary to the media.

Stuff the Left ought to concede:

* It is supremely unlikely that each and every last one of the 264 Swift Boat Vets for Truth is nuts, a liar, or a Karl Rove mind-controlled zombie.
* Right now, we don't know who wrote the Navy's records for these patrols at this time. If they were written by Kerry, they are no more reliable than his diary or his current recollections.
* Recollections that are seared — seared! - into Kerry's memory may not be all that reliable after all.
* George W. Bush isn't underwriting anything. Even if he wanted to stop their ads, he couldn't. The Swift Boat Vets wouldn't listen to the president or Rove today, because they're out to nail the guy who trashed their reputations and called them war criminals in 1971. They now have their own donor base of (at last count) 10,000 people.
* If John McCain's disapproval is enough to define someone as beyond the political pale, then Barbara Streisand would have been burned at the stake a long time ago.
* Pointing out that Bush didn't go to Vietnam doesn't really say anything one way or another about whether the Swift Boat Vets' claims are accurate.

We are waiting...

Friday, August 20, 2004


Well it has been a long week and finally I have the chance to post again.

The Swift Boat Vets are finally starting to get some notice in the mainstream press. At this stage of the game they really had no choice. The story kept on growing despite their attempt to ignore it.

Now that they are talking about it, are they analyzing what the charges are? Of course not. The mainstream press seems to be only interested in finding way to discredit the Swift Boat Vets. Captains Quarters has a nice piece on this here:

Contrast their attitudes towards the Swift Boat Vets vs how they played up Bush AWOL from the National Guard. If this isn't one of the best examples of bias in the media, I don't know what is!

527's have been very prominent over the past year. Currently the biggest and/or most well known tend to be anti-Bush. What has the press said about 527's and their influence or potential influence? Nada, zip, zilch. I find it now amusing that as much of the mainstream press takes notice of the Swift Boat Vets, they are concerned that they are a 527 and should anything be done.

They seem surprised that Republicans support this group and that somehow this automatically makes any charges suspect. I only wish they exhibited this type of concern when they talk about, ACT or any of the many other leftward leaning 527's.

All we want is consistency on the part of the press!

Remember Bush and the AWOL charges? Who were some of the people pushing this? Terry McAulife for one, and many others in the Democratic Party. Yet despite the fact that these people obviously have a political agenda, the press took the bait and ran with the story. They did not seem to concerned about any agenda these people may have had.

Now the Swift Boat Vets come along. Since one of the supporters is Texan and a Bush supporter, according the mainstream press, the charges are suspect.

Why is there a different standard applied to these two groups by the mainstream press?

We are waiting...

Thursday, August 12, 2004

Enormous Courage?

From the Human Rights Campaign website WASHINGTON (Aug. 12) — Coming out is a deeply personal journey and Governor McGreevey today showed enormous courage. We are hopeful that, like millions of other American families, Governor McGreevey and his family will come to a place of understanding.

My comments: If the governor came out on his own, then yes I would agree that it would show enormous courage.

However in this case as we find out that there is a lawsuit pending for sexual harassment. In light of the fact that he was forced to come out because of an upcoming lawsuit...why does that show courage? The news was coming to light under any circumstance. Does anyone believe for one second that absent the upcoming lawsuit Gov. McGreevey would be coming out of the closet?

Likely Voters For Bush

Gallup has the latest poll showing Bush slightly ahead in a poll taken of likely voters. So with the margin of error...we are still at a statistical dead heat.

Gov. James E. McGreevey announced his resignation

Here is what I was looking for. Unfortunately it is as bad as I thought. Instead of allowing a special election, by delaying the resignation until after the general election the Democratic Senate President Richard Codey will take over. Sounds a little shady to me. Does NJ always have these types of shenanigans going on? Remember Robert Torricelli and how the Democrats dumped him at the last minute? Feels like a banana republic...

Question: Does anyone think that the mainstream press will seriously question the timing of the resignation? Will Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw or Peter Jennings wonder if this procedure is in the best interest of the voters? How do you think they would react if it were a Republican governor stepping down after an election in order to make sure a Republican can take his place...without an election?

Here is the article talking about the transition after McGreevey resigns:

Gov. James E. McGreevey will resign as Governor of New Jersey on November 15 after acknowledging that he is gay and engaged in an affair with another man. He will be succeeded by Senate President Richard J. Codey, a 57-year-old Democrat from Essex County who has served in the legislature since 1974.

Had McGreevey resigned before September 15, a special gubernatorial election would have been held on November 2, 2004. Codey will take office on November 15 and will serve until the end of McGreevey's current term in January 2006.

NJ Governor To Resign

Another governor bites the dust.

Why is the resignation to take place on Nov 15th after the general election? Does this allow the legislature to select a governor?

More about Kerry and Cambodia has a nice bit about what I was talking about earlier.

Er...Actually I was close to Cambodia...

For quite some time we have been hearing about the heroics of John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Unfortunately those four months appear to be the only thing John Kerry is running on. Doesn't this man have a twenty year Senate career? Shouldn't he be discussing his legislative achievements?

Quick quiz to our readers: How many legislative accomplishments of John Kerry can you name? If you are having trouble coming up with a list, how about mentioning just one or two major legislative achievements?

Anyway, since John Kerry seems to think he should be elected based upon his four months of service in Vietnam, then an analysis of that record should be in order. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that service in Vietnam qualifies John Kerry to be President, yet cry foul when someone actually disagrees with some of what John Kerry claims to have happened in Vietnam.

The latest item of interest relates to the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has remarked about his "vivid" memories of being on patrol 5 miles inside of the Cambodian border. Some interesting points about this time can be found on NRO at

A few things strike me about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has talked about how this time was seared into his memory. He has made comments about this experience in the Boston Herald in 1979, on the Senate floor in 1986, and in the Michael Kranish biography. Now that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have come out with an ad and a new book, the story about Cambodia is now changing. Kerry advisor Jeh Johnson now states that John Kerry had a mistaken recollection about the events. This is strange. For years John Kerry talked about the event in vivid detail. Now the event that was so important to him that he talked about it numerous times is incorrect?

A side note: In one of his talks about his experience in Cambodia in 1968 he mentions that it was at a time that Nixon claimed there were no troops in Cambodia. We know that Nixon did indeed send troops into Cambodia. However the problem with this story is that Nixon was elected in 1968, but did not take office until January of 1969. Not only does John Kerry's old story glorify his achievements, but at the same time provides an example of how bad those pesky Republicans are. Not story...two important points...Kerry good...Repbulicans bad.

Unfortunately once again it appears that John Kerry is fast and loose with the truth. He tells a story or takes a position that benefits him. When the political winds change or someone can point out a flaw in his story, John Kerry's position or story changes again.

Most of the press has come out against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad and the new book "Unfit For Command" Instead of looking at the charges, they simply dismiss the group as Republican partisan hacks. In light of the ever changing John Kerry stories, doesn't the mainstream press have an obligation to stop attacking the Swift Boat Vets personally and start checking out their stories. If the stories are incorrect, let us all know so we can condemn the Swift Boat Vets. If they are correct we need to ask John Kerry about the inconsistencies?

Another question comes to mind. Why is it that when some vets stand up with John Kerry, go to the convention and/or out on the campaign trail the press treats them as non-partisan vets? Yet when another (larger group) of vets attacks the positions of John Kerry they are partisan. Why does one group get a free pass from the press while the other is vilified? Why does the press do this? What is the standard they use to determine that a group that travels around the country with John Kerry is non-partisan, while the other group is not?

The public has a right to know the truth.

We are waiting...

Wednesday, August 11, 2004

First Post

This is the first of many posts to come. Will there be a consistent timetable of posts? Probably not. As items of interest come to light in the political arena I will post my thoughts.