Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Rudy Giuliani's speech, on day one of the RNC, has to be one of the best speeches advocating the reelection of an incumbent in recent history.

I have said before that the reelection of an incumbent is dependent upon the electorate answering two questions:
1. "does the incumbent deserve a second term?", and if the answer to that is NO, than 2." is the challenger an adequate replacement?" Giuliani's speech does a great job at addressing those two questions.

Question 1:
Rudy makes the case that Bush responded to 911 in the best possible manner when he said:

"It was here in 2001 in lower Manhattan that President George W. Bush stood amid the fallen towers of the World Trade Center and said to the barbaric terrorists who attacked us, “They will hear from us.”
They have heard from us!
They heard from us in Afghanistan and we removed the Taliban.
They heard from us in Iraq and we ended Saddam Hussein’s reign of terror.
They heard from us in Libya and without firing a shot Qadhafi abandoned weapons of mass destruction.
They are hearing from us in nations that are now more reluctant to sponsor terrorists. So long as George Bush is President, is there any doubt they will continue to hear from us until we defeat global terrorism.
We owe that much and more to those loved ones and heroes we lost on September 11th.

The families of some of those we lost on September 11th are here with us. To them, and all those families affected by September 11th, we recognize the sacrifices your loved ones and you have made. You are in our prayers and we are in your debt."

Rudy then went on to defend Bush's strategic vision when he said:
Terrorism did not start on September 11, 2001. It had been festering for many years. And the world had created a response to it that allowed it to succeed. The attack on the Israeli team at the Munich Olympics was in 1972. And the pattern had already begun.

The three surviving terrorists were arrested and within two months released by the German government.

Action like this became the rule, not the exception. Terrorists came to learn they could attack and often not face consequences.

In 1985, terrorists attacked the Achille Lauro and murdered an American citizen who was in a wheelchair, Leon Klinghoffer. They marked him for murder solely because he was Jewish.

Some of those terrorist were released and some of the remaining terrorists allowed to escape by the Italian government because of fear of reprisals.

So terrorists learned they could intimidate the world community and too often the response, particularly in Europe, was “accommodation, appeasement and compromise.”

And worse the terrorists also learned that their cause would be taken more seriously, almost in direct proportion to the barbarity of the attack.

Terrorist acts became a ticket to the international bargaining table. How else to explain Yasser Arafat winning the Nobel Peace Prize when he was supporting a terrorist plague in the Middle East that undermined any chance of peace?

Before September 11, we were living with an unrealistic view of the world much like our observing Europe appease Hitler or trying to accommodate ourselves to peaceful co-existence with the Soviet Union through mutually assured destruction.

President Bush decided that we could no longer be just on defense against global terrorism but we must also be on offense."

Finally, Rudy defends the decision to attack Iraq and shapes Bush's vision for the war on terror:

"On September 20, 2001, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress, a still grieving and shocked nation and a confused world and he did change the direction of our ship of state. He dedicated America under his leadership to destroying global terrorism.

The President announced the Bush Doctrine when he said: “Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there.

It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated. “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.”

And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.".....

" In any plan to destroy global terrorism, removing Saddam Hussein needed to be accomplished.

Frankly, I believed then and I believe now that Saddam Hussein, who supported global terrorism, slaughtered hundreds of thousands of his own people, permitted horrific atrocities against women, and used weapons of mass destruction, was himself a weapon of mass destruction.

But the reasons for removing Saddam Hussein were based on issues even broader than just the presence of weapons of mass destruction.

To liberate people, give them a chance for accountable, decent government and rid the world of a pillar of support for global terrorism is something for which all those involved from President Bush to the brave men and women of our armed forces should be proud.

President Bush has also focused on the correct long-term answer for the violence and hatred emerging from the Middle East. The hatred and anger in the Middle East arises from the lack of accountable governments.

Rather than trying to grant more freedom, create more income, improve education and basic health care, these governments deflect their own failures by pointing to America and Israel and other external scapegoats.

But blaming these scapegoats does not improve the life of a single person in the Arab world. It does not relieve the plight of even one woman in Iran.

It does not give a decent living to a single soul in Syria. It certainly does not stop the slaughter of African Christians in the Sudan.

The changes necessary in the Middle East involve encouraging accountable, lawful governments that can be role models.

This has also been an important part of the Bush Doctrine and the President's vision for the future. Have faith in the power of freedom.

People who live in freedom always prevail over people who live in oppression. That’s the story of the Old Testament. That’s the story of World War II and the Cold War. That’s the story of the firefighters and police officers and rescue workers who courageously saved thousands of lives on September 11, 2001.

President Bush is the leader we need for the next four years because he sees beyond today and tomorrow. He has a vision of a peaceful Middle East and, therefore, a safer world. We will see an end to global terrorism. I can see it. I believe it. I know it will happen.

It may seem a long way off. It may even seem idealistic.

But it may not be as far away and idealistic as it seems."

Question 2

On making the case that Kerry in not an adequate replacement for Bush, Rudy said:

"Ronald Reagan saw and described the Soviet Union as “the evil empire” while world opinion accepted it as inevitable and belittled Ronald Reagan’s intelligence. President Bush sees world terrorism for the evil that it is.

John Kerry has no such clear, precise and consistent vision.

This is not a personal criticism of John Kerry.

I respect him for his service to our nation.

But it is important to see the contrast in approach between the two men; President Bush, a leader who is willing to stick with difficult decisions even as public opinion shifts, and John Kerry, whose record in elected office suggests a man who changes his position often even on important issues.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, John Kerry voted against the Persian Gulf War. Later he said he actually supported the war.

Then in 2002, as he was calculating his run for President, he voted for the war in Iraq. And then just 9 months later, he voted against an $87 billion supplemental budget to fund the war and support our troops.

He even, at one point, declared himself an anti-war candidate. Now, he says he's pro-war. At this rate, with 64 days left, he still has time to change his position at least three or four more times.

My point about John Kerry being inconsistent is best described in his own words when he said, “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Maybe this explains John Edwards’ need for two Americas - - one where John Kerry can vote for something and another where he can vote against the same thing.'


"But John Kerry has made it the rule to change his position, rather than the exception. In October, 2003, he told an Arab-American Institute in Detroit that a security barrier separating Israel from the Palestinian Territories was a "barrier to peace."

A few months later, he took exactly the opposite position. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post he said, "Israel’s security fence is a legitimate act of self defense."

The contrasts are dramatic. They involve very different views of how to deal with terrorism. President Bush will make certain that we are combatting terrorism at the source, beyond our shores, so we can reduce the risk of having to confront it in the streets of New York.

John Kerry's record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he'll pursue such a determined course.

President Bush will not allow countries that appear to have ignored the lessons of history and failed for over thirty years to stand up to terrorists, to dissuade us from what is necessary for our defense. He will not let them set our agenda. Under President Bush, America will lead rather than follow.

John Kerry's claim that certain foreign leaders who opposed our removal of Saddam Hussein prefer him, raises the risk that he would accommodate his position to their viewpoint.

It would hardly be the first time he changed his position on matters of war and peace."

Sometimes only a Lawyer can make a case that resonates with the rest of the country, I think Rudy did just that!

Monday, August 30, 2004

The Party of free speech?

When the Democrats held their convention, They forced Al Jazeera to remover its banner from public view. The Republican convention organizers have demonstrated much more tolerance in that they allowed Al Jazeera to keep their banner visible.

This provides an interesting backdrop to what I observed on CSPAN yesterday. I noticed many protesters chanting slogans

For people who Scream that John Ashcroft is silencing their dissent and that the GOP is a bunch of Nazis, they sure what to silence other people's dissent!

It appears that a group of anarchists attacked a group of conservative protesters yesterday during the "Peace" protest. check out the film of the attack Here!

The group that was attacked calls themselves Protest Warriors. Their mission:
" War IS an ugly thing, but as long as nations and leaders exist that detest freedom, sometimes it is the only way to secure a lasting peace. Most leftist anti-war protesters and pundits don't understand this. They state that this use of force is always unnecessary -- that war, ANY war, is never good. Some of them, born into the luxury of American freedom, believe that liberty can exist passively, that somehow the world's natural state will always settle into utopian harmony. Others, in an attempt to absolve themselves from the unearned guilt they harbor living in a nation of prosperity and wealth, try to buy morality on the cheap by pronouncing themselves for the 'good'. To them, the derivation of the 'good' is based on a simple, yet peculiar standard: the powerful and competent are wicked, while the feeble and impotent are innocent - regardless of the context. That is why they defend Iraq instead of America, and the Palestinian "resistance" instead of Israel.

These leftists usually carry the loudest megaphones. And left unchallenged, their voices are heard disproportionately, demoralizing our troops, and emboldening dictators around the world - dictators who dream of the day the "Great Satan" disappears from the face of the earth.

However, their self-righteous messages go silent quickly when the truth of history and reality is thrown back in their face. It's time to turn up the juice on OUR megaphones, as we will never keep our supreme values of liberty and justice without the will to fight for them."

To the left is a list of the bloggers who will be covering the GOP convention. There is nothing like instant access to on the spot reporting without the filter of an editor!

Sunday, August 29, 2004

I voted against Castro Before I supported Him!

From the Miami Herald:

Senator Kerry made the following statement to a crowd in West Palm Beach after being asked What will he do about Cuba:

"I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning."

Kerry then said:
"And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

The problem is, HE VOTED AGAINST IT!

"Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier."

This does not look good for Kerry's effort to woo the Cuban support in Florida, First he voted against a bill that would strengthen the sanctions against Cuba, and then he misrepresented his position on the matter to make it appear he supported it. In a battleground state like Florida, this could be deadly!

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

John Kerry has accused President Bush of manipulating fears about security and terror for political gain.

Well, this story suggests that the Democrat party is doing the fear mongering, not the Bush administration:

"A state Democratic Party effort to sign up new voters mixes images of a military draft notice with a voter registration form, calling on people to make a choice between the two."

IF you can't win it, steal it!

From the NY daily News:

"Some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered to vote in both the city and Florida, a shocking finding that exposes both states to potential abuses that could alter the outcome of elections, a Daily News investigation shows."

" Of the 46,000 registered in both states, 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republicans and 16% didn't claim a party."

"But The News found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election, a federal offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine."

I wonder if that 1000 people who doubled voted in 2000 will explode to 30,000 or more in this election cycle. This conjures up the old Mayor Daley axiom, vote wisely and vote often!

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack.
- General George Patton Jr
(In this case, discover what they are guilty of)

John Kerry has accused the Bush campaign of Collaborating with the 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

It appears that he should be careful of what he accuses others of, because his own DNC may be guilty of the same thing!

The relevant part:
"The Democratic Party is partnering with MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, Campaign for America's Future, and dozens of other groups representing millions of Americans to organize a massive public mobilization. On Wednesday, May 14, join us by calling and emailing your representatives in Congress to let them know that the majority of Americans oppose more irresponsible tax cuts that go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest sliver of Americans."

This graphic, via Blogs for Bush, gives a nice rundown of the web of connections the Kerry campaign and the DNC has to 527s.

With the amount of money and resources that Democrat surrogates are putting forward to defeat President Bush, it is no wonder that the Kerry campaign is nervous that Bush supporters have joined the fight on Kerry's chosen field of play. I wonder if they feel they will lose a fair fight, or if they figure that they can only win on a field in which their opponent in not playing on? (Sorry for the sports references, I have been watching the Olympics way to much)

Tuesday, August 10, 2004

Kerry’s plan for “peace” unravels, from the LA Times of all places:

"Kerry in recent appearances and interviews has been intensifying his effort to spotlight what he sees as the Bush administration’s mistakes in Iraq — especially the failure to broaden international involvement — as a fundamental difference between the two candidates. But Kerry’s proposals depend on changing the minds of foreign leaders who do not want to defy their electorates by sending forces into what many consider to be a U.S.-made mess."

“The French and German governments have made clear that sending troops is out of the question. British officials have made no such categorical statement, but they have expressed concern that their troops are overstretched.”

"Although Japan has supplied a 550-member noncombat force as a symbol of its international commitment, analysts there see little chance the nation would agree to send more."

"Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Andrei Denisov, ruled out a commitment of troops. “We are not going to send anybody there, and that’s all there is to say,” Denisov said."


“Senior Iraqi officials told U.S. officials this summer that they opposed the idea of bringing in additional troops from any foreign country.”

There is also the problem that NATO does not have the troops, logistics, and airlift capacity to deploy large number of troops for extended periods of time..

The fact is we are the only nation able to carry out large deployments for extended periods of time. If Kerry is elected, there is not going to be some magical hand that rebuilds European military power and grants them political will by divine providence so that they could deploy 80,000 troops to Iraq. It is NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

Saturday, August 07, 2004

To borrow a phrase used bye Michael Savage, is the press, The enemy within?

“LONDON (Reuters) - The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its "orange alert" this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror. “

There was a time when the press would work for the government to help defeat an enemy. Now they help the enemy.

Just remember:

Friday, August 06, 2004

The Local Beat

Suspeticious activity in Scranton, PA:

"If you've run into two men asking questions about the Chamberlain plant in Scranton you're not alone. The plant makes shells for the military. Scranton police and the F.B.I. have information that two men were asking questions about the plant on Cedar Avenue and investigators want to know why."

"They're said to be of middle eastern descent and traveling in a green sport utility vehicle without license plates. One may have a British accent."

The interesting thing about this story is, it can't be found in the local News paper or on the other Tv News stations!
Here is a photo of the people they are looking for:

Hypersensitive Lawyer sues Yahoo because some kid made fun of him.

I know, I know, the article does not say it was a kid, but Come on! Talk about the crushing of dissent! Could you imagine if your personal information was to be made available every time someone gets his or her feelings hurt on a message board or in a chat room and wants to file suit? There is Something wrong, on a very basic level, with the precedent that will be set if people will be able to receive personal information from Internet sites by subpoena in order to pursue lawsuits because a person said something that offended another person.

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

I am happy to announce a new news site for bloggers, News feed online. I am rapidly making it one of my daily visits and it seems to have a wide range of information available. You should check it out!

Sunday, August 01, 2004


A recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds that Pres. Bush leads Sen. Kerry 50%-46% among likely voters.

"The survey showed Kerry losing 1 percentage point and Bush gaining 4 percentage points from a poll taken the week before the Boston convention."

"The change in support was within the poll's margin of error of +/-4 percentage points in the sample of 763 likely voters. But it was nonetheless surprising, the first time since the chaotic Democratic convention in 1972 that a candidate hasn't gained ground during his convention."

It's quite easy to see why Bush might have gotten a bounce from the DNC. There was a week of News focusing on the convention and NOT the bad news or perceived bad news from Iraq. This election is not about why Kerry should be elected but rather about why Bush Should not be reelected.

Generally a reelection campaign for president is more about the incumbent rather than the challenger. In this type of election the electorate usually answers two questions, 1. "does the incumbent deserve a second term?", and if the answer to that is NO, than 2." is the challenger an adequate replacement?" My point is, the electorate needs to decide if they want get rid of the incumbent before they decide on the challenger. The Burden is on the challenger to show the electorate that the incumbent needs to be replaced. The incumbent needs to defend their record and show that, even if the electorate wants the president gone, the challenger is not an adequate replacement. Look at the 96 election, because the economy was good, we were in a "perceived time of peace", and despite all of Clinton's scandals and questionable behavior, the electorate was happy and did not see a reason to replace him, therefore he won by a fairly comfortable margin. A Reagan type Republican running against Clinton in 96 would have lost because the electorate decided that Clinton deserved a second term.

When the news does not favor removing President Bush, like bad news from Iraq or the economy, Kerry will drop in the polls! That is why, considering the coverage for the past week focused on the convention, Bush could have received a Bounce in the polls from the DNC.