Kerry looked really good tonight.  He was articulate, fairly comfortable and quick on his feet.  Bush, on the other hand, looked tired.  Was it because he had spent much of his day touring Florida and comforting those hurt by the rash of hurricanes lately?  We will never know, but he did look tired.  W also was put in the unfamiliar territory of being the one of the defensive.  This was what John Kerry did better than anything else. 

It's not that John Kerry said anything substantial because he didn't.  He, when asked to be specific in his plans to make the situation in Iraq better, skirted the issue and went a different direction.  What Kerry did do, as he should being the challenger, was challenge.  Even if the challenge was made under false assumptions and twisting of the truth, he challenged.  This, unfortunately, made Bush go on the defensive.  I'm sure that his prep team wasn't too thrilled about this turn of events. 

So, congrats John, you did very well in your first official Presidential Debate as the challenger.  You did an excellent job of lowering expectations for you and you delivered.  Well done.  We wouldn't have expected anything less from a career politician.

Here is my question:  How do you judge whether or not someone "won" a debate?  If you base it on who looked the smoothest, it was Kerry, hands down.  If you base who won the debate on the issues and a real plan for the war on terror, W won easily.  I suppose it's just how you look at it.  Do you go for style over substance?  If so, Kerry is your man.  Do you go for honesty (sometimes brutal honesty) and clarity on what needs to happen?  Your man is Bush.

You see, it's a pretty easy call there.  You decide.  What is more important to you?  Is it more important for your man to look the part or is it more important for your man to actually act the part? 

Like I stated, the choice is clear...crystal.

This makes me want to throw up.  This is the same duo who has sat to the side when people in their own party have bashed Bush for his faith.  John Kerry is the Senator who is using faith as a campaign tool.  How do I know this?  Because he is the person who said "I'm a Senator and I'm a Catholic, but I'm not a Catholic Senator".  What does that mean?  It means that he doesn't let the two mix. 

Let me ask you this.  If you believe in something enough to associate yourself with it, how can you separate it from what you do for a living?  I'm sorry, that just doesn't fly.  That tells me that his faith isn't strong enough or that he is lying about it to help him in the polls. 

Just amazing.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040930/D85E 6Q4O1.html" title="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040930/D85E 6Q4O1.html" target="_blank"http://apnews.myway.com/artic...

"My faith is very important to me, and the same is true of John Kerry," the Democratic vice presidential candidate and son of a deacon said in a brief interview with The Associated Press after a campaign stop in West Virginia.

"The two of us talk about our faith - with each other," he said Wednesday. "Our faith is important to us and it's always been important to us, and people should know that."

Edwards, a Methodist, said most Americans want a good leader - a man who is a good husband and a good father - "and if they're a person of faith, that helps."

(AP) Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. John Edwards, D_NC, center, smiles and plays with... Full Image

"I don't think that faith should be used to divide us," he said.

This is a "shout out" to those awesome workers at GCR in the Greater Austin Texas area.  You know who you are and you know that you are closet "Hitman" readers on a daily basis.

I'm glad I can provide the real news to you everyday! :)

Now look, we all know that no matter what happens, the lefties out there (Democrats and the press) are going to declare Kerry the winner.  They even did it in the last election...win Bush cleaned Gore's clock.  They are going to proclaim that Kerry is the "comeback kid" or "comeback Kerry", etc..  We know this will be the case because the press/the left has been looking for the opportunity to use those sort of catch phrases to help boost John Kerry's lagging campaign.

In order to win this debate, John F'n Kerry must do the following:

-- Do not sweat.  Bush and Kerry both seem to sweat alot.  Unfortunately for Kerry, he seems to pull a Nixon and sweat in the facial area.  Bush sweats underneath his jacket...  Sweating for Kerry will show that he is nervous and in over his head.  Plus, if he sweats too much, it might affect a couple of things:  His botox and his new tan!

-- Tone down the tan.  It's funny.  John Kerry says he received this new looking color(just before the biggest debate of his life) while playing football with students at Harvard.  The problem is, Harvard students wrote in their paper that they were surprised at how tan he looked when he arrived on campus.  Anyway, Kerry's lie here aside, Kerry needs to make sure that he stays away from the tanning bed today.  Remember what Al Gore looked like during the first debate of 2000?  He had so much blush on he looked like Ragdy Ann or Andy.  If Kerry looks orange compared to a normal looking GW, he is in trouble.  Plus, what happens if he starts sweating orange?  Then he's in real trouble!

-- Hit the botox hard before the debate.  We don't want Senator long face to have any wrinkles or sags now do we?

-- Don't look so tall, but don't slouch.  This is going to be a huge problem for Kerry.  Kerry is lurch.  We all know this and it has been proven in pictures.  John F'n Kerry is 6'4 and GW is a normal 5'10.  Normally, being a little taller is good for a candidate because he can look a little more powerful.  Unfortunately, if you are too tall, you look mean, unfriendly or menacing.  The last thing Kerry wants to do in this debate is come across as anything but friendly.  He also can't slouch on stage.  Kerry has a horrible problem with slouching and that shows he isn't confident.  Don't look too tall but don't slouch either.

-- Don't wave your hands around.  For some, using hand gestures shows you are comfortable and you are relating to those you are speaking to.  GW does this very effectively.  Kerry does not.  Kerry is most comfortable when he is standing still speaking about what he knows.  When he starts wagging his finger and moving his arms around, he reminds you of your mom scolding you.  This is the last thing he wants.

-- Don't sigh.  Just don't do it.  Ask Albert Gore.

-- Don't interupt.  Ask Albert Gore.

-- Do not try to be Bill Clinton.  One of the biggest problems I see with liberals in election years is the fact that they try to distance themselves from Clinton personally but they try to take on his characteristics.  Don't try and laugh and smile like Clinton.  Just don't do it.  Ask Albert Gore.

-- Pick one position from your vast collection, and stick with it.  I honestly don't see how you are going to get around the fact that you have gone back and forth on so many issues, including Iraq.  The only way you can get around this is if the moderator allows you to (which will probably happen).  Understand that Bush is going to grill you on this subject.

-- Don't talk about windsurfing, mountain biking, skiing, etc..  We don't care.  If you talk about sports anymore, we are going to start talking about your lack of knowledge on the subject. 

-- Don't try and act like a "common" man.  You aren't.  Neither of the candidates are but Kerry tries to pretend like he has married extremely well in terms of money. 

-- Don't let your wife talk anymore.

-- Try and make sure you aren't hoarse.  For some reason, over the last couple of weeks, you've had a hard time speaking.  How are you going to be President when you can't even keep your voice.

-- In order to win, maybe you should come up with a debate surprise and make up a lie about Bush...that might work for ya.

-- In order to win, maybe you should come with a limp.  You can tell everyone that you are more suitable for leading our country during war because you have an injury from Vietnam that still bothers you. 

-- Maybe you should bring those medals you earned in Vietnam....oh wait, that's right, you got rid of them.

-- Maybe you should bring some polls numbers showing how veterans support you....opps, Bush leads that area by a giant margin.

-- Maybe you should break out into a comedy routine.  Everyone loves a clown.

-- Maybe you should bring out your buddies from Moveon.org to call Bush a Nazi...that seems to work for liberals.

Of course, you could always just call in sick.  I mean the press is going to give it to you anyway.  Go bask in your glory! 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40684" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40684" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

"Perhaps his watch was on Paris time," the RNC quipped in a statement.

Now that is freaking classic!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/afp/20040929/ts_alt_a fp/us_vote

Kerry's in big trouble (as if you didn't know that already).  He must do well in the 1st debate.  Wait, I take that back.  He must be slam dunk, home run hitting, touchdown scoring, perfect in the first debate.  Even then, he still will probably lose. 

The Democratic party doesn't mind though, in all honesty.  This is a party that is run by the Clintons.  The Clintons don't mind Kerry losing because it makes their case for doing things that much stronger.  If Kerry loses, the Clinton's have a free ticket all the way to the elections in 08.  They will be able to choose, yet again, who runs the DNC and they will be able to hold on that much longer to power.

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0" title="http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0" target="_blank"http://www.thecouriermail.new...,5936,10917596%255E10369, 00.html

Dang it, there is one less reason to have us guys around!

There are many misconceptions coming from the left as to what it means to be a Conservative.  More and more people are identifying themselves as Conservative rather than liberal and that is a good thing.  Are you one of those potentially? 

1.  Do you smile a lot?

2.  Do you love your family and friends?

3.  Do you laugh at a good joke?

4.  Do you enjoy a good book every now and then?

5.  Do you sometimes just need to get out and experience nature?

6.  Do you love the environment?

7.  Are you and animal lover?

8.  Do you love your country and flag?

9.  Are you saddened when human rights around the world are threatened?

10.  Do you think we, as a nation, should do something about it rather than just talk?

11.  Do you do the right thing even when it's not the popular thing?

12.  Do you believe in equality for all races, religions and walks of life?

13.  Did you cry or tear up when your baby was born?

14.  Do you remember your first kiss?

15.  Do you love sleeping in?

16.  Do you love college and pro football? (not soccer) :)

17.  Do you hate the terms "soccer mom" and "nascar dad"?

18.  Did you cry on 9/11?  Do those images still make you tear up?

19.  Did you get goosebumps when our President stood up on the pile of rubble at "Ground Zero" with that firefighter?  How about when the President threw out the first pitch at Yankee Stadium?

20.  Does it upset you that when one party makes an ad, the press considers it legit and when the other party makes a similar ad, they call it an "attack" ad?

21.  Were you upset at the massive increase in spending under Clinton? 

22.  Are you upset that it has continued under GWB?

23.  Do you believe that it is insane to give tax breaks to those who don't pay taxes?

24.  Do you believe in God?

25.  Do you love music?

26.  Do you think that musicians, as Laura Ingram would say, should "Shut up and Sing"?

27.  Do you still try and act Macho around your wife to impress her?

28.  Do you think it's wrong to ban guns?

29.  Do you love art?

30.  Do you think that the public school system needs to be rehauled and repaired?

31.  Do you think that lower incomed families should have the right to decide where their child goes to school?

32.  Do you know the difference between the terms "goverment assistance" and "welfare"?

33.  Do you pray?

34.  Do you understand that, no matter what your economic standing, that you are just as important in the grand scheme of things as everyone else?

35.  Do you understand that some things are black and white, not grey...no matter what some will tell you?

Conservatives have gotten a bad rap from liberals.  If you said yes to the majority of these questions, you have a Conservative side or Conservative nature.  Conservatives don't agree with every other conservative across the board.  That is ok!  We have an ideology that allows for that, allows for discussion and allows for differing views on a vast majority of subjects.  What makes one Conservative are his or her core principles of family and God and what affects those two subjects in everyday life. 

Never again allow a liberal to tell you that Conservatives are not flexible in what they believe.  Never again allow a liberal to tell you that Conservatives are not compassionate.  I disagree with labeling someone a "compassionate conservative" because I believe that a Conservative, by definition, is compassionate.  Never allow a liberal to tell you that Conservatives are racist, greedy, or cold hearted. 

Conservative principles are principles that most Americans hold dear to their own hearts.  It's time that our country and our citizens started to hear the truth about it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc55.htm" title="http://www.drudgereport.com/dnc55.htm" target="_blank"http://www.drudgereport.com/d...

All I can say is wow.  I needed this today.  When things are tough and you are having a bad day, all you have to do is look for the next thing that Kerry has done to make himself look and sound like a complete idiot.  Today I found this...

Now for the before and after photo...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/27 /223423.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/27 /223423.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Monday, Sept. 27, 2004 10:32 p.m. EDT

Homestate Crowd Walks Out on Edwards

Half the audience who showed up last week to see John Edwards' first South Carolina appearance since he won his home state's primary in February walked out before he arrived - two hours late.

And in another sign of trouble in paradise, the state's Democratic Senate candidate - whose campaign the Edwards visit was supposed to boost - declined to be seen on the same stage with him.

Democrat U.S. Senate hopeful Inez Tenenbaum "has gone to great lengths to distance herself from the national party," reports the South Carolina newspaper, The State.

Edwards "is about as close as she’s going to allow herself to get to the national party," the paper added, noting, "Tenenbaum didn’t appear on the platform with him" at either the rally or a fund-raiser scheduled for later that day.

Aides said she would have skipped the event altogether if John Kerry had been the guest of honor.

It didn't help that Edwards kept the crowd at Columbia's Martin Luther King Jr. Park waiting so long.

As they sat for two hours in the sweltering heat inside the community center, Democratic officials were observed checking their watches and looking irritated.

When State Party chairman Joe Erwin opened the door to let some air in, people began to get up and leave.

"The hall was about half-full by the time Edwards arrived," the State reported.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40648" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40648" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Ok, so what is it Mr. Senator?  You are proud of something you don't own?? 

This man just has no idea what he says, believes, owns, lies about.  The DNC would be better suited if he just kept his mouth shut because every time he opens it another lie comes drooling out.

Who will you vote for this election season?  No, I'm not talking about Bush vs. Kerry, I'm talking about The Conservative Hitman vs. Dr. Forbush.

http://simelections.tblog.com" title="http://simelections.tblog.com" target="_blank"http://simelections.tblog.com...

Simelections now has narrowed it down to myself and the good (or bad) Doctor.  This election is about values.  This election is about who you believe to be the one who holds the values you, your family and your friends hold dear.  Do you want someone representing you who speaks only when he has first read the DNC's talking points or would you rather have someone who is not afraid to speak his mind? 

I think the answer is clear....Vote for The Conservative Hitman this election (or simelection) year :)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/26 /111356.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/26 /111356.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

John Kerry has some nerve.  This is a man that believes the government is better suited to handle your day to day life than you are.  This is a man that has constantly voted to take away your second ammendment rights and yet he has illegal guns stashed away?  This is my favorite quote from the article:

Meehan said that Kerry had been unable to respond to questions about his banned weapon because his voice was too hoarse. The Kerry aide refused to return follow-up calls.

Wow, what an insane excuse for not answering a question.  His voice was too hoarse to say why he has a banned weapon?  John Kerry could care less about you.  He could care less about anyone but his rich friends and his rich lifestyle.  The thing that is worse is the fact that he pretends to not be this way.  I can't wait for the elections to be over.  Then he will be out of our lives for good.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/ dg20040925.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/douggiles/ dg20040925.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

There were two things in this well written article that stuck out to me

1.  Not so for the DNC’s presidential wannabe.  With tight-pursed lips, mock civility and a clenched jaw, Kerry relieved himself like a drunken alley cat on everything Allawi said.  At Carville’s command, Kerry would have us believe the Iraqi patriot is a Bush administration puppet, going so far as to imply that Allawi was lying, deceiving the world about the true state of Iraq.  For Kerry to accuse Allawi of lying is similar to Michael Jackson calling William Buckley freaky.

Kerry has no right to say anything about any topic relating to Iraq or National Security.  After 19 years in Congress he hasn't established any one position on anything...

2.  This is not taking too long, morons….  It’s a war, Spanky, and wars are not a fluff and fold situation.  Establishing democracy despite extremist Muslim lunacy is not accomplished in a week and, yes, we’ll have to pay retail to see it established.

Don't you wish, for one moment, that liberals would understand this?  Actually, I think that they do, but they are going to use whatever they can to get back into power.  Remember, liberals always believe that the end justifies the means. 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/ap/20040924/ap_on_el_ pr/leaning_gop

"There's a hidden Republican vote that came out after Sept. 11, faded and appears in the weeks since the Republican National Convention to have emerged again," said Thomas Riehle, president of Ipsos-Public Affairs."

You know, this is the whole point of why we talk about politics and why we discuss and explain the reasons we hold the ideological points of view that we do.  The goal in discussion is not to "preach to the choir" but to convert those who have thought differently in the past. 

These sort of numbers do not bode well for Democrats.  Since September 11th, the public has realized more and more that security and National Defense are extremely important.  Knowing that, the logical place to go is the Conservative point of view.  Over the years, it has been the conservatives who have been strong on these topics.  Now liberals and democrats may try and say that isn't true, they may try and say that they are the ones who are strong on defense, but voting records and the way they have acted in the past prove them to be wrong on National Defense.

If you are a Conservative, keep it up.  People are finally starting to get it.  People are finally starting to understand what we have been talking about all of these years.  If you are a liberal and you would like to leave the dark side, come on over...there is plenty of room.

http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5539" title="http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=5539" target="_blank"http://www.wweek.com/story.ph...

Klingons for Kerry

EXCLUSIVE: Straw-poll shocker! Fierce warrior race strongly backs Democrat.

Even as John Kerry struggles to establish national-security credentials nationally, an exclusive WW straw poll shows his campaign dominating one skeptical, warlike demographic: Klingons.

The poll, conducted when the DVD release of the Star Trek fan documentary Trekkies 2 attracted Portland's Klingon community to Tower Records on Southeast 102nd Avenue, may spell trouble for President George W. Bush.

The incumbent has staked his campaign on the war on terror. But those who speak the language of the Trek warrior race--known to disdain dishonor, or quvHa'ghach--seem alienated by Iraq and other issues.

According to the poll of eight local Klingons, a whopping 75 percent support the Democratic nominee.

Two Klingons polled--or 25 percent--said they planned to write in Satan.

Bush scored an abysmal zero percent in the poll.

"A good war is based on honor, not deception," says K'tok (Earth name: Clyde Lewis), a 40-year-old Klingon from Lair Hill. "The first warrior, President Bush, deceived us all with this war."

Portland Klingon speakers are increasingly influential. Last year, Multnomah County's mental-health services opened a search for a Klingon interpreter to work with speakers of the language.* Though the Klingons polled all appeared to be registered voters, they emulate an unfamiliar political system.

"On the home world, if there had been a contested election between Gore and Bush, the honorable thing would be for Gore to kill Bush," explained Khraanik (Earth name: Jason Lewis), a 38-year-old from Southeast Portland. "Or the other way around. And then ascend to the head of the High Council."

It's too early for Kerry to chill the ceremonial bloodwine, but Portland Klingons are clearly warming to the cerebral Massachusetts Democrat.

"Kerry has shown his prowess," says 33-year-old Neqha (Earth name: Eric King) of Tigard. "He saved his fellow warrior under the gun, and has been commended and awarded medals."

Neither the Bush nor Kerry campaigns were immediately available for comment on the poll results.

--Dominic Luxford with Zach Dundas

[* No, we're not making this up.]

"Hello, I'm John Kerry, and I approved this message..that is if you agree with it.  If you don't agree with it, well just realize that I was against it to begin with but my campaign managers Hilary Clin...umm I mean those guys made me do it.  Of course if you like it, then I approved it.  If you hate it, Bush sucks."

1.  Waffle topic #1:  Yasser Arafat

FIRST HE SAID: "Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged and emboldened by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman.... [Terrorists] whose only object is to disrupt society require no such 'role models' as Arafat."

— The New War, by John Kerry, published June 1997

THEN HE SAID: "Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process... As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."

— John Kerry, interview with the Associated Press, March 10, 2004

2.  Waffle topic #2:  Presidential Experience

FIRST HE SAID: “I think the American people want an experienced hand at the helm of state,” said Kerry, who has spent 19 years in the Senate compared with Edwards’ five. “This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues.” John Kerry, Feb. 3, 2004

THEN HE SAID: “I’ve seen John Edwards think, argue, advocate, legislate and lead for six years now.” John Kerry, July 6, 2004

3.  Waffle topic #3:  Isreal's security wall

FIRST HE SAID: “I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government's decision to build a barrier off the green line, cutting deeply into Palestinian areas. We do not need another barrier to peace.”

THEN HE SAID: “Israel's security fence is a legitimate act of self defense.”

FIRST HE SAID: "I don't own an SUV,'' Kerry declared when asked by reporters on Earth Day 2004.

THEN HE SAID: Asked whether or not his wife, Teresa, owned an SUV — on same conference call during which he denied owning an SUV — he fessed up, sorta: "The family has it. I don't have it." Back in February, however, he rattled off a list of Kerry household cars: "We have some SUVs. We have a Jeep. We have a couple of Chrysler minivans. We have a PT Cruiser up in Boston. I have an old Dodge 600 that I keep in the Senate. ... We also have a Chevy, a big Suburban."

5.  Waffle topic #5:  Criticizing the President during war

FIRST HE SAID: March 2003, Kerry said he would stop criticizing the president once war in Iraq began: "It's what you owe the troops....I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it will sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert."

THEN HE SAID: In early April 2003, while our troops were approaching Baghdad, Kerry said in a speech: "What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States."

6.  Waffle topic #6:  His Vietnam medals

FIRST HE SAID: From 1971 until about a decade later, Kerry wanted people to think he threw his medals away in protest of Vietnam. In a 1971 interview, Kerry insisted that he "gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine" of his medals.

THEN HE SAID: Around 1984, when Kerry ran for the Senate, the times changed and he wanted people to believe he kept the medals and "only" threw away the ribbons. Why? Because his union supporters in particular and voters in general were no longer enamored with the excesses of the antiwar movement.

"It's such a personal thing," he told the Washington Post in 1985. "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

A decade later, he told the Boston Globe that the only reason he didn't chuck the medals was that he didn't have time to go home and get them. In April 2004, Kerry told the Los Angeles Times, "I never ever implied that I threw away the medals.
From Jonah Goldberg, "Senator Contradiction"

7.  Waffle topic #7:  Cuban Embargo

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry takes a tough line on the Cuban embargo. Sometimes. He was a big advocate of tough Helms-Burton legislation in 1996, which he still mentions, but he didn't actually vote for it. Last year he still didn't know what he thought about Cuba: ''I haven't resolved what to do. I'm going to talk to a lot of people in Florida.'' In August 2003 he told Tim Russert that he was against lifting sanctions: "Not Now. No."

THEN HE SAID:A few days later, he wanted to allow "humanitarian" travel and interactions with Cuba that would end "the isolation that in my judgment helps Castro." (For more, see Peter Kirsanow, "Cuban Waffles")

8.  Waffle topic #8:  Abortion litmus test for judges

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry promised during the primaries to appoint to the Supreme Court only justices who favor Roe v. Wade because "people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does."

THEN HE SAID: In April 2004, he said that he would be willing to appoint anti-Roe justices so long as the Court had a pro-Roe majority. ("Supporting the Constitution" was apparently no longer a requirement for his nominees.)

THEN HE SAID: The abortion lobby expressed its displeasure, and reasonably so given its principles — if Clinton had followed that policy, the Court might have upheld bans on partial-birth abortion and pro-lifers would need to switch only one more vote to overturn Roe. So now Kerry is saying that he will nominate only pro-Roe justices.

The flop-flip was accompanied by some unconvincing spin. Here's what Kerry said yesterday: "I will not appoint somebody with a 5-4 court who's about to undo Roe v. Wade. I've said that before. But that doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view. I've already voted for people like that. I voted for Judge Scalia." Nedra Pickler's AP story has Kerry aides saying that "some court" was a reference to lower federal courts, not the Supreme Court.

Aides said later that "some court" was not a reference to the Supreme Court, only lower federal benches. That is hard to reconcile with his prefatory reference to a 5-4 Supreme Court or with the Scalia example — in other words, with anything he said.

Still unclear is whether he would appoint appeals-court judges who are anti-Roe. But he has been supporting filibusters of Bush judicial nominees for less than that: A major complaint against Priscilla Owen has been that she read a parental-notification law in a way the abortion lobby found disagreeable.
— by Ramesh Ponnuru, originally posted in The Corner

9.  Waffle topic #9:  No Child Left Behind

FIRST HE SAID: Kerry voted for the "No Child Left Behind" legislation in 2001.

THEN HE SAID: In the summer of 2003, he announced, "I'm running for President to make our public schools a focus for excellence, not a photo-op for tomorrow's front pages — and I am going to criss-cross this country and hold George Bush accountable for making a mockery of the words 'Leave No Child Behind.'" (For more on Kerry and education funding, see here.)

10.  Waffle topic #10:  Gay Marriage

FIRST HE SAID: In 1996, Kerry opposed federal legislation that would define marriage as between a man and a woman: "This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean-spirited bill." In 2002 he joined Barney Frank and other members of his state's congressional delegation in signing a letter asking the Massachusetts legislature to reject a constitutional amendment that would outlaw homosexual marriage: "We believe it would be a grave error for Massachusetts to enshrine in our Constitution a provision which would have such a negative effect on so many of our fellow residents." (USA Today, 4/2/11)

THEN HE SAID: In February 2004, Kerry told reporters: "I support equal rights, the right of people to have civil unions, to have partner rights. I do not support marriage" for gays and lesbians. Asked if he would support a state constitutional amendment barring gay and lesbian marriages, Kerry didn't rule out the possibility. "I'll have to see what language there is," he said.

11.  Waffle topic #11:  Capital Punishment for Terrorists

FIRST HE SAID: Between 1989 and 1993, John Kerry voted three times against giving terrorists the death penalty. He went so far as to tell former Gov. William Weld, his 1996 GOP Senate opponent, that "'Your policy would amount to a terrorist protection policy."

THEN HE SAID: In the wake of September 11, Kerry changed his mind. In Dec 2002 he said: "I am for the death penalty for terrorists because terrorists have declared war on your country. I support killing people who declare war on our country."

12.  Waffle topic #12:  The Patriot Act

FIRST HE SAID: John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act in 2001 and even wrote parts of it himself.

THEN HE SAID: "It is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time." -John Kerry, December 2003

13.  Waffle topic #13:  The Iraq War...Funding

FIRST HE SAID: On Face the Nation on 9/14/04, Kerry discussed an amendment he was pushing as part of the $87 billion funding bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Asked if he would support the bill even without the amendment, he replied, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible."

He added "I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

THEN HE SAID: Kerry voted against the bill in October 2003. He later infamously replied to a Republican ad highlighting the vote by saying, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." (For more see Barbara Comstock, "Where the Dem Was".)

14.  Waffle topic #14:  The Iraq War...Authorization

FIRST HE SAID: John Kerry sounded like President Bush before the war. In a September 2002 New York Times op-ed he wrote: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.

THEN HE SAID: By January 6, 2004, Kerry is a self-identified antiwar candidate: On Hardball, Chris Matthews asked Kerry, "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the antiwar candidates?"

Kerry replied: "I am — Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely."

This report can be found at www.NationalReview.com

Do The Democrats Really Hate America? – Part 1

By George M. Haddad

May 7, 2004

Today’s so-called Democrat party is really a distribution of two parts, the sophisticated and the naïve.  Or more aptly, the elitists and the disciples as will be shown.

The have been called Leftists, Extreme left, Anti-war left, Anti-war progressives, Liberals, Liberal Democrats, Conservative Democrats, Progressive Democrats, New Democrats, Progressives, Socialists and to non-revisionist historians they have been likened to the Tories of the American Revolution who were not averse to sabotage and to selling us back to England.

Which party sided with Communist countries Nicaragua and El Salvador and protested any aid of any kind to the freedom fighters of these nations?  Which party refused aid to Afghanistan when it was raided by Communist Russia?  Which party gave away the Panama Canal, a project which had not only cost the American taxpayer billions in creation but also opened the door for the eventual take-over of this strategic transport maritime site by the Chinese?

Which party was responsible for sending us into a Korean and Vietnamese war without providing the necessary arms for battle to its own Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force?  Which party was directly responsible for sending back a child to Communist Cuba whose mother gave up her life in order that the child live in a free society?  Which party has continuously thrown up road blocks in the attempts to develop and research the necessary weaponry for the defense of our country in a nuclear age?

Which party was responsible for the drive to downgrade and decimate the total military force of the United States?  Which party was responsible for disregarding the Constitution and allowing the debacle in Waco?  Which party underhandedly sold classified technical secrets to the Chinese and used the White house as it’s Merchandise Mart by selling bedrooms and gala parties for election time fund raising?

Which party detoured the final impeachment process of a President whose legacy is bemired in the most corrupt, insidious and treacherous Presidency in our history?  Which party was and is responsible for keeping us from drilling for our own oil and thus retaining a dependency on other nations for this crucial and possibly nation-saving commodity?  Which party was obviously willing to shred our Constitution in the interest of winning a presidential election at any cost even to the extent of its own Democrat packed Florida Supreme Court shunning its state constitution and the rule of law?  Which party did everything in its power to negate the military votes in the last Presidential election?  Which party has continued to fight for gun control and for keeping the American citizen from the wherewithal of self defense?  Which party is in constant attack mode on American commercial corporations and American industry as a methodology to weakening the capitalist and free enterprise system?

Which party is in constant programming mode for our subservience to the United Nations?  An organization dominated by despotic third world countries and which numbers itself amongst the most corrupt political entities on the globe.  Which party castigated Bush #1 for not continuing the move into Baghdad and has been crucifying Bush #2 for doing so.

This is the party, which created and introduced political correctness to the point of national paralysis.  This is the party, which allegedly loves the poor because they are the easiest prey.  This is the party, which has fomented the concept of reverse discrimination as the answer to discrimination.  This is the party which history will prove has been wrong on all counts. 

It’s time for the Disciple Democrats to wake up and smell the problem.  Your elitists are not your allies.  The United States of America is under siege.  The fact that the so-called Democrat party is really the Socialist Party of the United States has never been more evident.

It is at this point that the words of Henry David Thoreau have implicit meaning when he wrote: “There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted.”

For his 8 years Bill Clinton, with accomplice Al Gore, had quietly circumvented our Constitution at every turn and the rule of law had been diluted incrementally to the point where there was no longer the outrage of a once moral society.  To further under gird this concern it is well to keep in mind that never before in our history had a party ever supported an individual with one hundred percent loyalty and with credentials of being a pathological liar with a maggot morality.  Thus he got away with it and the little disciples, although well meaning and naïve, could have stopped it.  Instead they continued to be duped and became thus guilty parties to the sin of omission and unfathomable folly.

Yesterday my parents came to this country because it was the land of opportunity.  Today too many of the foreign born are coming here because it is the land of entitlements.  The more whiners and dependents you can wean and breed the more powerful you become.  History has proven that and our present socialists are banking on it.  And again we beg the question.  Which party, in the nineties, allowed over 100,000 aliens to be sworn in illegally as American citizens with the prime purpose of winning their vote?

Which party is constantly parroting upholding the alleged and mythical doctrine of Separation of Church and State and rushes to the churches to electioneer at the period of each election? 

There are two great oddities in motion in this present era of our history.  The first is that there are so many people who actually believe that when they vote a Democrat ticket they are actually voting for a Democrat ticket.  Basically, they are not.  These are the disciples.  Secondly, it is a psychological phenomenon of our time that the very industry, the fourth estate, is not cognizant of the fact that historically proven, when the socialists gain full power it is they against whom the socialist forces will move first.

It was the famed psychiatrist Karl Manager who once wrote; “The extraordinary propensity of the human being to join hands with external forces in an attack upon his own existence is one of the most remarkable of biological phenomena.”

Socialistic fervor under the guise of patriotism can hardly be considered being American.

We can only hope that the apathetic will cease to be pathetic and will wake up to the real danger, which we are all facing at this given moment in time.  In reality we are under siege not only by the terrorists but by those who claim to be patriots.

None dare call it treason.

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/ 09/20/daily58.html" title="http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2004/ 09/20/daily58.html" target="_blank"http://phoenix.bizjournals.co...

Democrats are already starting their campaign for the chance that OBL is caught.  They do not want it to happen, plain and simple.  If that happens they lose, period. 

BEWARE:  THE FOLLOWING PICTURE MAY OFFEND

http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry2004092315 16.asp" title="http://www.nationalreview.com/kerry/kerry2004092315 16.asp" target="_blank"http://www.nationalreview.com...

Kerry Spot    [ jim geraghty reporting ]
[ kerry spot home | archives | email ]

WHY WAS TERRY USING TERMS FROM THE CBS MEMO 9 HOURS BEFORE BROADCAST?

Man, those guys at the RNC are a regular Bloodhound Gang or Mod Squad. Take a look at this little observation:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)

(I checked with the RNC how they knew it was nine hours ahead of CBS report - it turns out McAuliffe made this statement during a press event held at 11 am Sept. 8.)

The CBS memo, revealed on 60 Minutes that night: "Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

"Sugarcoated." What an interesting word. McAuliffe could have said that Bush's performance reviews were covered up, spun, masked, smoothed over, soft-pedaled, glossed over, prettified, veiled, whitewashed, hushed up, concealed, varnished, suppressed, or distorted. But he just happened to pick a word that appeared in the memos that were supposedly unveiled to the world hours later.

Even beyond McAuliffe's direct quote of the memos, he's specifically referring to the central allegation of the Burkett-to-Mapes memo, that Staudt wanted Bush’s records “sugarcoated.”

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

Or maybe this, along with the entire "Operation Fortunate Son," is all just a coincidence.

[Posted 09/23 03:16 PM]

George Bush chooses Freedom...like what we see of an Iraqi citizen in this picture:

John Kerry would rather have this man in power:

You decide which you would rather be in power and then make your decision on election day.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0" title="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.guardian.co.uk/usl...,1282,-4509663,00.html

With each passing day, we have something new (well not really since it's all the same from Democrats these days) from the liberals.  John Kerry today basically said that Iraqi PM Allawi doesn't know what is going on in his own country.  Kerry wants to pretend that he knows more about Iraq's situation than the man in charge over there. 

John Kerry is not a man of any people.  He is certainly not a man of Americans as he consistently shows is arrogance and ignorance in regard to what people are facing.  How can a man who has more money than the entire state of Texas, know what is going on in the real world.  People have talked about Bush being rich...Bush is a pauper compared to John Kerry.  He is certainly not a man of the people of Iraq.  He could care less about them and would rather have Saddam still in power over there.  Ask Iraqis if they are sorry that the US came in and got rid of Saddam.  Ask Allawi. 

John Kerry is a sham.  He is nothing more than a worthless peice of liberal garbage and Bush is about to take the garbage out.  Wow, I can't wait for the debates...

As for Kerry, he was in Florida answering questions about his roundabout record on Iraq. Why vote against authorizing war when Saddam occupied Kuwait in 1991? Why vote to authorize war in 2002? Why vote against funding that war? Why so sour on the war now?

There are no easy answers. Kerry's own advisers acknowledge he's taking a risk, because Americans don't like to be told they're losing a war. It took nearly a decade for public opinion to turn against the Vietnam War, said a senior Democrat with ties to the campaign, and Kerry has just six weeks.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;cid=536&ncid=536& ;e=7&u=/ap/20040922/a p_on_el_pr/iraq_two_views

There are a few facts regarding liberals, Iraq and Vietnam. 

Fact:  Democrats are and have always been weak on Defense and war issues.  This is why they have been so thrilled to have a "war hero" candidate now even though they have consistently bashed the military and the war the John Kerry pretended to fight in...Vietnam.

Fact:  Democrats hated Vietnam and every soldier in it.  Don't let the liberals fool you with the parade that is the Kerry campaign.  He tried to build his campaign on a war the liberals hate.  How two faced can you get?

Fact:  Democrats want the U.S. to fail in Iraq.  If you think that this isn't true, then you are wrong.  If you tell me that it's not true, I will tell you that you are either out of touch or lying through your teeth.  Tell me how Iraq stablizing before the elections will help Democrats.  Democrats and liberals are all about power.  Iraq stablizing before the elections helps Bush and not Kerry.  Therefore, Democrats want the US to fail in Iraq.  Right now they are talking it down and saying that we are losing this war.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Fact:  Democrats want people to think that Iraq is the same situation as Vietnam was.  Horrible lies.  Go read history please.

Look at the quote from the article above.  They say that it took 10 years to get the public to hate the Vietnam conflict and now they have 6 weeks to do the same for Iraq.  They want to make the public go against the war, the soldiers and the President in regard to Iraq.  If something good happens, do you think they will talk about it?  Do you think that they will praise the troops and the President?  No, if something good happens, they will gloss over that and look for something bad.  Democrats opperate on fear.

Do me a favor, check with me before deciding to believe whether or not a liberal is telling the truth.  Actually, you don't even have to do that (although it is recommended).  Just listen for anything that comes from their mouth.  If they talk, they lie.  Plain and simple.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040923/D859 41KG0.html" title="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040923/D859 41KG0.html" target="_blank"http://apnews.myway.com/artic...

Thank goodness.  Now all we need are for all of the tax cuts to become the norm and not the exception.  Tax cuts = improved and roaring economy.  Plain and simple.

Kerry doesn't know sports...at all.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/21 /131400.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/21 /131400.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Tuesday, Sept. 21, 2004

Kerry's Latest Headache: Football Fans for Truth

Make room, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth: A new group, Football Fans for Truth, is tackling Sen. John Kerry.

Cheesed-off readers from Wisconsin e-mailed us last month when Kerry referred to the Green Bay Packers' Lambeau Field as "Lambert Field." You'd think Kerry wouldn't have fumbled that Frenchified name, but Football Fans for Truth also notes Kerry's infamously bungled praise of the Ohio State Buckeyes ... during a visit to Michigan.

And it cites a third gridiron gripe about the Massachusetts Democrat, complete with photographic proof: "John Kerry throws a football like a girl."

The group zaps the senator for other athletic offenses as well, including:

So first they are real, then they aren't but Democrats had nothing to do with it.  Now, we find out that someone in the Kerry campaign did have something to do with it.  They say, ok, so we did have contact with Burkett and the producer from CBS news but just for a little but and nothing substantial.  So far, every time they have opened their mouth about this it's been a lie.  What do we find out next about this?

Kerry Aide Talked to Bush Guard Docs Figure

Tuesday, September 21, 2004 NEW YORK  — At the suggestion of a CBS News producer, a top adviser to John Kerry talked to the man at the center of the National Guard "memogate" imbroglio before the disputed documents were revealed, FOX News has confirmed. Joe Lockhart (search) said he got a call from CBS the Saturday before the Sept. 8 broadcast which launched the network into a firestorm of controversy.  The CBS representative alerted Lockhart that a man in Texas, Bill Burkett (search), was interested in helping the Kerry-Edwards campaign. Lockhart then called Burkett, a former Texas Army National Guard official who CBS says provided the doubtful documents. Click here to read the CBS documents (pdf). But Lockhart denied any connection between the Kerry campaign and the documents, saying there is "no basis" for the White House charges that the Kerry campaign had something to do with the memo entanglement. Lockhart, the second Kerry adviser to confirm contact with Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward," Lockhart said. "She didn't tell me what they said."

Lately, John Kerry has been making the rounds.  He was on Letterman, Regis and Kelly, Dr. Phil, The Daily Show and anyone else that will listen to his incoherent blabbing.  Why doesn't he go on serious talk shows anymore?  Why won't he go on Meet the Press?  Why won't he go on Hardball (Wait, I take that back, he would go in a second as Matthews show has been retitled softball)?  Why won't he go on Hannity and Combs or O'Reilly? 

Why?  Because he would rather be thrown softball questions than face the facts or be forced to answer serious questions.  He would rather tell scripted jokes on Letterman than answer for why his campaign has been involved in one of the biggest campaign scandals in the history of our nation.  He would rather flirt with Kelly Rippa (ok, who wouldn't) than talk about why he has changed back and forth 10 times on his position of Iraq.  He would rather make mindless (and unfunny) jokes on The Daily Show than answer questions about the validity of the claims made by veterans who oppose him. 

If you are running for the President of the United States and you don't have the chance to use the rose garden as Bush does, if you are so far down in the polls as he is, why wouldn't you want to be in front of the real press corp ALL OF THE TIME???  Could it be that he doesn't want to answer those real questions?  I mean, come on, the press does everything in it's power to make this guy look good and he still doesn't want to be in front of them. 

I would imagine that Mary Maples with CBS would love to do a story on how wonderful the Kerry campaign is.  Why doesn't he just call her?  The point is, Kerry is in trouble and everyone with any sort of intelligence knows this, can sense and see this.  Kerry needs to do whatever he can to get back in front of the public and he isn't doing so.  Instead, he is settling for the lowest common denominator.  Of course, he is a liberal and that is what they always do.

Thanks to El Rushbo...

I thought that Kerry has said he would, if elected President, be able to persuade European countries to send troops to Iraq?  Was he lying?  Yes...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/19 /101103.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/19 /101103.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

France: No Troops for Iraq if Kerry Wins

A French official said Saturday that even if Sen. John Kerry defeats President Bush in November's election, his country won't provide troops to help the U.S. in Iraq - the same policy France has under President Bush.

"If Kerry is elected, we wouldn't send troops either," the unnamed official told the New York Daily News. "We don't need any more targets in Iraq."

The warning that even a President Kerry will have to "go it alone in Iraq" as far as France is concerned flies in the face of a key part of the candidate's Iraq strategy.

Wow, of course, this fact will be overlooked by liberals won't it?  Kerry doesn't know what he believes.  This is kind of like what your mother used to tell you when you were younger.  If you lie, you have to actually remember what you said.  If you tell the truth, you won't have that problem.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/20 /153604.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/20 /153604.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...Monday, Sept. 20, 2004

Kerry Sets a Record: 14 Flip-Flops in One Speech

Sen. John Kerry set some kind of record today in a speech to his fellow leftists at New York University. The Republican National Committee counted 14 flip-flops on Iraq.

Among the more egregious of the tragicomic whoppers noted:

• Kerry now claims the "most important task" is to win the "war on terrorism." Yet Kerry, speaking to his pets at the New York Times in March, refused to call the war on terror a war, RNC recalled.

Let's recap:

-- Dan Rather's CBS airs an "investigative report" regarding new memos that supposedly came out regarding Bush's service in the National Guard.

-- Bloggers help to prove that these are false

-- CBS and Rather deny any wrongdoing and deny that the memos are forged

-- CBS, for an entire week, vigorously defends the use of the memos and Rather calls on the President to address them

-- CBS, Dan Rather, and the person who sent the memos to Rather all come out at the same time and say that Rather and CBS had been misled.

Why didn't they see this coming?  They really must have wanted something on the President to let these memos out, especially on air.  If "stupid and unprofessional" bloggers could easily point out the problems with the memos, why couldn't CBS?  All that leads me to believe is that CBS and Rather wanted these to be true.  Is this what investigative reporting is?  If so, what a joke.

This is worse than Watergate, at least on the exact same plain.  CBS is continuing to refuse to tell who exactly was the original source.  There is speculation that Bill Burkett is the person who sent it to CBS and if that is the case it is directly from the Kerry campaign as the links are too obvious to miss.  Is this why Rather is refusing to release the source? 

Rathergate is the perfect example of what liberals are all about.  I've said this many times, but liberals are willing to lie and cheat and steal to get what they want.  In this case, they wanted to cut down a sitting President who is currently killing their candidate in the polls.  See, this is the only way Kerry could get back into the campaign and actually challenge.  He can't actually do it with his own actions, but he could try to beat up the President.  Liberals have no problem with lying, cheating or stealing if it means that they win. 

If this situation does nothing else, it proves that.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,132841,00.html

So, Kerry is in a "fighting mood" huh?  How many times will he come out and saya something like this?  How many times will he say, throughout one campaigh, that he is ready to go on the offensive?  I can count at least three times so far. 

Also, what is up with constant comments from a Presidential candidate like this one ""It was fun to be with a prominent Texan who tells the truth," he joked"

He makes statements and "jokes" like this one, like the training wheels shot, like the "I can't take this gun to the debates unfortunately", etc...  He has absolutely no class and it shows just how scared the Democrats are.  If he actually tries to shake the President's hand before the debate he is complete scum.  He obviously feels that the President is a horrible person, he needs to tell it to his face.  If he thinks that he is a liar, he needs to say it just like that right to his face.  I have a feeling he won't because Kerry is a small man and one of the worst Presidential candidates in the history of our country.

Thank goodness we have President Bush.

http://pub50.bravenet.com/vote/vote.php?usernum=4217945739&am p" title="http://pub50.bravenet.com/vote/vote.php?usernum=4217945739&am p" target="_blank"http://pub50.bravenet.com/vot...;cpv=2

Whoever is there, please go to this website and vote.  If you feel like you want to vote for me...I would be extremely pleased :) 

Remember, I have many many tbucks! haha...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,132789,00.html

Isn't that funny.  I'm sure that Clinton is thrilled about that.  I am pretty sure though that Bush will sign off on this.  I would certainly hope so...

http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm" title="http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm" target="_blank"http://www.dalythoughts.com/e...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" title="http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&" target="_blank"http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...;cid=694&u=/ap/200409 18/ap_on_el_pr/bush_guard _questions&printer=1

Ok, you know what?  This stinks more than anything in the last 20 years of politics.  This goes all the way to the top of the Kerrry campaign and Kerry knew this was happening. 

Democrats have been looking for another Watergate since Nixon to try and kill the Republicans.  Well, they've found one.  The problem is, this Watergate style activity is on the Democrats.  This thing could completely sink the Democratic party for the next 10 years.

For the longest time, Democrats were talking about how the Bush administration was going to try and pull an "October" surprise right before the election.  They made claims like "Bush already has Bin Laden and will capture him to win the election".  Remember in 2000 where, just before the election happened, Democrats leaked the story about Bush's old DWI...some 20 years earlier?  October surprise....

Well, our good liberal friends tried it again this time.  They saw how far down they were in the polls after the RNC and knew they had to do something and they had to act fast.  If they waited until October to bring something out, it would be too late.  Now we have Rathergate.

When you cheat and play with fire, you get burned and that is exactly what has happened to Democrats in this situation.  They thought they were going to give the Republicans and the public an October surprise.  They did alright, but it blew up in their collective faces.

Look at his eyes and tell me he isn't on something...

I was taking my Grandmother back home the other day.  She lives in one of those assisted living places.  If you don't know what that is, it's better than a nursing home.  Assisted living places are a step above and the people can usually get around pretty decently. 

Anyway, as I was leaving, I started thinking to myself...I could sit down in that lobby for hours and watch those old guys and love it!  They crack me up.  Old people are a riot. 

We need a reality TV show based on the lives of old people in an assisted living place.  That show would have everything:

-- Drama.  Who hates who, who fell down and bruised their leg, who hates what meal, who resents who, etc..

-- Love.  Those assisted living places are crawling with wrinkled love stories.  So and so, who is 85 has been seen holding hands with So and so who is 90...woohoo!

-- Sadness.  Death is part of being old, and unfortunately it happens there in the living centers.

-- Comedy.  I mean come on.  Have you ever sat and listened to old people talk and just live?

I was sitting at this table listening in on conversations from the table over by us.  There were four people at the table...and each person had a separate conversation going on!  Each was talking to the rest of the table...four different conversations!!!  It didn't faze any of them.  I couldn't believe it.  Also, I was talking to my grandmother about work.  All of a sudden, in the middle of my sentence, she said "I have to pee".  I almost did right there in my pants.  Another time I was talking to her and in the middle of a sentence she said "I really hate football".  I was talking about work and how many loans I closed last month.  What in the world?

Old people crack me up.  I love them to death and they are a great resource for history.  I would watch every single week if there were a reality show based on old people like that.  I think I would not be the only one.

Poll after poll is coming out showing that Bush has a big lead.  This is starting to remind me of previous elections in which the Republican dominated and now is probably time to start pushing Bush to be much more Conservative in his second term.

I'm not saying that we should count our chickens just yet, because we all need to actually vote for it to happen, but it's almost a lock.  Things I'd like to see in Bush's second term:

-- repeal campaign finance reform.  It's a joke and doesn't work.  It was supposed to take money out of campaigns?  Ask Moveon.org and the Swift Boaters if it worked.

-- Change up the tax code.  Man, why in the heck isn't the tax code something I can go to and understand?  Why do you have to be a CPA to understand what you owe to the federal government?  Why?  Because those people are a huge lobby.  Want to get the money out of Washington?  Make filing your taxes easier and make the tax code simpler to understand.

-- School vouchers.  Ask working, middle class mothers if they would like the opportunity to send their kids to a very good private school as opposed to the overcrowded under preforming public schools.  Say it will put public schools out?  Well, fix them and get the NEA out of Washington as a lobby.

-- Stop medical malpractice.  Period.  Make trial lawyers responsible when they lose a frivilous lawsuit.  Maybe that will keep them from ambulance chasing.

-- More tax cuts.  Nothing more is needed to be said. 

-- Continue to update and secure our borders. 

-- Humanitarian aid for Africa.  Let's start to actually do something there.  We've talked about it for 30 years but we have been all talk and no walk (this goes for both parties)

There are a few other things I'd like to see, what would you like to see?

You can thank Camelface at http://camelface.tblog.com" title="http://camelface.tblog.com" target="_blank"http://camelface.tblog.com for this gem!

Some of you people still think that Palestine is innocent...for shame.  Of course, others of you will simply ignore this and come up with some article to supposedly back up your horrible world views.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40470" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40470" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

TROUBLE IN THE HOLY LAND
PA clergy call for
genocide of Jews
Use TV broadcasts to urge killing of 'brothers of the monkeys and pigs'

Posted: September 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Why is it that Democrats hate someone with conviction?  When a Republican or Conservative comes out and does what he says he was going to do, Democrats call him arrogant or stubborn or reckless, etc... 

I remember when Bush first got into the White House he was blasted after his first few months.  Why?  Because he was doing what he said he was going to do.  By the time he was coming around to pushing through tax cuts, Democrats were blasting his horrible tactics!  One said on Good Morning America "He is actually doing what he said he was going to do.  Presidents never do that after elected!"  Bush did.

How is it that Demcrats have supposedly been the kinder, gentler and more humane party for all of these years and yet they are the first ones to cry foul when a Conservative tries to do something to help their cause?  Civil Rights for all human beings is a huge issue for them, as it should be.  For a long time, all I have heard is how everyone should be free, everyone should have equal rights.  I've heard that countries like China are horrible because they treat their people horribly and do wicked and evil things to them.  I've heard that the U.S. is evil for not going after them and protecting those innocent people.  Then, Bush goes into Iraq and frees the people there of a dictator who killed hundreds of thousands of men, women and children with gas.  They have unearthed massive grave sites with his own people in them.  He has cut off the hands of athletes who didn't live up to what he wanted.  He has done many horrible things so you would think that these civil rights groups and activists would be the first ones to jump for joy when he is taken out.  Wrong.

Liberals and Democrats only want these issues to complain about.  They don't want them fixed.  Bush would have been just fine complaining about how Iraqis were treated.  If he would have just come out and said "I feel their pain" everything would have been so much better in the eyes of those liberals.  Instead, Bush actually took action to prevent this tyrant from doing these horrible things. 

Let's look at a few topics.  These are areas in which liberals constantly complain about:

-- Civil rights for blacks.  It's time for minorities to step up and look at the facts as they are.  How long have minorities been looking to the Democratic party for help in these matters?  How long have Democrats been saying that they would help?  If they have been working this long, why is it still something that Jesse Jackson says is "worse than ever"?  Maybe you should look to Conservatives for a change.  What would it hurt?  If things are still as bad as they were in 1960, the Democrats have had plenty of time...and they have failed.

-- Polution.  How long have Democrats and liberals been complaining about the ozone layer and global warming?  Every 10 or 15 years there is something new from them saying that the world is in serious trouble.  We get stories on how the Earth is dying and we are in about to suffer.  They've been saying this since the 50's.  If you read from environmentalists back then, we should be in the next Ice Age right now.  Do you know what is the most important element of the atmosphere and the "ozone layer"?  Do you know what actually makes our "ozone"?  The SUN does.  So, if we wanted to get rid of the ozone layer and destroy it...we would have to destroy the sun and take away it's ability to produce ozone.  How are we destroying the sun?  Can someone answer this for me?  Yet another example of liberals not getting anything done.  Maybe you should come to the Conservative point of view.

-- Homelessness.  How long have liberals talked about the homeless?  How long have they complained that they are unfairly treated and have no clothes and have nothing to eat?  Democrats held Congress for how long before 1994?  Why was nothing done then?  Why isn't anything being done now?  Why don't we see bill after bill coming from Democratic Congress men and women regarding the health and safety of the homeless?  Want to know why?  Democrats want high unemployment and high homeless rates each election year so they can talk about how horrible Republicans are.  That is the reason things haven't gotten better.  Do you mean to tell me that after 75 years of Liberals complaining about homelessness, nothing has improved?  Looks to me like Liberals don't know what to do in this matter and Conservatives should be given your vote in order to take over this position.

-- Education.  Education and public education in this country is a joke.  The US is far down the ladder in terms of excellence in our public schools.  Government funded education does not work.  Liberals have had this issue for the longest time and all they ever say is to put more money into it.  How much is too much?  It's time for vouchers and it's time for privately funded education.   Give education over to the Conservatives.

-- Medical costs.  Liberals complain about this constantly and yet Ted Kennedy cosponsored the bill that started HMOs.  Interesting huh?  Trial lawyers have driven up the cost of medical insurance...maybe we should talk to John Edwards about this.  They want to give all of this over to the government to run.  They want healthcare to be run by the same people who run the social security office???  What??  And that will be more efficient?  Ummm sorry, no thanks.  Make it more private and costs will come down...supply and demand.

These are just a few issues that prove Democrats hate conviction.  They want something to complain about it but they don't want step in and have the conviction to actually do something about it. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselection s/nation/president/2004-0 9-15-heinz-kerry_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA" title="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselection s/nation/president/2004-0 9-15-heinz-kerry_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA" target="_blank"http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. "Water is necessary, and then generators, and then food, and then clothes."

What?  My goodness, the democrats must be getting ready to throw her off of a cliff aren't they?  Why doesn't she just fly out generators, water and food out to everyone.  She could single handedly afford it.

When did you develop your political beliefs and how did your parents/guardians believe while you were growing up?  I was speaking to someone today who is supposedly a Conservative as I am and we got to talking about when we started believing the way we do. 

I remember growing up, my parents were both liberal.  Whether that was because they decided to rebel against their parents, they decided their parents were wrong, or what, but they were both major liberals.  The very first election I voted in, I voted for a Democrat.  It wasn't until I got out of the house that I started to form my own political and ideological beliefs.  My parents are now much more middle of the road than they used to be.  More than likely, it's just their current situation, but I'm sure I had a little to do with it.

This guy I hung out with grew up in a liberal household.  When I asked him when he decided what his real beliefs were, he was speechless.  He didn't remember when he developed his own beliefs. 

Honestly, from some of the messages I've received from liberals on Tblog, this reminds me quite a bit of them.  Most of the liberals I've seen either in my everyday life or here on tblog, seem to not really understand why they believe certain things.  They are very adept at repeating what they've heard.  They are extremely good at spouting off things they've read from "liberal" pundits.  When you ask them to go more in depth with their beliefs, they spout off more lies from their "side". 

My question to you is this.  When did you develop your political beliefs and when did you separate yourself from your parents ideology?

Faith and politics these days seem to go hand in hand.  You have one side who has always been (these days more than ever) open and willing to talk about the faith they have in God and you have a side that has always hated public showings of faith and love for God because it may be "offensive" to someone else.  Isn't it sad that our two political parties can't at least agree on the importance of Faith and God in our everyday life? 

No matter what is said, you can't separate faith, God and politics.  Why not?  You can't because if you have faith in something, if you believe in God so strongly that you live your life with him, why would you want to make any decisions without looking to him for answers?  If I say that I have faith in my marriage and yet I'm afraid to leave town because I think my wife will cheat on me, how do I actually have faith?  If I say that I have faith in science and what I learned in school about monkeys turning into humans, how can I allow myself to be moved from that position? 

When you have faith in something, you just believe.  You have heard all of the arguments, you have seen all of the proof and now you have put those together and you have developed your faith.  Faith is a defining instance that tells us who you are.  Faith can't be pushed aside.  When a public official says he believes in God and his teachings and yet he says that his faith won't get in the way of his governing, I cry foul...as should everyone.  If you actually believe in something, you can't put those beliefs in a corner or cabinet for later.  It just doesn't happen. 

This is my problem with those who have a different ideology than I right now.  Liberals, for the most part (I know there are many liberals who believe in God and have conflicts in regards to parts of the parties platform.  I'm not talking about all, just those who fit into this section) either say they don't believe in God, don't believe in "just one God", or say they won't let their faith determine what is right for our country.  To those who don't believe in God, all I can say is that I pray for you.  If you don't believe in God, at least you are willing to come forward and say so.  You have a faith and belief and you are standing by it no matter what and that is commendable.  There are many who say  that their faith won't get in the way of their politics.  John Kerry said once that he is a Catholic and a Senator, but he will never be a Catholic Senator.  What he was saying in this speech was that he wouldn't allow his faith to help guide him through his political life.  That, to me, tells me that his faith is either not very strong or not really there.  Once again, if you believe in something enough to call it faith, why would you not live your life accordingly?

If you don't believe in God, I suggest you try and get to know him.  Not what you have been told, not what some book has told you, not what science has told you, but what he tells you.  Read the bible and if you seriously have questions about it let me know and I will do my best to answer.  I don't have all the answers, but I will try.  Deal?  If you say you believe in God but you don't live your life that way, I suggest taking today to start over.  Just start over.  God forgets those times that you decided not to use him to make decisions in your life.  Start today by praying and by making the decision to ask him for assistance in whatever you do. 

If you are a politician and you say you have faith in God, then show you have faith in God and stand by him.  Use him to help you in your political decisions.  True, it may mean you don't have a very long life in politics, but it will ensure that you have a long life with God. 

Kerry Asks FEC for Recount Advice

Election Day is several weeks away, but Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's campaign is already considering its fund-raising options should Kerry or President Bush pursue a recount like the famous Florida ballot dispute in 2000.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign is asking the Federal Election Commission for guidance on how it could raise money to cover any recount costs, including whether it could use a legal compliance fund it is tapping to pay campaign lawyers and finance other legal and accounting costs. The FEC is expected to rule by the end of the month.

In 2000, Bush and Democratic rival Al Gore could raise unlimited donations from individuals to cover their recount expenses. However, corporate and union contributions to their recount funds were banned.

Bush voluntarily limited his recount donations to $5,000 each and raised nearly $14 million. Gore took unlimited donations and spent about $3.2 million on the recount.

Since then, Congress passed a law that bars presidential and congressional candidates from raising corporate, union or unlimited donations for election costs, allowing them to collect only limited contributions from individuals.

The FEC has not yet said how the soft-money ban applies to recount fund raising.

Depending on how the commission answers Kerry's question, legal compliance funds financed with limited individual donations could be one way for the candidates to cover any recount costs.

Kerry's compliance fund had about $1.5 million on hand as August began, while Bush's had about $4.4 million, their most recent reports to the FEC show.

The only contributions Kerry and Bush can accept are those for their legal compliance funds. Both took full government financing for their general election campaigns, putting a stop to their use of private money for campaign costs after their presidential nominating conventions earlier this summer.

© 2004 Associated Press

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/usnews/20040913/ts_us news/thedemocratsrealprob lem

With his friends. The problem for Kerry is that when he tries to change the subject, he seems to change his position. This is partly out of the typical politician's temperament: "Some of my friends are for the bill, and some of my friends are against the bill, and I'm always with my friends." But it also arises because the Democratic constituency that Kerry must rally to vote on Election Day and before (voting starts in Iowa September 23) is deeply split on issues like Iraq (news - web sites). Many think we should leave now. Others think we should persevere. Kerry is with his friends.

Kerry is actually the problem.  Democratic and liberal thinking is the problem.  Name one successful Socialist government and society right now in our world.  You can't?  Democrats and Liberals have moved so far to the left that they are socialists are heart and socialism is proven not to work.  This is why the real problem is just liberalism.

Liberal lies...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/13 /140107.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/13 /140107.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Monday, Sept. 13, 2004 1:57 p.m. EDT

Kitty Kelley: I Failed to Tape Coke Accusation

Bush biographer Kitty Kelley admitted on NBC's "Today" show Monday that she failed to tape-record an initial conversation with key source Sharon Bush in which Mrs. Bush allegedly accused George Bush of using cocaine, plus a follow-up call to confirm the story.

That oversight appeared to astonish "Today" host Matt Lauer.

"You did 88 interviews for this book and you told our producer you taped most of them," the incredulous host reminded Kelley, noting that Mrs. Bush categorically denies her story.

"Why would you go into a lunch [meeting] with Sharon Bush, who is a scorned woman in a major, nasty divorce from the president's brother, and not tape-record that conversation?" he pressed.

Kelley protested that she had witnesses to the conversation. "I had Peter [Gethers] there, I had Lou Colasuonno there, I had my notes. What's better than witnesses?"

What about the confirmation call the next day?

Kelley suggested she didn't want to spook Mrs. Bush by recording her comments, explaining, "She was hysterical at the time, and she said herself that Neil Bush left a message on her tape machine saying that if she didn't stop what she was doing she'd find herself in a dark alley."

Kelley denied that her book was a partisan hit piece timed to coincide with the election. But she dodged when asked who she voted for in the 2000 election.

"I voted in 2000. I'm registered in the District of Columbia," she told Lauer. "I vote for Republicans, I vote for Democrats."

Sharon Bush followed Kelley on the broadcast, and after denying her coke story again, suggested that Kelley and one of her witnesses were involved in "a relationship."

"[Lou Colasuonno] is a PR agent and he apparently has a relationship with Kitty," she told Lauer. "I'm not sure what his relationship is with Kitty Kelley. All I know is they have books to sell."

All of these liberals in the media are pissed now.  Rather has let the cat out of the bag.  Actually he didnt, we already knew it.  This just adds to the mountains of proof that the media in this country is so heavily biased for Liberals, it's a joke.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/13 /154907.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/13 /154907.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Monday, Sept. 13, 2004 3:39 p.m. EDT

Flashback: Rather Nixed Tape of Clinton on bin Laden

Last week wasn't the first time one-time journalist Dan Rather tried to foist bogus evidence on his "60 Minutes" audience in a bid to boost his favorite Democrat.

Just three months ago, Rather allowed ex-President Bill Clinton to get away with claiming he had no knowledge of a 1996 offer from Sudan to have Osama bin Laden arrested – even after his producers had been warned that Clinton was on tape admitting the offer was real.

Rather had been chosen by Clinton for the rollout interview of his presidential memoir, "My Life," so the former newsman wasn't too anxious to see his exclusive go south by pressing his guest on uncomfortable topics like the bin Laden blunder.

http://www.rathergate.com" title="http://www.rathergate.com" target="_blank"http://www.rathergate.com

HA!  He is getting just what he deserves.

Bush said, "You'll hear the same rhetoric you hear every campaign, believe me -- `They're going to take away Social Security checks.' It's the most tired, pathetic way to campaign for the presidency."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/1 3/bush.monday.ap.ap/index.html" title="http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/1 3/bush.monday.ap.ap/index.html" target="_blank"http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPO...

Thank goodness he said this.  Democrats have a couple of things they always resort to win they are against the ropes.  They try to scare the public with these.  They try to scare old people and tell them that Republicans are going to destroy or take away social security.  (this is a ploy that they have been using forever.  They know that it will be ending soon and will be bankrupt.  When that happens, even though they have been warned it's going to happen at the current rate for sometime, they will blame it on Republicans.  They have been positioning politically for a long time)   The other thing they resort to is the race card.  Kerry said the other day that Republicans would resort to keeping blacks from voting.  What a horrid and manipulative thing to say.  What a complete lie.  It's amazing that a real Presidential candidate can get away with the things that Kerry does. 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby /jj20040913.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jeffjacoby /jj20040913.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

Heard the one about Kerry's sense of humor?
Jeff Jacoby (archive)

September 13, 2004 | Print | Send

 Just for laughs, you want to hear a little joke about shooting the president?
 
    Presidential assassination -- now there's a funny topic.  Just ask John Kerry.  When the head of the United Mine Workers presented him with a semiautomatic shotgun during a Labor Day campaign stop in West Virginia, Kerry chortled, "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me."  High-larious!
 
    How can you not love a candidate with such a robust sense of humor?  The Massachusetts senator brings so much wit to the presidential race.  Remember his wisecrack last spring about a bicycle accident that left President Bush with bruises on his face, hands, and knees?  "Did the training wheels fall off?"  He asked.  Or his line in January about the man who is now his running mate?  "When I came back from Vietnam in 1969," he said in Iowa, "I don't know if John Edwards was out of diapers then."  Oh, that Kerry -- what a stitch!
 
    For some reason people are forever commenting on how dour and stiff Kerry is.  But it's a bum rap.  As anyone who has followed his career knows, the guy's a regular Jackie Mason.
 
    Take his great quip about Saddam Hussein's military back in 1997, when he was advocating an expansion of the NATO no-fly zone.  "The Iraqi army is in such bad shape now," Kerry said, "even the Italians could kick their butts."  Everyone split their sides, they were laughing so hard.  Well, almost everyone.  For some reason the Massachusetts state auditor, Joseph DeNucci, accused Kerry of uttering a "degrading, disgusting" ethnic slur.  And a spokesman for the National Italian American Foundation said, "It was a totally inappropriate comment.  What could he have been thinking?"  Talk about your killjoys.  There's just no pleasing some people.
 
    A year earlier, when Kerry was running for re-election, he uncorked a priceless rib-tickler about his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Bill Weld.  "This guy," he said on Don Imus's radio show, "takes more vacations than the people on welfare."  Is that a hoot?  And yet, believe it or not, some people didn't think it was funny.  "I'm very insulted, very insulted," one welfare recipient told the Boston Globe.  She obviously has no appreciation for sophisticated comedy.
 
    Speaking of sophisticated comedy, have you heard the one about the camel and the ass?  This must be Kerry's favorite joke, to judge from the frequency with which he told it during last year's primary campaign.  Here it is, taken verbatim from his remarks to the Florida Democratic party convention in December:
 
    "A little more than 5,000 years ago, Moses said, 'Hitch up your camel, lift up your shovel, mount your ass.  I will lead you to the promised land.'  Five thousand years later, Franklin Roosevelt said, 'Light up a Camel, lay down your shovel, sit on your ass.  This is the promised land.'  Today, George Bush will outsource your camel, tax your shovel, kick your ass, and tell you there is no promised land."
 
    No doubt there are some grouches who would regard this as excruciatingly unfunny, not to mention an insult to FDR.  ("Lay down your shovel, sit on your ass" was not exactly the motto of the Works Progress Administration.)  But as any connoisseur of good humor will attest, you can't hear jokes like this even in the best comedy clubs.
 
    Not only is Kerry a very funny fellow, he is a critic of other people's material.  He certainly let Bush have it a few months ago for some dubious gags at the Radio and Television Correspondent's Dinner about the lack of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.  As Bush showed photographs of himself looking under furniture and behind the drapes in the Oval Office, he made comments like "Those weapons of mass destruction have to be somewhere" and "Nope, no weapons over there."
 
    Apparently Bush never learned that some topics are not appropriate fodder for jokes, particularly from someone of national political stature.  Kerry firmly set him straight.
 
    "That's supposed to be funny?"  Kerry asked.  "If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought.  Unfortunately for the President, this is not a joke."  Thank Heaven at least one of the candidates for president knows that certain subjects are too grim to make light of.
 
    Anyway, to get back to Kerry's jest about shooting the president: This is not a new theme for him.  Back in 1988, during the first Bush administration, he made headlines with a similar knee-slapper about then-Vice President Dan Quayle.
 
    "The Secret Service is under orders," Kerry told a business audience in Lynn, Mass., "that if Bush is shot, to shoot Quayle."
 
    And to think that some people don't find him funny.

©2004 Boston Globe

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/12 /221552.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/12 /221552.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Look, the Clinton administration had no clue how to deal with terrorists or terrorist nations.  They let Bin Laden go many times.  There excuse for this?  They didn't have "sufficient" proof of wrong doing.  They were trying to fight terrorists through the courts.  Now Albright says that their diplomacy didn't work with North Korea.  Really? NO FREAKING KIDDING. 

The Clinton administration did nothing right in the war on terror.  They didn't even feel that it was a war.

Wow, this man can't even handle the pressure of speaking for others, much less run the country.  Thank goodness Bush is our President and not the man you see above...

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/10 /164158.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/10 /164158.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

I thought Kerry has said that he could give everyone health care.  EVERYONE.  Sure, I could give everyone in my neighborhood $100.00 but it was bankrupt me.  Kerry's health care plan would cost $1 trillion dollars over 10 years?? Holy freaking cow.  Talk about a big tax and spend liberal.  How do you think he will get this money?  By taxing EVERYONE. 

To get money like this, he will have to tax EVERYONE.  There goes his supposed plan to give tax relief to the middle class (something that the middle class has already received under Bush.  I know this because I'm in the middle class and I got a check in the mail.)

Kerry is writing a check he can't cash. 

Asked about a Kerry connection to the forged memo, a senior CBS official told the New York Post, "I can't answer that question."  The unnamed CBS executive then promptly hung up.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/12 /102130.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/12 /102130.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

What is it with these people?  When I say these people I mean liberals.  You should see the comments...actually go look at them, from my tribute to 9/11 posted yesterday.  I decided I would only post one thing and I wouldn't argue any politics yesterday because I respect those who lost their lives on 9/11.  Flipside decided he wanted to throw around his Michael Moore ideas and bash Conservatives like he always does.  That is pretty much the liberal mantra.  I know that I'm using a blanket statement and not all liberals are like this...actually they are.  If you consider yourself a liberal but you don't agree with flip, then you are really just a lefty Democrat.  Liberals are another breed. 

These people will do whatever it takes to win.  They will threaten and bully.  They will call you names and make fun of you.  They will make up documents and know that their pals in the media will not do research on them because they too hate the Conservatives.  All of this is now blowing up in their faces. 

Kerry is a liberal.  He will do anything it takes to win.  Would you?  Would you lie like Kerry has?  Would you cheat like he has?  Would you bash Veterans just to further your political agenda like he has? 

I wouldn't...

I remember being off of work on the day of 09/11/2001.  My fiance (now wife) was out and about going to class at UT and I was planning on lounging around the house that morning until lunchtime when we would meet, eat and talk about her morning classes. 

Back then, I used to get onto an online message board for fellow University of Texas Longhorn fans.  I woke up, got some breakfast, turned on my computer and logged on expecting to talk UT sports.  The first post I saw said "My gosh, what is going on".  The next post said "10,000 dead???", and the next said "Oh my gosh".  I didn't understand what was going on.  At the bottom of the page, a post that had been posted an hour earlier was lingering.  It said "World trade center, building one, crashes to the earth".  I got chill bumps everywhere (not the good kind). 

I opened this post and at the same time rushed to turn on the television.  Fox News was reporting that a plane of some sort had taken down the building and they didn't know yet who had done it.  By this point everyone had realized that it wasn't an accident but an act of war or terrorism. 

By the time the second plane hit an the second World Trade Center tower had fallen, I had already contacted my fiance (who was crying) and I was glued to my television set like every other American.  How could this happen in my country?  Who would do something like this to the greatest nation in the world?  Are we next here in Texas? 

I remember looking outside and being skeptical of every airplane in the air for the next two months.  I remember crying while watching the coverage.  I remember driving to the gas station for fear that gas prices were about to skyrocket well above $2.00 per gallon.  I remember on my way to the gas station, looking at the driver next too me and seeing this grown man crying...a grown man.  I remember pulling into the gas station and seeing the worker inside slumped over on the curb crying...he had realized that one of his close relatives worked inside building one. 

I remember waiting in anticipation for our President to speak.  I remember being fearful for every Washington politician's life.  I remember the pride I felt when our President walked to the podium to speak for the first time after it happened.  I remember thinking that we were extremely fortunate that he was the President at this time.  I  remember liberal friends of mine saying the exact same thing.  I remember crying when I heard about the brave passengers on the flight that crashed in Penn.  I remember tearing up at the images of 9/11 that were shown for months afterward.  I remember comforting a man and a woman at the grocery store whom I had never met in my life but had just received word that their son had been in the towers that day. 

I remember many things about this day.  I remember what was done to myself, my friends, my family, my neighbors, my political enemies (who at that time were political friends..at least for a few days), my fellow Americans and my beloved country.  I remember our politicians singing together on the steps of Congress. 

I remember 9/11 and no matter how much time passes, no matter where we go and where we have gone as a nation, I won't forget.  Have you forgotten?

PLEASE NOTE: I do not own the rights to any of the following images. I am republishing them here without permission. I do not know who the owners of these images are nor who to contact to get permission. If you republish them also without permission, you cannot use my name nor put a link to this site.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-011 417-2610r.htm" title="http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040910-011 417-2610r.htm" target="_blank"http://www.washingtontimes.co...

This guy is out of his mellon.  Just the other day he is touting this reports as papers that prove Bush was "awol" and asked "The question is, Mr. President, where were you?"  Now he is saying that the DNC had nothing to do with the fake papers at all and that it was actually a Republican??

Good try Terry boy.  Your days, as well as Kerry's days, as a politician are numbered.  At least Kerry was voted into office.  Terry got on his political knees for the Clinton family to get his gig.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/ 110445.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/9/ 110445.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Well well well, first we have bogus news stories about Bush's service then we have a liberal writer telling lies in her new "blockbuster" book.  Interesting. 

Liberals are always the most fun when they are behind the eight ball.  They freak out, they lie, cheat, steal, and do whatever it takes to try and win.  They are normally out there but when they are losing they are crazy.

Let me ask this question (of course liberals won't answer in a clear and civil way, they will attack as usual).  If this were "Witches for Kerry" or a group of Wiccans, would the ACLU make them take their symbols down?  If those witches had a giant boiling pot of snake guts up on a mountain (isn't that what witches worship?) would the ACLU force them to get rid of it?  No, because the ACLU is not about group rights, they are about getting rid of our religious freedom and freedom to express our religious believes...if you are a Christian that is. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40359" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40359" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

LAW OF THE LAND
Vet sues to save mountaintop cross
Association made compromise with ACLU to remove it

Posted: September 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

The Law Center says a new hearing would determine whether the changed circumstances no longer create a constitutional violation in the form of the government's endorsement of a religion.

The Pagan Cluster is a loose affiliation of individuals and affinity groups who bring an earth-based spirituality to actions for global justice and peace. In our actions we incorporate art, music, drums, ritual, myth, humor and magic: the art of changing consciousness at will. We make most of our strategic decisions by divination, read Tarot cards obsessively and go into trance frequently. Nevertheless, we practice direct democracy and organize in an anti-authoritarian manner. As a cluster, we are committed to nonviolence, but we participate in actions with those who practice a diversity of tactics. Many of us have our spiritual roots in the Reclaiming tradition of feminist Witchcraft www.reclaiming.org , but we welcome participation from Pagans of any tradition, or for that matter, from anyone willing to put up with Pagans.

http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm" title="http://www.dalythoughts.com/ecb.htm" target="_blank"http://www.dalythoughts.com/e...

Kerry is in huge trouble (as if we didn't already know that).  What will he do now?  He will try to start taking the spotlight off of his failings in Vietnam and his lack of ability to answer the questions posed. 

Kerry is like any other liberal, he doesn't want to talk about things if they are questioning his motives.  He will be more than gracious if you are praising him.  If not, you will get the run around every time.

On December 16, at Drake University in Iowa, Kerry asserted that "those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president."

Iraq was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time"  John Kerry 09/06/04

Hmmmm....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/004/587jxocg.asp" title="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/004/587jxocg.asp" target="_blank"http://www.weeklystandard.com...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040 907_1264.html" title="http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040 907_1264.html" target="_blank"http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Po...

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror," Kerry said as he arrived in Cincinnati on a campaign stop."

I'm not going to get into the way the Democratic party is whoring out the fact that 1000 people have died to defend our country in the war on terror in Iraq because it's already been talked about.  I want to talk about this speech and the statement above that Kerry made.

He makes the statement that Iraq is part of the war on terror.  I thought that Democrats, since Iraq has been in play, have said it wasn't about the war on terror and we were wasting our time there.  When is he going to form an actual opinion on something?  So he is against a war in Iraq that is part of the war on terror.  Does that mean we can conclude that Kerry is against the war on terror? 

From the statement above, I believe we can conclude that and it allows us to conclude much more about the kind of President Kerry would be....not a good one.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/ rl20040907.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/richlowry/ rl20040907.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

GW Bush is a bold man.  He is not afraid to go after and talk about topics in which he knows Democrats will try and bash him for.  He doesn't care.  When Kerry waffles back and forth trying to decide what he believes, Bush has known for quite a while exactly what he believes and he is not afraid to tell people.  Kerry = no real moral or social compass, Bush = no question at all. 

Let's face it, our world is not very intelligent.  Normal IQ tests just don't do the trick in determining who is and who isn't "bright".  The next time you meet someone in a social situation that you think might be a little on the left side...opps...dumb side, ask them one of the questions below. 

If you get a "yes" to any of them, walk away.  That person has failed the one sentence IQ test.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ ma20040907.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/mikeadams/ ma20040907.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

1. Do you think that O.J. Simpson was framed?

2. Do you think that professional wrestling is real?

3. Do you think that the first moon landing was fake?

4. Do you think that Osama bin Laden wants George W. Bush to be re-elected because he’s afraid of John Kerry?

5. Do you think that Al Gore invented the internet?

6. Would you let your pre-teenage boy spend the night with Michael Jackson?

7. Have you ever made a contribution to PETA?

8. Do you think that Richard Simmons is straight?

9. Do you think that women should adopt a special diet to avoid prostate cancer?

10. Have you ever made a contribution to Benny Hinn?

11. Do bisexuals have male and female sex organs?

12. Is “innuendo” an Italian term for suppository?

13. Are you more concerned about saving a convicted murderer than an unborn child?

14. Would you support an abortion of an unborn baby while protesting animal abortion?

15. Do you think that Bill Clinton uses Viagra?

16. Do you think that Chris Matthews has good communication skills and respects women?

17. Would you favor the execution of a convicted female killer while she was eight months pregnant?

18. Have you ever asked someone where the “any” key is located on your computer keyboard?

19. Have you ever nodded during a speech by Jesse Jackson?

20. If your roommate stole your bong would you call the police?

21. Have you ever told a waitress that your sushi was undercooked?

22. Do you think that masturbation should be taught in our public schools?

23. Do you think that Pee Wee Herman should be allowed to teach in our public schools?

24. Do you think that the words “b****” and “ho” should be used to avoid cultural bias in IQ testing?

25. Have you ever watched a beautiful sunset and thought “hmm, science has clearly established that we all evolved from primordial soup.”

It's not just that they want to sanitize the killers and terrorists.  They want us, as a nation and society, to completely forget 9/11.  Why?  Well there are a few reasons why. 

--Sympathy for the terrorists.  Liberals have sympathy for them.  They "understand their plight".  They see them as "activists" and not so bad.  Many on the left blamed us and continue to blame us for 9/11 and the war on terror that had to follow. 

--Hatred for capitalism and our way of life.  Many on the left hate America.  Plain and simple.  They are the same people, like Hanoi Jane, who said and thought that communism and socialism were the way to go and that our way of life should be taken away.  Terrorists help in that goal.

--Hatred for Conservatives.  Conservatives were in power when 9/11 happened.  Bush's presidency completely changed and he became a war time President.  Bill Clinton even lamented the fact that he was unable to be a real war time President and he was not allowed the opportunity to face what Bush had faced.  Shameful.  Democrats see 9/11 as a political tactic or a political "ace in the hole".  That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives.  Conservatives see 9/11 for what it is and was.  A horrible event that drastically changed our country and world and an event that we can never forget.  When you forget, history tends to repeat itself.  Democrats wouldn't mind it repeating because, if they are in power, they see it as a political "ace in the hole" for them. 

How sad.  Anyway, this is a great article....

Remember 9/11: Stop sanitizing the killers
Michelle Malkin (archive)

September 8, 2004 | Print | Send

 The third anniversary of Sept. 11 is upon us. We remain at war -- and the media remain in denial.

Michelle Malkin is a syndicated columnist and maintains her weblog at michellemalkin.com

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40336" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40336" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Now this should be something.  I'm interested to see just how much play this gets in the press.  Every time there is any sort of march in DC against Republican interests or against Bush, the press slobers all over it.  I wonder if this march against Kerry will get the same sort of billing. 

Kerry may be trying to take Clinton's advise and take the focus off of Vietnam, but Kerry is getting exactly what he wanted to begin with.  He brought Vietnam up, and Vietnam is what he is getting. 

As man of you know, I've been in the mortgage industry for a few years now running my own mortgage brokerage.  Recently I decided to take a new position with a "sub prime" mortgage lender.  For those who are not familiar with what that means, a sub prime lender helps those who have the following:

--bad credit

--no credit

--no money for down payment

--make a small amount of money but still want to own a home

--etc...

This new company helps those people that banks normally can't.  Not only am I helping people but financially it's a wonderful opportunity. 

Right now I'm in Dallas for the week training.  WOOHOO! :)  I'm staying in addison and driving to the office each day for endless hours of fun and learning ;)  Yesterday I spent most of the day doing nothing but looking at a computer screen completely a series of comprehension tests on the mortgage industry itself.  They were extremely easy and I breezed on through them.  Today I'm going to have more interaction with the office, which is a good thing.  Hopefully either today or tomorrow, I will be able to go around with one of the account executives here in Dallas to see how they go about things in North Texas.  Maybe then I can take some of their systems down to Austin when I start next week.

Anyway, it's an exciting time in my life and I look forward to really getting it started!

1971 John F. Kerry.  A liberal in the making.  What is the 2004 definition of a liberal?  Don't look to websters, just look at their actions.  The definition of a liberal now is one who will do anything to either win or make themself look good.  Always scheming, always planning, always trying to decide who to coerce next.  Always trying to figure out which group of people to scare next for political gain.  ALWAYS against the United States of America.  ALWAYS bad for America.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40333" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40333" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE
Vet: Kerry coerced me to testify of atrocities
Renounces participation in 1971 'Winter Soldier Investigation'

Posted: September 8, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

"The VVAW found me during a difficult time in my life, and I let them use me to advance their political agenda," he said. "They pressured me to tell their lies, but that's no excuse for what I did. I just want people to know the truth and to make amends as best I can. I'd hate to see the troops serving today have to go through what Vietnam veterans did."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/? id=110005576" title="http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/? id=110005576" target="_blank"http://www.opinionjournal.com...

Bush Will Bury Kerry
The Democrat will be lucky to exceed Michael Dukakis's share of the popular vote.

BY BRENDAN MINITER
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Mr. Miniter is assistant editor of OpinionJournal.com. His column appears Tuesdays.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/7/ 94206.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/7/ 94206.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Kerry himself was plainly mortified over the leak, desperately trying to downplay the significance of the Clinton call by describing the ensuing press coverage as "the most overblown thing."

Clinton strikes again!!!  Even from the hospital bed, Clinton knows how to steal the spotlight :)

Unfreaking believable, amazing, but not uncommon.  The AP was just caught their their pants down.  This is something that happens on an everyday basis with the left leaning media outlets. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40331" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40331" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

MEDIA MATTERS
AP mum on identity of falsifying reporter
Story claimed crowd booed after Bush wished Clinton speedy recovery

Posted: September 7, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern

ABC Radio Network news also confirmed that the Clinton reference was applauded, not jeered. In its original version of the story, the AP had reported: "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/usatoday/20040907/ts_ usatoday/upbeatbushcampai gnridesconventionbounce

How many of these polls need to come out to prove that Bush and the Republicans had a convention that was 100% better and more effective than the Democrats?  I thought independents and undecideds favored Kerry?  I guess those saying that were wrong. 

Bush has the momentum even though democrats continue to spread lies regarding the economy, Iraq, the War on Terror and other made up "issues".  Could it be that the normal tactics of lying and smearing isn't working this year for the Democrats? 

http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm" title="http://www.drudgereport.com/dncg.htm" target="_blank"http://www.drudgereport.com/d...

So, John Kerry likes to trot out with guns like this and yet he didn't feel the need to vote against laws to ban the same gun?  Kerry is a walking political prop.  Too bad fellow democrats can't use him as a prop in their elections.  Ask Tom Daschle who is using President Bush in his political ads to help him get elected.  Tells you something about Kerry doesn't it?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,131637,00.html

So, things are getting better in Iraq, Bush gets a huge bounce, unemployment rates drop again and the stock market continues to head upward.  Good news for the U.S. economy = bad news for Democrats.

How long can Kerry and the Democrats continue to try and fool the public into believing that the economy isn't good?  You tell me...would Kerry be happy if an attack on our country happened and the economy tanked again?  I think so...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/004/560azqaa.asp" title="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articl es/000/000/004/560azqaa.asp" target="_blank"http://www.weeklystandard.com...

Whether he is flubbing up who plays on the Boston Red Sox, not knowing how many games back they are or calling the historic field where the Packers play "Lambert Field", Kerry has proven that he is above meaningless sports.

Too bad for him, the rest of the public actually cares.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/6/ 114453.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/6/ 114453.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

What will Kerry do to try and shut these guys up?  Is he going to try and sue them too?  I guess only those vets who agree with Kerry should have their voices heard. 

To those who haven't made your minds up.  First of all, what is your problem?!? :)  Seriously though, how does it make you feel that the one thing Kerry has hung his hat on (his service for four months in Vietnam) is seriously in question.  If Bush didn't serve in Vietnam at all and Kerry is supposedly the ultimate warrior, why is it that most veterans are supporting GW Bush?  Could it be that these veterans are just bringing up facts that the government and military have known for years?  Maybe they know things we don't and that is why he isn't getting support from fellow veterans.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/ap/20040906/ap_on_el_ pr/campaign_rdp

So, what's it going to be JF Kerry?  First you support and vote for the use of force, then you vote against funding for it.  Then you say you are in support of the President, then you say you aren't.  Then, when pressed, you say you would have made the same decision as President Bush.  Now you say that it was the "Wrong war in the wrong place."  Make up your mind!  What is wrong with you? 

This man can't make decisions.  He must have a lack of confidence in himself because he can't decide what he believes on this issue.  This leads to deeper problems with him.  If he can't make quick decisions, how is he going to be the commander in chief?  I can see it now:

"Mr. President, it's time.  Iran is next and they are about to push the button with those WMD that you allowed them to build under EU supervision.". 

"Dang, (Kerry talking) ok, let's go after them.  Wait, let's not.  Well, dang, what does Bill say about this?  Would he go?  Can I say that I support it but then blame it on Bush?  I'm not sure what to do.  Do you remember my position from the election on this subject?"

"No, Mr. President, I don't.  I don't think you made a decision on anything during the election."

"You're right (Kerry speaking).  Dang, ok someone get Bush on the phone for me.  We need someone who can make decisions that aren't based on polls or politics."

Yeah, Kerry would make a great President huh?   Please....

http://www.liddyshow.us/liddyfile43.php" title="http://www.liddyshow.us/liddyfile43.php" target="_blank"http://www.liddyshow.us/liddy...

Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...

Great article on Democrats hypocracy, but the Halliburton thing is what I want you to really focus on.

-----------

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/1 3/110805.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2003/12/1 3/110805.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

In a deal cut in June 2000 under President Clinton, the New York Post reports, Halliburton won 11 Navy contracts worth $110 million to build jails at Guantanamo Bay, a base in Kuwait, a ferry terminal on Vieques, an air station in Spain, a breakwater in the Azores and facilities slammed by a typhoon on Guam.

That was another great article on the hypocracy...

--------------

Even Clinton's democrats say the talk about Halliburton is "overblown".  Yikes, scary to see the world Clinton and "blown" in the same sentence huh?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184989/ posts" title="http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1184989/ posts" target="_blank"http://www.freerepublic.com/f...

Clinton’s Undersecretary Of Commerce Says Halliburton Controversy Is Overblown. “William Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council in Washington, is a Democrat who served under Clinton as undersecretary of commerce. He said he disagrees with most of the Bush administration’s policies, but thinks the Halliburton controversy is overblown. ‘Halliburton has a distinguished track record,’ he said. ‘They do business in some 120 countries. This is a group of people who know what they’re doing in a difficult business. It’s a particularly difficult business when people are shooting at you. … I don’t think we went to war because we thought it would help selected American companies.’” (James Rosen, “Is Iraq’s Reconstruction Rigged?”  The [Raleigh] News & Observer, 10/5/03)

-----------------

http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepolitical arena/The" title="http://mysite.verizon.net/vze1tvxm/thepolitical arena/The" target="_blank"http://mysite.verizon.net/vze...%20Truth%20About%20Hallib urton.htm

I will take this link with a grain of salt since it seems to be slanted my way.  It is completely right, but to be fair I will disclose this. 

The fact of the matter is that the government has been using Halliburton for some time.  Halliburton has been a leader in it's field and the Clinton administration knew this as well.  Democrats want to try and say that they are run by Bush and Cheney but it is a complete lie.

Instead of being able to, once again, get out on the campaign trail and lie about Bush's record and his own record, Kerry has been silenced in the National Media by Hurricane Frances.  Now, I'm sure the media pundits will try to make up for it since the last thing they want is another Bush term, but this still has put a big damper on the week for J Kerry. 

The RNC was such a monsterous success and Kerry needed a huge week to help stem the tide of the Bush campaign.  He needed to be able to come right out and use his under handed tactics to take back the momentum and he hasn't been able to do so. 

The first Presidential debate is September 30th.  That means he only has about three weeks before facing the prospect of getting up on stage with a man like the President who is known to be excellent in debates.  The Frances coverage will probably last a few more days and Kerry is bound to go on another vacation during this time period so that means he really only has about a week and a half to gain back some of the momentum he lost.  If he doesn't close the gap to pre-RNC levels before the debates, Kerry will be sitting with his good buddy Michael Dukakis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/c ampaign/06kerry.html?ei=5065&" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/06/politics/c ampaign/06kerry.html?ei=5065&" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...;en=86c4535e85915ac4& ex=1095048000&partner =MYWAY&pagewanted=pri nt&position=

This is very interesting to me.  Kerry wanted his campaign to be about four months in Vietnam.  That is all his convention was about.  "I'm John Kerry/lurch and I'm reporting for duty".  Remember that B.S.?  Kerry didn't want the campaign to be about his 19 years in the Senate because it's a losing tactic since he's done nothing in the Senate.  After the RNC, Kerry came out and bashed Bush and Cheney on what?  VIETNAM and their "lack of service".  He still wants it to be about Vietnam.

So, what happens if he tries to change the subject?  Well, he's going to have a hard time.  First of all, the Vietnam thing is going to continue to linger.  You have the Swift Boat stuff still out there.  What they have brought up has made quite a few things come to light.  The Navy is actually looking into some of the information.  That alone will keep Vietnam in the front of voters minds.  If the Navy concludes that Kerry lied or misled, he is finished.  Then you have the entire DNC continuing to bash Bush for being in the National Guard.  Bush has released medical records, dental visits, etc.. showing he was there and yet democrats continue to say he didn't show up.  When you try to keep with this theme, it leaves the Vietnam door open.  Vietnam was a pandora's box which Kerry probably should have left closed and locked up.  Again, though, what were his other choices...

He could talk about the economy: 

--The problem is, the economy started it's downturn BEFORE Bush took office.  Why?  Well, there are numerous reasons.  If you want to look at it from a standpoint of historic market ups and downs, you can say that markets always have 10 to 15 years of rises followed by a few years of downtime.  That is how the markets have historically acted.  That economic rollercoaster was on a drop in March of 2000 when Clinton was still in office and is easily verified. 

--You can look at the economy and the downturn in another way as well.  Not only did you have an economy already in a downturn, but you had Clinton taking down Microsoft.  Microsoft was a huge part of the "great" economy in the 90's.  Look at the markets.  Look at job numbers.  Look at consumer confidence.  All of this started to take a dive around the time the Clinton administration took Microsoft to court.  Bad move Hilary and Bill. 

--9/11 had a huge affect on the economy.  If an already downturning economy and the taking down of Microsoft wasn't enough, 9/11 helped drive the nail further into the heart of investors everywhere.  It was Bin Laden's plan.  Go after the financial heart of America because that is what he hated most.  I was in real estate at the time of the attacks and people absolutely STOPPED buying and selling homes for a good two months.  No one did it.  You could go to the mall and what was happening?  Each store had a T.V. focused on news coverage of the attacks.  The nation and the nation's economy froze and stopped.  It's funny how Liberals have forgotten this and almost forgotten 9/11 and what it meant to our country. 

--Corrupt CEO's played a huge factor in the poor economy.  This completely hurt consumer confidence and what was happening in the stock market.  People started to realize that the economy of the 90's may have been a shell or built on falsified numbers.  These corrupt CEOs, no matter what the Democratic Party tries to tell you or make you  believe, did not happen or start under the Bush administration.  These CEOs (the corruption, the HUGE salaries, etc..) started under Bill Clinton.  The companies that Democrats bash Bush for being "associated" with are the same companies that Bill Clinton used to give favors to, partied with, used for government projects, etc..  Enron and Haliburton are two of the companies that Democrats try to make you think were in "bed" with Republicans even though Clinton and the Democrats knew the CEO's home and cell numbers by heart. 

--They will talk about the economy and all of the jobs that were supposedly lost during Bush's term.  At first they were saying that Bush personally, himself and his policies, created job losses totally 9 million.  Of course, they wouldn't be able to point directly to any policy that actually lost people their jobs, but that's beside the point.  The other thing that they failed to mention was the fact that during that time, people did go to work.  People did pick up paychecks and they did get hired.  When you hear a number like 9 million jobs lost, they aren't adding in the number of people who were hired during that time.  Are they trying to tell us that between the time Bush was elected and now, no one got hired?  It's a lie that Democrats and liberals continue to try and use.  It's only recently that they have actually started to take into account the job gains over the last year and a half and they have stopped using the 9 million jobs lost number because they knew it was easy to verify that it was a lie. What have they done though?  They say that he will be the only President in a long time to have negative job growth.  I tell you to look above and realize that this President has been the only President in a long time that has faced what he has faced.  Democrats want to put the economic woes of the beginning of Bush's presidency on his shoulders alone when that simply is wrong...and they know it. 

Kerry obviously is an empty suit.  He can't think for himself.  He was upset with his staff for telling him not to attack the Swift Boat Veterans sooner and now he is taking calls from Slick Willie's bedside regarding how he should run his campaign.  Slick was a master campaigner (even though he never won a majority of the vote and he never had a "mandate".  Clinton never won 50% of the vote in either election) but it will take more than that to make Kerry win.  They are going to have to insert a backbone to make him half the candidate, man and potential President that George W. Bush actually already is. 

That is what America needs to understand. 

I've been asking the same question.  Why is it that when Kerry got a bounce, democrats went around saying that it was normal and no one would get big bounces,,now they are quiet when Bush has a HUGE bounce from his convention? 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/ jb20040904.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jaybryant/ jb20040904.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

Losing it
Jay Bryant (archive)

September 4, 2004 | Print | Send

Remember how when John Kerry didn't get any bounce from his convention and everyone went into high pundit mode and invented lots of structural reasons why such a thing could happen – like for example that with emotions so high in this election, there aren't any undecided voters left to bounce. Remember that?

If you're a really avid fan of this column (and, let's face it, who isn't?) you might even have read something like that here.

Now comes George W. Bush with his Republican convention, and he gets a bounce higher than a Yao Ming dribble. The latest Time Magazine poll now has Bush up by eleven points!

Guess there were some undecided voters out there after all.

An excellent radio talk show host here in the nation's capital, Michael Graham, was asking listeners today to weigh in on the question of whether it was more accurate to say that Bush was winning the election, or Kerry was losing it.

Forget the election, my view is that Kerry's "losing it," in the good old-fashioned colloquial sense.

I don't know about you, but when I'm in deep sneakers, I tend to run around like an idiot and try all sorts of crazy ideas, none of which ever works. Trying an outrageous bluff in a poker game, for example.

Kerry's acting like that, shaking up his staff, issuing absurd pronouncements, stuff like that. And, of course, that outrageous bluff in Springfield, Ohio, an hour after Bush's speech in New York.

That was, to use old Lloyd Bentsen's word, a "real doozy."

(Bentsen, you will recall, lost the vice-presidential election to Dan Quayle, who was, you recall, no John Kennedy. Which is one of the few things Quayle and Kerry have in common.)

Anyway, there was Kerry, out in Ohio, and to build rapport with the audience, he starts talking about how something really wonderful has happened that night. And you're pretty sure he's not talking about either the Republican Convention, the Russian hostage-taking horror or the approach of Hurricane Frances, but you can't figure out what he's talking about either, until he blurts out that the Boston Red Sox have gotten to within two and a half games of the Yankees.

Now, remember folks, I spent most of my adult life writing speeches and stuff for political candidates. So I got some bona fides here, and I think I can say pretty much for certain the number of voters in Springfield, Ohio, with whom the way to build rapport is to talk about the Boston Red Sox is (within the margin of error) zero.

Did someone screw up his briefing book and cause him to think he was in Springfield, Massachusetts, for crying out loud?

And here's the worst part of all, not to mention the most typical. Kerry's little warmer upper was not only stupid, it was flat wrong! The Red Sox did not pull within two and a half games of the Yankees that night. They won their game, indeed, but the Bronx Bombers also won, and thereby remained three and a half games ahead of the Crimson Hose.

Then, a little later in his remarks, which commentators tell me was pretty much the same stump speech he's been giving except for a few zingers like the Red Sox thing, he called President Bush a "one trick pony."

What? Where the heck did that come from? And what, for the love of Barnum and Bailey does it mean?

If George W. Bush is a one-trick pony, what's his one trick? For the life of me, I can't figure out what Kerry was talking about. My guess is that he heard the phrase recently (perhaps spoken about his own incessant harping on his Vietnam heroism) and thought it was cute and stuck it into his repertoire just so he could say it, just like my daughter used to sing the chorus of "Bad, Bad Leroy Brown" just so she could say the word "damn" without getting punished.

Now, let me be sure to say this election is far from over. There are still two months left, which is plenty of time for public sentiment and poll standings to go flip-flop, as they say, once or maybe even twice more, and heaven knows the mainstram media will do all they can.

Republicans would be well advised not to prematurely enumerate their poultry, and to be mindful that, as every Law and Order fan knows, it ain't over 'til the Executive Producer's credit comes up.

But with the Swift Boaters hot on his heels and the Republicans having thoroughly outclassed the Democrats, convention-wise, I think Kerry's losing it.

Veteran GOP media consultant Jay Bryant's regular columns are available at www.theoptimate.com, and his commentaries may be heard on NPR's 'All Things Considered.'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40307" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40307" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

In the past, Kerry has said he could not release some documents because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley, author of "Tour of Duty." Brinkley said he has no contractual claims to any of the papers.

I just dont' get Kerry.  I guess I just don't get liars in general.  When you say something like "I can't release some of these records because of contractual obligations to Douglas Brinkley", don't you think that Mr. Brinkley might actually hear your statement?  Mr. Brinkley says there are no such obligations.  If there were none and Mr. Brinkley is allowing him to do so, why doesn't Kerry release these records?  When you start lying, as much as Kerry has, you forget what you have said or not said regarding different topics.  It catches up to you. 

Kerry, release your records and end all of this madness now.  You have the power to do so.  If you are telling the truth, and you release these records, you would probably seal up the election.  It would mean that everyone has been outright lying about you and you would have written proof to back you up.  When you refuse to release these records, it looks like you are hiding something. 

http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&" title="http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&" target="_blank"http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin...;STORY=/www/story/09-05-2 004/0002244372&EDATE=

I thought that Republicans and Bush were the "empty suits".  Why would Kerry need someone to tell him what to do when it comes to defending himself?  What a whiner.  Kerry better start to decide who exactly to take his ques from because he is running out of time. 

I found this here.  I've added my own comments below:

http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=1186&" title="http://msn.match.com/msn/article.aspx?articleid=1186&" target="_blank"http://msn.match.com/msn/arti...;TrackingID=516311&Ba nnerID=544659&GT1=501 1

10 myths women have about men

As perceptive as women can be, they have yet to figure out the male psyche — an interesting and sometimes frightening place from which men forge their own unique approach to life.

To gain a little perspective on man and his muse, we approached a variety of men with some of the more common female perceptions of them. Not surprisingly, we found out that a lot of those beliefs are, in fact, misperceptions, and the guys we spoke with were more than eager to clear them up.

Though a highly subjective survey, here are some of the more interesting truths revealed from the mouths of men:

1. Men are not interested in what women have to say
"Men are interested in what women have to say," countered Chris, 27, "as long as it involves one of the following: Our favorite sport, our favorite activity or your naked body. For example, many men would find it extremely interesting if a woman said, 'A couple of years ago, I got so drunk that I showed up nude to a football game.'" HA!  Most men are a little deeper than this...probably not much though.

2. Men want somebody who is just like their mother
"Men do want somebody who will love them like dear old Mom," admits Eric, 42. "But sometimes Mom also annoys us; we don't want you to be like that. So love, nurture and spoil like her — just don't be her." I love my mom, just don't be like her.  Whoever came up with this was full of it.

3. Men only think about sex
"Well, yeah," says Paul, 34. "Thinking about sex takes up a good portion of our brain power, but we don't spend all of our free time pondering when we'll make our next move." Paul also adds, "There are actually plenty of women who are more interested in sex than we are." I agree, it's not all we think about!

4. He's spoiling me, so he must have plenty of money
"No, I don't," assures Brady, 49. "I'm going a little outside my comfort level to woo you, but plan to return gradually to my normal level as you fall, hopefully, madly in love with me." How true is this...:)

5. If I sleep with him on the first date, he won't respect me
"Not necessarily," suggests Juan, 21. "My impression of you is based more on how you treat me and how we connect than whether or not we're intimate on the first date." I wouldn't know, I was always a good boy and never did this...

6. I can change him
"No, you can't," replies Jacques, 30. "Oh, you might get us to behave differently for a while. We might wear some newer shirts or clean up after ourselves for a few weeks, but I'm only doing it because I want to do — at least that is what I'm telling myself." One thing I've learned over many relationships and now marriage,,,no one can change anyone without the other's consent.  Those who go into a relationship with this in mind will be sorely mistaken and probably end up being hurt.

7. Men are interested in my dating history
"I couldn't care less about your sexual history," says Thomas, 19. "I don't care if you've had one or 20 partners; just don't tell me about any of them." I don't really agree with this one completely, but we are probably less interested than most women believe.

8. Men don't like women who make the first move.
"Sure we do," returns Romero, 39. "It's less work for us and shows us you have good taste." MEN LOVE WOMEN TO MAKE THE FIRST MOVE...  is this a shock?

9. Men prefer inexperienced women
"That's one of the great myths," admits Chuck, 52. "In reality, we'd rather be with someone who knows what they're doing." I don't really know, as long as the woman is a good person, that's all i needed to know.

10. Men are strong
"No," assures Michael, who just turned 40. "We're babies, especially when we've got a cold or you break our hearts. Ha!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84T 2OUO0.html" title="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040904/D84T 2OUO0.html" target="_blank"http://apnews.myway.com/artic...

Two things about this...

Firstly, if we do catch him, it is not only a great day for America but a great day for the world.  This man has killed way too many people to  be allowed to roam the world freely.  We've had to chance to catch him on numerous occasions in the 90's and now is the time to end it.  Secondly, is there any way that liberals would be happy about catching him?  One, it would make Bush even more unbeatable than he currently is and you know they would start complaining instantly.  They wouldn't be happy, they would be crying foul and saying crazy things like Bush knew where he was all along,

Liberals are so predictable...

Just a question to those who spew hate on this board...what are you going to do when Bush wins again?  You spout sewage each day and you spew outrageous lies.  No wonder no one wants to go to your blogs.  It's always the same, each day, cursing, copying other's  blogs, manipulating statistics to fit what you want them to say, etc.. 

Spymaster, Carte, Patriotacts, etc..  What are you going to do when you have yet another four years of freedom under GW Bush?  I will tell you what you will get.  You will have the freedom to continue with your free speech, no matter how vicious and wrong it is.  You will have people in other countries not being totured anymore, you will have free and democratic societies popping up across the globe and you will have to put up with Bush's face on the TV screen shaking hands with those who used to be enemies. 

Tough huh?  It's hard to be wrong and on the outside looking in isn't it?

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&" title="http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&" target="_blank"http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi...;STORY=/www/story/09-04-2 004/0002244238&EDATE=

Are Democrats starting to freak out yet?  I thought that the electorate was so split that bounces like this just weren't possible?  Wasn't that the excuse that was given when Kerry got no bounce from his convention? 

The Bush team needs to make sure to take advantage of this and stay on the offensive.  There are quite a few things happening right now that could drown out their message..i.e. the hurricane, the terrorist activity in Russia, Clinton's heart surgery.  With respect to all of those, Bush and his advisors need to make sure they stay in front of the public. 

This is going right along though with my prediction a few months ago of an 8 + point victory for Bush in November...

http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/a rticle/0" title="http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/a rticle/0" target="_blank"http://www.time.com/time/pres...,8599,692562,00.html

It will be interesting to see if the other polls that come out say the same things...

http://www.moveonforamerica.org/" title="http://www.moveonforamerica.org/" target="_blank"http://www.moveonforamerica.o...

The Website for real forward movement...

So, what are we allowed to talk about?  We are allowed to talk about Bush supposedly being "AWOL", we can talk about economic policies of Bush, we can talk about Bush's past, we can talk about Bush in a way that casts him as a Nazi, but we can't discuss the Senators voting record in the Senate?  We can't discuss Vietnam either so what can we talk about?  I suppose the DNC and Kerry want us to talk about how he feels instead of how he actually acts.  Kerry wants us to talk about his medals as if they aren't disputed.  When reports come out that dispute it, he wants us not to talk about it.  He wants us not to talk about those who oppose him, if you do you are unfairly bashing him and being mean.  I guess he wants us to talk about his windsuits and how he windsurfs?  Does he want us to talk about how he skis, or rollerblades, or bikes? 

"I'm John Kerry, and I'm running for President.  Please be nice to me or else I will cry."

Dems: Kerry's Senate Record Off-Limits, Too
David Limbaugh (archive)

September 3, 2004 | Print | Send

Democrats are afraid the people are going to find out about John Kerry's Senate record. That's the only way you can explain their incessant accusations that Republicans are being mean and angry when they merely discuss his record.

The idea that Democrats have been selling is that a factual airing of their default presidential candidate's record is dirty politics.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/3/ 110242.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/3/ 110242.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

"Even if it was the Navy's fault," one source following the story told NewsMax, "surely Senator Kerry knew the citations were wrong. Why did it take a formal Navy probe for him to correct records he had to know were fraudulent?"

Very good question.  Senator, would you like to respond to this one or will you find another Republican to bash or blame?

Normally, each election year brings us some sort of pre-election surprise.  Normally one or both of the political parties brings something up at the last minute to try and manipulate voters. 

After the Republicans hugely successful convention this last week, it's not if the Democrats will try something but when.  When will they pull out some sort of Ace in the hole?  Normally, you would want this to happen in October, right before the election, but is this year different?  So many things this election year have been off base and out of the ordinary so anything is possible.  Could the Kerry team come out with a September surprise?  More than likely, Bush will receive a bigger bounce for his convention than did Kerry.  If Bush is up by 5 or 8 points and leading in the majority of electoral votes, will Kerry come up with something early just to try and stem Bush's momentum? 

I wonder what it will be.  One thing is for sure, he has to try something, no matter how crazy it is.  If the tide doesn't change extremely fast, this will be a huge landslide.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/9/2/214226.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/9/2/214226.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....

What is it about Nader that makes Democrats and Liberals cry so much?  What is it about him that makes Democrats resort to lawsuits?  Well, I guess he is more like Repubicans than some give him credit for.  Democrats are using the same tactics on him as they have with Republicans....the use of the judicial system to try to win an election.  Don't forget, it was the Gore campaign that brought in the courts to help decide the 2000 election. 

Democrats, when they start getting scared, will use any and all tactics to try and win. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40285" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40285" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Show us your conservative nature Arnold.  If you really are, then you won't let this happen. 

Democrats and Liberals are crying inside right now.  It showed in Kerry's feable attempt to break all of the gentleman style rules have throw a midnight rally the night of his opponents acceptance speech.  That was something that has never been done because previous candidates wanted to make sure that their opponent had their night.  The problem is, when Kerry had "his night", he flopped. 

The RNC was a roaring success.  The last thing the Kerry campaign wanted to do to start September was to be on the defensive.  They were playing defense the entire month of August and now, he has already started on the same path this month.  This is the month where he has got to start taking some steam away from Bush and this is not a good start.  His only real chance now is to hit a home run in the debates and he won't do that. 

Bush was masterful in his speech last night.  Granted, it was a little long, but he was excellent and has shown me that he has gotten much better than people give him credit for in terms of public speaking.  The best thing he did, something Kerry did not do, was show himself to be what everyone around him/what everyone who has met him says he is....likeable, funny, warm, kindhearted and determined.  He came off like the man he is:  The leader of the free world.  He didn't need a catchy slogan or opening line like "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty".  Bush's speech showed some glaring differences in the two men. 

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4981" title="http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=4981" target="_blank"http://www.humaneventsonline....

Why is this seemingly ok?  Why don't Democrats get in trouble with this?  They are the first ones to cry for the need of a separation of church and state and yet every election year there they are, bashing republicans.  It's amazing really. 

Imagine if Bush were up on the podium bashing Kerry at United Methodist Church in Austin Texas.  Imagine the uproar.

http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/08/16/Comme ntary/Kerrys.Strategy.To.Undermine.Bush-709746.shtml" title="http://www.insightmag.com/news/2004/08/16/Comme ntary/Kerrys.Strategy.To.Undermine.Bush-709746.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.insightmag.com/new...

Left-Wing Democrat Leaders have set the tone for their campaign by embracing a vitriolic vocabulary (during a time of war) which they churn out globally: Bush is a liar; Bush lied to the American people; Bush is a coward; Bush is a deserter; Bush is a draft dodger; Bush joined the Guard to avoid Vietnam; Bush went AWOL; Bush lied to us about the war in Iraq; Bush lied about WMD; Bush deceived and betrayed the American people; Bush made the Iraq war up in Texas; Bush took us to war on a whim; Bush put Saddam's prisons under new management; Bush should fire the Secretary of Defense; Bush should fire his National Security Advisor; Bush should fire the Director of the CIA; Bush should fire his Vice President; Bush should pull our troops out of Iraq; Bush has us in a Quagmire; Bush has no plan; Bush is a cowboy; Bush is an idiot; Bush is a dunce; Bush is dishonest; Bush is insane; Bush is an incompetent leader; Bush is a Nazi; Bush is a Fascist; Bush only went to Iraq for oil; Bush landed on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln for a photo op; Bush misled the American people; Bush must go; Bush doesn't honor the fallen dead, and on and on. It is fascinating that the Left-Wing's political play book doesn't change. Many of the "Big Lies" used to chip away at the credibility of President Bush were used with equal malevolence yet effectiveness against President Ronald Reagan.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" title="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&" target="_blank"http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...;u=/nm/20040904/tv_nm/cam paign_media_convention_dc

I thought that the base of the Democratic Party was rabid and ready to do whatever it takes to get Bush out of office.  If that is the case, wouldn't the base be interested in watching their candidate talk about his future policies?  It seems to me that the Democratic base may be in for a low turnout at the polls if these sort of numbers hold up. 

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolum nists/19107.htm" title="http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolum nists/19107.htm" target="_blank"http://www.nypost.com/postopi...

The Democratic Party is all over the place.  There is no uniformity and no central theme or message.  Everyone has a different opinion on what should happen.  That is why Kerry's flip flopping is bad.  Either way he goes, he is going to upset a section of his base. 

John Kerry, you are about to have a huge loss in November.

People that say stuff like this have no idea about history and they have no idea what Nazi Germany was.  It's funny, the Swift Boaters can bring up legit arguments in which the Kerry campaign refuses to this day to debate, and they say the allegations are dirty tricks and mean spirited.  If that is mean spirited and partisan, what in the world would you classify this as? 

The best part about Conservatives winning elections are the reactions you start to get from liberals.  Liberals are always fun and crazy to listen to.  When they start to lose they are a riot.

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive200 409NAT20040902a.html" title="http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive200 409NAT20040902a.html" target="_blank"http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewN...

This is not a Republican, this is not a conservative and this is not a patriotic American.  This is a Kuwaiti, a person living in the middle east.  President Bush is arguably the most influential President ever and he will go down in history as one that fought against terrorism and for civil rights abroad and one that has brought our country through the most trying time in our very short history. 

We are standing tall because of his leadership. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40251" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40251" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

Al-Jarallah writes:

We are with President Bush who has said, 'I am the man who makes history.' Who, other than President Bush, can launch a war against terrorism? Who else will come to the rescue of people suppressed by dictators? Who else was there to build and develop nations? And above all who made democracy the new international system for all the people in this world?"

None of the Middle Eastern countries could face terrorism alone. Some of them went to the extent of making compromises and allying with terrorist organizations. These countries were afraid to kick out terrorists until the United States arrived on the scene, heading a coalition of the willing to root out terrorism.

Some people may be skeptical about what the U.S. has achieved. But we know it has not only liberated Afghanistan from Taliban and its ally Osama bin Laden but also created a modern democratic country with its own police, army and other civil institutions.

The United States has also liberated the Iraqi people and created a modern country from the ruins of the former regime. There are some people who still call the war to liberate Iraq as 'baseless,' citing the failure of Americans to find any weapons of mass destruction.

What they forget is the Americans did find many mass graves where millions had been buried alive. This alone is enough to prove Saddam's regime was more lethal than any WMD man has known.

Quite recently the U.S. forces have cleansed the holy places in Najaf of the remnants of the former regime and other infiltrators. When we consider all these there is no doubt Bush is a man who creates history. Western countries, which were against Bush in his war on terrorism, are now feeling the painful stings of terrorism. France has two of its citizens kidnapped in Iraq. The kidnappers have threatened to behead the French hostages if France fails to reconsider its law, which bans Muslim women from wearing hijab in schools.

Terrorism can be tackled only through war and only the United States, backed by a president who creates history, is capable of handling such a war. We must remember Islam has nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorists exploit the religion to achieve their objective, which is to destroy civilization, kill people, start wars and plunge the world into darkness. We saw how these terrorists kidnapped and killed innocent people under the cloak of religion only to forget all about their cause in exchange for a fistful of dollars.

The entire world is aware of the cause and effect of terrorism. The killing and beheading of some innocent people won't prevent the United States or its allies from confronting terrorism.

Americans are convinced of the need to fight this menace and no country is better equipped to do this job except the United States, which has the mightiest armed forces history has ever known.

President Bush has the right to say 'I am the man who makes history,' because he is fighting aggression against modern civilization. He is creating countries which enjoy democracy, peace, stability and security. These countries are now able to be a part of the international community sharing their traditions and culture with the rest of the humanity. Bush is the president of not only the United States but the whole world, for he is making history on this small planet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40272" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40272" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

In its letter to Judicial Watch, the inspector general of the Defense Department cited Section 8(d) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, which states "the IG of the Department of Defense shall expeditiously report suspected or alleged violations of chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), to the Secretary of the military department concerned or the Secretary of Defense."

Judicial Watch filed the complaint Aug. 18 and then, Aug. 31, called on Kerry to remove the Silver Star citation from his campaign website pending a review of the U.S. Navy's granting of the award.

Kerry can't hide this stuff for much longer.  What happens when it comes out that Kerry wrote most of his personal history without regard to actual events?  What happens when Kerry turns out to be one of the biggest frauds in the history of military service?  Will the Democrats try to go get Howard Dean back?

http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking _5.html" title="http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking _5.html" target="_blank"http://www.worldtribune.com/w...

Folks, this is what you will get if Kerry is elected.  Not only does John Kerry want to negotiate with a terrorist state like Iran and allow them to have nuclear weapons, he wants to have major involvement from the EU in the process.  Look, I understand talked to other countries and trying (I repeat trying) to form some sort of consensus, but give me a break.  Let's take this point by point:

1.  Working or negotiating with Iran.  Iran is a known terrorist state.  Their government is not democratic in any form and they have horrible civil rights violations on the books.  Their people are in the middle of what hopefully is an uprising that will take out the extremists who are in power.  Does Kerry think that, if he allows Iran to develop nuclear weapons as long as they don't use them or sell them, Iran will live up to their promises?  Does he think that you can trust terrorists to keep their promises and act nice?  Does he think that, all of a sudden, they won't harbor ill will towards it's neighbors and be a threat with nuclear capabilities?  What is he thinking?  Iran is a terrorist state and their main goal is instability in the middle east.  Give them the green light to openly develop nuclear weapons and instantly our world is in peril.  What is he thinking?

2.  Working with the EU on this.  This goes in line with how Kerry thinks.  Just like Zell Miller said last night, he wants the UN, EU and other "leaders" to determine what our policies overseas will be.  He wants them to determine whether or not another country is a threat to our national security.  He wants to go to Paris and discuss how best to protect our country.  Keeping nuclear devices out of the hands of terrorists directly affects our national security and it shouldn't be bargained with. 

After reading this article, I'm personally going to go out and sign up 10 people to vote for Bush.  Thank you John Kerry and John Edwards.  You have given me even more motivation (like I needed any more).

If you look at most electoral college projections over the last few months, John Kerry has led (if not dominated) them all.  Recently, that trend has started to change.  Is this because of the Swift boaters or John Kerry's lack of real response to their accusations?  Possibly..  Is this because of the RNC now being at the front of voter's minds?  Possibly..  Is it because people are finally, after 19 years, starting to know the real John Kerry?  Possibly..  I think it is probably a combination of everything that has started to put Bush in the lead.

The country knows GW Bush.  He has been a highly visable and powerful leader.  Until the last month or so, voters have not known John Kerry.  This is a strange thing for me to grasp though.  How can a man who has served in Congress for so long have so little name recognition throughout the country?  Check out this link:

http://www.electionprojection.com/state-by-state.html" title="http://www.electionprojection.com/state-by-state.html" target="_blank"http://www.electionprojection...

Sorry liberocrats,,,your time is almost up.

Chris Matthews tries this with everyone and he finally came up against someone who wouldn't put up with it.  Mr. Matthews couldn't and wouldn't dare throw this man off of his show.  The crowd was obviously on Miller's side and Chris Matthews tactics didn't work.  Wonderful stuff....

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/2/ 90023.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/2/ 90023.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...Zell Miller Reads Chris Matthews the Riot Act

Democratic Sen. Zell Miller, whose speech slamming John Kerry as soft on defense electrified the GOP convention Wednesday night, gave MSNBC's Chris Matthews a much needed on-air upbraiding minutes later for constantly interrupting him during an interview.

Miller gave no ground as Matthews deployed his patented rat-a-tat rhetorical style, and even warned the pro-Kerry host that he wouldn't let him get away with the same kind of treatment he gave Michelle Malkin last week, when Matthews tossed her off the show for defending the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

Some highlights:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40259" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40259" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

We need God more than ever.  How do things like this happen?  How does our society allow things like this to happen?  How has our country, a country founded on Christian principles, fall this far?  These girls were YOUNG.  They were impressionable. 

Schools, the government and those who say that God takes away their rights to worship the way they want allowed this to happen.  How else can you look at it?  We are told time and again that we are a nation which allows a "freedom of religion".  In reality, we are a nation that allows some a freedom from religion.  When you take God out of the equation and tell us that we can't worship him or even mention him in public forums, you then need to take the responsibility for events like this one.  You certainly can't blame it on God,,,you took him out of the schools that these girls attended! 

Things like this will only stop happening when we allow a real freedom of religion back into our public lives.  Allow me to worship God at work or my kids to worship God at school.  Allow me to pray in public as well as my kids at school.  We have tried the other way and look where our society is now.  Stop blaming other people and start looking at yourselves.  When we start to believe we can run things instead of God, we get situations like this.  It's time to stop, let go, and let God do his work.

Not much else needs to be said here.  Great speech...

By The Associated Press

Text of speech by Democratic Sen. Zell Miller (, , ) of Georgia as prepared for delivery Wednesday at the Republican National Convention:

___

Since I last stood in this spot, a whole new generation of the Miller Family has been born: Four great grandchildren.

Along with all the other members of our close-knit family, they are my and Shirley's most precious possessions.

And I know that's how you feel about your family also. Like you, I think of their future, the promises and the perils they will face.

Like you, I believe that the next four years will determine what kind of world they will grow up in.

And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family?

The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party.

There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush ( - ).

In the summer of 1940, I was an 8-year-old boy living in a remote little Appalachian valley. Our country was not yet at war, but even we children knew that there were some crazy men across the ocean who would kill us if they could.

President Roosevelt, in his speech that summer, told America "all private plans, all private lives, have been in a sense repealed by an overriding public danger."

In 1940, Wendell Wilkie was the Republican nominee.

And there is no better example of someone repealing their "private plans" than this good man. He gave Roosevelt the critical support he needed for a peacetime draft, an unpopular idea at the time.

And he made it clear that he would rather lose the election than make national security a partisan campaign issue.

Shortly before Wilkie died, he told a friend, that if he could write his own epitaph and had to choose between "here lies a president" or "here lies one who contributed to saving freedom," he would prefer the latter.

Where are such statesmen today?

Where is the bipartisanship in this country when we need it most?

Now, while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq ( - ) and the mountains of Afghanistan ( - ), our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrat's manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief.

What has happened to the party I've spent my life working in?

I can remember when Democrats believed that it was the duty of America to fight for freedom over tyranny.

It was Democratic President Harry Truman who pushed the Red Army out of Iran, who came to the aid of Greece when Communists threatened to overthrow it, who stared down the Soviet blockade of West Berlin by flying in supplies and saving the city.

Time after time in our history, in the face of great danger, Democrats and Republicans worked together to ensure that freedom would not falter. But not today.

Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator.

And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators.

Tell that to the one-half of Europe that was freed because Franklin Roosevelt led an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the lower half of the Korean Peninsula that is free because Dwight Eisenhower commanded an army of liberators, not occupiers.

Tell that to the half a billion men, women and children who are free today from the Baltics to the Crimea, from Poland to Siberia, because Ronald Reagan ( - ) rebuilt a military of liberators, not occupiers.

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier. And, our soldiers don't just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.

For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.

It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag.

No one should dare to even think about being the Commander in Chief of this country if he doesn't believe with all his heart that our soldiers are liberators abroad and defenders of freedom at home.

But don't waste your breath telling that to the leaders of my party today. In their warped way of thinking America is the problem, not the solution.

They don't believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

It is not their patriotism — it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry ( - ).

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.

Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security but Americans need to know the facts.

The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs over the Gulf of Sidra. The modernized F-14D, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered missile strikes against Tora Bora.

The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed, took out those Republican Guard tanks in Kuwait in the Gulf War ( - ). The F-15 Eagles, that Senator Kerry opposed, flew cover over our Nation's Capital and this very city after 9/11.

I could go on and on and on: against the Patriot Missile that shot down Saddam Hussein ( - )'s scud missiles over Israel; against the Aegis air-defense cruiser; against the Strategic Defense Initiative; against the Trident missile; against, against, against.

This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.

Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations ( - ).

Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending.

I want Bush to decide.

John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.

Free for how long?

For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure.

As a war protester, Kerry blamed our military.

As a Senator, he voted to weaken our military. And nothing shows that more sadly and more clearly than his vote this year to deny protective armor for our troops in harms way, far away.

George Bush understands that we need new strategies to meet new threats.

John Kerry wants to re-fight yesterday's war. George Bush believes we have to fight today's war and be ready for tomorrow's challenges. George Bush is committed to providing the kind of forces it takes to root out terrorists.

No matter what spider hole they may hide in or what rock they crawl under.

George Bush wants to grab terrorists by the throat and not let them go to get a better grip.

From John Kerry, they get a "yes-no-maybe" bowl of mush that can only encourage our enemies and confuse our friends.

I first got to know George Bush when we served as governors together. I admire this man. I am moved by the respect he shows the first lady, his unabashed love for his parents and his daughters, and the fact that he is unashamed of his belief that God is not indifferent to America.

I can identify with someone who has lived that line in "Amazing Grace," "Was blind, but now I see," and I like the fact that he's the same man on Saturday night that he is on Sunday morning.

He is not a slick talker but he is a straight shooter and, where I come from, deeds mean a lot more than words.

I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel.

The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family.

This election will change forever the course of history, and that's not any history. It's our family's history.

The only question is how. The answer lies with each of us. And, like many generations before us, we've got some hard choosing to do.

Right now the world just cannot afford an indecisive America. Fainthearted self-indulgence will put at risk all we care about in this world.

In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

Thank you.

God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush.

This man has the biggest space between the eyebrows and hairline I have ever seen.  Sorry, I shouldn't make fun of people and the way they look, but come on!  No wonder Paul is so upset all the time and so bitter in regards to Republicans.  It's tough to be the little/out of power/ugly guy on the block....isn't it?    & nbsp;   &n bsp; 

Wow, did you see that?  That was one of the best convention speeches to date.  He took John F Kerry to the woodshed and spanked him pretty good :) 

Who better to speak than someone who has served with Kerry for a while on the same side of the isle.  Miller knows Kerry and knows that Kerry is not fit to serve as POTUS.  That speech is going to give the Kerry campaign and Democrats nightmares for a long time.  There isn't one thing in that speech that Democrats can go to and say anything about.  Kerry has a horrible record in the senate and Miller layed it out on the table.  Why else has Kerry decided to make this election about Vietnam,,four months in Vietnam, instead of 19 years in Congress?

Liberals, read the letter below.  Understand that soldiers support your right to protest, they do not support you.  By constantly telling them that they are fighting for nothing, you are doing nothing but hurting their hearts, helping the enemy and making them more determined to finish the job.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/1/ 115737.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/1/ 115737.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

It has been interesting to follow the news reports from the Republican National Convention, to include the protests in New York by 10s of thousands of people.

I am all for standing up for what you believe, which should include voicing your opinions against wars and against presidents, if that is your calling.

But, it really makes me mad when I see people with signs that say things like, "Bring our Boys Home!" There have been several pictures published of protesters carrying flag-draped coffins, and carrying these types of signs.

I have news for you.

The soldiers in Iraq, and Afghanistan do not want your sentiment, or your voice that would have the lives of those already lost dishonored by not finishing the job.

Regardless of how you feel about why we went to war, America made a commitment. It's time we see the job through to fruition. Lack of resolve by many U.S. citizens is the main reason for a lack of trust on the part of those being liberated.

Iraqi citizens are waiting for our resolve to crumble, and see us depart before adequate Iraqi security is established. Al Qaida does not have to beat America in a fight in order to win, they just have to get us to go home.

Ask yourself, what would happen to Iraq, if America were to take your misguided advice and went home before finishing the job?

So, put down your coffin ... put down your sign, and have some American resolve to finish the job we started. We have brought the fight to those who wish to bring the fight to American soil, and we are making great progress.

Security is not yet established, and we all hope to come home when a free, safe, and productive Iraq has been established.

I sincerely thank all of you who have supported the soldiers and have recognized that Americans are not the only people on this planet that are entitled to a safe place to live, a good school for boys and girls, or even a clean water supply.

The mainstream people of Iraq truly do appreciate America, and hope we stick around until the job is finished. Their lives depend on it! Thank you for all of your continued support!

Captain Ron Hayes
2nd BN 147th FA
South Dakota Army National Guard
Cedar II, Iraq

http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=7100000 1&" title="http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=7100000 1&" target="_blank"http://quote.bloomberg.com/ap...;refer=top_world_news& ;sid=aF4MqLjw9HIk

Bush is peaking at the right time.  Just like in sports, you want to peak at the end of the season and not at the start or the midway point.  Kerry peaked in the middle and now is in a major slump.  He is going to need amazing victories in the debates to beat Bush.  Unfortunately, for Kerry, Bush is excellent in those sort of arenas...ask Gore. 

I'm predicting right now, at least an 8 point bounce from the convention.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/fortu ne500/passion_dvd/index.htm?cnn=yes" title="http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/01/news/fortu ne500/passion_dvd/index.htm?cnn=yes" target="_blank"http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/...

If you haven't seen this movie you need to.  You don't have to be a Christian to see the humanity of this film.  You don't have to be a Christian to see the obvious love this man had for humankind.  You don't have to be a Christian to see the way people treat those who are honest and good....this is something that still happens today although on a much smaller scale. 

You don't have to be a Christian to love this movie.  If you are a Christian though, you need to make sure those who aren't see this powerful film. 

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40234" title="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40234" target="_blank"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/...

'Michael and Me' to debut at film festival
Documentaries look to challenge Moore's 'radical left-wing propaganda'

Posted: September 1, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/9/1/113434.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/9/1/113434.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

Moveon.org and other liberal 527s are running rampant without any mention from the liberal press while the relatively small Swift boaters are bashed and beaten by everyone.  Now the Bush campaign is fighting back.

Obviously Democrats aren't going to like this.  They should accept it as it is the hand that they have dealt.  When they pressed and pressed for campaign finance reform, they knew that they would be able to use the 527s to do their dirty work and they knew that liberal 527s would more than double the output of their counterparts.  Liberals knew that they would have an upper hand as far as campaign contributions because of this law. 

Deal with it Libs, your 527s have spent 10 times as much money bashing the President as have conservative 527s.  Would you like some whine with your cheese liberocrats?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozel l/bb20040901.shtml" title="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozel l/bb20040901.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.townhall.com/colum...

Does anyone actually take them seriously anymore?  Except for liberals who find comfort in the headlines and titles of the articles, does anyone actually give them credit for being a credible daily paper? 

The Jason Blair situation was great on two different levels.  One, it helped the public and editors around the country understand that there needed to be more oversight in what the writers were doing and two, it helped shed light on the NYT as a whole.  Not only were many of the stories and editorials completely fabricated, but it also started to make the general public understand what we have known for some time.  The New York Times is one giant editorial newspaper.  It is no longer the place you go to get unbiased news.  In almost every single article and headline, you see a biased view of the world.  Writers pen their stories while where liberal colored glasses and most have had enough.

It's time to put the NYT up at the checkout lines in grocery stores because they are no more of a newspaper than is the Daily Sun. 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/8/31/223819.shtml" title="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/200 4/8/31/223819.shtml" target="_blank"http://www.newsmax.com/archiv...

This man has never, in his life, endorsed a candidate for President and yet he is endorsing Bush now.  It tells you something.  It tells you that those who are important and working in this war on terror know who the best man for the job is.  It tells you that, even with 19+ years in Congress and some sort of service in Vietnam, John Kerry is unfit to lead our country,,,especially in times of war and uncertainty.