Welcome to the unofficial Bush-Cheney 2004 Campaign Blog as mentioned in
.Send tips and any Bush Cheney 2004 campaign events to: Kevin "at" KevinPatrick.net
and substitute @ for "at"
Contribute directly to the Bush Re-election Campaign on-line Right Here.
Register and find out more at bush2004.meetup.com
Official site:
Bush Cheney '04
Official Merchandiser:
GWB Store
Here are some great Republican Bloggers:
Kevin Patrick
Spot On by Kashei
NYC Young Republicans
Ben Domenech
Balloon Juice
Cella's Review
Tacitus
Brothers Judd
Joshua Claybourn
PoliPundit
Mark Byron
Zonitics.com
Boycott Hollywood
A Little More To The Right
Quidnunc
Stars 'N STripes
Right We Are!
HobbsOnline A.M.
A Republican's Blog
Bull Moose Republicans
Dr. Blogger
The Daily Lemon
Iowa For Bush
Here are some great GOP Links:
RNC Hot Links
W in 04 Links
Send comments and ideas to: Kevin Patrick
Archives
06/2003 - 06/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
06/2003 - 06/2003
06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004
BushCheney2004
Friday, November 28, 2003
What Are the headlines around the country on Bush in Iraq?
Most of them are justifiably positive. The New York Times is rather subdued compared to the banner headlines you see reflecting the consensus of opinions nationwide. Check them all out here, at the Newsuem's webiste. I have been to the Newseum in Roslyn, Virginia and it is a neat place. Too bad it is off the beaten track for tourists in DC but it is worth the 5 minute metro ride under the river.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
2 Must-Reads on Senator Schumer and the Criteria for Judicial Selection
Brian Anderson has an Op-ed over at opinionjournal.com (that was apparently originally published a couple of weeks ago) regarding the damage done by unprecedented tactics by the ideologically-driven Senate Judiciary Committee:
Schumerism has wrought incalculable damage to our political fabric. For two years, Sen. Schumer has waged a campaign to subvert the criteria by which the Senate ratifies presidential judicial picks. For much of American history, the Senate, in its confirmation of judges, has relied on principles laid down by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist: integrity, intelligence and temperament, and faithfulness to the rule of law--terms on which President Bush's picks, Justice Brown included, pass with high marks. But instead of Hamiltonian standards, Mr. Schumer insists that senators must make a judge's "ideology" their principal concern. By this he means the judge's private political opinions, as well as the political results his decisions have led to in past cases and could lead to in the future. Judges whose views on affirmative action and abortion are outside the "mainstream" should be disqualified from sitting on the federal bench, regardless of competence. As for the definition of "mainstream," Schumerism simply holds that conservatives are ipso facto "extremist."Larry Solum, at Legal Theory Blog, comments exhaustively on this column and how his approach to selecting judges could move this country out of the quicksand that is the Schumerism Selection policy:
Anderson's suggestion is that there is an asymmetry between the way Republicans and Democrats view judicial philosphy. Essentially, Anderson suggests that Democrats want left-realist judges and Republicans want right-formalist judges. But this is a partisan reading of recent events. Although Republicans favor formalism on some issues, e.g. the unenumerate liberty or privacy rights that undergird Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, Republicans may prefer less formalist approaches to other issues, e.g. the constitutional sovereign immunity jurisprudence that seems to go far beyond the text of the 11th Amendment. Nonetheless, there is something to Anderson's point, reflected in the fact that in the legal academy and on the bench, originalists have tended to be conservative and nonoriginalists liberal.Please read the both of these in their entirety.
As frequent readers of this blog know, I have been arguing for some time that the best way out of the current downward spiral of politicization that affects both the bench and the judicial selection process is for both sides to take a long-run view of the benefits of the rule of law and the costs of politicization. But [if] Anderson's characterization of the problem is correct, then that solution is unavailable. Why? Because Anderson's argument seems to be that restoration of the rule of law is not in the interests of the left. I disagree, in part because I believe that a doctrine strong stare decisis is part of the best formalist theory of judging...
Sunday, November 23, 2003
The Ted Rall Quotient and his Endorsement of Howard Dean
A few weeks ago I blogged about Ted Rall's support for terrorists in his writtings and how supporters of Rall and this brand of anti-Americanism were finding a home in the Dean camp. Well, Ted Rall has now formally endorsed Dean and his blog has publically embraced this endorsement.
And from reading the comments on the Dean blog, we see even more of Dean's trolls embracing a man whose writings seem downright treasonous. Here are a few choice comments:
"I love Ted Rall. Dean should have a low-key meeting with him some time..."All of this gushing praise and embracing of an endorsement for a man whose writings are despicable in their encouragement of the terrorists killing our soldiers. Here was an all-too-typical column:
"I saw Ted Rall speak at Charlottesville, VA, and he wowed the crowd (the phrase "coke-addled buffoon" came up more than once w/respect to Bush)."
"That is *awesome* coming from Rall. I love his comics about Bush, and his columns..."
Dear Recruit:The Dean camp should be ashamed and embarrassed that they would welcome such an endorsement.
Thank you for joining the Iraqi resistance forces. You have been issued an AK-47 rifle, rocket-propelled grenade launcher and an address where you can pick up supplies of bombs and remote-controlled mines. Please let your cell leader know if you require additional materiel for use against the Americans.
You are joining a broad and diverse coalition dedicated to one principle: Iraq for Iraqis. Our leaders include generals of President Saddam Hussein's secular government..."
Update: Here is more of Ted Rall's brand of disgusting commentary:
My post has stirred up all kinds of commotion at Blogs for Bush...heh.
Friday, November 21, 2003
The Republican National Committee Ads Are Here
This link goes to the new RNC ad to be run in IA:
Check it out!
Hat tip to my buddy Jonathan Rothenberg for the link.
He is a Giant, They are Dwarves
John Podhorentz provides excellent commentary on Bush's "Three Pillars" speech:
On Wednesday, George W. Bush spoke before the British people and confessed to a tragic sin of omission: "Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability," the president said.He then properly places emphasis on the real turning points of the speech, the Three Pillars:
"Longstanding ties often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
"As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient."
These sentences rank among the most rueful, honest and reflective ever spoken by a Western leader - an acknowledgment that Western nations have not done all they should or could have done to help secure the blessings of liberty for others in the world.
International organizations comprise the first pillar. The man long derided as a go-it-alone cowboy paid glowing tribute to multilateralism, from the United Nations to NATO.Unilaterist? I think not . ..
But the importance of these institutions confers on them a responsibility from which they cannot flee. They must "be equal to the challenges facing our world, from lifting up failing states to opposing proliferation," the president said. "The success of multilateralism is not measured by adherence to forms alone, the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to keep our nations secure."
The second pillar is "the willingness of free nations, when the last resort arrives, to [restrain] aggression and evil by force." In some cases, harsh words and pronouncements will not suffice if we are to protect ourselves and others from aggression: "It is not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions; we must meet those dangers with resolve."This reminds me of the great quote Paul used below: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” -- Benjamin Franklin
Bush gracefully acknowledged that disagreements over the use of force are legitimate. "There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation, and I credit the good motives behind these views," he said. "Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them. And that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men. In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force."
And then lastly:
The third pillar is "our commitment to the global expansion of democracy." In this address, which history will come to call "the three pillars speech," the president spoke more broadly in terms of freedom and democracy than any Western leader ever has.
And he has a right to do so. After all, in the 26 months since 9/11, he has led the way in the liberation of more than 43 million people from the inhuman tyrannies of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathists in Iraq.
For speaking words and taking actions like these, protestors in London decided that he was no better than Saddam Hussein, a man who (by conservative estimates) murdered half a million people inside his own country. They pulled down an effigy of Bush that had been designed to look like the Saddam statue pulled down in Baghdad in May...
The Bush-haters are moralistic poseurs. The man they hate is a moral actor. They condemn barbarity. He does something about it. They call him a monster, a villain, a Hitler. In response, he celebrates the fact that they live in societies that permit free speech.
He is a giant.
They are dwarves.
It's "Letters To The Editor" Friday!
Do your part to get the right voices heard in your local newspapers by writing letters to the editor TODAY!
The grassroots effort on Letters to the Editor Friday and in other areas of the campaign continues to be recognized as one of the very real ways to help the campaign and defend this country against the biases in the media. Last week we mentioned "The Reagans" removal from CBS and now we see blogs keeping stories like the connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda alive. Do your part by writing a letter of your choice today! Remember, the topic of your letter is completely up to you but, as usual, there has been a lot going on so here are a few great ideas you can write about:
» The connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda that only now is getting tepid coverage (if at all) from the major media outlets. Or the Penatgon's non-response and further discussions here;
» Judicial activism in the courts with the Massachusettes Gay Marraige ruling and the White House's protection of the definition of marraige;
» President Bush's welcomed visit to London, his incredible Three Pillars speech, lack of media coverage and failed turnout of protestors despite promises of 250,000 or more.
» The medicare reform bill discussed here, here and here.
Now those are just a few, so simply type in your zip code below and find the news outlets in your areas!
If you're a blogger who wants to join this effort, just copy and paste the following ZIP-code lookup box so people can write letters directly from your site for Friday's festivities:
Let's show them what the Bush-blogosphere can do! If you support President Bush, write a letter to the editor today and every Friday!
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Meet the Lefty Spice Girls
OK, I wish I could take credit for this, but this is the brilliant work of Matt at "Low Culture":
Among the 150,000 protesters who greeted President Bush in England this week were the members of The Lefty Spice Girls. On the left (naturally) we have Fiona (aka 'Anti-Globalization Spice'); in the middle is Johri (aka 'Stop War Now Spice'); and in the back is Alex M. ('Environmental Justice Spice'). Not pictured: Alex G. (aka, 'Workers' Rights Spice') and Miranda (aka, 'Legalize Marijuana Spice').
Tell me what you want, what you really, really want... If you want my future, correct your past/If you wanna get with me, end the slog real fast...
Why More and More People Get Their News From Sources Other than Traditional Media
Tony Blankley has a great write-up of what he sarcastically refers to as the "mature" and "restrained" media not pouncing on rcently leaked documents as they had done so gleefully for the last few decades. Could it be because these leaks suppport the President? Naaaah...
Three vastly embarrassing and newsworthy memos — two from the Senate and one from the Pentagon — came to light. But in each case, the shocking revelations were not revealed in the august pages and electrons of the newly mature media elite.
In the remaining actual news gathering and reporting institutions (the Weekly Standard, The Washington Times, the New York Post, Fox News,Wall Street Journal Editorial Page, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh radio programs, et al.) those three leaked memos were substantively reported on and extensively quoted.
For those of you who get your news from the WashingtonPostNewYorkTimesCBSetc., here is a summary of those three now half-famous memos:
1) Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee had drafted plans to use and misconstrue classified intelligence data to politically undercut the president of the United States ("pulling the trigger" closer to the election);
2) the CIA and other intelligence offices of the government have identified 10 years of contacts between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden —thus tending to dramatically justify our war against Iraq and contradicting one of the major Democratic Party criticisms of President Bush's Iraq policy; and
3) Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee were working closely with outside groups to block judicial appointments for the purpose of ethnic bigotry and unethical manipulation of court proceedings. In Sen. Durbin's case,the memo advised that Miguel Estrada be blocked as he is "especially dangerous because he is Latino." In Sen. Kennedy's case, the memo advised to stall Judge Gibbons appointment so she couldn't get on the bench in time to decide the pending Michigan affirmative action case. The memo questioned "the propriety" of such tactics, but nonetheless advised it. She was confirmed just two months after the landmark case in question.
The suddenly mature and responsible media elites did feel obliged to make a passing reference to these stories — or their remaining readers and viewers might be embarrassed when the topic was brought up by the growing part of the public that gets its news from other sources.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Media Not Interested in Bush Without Protestors
In what is not a surprising change of plans, ABC's Nightline will not cover President Bush's trip to London tonight, despite his incredible speech and warm recpetion despite unfound rumors of mass protests:
"Nightline Daily E-MailNow if the coverage of Bush's visit to London could reflect negatively on the President, do you think they would be switching their programming to cover a known pedophile in Los Angeles? I think not...
November 19, 2003
TONIGHT'S FOCUS HAS CHANGED: The DA and Sheriff from Santa Barbara have just held a press conference, announcing that there is an arrest warrant for Michael Jackson on multiple counts of child molestation, and they are negotiating his surrender with his attorneys. We are going to switch topics to cover this tonight, we'll report on President Bush's visit to Britain and the situation in Iraq tomorrow.
Leroy Sievers and the Nightline Staff
ABCNEWS Washington bureau"
Update: Instapundit has similar thoughts and I posted this on Blogs for Bush.
The Three Pillars at Whitehall Palace
As has become his trademark, President George W. Bush has risen to the occasion at a time many of his critics were questioning him most. In what Cliff May is saying could be the most significant speech of his presidency, George W. Bush continues to drag the world community forward in the pursuit of freedom and democracy:
Americans traveling to England always observe more similarities to our country than differences. I've been here only a short time, but I've noticed that the tradition of free speech -- exercised with enthusiasm -- (laughter) -- is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad, as well...He invoked the name of Woodrow Wilson, but he sounded more the part of Churchill or Reagan.
[W]e cannot turn a blind eye to oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found...
We will encourage the strength and effectiveness of international institutions. We will use force when necessary in the defense of freedom. And we will raise up an ideal of democracy in every part of the world. On these three pillars we will build the peace and security of all free nations in a time of danger.
A Reminder of How We Got Here
The eight finalists were announced for the World Trade Center Memorial.
Are the Crowds for Howard Dean Fake?
It would appear so based on the implication of Alexandra "Journey's With George" Pelosi (not exactly a friend of W's). Here's her take on seeing Howard Dean in Iowa recently:
He's definitely hot right now. It's like his supporters are a cult. At the Jefferson and Jackson dinner in Des Moines last weekend, it was tons of screaming kids, but they weren't from Iowa. They'd been bused in from across the Midwest, and they didn't clap for anyone else - only Dean. Afterward, there was a party at the Fort Des Moines and they acted out Dean's stump speech, waving their arms and mouthing the words, like it was 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show.' Dean was there, and at first he was smiling, but after a while he looked pretty freaked out. You have to remember that the 70-something Iowa voter is not into the screaming kids."[B]ut they weren't from Iowa" . . . hmmmm, sounds awfully similar to the outsiders bussed into England to protest W's visit. Seems like the Good Doctor is doctoring up his boisterous crowds with regurgitated lackeys. No wonder the Democratic establishment isn't backing thus guy, even they know his own ground troops aren't legitimate. I posted this over at Blogs for Bush as well.
Oh, Those Wacky Polls
Despite what you regularly read regarding President Bush's poll numbers (as in approval rating, likeability, electability, etc.) it is rather telling what happens when you give the electorate a choice between Bush and one of his possible opponents:
A KAET-TV/ASU poll of AZ found that Pres. Bush would defeat Howard Dean 50%-35%; Wesley Clark 49%-34%; John Kerry 51%-33%; and Joe Lieberman 49%-34%And following yesterday's "must-read" (that I read but didn't post) on W's re-election probabilities, the campaign boys and girls much be feeling pretty chipper today:
Political strategists and historians say an incumbent president's lack of primary opposition is a measure of how much support he has from his base of core supporters -- and therefore how much leeway he has in appealing to the political center, the key to general election victory.But W's strength runs much deeper than that:
A review of opinion polls shows that the absence of primary opposition is closely correlated to an incumbent president's standing among partisans. At the moment, Bush enjoys the support of 87 percent of those who identify themselves as Republicans. That puts him in the company of two-termers such as Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan and Clinton, and safely away from failures such as Ford, Carter and the first Bush.
[Bush's campaign manager, Ken] Mehlman points out that Republicans have made gains both in their own "red" southern and border states, with gubernatorial wins this year in Mississippi and Kentucky, and in Democratic "blue" states of the coasts, with a GOP win in the California governor's race and continued control of New York's governorship and mayoralty. "You have red states that are getting redder and blue states that are becoming purple," he said.
Mehlman and Dowd point to a range of favorable indicators: Democratic weakness in Florida, an approval rating for Bush that is consistently above 50 percent, Bush's popularity among young voters and a much-improved Republican get-out-the-vote operation.
Diplomacy at Work
If the Bush Administration gets what it wants:
The United States is preparing to seek another U.N. resolution to back its new plan for Iraq and ensure that the first postwar Iraqi government does not fail for lack of international recognition, according to U.S. officials and European and U.N. diplomats.Major media outlets will describe it as "a stunning turn of events", but I think it will have a lot more to with this.
A new resolution could also help win commitments for additional troops and reconstruction aid from other countries, which Washington has been unable to secure with three previous resolutions, U.S. officials said. In addition, it might lead to a renewed U.N. role in Iraq in helping oversee the selection of a new provisional government.
"We want to pave the way for international acceptance for a new government and get a blessing for its legitimacy. We can't afford to set up a government for failure and let the international community later say it doesn't recognize it," a senior U.S. official said yesterday.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
What Our Troops Think of the Media
(giggling) Via Slantpoint via Expat Yank via Little Green Footballs via ...
Glenn Reynolds Exposes Doubles Standards in Iraq Protests
The hypocrisy and double-standards applied by the Left in their supposedly anti-war protests has nothing to do with anti-war sentiments. Their 'protests' are really actions in support of terrorists, so writes Glenn Reynolds in his MSNBC column:
I’ve said before that some of these people aren’t so much antiwar as just on the other side. Think I was exaggerating? Well, then read this report from the BBC:When the Donkeys complain that the Right labels a dissenter unpatriotic for supporting peace as an alternative to war, be sure to bring this up. This all sounds like Bush's mantra "You're either with us, or you are with the terrorists" was spot on...
A group of Italian anti-war militants is raising funds to support the armed Iraqi resistance, the BBC has learned. The discovery comes as Italy mourns 19 men killed in a suicide attack in Iraq last week. The “Antiimperialista” organisation’s internet campaign asks people to send “10 Euros to the Iraqi resistance.” They say they have collected 12,000 euros ($14,165) in the past eight weeks and admit the money used could be used to buy weapons. The Antiimperialistas are a group of European anti-war and anti-globalisation supporters.
“Anti-war?” That’s what the BBC calls them, for some reason. But they’re fine with war, as long as it’s against the good guys. As I’ve noted before, they’re just on the other side.
Be sure to read the whole thing since Glenn brings up anti-terrorism rallies in Iraq that aren't covered by the news media, Iraqi ayatollahs imploring western media to report the truth of the peace in Iraq and western journalists hiring former Ba' athist 'minders' (re: Saddam's spies) as their interpreters/sources for man-on-the-street opinions.
Debunking the Left's Chain e-Mail re: Resume of George W Bush
Jon does a thorough "fisking" of the chain e-mail misrepresenting the highlights and lowlights of George W Bush. Keep it handy when you encounter those uninformed Donkeys on the Left.
Breaking the Code: Politics Before Policy -- The Democrats Play Their Strongest Hand
The Washington Post has a must read on Donkey domestic strategy. In their typically disingenuous and hypocritical manner, Democrats who have proposed no solutions to problems facing Americans are devising schemes to block major pieces of legislation backed by the White House. The Washington Post has a most telling line discussing their tactics:
Even before many of the details were known (emphasis added), the candidates blasted Bush for what they view as shortchanging consumers and using the bills to reward his campaign contributors. "The latest energy plan and the prescription drug benefit are more paybacks for George W. Bush's special-interest friends and campaign contributors," said Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), expressing the emerging Democratic message.No surprise coming from the long-term Senator WHO HAS NO LEGISLATIVE LEGACY! This man has championed no legislation in his many years in office yet he wants to be the chief executive? Ha.
But it gets better:
The candidates are coming together so quickly because they say the bills are bad policy. [ed. -- even though the Post stipulated above that these pols don't even know the details yet] But some see a political benefit, too -- Bush is on the verge of taking away two more political issues and putting Democrats in the unenviable political position of playing defense on energy costs and prescription drug costs, two key areas of great concern for voters. [ed. -- back to the politics above policy strategy]Ah, I get it. What the problem is here is that we have a politician who is actually delivering on his campaign promises! Obviously he must be stopped at all costs...
If the bills are passed and signed into law, Republicans and some Democrats predict Bush will probably get a political boost that could resonate through the 2004 elections. Along with Bush's tax cuts, education overhaul and defense policies, Republicans also could claim they are delivering tangible results to Americans by controlling the White House and Congress.
Because they control the White House, Senate and House for only the second time in half a century, Republicans anticipate that the elections will be a referendum on their performance [ed. -- no kidding] ... [ed. -- But now the Post takes us back to Donkey "What's Good For America politics"] If Democrats can block the Medicare deal, in particular, they will carry with them one of the most potent political weapons in politics today: the charge that Bush and a GOP Congress cannot deliver the right medicine for the elderly, who vote in large numbers [ed. -- rest of the citizenry be damned!]. But Democrats privately admit it is much harder to make this charge stick without AARP on their side. [ed. -- What are the Donkey's to do without their special interest feeding troughs?]I posted this over at Blogs for Bush as well.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Hypocrisy -- The Only True Ideology of the Left
Glenn Reynolds posts a unique statement from Salon:
Today, Anti-Americanism is the closest we come to a common ideology in Europe.While that may be insightful and true for our counterparts in Europe, I think the one unifying theme of Left-leaning activists is hypocrisy. We see it in school vouchers, Judicial activism, campaign finance, environmental policy and just about any topic today. A column over the weekend from The Guardian touches on the hypocasy of the double-standard the British protestors are applying to W's visit:
The double standards here are obvious but worth a reminder. During the week anti-Bush protesters will, we're told, be splashing red paint to symbolise the spilled blood of the people of Iraq. No such red paint was splashed around London after Halabja, after the 1991 Shia and Kurdish uprisings or during the Iran-Iraq war, almost as if that were not real Iraqi blood. Blood, after all, is only blood if Americans spill it.
No crimson splotches were created during the state visit of Romanian tyrant Nicolae Ceausescu in 1978, a visit which - because of Romania's semi-dissident position in the Soviet bloc - suited both cold warriors and sections of the Left. Earlier this year the Chechnya-enmired President Putin escaped almost any kind of demonstration. . . .
It isn't America that sends ambulances to blow up aid workers or Istanbul synagogues. It is America, above all, that is bearing the cost of helping to create a new Iraq - a new Iraq which, despite the violence, is being born in towns such as Hilla and cities such as Basra. And yet some of our writers and protesters - betraying their own professed ideals - identify with bombers and not teachers, administrators and policemen who are building the country.
Where is the red paint to protest against the blasts at Najaf, of the UN in Baghdad, of the Red Cross, of the synagogues, of the Bali night-club, of the Arab-Jewish restaurant in Haifa? Where are the 'No Suicide Bombings' posters in the Muswell Hill windows? Or do you really believe we can save ourselves by constructing a huge wall around these islands, or around America, and painting it with smileys? That maybe then the ills of the world will leave us alone?
Friday, November 14, 2003
It's "Letters To The Editor" Friday!
Get active in support of the President by writing letters to the editor TODAY!
The grassroots effort on Letters to the Editor Friday and in other areas of the campaign continues its groundswell of support. Week after week we see the changes we can exact on wrong-minded practices (like smearing Ronald Reagan) by remaining vigilant in our efforts. Remember, the topic of your letter is completely up to you but, as usual, there has been a lot going on so here are a few great ideas you can write about:
» The under-reported (do the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times even remember it occurred) continuing scandal involving Sen. Jay Rockefeller's partisan, some Senator's say near "treasonous", memo politicizing the 9/11 investigations and the Senate Intelligence Committee;
» The booming Bush economy discussed here, here and here;
» The Senate filibuster in protest of Democrats' unprecendented abuse of their "Advise and Consent" powers and Democrats' dishonest defense (here, here and here) of their partisan position.
» The media's regular distrortions, denial of the truth in Iraq and their lack of journalistic originality in repeating lies from post-war Germany and Japan.
» Or the current hot topic, not just unpatriotic Americans on Veterans' Day but American's who want our soldiers to die and America to fail.
Now those are just a few, so simply type in your zip code below and find the news outlets in your areas!
If you're a blogger who wants to join this effort, just copy and paste the following ZIP-code lookup box so people can write letters directly from your site for Friday's festivities:
Let's show them what the Bush-blogosphere can do! If you support President Bush, write a letter to the editor today and every Friday!
Thursday, November 13, 2003
The Ted Rall Quotient: Americans Who Want The United States to Fail
The blogosphere has been buzzing following revelations that much on the political Left isn't just a group arguing 'give peace a chance' and simply anti-war. There are a great number of these people who take great joy in not only America's failures but celebrate the death of American service men and women. These legions seem to be the exact vein of the American public represented by the despicable writings of Ted Rall. This possibly chemically imbalanced individual has been discussed by the likes of Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan:
After 9/11, I was roundly criticized for daring to suggest that there were some people in America who wanted the terrorists to win. But if you read Ted Rall and others, there can be no mistake. There is a virulent strain of anti-Americanism in this country. Some, like Rall, are now urging the murder of American troops in defense of Islamist terrorists and the acolytes of one of the most brutal dictators in history. Ann Coulter couldn't invent something this depraved. That's where parts of the left have now come to reside. It's as sad as it is sickening.Well, that got some of us thinking, which campaigns are gaining the membership of those who rejoice in the death of Americans -- we'll call it "The Ted Rall Quotient."
If you do a quick search in all the Democrat candidates' blogs for Rall's name, either for linkage or for fawning praise on the part of commenters, you can get a feel for the Ted Rall quotient. There were zero mentions of Rall on blogs for Clark, Kerry and Edwards or sites associated with Lieberman. Not even Kucinich's commenters (denniskucinich.us) wanted to touch the guy.
However, there were nearly a dozen commenters on Howard Dean's Blog for America site and other Dean sites linking to Rall's work and insupport of his 'radical' agenda. Quite telling.
I also threw this up at Blogsforbush.com.
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
Catching the Democrats in Lies (... as if that's difficult!)
From the Committee for Justice, debunking some of the Dems claims:
WASHINGTON, DC – As the Senate undertook its historic all-hours debate of the minority’s unprecedented use of the filibuster to deny the President’s nominees final votes, the Committee for Justice responded to some senators initial arguments, made at a pre-debate press conference.Vis K-Lo at The Corner.
CLAIM:
Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD):
“The use of the filibuster is not unprecedented; there have been numerous votes on cloture on judges in recent years.”
RESPONSE:
Define filibuster, Senator. A filibuster occurs when attempts to limit debate (either by unanimous consent or cloture motion) fails, not when they succeed. Holding a cloture vote is hardly the same as the permanent blockage of a nominee. Under the proper definition, prior to the 108th Congress, there were four filibusters against judicial nominations, including one Clinton nomination.
The Senate took 15 cloture votes on 14 different nominations (four of them Clinton nominations).
Eleven of those cloture votes passed, and those nominations were confirmed. Three of these were on Clinton nominations. These, by definition, were not filibusters. Four cloture votes failed. These were filibusters.
However, three of these were temporary filibusters, and the nominations were later confirmed.
***One of them was on a Clinton nomination, Brian T. Stewart nominated to the U.S. District Court. He was filibustered by Democrats, not Republicans. The 55-44 vote on cloture on 9/21/99 was to leverage confirmation of more Clinton nominees, which Republicans agreed to and Stewart was confirmed 93-5 on 10/5/99.
***The cloture vote on J. Harvie Wilkinson’s nomination to the 4th Circuit on 7/31/84 failed, but a second cloture on 8/9/84 passed and he was soon confirmed.
***The cloture vote on William Rehnquist’s nomination to be Associate Justice on 12/10/71 failed, but he was confirmed the same day without having to take a second cloture vote.
***The cloture vote on Abe Fortas’s nomination to be Chief Justice on 10/1/68 failed on a vote of 45-43. This means he did not have support of a majority in the Senate, and the 43 votes for the filibuster included 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats. The vote of cloture functioned as a test vote on his nomination, and President Johnson quickly withdrew the nomination. He was not blocked by the minority.
Thus, the filibusters during the 108th Congress are absolutely unprecedented. They are the first permanent (as opposed to temporary) filibusters against nominations with majority (as opposed to minority) Senate support.
Wash, Rinse and Repeat
The Godfather has directed his readers to the Counterrevolutionary's absolutely fabulous roundup of clippings from America's previous quagmire and failed efforts at establishing Germany as a democracy following a war. Is it too much for journalists to actually break a sweat and do some real reporting instead of simply cutting and pasting inaccuarte articles from over a half-century ago and doing a "find/replace" with Germany and Iraq?
They do this all of the time. It is no different from the New York Times Magazine cover story from a couple of weeks go titled "Who Lost the Peace in Iraq" trying to lay blame on the White House. Thankfully on that same day Instapundit had tackled this with graphic evidence of their pathetic regurgitation of themes from previous journalistically failed attempts to frame the phenomenal efforts of our servicemen and women as failures.
Brilliant Investor Loses His Mind in Bush Hatred
A true American success story, George Soros has amassed a fortune of more the $7 billion. However, in his desire to have influence beyond the finance industry, Soros is pledging tens of millions of dollars to radical leftist groups whose sole purpose is the defeat of President Bush:
"It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."
Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.
Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money."
"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."
Soros believes that a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"). "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent.
The Truth (in Iraq) Shall Set You (Iraqis) Free
I thought about titling this "Why You Can't Trust the Media, part 7,498,257" but then again most people reading this already don't trust maintream media to begin with. Anway, Chris Matthews (a principled liberal if there ever was one) is using his mega-phone "Hardball" to find out what is really going on in Iraq. Here is Bob Arnot's report:
Bob Arnot, who rarely appears on NBC News programs, popped up Monday night on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Matthews to contradict the image of chaos in Iraq hyped by the media. Launching Hardball’s week-long series, “Iraq: The Real Story,” Arnot recounted the challenges faced by troops in hostile areas, but countered the negative image of the Iraqi situation he knows Americans get from TV news.
Arnot argued: “The real question is, given all the death and destruction that you see on television in the United States, what’s the real deal out here? The fact is in 85 percent of the country, it’s calm, it’s stable, it’s moving forward. You find a lot of places like Horia [sp?], where we were today, and Kadame [sp] where they actually like or even love Americans.”
Touring a shopping area, Arnot relayed how, “from what you see on TV from Baghdad you’d think that, with the mortars and rockets, that this was a city under siege.” In fact, he contended, “nothing could be further from the truth in many neighborhoods.” Arnot sounded like a spokesman for the Baghdad Chamber of Commerce, MRC analyst Geoffrey Dickens observed, as he admired the selection of merchandise available: “They also have here some of the latest fashions, they will tell you from Milan, Paris, and Damascus. Here’s another store here, ladies clothing with jeans, the latest shoes, nice pocket books.”
Arnot began with time in spent with some troops in an area where Americans are less welcome: “It had all the ingredients for disaster. A Sunni town, home to over 100,000 former Iraqi soldiers, 1,000 generals and dangerous terror cells. From this battle command center, the Army’s 101st Air Assault Division has engineered what many thought impossible: local elections within weeks of the war’s end; schools kept open; and Iraqi police training to get back on the street fast. Still while there was no major insurrection, there are now daily attacks on U.S. troops, with RPGs, improvised explosive devices, mortars, even rockets.”
Wictory Wednesday
Polipundit has picked up on teh George Soros tantrum and is asking readers top do what they can to counteract this madman.
Billionaire George Soros on 2004:Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?Soros is banding together with other limousine liberals to raise at least $300 million for an unprecedented effort to defeat President Bush. He has already donated $15 million and plans to give more.
He said, "If someone guaranteed it."
What would you give to guarantee a Bush victory in 2004?
All I'm asking is that you click here and make a small recurring monthly contribution of $24, $54 or $104 to the Bush '04 campaign. It'll cost you much more than that if an ultra-liberal Democrat becomes president and vetoes any attempt to extend the Bush tax cuts beyond their 2006 expiration date.
If you've already donated and volunteered for the Bush campaign, then talk to your friends and enlist them in this battle for America's very soul.
Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday, I ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush 2004 campaign.
If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesdays simply by putting up a post like this one every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign. And do e-mail him at wictory@blogsforbush.com so that he can add you to the Wictory Wednesday blogroll, which will be part of the Wictory Wednesday post on all participating blogs:
A Day at Baltimore Airport
Here is a heartwarming story appropriate for Veterans' Day as told by Will Ross, Adminstrative Law Judge, Department of Defense and confirmed as true by snoops.com.
Dear Friends and Family,
I hope that you will spare me a few minutes of your time to tell you about something that I saw on Monday, October 27.
I had been attending a conference in Annapolis and was coming home on Sunday. As you may recall, Los Angeles International Airport was closed on Sunday, October 26, because of the fires that affected air traffic control. Accordingly, my flight, and many others, were canceled and I wound up spending a night in Baltimore.
My story begins the next day. When I went to check in at the United counter Monday morning I saw a lot of soldiers home from Iraq. Most were very young and all had on their desert camouflage uniforms. This was as change from earlier, when they had to buy civilian clothes in Kuwait to fly home. It was a visible reminder that we are in a war. It probably was pretty close to what train terminals were like in World War II.
Many people were stopping the troops to talk to them, asking them questions in the Starbucks line or just saying "Welcome Home." In addition to all the flights that had been canceled on Sunday, the weather was terrible in Baltimore and the flights were backed up. So, there were a lot of unhappy people in the terminal trying to get home, but nobody that I saw gave the soldiers a bad time.
By the afternoon, one plane to Denver had been delayed several hours. United personnel kept asking for volunteers to give up their seats and take another flight. They weren't getting many takers. Finally, a United spokeswoman got on the PA and said this, "Folks. As you can see, there are a lot of soldiers in the waiting area. They only have 14 days of leave and we're trying to get them where they need to go without spending any more time in an airport then they have to. We sold them all tickets, knowing we would oversell the flight. If we can, we want to get them all on this flight. We want all the soldiers to know that we respect what you're doing, we are here for you and we love you."
At that, the entire terminal of cranky, tired, travel-weary people, a cross-section of America, broke into sustained and heart-felt applause. The soldiers looked surprised and very modest. Most of them just looked at their boots. Many of us were wiping away tears.
And, yes, people lined up to take the later flight and all the soldiers went to Denver on that flight.
That little moment made me proud to be an American, and also told me why we will win this war.
If you want to send my little story on to your friends and family, feel free. This is not some urban legend. I was there, I was part of it, I saw it happen.
Will Ross
Administrative Judge
United States Department of Defense
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
The Canard About Halliburton and Sweetheart Deals from the White House (David Brooks, 11/11/03, New York Times)
David Brooks does an excellent job looking at the government procurement process and exposes editorial writers and the Nine Dwarfs for their ignorance and ridiculous and repeated accusations of unseemly ties between Halliburton and the White House:
The fact is that unlike the Congressional pork barrel machine, the federal procurement system is a highly structured process, which is largely insulated from crass political pressures. The idea that a Bush political appointee can parachute down and persuade a large group of civil servants to risk their careers by steering business to a big donor is the stuff of fantasy novels, not reality.
The real story is that the Halliburton subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root, won an open competition to provide the service support for overseas troops. This contract is called the Logcap, and is awarded every few years. KBR won the competition in 1992. It lost to DynCorp in 1997, and won it again in 2001.
Monday, November 10, 2003
Bush Blogs and the Grassroots' Movements are Changing Campaigns
Vice-President Cheney just sent out an e-mail to hundreds of thousands of Bush supporters seeking campaign contributions. What is so special about that? Take a look at the denominations he is seeking:
I am writing to ask you personally to support the President's reelection.Well, as anyone who has followed the on-line movement in support of the President knows, these are the exact amounts the campaign has been receiveing and could tabulate as specifically from Internet fundraising alone. This was a movement championed by people like Josh McClain and picked up by many bloggers across the blogosphere like the cool chicks at Right We Are and even yours truly. Well it is now quote obvious that we are making a real difference and, as if there was any question, the campaign is embracing/supporting our efforts to re-elect this great President during this most important moment of our generation.
Re-elect Our President
I ask you to please send your 2004 One Year Out contribution of $204, $104, or even $54 to join the Bush-Cheney '04 team today.
...
Thanks to key Bush-Cheney '04 supporters, the President and our Bush-Cheney '04 team have begun to build a network of grassroots leaders in every state, have drawn up a county-by-county election plan, and have made great strides targeting 3 million new Bush voters.
We could not have done any of this without the faithful, consistent support from thousands of members of the Bush-Cheney '04 team. In fact you can use our secure online donation system to make a small recurring monthly contribution of $104, $74, or even $54 until Election Day. Please sign up today.
Get on board now and do what you can to support the President by answering both Vice President Cheney's call and the call of the Bush Bloggers everywhere!
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Quote of the Day
"It’s not a matter of punishment, it’s got to be a matter of eradication. Our goal should be to eradicate every terrorist on the face of this Earth."Via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.
-- Howard Dean on September 12, 2001. Found by Dan Conley in the Rutland Herald archives.
The War on Terror: Changing the Middle East
Today, President George W. Bush changed over 50 years of U.S. policy seeking "stability" in the Middle East -- and proclaimed a new American doctrine to expand pluralism and democracy as the ultimate weapon against terror. Here are selected excerpts below of his historic speech:
We've witnessed, in little over a generation, the swiftest advance of freedom in the 2,500 year story of democracy. Historians in the future will offer their own explanations for why this happened. Yet we already know some of the reasons they will cite. It is no accident that the rise of so many democracies took place in a time when the world's most influential nation was itself a democracy.
The United States made military and moral commitments in Europe and Asia, which protected free nations from aggression, and created the conditions in which new democracies could flourish. As we provided security for whole nations, we also provided inspiration for oppressed peoples. In prison camps, in banned union meetings, in clandestine churches, men and women knew that the whole world was not sharing their own nightmare. They knew of at least one place -- a bright and hopeful land -- where freedom was valued and secure. And they prayed that America would not forget them, or forget the mission to promote liberty around the world.
Historians will note that in many nations, the advance of markets and free enterprise helped to create a middle class that was confident enough to demand their own rights. They will point to the role of technology in frustrating censorship and central control -- and marvel at the power of instant communications to spread the truth, the news, and courage across borders.
Historians in the future will reflect on an extraordinary, undeniable fact: Over time, free nations grow stronger and dictatorships grow weaker. In the middle of the 20th century, some imagined that the central planning and social regimentation were a shortcut to national strength. In fact, the prosperity, and social vitality and technological progress of a people are directly determined by extent of their liberty. Freedom honors and unleashes human creativity -- and creativity determines the strength and wealth of nations. Liberty is both the plan of Heaven for humanity, and the best hope for progress here on Earth. ...
Our commitment to democracy is also tested in the Middle East, which is my focus today, and must be a focus of American policy for decades to come. In many nations of the Middle East -- countries of great strategic importance -- democracy has not yet taken root. And the questions arise: Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism? Are they alone never to know freedom, and never even to have a choice in the matter? I, for one, do not believe it. I believe every person has the ability and the right to be free. (Applause.)
Some skeptics of democracy assert that the traditions of Islam are inhospitable to the representative government. This "cultural condescension," as Ronald Reagan termed it, has a long history. After the Japanese surrender in 1945, a so-called Japan expert asserted that democracy in that former empire would "never work." Another observer declared the prospects for democracy in post-Hitler Germany are, and I quote, "most uncertain at best" -- he made that claim in 1957. Seventy-four years ago, The Sunday London Times declared nine-tenths of the population of India to be "illiterates not caring a fig for politics." Yet when Indian democracy was imperiled in the 1970s, the Indian people showed their commitment to liberty in a national referendum that saved their form of government.
Time after time, observers have questioned whether this country, or that people, or this group, are "ready" for democracy -- as if freedom were a prize you win for meeting our own Western standards of progress. In fact, the daily work of democracy itself is the path of progress. It teaches cooperation, the free exchange of ideas, and the peaceful resolution of differences. As men and women are showing, from Bangladesh to Botswana, to Mongolia, it is the practice of democracy that makes a nation ready for democracy, and every nation can start on this path. ...
Securing democracy in Iraq is the work of many hands. American and coalition forces are sacrificing for the peace of Iraq and for the security of free nations. Aid workers from many countries are facing danger to help the Iraqi people. The National Endowment for Democracy is promoting women's rights, and training Iraqi journalists, and teaching the skills of political participation. Iraqis, themselves -- police and borders guards and local officials -- are joining in the work and they are sharing in the sacrifice.
This is a massive and difficult undertaking -- it is worth our effort, it is worth our sacrifice, because we know the stakes. The failure of Iraqi democracy would embolden terrorists around the world, increase dangers to the American people, and extinguish the hopes of millions in the region. Iraqi democracy will succeed -- and that success will send forth the news, from Damascus to Teheran -- that freedom can be the future of every nation. (Applause.) The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution. (Applause.)
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo. (Applause.)
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. (Applause.)
The advance of freedom is the calling of our time; it is the calling of our country. From the Fourteen Points to the Four Freedoms, to the Speech at Westminster, America has put our power at the service of principle. We believe that liberty is the design of nature; we believe that liberty is the direction of history. We believe that human fulfillment and excellence come in the responsible exercise of liberty. And we believe that freedom -- the freedom we prize -- is not for us alone, it is the right and the capacity of all mankind. (Applause.)
Working for the spread of freedom can be hard. Yet, America has accomplished hard tasks before. Our nation is strong; we're strong of heart. And we're not alone. Freedom is finding allies in every country; freedom finds allies in every culture. And as we meet the terror and violence of the world, we can be certain the author of freedom is not indifferent to the fate of freedom.
With all the tests and all the challenges of our age, this is, above all, the age of liberty. Each of you at this Endowment is fully engaged in the great cause of liberty. And I thank you. May God bless your work. And may God continue to bless America. (Applause.)
The Bush Boom Round-up
There has been a lot of economic news lately so I thought I would put a synopsis together to show how the Bush Boom is touching EVERY economic indicator out there. It has validated his tax cuts and stregthened his position as a leader domestically just as his war on terror strengthens him internationally. For the Democrats, the following can best be described as a "read 'em and weep":
Jobless Claims (11/06/03)
Initial jobless claims 348K
Takeaway: Jobless claims posted a huge decline, to 348K from 386K in the prior week. This is the lowest level since January 2001. While clearly consistent with improvement in the labor market, claims do not usually move this much in a single week. The four-week average, which smooths out weekly fluctuations, dropped by 10,000 to 380,000, the lowest level since March 2001.
Productivity/Jobless Claims (11/06/03)
Q3 nonfarm productivity growth 8.1%
Takeaway: Productivity jumped 8.1% in Q3, slightly more than consensus. Hours worked grew by 0.7%, in spite of a slight decline in overall hours worked according to the monthly payroll employment reports. In any case, the key element of the productivity report to watch here is unit labor costs, which declined by 4.6% (annualized) over the quarter. Over the long run, productivity growth increases prosperity by allowing businesses to raise wages without fanning inflation. During the past few years, however, the increasing efficiency of U.S. workers has proved to be a hazard to their own job security. It is difficult to generate significant inflation when unit labor costs have fallen 1.9% over the past year.
Non-Manufacturing ISM/Factory Orders (11/05/03)
Index at 64.7%
Takeaway: The Institute for Supply Management's monthly non-manufacturing index rose to 64.7% in October, its fifth consecutive month over 60. Readings above 50 indicate expanding activity, while those below point to contraction. Most components were in line with September values, but new orders rose significantly, to 64.4 versus 59.9 in September. Employment conditions also brightened slightly, with that sub-index up to 52.9 versus 49.1 in September. Inventories fell yet again, by -0.4%. Orders for nondefense capital goods ex aircraft +4.7% versus -0.2% in August. Manufacturing inventories are at a historically low level relative to shipments, and Q4 should see some inventory rebuilding.
ISM/Construction Spending (11/03/03)
Index at 57.0
Takeaway: Across the board strength in the October ISM manufacturing report, and a big increase in construction spending in September as presaged by large jumps in regional manufacturing surveys. The new orders and production sub-indices showed the biggest jumps, again consistent with regional surveys such as last Friday's Chicago purchasing managers' survey. The ISM composite index was the highest result since January 2000, reflecting the huge demand surge of Q3 as it flowed through the nation's manufacturing plants. The production and new orders sub-indexes reached multiyear highs: the production subindex, at 62.6, was at its highest since 1997; new orders came in at 64.3, a level not seen since 1994. Construction spending rose 1.3% in September, significantly more than expected, on strength in both residential and commercial business.
Chicago Purchasing Managers' Index (10/31/03)
Index at 55%
Takeaway: The Chicago purchasing managers' index was quite strong across the board. Although the headline jumped to 55.0 from 51.2, most components rose even faster - production was up to 62.0 from 55.8, and new orders to 59.2 from 53.2. There was also a big drop in inventories so look for more capital spending to refill those inventories. Notably, the employment sub-index rose substantially to 53.1 from 45.3, the best reading since January 2000.
Personal Income (10/31/03)
+0.3% over last month; +3.2% over last year
Takeaway: Personal income was up 0.3% in September over the prior month on a current-dollar basis. Basically people are making more money.
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (10/30/03)
+7.2% over last quarter
Takeaway: Even stronger third-quarter GDP than expected, reflecting sharp gains in business investment and home building. Jobless claims continued to show improvement over past months, while ECI shows stability in wage growth and ongoing rapid benefit cost increases. Investment was a key source of strength, with business investment up 11.1% and residential investment a whopping 20.4% over Q2 (annualized rates).
Consumer Confidence (10/28/03)
Index is at 81.1
Takeaway: Consumer confidence improved in October, with the overall index rising to 81.1 from 77.0 and returning approximately to its August level. Consumers' assessment of the present situation improved markedly (to 66.8 from 59.7), and expectations about the future also rose (to 90.7 from 88.5).
Durable Goods Orders (10/28/03)
+0.8% over last month; +6.2% over last year
Takeaway: A strong durable goods report for September. Although the headline number was up only 0.8%, ex-defense orders were up 2.6%. Narrowing the perspective further, nondefense capital goods (ex-aircraft) orders increased 3.9%. A drop of 26.7% in defense capital goods spending weighed on the headline increase. Basically the private sector has picked up where the government no longer has to.
New and Existing Home Sales (10/27/03)
-0.2% over last month; +8.3% over last year
Takeaway: Housing demand remains at or near record levels despite the backup in mortgage rates over the summer.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Working for the Terrorists
Zell Miller comes out swinging against his own party regarding the scandalous Jay Rockefeller memo:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, November 5, 2003
Miller on Politicized Intelligence Memo:
‘Heads Should Roll’
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:
“I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.
“Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.
“If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.
“Heads should roll!”
President Bush Signs Partial Birth Abortion Ban
Here are his opening remarks:
The Ronald Reagan Building
Washington, D.C.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. I'm pleased that all of you have joined us as the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 becomes the law of the land. (Applause.) For years, a terrible form of violence has been directed against children who are inches from birth, while the law looked the other way. Today, at last, the American people and our government have confronted the violence and come to the defense of the innocent child.
I want to thank you all for coming. Many of you have worked long and hard to see this bill come to fruition, and we thank you for your efforts.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. President. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: I see some members of my Cabinet have come. I appreciate the good work of the Attorney General, John Ashcroft. (Applause.) Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, is here. Thank you, Tommy. (Applause.) There are a lot of members of the Senate and House here today, I want to thank you all for passing this important legislation. I'm glad you're here. (Applause.)
The primary Senate sponsor is with us, Senator Rick Santorum. (Applause.) Senator Orrin Hatch and Senator Mike DeWine helped, as well, in the Senate. Thank you all very much. (Applause.) Steve Chabot was the primary House sponsor, and Steve is with us. Thanks for coming, Steve. (Applause.) I'm thankful that our Speaker is with us today. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate you coming. (Applause.) The Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, as well. Thank you for coming, Tom. (Applause.)
I'd like to mention three other members of the House. Henry Hyde is with us today. Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you coming. (Applause.) Jim Oberstar is with us. Jim, thank you for being here, sir, I appreciate you coming.
(Applause.) Bart Stupak, from Michigan, is with us, as well. Thanks for coming, Bart, glad you're here. (Applause.)
I appreciate His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, is with us today. Thank you very much, sir. (Applause.)
In passing this legislation, members of the House and Senate made a studied decision based upon compelling evidence. The best case against partial birth abortion is a simple description of what happens and to whom it happens. It involves the partial delivery of a live boy or girl, and a sudden, violent end of that life. Our nation owes its children a different and better welcome.
(Applause.) The bill I am about to sign protecting innocent new life from this practice reflects the compassion and humanity of America.
In the course of the congressional debate, the facts became clear. Each year, thousands of partial birth abortions are committed. As Doctor C. Everett Koop, the pediatrician and former Surgeon General has pointed out, the majority of partial birth abortions are not required by medical emergency. As Congress has found, the practice is widely regarded within the medical profession as unnecessary, not only cruel to the child, but harmful to the mother, and a violation of medical ethics. (Applause.)
The facts about partial birth abortion are troubling and tragic, and no lawyer's brief can make them seem otherwise. (Applause.) By acting to prevent this practice, the elected branches of our government have affirmed a basic standard of humanity, the duty of the strong to protect the weak. The wide agreement amongst men and women on this issue, regardless of political party, shows that bitterness in political debate can be overcome by compassion and the power of conscience. And the executive branch will vigorously defend this law against any who would try to overturn it in the courts. (Applause.)
America stands for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness and for the unalienable right of life. And the most basic duty of government is to defend the life of the innocent. Every person, however frail or vulnerable, has a place and a purpose in this world. Every person has a special dignity. This right to life cannot be granted or denied by government, because it does not come from government, it comes from the Creator of life. (Applause.)
In the debate about the rights of the unborn, we are asked to broaden the circle of our moral concern. We're asked to live out our calling as Americans. We're asked to honor our own standards, announced on the day of our founding in the Declaration of Independence. We're asked by our convictions and tradition and compassion to build a culture of life, and make this a more just and welcoming society. And today, we welcome vulnerable children into the care and protection of Americans. (Applause.)
The late Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey once said that: when we look
to the unborn child, the real issue is not when life begins, but when love begins. (Applause.) This is the generous and merciful spirit of our country at its best. This spirit is reflected in the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which I am now honored to sign into law. God bless. (Applause.)
(The bill is signed.) (Applause.) Thank you, all. (Applause.)
New Grassroots Group Blog for Bush
I just wanted to alert all of my readers to this recently "live" group blog supporting President Bush and his candidacy. This was the brainchild of Matt Margolies and owes its much of its development to Rachel Jurado (here is a snapshot of the team). It is made up of some of the best Bush bloggers on the web and promises to provide some of the most timely information anywhere. It is only in Day 2 of its existence but it already is chock-full-of great posts, uses movable type and has a much cooler design than any other Bush Blog (including my own!).
Please stop by and see what the grassroots for Bush is up to!
The Sick Dark Side of Some People on the Left
Here is the original post that is causing so much controversy that the Democratic Underground felt compelled to hide the post. Did they edit it because it was offensive? No. Only when the public eye glared at their vitriolic rantings did they hide their true feelings. Truly pathetic.
Starpass (1000+ posts) Tue Nov-04-03 07:01 PM
Original message
I Hope the Bloodshed Continues in Iraq
Well, that should bring the bats out of the attic with fangs dripping. I won't be hypocritcal. It is politically correct, particularly in any Dem discussion to hope and pray and feel for our troops and scream "bring them back now". I'm fighting something bigger.
I'm a 58 year old broad and I can tell you that what is going on in our country isn't the usual ebb and flow of politics where one party is in power and then another; where the economy goes through ups and downs.......yawn, yawn--just wait a bit and things will turn out peachy keen. That stupid la-la land is over.
I realize that not every GI Joe was 100peeercent behind Prseeedent Booosh going into this war; but I do know that that is what an overwhelming number of them and their famlies screamed in the face of protesters who were trying to protect these kids. Well, there is more than one way to be "dead" for your country. They are not only not accompishing squat in Iraq, they are doing crap nothing for the safety, defense of the US of A over there directly. But "indirectly" they are doing a lot.
The only way to get rid of this slime bag WASP-Mafia, oil barron ridden cartel of a government, this assault on Americans and anything one could laughingly call "a democracy", relies heavily on what a shit hole Iraq turns into. They need to die so that we can be free. Soldiers usually did that directly--i.e., fight those invading and harming a country. This time they need to die in defense of a lie from a lying adminstration to show these ignorant, dumb Americans that Bush is incompetent. They need to die so that Americans get rid of this deadly scum. It is obscene, Barbie Bush, how other sons (of much nobler blood) have to die to save us from your Rosemary's Baby spawn and his ungodly cohorts.
Fighting With Both Arms Tied Behind Our Backs
That is how we screwed up in Vietnam and if the mealy-mouthed, spineless weasel-types have their way, that is the way we will interrogate our enemies:
AN American officer who "coerced" an Iraqi prisoner into providing intelligence which foiled a potentially lethal ambush on his soldiers has been charged with assault.It is court-martialing men like this that inspire the UBL's and embolden our enemies in the belief that we are a paper tiger.
Lieutenant-Colonel Allen West, 42, of the 4th infantry division, admits firing his pistol twice near an Iraqi policeman.
The colonel's unit occupied an area around Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's home town and the most dangerous section of the Sunni triangle where most US deaths have occurred since combat ended on May 1.
He fired two shots from his service automatic into a weapons bin outside the detention facility while the prisoner was held next to it, but insists he kept his body between the Iraqi and the bin.
The policeman immediately identified the site of the ambush and named three resistance fighters assigned to carry it out. West informed his superior and passed on the identities of the fedayeen snipers.
The issue of his conduct was not pursued until the army carried out a routine investigation of his brigade last month. The colonel was charged with aggravated assault and offered the choice of resigning his commission and forfeiting 19 years of pensionable service or facing a court-martial.
He has now been relieved of his command and transferred to non-combat duties. Two soldiers who handled the prisoner roughly have been fined.
Democrats Continue to Put Politics Over Policy (Greg Miller, 11/05/03, LA Times)
Much like their transparent motives in blocking the creation of a Department of Homeland Security, Democrats have been revealed as playing partisan politics with the Intelligence inquiries going on in Congress right now. Senator Jay Rockefeller (D - West Virginia), who has been exposed on numerous occasions for shading the truth on this subject, seems to have failed to grasp the puiblic disgust with Democrats and their partisanship on these serious matters:
A simmering political struggle behind the Senate inquiry into prewar intelligence on Iraq boiled over publicly Tuesday with the disclosure of a Democratic memo outlining strategies for "exposing the administration's dubious motives" behind the war.
The leaked memo, which was prepared by the staff of Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.), the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, discusses ways that Democrats can steer the existing inquiry toward taking a more critical look at the White House.
It also indicates that Democrats intend to launch a separate independent investigation of the administration's use of intelligence as the parties head into the height of the presidential election season next year.
"Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public's concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq," the memo says. "Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war."
The tone of the memo could be embarrassing to Democrats and provides new ammunition for Republican complaints that Democrats are seeking to use the inquiry for political gain.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), the chairman of the intelligence committee, described the memo as a "slap in the face" to the committee's bipartisan traditions and called the plan an effort to undercut the pan