July 31, 2004
Kerry On
The Command Post is running
this report that the Kerry campaign bus stopped at a Wendy's where a group of Marines were eating lunch. Spotting them, Kerry walked over to shake their hands. The men were polite—all "yes, Sir," "no, Sir"—but made it clear to reporters afterward that they were Bush supporters and didn't appreciate Kerry's imposition on their time and attention.
What a surprise.
Posted by: Attila at
02:10 PM
| Comments (1)
| Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.
1
The Marines did what they were supposed to do, and were respectful, but I am sure they didn't like being subjected to a photo-op.
Posted by: Desert Raspberry at July 31, 2004 10:30 PM (01OJw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 30, 2004
Andy Redeems Himself. Kind Of.
Okay. I take it all back. It's okay to send him money after all, if you really must.
Sullivan on Teresa Heinz Kerry:
Do her words matter? Probably not. But I have a couple of serious worries. THK is the classic hyper-rich liberal female. Like many absurdly wealthy people, she is not used to actually engaging people as equals. Few speak back to her. She is also unused to real debate. She has never run for office, and although her philanthropic record is stellar and deeply admirable, her political ideas are half-baked and run completely counter to the centrist message this convention has been so shrewdly sending out. So how did she get away with such a spot? I fear that she got what she wanted merely because she insisted; and that her insistence is enough to get her anything she wants. That is not a good omen for a future Kerry administration. We already endured one unelected condescender as co-president for eight years. But mercifully, Hillary Rodham Clinton is now a legitimate politician, elected in her own right, as all democratic leaders ought to be. THK is another matter.
It's hard not to like her. I'd love to have dinner with her. I'm sure she's a wonderful spouse, great mother, and peerless philanthropist. But she is now officially a liability for Kerry's campaign. And the campaign let it happen. If Kerry's advisers want to win, they'd better tell her to quiet down and take a backseat to the man who is actually running for office. And if she won't, someone, somewhere, is going to have to tell her to shove it.
Posted by: Attila at
01:47 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 2 kb.
Jeff Goldstein
gives us another
campaign update:
Smoked a fatty with a clatch of Willy Nelson roadies during an early afternoon sound check, and I’m happy to report that there really are two Americas. There must be. Because weed of this quality doesn’t come from any America I know of, that’s for damn sure.
Off to find me some snacking chips. Or maybe a Mallow Pie. Developing…
update: Time for a nap.
There's more where that came from. Go. Now.
Posted by: Attila at
12:18 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 82 words, total size 1 kb.
July 29, 2004
OMG!
I guess they went with John Kerry.
That's not what I would have done.
Posted by: Attila at
10:57 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.
July 26, 2004
The Dean Esmay Pledge
Dean has an interesting
question on his site, and a strong challenge to American conservatives and libertarians, should Kerry be elected President:
How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"
I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."
I keep thinking about the Oklahoma City bombing. The day it happened, Rush Limbaugh told people it was time to get behind the President of the United States and not to criticize the decisions he made that day—and he said it with passion. For Limbaugh, all partisan concerns stopped in the wake of a terrorist threat. That's how it ought to be.
My version of the Esmay Pledge contains the caveat reiterated by many of his commenters: I'll keep my criticisms respectful, but if he lies to the country as its Commander-in-Chief I will call him on that.
Anything less would be unpatriotic.
Posted by: Attila at
01:37 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
Post contains 288 words, total size 2 kb.
1
The problem with Dean's proposed Pledge is the implied assumption the the hard left are essentially patriotic Americans. I believe they have a patriotism of sorts. But it is not a patriotism toward America as it existed in the past or as it exists today. It is a patriotism directed toward a secular America as they wish it to be.
In other words, they are committed not to America as it is - messy, hypocritical, religious, loud, divided, democratic, and good. Rather, they are committed to their secular utopian vision of what America should be. So they are not really patriotic Americans. They are patriotic Utopians.
They are like perfectionists parents, promising to love their child one day when he finally gets his act together. They profess their love, but their actions and their words bely their profession. And their vision of Utopia repulses me.
Posted by: Scott Harris at July 28, 2004 04:06 PM (yYmCf)
2
But how many Democrats are part of the "hard left"? I know that bunch has taken the party over, but most of my friends are liberal to left (welfare democracy for most; a few still have a soft spot for socialism, in a theoretical sort of way--this is dissapating for most, as time goes on).
I know G.W. is a lightning rod, but I also know it's chic to despise him, as it once was to hate Ronald Reagan.
And there is the absolute flood of bad information these people get: the propaganda from Michael Moore, half-the-story articles in papers like the L.A. Times, the Old Media's insistence on only conveying the bad news from Iraq--never the good.
For anyone who's dependent on Old Media sources, it's an absolute deluge. And now--as with Reagan in the 1980s--lots of inaccurate information about W is also passed along by word of mouth.
I honestly think a lot of average Democrats genuinely love this country. But they also genuinely hate the man they think George W. Bush is.
They are simply mistaken--not bad. And in the chests of (almost) all my friends and colleagues beat the hearts of real, true-blue patriots.
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 29, 2004 01:05 PM (SuJa4)
3
If John Kerry becomes President (God forbid), will I think it better to live in the U.S. or in Nigeria? The U.S.
Will I call him all sorts of vile names (i.e. liar, baby killer, Nazi, Communist, etc.)? No.
Will I criticize his policies if I disagree with them? Yes.
Will I support his WoT efforts? If he prosecutes the war with due diligence, yes. If he waffles or backs off, putting Americans in more danger, no.
Will I recommend that friends and acquaintences join the military? No.
Will I forget he lied about me and my fellow Vietnam veterans before Congress, admitted to commiting war crimes himself, and spent his career in the Senate generally voting to dismantle the military and intelligens agencies? No.
Will I have high (or even mediocre) expectations of his leadership and support of our Constitution? No.
Will I act toward him as the Democrats have acted toward President Bush. No.
Do I shudder to think about the consequences of his election? Yes.
Will I survive anyway? I think the chances are good but not certain, given that I know there are thousands of Islamofascists who want to kill me and I don't see any evidence that JFK2 has the desire to do the hard things it will take to keep us all safe.
Will I ever vote again? I honestly think I may not. If the American people can't make a simple choice to protect themselves and not rely on the notoriously unreliable U.N., I think my best bet is to hunker down, buy plenty of guns and ammunition to protect me and mine, never travel, and pull the hole around me real tight.
Posted by: chuck at July 29, 2004 02:37 PM (UdnXf)
4
Oh, Chuck. I'm so sorry you feel that way.
I hope you don't give up on the political process, no matter what happens in this election. Though I understand, at least to the degree that I can, never having gone through what you've gone through. I agree that this man betrayed all of you--and badly.
But you've served your country honorably, and you don't owe us anything at this point. So do as you will.
And, thanks.
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 29, 2004 10:34 PM (SuJa4)
5
My husband--a Marine who served as the war was winding down, but never went to Vietnam, because of his youth--has a more succinct answer for you: buy more guns, but vote anyway.
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 30, 2004 12:37 AM (SuJa4)
6
Attilla Girl,
My neighbors are strong Democrats, have a revulsion for George Bush, and are not hard leftists. Interestingly, last week we were having dinner together and the topic of politics came up. I kept trying to ask about what was good for the country, and they finally said that they didn't really care about what was good for the country; they cared about what was good for themselves.
So while they are certainly not America haters, I cannot really describe them as patriots, either. Their view of the world is entirely narcissistic. BTW, Saturday we are taking them to a Baseball game - Texas Rangers v. Oakland Athletics - so despite our bitter disagreement over politics, we are still good friends. But I know that they cannot be counted upon to vote according to what is good for America, only what they perceive as their narrow self-interest.
For those Democrats who are not hard-leftists, many fall into the narcissistic category. There is a certain childishness of "I want what I want when I want it" quality to their outlook on life.
But I think there are more hard-leftists in the Democratic ranks than you might believe. Michael Moore sat in a luxury box at the DNC as a guest of Jimmy Carter. If that doesn't indicate that his twisted views are close to mainstream Democratic dogma than not, what does?
Posted by: Scott Harris at July 30, 2004 10:02 AM (yYmCf)
7
The prominence of Michael Moore at the DNC convention shows that there is an intellectual cancer in the Democratic party. I'm only saying we shouldn't mix up the cancerous cells with the healthy tissue.
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 30, 2004 12:58 PM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
July 24, 2004
They Say It'll Be Close
Ahoy, Maties.
This AP story gives us a summary of the map as it now stands:
BOSTON - John Kerry narrowly trails President Bush in the battle for the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, as he makes his case at the Democratic National Convention this week to topple the Republican incumbent.
With three months remaining in a volatile campaign, Kerry has 14 states and the District of Columbia in his column for 193 electoral votes. Bush has 25 states for 217 votes, according to an Associated Press analysis of state polls as well as interviews with strategists across the country.
"It's a tough, tough map. I think it's going to be a close race," said Democratic strategist Tad Devine, who helped plot Al Gore's state-by-state strategy in 2000 and plays the same role for Kerry.
"But looking back four years, we're much stronger now. I think we're going into this convention in great shape," he said.
Both candidates are short of the magic 270 electoral votes. The margin of victory will come from:
* TOSSUPS — Bush and Kerry are running even in 11 states with a combined 128 electoral votes. Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan and West Virginia are the toughest battlegrounds. Two other tossups, Pennsylvania and Oregon, could soon move to Kerry's column.
* LEAN KERRY — Maine, Minnesota and Washington (a combined 25 electoral votes) favor Kerry over Bush by a few percentage points. Gore carried them in 2000.
* LEAN BUSH — North Carolina, Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona, Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri (a combined 73 electoral votes) give Bush modest leads. He won all seven in 2000.
All total, 21 states are in play. Some will bounce between "lean" to "tossup" throughout the campaign.
But there's this to consider:
Four years ago, Bush won 30 states and their 271 electoral votes — one more than needed. Gore, who won the popular vote, claimed 20 states plus the District of Columbia for 267 electoral votes.
Since then, reapportionment added electoral votes to states with population gains and took them from states losing people. The result: Bush's states are now worth 278 electoral votes and Gore's are worth just 260.
Which is one reason that, in my optimistic moments, I envision a landslide for Bush. Though we'll see about that.
I do not, for the record, believe Florida is in play. Not with the panhandle turning out in force: that's tens of thousands of votes. No. Florida will go to the GOP.
And then, there's the Pennsylvania factor:
Of the states won by Gore, Pennsylvania is by far Bush's top target. The president has spent millions of dollars in the state on commercials and has visited it more than any other contested state — 30 trips since his inauguration.
For Kerry, losing Pennsylvania would create a virtually insurmountable electoral vote gap.
On the other hand, I don't believe California is in play at all—Arnold, Nixon and Reagan notwithstanding, the Bay Area and LA will probably keep this one in Kerry's column. But I'm still going to vote my little heart out. Of course, if I'm wrong Kerry might as well take his dollies and go home.
Hat tip: Newsfeed.
Posted by: Attila at
07:24 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 549 words, total size 4 kb.
July 16, 2004
Moseying Down Memory Lane
Allah has a new poster idea for the Kerry-Edwards campaign:
This should really energize the campaign.
Posted by: Attila at
06:57 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.
1
I was shocked there were a few youngsters that didn't know what this picture depicted. (For the record, I was ten when Saigon fell.)
Then I felt really, really old.
I had to lie down for a few minutes. Heh.
Posted by: Emma at July 18, 2004 07:59 PM (NOZuy)
2
I was 13. I'm 42 now, and my forties seem to be a sort of second adolescence for me: my body is slowly changing. But my mind is becoming an ever-more-wicked weapon. So there's a trade-off, and I'd like this even if it weren't just a matter of "getting older beats the alternative."
Of course, they tell me I look 30-35, so that helps me not to take it too hard. It's that "little elfin face" thing: my father tells me he looked 11 years old till he hit 60. Not that my dad ever exaggerates.
Posted by: Attila Girl at July 19, 2004 01:47 AM (SuJa4)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
40kb generated in CPU 0.0251, elapsed 0.1313 seconds.
209 queries taking 0.1173 seconds, 427 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.