. . . to tell you what I really think. Wow! Two posts in a row: I'm getting into Wonkette territory, except that I haven't mentioned K-Y yet. Oops.

Arnold I heard more than saw, and it just blows me away that someone who speaks English as a second language can do what he did tonight. I anticipate some reform soon in the rules on who can be President. The second-most-famous Austrian in history may well occupy the White House in my lifetime.

Mrs. Bush did a brilliant job, despite the fact that she's clearly more comfortable reading to fourth graders than to a bunch of delegates in Madison Square Garden. She's not a terrific speaker, and—as with her husband's problems in forming sentences—I'm not sure it's as great a disadvantage as some think: in both George and Laura people see a sort of unpolished greatness that makes them feel they are getting the genuine article. The Bushes come across as very real. And she told the two stories she needed to tell: 1) how social programs under Bush 43 underscore the "compassionate" side of his administration, and 2) the agonizing W. went through when he was making the decision to go to war.

And Mrs. Bush does one thing amazingly well: she has an infectious, piercing smile, which the makeup artist played up beautifully with bright red lipstick that matched elements in the background they provided for her speech. (Did you notice?) She is probably the third most popular first lady in recent history, right behind Jackie Kennedy and Barbara Bush. (Of course, there is Lady Bird, but I'll need someone a little older than I am to tell us how she fits in.)

I think I'd like Teresa as a person: I think she'd be interesting to know. But Laura Bush embodies certain virtues people want to see right now, and if the election were held on the basis of potential first ladies rather than their spouses, it would be a lock. I probably wouldn't bother to vote, even if I did live in a battleground state: it would be whatever is bigger than a "landslide."

Which brings me to the Bush twins. Who approved that copy? Making fun of your grandmother is one thing. Making fun of your grandmother who is a respected icon of dignity and grace is an awful idea. I hear it was supposed to be self-satire about what young troublemakers they are, but the piece of it I heard (I was making a sandwich during much of it) was awful.

However, they are so beautiful that I suspect all will be forgotten in the morning. As many have remarked, it would be a tough, tough race if this were about first daughters: those are four remarkable (and remarkable-looking) young women.

Posted by: Attila at 11:08 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

. . . people might notice more how genuinely funny-looking he is.

Of course, I don't think the teeth-whitening treatments are doing him any good: they just highlight his thin, red-looking lips. And then there's the matter of his hair . . .

But what an amazing speaker. Giuliani—whom I missed—couldn't have been any better.

Posted by: Attila at 10:35 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 65 words, total size 1 kb.

He really is quite an ugly man. Is it wrong to say that? I guess it's unkind. Of course, it was unkind of him to suggest that any President—much less this one—would send young men and women into harm's way to fatten his friends' wallets.

Is that "L" for "lumpenproletariat"?

Via James, who thought Giuliani did well and McCain, less so (except for the Micheal Moore moment). But I've heard some good reviews of both speeches, so I'll have to read the transcripts and let you know what I think. (Yes, I was working all day, and had an evening commitment. This is cutting into my convention coverage, though I guess I could simply post Goldstein-style missives "from New York." Or I could buy a teensy TV and take it to work, sneaking looks at it every now and again, so I could be brilliant about it all when I get home at night.)

Posted by: Attila at 12:34 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 164 words, total size 1 kb.

Via Stephen Malcolm Anderson, some of our fine demonstrators strut their stuff in New York City. My favorite, like SMA's, was the People's Cube, which is far superior to the hierarchical Rubik's cube.

Karol Sheinin reports in Dean's World that WaPo actually fell for this. Cool. Shine on, you crazy diamonds.

Lenny, if you're reading this you should definitely check out Anderson's web site; you two have a few things in common.

Posted by: Attila at 11:46 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 76 words, total size 1 kb.

Draws his own election map, with his best guess on current realities. If he's right, the GOP comes in at 274 electoral votes—and the Dems bring in 264. "That's tight," he observes.

He concedes that he might be wrong in placing Nevada in the Republican camp, however.

I, on the other hand, feel that Minnesota, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and possibly even New Mexico are likely to start blushing before the election. Which would make things, you know . . . less tight.

Posted by: Attila at 11:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

has her own take on why the Old Media wall finally came tumbling down. A medium scorned, and all that.

Posted by: Attila at 10:31 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 24 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . tells us it's really over, by God. Manhattan, L.A., S.F. and maybe Chicago will likely remain in Kerry's fold. Everyone else will be gone in a few weeks. There are just too many questions about Kerry's record, and the blogosphere (along with talk radio) have finally forced the Old Media to cover some of it.

The L.A. Times and The Washington Post both just ran semi-objective stories on the Swifties. There are still no good answers from the Kerry people. (And no Form 180—no document dump like Bush used against the "AWOL" charges.) Now there are reports that Kerry was present at a Vietnam Vets Against the War meeting in which the assassination of U.S. Legislators was discussed. Naturally, he didn't take that to law enforcement. I've described the Kerry implosion as "Watergate in miniature," but it's not so miniature any more: it's only that the corruption and deceitfulness of the man are being discovered before we elect him, rather than afterward.

All I can hope is that my lefty/liberal friends find some other, less-depressing way to occupy their time on November 2nd. Take that day trip: go to Descanso Gardens. Or Legoland. Hang out at the beach. But stay away from alcohol, 'cause you're going to need it the next day when all the final tallies start coming in. You might want to go to Vegas for a couple of days so you can be half in the bag and playing blackjack when the confirmation arrives that Bush will be serving a second term.

Be good to yourself: learn a new yoga pose. Buy a scented candle. Get a massage. Get your black clothes dry-cleaned, because you're going to be in mourning for a while this fall.

Game over.

Posted by: Attila at 10:20 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 299 words, total size 2 kb.

Jimmy Carter might have been our most intelligent President. And Bill Clinton, the craftiest. But George W. Bush is just plain smart.

Posted by: Attila at 08:09 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 26 words, total size 1 kb.

A Vietnam vet—former Marine Peter W. Davis of Wills Point, Texas—wrote a comment here that I felt deserved its own post:

This Viet Nam vet is minimally interested in The Hee-row's exploits, whatever they really were, in Viet Nam. What interests me is how, after having run for office as a war hero, and lost, he gathered a bunch of 'veterans,' many of whom never wore Uncle's suit at all--many others not having set foot in Southeast Asia--and used their 'experiences' to go before a United States Senate Committee and slime every other man that served. Including the dead.

I'm no more a hero than I am a war criminal. I'm just a guy who wore a uniform and did a job that most people wouldn't. My war had far more to do with loneliness, homesickness, exhaustion and fear than John Wayne-style shooting of some big machine gun from the hip. Yet I served alongside some genuine heroes. A whole lot of them traded their jungle ripstops in and came home wearing shiny aluminum boxes.

John Kerry slimed the names of those men with lies. He deliberately, for political gain, harmed some 58,000 families. He may as well have gone to those 58,000 homes and pissed on every one of those neatly-folded flags. Now he's returned to those homes and is parading around wrapped in those same flags.

I do not consider myself fit to speak for those men; there are others with far more right to do so. Compared to some of the men who are speaking out I can stand in the shade of a dime, comfortably, at high noon. There is, however, one man next to whom I consider myself infinitely more qualified to speak of my comrades: John Kerry. Unlike him I've never slimed them. He is not fit to speak of those men, much less speak for them.

Thank you, Peter, for your four years of service. Thank you for sharing your perspective with us now. If anyone's right of free speech is endowed by the Creator, it is yours.

Posted by: Attila at 02:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 2 kb.

Manages to put together a tight, disciplined rant on the subject of . . . John Kerry's Excellent Adventure in Vietnam.

A couple of you guys should probably take a pass on this. The others—go check it out.

Posted by: Attila at 01:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Don't forget to put that "h" in front of the link! Otherwise you end up in his FTP directory.

Posted by: David Ross at August 29, 2004 01:49 PM (61aGv)

2 I don't know what you're talking about; you must have done something wrong

Posted by: Attila Girl at August 29, 2004 11:59 PM (SuJa4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Thank me later.

Posted by: Attila at 01:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.

. . . declares the November election a "one man race."

Posted by: Attila at 04:03 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 15 words, total size 1 kb.

Desert Cat reports that some in the Kerry camp are threatening to sue anyone who posts this:

It is, of course, the cover of Kerry's book. It's also a parody of this picture, of Marines raising the American flag at Iwo Jima:

Won't Kerry be a busy boy?—he'll have to file suit against the entire internet.

UPDATE: Here's the skinny on the threatened lawsuit.

UPDATE 2: Bill gives you access to the rest of the book. (Via Protein Wisdom.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:53 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Herman Jacobs wrote an excellent piece in today's Opinion Journal. He explores the uneasy political truce we've had in this country over the Vietnam war:

Years ago, wearied by their own arguments as much as by the arguments of their antagonists, sensible majorities of both the supporters and the opponents of the Vietnam War yielded to an unwritten domestic truce, composed of two principles:

* Those who participated in the war, with the exception of anyone at or above the rank of general officer, are entitled to public honor for their service.

* Those who actively opposed the war, with the exception of the most extreme Jane Fonda-types, are not to be branded as cowards or traitors to their country.

This uneasy truce, he argues, conceals a wound that could only be healed by a small number of people:

If a man like John McCain or Bob Kerrey were to ascend to the presidency, he might possess the moral authority to elucidate a shared communal understanding and to dispense--on behalf of all those who sacrificed--the forgiveness that would be necessary to put Vietnam behind us.

And what about John Kerry? Might he have become the man finally to bind up the wounds of Vietnam? Yes, I believe he could have performed that healing, perhaps more completely even than a John McCain or a Bob Kerrey, precisely because John Kerry was both "sinner" and "sinned against." No one could have better explained to the nation how the world looks different with the passage of time.

He could have explained that although he is remains deeply proud to have served his country in war, he is deeply sorry that in his proudly foolish youth he spoke such vile words about the other men who fought in that war, many of whom were still fighting when he dishonored them. He could have explained that there were good men and women who supported the Vietnam War and good men and women who opposed it. He could have explained that, even though he still believes he was right to oppose many things about the war, he now knows he was wrong--unequivocally wrong--to say and do the fraudulent things he said and did when he returned from Vietnam.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yet we do not fault Mr. Kerry for failing to seek the reconciliation that history seemed to have placed uniquely within his power to achieve. In the absence of healing, the nation could have continued to observe the well-established domestic truce. We all would have been content to continue to "let it alone," just as we have done for the past 25 years.

But now we can't "let it alone." The reason we can't "let it alone" is that John Kerry won't let us "let it alone."

We can't let it alone because Mr. Kerry has pursued a strategy that sounds out old angers with a dissonant message that takes the two prongs of the domestic truce and makes them serve his own advantage. The domestic truce had required that those who served in Vietnam should receive honor. So Mr. Kerry now exalts that half of the truce--not humbly as befits a genuine war hero, but constantly and immodestly waving the bloody shirt of his Vietnam service in the faces of his critics whenever any connection, no matter how illogical, can be drawn between their criticism and Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The predominant quality revealed in Mr. Kerry's spinning and unspinning his personal history in the Vietnam era is that, like everything else in his political life (from the SUVs he owns but doesn't own, to the medals he tossed but didn't toss, to the war in Iraq he supports but doesn't support), he's trying to have it both ways. But because of how the Vietnam era tore this country apart and still weighs on the nation's political soul, Mr. Kerry's trying to have it both ways about that war is so much more telling than his SUV moment or even his flip-flops on the current war.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Yes, it's true that under the strict terms of our long-standing domestic truce, John Kerry was not required to apologize for the things he said 30 years ago, even though he himself had more recently tested that truce with his attacks on George W. Bush's National Guard service. But then in January of this year, to burnish his credentials as a war president, Mr. Kerry's authorized biography reported a story implying that his Swift Boat comrades had fled the scene of an enemy attack while he alone returned to rescue the wounded. Honor being such an insignificant thing to John Kerry, he probably had no idea that--with his biography reviving war crimes accusations and, more specifically, implying cowardice on the part of his fellow Swifties--he had broken the domestic truce.

The truce is over. The Swift Vets and all the other vets John Kerry has freshly maligned are determined that this time around he is not going to have it both ways. Men like Michael Benge, Kenneth Cordier, Joseph Crecca and Jim Warner, who have already lost too many years of their lives to the Vietnam War, would have much preferred that Mr. Kerry had not restarted this fight. But now that he has, they are not going to let it alone.

It's a long piece. But I urge you to pour one more cup of coffee, get a bagel, and read the whole thing. This morning. Now. Especially if you vigorously disagree with me most of the time. Because it will help to explain to you why your sense that John Kerry is a "war hero" doesn't conform to the view of him most Vets—Vietnam vets in particular—have.

I know that some of you are afraid that because George W. Bush never "saw action," he may be casual about sending young men and women to die overseas. You are afraid that he may view their lives as cheap. But I'd like you to consider how cheap the lives of other vets appeared to a young John Kerry years ago, when he advocated that we simply withdraw, leaving the Vietnamese to their fate, and leaving our own POWs to die at the hands of their tormentors.

Please think about that.

This election is not just about Democrats versus Republicans, or whether the war in Iraq was a good idea, or how we are going to approach the issue of combatting terrorism, or how many Western European countries we need as allies.

This election is now—by Kerry's own choosing—about whether we show some respect to those who served their country 30 years ago, or continue to spit on them and call them names.

Posted by: Attila at 09:30 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 1224 words, total size 7 kb.

. . . gives us a short, hilarious history of the "Massachurian Candidate," one Ivan Kerrinsky. His memories are a little spotty, but they'll do.

Posted by: Attila at 01:55 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 29 words, total size 1 kb.

Malkin reprints a letter from a Vietnam Vet who says he isn't affiliated with any 527s. He hasn't read Unfit for Command, but he does have a thing or two to say about Tour of Duty, and like many veterans from the Vietnam era—and from other conflicts—he has some issues with Kerry's behavior. Not to mention his command of the facts.

Posted by: Attila at 10:51 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 67 words, total size 1 kb.

This is the text of the letter presented to Max Cleland today when he showed up at the President's ranch to engage in his little bit of political theatre:

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all who have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities -- and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too -- and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 -- in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson

Rep. Duke Cunningham

Rep. Duncan Hunter

Rep. Sam Johnson

Lt. General David Palmer

Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient

James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient

Lieutenant Colonel Richard Castle (Ret.)

Posted by: Attila at 10:25 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 475 words, total size 3 kb.

I know that the intense left-liberal media bias is part of the reason people get their news and analysis from blogs. I really do.

But every once in a while, I wish that the mainstream guys would try to do their actual jobs.

Now, as the two tenuous connections between the Bush campaign and the Swifties melt away and I reflect on the intimate connection between the DNC and several anti-Bush 527s—along with the underlying attitude, which from the get-go has been "prove that we're in bed together," I feel wistful again, and long for real, old-fashioned journalists to do just that.

Is anyone outside the blogosphere up to the challenge?

Posted by: Attila at 02:33 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 117 words, total size 1 kb.

James has the skinny (via Drudge) on John Kerry's recent phone call to Robert Brent of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Apparently they bunked together in Vietnam, and Brent used to put Kerry back to bed when he was sleepwalking. (James: "that's not a good thing to do in a combat zone.")

Brent, who lost two of his men in Vietnam, is as outraged as many vets at John Kerry's conduct when he came home, joined the antiwar movement, and lied about supposed "atrocities" committed by our guys in southeast Asia.

Kerry wanted to meet face-to-face, and talk about the factual dispute. Brent declined.

Had I mentioned that this election is over?

The problem here is that the Democratic Party thought they could have it both ways with Kerry: here's a guy who got decorated in Vietnam, but came back and protested the war. I suspect the reasoning was that he could appear to be all things to all people. To the antiwar crowd, he could be a peace protester. To those who are concerned about the War on Terror, he could play the war hero and look "tough."

In their attempt to have it both ways, though, they really have it neither way. Those who are infuriated by the war in Iraq are not turned on by this "reporting for duty" bullshit, and those who are very concerned about the terrorist threat—and support the action in Iraq—are nauseated by it.

There's no there there.

Posted by: Attila at 12:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 250 words, total size 1 kb.

Q and O points out that it was Kerry himself who was first questioning the service record of George W. Bush, and—with an able assist from the Wall Street Journal—quickly puts the lie to the notion that the Swift Boat Vets are out of bounds.

I'm still thrilled with the way Bush handled the calls for him to condemn the Swifties. He distanced himself from them, yet rejected the idea of a unilateral disarmament by those who support him (or at least hate Kerry), and brought up the idea that these 527s are even less accountable than the parties are, as a basis for future policy debate. (I think it's worth noting that a few of the Democratic 527s had offices right next to that of the DNC at the Democratic convention.)

Posted by: Attila at 11:50 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.