The Washington Post in its Editoral page today clear agrees that the President took the first debate. This is by no means a conservative paper:
Mr. Bush was skillful and relentless in underlining these "mixed messages," and in arguing that a president who sent them could not effectively lead U.S. forces or recruit allies. "So what's the message going to be? Please join us in Iraq for a grand diversion?" he demanded at one point. Mr. Kerry seemed not to have an answer to this challenge; his argument that "the real war on terrorism [is] in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden" seemed to us unconvincing alongside Mr. Bush's repeated insistence that success in Iraq and on other fronts is equally vital to U.S. security. After all, not so long ago Mr. Kerry said he, too, believed that Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat that the United States could not afford to ignore.
This from the Las Vegas Review Journal and what a great headline:
EDITORIAL: Tone-deaf Kerry loses crucial debate
Fails to lay a glove with talk of 'global tests,' and 'bringing in' the Europeans
Democratic challenger John Kerry entered the first presidential debate in Coral Gables, Fla., Thursday night running behind. He needed to win this debate. Many pundits proclaimed that he did so, simply by making no major mistakes while arguing a subject -- foreign policy -- considered to be his greatest weakness. They are wrong. He lost.
President Bush won the debate at precisely the midpoint. He did it with a reminiscence of an Iraq War widow named Misty Bryan visiting with him after losing her husband, P.J., in that war.
The very fact that George W. Bush is not a glib man made it obvious his emotion was sincere, as he said of the young war widow, "It's hard work to love her the best I can. I told her after we prayed together, and teared up and laughed some ... that her husband's sacrifice was noble."
THATS GONNA LEAVE A MARK!
Dick Morris, former Clinton Guru:
PRESIDENT Bush's positions on the issues aired in the debate last night are so sound and John Kerry's so contradictory that the Republican could not help but win the debate.
BO SCHEMBECHLER: Bush has proved himself a leader thats right Woody's old nemisis Bo Schembechler:
I like to think most people would agree that I know football. I also know a little something about character, commitment and leadership. The past three years, President George W. Bush has dealt with situations no president has ever faced, and he has emerged as one of the most principled leaders our country has ever seen. What I find remarkable and admirable is that the president has risen to the challenge every time: confronting unprecedented threats to national security and displaying the resolve to carry America through the tough times.
He is dedicated to defending our nation at home and abroad. And he defends through smart offense -- bringing the war to the terrorists so we don't have to fight them again here at home.
The American people have a choice to make in November; that choice is clear to me. They have a choice of a man who is unafraid to defend our nation and protect the security of every American. They have a choice of a man who is determined to lead the world to freedom and peace, and win the war on terror. They have a choice of a man who will make the tough decisions when they must be made, no matter the political winds.
I know Michigan, I know the values Michiganders stand for, and I know Michigan needs four more years of President Bush. He has my vote, and he deserves yours, too.
These are just selected highlights. You have to read the whole piece at The Detroit Free Press
H.D.S. Grenway in Kerry's Hometown Boston Globe
John Podhoretz in the NYPost
Fred Barnes,The Weekly Standard
I could go on and on but the consensus is clear.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Gallup Internals
If you look at the Gallup Internals on last nights debate it seems that the President was a clear and undisputed winner in 4 out of the 6 key issues that voters rely on to choose. Those issues were who agreed with you more on the issues you cared about (Bush up 3%), who was more likeable (Bush up 7%), who was more believable (Bush up 5%) and demonstrated he is more tough enough to do the job (Bush up 17%)
Mr Kerry was the clear winner in one out of the 6 on the issue of who expressed himself more clearly and they tied on who had a clear understanding of the issues.
Mr Kerry was the clear winner in one out of the 6 on the issue of who expressed himself more clearly and they tied on who had a clear understanding of the issues.
Which would they choose?
James Lileks has some great thoughts on last nights debate over at his blog. Here is a great excerpt:
Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century
B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer
What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”
and on the proposed Kerry (Lovefest's) summit's:
And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either.
So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad? Second, do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely the alienated moderates must be asking: the United States could destroy the madmen, completely. Yet they do not. Why?
What a great observations.
Ask yourself this: you’re a dictator who has violated the terms of a peace treaty over and over again, and frequently shoots at the planes enforcing the treaties. Who do you fear the most? A) The magnificent concert of allies in the UN, some of whom you’ve bought off, who are desperate to prove their legitimacy by prolonging the process into the 22nd century
B) The United States, Britain and Australia, who have several hundred thousand troops on your border and frankly are in no mood to put up your crap any longer
What would you want in this situation? The answer starts with “S” and ends, five letters later, in “T.”
and on the proposed Kerry (Lovefest's) summit's:
And another thing: the idea of a summit with the Muslim world doesn’t particularly billow my sails, either.
So Osama is using our invasion of Iraq to recruit new troops? First of all, you know this how? We have a tape of OBL holding up a copy of 2004 TV Guide Fall Season edition to verify the date, declaring a new and improved jihad? Second, do you think a summit in which the various satrapies of the Middle East and elsewhere convene for a marathon bitchfest about Gaza is going to make America beloved in Sadr City? They want us to extend a hand, yes, so they can lop it off. Ah, but what of the moderates. Those who have been turned against us because we threw out the Taliban and deposed Saddam – the relentlessly secular Saddam, as we’re often reminded. If it hasn’t occurred to these folks before, let me spell it out plainly: if you think there’s a war against Muslims now, you lack a certain sense of perspective. If tiptoeing around sacred sites and taking special care to pick off the snipers hiding in mosques so as not to disturb the plaster is a war against Islam, you will be looking for new terms when Putin drops a big bag of hammers somewhere someday. Surely the alienated moderates must be asking: the United States could destroy the madmen, completely. Yet they do not. Why?
What a great observations.
Global Test Found!
Global Test for Pre-emptive Military Action by the U.S.
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
1. Is the U.S. President a Republican?
2. Could this action possibly stabilize oil production?
3. Are France and Germany supplying the intended target with weapons or advice?
4. Would any small time thugocracy with a seat on the Security Council feel threatened?
5. Are family members of high ranking U.N. bureaucrats benefiting financially from the status quo?
6. Is this action likely to enhance America’s power in the world?
7. Would this action further the goals of free market/free trade advocates?
8. Would this action make the U.N. look weak and inconsistent?
9. Would this action divide the countries of the European Union?
10. Would this action be seen as offensive to a world religion (other than Christianity and Judaism)?
TradeSports and Iowa Electronic Markets futures exchanges no losses for Bush just gains.
There was no Bush debate dip, modest or otherwise. He did lose ground against where he had risen to during the debate, but all that meant was that he was back to where he'd been at the start of the debate.
I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they "thought" was winning.
Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.
Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.
So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.
The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?
I followed Tradesports and Iowa closely before, during, and after the debate to see who they "thought" was winning.
Tradesports most recent trades immediately before the debate started at 9:00 were 65.0 for Bush and 36.4 for Kerry. Bush gained steadily during the debate. For example, by 10:00 it was 67.4/33.7, with the same repeated at 10:35. But by 11:35, it was back pretty much where it had started, 65.5/36.0. This morning it was 65.0/35.9.
Iowa was perhaps closed for the day last night, because its 65/32 never wavered during the debate. But this morning it was 68.2/32.8.
So, if anything, I would say Bush had a modest gain.
The stock market seems to agree, except who ever knows why it does what it does?
Opps again Johnny, wrong language again?
The US and China have said they were confident North Korea will return to six-party talks to end the stand-off over Pyongyang's nuclear programmes.
US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".
Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".
This is bad news for Kerry.
US State Secretary Colin Powell said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing the format was "what we should be concentrating on".
Mr Li described the talks as the "only feasible and correct option".
This is bad news for Kerry.
KERRY'S MAN LOCKHART: DEBATE CONSENSUS A 'DRAW'
Unbeknownst to Kerry adviser Mike McCurry, a C-SPAN camera quietly followed McCurry as he found Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart on Spin Alley floor and asked him his impression of the debate. Lockhart candidly said to McCurry , “The consensus is it was a draw.”
Another Lie!
FLASH: Kerry stated: 'That's why they had to close down the subway in New York when the Republican Convention was there.' (Driving home point that Bush as not done enough to protect the country.)
The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1...
The NYC subway did not close at all during the convention, according to a report on cable outlet NY1...
Thursday, September 30, 2004
BUSH 1 - Kerry 0
First off just a thought. A casual watcher of debates at first glance would take away from tonight's first debate is that John Kerry has no core values or core beliefs. You could read by watching him that he has a very warped and revisionist view of reality.
Case in point would be his continuing insistence that we are in Iraq going it alone? We have over 30 allies in the War on Terror in Iraq fighting along side of us but yet Senator Kerry continues to denigrate and impune our allies that if under the unfortunate and highly unlikely possibility he would win in November he would need on his side. We have more allies in Iraq than we had in WWII.
Then in the same breath in the same debate when the President says that we are not going it alone in North Korea but working with other countries to hold North Korea accountable and put pressure on them with and through others Senator Kerry say' "no we need to go it alone in North Korea, we need Bi-Lateral talks." Where is the diplomacy that he so desires in Iraq, where is the coalition building he so much talks about and mis-leadingly (alright honestly lies about) in Iraq? Where is the handing over of our sovereignty that he is so willing to do in Iraq not what he wants in North Korea?
You fliped on Iraq but flopped to another position of action on North Korea. Huh?
This thread and line of exchange in the debates further reiterates his moral spinelessness when it comes to taking a position based on your core beliefs and values and standing firm as the President has done so with out hesitation as the leader of the Free world.
Is there a different "Global Test" that you must take for each country as Senator Kerry talked about tonight. And just what is this "Global Test" Senator Kerry sprung on us tonight? When did the President of the United States become required to bow down to a "Global Test" Mr. Kerry? I think this statement alone is evidence alone of what and who to your allegiances will be as President.
"I used the wrong language" when I talked about the 87 billion dollar appropriation bill for the troops. I think this is the same excuse you used to excuse your lies before congress in 1971 about our troops in Vietnam. Please Mr. Kerry, President Bush is supposed to be the one who mis-speaks not you with your upper class aristrocratic upbringing.
You lied when directly asked about calling the President a liar, was that a misuse of language again?
You said just the other day that you were not wrong on your positions on the war in Iraq because it "all depend on the outcome", to quote you. Lets just imagine Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address with "it all depends on the outcome" injected from time to time. Or FDR's decisions as President based on "it all depends on the outcome."
Mr. Kerry your pre-September 10th mentality show you to be the weak, unsteady and unreliable leader that you are, and that was abundantly apparent tonight on the debate. You came across as an arrogant, better than you, know it all elitist and shifty, flip flopping leader you are and would be. You looked like a finger waving pompous, condensing, liar that you are.
On the other side the President continued to show his heart for all Americans, his compassion for others and genuine passion to do the right thing and lead as great leaders do their countries in times of great peril. Churchill stood firm, FDR stood firm, Reagan stood firm and George W. Bush continues to stand firm. He did not turn on his fellow brothers as you have done time and time again over the years. The President has stood and continues to stand firm in his moral clarity, character convictions. Never wavering but standing firm for the American people.
One closing thought to add to the flips and flops, and lies and fabrications of John Kerry. After saying that General Tommy Franks had voice concern about Iraq, General Franks is on Fox News right now blowing the Kerry quote right out of the water, saying that John Kerry was wrong and was not truthful.
Why should we expect anything different from him now.
Case in point would be his continuing insistence that we are in Iraq going it alone? We have over 30 allies in the War on Terror in Iraq fighting along side of us but yet Senator Kerry continues to denigrate and impune our allies that if under the unfortunate and highly unlikely possibility he would win in November he would need on his side. We have more allies in Iraq than we had in WWII.
Then in the same breath in the same debate when the President says that we are not going it alone in North Korea but working with other countries to hold North Korea accountable and put pressure on them with and through others Senator Kerry say' "no we need to go it alone in North Korea, we need Bi-Lateral talks." Where is the diplomacy that he so desires in Iraq, where is the coalition building he so much talks about and mis-leadingly (alright honestly lies about) in Iraq? Where is the handing over of our sovereignty that he is so willing to do in Iraq not what he wants in North Korea?
You fliped on Iraq but flopped to another position of action on North Korea. Huh?
This thread and line of exchange in the debates further reiterates his moral spinelessness when it comes to taking a position based on your core beliefs and values and standing firm as the President has done so with out hesitation as the leader of the Free world.
Is there a different "Global Test" that you must take for each country as Senator Kerry talked about tonight. And just what is this "Global Test" Senator Kerry sprung on us tonight? When did the President of the United States become required to bow down to a "Global Test" Mr. Kerry? I think this statement alone is evidence alone of what and who to your allegiances will be as President.
"I used the wrong language" when I talked about the 87 billion dollar appropriation bill for the troops. I think this is the same excuse you used to excuse your lies before congress in 1971 about our troops in Vietnam. Please Mr. Kerry, President Bush is supposed to be the one who mis-speaks not you with your upper class aristrocratic upbringing.
You lied when directly asked about calling the President a liar, was that a misuse of language again?
You said just the other day that you were not wrong on your positions on the war in Iraq because it "all depend on the outcome", to quote you. Lets just imagine Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address with "it all depends on the outcome" injected from time to time. Or FDR's decisions as President based on "it all depends on the outcome."
Mr. Kerry your pre-September 10th mentality show you to be the weak, unsteady and unreliable leader that you are, and that was abundantly apparent tonight on the debate. You came across as an arrogant, better than you, know it all elitist and shifty, flip flopping leader you are and would be. You looked like a finger waving pompous, condensing, liar that you are.
On the other side the President continued to show his heart for all Americans, his compassion for others and genuine passion to do the right thing and lead as great leaders do their countries in times of great peril. Churchill stood firm, FDR stood firm, Reagan stood firm and George W. Bush continues to stand firm. He did not turn on his fellow brothers as you have done time and time again over the years. The President has stood and continues to stand firm in his moral clarity, character convictions. Never wavering but standing firm for the American people.
One closing thought to add to the flips and flops, and lies and fabrications of John Kerry. After saying that General Tommy Franks had voice concern about Iraq, General Franks is on Fox News right now blowing the Kerry quote right out of the water, saying that John Kerry was wrong and was not truthful.
Why should we expect anything different from him now.
Breaking News: Kerry for lights before being against them!
RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie: "Only John Kerry Could Be For The Lights Before He Was Against The Lights."
It Keeps Growing and Growing and Growing...
GDP grew at a 3.3% rate in the second quarter, revised upward from the 2.8% initially reported, Reuters reports:
"It looks like the economy wasn't all that soft in the second quarter," said economist Gary Thayer of A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri. "Generally, it shows the economy healthy and seeing growth in most categories."
"It looks like the economy wasn't all that soft in the second quarter," said economist Gary Thayer of A.G. Edwards and Sons Inc. in St. Louis, Missouri. "Generally, it shows the economy healthy and seeing growth in most categories."
Monday, September 27, 2004
Questions for Mr. Kerry
Just a few good questions that need to be answered by Senator Kerry:
--The Washington Times reported today that on CNN's "Crossfire" in 1997, you stated the following: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." Do you still stand by any portion of that statement?
--Why did you skip Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech to the joint meeting of Congress? Seemed like it might have been a pretty significant speech for a man who wants to be President to attend, especially considering the recent liberation of Iraq and the fact that he was the first Iraqi leader to visit D.C. since 1952, didn't it?
--Why would you allow your underlings to even hint, much less declare, that the leader of a newly freed country is merely a puppet of President Bush?
--You claim you would be able to get more allies to come to our side in future conflicts. Do you still believe that, considering your remarks demeaning the support given by our allies for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and your campaign's treatment of Allawi?
--If you can question President Bush's military service, why can't he question yours (even though he hasn't)?
--You Democrats get really offended when anyone even appears to question your patriotism. Are you prepared to denounce the declaration by one of your fellow Democratic Senators, Fritz Hollings, this week that President Bush is a "damned draft dodger"? (And did you find it as strange as I did that any Clinton supporter would use such a phrase to try to demean a Republican President?)
--Another Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, has made public statements calling Bush a liar concerning his military service, but the problem is that his claims were based on those fake CBS documents. Are you going to ask him to apologize -- or, at the very least, to zip it?
--In several newspapers today, your talkative wife, Teresa, was reported to have said that she thinks the Bush Administration will announce the capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day. Apparently, she believes the White House has an October Surprise in mind. Did you tell her to say that, or did she just get it from Michael Moore?
--On the "Regis and Kelly" TV show, you told a story of a couple kids contributing to your campaign:
Kerry campaign donors apparently come in all sizes. He told Philbin and Ripa that a woman in New York gave him $385 that her 8-year-old son had raised selling homemade campaign buttons, and a 6-year-old in Philadelphia handed over a plastic container with $685 he had earned selling homemade campaign bracelets.
Did you return that money, since there was a fair chance they were illegal contributions? Even if they were legal, your campaign isn't in such dire straits that you would take money from children, right?
--Your campaign recently responded to a Bush/Cheney ad accusing you flip-flopping on top of a video of you wind-surfing. Your response ad ripped the Bush team for running a "juvenile" ad during the "Iraq quagmire." Do you see the irony that your campaign offered such a criticism, yet you were the one having photo-ops on your wind-surfing board and while walking around wearing spandex -- all of this done during the "Iraq quagmire"?
--The Washington Times reported today that on CNN's "Crossfire" in 1997, you stated the following: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." Do you still stand by any portion of that statement?
--Why did you skip Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech to the joint meeting of Congress? Seemed like it might have been a pretty significant speech for a man who wants to be President to attend, especially considering the recent liberation of Iraq and the fact that he was the first Iraqi leader to visit D.C. since 1952, didn't it?
--Why would you allow your underlings to even hint, much less declare, that the leader of a newly freed country is merely a puppet of President Bush?
--You claim you would be able to get more allies to come to our side in future conflicts. Do you still believe that, considering your remarks demeaning the support given by our allies for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and your campaign's treatment of Allawi?
--If you can question President Bush's military service, why can't he question yours (even though he hasn't)?
--You Democrats get really offended when anyone even appears to question your patriotism. Are you prepared to denounce the declaration by one of your fellow Democratic Senators, Fritz Hollings, this week that President Bush is a "damned draft dodger"? (And did you find it as strange as I did that any Clinton supporter would use such a phrase to try to demean a Republican President?)
--Another Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, has made public statements calling Bush a liar concerning his military service, but the problem is that his claims were based on those fake CBS documents. Are you going to ask him to apologize -- or, at the very least, to zip it?
--In several newspapers today, your talkative wife, Teresa, was reported to have said that she thinks the Bush Administration will announce the capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day. Apparently, she believes the White House has an October Surprise in mind. Did you tell her to say that, or did she just get it from Michael Moore?
--On the "Regis and Kelly" TV show, you told a story of a couple kids contributing to your campaign:
Kerry campaign donors apparently come in all sizes. He told Philbin and Ripa that a woman in New York gave him $385 that her 8-year-old son had raised selling homemade campaign buttons, and a 6-year-old in Philadelphia handed over a plastic container with $685 he had earned selling homemade campaign bracelets.
Did you return that money, since there was a fair chance they were illegal contributions? Even if they were legal, your campaign isn't in such dire straits that you would take money from children, right?
--Your campaign recently responded to a Bush/Cheney ad accusing you flip-flopping on top of a video of you wind-surfing. Your response ad ripped the Bush team for running a "juvenile" ad during the "Iraq quagmire." Do you see the irony that your campaign offered such a criticism, yet you were the one having photo-ops on your wind-surfing board and while walking around wearing spandex -- all of this done during the "Iraq quagmire"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)