With the election finally taking place today, this blog project by the Spokesman Review is just about done. Ken Sands, the online editor, has done a nice job of setting up and administering this blog. I would like to personally thank Ken for a job well done. Hopefully, this is just the start for more blog projects, covering a wide range of topics besides politics.

Participating in this blog has been a fun and interesting experience. Because politics is such a volatile subject that polarizes people, most of us don't discuss politics much with people who hold vastly different viewpoints from our own. Hopefully we have all considered some new ideas and viewpoints during this exercise.

I just got back from voting, and it felt great to submit my ballot. Even if my chosen candidates don't win, there is a feeling of having some control over how things turn out, and a feeling that my viewpoint will at least register in the election results.

For the first time, citizens in Afghanistan experienced the same elation and power of self determination when they elected their goverment officials recently. In January, the citizens of Iraq will also share in this experience, despite the attempts of Saddam's old cronies to terrorize the populace into submission, and deny them free elections. Democracy is a powerful and wonderful thing. As noted by a historian recently, democracies don't conduct war against other democracies. The worldwide spread of democracy is our best hope for world peace. No, it won't come easily. It never does.

Regardless of who wins the presidential election, I hope the losing side graciously accepts the results, and allows our country to move on from the election with dignity and confidence. It will be a great disservice to our country if the loser and his supporters spend the next four years claiming that they were the rightful winners of the election. One of the most important keys to a successful democracy (or republic) is the acceptance of election results by those in power, and the populace. The strength and well being of our nation is more important than the political ambitions of one candidate or party.

Get out there and vote, folks!

This Washington Post article reports on Kerry's latest remarks that if elected, he will add 40,000 troops to our military, presumably in a relatively short period of time. About the only way he can do this folks, is by reinstating the draft. Despite the Democrats attempts to scare everyone into believing President Bush will reinstate the draft, its really Kerry that you have to worry about. (Also keep in mind, the Repubican controlled Congress just recently voted down the Democrats' draft reinstatement bill.)

Excerpt:

"Kerry Says He Would Add 40,000 to Army
Missile Defense Cut Could Defray Cost
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2004; Page A01

INDEPENDENCE, Mo., June 3 -- In his most extensive remarks on the future of the American military, Sen. John F. Kerry said here Thursday that he would expand the active-duty Army by 40,000 soldiers, including a doubling of U.S. Special Forces; speed development of new technologies and equipment to meet threats posed by terrorist networks; and better integrate the National Guard into the nation's homeland security strategy.

The Democratic presidential candidate said that, to cover part of the cost of his proposals, he would cut back current funding for a national missile defense system, which he characterized as "the wrong priority" at a time when the nature of the threats has changed..."

(It's also worth noting that once again, in keeping with his voting record in the Senate,Kerry would eliminate funding for new weapons and defense systems. Given the recent activities of N.Korea and China, we just might need a homeland missile defense system some day.)

Its looking like this presidential election will be a close one. In any endeavor, its always a good idea to have contingency plans for any outcome. So, here's the bright side for non-Kerry supporters if Kerry is elected--we get to hold him to the same standards and take the same cheap shots he has aimed at President Bush. Accordingly:

1. If anything goes wrong, or any mistakes are made in Iraq, no matter how small, or how far down the chain of command it goes--its Kerry's fault. It will be absolute proof of his abject incompetence and misplaced priorities as Commander in Chief.

2. If we don't instantly regain all the jobs that were lost after the end of the late 90's economic bubble, and add more, Kerry is a complete failure on the economy.

3. If he doesn't provide free healthcare for the majority of Americans without raising taxes on the middle class, and without turning our healthcare system into a bureaucratic nightmare like Canada's, he is a complete failure on healthcare.

4. If we don't have an excess supply of vaccine for all known illnesses on hand, all the time, including anthrax, he is a complete failure.

5. If any illegal aliens get across our borders, it is Kerry's fault.

6. If 100% of all shipping containers coming into our country are not thoroughly checked for weapons and chemicals, Kerry is a failure. (He must do this within budget, and without bringing commerce to a halt.)

7. If France and Germany and a host of other "good" allies don't replace a large portion of our troops in Iraq with their own troops, Kerry is a complete failure.

8. If inner-city crimes involving guns continue, it is Kerry's fault for not removing the guns.

9. If we don't promptly end our reliance on foreign oil, while keeping our economy bustling, it will be Kerry's fault.

10. If so-called global warming continues, it will be Kerry's fault.

11. If the Red Sox fail to win the World Series again next year, it will be Kerry's fault. (He could certainly step in with federal subsidies to keep the team together!)

12. If he doesn't save Social Security and Medicare without raising taxes, and without decreasing or delaying benefits, Kerry will be a complete failure.

13. If tax incentives or subsidies of any nature are given to any evil Corporations, it will be absolute proof of Kerry's sellout to evil Corporations.

14. If any terror attacks occur against Americans, it will most assuredly be all Kerry's fault.

15. If we don't completely clamp down on all possible terrorists in our country without impacting civil liberties one iota, Kerry will be a failure.

16. If anything at all goes wrong--it will be Kerry's fault, and the direct result of his foolish failure to have "A Plan" to prevent it.

The list could go on and on. This could be fun. Unfortunately, the fate of our nation is too important.

This article from the Washington Times points out the blatant hypocrisy of Kerry as he promises to "tax the rich." Under his plan, people like himself who are already "rich", will pay very low rates--its the people who are trying to become "rich" by working hard that will be heavily taxed. Kerry's policy: "Don't tax me!!! Tax those guys!!!" Excerpt:

"Sen. John Kerry keeps telling us that "the rich" need to pay more in taxes. The senator and his wife are among the 400 richest Americans. He says that he has "a plan to tax the rich." Under the senator's tax plan, what percentage of the Kerrys' income do you think they would pay the IRS? (a) 50 percent, (b) 40 percent, (c) 30 percent, (d)15 percent. The correct answer is (d) 15 percent.
According to an analysis by the Argus Group, a well respected tax law and economics firm, the Kerrys' average tax rate would only increase by 1.8 percentage points to 15.2 percent under the senator's plan, while many small business people would see their average rate rise by 4.0 percentage points, resulting in effective rates as high as 35 to 40 percent, including certain deduction phase-outs.
Last year, Mr. Kerry and his wife paid only 13.4 percent of their declared $5.5 million income in federal taxes. President and Mrs. Bush, whose income was only 15 percent of the Kerrys', paid a tax rate more than twice as high, 27.7 percent. Despite all of the senator's bombast about the rich paying more, under his plan he and Mrs. Kerry would still pay a lower average rate than most middle-income Americans. As Mr. Kerry's own tax situation shows, he is not proposing increased taxes on those who are already rich — through inheritance, hard work, luck or marrying a rich woman — but is proposing increasing taxes on those who are trying to become rich. His plan proposes to make it more difficult for people to join his club of the very wealthy. If you are already rich, you can tax shelter much of your income, but if you have little in the way of assets, it is almost impossible to shelter your earnings from taxes.
Mr. Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, also shares this tax hypocrisy. Last year, Mr. and Mrs. Edwards paid an average tax rate of only 5.1 percent on their reported $434,000 of income, or less than one-third of what the average taxpayer pays.
Estimates of the Kerrys' worth range from a low of $700 million to a high of 3.2 billion dollars. How much income would you expect a billion dollars to produce? The Kerrys reported $5 million in income, which is a return of only about one-half of 1 percent, far lower than the return on even U.S. government securities. Obviously, the public is not given the full story on the Kerrys' assets and income. Mrs. Kerry did not release her full returns. For instance, she did not release the part of the return that notes whether or not she has offshore accounts. (Note: It is both legal and proper for her to have such accounts, but her husband has called others with such accounts unpatriotic. This may explain why Mrs. Kerry did not release this information.)
The obvious questions to Mr. Kerry are: How does he justify proposing a tax rate for himself that is less than half of what he expects many young professionals and small business people to pay, many of whom may have little or no assets? How can he accuse others of not paying their fair share in taxes, when he refuses to give full details about his own family financial situation? Does he really expect us to believe his family only earned $5 million on a billion dollars of assets last year?...
Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute."

This article from the Washington Times reveals that the infamous 380 tons of missing explosives were most likely removed by the Russians before American troops took Bagdad. In any event, its clear that the explosives weren't there when American troops arrived immediately after taking control of the city. Sorry Kerry. Big disappointment. Excerpt:

"Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Russian special forces troops moved many of Saddam Hussein's weapons and related goods out of Iraq and into Syria in the weeks before the March 2003 U.S. military operation, The Washington Times has learned.
John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad.

"The Russians brought in, just before the war got started, a whole series of military units," Mr. Shaw said. "Their main job was to shred all evidence of any of the contractual arrangements they had with the Iraqis. The others were transportation units."
Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration.
Most of Saddam's most powerful arms were systematically separated from other arms like mortars, bombs and rockets, and sent to Syria and Lebanon, and possibly to Iran, he said.
The Russian involvement in helping disperse Saddam's weapons, including some 380 tons of RDX and HMX, is still being investigated, Mr. Shaw said.
The RDX and HMX, which are used to manufacture high-explosive and nuclear weapons, are probably of Russian origin, he said...
Disclosure of the missing explosives Monday in a New York Times story was used by the Democratic presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry, who accused the Bush administration of failing to secure the material.
Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there."
The Pentagon disclosed yesterday that the Al-Qaqaa facility was defended by Fedayeen Saddam, Special Republican Guard and other Iraqi military units during the conflict. U.S. forces defeated the defenders around April 3 and found the gates to the facility open, the Pentagon said in a statement yesterday.
A military unit in charge of searching for weapons, the Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force, then inspected Al-Qaqaa on May 8, May 11 and May 27, 2003, and found no high explosives that had been monitored in the past by the IAEA.
The Pentagon said there was no evidence of large-scale movement of explosives from the facility after April 6.
"The movement of 377 tons of heavy ordnance would have required dozens of heavy trucks and equipment moving along the same roadways as U.S. combat divisions occupied continually for weeks prior to and subsequent to the 3rd Infantry Division's arrival at the facility," the statement said.
The statement also said that the material may have been removed from the site by Saddam's regime.
According to the Pentagon, U.N. arms inspectors sealed the explosives at Al-Qaqaa in January 2003 and revisited the site in March and noted that the seals were not broken.
It is not known whether the inspectors saw the explosives in March. The U.N. team left the country before the U.S.-led invasion began March 20, 2003...
The Russian arms-removal program was initiated after Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said...
However, the most important and useful arms and explosives appear to have been separated and moved out as part of carefully designed program. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," Mr. Shaw said.
The Russian forces were tasked with moving special arms out of the country...
The Russian weapons were then sent out of the country to Syria, and possibly Lebanon in Russian trucks, Mr. Shaw said.
Mr. Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
The Russian units were dispatched beginning in January 2003 and by March had destroyed hundreds of pages of documents on Russian arms supplies to Iraq while dispersing arms to Syria, the second official said.
Besides their own weapons, the Russians were supplying Saddam with arms made in Ukraine, Belarus, Bulgaria and other Eastern European nations, he said.
"Whatever was not buried was put on lorries and sent to the Syrian border," the defense official said.
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said...

Kerry and Edwards like to portray themselves as the enemy of Big Corporations, and henceforth, champions of the little guy. This article from the National Review points out that Kerry and Edwards support subsidies and tax breaks for Big Corporations, just as much as anyone else--its just their preference of who gets the pork. Excerpt:

"The Corporate-Subsidy Ticket
Once again, Kerry-Edwards is trying to have it both ways.

By Chris Edwards

On corporate subsidy policies, Sen. John Kerry is not so much a flip-flopper as someone who simultaneously holds opposite views. He rails against “corporate welfare,” but proposes a bevy of new subsidies. He is against corporate tax loopholes, but promotes business-tax “incentives.”

Politicians who believe in both activist government and anti-corporate populism have no choice but to straddle like this. That’s because if you want to meddle in the economy, you have to do it through corporations because they produce most of the nation’s output.

Kerry’s website says he has a record of “taking on corporate welfare,” and in two of the presidential debates he proposed creating a McCain-Kerry Corporate Welfare Commission. Such a commission would target for cuts more than 100 subsidy programs costing $65 billion a year, according to the Kerry campaign, citing Sen. John McCain.

That is a good idea, but here’s the catch. The McCain-Kerry $65 billion comes from a Cato Institute study, which proposed numerous spending cuts that Kerry strongly opposes. For example, the Cato study targeted the Manufacturing Extension Partnership for elimination, but Kerry is proposing to double MEP funding. In speeches, Kerry tries to cloak himself in McCain’s anti-subsidy record, but it doesn’t fit.

Cato’s report also targeted the Advanced Technology Program, and a McCain press release asked, “Why should the Commerce Department spend $211 million a year on . . . some of the largest and richest high-tech companies in this nation?” But John Kerry’s campaign has criticized President Bush for cutting ATP. Similarly, John McCain has called for ending the ethanol subsidy, but John Kerry is promising to double ethanol use.
What’s worse is that Kerry is proposing a range of new business subsidies. He wants to give $10 billion to automakers for fuel-efficient cars, $10 billion to coal companies for cleaner technologies, and $5 billion for research on hydrogen and ethanol. Kerry wants the government to cover business health care costs, wants to increase trade-adjustment assistance for companies, and wants to create “manufacturing business investment corporations” to hand out government “venture capital.”
Kerry’s running mate John Edwards holds different views on the business sector depending on whether or not companies at issue are part of his political base in North Carolina. He heaps non-stop abuse on HMOs, credit card companies, and other industries. The former trial lawyer rails, “I’ve fought against big drug companies, big insurance companies, big Corporate America.”

At the same time, Edwards lavishes federal pork on homestate businesses. Recent press releases from the senator’s office announced: $233,770 “to improve parking facilities for downtown businesses,” $154,000 for a “revolving loan fund” for businesses, $250,000 for a technology park, and $2.9 million for textile companies in North Carolina. Edwards praised passage of the recent “buyout” that will give more than $10 billion of taxpayer money to tobacco producers.
On corporate taxes, the Kerry-Edwards ticket follows much the same pattern. Kerry charges the president with supporting tax loopholes, but Kerry wants to create business tax credits for health care, new jobs, and other activities. Kerry attacks “Benedict Arnold” companies and proposes to end the “special” tax break for overseas jobs outsourcing. But the “special” break he refers to is standard tax policy in other major industrial countries. Indeed, most of our trading partners have tax rules on foreign investment that are more business-friendly than ours.
Kerry promises to increase U.S. jobs, but his plan to raise taxes on foreign subsidiaries would probably cause job losses. If taxes on subsidiaries were increased, U.S. firms would lose sales to foreign competitors causing them to scale back their U.S. operations. Besides, Kerry’s corporate tax plan would be dead on arrival in Congress given that a large bipartisan majority just passed a pro-growth bill that went in exactly the opposite direction and cut taxes on subsidiaries...

— Chris Edwards is director of tax policy at the Cato Institute."

The truth is now emerging about the bogus "missing explosives in Iraq" story splashed as a headline last week by the New York Times. Turns out, the story was originally reported in April, 2003. This wasn't news, at all. Most importantly, the explosives never were there, from the time our troops first reached the site! This article from the Drudge Report now reveals that 60 Minutes was planning to use it as a last minute smear piece to hurt President Bush, but the New York Times beat them to it. Incredible! Excerpt:

60 MINS PLANNED BUSH MISSING EXPLOSIVES STORY FOR ELECTION EVE

News of missing explosives in Iraq -- first reported in April 2003 -- was being resurrected for a 60 MINUTES election eve broadcast designed to knock the Bush administration into a crises mode.

Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that "our plan was to run the story on October 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold..."

Elizabeth Jensen at the LOS ANGELES TIMES details on Tuesday how CBS NEWS and 60 MINUTES lost the story [which repackaged previously reported information on a large cache of explosives missing in Iraq, first published and broadcast in 2003].

The story instead debuted in the NYT. The paper slugged the story about missing explosives from April 2003 as "exclusive."

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear who exactly shopped an election eve repackaging of the missing explosives story.

The LA TIMES claims: The source on the story first went to 60 MINUTES but also expressed interest in working with the NY TIMES... "The tip was received last Wednesday."

CBSNEWS' plan to unleash the story just 24 hours before election day had one senior Bush official outraged...."

It appears the New York Times is now trying to out-do Dan Rather at his own game with his own material.

CNN article reports the same scam.

This piece by Thomas Sowell in the Washington Times gives a good analysis of why Kerry's second guessing of everything the President has done doesn't equate to good leadership qualities. Having a supposed "Plan" for everything, is not a substitute for leadership or accomplishment. Excerpt:

"'Plans' vs. realities
By Thomas Sowell

Who said, "If you hold your fire until you see the whites of his eyes, you will never know what hit you"? It was President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and he said it on May 27, 1941. It applies even more today.
If you are going to go to war against terrorists in a nuclear age "only as a last resort" and also only when it meets international approval, you might as well not bother. You could see a mushroom cloud before you see the whites of their eyes.
Roosevelt said something else that has relevance today: "If we are to be completely honest with ourselves, we must admit that there is risk in any course we take." He said that on Dec. 29, 1940. But today there are those who think you can "plan" everything and that anything bad that happens is the fault of leaders who did not "plan" for it right. "Plan" seems to be a magic word politically.

No one asked FDR why he did not "plan" for the devastating surprise German counterattack that led to the Battle of the Bulge. We were adults and knew that wars do not run on a timetable or a road map, much less on an itemized budget.
Some today may take seriously Sen. John Kerry's demands to know what the war in Iraq will cost and when our troops will be out of Iraq, as well as the administration's plan for the rest of the war on terrorism. But Roosevelt said, "Nobody knows when total victory will come" and "The American people will never stop to reckon the cost of redeeming civilization."
That was said in 1943. The war would end two years later. But no one knew that at the time and no one expected the president to know. As for a "plan" — Mr. Kerry's magic word — we had plans to invade Japan in 1946. But the atomic bomb spared us (and the Japanese) a bloodbath that would have dwarfed the death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Back then, we knew that the job was to win the war, not to score political points over it. We didn't even have these debatable "debates" of today. The idea of choosing a wartime leader on the basis of quick-reaction sound bites would never have occurred to anyone. ...

Neither Mr. Kerry nor Sen. John Edwards has administered anything. Nor have they created a single piece of major legislation in their combined two dozen years in the Senate. Both have incredible records of absenteeism at meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
But they talk a great game. And they have "plans."
What they also have is utter irresponsibility.
A classic example was Mr. Kerry's calling Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi a "puppet" when Mr. Allawi is putting his life on the line every day in order to try to overcome a terrorism campaign and give his country a chance for a decent life. That is a new low, even for John Kerry, with his history of having given aid and comfort to the enemy during the Vietnam war. Insulting nations whose 28,000 troops are fighting and dying alongside our own in Iraq, by calling them a "coerced coalition," as Mr. Kerry has done, is more of the same. So is making up out of whole cloth a claim that the military draft is coming back.
A man unable or unwilling to weigh either the truth or the repercussions of his words around the world is not fit to be president of the United States. Mr. Kerry and Mr. Edwards remain viable candidates only because their rhetoric has obscured their reality, and because too many in the media seem reluctant to bring out the facts against candidates who share the media's vision of the world...

Thomas Sowell is a nationally syndicated columnist."

Under our constitution, the registered voters in each state are supposed to cast their ballots for president, then the members of the Electoral College elect the president. The following AP article shows us that Kerry now intends to add a third layer to the process--lawsuits and lawyers. At the end of election day, Kerry intends to declare victory, even if he didn't win, send "SWAT teams" of lawyers to strategic cities, and begin weeks of legal assaults on our electoral system. Say it isn't so! Kerry is so obsessed with winning policital power at any cost, he is willing to make us look to the world like a banana republic. Excerpt:

"Kerry Looks to Avoid Gore Recount Errors

Thu Oct 21,12:54 AM ET

By RON FOURNIER, AP Political Writer

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency.

In short, the Democratic presidential candidate has a simple strategy for Nov. 3 and beyond: Do not repeat Al Gore's mistakes....

He never declared victory, an omission Kerry's advisers — many of whom worked for Gore — now believe created a sense of inevitability in voters' minds about Bush's presidency...

Not this time, promise Kerry's advisers. If there is doubt about the results, they will fight without delay...

The prospects for another contested election loom with every poll showing the race neck and neck.

Six so-called "SWAT teams" of lawyers and political operatives will be situated around the country with fueled-up jets awaiting Kerry's orders to speed to a battleground state. The teams have been told to be ready to fly on the evening of the election to begin mounting legal and political fights. Every battleground state will have a SWAT team within an hour of its borders.

The Kerry campaign has recount office space in every battleground state, with plans so detailed they include the number of staplers and coffee machines needed to mount legal challenges.

"Right now, we have 10,000 lawyers out in the battleground states on Election Day, and that number is growing by the day," said Michael Whouley, a Kerry confidant who is running election operations at the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites).

While the lawyers litigate, political operatives will try to shape public perception. Their goal would be to persuade voters that Kerry has the best claim to the presidency and that Republicans are trying to steal it.

Democrats are already laying the public relations groundwork by pointing to every possible voting irregularity before the Nov. 2 election and accusing Republicans of wrongdoing.

The advisers spoke on condition of anonymity because Kerry wants the focus to be on his campaign for now..."

This article presents an interesting perspective. It may come across as a bit extreme to some, but the point is extremely well taken: Decisions that seek to appease brutal dictators and terrorists have always cost more lives than they save--eventually. Excerpt:

"Kerry Could Bring Armageddon
Written by Gordon Bloyer
Thursday, October 21, 2004

Casualties are a side-effect of war. The United States does more than any country in the World to avoid casualties. We do more to retrieve our wounded and injured than any other nation. We are not on suicide missions. We try not to kill or injure civilians. We have the power to kill our enemies with little or no casualties if our country acted like the Nazis or Saddam Hussein. We could level Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China with little or no loss of our own soldiers. No nation could stop us.

The American people do not want to kill indiscriminately. That is why we will not just wipe certain countries off the face of the earth. We must therefore decide the amount of casualties we will accept when it becomes necessary to act. People like John Kerry apparently do not want to accept any casualties. They prefer to negotiate forever. This attitude inevitability leads to a greater loss of life. If we had invaded Iran at the time of the ”hostage crisis,” when Jimmy Carter was president, Iran would today not be on the verge of a nuclear weapon. There would not have been a war between Iraq and Iran. Iraq would not have invaded Kuwait. The entire Middle East would be different today. Millions of lives would have been saved. Maybe there would be no Osama bin Laden?

If we had followed General George Patton's advice at the end of World War II, we would have driven back the Soviet threat before it dominated Eastern Europe. We would not have had the Cold War. Millions of people would not have been killed and tortured under communism. We did not act against evil and we paid a high price. We had wars in Korea and South Vietnam that killed millions of people.

If we do not continue the fight against the terrorists in Iraq, sometime in the future we will have to confront a much more deadly enemy. If John Kerry is elected and he retreats from the offensive, the terrorists will be emboldened. At some point in the future a nuclear device will be detonated in our country and millions will die. At that point our only alternative may be to wipe several countries off the face of the earth. Armageddon could occur due to a failure to act now. These things could happen anyway, but they will happen if we do not go after terrorists where they are and go after the countries that harbor them. This election is about life and death. A few die to protect us now or millions die later.
Sadly the same people who complain about the casualty rate that we have in Iraq told us that we would lose ten thousand in an invasion. They always have an excuse not to fight. They are willing to accept the three thousand innocent civilians that died in the World Trade Center. They make excuses for our enemies and blame America for the hatred they have for us. "

I found this interesting article by Paul Weyrich from April, 2000. Times haven't changed much.

"Liberal name-calling reaches a new low

By Paul M. Weyrich
April 24, 2000

The liberals clearly are running out of arguments that work. Their ideas have long been discredited. Big government solutions have failed. Permissive families have disintegrated. Alternative lifestyles are death oriented. So what do you do when you can no longer be credible with what you advocate? Why, of course you call your opponent names.
For years now the left has labeled anyone who disagrees with them "racist" or "sexist" or homophobic". Ironically, by overreaching in the use of those terms they have devalued the case against those who really are racists, sexists or homophobes. Still, those descriptions of their political opponents have worn thin. They simply cannot make moderate politicians who happen to oppose affirmative action, or who oppose so-called gay marriage or who don't subscribe to the latest radical feminist agenda into racists or sexists or homophobes. It isn't working and it hasn't worked for some time now.

So what to do if you are a liberal? Well, you ratchet the charges up a few notches. The latest fad now in the increasingly scary world of apocalyptic liberalism is to label their opponents as crazy. The Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen says that Charlton Heston is nuts because his views on the culture war contradict today's notion of political correctness. Jesse Jackson says that Mayor Rudy Giuliani of New York "sounds like a mentally disturbed person" because the Mayor had defended police action in New York City respecting the shooting of unarmed suspects.

And so on the list goes on and on. Mind you these people are not saying that their opponents ideas are crazy. That is perfectly legitimate. There are many sane and rational people who have proposed absolutely insane and irrational ideas to solve one problem or another...

No, it has now become fashionable to label the proponents of ideas these liberals oppose as crazy. That is now a charge far worse than racist or sexist or homophobic. After all, if I personally am nuts, as opposed to this commentary being crazy, then I do not deserve to be listened to at all. We simply do not afford mentally ill people the time of day because by their nature what they say is not meaningful.

The idea of branding people crazy is not new. It was practiced for more than seven decades by the former Soviet Union. Dissidents there were not just enemies of the state because of their beliefs. They had to be mentally ill because after all to oppose the glories of the great Soviet Union was in and of itself proof that the person was out of his mind.

Now these days to oppose the most insane ideas propounded by liberals in this country is to be called mentally ill. If we let this sort of argumentation stand, then the whole national dialogue on issues will be devastated. We need to stand up and challenge this nonsense now before it becomes so accepted that we can no longer exercise our freedom of expression without the suggestion that we should be locked away for doing so.

That will be the next step, you see. It was liberals who unlocked the doors of our institutions and thus created the homeless crisis in the United States by insisting that most mentally ill people would be better off sitting on heating grates eating garbage than being cared for in mental hospitals. Their view, in the 1960s and '70s was that almost no one was really mentally ill. Now, since they have revived the category of being nuts, the next logical step will be for them to advocate that all of us who contradict their ideology and brand of this week's political correctness should be taken away to newly re-opened mental hospitals. Yes, they did that in the Soviet Union as well. Many perfectly mentally sound dissidents were treated for years in mental hospitals for their beliefs. They were even given mind-altering drugs in an effort to get them to confess that they were wrong.

That is exactly where all of this is headed if we don't stop it in its tracks. Each and every time we hear someone claiming that because a person has a certain belief in the political process he is mentally disturbed we have to call time out and insist that this is out of bounds. To say that my ideas are crazy is quite acceptable. To say that I am crazy is libel and slander.

If we succeed in stopping this absolutely intolerable practice of labeling people whose ideas you disapprove of as nuts we will force the liberals who use this tactic to debate the issues on the merits. Since they can no longer do so, if we win the first battle we will win the second as well.
Paul Weyrich is president of the Free Congress Foundation.

(For the record, I will not be sinking to the level of name-calling and personal insults as another board member has done.)

Moving on, this article from NewsMax details a secret meeting by Billionaires to beat the Bush administration. In a political world where hardly anything comes for free, one might ask what these gentlemen will gain if they succeed in putting Kerry in the Whitehouse. Excerpt:

"Tuesday, Oct. 19, 2004 1:09 p.m. EDT
Billionaires Secretly Met in Aspen to Defeat Bush

In the days following the Democratic National Convention in Boston this past August, several billionaire Democratic activists secretly met at the famed Aspen Institute in Colorado.

The purpose of their clandestine meeting was "to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2000 election," The New Yorker magazine reports in its most recent edition.

Details of the meeting remain sketchy, but the magazine described the Aspen conference this way: "Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America."...

When The New Yorker inquired about the meeting, an assistant to one of the attendees was surprised by the call.

"No one was supposed to know about this," the aide told the magazine. "We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal or some sort of Masonic plot!"

Apparently the leader of the secret cabal is billionaire Peter B. Lewis, chairman of the Cleveland, Ohio-based insurance company Progressive Corporation.

Like another attendee, wealthy financier George Soros, Lewis has poured millions into Democratic 527 groups, including Americans Coming Together and MoveOn.org.

One of Lewis’ top agenda items has been the decriminalization of marijuana, a policy position also shared by Soros.

Another billionaire who attended was John Sperling, founder of the online University of Phoenix.

Also present were Herb and Marion Sandler from California. The couple founded Golden West Financial Corporation, a California bank reportedly worth $17 billion...

The wealthiest and most notable of those attending the meeting was George Soros, the 74-year-old Hungarian immigrant who desperately wants to defeat George Bush and has even compared him to the likes of Adolf Hitler.

Apparently, all was not roses at the billionaire confab, according to The New Yorker.

"The billionaires spent much of the time moaning the superior powers of the GOP," the magazine said, and the group even needed some cheerleading from Harold Ickes, a former top aide to Bill Clinton who is involved in the 527 efforts...

Though not the leader of the group, Soros holds the largest bank account and as such is the 800-pound gorilla, having given more than $18 million to the 527s in an effort to defeat Bush...

Soros hired a publicist and began a 12-city, $3 million personal crusade to defeat George Bush.

According to the magazine, Soros has nothing but contempt for Bush, who he considers "an ignorant fool."

More than that, he sees Bush as the face man for a secret cabal. "Bush was just chosen as a figurehead, an acceptable face for a sinister group," Soros told The New Yorker, adding, "Cheney is the Capo."

Clearly, Soros knows a thing or two about secret cabals and capos."

I actually agree with Bill Moyers in his article posted below, noting that it would sure be nice if America's big corporations could help out a bit in our time of need and not require big tax breaks before they will repatriate capital from their foreign subsidiaries. But, the fact of the matter is that nobody wants to pay high taxes, and no one can force them to bring these funds into the U.S. The U.S. economy is better off with those funds here, purchasing more capital equipment for use here, and creating more jobs here. Since nobody wants to pay higher taxes if they don't have to, it apparently takes a tax break to get it done.

This fact of life was proven this week when Teresa Heinz-Kerry and John Kerry finally made public the first two pages of her tax return for 2003. She only paid 12.4% on income of over $5 million, while over half of American taxpayers paid an average rate of 15.9%. She did this despite the fact that her husband has been trying to sell his tax increase on small businesses and taxpayers making over $200,000. Why didn't she help America out in its time of need, and pay more in taxes? Because she didn't have to. She took advantage of every tax exemption and deduction available and paid as little as possible. "I'm sorry John, but we're talking about my money, now!"

Another irony here is that her husband's proposed tax increase won't have a huge impact on their income since a good deal of it comes from tax exempt municipal bonds. The Kerry-Heinz's can raise taxes on other people who earn their money, but keep their passive income unaffected. Sweet deal.

This piece,(lost direct link,sorry) written by a British historian, presents an interesting European analysis of why it is important that President Bush win this election. Excerpt:

"Why Kerry must be Stopped and Bush Must Win. By British Historian Paul Johnson, condensed from article in The National Review, Oct. 4, 2004

This election will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, in it’s role as a world leader, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.

September 11, 2001 changed the World…and George Bush dramatically. It gave his presidency a purpose and a theme, and imposed on him a mission. He has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need for the U.S. to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal for as long as may be necessary. He has shown total consistency, determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition.

Americans leaders have been tested before: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory... President Bush, with his doggedness and enviable concentration, is the president America needs at this difficult time...

Senator Kerry has not made much of an impression in Europe, or indeed, I gather, in America. There are six good reasons that he should be mistrusted. First, and perhaps most important, he seems to have no strong convictions about what he would do if given office and power. The content and emphasis of his campaign on terrorism, Iraq, and related issues have varied from week to week, determined by what his advisers, analyzing the polls and other evidence, recommend, rather than by his own judgment and convictions...

Sixth and last is the Kerry team:... More important is that the man Kerry would have as his vice president is an ambulance-chasing lawyer of precisely the kind the American system has spawned in recent decades, to its great loss and peril. This aggressive legalism is surely a characteristic America does not want at the top of its constitutional system.

Of Kerry’s backers, maybe the most prominent is George Soros, a man who made his billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist folklore) characterize “finance capitalism.” This is the man who did everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, America’s principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisis—not out of conviction but simply to make vast sums of money. One has to ask: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the White House?...
But there is a far more sinister line of adversaries. All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit—politically, financially, and emotionally—from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively."

This article from the Drudge Report breaks the story that the Democrat Party manual in Florida instructs its members to illegally gather up ballots. Given the thousands of lawyers the DNC says it has hired for this election, its difficult to chalk this up to ignorance of the law. Excerpt:

"CONTROVERSY ERUPTS AS VOTING BEGINS IN FLORIDA: DNC/KERRY BALLOT COLLECTION CALLED 'UNLAWFUL'

**Exclusive**

As early voting begins Monday in the sunburn state of Florida controversy has already developed around a Democratic National Committee/Kerry-Edwards election manual.

The election manual titled -- "FLORIDA VICTORY 2004" -obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, advocates an apparent unlawful "BALLOT PICKUP" drive by campaign volunteers.

The DNC Kerry/Edwards manual states:

"In Florida, it is legal to handle ballots. This means it is possible for the campaign to canvass base neighborhoods, pick up completed ballots and deliver them to Early Vote locations. We will incorporate these deliveries into our Early Vote canvassing program."

But Florida State election law - as detailed at: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/absenteevoting.shtml - is in sharp contrast and conflicts with the Dem plan.

"A designee may pick up an absentee ballot for a voter on election day or 4 days before election day. A designee may only pick up two absentee ballots per election, other than his or her own ballot or ballots for members of his or her immediate family. Designees must have written authorization from the voter, present a picture I.D. and sign an affidavit. Candidates may pick up absentee ballots only for members of their immediate family."

It is not clear as this transmits, if any Dem operatives have yet collected ballots. A legal challenge will be filed to stop any action, top Republican sources tell DRUDGE.

Dem officials point to difference between blank and completed ballots.

The exhaustive how-to FLORIDA VICTORY 2004 manual runs 26 pages with an 18 page appendix. It is signed by the DNC, Kerry Edwards, Florida Democrat Party, Kerry Edwards Campaign Chair, Florida Victory 2004, Florida AFL-CIO, Florida Education Association, Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, and Florida SEIU.

Developing..."

This article pulled from the Drudge Report reports on the many polls now showing President Bush pulling ahead of Kerry. The article gives interesting insight on why. Excerpt:

"CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL
October 14-16
Choice for President

Likely Registered
Voters Voters

Bush 52% 49%
Kerry 44 46
Nader 1 1

CNN/USA TODAY/GALLUP POLL

FOR RELEASE: Sunday, October 17 at noon

Interviews with 1,013 adult Americans, including 788 likely voters and 942 registered voters, conducted by telephone on October 14-16, 2004

Although Americans think John Kerry did the best job in the debates, that has not translated into an increase in his popularity, which in turn means that he appears to have lost a little ground to Bush. Among registered voters, a 48%-48% tie is now a 49%-46% edge for Bush -- not much of a difference and, with the sampling error, not a significant change. The Gallup likely voter model, which identified those respondents who are most likely to cast a ballot, is magnifying those shifts, with a 49%-48% advantage for Kerry turning into a 52%-44% lead for Bush. What's going on?

For one thing, the charge that Kerry is too liberal, which Bush emphasized mostly in the third and last debate on Wednesday night, seems to be sticking. Nearly half say Kerry's political views are too liberal. (Four in ten say Bush is too conservative.) But didn't Kerry win the debate? Yes, as with the first two debates, the public thinks Kerry did the better job on Wednesday night. But as Al Gore learned in 2000, winning a debate on points does not necessarily translate into votes or make a candidate more popular. As in 2000, Bush's favorable ratings -- Americans view of him as a person -- went up after a debate that he lost. Kerry's favorable rating has remained flat. Republicans seem more enthusiastic about the election, and thus more likely to vote, as reflected in the Gallup likely voter model.

Bush may have energized his base in the final debate at the expense of not appealing to a wider audience -- but he managed to do so in a way that made him more popular than Kerry."

This article from the US Newswire reports on the largest police labor union in the country endorsing President Bush, and calling on Kerry to stop representing that he has the support of the majority of police. Excerpt:

"WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

"As the elected leader of the largest organization representing America's Federal, State and local law enforcement officers, I believe it's important to point out yet again that we do not support his candidacy for President," Canterbury said. "And to be perfectly frank, the groups which do support him actually share the same membership rolls and, taken together, probably comprise less than one-quarter of our nation's police officers."

Canterbury further noted that unlike the organizations which Senator Kerry touts, F.O.P. members as a whole decided that the Fraternal Order of Police would endorse the reelection of President George W. Bush. They based their decision, he said, on the record of the Bush Administration in supporting America's first responders-including helping to secure passage earlier this year of H.R. 218, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, the organization's top legislative priority. Bush also successfully fought to greatly enhance the benefits for the families of officers killed in the line of duty.

"While Kerry was flying around the country campaigning and leaving the actual work of the nation to his colleagues in the Senate, the President was out there working on our behalf," Canterbury said. "Senators Kerry and Edwards have missed so many crucial votes this Congress that I was beginning to believe there were only 98 members of the U.S. Senate."...

"Given the facts, I would greatly appreciate it if Senator Kerry would refrain from making similar whimsical assertions regarding his support from the law enforcement community," Canterbury said. "The real majority of my fellow officers are standing behind President Bush, because he has been there for us."

The Fraternal Order of Police is the nation's largest law enforcement labor organization, with more than 318,000 members."

In an attempt to make sense of his constant flip-flops on Iraq, Kerry's current spin (at least, as of this morning--I think) seems to be that although he voted to support the use of armed force against Iraq, he wouldn't have actually done it if he were president, and that his subsequent vote against funding equipment for the troops is not important. Just "move on" folks.

Iraq is the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time", but he will get Germany and France to replace many of our troops, even though both have said they won't. (Wait a minute, I think he recently admitted that they probably wouldn't.)

He is really an excellent diplomat--that's why he called our allies like UK, Australia and Poland, "the bribed, the coerced", and called their contributions to the effort insignificant. He basically called the interim Iraqi president a puppet of the Bush administration (Joe Lockhart's words) who intentionally distorted progress in Iraq to the American people. However Kerry will get along just ducky with those folks when he is president.

Our troops will really like him, too. To this day, he has never apologized for calling his fellow service men war criminals, guilty of all kinds of heinous acts "reminiscent of Genghis Khan." On that record, he now wants to be Commander in Chief.

We will win this war under Kerry, but its really not a war--just a "grand diversion." We need more troops in Iraq to win under Kerry, but its Bush we should worry about when it comes to reinstating the draft. (Wait a minute, that was the Democrats' bill calling for a draft that was recently defeated in Congress. Oh, just ignore that.)

We need to get back to those happy days when Islamic terrorists were just a "nuisance"--you know, like when they blew up the World Trade Center parking garage, and blew up the US ship, Cole--just a nuisance. Those rascal terrorists! However, we should have taken drastic measures to seal off our borders, search all shipping cargo, etc.--you know, the usual nuisance stuff.

Because more theoretically could have been done since 9/11 to tighten our borders and go after the terrorists, (Kerry's people have come up with several neat ideas) Bush is a total failure, and we should ignore the many things that have been accomplished in a relatively short period of time. With no administrative experience, whatsoever, Kerry will magically make everything happen all at once when he is elected. Never mind that his party doesn't control Congress, and he has attacked Republicans with the kind of nasty, mean spirited vitreol rarely seen in American politics.

Most importantly, ignore the fact that since 9/11 there has not been a single successful terrorist attack on American soil, under President Bush. Kerry can do better. Honest.

Like most people I've spoken with lately on the subject, I'm almost afraid to turn on the TV lately, knowing that my senses will be bludgeoned with an unending onslaught of endlessly repeating negative campaign ads from both sides. As I force myself to stay conscious through some of this in order to get on with the show I'm watching ("The Apprentice" rocks!), one annoying tactic keeps surfacing. That is, divorcing affordability considerations from issues.

For example, assume one party introduced a bill in our state legislature, proposing to spend $100 trillion (that we obviously don't have) on free daycare for everyone, free healthcare at top clinics for everyone, and massive expansions of all county animal shelters so that no stray animals will ever be euthanized. The bill gets voted down soundly by both parties because we obviously can't afford to do this.

In the next election, a new challenger on the scene hammers his opponent (the incumbent) who voted against the bill and makes an emotional outcry in his TV ads that the incumbent is a bad man, a very bad man. He wants to prevent everyone from having access to healthcare. He is against daycare. And most importantly, the incumbent is so evil, he even voted to KILL PUPPIES!!

Now, back to my show.

The Drudge Report posts a Democrat party/Kerry Campaign memo this morning that advises local campaign organizers to make a "pre-emptive strike" alleging voter intimidation, EVEN IF THERE IS NONE! This is getting sick. Excerpt:

"DNC ELECTION MANUAL: CHARGE VOTER INTIMIDATION, EVEN IF NONE EXISTS

**World Exclusive**

The Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee are advising election operatives to declare voter intimidation -- even if none exists, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

A 66-page mobilization plan to be issued by the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee states: "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'" (link to memo posted here on Drudge Report site)
The provocative Dem battle plan is to be distributed in dozens of states, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

One top DNC official confirmed the manual's authenticity, but claimed the notion of crying wolf on any voter intimidation is "absurd."

Buried in the fold on page B3 of today's Spokesman is a short article reporting that the Bush Campaign office in Spokane was broken into on Monday. The following article from the Seattle Times (ironically) gives much more detail of what happened, including the important information that this is the second break-in of a Bush Campaign office in this state, recently, and one of many from several states in recent weeks. Its sad that it has come to this. Readers may recall that the Watergate scandal was about a similar break-in to a campaign office. Excerpt:

"Second break-in hits a Bush office in state

By David Postman
Seattle Times chief political reporter

The offices housing President Bush's Spokane campaign operation were broken into yesterday, the second burglary in as many weeks at state Bush offices.
A small amount of cash was taken after someone apparently kicked a hole through a wall from an adjacent, vacant office. But a television and a computer appeared to have been the target and were left behind on the floor, according to the Spokane Police Department. Police said most of the equipment was too big to fit through the hole in the wall.

The staff said the computer was loaded with confidential get-out-the-vote records. But, officer Dan Cole pointed out in a press release, "If they were after records, just the [computer] tower could have been taken through the hole."

Campaign workers suspect the thief was startled by something and left the intended loot behind.

On Oct. 1, three computers were taken in a break-in at the Bush campaign's office in Bellevue. The break-ins happened amid other reports of crimes and altercations at Bush campaign offices in other states, and vandalism at some John Kerry offices around the country...

The (Bush)campaign reported a break-in at its offices Sunday night in Canton, Ohio. There also have been reports of shots fired at vacant Bush offices in West Virginia, Florida and Tennessee...

State Republican Party Chairman Chris Vance has said he is convinced the Bellevue burglary was politically motivated.

In Spokane yesterday, workers arriving at the building that houses the Republican offices found a hole smashed through the wall from the vacant next-door office.

The computer had recently arrived at the offices from the Republican National Committee. It held the party's voter database and plans for the campaign's "72-hour plan" for a final three-day get-out-the-vote effort..."

This piece from the Washington Post points out that democracy is working in Afghanistan, creating real hope for their citizens and the Middle East. Americans can be proud of our accomplishments there. Hopefully our efforts in Iraq will produce similar results. Excerpt:

"Afghanistan Votes
Sunday, October 10, 2004; Page B06

AFTER ENDURING Soviet occupation, civil war and rule by a medieval-minded Islamic militia, millions of Afghans lined up at polling stations yesterday for the first free election in their country's history. This was an extraordinary event, the more so because it happened in spite of concerted efforts by the Taliban militia and its al Qaeda allies to prevent it. Thanks in part to U.S., NATO and Afghan forces and in part to the remarkable determination of Afghan citizens to launch their democracy, the enemy campaign failed. The turnout percentage for the presidential vote may rival that of the U.S. presidential election.

Instead of terrorist attacks, a problem more typical of electoral democracies cropped up: Fifteen of the candidates running against the current president, Hamid Karzai, abruptly announced a boycott because of a mix-up at some polling stations about the type of ink used to mark voters' fingers. Their protest, which U.N. officials said would be considered, could cast a pall over the election's results. But as Mr. Karzai pointed out, his opponents' posturing didn't change the reality that millions of Afghans had braved harsh weather and the threat of violence to cast ballots for the first time.

Elections, of course, are never panaceas, and it would be wrong to overlook the many ways in which Afghanistan's political and economic reconstruction remains tenuous...

Yet it also would be foolish to discount the advances Afghanistan has made in the past three years. Not only has most of the country enjoyed relative peace during that time, but per capita incomes have doubled, millions of children -- including most girls -- have returned to school, and infant mortality and other health measures have improved. Kabul and other cities are booming, a national road network is under construction and 3 million refugees have returned home. Mr. Karzai recently ousted two of the most powerful warlords from their governmental positions, and about a quarter of the militia members around the country have been demobilized.

Not surprisingly, polls show that Mr. Karzai is supported by most Afghans -- and so is the United States...

Opponents of the Bush administration both here and abroad often have been loath to acknowledge these positive facts. Sen. John F. Kerry frequently speaks of Afghanistan as if it were just another of Mr. Bush's foreign policy disasters. But Afghanistan's reconstruction should not be a partisan or diplomatic football. Instead U.S. and other Western leaders should be pointing out, to each other and to their publics, that nation-building there can work -- and that it is consequently worthwhile to continue committing troops and aid to the effort."

This short piece from the Drudge Report posts the content of a memo from the ABC News Political Director. In it, he actually tells his news staff that in order to support Kerry, they don't have to treat the candidates equally. Amazing! Excerpt:

"ABCNEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR MEMO SPARKS CONTROVERSY: BOTH SIDES NOT 'EQUALLY ACCOUNTABLE'

**Exclusive**

An internal memo written by ABCNEWS Political Director Mark Halperin admonishes ABC staff: During coverage of Democrat Kerry and Republican Bush not to "reflexively and artificially hold both sides 'equally' accountable."

The controversial internal memo obtained by DRUDGE, captures Halperin stating how "Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win."...

x x x x x

Halperin Memo Dated Friday October 8, 2004

"It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off (sp?) and endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right."

My interpretation:(In other words, folks, let's all do the right thing and slant our coverage in Kerry's favor.)

Another blogger recently posted an article from the Washington Post quoting Paul Bremer as criticizing the Bush administration for not having enough troops in Iraq at the outset. This unusual piece from the New York Times (of all places) allows Bremer to give his rebuttal of the slanted coverage given by the press on his comments: Excerpt:

"In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context...

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.
L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004."

It's already started. This article from NewsMax details the voter registration fraud being perpetrated by a Democrat voter registration group in Florida. Excerpt:

"Pro-Democrat Vote Fraud Probed in Florida

Hundreds of Republican voters have been disenfranchised in Florida as part of a Democrats-only voter registration drive sponsored by a national civil rights group, according to new allegations that are at the center of an investigation by the state's Election Division and the U.S. Justice Department.

A field director for ACORN, one of the many pro-Democratic Party organizations trying to register new voters in the state, has told investigators that efforts to rig votes for the 2004 election were "routine," according to the newspaper Florida Today.

"There was a lot of fraud committed," said Mac Stuart, former Miami-Dade field director for ACORN. Among his allegations: that ACORN "quality control" workers routinely kicked back Republican voter registrations while paying for Democratic ones, using the excuse that "they had enough" new voters for the GOP.
Story Continues Below

Stuart said the "boxes" of Republican voter registration cards were tossed while "thousands of invalid voter registration cards" were submitted in their place.
The former ACORN director said his group "eagerly sought" to register convicted felons, even though they're not allowed to vote under Florida law. He recalled setting up registration tables outside the Miami police department and Dade County jail.

"We targeted them because ACORN had a goal: 103,000 new registrations from Dade County," Stuart told Florida Today.