Brokaw Lectures Iraq PM

I saw this exchange on TV this morning. Brokaw was totallly dismayed with the PM. I could tell he really wanted to say "Don't you understand Bush lied. There wre no WMDs, no ties to al qaeda, he rushed to war. What's wrong with you !!!" It was very amusing to watch. Kevin

Brokaw Raps Iraqi PM for Linking Saddam to 9/11

NBC "Nightly News" anchorman Tom Brokaw was so dismayed Tuesday night when Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi linked Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks that he actually reprimanded him during his interview.

When Brokaw asked the new Iraqi leader if he could "understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?" Dr. Allawi responded: "We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And the war [has] been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism."

Plainly miffed that Dr. Allawi hadn't accepted the U.S. media's attempt to cover-up links between Saddam, al Qaida and 9/11, Brokaw reprimanded him as cameras rolled:

"Prime minister, Im surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida."

But Dr. Allawi refused to back down, telling the top TV anchor:

"No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September atrocities or not, I can’t vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists."

In December Dr. Allawi commented on a recently discovered Iraqi intelligence document placing lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta in Baghdad two months before the attacks.

"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he told the London Telegraph. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."

More Media Bias

More ties between Iraq and al qaeda the "mainstream media" continues to ignore

CBS, CNN & NBC Skip Iraq Outreach to bin Laden Over Saudi Arabia
Spiked by CBS, CNN and NBC again. Exactly a week after the CBS Evening News, CNN’s NewsNight and the NBC Nightly News ignored Russian President Vladimir Putin’s disclosure that Russian intelligence warned the Bush administration after 9-11 that Saddam Hussein planned to attack inside the U.S., the very same newscasts managed to skip over a Friday front page New York Times story about how top operatives in Hussein’s regime approached bin Laden in the mid-1990s about working together against the Saudi ruling family and foreigners in Saudi Arabia. Friday’s CBS Evening News, however, had time for hyperventilation about how “partisan bickering in Washington” supposedly reached “a new low as the Vice President lets loose with...'the' four-letter word" and for a story blaming the war in Iraq for a polio outbreak in Nigeria.

More On Recent Polls

The NYT/CBS Poll follows the LA Times poll by over sampling Dems. I guess if your candidate can't pull ahead on his own, it makes sense to stack the poll to make it look like he is winning. Kevin

Generally speaking, do you usually consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or what?

Republican = 29%
Democrat = 35%
Independent/Don't Know = 36%

Over the last month, Bush has gained ground in all major polls except Wash Post. Somehow, while other polls show Bush gaining, their poll shows Kerry surging. I wonder how much they over sampled Dems in their poll???

Poll Dates Net Gain
CBS News & CBS/NYT 5/20-23 vs 6/23-27 Bush +7
Fox News/OpDyn 5/18-19 vs 6/22-23 Bush + 6
CNN/Gallup/USAT 5/21-23 vs. 6/21-23 Bush +3
WaPo/ABC News 5/20-23 vs 6/17-6/20 Kerry + 6
Rasmussen and Battleground polls also showed Bush gaining ground in the last month.

Bush is now the Devil According to the Wash Post

So, the leftwing journalists are now resorting to calling Bush the Devil. Not sure if that is better or worse than Hitler. Unbelievable !!! Kevin

Why did the mostly liberal crowd at last week's Washington premiere--people who like to think of themselves as thoughtful and fair-minded--applaud so unrestrainedly?

They applauded, I suspect, for much the same reason so many members of the black Christian middle-class applaud the harangues of Black Muslim minister Louis Farrakhan. Some of his facts may be wrong and some of his connections strained, but his attitude is right. What's more, he'll say in plain language what nice, educated people cannot bring themselves to say: The man is a devil.

Fair and Balanced Reviews???

The same objective reviewers who slammed the Passion of the Christ, applaud Fahrenheit 911 for the same themes. Kevin

A.O. Scott, New York Times:
"Fahrenheit": "Mr. Moore's populist instincts have never been sharper. . . . He is a credit to the republic."
"Passion": "Gibson has exploited the popular appetite for terror and gore for what he and his allies see as a higher end."

Ty Burr, Boston Globe:
"Fahrenheit": "Should be seen because it takes off the gloves and wades into the fray, because it synthesizes the anti-Bush argument like no other work before it, and because it forces you to decide for yourself exactly where passion starts to warp point of view."
"Passion": "If you come seeking theological subtlety, let alone such modern inventions as psychological depth, you'll walk away battered and empty-handed."

David Edelstein, Slate:
"Fahrenheit": After the screening, a friend railed that Moore was exploiting a mother's grief. I suggested that the scene made moral sense in the context of the director's universe, that the exploitation is justified if it saves the lives of other mothers' sons.
"Passion": "A two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie--The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre--that thinks it's an act of faith."

Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle:
"Fahrenheit": "[Moore] is an indispensable treasure, and his imperfections are part of the reason, because they mark him as real."
"Passion": "It's awful because everything he knows about storytelling has been swept aside by proselytizing zeal."

Geoff Pevre, Toronto Star:
"Fahrenheit": "A plea for America's deliverance. . . . It may not be an argument one agrees with, and it may be unbalanced and propagandistic, but it is both convincingly argued and sincerely motivated."
"Passion": "A work of fundamentalist pornography."

David Sterrit, Christian Science Monitor:
"Fahrenheit": "Is the label 'documentary' appropriate for this openly activist movie? Of course it is, unless you cling to some idealized notion of 'objective' film."
"Passion": "The highly selective screenplay includes only a few of Jesus' words, spoken in occasional flashback scenes."

James Verniere, Boston Herald:
"Fahrenheit": "At a time when the film industry is turning out sugarcoated, content-free junk, Moore has given American viewers a renewed taste for raw meat."
"Passion": "An exercise in sadomasochistic bullying."

Outrage of the Week !!!!!!!!!

If there was any doubt left about whether or not the press was totally partisan...read the below. While the press spent all last week mis-reporting what the staff report supposedly said about links between Iraq and al qaeda, they completely ignored what the report said about the impact the war on terror has had on al qaeda. They should be ashamed at how blatantly corrupt and partisan they have become; for no reason other than to try to sway the election this year. Kevin

9/11 Commission: U.S. Terror War has Stymied al Qaida

The Sept. 11 Commission has found that the Bush administration's war on terror has severely impaired al Qaida's ability to organize another spectacular attack against the U.S. homeland by capturing or killing the deadly terror group's key leaders, drying up their financial resources and severely limiting their ability to "strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide."

The bombshell finding, buried at the end of the Commission's Staff Statement No. 15, should have been hailed in the press as evidence that we've at least turned the corner in the war on terror - and may indeed have the enemy on the run. Instead, reporters have ignored this particular Commission finding since its release on June 16.

"Since the September 11 attacks and the defeat of the Taliban, as Qaeda's funding has decreased significantly. The arrests or deaths of several important financial facilitators have decreased the amount of money al Qaeda has raised and increased the costs and difficulty of raising and moving that money.

"Some entirely corrupt charities are now out of business, with many of their principals killed or captured, although some charities may still be providing support to al Qaeda.

"Moreover, it appears that the al Qaeda attacks within Saudi Arabia in May and November 2003 have reduced - perhaps drastically - at Qaeda's ability to raise funds from Saudi sources. Both an increase in Saudi enforcement and a more negative perception of al Qaeda by potential donors have cut its income."

"Prior to 9/11, al Qaeda was a centralized organization which used Afghanistan as a war room to strategize, plan attacks, and dispatch operatives worldwide." But now, says the Commission, "Bin Ladin's* seclusion [has] forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him."

In other words, whether dead or alive, the prime mover behind the Sept. 11 attacks has been taken out of commission, with operational authority handed over to allies of convenience like Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

And while Zarqawi has mounted dozens of operations throughout the Middle East in recent months, including a deadly chem-bomb plot foiled by Jordanian authorities in April, his focus these days seems to be pretty much on Iraq - not America.

And even there, Zarqawi seems to be feeling the heat lately. According to the recent communique he sent to bin Laden, published on Islamic web sites earlier this month, he complained about being "squeezed" by U.S. forces.

"The space of movement is starting to get smaller," he told the 9/11 chief. "The [U.S.] grip is starting to be tightened on the holy warriors' necks and, with the spread of soldiers and police, the future [for our side] is becoming frightening."

To be sure, the 9/11 Commission did not attribute any success in the terror war to the president by name, though as its leader and chief strategist, that conclusion is inescapable.

Still, when the 9/11 Commission reports: "Al Qaeda today is more a loose collection of regional networks with a greatly weakened central organization," it's hard not to conclude President Bush's war on terror is making significant progress.

Unless you're a journalist.

Quotes of the Day

These speak for themselves. Kevin

"The Iraqi people made history today, and so did John Kerry with his unprecedented pessimism about today's progress in Iraq, Kerry revealed his cynicism when he complained that not enough of the money he voted against is being spent and that the contributions of NATO and our allies aren't 'real.' " Bush spokesman - Steve Schmidt

"The hard Left in America has gone European. They live in a fantasy world in which dictators are virtuous as long as they're anti-American. They care nothing for human rights or women's rights — unless Washington can be blamed for abuses, real or imagined. As far as the Left is concerned, America is always wrong. When making strategic decisions, ignore them entirely" Ralph Peters - NYPost

Dems Soak Up Soft Money

The party that demanded campaign finance reform has outraised Republicans by 10-1 in 527 soft money. So much for money corrupting politics. Kevin

Only one of the top 25 donors to political 527 groups has given to a conservative organization, shedding further light on the huge disparity between Democrats and Republicans in this new fund-raising area.

The top three 527 donors so far in the 2004 election cycle - Hollywood producer Steven Bing, Progressive Corp. chairman Peter Lewis and financier George Soros - have combined to give nearly $24 million to prominent liberal groups. They include Joint Victory Campaign 2004, America Coming Together and MoveOn.org.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks 527 data, liberal organizations have amassed nearly $80 million in donations compared to a mere $8 million for their conservative counterparts. Groups are categorized as 527s for the section of tax code that regulates them.

The liberal-leaning groups' big advantage is expected to benefit Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry, according to campaign finance watchdogs. Even though the 527 groups are prohibited by law from consulting with the Kerry campaign or Democratic National Committee, they can air television ads supporting him and criticizing President Bush.

More Kerry Pessimism Discredited

Now USA Today exposes Kerry's lies about college tuition and exposes the higher tuition scam. Kevin

USA Today blows a big hole in one of Kerry's biggest rhetorical points:

What students pay on average for tuition at public universities has fallen by nearly one-third since 1998, thanks to new federal tax breaks and a massive increase in state and federal grants to most students and their families.

Contrary to the widespread perception that tuition is soaring out of control, a USA TODAY analysis found that what students actually pay in tuition and fees — rather than the published tuition price — has declined for a vast majority of students attending four-year public universities. In fact, today's students have enjoyed the greatest improvement in college affordability since the GI bill provided benefits for returning World War II veterans.

What made the difference: a $22 billion annual increase in grants and tax breaks since 1998.

That 80% jump in financial aid — targeting middle-class families earning $40,000 to $100,000 a year — has more than offset dramatic increases in tuition prices.

"College still takes a big chunk out of most families' income. But the average student is much better off today than headlines would have you believe," says Sandy Baum, an economist who co-authors an annual report on college costs for the College Board, which oversees college entrance exams.

For months, John Kerry - while insisting he is an optimist - has been saying that higher education is absolutely out of reach for the middle class in America. Which is about as accurate as his claim that we're in the worst economy since the Great Depression.

From Kerry's issues page on his web site: "While George Bush gives tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, students are struggling to find the support they need to succeed.

Back on April 12: A Kerry release stated, "George Bush’s reckless fiscal policies have led to the largest state fiscal crisis in fifty years.

Back on April 14: Kerry charged that "the administration's domestic policies have put the cost of college out of reach for many young Americans

Kerry said Bush's economic policies have squeezed middle-class families. "College tuitions have gone up 28 percent in the last three years.

At public universities, students are paying roughly 27 percent of the official tuition price. Students pay more at private schools, but private tuition actually paid has gone up only 7 percent during the past five years, less than the 20 percent rise in the official price.

It is positively raining college aid, meaning students are in a tight competition with the elderly over who can be more pampered by government. Eight new federal tuition tax breaks have been created since 1997. Total federal and state financial aid hit a record $49 billion in 2003, according to USA Today.

The game for universities is obvious — hike official tuition rates ever higher. Then everyone thinks students cannot afford college and plies them with more aid, which ends up lining the pockets of the schools. It's one of the great scams of our time, and Kerry has been happy to play along by hyping nominal tuition increases and promising yet more aid. He is the dream candidate of greedy college administrators.

The problem isn't that students hungry for knowledge are being frozen out from college, but the opposite. Marginal students take their generous aid and go to colleges that don't teach them. Eighty percent of universities aren't selective, e.g. more or less happy to accept anyone who shows up with a check. Only 37 percent of first-time freshmen graduate in four years, and only 60 percent graduate in six years. Universities are happy to take money from unprepared students and fail them right back out, or dumb down their standards to stay on the government-aid gravy train.

NY TImes Poll From Yesterday

More interesting items from that new New York Times poll:
"Nearly 40 percent of Americans say they do not have an opinion about Senator John Kerry, the likely Democratic presidential nominee. Among those who do have an opinion, Mr. Kerry is disliked more than he is liked (35 percent!). More than 50 percent of respondents said that Mr. Kerry says what he thinks voters want to hear...

The 35 percent have a negative opinion of Kerry factoid is buried in the next to last paragraph, with 36 percent having no opinion. If my math is correct, this leaves a mere 29 percent of the respondents having a positive opinion of Kerry.

EVEN BAD POLLS DESERVE BETTER HEADLINES [06/28 10:58 PM]
But even shaky polls deserve accurate headlines. From the AP we learn that in the May CBS/New York Times poll, Kerry led Bush by 8 percentage points in a two-way matchup, and by 6 points in a three-way matchup. The headline was "Kerry Surges Ahead og Bush". The newest one shows Kerry had 45 percent support and Bush by 44 percent in the poll. In a three-way matchup, Kerry and Bush were still running even while independent Ralph Nader is at 5 percent.

So one could conclude the big story is Bush pulling even, right? An eight point lead has evaporated into a one-point lead. Big news, right?

The New York Times headline? "Bush's Rating Falls to Its Lowest Point." The head-to-head numbers are in the 11th paragraph.

Now Gore Plays Nazi/Hitler Card

In his latest rant, Gore made the below quote referring to Bush supporters as "Digital Brownshirts". The brownshirts were the Nazi SS troops that rounded up dissenters in Germany. Real nice. I guess when you have nothing of substance to offer you resort to name calling. Kevin

Gore: The [Bush] administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital brownshirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops."

"brownshirts"--i.e., Nazi storm troopers

PS The Kerry campaign is all upset about a Bush internet ad that uses images of the foaming at the mouth liberals and uses clips from the Bush is Hitler ads Moveon.org made earlier in the year. They didn't make a peep at the time. Now that Bush is showing the ads as an example of what he is up against the Kerry camp is offended that anyone would use an image of Hitler. Guess he hasn't been paying attention to how his party campaigns lately.

Outrage of the Day - Wash Post Style

Check out the below headline from today's Wash Post. According to them, the choice is health care or tax cuts. (anyone want to guess which side they are on?) Also note they label Bruce Bartlett "conservative", but do not label Reischauser or his think tank "liberal". Nope, no bias there !!! Kevin

The Choice for Voters: Health Care or Tax Cuts
Policy Costs Crowd Out Other Initiatives

"These are pretty stark differences," said Robert D. Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. "Kerry is expansive and wants to preserve and strengthen the role government has played in the economic and social life of the republic, and Bush would like to scale back the role of government to the most basic services of protection of life and liberty and a safety net for those who really have no ability to care for themselves."

Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis, offered a similar analysis. "Maybe that should be the campaign slogan: If you want slightly higher taxes and more federal spending on health care, vote for John Kerry," he said.

Iraq Really Did Try to Buy Uranium

A front page story in the Financial Times today confirms the British claim that Iraq was in the market for yellowcake uranium prior to the war. This of course will be ignored by all US media outlets !!! Kevin

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, thereby circumventing official export controls. "The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier, which it used to justify war with Iraq after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the UK eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.

Out NATO Pals

Webster's defines alliance as an "association to further the common interests of the members." The camaraderie on display at today's opening of the NATO summit in Istanbul notwithstanding, the past two years have seen little evidence that the organization still fits this definition.

The summiteers can be expected to make much of NATO's deployment of five more "provincial reconstruction teams" to Afghanistan--teams that were promised months ago but never delivered. Similarly, NATO's European leaders will congratulate each other for agreeing to train Iraqi security services, a job France and Germany somehow intend to accomplish without sending any troops to Iraq. If that's all the help the U.S. can get from our partners, it may be time to rethink the underlying premise of this "alliance."

The excuse offered by the Germans and French is that they disagree with the U.S. on what constitute "common interests." But it is not plausible that Europe has a lesser stake in pacifying terrorists and terrorist regimes than does the U.S. A more honest explanation is that America's security umbrella has allowed Europeans to underfund their military services to the point that even if there were a trans-Atlantic consensus, they would have little to offer.

Even in Afghanistan, which Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer calls NATO's "number one priority," the allies' record is abysmal. The actual fighting is still being done by some 20,000 American-led troops outside the NATO structure. All Washington asked the alliance to do last August was to help pacify and rebuild the country. NATO was able to muster a mere 6,500 troops, most of which are stationed in the relative safety of Kabul.

Thousands more are needed to bring stability to a country the size of Texas. Instead, the member states are stalling, forcing the Secretary-General to go begging for a chopper here and an airplane there. And as NATO fails to expand from Kabul, the security situation is deteriorating. Elections originally planned for June have been postponed until September.
One of the Bush Administration's minimum goals for the Istanbul summit is for NATO to commit a larger force to Afghanistan for 90 days around the time of the elections. The hope is to secure the registration of voters and provide security from terrorists who will surely try their worst to prevent Afghanistan's transition to a full democracy. But even such a temporary commitment is unlikely.

Germany insists that it is not a lack of political will that prevents it from doing more in Afghanistan, where it has 2,000 troops. It says that with missions also in Kosovo and Bosnia, its forces are stretched thin. But if the world's third biggest economy is already exhausted by deploying 7,500 non-fighting troops abroad out of a total force of 270,000, what other than a lack of political will can account for this sorry state of its military affairs?

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, last year the U.S. spent $417.4 billion on defense or $1,419 per capita. France's total spending was $35 billion or $583 per capita, while Germany spent $27.2 billion or $329 per capita and is planning to freeze defense spending at current levels over the next few years. The French have some 15,000 of their 350,000 troops deployed abroad, though with only 700 serving in Afghanistan. The biggest French foreign mission, 4,000 troops, is in the Cote d'Ivoire--which speaks volumes about the difference between U.S. and French interests.

This sorry NATO record should also bring a dose of reality to American politicians who invoke "multilateralism" like a mantra. Both John Kerry and Joe Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are demanding that Mr. Bush give NATO a larger role in Iraq, but the President would surely do so if the Europeans were willing. The two Democrats are either out of touch with current European opinion, or they are using NATO as a political club to beat up Mr. Bush, or both. At least Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar is alert to the problem, warning the Europeans last week that "NATO's reputation will stand or fall" depending on its assistance in Iraq.

Earlier this month, the U.S. and Europe commemorated the sacrifices of American soldiers on the Normandy beaches to liberate Europe from the Nazis in 1944. For the next 60 years, American taxpayers footed most of the bill to protect Europe, most recently deploying forces to stop the Balkan wars. Somehow Europeans appear to believe Americans will continue doing this indefinitely, regardless of European behavior and attitudes. They are badly mistaken.

Media Ignores UN Oil for Food Scandal and Dems Sabotage Hearings

The "Mainstream Media" has totally ignored this story since it broke and the Dems are making a mockery of the hearings on capital hill. Guess they don't want anybody to know how screwed up the All Mighty UN really is; since it is the Dems answer to everything. Kevin

WHAT are the Congressional hearings to discover the truth about the United Nations' oil-for-food scandal? According to some of the committee's Democratic representatives, the hearings are a "misguided effort to discredit the United Nations."
In other words - according to House Reps. Tom Lantos, Howard Berman and Gary Ackerman - it apparently doesn't matter what happened to the $2 billion worth of bribe money paid to 270 diplomats and politicians, or the $10 billion allegedly stolen by Saddam Hussein.

Why? Because the truth about France, Germany and Russia's opposition to the war in Iraq might not be helpful for Democrats in the 2004 elections. The party and their presidential candidate, who worship at the altar of "U.N. solutions" for world problems (including terror) might be forced to admit that the object of their continuing affection is a cesspool of anti-American, bribe-taking liars. Liars who are perfectly willing to stonewall any investigation - apparently with the blessings of certain Democratic committee members.

Once again, like the 9/11 committee before it, the truth will take a back seat to partisan politics. Once again, Democrats will likely dishonor themselves in the process of trying to dishonor the president. And once again, Americans will see right through the subterfuge.

Clinton Judge Compares Bush to Hitler

Once again, the Dems play the Hitler card. The NYTimes, which railed against Scalia for appearance of conlfict of interest, has no problem with a sitting judge openly calling for the defeat of a candidate, which is against the judicial code of conduct. Kevin

A few months ago the New York Times was among those who tried to brew up a kerfuffle over Justice Antonin Scalia's decision not to recuse himself from considering a case involving the office of the vice president. The argument was that because Scalia is a personal friend of the man who currently holds that office, his opinion would somehow create a conflict of interest, or at least the "appearance" of same--never mind that whatever precedent the court sets would apply to all future vice presidents, regardless of party.

Now a New York-based federal judge is openly campaigning against George W. Bush, the New York Sun reported Monday:

"In a way that occurred before but is rare in the United States . . . somebody came to power as a result of the illegitimate acts of a legitimate institution that had the right to put somebody in power. That is what the Supreme Court did in Bush versus Gore. It put somebody in power," said Guido Calabresi, a judge on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, which sits in Manhattan.

"The reason I emphasize that is because that is exactly what happened when Mussolini was put in by the king of Italy," Judge Calabresi continued, as the allusion drew audible gasps from some in the luncheon crowd Saturday at the annual convention of the American Constitution Society.

But Calabresi didn't stop there. He was just getting started: "The king of Italy had the right to put Mussolini in, though he had not won an election, and make him prime minister. That is what happened when Hindenburg put Hitler in. I am not suggesting for a moment that Bush is Hitler. I want to be clear on that, but it is a situation which is extremely unusual," the judge said.

Well, of course he's not suggesting Bush is like Hitler! He's merely comparing the two; likening, equating, paralleling, relating ... but he would never say Bush is Hitler. Of course not.

According to the Sun, Calabresi "declared that members of the public should, without regard to their political views, expel Mr. Bush from office in order to cleanse the democratic system."

But while Calabresi's remarks themselves are inconsequential, his position as a federal judge makes them highly improper. Blogger Eugene Volokh notes that the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges stipulates that "a judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

Well, fortunately, the vigilant defenders of judicial propriety and independence are on the case. The New York Times has an editorial denounc--oh wait, sorry, actually it doesn't have an editorial. Two days after the Sun's scoop, the Old Gray Lady, which supporters call a newspaper, hasn't even bothered wading in with a news story. As we write, a search for "Calabresi" on the Times Web site turns up zilch during the past 30 days. We'll keep you posted.

But gee, you don't suppose all that complaining about Cheney and Scalia was partisan, do you?

USA Today Bashes Kerry's Economic Policies Too

Give USA Today cudos for honesty and joining the Wash Post saying Kerry if full of hot air on the economy. Kevin

USA TODAY REJECTS KERRY'S ECONOMIC ARGUMENT [06/23 02:25 PM]

Looks like the editors of USA Today have had enough of John Kerry contention that the economy is the worst since the Great Depression. In an editorial titled Kerry's gloomy notes about economy ring hollow, they write, "Kerry has not offered answers for all of the problems he cites. While he would steer more federal money into health care and college education by eliminating part of the tax cut Bush pushed through two years ago, he has no realistic plan for tamping down gas prices, boosting wages or preventing companies from laying off workers. In fact, presidents have little control over short-term economic trends.

By talking down the economy, Kerry may hope to pick up votes in economically struggling states where the November election may be decided. But in doing so, he risks sounding out of touch with millions of Americans who see signs of an improving economy — and want a president with a sunnier outlook. The recent death of former president Ronald Reagan recalls just how powerful an optimistic message can be.

Exaggerating the nation's economic misery is not wise policy or politics. The nation is looking for an upbeat problem-solver, not a gloomy

Foley Calls out Dems on Beheadings

Congressman calls on Dems to show same outrage for beheadings they showed for prison abuse. To date not one Dem had given a speach denouncing the murders, but 45 times spoke against prison abuse. Kevin

Rep. Mark Foley, Florida Republican, yesterday called on his Democratic colleagues to end their silence on the beheadings of American civilians Nick Berg and Paul M. Johnson Jr. and show the same outrage they showed in the wake of the Abu Ghraib prison incidents.
Mr. Foley, in a floor speech, said no Democratic member of Congress has spoken on the floor of the House about the cruel slaying of Mr. Johnson, yet more then 20 Democratic members have mentioned Abu Ghraib more than 45 times since April.
"Mr. Chairman, I stand here amazed and disappointed in the self-righteous, politically motivated diatribes coming from the other side about Abu Ghraib," Mr. Foley said, adding, "But, what I find especially appalling is the near-deafening silence from the other side following the savage beheadings of American civilians Nick Berg and Paul Johnson."

Media Ignores Felons Registering Voters Story

Just like they ignore all other anti Dem stories, like voter fraud and illegal campaigning, the major newspapers are ignoring this story. But, hey, it must be a coincidence, there is no liberal bias in the media afterall !!! Kevin

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) - A Democratic group crucial to John Kerry's presidential campaign has paid felons - some convicted of sex offenses, assault and burglary - to conduct door-to-door voter registration drives in at least three election swing states.

America Coming Together, contending that convicted criminals deserve a second chance in society, employs felons as voter canvassers in major metropolitan areas in Missouri, Florida, Ohio and perhaps in other states among the 17 it is targeting in its drive. Some lived in halfway houses, and at least four returned to prison.

ACT canvassers ask residents which issues are important to them and, if they are not registered, sign them up as voters. They gather telephone numbers and other personal information, such as driver's license numbers or partial Social Security numbers, depending on what a state requires for voter registration.

A review of federal campaign finance and state criminal records by The Associated Press revealed that the names and hometowns of dozens of ACT employees in Missouri, Florida and Ohio matched those of people convicted of crimes such as burglary, forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses.

Although it works against the re-election of President Bush, ACT is an independent group not affiliated with Kerry's campaign - federal law forbids such coordination. Yet ACT is stocked with veteran Democratic political operatives, many with past ties to Kerry and his advisers.

Ed Gillespie, the chairman of the Republican Party, issued a statement calling the policy "disturbing" and questioned the use of felons "to go house to house and handle sensitive personal information."

Dems Cheat Again and Media Ignores

The Dems were the ones demanding for campaing finance reform and then formed soft money slush funds before the ink was dry on the law. Now they can't even comply with the law they wanted. This story came out Tues afternoon and as of 4:00 Wednesday there has been no mention of this in the NYTimes or Wash Post. Kevin

WASHINGTON – A pro-Democrat group that criticizes President Bush in its fund-raising letters is breaking the law in the types of contributions it uses to finance the mailings, campaign finance watchdog groups said in a complaint.

The three groups said America Coming Together should be using limited "hard money" donations, not unlimited contributions, to pay for the solicitations. The groups - Democracy 21, Center for Responsive Politics and Campaign Legal Center - planned to file the complaint on Tuesday with the Federal Election Commission.

ACT has financed the mailings, possibly up to $1 million worth through March, with soft money, the groups say. Such unlimited donations can come from any source, including unions and corporations, but aren't supposed to be used for federal election activities.

"When Election Day is over, we will have defeated George W. Bush and elected progressive candidates all across the nation," ACT told prospective donors in one recent fund-raising letter. "The extraordinary effort we're undertaking is in response to the extraordinary damage Bush and his allies do, on a daily basis, to values we believe in and to people we care about."

The mailing also notes ACT's desire to defeat Republican members of Congress and GOP lawmakers at the state and local levels.

The watchdog groups contend that because no state and local candidates are named, and Bush, a federal candidate, is the only person on the ballot who is, such solicitations must be funded with hard money.

ACT "has illegally spent soft money on direct-mail public communications that attack and oppose President Bush," said Fred Wertheimer, head of Democracy 21.

ACT was created after the campaign finance law took effect in November 2002 barring the national Democratic and Republican parties from raising soft money. The group is focused on pro-Democratic get-out-the-vote activities in presidential battleground states, efforts the Democratic Party had used soft money to finance.

Even the Wash Post says Kerry is Wrong on the Economy

THE FUROR OVER "offshoring" of jobs to countries such as India, so pronounced during the Democratic primaries, seems to have faded. With good reason: Last week the Labor Department published the first government effort to quantify the impact of offshoring, which tentatively suggested that it may be responsible for just 2.5 percent of the job losses in the first quarter of this year.

Moreover, job creation, which appeared surprisingly weak a few months ago despite strong economic growth, is now healthy -- and statistical revisions suggest that it was robust as far back as March and respectable in January -- just when the gloom from the Democratic primaries was at its fiercest. After suffering a net loss of 2.7 million jobs between March 2001 and August 2003, the economy has gained 1.4 million jobs.

Now comes the next round of political gloom-mongering. Sen. John F. Kerry, the victor in the Democratic primaries, has been telling voters this week that although job creation may have recovered, wages are the real problem. "In the last year, wages have gone down, and prices have gone up," the candidate told an audience on Tuesday. Actually, hourly wages for non-supervisory workers have risen this year by 2.2 percent as of May, so they kept pace with consumer price inflation. Precise statements about whether the new jobs being created pay more or less than average are not possible, because it takes months for these data to be assembled. But it is possible to say that new job creation, which in the early stages of the recovery was concentrated at low-paying employers such as restaurants, has now broadened to include manufacturing and other sectors where wages are higher than average.

If Mr. Kerry's message seems exaggerated now, it will seem even less convincing soon. Job markets recover in three phases: As the economy picks up, employers ask workers to put in extra hours; when they've exhausted that option, they hire new workers; when new workers become hard to find, labor scarcity pushes wages upward. We are now well into the second stage and may be entering the third.

In any case, there is not much that President Bush -- or a President Kerry -- can do to influence this process. On Friday, Mr. Kerry proposed an increase in the minimum wage, and this could help; but it would only reach workers at the very bottom, and if this policy were pushed too far, it could slow new job creation.

Mr. Kerry has clearly decided that voters want him to feel their pain, and he's willing to deliver what his audience expects from him. This may be sound politics, but it distracts from the serious criticisms of Mr. Bush's record that an opponent should be making. Mr. Bush's tax cuts have created a fiscal crisis far bigger than the nation appears to understand. Fixing it will require a style of leadership that faces tough choices -- which is not what Mr. Kerry is providing.

Voter Fraud

Why is it that Dems never met a vote fraud scheme they didn't fight for? How does asking people to show ID before voting discriminate? This is one of the most important things we do and they want NO CONTROLS what so ever on ensuring only legal votes are cast. Kevin

The level of suspicion between the two parties is greater than ever. John Kerry says he believes Al Gore "won" the 2000 election and has assembled a team of 2,000 lawyers to "challenge anyplace in America where you cannot trace the vote and count the votes." Republicans have their own legal team to combat fake voter registrations, absentee-ballot fraud and residents of nursing homes being overly "assisted" to cast votes. Maria Cardona of the New Democrat Network dismisses such concerns, saying "ballot security and preventing voter fraud are just code words for voter intimidation and suppression." Liberal legal groups are suing to set aside laws in some of the 11 states that require photo ID at the polls on the grounds they discriminate against the poor and minorities.

Media Campaigns for Kerry

This is unreal !!! The Philadelphis Daily News not only endorsed Kerry last week, they published a link to Kerry's website and urged people to contribute to him. What's next, the NY Times hosting a Kerry Fundraiser. So much for a non partisan press !!! Kevin

On Wednesday the Philadelphia Daily News became, by its own reckoning, the first newspaper in the nation to endorse John Kerry for president in November. The paper went beyond the usual endorsement and vowed to take an active role in winning the election for Kerry:

Kerry, who fought in the swamps of Vietnam, can lead us out of the quagmire of the Bush administration--but for that to happen, he will need your help.

Past presidential election strategies focused on the "undecided" or "swing" voters. This election, we're pushing a different strategy: We're focusing on the people poll-takers call "unlikely" voters.

The paper goes on to exhort readers to register to vote and to "get others" to do so. It provides Kerry's Web site address and urges readers to make a donation. "You can help Kerry win Pennsylvania," the paper says. "Act now. The commonwealth--indeed the nation--cannot afford another four years of George Bush."

We believe in free speech, so we have no problem with this. But if a company other than a media conglomerate (the News is owned by Knight Ridder Newspapers) undertook such an effort on behalf of a political candidate, surely the Federal Election Commission would be all over it. Perhaps the FEC should take up the question of Knight Ridder's electioneering for Kerry. It'd make an interesting test case.

Outrage of the Week

Partisan media uses lies and distorts commission's report to try to make president look bad. Ignoring the truth and distorting what the staff report said, the media was salivating over the chance to attack the president once again. Tne report never said there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. They said there was no "credible evidence" Iraq wa involved with the 9/11 attacks. The media twisted this for their partisan agenda and then even refused to report when the chairmen refuted what the media reported. Kevin

"Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" went the Times headline. "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed" front-paged The Washington Post. The A.P. led with the thrilling words "Bluntly contradicting the Bush Administration, the commission. . . ." This understandably caused my editorial-page colleagues to draw the conclusion that "there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. . . ."

What a bunch of crap...below are several links documenting ties between Iraq and al qaeda.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-06-17-hadley_x.htm

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1156035/posts

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/21/opinion/21SAFI.html?ex=1088395200&en=6def8ee2f0b48d06&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/248eaurh.asp

Kerry Exploits Race

Why is it that the Dems always have to exploit the race issue to try to win elections? From saying Reps would take away their rights to, running commercials re-enacting the dragging death in Texas to saying electing Reps would cause more black churches to be burned. It never fails. Kevin

Yesterday we noted that John Kerry had claimed, in a Columbus, Ohio, speech, that more black Americans are in prison than in college. It turns out that KERRY LIED!!!! Blogger Clyde Middleton has the numbers (links below in PDF):

The US [Department of Justice] tells us the number of blacks incarcerated at mid-year 2002 (page 11, Table 13): 818,900 black men; 65,600 black women; total 884,500 blacks.

The US Census Bureau tells us the number of blacks in college during 2002: 802,000 black men; 1,476,000 black women; total 2,278,000 blacks.

It's true that among black men the number of prison inmates was slightly higher than the number of college students. But as the Statistical Assessment Service notes, this is a meaningless comparison, since "you can go to prison at any age, but are most likely to be in college between the ages of 18-24." A college-age black man, it turns out, is 2.5 times as likely to be in college as in prison. Also worth noting: A career criminal can easily end up spending decades of his life behind bars, while only the laziest student stays in college that long.

Media Ignores 9/11 Chairmen

The media completely ignores the 9/11 chairmen when they question the way the media is portraying the commissions's own findings. Unbelievable !!! Kevin

In the “Grapevine” segment on Special Report with Brit Hume, Jim Angle explained:
“9-11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton, a Democrat, said today there is no disagreement between the commission and the administration over links between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. But most news organizations last night said the commission’s conclusion, that there was no quote, ‘collaborative relationship’ between the two was evidence the administration deliberately misled the public. CBS Evening News said the commission quote, ‘directly contradicted one of President Bush’s justifications for going to war against Iraq.’ ABC said the report quote, ‘unequivocally’ disputed the Bush administration’s claims of an al-Qaeda-Iraq link. NBC reported that the commission is ‘sharply at odds with what leading members of the administration continue to claim.’
“A front page headline in today’s New York Times reads quote, ‘Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie.’ And the Washington Post says quote, ‘al-Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed.’ But commission members said today there were links, just not a working relationship and no evidence of any Iraqi involvement in September 11th.”

The Republican Chairman and Democratic Vice Chairman of the 9-11 Commission on Thursday rejected the media’s widespread reporting that the commission’s report issued the day before had directly contradicted Bush administration statements about connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Yet on Thursday night ABC’s Peter Jennings declared that there “continues to be a discrepancy between the commission’s findings and the President’s on whether al-Qaeda has a link to Saddam Hussein,” and CBS anchor Dan Rather repeated how “the commission yesterday said it had found no credible evidence of a quote, 'collaborative relationship’ between al-Qaeda and Iraq.” NBC’s Tom Brokaw reiterated the same no “collaborative relationship” finding. But, Brokaw intoned, “despite that conclusion, President Bush insisted there was a relationship between the two.” NBC buried what should have been its lead. At the very end of his report, David Gregory informed viewers of how “Lee Hamilton said today that he does not see much different between administration statements and the commission’s report.” CNN barely mentioned Hamilton while the New York Times and Washington Post ignored him.

Media distorts Bush Again

Another glaring example of the media distorting the truth to make Bush look bad. Kevin

For an example of just how dishonest the partisan press prepared to be in its effort to discredit President Bush's wartime leadership, look at this passage from yesterday's USA Today:

Bush and Cheney also have sought to tie Iraq specifically to the 9/11 attacks. In a letter to Congress on March 19, 2003--the day the war in Iraq began--Bush said that the war was permitted under legislation authorizing force against those who ''planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.''

Here's what the letter, a prerequisite for the commencement of military action under the bipartisan Iraq war resolution, actually said:

Acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

That is, the president's letter did not claim, as USA Today implies, that Iraq was culpable for the Sept. 11 attacks, only that Iraq's liberation was consistent with the effort to fight terrorists, including those who were behind 9/11.

Dems Energy Policy

The Dems real Energy Policy. What they don't tell you is that a new oil refinery has not been built in this country since 1976. The other big driver is all the variations of gasoline, each state has legislated, causing difficulties in getting gas produced. You can't sell gas made for CA in IL and on and on... Kevin

Gas conspiracy
It's been exactly one month since Brian J. Kennedy, communications director for the House Resources Committee, suspected that the Democratic Party was nearing completion of a four-part strategy to obfuscate simple supply and demand principles and obstruct passage of President Bush's national energy policy.
"Here is how it works," he said.
•"Step One: Avoid directly addressing problem at all costs. If confronted on solutions, vote No."
•"Step Two: Bloviate about the evils of 'Big Oil' and SUVs (Yes, even though [senators and congressmen] drive one, are driven around in one, or have a private Gulfstream jet)."
•"Step Three: Call for investigations on price gouging, point fingers, and assign blame."
•"Step Four: Repeat steps one, two, and three until issue goes away (prices temporarily decline)."
The third step was completed the very day Mr. Kennedy issued his prophecy. Seven Democratic state attorneys general joined a Democratic senator in asking authorities to investigate whether oil and gas companies have colluded to drive up gasoline prices.
Now, Inside the Beltway has obtained "daily talking points" provided this week to Democratic congressmen, cheat sheets of sorts instructing them what to tell the public about gas prices. As Mr. Kennedy predicted, all 10 points call for probes of gas price gouging, blame the Bush administration for being "in the pocket" of big oil companies, and blame House Republicans for "doing their dirty work."
Sure enough, as gas prices drop nationwide this week, step four is complete.

Bias in Abuse Reporting

The media continues to only report about US abuses, not reporting on abuses by Sadaam. By only reporting things that makes the US look bad, the media hope to sway international opinion and the election in November. Kevin

The Saddam Torture Videos

The American Enterprise Institute held an unusual video screening yesterday, and hardly anyone showed up. One who did was the New York Post's Deborah Orin:

The video only lasts four minutes or so--gruesome scenes of torture from the days when Saddam Hussein's thugs ruled Abu Ghraib prison. I couldn't bear to watch, so I walked out until it was over.

Some who stayed wished they hadn't. They told of savage scenes of decapitation, fingers chopped off one by one, tongues hacked out with a razor blade--all while victims shriek in pain and the thugs chant Saddam's praises.

Saddam's henchmen took the videos as newsreels to document their deeds in honor of their leader.

But these awful images didn't show up on American TV news.

In fact, just four or five reporters showed up for the screening at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, which says it got the video via the Pentagon. Fewer wrote about it.

We saw part of this video a few weeks back, and indeed it is every bit as horrific as Orin's fellow reporters describe. Our computer crashed about a third of the way through and we didn't have the stomach to start watching again after rebooting. So we can certainly understand why television news outlets would see it as unfit to air.

As Orin notes, this "raises a very complex problem in the War on Terror. It's worse than creating moral equivalence between Saddam's tortures and prisoner abuse by U.S. troops. It's that we do far more to highlight our own wrongdoings precisely because they are less appalling." As of yesterday, the New York Times had written 177 stories on Abu Ghraib — with over 40 on the front page. The self-proclaimed "paper of record" hadn't written a single story about those seven Iraqi men who had their hands chopped off by Sadaam.

Part of the problem may be that the press hasn't quite figured out how to deal with such "asymmetric propaganda," as Orin calls it. Yet it doesn't seem that it would be that hard to provide context--to make sure that every story about American abuses at Abu Ghraib also included graphic descriptions of what went on there before Iraq's liberation.

Why does the press harp on American abuses and ignore Saddam's? Orin quotes AEI's Michael Ledeen as saying it's because most journalists "want Bush to lose." Reporters, of course, are at pains to maintain an air of fairness, but surveys have demonstrated that most lean to the left.

If you listen to prominent Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Robert Byrd and Al Gore, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that they'd rather see America lose the war than the president win re-election. It's bad enough that one party is willing to engage in what as a practical matter amounts to anti-American propaganda. Surely we have a right to demand better from the news media.

Kerry AWOL

Here's another story the "Mainstream Media" is ignoring. Kerry has missed almost every vote this year and most last year. According to the law, he is supposed to give up salary for each day he misses. Not to mention, at the prodding of the media, Bob Dole stepped down from the senate, in June of 1996, when he ran for president. Apparently, the media doesn't hold Kerry to the same standard. Kevin

Kerry's absences
A Hofstra University Law School student wants to see Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry return most of his Senate salary for the past two years to cover the days he has been absent campaigning.
Law student Johnathan M. Stein, 28, filed a complaint against Mr. Kerry of Massachusetts for cashing the pay checks and Senate Secretary Emily J. Reynolds for not deducting pay for his absences.
"I learned about the issue by accident," Mr. Stein said.
"Mrs. Reynolds has knowingly and willfully" violated section 2 paragraph 39 of the U.S. Code by giving Mr. Kerry his salary without deducting daily wages for each day that he has been absent from the Senate, Mr. Stein said.
Mr. Kerry began his day in New Jersey facing questions from reporters about Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney's request that the senator resign his seat so the governor could appoint someone with the time to fill it.
"It's not fair, it's not right, and the public is not being well-served," said Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey.
She said Mr. Kerry has missed 64 percent of roll call votes last year and 87 percent this year.
Mr. Kerry refused to resign, saying: "I believe I am serving the citizens of Massachusetts and the country in the proposal I've laid out about health care for all Americans, which George Bush has not, to balance the budget, to be fiscally responsible."

Follow up to Bogus LA Times Poll

According to a Drudge, a report on Roll CAll yesterday, showed that the LA Times poll did in fact use 13% more Dems in their poll than Reps. (Roll Call is a pay site so I couldn't read the article.) The Wash Times picked up the below story when Bush's pollster called the poll bogus. The "mainstream Media" will stop at nothing to try to sway opinion in the election. Kevin

Matthew Dowd, who does the polling for President Bush's campaign, called last week's Los Angeles Times poll, which showed John Kerry leading the president 51 percent to 44 percent, a "mess."
In an e-mail to NBC and ABC, Mr. Dowd said that "Bush is leading independents by three, ahead among Republicans by a larger margin than Kerry is ahead among Dems, and we are down by seven. Outrageous. And it gets worse. They have Dems leading generic congressional ballot by 19. This means this poll is too Democratic by 10 to 12 points."
Mickey Kaus, in his Kausfiles column at slate.msn.com, writes, "Who's right? Ask Governor Gray Davis! OK, that's a cheap shot. But LAT-watchers have been skeptical of the Times Poll ever since it alone showed Davis closing to a virtual dead heat in the recent California gubernatorial recall -- a report that virtually everyone else (including rival campaigns and the rival Field Poll) scoffed at" in the run-up to the recall of Mr. Davis and the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor.

More on the Economy

Comparing the Clinton (Best Economy Ever) and Bush (worst Economy since Great Depression) Oh wait...the numbers are better under Bush

Kevin :-)

Apparently, the Kerry camp has rolled out former Clinton economic advisor Gene Sperling to tell selected reporters how bad the economy is going. The only problem is, it's doing better than it was when his old boss was reelected in 1996.

Average monthly payroll growth Jan-May of the election year:
Clinton in 1996: 233k/month
Bush in 2004: 238k/month

Broadest measure of unemployment (U6) Average Jan-May:
Clinton in 1996 = 9.8%
Bush in 2004 = 9.7%

Number of manufacturing jobs created Jan-May:
Clinton in 1996 = -9k*
Bush in 2004 = 81k

* Note: over the final two years of President Clinton’s first term, the economy created just 67k net new manufacturing jobs.

Back in 1996, Sperling told the New York Times, "If they want to go head to head on the economic record, let's rock and roll."

New York Times Highlights Criticism of Economy by Sourcing 4 Dems and 2 Reps - Guess thats their view of Fair & Balanced

Take a look at who is quoted or cited as sources in the New York Times article about Kerry's attacks on the economy, and how voters agree more with his negative assessment than with the Bush team's focus on recent big growth: John Kerry; officials with the Democratic challenger's campaign; Gene Sperling;, economic adviser to President Bill Clinton and is now advising Kerry; Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt; Kerry again; Mark Mellman, the Kerry campaign's pollster; Kerry campaign officials; Kerry advisers; Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager; Tad Devine, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign; Sperling again, Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans.

I guess Schmidt and Evans should just be glad there was any room in the story left for them, amongst all the "we're right where we want to be" lines from the Kerry folks.

Quote of the Day

From the Wall Street Journal yeaterday on how the media refers to the economy. Too funny !!! Kevin

Signs of progress
"Here's a quick primer on how to track an economic recovery: When the media fret that the U.S. is heading for a decade of stagnation like Japan, that means profits and investment are picking up. When you hear that profits have risen but we're stuck in a 'jobless recovery,' businesses have started hiring. And finally when the cry goes up that American workers can find only low-paying menial jobs, that's the tip-off that the economy is booming," the Wall Street Journal says.
"Congratulations, America, the return of 'McJobs' rhetoric signifies that an expansion is in full swing," the newspaper said yesterday in an editorial.

Outrage of the Day

Sadly, once again, CBS proves it is nothing more than the media arm of the Democrat party. This Sunday they will have a full hour on 60 Minutes with Clinton, as they did with Hillary, when her book came out and several double segments to anti-Bush authors. They never even interview authors who write anti Dem books or write about media bias, those books are ignored by CBS and the rest of the media. And now, they have ordered all their radio stations to carry a 60 minute propaganda/book promotion session on Thursday. But, hey, they don't have an agenda !!! Kevin :-)

CBS RADIO HEAD ORDERS 'MUST CARRY' TO STATIONS FOR CLINTON BOOK SPECIAL

**Exclusive**

Move over Rush Limbaugh!

Bill Clinton is set to hit the talkradio waves with a live special promoting his new book -- one that CBS has ordered a "must carry" directive for all of its news affiliates, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Each and every one of CBS's news and talk stations will be required to take the Clinton book radio special, now scheduled for next 6 PM ET Thursday -- whether local programming management wants it or not!

"It's going to be like one big commercial for the book! Why didn't Mr. Clinton's publisher just buy an hour," one angry executive for a CBS news station said late Monday. "This is not news, this is marketing. I already feel dirty!"

Other CBS radio excutives are excited about Clinton finally appearing on live talkradio.

"I can't wait for the callers," said one CBS radio suit.

The one hour session titled "CLINTON CONNECTS WITH AMERICA" will be moderated by CBS EARLY SHOW host Harry Smith.

The program appears to be part of a larger cross-promotion platform package with Clinton and CBS parent VIACOM.

The former president is set to sit with CBS's Dan Rather at the Clinton library in Arkansas for Sunday's CBS 60 MINUTES.

Sadaam's WMDs and What Really Happened to Them

Another story the "Mainstream Media" is ignoring. For all of those who said Bush lied...even though every other country with an intelligence agency said he had WMDs and all the Dems agreed when Clinton was in office. Click on the title to read the whole article.

Friday, June 11, 2004
The United Nations has determined that Saddam Hussein shipped weapons of mass destruction components as well as medium-range ballistic missiles before, during and after the U.S.-led war against Iraq in 2003.

The UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission briefed the Security Council on new findings that could help trace the whereabouts of Saddam's missile and WMD program.

The briefing contained satellite photographs that demonstrated the speed with which Saddam dismantled his missile and WMD sites before and during the war. Council members were shown photographs of a ballistic missile site outside Baghdad in May 2003, and then saw a satellite image of the same location in February 2004, in which facilities had disappeared.

Another Bogus Poll by the LA Times

According to a poll, abuzz in the media this week, Kerry pulled ahead of Bush by 7 points ! Hmmm...let's look at the numbers. Bush leads in Independants by 3 points and leads in Republicans, by a greater margin than Kerry leads in Democrats. The country is approx 40% Rep/Dem and 20% Independant. If that was the case in the poll, Bush would be ahead as shown below. Sorry for the allignment problems...you can't paste charts into these boxes.

If poll used make up of the country Bush would lead 50% to 46%:
Dem Ind Rep
40.00% 20.00% 40.00% Totals
Total 468 234 468 1,169 100.00%
Bush 37 115 430 582 49.80%
Kerry 416 108 14 538 46.00%

Actual poll results:
All Dem Ind Rep
Bush 44.0% 8.0% 49.0% 92.0%
Kerry 51.0% 89.0% 46.0% 3.0%


To get the numbers they came up with:
Dem Ind Rep
48.75% 15.50% 35.75% Totals
Total 570 181 418 1,169 100.00%
Bush 46 89 384 519 44.39%
Kerry 507 83 13 603 51.59%

To get their percentages for Bush and Kerry, using the pattern of how each group voted, they would have to have almost 49% Dems, 15.5% Ind and only 36% Reps. So, they grossly over represented the Dems in the poll. Its no wonder that their poll showed Kerry out front !!!

Job Creation Poll Enigma

Interesting...how can it be that, when the economy has created 1.2 million jobs in the last 6 months, 57% of Americans think we have lost jobs over that time? Could it be that the "Mainstream Media" refuses to report the good news? Could it be that they only want to report bad news, prior to the election? I report...you decide ! Kevin

An Associated Press survey of 788 registered voters conducted Monday through Wednesday shows that while they may be gaining confidence in the economy and Bush's performance, 57 percent said the nation has lost jobs in the last six months. The Labor Department has reported just the opposite -- nearly 1.2 million jobs gained in half a year.

Outrage of the Day !!!

Poor Dan, Tom and Peter...they are upset because for a few days they couldn't rant 24/7 about how bad things are going in Iraq. These guys make me sick. According to polls, over 65% of Americans think the news on Iraq is too negative and the prison stories were over reported. Not so says Dan, Tom and Peter !!! They are mad that the Reagan coverage is pushing time away from them obsessing with Iraq stories. Just shows how out of touch with america they are !!!!! Kevin

June 9, 2004 -- DAN Rather and Tom Brokaw work for dif ferent networks but agree one thing — coverage of Ronald Reagan's death has been excessive, they say.
"Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life does go on," Rather told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"There is other news, like the reality of Iraq," said the "CBS Evening News" anchor. "It got very short shrift this weekend."

Networks have been going almost wall-to-wall with coverage since Reagan passed away Saturday at the age of 93. The former president was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease nearly 10 years ago.

"Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly," Rather said. "Nationally, the herd has grown tremendously."

"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," said Brokaw, who anchors the "NBC Nightly News." "The spectrum is so crowded. With all the cable networks, it begins to have a 'video wall' feeling to it."

Jennings said he had mixed feelings about the Reagan coverage.

"I'm more inclined to spare coverage — come on [the air], do something meaningful, then get away," he said.

"The last time I had to do it was with O.J. Simpson [during the 1994 car chase], and I had nothing to say after a certain period of time."

Coverage of Reagan's death will continue through Friday's funeral on all the news networks (broadcast and cable). — Post TV Staff

Media Continues to Ignore Iraqi Thanks

From Opinion Journal Online. The "Mainstream Media" continues to ignore members of the new Iraq government thanking the US and its coalition for liberating their country. Kevin :-)

Iraqi Gratitude
The new government is thanking America and Bush. Why are the media silent?
Tuesday, June 8, 2004 12:01 a.m.

A myth has developed that Iraqis aren't grateful for their liberation from Saddam. So it's worth noting that the leaders of Iraq's new interim government have been explicit and gracious in their thanks, not that you've heard this from the U.S. media.
First in Arabic and then in English, Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said in his inaugural address to the Iraqi people last Tuesday that "I would like to record our profound gratitude and appreciation to the U.S.-led international coalition, which has made great sacrifices for the liberation of Iraq." In his own remarks, President Ghazi al-Yawer said: "Before I end my speech, I would like us to remember our martyrs who fell in defense of freedom and honor, as well as our friends who fell in the battle for the liberation of Iraq."

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the U.N. Security Council much the same thing last Thursday: "We Iraqis are grateful to the coalition who helped liberate us from the persecution of Saddam Hussein's regime. We thank President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for their dedication and commitment."

We thought our readers might like to know.

Dems True Colors Shine Through

BAD APPLES
Give some Democrats credit: many of the comments released by party factotums on the death of President Ronald Reagan at least attempted to be gracious. But, while some of the words may have been magnanimous, the actions of some Democrats was not.

In California, according to a Democratic House leadership staffer, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi's office refused until late in the day West Coast time to prepare any remarks by the leader on the passing of the President.

"A call went out around mid-day on the East Coast that Reagan might be in serious condition, and that party leaders should be ready. But Pelosi's people basically said they couldn't' be bothered. [Democratic whip] Steny Hoyer had to get them in line. We got the impression they just didn't want to say anything that would be construed as supportive of a Republican."

Pelosi's office also nixed sending flowers to the funeral home where the president's body was being prepared for burial.

Back in Washington, staffers at the Democratic National Committee stopped a couple of interns who were lowering the flags to half mast outside their headquarters.

"The interns were just doing what they thought was right," says a DNC staffer, who heard about the incident. "But somebody a bit more senior told them not to lower the flags until they absolutely had to, I guess when President Bush announced that all flags should be lowered. There was only an hour's difference. It was pretty petty, but that's how bad things have gotten around here."

Those Wacky Europeans

A perfect example of the trash the Dems are worried about offending. They don't even have the decency to respect the dead and then cheer when this idiot says he wished Bush had died. I say "screw the Eurotrash scum" ! Let them defend themselves for once...oh yeah, they can't. If it wasn't for us, they would all be speaking German right now. Kevin :-)

'Bush should have died, not Reagan': Morrissey
MANCHESTER music legend Morrissey sparked controversy when he announced Ronald Reagan's death live on stage during a concert - and then declared he wished it was George Bush who had died instead.

Thousands of fans at Dublin Castle, in Ireland, cheered when the ex-Smiths frontman made the announcement that the former American president, who had battled with Alzheimer's Disease, had passed away.

And an even bigger cheer followed when Morrissey - who is no stranger to controversy - then said he wished it had been the current President, George W Bush, who had died.

Fan Tony Murray said: "He commented about the death of Ronald Reagan and when he wished that it was George W instead the crowd went wild."

A spokesman for Morrissey's record label, Sanctuary Records, said: "We do not have a recording of the gig, but as far as we can tell, Morrissey was just alerting the audience to the fact that Ronald Reagan had died.

"He then simply followed that up with his comment about George Bush, which was his own opinion. He is no stranger to controversy."

NY Times Strikes Again

Even when writing a memorial to one of our greatest presidents, the NY Times can't help but take a few pot shots at him and the current president...see bolded sections. Kevin

Ronald Reagan, who died on Saturday after his long battle with Alzheimer's disease, projected an aura of optimism so radiant that it seemed almost a force of nature. Many people who disagreed with his ideology still liked him for his personality, and that was a source of frustration for his political opponents who knew how much the ideology mattered. Looking back now, we can trace some of the flaws of the current Washington mindset — the tax-cut-driven deficits, the slogan-driven foreign policy — to Mr. Reagan's example. But after more than a decade of political mean-spiritedness, we have to admit that collegiality and good manners are beginning to look pretty attractive.

President Reagan was, of course, far more than some kind of chief executive turned national greeter. He will almost certainly be ranked among the most important presidents of the 20th century, forever linked with the triumph over Communism abroad and the restoration of faith in free markets at home.

He profited from good timing and good luck, coming along when the country was tired of the dour pedantry of the Carter administration, wounded by the Iranian hostage crisis, frustrated by rising unemployment and unyielding inflation. Mr. Reagan's stubborn refusal to accept the permanence of Communism helped end the cold war. He was fortunate to have as his counterpart Mikhail Gorbachev, a Soviet leader ready to acknowledge his society's failings and interested in reducing international tensions.

Mr. Reagan's decision to send marines to Lebanon was disastrous, however, and his invasion of Grenada pure melodrama. His most reckless episode involved the scheme to supply weapons to Iran as ransom for Americans who were being held hostage in Lebanon, and to use the proceeds to illegally finance contra insurgents in Nicaragua.

Mr. Reagan showed little appetite for power, even less for the messy detail of politics. He joked about his work habits. "It's true hard work never killed anybody," he said in 1987. "But I figure, why take the chance?" His detachment from the day-to-day business of government was seductive for a nation that had tired of watching Mr. Carter micromanage the White House.

The nation's 40th president was absent from the public eye for a long time before his death, but his complicated legacy endures. Although Mr. Reagan did reverse course and approve some tax increases in the face of mounting deficits — in stark contrast to President Bush nowadays — he was still responsible for turning the Republican Party away from its fiscally conservative roots. The flawed theory behind the Reagan tax cuts, that the ensuing jolt to the economy would bring in enough money to balance the budget, is still espoused by many of the Republican faithful, including President Bush.
One of Mr. Reagan's advisers, David Stockman, later wrote that the real aim of fiscal policy was to create a "strategic deficit" that would slam the door and reduce the size of the federal government. Such thinking is far too prevalent in Washington to this day, and helps explain why plenty of conservatives don't seem all that bothered by the government's inability to balance its books.
When Ronald Reagan was elected, the institution of the presidency and the nation itself seemed to be laboring under a large dark cloud. Into the middle of this malaise came a most improbable chief executive — a former baseball announcer, pitchman for General Electric, Hollywood bon vivant and two-term California governor with one uncomplicated message: There was no problem that could not be solved if Americans would only believe in themselves. At the time, it was something the nation needed to hear. Today, we live in an era defined by that particular kind of simplicity, which expresses itself in semi-detached leadership and a black-and-white view of the world. Gray is beginning to look a lot more attractive.