Wednesdays are for W

I’m sure the question that arises whenever there’s a request to make a contribution to George W. Bush’s re-election campaign is: “he’s already got so much money in his campaign chest, why should I donate?”

The perfect response (with perfect Wictory Wednesday timing!) came in today’s WashPost: “Democrats forming parallel campaign.” In a nutshell: left-leaning “527” groups are raising large sums of soft money outside the barriers of McCain-Feingold and using them to supplement campaigns against President Bush.

Led by veterans of presidential and congressional campaigns, a coalition of Democratic Party interest groups, armed with millions of dollars in soft money, is rapidly constructing an unprecedented political operation designed to supplement the activities of Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign in the effort to defeat President Bush.

Make no mistake, I believe that McCain-Feingold is a clear violation of First Amendment rights. However, the Democrats pushed for this legislation and – hoisted by their own petard – they’re conspiring to circumvent the law rather than live by it.

Your help is needed now to ensure the re-election of President Bush. Visit his re-election website, volunteer, or make a contribution. It’s important. Thank you.

Great moments in oratory

Abraham Lincoln: “With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right—let us strive on to finish the work we are in.”

Winston Churchill: “This is no war for domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain. … It is a war … to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual and it is a war to establish and revive the stature of man.”

John Kerry: “That status of war led me to find it impossible to suggest I wouldn't want to blow Osama bin Laden's brains out and treat him as an enemy.”

The confusion of the newsweeklies

Time: “That’s a yes?”
Newsweek: “So that’s a no?”

Josh on BushBlog: “The Democrats are "motivated", "angry" and "organized" to oust President Bush. So motivated, they apparently drove right past the polling place on primary day.”

Boston police union threatens Democrats’ convention

From the Boston Globe: “Union raises stakes for July – Police group eyes convention boycott.”

Boston's largest police union is asking Democrats nationwide, including presumptive presidential nominee John F. Kerry, to boycott the Democratic National Convention in July, a dramatic escalation of tactics in the union's quest for a contract.
-
A picket line outside the convention could also embarrass Kerry, who will formally receive his party's nomination at the convention. A public display of disharmony among Democrats, who have traditionally had close ties to organized labor, could send a negative message as the party tries to present a unified front against President Bush.

Next story out of Boston: “Mayor Menino caves completely to union demands”

It’s never the criminals who are guilty: James Bowman in the American Spectator reveals how the mindset of the trial lawyers has perverted the Democrats’ position on whom to blame for terrorism.

The Big Trunk at Power Line comments on Kerry’s recent spurious claim that foreign leaders are supporting his candidacy: “I am sure that M. Chirac will be glad to continue to kiss Mr. Kerry's hand, as long as Mr. Kerry will kiss a lower, dorsal part of M. Chirac's anatomy. But I rather doubt John Kerry will get elected president by American voters while in that posture.”

The latest Social Security quick fix

Slate has an article called “The Social Security Crisis – Solved!” Robert Gordon of Northwestern University has a survival theory that depends on higher productivity and more immigration. However, we need all those new foreigners to work in the U.S. for a couple decades then go home:

Indeed, Gordon believes immigrants—who tend to be young workers, tend to start paying into Social Security right away, and often return to their homelands before receiving benefits—will likely prove the saving grace of the Social Security system.

And there’s another problem:

There's a growing backlash against the two most significant factors that feed Gordon's projections. Productivity and the trends that fuel it—outsourcing and off-shoring—have become dirty words in Washington. Immigration isn't too popular either.

If we want to prop up that Ponzi scheme of Social Security, we need to exploit workers all over the world.

The Joint Economic Committee of Congress says: “Forecasters expect sustained and robust growth, low inflation, and accelerating job gains.”

That’s good, right?

Weird cultural revelation – Here’s a little music trivia: I was listening to a classical music compilation that included Rachmaninoff’s “Adagio sostenuto from Piano Concerto No. 2.” As the melody is playing, I’m like “isn’t that ‘All by Myself’ by Eric Carmen?” Sure enough, it was.

The Best of the Web is particularly good today, esp. the “Facts vs. Nuance” comparison between Dubya and Splunge.

China bans deathmobiles!

Officials in south China have decided to delete the number four, which is traditionally considered unlucky, from license plates, drawing flak for encouraging superstition state media said.

"Four" sounds almost exactly like "death" when pronounced both in the local Cantonese dialect and in Mandarin, causing many car owners to shy away from having it on their license plates, the China Daily reported Monday.

Speaking of the death penalty…..another flip-flop takes shape

Did I speak too soon? John Kerry has said in debates that he opposes the death penalty except for terrorists. (Curiously, there’s no official position on Kerry’s web site – only assorted press clippings). Here, via Talk Left, is John Kerry on “Meet the Press” in December 2002 discussing the ultimate penalty:

MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, why shouldn’t Timothy McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma building, or if John Muhammad is convicted of being a sniper here in Washington—why shouldn’t they receive the death penalty?

SEN. KERRY: Tim, I think that, as I said, you know, different people have different opinions about what’s worse. I’ve seen people die and I know what it’s like to almost die. I don’t think that—you know, dying is scary for a while, but in the end, the punishment is gone. When you’re alive and you’re deprived of your freedom each day and you’re in tough circumstances—and I’m talking about tough circumstances. I’m not talking about some cushy situation where they live off the fat of the land in prison. I’m talking about tough. But if you’re deprived of that freedom for the rest of your living days until God decides to take you, you know, that is tough, my friend, and I think that plenty of people think that.
Now, I don’t think it is right to have a criminal justice system that kills innocent people. Over 100 people have been released from death row in America in the last year with DNA evidence and other evidence showing they didn’t commit the crime for which they had been committed, some of them in jail for 10, 15 years for a crime they didn’t commit.

So, somewhere in the nuance, I think Kerry’s response was “No, Muhammad should not receive the death penalty.” And since Kerry has made an exception for terrorism, he clearly did not believe (then) that John Muhammad’s crimes fell under that definition.

Prediction: By this time tomorrow, Kerry will be reclassifying John Muhammad as a terrorist and applauding his execution.

In the spirit of the Drudge Report: “Must credit Viking Pundit!” (if the flip happens).

Update - Robert Moran in the NRO has a better idea:

If Kerry, who voted at least three times between 1989 and 1993 against applying the death penalty to terrorists, now favors the death penalty for Muhammad, he's flip-flopped again and we can draw him into a debate of when the death penalty should be administered.

If he continues to oppose the death penalty then we need to find out what the families of Muhammad's victims think about John Kerry's position. Which would they prefer? Would they prefer that Muhammad live or that he die? What would he say to these families if he could talk to them privately?

If it's okay for the press to interview several 9/11 families about their supposed grief from the Bush campaign's recent television ads, it seems more than appropriate to interview the families of sniper victims about Kerry's position on the death penalty.

Whoa...

This made me feel a little better

Via the New England Republican, here’s Dick Morris in the NY Post:

We must remember that Bush's father trailed Mike Dukakis by 17 points in the months before the conventions. Until Bush Sr. ran negative ads, it seemed that the Massachusetts governor would be Reagan's successor. Kerry's bubble may prove to be just that fragile.

Yeah, but Dukakis was a liberal from Massachusetts who wouldn’t approve of the death penalty for John Muhammad. Things are different now!

Rantburg: “Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden might be preparing to move from Pakistan to Afghanistan, according to sources with access to the latest U.S. intelligence.”

Robert Musil has some thoughts on “Jobs Jobs Jobs” and whether Labor Department estimates are accurately presenting the full picture on employment.

The Minuteman takes an early lead in the Kerry Motto contest.

Why are these polls so close?

Yes, yes, I know eight months is an eternity in politics. And I know that Bush’s slump in the polls is an understandable effect of months of unanswered Democratic attacks. The anemic jobs report didn’t help. But, c’mon, America.

Maybe the issue is too black-and-white for me. Maybe I’m in denial. But once again (with feeling!): George Bush will keep this country safe. John Kerry will not. George Bush has served notice that we will not let dangers gather and wait for approval from the United Nations. John Kerry believes….who knows what he believes? And that’s precisely the problem. Ambiguity is dangerous because it projects a lack of resolve.

Here’s former Wall Street Journal editorial writer Richard Miniter on the costs of ambiguity:

"Every perception of American weakness increases recruitment, funding and prestige for Osama bin Laden," Miniter told WND. "When they attack and we retreat, you just embolden [your enemies]. When they get their way, they don't stop bombing, they bomb more. It works, and they just continue the process."

"Perceptions of weakness, of vacillation, all these things simply encourage the bin Ladens and Hitlers of the world," said Miniter.

I realize the economy and jobs are the top issues right now, but they’re meaningless unless we have our security.

Extra: Power Line has multiple analyses of the polls with some good/bad perspectives.

Bonus: Robert Tagorda also notes that more people seem to be voting against Bush than for Kerry. Hey, if you’re looking for a protest candidate, there’s always Nader!

Andrew Sullivan gets the final word on this post: “My stomach lurches at the thought of another terror attack while Kerry is president. What would be his first response: reach for a dog-eared copy of the early Sartre?”

Flip-flop de jour

Strange…John Kerry used to believe that politics stopped “at the water’s edge.” Now, he doesn’t seem to believe that anymore:

"I've met foreign leaders, who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, `You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that," Kerry said.

He did not identify the leaders in question, nor would campaign spokesman David Wade, and the senator's comment was a striking statement given that Kerry, a longtime foreign policy specialist in the Senate, has held to the belief that partisan politics should "stop at the water's edge."

The Republican National Committee yesterday assailed Kerry's tendency to cite unnamed foreign leaders criticizing Bush, dubbing Kerry an Austin Powers-esque "international man of mystery" and suggesting that North Korea leader Kim Jong Il -- whose state-run radio has been touting Kerry recently -- was one of the leaders cited by Kerry.

I would have guessed Castro and Robert Mugabe.

Quote of the Day: “My opponent clearly has strong beliefs, they just don't last very long.” – President Bush

Muddled message on the war

Here's Joan Vennochi in the Boston Globe:

"BRING IT ON" is the mantra of John Kerry's presidential campaign. So why complain when President Bush does just that, with campaign commercials that portray images of the destroyed World Trade Center?

Foreign policy and national security is the debate that Kerry says he wants; if so, Sept. 11 is where the debate begins. The planes that crashed into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field were a declaration of war. The country's foreign policy and national security debate runs directly from those ashes and ruins to America's war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Families of 9/11 victims bear a special, private burden from that terrible day, but they do not own it. The country respects their individual losses, but during a presidential campaign it cannot be expected to separate the politics from the events of Sept. 11. Are we fighting the right enemy the right way? Those questions, along with questions about Bush economic policies, lie at the crux of the Democratic challenge to Bush's reelection. Kerry and the rest of the Democratic pack of now-vanquished challengers have been asking them for more than a year.

They are fair, necessary, political questions that deserve answers.
. . . . . . . .
Kerry's specific criticism of the Iraq war remains difficult to follow. It is about "the rush to war," not the fact that the country remains at war. During the Feb. 26 debate, Kerry seemed to be saying what Bush is saying -- that the Iraq war is key to the "war on terror." That likely explains why the Kerry campaign is anxious to keep Bush on the defensive, with silly criticisms about political advertisements and arrogant plans to send a delegation to Iraq to assess the situation there.

Read the whole thing.

Non-political interlude - I saw “The Big Lebowski” this past weekend. It was good, but I have a question: what do the Coen brothers have against Steve Buscemi?

My sentiment exactly

I just wanted to highlight this quote from Denbeste’s essay because it so closely matches my feelings about Senator Splunge:

Based on everything I know about him now, I cannot in good conscience consider voting for him. I would rather vote for a candidate with known policies with which I disagree than for a candidate whose true policies – if any – are kept hidden under a bushel basket, at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, in a dis-used lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the leopard". If I were somehow forced to choose, I'd vote for Nader before I'd vote for Kerry. At least I know what Nader stands for.

The self-Fisking Kerry

When I found out that Kerry had an interview in Time this week, I felt a twinge of annoyance that he continues to receive so much media coverage.

Then I read the interview:

TIME: And you as Commander in Chief would not have made these mistakes but would have gone to war?
KERRY: I didn't say that.

TIME: I'm asking.
KERRY: I can't tell you.

TIME: Is it a secret?
KERRY: I could respond “yes” or “no” to that question, but the answer is more nuanced than that.

Well, I made up that last one, but the whole interview is a train wreck. Kerry’s handlers would have earned their paychecks if they had attached large cow magnets to all recording devices and seized the reporters’ notes. I could spend hours going through each half-answer, but since both Stephen Green and Steven Denbeste have done the legwork, I’ll refer to them.

The Big Guns unload on Senator Splunge: Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan

John Leo wonders if public officials have gone mad with SFD: “Many public officials around the country seem to have contracted the San Francisco Disease, or SFD. This is the highly contagious ailment that convinces the stricken that it's all right to ignore laws they disagree with.”

Great news: Iraqi politicians sign interim constitution

Payroll taxes only go in one direction: up

State and federal income tax rates fluctuate depending on the composition of political administrations and public interests. But the payroll tax that funds national “entitlements” such as Social Security will never go down. This is why I condemn the pundits and columnists who blithely note that Social Security can be “fixed” if we only raise payroll taxes a tiny bit. The other day it was Krugman and now here’s David Francis in the Christian Science Monitor:

But is the situation that gloomy? A number of economists argue it isn't. A hard look at the numbers suggests that Social Security isn't broken, only in need of minor adjustments.
. . . . . . .
Thus, if the country started tomorrow, workers would have to pay an extra 1.92 percentage points in payroll tax - or about $627 a year for the average wage earner.

Just another 2% please…last time, we swear!

All that “foreign policy experience”

A self-described “exclusive” from Deborah Orin in the NY Post: “Kerry’s Yasser Woe”

Democratic presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry called Yasser Arafat a "statesman" and a "role model" in a 1997 book that Kerry cites as proof of his own foresight about foreign policy.

Kerry expressed the opposite view eight days ago, when he told Jewish leaders in New York that he shares President Bush's belief that Arafat must be isolated because he's not a "partner for peace" - much less a statesman.

More duplicity.

Kerry Vote Watch

Senator Splunge came off the campaign trail on Super Tuesday to vote on a series of gun control measures such as the extension of the assault weapons ban. Thus, with one day of work, he managed to lift his voting percentage from zero.

Votes cast this session: 7
Voting percentage: 7/32 = 22%
Days worked: 1

Morning reading - Jay Reding writes on “Why John Kerry must never be President” (via DGCI) and Pejman gives a lengthy and thoughtful response to Kevin Drum on the upcoming campaign.

Boy, you know the Democrats are praying this story isn't true.....

From the Austalian Age: Osama hunt intensifies after aide arrest

A son of Osama bin Laden's deputy has given crucial information on the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leaders after being captured by Pakistani forces in a lawless frontier area close to Afghanistan, intelligence officials in Islamabad have revealed.

Newsweek has more.

Like the Rock of Gibraltar

From today's Boston Globe story: "Kerry looks to neutralize 'Massachusetts Liberal' tag" - "Kerry and his advisers say that by emphasizing core values, while fighting back against political labeling, Kerry can solidify the Democratic base and bring swing voters into his camp."

Why does everybody criticize Senator Splunge's lack of core values? He's been standing up for his beliefs ever since he was a member of the Yale Young Republicans.

The economy is issue #1

I thought this was interesting in a Fox News story showing a dead heat between Bush and Kerry:

While the race for the presidency is in a 44 percent to 44 percent tie, more see Bush as the candidate they trust to make decisions about taking the country to war. But presumptive Democratic nominee Kerry has the edge on managing the economy.

Really? The Washington Post analyzed Kerry's economic plan and found that spending outstripped income by $165 billion. Looking down the road, there is a general consensus that the economy has been growing, inflation is low, productivity is high, and everything is in place for the lagging indicator of job creation. Can Kerry's approval survive an expanding American economy? Unlikely.

I assume that’s not Paris, Texas

From the UK Telegraph – “How ‘war hero’ Kerry tried to put off Vietnam military duty”

He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s.

Mon dieu!

Duplicity

Webster’s Dictionary defines "duplicity" as "contradictory doubleness of thought, speech or action esp: the belying of one’s true intentions by deceptive words or action." Since "duplicity" derives from the same word root as "duplicate," it connotes a special quality of dishonesty associated with doublespeak or straddling two sides of an issue.

No better word characterizes the efforts of Senator John Kerry to shape a political philosophy (such as it is) to take two sides that are mutually contradictory. Here’s the opening from the New York Times article: "Kerry’s Shifts: Nuanced Ideas or Flip-Flops?"

When Senator John Kerry was speaking to Jewish leaders a few days ago, he said Israel's construction of a barrier between it and Palestinian territories was a legitimate act of self-defense. But in October, he told an Arab-American group that it was "provocative and counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."

On Feb. 5, Mr. Kerry reacted to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when asked on Feb. 24 why he believed the decision was not correct, he shot back, "I didn't say it wasn't."

Throughout his campaign, Mr. Kerry has shown a knack for espousing both sides of divisive issues. Earlier in the race he struggled to square his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his loud criticism of the war and his eventual vote against $87 billion for military operations and reconstruction.

Speaking of Iraq, today Senator Kerry gave the Democrats’ weekly radio address and made the following statement:

"But I will never send our troops into harm's way without enough firepower and support."

A minor point: Kerry voted "yea" to send our troops into harm’s way then voted against the supplemental bill to provide additional support to the troops. In Kerry’s duplicitous rationalization, a vote for the war in Iraq is a vote against it, a vote against funding for U.S. troops is a vote for our soldiers, his vote for NAFTA is a vote against free trade, Israel can defend itself unless it can’t, and gay marriage is acceptable unless it’s not.

This isn’t a "fluidity" of thought or "nuanced" consideration of an issue. It’s duplicity.

Stop teaching my kid

A sad commentary by a California teacher who is tired of fending off parents who think their lazy kids are being pushed too hard. (Via Arts and Letters Daily). Joanne Jacobs (naturally) has the link and comments. (One wrote: "This is why I quit teaching high school.")

Senator Splunge’s policy on job growth: there’s no there there

Here’s the conclusion of “Whack Job” by Noam Scheiber in the New Republic

I have no problem with John Kerry scoring political points on the jobs issue if it helps elect an administration that cares about the long-term consequences of its economic policies. But if Kerry seriously thinks he can influence the pace of short-term job growth any better than George W. Bush, then his view of himself is even more inflated than his detractors suggest.

As I’ve noted, WashPost columnist Robert Samuelson said that all the tactics of job creation have been deployed by this White House. Meanwhile, Kerry’s spurious magic bullets of “three months notice” and “closing tax loopholes” indicate that he doesn’t want a solution, he wants an issue.

James Lileks on the Bush ads we won't see

Will Bush run ads that accuse the Democrats of fumbling the ball on al Qaeda in the Clinton years, and suggest that the last Democrat in the office seemed more concerned with slipping in some lap nooky before quitting time than killing bin Laden? No. Will Bush run ads that contrast John Kerry’s sonorous litany about “the worst foreign policy” with pictures of women in Kabul throwing off the burqa or men in Iraq toppling a statue? I can only hope; it would be right on the money. We fought back – but they were not wars of retribution. We salted no fields. We entered their lands – but they were not wars of conquest and sublimation; we demanded no tribute. We could have nuked the place flat. History will note that when we left, we left them with a constitution, a hundred thousand roofs festooned with satellite dishes, a souk where people could speak their mind again and buy newspapers that criticized the nation that had made this freedom possible.

Another suggested ad: “Some say that we shouldn’t haven’t invaded Iraq. Even after the discovery of mass graves. Even after the realization that the UN’s Food-for-Oil program diverted billions to Saddam’s pockets. Even after seeing how the terrorists have poured into Iraq to make a last desperate stand against freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Some say we should have listened to our allies.” A stock shot of Marcel Marceau in full-mime makeup, pretending to be trapped in a box. “Some people are a little too worried about what the waiter will think the next time they take a trip to Paris.” Shot of a Kerry lookalike in a bistro, saying “No, really, I’m Canadian.”

Reality check. That’s a cruel mean harsh nasty ad.

Well put.

They’re quite mad – mad I tell you! Robert Musil: “It's getting to the point that an ordinary American - right or left - doesn't want to be alone in a dark alley with a committed Democrat”

9/11 and presidential politics

I haven’t seen the Bush campaign video but today I was informed by Dean Esmay that the offending reference to 9/11 is about two seconds long. No matter: it’s transparently obvious that the Democrats had these attacks all lined up and they weren’t going to wait for a more overt reference to roll out the “exploitation” charge. As both Dean and the WSJ Opinion Journal note, the Democrats’ criticism reveals more about their vulnerability on national security issues than anything else.

Grain of salt alert: “A local official in eastern Afghanistan says he has received credible reports that Osama Bin Laden escaped the recent Pakistani operation to catch him.”

What an awesome idear! The American Chopper Drinking Game

Metaphor of the Day: “Saudi Arabia's biggest neighbour, Iraq, is a cauldron whose swirling potion threatens to spill over into the kingdom.” From an Economist article on Saudi Arabia called “Adapt or Die.”

All the cool kids are doing it

I feel I have to get on record for who I think Senator Splunge will pick for his VP. So here goes: Michael Easley – Governor of North Carolina.

A couple of reasons which will also serve to explain why other candidates are disqualified:
1.) Kerry needs a Southern state. A Florida pick makes him look too calculating and artificial. North Carolina’s fairly large and he may be able to appeal to more moderate “Northern” Southerners such as those in Kentucky & Missouri. Plus picking Easley would be a thumb in the eye of Edwards, whom Kerry does not like.
2.) Outside the Beltway. Kerry can’t pick a fellow Senator or Representative: too much Washington. A Governor adds an “executive” flavor to the ticket.
3.) No more Vietnam: Forget about Max Cleland or Bob Kerrey.
4.) Looking forward, not back: Nobody from the Clinton/Gore years. This rules out Bill Richardson, Joe Lieberman and Hillary.
5.) Not too popular: Another reason why Kerry won’t pick Edwards – he doesn’t want to be upstaged on his own ticket. A relatively unknown Governor adds gravitas without taking the spotlight off the Presidential nominee.

The most dishonest conjunction

Here’s a line from the conclusion of Paul Krugman’s latest half-baked screed “Social Security Scares.”

Should we consider modest reforms that reduce the expenses or widen the revenue base of Social Security? Sure.

Can anybody cite an example of when Krugman ever advocated cutting a government program over raising taxes? Increasing the tax burden on Americans is Krugman’s raison d’etre. In the opening paragraph of the same article, he states: “In fact it would take only modest injections of money to maintain that system’s current benefit levels for the next 75 years.”

When you’re pulling in salaries from both Princeton and the New York Times, a little extra tax probably doesn’t matter that much. But since four out of five American workers pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes, a “modest” tax boost will fall heavily on lower and middle-class earners. And how “modest” would the payroll tax increase have to be to “widen the revenue base?” Krugman hides behind euphemisms such as these so that he can ignore an unvarnished fact: demographics are destiny.

On Jan. 31, 1940, a check, number 00-000-001, for $22.54 was issued to Ida May Fuller of Ludlow, Vt., making her the first recipient of recurring monthly Social Security payments. Then, in an act of dubious citizenship, she lived to 100, dying in January 1975, having received $22,000 in benefits. That did not matter because in 1940 there were 42 workers for every retiree. Today there are 3.2 to 1. In 2030 there will be 2.2 to 1.

This is not multivariable calculus: in 25 years there will be one less worker available to pony up for a retiree’s Social Security check. Either the payroll tax on those two workers will have to rise by roughly 50% or benefits will have to be cut by 50%. We can reform Social Security now and spread the pain over a quarter-century, or we can continue to ignore it until we’re all broke.

Update: For the record, I wrote this post before I read Matthew Hoy's blog this morning. He has a similar post that concludes thusly: "Modest infusions of cash and the repeal of the Bush tax cuts can't overcome Social Security's structural flaws. Krugman's contention that they can is a serious disservice to the American people.
(For the record: I don't think Krugman is stupid. I think he's a liar.)"

And Luskin has more on Krugman’s Social Security shiftiness.

The ends justify the means

From the American Prowler this morning:

According to a DNC fundraiser, the Kerry campaign is looking into the possibility of opening a joint account with the DNC, which would allow donors to write checks in excess of the maximum $2,000 donation for a single political campaign.

"They could write a check for $3,500. Kerry would get $2,000 and we'd get the other $1,500," says the fundraiser.

Imagine the headache of paperwork, financial tracking and reporting, particularly for donors who have already maxed out their donations to the Kerry campaign. "Exactly," says the fundraiser. "Any penalties imposed by the FEC would be minor if we win the White House."

Why do we even have campaign finance laws?

Survivor update

As I predicted, Survivor All-Stars is a bore. Jenna M. quit two weeks ago and last night Trucker Sue dropped out because she was traumatized by Richard Hatch. Unless Amber takes off her buff next week, I think I’m going to tune out.

Silly America v. Serious America

Here’s an excerpt from Hugh Hewitt in the Weekly Standard:

So we are launched into a showdown between serious America and absurd America. John Kerry, again from Tuesday evening, stated bluntly that George W. Bush heads the "most inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the history of this country." No matter how one evaluates recent events in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya--and they look pretty good to me--they cannot seriously be compared negatively with losing a war in Vietnam, watching Iran slide into virulent Islamism, or allowing Osama bin Laden to nest and metastasize in Kabul and its precincts. Still, millions of Americans will believe Kerry's outlandish excess not because of evidence that he has presented, but because they want to.

It’s not just that Kerry makes incoherent, unsupported, critical remarks about Bush. Kerry is singularly unserious because he offers no principled policies of his own:

Little in Mr. Kerry's political career suggests that he has ever taken such a stand and stuck with it under pressure. Perhaps he will give us some examples in the coming months.

Don’t hold your breath.

Jobless claims drop, productivity up – “The number of people filing new applications for unemployment benefits dropped last week, a sign that companies may be feeling better about the economic recovery's durability and less inclined to lay off workers.”

Social Security…crushing taxes…slashed benefits…blah blah blah

George Will reiterates what we all know: America cannot possibly support the entitlements that have been promised but nobody has the will to change the system. We’ve become a nation of Cassandras. Everybody knows the deluge is coming, but we can’t convince ourselves to do anything.

IMO, after America bankrupts itself completely, Social Security will be means-tested. Thus, people (like me) who diligently saved into their 401(k)s will see their benefits cut because they’re “rich.” Meanwhile, non-savers who got a new set of wheels every year instead of saving for retirement will keep their SS benefits because they’re “poor.”

Get me re-write!: The Ant and the Grasshopper

“Or maybe even the Times gets tired of delusional hacks.” - The Cracker Barrel Philosopher notes that the New York Times has sacked Ted Rall. Ted blames it on bloggers “motivated by partisan politics.” That’s rich.

Religion of Peace update

Shiite Muslim Mohammed Jomahaa cuts the head of his son with a sword during the annual ritual to mark Ashoura Day in the southern Lebanese town of Nabatiyeh, Tuesday March 2, 2004. Ashoura day marks the Shiite Muslim's commemoration of the 7th century killing of their most revered Saint Imam Hussein. Al Hussein was a grandson of Islam's prophet Mohammed and is a symbol of martyrdom for Shiites. (AP Photo/Mohammed Zaatari)

His first bloodletting – isn’t that cute?

Update: I knew I should have checked but (of course) Little Green Footballs had this first.

Standing firm...for the moment

From Fox News "Bush "welcomes" Kerry into the race"

"He spent two decades in Congress; he's built up quite a record," Bush said to laughter at a cocktail reception Wednesday night. "In fact, Senator Kerry has been in Washington long enough to take both sides on just about every issue."

And how. See Michael Grunwald’s devastating analysis of Kerry’s numerous flip-flops in Slate today: “John Kerry’s Waffles - If you don't like the Democratic nominee's views, just wait a week.”

Ouch. As I’ve noted before, I think branding Senator Splunge as a chameleon-like political opportunist is much more damaging than defining him as a Massachusetts liberal. (Although either will suffice.)

Independents not loving Senator Splunge: “Edwards, however, demonstrated on Tuesday that Kerry's hold on independents is much weaker and his appeal to possibly disgruntled Republicans is virtually nonexistent.”

Humorous headline of the day: UPN show is called insensitive to the Amish

Is this really a problem?

Noooooooo!!!!!!

From the NY Post’s Page Six:

March 4, 2004 -- ONE of the first things Sen. John Kerry will do now that he has won de facto control of the party is to oust Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, say top insiders in the Kerry campaign.

Now I’m getting scared. McAuliffe has been the GOP’s lucky talisman – his mere presence insures Republican victory. This is not good.

Love the headline - Dick Morris advises: “How Bush can destroy Kerry fast.”

Wednesdays are for W

Here’s a truncated version of my usual “Wictory Wednesday” post: go to the George W. Bush re-election website and do whatever you can to help. It’s important. Thanks.

Rumblin’ with the devil

According to MSNBC’s gossip page The Scoop: John Debney, the composer for “The Passion of the Christ” claims that Satan kept rebooting his computer. Debney told the Prince of Darkness: “Let’s take it outside, pansy.” Satan wimped out.

Debney claims that Satan’s image kept appearing on his computer screen while he was trying to compose music. “The first time it happened, it scared me,” he said. “Once I got over the initial shock of that, I learned to work around it and learned to reboot the computers and so I would start talking to him. . . . The computers froze for about the tenth time [one] day and it was about nine o’clock at night and so I got really mad and I told Satan to manifest himself and I said, ‘Let’s go out into the parking lot and let’s go.’ It was a seed change in me. I knew that this was war. I am not a physical person, but I was really angry on this occasion.”

C’mon, he didn’t really say that, did he?

Debney’s spokesman confirms to The Scoop that the composer did, indeed, say those things.

Oh.

(Hat tip to Fark)

Mark Kilmer on Senator Splunge's speech last night: "In one line from his stump/victory speech, he said that he would be a leader not only for the United States, but also for the "other 96-percent of humankind waiting for American leadership." I am not sure what his view of American leadership is when he wants to follow the United Nations, and any actual leadership from America is called unilateralism."

Robert Prather was also unimpressed: "I can't resist. Kerry's speech is ... it's almost intolerable. Health care is a right? How can that be said of any scarce resource? What if it's not available?"

As the old saw goes: If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it's free.

What's up with that? A "No CNN" sign at the Kerry rally? Is there a story there?

Kerry is broke

The Boston Globe has an article on the money race today with the best explanation I’ve seen so far as to how Kerry must repay that loan he took on “his” Boston townhouse:

The note requires an interest-only payment of $15,000 each month for the first 10 years, a payment the senator had his campaign make in January, as is allowed by FEC law. The committee said future decisions on how to pay the bill would be made on a monthly basis.

Under campaign finance law, Kerry can continue to have his committee repay the loan until July 29, the night he is expected to be formally crowned the Democratic nominee in Boston. After that, there is a limit on the amount of campaign cash that can be used to repay such loans. The law states that it can be no more than whatever cash on hand the committee has as of that night, plus an additional $250,000.

After those funds are exhausted, Kerry will be personally liable for the loan.

Kerry will have to decide whether to pay down the loan before then with campaign funds, at a time when he will be traveling the country, hat in hand, appealing for money to ward off Bush and an advertising onslaught that begins tomorrow.

There is no way that Kerry will take on that debt, but I also doubt he’ll divert critical campaign resources to pay off the loan. Watch for some cash infusions from Teresa or some clever accounting down the road.

Extra fun - The Globe also has this article: “DNC fundraising slows dramatically”

Dave Lesar, the CEO of Halliburton, convincingly defends his company in a WashPost opinion piece today; he’ll also take questions in a live WashPost forum today.

Kerry is toast

It’s all Senator Splunge, all the time this morning. Many think that the Democrats have made a terrible mistake:

Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe – “For Bush, it’s a step closer to re-election”:

And so the primary season ends. November is still eight months away, but no matter: The general election campaign is now underway. John Kerry is going to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee. And that means that President Bush is one step closer to reelection.

Just as they did four years ago with Al Gore, in 1988 with Michael Dukakis, in 1984 with Walter Mondale, and in 1980 with Jimmy Carter, the Democrats are poised to nominate a tedious blister as their standard bearer. In the months ahead, the voters will be harangued and hectored by Kerry, who will lecture them about how Bush has been the worst president in modern times, the Bush economy the most desperate, the Bush foreign policy the most reckless.

As spring and summer give way to fall, it will gradually dawn on many of them that Kerry isn't actually saying anything. What was true of the first President Bush, they will discover, is true of Kerry: He has no "vision thing." He has a sonorous answer to every question, but the more he talks -- and he talks a lot; his default setting is "filibuster" -- the less voters will be able to put their finger on why he wants to be president or whether anything about him is more than an inch deep.

John Ellis: “Next, let's visit the issue of Kerry the brand. No one knows anything about him, other than the fact that he served in Vietnam and represents Massachusetts in the US Senate. His economic plan has already been dismissed by The Washington Post as a fiscal joke. His various stances on the War on Terror are impossible to fathom. He has no coherent views on cultural issues. In other words, he's an empty net. Look for the Bush campaign to start working on its slapshot.”

Dick Morris: “The Democratic Party slit its throat last night, abandoning 12 years of pragmatism to indulge in a nominee who's very unlikely to win.”

American Spectator: “Then there's John Kerry. As I've watched him frantically straddle every issue of consequence, my disdain for Kerry has reached an uncommon intensity.”

William Safire in "Kerry's Unreal Deal": “Apparently Kerry's advisers are worried about a too timely capture of Osama bin Laden, thus: "This war isn't just a manhunt." He anticipates criticism for relying too much on the U.N.: "As president, I will not wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake." And he has a simplistic, Mr. Fixit solution to terror weapons: "I propose to appoint a high-level presidential envoy empowered to bring other nations together to secure and stop the spread of these weapons." That'll solve it.”

Kerry: the default candidate

You know why I’m not worried about Senator Splunge? Look at the last set of poll numbers taken in Massachusetts before Dean dropped out of the race. Even Bay Staters couldn’t bear to support their own home-state candidate. Sure, the Democrats will rally round now, but they have a candidate for which nobody feels any real passion.

So “bring it on” Kerry! Showcase that legislative record of three bills passed into law. On maritime rights. Let’s hear about your brave stand against the war, or for it, or against the way it’s being conducted. Tell us the tales about how you refused money from the special interests…while you took money from special interests.

“And damned be him that first cries: ‘Hold enough!’”

Dean leading in Vermont! Slate has the early Super Tuesday exit poll numbers

Great find: Smarter Cop links to the Calvin and Hobbes strip search engine.

Captain Ed has a detailed, cogently argued post: “Why I Oppose Kerry and Support Bush”

Mark Steyn: “I'm sure there are millions of Kerry supporters who'd like to take a tough Kerry-like stand this November. The best way to do that, in the spirit of his war votes, is to vote for Bush and then spend the next 10 years solemnly explaining that that was your bold courageous way of expressing your opposition to Bush.”

See how Senator Splunge used all his “foreign affairs experience” in Kerry’s Dirty Diplomacy.

My cup runneth over with schadenfreude

Remember when I said the Big Dig in Boston was the “pinnacle of Democratic pork, patronage, and poor planning?” Well, it looks like a huge embarrassment is taking shape for the Democratic National Convention in July. From the Boston Globe’s “Conflicts mar Boston convention”:

Boston's political and business leaders worked hard to win this convention, wooing the Democratic National Committee with the promise of a smooth team, prepared to deliver an enthusiastic and inviting city as a backdrop for Democrats. Since then, civic pride seems to be taking a back seat to more-traditional Boston concerns such as political turf wars, nailing contracts for friends of the mayor, and using the upcoming convention as leverage in union negotiations.

And they want to run the country….

The Trouble with Kerry

Mickey Kaus (a self-described Democrat) doesn’t find much to like in John Kerry, who is sure to wrap up the Democratic nomination today. Kaus breaks down Kerry’s fatal political flaws into four categories:

1.) Does he work well with others?
2.) No visible political courage
3.) Yep. No vision.
4.) No fallback salesmanship

On the personal, I could have (and wish I had) written this line: “I admit, I'm allergic to Kerry. Something in the vibration of that deep, pompous tone he adopts--the lugubrious, narcissistic fake gravity--grates on me.” Although his enemies love to paint him as a dullard, President Bush is a likable fellow who connects with the values of soccer moms and NASCAR dads alike. Kerry, on the other hand, drips with a sanctimonious noblesse oblige that makes his faux populism so excruciating.

Tom Oliphant on Senator Splunge

Here’s the transcript of Boston Globe political columnist Tom Oliphant on CNN last night:

BROWN: Tom, when asked earlier today what you thought Senator Kerry's weaknesses -- or weakness -- principal weaknesses was, it's actually, for a guy running for the presidency, a harsh response. What is it?

OLIPHANT: Well, it flows out of a strength, actually, Aaron.

We've had a 30-plus year conversation about what Vietnam meant. And I remember one time he said to me late one evening years ago that Vietnam had made him a skeptic about the use of American power. And, on the one hand, there's an obvious plus there. But, on the other hand, it does suggest the possibility of a little too much brooding and indecisiveness.

BROWN: That's the word you used, indecisiveness.

OLIPHANT: And after all, they pay 400 grand a year for the White House job for you to make decisions.

Representing the people is a minor part of being a Representative

New England Republican has the lowdown on why it’s OK for Kerry to miss all of his Senate votes this session: “Voting is just one small part of being a U.S. senator”

Meanwhile, Political Wire links to a commentary on Kerry's recent debate performance and his explanation of why he shouldn't be branded a "liberal": "Senate votes are a poor way to judge him, because he didn’t even vote on 25 of the 62 bills in question. Isn’t that Kerry in a nutshell? You can’t be criticized for your position if you never take one."

The Hedgehog Report has many polls leading up to Super Tuesday. It looks like it's going to be Kerry in a walk (or, in his case, a crablike sidestep).

"Serpentine, Shelley!"

Not his "Band of Brothers"? The Village Voice has a video of Vietnam Vets protesting against Senator Splunge.

Global warming rocks! Man, it's about 60 degrees today.

Senator Splunge is gearing up for his next “clarification”

From a WNBC-TV interview:

PRESSMAN: Do you think that because the president did not serve in combat in Vietnam that he lacks understanding of military needs?
Sen. KERRY: No, I've never--never suggested that. Never have raised that issue and I never would.

There’s this:

“I don't know what it is about what these Republicans who didn't serve in any war have against those of us who are Democrats who did.”

And this:

“I know something about aircraft carriers for real.”

Hmmm….he must be “suggesting” something else there. Mark Steyn explicates:

He mentioned his service in Vietnam a lot, but only as biography. Now he implicitly contrasts his military record with George W Bush's, and thereby to the war on terror. Mostly he does this through meaningless slogans. Everywhere he goes he intones portentously: "I know something about aircraft carriers for real." What does this mean? Does he own one? He's certainly rich enough to afford one and, unlike the French, one that works.

Get ready for the legalistic explanation of what “suggest” and “issue” mean.

Success must be punished

Business Pundit commits liberal heresy: “Most people who do well in this society either 1) took a significant risk that others weren't willing to take or 2) did something to improve the lives of many people. In other words, your net worth has at least a loose correlation to the value you have provided society.”

Oh Rob, don’t you know it’s established fact that the “rich” only gain wealth through skullduggery and they simply don’t pay their fair share in taxes? We have a duty to redistribute that wealth!

Disclaimer: the preceding does not apply to trial lawyers or ketchup heiresses.

Unflattering metaphor of the day

From the American Prowler:

According to a Kerry source, the primary season has been in such a state of flux, that it is one reason [Bill] Clinton has refused to publicly show approval for any candidate, even his hand-picked stalking horse, Wesley Clark. Kerry entreaties to have the president step forward after Super Tuesday to show some level of support for Kerry have thus far gone unanswered.

"The silence on this question has been deafening," says a Kerry adviser. "We know Clinton has told reporters that he has provided advice to us, but that simply isn't true. We have not sought much input from him, if only because of the 800-pound gorilla in the room. His wife.”

Snicker.

I missed the Dems New York Debate, but as usual William Saletan has the best analysis. Apparently, this was the meeting that finally put the kibosh on a Kerry-Edwards ticket.

Tim Blair: A Year Late, Kerry Goes Unilateral

Somebody send for the WAAAH-mbulance!

Follow up to my post below, here's Terry McAuliffe whining on Fox News Sunday:

MCAULIFFE: You got any questions on George Bush today, Chris, or are they all, you know — I know this is Fox News, but you got any tough questions on George Bush today?
WALLACE: Actually, I was asking you about the questions of national security. You had an opportunity to respond. You just responded in terms of John Kerry.

I'm going to be sorry to see Terry go. Under his "leadership" the Democrats have lost a Presidential election, Congressional elections, races for Governor, and races that weren't even planned (i.e. Governor Schwarzenegger).

Kerry Vote Watch

Let’s state the obvious: John Kerry has no intention of serving Massachusetts in the U.S. Senate for the remainder of the campaign season. It’s time to demand that he resign. If you’re a citizen of the Commonwealth, contact Senator Splunge’s office and tell him that Massachusetts deserves representation in the Senate.

Floor votes in the Senate last week: 8
Votes cast this session: 0
Voting percentage: 0/22 = 0%
Days worked in the Senate: 0

Academy Awards

I don't care what they say the rest of the night (e.g. "tanking" economy, Air National Guard) - the opening sequence where Michael Moore was crushed by a LOTR elephant was awesome!

Predictions:
Best Supporting Actor: Tim Robbins
Best Supporting Actress: Renee Zellweiger
Best Actress: Charleze Theron (sp?)
Best Actor: Bill Murray (my big dark horse pick!)
Best Director: Peter Jackson
Best Picture: Lord of the Rings - The Return of the King

Update: I'm actually posting this after the first two major awards, but I told Mom this morning so I'm sticking by 'em. Tim Robbins gave an unpolitical speech (whew!) and the guy who won for "Finding Nemo" gave the best speech ever to his wife: "I'm repeating in front of a billion people the same thing I said in a note when we were in the 8th grade: I love you." Priceless.

Update again: It looks like a LOTR evening, winning every non-acting Oscar so far. Good night!

Even the Canadians are weary of Kerry's invocation of Vietnam: "I would argue that Kerry keeps Vietnam at the forefront of his campaign because it is just about all he's got."

Dog bites man: Kerry's Spending, Tax Plans Fall Short - Review of Proposals Shows Expenditures Exceeding Savings by $165 Billion I'm shocked, shocked!

Signs you’re losing a debate: Terry McAuliffe was on Fox News Sunday this morning, going head-to-head with RNC chair Ed Gillespe. McAwful felt the questions (which were all very general an open-ended) weren’t going his way and at one point whined: “Are we going to talk about President Bush? I mean, I know this is Fox News, but come on.” Wuss.

Mark Steyn lists: THE JOHN KERRY CANCELED WEAPONS SYSTEM OF THE DAY - Thrilling tales of America’s fighting men and women in action using stuff Senator Kerry didn't want them to have!

Overheard on David Letterman Friday night (from memory): “Did you see that John Kerry has now come out and said that he opposes gay marriage in Massachusetts? This guy has more positions than a Paris Hilton video.”

Blogging hiatus - Goin' to see Mom. Be back Sunday night.

Don't mess with the Devils

New Jersey Devils goalie Martin Brodeur waves to a friend in the stands as he leaves the ice after beating the Buffalo Sabres 8-2 in their NHL game in East Rutherford, New Jersey, February 25, 2004. Brodeur got his 30th win of the season, which set an NHL record for goaltenders with at least 30 victories in nine straight years.

Jay says: “I hate the Mets, Jets, Islanders, Nets and the Devils.”

Hey, don’t you mean the World Champion New Jersey Devils?

I thought so, punk. Oh, and the Rangers suck.

Proving the theory: the more people know about Kerry….

….the less they like him. From the Rasmussen tracking poll:

As Super Tuesday approaches, North Carolina Senator John Edwards is once again gaining ground on Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry. The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll shows Kerry leading by 14 percentage points, 48% to 34% among Democrats nationally.

Earlier in the week, Kerry held a 25-point lead over Edwards, 54% to 29%. That means Edwards has gained a net 11 points in four days.

Go Speed Racer!

After “I’m rubber, you’re glue” Kerry turns to “He started it!”

From the NY Times account of the Dem debate last night:

Mr. Kerry, of Massachusetts, attacked Mr. Bush for raising the issue [of gay marriage] in the first place.

Can we call this a lie? Sure, why not. And it’s one that Charles Krauthammer disposes of in today’s WashPost:

Who is dividing the country? Was it the Republican National Committee that told the Massachusetts court to make May 17, the midst of a hotly contested election year, the day on which gay marriage is to be imposed for the first time in America?

A front-page Post "analysis" piece asserts that with the constitutional amendment the president is ready "to rekindle the culture wars." Who did the kindling here? It was the mayor of San Francisco, who, in violation of California law and in the middle of the 2004 election campaign, issued the first same-sex marriage licenses in American history.

Bush had no desire to get involved in this issue. If not for the activism in Boston and San Francisco, it would not be an election issue at all. Boston and San Francisco have made the question very stark: We are going to have national gay marriage or we are not.

We didn’t start the fire.

Byron York in “John Kerry’s Time Warp”: “Kerry's penchant for looking back would not be a good trait in a president who will have to deal with a distinctly 21st century, post-9/11 world. America faces threats that were unheard of in Kerry's formative years. While those threats build, Kerry is turning on Hendrix, toking on an imaginary joint, and telling you about Vietnam.”

Here’s the normally annoying Derrick Jackson in the Boston Globe: “Kerry is no Gandhi on corporate donations”

“Do I dare to eat a peach?” – J. Alfred Prufrock

“Do I dare to see a film?” – J. Forbes Kerry

Can you feel the energy!?!

American Prowler picks up on John Kerry’s library meetings campaign rallies:

"The scariest moments have been when he's doing one of his Q&A sessions with folks," says the staffer. "He'll give this incredibly long-winded answer, then the people just sit there. No applause, no feedback, no nothing. And he just stands there. You can hear a pin drop. That's not good in campaign settings."

Christopher Hitchens also comments on the attenuated support for Senator Splunge:

One reason I think this campaign is very lame -- it's supposed to have momentum, I wouldn't say it had much enthusiasm behind it -- he gives the impression that it's kind of his turn to be president and that he has a feeling of entitlement to the job.

Is it too late to get Dean back? (Hat tip to Tim Blair for the Hitch quote).

Dennis Kucinich: A Man of Integrity

Maybe it’s because he has no chance at the nomination and therefore nothing to lose, but Dennis Kucinich impresses because he lays out a bold vision dramatically different than what the Republicans (or the Democrats) promote. At tonight’s CNN debate, he advocated free college education, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, universal health care – the whole socialist she-bang. There was something endearing about this mini-Quixote tilting at the establishment; you have to admire his cojones.

At that brings me to my bete noire, John Kerry. He offers nothing different. If you read through the transcript of tonight’s debate, you’ll discover that on nearly every issue he doesn’t fundamentally disagree with any policy of the Bush administration. He only disagrees with the way these policies are being executed. Over and over again, he uses the words: “broken promise” or “fully funded” or “loopholes” that “aren’t being enforced.” At one point, Kerry was asked about his “flip-flops” and he flippantly replied [paraphrasing] “If I have two sides on issues, the president is on the wrong side on every issue.”

Bravo, Senator. At least the President chooses a side. When you pick every team to win the World Series, you’ll never be wrong.