Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Wrong again

Elizabeth Edwards opened her maw again. I have no link for this yet, but I heard the audio this a.m. She was being interviewed, and the topic was Pennsylvania. She said it was likely that they'd win that state, but someone stated to Mrs. Edwards that she feared rioting if Kerry-Edwards didn't win. So, in keeping with the Kerry-Edwards' campaign of fearmongering and scare tactics, stated that there wouldn't be riots if Kerry won.

This speaks volumes about this party. Their people will literally explode of they lose (which would not be a surprise, given their rather obsessed insanity of late), and cause civil unrest. Of course, she quite rightfully expects that Republicans will obey the law and deal with the loss.

The Democrats have no respect for morals, ethics, or even the law when they are thrying to gain power, or when they are disappointed at failed efforts to grab or retain it. Fear these people, because any candidate's wife who states that rioting by their supporters won't occur if her husband is elected, really has no character or values besides whatever gets them elected.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

I was wrong

I thought that the cross-campaign family-sniping was over (see earlier post). Not so. Granted, nothing tops the tasteless and classless remarks of Elizabeth Edwards, but this one from Teresa the gaffe machine is worth much note. Of course, the apology reveals yet another slip. Moms don't work if they're not pulling in a paycheck. Great.

So I'll leave it with this, as I left it before...surely, surely, the Kerry campaign will not again step in "mud" again before election day!

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

The election results are in...don't bother voting

John Kerry has won. He's already declaring it. Basically, this bit of twaddle is his campaign strategy. Declare victory, and litigate no matter what. Al Gore did nothing illegal, but certainly behaved in a socially unacceptable way by retracting his concession and fighting for a win in Florida by motivating his base to go out and count the votes in a way that got him the win. You see, voting wasn't enough. It was the MANNER of calculation that would win it. Spoiledsport to the last.

Here, Kerry is going to declare it a win, no matter how red the map, and litigate until the cows come home, regardless of merit. America isn't ready for slimy political gags in court. Bush v. Gore was not fun, but each side had some arguable justification for being in court. Here, Kerry is just going to put things before judges who may be willing to entertain his antics. This is pure frivolity, and is done in bad faith. It exceeds the socially inappropriate acts of Gore, and goes into ethical breaches, and possibly even legal breaches, depending upon how far they want to go.

But one thing is clear. This particular campaign will do and say anything to win. There is no harm they won't cause and no boundary they won't cross in their effort to win.


Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Can't make this stuff up

This is the stuff of dreams. Kerry actually dared to speak French in a campaign stop. The audience was Hatian, but that doesn't matter. The Ohio or Pennsylvania steelworker has little warmth in his heart for snobs or the French. This was so unbelievably dumb, if for no other reason than it puts Kerry further out of touch with the Average American.

These ads got it nailed

Check out these ads. The first one, Ashley's story, just about says it all. It brings forth the true humanity of the president. Some of the other commercials are ok, but nothing is like the first one.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Kerry-Edwards - Miracle Healers

Its a foregone conclusion that the Democrats, and Kerry and Edwards in particular will say or do pretty much anything that will get them elected. Their demagougery over the death of Christopher Reeve is typically shameless. Charles Krauthammer, one of my favorite columnists, who is quadriplegic gives an excellent explanation of just how sick such rhetoric is.

I'm going to make a very bold prediction: The Kerry Campaign has gone so low, that there is not another depth to which they can or will possibly sink in this campaign. Watch me be wrong.

If the Republicans ever tried to pull something like this...

Tasteless, grotesque, whatever you want to call it...no words adequately describe this ad created by Tennessee State Representative Craig Fitzhugh. Note well, the guy shares office space with the Kerry-Edwards Campaign. Michelle Malkin's site contains a letter to the Editor from the mother of a Down's Syndrome Child, noting the obvious but important fact that the toad who put this together is using the body of someone's special kid.

And the language of it is revealing..."Even if you win you're still retarded." Post it as a sign at the next Special Olympics & see how many moms and dads get a laugh out of it. And isn't "retarded" a no-no word anymore?

I guess it's ok if a Democrat does it to get elected.

Oops, they're doing it again...

Drudge broke the story that the Dems are planning to accuse Republicans of voter intimidation regardless of whether it is going on. He provides a page from the book. Just to give an idea of the tactics, Democratic operatives are to make pre-emptive strikes (read "phony accusations") about voter intimidation. Call in the race leaders, call in the lawyers, etc, oh, and by the way, newspapers are to be "warned" about making any statements or publishing any ads about the conduct of voting proceedings unless "appropriately disclaimed" whatever that means. The party of free speech is willing to stifle it to win an election, though.

But the Dems don't seem to be too concerned about good-natured election year joviality like this, this, this, this or this. It's not about the law, ethics, or morality. It's about power alone. And God help you if you stand between this party and power.

Thursday, October 14, 2004

O'Reilly In Trouble

Bill O'Reilly may have blown it. He got himself sued (careful, VERY graphic & nasty stuff) for sexual harassment. The woman claims he kept trying to have phone sex with her, tried to encourage her to have sex, etc. But most interesting is her allegation that some of the conversations were taped.

Here's his rather tepid response in the Talking Points Memo last night. What bugs me is his failure to deny the facts alleged. Yes, perhaps the woman may fail at proving that the harassment meets the legal standard, because it wasn't serious enough to prevent her from returning back to Fox, and O'Reilly in particular (got to prove that it made the workplace bad, rather than the kind of place you would want to return to), but the facts alleged in the lawsuit, if true, are a big deal even if O'Reilly "wins".

The guy is pushing his book for kids, and while his first book, 'The O'Reilly Factor" indicates that he has a more loose standard of morals than most most would think, these allegations are the kinds of things that will sink his sales. Forgetting even that, the complaint alleges breathtaking infidelity to his wife and children and the obscene behavior that can in just a moment dissolve the national respect he has worked decades to build.

O'Reilly makes the point that he is honest to a fault (although pure transparency would mean that Mrs. O'Reilly was aware of the alleged background dalliances about which he boasted). Might this be why he didn't deny the allegations? Being true to the no-spin-zone, is O'Reilly sticking to the truth by failing to deny? I hate to admit it, because I do respect the man's work, but it sure seems like he's admitting the facts alleged.

Ultimately, it will come down to the tapes. If they exist, Fox and O'Reilly have decisions to make. If not, the Factor Man may get his acquittal. Just not an exoneration. And then there's Mrs. O'Reilly...

Elizabeth Edwards: Needing a Slap

It was bad enough, as noted in the previous post, that Kerry & his surrogates defended his invocation of Mary Cheney in last night's debate. But what Elizabeth Edwards said here, is just disgraceful.

It's one thing to what Kerry did, it's another to have Elizabeth Edwards take it to the next level and accuse Lynne Cheney of being ashamed of her daughter.

Mrs. Edwards needs to be ashamed of herself.

On Taxes, Health Care, Iraq, and Lesbian Daughters of VP Candidates

John Kerry pulled a gaffe last night. In what was an unsuccessful effort to divide Bush from his conservative/evangelical constituency, Kerry gratuitously mentioned the sexuality of Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary, who is an admitted lesbian. And it was not the first time that the members of that ticket raised the issue. John Edwards did the same at the Vice Presidential Debate. The plan was to shock the conscience of the Republicans' core voters. And while it in a way may have succeeded, it also likely did the same to many swing voters. Just not in the way Kerry and Edwards intended.

Kerry used Mary Cheney as his unwilling mouthpiece to advance the proposition that homosexuality is not a choice. While reasonable people can debate that, Mary's sexuality was not a campaign issue. But when the collective groan over the gaffe subsided, and the Kerry spinners had a chance to kill the issue as an innocent statement, or even a compliment to Ms. Cheney's bravery, they chose to breathe a new and slightly more sinister life into it.

Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry strategist extraordinare, told Fox News that candidates' family members were fair game. And given that Mary is a booster of her father's candidacy, her entire life is an open book for Democrat smears. Then a few of the ditzy gum flappers from Kerry-Edwards headquarters spun it the same way. Only the reliably liberal Eleanor Clift had the rare wisdom to cast the remark as a misinterpreted benevolent statement.

But, alas, it doesn't count when numerous high ranking strategists and communication officials in the campaign cast it as an intentional shot and a legit tactic. And at this point, the spin just makes the problem look worse.

But who would get alienated by something like this? Let's start with parents. Nobody likes to see someone's kid get dragged through the mud, and Kerry did it on national TV. Then we have homosexuals. They aren't a gigantic voting bloc, but the Democrats consider them a critical source of support. The lefties aren't going to abandon Kerry, but the moderates and undecideds didn't like watching Mary's orientation being run up someone else's flagpole as an political tactic. And then there are people of good conscience. There are certain things you just don't talk about, and that's an irrelevant and innocent 3rd person's laundry. It was a classless and tacky turn-off. And let's not forget Lynne Cheney, who called Kerry a bad person. Guess what? An indignant mom's defense of an unprovoked and inexcusable smear of her child trumps all other cards in America.

And I'm sure if Dick Cheney had Kerry on the floor of the Senate, he might offer a similar directive as he did to Pat Leahy.

So, consciences were shocked, but not in the way Kerry intended. And that's the thing about October surprises...they can surprise the deliverer as much as the target.