Hughposium #4

Another addition to the Hugh Hewitt driven symposium, and this one is much more practical:

Vox Blogoli IV: Why vote for Bush, and what's wrong with Kerry?

Hugh wants to limit responses to 250 words but this election is so clear cut on the issue at hand, I can limit mine even further:

I am going to vote for President Bush's re-election because I have no doubt whatsoever that he will use America's might to fight and kill the terrorists abroad so my family can be safe as possible at home.

What's wrong with Kerry is that I'm not at all sure he'll do the same....

So what did Sadam do, cuddle?!

I get very, very angry when people ascribe to America those things that it is so obviously trying to fight.

The Powerline folks, in this post, take the appropriate action of highlighting a few people who must live in a parallel universe.

If the U.S. is currently humiliating and causing suffering of the Iraqi people, as this group of Einsteins is apologizing for, what in the world do you call what Sadam did to the Iraqi people?!

The left has, for quite some time now, engaged in using language to describe the opposition that is so far over-the-top as to be funny; except it's not funny. Recent examples include Al Gore's "digital brown shirt" comments (among many others), and now it's manifesting itself in the urge to apologize to the Iraqi people for freeing them from the brutal, despicable dictatorship of Sadam and almost guaranteed suffering for another generation or more under the rule of his psycho sons.

When did it become necessary to apologize for freeing a nation of 25 million from a homicidal tyrant? I'll tell you when; when the French and Germans don't say it's okay to do so. This is what will happen should we allow America to be subject to "global tests." We'll end up apologizing for spreading liberty.

Hughposium the 3rd

Before I get to Hugh Hewitt's question for the weekly symposium, I'm sure anyone that visits the site and looks around will notice that the last time I posted was in response to Hughposium #2 (I think that's what these weekly questions should be called, at least). I have made no secret that this blog was created because of the great work that Mr. Hewitt has done on his blog and radio talk show. This is also another indicator of the power of the blogosphere, I believe. This is a new incarnation of sending a letter to the editor, except almost every letter can get published without a filter. I don't know about you, but I always sense a trend in the letters chosen to end up in the newspaper or magazine every week. There's two letters published supporting the left's view (isn't it interesting that center-left just doesn't sound right? For another time, perhaps), and then there's a churlish, often angry reading letter supporting the center-right's view. It never fails to end up with this type of formula of "two left, one angry right" letter. With the advent of and current surge in popularity of blogs, those letters can now be written with a guaranteed form of distribution. More importantly, the information will get to the world unfiltered; however many right leaning letters are written will be "published," and the same on the left. You'll never convince me that the dead tree media will ever be happy about this situation.

On to this week's question:

Weekend Symposium 3: How deep a hole have John Kerry, Mary Beth Cahill and the Edwards dug for themselves? How lasting the damage?

My feeling is this; the initial hole dug by Kerry was probably not that deep. He definitely crossed the line but if all he had done was make mention of the Cheney's daughter in the debate then, after hearing some huffing and puffing from certain media outlets, made an apology for offending anyone, I don't think it would have had much staying power as an issue.

But Kerry, and those around him being the condescending, arrogant group that they are, decided it was a good time to bust out some shovels and keep digging. First was Cahill's simply unbelievable edict that somehow a candidate's children were "fair game" in a campaign; since when!? This is simply not done, and for Cahill to proclaim that it is and will be done was astonishing. So she decided to join Kerry and jumped in the hole, shovel in hand.

And then there was, in my mind, the most cynical moment of this whole ordeal. After Lynne Cheney spoke out about what a cheap shot the remark was, Elizabeth Edwards got on a radio show and in a very (do you see it coming?) condescending way opined that Mrs. Cheney's reaction sadly shows how "ashamed" the Cheney's are of their daughter. In a word; WHAT?! The Cheney's reaction (Dick Cheney responded later on) was wholly unrelated to their daughter's situation and was entirely focused on the despicable remarks made, now not just by Kerry but also Cahill and any other apologists out there (hello Josh Marshall). What I find particularly galling, and I think this is where the lasting damage is going to occur, is that the Kerry campaign decided to use the wife of their vice-presidential candidate to try and shift the focus from Kerry's out of line remarks and onto the Cheney's reaction to those remarks (and don't try to tell me using Elizabeth Edwards in this way wasn't the plan that was come up with and was a coincidence of an interview gone awry....everything in these campaigns is planned and re-planned). How cynical do you have to be to weigh the political fall out and decide using the aggrieved wife's counterpart on the opposition ticket is the best way to try and throw up a smoke screen?

This is where the Kerry campaign brings out the Earth moving equipment and stays in the hole for good. As has been noted by Mr. Hewitt, an overwhelming majority of Americans, 64% as polled by the Washington Post, felt that Kerry bringing up the Cheney's daughter was out of line. Even 4 out of 10 voters voting for Kerry said it was out of line. With that many people understanding what a cheap stunt it was, how do you think those people are going to feel when they find out Elizabeth Edwards considers their reaction, which matches Lynne Cheney's reaction, actually reveals how ashamed they are of the Cheney's situation, not how out of line Kerry's remarks were?

Symposium the 2nd

In what I think can turn into an invaluable source of opinion on the major issues of the day, Hugh Hewitt has sent out another question in what appears will be a weekly symposium on his blog. This question again involves John Kerry's answers to questions, but the question Mr. Hewitt is asking is much less political and much more philosophical, but philosophical in a way that will shed light on the politics of John Kerry.

"What do Kerry's answers to today's press inquiries tell us about Kerry's worldview and character?"

For a list of the questions Mr. Hewitt is referring to, go here (it's a long post, so keep scrolling).

Where to begin, really. The first answer Kerry gives has three distinct points; 1)That President Bush fired a General of the Army for having a dissenting view, 2) that Iraq might someday become analogous to Lebanon of the early-mid '80s, and 3) that Kerry has a better plan for dealing with Iraq.

The first point, if you read the Hugh Hewitt link above, is obviously a falsehood so easily checked that it amazes me Kerry would try and sneak it in to an answer that had very little to do with the lie he's trying to pass off. What we can take from this, in regards to Kerry's worldview and character, is that he has no problem in peddling falsehoods and/or conspiracy theories (remember his oil comment in the first debate?) in order to win. Not a good start.

His second point, in which Iraq could become another Lebanon, is a crucial view into John Kerry's world. Retreating from Lebanon is widely considered one of the few foreign affairs mistakes that President Reagan made. In essence, the U.S. gave in to terrorists, which helped embolden them much as President Clinton's later retreat from Somalia brought forth the now infamous "paper tiger" analogy for the U.S. from bin Laden. What Kerry has now done is set up a situation in which he can simply proclaim that we are in the same situation in Iraq as we were in Lebanon, use Reagan's name to try and deflect any criticism, and proceed to withdraw the troops despite his recent proclamations that he will hunt down and kill terrorists. This comment, compounded with his nuclear bunker-busting comment in the first debate, shows that Kerry is not just living in a 9/10/2001 world but is actually closer to living in the 9/10/1971 world. Kerry did not trust American might back in 1971 (witness his Senate hearings testimony), he did not trust American might during the Cold War (he voted against virtually every weapon system that was brought up), he did not trust American might during the first Persian Gulf war (he voted against it), and he still doesn't trust American might.

The third thrust of Kerry's answer gives us a very disturbing look at his character. I don't know if anyone will remember this, but in a long ago "Peanuts" comic strip, Charlie Brown walks up to a child and screams at them "BELIEVE IN ME!" He then walks up to another child and screams "BELIEVE IN ME!" He walks up to a third child and screams "BELIEVE IN ME!" In the final panel of the strip, he's talking with Snoopy (if my memory is correct) and asks, "Why won't anyone believe in me?" You can almost hear Kerry demanding that people understand just how much smarter he is than the rest of us and that, doggone it, he has a plan for Iraq that we should let him implement; don't you understand?!!? He has a plan! BELIEVE IN HIM!

The other answers he gives continue the theme of Kerry as 1971 Man. His almost childish response, "Al Qaeda is in 60 countries. Are we invading all 60 countries?" simply teems with condescension and shows an utter lack of understanding as to exactly what type of war we're currently engaged in. I think Hugh Hewitt put it best; "The Bush Doctrine is simple: If you are a nation with WMD or an ambition to have WMD, and you have a relationship with terrorists, you have the Saddam option or the Qaddafi option. Pick one." If more countries pick the Qaddafi option, then no, Mr. Kerry, we won't have to invade all 60 countries; but the question is, will you wage war against even one of these countries, or will you instead try to turn them all into Lebanon and simply turn tail and run?

A little something for everyone....

The issues regarding the debate and who won and why the won have been circulating for sometime now, but I want to bring to everyone's attention this article from Dennis Prager that is so powerful in it's simplicity. I don't think I've read an opinion on the debates like this one before, and it makes complete sense upon reading it.

Congrats to the Dodgers....It's about time!!!

The Dodgers are in the playoffs after one of the most unbelievable comebacks I've ever seen, which happened to be topped off with a game ending grand slam from Steve Finley.

Congrats go to the Dodgers and their newest owner, Frank McCourt. I bring up McCourt to make a point and spotlight the guy in a positive. I, like almost everyone else, was a little wary of McCourt when he was buying the team. Rumors of finance problems persisted throughout the entire process and the Dodgers were basically handcuffed during the offseason because of it (can you imagine Vladimir Guerrero as a Dodger?!). But the sale was finally completed and McCourt took over the team.

Over the past two weeks, as the season was winding down and the playoff drive was in full gear, I have become a huge fan of McCourt's. What solidified my respect was a shot of him at PacBell Park when the Dodgers took 2 of 3 from the hated ones (otherwise known as the Giants to those non-Dodgers fans). It wasn't just the fact that he was at the game in the first row, but there's a great shot of him obviously yelling "Aw, c'mon!!" when a call on a close play at first went against the Dodgers.

The man showed that he really cared about my Dodgers, and that's a great thing to have in an owner.

Dreamworks hits another homerun

Casting away fears that the Shrek franchise would be the only hits to come from its animation division, Dreamworks came up with the biggest October opening weekend in history with "Shark Tale." As noted in this article, Dreamworks is working towards an IPO offering for its animation division (a $650 million offering, at that), and the performance of "Shark Tale" should do nothing but help that endeavor.

Hey, when Hugh asks, you gotta respond...

Hugh Hewitt, Lawyer/Pundit/Talk Radio Host/Really Smart Guy extraordinaire has sent a call out to the blogosphere to take a look at the ramifications of Kerry's passionate statements questioning why we have a new nuclear weapons program under development involving nuclear bunker busters. Since Mr. Hewitt is what I'd consider the driving force behind the explosion in popularity of blogs in general, and was the sole impetus for the blog you read now, I feel a certain obligation to respond. Mr. Hewitt asks the following questions for what he's calling his First Virtual Symposium:

"Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?"

With each question logically leading to the next, it would appear that they should be taken in order and individually, but it seems to me that the answer to the first question answers the second question at the same time. My reasoning for this is that, on it's face, Kerry's questioning of the bunker busting program, in an almost "As if we didn't already have enough nukes, now we're making more?!" way, will probably sound very much like common sense to a majority of people out there. It's my experience that most people know, to a certain degree, the mantra "We could blow up everyone on Earth 50 times over." Knowing this, I don't think it's unrealistic to think that many, many people could have an "As if we didn't already have enough nukes..." reaction when told of another nuclear weapons program.

This is why I think the answer to question 2 (if it did hurt Kerry, why?) is dependent upon getting the word out, through sites like Mr. Hewitt's, that the nuclear bunker busting weapons may be the only way to pre-emptively end a nuclear program by some of the world's rogue states, such as North Korea. In short, if question 1 is answered yes, it will only be because it was pointed out as a blunder, which is the answer to question 2 (why did it hurt Kerry; because it was pointed out as a blunder).

How much damage this would do to Kerry (question 3), relies on the degree to which question 1 is shown to be a blunder. I think the damage level will depend on how much word gets out to the masses. If the blunder is hammered home on a consistent basis, with some of Kerry's past voting records that would have shut down many other weapons systems (especially those that were non-nuclear), but is confined to the center/right blogosphere, I think the damage will mainly be done with those who already know Kerry distrusts American might. If, however, the question enters a news source my parents could get a hold of (that's my litmus test; if my parents find out about it, anyone can), then the damage could become devastating. In the past, this would have necessitated one of the MSM news networks getting a hold of the story (which would be unlikely); today, The New York Post, Fox News, and countless smaller middle America newspapers with web savvy can all be used to point out Kerry's almost pacifist like instincts. The damage could be especially devastating, ironically, if people find out about this after having seen Kerry's "tough talk" during the debate (specifically mentioning killing terrorists, etc).

A great commercial could be Kerry talking about how he'll hunt down terrorists, cut to a trustworthy source explaining that many rogue states use deep underground bunkers for protection, then cut back to Kerry's impassioned disbelief that we're "actually thinking" of using nuclear bunker busters?!

I think the vast majority of America, at that second, would see that Kerry's speaking in the first clip shown is much, much less passionate than his speaking in the second clip.

And passion counts these days.