These are not all original, but I admit that I cannot refer to the specific origin of those which are derived from someone else's work:
1) Senator Kerry, you support the current Democratic filibuster in the U.S. Senate against a number of President Bush's judicial nominees. If you are elected President, Republicans in the Senate will almost certainly return the favor. What, if anything, are you prepared to do to break the log-jam in judicial nominees and, are you willing to give Republicans the same say in choosing Federal judges that you and your party have demanded from President Bush? By the same token, if Republicans filibuster your nominees because they consider them "out of the mainstream," "too liberal," or whatever, how are you going to justify your approach when you have already defended the Senate's right to filibuster judicial nominees.
2) Senator Kerry, Jimmy Hoffa, Jr., recently indicated that you had assured him that if you are elected President you will immediately begin drilling in ANWAR in Alaska and throughout the United States. This, despite repeated promises to filibuster any legislation that would authorize such drilling in the U.S. Senate. Is Hoffa lying? If so, what did you really promise the Teamsters? If Hoffa is telling the truth, how do intend to begin drilling in ANWAR without the consent of Congress and how do you reconcile that drilling with your long-term stated opposition to it?
3) Senator Kerry, you recently suggested that Americans should be cautious about Mel Gibson's movie "The Passion," in order to avoid anti-semitism. Do you think that any American who believes in the gospel account of the crucifixion of Jesus is an anti-semite?
4) Senator Kerry, you have indicated that you "support the second amendment" and that you are a gun owner and a hunter. What does the second amendment mean? What, if any, laws does it prohibit? What, if any, laws does it allow? Will you insist that your judicial nominees also support the second amendment?
5) By the same token, Senator Kerry, do you support the right of law-abiding gun owners to CARRY concealed firearms for self-defense if they pass a criminal background check and undergo some training in the proper use and carry of firearms? Same question, but suppose that citizens went through the same training and qualifications as required of the police.
6) Senator Kerry, do you still believe that certain U.S. military personnel who served in Vietnam should be tried as war criminals?
7) Senator Kerry, you have been critical of President Bush for causing the Haiti crisis. What, if anything, would you have done different?
8) And finally (for today), Senator Kerry, what, if anything would you do differently to catch Osama Bin Laden?
Sunday, February 29, 2004
Has Kerry Peaked?
Kerry appears to be unable to really break the low 50%, while Bush appears to have hit his floor--44%. If that is true, than the President now has nowhere to go but up. Polls are, however, highly suspicious. The key polls are the Gallup Polls immediately after the major party conventions and the debates in the Fall. In my opinion, they show a decent (however imperfect) view of public movement to and away-from candidates.
Why Senators Are seldom Elected President
In considering a Kerry-Bush run, the media is comparing Kerry to John Fitzgerald Kennedy. They were both Senators from Massachusetts. They were both war heroes. They were both rich.
There are a lot of reasons that Senators or Congressman are rarely elected President. The voting record is the biggest thing. Years and years of contradictory positions and speeches just make these folks fodder for any opponent. Governors generally don't have the same kind of paper trail. The time that they spent in Washington is also sure to have made a Senator or Congressman many enemies, from both sides of the aisle and from all regions of the country. Not so with Governors.
Kerry is different from John Fitzgerald Kennedy for a variety of reasons. First, Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. Kennedy (J) was in the Senate for less than ten years before he was elected President. Kennedy played both sides of the fence from the very beginning. He was friendly with Joe McCarthy, even voting against his censure. Not so with Kerry. He has been a far-left liberal since the beginning of his Senate career. Only in the last few years has he even suggested that he is trying to move to the middle, and that went out the window when he had to move to the left to win the Democratic primary.
Kerry has a LONG record, and a record that is in many ways inconsistent with the positions that he is taking now. Is he entitled to change his mind? Yes. But he is not entitled to change his position in the middle of a presidential campaign without being made to explain WHY he has changed his mind. His many years in the senate will require quite a bit of explaining. That explaining will be a continuing distraction to his campaign.
There are a lot of reasons that Senators or Congressman are rarely elected President. The voting record is the biggest thing. Years and years of contradictory positions and speeches just make these folks fodder for any opponent. Governors generally don't have the same kind of paper trail. The time that they spent in Washington is also sure to have made a Senator or Congressman many enemies, from both sides of the aisle and from all regions of the country. Not so with Governors.
Kerry is different from John Fitzgerald Kennedy for a variety of reasons. First, Kerry has been in the Senate for a long time. Kennedy (J) was in the Senate for less than ten years before he was elected President. Kennedy played both sides of the fence from the very beginning. He was friendly with Joe McCarthy, even voting against his censure. Not so with Kerry. He has been a far-left liberal since the beginning of his Senate career. Only in the last few years has he even suggested that he is trying to move to the middle, and that went out the window when he had to move to the left to win the Democratic primary.
Kerry has a LONG record, and a record that is in many ways inconsistent with the positions that he is taking now. Is he entitled to change his mind? Yes. But he is not entitled to change his position in the middle of a presidential campaign without being made to explain WHY he has changed his mind. His many years in the senate will require quite a bit of explaining. That explaining will be a continuing distraction to his campaign.
Sunday, February 22, 2004
"MIRACLE" is an excellent movie
I am old enough to remember seeing that game on TV. In those days, the media embargoed the result so that we could all actually be surprised. That would never happen today.
Reliving that moment when Al Michaels makes the call "He shoots, he scores" when Mike Eruzione scored the go ahead goal at the half-way mark still sends chills down my spine. THAT moment is even more chilling than the now famous "Do you believe in miracles, YES!" which made Al Michaels into a sports superstar.
Although the "us versus them" and "commie bastards versus USA" themes were undercurrents in the movie, it was mostly about Herb Brooks and the kids who made up that remarkable team--Schneider, McLanahan, Craig, Eruzione, Johnson, O'Callahan, Silk, Ramsey, and all the others. The movie shows how Herb Brooks trained his team to skate with the Soviets and how that conditioning paid off.
I can't help but think, though, that there was one significant footnote to that game--Vadislav Tretiak. The legendary Soviet goal-tender was probably the greatest to ever play the game. Apparently he still insists that had he stayed in the game, his team would have won. Whether that is true or not is a matter for sheer speculation. However, taking him out of the game after the first period is comparable--in my mind--to taking Jordan or Montana out of a game after a bad half.
Reliving that moment when Al Michaels makes the call "He shoots, he scores" when Mike Eruzione scored the go ahead goal at the half-way mark still sends chills down my spine. THAT moment is even more chilling than the now famous "Do you believe in miracles, YES!" which made Al Michaels into a sports superstar.
Although the "us versus them" and "commie bastards versus USA" themes were undercurrents in the movie, it was mostly about Herb Brooks and the kids who made up that remarkable team--Schneider, McLanahan, Craig, Eruzione, Johnson, O'Callahan, Silk, Ramsey, and all the others. The movie shows how Herb Brooks trained his team to skate with the Soviets and how that conditioning paid off.
I can't help but think, though, that there was one significant footnote to that game--Vadislav Tretiak. The legendary Soviet goal-tender was probably the greatest to ever play the game. Apparently he still insists that had he stayed in the game, his team would have won. Whether that is true or not is a matter for sheer speculation. However, taking him out of the game after the first period is comparable--in my mind--to taking Jordan or Montana out of a game after a bad half.
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Kerry Wins Wisconsin....Edwards Second
So what! Is anything that happened yesterday a surprise? The fact that Edwards made such a strong second place is the story of the day. Edwards will not be the nominee. It makes for good theater and adds to the horserace, so look for the media to keep talking about that aspect of the story.
Friday, February 13, 2004
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Wow...It's Been a long Nine Days
I've been busy with my work, so I haven't had time to do anything here. However, I have been in communication with a few of my fellow political observers and been able to formulate some thoughts on where we are.
First, a couple notes on where we have come. I do not think that Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" was very effective. But I don't think it was all that bad either. I haven't heard all that much long term-discussion about it. That shows me that it lasted one or two news cycles and that most of us moved on to something else.
Second, the national guard un-story. Give me break. Unless someone is sitting on the smoking gun document (and I doubt that), this story will be old news by March. Old news is fair game in politics, though, and the e-mails that I am getting from democrats suggest that we are in for a long summer and fall of re-hashing old stories, no matter how little (if any) evidence exists to support them.
Third, Kerry's "wins" in Virginia and Tennessee. It is a stretch to translate that into proof that Kerry can win those states in November. George McGovern also won Virginia during the democratic nomination fight in 1972. A primary victory is only that, a primary victory. If it meant more, Bush would have carried New York and California in 2000.
That brings us to the state of the race today.
We've all heard the big Kerry story. Let me just say this: I do not think that who Kerry sleeps with has any relevance to his capacity to be president. His left-wing voting record does. I'm going to save my thoughts on who is behind this story for another time after I've had a chance to reflect upon it some more.
The big questions is whether this will derail Kerry's candidacy. I don't think that it will. Apparently he is preparing a response. Kerry should say something like: " The story is true. The relationship is over, and the rest is nobody's business." If he does, story is over. I predict that he will blame Republicans and some-kind of right-wing conspiracy. This will fire up his base, but will escalate what is already becoming a very ugly and personal political season. I hope I'm wrong.
First, a couple notes on where we have come. I do not think that Bush's performance on "Meet the Press" was very effective. But I don't think it was all that bad either. I haven't heard all that much long term-discussion about it. That shows me that it lasted one or two news cycles and that most of us moved on to something else.
Second, the national guard un-story. Give me break. Unless someone is sitting on the smoking gun document (and I doubt that), this story will be old news by March. Old news is fair game in politics, though, and the e-mails that I am getting from democrats suggest that we are in for a long summer and fall of re-hashing old stories, no matter how little (if any) evidence exists to support them.
Third, Kerry's "wins" in Virginia and Tennessee. It is a stretch to translate that into proof that Kerry can win those states in November. George McGovern also won Virginia during the democratic nomination fight in 1972. A primary victory is only that, a primary victory. If it meant more, Bush would have carried New York and California in 2000.
That brings us to the state of the race today.
We've all heard the big Kerry story. Let me just say this: I do not think that who Kerry sleeps with has any relevance to his capacity to be president. His left-wing voting record does. I'm going to save my thoughts on who is behind this story for another time after I've had a chance to reflect upon it some more.
The big questions is whether this will derail Kerry's candidacy. I don't think that it will. Apparently he is preparing a response. Kerry should say something like: " The story is true. The relationship is over, and the rest is nobody's business." If he does, story is over. I predict that he will blame Republicans and some-kind of right-wing conspiracy. This will fire up his base, but will escalate what is already becoming a very ugly and personal political season. I hope I'm wrong.
Tuesday, February 03, 2004
It's the Economy Stupid
The only thing that I read into recent poll numbers is that the economy is the dominant issue. The public appears to still support the war in Iraq. Bush needs to do a better job of getting his message across about improvements in the economy. So far, the media is giving play to the democrats continuing (and completely false) charges that the economy is bad. Perception means a great deal. Bush has a whole bunch of money to spend, what is he waiting for?
Where do we go from here?
Edwards appears poised to win Oklahoma and South Carolina and make decent showings in other states. I still don't think that he has enough to win it all, but he's sure to get some momentum out of this. My best guess is that tonight's results will ensure that the race drags on a little longer than it might otherwise have. That is both good and bad for Bush. Good in that Kerry will probably go negative, and might display a little of that famous temper. Bad in that the media will still give airtime to things like that stupid Alabama national guard service story.
Enough of the National Guard "AWOL" stuff...
If this is the best that the Dems can do, they are in for a real rude awakening come fall. And I mean a real rude awakening. This is a very dangerous game that the dems are playing. It didn't work for the Republicans and Bob Dole back in 1996, so I'm certain that it won't work for Kerry or the Democrats this year. The American people didn't seem to care much about Clinton's war record, so I doubt that they will care much about Bush's. I've been wrong before, but I just don't see this issue going anywhere, and it opens the door for some things that some in the democratic party might just assume weren't discussed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)