Saturday, October 30, 2004

Did Bin Laden Just endorse Kerry?

I'm not sure if Bin Laden endorced Kerry or not. I think a quick look at the buzz that's been created online says the answer is in fact yes. I guess my vote would be yes. Either way, the spawn of Hitler is obviously trying to influence the election.

I absolutely love the fact that up until now OBL has only resorted to pleading to the American people in trying to influence the election. That sure beats his voter-altering methods he successfully employed in Spain.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn't mess with our security has automatically secured their security.
--The spawn of Hitler

The world most wanted terrorist is pleading with his sworn enemy -the Americans people. How to respond to such a plea? I think John McCain can answer that one for us Americans:

God may show you mercy. We will not.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Clinton KO's Bush and Kerry

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/september96/clinton2_9-23.html

The link is to Clinton's interview with Jim Lehrer when he ran against Dole in '96.

Reading ease:
61.4

Grade level:
10.1

Clinton wins big. I guess you could make the case that Jim Lehrer gave him a different style interview, but I doubt that would make up for the difference.

I just have to say this, in the interview, Lehrer brought up a stat that said only 30 percent of America thought Clinton was "honest and truthful". I think Bush AND Kerry would beat him on that record, but back then, no one seemed to care.

Ah, such simpler times back in 96.

Bush vs. Kerry

Bad things happen when I have too much free time. When I finally was able to pry myself away from playing Snood, I got this weird idea. Compare the grade level Bush and Kerry's interviews and see if Bush speaks on a lower level. Tim Russert of meet the Press interviewed both guys for quite a while so I chose those two interviews. The Bush transcript, and the Kerry transcript. I tested them using Microsoft Word. It has an analyzer that checks readability and the grade level.

I took out what Russert said and took out the "President Bush:" and the "Sen Kerry:" at the beginning of each paragraph --gotta love the replace feature in Word. Here's what I found.


Readability level (the higher the easier it is to understand)
Bush: 66.1
Kerry: 64.8

Academic grade level
Bush: 7.9
Kerry:7.7

Conclusion: According to the test, Bush was easier to understand and spoke on a higher grade level than Kerry. The difference is ever so slight, but it's certainly measurable. Also, Russert didn't engage Bush on a higher level (grammatically at least) because the scores actually went down when Russert and Bush/Kerry were analyzed together.

What does this mean? Probably nothing, other than I've got too much free time. I guess it could give a black eye to people who feel Bush is this big idiot that can't speak English.

I wonder if Russert interviewed Clinton and how those numbers would pan out....


Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Letter to Media Matters for America

So I write this letter to Media Matters for America. They seem to get really fired up when anyone in the media suggests terrorists would like to see Kerry get elected because there's no "evidence." I provided them with some evidence, but, to date, they have not provided me a response.


Oct, 22:
Media Matters for America
Your site declares there is “a conspicuous lack of evidence to support the claim” that terrorists prefer Kerry over Bush. However, more than a month before you said that, The Washington Times quoted an anonymous intelligence official that says terrorists do prefer Kerry over Bush. Here's the link:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20040811-123531-3824r.htm Have you not read it?

Granted, the claim could be politically motivated, so I think you’re justified in saying there’s a lack of obvious evidence. But then you provide, what you call, “evidence” of your own to the contrary.

The evidence you allude to is a video clip of an anonymous, self-proclaimed terrorist saying he’d prefer Bush over Kerry. If these claims are untrue, the evidence you present is hogwash. If they are true, you’d still have to take a terrorist’s political endorsement at face value. That’s unwise in my humble opinion.

Maybe both reports aren’t true, but how on earth could you justify rebutting the claim of an intelligence official with that of a political endorcement from a self-proclaimed terrorist?

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Jon Stewart

So I'm surfing (what wannabe hipster coined that term anyway) over at the very impartial site *cough cough* Media Matters for America. The site is a joke, but they've got some video and sound clips of some heated discussions between the talking heads, which is usually coolio. All of media matter's take on things, however, is NOT coolio. Anyway, I see a clip of Jon Stewart on Crossfire. I think Jon is freggin hilarious so I click the link. Seeing the clip only reaffirmed my opinion on Jon.

STEWART: Now, this is theater. It’s obvious. How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie?
CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.

I don't care where you're from, that's funny right there! I guess Jon got a little too steamed at the end and called Carlson a dick. I thought it was a little odd when I saw it but didn't think too much of it. Come to find out, that was no small meeting Jon and Carlson had. People can't stop talking about it. Apparently, it's controversial to ask the press to keep the President and Presidential candidate accountable. What's more, Jon even says he plans to vote for Kerry *gasp*!!! Oh my gosh! The humanity! Just like those other 45 million Americans!

Yeesh, people. Go back to sleep. The only thing shocking about Jon is that he wasn't able to come up with something more pithy than "dick" when addressing Carlson, otherwise, Jon was totally ripping into that guy and I think he probably deserved it. To be fair, I never watch Carlson or Crossfire, but Jon does have a point, no one in the press seems to think it's necessary to ask and force and answer to tough questions. Right now Kerry has the simple formula to the White House:

1. Identify the biggest problems in America
2. Blame it all on Bush
3. Say it will be all better when you're President because you have a "PLAN"
4. Sit back while the media reassures everyone of your great plan

An unchallenged plan is worthless. So is a press that propagates one.

Friday, October 15, 2004

Debate Round 3

Sadly, I was turned off by the first 5 minutes of this debate. Every response from the candidates' mouths was a cut-and-paste-responses from the first two. I couldn't put up with it. I did hear that bush finally put Kerry on the defensive by accusing him of being liberal. FINALLY. I don't think people realize how liberal Kerry's record is.

Rasmussen says 55% of the population says Kerry is politically liberal.

However, Americans for Democratic Diversity gives Kerry a liberal rating of 92% for his career. Hillary Clinton barely surpasses him with a 95% rating.

There's no doubt he's an extremely liberal guy, regardless of what he says. I mean, come on! This is the guy that goes in front of a bunch of hippies and says stuff like the Iraq war is the "wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time" or "no man and woman in uniform should ever be held hostage to America's dependence on oil" then he'll turn right around and speak in front of vets and pledge 40,000 troops to Iraq.

The pandering Kerry has displayed is over the line. The majority of people in California were relieved to recall Davis, but unfortunately, his spirit is now manifesting itself in the Democratic Presidential candidate.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

President debate round 2

I don't get it. Most of the country, especially the independent and swing voters, is fed up with the National Guard memos and the Swift boat controversy. They want to have Bush and Kerry meet up so they can finally talk about the "issues." But then a funny thing happens; neither candidate, especially Kerry, seems to be able to directly address any questions. Instead directly answering a question, they simply recite a canned answer regarding the topic the question is addressing. I was pretty turned off by it. I mean, Bush and Kerry basically waste the time of tens of millions of people who tune into the debates by reciting propaganda they could have gotten from their websites. The moderator tried really hard to get them to answer questions they dodged, but that got annoying too because he started sounding like a broken record. How many times can two people dodge the question: "how can you cut the deficit in half by not raising taxes." Bush and Kerry just kept telling us how the other person couldn't do it.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

More on CBS Memos

A bunch of execs over at CBS are saying they have no intention of telling the American people why they FUBARed the infamous 60 minutes story on Bush. Grow some stones people.

Quote the Les Moonves (co-president CBS parent company Viacom): Obviously, it should be done probably after the election is over so that it doesn't affect what's going on.

Gee Lester, if you could have only expected the same journalistic standards from 60 Minutes none of this would have happened. You, sir, are a hypocrite for even thinking of suggesting to wait until after the election.

Compound this mess by the fact that there is a lot of evidence suggesting the documents were planted at CBS by people very high up in the Kerry campaign. If these accusations are proven to be valid, and CBS refuses to release the information before the election, Les Moonves and all the yes-men he commands need to lose their jobs.

Link

Cheney won

Cheney won the debate on Monday. There's no question in my mind. He made Edwards look like he was running for vice mayor of Hicks-ville, North Carolina. Cheney was a heavy hitter and Edwards wasn't unable to stand up to him. Additionally, Edwards dodged some very direct questions asked by moderator Gwen Ifill. Of course Cheney did too, but not nearly to the same extent.

Cheney really did surprise me. I don't really care for the guy, but he really game thru Monday night. McCain said the first Kerry-Bush debate was perhaps the biggest highlight of Kerry's campaign. I think Cheney's performance in the debate was actually the highlight of his 4 year administration as VP.

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Kerry already failed his own "Global Test"

So Kerry based most of the first debate on trying to convince America that he would form strong alliances with countries in the war on terror. Maybe if Kerry was a quarterback in the Superbowl, and someone asked him how he'd win, he'd say, "I'll just keep throwing touchdown passes."

He seemed to convince a lot of Americans as the polls say Kerry came out on top.

Here's the problem:

Kerrys leading candidate for secretary of state, Richard Holbrooke, told Germany's Schroeder he'd be the first guest to the White House.

Schroeder's response?

"I was afraid of that."

Looks like Kerry got an "A" for style in the debate, but an "F" on his own "Global Test."

link