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.

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....

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Rosie ODonnell

So I’m listening to this Rosie Odonnell chick because for some reason she got the fill-in gig for the Jim Bohannon show. I’ve got no idea how she ever got the gig, I think to myself, It’s not like she’s got an original opinion. And it’s not like she would even regurgitate Jimbo’s opinions.

Whatever, I gave her a listen.

I was sickened when she blathered about how she’s telling her son what’s going on in Iraq. Rosie is feeding her 9 year old kid the classic “Bush/Cheney intend to start wars so they can get rich” line. Right! Spend a few hundred billion dollars on a war so your private corporations can make a few million. What a joke. The only people who would possibly believe that nonsense are people that hate Bush and Cheney to begin with.

Then she talked about how war should never be an option. NEVER. I guess the logical conclusion here is that everyone that has served their country has wasted their time. Hey Rosie, tell everyone in the US Military they’re wasting their time. Gosh, I hope her ramblings cost her whatever may be left of her waning career. It probably won’t because just about every inflammatory comment imaginable is openly welcome on talk radio. Still, I’m holding out hope.

The "Memo's"

Max Cleland

Out of the hundreds of millions of people in the United States, It seems there are only two people that wholeheartedly believe the Nation Guard memos that criticize Bush some 30 years ago are authentic: Dan Rather and Max Cleland.

Quote the Cleland: It's just further evidence, really, that George Bush failed this country when it was his time to serve -- and he hid out.

With all due respect, Mr. Cleland, shut your trap. The only *evidence* I see here is that you'd embrace potentially fraudulent documents that condemn Bush long before you'd stop to consider if Dan Rather could play you like a cheap violin.

Zell Miller

It's nice to know I had blogged about an almost unheard of Senator three months before he got the nation's attention by his relentless bomb throwing in the RNC.

A vote for Kerry is a vote for bin Laden

At least that's the claim of an anonymous intelligence official.

Link

Apparently, bin Laden wants to assassinate some high ranking politicians so people will be scared into voting for more passive Kerry. That most certainly doesn't bode well for the Senator. As I said earlier, pandering to the few disgruntled Americans that feel betrayed by Bush because he led the country to war is great if you want to pick up a Democratic nomination. But it won't do you much good if you're trying to appeal to the country as a whole.

Heck if the USA is going to be scared into voting for a soft leader. That's Spain's job.

Harsh words, but certainly not without warrant. Eventually we'll see in the coming election. But how many people out there 1) doubt bin Laden would be safer under Kerry's watch, and 2) think bin Laden would be willing to kill and terrorize people in order to influence an election. It's certainly not a stretch.

The country is in pretty bad times when we're divided against our leader in a time when unity is of utmost importance. Terrorist-enabling countries must relish the fact that American support for the war on terror is sinking every day. Instead of thinking, "American went after Afghanistan first, Iraq second, are we next?" The public resolve to go after these nations is no longer there. That's bad. VERY bad.

Did anyone try blaming Pearl Harbor on FDR like they did 9/11 on Bush? How on earth could the Unites States have gotten out of WW2 with such a fickle, polarized public?

To be fair, there's always the chance that this official's statement is politically motivated. We'll probably never know. Regardless, it will be interesting to see how this breaking story will pan out.

Stars and their left wing pull

I'm sure there's a prefectly good reason celebs feel the need to convince America that it's their duty to vote as far left as they possibly can. Behold, the Vote for Change Tour.

link

Yahn.

As if being a star you supposedly have authority to tell others how to vote.

It's kinda like the classic southpark line:

Sharon: Oh hi, Stanley. Look, I'm buying you some more all-natural toothpaste.

Stan: You mean the stuff that tastes like ass and doesn't fight cavities?

Sharon: That's right.

Stan: Look, um… I know that you all think the earth and its natural healing powers can cure Kyle, but… the doctor at the hospital told me it can't.

Miss Information: Well, of course the doctor told you that, because he wants to make money. Holistic modicine is about NATURE. [to Sheila] Two-hundered and thrity-three dollars. [Sheila pays, and Miss Information rings it up]

Sheila: Everything's going to be fine, Stan. We're bringing Kyle in tomorrow to see the Native Americans personally.

Stan: Isn't it possible that these Indians don't know what thry're talking about?

Sharon: You watch your mouth, Stanley! The Native Americans were raped of their land and resources by white people like us!

Stan: And that has something to do with their medicines because…?

Sharon: Enough, Stanley!


Or rather: And being a star means you know something about politics because...?

But perhaps even more confusing is the fact that right wing stars don't feel the need to form a special interest group to counter the lefties.

They're deffinitely out there.

link

Ridge and Ashcroft

Why do these guys never seem to agree on an elevated risk of terrorist attacks? Unfortunately, the real loser here is the American public.

Bill Clinton vs. Every other Democrat

I didn't see the Democratic National Convention, but I was not surprised to learn Clinton didn't fan the coals of negative campaigning.  In doing so, Clinton unequivocally went against the grain of the Democratic Party.

It's a smart move on the former President's part.

This country is becoming increasingly polarized by groups that promote and perpetuate hatred.  It seems that anyone that's politically active runs by the worlds "an enemy of my enemy is my friend."  As if to say, "hello stranger, you hate Bush! Great!  You're my new best friend."  Never mind the notion that the ignorant do-gooder may have just befriended a devout al-Qaeda member.

So here's the problem: a huge chunk of the American population is fed up this trend.  Don't believe me?  Then why is it that Kerry is having a heck of a time getting an edge in the polls even though Bush's approval ratings are so low?  The swing voters and independents are not going to be lured over the Democratic party if all they can do is bash Bush.

Clinton knows this and is acting accordingly.  Really, if anyone knows how to beat President Bush in the wake of an Iraqi war, it's him.  So why is it that so few Democrats want to take their queue from Clinton?
 Come on Democrats.  It was an effective way to make one's self look better by cutting others down.  The keyword here is WAS.  That was back in junior high.  True, cutting people down in campaigns in part of the game.  But if that's your core strategy, you've got some big problems.

Double Standard

I always get a kick out of the double standard that's imposed on the United States.  We have this unshakable stereotype of being overly insensitive to the international community.  Then along comes Jacques Chirac who says Ariel Sharon is not welcome in France.  Chirac made the comment in retaliation for Sharon urging French Jews to leave the country because Sharon thought there was increasing anti-Semitism in the country (herein known as the "spread of the wildest anti-Semitism").

link

Now, there's no doubt that such a comment by Sharon would ruffle some feathers in the French government, but the President of France flat out says "you aren't welcome here"!  unbelievable!  The last time I was met with that level of maturity I was in grade school.  I believe the exact quote was, "shutup, or I'll take my ball and go home."

Does Chirac actually mirror the voice of France?  Are people "down" with this kind of behavior?  Far be it from me claim I have my finger on the pulse of the French community, but here's what I think.  With this calculated statement, the applause and support Chirac gets will offset the number of French citizens it disenfranchises.  Hopefully I'm wrong.

Back to the American double standard.  It's absolutely unthinkable that a President of the United States would say something like this to another president with which he had friendly diplomatic relations.  The backlash from the international community would be overwhelming.  And even more importantly, the American public -and MAYBE even the Reform party- would not stand for it either.  Every country is prone to a certain level of international insensitivity,  but the nonexistent backlash against Chirac (that I've seen so far) puts France on an entirely different level.   And for whatever reason, France is a country that's preceived as being the country that is sensitive to the worlds needs.
 
Maybe it's the halo effect that comes with United States bashing.  Just ask Schröder, that's how he got elected.

Propagandocumentaries and such

It would appear that I was right about Moore popularizing a new genre. MoveOn.org has embraced Moore's new "propagandocumentary" genre. Is there a soul on earth that is willing to say that they have the unbiased high ground in attacking the Fox News channel? That's what the comment box is for, I'd love to hear someone defend MoveOn by saying they're a credible source when it comes to uncovering another organization's bias. Any takers? Bring it on.

On a similar vote, it's good to see Michael Wilson getting some international coverage. (It feels good to recognize a newsworthy person before the media picks up on it.) If Wilson can play the media half as well as Moore can, Wilson should eventually become a household name. Fair or not, he's got more credibility on his side. Now, he's the underdog going after the "evil" establishments (as Moore WAS in Roger and Me and other his earlier and less flamingly left wing documentaries).

I used to think Wilson went overboard in his title, but no longer. Think about it:

America's economy is driven by capitalism, which Moore loathes.
America's leaders are held accountable by a democracy in which he has no faith.
America was founded on a libertarian implementation of Judeo Christian principles.
and while Moore obviously hates Bush, he also had zero positive things to say about Clinton in 'Bowling'. In fact, just about every time he mentioned Clinton, he took a cheap shot at him.

I mean really, if you can't respect Bush OR Clinton, what can you say? Oh ya! "Michael Moore Hates America!" that’s what. Right on Mike Wilson! Careful Democrats, by embracing Moore, you aren't actually embracing someone who loves your party. Moore just has less distain for you than he does Republicans. If you haven't already figured it out, Moore doesn't like Republicans OR Democrats.