Misdirection

Any magician's trick has, at its root, a technique known as misdirection. Make the audience look one way, while the real action takes place somewhere else. Look at the magic wand in my left hand, while I take the Dove from my vest with my right. Look at the top card, while I deal from the bottom. Believe what I say, forget what I have done. Vote for the moderate, get the liberal. Marry my name and my office, but don't forget to bring the billion.

I used to think that BJ Clinton was the most duplicitous and mendacious President. If the American people elect John Forbes Kerrry, BJ slides into second place on inauguration day. A "hero" who, on the basis on two self-inflicted wounds and a little used loophole, stiffed his country out of two thirds of his combat tour. A nineteen year liberal in the Senate, who tries as hard as he can to sound like a hawk on Iraq. He votes against the war appropriation, then blames Bush that the troops don't have enough equipment. But, after all, he voted for the money before he voted against it.

Teresa Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry is another one cut from that cloth. A supporter of many zany environmental causes who owns, and heats, and air-conditions, five immense residences, complete with 5000 pound SUVs. Even a two faced person can only sleep in one house at a time. Oh, and don't forget the yacht and the jet. This couple leaves a huge ecological footprint, even as she supports a lawsuit against the EPA, seeking to ban the use of coal to generate electricity. She is married to one man, while choosing to retain the name of the previous one. She brags about her involvement in the struggle against aparteid, yet no one who was there remembers her that way. Today her philanthropy extends to a host of loopy leftist, Islamic, and environmental groups, but she retains plausible deniability by laundering those millions through the front organization, the Tides Foundation.

There is a lot of truth to the dictum that Democrats feel their politics, while Republicans think theirs. Even so, the touchy-feely democrat misdirection of this campaign is so transparent, one would think that those less committed would see through the charade. The wealthiest couple (and the first kept man) to contend for the White House will have to provide some hard answers to some really difficult questions before election day. Their campaign stands ready to implode. Unless they can misdirect the implosion toward the Bush campaign.

The Empty Candidacy

I have been politically aware since my first Stevenson campaign in 1956. Coming from a political family, with a Republican father and a Democrat mother, has given me a fine education in the great game that lies under the surface of our national debate. While the voters merely want the better government of the (usually) two choices, these choices are presented to us as the result of a dirty, vicious, propaganda-driven battle over power and patronage. Thus it is that we are generally given a choice between two less than desirable candidates - any really desirable candidate would never allow himself to be the figurehead in this human hamburger-grinder process. Any man who would choose to spend his entire career as a politician would have decades of humiliating activity in his wake by the time he gets up to the plate for the really big play, the race for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Actually, there are other offices that carry better benefits, and better hours, than the Presidency. Even the Mayor of New York City has more patronage jobs to give to his supporters and cronies - at higher pay - than the President. Some states give their governors more freedom of action, and more fun. But to anyone who has made the acquisition of power the goal of his professional life, the draw of the presidency is irresistible.

But John Forbes Kerry, the new JFK, would like us all to forget about his entire life of the last 35 years. He tells us, and we are expected to believe, that four months on a PT boat, just like the one that his hero, the old JFK commanded, is the sole qualification that makes the compelling case for his election. He and his handlers clearly believe that this, plus what they perceive as a widespread hatred or distrust of the current President, is all they will need to hoodwink half the voters into supporting their cause.

This is, without question, the most cynical campaign in my memory. The calculus is that the lefties and the blacks will vote for the donkey in any case, and all the votes they now need are people who are so politically naive, or so stupid, that they will vote for a collection of statements and propaganda that bear no resemblance to the record that the candidate has collected by his own actions. No mention is allowed of his record, and any attempt to put his record before the voters is condemned as "a negative attack." The willfull complicity of most of the mainstream media in this charade makes this a strategy that may very well succeed. Mind you, I do not believe that it will, but to deny the possibility would be to invite it.

Even so, the candidate has made a few, very few, statements about exactly what he would do as President. For instance, he has pledged in no uncertain terms that he will allow no privatization of Social Security to take place. This is a perfect window on the candidate's soul. He is so far to the left of most of America that he believes that this is an uncontroversial issue. I would be happy to place the entire outcome of the election of the result of a plebiscite on this one. Yet Mr. McAuliffe and his team fail to see this. JFK has also said that he will not increase taxes on the bottom 98% of taxpayers, and the bottom 99% of small business. He did sneak in a proviso that a war would obviate this promise, showing another blind spot of McAuliffe and Co. We are already at war!

And that's the crucial issue, isn't it? The choice is between a man who claims that four months commanding a boat in war, and then running from that war, qualifies him to be President, and a man whose four years commanding the world's most powerful military, most of it in war, most of it successful, shows his qualification. McAuliffe and JFK desperately wish that we never look at the contest that way. Sorry guys, but the American people are not that stupid. As Mark Steyn so succinctly puts it:

If you wanted to pick a candidate on the wrong side of every major defense and foreign policy question of the last two decades, you would be hard put to find anyone with judgment as comprehensively poor as Mr. Kerry: total up his votes and statements on everything from Grenada to the Gulf war, Saddam to the Sandinistas, the Cold War to missile defense to every major weapons system of the 1980s and '90s. He called them all wrong.

That is what we should be talking about. Not less than a full tour on a PT Boat, but 19 years of voting in the U.S. Senate. Even the left-leaning MSNBC is no fan of Kerry's far left record. No wonder the candidate never mentions the fact that this record exists. But that is the job of the Bush campaign. It is not a negative attack to present incontrovertible proof of a man's professional record, of his stands over the last 19 years. When Kerry complains about our troops not having enough equipment, it must be pertinent to show that HE was the one who voted against the money for that very equipment.

One could go on, especially about Kerry's failure to support the rescue of Kuwait, which garnered us a pretty reliable friend in that part of the world, and we could examine his reason to oppose that action (he compared Saddam the Madman with the Soviet Union, and advocated another cold containment) but the question boils down to a simple choice. In one corner, we have a team which has proven that its manner of fighting this war is to be forward-deployed, and fight the war on the enemy's turf. In the other corner, we have a team that promises to await attacks, and respond with embargoes and treaties, and deploy troops only when there is no other choice. The two could not be more different, and the American people will choose. Any means that are used to move the debate between the candidates toward this issue are fair, and necessary. Any attempt to keep the choice to one between the leader we know well and an empty suit covered in a tissue of lies, now, that's the negative campaign.

Kerry Knows

Only twice in the last seventy years has this nation chosen a Democrat over a sitting Republican president, and the signs and portents make it look likely that this record will hold. Besides, those two others had names starting in a "C". Kerry's "K" is a poor substitute, just as he has failed to convince a sufficient number of voters that he is a worthy successor to George W.Bush. (As an aside, does anybody know what happened to Kerry's middle name? It disappeared when the convention started.)

The key item that is the convincing evidence of Kerry's failure is not the lack of a convention bounce, even though no challenger has ever wrested the White House from an incumbent without one. It is not his poll standings, which still persist at a tie between the candidates. No, what convinces most clearly is Kerry himself. Just look at any photo taken of him over the last few days. He wears the face of defeat, and no one knows how he is doing better than he does.

To be sure, events can overtake this election at any moment, and it is possible, though not likely, that an event could benefit Kerry. I am even sure that the democrats have an October surprise waiting, which should garner them a few of the undecideds. In war, events, either good or bad, tend to make the people fall in line behind our leadership. But the crucial thing affecting this election race is that Kerry has failed to make the American people love him, or even like him. Indeed, he has not even tried to make that appeal to the voters. His campaign, so far, has been a version of the Dukakis campaign, in which Dukakis famously said that it was not about ideology, it was about competence. Bob Dole is another one who put forth this same idea. Both men lost.

It is an unwavering rule of human combat that the champion can not be unseated in a close contest. The champion, or incumbent, must be defeated. Decisively. By knock out. You cannout outpoint the champ. The Lakers can not be beaten in a seven game series. Neither can the Yankees. You must take the first game, you must win on the other guy's home court, and you must deliver devastating blows repeatedly, to unseat an incumbent. Yet Kerry seems to believe that we the people will vote for him simply because we are unhappy with Bush, and JFK is an acceptable, competent, replacement. We can trust him to decide, ad hoc, all of the important decisions that will confront the American President in the next four years, he says. He has no need to explain exactly what he will do, or what his plan is, since he is so smart, so competent, so nuanced.

This guy really does not get it. Not being one of the folks means not understanding the folks at all. He believes that he can make a show of eating at Wendy's, while he and his Mistress eat food secretly brought in from the Newbergh Yacht Club, and we will never know, or care. He believes that he can parade a dozen sailors who like him, and the rest of those who served with him will keep silent about their contempt for this man. Americans do not care what you eat, but we do not expect you to lie about it. We have elected draft dodgers before, but never a man with a questionable military record who bragged about his "heroism" in every utterance and every speech of his two year campaign. We can not stand a man who will criticize another's record on intelligence, yet fail to appear for eighty five percent of the meetings of the intelligence committee, of which he is a member. And we do not like Senators who campaign for the highest office while they retain their Senate seat. We like winners, and winners are confident. Winners do not hedge their bets. Only losers need a fallback position.

And we do not like promises from politicians, since we all know that they are insincere. Yet this campaign has made more promises than any in memory. Better health care for all, world peace, clean air, pure water, expanded wilderness, better schools, and tax breaks for 98% of taxpayers, and 99% of small businesses.

A little over forty percent of voters will vote for Kerry, and about the same for Bush, no matter what. The ten to fifteen percent in the middle will decide this race. Just the same as always. They will either vote for the man they like, or they will vote for the man they know. It is looking more and more like know will win the day. When times are easy, we might go for a Clinton. Unfortunately for Kerry, times are anything but easy. We are at war. It is no time to fool around with your vote. And, this time, only the fools will break Kerry's way. And Kerry knows it. It's in his face. Just look at him. He knows.

The Bad Reagan

I started out to write about something else this evening. I believe that, what with the slim pickings in this space anyway, it would be cheap and lazy of me to post on the democrat convention. So many others are covering that subject, and the rest of the world, the real world, is still there, festering and thriving away. But what I just heard Ron Reagan say has made my blood boil.

Note to readers: boiling blood is liable to lead to inappropriate language. Be forewarned.

This little prick, this know nothing, no-talent zero, who couldn't even make a living in television when his father was at the top of his powers, is now shamelessly hawking his ass to anyone who will pay, like the cheap Times Square hustler that he is. Last night I saw him on MSNBC, as the fifth liberal on a six member team of second rate hacks and has-beens. Today he is on a roll, putting his nose in places where qualified leaders refuse to tread. I fear that nose has been in even less savory places, but that I did not have the misfortune to witness.

He began by decrying how the other side has politicised an issue, when nothing could be farther from the truth, and proceeded to attempt to make it totally political. An issue that is, first and foremost, in the realm of science, and in that realm is not taken seriously. In other words, there is no controversy in scientific circles, yet this little scum smear seeks to make it an issue from which he can get attention. The issue? Human fetal stem cell tissue research. His point? He seeks to coerce the half of citizens who would rather not pay money to terminate what they conceive as human life, to so contribute. His means? Attempting to convince voters that A) such research is vital and B) denying millions of tax dollars to pursue such folly is reason enough to dump the Bush administration and therefore vote for his idol, JFK.

Actual, rather than political, research has discovered that human fetal stem cells are not a likely place to find useful medical treatments. Especially since we all carry around a virtually unlimited supply of our own stem cells. There is therefore no need to destroy human fetuses in order to "harvest" these alien, less useful, fetal cells. And, just in case there is a medical cure available here, there are a few programs going on, albeit without benefit of money from unwilling Americans. But this political hack and attention whore can not stop himself from trying to draw the spotlight to himself, and thus garner a few more unearned paychecks. Plus, as a liberal, he enjoys the rush of using the power of the State to make people pay for something that they find repugnant. And never forget the need that lefties seem to have to encourage more abortions, for whatever reason.

It is an incredible dichotomy: the son of the public figure whom I most admire, has managed to become the one for whom I have the greatest contempt.

Update: Rand Simberg has something similar on Transterrestrial Musings.

Bush Hatred Clouds Logic

Clearly there is a lot of naked hatred of George W. Bush afoot, hatred that fouls our national debate. It is almost impossible to discuss politics anymore with anyone who is a determined democrat voter. Actor and Democrat Ron Silver appeared on the O'Reilly Factor last Tuesday and called remarks at a recent fundraiser for John Kerry, especially by Whoopi Goldberg, "an obsessive demeaning caricature of the President..." Silver related how people in his industry harbor a hatred of Bush that is so extreme that it is only safe, in industry circles, to be on the hate-Bush bandwagon, or to risk being ostracised. Silver added, "It's really blinded them to have any sort of honest conversation, a compromise, or discussion about the issues." And that's just show business.

What Silver went on to say is that this poisonous atmosphere among many of those on the left has occluded the fact that Bush is a classical liberal on the level of Wilson, FDR, Truman, and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Leftists will not even discuss this. On the same note, feminists turn their eyes away from the real advances in the rights and position of women that Bush has made possible, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as much of the rest of the world.

But the strangest case of this phenomenon is among the African-Americans. No president in history has taken blacks so seriously, or appointed them to such high offices. Need I say Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and two cabinet positions? Yet he can get no traction at all from ninety percent of American black voters. Even in this population, which has been so ill-served by its leaders, one would think that more than ten percent would see beyond the lies. Yet this has not happened. But the most interesting thing about this phenomenon is that it does not work. The blacks, who have given such overwhelming fealty to the donkey party, gets nothing from them in return. Kerry, who expects ninety percent of their votes, has the whitest staff of any candidate since Goldwater. Under a Kerry presidency, they would be lucky to see a black secretary of correspondence. At least the feminists can expect to see some positions given to women, since, as a kept man with a pre-nup, JFKs wife has a greater than average amount of power over her man. But the blacks? He will give them nothing. Wait - Clinton, the self-proclaimed "first black president,"gave them nothing. Kerry will give them less.

Two to One Equals Nothing

In an interesting look at the effect of money on politics, the Kerry campaign has spent about twice the amount of money on ads than the Bush campaign in the recent period, yet the polls show no bounce from the announcement of Edwards as his running mate. For the first time in modern politics, such an announcement has yielded no increase in polling results for Kerry.

That does not include the free propaganda that the major media outlets are ading to the effective presentation of the anti-Bush side. USA Today even says "Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total." as if 82% is less than two to one (which it is, but not by much) so that the effect of these facts will be muted. The poor leftists do not really understand what is happening. To them, everyone would vote their way if only they would hear the liberal message. They do not understand that people vote for a candidate, and an empty suit can not win against a popular president. Health care and the plight of the Pintail Duck will not convince the broad middle to vote against our war leader. Their only hope lies in the possibility that they can convince the voters that there is no war, and even then their empty suit will have a difficult time winning this race.

Only if al Qaeda restrains itself from attacking us until after election day does the anti-Bush have a chance. That is a strong possibility but, with bin Laden dead, and given our success at decapitating them from their command and control capability, the remaining al Qaeda leadership may have been rendered unable to get their cells in this country to refrain from launching another attack.

I do hope that the al Qaeda cells did get the message. I want no further attacks, irrespective of any strength such a state of affairs gives to the candidacy of JFK. It is clear to me that that is exactly the message that has been sent to the al Qaeda troops on the ground in the USA. Yet, even without such a reminder, it is clear to me that the rank and file of American voters realizes that we are at war, and Bush is the leader we need to protect us and to prosecute the war effort. The Leftist propaganda machine is hard at work trying to convince the electorate that there is no war. If the comments I heard from the "Hollywood in New York" fundraiser last week are any indication, that is the message that they are trying to get out. For instance, Chevy Chase said something on the order of: 'Bush promoted a few bands of losers to a position of sufficient strength to attack us on 9/11/01.' I know Chevy, and, while he's a nice fellow and all of that, he does not have the brains to dream up such a scenario on his own. He is parroting lines he has been fed, which is, after all, what he does for a living. (Sorry Chevy.)

Perhaps there are enough deluded swing voters who, fresh from seeing Michael Moore's propaganda film, might just give the enemy enough votes to garner their guy, the Manchurian candidate John Kerry, the votes needed to win. Perhaps the media can convince enough swing voters that the economy is still in recession. Perhaps enough deluded Jews can foolishly vote for the enemies of Israel again. Four months are a long time. I can just hope and pray that the chips fall toward the right, one more time.

Kerry Picks Edwards

In a move that is at once obviously inevitable and stupefyingly surprising, JFK has picked Senator John Edwards to be his running mate. Obvious and inevitable because Edwards came in number two in the Democrat primaries, and surprising because Edwards offers Kerry nothing that will help him in his run for the presidency. A pretty face, a quick wit, an empty suit. This man has no legislation that bears his name, no executive or foreign policy experience in his curriculum vitae, and it is doubtful that he can even deliver his own state at the polls.

I just saw an evening's rotation of the news shows, with each show trotting out their democrats, and they all confirmed as much. Their main point was to say that John Edwards has as much (read none) foreign policy experience as George Bush had four years ago. I hate to break it to them, but the John Edwards of today is not running against the Bush team of four years ago. Love him or hate him, but George W. Bush has had a shitload of foreign policy experience in the last three and a half years. Foreign leaders may fear him, or hate him, but at least they know him, and know that he is not a leader to be trifled with. Meanwhile, both Kerry and Edwards are just that, trifles. Pretty, and sweet, but not serious. Bush and company are roast beef. You may not like them, but they are surely substantial.

Even over at The Guardian, no less of a light than Ann Clywyd has seen that the left needs to respond to the situation in Iraq as it exists today, not as they might have crafted it had they held power over America these last four years. While Kerry and Edwards repeat their mantra of Bush Lied, People Died, the American electorate will see a party that is pining away for the reinstatement of Saddam Hussein. After all, if the war was wrong, then Saddam should be in power. Absent the will and the balls to attack, the dictator would still be in power, draining the blood from political prisoners and feeding them into shredders. The American people are just not foolish enough to believe that Saddam had no link to the 911 murderers, as the Chicago Tribune has realized.

These are days of great events, and Kerry and the Democrats hope to win an election over health care and the economy, just as the trial of the dictator gets under way. Just as Iran and North Korea get ready to test their brand new nukes. And Kerry picks a running mate with less foreign policy experience than I do?!?! As I said, it's stupefying.

Open Letter to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

From a Marine officer on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan - To al-Qa'ida terrorists in Iraq:

I see that you have captured a U.S. Marine, and that you plan to cut off his head if your demands are not met. Big mistake.

Before you carry out your threat I suggest you read up on Marine Corps history. The Japanese tried the same thing on Makin Island and in a few other places during World War Two, and came to regret it. Go ahead and read about what then happened to the mighty Imperial Army on Tarawa, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. They paid full price for what they did, and you will too.

You look at America and you see a soft target, and to a large extent you are right. Our country is filled with a lot of spoiled children who drive BMWs, sip decaf lattes and watch ridiculous reality TV shows. They are for the most part decent, hard working citizens, but they are soft. When you cut off Nick Berg's head those people gasped, and you got the media coverage you sought, and then those people went back to their lives. This time it is different. We also have a warrior culture in this country, and they are called Marines. It is a brotherhood forged in the fire of many wars, and the bond between us is stronger than blood. While it is true that this country has produced nitwits like John Kerry, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Jane Fonda who can be easily manipulated by your gruesome tactics, we have also produced men like Jason Dunham, Brian Chontosh and Joseph Perez. If you don't recognize those names you should. They are all Marines who distinguished themselves fighting to liberate Iraq, and there will be many more just like them coming for you.

Before the current politically correct climate enveloped our culture one of the recruiting slogans of our band of brothers was "The Marine Corps Builds Men." You will soon find out just how true that is. You, on the other hand, are nothing but a bunch of women. If you were men you would show your faces, and take us on in a fair fight. Instead, you are cowards who hide behind masks and decapitate helpless victims. If you truly represented the interest of the Iraqi people you would not be ambushing those who come to your country to repair your power plants, or sabotage the oil pipelines which fuel the Iraqi economy. Your agenda is hate, plain and simple.

When you raise that sword over your head I want you to remember one thing. Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun is not alone as he kneels before you. Every Marine who has ever worn the uniform is there with him, and when you strike him you are striking all of us. If you think the Marines were tough on you when they were cleaning out Fallujah a few weeks ago you haven't seen anything yet. If you want to know what it feels like to have the Wrath of God called down upon you then go ahead and do it. We are not Turkish truck drivers, or Pakistani laborers, or independent contractors hoping to find work in your country. We are the United States Marines, and we will be coming for you.

Another Brick in the Wall

Never satisfied with the truth, the Left has been attempting to tear down the accomplishments of the Bush administration with a succession of lies. Like their specious assertion denying a link between Iraq and al Qaeda, they have denied any link to Niger as a source of Uranium. Today the Financial Times has the story on the true extent of Uranium trade out of Niger.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
[...]
But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Of course we can expect the usual suspects to come out and attempt to repudiate this claim, but it seems to be well sourced, and it appears in a publication that has been no friend to the Bush administration, or its goals. Another brick in the wall that the Left has erected to stop the reelection of G.W.Bush has fallen.

A Clarification

In response to a couple of emails, it seemed prudent to issue a clarification regarding my own personal understanding and belief as to the cause of recent weather events, and Global Warming in particular. The really funny part of this is that the misunderstanding was initiated by a hysterical article in Rolling Stone Magazine on the "Global Warming" phenomenon. Not usually a source I turn to in search of scientific information, perhaps it was some mentions previously in this space to articles in that magazine, combined with my recent (and perhaps previous) articles on the phenomenon that combined to create this recent confusion, in a really humorous twenty-first-century Google-inspired info-gestalt.

Anyway. it is my own personal, strongly held belief, grounded in my readings in the scientific literature and filtered through my own scientific background and polymathic pretension, that our planet's climate is always changing, and recent events do seem to bear that out. Also, it is possible, but nowhere near definite, that human activities are contributing to or accellerating these changes, if only in a small way. Increased insolation alone provides more than enough heat to account for the apparent additional heat in the atmosphere, if indeed the atmosphere is actually containing more heat today than it would have if we had never evolved into a sentient species. Measurement of the totality of this heat is still beyond the ken of mankind. Attempts to measure and understand weather and climate are ongoing. As our understanding of these things improves, we may yet be able to answer our questions, but the current state of the art in climatology is, to be kind, imperfect. They still can't predict next weekend's weather with any certainty, but they are getting better. I haven't the space, or inclination, to go into this in more detail right now, but the "Global Warming" alarmists have made some predictions over the last several years, and all of these predictions have been dismal failures. (For links, comment or email.) If these predictors are wrong over years, why should we have confidence in their longer-term predictions?

There do seem to have been a number of unusual and extreme weather events in the last few years. A few small climatic changes have appeared in some localities. In a necessary coincidence, the ascent of Mankind has occurred in an era of idealized climate on this planet, and this little party may indeed be showing signs of coming to an end. It would be entirely natural, and a repetition of previous actions of planetary climate, if it became significantly warmer in the coming centuries. It would also be entirely natural for an Ice Age to begin at any time. Paleometeorologists have detected all of this behavior in our planet's past, long before our ancestors climbed out of the trees. Are we the cause of the most recent change? The only sober answer is that it is slightly possible that we have indeed contributed in some small way to changes in climate. It is, however, much more likely that the few percent change in greenhouse gas attritubitable to us is insufficient to have such a large effect on climate. Some better questions are: Would our lives be better today if we had never discovered how to use fire to enhance our existence? Would we desire to have avoided the recent deadly heat wave in Europe by never having built Europe in the first place? And, is Mankind an asset to his planet or a vermin species which does not belong? These are telling questions to ask of those who are Global Warming true believers.

The final, and most important question that must be answered before Mankind commits to massive action is: What can humans do to interfere with global climate, and change it to better suit our comfort? This is the real action plan of the alarmists, but they would never put it into these words. That is because they would never admit to such hubris as this undertaking requires.

Those on the other side of this debate from me, to paraphrase, say exactly this:

Man has soiled his nest by making it too comfortable. We have used too much energy, and are therefore making our entire planet uninhabitable. The only, and sure, way to put things back the way they were is to use less energy in the short term, and perhaps find methods of generating and using energy that will not soil our nest. The richer nations alone must bear the entire burden, and their resulting impoverishment serves them right.

This is not their scientific opinion. This is their religion. It has no basis in fact. It is hysterical. It is unreasoning. It is perfectly natural for frightened humans to react this way. But it would be absurd if the entire human race were to react this way, like some kind of planet-wide cargo cult.

Mankind is trying, and will continue to try, to answer that final and most important question. Changing our environment to better suit our comfort is, after all, what distinguishes us from most of the other animals. Acting on the basis of fact and understanding is also a hallmark of human behavior, as is the seeking of power and the waging of war. I really wish that, before we act hastily, we wait until we can gain a better understanding of the forces that we wish to control. Otherwise, we will be acting out of hysteria, guided by hubris. The consequences could be dire.

Global Warming Circus

I must read the wrong sources. It is surely all my own fault, since I eschew what has become called the "mainstream" press. So, I almost never read anything from AP, Reuters, or most newspapers. This wonderful resource that enables my words to flow out, also allows a stupendous amount of information to flow in.

But today, almost by accident, I clicked on Yahoo, and proceeded to read the news. Ok, so I already knew that America, Israel, and the Jews were responsible for all of the ills of the world, so I skipped all of that crap. I did note that the top story is still the events of a single day in Abu Graib prison, even though it seems that nobody cares anymore except committed leftists and bleeding hearts. To the rest of us, the comfort and happiness of those who ARE TRYING TO KILL US ALL is a no story, but those who still believe that the most important thing about our leadership for the next four years can be summed up by saying BUSH LIED, believe that humiliating some cocksucker by making him observe a female human body for the first time in his life is a story with enough legs to help them garner more votes for their national suicide campaign to elect another bleeding heart with enough nuance to compete with Jimmy Carter for worst president in history.

No. None of that either surprises or troubles me. It is unfortunate that the Democrat Party is in the process of committing suicide, but the alternative makes such an outcome a positive one. What really troubles me is the new offensive to destroy America using junk science and fantasies of human omnipotence as weapons. For the last few years, all of the SCIENTIFIC literature has shown a more reasonable point of view, questioning previous assumptions and asking more questions, seeking more answers. Questions like, why is the South Pole accreting more ice than ever before? Why is there no epidemic of skin cancer in the far north? Why are Islands in the South Pacific semmingly sinking beneath the waves when Japan and North America are seeing lower Pacific ocean levels? All questions we need to understand before we can make declarations of predictions more grand than those of Nostradamus. And who could disagree that we need to understand tomorrow's weather before we can make predictions about the weather decades or centuries hence?

Well, if you think I overstate the case, just check out this piece by the AP, a truly silly piece written by a science writer with exactly zero sciectific background, making vast predictions about the exact outcomes that could be expected after human actions that would entirely wipe out the world we know we live in, in favor of a grand experiment in Human omniscience. His sources were the usual suspects. First up, the rapist of the Iraqi children, Kofi Annan. Then he references unnamed scientists at NASA, yet I could find nothing on their web site that agreed with his analysis. Then this mountebank references the disgraced IPCC report, and quotes Walter Munk of San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, a well known extremist on this subject. That's it. Oh yeah, he also includes plenty of material from the South Pacific islands that are sinking into the Sea. Since no scientist even claims to understand why this is happening, and it is, he quotes none. Yet in true bleeding heart fashion, the stories of human suffering that these Pacific islanders are predicting for themselves are left to stand alone.

For those of my readers who are true believers in the so-called global warming phenomenon, know this: I am a father of two young children. I will do anything to make a better world for them. I am not some out of control capitalist who would trade next year's world for this quarter's profits. Maybe my scientific training gives me a better viewpoint that some of you. But there is one thing that you should consider before you call me a Pollyanna. Not a single study has ever been done that sought to discover whether of not altering our industrial or automotive output of Carbon Dioxide would cause a global cooling, or whether that would be a good thing, or a massive human tragedy. Not one. Every single prediction that has ever been made about the sequalae of the industrialized world ending the production of energy has been made on pure faith! There is debate about whether or not such knowledge is within humankind's ken, but NOT ONE scientist has done more that played with a computer to produce preconceived results. There may or there may not be a climate crisis coming, but before we allow political power players with a well known propensity for transferring the wealth of the West to the East to convince us to do that exact thing, before we have some idea what reducing CO2 will actually accomplish.

It's a small thing to ask. We should look before we leap. Luckily we have a unanimous U.S.Senate on our side.

What's Wrong With Liberals?

Yesterday I chanced across a brilliant piece in Tech Central Station dealing with the nuts and bolts of exactly how a liberal's thinking is different from a normal person's, and it was all so... clinical. Then I chanced back over here to read the comment from the poor, pathetic, anonymous soul who saw politics in my lament over antisemitism (see post below) and it became very real. These people actually have a different way that the neurons in their brains work.

It all seems to stem from an inborn sense of superiority, and thus reveals a racism that transcends that which we see in, for instance, white power skinheads. At least a skinhead is aware that he hates the black man. And Jews, for that matter. But I find more to respect in a skinhead than a liberal. The liberal's hatred is based in lowered expectations, and an unwillingness (or an inability) to admit that we are all unique individuals. It is softer, but no less destructive. It binds us all into groups, that we have no way to escape, to transcend. Thus, it is based upon a lie.

After reading Keith Burgess-Jackson's piece, I understand the liberal mind much better. But that understanding can not save me from the fatigue that is overcoming me, a feeling that the national debate is hopeless. But that is the enemy's tactic: to wear us down. To be completely intransigent, until we retire from the field of battle, and refuse to debate them any more. Thus, they intend to achieve victory in the war of ideas. They wish to create a transnational, postmodern world in which no person can ever escape the boundaries that the intelligentsia places upon us. Our chief weapon against this is the truth.

So, we must resist the common knowledge, especially since it is always wrong. We need to continue to seek the truth, whether we like what we find or not. And, beyond that, we need to keep our eye on the ball, so we can knock it back into the other guy's court. The ball we have before us, the next play we must make. is to reelect George W. Bush. If we fail, we will be taking another step into the morass of Tranzi Hell, the world of nuance, where nothing is either right or wrong, where there can be a debate on the justification for infanticide, and call it a woman's right to choose. A world where a lament over the holocaust on the eve of remembrance of the Shoah is seen as an endorsement of Arik Sharon and George W. Bush. That's not a world that I choose to live in. That's a world that I must strive to change for the better.

Fatigue? What fatigue? I feel a second wind coming on.

Chosen

Recently passed was the Passover holiday, and at each Hebrew table Jews all over the world repeated the lament: "In every generation, they come to destroy us." In peaceful times, this lament is pro forma, a memory of the holocaust and times in the remote past. This year, these words are a sharp reminder that God knew what he was talking about when he inspired men to write the Bible.

All over the world hate crimes against Jews are on the rise. In the councils of the liberal intelligentsia, only cigarette smokers and Jews can be reviled in safety. Oh, some may speak the word Israel instead of Jew, but the meaning is plain. In this generation, they are coming for us again.

I leave it to others to attempt to understand why they hate us. Especially since the reasons keep changing. Before, they said that all they wanted was for us to go away, to our own separate place. In furtherance of that idea, they even gave us our own territory in which to forge a Jewish State. Now that we have our own place, they side with those who declare their purpose is to push us into the sea. Without embarrassment. Many who could never allow their lips to form the word nigger send money to Yassir Arafat. In Europe it is considered polite to publicly snub anyone who self-identifies as a Jew.

But the same Bible that says that they will persecute us says that we will prevail in the end. Something happened the last time, when we were almost exterminated in Europe. We changed our attitude. We became strong. Israel today posesses the world's strongest Air Force, with nuclear weapons just in case defeat beckons. We can no longer be exterminated, unless the killers are ready to die as well. And, believe it or not, that scenario is covered in the Bible as well. Global apocalypse has been predicted and, in some quarters, is welcomed.

The European and American intelligentsia may support the Muslim maniacs who crave death for the sake of Allah. But do they themselves crave death? Amazingly enough, many Christian fundamentalists crave exactly that. Of course, they use different terminology. They talk about the End Times, and other euphemistically interesting and palatable phrasing, but global nuclear conflict fits the bill. Just read Isaiah. Christian and Muslim fundamentalists both see truth in Isaiah. It is something that Bush and Arafat both believe. Many Jews as well.

If you go to Israel, one place that is not to be missed is Masada. It is a most instructive place. It is where a group of Hebrew zealots fought the Roman Empire. On the dawn of the day that Roman victory was inevitable, all of the Jews died, by their own hand. Anyone who believes that victory by the enemies of Israel is possible owes it to himself to visit Masada. Then go to Tel Aviv, and look into the eyes of the citizens there. It is a population of zealots; people who have no alternative. All they want is what everyone wants. But this time, if the Jews can not have peace, No One Else can have peace either.

And, in case you believe that Israelis are different from American Jews, remember that another prayer we always make at the Passover feast, the same meal that Christ, a Hebrew Rabbi himself, had as his Last Supper, we pray that we will be "Next year in Jerusalem." A zissin pesach to you all.

Kerry Indicted

Maybe "indicted" is overstating the case, as I am using its plain English meaning and not its definition as a legal term of art, but he has been accused of massive violations of election laws, and the donors themselves, under the new campaign finance law, are risking prosecution and conviction. As the lawyer for the Repuiblicans said:

"Senator Kerry, who supported the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, is now the beneficiary of the single largest conspiracy to violate campaign-finance laws in history," RNC Chief Counsel Jill Holtzman Vogel said yesterday at a press conference with Bush campaign and other RNC officials.

As per usual, the law of unintended consequences looms large in any new legislation, but it is really funny that the democrats, who pushed for this law, are the first to run afoul of its provisions. Their boy George Soros is a major figure in the fraud, and started the wheels of justice turning with his big fat mouth. You see, under this piece of ill-founded legislation, it is against the rules for soft money to be used directly to affect elections, and the election of the candidates therein, as silly as that sounds. And Soros and the democrats have made no secret that they are going to use this money to elect JFK, and not merely to push "issues."

As the article goes on to state:

The Republican complaint says that groups organized under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Service code are asking individuals for unlimited, unregulated donations, using the pitch that the money will be spent to defeat Mr. Bush or elect Mr. Kerry.

Providing that money would be a crime on the donor's part.

The law carries stiff financial penalties and incarceration for violators.

This one will be very interesting to watch, especially the spin. As the major media outlets continue their quest to save the world, by defeating George W. Bush, they will have to downplay, and even ridicule, this effort to get the dems to obey the law. I can't wait to see how this plays out.

Europe for Kerry

While it would be a fine thing if I could sit around all day, reading and pontificating, eating and sleeping, reality strikes about four times a year. That is when the television industry relocates to the South of France, allegedly to hold a "market," during which we all meet and talk, and decide what all of the rest of you will be watching for the next few months and years. Well, not exactly.

Truthfully, most of the really important decisions, and people, have not made an appearance in Cannes for years. The really big network business is conducted elsewhere. The stars, if you see any at all, are here because the Cannes Film Festival starts about a week after this market ends (so they are here getting ready to attend that), and the really big network executives have better things to do than rub shoulders with the little people and independent producers that really do the work of television. So they stay home. But the rest of us get to relax, get together, and schmooze for a week. Television is a funny business, not unlike the movie business, where every social occasion is considered a business occasion, and there are no days, or even hours, off.

This post is not about my struggle for the legal tender, though. It is about the real support for JFKerry. His voters. They are, after all, Europeans. He was not really lying when he said that foreign leaders were in favor of his candidacy. He just meant foreign leaders of little companies, like taxi drivers, and waiters, not to mention television people, like the ones who are here attending MIP. They are rabidly opposed to a second Bush term. They hate Bush even more than our home-grown Lefties. And with better reason.

At the end of World War Two, America was in position to declare itself the leader of a global empire. With the world's largest standing army, and the only nuclear weapons on the planet, many people here in Europe actually expected us to do exactly that. Many believe that, if Truman had not taken over for FDR, we would have. They really do not understand Americans, so their only point of reference was to look inward. And declaring a global empire, with themselves as the sole hegemon, is exactly what THEY would have done. Many still do not understand why we did not do that. AND, they believe that George W. Bush is about to attempt the same thing.

Anyway, that's what I keep hearing. Everywhere I go in France lately, the same refrain is being sung. Bush this, Bush that, but mainly that Bush wants to take over the world. But the really funny thing is that they believe he could. They have this love-hate thing going on about us. They are so jealous of us. That jealousy is the basis of their hatred. When we were led by harmless men like Carter or Clinton, or even Bush 41, they liked us. We were soooo easy to push around. Reagan, I don't know, since I was not travelling to Europe during those years, and there clearly is no reference to look to for this kind of analysis, as I am the only one reporting on this phenomenon. But, like a lot of my blogging, and like it says in the fairy tale, when the Emperor has no clothes, it takes a special type of asshole to speak up about it. Most of the rest of us don't even notice. Or they are afraid to speak up. But I am not afraid. But I am pretty much alone. In fact, if my own perception accurately reflects the truth, I am the only conservative in the Television Industry. So, I've got an idea. Maybe we can arrange to have another market on election day. Then Kerry's supporters can miss the vote.

Mass Murderer Executed

In an action that humanitarians the world over celebrated, mass murderer and Hamas founder Ahmed Yassin was killed in a helicopter missile strike outside a Gaza City mosque Monday, in a long awaited response to Yassin's years of planning and carrying out hundreds of murders of innocent civilians. Most of his victims were Jews, but dozens of Arabs were also killed in the suicide bombings that were Yassin's trademark.

In a related story, news organizations world wide have issued reports condemning Israel for carrying out this so-called "escalation"

prompting threats of unprecedented revenge by Palestinian militants against Israel and the United States. Yassin was the most prominent Palestinian leader killed by Israel in more than three years of fighting, and his assassination was seen as a major escalation.

Why these news organs choose to use language that glorifies this human pond scum and condemns the Jews is a mystery to clear thinking people everywhere, yet they continue to editorialize the news in this manner. In the meantime, at least in my house, we are celebrating this improvement in the human gene pool. "Words cannot describe the emotion of anger and hate inside our hearts," said Hamas official Ismail Haniyeh, a close associate of Yassin. Meanwhile, at the Gersh house, the emotion is one of joy and hope, as yet another second stringer is about to take the reins of yet another terror group, as Mr. Yassin descends to the fires of Hell and discovers that his 72 virgins are merely Lucifer's torture squad, as they peel back his fingernails and burn his balls, in the eternity of pain that this monster has earned by his horrific actions on this planet.

A War's Woeful Results

It is going to be one long campaign. The combination of factors that have led a substantial fraction of our voters to hate our president with such a great passion has resulted in a set of circumstances that promise to give us an election campaign of unprecedented length, as well as a ferocity that I, for one, can not remember having occurred before, either from the pages of history, or in my personal experience. And remember, my first political rally was for Adlai Stevenson, against Dwight David Eisenhower.

The ferocity of the mass media against this incumbent, combined with the culmination of the opinion-changing techniques being used by the opposition, have resulted in a polarization that seems to be unprecedented in our national discourse. Now we have before us eight more months of this rancor. And today, the editorials have begun. In March.

The L.A.Times has an editorial today, in which they state:

The U.S. grows increasingly isolated from its allies, and that gives comfort and strength to its enemies.

I applaud a system that allows our press to undermine our leaders in wartime, as I deplore the mind that would take advantage of this freedom. The opposition candidate, similarly, brags that the leaders of foreign nations are on his side. Worse, the calculus that this statement will garner him even greater support shows that many of the people will play into this tactic. The fact that the statement itself is demonstrably false makes this hurt all the more. After all, if the activities of this administration gave "comfort and strength to its enemies," why would they be so desperate to remove it?

But the genius of modern opinion molding techniques is that these statements have no need to be true, or even internally consistent, they need only to awaken feelings of hostility, even rage, in a portion of their audience. And, as long as a fifth column of willing accomplices control so many "respected" media outlets, this nation's war aims may well be disrailed. The left wing is now squarely in the corner of our enemies, and not for the first time. Their atandard-bearer is even a veteran of the war that ensued the last time that the same thing happened. Tonight, at 9:00 P.M. Eastern time, CSPAN will replay JFKerry's testimony before Congress, in which he claimed, and now denies that he claimed, that the entire armed forces of the United States were complicit in war crimes.

All Americans owe it to themselves to tune in, and see for themselves, what this poor excuse for a man has claimed, under oath, before considering voting for this particular piece of human waste. The truth of this man is far worse than anything I could say about him. Make up your own mind. Watch his testimony tonight.

Trying To Be All Things To All People

JFKerry is famous for trying to position himself on at least two sides of any issue, as he tries to create a new, electable, persona while knowing that his opponent will try to place his record before the electorate. What with almost twenty years in the Senate, the Lord knows that he has quite a detailed record, with speeches and votes on each and every important federal issue available in the Federal Register. His tactics are already clear. He will first attempt to stop the Republicans from revealing his record in the first place, by calling the Bush campaign "negative" and trying to kill the messenger, and impugning the message on the basis of the agenda of those who reveal it (as well as mentioning the unnamed foreign "leaders" who support him). Second, he will try to describe his positions as "nuanced," which means, in this case, he should be allowed to be on both sides of any issue because he is so darned smart.

For instance, JFK recently claimed to have voted for the Helms-Burton amendment, which placed sanctions on companies that did business with Cuba. The problem is, he voted against it. When he was asked about that, he showed the nuance in his position:

Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.

Now, we all know how bright JFKerry is. The more pertinent question is, are the Cuban/American voters just as bright as he is? Or maybe this nuance is something that only a genius could understand. An idiot like myself might ask, if he indeed voted against the legislation, why not just keep his mouth shut about it? He has mighty problems as he seeks the Cubano voters in Florida, considering his stance on the Elian Gonzalez case as well. As the same article goes on to say:

But there are also constant reminders that Kerry struggles with the complexities of Cuba. Asked in the Herald interview last year about sending Elian back to Cuba, Kerry was blunt: ``I didn't agree with that.''

But when he was asked to elaborate, Kerry acknowledged that he agreed the boy should have been with his father.

So what didn't he agree with?

''I didn't like the way they did it. I thought the process was butchered,'' he said.

And when he was asked last week during a town hall meeting in Broward County about immigration policies that allow Cuban migrants to remain if they reach land but do not give the same rights to Haitians and others who travel to Florida, he appeared to grasp for an answer.

First, he said all migrants have a right to make their case for asylum. Then, as if anticipating his weaknesses, Kerry turned the conversation back to the embargo, pledging that he would not support lifting sanctions.

''I haven't resolved what to do,'' he said, seeming to reflect on the full scope of Cuba concerns. ``I'm going to talk to a lot of people in Florida.''

That's nuance for you. He was for it, but he didn't like the way they did it, so he voted against it. Or take his 1995 vote against 1.5 billion dollars for intelligence spending, which the candidate believes is consistent with support for a strong national defense

Now you know exactly where he stands.

Martha's Hubris Revealed

I don't like Martha Stewart. I don't know why, exactly. She's just the type of person who rubs me the wrong way. Like one of my sister-in-laws. Too perfect. Willing to spend hours making doilies for the dinner table. Hell, I don't even know what a doily IS, let alone where one should be used, and I surely would never put one on my dinner table. But you know what I mean. How much time should any person spend on flower arrangements, or sculpting the mashed potatoes? I have no time for pursuits like these, and I have no time for people like Martha Stewart. But I always have time to note an injustice, or unfairness, or, most of all, the abuse of power.

Guilty, sayeth the jury. Tina Fay, ultra-liberal doyenne of Saturday Night Live, was absolutely giddy with joy and delight as she reported the verdict, over and over, last night. You can bet that just about anything that makes Tina Fay giddy with joy would rub me the wrong way. But in the Martha Stewart case, I think that it is instructive to examine just exactly what it is that she was convicted of doing.

She was originally accused of securities fraud, based upon the idea that she comitted the criminal act of trading on "inside information." Now, I do not understand why trading stock on a tip should be rendered illegal in the case where the information is accurate but, the law is the law. Yet, those charges were dropped. She was not convicted of the substantive crime of which she was accused. She was convicted of two things. One, she conspired to break the law. Two, she lied to a cop about it.

Our conspiracy laws are a vicious affront to anyone who believes in the ideas upon which our great country was founded. Under the law, a conspiracy exists where two or more people talk about a crime, and one of them commits any substantive act in furtherance of the crime. No crime needs to be committed. By anyone. Let's say that you and a few buddies talk about some chick who walks by. One or more of you mention an act of physical love that he would like to perform with her. Several days later one member of the group meets her, and they enjoy one or more of these acts. The next day, some question arises as to whether or not her consent was actually given. You are now guilty of conspiracy to rape her. Or, more realistically, this same group hears a news item where 50 pounds of dope was discovered on a beach, and some loose talk ensues about how much money could be realized by such a beachcomber, should he decide to sell all or part of the load, rather than turning it in to the police. Later, one of your friends is found in possession of dope that was evidently washed up on a beach. You are guilty of conspiracy to traffic in dope. The only way to get out of a criminal conspiracy is to go to the police the minute you discover that the crime has been committed. Or, of course, you can plead guilty.

In Martha Stewart's case, the count of the indictment accusing her of committing the crime in question was dismissed. Never submitted to the jury. Not enough evidence. Yet, incredibly, Martha was convicted of conspiring to commit the crime that she was not, could not, have been convicted of. Guilty because she talked about it. Never proven to have done it. Just think about that for a minute.

But. It gets worse. She was also convicted of lying about it. Believe it or not, she had the temerity to deny that she committed the crime of which she was not convicted! Dostoyefsky made a career writing about stuff like this. But, aside from this, there is another aspect of this case that offends the sensibilities. Most Americans believe that we have, among other rights, the right to free speech, and the right to not be forced to incriminate oneself. Yet it is against the law to claim to be innocent, if you so claim to a federal agent, without the benefit of counsel. Lying to a federal agent was another count of which Martha was convicted. Believe it or not, that is what Martha is going to jail for doing.

Now, that lets her off the hook a little too easy. She took a full part in this dance. Her arrogance, her hubris, had more to do with this travesty of justice as anything else. She could have admitted to the truth. She could have testified against her co-conspirators. She could have actually put on a (gasp) defense. But she did none of these things. Her defense consisted merely of saying that the government had not proven the charges against her. That's it. Her testimony might have gone a long way towards winning the jury over to her side. At least, that's what the lone juror who was willing to talk to the press (as I write this) said. But this woman is arrogant. To a fault. That's what hubris is. Hubris is what lands a billionaire in Alderson, munching carpet, carving a little calendar into the wall, counting the minutes until she can be a millionaire again. And, oh yeah, hubris is what turned this billionaire into a multi-millionaire. Poor Martha.

The Gloves Come Off

Unable to wait another minute, President Bush has begun the campaign for reelection. Last night, at a meeting of governors of both parties at the White House, Bush unveiled his stump speech, and began his campaign in earnest, with almost eight months to go before election day.

Bush made it clear that this campaign will be about Kerry's record.

"The other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions," Bush said. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts."

And, there is even a hopeful sign that Kerry is willing to go along. In a statement issued in response to the Bush speech, Kerry averred:

But the American people haven't forgotten this president's failed record, because they have to live with it every day. George Bush's credibility is running out with the American people. They want change in America, and I'm running because I am determined to bring that change and put America back on track.

But no Zero Base Thinker is fooled by this rhetoric. Kerry knows that he has no chance running the antiwar campaign he could have run if he had been in the fray in 1972. The war against Jihadistan is no Vietnam conflict. The people know that in this war, we all live on the front lines. The only reason that Kerry has such a deeply antiwar stance, is that he had to run against Dr. Dean the Scream, who pulled his party so far to the left that they can shake hands with Pat Buchanan and the big "L" libertarians. But even as slimy a creature as John Forbes Kerry will have a very hard time sliding back over to a stance that is in favor of a strong defense. He is still saying things about making the war into a law enforcement operation, and he is still insisting that France and Germany hold veto power over any American use of force. And, he has opposed every significant weapon system that made our vistory so breathtakingly one-sided. These positions are unacceptable to a majority of Americans. Any analysis of Kerry's political career will show that JFK will do everything in his power to appear to be more like his opponent between now and election day, insofar as these mainstream ideas like survival of our culture are concerned. That is why Bush is, indeed he must, make J.F.Kerry's record the central thrust of the campaign. That is also why Kerry is trying to make peripheral issues the centerpiece of his campaign. He wants a debate on what Bush and he were doing during the Viet Nam war, and Bush wants to talk about what the two men have done the last four years, and the next four. Logic says that the Bush strategy will prevail, but logic does not always rule in politics.

There is still a wild card in the woodpile though. Hillary. There is great danger to what Bush is doing vis a vis Hillary Clinton. If Bush succeeds in convincing most Americans that Kerry is a worthless pile of leftist trash too soon, even the democrat leadership may get the idea that they will need a candidate who can pretend that National Security is a priority for them, too. And those who have been paying attention have surely noticed that Hillary has been pretending to be that very thing for several months now. There is danger here that Bush began his campaign too soon. Hillary would make a much more serious opponent. She has many more voters fooled than the rest of them do.

I know that many pundits say that it is too late for a Clinton candidacy now, that it is too late for her to appear on the ballot. Yet, I have this nagging nightmare, in which the convention is deadlocked, and the solons of the left bring out their secret Hillary weapon. I can only hope that Bush and Co. are as smart as they think they are. Hope, and pray.