~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To Sex-up or not to Sex-up;
Run, Nader, Run!
Bush goes on Offense
by JohnHuang2
It has been reported (hope I'm not starting any rumor here) that John F. Kerry served in Vietnam. Speaking of rumors, did you see how well I handled rumors of Kerry's alleged extramarital affair? Despite titillating scuttlebutt about Kerry, nary a whisper from me. Rumors that Kerry had been whipping up the thick, spicy sauce with someone other than the Ketchup Queen, a thrift institution with a dress and lipstick, were ignored by me. (Teresa Inc. has so much dough, her merger with J. Forbes Kerry stirred review by the U.S. Antitrust Division. It's the only marriage with shareholders and quarterly profit/loss statements. I can imagine when Kerry was down in the polls, wondering if he should withdraw, Teresa would say, 'Sure -- how do you want your withdrawal ... in small or big bills?)
Regarding the sensational Kerry rumors, I was -- and continue to be -- a model of admirable restraint. I have yet to say a word about allegations that Kerry had a 2-year relationship with Alexandra Polier, a former AP assistant editor in New York. The whole episode was a big test of standards. By never mentioning that Kerry might have had an affair with Polier, nor mentioning that Polier had left for Kenya (rumored to be at Kerry's behest), I passed the test with flying colors. In this space, nothing about Polier's dad calling Kerry a "sleazeball," nor anything by me about Drudge reporting a media probe into the allegations. Just because it's all over the foreign press, the internet and talk radio, doesn't mean I should report such allegations here -- allegations of Kerry womanizing 27-year-old Polier. Reports that Polier dated Kerry's longtime finance director, Peter Maroney, haven't appeared in this space, and I intend to keep it that way. Refusing to traffic in unsubstantiated rumor, you won't hear me mention that Boston Globe reporter, Thomas Oliphant, later confirmed a key element in the Drudge report -- that Wesley Clark, during an off-the-record chat, told reporters the Kerry campaign would soon implode over an "intern" scandal. The next day, Clark endorsed Kerry.
Look, I have standards here. When confronted with rumors like these, I pause and ask myself, 'Is there any evidence?' In this case, that Kerry and Polier are the new Bill and Monica? My approach is to ask, 'Is there any proof that Kerry prodded Polier to split for Kenya? Any evidence Kerry was hitting on Polier -- as her dad was quoted telling the U.K. Sun but now says he didn't really mean it?' If the answer is no, my approach is not to broach the subject here. And I haven't. But what about the claim that Kerry had seduced her in 2001 after inviting her to join his Senate campaign? Or, as reported by Drudge, that Polier "would joke that she was dating the next president of the United States"? Nice try. I refuse to dignify those rumors, so I won't even mention them. I was right not to go with this story, and I'm not about to start now.
Here's something else you won't find published in this page -- Terry Polier (Alex's dad) telling the Sun the following: "Two years ago (Kerry) was all for gay marriage, now he's against it...whatever audience he is talking to, he will tell them what they want to hear." Kerry doesn't believe in gay marriage? That's a pretty serious charge. It goes against Kerry's guiding principle in life, that marriage should be between a man and a wealthy woman -- which is by definition a gay marriage. He's very happy with Teresa. Shows you how baseless these rumors are, and why we shouldn't traffic in unproven allegations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, back to something of real substance -- the rumor that Bush was AWOL in Alabama while groping women with Arnold Schwarzenegger!
 Meanwhile, Ralph Nader, who blames Al Gore for draining crucial votes from his 2000 White House bid, announced Sunday he's giving it another shot, joining the race as an independent. Top Democrats, who blame George W. Bush and Ralph Nader for draining crucial votes from Al Gore's 2000 White House bid, immediately condemned the announcement, made on NBC's "Meet the Press," expressing profound concern that democracy could well be destroyed by so much democracy. Party leaders called on Democrats to rally around John Kerry, er, John Edwards, er, Dennis Kucinich, er, Al Sharpton.
So why is he running?
As I see it, the whole thing reeks of personal vanity, of egotism and bluster and hubris. His speeches -- his very demeanor -- drips with narcissistic self-exaltation. This is an ego-quest. He loves publicity and adulation as an end in itself. He sets himself and his pursuits above all else -- even above The Cause he claims to care about. He can't stand the thought of not being the center of attention. In his smug arrogance and self-importance, snotty pomposity and chutzpah, he imagines this whole thing is really about him. Deep inside, he's a bitter man, a resentful man, an angry man with nothing to offer beyond old, discredited, worn out "ideas." And he knows it. Again, it all boils down to vanity. That's what I think is motivating him to run.
New Mexico Governor, Bill Richardson, put it succinctly: "It's his personal vanity, because he has no movement, nobody's backing him. The Greens aren't backing him."
But enough on John Kerry.
As for Ralph Nader, who turns 70 on Friday, there are no indications, at least for now, he plans to call on Kerry to drop out of the race. Without Kerry, the insurgent Nader would have a clear shot at Bush.
Kidding aside, Democrats say that Nader, without Green Party backing, won't be that much a factor this time. Not even close. Without the Greenies, Nader will have little impact. They note the hurdles he faces even getting access on state ballots. Another factor, as Democrats see it, is that Nader helped tip the 2000 election to Bush, and only al-Qaeda is more determined to get rid of Bush this November.
Democrats also are begging Nader not to run, blasting the unconsumer advocate as a reckless spoiler, whose candidacy, even without Green Party backing, could be as much a factor as in 2000, especially in swing states -- states Gore won only by the thinnest of margins. (Please don't run, Nader, or you'll kill us!! No, you won't because you're irrelevant. Yes, you will because you're not irrelevant! We don't have a chance!) Even without the Greenies, say Democrats, Nader could have a huge impact in states like New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin. They note that getting ballot access in some states is easy -- filing intent to run, paying a modest fee. Another factor, as party leaders see it, are the Deaniacs -- as mad at Kerry for beating their man, Dean, as they are at Bush for beating their (other) man, Saddam. (Deaniacs: Sure, we're mad at Bush -- he toppled Saddam and freed Iraq on purpose! And Kerry voted to let him! Democrats did nothing to prevent this evil, Zionist plot to spread Bush's radical, pro-America agenda throughout the Mideast! Our doctrine says that if you harbor a Republican, or feed a Republican, you're a Republican! We will hold you responsible!) A Kerry loss in November gives Dean another bite at the apple come '08.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Bush, blamed by Democrats for draining crucial votes from Gore's 2000 White House bid, went on the offensive Monday, infuriating the heck out of John Kerry, a Massachusetts liberal, who denounced Bush for remarks casting him as a Massachusetts liberal. Kerry complains that Republicans are trying to make him look weak on national defense when he's trying to look strong. Kerry taunts Bush frequently to 'Bring it on.' Kerry also warns Bush frequently not to 'Bring it on' and that he will not allow Bush to 'Bring it on' because he served in Vietnam and Bush didn't so Bush should give him a pass on national defense. Kerry humbly demands that Bush repeatedly praise him for his patriotism. And recognize that he's a bigger hero than Bush. (Democrats: My hero's bigger than your hero!) Kerry, who served in Vietnam, has challenged Bush to a debate about his Vietnam war service. Kerry also warns Bush that his Vietnam war service is not open to debate and that debate about his Vietnam war service is equal to questioning his patriotism. (Kerry vows to stand by all his different positions -- no matter how often he changes position).
Addressing a fund-raiser for GOP governors, the President noted how the "other party's nomination battle is still playing out. The candidates are an interesting group with diverse opinions. 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." The crowd went wild.
Bush stayed on offense Tuesday, endorsing a Constitutional Amendment that "would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex," CNN reports.
Bush noted that "the union of a man and a woman is the most enduring human institution, honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith."
 The Kerry campaign immediately denounced the announcement, accusing Bush of using "wedge issues and the politics of fear to divide the nation."
In a statement released to the press, Kerry said "All Americans should be concerned" when a President "tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign."
Is that not below the belt, or what? I mean, questioning Bush's Guard service like that? Why is Kerry reopening old wounds -- questioning Bush's military service this way? Impugning Bush's commitment to the defense of our nation, smearing his service in the Guard this way is beyond the pale.
/Sarcasm.
Seriously, Bush hit the proverbial Bull's Eye here. The announcement threw Democrats into disarray, highlighting an issue they'd hoped would fade away. The unexpected announcement put Kerry and Edwards on defense, and kept them off message. It exposed them as phony "populists." Pundits were stunned.
Where one stands on this issue says a lot about core values and principles. More broadly, it reflects who we are as a nation.
The President's reaffirmation of the sanctity of marriage was forceful and compelling, guaranteeing this issue will be front and center in the fall. By throwing his weight behind an Amendment, Bush once again shows what it means to be a true leader -- one who isn't afraid to be bold.
Small wonder Democrats are running scared.
Meanwhile, in two newly released audiotapes purportedly from Osama's top lieutenant, Bush came under heavy fire over postwar Iraq policy and the War on Terror in general.
In prepared remarks, aired on Arabic TV outlets Tuesday, Ayman al-Zawahri sharply criticized Bush's War on Terror, blasting U.S. Mideast policy as a miserable failure. While France came under criticism as well, Al-Zawahri aimed his harshest remarks mainly at the President, repeatedly mentioned by name in the tapes.
In the tapes, al-Zawahri took issue with Bush's assertion that America is safer with Saddam out of power, assailing the U.S.-led invasion as a "Zionist-Crusader campaign against the Islamic community."
"We remind Bush that the situation is not stable in Afghanistan, or else how do we wage ... our attacks on your troops and agents? How do we send our messages that challenge you and reveal your lies? We remind Bush that he didn't destroy two-thirds of al-Qaeda. On the contrary ... al-Qaeda is still (at war)."
Lemme get this straight: al-Qaeda puts out some tapes. The tapes call Bush a liar, rips the invasion and bad-mouths America. The tapes get gobs and gobs of airtime, yet Democrats STILL complain they can't get their 'message' out?
|
|
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
