MoveOn.org, the ultra-liberal 527 political organization funded by Hungarian-born billionaire currency trader George Soros, has decided to attack the Gallup polling company. They've also gone after George Gallup, Jr., the son of the company founder, even though he has no involvement in the polling operation.
The MoveOn libs didn't like the results of one of Gallup's polls, so they have taken it upon themselves to smear the Gallup name. Typical...
Thursday, September 30, 2004
MoveOn.org, the ultra-liberal 527 political organization funded by Hungarian-born billionaire currency trader George Soros, has decided to attack the Gallup polling company. They've also gone after George Gallup, Jr., the son of the company founder, even though he has no involvement in the polling operation.
As the first presidential debate looms, and JFKerry sits behind President Bush in the polls, folks on the left are getting scared. In return, they're trying to scare the undecided voters with absurd, blatantly dishonest claims.
The Dems have seen the Florida vote swing more in favor of the President, and they're panicking. Their plan seems to be discrediting the Florida voting system, while blaming those evil Republicans for trying to suppress the Black vote. This would set the stage for more lawsuits, a la 2000, should Bush win in Florida. The effort to plant doubts and discord about the voting process in Florida is well underway.
One African-American civil rights spokeswoman (Joanne Bland, the director and co-founder of the National Voting Rights Museum and Institute in Selma, Ala.) said on Wednesday that the new computerized voting machines "terrify" her, and that blacks are "afraid of machines like that." African-American GOP consultant Tara Setmayer, who has worked on Florida congressional campaigns, called Bland's remarks "insulting" to black Americans. "I think it's insulting to imply that African-Americans are unable to comprehend or assimilate modern-day technology," Setmayer said.
Former President, now Democratic pudding stirrer Jimmy Carter says maximum public scrutiny must be placed on "the suspicious process in Florida." He has repeated the lie that "several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000." First, there are no names associated with voting ballots. They were paper ballots, with no names or other identifying marks attached, placed into boxes with other ballots. It is impossible to determine the identity, much less the race, of the person who cast a certain ballot. Second, the The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which investigated the election for months, couldn't produce a single individual who could credibly show that they had been denied the opportunity to vote, nor could they produce one person who could show that their personal vote had been eliminated.
The Kerry campaign is prepared to send thousands of lawyers to descend on every district with possible voting problems. If Kerry loses Florida, and loses the election by 27 or fewer electoral votes, Florida 2004 will be much, much uglier than Florida 2000.
Posted by Michael at 8:28 AM
Atlanta is already home to some of the country's biggest brands: Coca-Cola, Home Depot, Chick-Fil-A, Delta Airlines and BellSouth already call the area home. Now, K-Mart is looking to move their operations away from Michigan. They have apparently narrowed their choices down to either Atlanta or Long Island, NY. They are out of bankruptcy and looking to regain their lost share of the retail discount market. Moving south could be a good start.
Posted by Michael at 8:11 AM
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Angel Food Ministries is a non-profit, non-denominational organization dedicated to providing grocery relief and financial support to communities (currently) in 17 states. They are based out of Emmanuel Praise Church in Monroe, Georgia. Every month, they offer a generous serving of grocery items (meats, vegetables, even desserts) at a very low price. There's no enrollment, no forms, no approval process. You simply pay $25 to pre-order a box, and in a couple of weeks you pick up your groceries. This month, your $25 would buy...
(1) 1.5 lb. Baby Back Pork Ribs
(4) 5 oz. Sirloin Strip Steaks
(1) 1 lb. Choice Beef Stew
(1) 24 oz. Brd. Chicken Breast Filets
(1) 1 lb. Chicken Tenders
(1) Pkg. Banquet Meal Topper
(1) 18 oz. Bagels
(1) 7.5 oz. Mac & Cheese
(1) 3 lbs. Apples
(1) 16 oz. Green Beans
(1) 16 oz. Cut Corn
(1) 1 lb. Carrots
(1) 3 lbs. Onions
(1) Dozen Eggs
I have purchased boxes from them, and can attest to the quality of the food. Most of the products were recognized brand names, and everything has been fresh and tasty. There are even specials each month, like eight 8 oz. ribeyes for $17. That works out to $4 per pound, better than what you'll find in a grocery store.
If you know a low-income family, or if your grocery bills are tough to afford, I whole-heartedly recommend Angel Food. If you'd like to help out a friend or relative, you can purchase a box or two for them. It's also a fantastic community outreach program for churches and community groups, even organizations not affiliated with a church. To find an Angel Food affiliate in your area, click here.
Posted by Michael at 2:48 PM
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
James Taranto at OpinionJournal.com has been looking at movie characters that favor John Kerry, and it seems he's finally hit on a perfect choice: Walter Sobchak in "The Big Lebowski".
Over the weekend we watched "The Big Lebowski," the Coen brothers' 1998 comedy, in which John Goodman plays Walter Sobchak, "a man full of bad ideas whose every utterance contains a reference to his days in Vietnam," as reader Tom Thomas puts it.
Sure enough, we picked out numerous passages of dialogue that are reminiscent of the Kerry campaign. For example, this bowling-alley confrontation with a competitor called Smokey (Jimmie Dale Gilmore) calls to mind Kerry's petulance over the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ads:
Walter: Over the line!
Walter: I'm sorry, Smokey. You were over the line, and that's a foul.
Smokey: Bullsh--. Mark it 8, Dude.
Walter: Uh, excuse me. Mark it zero. Next frame.
Smokey: Bullsh--, Walter. Mark it 8, Dude.
Walter: Smokey, this is not Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
Walter pulls a gun on Smokey, who backs down. Later, in the parking lot, Jeffrey "The Dude" Lebowski (Jeff Bridges) confronts Walter, in a scene that sums up Kerry's 20-year Senate career:
Dude: You can't do that, man. These guys, you know, they're like me, they're pacifists. Smokey was a conscientious objector!
Walter: You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism at one point. Not in Nam, of course.
This exchange between Walter and The Dude nicely describes Kerry's populist campaign strategy:
Walter: Those rich f---s! This whole f---in' thing--I did not watch my buddies die face down in the muck so that this f---in' strumpet, this f---in' whore, could waltz around town--
Dude: Walter, I don't see any connection to Vietnam, man.
Walter: Well, there isn't a literal connection, Dude.
Dude: Walter, face it, there isn't any connection.
And in a restaurant scene, Walter inveighs against the stifling of dissent:
Waitress: Excuse me, sir, could you please keep your voices down? This is a family restaurant.
Walter: Oh please, dear? For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!
Dude: Walter, this is not a First Amendment thing.
Waitress: Sir, if you don't calm down, I'm going to have to ask you to leave.
Walter: Lady, I got buddies who died face down in the muck so that you and I could enjoy this family restaurant!
Dude: All right, I'm out of here.
Walter: Hey, Dude, don't go away, man! C'mon, this affects all of us, man! Our basic freedoms!
On education policy:
Walter: Look, Larry. Have you ever heard of Vietnam? You're entering a world of pain, son. We know that this is your homework.
And then there's this exchange with The Dude and Donny (Steve Buscemi), back at the bowling alley, on the Iraq-Vietnam comparison, and the rise of the blogosphere:
Walter: This whole f---in' thing is nothin' but nothin' about oil. . . . I'm sure we're gonna see some tank battles. But fighting in desert is very different from fighting in canopy jungles. I mean, I was a foot soldier . . . whereas this thing should be a piece of cake. I mean, I had an M-16, Jacko, not an Abrams f---in' tank. Me and Charlie, eyeball to eyeball--
Walter: --that's f---in' combat. The man in the black pajamas, Dude. Worthy f---in' adversary.
Donny: Who was in pajamas, Walter?
Walter: Shut the f--- up, Donny. Whereas what we have here? Bunch of fig-eaters wearin' towels on their heads, trying to find reverse on a Soviet tank. This is not a worthy f---in' adversary.
Posted by Michael at 8:48 AM
Friday, September 24, 2004
I hope you'll all take a look at some of the blogs I've linked on the right side of this page. There are some new ones (Little Green Footballs and Occam's Toothbrush) to go with the old ones. Give them a chance and I bet you'll find lots to like. If you know of a blog I should check out, use the e-mail link in the upper right to send it to me (just remove the SPAM FILTER from the e-mail address).
Another blogger who I haven't linked to (yet) is Iowahawk. He has posted a wickedly funny rendition of the Dan Rather/CBS/Memogate story, told like a cheap dime-store detective novel. It's perfect for a Friday afternoon read. Here's an excerpt:
Although Lt. Kurtz was a media cop, I knew he wanted the Bush gang on ice as bad as me. I decided to confront him, point blank.
"Give it to me straight, flatfoot," I demanded. "What in the name of Edward R. Murrow is going on here?"
"I'm saying you've been played like a pawn shop fiddle, Rather. Set up. Conned. Slipped a mickey."
"What are you implying Kurtz?"
"Snookered. Bamboozled. Flimflammed. They sold you a first class ticket to the Palookaville snipe hunt on the Gullible Express."
"And so you're saying..."
Posted by Michael at 4:01 PM
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
More and more frequently, parents are pulling their children out of public (a.k.a. "government") schools and enrolling them in private schools. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, the largest teachers unions, absolutely hate private education. Funny thing, though, seems more and more public school teachers are choosing to enroll their own kids to private school.
The Washington Times reports that in Washington, D.C., over one-fourth of public school teachers send their children to private schools. In Milwaukee, it increases to almost thirty percent. A profound comment from one of the researchers studying the topic:
"We can assume that no one knows the condition and quality of public schools better than teachers who work in them every day."
Seems as though.
Posted by Michael at 2:06 PM
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Seems JFKerry has changed his mind yet again on what he would have done in Iraq. After voting to authorize the war in Iraq, then voting against funding for that war, Kerry has flip-flopped on the issue. Most recently, he announced last month that he would have supported the war even knowing what he knows now. Now, he says he would not have ousted Saddam Hussein if he'd been President.
Well it's a darn good thing for the world he isn't President. How in the world could anyone expect Kerry to accomplish anything as President when he can't seem to decide on whether the choice to go to war was good or not. Talk about riding the fence; his fanny must be full of splinters.
Meanwhile, in the latest Gallup Poll, President Bush's lead over JFKerry is wider than ever. In an open-ended question, Gallup asked Americans why they are supporting their particular candidate. Here are the top responses...
For President Bush:
27% - Doing a good job/satisfied with job performanceFor Senator Kerry:
21% - War issues/stance on terrorism/national security
20% - Leadership quality/better candidate for job
16% - Honesty/integrity/ethics
15% - Good moral values/religious beliefs
6% - Favor his agenda/ideas/platforms/goals
6% - Like Bush/good character
18% - Want change/he's not BushYou can see the clear difference between Conservatives and Liberals in the responses to this poll. Nearly half of all Bush supporters cited President Bush's job performance, specifically on issues pertaining to terrorism and defense. On the Kerry side, 27% are voting against Bush (as opposed to voting for Kerry), while another 11% are voting for a party, not a candidate. Nearly 40% of Kerry's supporters, according to this poll, plan on voting in the election with no regard for the Democratic candidate.
13% - War issues/stance on terrorism/national security
13% - Favor his agenda/ideas/platforms/goals
11% - Economic issues
11% - Favor the Democratic Party
9% - Dislike Bush/poor character
For the Libs, it's not about the issues. It's about standing up against the man who says what he believes and does what he says. Individual thought and responsibility, drawing lines between good and evil, standing up to evil and saying we'll defeat it. That's what Kerry's supporters are voting for. It isn't even fair to call them Kerry supporters. Kerry is insignificant to them. It's all about defeating Bush, issues be damned.
Posted by Michael at 6:53 AM
Monday, September 20, 2004
In a new anti-Bush ad from the MoveOn.org group, an American soldier is shown, rifle overhead, in a surrender pose. According to Drudge, the ad refers to the war in Iraq, saying "It will take a new president to get us out." Notice they don't say "win the war," but instead "get us out." They don't even seem to want to lend credence to the idea of winning. This is where the ultra-liberal left, politicians like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and the rest, misunderstand the American public.
General George Patton understood. He said it best in his speech to the Third Army on June 5, 1944, made famous in the opening scene from the movie Patton.
"Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn't give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed... for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American."The liberals don't understand that we Americans often DO see things in black and white. We see good versus evil, right versus wrong, strong versus week. We DO see terrorism and evil and our national defense as terribly important. We want a strong leader, who will defend our country when attacked and, whenever necessary, before it is attacked. We are the world's only superpower. We are the most powerful nation on this planet, and also the greatest force for good on this planet. We've saved the world more than once, and many nations hate us for it. So be it. We're not about nuance, fitting our comments and beliefs to our audience or the situation. We want strong and consistant leadership.
We want W.
Posted by Michael at 11:17 AM
Friday, September 17, 2004
I realize this is a couple of weeks old, but I just discovered it. Maybe all of you haven't read it yet...
Bring It On, John
August 27, 2004
"Of course, the president keeps telling people he would never question my service to our country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: 'Bring it on.'" -- Sen. John KerryDear John,
As usual, you have it wrong. You don't have a beef with President George Bush about your war record. He's been exceedingly generous about your military service. Your complaint is with the 2.5 million of us who served honorably in a war that ended 29 years ago and which you, not the president, made the centerpiece of this campaign.
I talk to a lot of vets, John, and this really isn't about your medals or how you got them. Like you, I have a Silver Star and a Bronze Star. I only have two Purple Hearts, though. I turned down the others so that I could stay with the Marines in my rifle platoon. But I think you might agree with me, though I've never heard you say it, that the officers always got more medals than they earned and the youngsters we led never got as many medals as they deserved.
This really isn't about how early you came home from that war, either, John. There have always been guys in every war who want to go home. There are also lots of guys, like those in my rifle platoon in Vietnam, who did a full 13 months in the field. And there are, thankfully, lots of young Americans today in Iraq and Afghanistan who volunteered to return to war because, as one of them told me in Ramadi a few weeks ago, "the job isn't finished."
Nor is this about whether you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968. Heck John, people get lost going on vacation. If you got lost, just say so. Your campaign has admitted that you now know that you really weren't in Cambodia that night and that Richard Nixon wasn't really president when you thought he was. Now would be a good time to explain to us how you could have all that bogus stuff "seared" into your memory -- especially since you want to have your finger on our nation's nuclear trigger.
But that's not really the problem, either. The trouble you're having, John, isn't about your medals or coming home early or getting lost -- or even Richard Nixon. The issue is what you did to us when you came home, John.
When you got home, you co-founded Vietnam Veterans Against the War and wrote "The New Soldier," which denounced those of us who served -- and were still serving -- on the battlefields of a thankless war. Worst of all, John, you then accused me -- and all of us who served in Vietnam -- of committing terrible crimes and atrocities.
On April 22, 1971, under oath, you told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that you had knowledge that American troops "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam." And you admitted on television that "yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."
And for good measure you stated, "(America is) more guilty than any other body, of violations of (the) Geneva Conventions ... the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners."
Your "antiwar" statements and activities were painful for those of us carrying the scars of Vietnam and trying to move on with our lives. And for those who were still there, it was even more hurtful. But those who suffered the most from what you said and did were the hundreds of American prisoners of war being held by Hanoi. Here's what some of them endured because of you, John:
Capt. James Warner had already spent four years in Vietnamese custody when he was handed a copy of your testimony by his captors. Warner says that for his captors, your statements "were proof I deserved to be punished." He wasn't released until March 14, 1973.
Maj. Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who was in Vietnamese custody for 2,284 days, says his captors "repeated incessantly" your one-liner about being "the last man to die" for a lost cause. Cordier was released March 4, 1973.
Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says your accusations "were as demoralizing as solitary (confinement) ... and a prime reason the war dragged on." He remained in North Vietnamese hands until February 12, 1973.
John, did you think they would forget? When Tim Russert asked about your claim that you and others in Vietnam committed "atrocities," instead of standing by your sworn testimony, you confessed that your words "were a bit over the top." Does that mean you lied under oath? Or does it mean you are a war criminal? You can't have this one both ways, John. Either way, you're not fit to be a prison guard at Abu Ghraib, much less commander in chief.
One last thing, John. In 1988, Jane Fonda said: "I would like to say something ... to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm ... very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."
Even Jane Fonda apologized. Will you, John?
Posted by Michael at 11:18 AM
Thursday, September 16, 2004
20 Questions For John Kerry
Columnist Peter Kirsanow has compiled a fantastic list of questions for John Kerry, from the economy to the War on Terror to the media's role in the election. I'd kill to have the opportunity to ask JFKerry just one of these questions.
How To Stop A Hurricane
One idea, giant fans along the coast to blow the hurricane back out to sea. Another brainstorm: nuke it!
Worf Would Be Proud
German broadcaster Deutsche Welle has added Klingon, spoken by the bumpy-headed aliens of the "Star Trek" television series, to the 30 languages used on its Web site.
What's Your Goth Name?
You can find out at this site. Mine is Twisted Illusion. Thanks to Kathy at wild-heart.net for the link.
Lost and Found Nuke
Seems that a nuclear bomb lost in 1958 off the coast of Georgia might have been found. The question, though, is what to do next?
Woman Loses Job Over Kerry Sticker On Car
I might be a right-leaning conservative, but this is still wrong.
Posted by Michael at 10:05 AM
Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Blogger Walter Scott Hudson quotes his fiance, a lifelong Democrat, on why she's chosen to vote for President Bush in November...
"I just want a president who stands for something. I don't like a lot of what Bush does, but at least I know where he stands. I know he'll do whatever it takes to keep us safe and won't back down. He won't ask for permission from everyone else in the world. And that's the most important thing right now."Sounds like a smart lady.
Posted by Michael at 3:13 PM
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
The 30-second version of Stephen King's The Shining, performed by the animated Bunnies Theater Troupe. Great fun!
Posted by Michael at 9:07 PM
Gotta give Dan Rather credit... he's standing tough against an ever-increasing mountain of evidence that the memos CBS unveiled concerning President Bush's National Guard service are, gasp, fake. Every other news source in this country has trotted out experts to counter CBS's claims. Even the so-called experts CBS is relying on are clarifying their stories. CBS has apparently decided not to even investigate where the memos came from or attempt to further verify their authenticity.
This has the real chance of severely damaging (what's left of) the credibility and trust CBS has from its viewers. Ignoring the truth won't make it go away. Stubbornly denying what the entire world is coming to understand is true will do nothing to help them.
Now, here are three questions that need addressing:
1. Was CBS duped into reporting on (and getting all giddy about) forged documents, or were they complicit in the creation of these documents?
2. Why won't CBS reveal the source of these documents? Surely they wouldn't be foolish enough to go forward with such a fiasco without knowledge of the memos' origins.
3. Assuming these documents are fake, and someone was attempting to commit fraud by creating and releasing them, as well as attempting to disrupt a national election, isn't this a felony?
Posted by Michael at 7:43 PM
Monday, September 13, 2004
The American Enterprise Institute, a research organization in Washington, has studied news headlines and reports from January 1991 to May 2004, looking to see how economic news was reported depending on the political party of the president. The results aren't all that surprising.
They found that President Clinton received better headlines than the two Republican presidents. Even after adjusting the data to compensate for differences in economic performance under the three presidents, the Republicans received 20 to 30 percent fewer positive headlines, on average, for the same type of news.
For instance, they said, the unemployment rate in the Clinton administration averaged 5.2 percent, only three-tenths of a percentage point less than it has under George W. Bush. But while 44 percent of Mr. Clinton's headlines on unemployment were positive, only 23 percent of President Bush's headlines on the subject have been upbeat.
The study scanned nearly 400 newspapers and Associated Press reports, and picked out headlines about gross domestic product growth, unemployment, retail sales and orders of durable goods. They classified the headlines' depiction of the economy as either positive, negative, neutral or mixed.
They found that as a group, the nation's 10 largest newspapers and The Associated Press were even more skewed. According to the researchers, this group gave Republican administrations 20 to 40 percent fewer positive headlines than those given to Mr. Clinton, on average. Among the top 10 newspapers, they said that all except The Houston Chronicle had a pro-Democratic leaning.
Interestingly, this story was reported on by one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, The New York Times. The same NY Times that's one of those aforementioned top 10 newspapers. Interesting that they don't mention that little nugget in the story.
Posted by Michael at 1:17 PM
Zell Miller has responded to the outcry from Democrats over his speech at the Republican Convention. I'm so proud to say this great American is from my home state. Here's the link to the story, but it's too good to not print here.
Telling It Like It Is
I will never trust John Kerry with my family's safety.
BY ZELL MILLER
Monday, September 13, 2004 12:01 a.m.
My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now.
First, the anger. A lot has been said about my angry demeanor. I've made enough speeches to know that you're supposed to connect with the audience by telling a joke or a humorous anecdote or some amusing tale. It's a tried-and-true formula that I've used for most of my life. But this was not a normal speech in a normal time.
Today, we are at the most serious moment of history that we may ever know, and I wanted to connect with the seriousness of this moment, not the audience.
Now, about those facts. I charged that John Kerry is weak on national security, and I listed some of the many weapons systems he has opposed over the years. My critics tripped over themselves to point out that Dick Cheney opposed some of the same weapons systems when he was defense secretary.
But, like with so many things in life, timing is everything. Mr. Kerry was proposing the cancellation of many of these weapons systems at the height of the Cold War--the worst possible time to weaken our military strength. It would be comparable to a senator in 1943 proposing to scrap the B-29 Bomber or Sherman tank or Higgins landing craft. By contrast, Mr. Cheney waited until after we had won the Cold War to propose modernizing our forces and replacing older weapons systems. There's a huge difference. Whether it's the Cold War of yesterday or the war on terror today, Mr. Kerry has sought time and time again to weaken our military at the exact moment we need to show our strength.
I also charged that John Kerry and his fellow Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator, and that nothing makes this old Marine madder. My critics pounced on that one, too. Aren't you aware, they sneered, that President Bush has used the term "occupiers"?
Do they mean when the president said this in April?--"As a proud and independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation--and neither does America. We're not an imperial power, as nations such as Japan and Germany can attest. We are a liberating power." Are the people of Iraq not liberated from a terrible dictator? Did we not transfer sovereignty over to the Iraqi people exactly when we said we would?
John Kerry and his crowd derisively call American troops "occupiers" because it fits with their warped belief that America is the problem, not the solution. While more than 50 million people in Afghanistan and Iraq are enjoying freedom, Mr. Kerry is still fretting over whether the U.N. crowd likes us or not. The American people will not abide a commander in chief who gets squeamish over America's role as a liberating force in the world.
And my critics love to point out that I had nice things to say about John Kerry when I introduced him to a Georgia Democratic dinner in 2001. That's true and I meant it. But, again, timing is everything. I made that introduction in March 2001--six months before terrorists attacked this country on Sept. 11. As I have said time and again, 9/11 changed everything. Everything, that is, except the national Democrats' shameful, manic obsession with bringing down a commander in chief. John Kerry has been wrong many times, but he's never been more wrong than in his failure to support our troops and our commander in chief in this war on terror.
So, my critics can call me a psychopath and fire spitballs at me and froth at the mouth when an ex-president sends me a nasty letter. That's the freedom of speech they all enjoy, courtesy of the American soldier.
But for David Gergen and this newspaper's Al Hunt, among others, to call me a racist was especially hurtful. For they know better. They know I worked for three governors in a row, not just one: Carl Sanders, Lester Maddox and Jimmy Carter. They knew I was the first governor to try to remove the Confederate emblem from the Georgia flag. And by the way, when I called each of Georgia's former governors to tell them what I was about to attempt, Jimmy Carter's first question to me was, "What are you doing that for?" Mr. Gergen and Mr. Hunt also know I appointed the only African-American attorney general in the country in the 1990s and more African Americans to the state judiciary than all the other governors of Georgia combined, including that one from Plains.
So, they can call me names and ridicule my angry demeanor all day long. But facts are facts. And the fact is, John Kerry has a long record of proposals to weaken our national security in a time of war. And I would never put my family's safety in those hands.
Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.
Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Posted by Michael at 11:28 AM
It's sad to see one man so consumed with hate and bitterness over an election he lost. Al Gore seems to have come completely unhinged now, and it's becoming uncomfortable to watch. His most recent meltdowns included equating President Bush's religious faith to "the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi Arabia, in Kashmir," and calling Vice-President Cheney's criticisms of Democrats "sleazy and despicable".
He has taken the sore loser act to a whole new level. "I am Al Gore and I used to be the next president of the United States," is how he introduces himself. He can't seem to get past the fact that he lost. Constitutionally, he was defeated. When sworn in, the President takes an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Following the letter of the law of that very Constitution, he lost. How can he feel entitlement to the post of Commander-In-Chief, while holding such disdain for the very document that guarantees that title?
Posted by Michael at 8:23 AM
Sunday, September 12, 2004
This seems familiar, watching the Weather Channel on Sunday night. Last week we were worried about what was then Tropical Storm Frances moving through. Now it's Ivan, and what a huge storm. The latest maps and advisories from the National Hurricane Center project landfall near Mobile, AL. That could spare Middle Georgia the full brunt, but North Georgia looks to get a soaking and strong winds as Ivan's remnants move through. Of course all that could change tomorrow....
Posted by Michael at 8:12 PM
Friday, September 10, 2004
Either V.P. nominee John Edwards doesn't keep up with the news, or no one has bothered to tell him about the questionable nature of the CBS documents mentioned below. The Nashua (N.H.) Telegraph reports that Edwards is using the documents as his basis for once-again questioning the President's military service. Perhaps he should catch up with the rest of the world in questioning the validity and source of the documents.
Someone should also tell the Telegraph about the issue, because they don't mention the new controversy in their story.
Posted by Michael at 1:01 PM
CBS aired another hit piece against President Bush on their 60 minutes program Wednesday night. New documents supposedly found in the personal files of Bush's National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian, cast doubts on the President's military service. They could prove damaging to the President, save for one small thing... They are almost certainly fake. Apparently the documents were created on a computer, quite possibly using Microsoft Word. Here are the particulars:
In a telephone interview from her Texas home, Killian's widow, Marjorie Connell, described the records as "a farce," saying she was with her husband until the day he died in 1984 and he did not "keep files." She said her husband considered Bush "an excellent pilot."
Questions are also being raised about the memos by document experts, who say they appear to have been written on a computer, not a typewriter. The memos are dated 1972 and 1973, when computers with word-processing software were not available.
More than half a dozen document experts contacted by ABC News said they had doubts about the memos' authenticity.
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available … indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Among the points Flynn and other experts noted:
The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.
The memos include superscript, i.e. the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.
The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.
The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas — the bible of fonts — does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.
The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
"I don't think there were any documents. He was not a paper person," she said, adding that she was "livid" at CBS. A CBS reporter contacted her briefly before Wednesday night's broadcasts, she said, but did not ask her to authenticate the records.
The Democratic National Committee sought to fuel the controversy yesterday by holding a news conference at which Iowa Senator Tom Harkin pointed to the documents as a fresh indictment of Bush's credibility. "Mr. Bush has repeatedly insisted that he did his duty. We now know this isn't true... The president lied to the American people... So when George Bush, in the Oval Office earlier this year, said 'I did my duty,' I'm sorry, we now know he didn't do his duty." Guess Harkin wanted the documents to be true so badly that he didn't worry about authentication before playing a little charachter assassination.
This can only turn out badly for the Democrats and John Kerry. Not only can Kerry not avoid nagging questions about his Vietnam service, and not only can they NOT make the same type of charges stick against the President, but now they have to explain why they tried to make political hay out of some faked documents.
Other questions need to be addressed. Who actually faked the papers? Who leaked them? How were they authenticated by CBS, but recognized as questionable by everyone else in the media? Apparently, that last question is causing Dan Rather and his cronies at CBS severe discomfort. Serves 'em right.
Posted by Michael at 12:29 PM
Thursday, September 09, 2004
I spent most of today in South Georgia surveying agricultural damage from Hurricane / Tropical Storm Frances. Pecans, corn, cotton, peanuts and soybeans were affected by the high winds and heavy rains. The pictures below are from two pecan orchards, one other outside Cordele (Crisp County) and the other in Sylvester (Worth County). The first two pictures are from an 1150+ tree orchard outside Cordele (Crisp County), that lost about three dozen trees. The last picture is a much smaller orchard in Sylvester (Worth County) that only lost a handful.
In both cases, the damage could have been much worse. I interviewed both farmers, and they are terribly worried about Hurricane Ivan. They agreed that the damage from Frances is nothing compared to what Ivan could bring if it follows the same track Frances did.
Posted by Michael at 9:15 PM
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
We were hit by the remnants of Hurricane / Tropical Storm Frances on Labor Day, and did it hit with a fury. We were lucky in comparison to Florida and south Georgia, but 55 mile-an-hour winds can still do some damage. Electricity here at the house went out around 9pm when a transformer by the road decided it had outlived its usefulness. We were in the dark for 22 hours. We were lucky.. .some in the area are still without power. Fortunately, there was no physical damage at home. My road was closed for a while just past the house, blocked by a fallen tree.
Now I see Ivan is lurking in the Caribbean, looking our way. Eek...
Posted by Michael at 7:14 PM
Sunday, September 05, 2004
Friday, September 03, 2004
The latest National Hurrican Center projections show the most dangerous part of Hurricane Frances crossing Florida and moving north through eastern Alabama early next week. If that path holds true, we in Middle Georgia could be spared the worst of the storm. On the radio this morning a weather forecaster predicted about 6 inches of rain here from Frances. We shall wait and see...
Posted by Michael at 10:42 AM
President Bush is certainly not the most polished, eloquent speaker. Last night, though, he pulled off a great acceptance speech from the convention in New York. He discussed the threats faced by the U.S., and the differences between himself and JFKerry when it comes to handling those threats. He spoke of hope and compassion, while protecting our liberties and freedoms. He said the protection of the U.S. is his highest duty, and we need no permission slip from the UN or any other nation when it comes to defending our land. It was a terrific speech. If you missed it, or would like to take a second look at it, here is a link to the full text.
Here's what did the major media outlets thought of Bush's remarks, courtesy the Media Research Center:
On ABC, Peter Jennings said, "A little more than an hour and after policy and politics and accomplishments cited and promises made, the President with real grace and heartfelt emotion speaks of those most difficult decisions a President has to make."
On FoxNews, Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard: "I thought it was almost a pitch perfect speech, and I think a very effective speech."
Also on FoxNews, Michael Barone of U.S. News said, "I thought the speech had moments of quite elegance and beauty of words that we haven't seen. I would say it would rival the speech of Barack Obama at the Democratic Convention and John McCain here at the Republican Convention."
From MSNBC, Chris Matthews exclaimed, "Well that was one helluva speech..."
Also on MSNBC, Jon Meacham, Editor of Newsweek: "I thought it was an A+. I thought it was probably the finest political speech George W. Bush has ever given."
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough: "Tonight it is, without a doubt the best speech that this man's ever given."
Posted by Michael at 10:17 AM
Thursday, September 02, 2004
If you didn't hear Zell Miller and Dick Cheney speak last night at the Republican Convention, you missed two of the best convention speeches in recent memory. Miller, described as the "conscience of the Democratic Party", spoke with an honesty and anger that was energizing and admirable. While less passionate than Miller, the Vice President delivered an exceptionally crafted speech, clearly defining the differences between President Bush and JFKerry.
Miller delivered some fantastic lines...
"And like you, I ask which leader is it today that has the vision, the willpower and, yes, the backbone to best protect my family? The clear answer to that question has placed me in this hall with you tonight. For my family is more important than my party. There is but one man to whom I am willing to entrust their future and that man's name is George Bush."
"Motivated more by partisan politics than by national security, today's Democratic leaders see America as an occupier, not a liberator. And nothing makes this Marine madder than someone calling American troops occupiers rather than liberators."
"For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom to abuse and burn that flag."
and my personal favorites...
"It is not their patriotism -- it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace. They were wrong. They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war. They were wrong.and...
"And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry. Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror. Listing all the weapon systems that Senator Kerry tried his best to shut down sounds like an auctioneer selling off our national security..."
"Senator Kerry has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations. Kerry would let Paris decide when America needs defending. I want Bush to decide."and...
"I have knocked on the door of this man's soul and found someone home, a God-fearing man with a good heart and a spine of tempered steel. The man I trust to protect my most precious possession: my family... God Bless this great country and God Bless George W. Bush."Miller's entire comments are available here.
Vice President Cheney was direct and on target with his comments. He laid out what threats and challenges the US faces. Then he explained why President Bush is a better choice than JFKerry to meet those challenges and threats.
"The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it. But there is also a record of more than three decades since. And on the question of America's role in the world, the differences between Senator Kerry and President Bush are the sharpest, and the stakes for the country are the highest. History has shown that a strong and purposeful America is vital to preserving freedom and keeping us safe - yet time and again Senator Kerry has made the wrong call on national security. Senator Kerry began his political career by saying he would like to see our troops deployed "only at the directive of the United Nations." During the 1980s, Senator Kerry opposed Ronald Reagan's major defense initiatives that brought victory in the Cold War. In 1991, when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait and stood poised to dominate the Persian Gulf, Senator Kerry voted against Operation Desert Storm.The complete text of Cheney's speech is located here. It's a fantastic read!
"Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America - after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it - and that includes the use of military force.
"Senator Kerry denounces American action when other countries don't approve - as if the whole object of our foreign policy were to please a few persistent critics. In fact, in the global war on terror, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has brought many allies to our side. But as the President has made very clear, there is a difference between leading a coalition of many, and submitting to the objections of a few. George W. Bush will never seek a permission slip to defend the American people."
Posted by Michael at 9:23 AM
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
Hurricane Frances is churning in the Caribbean, and it seems to have set its sights on Middle Georgia. Actually, it's aiming for the central Atlantic coast of Florida. But forecasts have it moving inland and into Southern Georgia.
This could make for a very interesting holiday weekend. It was a holiday weekend 10 years ago (July 4 '94) that we got about 18 inches of rain from a tropical storm. We're gonna keep our eyes on this one. It's massive and dangerous. This storm shouldn't screw with the Georgia Southern/UGA football game Saturday afternoon. Looks like it will start affecting us on Sunday.
As for the game, no one is suggesting anything resembling an upset, but we Eagles are optimistic that GSU will look good enough to make the game respectable. My prediction: UGA 47 GSU 16
Posted by Michael at 5:41 PM