Redstate

Okay, we probably need you to say a bit more than that.

and the timing couldn't be better!

Not sure where you are going dredging up this Swift boat veteran stuff which already has been widely discredited and is irrelevant anyway.  Undecideds, this is election is a referendum on Bush.  Don't let anyone tell you different.  The people who are howling about Kerry's flaws and lack of experience are the same type of people who howled about Clinton before he got elected and oversaw what undeniably was one of the greatest periods of prosperity and global dominance in this country's history.  Clinton maintained relatively low taxes and showed more fiscal responsibility than any Republican since Ford.  Clinton's major mistake was Monica -- which looks pretty darn small compared to the thousands of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens being killed in senseless anti-American attacks in Iraq.  

Contrast Clinton with Bush II and our now spiraling deficits with only a lackluster economy to show for them.  A big chunk of the job creation during the past four years comes from the expansion of government.  

Hardcore Republicans are getting fed up.  Democrats have a point.  What has Bush done over the past four years?  What key decisions has he made?  

1.  Iraq -- which we now know was an unnecessary frolick and detour in search of weapons of mass destruction that existed only in "intent" and not in reality, and it cost us diverting our troops so defiant American killing Bin Laden is still on the prowl and even Bush says the next terrorist attack is not a matter of when, not if.
   
2.  Massive tax cuts that, as stated, resulted in the current weak "recovery", which is so weak that Bush is the first President since Hoover to have a net loss of jobs in his administration.  Even last month's job growth numbers lag population growth so that unemployment is rising after taking into account new entrants into the workforce.  

Everything else is really just noise, and not necessarily good noise.  Bush only accepted a Homeland Security department after he was forced into it and hasn't made it a funding priority, since it doesn't qualify as a good "offense" in his mind (like Iraq).

Bush failed on his promise to enable Americans to buy prescription drugs from Canada, which would have helped Americans far more than his prescription drug plan.  This is another windfall for drug companies which distracts the public from their inability to buy much cheaper drugs from Canada and the fact that the government is giving the drug companies no-bid contracts that no other companies can get (except maybe the big "H").  Bush's explanation that he wants to keep Americans safer by blocking Canadian drugs until he can address the safety issue further is clearly a big fat lie.  I don't know about you, but I haven't heard anything about Canadians or Americans for that matter being hurt by unsafe Canadian drugs, which are mostly just the same US drugs shipped across the border.  

Bush keeps talking about how hard he works, yet he took a lot of long vacations during his term, which is especially eyebrow raising since we were at war during most of his term.  

Bush brags about how he know foreign leaders and how they won't go along with alliances, but maybe that's because of his own experience and unique ability to piss them off, including by refusing to continue to work to negotiate key international treaties like Kyoto or the international court, or cutting them out of contracts in Iraq, or ignoring long-established conventions like the Geneva conventions with wordsmithing (Bush says we accept the "spirit" of the Geneva convention which gives his administration the weasel room to allow us to torture average Muslim civilians in our Iraqi prisions -- with the direct result of retaliatory beheadings of US citizens).    

I honestly have a hard time of coming up with anything good and concrete that Bush did, except maybe quick victories in Afghanistan and Iraq, which he rapidly squandered with no plans to maintain peace and security in those countries.  With more deaths and instability in those countries every day, the situation  is obviously going from bad to worse.  We now hear that Bush's military and civilian advisors (Bremer) wanted more troops on the ground but Bush ignored them.

The sad fact is that Bush is so stubborn that he can't admit (publicly at least) that he made any real mistakes.  The man is in denial.  In fact, he thinks that denial shows strength.  It's clear that reelecting Bush means four more years of the same policies and approaches.  If Bush wins, it's going to be tough for us.

That you had to spend so long to write so many words, only to have the community ignore them. For instance, as soon as you got to, "widely discredited" the rest of your post became "irrelevant." Get the facts. Oh - and try not to be so insulting. *I'm a hardcore Republican, and you hardly speak for me, friend.

And why haven't we heard more about this?

Hardcore Republicans are getting fed up.

Hah.  To the contrary, chief.

"Not sure where you are going dredging up this Swift boat veteran stuff"

To the bank.  It's absolutely devastating to the would-be boy king's case for why we'd want him leading us.

"which already has been widely discredited"

You guys keep saying that, but I've never seen the bulk of what they say discredited anywhere.  Just a bunch of lemmings repeating that it has been in the vain hope that it will just go away.

"and is irrelevant anyway."

It's the most relevant thing going in the campaign.  Hey, they're just doing what Kerry said to do, "bringing it on".  If Kerry wants to do something relevant, maybe he can come up with one single detail about all these "plans" he keeps bleating about in the debates.  Wish I had a nickel for every time I've heard "I've got a plan" lately.

"Undecideds, this is election is a referendum on Bush."

Incorrect.  It's a referendum on who should be our next president.  Um, so I guess you're right.  In that sense, it does happen to be a referendum on Bush.  My bad.

The rest of this post cancelled due to lack of interest.

I agree with krempasky. After reading the first couple of sentences I merely skimmed the remainder of your post because it clearly isn't worth the time to read it completely.

For one thing, my opinion is that this is perhaps the strongest economy of my lifetime! (I'm in my 40s.) Mortgage interest rates are LOW, inflation is LOW, growth is steady, unemployment is LOW, and the future looks great. You guys talking 'Doom and Gloom' about the economy should be ashamed of yourselves for talking such foolishness.

that's why.

The left got a weird disease that induces constant, psychotic laughter. Admittedly, not the best thing for a political conversation, but it does answer the question.

One supposes this pathogen outcompeted the organism responsible for Halliburton-Tourette's?

...because you can always tell which comment is a liberal troll's because they are completely unable to say (or type) anything less than 5 paragraphs long.  It's like diarrhea of the mouth (or keyboard) is a pre-requisite for being on the left.  

Secondly, it's funny that someone would spend that much energy on how "irrelevant" the Swift Vets are and how hardcore Republicans, which I would assume would constitute most of this site's audience (hence the name "Redstate"), are "fed up."  If you truly believed that then the thrust of your comment could be achieved in 3 sentences, but since you don't, and you realize that the majority of Americans (hardcore Republican or not) would find Mr. Kerry's Vietnam Era actions despicable, you have to trot out the talking points that keep you pressing on on Kerry's behalf.  Don't worry only 24 more days of this partcular cognitive dissonance to endure on behalf of your propped up candidate, then you can go back to bitching about Bush for 4 years.

I read your long(-winded) post with some interest.  It appears as if you were trying to make factual arguments against re-electing George Bush as president.  For that, I applaud you.  However, so many of your facts are wrong, you have lost all credibility; your argument holds no water at all.

I can point to countless articles that lay out facts that completely countermand your interpretations.  However, Mr. Bremer's recent write-up in the far left New York Times should be a sufficient rebuttal to your sham.  Mr. Bremer's initial statements were taken out of context (as partisans across all spectrums are want to do).  When you read his viewpoint in its entirety, you get a different picture all together.  One nearly 180degrees opposite your own.

The only fear I have, is that John Kerry will win this election.  I fear for my family's safety and that of my descendants.  You should, too.

Regards,

Jet

and unfortunately, a CNS exclusive doesn't pass it.

Feel free to write this off as psychotic.  

As for the constancy of it...  that's up to people like yourself, Thomas, who consistently show no filtration ability when it comes to news and to credibility.

Credibility isn't defined by what agrees with your preconceptions, no matter how cognitively appealing that may be.

Come on...  CNS?

I agree with krempasky. After reading the first couple of sentences I merely skimmed the remainder of your post because it clearly isn't worth the time to read it completely.

Ditto, here.  And I'm probably more sympathetic to your views than many on this board.

As for the Swift Vets:  per my pledge to stay out of the merits of the election, I'll limit myself to the following strategic analysis.

A third party group gets one (or two, at most) chances to influence an election.  After that, they're pegged and ignored.  The Swift Vets spent their political capital on on Kerry's record in Vietnam, foregoing the opportunity to focus on Kerry's post-service activism.  It's hard to see how Swift Vets, Part Tres, will play with the electorate.  

Unless they've found kryptonite.  Which, most sincerely, I doubt.  (Indeed, given their past stategic choices, I doubt that they'd be able to identify kryptonite even if they were to stuble upon it.  Never say never, though, is my rule.)

[M]y opinion is that this is perhaps the strongest economy of my lifetime! (I'm in my 40s.)  Mortgage interest rates are LOW, inflation is LOW, growth is steady, unemployment is LOW, and the future looks great.

This response amazes me from a Republican.  I really don't know where to start.  Yes, the economy is doing better -- all things considered -- than Kerry claims.  But the economic data, the most reliable economic projections, basic economic theory, and my own experiences (I counsel mostly large businesses, but my wife's mother is a classic "small business" owner) show this assertion to be false.  Indeed, the first item you cite -- low interest rates -- is actually indicative of a weak economy.  (And there's some evidence it's helping to create a housing market bubble, which, if true, would be near-catastrophic to the economy.)  

That, in "my opinion," I'm doing pretty done fine doesn't alter the numbers.  

The first thing to do is to try to look at the world as clearly as you can, and then apply your politics to that clear picture.  Respectfully, it appears that you're doing the opposite.

Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have walked into an ad hominem, or with a third-grade challenged sentence like:

As for the constancy of it...  that's up to people like yourself, Thomas, who consistently show no filtration ability when it comes to news and to credibility.

Putting that to the side (what does it mean to "show no filtration ability when it comes to credibility"?), however, I'll concede this:

Given that CNS made those documents available for everyone's review (which suggests at least a willingness to be criticized, yes?), I'll still grant them no more credibility than I do some partisan "news" organization that has bent most of its energies to trying to alter a Presidential election, and that reacts like a scalded cat when anyone dares criticize their reporting.

In other words, CBS is off the table now, too. Agreed?

There is a question the Swift Boat Vets can ask Kerry (which every reporter is afraid to ask):

Question:  "Senator Kerry, as Americans we are used to being able to have and express opinions that differ from our Government's position.  The military, however, long ago realized that you cannot allow individuals, especially OFFICERS, to seek out and communicate with governments or individuals that we are in armed conflict with.  As a result the UCMJ expressly forbids such contacts.  Senator, if elected, and an American officer independently met with, say, Al Quiada, and then brought their demands back to the U.S. and espoused them, what would you do?"

Kerry would have to either hypocritically uphold the UCMJ, by prosecuting someone who did EXACTLY what he did, or abandon the UCMJ, and undermine the order and discipline of the U.S. military.

Touch choice, Senator.

I agree that we ought not grant CNS any greater credibility simply because they tend to the right. They are new and need to establish their 'bona fides'. At the same time, in the day and age of the Internet, they ought not be dismissed just because they are 'new' or 'Internet based'. Once upon a time the concept behind the Associated Press (which used to be a responsible news organization) was new also; everything starts somewhere.

CNS has apparently made these documents available for examination, a far greater openness than exhibited by CBS. Part of this is clearly due to the 'flap' as a result of the CBS fiasco, but it is likely that part of it is because CNS recognizes that do no have the inate credibility that used to attach to the letters 'C-B-S'.

I am disappointed that there seems to be little attention being paid to these documents. The importance of the underlying assertion about WMD and deceit simply cannot be overstated. The implications are far greater than whether Kerry was in Cambodia at Christmas or Bush missed some ANG drills.

If the 'CNS' documents are false we need to know that. If the 'CNS' documents are legitimate we need to know that and more important,  what is happening about getting control of the WMD.

Clearly this impacts the election. If the administration was exaggerating about WMD then we need to know this before November 2. If on the otherhand they were correct then we deserve to know that also.

That, in "my opinion," I'm doing pretty done fine doesn't alter the numbers.

I have no idea what you said. Too many typos and punctuation mistakes.

The first thing to do is to try to look at the world as clearly as you can, and then apply your politics to that clear picture. Respectfully, it appears that you're doing the opposite.

Respectfully, it appears you've made a false assumption.

Politics has nothing to do with what I said. I simply believe that this time period -- from 2001/2002 to 2010/2020 -- is a boom time for our generation and that it offers opportunities not available in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The reason for this is largely due to demographic changes and has very little to do with government economic policy.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe the current low mortage rates are bad. How can affordable housing costs be a bad thing? And I don't see how low inflation, low unemployment, and low tax rates can be construed as bad. Slow, steady economic growth is good. Call me economically naive if you wish, but I'm simply optimistic about our economy and politics has nothing to do with it. The only place politics comes into the picture is that I agree with Bush that low taxes are better than high taxes.

Something I notice that no one is saying about the Swift Boat Vets.  Those who didn't go through the Vietnam times aren't too interested it would seem.  But Vietnam was an open wound that didn't heal for those who did go through it.  So therefore the Swift Boats are bringing out the "dirt" and showing the war more for what it was rather than for what Kerry and Jane Fonda said it was thereby healing the wounds and tying up the loose ends.  The Swift Vets are doing a public service for the whole country by bringing to clarity the Truth.  Kerry has, single handedly almost,  brought our country to its knees and needs to be at least psychologically taken out of the game to put our country back to its more solid footings.  Although our lack of morality as a whole is hurting the common good

Me:  That, in "my opinion," I'm doing pretty done fine doesn't alter the numbers.

You:  I have no idea what you said. Too many typos and punctuation mistakes.

I presume you mean only the cited line, since the rest of the post is relatively typo free (by the standards of a blog post).  My apologies for the confusion:  I used a colloquialism.  It's punctuated properly.

Politics has nothing to do with what I said. I simply believe that this time period -- from 2001/2002 to 2010/2020 -- is a boom time for our generation and that it offers opportunities not available in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The reason for this is largely due to demographic changes and has very little to do with government economic policy.

I strongly disagree.  I'm curious, however, as to why you believe that "demographics" works in the economy's favor in the next 10-20 years.

Furthermore, I find it hard to believe the current low mortage rates are bad.

A massive reduction in the prime rate (which is the root cause of low mortgage rates) is indicative of economic weakness in the same way that a regime of antibiotics is indicative of the presence of a disease.

Slow, steady economic growth is good.

I wholly agree.  

"Kerry has, single handedly almost,  brought our country to its knees..."

Wow.

And to think, he's not even President yet!

Considering he is on proud display in Vietnam's war memorial, I'd say he single-handedly did quite a bit to get that honor.

Nice one -- reminds me I've been meaning to order my "I heart Halliburton" button.

I agree, the Swiftboat Vets have at least one uncompleted mission to accomplish. They must continue to fight for the release of Senator John Kerry's military records.

I believe it is not only John Kerry who doesn't want his records released because high ranking officers in the US Navy will come under scrutiny for changing Kerry's discharge status from less than honorable to honorable AFTER he become a US Senator.

For that a court martial can be convened to try those complicit Navy officers.