Recently in Democrats Category

The Longest Two Months-- While it seems like an eternity has passed, the Iowa Caucus was only 60 days ago. Fortunately this is the last of the significant primaries and the race has been decided on one side and all but determined on the other.

Congrats to McCain -- If winning makes you look smarter, then campaign manager Rick Davis appears to be a genius. He laid out McCain's Path to Victory in December and found a way to make it a reality.

Thanks, Governor Huckabee -- I have many reasons to be thankful for Governor Huckabee's inspiring Presidential run. But there are three other groups who should also be grateful for Mike Huckabee: social conservatives who lacked a voice in the primaries, supporters of John McCain, and Republicans.

If the Republican's hold the White House next year, Huckabee will deserve partial credit. By winning in Iowa, Huckabee derailed Romney's campaign and prevented the Massachusetts Governor's long march toward an inevitable electoral debacle. Huckabee also managed to keep many conservative evangelicals and other members of the traditionalist wing of the party engaged in the race. Their support for McCain may be listless, but Huckabee gave them hope that it may be too soon to give up on the GOP.

An Inevitable Obamination? Maybe Not. -- After the Florida primary I wrote, "An Obama/Anyone ticket would be a disaster for McCain." I still pessimistic enough to believe that it's likely, though I'm hopeful that the abomination of an Obama presidency is not yet inevitable. I'm even starting to see signs that such a disaster may be averted. The reason: people are starting to listen to what Obama says.

Take, for instance, his NAFTA-bashing which has caused our neighbors to the north to worried about the "rhetoric of protectionism." Even Andrew Sullivan, who swoons at the mention of Obama, said the NAFTA pander was "Not his finest hour." (Yes it's a tepid response and yes we all know that if Obama wins that Sullivan will spend the next four years regretting his support (as he did with Bush), but still, any relenting from his incessant Obamafawning is a huge concession.)

Obama has an uncanny ability to inspire in people an audacious hope for the impossible (Example: "The philosophy guy said that he almost always votes for Republican, but he's for Obama this time, although he can't quite explain why. His hope is that Obama will govern like a Republican.") But I'm hopeful that such people will set aside such nonsense and eventually realize that while Obama sounds like a cross between Cicero and The Rock, what he's saying is nothing more than rehashed discredited liberalism.

Rush to Idiocy -- So Rush Limbaugh is urging people to vote for Hillary. Hugh Hewitt is aghast ("If Hillary ekes out close wins, stays alive, gains the nomination and the White House, will Rush hold the Bible at her Inauguration?") but I can't say that I'm really surprised. Rush is an entertainer and for all the hype about his ratings, his audience isn't that large by show business standards (he has half the audience of Fox's reality show Moment of Truth). He needs a Clinton presidency to remain relevant and give people a reason to tune in to his daily gasbaggery.

Still, I refuse to believe it worked. I refuse to believe that Republicans in Ohio and Texas are voting for Hillary in the primary because some radio clown told them it was the optimal strategy. I refuse to believe it because (a) the fact that McCain is the nominee shows that Rush is not that influential and (b) Republicans can't be that stupid. (While I'm certain about (a) could I be wrong about (b)?)

I agree with Lars Walker: "It seems to me that if you love this country you've got to hold the electoral process in a kind of reverence. The fact that there are cynical people out there who game the system doesn't justify us, the people who say we believe in moral absolutes, in pretending to belong to a different party so we can sabotage its nomination process. If they did it to us, I'd be angry about it."

Say it ain't so, Republicans; say you didn't stoop that low.

The Most Significant Number -- In 2004, Ohio proved to be the key state for President Bush's reelection victory. In a tight race, Bush beat John Kerry in the Buckeye State by 118,457 votes. So how does it look four years later? With 81% of the precincts in Ohio reporting, the Democratic candidates received 1,745,199 votes while the Republicans received less than half that amount -- 867,000.

If the GOP is relying on a victory in Ohio to shift the Red-Blue divide toward McCain then we're in serious trouble.

What is it about Barack Obama that causes women to faint?

As the WSJ's James Taranto says, "What exactly are we to make of this? A cynic might wonder if the whole thing isn't staged, given how often it happens and how well-honed and self-serving Obama's standard response seems to be. But if it's spontaneous, that's in a way even more unsettling."

It is rather weird. Though, I have to say that the thought of Obama becoming President makes me a bit woozy too.

In his masterpiece On War, the 19th century Prussian general Karl von Clausewitz's described war as a "continuation of politics by other means.” Some political pundits appear to take a similar view, treating war—particularly the war on terror—as merely a continuation of partisan politics by other means.

Consider, for example, a recent article in The New Republic by Cass Sunstein, a contributing editor and professor at the University of Chicago. Sunstein attempts to present a pared down social science argument that could be outlined as:

Premise 1: Talk of terrorism reminds people of their own mortality.
Premise 2: Being reminded of one’s own mortality affects decision making.
Premise 3: When people are reminded of their own morality they show stronger support for President Bush and his policies in Iraq.
Conclusion: Talk of terrorism will affect people’s decision making, leading them to favor Bush -- or Republican candidates in general.

Cass believes there are two explanations for why this issue favors Republicans. Either (a) the GOP has made a more convincing case that they are stronger on national security or (b) “visceral fear and outrage lead people to support the leader who seems firmer, stronger, and more aggressive.” The Democrats therefore have two choices for responding. According to Cass, if (a) then “…the Democrats' task is to convince people, through reasoned arguments, that they are likely to be safer with Democrats at the helm….” If (b) then the proper Democratic response is somewhat different. It is to show the same kind of firmness and resolve--and capacity for aggression--that people have associated with Bush.”

After pointing out that the Democrats either need better rhetoric or to become better poseurs, Sunstein concludes:

Over the weekend the blogosphere was abuzz with anticipation after Powerline teased that a major newspaper would be breaking a story that would be damaging to the Kerry campaign. This morning the Washington Times broke the news that…John Kerry is a liar?

U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq.

While I hate to admit it, I have to agree with the Daily Kos on this one. This story won’t matter.

Don’t get me wrong. The fact that a presidential candidate would tell the same lie on seven different occasions should raise serious concerns about his integrity, integrity, integrity. But it won’t change a single vote. The Democrats, after all, have made it clear that they don’t care about character.

Keep in mind that this is a man who confessed to committing war crimes while in Vietnam. The Senator has forced his supporters to decide whether they believe he's a murderous war criminal or so pathological that he would lie about being a murderous war criminal. But whichever choice they settle on doesn't appear to matter. The Democrat's simply don't care about their candidate's integrity. That fact has become so obvious that even Republicans just roll their eyes now when reminded of Kerry's claims that he murdered civilians in wartime.

If Democrats can shrug off a scurrilous accusation that tarred not only Kerry's reputation but those of thousands of Vietnam veterans, then why does anyone think that lying about a meeting with UN representatives is going to raise any eyebrows?

A story showing once again that John Kerry is a liar is not an October Surprise. It's not even news. It's merely further confirmation of what we’ve known since Bill Clinton’s perjury: when it comes to their Presidential candidate's integrity, the Democrats are simply indifferent.

Related: Roger Simon asks, "Is John Kerry a sociopath?"

During the Vice Presidential debate last night, John Edwards continued his “two Americas” theme by asking, "Have you ever seen America more divided? Have you ever seen Washington more divided?"

I’m starting to think he may be right, at least about Washington. I’ve seen the Congress divided along party lines before. And I’ve even seen legislators who were divided from their own party. But I can’t recall every seeing at time when they were divided against their own selves.

Rep. Ike Skelton (D-MO), the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, accused Republican leaders of holding a vote on the bill to reinstate the military draft solely for political gain. "We have seen something I haven't seen in 28 years in the House of Representatives — someone bringing a bill to the House they don't support," Skelton said.

Skelton misses the obvious irony in claiming that the Republicans are forcing the vote on a bill they don’t support when Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the Democrat who introduced the legislation, voted against it himself. Rangel has never been accused of being a man of principle but at least he has his priorities straight. This is hypocrisy of the worst kind," Rangel said. "I would not encourage any Democrat running for re-election to vote for this bill."

Charlie has a point. If you’re a Democrat and you want to get reelected, don’t vote for any legislation that you sponsor. Otherwise, their constituents might start thinking they have principles and confuse them for Republicans.

(Note: The other cowards who co-sponsored the bill but voted against it are: Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1], Brown, Corrine [FL-3], Christensen, Donna M. [VI], Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1], Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14], Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7], Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23], Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2], Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18], Lewis, John [GA-5], McDermott, Jim [WA-7], Moran, James P. [VA-8], and Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12]. Pete Stark [CA-13] was the only co-sponsor who had the courage to vote for the legislation. He was joined by John Murtha of Pennsylvania.)

During the recent foreign policy debate with President Bush, Senator John Kerry repeatedly claimed that if he was elected that he would “bring the allies back” to help us in Iraq:

I think we need a president who has the credibility to bring the allies back to the table and to do what's necessary to make it so America isn't doing this alone.
…
Almost every step of the way, our troops have been left on these extraordinarily difficult missions. I know what it's like to go out on one of those missions when you don't know what's around the corner.

And I believe our troops need other allies helping. I'm going to hold that summit. I will bring fresh credibility, a new start, and we will get the job done right.
…

I have a plan for Iraq. I believe we can be successful. I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning. And we need a fresh start, a new credibility, a president who can bring allies to our side.

Kerry appears to be claiming that he will bring back old allies and that these allies will help the U.S. maintain the security of Iraq. Unless he is talking about bringing in countries that didn’t provide support for either Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, we can assume he is referring to the coalition members who sent ground troops during the first Gulf War. Those countries, listed by the number of troops they provided and their type of government, are:

War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it.

The criterion for the use of nuclear weapons was established fifty nine years ago when, after months of deliberation, President Harry S. Truman made the fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. For the next eighteen years the Missouri Democrat was criticized for his judgment. But in July 1963 Irv Kupcinet, a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, wrote favorably about the excruciating decision. Truman, who rarely spoke about the bombing, wrote a letter in response in which he defended his action:

I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again…

Truman was merely the first President forced to decide when and under what circumstances they would agree to use nuclear weapons. Since 1945 every man who has held the office has had to wrestle with the implications that his answer would bring. And while we can never truly know how a presidential candidate would actually respond when faced with such circumstances, Democratic nominee John Kerry provided a clue to how he would answer the question in a recent foreign policy debate:

I’m not generally one to support John Kerry’s campaign but I'm growing tired of the way the media has been freezing out the Democratic candidate. The last time they allowed him to hold a press conference was on August 9th. That’s a 42-day period in which the press has refused to allow him to answer questions about his position on the issues. Imagine how many flip-flops we missed in that month and a half.

How can the media get away with this? If they’ll show up when Ralph Nader speaks why won’t they come to press conferences when Kerry holds them? Why do they force him to take his message to The Daily Show and to Late Night with David Letterman. What’s next, will they force him to plead his case before Regis and Dr. Phil?

I urge all citizens to call, write, or email the major media outlets and let them know that their treatment of Kerry will not be tolerated. Tell them we want them to stop ignoring the candidate and start showing up when he speaks. Let them know we are aware of what they are doing and that we will not tolerate this boycotting of John Kerry’s press conferences.

Update: The almighty blogosphere has brought the press to its knees once again. On the very day that we call for them to end their boycott, the media caves and shows up for Kerry's press conference. Good for us, bad for him.

In my last post I noted that Bill Burkett, the man suspected of passing forged memos to CBS, was represented by David Van Os, a labor lawyer from San Antonio. In a recent article in the New York Times, Van Os makes some peculiar statements about his client and the alleged documents:

Mr. Burkett declined to return telephone calls to his home near Abilene, Tex. His lawyer, David Van Os, on Tuesday repeatedly refused to say in a telephone interview whether the officer had played a part in supplying the disputed documents to CBS. Mr. Van Os said "the real story is and should be, where was George Bush?" and that Mr. Burkett "is not the proper object of attention."

Mr. Van Os called Mr. Burkett "a man of impeccable honesty who would not permit himself to be a party to anything fake, fraudulent or phony." He also said, in response to questions, and stressing that he was speaking only hypothetically, "If Bill Burkett were to later discover that something he was a party to were fake or phony, as a man of honor who lives by a code of honor of the military, he would not permit the falsity to continue." But, the lawyer hastened to add, "This is not intended to be any kind of specific statement."

Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"

The fact that a lawyer would think that there is nothing wrong with passing off “replicas of documents they believed to have existed” thirty years ago is rather surprising. But Van Os isn’t just Bill Burkett’s lawyer. He’s also a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

After the death of Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton released a statement praising the former Republican President for being at the “forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere.” Apparently, though, Clinton doesn’t believe that fight included black Americans. In an interview with The Weekend Australian, the impeached Democrat dropped the civil tone and accused both Reagan and George W. Bush of “deliberately using racist electoral appeals to win the White House.”

Clinton said Rehnquist, Reagan and Bush were part of a far-Right branch of the Republican Party made up of the "spiritual heirs" of white southern racists, who still used the tactics of personal destruction employed by racists in their campaign to block civil rights for blacks.

He accused Rehnquist of deliberately appointing a highly partisan Republican, David Sentelle, in 1994 to chair a three-member panel of judges empowered to appoint special counsels to conduct inquiries into presidents.

My initial reaction upon reading that passage was to wonder what appointing special counsels to conduct inquiries into presidents had to do with racism. Despite what Toni Morrison might have claimed in her racist article for the New Yorker, Bubba ain’t black.

After Sandy Berger got caught using his pants as a briefcase, the Kerry campaign had to dredge the shallow pool of Democratic talent for a new foreign policy advisor. With absolutely no one with any genuine experience wiling to waste their future on the soon-to-be failed Presidential bid, Kerry settled on the bland choice of former President Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeline Albright. For her part, Albright has been campaigning for the Senator and applauding his commitment to seeking an Arab-Israeli settlement. In return, Kerry can be found praising the Clinton administration’s “direct diplomacy with North Korea.”

This raises the obvious question of whether Albright will be Kerry’s choice to take Colin Powell’s job? And as Hugh Hewitt asks, “Does America really want Madeline and her like-minded followers back in charge?”

I have to admit that I would. At least under the condition that Albright would have the integrity to be consistent and keep her word. After all, back in 1999 she told Fox News:

“[T]he statute of limitations on war crimes does not run out, and the day of reckoning will come.”

Would she truly be willing to bring that “day of reckoning” on those who committed war crimes? What about on the man who said:

The Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that Regnery, the publisher of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth book "Unfit for Command," is retailing a hoax and should consider withdrawing it from bookstores. "No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them, especially falsehoods that are meant to smear the military service of an American veteran," said Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton.

Joel from Southern Appeal wonders where Kerry’s censors have been all this time:

Where were the Kerry Camp Censors when Fahrenheit 9/11 was smearing Bush all over movie screens across the world? Nowhere, because Moore has a right to express his particular worldview, even if it is completely unfair and unhinged, and because it's good for Kerry.

Where were the Kerry Camp Censors when MoveOn.org started their own 527 slam campaign on Bush? Where are they now, when mere allegations about GWB's TANG record are being passed off as fact in ads running now? Where was the 527 outrage then? Nowhere, because MoveOn.org has a right to their quirky, abrasive form of political expression, and that's good for Kerry.

What Joel forgot to mention – which helps explain the absence – is that “Nowhere” is in Cambodia. Or near Cambodia. Or at least within 50 miles of Cambodia…

Because of the attention that is being given to the clams by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, I thought it might be useful to clear up a few misconceptions that may arise as this story progresses. Listed below are a few of the more common misunderstandings I’ve noticed that need clarification:

Misunderstanding: After receiving three Purple Hearts, Kerry was reassigned out of Vietnam.

Clarification: During the Vietnam War the Navy had a policy that allowed for “Thrice Wounded Reassignment.” The policy (BUPERS Instruction 1300.39) stated that a sailor who was wounded three times, regardless of the nature of the wound or treatment required, should be reassigned as having completed a full Vietnam tour with the hospital release date considered the tour completion date.

The process required that:

"The commanding officer of an officer who is hospitalized and/or wounded under the above criteria will advise the Chief of Naval Personnel (Pers-B1) of the officer's location, duty status, and expected duration of hospitalization. Reassignment of the officer will be determined after consideration of his physical classification and on an individual basis."

Even after the reassignment was recommended by the CO, the officer was still able to ask for a waiver to remain in combat.

While a Purple Heart is awarded for a wound received in combat, the issuing of the award wasn’t a requirement under this policy. Kerry was able to leave Vietnam before he received his third Purple Heart.

Misconception: Kerry was forced to transfer out of Vietnam.

Clarification: On 30 June 71, Kerry appeared as a guest on “The Dick Cavett Show.” During the program he made the following remark:

The Drudge Report has a story about a veterans group seeking to discredit John Kerry's military service by claiming that he committed war crimes in Vietnam. The claims of the group, known as Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, are being met with reservations and skepticism from both ends of the political spectrum. Steven Taylor says his initial reaction was “severe skepticism” while James Joyner contends, “…frankly, [SBVT] sound increasingly like lunatics.” Kevin Drum appears to agree and adds, “I hope nobody minds if I ignore the whole Swift Boat veterans thing. These people are certifiable lunatics, and I just can't stand the thought of wasting neurons over them.”

Whether the SBVT are telling the truth or not remains to be seen. Before I give credence to their claims, though, I think we should allow the former swift boat veteran under scrutiny a chance to respond:

At a breakfast with Democratic delegates in Florida, the actor Ben Affleck told the crowd that Bush tax cuts had provided him with $1 million last year that he didn't need.

When a reporter from the New York Times asked him if he ever considered sending the $1 million back to Washington, the actor said "No,"

"I'm not Jesus Christ of the tax code. I can't completely martyr myself."

For the moment, let’s set aside the idiotically blasphemous way in which he frames the issue and focus on the idiotic hypocrisy of his statement.

In essence, Affleck is saying that he wants the government to forcibly take from him what he isn’t willing to give. While I don’t expect intellectual consistency from anyone who collects a paycheck by pretending to be someone else, I'm curious how far he would take this idea. Would he, for example, support the idea of a military draft?

I like Ben. I really do. In fact, I think he’s an intelligent guy and (semi)talented actor. But he shares a failing common to the wealthy members of his adopted political party. If you’re a Democrat and you disagree with the tax cuts why not give the money back to the government? If you don't believe that you should keep the money why not send it to the IRS? All it would require is a stamp, an envelope, and the courage to live up to your convictions.

Which of these items are the Democrats lacking?

(Hat tip: Steven Taylor)

Mark Steyn provides this brilliant sound bite from John Kerry:

[Kerry] was in Wisconsin the other day, pretending to be a regular guy, and was asked what kind of hunting he preferred. "I'd have to say deer," said the senator. "I go out with my trusty 12-gauge double-barrel, crawl around on my stomach... That's hunting."

Say what you will about Sen. Kerry, he has a gift for bringing people together. After all, what other candidate could make one statement and lose face with both PETA and the NRA?

Maybe the stress of campaigning is getting to him. Or perhaps he’s just spent too much time talking about his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. That might explain why he seems to be confusing being a deer hunter with being in The Deer Hunter.

(Hat tip: Vox Day)

I had no interest in listening to Jimmy, Bill, Hillary, Al, and Howard. The Democratic Convention is already boring enough without wasting time on washed-up former politicos. In fact, I’d have skipped the speeches altogether if it hadn't been for Ron Reagan, Jr. Ever since it was announced that he was going to be speaking out in favor of embryonic stem cell research I have been itching to fisk his speech.

Unfortunately, I just can’t bring myself to do it.

Not that it doesn’t deserve a good drubbing. The speech is bad, though admittedly not as horrible as I had expected. (Ramesh Ponnuru gives it the light smackdown that it warrants). But everything about it was just too depressing to bother with. For the Democrat’s to trot out the son of a recently deceased and beloved Republican President is shameful. But the fact that Ron Jr. allowed himself to be used in such a matter is even worse.

Why did they choose him anyway? He’s not an expert on the subject. He's not a talented speaker. There isn't even a connection between ESC research and his father's Alzheimer’s. So why exactly did the Democrat's choose him to speak on the issue?

An even better question that could be asked is, “Who vetted his speech?” How did they let this line slip through?

But it does not follow that the theology of a few should be allowed to forestall the health and well-being of the many.

Shouldn’t someone have changed “theology” to “ethics?” Do the Democrat’s not already have enough problems reaching out to religious voters without having an avowed atheist dismiss our beliefs about the sanctity of life?

I always thought that party conventions were tightly scripted affairs. Is the whole event this sloppy? If the Democrats can't even effectively control their nominating convention, how can they be trusted with the reigns of government?

"The timing speaks for itself," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, on the news that former national security advisor Sandy Berger was under federal investigation for pilfering top secret government documents. On this one point Sen. Clinton and her husband agree. In an interview with The Denver Post, Clinton questioned the timing of the Berger flap less than a week before the Democratic National Convention and two days before the release of the 9/11 report.

Clinton said he has known about the federal probe of Berger's actions for several months, calling this week's news a "nonstory." "I wish I knew who leaked it. It's interesting timing," he added. But if Clinton really believes it is a “nonstory” then why does the timing matter at all?

The truth is that he knew it was a serious issue and yet neither he nor his wife informed the Kerry campaign. If he had been notified about the investigation, Kerry could have quietly let Berger go before the story broke. Instead, they waited until it was “leaked” to even mention that they were aware of what was going on.

Berger knew he was under investigation. Bill Clinton says he knew for months. And there can be little doubt that on an issue of such importance he would have informed Hillary. Since all three were aware of the probe, why did they not inform John Kerry? According to Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines:

During the Democratic primary debate in Milwaukee, Al Sharpton was asked if he thought President Bush lied when he asked for support to invade Iraq. The Reverend responded:

Clearly, he lied. Now if he is an unconscious liar, and doesn't realize when he's lying, then we're really in trouble

This drew a laugh from the audience and even Sen. John Edwards was caught on camera trying unsuccessfully to stifle a chuckle. No doubt Edwards thought it was a fair question to ask. As he himself once said, “"Certainly the integrity and character of the president of the United States is at issue, no question."

But that raises an interesting question. Does Edwards realize it when he’s lying?

Late last night, the New York Post scooped all the other major media to announce that Kerry's choice for running mate is…Dick Gephardt?

The Post has since removed the story which, according to a Google News search was posted at 3 am EST, but doesn’t have an explanation online. The editors, though, probably should have seen this coming. On Saturday the paper wrote:

Political parties always dream about having a “balanced ticket” that will appeal to a wide swath of the electorate. Still, there’s something rather sad (but very, very amusing) about the Democrats preferring to balance their ticket by pairing John Kerry with a Republican. The pool of candidates for President was already fairly shallow and uninspiring, so it shouldn't be surprising that no Democrat stands out as the obvious choice for the number two spot. Still, what does it say about the Democrats (and, for that matter, the GOP) that the mere mention of adding Republican Senator John McCain is enough to give Kerry a double digit increase in the polls over Bush and Cheney.

McCain himself sparked the intriguing idea back in April when he said he'd consider an offer from Kerry. Since then, however, he’s backed off from the statement, repeatedly claiming that he supports Bush's re-election and doesn’t want to be anyone's vice president. That’s a shame. By adding McCain, the Democrats would turn this election into one of the most exciting in the past thirty years.

It won’t happen, of course. The Democrat’s may tease us with the idea but they are far too politically savvy to actually let Kerry choose McCain. And McCain has emphatically stated that he wouldn't accept the offer. Still, it’s fun to imagine what would happen and to speculate why the Arizona veteran is considered a prime candidate.

In an excellent semi-fisking of Al Gore’s latest speech, John “HindRocket" Hinderaker from Powerline concludes by saying:

I could go on, but I'll stop for now. There is simply too much falsehood and confusion in Gore's speech for any one person to deconstruct. We should perhaps divide his tirade by paragraphs and parcel out to websites in the blogosphere--the Northern Alliance, for example, with help from others, since the job is so vast--the task of refuting Gore's misrepresentations and libels, one by one.

I’d like to add my small contribution to this worthy project by clearing up a bit of confusion that I found while reading Captain Ed’s take on the speech:

“And the worst still lies ahead. General Joseph Hoar, the former head of the Marine Corps, said "I believe we are absolutely on the brink of failure. We are looking into the abyss."

When a senior, respected military leader like Joe Hoar uses the word
"abyss," then the rest of us damn well better listen.

The Commandant of the Marine Corps is the title for the person who would be considered the “head of the Marine Corps." General Hoar has held many positions of distinction within the military but he was never the Commandant. (Hoar, like Gen. Zinni, is a former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command.)

Such a slip up might be excusable from an ordinary politician. But if it weren’t for a handful of voters in Florida, Al Gore would be the current Commander in Chief of the U.S. military. The fact that he confuses the CENTCOM CinC for the Commandant of the Marine Corps shows that he is completely clueless about military affairs. While Gore was Vice President, Hoar served as one of the most powerful command positions in the military. Yet it appears that Gore didn't even know who Hoar was before one of his speechwriters provided him with the General's quote. Such ineptitude is downright frightning.

Perhaps its all a clever ploy. Maybe having Gore speech in public is a strategy conceived by the Democrats to boost John Kerry's image. After all, when compared to the blundering incompetent Al Gore, Kerry comes off as an adroit elder statesman.

Georgia Senator Zell Miller is not only my favorite Democrat but a model for the lost art of Southern oratory. Take, for instance, his latest comments on events in Iraq:

"Those who are wringing their hands and shouting so loudly for 'heads to roll' over [the abuse] seem to have conveniently overlooked the fact that someone's head has rolled ¯ that of another innocent American brutally murdered by terrorists," said Sen. Zell Miller, Georgia Democrat. "Why is it that there's more indignation over a photo of a prisoner with underwear on his head than over the video of a young American with no head at all?"

There is no question that Abu Ghraib prison abuses were inexcusable acts that deserve the utmost condemnation and punishment. But as Zell rightly points out, we have to have to place the event in its proper perspective.

[Note: For another example of Zell’s rhetorical skill, check out his comments on “crotch-grabbing rappers and bony-butted rock stars".]

(Hat tip: David Horowitz’s blog)

One of the most basic tenets of military strategy is never give up the high ground. For the past few months, John Kerry has followed that strategy and maintained the moral high ground by refusing to get sucked into the ridiculous controversy over President Bush’s service in the National Guard. But, for some inexplicable reason, he has changed his approach:

Then Kerry turned the issue against the president, saying for the first time that Bush was far more vulnerable on matters of Vietnam-era choices because of questions about whether he completed his service in the Texas Air National Guard. ''He owes America an explanation about whether or not he showed up for duty in the National Guard. Prove it," Kerry told NBC.

Big mistake. By continuing to make the Vietnam-era issue relevant, Kerry has made himself fair game for further scrutiny. It won’t be long before someone in the media (Hugh Hewitt, perhaps?) starts looking closer and asking questions about his time in the Naval Reserve.

Many people seem to be under the impression that Kerry’s military obligation ended when he was released from active duty. But on his DD-214 it shows that he was released from active duty and transferred to the Ready Reserve on 3 Jan 1970 with his terminal date from the reserves as 17 Feb 1972 (he was later transferred to the Standby Reserve - Inactive on 1 July 1972). According to the Officer Candidate Agreement that he signed, Kerry was obligated to serve in the Ready Reserve for five years before being transferred to the Standby Reserve. His service record does reflect that once he left active duty that he was assigned to the Naval Reserve in an inactive status. As his paperwork states, release from active duty did not terminate his status as a member of the U.S. Naval Reserve and he was subject to involuntary recall to active duty. He was also required to report any changes in health or address to the nearest NR command.

It should also be noted that, as the SecNav Instruction on Administrative Separation of Officers (para 6) makes clear, release from active duty does not affect an individual’s status as a commissioned officer.

So what does this mean? While it is unclear whether Kerry was obligated to continue in a drill status (from what I can tell I would say he wasn’t) it is clear that he was still considered a commissioned officer during the period of his anti-war activities (1969-1972). On April 23, 1971, the John Kerry who threw his medals away was not a civilian but an officer in the Naval Reserve.

If Kerry really wants to press the matter he might be able to show that Bush missed a few drill weekends with the National Guard. By dredging up this issue, though, he opens himself up to the criticism that, while still under obligated service as a commissioned officer in the Navy, he participated in conduct that brought discredit upon the Naval service. Throwing away your medals (and then lying about it) is shameful conduct for a former veteran. But such actions by an officer is utterly disgraceful.

(Hat tip: Kausfiles and JustOneMinute)

Last December John Kerry made it clear where he stood on post-war Iraq:

"We need reasonable plan and a specific timetable for self-government. That means completing the tasks of security and democracy in the country -- not cutting and running in order to claim a false success."

As I pointed out last week, Kerry has backed off of the claim that establishing democracy should be our primary goal:

"I have always said from day one that the goal here … is a stable Iraq, not whether or not that's a full democracy. I can't tell you what it's going to be, but a stable Iraq. And that stability can take several different forms."

Kerry attempts to makes the audacious claim that his position has not shifted, but the Washington Post isn’t buying it:

Where once he named democracy as a task to be completed, and the alternative to "cutting and running" or a "false success," Mr. Kerry now says democracy is optional. Where once he warned against setting the conditions for an early but irresponsible withdrawal of U.S. forces, now he does so himself by defining the exit standard as "stability," a term that could describe Saudi Arabia or Iran -- or the Iraq of Saddam Hussein.

The editorial goes on to critique Kerry’s “stability” proposal:

At the end of last month John Kerry took President Bush to task over the increase in gas prices:

"George Bush ran for president pledging to pressure OPEC to relieve high prices, but on his watch the problems have gotten worse and the solution has been