Hello, Guest! Please sign in or sign up:
I found this over at Christopher's web site.
Here's a surprise: I'm more like the President than Waffle Meister Kerry.
You can take the quiz here. It reminds me of OnTheIssues' similar presidential quiz. That gave me the idea to take that again. I've included my results for that as well, below.
President Bush won this one hands down. I'll have to talk more about that tomorrow. It was great!
I've noticed a disturbing trend among the Bush haters, as Bill Sammon calls them. They are dead set on making President Bush out to be a deceptive guy — something they cannot provide any real evidence for. John Kerry dove right into this last night. Numerous times, he suggested that the President mislead Americans on the Iraqi situation prior to the regime change. Kerry refused to respond to President Bush's point that they both looked at the same intellegence.
Well, tonight was the first debate. I love debates, as anyone who knows me would guess. Tonight's debate was mostly uneventful. As David Gergen noted to Larry King afterward, “there were no memorable lines, at least that I can remember.” I do not think there was a clear victor, although both candidates did a good job of holding their ground.
I do think that President Bush clearly communicated his views and effectively highlighted John Kerry's flip-flopping. He also highlighted the critical issue of Sen. Kerry's undermining of our allies (which includes a present, tragic process by which the Kerry campaign is trying to undermine Prime Minister John Howard of Australia in their upcoming elections).
The president also clearly continued his laudable rejection of the International Criminal Court that would, essentially, impair our sovereignty. I honestly do not understand how Mr. Kerry can possibly support a system that would allow our citizens to be brought under a court that does not have to adhere to our standards and is not under our laws and selection of judges.
On the other hand, John Kerry did a good job of spreading mistruths about President Bush. For example, that accusation that the President mislead us into the war. While President Bush correctly countered with the fact that Sen. Kerry also supported the actions toward Iraq until it became politically preferable not to, a presidential candidate should not be attacking their opponent for the very thing they supported and promoted for years before it finally happened.
President Bush's main failing in this debate with the fact that he appeared overly aggressive and somewhat nervous in responses for the first few questions for no particular reason that I can think of (other than the fact that millions of people were watching — but that's nothing new for either of the candidates). On the other hand, I think Kerry started doing the same thing somewhat during the last part. Odd.
So, I'm voting for President Bush as the winner — both in truthfulness and overall substance, but it would appear John Kerry's mistruths might help him with this debate.
Because I've seen, during this whole Rathergate thing, a lot of people either arguing that the media has no bias or that it is controlled by a vast conspiracy, I felt it was high time to present again what I feel is a more realistic view. Before I get to that, let me link to two must read editorials on the issue, both from former CBS News employees:
I wanted to present the view that I believe most conservatives and some liberals — at least those who have taken time to formulate a position about the media — will agree with. That is the view best expressed by Bernard Goldberg in his books Bias and Arrogance. It has also been expressed by Bill Sammon of the Washington Times and, yes, even Rush Limbaugh. Mr. Goldberg, as you may know, is a former CBS News reporter and is also, at least according to himself, a life long Democrat (which, as he notes in the book, means his motivation has been from concerns for good journalism rather than political partisanship).
Essentially, Goldberg and others who agree with him, believe the media is not part of a vast conspiracy (right wing or left wing), but rather certain key non-conspiratorial factors lead to a general left leaning world view within the press. Broken down into their basic forms, they are:Thus, for example, if it turns out that [it was still questionable when I originally wrote this — I meant to post this several days ago] Ret. Lt. Col. Bill Burkett was the producer of the documents, a group composed mostly of liberals might be less prone to questioning the credibility of Mr. Burkett (if he says what they assume to be the truth — that President Bush lied about his National Guard record) than a group composed with a strong mix of liberals and conservatives. This isn't accusing liberals of anything — people just see what they want to see. Fox News is good proof of that on the conservative side.
Now let me slip in one bit of defense here, because I know the common objection to this position: “The media sure gave Clinton a hard time.” That is true, but the thing is, that does not conflict with this theory. Remember, this argument suggests that the media is generally biased because of the views of the individuals in it, not by a top-down conspiracy that forces the issue. Thus, if President Clinton could be used as a vehicle for a journalist to gain fame and a glowing promotion that only a breaking story could provide, that will probably override even their political leanings. Everyone wants to get the big story. Bill Sammon, on the other hand, argues he feels the media felt “betrayed” by the Clinton Administration since most of them presumably voted for President Clinton and then they had to watch different scandals occur. I do not agree with that latter theory, but I present it in addition to the former to show that there are several ways to explain the press's treatment of the former president without explaining away a liberal bias.
Normally, I make Wictory Wednesdays share the spotlight of another post. I thought I'd give it a post of its own today. So, how about helping out Dubya? There are lots of ways you can help, not the least being to blog about the nasty hit job CBS News attempted on our president last week. While I'd “Rather” talk about a nicer subject, I have been too silent on this despicable case of irresponsible journalism. It does not surprise me. You can follow the latest on that at Drudge.
Let's make it so that this backfires. Not by blaming it on Kerry — something I'd be loathe to do — but to make people see that “they” are attacking the President unfairly for a simple reason: his policies are popular with Americans and are good, for the most part, for America. Let's also let the media know it is time to drop Vietnam investigations on both candidates and worry about today. Both President Bush and Sen. Kerry appear to have served honorably, neither to the extent of many (although Kerry more so than Bush, perhaps). This provides little (or no) assistance in understanding their leadership abilities.
Another way you can help this Wictory Wednesday is to help give Tom Daschle a demotion this year, one that takes him all the way out of Washington, D.C. It is to late to donate to the President's campaign, so why not donate to John Thune, Daschle's challenger, instead? Apparently Mr. Thune is presently leading Daschle but is being out spent by a long shot — let's help bring an end to Daschles attempts to dash President Bush's attempts to get stuff done.
I'm not feeling energetic enough tonight to cover days 2, 3 and 4… so I'm just going to do day two right now. Tomorrow, perhaps I'll do both of the remaining days. On a side note, it seems a new Time poll is showing our President with a 11 point lead of likely voters even before his nomination! Exciting, huh?
Arnold Schwarzenegger might be a liberal Republican who is pro-abortion, pro-gay rights and so on, but he is still a very big asset for the GOP, I think. He seems to get along well with the more conservative portions of the party and his name and speaking ability makes him a great way to get people excited about the GOP. If Arnold, liberal or not, can get more people to vote for a pro-life, pro-family President like President George W. Bush, that's great.
His “How to Tell If You are a Republican” part of the speech was great. His humor was good and — dare I say it? — his speech was every bit as energetic and engaging as Barak Obama's was in July. I have no doubt that if the constitution allowed it, that Ahhhnold could win the presidency after his term as governor. He really rallied the troops, so to speak, at the RNC, but he also had non-Republicans excited. He emphasized some fiscally conservative policies, too, which was great.
Certainly, it did not hurt that he managed to fit in the phrase that terrorism will be terminated. Same goes for the story about the wounded soldier that told him that “he'd be back.”
The good governor also is exactly the type of person Democrats don't want the GOP to have. They see themselves as the party for immigrants. Well, guess what? Here's an immigrant that said that when he arrived in the U.S. he became a Republican because he thought the Dems' policies sounded too much like the socialist policies of the Soviet bloc he was familiar with. They see themselves as the preferred party in California. Well, guess what? Their candidate was recalled. They see themselves as the party of those whom John Kerry called the “heart and soul of America” — Hollywood. Well, guess what? One of Hollywood's biggest stars seems to have no love loss for the Dems. And the bitterest pill of all, I am sure, for the Dems: thanks to Ahhhnold, a Kennedy has set foot in the RNC. How's that for an accomplishment?
Overall, he was the highlight of the night. Although I shouldn't overlook the very good speech made by the first lady. Her speech was far less self absorbed than Mrs. Kerry's speech in July and focused most of its attention on her husband (whereas Mrs. Kerry seemed to focus more on herself and her late husband the Republican Sen. John Heinz). Unfortunately, Mrs. Bush had to start off her speech on a very low note.
All the momentum of the night up to that point was just thrown away thanks to the Bush daughters. Their incoherent, horrible example of a bad speech was the worst I've seen in a long time. The ten or twelve year old who spoke at the Democratic convention did a far better job than the Bush twins. They came across as immature brats. It would have been far better if they had just not said anything at all, and someone else, perhaps nephew George P. Bush, had given the introduction speech.
His speech earlier that night was very good. I got the same impression on Tuesday that I did in 2000: if he so desires, George P. Bush has the public speaking skills to do well in politics. I expect to see more of him in the future. Perhaps the GOP finally has its equivalent of the Kennedys in the Bushes.
No time to write about them tonight. Need sleep. Goodnight.
The Republican National Convention day one was somewhat disappointing to me. It just seemed to start and move very slowly and in a disorderly fashion. The Democratic Convention 2004's first day was a lot more organized. Day one was saved by John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, part of the RNC's “showcase of moderates,” but two people should not have to carry the whole program to the extent that they did.
John McCain is a likable guy and it was good to see him getting the spotlight for awhile. His speech came across as sincere and, unlike many more partisan politicians, McCain can pull off a call for bipartisan unity without seeming like a hypocrite (I'd add that being politically partisan and being firm on your values aren't the same thing). I particularly liked his comment,I don't doubt the sincerity of my Democratic friends. And they should not doubt ours.His speech was eloquent and well thought out. The most noticeable part, I'd suggest, though, was not really his speech per se, but the booing directed to Michael Moore (who is present at the RNC) when McCain quipped:
It was between war and a graver threat. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.It took a long time after that comment for the crowd to calm down, and for good reason. Michael Moore is a fruitcake. And I do mean that with all the due respect I can possibly afford him. I'd love to see how Moore spins that in his RNC “coverage” in USAToday (fair and balanced, I'm sure).
And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam's Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves… (Emphasis mine)
