If it rains on the East Coast, Bush could win a landslide. Historically, voters in urban districts, (usually Democrtas) turn out in very low numbers if weather is bad on Election Day becuase they walk to the polls. This could push Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and even Delaware into the "W" column (pun intended). This results in a New Mexico and Hawaii win for Bush becuase they can see the East Coast returns there. Rain Dance time!

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:36 PM | Permalink | |

Here's Why:

1. Bush has clear priorities. He sees the inhuman Islamic fundamentalism and the murderous mullahs as the largest danger for the Western world.

2. Bush has learned the lessons of history. Military strength, not pleasant talk, is the only thing that helps against violent fanatics. And with Bush -- unlike with Kerry -- there is no doubt about this.

3. Under Bush, the US, as a superpower, will continue to bear the financial, military and casualty burden in the fight against terrorism in a "holy war" which Islamic fanatics unilaterally declared.

4. Along with fighting terror and the terrorists, a re-elected Bush will do everything he can to prevent nuclear proliferation. That is especially true with regard to the nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea.

5. Bush has learned that America can defeat every country in war, but needs allies in peace. Thus, his second term will be characterized by cooperation with international partners. But he will not depend on how Syria or Libya vote at the UN.

6. Bush knows that Europe and Germany don’t have the military at their disposal to become involved in any further foreign military engagements. Therefore he won't ask them for help. Kerry will do exactly that – and will further burden already damaged German-American relations.

7. Under Bush, America will remain a reliable partner for Israel in its fight for survival. That must especially be in our German interest.

8. Republicans have always been stronger supporters of free trade than Democrats. That is also true of Bush when compared to Kerry. And that is good for Germany as an export nation.

9. Every new American administration makes mistakes. Bush has already made his. Kerry, on the other hand, has of yet held no (executive) position in the government. He would be worse prepared than most Presidents preceding him.

10. With Bush, we know what to expect. With Kerry, nobody knows what he stands for and where he wants to lead America – and the world.
Check Out this related cartoon

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:19 AM | Permalink | |

"The latest high-profile journalist to complain that the Democrat is avoiding cross-examination is Bob Woodward, the Pulitzer Prize-winning Watergate reporter.

Bill O'Reilly, the veteran Fox News political presenter, has resorted to running an "almost Kerry interview" in which he questions academics and pundits because the politician refuses to appear on his show.
Mr Woodward, whose newspaper the Washington Post this week endorsed the Kerry campaign, revealed he has been seeking an interview since June without success. He blamed "risk-averse" nerves on the part of the Kerry team for the refusal. One of America's most revered journalists, he even took the unusual step of sending his list of 22 questions in advance, in the hope Mr Kerry would feel more confident about answering.

He pointed out that President Bush gave him three and a half hours of interview time for his best-selling book on the Iraq War, Plan of Attack. He wanted Mr Kerry to explain how he would have fought the war differently. "I interviewed President Bush and he answered hundreds of detailed questions," said Mr Woodward. "I wanted to come up with parallel questions that would tell us how Kerry would function."

He thought Mr Kerry's refusal was because he did not want to take risks. "What's to gain? There's a downside every time a candidate opens his mouth." Last month Mr Kerry stepped up his criticism of the Bush war strategy and declared: "I would've done almost everything differently."

Mr Woodward then sent his detailed questions asking how he would have acted differently. At that point, Mr Kerry decided not to do the interview. "The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers," said Mr Woodward.

Mr O'Reilly said he had been seeking a Kerry interview since July and had been turned down repeatedly, although President Bush had appeared on his show.

He added he wanted to challenge the Democrat on how he would pay for health care plans. "I think the senator has got to answer these questions before next Tuesday."

Posted by Ryan S. at 12:17 AM | Permalink | |

I just got back from the Bush rally in Yardley, PA. Spector and Santorum spoke before the President. Usual campaign stuff, but the feeling was amazing. Bush delievered a good, if rehashed speech. It was great to see him in person. I won't be around much before the election, as I'm working for Sat-Tues. Go Bush!

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:07 PM | Permalink | |

from Drudge:

NBCNEWS: HUGE CACHE OF EXPLOSIVES VANISHED FROM SITE IN IRAQ -- AT LEAST 18 MONTHS AGO -- BEFORE TROOPS ARRIVED

The NYTIMES urgently reported on Monday how the Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives are now missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

Jumping on the TIMES exclusive, Dem presidential candidate John Kerry blasted the Bush administration for its failure to 'guard those stockpiles.'

'This is one of the great blunders of Iraq, one of the great blunders of this administration,' Kerry said.

In an election week rush:

**ABCNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 4 Times
**CBSNEWS Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 7 Times
**MSNBC Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 37 Times
**CNN Mentioned The Iraq Explosives Depot At Least 50 Times

But tonight, NBCNEWS reported, once: The 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives were already missing back in April 10, 2003 -- when U.S. troops arrived at the installation south of Baghdad!

An NBCNEWS crew embedded with troops moved in to secure the Al-Qaqaa weapons facility on April 10, 2003, one day after the liberation of Iraq.

According to NBCNEWS, the HMX and RDX explosives were already missing when the American troops arrived.

It is not clear why the NYTIMES failed to report the cache had been missing for 18 months -- and was reportedly missing before troops even arrived.

'The U.S. Army was at the sight one day after the liberation and the weapons were already gone,' a top Republican blasted from Washington late Monday.

The International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003 when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers.
"

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:59 PM | Permalink | |

According to the Drudge Report, the Washington Post and the New York Times are both running articles on Page One that could potentially damaging to the Bush campaign tomorrow (Tuesday). The Washington Post is going to write that the Bush Administration will "seek additional billions early next year to fund Iraq, Afghan wars...," while the Times reports that "non-Iraqi prisoners caputred by US forces in Iraq not subject to protections of Geneva conventions..." Interesting. We'll see how these play out tomorrow. I'll be writing.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:49 PM | Permalink | |

From the NYTimes, surprisingly:

"To Bush-bashers, it may be the most infuriating revelation yet from the military records of the two presidential candidates: the young George W. Bush probably had a higher I.Q. than did the young John Kerry.

That, at least, is the conclusion of Steve Sailer, a conservative columnist at the Web magazine Vdare.com and a veteran student of presidential I.Q.'s. During the last presidential campaign Mr. Sailer estimated from Mr. Bush's SAT score (1206) that his I.Q. was in the mid-120's, about 10 points lower than Al Gore's.

Mr. Kerry's SAT score is not known, but now Mr. Sailer has done a comparison of the intelligence tests in the candidates' military records. They are not formal I.Q. tests, but Mr. Sailer says they are similar enough to make reasonable extrapolations.

Mr. Bush's score on the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test at age 22 again suggests that his I.Q was the mid-120's, putting Mr. Bush in about the 95th percentile of the population, according to Mr. Sailer. Mr. Kerry's I.Q. was about 120, in the 91st percentile, according to Mr. Sailer's extrapolation of his score at age 22 on the Navy Officer Qualification Test.

Linda Gottfredson, an I.Q. expert at the University of Delaware, called it a creditable analysis said she was not surprised at the results or that so many people had assumed that Mr. Kerry was smarter. 'People will often be misled into thinking someone is brighter if he says something complicated they can't understand,' Professor Gottfredson said.

Many Americans still believe a report that began circulating on the Internet three years ago, and was quoted in 'Doonesbury,' that Mr. Bush's I.Q. was 91, the lowest of any modern American president. But that report from the non-existent Lovenstein Institute turned out to be a hoax."

Posted by Ryan S. at 8:46 PM | Permalink | |

Teens have overwhelmingly chosen President Bush for the next for years. With 393 electoral votes and 55% of the total vote, there is no question. The results of Channel One's OneVote.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:28 PM | Permalink | |

As the Red Sox become triumphant over the "Evil Empire," the New York Yankees, it becomes apparent that the Sox-Yankees series comes across as an almost parallel to the election. I go to school in Delaware, and are from Philadelphia. I am a diehard Phillies fan (I follow the Oakland A's too). I consider myself impartial to the Sox-Yankees conflict. I live in the dorms here, and we have a mix of people, with most being from Delaware, New Jersey or New York. There are some fellow Pennsylvanians, as well as at least one guy from Massechusetts, and a handfull of Marylanders. Being of the Philadelphia Phillies/Eagles/Flyers mindset, I can totally identify with the mind of the Boston Red Sox fan. They've had an arguably good team for the past couple years, and never gotten past the Yankees or "The Curse."

A little background for the non-sports fans. To sum it up shortly, "The Curse" goes back to 1918 when the Red Sox sold Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. The Red Sox have not won a World Series since. So "The Curse" is not yet broken, becuase the Sox have not won the World Series yet.

How does this tie in with the election? John Kerry is a Red Sox fan, but apparently not a diehard, as he has said, "We've been waiting since 1918 for the Boston Red Sox to win the World Series, and...if I had a choice between the White House and the World Series this year, I'm going to take the White House." (Football Fans For Truth) Bush is obviously a baseball fan, he owned the Texas Rangers for a couple years. Now that we've established that both candidates at least appear to be fans of baseball, let's look at the paralells between Yankees-Red Sox and Bush-Kerry.

I'm going to say that the only two "partisans" or diehard fans we have on the floor are from New York and Massechusetts, and support the Yankees and Red Sox, respectively. Elimintaing all the "non-voters," those who are not supporting either team, we are left with a mess of independents. However, we do have one slice group that is decided. They are not Red Sox fans, but certainly support them for the shortterm. They are the anti-Yankees fans. They may support another team, the Mets, the Giants, the Orioles, but they also support a second team, that team that is playing the Yankees. This group is step-in-step with most of the Kerry voters I have come across. They are not pro-Kerry per se, but they are vehemently anti-Bush. Sure, I as a Bush supporter am anti-Kerry, but I am not pro-Bush becuase I am anti-Kerry. I am anti-Kerry becuase he is running against the candidate who I think would best guide the country over the next four years.

Don't get me wrong though, I am touched by the Red Sox' quest for the championchip, as the Eagles have been to the NFC championchip game three years in row, and lost all three. I am in no way implying that all Yankees fans are Republicans, although Rudy Giuliani is a known Yankees fan and Republican, and Kerry is a Red Sox fan. I know Republican Red Sox fans, and I know Democratic Yankees fans. I am just finding the similarities between the fans to be quite coincidental. Not enough to be a conpiracy, however, the Texas Rangers aren't contenders this year.

I wish luck to all the Boston Red Sox fans out there, pity for all the anti-Yankees fans, sorrow for Rudy Giuliani, and hope for a good game 7 for St. Louis and Houston as well as an explosive World Series.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:43 AM | Permalink | |

John Kerry has said why he shouldn't be president better than I myself could articulate.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:26 PM | Permalink | |

The draft, no matter how much MTV's Rock the Vote wants it to be, is not an issue in this election. Iraq is getting better, and the Bush Administration wants to make sure the country is secure with it's homegrown security forces and election before pulling out troops out. The "Draft Bill" in Congress was sponsored Charles Rangel of NY, a Democrat. President Bush, during the second debat, stood before the American people, of whose youth would be called into service and said,
"Forget all this ralk about a draft. We're not going to have a draft so long as I'm the President." It outrages me that the liberals continue level the accusation that Bush will implement a draft in his second term.

The military doesn't need a draft anyway, it needs reorganization. We need to remove our troops from places where they are no longer needed, like western Europe and Japan. Yes our military is too small, but it is not where it needs to be anyway. There are people who have been trying to enlist for over a year no being able to becuase the Armed Forces are too big according to Congress. First-term relenlistment is 50% across the board, and second-term plus is 80-85%, right on target. Congress could triple the size of the military and still have to turn down enlisters.

If there were a draft, we couldn't afford it. There is not enough tax revenue to pay those who would be drafted, and hurting the economy be keeping the draftees out of the workforce.

About.com's Rod Powers has two excellent articles on this to expand further. Check them out. (1) (2).

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:07 PM | Permalink | |

Click the title above to check out a really interesting story about the top guys in NASCAR and their support of Bush.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:37 PM | Permalink | |

The University of Delaware is having a debate between the College Republicans and the College Democrats. I will be at the debate and will be doing prep for it tonight.

October 21, 2004
7:00PM
Mitchel Hall
UD, Newark, DE

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:48 PM | Permalink | |

As an American Catholic, I feel strongly about gay marriage. I'm not condemning gays to Hell by any means, nor do I feel they are inferior people. I do, however, feel that included within the base definition of marriage lies "between a man and a woman." I believe that marriages are intended as a covenant between two people and God, for the purpose of lifelong companionship and procreation. However, I do believe that the law unfairly disadvantages long-term gay partners. This is why I am strongly in favor of Civil Unions. Civil Unions are marriage in a legal sense. It allows for hospital vivistation rights, tax applications, inheritance, etc., without impeding on the sanctitiy of marriage. I am tired of being put down as a Republican for being "anti-Gay." It's just not true. I agree with Bush on his support of a Marriage Amenment for the reason he talked about in the third debate. A Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage gives the people a voice. It prevents judges from wielding entirely too much power in our society by determing what they thing the law defines marriage as, while forgetting that people determine the law. A Marriage Amenment could be twofold by protecting heterosexual marriage, while simultaneously creating Civil Unions for homosexuals. Hopefully the states will get to decide this in Bush's next term.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:22 PM | Permalink | |

iFilm has a clip available (for free) of the hostilities between the two.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:21 PM | Permalink | |

Here's a long article on all the good going on in Afghanistan right now. You won't be seeing this on CBS anytime soon.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:02 PM | Permalink | |

I have a bunch of Republican parphernalia on my bookbag, and so as I walk around campus from class to class and such, I frequently get the question, "Why do you support George Bush?" Here are the reasons: I believe in a safer America, and I know that John Kerry will not provide one against the terrorist "nuicence." I believe that to achieve a safer America, we must sometimes act unilaterally and aggresively in our foreign policy, and that the UN doesn't have all the answers. I believe that spreading democracy helps all people, and that freedom is a God-given right. I believe in fighting terrorists in their backyards instead of ours. I believe in a simpler, fairer tax code. I believe in the power of the pirvate market for health care. I do not want to stand in line for medical care like I stand in line at the DMV. I believe in Troop Redeployment, and not the draft. I believe in Consitutionally strong judges.

With this in mind, I look forward to four more years of George W. Bush

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:52 AM | Permalink | |

According to the Drudge Report, Tucker Carlson (one of my idols), and John Stewart of the Daily Show had choice words during Stewart's appearance on the CNN show Crossfire, of which Carlson his co-host. Unfortunatley, I missed the show due to marching band practice.

CNN editors were busy this weekend cleaning up a transcript from Stewart's Friday appearance on CROSSFIRE. One CNN executive called Stewart's performace "belligerent."During the live program, Stewart slammed host Tucker Carlson: "You're as big a **** on your show as you are on any show."The awkward exchange came at the end of an 8 minute segment between Stewart, Carlson and co-host Paul Begala.

CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and
you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: ...you have this marvelous opportunity not to be the guy's butt
boy, to go ahead and be his butt boy. Come on. It's embarrassing.S
TEWART: I was absolutely his butt boy. I was so far -- you would not
believe what he ate two weeks ago.
STEWART: You know, the interesting thing I have is, you have a
responsibility to the public discourse, and you fail miserably.
CARLSON: You need to get a job at a journalism school, I think.
STEWART: You need to go to one. The thing that I want to say is, when you
have people on for just knee-jerk, reactionary talk...
CARLSON: Wait. I thought you were going to be funny. Come on. Be funny.
STEWART: No. No. I'm not going to be your monkey. BEGALA: Go ahead. Go
ahead.
STEWART: I watch your show every day. And it kills me.
CARLSON: I can tell you love it.
STEWART: It's so -- oh, it's so painful to watch...
CARLSON: Is this really Jon Stewart? What is this, anyway?STEWART: Yes,
it's someone who watches your show and cannot take it anymore. I just can't.
CARLSON: What's it like to have dinner with you? It must be excruciating.
Do you like lecture people like this or do you come over to their house and sit
and lecture them; they're not doing the right thing, that they're missing their
opportunities, evading their responsibilities?CARLSON: I wouldn't want to eat
with you, man. That's horrible.
STEWART: I know. And you won't.

Before appearing on CNN, Stewart blasted reporter and CROSSFIRE co-host Bob
Novak."I would not have him on the show. I have standards," Stewart explained to
the NEW YORKER's Ken Auletta. "I wouldn't do it. He shouldn't be on television.
CNN should not have him on the air. He should not be amongst civilized people."

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:20 AM | Permalink | |

The New York Times has endorsed John Kerry. What a big surprise. I never expected it.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:02 PM | Permalink | |

I just mailed my absentee ballot. Filled out for Bush and Arlen Spector.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:43 PM | Permalink | |

Rapper: Blacks 'cheered when 9-11 happened': "Rapper: Blacks 'cheered when 9-11 happened'
"The hip-hop anarchist KRS-One has declared his solidarity with al-Qaida by asserting that he and other African-Americans 'cheered when 9-11 happened,' reports the New York Daily News.

The rapper, real name Kris Parker, defiled the memory of those who died in the terrorist attacks as he spouted off at a recent New Yorker Festival panel discussion.
advertisement


'I say that proudly,' the Boogie Down Productions founder went on, insisting that, before the attack, security guards kept Blacks out of the World Trade Center 'because of the way we talk and dress.

'So when the planes hit the building, we were like, 'Mmmm - justice.' '

The atrocity of 9-11 'doesn't affect us the hip-hop community,' he said. '9-11 happened to them, not us,' he added, explaining that by 'them' he meant 'the rich ... those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations.'

Parker also sneered at efforts by other rappers to get young people to vote.

'Voting in a corrupt society adds more corruption,' he added. 'America has to commit suicide if the world is to be a better place.'"

It is sad for anyone to defile 9-11, an American experience and tradgedy, by saying it doesn't apply to them. I'm sure there were African Americans killed in 9-11, and hip-hop is rediculously mainstream. "KRS-One" should go hug Michael Moore.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:54 AM | Permalink | |

"CHENEY IN FT. MYERS, FL: 'You saw a man who will say and do anything in order to get elected. And I am not speaking just as a father here, though I am a pretty angry father, but as a citizen.'"

I don't know about John Kerry, but I know I wouldn't want Dick Cheney mad at me.

Posted by Ryan S. at 6:20 PM | Permalink | |

Last night was the last of the three Presidential Debates. Bush looked 500% better than the first debate, and even looked better than his setllar performance in the second debate. The President was clearer and more concise than Kerry. I've been following this election since last fall, but honestly, there were times a minute in to Kerry's "answers" where I could not figure out what question he was attempting to answer nor what he was even trying to say. Bush's answers on gay marriage/rights and his own religion were amazing. His answer for religion almost had some of us in tears. I disagree with the President in two main areas, I think he is too lenient on immigration, and I don't like the idea of a marriage amendment. I now, however, see his reasoning behind both descisions very clearly now, and it reminds me how strong Bush's domestic policies actually are. Overall, I think it was a solid Bush win, and had he done this well in the first debate, he would be ahead of Kerry by 15+ points in the polls.

MR. SCHIEFFER: What part does your faith play on your policy decisions?

PRESIDENT BUSH: First, my faith plays a lot -- a big part in my life. And that's -- when I was answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot, and I do. And my faith is very personal. I pray for strength, I pray for wisdom, I pray for our troops in harm's way, I pray for my family, I pray for my little girls. But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to, or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an Almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit. Prayer and religion sustain me. I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency. I love the fact that people pray for me and my family all around the country. Somebody asked me one time, "Well, how do you know?" I said, "I just feel it." Religion is an important part. I never want to impose my religion on anybody else. But when I make decisions, I stand on principle, and the principles are derived from who I am. I believe we ought to love our neighbor like we love ourself. That's manifested in public policy through the Faith-based Initiative, where we've unleased the armies of compassion to help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's one of -- part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from theAlmighty. And I can't tell you how encouraged I am to see freedom on the march. And so my principles that I make decisions on are a part of me and religion is a part of me."

MR. SCHIEFFER: Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?

PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, Bob, I don't know. I just don't know. I do know that we have a choice to make in America, and that is to treat people with tolerance and respect and dignity. It's important that we do that. I also know in a free society people -- consenting adults can live they way they want to live, and that's to be honored. But as we respect someone's rights and we, you know, profess tolerance, we shouldn't change -- or have to change our basic views on the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of marriage. I think it's very important that we protect marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage. And the surest way to protect marriage between a man and a woman is to amend the Constitution. It has also the benefit of allowing our citizens to participate in the process. After all, when you amend the Constitution, state legislatures must participate in the ratification of the Constitution. I'm deeply concerned that judges are making those decisions and not the citizenry of the United States.You know, Congress passed a law called DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. My opponent was against it. It basically protected states from the action -- action of one state to another. It also defined marriage as between a man and a woman. But I'm concerned that that will get overturned, and if it gets overturned, then we'll end up with marriage being defined by courts. And I don't think that's in our nation's interest.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:39 AM | Permalink | |

From Drudge Report:

"A QUOTE ATTRIBUTED TO PRESIDENT BUSH IN NEXT SUNDAY'S NEW YORK TIMES HAS IGNITED PREPUBLICATION SPARKS, THE DRUDGE REPORT HAS LEARNED.

FORMER WSJ REPORTER AND BEST-SELLING AUTHOR RON SUSKIND QUOTES BUSH AS TELLING A PRIVATE LUNCHEON OF TOP SUPPORTERS: 'I'M GOING TO BE REAL POSITIVE, WHILE I KEEP MY FOOT ON JOHN KERRY'S THROAT.'

SUSKIND, A REGISTERED DEMOCRAT, WILL CLAIM BUSH MADE THE COMMENTS LAST MONTH IN WASHINGTON.

A SENIOR BUSH CAMPAIGN STAFFER EXPLAINS THE BUSH COMMENT IS JUST TEXAN FOR 'I'M NOT GOING TO LET HIM DODGE HIS LIBERAL RECORD.'

THE STAFFER ADDED, 'SUSKIND IS JUST ONE MORE ANTI-BUSH JOURNALIST.' "

Awesome.

Posted by Ryan S. at 7:52 PM | Permalink | |

The French have decided that they are going to allow some cinemas and theatres to install cell phone "jammers" to block all but emergency calls. A rude Frenchman? Never would have saw it coming.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:00 PM | Permalink | |

Rudy Guliani has some remarkable comments on Kerry's terrorism outlook. Give 'em a read.

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:03 PM | Permalink | |

Stephen Moore, president of the Club For Growth has released a report on Bush & Kerry's taxdollars. Kerry and Heinz-Kerry had a combined income of $6.8 million dollars, and paid only $725,000 in income taxes. This works out to 12.8%, under the 20% the average middle class family pays every year. George W. and Laura Bush made a tenth (roughly) of what the Kerrys made, but paid about 30% in income tax. As reported in the Wall Street Journal, and The Drudge Report.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:55 AM | Permalink | |

Last Saturday, Australian politics acutally had an effect on the rest of the world. Prime Minister John Howard was reelected (well his party was). This endoreses Australia's support of the US and UK in Iraq, as well as several other issues. John O'Sullivan of the New York Post has a great Op-Ed piece about this here.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:19 AM | Permalink | |

I am in shock. Details here.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:17 AM | Permalink | |

FOXNews.com is reporting this. Check it out. Click the title.

Great step forward in Iraq.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:58 PM | Permalink | |

It seems to me that the questions were definately very pro-Kerry, showing how well Bush actually did. The people over at the "LLama Butchers" agree, as well as Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit: " Is it just me, or are these questions ridiculously pro-Kerry? I mean, where's Chris Farley's guy saying, "Senator Kerry......remember when you were in Cambodia at Christmas? That was so awesome....."

Kerry also only mentioned Vietnam once, although I'm sure he shouted it about 15 times once he got in his limo. He looked like he wanted to say it at least that much. Bush was clear, and definately connected with the audience. Kerry was himself, which in his case, was a bad thing.

My favorite question of the night?
"QUESTION: Senator Kerry, would you be willing to look directly into the camera and, using simple and unequivocal language, give the American people your solemn pledge not to sign any legislation that will increase the tax burden on families earning less than $200,000 a year during your first term?
SEN. KERRY: Absolutely. Yes. Right into the camera, yes. I am not going to raise taxes."

I almost wish he would get elected just to prove how much he lied in that statement.

Best Bush answer, solving the liberal scare tactic of 'the draft":
"Forget all this talk about a draft. We're not going to have adraft so long as I'm the president."

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:08 PM | Permalink | |

Quickly, before I hit the sack...

I think Bush obviously walked away with it. He excels with an audience he can connect with. Glenn Reynolds over at Instapundit (of which I am a fan) was liveblogging the debate. I'll update with full reaction, soundbites, and observations sometime tomorrow. Hopefully. If not, there's always Sunday night or Monday.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:54 AM | Permalink | |

Chris Collonsworth wants more to honor Pat Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals player who left the NFL to become an Army Ranger after September 11th. He died in combat in Afghanistan. I agree with Collinsworth that more, besides the wonderful tribute during the NFL's week 2 to honor the memory of this all American hero.

Posted by Ryan S. at 2:45 PM | Permalink | |

Kerry Haters For Kerry. It's funny because it's true.

Posted by Ryan S. at 10:25 PM | Permalink | |

Ann Coulter's column title this week:

Heart Patient Outruns Ambulence Chaser

Posted by Ryan S. at 9:37 PM | Permalink | |

I had the fortune of going to see J.C. Watts speak on Tuesday. Watts is the current chair of GOPAC, and an amazing speaker. He connected with the audience, full of the top Republicans in Delaware, very nicely. He spoke mostly about domestic issues, but did touch on foreign policy. He is truely an all-American, and has that bootstraps quality Republicans love so much. He even recognizes that the GOP needs to go after the African American vote, which the Democrats take for granted. I'll be looking for him in the future.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:52 PM | Permalink | |

A new poll confirms the recent trend that New Jersey is now a battleground state in this election. If New Jerseyians seems swayed by Bush's policies on terrorism, it should be no surprise, as new Jersey was hit second hardest on September 11th, with 674 deaths. John Edwards is now in New Jersey for the second time in 10 days, trying to rally support and money for the Democrats.

Bruce Springsteen and his Vote For Change tour, backed by MoveOnPAC, have now added a date in New Jersey, his home state, to seemingly combat this. Now, I love Bruce Springsteen's music (I am an unabashed fan of classic rock, as I write this, Magic Carpet Ride by Steppenwolf in on), but while I disagree with his poltical views, I did not feel offended until this Vote For Change business. Bruce has always fostered the cause of the working class, or been anti-Vietnam (although not in the traitorous way John Kerry did it), he has always backed a cause, not a candidate, until now. I still listen to his music, and I think The Rising (his post 9-11 album) is a masterpiece, but I doubt I will ever pay money to see him live, something which I have wanted to do for a long time.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:37 PM | Permalink | |

This story is a little old, (it's been sitting in my bookmarks folder for 4 days), but still pertinent. A middle school teacher was, in effect, putting up a picture of George W. Bush on a bulliten board in her classroom next to the rest of the presidents. I'm as against partisanship in the classroom as anyone (Hooray for liberal college professors), but the complaints of parents for her to take Bush's picture down are ludicrous. George W. Bush, like it or not, is the President of the United States, and commands respect as such (don't get me started on the leftist "He didn't win in 2000" crap either). Most of my primary education was while Bill Clinton was in office. I didn't like him (I've been following politics for roughly 15 years and am 18 right now), but I still respected him as president, and knew who he, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Al Gore were. Now as of yesterday, the school is denying claims that they fired her, and that she walked out. The administration also said that it had comlaints from students that she spent time on partisan politics, including telling some that "they should be ashamed to be Democrats." If these claims are true, then that alters the situation drastically. I however, wouldn't ever be surprised if a college Political Science professor ever told me I 'should be ashamed to support George Bush.' Go figure.

Posted by Ryan S. at 5:25 PM | Permalink | |

I will wait untill have a transcript of the debate to say more, but Cheney tossed edawrds around like a beach ball. He was extremely effective. Edwards looked like he was going to cry. Cheney out debated him on every issue, and even the moderator seemed annoyed at Edwards' dodging of questions. I thought she was going to slap him.

My favorite Cheney jab, besides the health care stuff:
"I resided over the Senate for four years, but I think this is the first time I've met you." (Note: paraphrasing)

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:09 AM | Permalink | |

I think I found that "Global Test" Kerry was talking about. See what happens when you take it in French.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:59 PM | Permalink | |

I think it's going to happen, but apparently so do the people at Slate, not a notoriously pro-Bush site. They have it at Bush 348 and Kerry 190. They also have a nifty little map to go with it. Check it out.

Posted by Ryan S. at 11:53 PM | Permalink | |

SpaceShipOne launched for the second time in 14 days, winning it the Ansari X-Prize, and officially opening up commercial space flight. Press conference later.

Posted by Ryan S. at 1:29 PM | Permalink | |