The Great Debate

The first of three debates is less than 24 hours from now and the media is already in a tizzy over what their post-debate analysis will be. This is just another exercise in insincerity on the part of the liberal pundits, considering they could all miss the debates and still end up spewing the same talking points: "wow, Kerry really found his voice", "Kerry has established himself as a viable alternative", "Bush will be hard pressed to counter..." blah blah blah... you can fill in the rest.

With this fact in mind, why is the main stream media so gabby coming into this debate? Simple answer: Projection. They are projecting all their own nervousness and fear they have about their own candidate on the debate itself. They speak of the "high stakes" as though they were mutual. It is John Kerry's campaign that has bet the ranch on this first debate which will focus on foriegn policy (ie: Kerry's balls-to-the-wall opposition of the Iraq war), while Bush stands to lose very little if he performs poorly.

You have to laugh at the media and the panic they have found themselves in. They remind voters that campaign operatives will always set the bar low for their candidates heading into the debates, while in the same breath they remind you that Bush is the second coming of Niccolo Machiavelli (these are the same people who swear Karl Roves makes sure the president pants aren't on backwards when he leaves the house). They do this because they understand what tomorrow means, and they wish it weren't so.

The Dems head into these debate like a Red Sox fan walking into Yankee Stadium; cursing and jeering the home team with so much heart, but knowing deep down how it will end.

I risk jinxing the results, but I will go ahead and say it (mostly in the name of being able to say "see, I told you so" Friday morning):

Bush will trounce Kerry tomorrow. It wont even be close. Bush will come accross as a confident man who is unapologetic about his principles, yet humbled by what the presidency has taught him. Kerry will come off as many things, but mostly a jerk.

But watching Kerry crumble will not be the fun part - we've been watching this for the last 6 weeks. What will be enjoyable is watching the talking heads after the debates. The pundits will all do their duty to spin Kerry's performance as best they can, but their voices will project defeat. Jump around the cable news shows and you will find plenty of evidence of this fact. Judy Woodruff will be reduced to near tears on HardBall. Mathews' himself will try to shift the discussion to the next debate - "Kerry's REAL last chance". Ron "Reagan" Jr., still sporting that denime jacket as though it was 1988, will channel his father's soul and explain that he thinks Bush is a demagogue - while at the same time blaming Bush's stem cell policy for his father death. Juan Williams will be brow beating Fred Barnes over how nasty Bush was, while Mort resigns to the fact he will probably never vote Democrat again...

A national liberal-suicide watch will begin Friday morning, and all will be right in the world.

Revolution in Iran?

Probably not. But there are reports from Free Iran that crowds are fighting with authorites:

Several independent citizen sources have reported the formation of significant crowds throughout the country, and have heard many loud explosions and gun shots, including in the cities of Tehran, Esfahan, and Shiraz.

Its a matter of "wait'n-see" at this points, but its worth a heads-up on.

Hat tip to NRO on the source.

Kerry to take advantages of soldiers' mothers' grief

According to "top Democrats" Kerry is going to go after Bush on Iraq starting tomorrow. CNN reports:

Mothers of U.S. troops serving in Iraq will help Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry make the case Monday that President Bush's optimistic view of the war does not reflect reality, Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe said Sunday.

We'll have to wait and see how this plays out, but I don't think I'm too far off the mark when I say this is going to backfire on Kerry. How much more desperate can he look than when he has to march out the mothers of some soldiers to denounce the president? People have been saying that Edwards is taking a backseat in this campaign, but this move smells like something a trial lawyer would try to pull.

This is just a "heads-up" story for now. We'll all just have to wait and see what the Bush campaign's response to this will be tomorrow. My suggestion: "Hey John, how did you explain to those mothers your vote against money for body armor?"

Metaphor?

(For those in Rio Linda, check the lower-right corner)

Still paying attention to the market forces on CBS

Just a quick update on my post from yesterday. It appears that Viacom's stock is taking a steady hit over this garbage that Rather is trying to pull. Just take a look at the trend that began on Monday after the weekend news cycle took Dan appart:

It appears that the true owners of CBS are making clear to Rather that this is not his news organization to run into the ground. I am reminded of my grandfather's version of the Golden Rule: "those who have the gold, make the rules."

Kerry on Imus

I stayed up late tonight (I'm in Hawaii - killer time zone) to catch Imus' interview with Kerry (seeing as though Kerry won't show up on any serious news shows). Something struck me when Kerry refused to tell Don what his plan would be in Iraq to get our troops out.

Kerry told Don, and has made the same statement in the past, that he will not be able to offer a plan because he can't possibly know what the situation will be 3 months from now. Funny, I wonder how he reconciles this statement with the fact he has attacked the president for not going into Iraq with a plan that would predict the future.

While Kerry cannot forgive the president's inability to tell the future, he asks that we not expect the same of him. This guy is gonna be toast in the debates.

Democrats concede defeat, Kennedy to begin campaiging for Kerry

The Democrats must realize they have no chance of winning the presidential election and are now making an effort to jazz up the base so maybe they can keep from being hammered in the House and the Senate. AP reports:

Kennedy, D-Mass., will make two campaign stops in Pennsylvania on Friday, in addition to appearances around the country nearly every weekend as a surrogate for Kerry. While the Senate remains in session, Kennedy plans almost daily rebukes of Bush's policies, ranging from the war in Iraq to health care and education.

If John Kerry were serious about improving in the polls against the president he wouldn't be sending Ted Kennedy out there. In all honesty it appears that the grown-ups at the DNC have decided Kerry will not win the presidency and their best chance at saving their hides in the House and Senate will be to allienate the center and motivate their most left wing constituents.

I look forward to Kennedy's "this war was cooked up in Texas" conspiracy theories and "president Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein" platitudes.

Let's just hope Kennedy won't be the one driving the campaign bus.

UPDATE: Kerry campaign has issued new additions to staff uniforms.

CBS had better watch the market

With the entire blogosphere still dutifully picking appart what is left of Dan Rather's credibility and the obvious problems with those Bush "documents", I thought I would follow another tack.

At this point I feel it is a waste of time to argue the authenticity of the documents any further. They are fake, and anyone who takes the time to look at them will realize they are fake. John Podhoretz states in his New York Post op-ed:

The documents aren't just forgeries, they're bad, blatant, ludicrous forgeries. They're forgeries so easily detected that in the space of a few hours after CBS released computer photographs of them on the Internet, they had already been pegged and deconstructed.

I'm not citing Podhoretz as though what he says is scripture, but he does make an obvious point. So let's not even entertain the idea that these documents are anything but horrible forgeries, and that Dan Rather is a complete hack. What should be concerning us is what will happen to CBS and Rather because of this blatent smear of the president based on a fraud.

One of the greatest lessons I have taken away from several business professors I have had over the years is this: "watch the market". While journalists will cover for their peers as long as they can get away with it, and politicians will spin a story in any direction, the market is incapable of lying. The bottom line here is that CBS News is not owned by Dan Rather, they are owned by the company's stockholder - namely Viacom stockholders.

If Rather owned CBS News he would probably get away with this. Hell, who's gonna stop some madman from running his own company into the ground if he is hellbent on doing so? Here in lies the problem for Dan, the stockholders and executives that are meant to protect their interests are not going to sit by and watch Dan bankrupt CBS News.

So, has the market begun to speak? I think it has. Take a look at the following chart that tracks the last 5 days of Viacom activity. There is a small spike on Friday, perhaps a reaction to the news that broke stating that Rather/CBS News were going to quash their detractors that evening. But look at the decline that began Monday morning - AFTER the weekend news cycle began to digest the problems with Dan's explanation.

Dan may think CBS is his own personal political pulpit (try saying that 3 times fast), but we can be sure the investors who own Viacom stock disagree. In fact, I would suspect the execs at Viacom and CBS are already hearing about it. No matter what CBS News' bias, like all publicly owned organizations their primary loyalty lies with the bottom line. Dan Rather's adventures in politics come in a VERY distant second.

Here buildings fell. Here a nation rose.

In the winter of 2000 my stepdad took me and a good friend of mine into New York City to tour the World Trade Center. I remember standing in that huge express elevator, speeding up the WTC so fast I could feel the preasure change in my ears. The moment we stepped out onto the top floor I was stunned by the view through the floor-to-ceiling windows.

The structure itself was a testament to man's ingenuity and greatness. Looking uptown I could see what looked to be a miniature Empire State Building in the center of a vast metropolis that now seemed so tiny. From atop the tower one couldnt help but feel detached from the great city that rested beneath its stretches of glass and steal. It was quiet, lonely... peaceful.

On the morning of 9/11 I was over 5000 miles away from New York city. A friend of mine and I had just moved to Hawaii from New Jersey that August to start college. It was about 3:30 AM when my roommate's phone rang.

I was half-asleep, groggy, and somewhat pissed off that someone would be calling him at such an hour. But the moment I heard his voice, responding to what must have been terrifying news coming through the other end of the line, I knew something horrible had happened.

When my roommate relayed the news to me I just couldnt - WOULDNT - believe it. I know we turned the TV on, but I dont remember much of what we saw because it was as though we were looking through the screen. It could have been fear, or even anger, but we were frozen.

"What the f#$% happened?!" seemed to be all either of us could make of the situation. Did a pilot make some horrible error and crash into the WTC? Can they put out the fire, will the building collapse, could this have been a terrorist attack...? As we became more cognoscente of what we were witnessing on our television we began to come out of our initial shock. Then it happened...

It began with what looked like taped footage of the plane hitting the tower. But there was massive confusion among the news anchors and reporters at the scene. Had a second plane just hit the OTHER tower? Once it became clear that was exactly what had just happened we both reverted back to our original state of mind: "WHAT THE F#$% HAPPENED?!"

It was now clear that our country was under attack.

News also came of an attack on the Pentagon, and a plane down in PA. There were rumors of attacks on the Sears Tower, State Department, and CIA headquarters. Before the dust had settled in lower Manhatten it was clear that someone had just perpetrated the largest attack on American soil in our country's history.

As fire fighters dug through rubble looking for survivors and jets circled our nations cities, our mood was already shifting. We were no longer scared, no longer confused, we were pissed and wanted justice. We wanted blood.

In the days following September 11 I could not help but think to myself "thank God our president is George Bush, and not AlGore". When the president went down to see the rescue workers I was impressed that he would venture into such an obviously dangerous area. To be honest, up until 9/11 he was still that likeable guy I voted for who was clumsy with his words and seemed a little overwhelmed by the presidency.

But the moment George W. Bush stood atop the rubble at ground zero and promised that those who attacked us would "hear from all of us soon" he became Commander-in-Chief. George Bush had found his voice. Destiny chose this man, at that place, in those hours, to lead our nation out of the ashes.

Here buildings fell. Here a nation rose.
-George W. Bush

Bush continues to surge in polls

In the first major poll released representing the post-convention state of the race, Bush holds at 52% and shows improvment on key issues to the election. ABC reports:

According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, registered voters by a 27-point margin now say Bush has taken a clearer stand than Kerry on the issues, by 27 points call Bush the stronger leader and by 19 points say he would make the country safer. Bush also has a 22-point advantage in trust to handle terrorism, a 16-point lead on Iraq and perhaps a slight edge even on the lukewarm economy.

The ABC/Washington Post poll also reaffirms that Bush has broken away from Kerry and the race is no longer a dead heat:

Moving these underlying views has enabled Bush to break out of the virtual dead heat that's defined the contest: Among likely voters in this ABC News/Washington Post survey, Bush has 52 percent support, Kerry 43 percent, Ralph Nader 2 percent. It's Bush's first lead beyond the margin of sampling error in any ABC/Post poll since Kerry seized his party's nomination in March.

With the renewed media attention on Iraq and Bush's National Guard record, it is probably safe to say that these number will narrow over the coming weeks. But if Bush can hold even a slight advantage going into the first debate scheduled for September 30th, he will be in just the right posture to hold his lead over Kerry going through October.

September just might prove to be another great month for the president.

CBS "sexed up" Bush Air Guard claims

The phrase "sexed up" was made famous after BBC was found guilty of maliciously lying about evidence PM Blair used before the Iraq war. Will CBS share the same fate as the now defamed BBC? It appears the network used phony documents to make its case that president Bush’s discharge from the Air Guard was not in fact honorable. Powerline has been all over this story:

Every single one of the memos to file regarding Bush's failure to attend a physical and meet other requirements is in a proportionally spaced font, probably Palatino or Times New Roman. In 1972 people used typewriters for this sort of thing (especially in the military), and typewriters used mono-spaced fonts.

The use of proportionally spaced fonts did not come into common use for office memos until the introduction high-end word processing systems from Xerox and Wang, and later of laser printers, word processing software, and personal computers. They were not widespread until the mid to late 90's.

Before then, you needed typesetting equipment, and that wasn't used for personal memos to file. Even the Wang and other systems that were dominant in the mid 80's used mono-spaced fonts. I doubt the TANG had typesetting.

The case is made more clearly when you view an actual copy of the CBS document and a Microsoft Word document with the same message typed on it. This comes from Daily Recycler:

When comparing the spacing, the font, and the appearance of superscript (ie: the raised “th” after 111 on paragraph 2 of the report) it becomes clear that this was created using Microsoft Word and was then run through 15 generations of photocopying to make the document appear older than it actually is.

At this point CBS is denying the charges and stands by the documents saying that their “independent experts” have examined the documents and claim they are legitimate. The longer CBS takes to denounce this obvious hoax, the greater a scandal this will be for the network when the nation sees just how far CBS will go to smear our president.

UPDATE: I wonder if the annoying little help character in MS Word was bothering Dan Rather when he typed up these bogus documents on his computer. Found this over at one of my favorite websites:

UPDATE #2: Piling on! Looks like the CBS phony documents story is moving its way up the media food-chain: The Weekly Standard, CNS News, NewsMax, AP, World Net Daily, National Review, and The Drudge Report.

At this rate it should be headline news by tomorrow night.

UPDATE #3: Wow, the Washington Post has picked up the forgery story and ran with it - nailing CBS to the wall. ABC News is also covering the story, and has experts of its own who say the documents are most likely fake. It looks as though CBS will be canibalized by its own peers in the main-stream (liberal) press. Heads will roll for this - someone should follow Dan Rather around holding a basket!

UPDATE #4: Drudge is reporting that CBS executives have initiated an internal investigation into the Dan Rather/60 Minutes "document-gate" fiasco:

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned."The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasingly likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather must be reeling. How do you like the heat, DAN? This is truely a proud day for bloggers. John Hinderaker over at PowerLine should get a freakin medal for uncovering this!

Belgium considers euthanasia for children

Reuters reports:

Belgian lawmakers belonging to Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt's ruling Flemish Liberal party have introduced a bill seeking to expand the country's controversial euthanasia legislation to include minors. Senators Jeannine Leduc and Paul Wille said in the bill that terminally ill children and teenagers had as much right to choose when they wanted to die as anyone else. "Their suffering is as great (and) the situation they face is as intolerable and inhumane," the senators' bill read on Wednesday.

I'm not sure where to begin on this one. I find myself torn. While I am disgusting by the crumbling state of morality in Europe, I have despised the Belgians ever since I was robbed in a Brussels hostel. Plus, when you think of it Belgium is just France with good beer instead of wine.

Hmmm... I'm going to hell.

(Hat tip to NRO for the scoop)

Some tough days ahead

Being a conservative will not be easy over the next few days. In fact, many of us will probably find our stomachs knotted with disgust over what will surely be some of the worst mud-slinging we've seen yet. With the race quickly slipping away from them the Democrats, in a desperate attempt to gain even the slightest traction, are going to fire another salvo of personal attacks at the president. And not the "personal attacks" the media just loves to accuse the Bush campaign of participating in, which includes pointing to senator Kerry's senate record, these will be nasty.

Susan Estrich, campaign manager for the Dukakis campaign (you would think these people would be in hiding still), gave a preview of what we can expect from her party in the coming days in an article she wrote last week:

After Vietnam, nothing is ancient history, and Cheney is still drinking. What their records suggest is not only a serious problem with alcoholism, which Bush but not Cheney has acknowledged, but also an even more serious problem of judgment. Could Dick Cheney get a license to drive a school bus with his record of drunken driving? (I can see the ad now.) A job at a nuclear power plant? Is any alcoholic ever really cured? So why put him in the most stressful job in the world, with a war going south, a thousand Americans already dead and control of weapons capable of destroying the world at his fingertips.

Yeah, thats the ticket to victory. Label the president and vice president a couple of drunks who could possibly start a nuclear war while stumbling about the "Red Button" in some drunken stupor. But the Dem's don't intend to end here.

A book by Kitty Kelley will detail among other things that president Bush once did cocaine in at Camp David. Did she obtain this info from a loose lipped Secret Service agent? Nah! Her source is the bitter ex-wife of George's brother. But we can all count on the media repeating these lies as though they were the gospel truth.

The Democrats smearing of the president will not be limited to members of their party alone. One of the largest non-registered liberal PACs (Political Action Commitees), CBS News, will be interviewing the former Lt. Governor of Texas Ben Barnes to rehash the president's service in the Air National Guard. Barnes will claim the Bush family preasured him into helping Bush avoid Vietnam service by getting him into the Guard. The fact the Barnes made the exact opposite assertion under sworn testimony will not disuade CBS's Dan Rather from granting this demagogue the status of national hero. Nor will the fact that Barnes is the third largest contributor to Kerry's campaign (as was noted here just days ago) keep the rest of the press from going into a frenzy.

So add all this with the major media outlets salivating like rabid dogs over the 1000 dead bodies in Iraq, and what do you have? Some major heartburn if youre a Republican, and false hope if youre a Democrat.

My advice: IGNORE IT! Give yourself a break from the talking heads on TV for a couple weeks. Let the Kerry campaign and their allies in the media try their best to turn the table. But also rest assured that none of it will have a lasting effect.

The majority of Americans like the president, and some downright love the guy. Thirty year old rumors are not going to change people's overall perception of the president because they have gotten to know him. We've all gotten to know him pretty well over the last 3.5 years, and it will be hard to prove our perceptions of the man to be false.

Kerry on the other hand is new to the nation at large, and this is why his critics have been so effective. When Kerry wouldnt tell America who he was, he left an opening for others to do his introductions for him. The Dems are going to claim this gives them the right to attack to the president, and we should go ahead and let them. There are less than 60 days left in this election, and if this is how the media and the Democratic party want to waste these very precious weeks, I say let them!

The debates are coming and Kerry still has not been able to find his voice. Its looking like there will be two debates, and if the Dems think that Kerry is going in for a sweep they are in greater denial then we could have ever imagined. Bush will either win both, or it will be split - in essence making the debates a wash, and still leaving the president in the lead. So keeping this in mind, it doesnt take a political savant to see that the Democrats should spend their time wisely. Letting the media-cycle spin back to the Vietnam debate is not going to help them; I thought August proved that.

Finally, if Bush wins this election and the Republicans tighten their grip on the congress the entire Democratic party will be in chaos. Lucky for us, this chaos will be VERY public. But when the Dem's start passing blame and pointing fingers, they need only look to themselves for the crux of their circumstances.

Whose fault is it that Kerry can't campaign on his Senate record because it would scare away all but a few San Francisco activists? Whose fault is it that Kerry had to base his campaign on the 4 months he spent taking home videos in Vietnam? And whose fault is it that the front-loaded Democratic primary left their party with a candidate who can't connect with people, flip-flops to the degree where its almost pathological, and finds himself still without a message less than 60 days before the election? Democrats.

So take my advice, take a break from the TV pundits for awhile. Tune back in once the debates start up, and enjoy what will surely be a sigh of relief. But save your popcorn and candy for November 3rd, cause thats when the real fireworks will begin!

1000th Death in Iraq

NewsMax is reporting that the deathtoll in Iraq has reached the 1000 dead "mile stone". Lets see how the Dems and their pals in the media treat this - I'm sure their thrilled, the more soldiers dead the better in their minds.

"Cult of Death"

I had a great article by David Brooks sent to me today. It points to the root of the fanaticism that permiates from the Muslim world. Brooks frames the terrorists "cause" as a cult like movement:

Because the death cult is not really about the cause it purports to serve. It's about the sheer pleasure of killing and dying. It's about massacring people while in a state of spiritual loftiness. It's about experiencing the total freedom of barbarism - freedom even from human nature, which says, Love children, and Love life. It's about the joy of sadism and suicide.

It is for this reason that the president's vision of a democratic middle-east is so vital to the defeat of terror. While terrorism itself will be a problem the West will always have to deal with, we can greatly diminish its ranks by improving the region in which they recruit. US Marines - through their "out reach" programs - can always be counted on to fulfill the wishes for martyrdom of madmen, but real victory will come when young men in the middle-east would rather live.

The president's critics should give him great credit for the path he has chosen, because the alternatives are few and drastic.

Woo hoo!

I've been added to the BlogsForBush blogroll! Maybe now someone will read my ramblings.

Kerry flips on his Iraq stance again

At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania today, Kerry tacked back to his anti-war message. Reuters reports:

Democrat John Kerry accused President Bush on Monday of sending U.S. troops to the "wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time" and said he'd try to bring them all home in four years.

Before commenting on Kerry's latest comments on Iraq, lets recap where he's been on the issue:

Kerry Agrees With Goal Of Regime Change In Iraq. "I agree completely with this Administration’s goal of a regime change in Iraq ..." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

Kerry Says Disarming Saddam Was "Right Decision." KERRY: "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News Democrat Presidential Candidates Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)

Kerry Calls Saddam A "Renegade And Outlaw." "... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991." (Sen. John Kerry, Speech To The 2002 DLC National Conversation, New York, NY, 7/29/02)

Even putting aside the fact the Kerry voted to authorize the war against Iraq, it is clear this man cannot be taken seriously over the conflict in Iraq. He must realize that the President's campaign will point back to his past statements and further solidify the image of John Kerry as a flip-flopper. But even more damaging than that is the fact that he is losing what little credibility he had on the war to begin with.

I see it this way: Do you want a man as president who looks to his past decisions and make constant adjustments to his stance to match current popular opinion? Or do you want a man who can make a decision, stand by it, and look to the future to remedy those decisions that were not perfect?

The president has demonstrated that his primary concern as president is to protect the American people, and polls show the majority of Americans trust this to be true. John Kerry, on the other hand, has only proven he can be trusted to defend one thing; John Kerry.

CBS smear on Bush warrants scepticism

The former Lt. Governor of Texas Ben Barnes will appear on CBS to claim that he "pulled strings" to get George W. Bush into the Air National Guard, and in effect kept him from serving in Vietnam. He is also expected to charge that Bush's drinking made him a liability to the Air Guard. Its no surprise that CBS is sponsoring this smear of the president, but what is strange is how little they vetted Barnes before agreeing to give him free airtime to assasinate the president's character. Captain's Quarters point to the following campaign financial disclosures from John Kerry:

Contributor.......Total 1999-2002...........2004 Cycle
Alan Solomont..........$612,327.................$82,500
Orin Kramer............$425,835.................$83,500
Ben Barnes............$389,750.................$74,500

Ben Barnes is the 3rd greatest contributor to John Kerry! Lets not forget that the Swiftees were brushed aside as hacks because they recieved contributions from a prominent Republican. But this guy Barnes is one of the largest contributors to John Kerry, making him financially vested in a Kerry win.

Let's wait and see if CBS is called on their blatent bias, and disgusting smearing of the president.

Newsweek poll mirrors Time

If the Dem spin machine intended to continue spinning the Time magazine poll as a “fluke”, Newsweek just took all the wind out of that sail. Newsweek reports that if the election were held today Bush would trounce Kerry 52 to 41:

Sept. 4 - Coming out of the Republican National Convention in New York, President George W. Bush now holds a 11-point lead over Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry (52 percent to 41 percent) in a three-way race, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll.

This poll would be troubling enough to team Kerry if not for the following detail pointed to by Newsweek:

The poll was taken over two nights, both before and after Bush’s acceptance speech. Respondents who were queried only on Friday, after Bush’s speech, gave the Republican a 16-point lead over Kerry.

4 more years?

UPDATE: The Gallup poll is out, and shows a more narrow lead for the president (7 points). But like Newsweek and Time, Gallup has Bush at 52%.

Bump!

The Time poll has Bush over Kerry 52 to 41, an 11 point lead not even the most generous pundits would have predicted. Here are the Time poll details:

New York: For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2. Poll results are available on TIME.com and will appear in the upcoming issue of TIME magazine, on newsstands Monday, Sept. 6.

Carl Rove must be grinning this morning knowing he set the bar perfectly for the convention. The Bush/Cheney team had even the most liberal pundits spinning that this was going to be a no bump confab. But what else could they say? They knew if they said otherwise it would just highlite the fact the Dems saw no bounce (and even a negative bounce in some polls) at their own convention.

Maybe the crew over at Time gave Kerry/Edwards a heads up on their polling data, and that's what had John-boy melting down at his midnight rally.

AP fabricates

It seems that spin will no longer cut it over at AP. Today at a rally in Wisconsin the president offered his condolences to former president Clinton who is having heart trouble. The crowd offered polite applause, but you wouldn’t know this from reading the AP story:

WEST ALLIS, Wis. - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday wished Bill Clinton (news - web sites) "best wishes for a swift and speedy recovery.""He's is in our thoughts and prayers," Bush said at a campaign rally.Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them.

Bush offered his wishes while campaigning one day after accepting the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention in New York. Clinton was hospitalized in New York after complaining of mild chest pain and shortness of breath.

There is only one problem with this reporting; its a COMPLETE LIE! The audio from the event proves this outright fabrication. The AP, having seen the damage done by the Kerry campaign to their own candidate, has decided to take matter in their own hands. Who needs to campaign when the press will do it for you?

Feel free to remind our friends over at AP that freedom of speech does not include libel or slander. Here is the local office info for AP in Wisconsin:

Mr. T. Lee Hughes
Bureau Chief
Associated Press (NS-310V)
Milwaukee 918 N 4th St
Milwaukee, WI 53203-1506

Media Phone Number: (414) 225-3580
Media Fax Number: (414) 225-3599
Editor Email: tlhughes@ap.org

UPDATE: NewsMax is reporting that AP has finally corrected their lie. AP's explanation:

This is a correction to an incorrect story posted by AP on Friday stating the crowd booed the President when he sent his good wishes. The crowd, in fact, did NOT boo.

EU demands explanation from Russians

As I write this the death toll in Russia after Chechnyan "rebels" (Islamo-fascist radicals) took control of a school is 200+. But even before the bodies can be counted, European leaders are demanding that Russia explain how they allowed this to happen. EU Business reports:

The EU refused Friday to rush to judgment on how Russian authorities acted in the bloody end to the hostage crisis in north Ossetia, but said it wants Moscow's explanation of the tragedy.

While one can imagine there will certainly an investigation into the events that took place immediately before the Russian forces sieged the school, but that will come in due time. But for the EU leadership to start its self-righteous finger wagging before the Russians have even had time enough to dry their tears is typical. Did any of the EU's leaders express their disgust at the fact children were targeted by the Chechyan terrorists? No, of course not. They would prefer shifting the blame for this to the Russian government. While countries like Russia, the United States, and Israel fight terror, the Europeans equivocate.

In other words: who the hell do the ZEROpeans think they are?

UPDATE: It looks like the Russians are fed up with the EU's pompus attitude. Reuters reports:

Russia has denounced as "blasphemous" a request by the European Union's Dutch presidency for an explanation for the bloody end to a mass hostage seizure at a school by Chechen gunmen... "Mr Bot's elaborations are an absolute contrast with the wide international support and solidarity with Russia in these tragic days," a ministry statement said.