If Kerry is elected, one wonders who will be the last person to die for that mistake.
I added MT-Blacklist to my blog config last night. It has one entry
\bbob@y[^\s.]+o\.comSorry, bob. Those spams you tried this morning got blocked.
The Field Poll has just issued two polls, one yesterday on most of the even-numbered propositions, and another on the health-care props (61, 63, 67, 71 & 72).
The results for Prop 66, gutting 3 Strikes, are changing rapidly -- Field noticed a massive change partway through their polling. Between October 21 & 24, the split was 58-34%, but those polled between October 25-27 had it 46-47%, slightly against. At this rate, Prop 66 should lose handily thanks to a raft of new ads on the subject featuring Arnold and others. When Governors Schwarzenegger, Davis, Wilson and Brown agree on something, one has to take notice.
Prop 62, the "modified open primary" initiative is still leading(40-38%), but it's support has declined 4 points this month and the undecideds are breaking against. More interestingly, Prop 60, the "write the current law into the Constitution" amendment is also leading, and by a bigger margin (42-28%) than the competing Prop 62, although 30% remain undecided on 60. If Prop 60 gets a higher percentage than 62, it prevails.
Prop 64, the "you can only sue if you're harmed" law appears to be losing as well (32-37%) with over 30% undecided. However, the undecideds have been breaking for "Yes" this past month, so the trend is towards passage.
Props 68 & 70 are losing big.
On the health-care front, Props 61 and 63, which issue bonds and tax millionaires respectively, have healthy majorities and look to pass. Prop 67, which taxes most voters, now has a bare majority against, and undecideds are breaking "No".
The stem-cell bond seems a winner, although the only reasonable argument for the state borrowing money for it (that it will create a stem-cell industry in CA) is well down the list of reasons given by supporters. That's two more bonds passing in a state drowning in debt. *sigh*
Prop 72, the referendum to ratify Grey Davis's health-care mandate on business is now failing (41-42%). It was 45-29% last month.
So, if present trends continue, the results may look like this:
Prop 60: Yes
Prop 61: Yes
Prop 62: No
Prop 63: Yes
Prop 64: Yes
Prop 66: No
Prop 67: No
Prop 68: No
Prop 70: No
Prop 71: Yes
Prop 72: No
Powerline recaps the Al Qaqaa information, pointing out how small this story gets as time goes on -- unless your view is that it reflects poorly on Kerry and the MSM, in which case it would get larger if the MSM had any integrity.
Now one thing that occurs to me: if the inspectors did seal these bunkers, but they're now empty, who's to say the inspectors didn't take them? After all, it wouldn't be the first time UN folks proved willing to pocket stuff from Saddam.
Oh, likely not. It's just that I don't find the UN "brand" to be such an absolute guarantee of probity anymore.
The latest Field Poll (PDF) shows the presidential race narrowing in California. Kerry leads, but by only seven points (49-42%). The party breakdown of the sample is 44D-36R-20. Considering that polls in California consistantly overstate the Democrat's final numbers in statewide elections, there may be a shot here if there is a good Republican vs Democrat turnout.
As before, the numbers indicate that over half of Kerry's voters (43-52%) are anti-Bush rather than pro-Kerry, while Bush's voters are strongly pro-Bush. As a result, there may be different-than-normal motivations for turnout.
A long shot? Probably. But it seems a lot less of one than last month.
I almost never link to a post on InstaPundit -- that's like carrying ice to Eskimos -- but Megan McArdle Jane Galt's guest post on why she's off the fence and voting for Bush is so spot-on in so many regards that I just have to give it its due. Here's the conclusion of a very long post, which is also available here:
What does the country need now? Someone risk averse, to shepherd us through, or someone who will take bold action and possibly land us in a disaster? I think a lot of people have concluded, from the fact that Bush's risky move has gone wrong, that risk aversion is therefore the superior strategy. But that doesn't follow. Jimmy Carter running right now would to my mind be inarguably worse than George Bush for all his screw ups. On the other hand, Bush I would certainly be preferable to Bush II.My only question is what took her so long? But read the whole thing.
Unfortunately, I have neither Bush I nor Mr Carter on the stump to make my choice easy. I have the choices I have: between someone whose foriegn policy has been so risky as to be foolhardy, or someone who will not take the political risk of voting his conscience (whatever that may be) on the war; between someone whose commanding ability to chart a course and stick to it veers into pigheaded refusal to admit he's wrong, and someone who takes four weeks to decide on a campaign bumper sticker design. Above all, I have to guess how Mr Kerry will be in office, because the president doesn't have the luxuries of a senator or a campaigner; he has to decide what to do without the other senators to hide behind, and he cannot just go out and talk about his never-never plans when action is required. When something goes badly wrong in Iraq, will Kerry stay the course, because it's important, or will he take counsel of his fears, and his party's left wing, and cut and run as soon as he decently can? Daniel Drezner advocates a minimax strategy, but it's not clear to me that Kery represents a win.
Then there's the question of what message electing Kerry would send. Does it make the world love us, because we got rid of the president they hate, or does it make them despise us, because we've just held a referendum on the Iraq war, and Bush lost?
Ultimately, I've decided to take the advice of a friend's grandmother, who told me, on her wedding day, that I should never, ever marry a man thinking he'd change. "If you can't live with him exactly the way he is," she told me, "then don't marry him, because he'll say he's going to change, and he might even try to change, but it's one in a million that he actually will."
Kerry's record for the first fifteen years in the senate, before he knew what he needed to say in order to get elected, is not the record of anyone I want within spitting distance of the White House war room. Combine that with his deficits on domestic policy -- Kerry's health care plan would, in my opinon, kill far more people, and cost more, than the Iraq war ever will -- and it's finally clear. For all the administration's screw -ups -- and there have been many -- I'm sticking with the devil I know. George Bush in 2004.
First off, there was a fine lunar eclipse tonight. Traditionally this is an omen of momentous events. Let's see what we have so far:
Is there some way that we can trade people with Canada? Send them our moonbat lefties who want to live their lives in the State's womb, and get in return those Canadians who want to live free? Yes, I know we get many of the latter anyway -- one of the many reasons that the US population is 10 times that of Canada after a standing start -- but they don't seem to want to take our, um, loonies.
Maybe we need to run an advertising campaign about moving to Canada. Free medical, no guns, high taxes, media controls [just good ones --ed], gay marriage, speech police, no evangelicals, and a public-employee union to beat the band. You can hate America without hating yourself, and America will protect you anyway. Absolute heaven, unless you're one of those poor fools in western Canada who's paying the bill. You know, something along the lines of CM Kornbluth's Marching Morons.
Hugh Hewitt reports that Kerry, burnishing his credentials among the comman man, took pains to quote the score of the first two World Series games. You know, the ones with his home-town Red Sox playing. Unfortunately, he got the score of both games wrong, citing game 1 as "10-9" twice (it was 11-9), and game 2 as "7-1" (actually 6-2).
His excuse?
Mr Kerry’s spokesman, David Wade, said the senator got the score wrong because 10-9 was the last update he got during his late-night flight to Florida.Plausable, perhaps, had the last two runs not come on a 2-run homer:
Mark Bellhorn's two-run homer with one out in the bottom of the eighth inning lifted the Red Sox to a wild 11-9 triumph...What a moron. I guess this is another Kerry foul-up to blame on his staff.
It's rather hard to pin Kerry down on his plans, since both he and Edwards spend far more time telling us what they don't like, and what they'll fix, than they spend telling us how they'll do it. And even when they do, it seems mostly empty rehtoric laced with the occasional code word. But, having listened, read and watched far too much this election season, my gut has come to conclusions that my head can't quite document.
Here then is my gut instinct of Kerry's fiscal plans:
I was going to post a detailed set of reccomendations on the endless list of CA ballot initiatives. But Dale Franks has already done so over at QandO, and Dale and I agree on all of them.
The Red Sox victory Wednesday night, coming back from an impossible 0-3 deficit, will rate as one of the great moments in baseball. The Yankee's collapse is only rivaled by one other: the 1951 collapse of the Brooklyn Dodgers, who blew a 13 1/2 game lead in the final month of the season, ending with a loss in a one-game playoff with the hated NY Giants.
One moment we will be be reminded of (repeatedly) in the upcoming series is a painful one: how the Red Sox lost the 1986 series. Painful in particular for Billy Buckner, their team leader and MVP, who ended his fine career with the most remembered error in the history of baseball. And most people remember it wrong.
Other Red Sox history among Sporting News' Top 25 are:
Carlton Fisk's homer in Game 6 against Cincinnati in 1975. They lost Game 7, of course.
Enos Slaughter scoring from first base on a single in the 8th inning of Game 7, to win the 1946 series for St Louis over Boston.
Bucky Dent's homer in a one-game playoff in 1978, leading the Dark Forces to victory over the Sox.
And lastly, for xrlq, is the 9th inning of Game 5 of the 1986 ALCS, Boston vs the California Angels.
See also Clark Smith at CalBlog, who got me started on this post.
What is going on inside Iran? Nicholas Kristof or the NY Times toured Iran recently and has this detailed video report. There's a lot more good news than you think. Really.
Via Winds of Change
On to Game 7. What a great series. Three nail-biters in a row with the Red Sox' backs against the wall the whole time. You can't ask for better baseball.
I love my HD TiVo. Blogging limited for the duration.
P.S. A Houston-Boston series would be fun for other reasons.
If you don't vote, you don't matter.
At least as far as the politicians are concerned. Case in point: If people 18-20 voted like people over 65 do, not only would the drinking age be 18 but the booze would be paid for by someone else.
You might also ask yourself why people over 65 -- who have serious time-on-planet and have survived it -- nearly all vote. Odds are they didn't at age 20. What have they learned, that you, dear non-voter, haven't grasped yet?
Note: If you intend to vote for Kerry, please disregard this message.
I wonder if Ben Franklin would have found it ironic, given his famous quote about the Constitution -- "Our Constitution is in actual operation; everything appears to promise that it will last; but in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." -- that an end to Death looks like a much better bet than an end to taxes.
Bill Maher has made his name extolling "political incorrectness", which he seems to view as bashing the icons of straight society. Ironically, many of his guests are as politically correct as can be: the Michael Moores and Sean Penns of the world. To me "politically incorrect" would be John Ashcroft talking about guns.
Trey Parker and Matt Stone, on the other hand, have no such blinders. They know that the anti-establishment naive cynicism of Hollywood is hardly considered incorrect by the intelligista. Rather it's the Party line. So they blow it up quite completely in their new film, Team America: World Police, along with a few assorted monuments, such as the Pyramids and Louve.
Parker and Stone have got it right: America may have feet of clay but in the end they are all that stands between civilization and the barbarians. An incorrect thing to say, as is denouncing Hollywood's useful idiots, but they dare to say it, and they say very well. I laughed my head off.
It's a good thing that Parker and Stone have done so well by South Park, because they're about to be blackballed by every right left-thinking person in the biz. Academy Awards? Probably not even in the "best puppet sex" category.
p.s. Stay through the credits.
The Chicago Tribune (owner of the LA Times) has endorsed President Bush for re-election. Their primary reason is national security in a post-9/11 world -- a world they feel that Kerry does not inhabit:
On the most crucial issue of our time, Kerry has serially dodged for political advantage. Through much of the 2004 election cycle, he used his status as a war hero as an excuse not to have a coherent position on America's national security. Even now, when Kerry grasps a microphone, it can be difficult to fathom who is speaking--the war hero, or the anti-war hero.And even on domestic policy -- an area where a major urban newspaper in a Democrat town would be expected to extol the Democrat's virtue -- the Tribune has little good to say about Kerry:
Kerry displays great faith in diplomacy as the way to solve virtually all problems. Diplomatic solutions should always be the goal. Yet that principle would be more compelling if the world had a better record of confronting true crises, whether proffered by the nuclear-crazed ayatollahs of Iran, the dark eccentrics of North Korea, the genocidal murderers of villagers in Sudan--or the Butcher of Baghdad.
In each of these cases, Bush has pursued multilateral strategies. In Iraq, when the UN refused to enforce its 17th stern resolution--the more we learn about the UN's corrupt Oil-for-Food program, the more it's clear the fix was in--Bush acted. He thus reminded many of the world's governments why they dislike conservative and stubborn U.S. presidents (see Reagan, Ronald)....
Kerry, though, has lost his way. The now-professed anti-war candidate says he still would vote to authorize the war he didn't vote to finance. He used the presidential debates to telegraph a policy of withdrawal. His Iraq plan essentially is Bush's plan. All of which perplexes many.
Worse, it plainly perplexes Kerry. ("I do believe Saddam Hussein was a threat," he said Oct. 8, adding that Bush was preoccupied with Iraq, "where there wasn't a threat.") What's not debatable is that Kerry did nothing to oppose White House policy on Iraq until he trailed the dovish Howard Dean in the race for his party's nomination. Also haunting Kerry: his Senate vote against the Persian Gulf war--driven by faith that, yes, more diplomacy could end Saddam Hussein's rape of Kuwait.
On domestic issues, the choice is also clear. In critical areas such as public education and health care, Bush's emphasis is on greater competition. His No Child Left Behind Act has flaws, but its requirements have created a new climate of expectation and accountability. On both of these important fronts, but especially with his expensive health-care plan, Kerry primarily sees a need to raise and spend more money....It is actually this last point that I find most compelling. Anyone who has ever worked in a policy setting (in business, government or a non-profit) knows that there are three types of people: the doers who lead; the whiners and critics who offer no solution themselves; and those that follow the first group to the annoyance of the second. Bush is clearly in the first camp, Kerry clearly in the second.
John Kerry has been a discerning critic of where Bush has erred. But Kerry's message--a more restrained assault on global threats, earnest comfort with the international community's noble inaction--suggests what many voters sense: After 20 years in the Senate, the moral certitude Kerry once displayed has evaporated. There is no landmark Kennedy-Kerry Education Act, no Kerry-Frist Health Bill. Today's Kerry is more about plans and process than solutions. He is better suited to analysis than to action. He has not delivered a compelling blueprint for change.
Patterico is writing a newspaper op-ed on Proposition 66, the proposal to gut the 3 Strikes law. He's asked for suggestions and editing advice. He'd also like suggestions on which newspaper(s) to target. Help him out -- this initiative needs a thorough drubbing and every little bit helps.
Infinite Monkeys asks the question: One of the reasons for Republicans to support Arnold during the recall was so that Arnold could use his popularity to support Bush come election time. Where is Arnold?
At the very least he could be stumping for Bill Jones.
In the past week, President Bush has been blamed for Alzheimer's, spinal injuries, AIDS, aging and now the flu. There are two weeks to go, and many of Bush's medical mistakes remain to be exposed. Some suggestions for the Kerry camp:
Lots of discussion today about why Senator Kerry keeps bringing up the phony Draft issue. Does he really think that it will be needed, and he's doing his best to blame it on "Bush's policies that he inherited"? Is he just being a demagogue to rile up the sudent vote? Does he want to have a draft so as, in some perverted way, recrate the anti-military attitude of his youth? Hard to say.
One thing that occurs to me though, is that it may all be moot. Considering the harsh things he has had to say about the Iraqis, his obvious preference for the status quo ante, his dismissal of Iraqi sacrifices in the current struggle, and his threat to reinvolve the European monsters who fed off of Saddam's regime, there is some doubt that a Kerry-led America will be very welcome in Iraq. I can see the newly-elected Iraqi government asking Kerry to get the heck out next February or so, saying that they'd rather go it alone than with a hostile American administration mucking everything up.
I haven't been a big SwiftVet's fan, as I thought their commercials were too much of the "hard attack" variety, which turn a lot of people off. But this new ad is an absolute stunner. I'd give good money to keep "They Served" on the air. Matter of fact, I just did. Check it out.
"Mr President, can you name 3 mistakes you'd like to fess up to?"
"Why yes, I can, Dan. First, we should have formally declared war on al Qaeda, Iraq, Iran and Syria on September 12th. Second, we should have used nerve gas at Tora Bora. Unfortunately we didn't have any. Third, we should have moved those troops through Turkey anyway. [pause] Just kidding."
How come it's not OK to cut taxes across the board, where the top 20%, who pay 80% of the taxes, get 75% of the dollars returned? Yet it is OK when raising taxes to increase taxes only on the top few per cent?
Example: In 1993, Clinton put a 10% surtax on the top two tax brackets, and increased taxes on no one else. In 2001, Bush removed that 10% surtax and ALSO cut everyone else's taxes by about the same amount, plus a bit more at the low end.
Yet it's Bush's 2001 tax cuts that are unfair, and Clinton's 1993 hike and Kerry's proposed 2005 hike that are "fair." Can someone explain this to me? Preferably someone from the CBS Truth Squad...
Gone all but unnoticed in the national press, the "corporate tax bill" that recently passed will contain a sizable deduction for some in the middle class. Those living in states without an income tax, such as Washington State, can now itemize sales taxes again. Persons in states with an income tax may choose which of the two taxes to deduct. The deduction, last seen in 1986, was reinstituted due to intense lobbying by these no-income-tax states, who argued that their taxpayers were paying higher marginal rates due to the lack of a federal tax deduction.
I guess the NY & LA Times missed this because it only affects fly-over country. See this article in the Seattle Times for details. Average savings $500-700.
Neither Kerry nor Edwards were present to vote.
It occurs to me that, considering John Kerry's intention to neglect terrorism, institute the Greater Society in the European mold, raise taxes again and again, appoint flaming leftist nutbars to the Supreme Court and generally f*ck up in detail, that his election would be the death of the Democrat party for the foreseeable future. That might be worth working for.
Or at least a potential silver lining.
John Kerry dared America to check out his plans on a wide range of issues by going to his web site. Did that, and all I see are assertions, not plans. His plan to keep America safe is, well, to keep America safe. And to create jobs, he'll, well, create jobs. Stuff like that. Oh, and to reduce the deficit he'll cut the deficit in half.
Go look. Really. He's obviously hoping no one will.
Moderator: You have a new plan.
Senator Kerry: Can I just say here Chris for one moment that I have a new plan?
Moderator: Er... exactly. (he gestures but she does not say anything) What is it?
Senator Kerry: Where? (looks round)
Moderator: No, no. Your new plan.
Senator Kerry: Oh, what is my plan?
Moderator: Yes.
Senator Kerry: Oh what is my plan that it is. Well Chris you may well ask me what is my plan.
Moderator: I am asking.
Senator Kerry: Good for you. My word yes. Well Chris, what is it that it is - this plan of mine. Well, this is what it is - my plan that I have, that is to say, which is mine, is mine.
Moderator: (beginning to show signs of exasperation) Yes, I know it's yours, what is it?
Senator Kerry: Where? Oh, what is my plan? This is it. (clears throat at some length) My plan that belongs to me is as follows. (clears throat at great length) This is how it goes. The next thing I"m going to say is my plan. Ready?
Moderator: Yes!
Senator Kerry: My plan by J Kerry. Brackets Senator, brackets. This plan goes as follows and begins now. I will spend more at the beginning, still more in the middle and then more again at the end. That is my plan, it is mine, and belongs to me and I own it, and what it is too.
(apologies to Monty Python)
Update: Boi has a similar take.
Sanford Wallace is the ur-spammer. His first business was junk-faxing until that was outawed. In the mid-90's he became the person most responsible for the e-mail spam plague, using his junk-fax connections to pioneer the concept though his now-defunct Cyber Promotions. After he found it hard to obtain ISP service, he started up his own ISP as a spammer heaven.
A number of lawsuits, FTC actions, etc, later and Mr. Wallace "went legit", or so he said. He started a new company for "permission-based marketing" called SmartBot.net. He'd seen the light and would only market to willing recipients, or so he said.
The FTC thinks Sanford Wallace is now spreading spyware:
The Federal Trade Commission on Thursday filed the first case in the country against software companies accused of infecting computers with intrusive "spyware" and then trying to sell people the solution.See also here and here and here for more info on some of these "products". See also this post on the initial FTC complaint.
The commission accused the companies of infecting computers with unsolicited software, showering computer screens with pop-up ads and then trying to get consumers to pay $30 to fix it. It is seeking an injunction to get the companies, owned by the same person, to stop, and to offer restitution to consumers.
The FTC requested a temporary restraining order from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire against Seismic Entertainment Productions Inc., Smartbot.Net, Inc., and Sanford Wallace.
The FTC said the companies secretly installed the software on computers, causing systems to be overwhelmed by pop-up advertisements, and then sending them alarming messages saying they needed to buy "Spy Wiper" or "Spy Deleter" for $30.
The FTC alleges the defendants have unfairly: changed consumers' Web browsers, installed advertising and other software programs, and compelled purchase of anti-spyware software.
Seismic is based in Rochester, N.H.; SmartBot in Richboro, Pa., with its principal place of business in Barrington, N.H. Wallace is officer and director of both Seismic and SmartBot.
Is there anyone who believes, had there been no Iraq War, that with oil at $53/barrel the sanctions would still be imposed?
Given this NYTimessummary of the recent WMD report, Hussein planned to restart nearly all his weapon programs once sanctions were lifted and was bribing nearly everyone under the sun in order to get that to happen. A "coalition of the bribed", if you will, just waiting for the right moment to let Saddam be Saddam.
WIth the doubling of oil prices this last year, with all the oil interests that had pieces of Iraqi oil reserves, is there any doubt that Iraq would now be raking in billions to support their restarted weapons programs?
Is there any doubt that Chirac and company would again be praising Saddam as their companies and political parties got their payoffs? Is there any doubt that Uday and Qusay would be happily raping and killing still? And is there any doubt that the WMD plants would be reopening with shiny new equipment from Saddam's European friends?
Just asking.
The owners of factcheck.com -- whose domain registration is a blank wall typical of spammers and porno operators -- have decided to redirect traffic from their (unimplemented) "site" to GeorgeSoros.com. I actually hit them last week by accident, and their useless ad site tried to hijack my browser.
Embarrassing for Cheney, perhaps, but I wonder how much the Kerry folks will appreciate their new friends.
Yesterday, the House Republicans brought up the Democrat draft bill, hoping to use its crushing defeat (402-2) to emphasize that it wasn't supported by any Republican. The two members who voted for it were both Democrats, as were all its sponsors.
The LA Times front-page headline? Republicans Glad to Lose on Bill to Start New Draft. Not until paragraph 16 does it mention that it was a Democrat bill. The preceding paragraphs repeatedly imply otherwise, and not until paragraph 22 do they tell you this:
Only Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Hayward) voted for the measure.
Somehow, John Edwards can't call all terrorists "terrorists".
When talking about Palestinian suicide bombers, he correctly states it. But in Iraq, he calls (non-Iraqi!) "people" who blow up noncombatants and police officers and behead truck drivers and engineers "insurgents." He does so repeatedly, and never uses the T-word.
I guess I should be happy he at least knows that someone who blows up a pizza parlor is a terrorist, but I wonder why he thinks murdering noncombatants in Iraq is different than murdering noncombatants in Israel?
He's probably afraid that someone will think that al Qaeda is operating in Iraq, after saying that there's no connection.
Pity poor John Edwards. Mopped around the floor like a dishrag, and he doesn't even know it. Oh, CBS says "undecided voters" chose Edwards, but 1) CBS's idea of "undecided" probably means "Kerry or Nader"; and 2) anyone who's truly undecided at this point either hasn't been paying attention, or can't. Poll numbers on undecided are down around 5%. These aren't the rocket scientists.
It was quite apparent that Edwards was sent in to repeat Kerry's talking points: almost nothing he said wasn't said Tuesday by Kerry, except the latest changes to the party line ("global test, who said global test?"). Cheney, on the other hand, had complete mastery of the facts, made his points clearly and was spot on target at all times. Only when it came to gay marriage, where Cheney has substantially different views than Bush, was Cheney less than forceful.
Only problem is that few decide on the basis of VP's. But Cheney's obvious depth and substance made Edward's shallowness all the more apparent. If there is any justice, the Kerry campaign is going to have to spend the week defending Edwards on his Senate attendance record. As my wife after Cheney laid into him on it: "Oof." Straight to the gut, and no response.
Now, I think I'll go over to Hewitt's site to see how he scored it.
By all accounts North Korea has 3-5 Hiroshima-yield fission bombs. If recently reprocessed plutonium has been weaponized (as the North Koreans claim) they may have as many as 10. North Korea also has missles quite capable of hitting any target in Japan or South Korea with a plutonium bomb (although maybe not with a heavier uranium bomb). They also have 13,000 deeply entrenched artillery tubes within striking distance of the South Korean capital of Seoul, and have had 50 years to dig them in. They have threatened to obliterate Seoul with this artillery should a new conflict erupt, and have the capability to do it in short order. There are no good ways to prevent this by conventional means. They have also threatened to strike Japan and US forces with nuclear weapons in the event of war. This deterrence is credible, and the conventional threat alone deterred the Clinton administration from reacting to the North Korean nuclear program in the mid 90's, especially after Jimmy Carter crafted a deal that (literally) papered over the crisis.
As we now know, the North Koreans honored that deal in the breach, refraining from producing plutonium bombs, but ramping up a parallel program to make (less-optimal) uranium bombs, of which they now have several. When the US called them on it, the North Koreans just used this new nuclear shield to begin production of plutonium bombs. There was little the US could do, short of a disastrous war which would kill a million South Koreans and destroy South Korea's capital. North Korea would be obliterated in the process, but that isn't satisfactory either. Hydrogen bombs don't lend themselves to tactical strikes, kill indiscriminately, and have effects far beyond the intended targets.
Primarily in response to this situation (and other potential situations) the Bush administration reviewed the US war-fighting strategy and arsenal and determined that a new class of weapons was desperately needed: low-yield (possbily subkiloton) ground-penetrating fission weapons. Congress agreed, and the US is now researching and possbily developing such devices.
Kerry opposes them utterly.
"As president, I will stop this administration's program to develop a whole new generation of bunker-busting nuclear bombs," Kerry told a crowd of supporters in West Palm Beach, Fla. "This is a weapon we don't need. And it undermines our credibility in persuading other nations. What kind of message does it send when we're asking other countries not to develop nuclear weapons but developing new ones ourselves?"Should war come with North Korea, say after a North Korean nuke is sold to al Qaeda and blows up in New York Harbor, will the US be able to respond, defending both itself and Seoul, without widespread civilian losses? If Bush prevails, the US might have two alternatives, under Kerry only one.
Senator Kerry:
I heard last night that you have a secret plan to win in Iraq and bring our troops home. Wonderful news. I might even vote for you if the plan seemed reasonable and better than Bush's stated process. Could you please tell me what the plan is?
Sincerely,
Kevin Murphy
Kerry spends quite a bit of time talking about all of "Bush's mistakes", after-the-fact, while never quite saying what he'd do differrently. Besides making US policy contingent on a French OK, that is. I've not been able to put into words quite how this offends me, but Patterico nails it.
Boy, when it rains it pours. California Secretary of State Kevin Shelley is having a really bad week. First he was caught diverting federal funds earmarked for voting machines to fund his campain operatives, then he was caught taking a bribe campaign donation in his state office. Now, the LA Times reports that the soon-to-be-ex-Secretary of State has been using his state-paid employees as bagmen bagpeople campaign donation processors. This is a big state-official no-no.
Considering that Mr. Shelley is the guy who's in charge of counting votes in elections (or recounting them, should it come to that), what are the Democrats waiting for? The problem isn't going away. Quite the opposite, matter of fact. What's next? Assaulting staff? Not unlikely from all reports.
Oh, and then there's this:
Shelley has been battered by news reports and developments in the investigations. A federal grand jury in Sacramento last week called witnesses who made major contributions to his 2002 campaign after receiving payments from a $500,000 state grant that Shelley helped arrange when he served in the state Assembly.
The Seattle Times reports that someone burglarized Washington State Bush campaign headquarters and stole 3 of the most sensitive computers there, bypassing many others. Doesn't make much sense since Kerry is up 8 points in WA, but then neither did Watergate.
The Washington state headquarters for the president's re-election campaign was broken into last night, and police are investigating the theft of three computers from the Bellevue office.UPDATE: Of course, everyone in WA is distracted by Mt. St. Helen's erupting. I question the timing of the eruption!
Missing are the computers used by the campaign's executive director, the head of the get-out-the-vote effort and one that had been set for delivery to the campaign's Southwest Washington field director, said Jon Seaton, executive director of the state's George W. Bush campaign.
Seaton said data on the computers was backed up and available elsewhere. But, he said, the loss creates a potential security breach about the campaign's so-called 72-hour plan, the Bush get-out-the-vote effort.
"Obviously there's some stuff there we wouldn't want our opposition getting their hands on," Seaton said.
Remember the father and daughter who had their pro-Bush sign torn up while picketing a Edwards rally? Here's an update, courtesy of the Weekly Standard:
Our back-page PARODY last week featured that now-famous photograph of teary-faced toddler Sophia Parlock atop her father's shoulders at a John Edwards rally in Huntington, West Virginia--holding what remained of a Bush-Cheney placard that had moments before been ripped from her hands and destroyed by a man wearing an International Union of Painters and Allied Trades T-shirt. The president of that union quickly apologized to the Parlock family "for the distress one of our overzealous members caused."
But suspicious bloggers almost immediately questioned whether the apology wasn't premature. Phil Parlock, they pointed out, had a history of provocative, Republican-sign-holding appearances at Democratic rallies. He'd gotten roughed up for it--and made news--in 1996 and 2000, as well. So was the whole thing a set-up? Maybe the man in the union T-shirt wasn't actually a union member at all?
Nope. Columnist Michelle Malkin called the IUPAT a few days later and asked about it. They told her that they'd "identified the union member who grabbed the Bush/Cheney sign from Phil Parlock's daughter and threw the pieces at the family as they left the event. 'We are taking steps to deal with the individual,'" the union said.
Meantime the president, in fine Bush 41 fashion, has written a note: "Dear Sophia, Thank you for supporting my campaign. I understand someone tore up your sign. So I am sending you a new sign and a signed picture. Please give my best to your family. Sincerely, George W. Bush."
