...to End all Attack Ads.

I CAN ONLY HOPE, should I ever feel the urge to run for office, I don't have a bunch of my former fellow officers waiting to ambush me like this.

On the other hand, I've never gone before Congress and declared my brothers-in-arms to be a bunch of war criminals, so I guess I have nothing to worry about in that department.

ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL in Newburgh, New York, John Kerry approached a group of US Marines enjoying lunch at a Wendy’s restaurant.

The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

Perhaps they hadn’t heard that Kerry served in Vietnam. He even got three Purple Hearts.

(Hat tip: Greyhawk)

JOHN KERRY delivered a good performance tonight.

I wasn't impressed so much by the content of the speech, which at points was all too reminiscent of the typical "laundry list" State of the Union addresses which we have all come to disdain. No, what struck me was Kerry's presence on the stage. He appeared confident, and dare I say it, "strong."

It wasn't a perfect performance, to be sure. He stumbled noticeably at least a couple of times, at one point referring to "hair pollution," and at another speaking of "Senator and menators of Congress." He also appeared to rush a bit through the natural breaks in the speech, when he could have waited for the applause and cheers to build.

I also think he may have overplayed the military angle a little bit. I understand he's trying to reassure us about his commitment to national security, but methinks he doth protest too much...

But overall, Kerry gave a solid performance, which is exactly what he needed to do.

It's going to be a tough, hard-fought presidential campaign, folks.

UPDATE: I watched the speech on MSNBC, so unfortunately I missed this bit of family entertainment.

THE BUSH CAMPAIGN responds to Kerry's speech.

JAMES JOYNER has an extensive roundup of reactions.

MEANWHILE, outside the Fleet Center, hundreds of Vietnam veterans marched in opposition to Kerry's candidacy.

“While we honor John Kerry’s service in Vietnam for a couple months, we totally abhor the lies (Kerry) told the country about us being war criminals while he admitted being a war criminal.”

Basically, the Democrat “Emperor has no clothes.” His entire campaign revolves about a few months in Vietnam decades ago; the circumstances of which are contradicted by most of us who were there and knew him.

And the beat goes on...

VETERAN POLITICOS say that party platforms have been rendered meaningless over the years. Nobody pays them much attention; and once elected, the candidates feel little obligation to stand by their own party's stated agenda.

Nevertheless, they are worth examining, if only to get a better grip of how the respective parties choose to present themselves. It seems to me (although others may have a very different perspective), that the Democrats tend to write their platform with an eye towards attracting the undecided voters, while the Republicans generally use theirs as a tool to keep their base happy.

Most voters never bother to read them. Except me.

The Democrats have just released their 2004 Platform: Strong at Home, Respected in the World.

I'm going to take some time to read it over, with an eye towards the unwritten, between-the-lines messages. My readings of these "hidden messages" are in italics.

NOTE: This is not the complete platform. It's 41 pages long, and I don't have that much free time on my hands. If you want to read the whole thing, you can find it here.

PREAMBLE

...For the first time in generations, we have been attacked on our own shores. (Bush failed to protect us!) Our brave men and women in uniform are still in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war against terror. (Bring them home now!) Our alliances are frayed (Europeans hate Bush!), our credibility in doubt. (Bush is a liar!)

Our great middle class is hard-pressed. (Bush screwed up the Clinton economy!) Millions of Americans have lost their jobs (Bring back the Tech Bubble!), and millions more are struggling under the mounting burden of life's everyday costs (We need single-payer health care, like Canada!). [...]

A STRONG, RESPECTED AMERICA

...The might of our alliances, coupled with the strength of our democratic ideals, has been a driving force in the survival and success of freedom – in two World Wars, in the Korean War, in the Cold War, in the Gulf War and in Kosovo. America led instead of going it alone (the United Kingdom, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, South Korea, Romania, Japan, Bulgaria, Denmark, Thailand, Honduras, El Salvador, Hungary, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Singapore, Mongolia, Azerbaijan, Norway, Latvia, Portugal, Lithuania, Slovakia, Philippines, Czech Republic, Albania, Georgia, New Zealand, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Macedonia, Moldova, and Tonga don’t count). We extended a hand, not a fist (bombing Serbia was humanitarian, liberating Iraq was imperialism). We respected the world – and the world respected us. (Bush has alienated the French and the Germans!) […]

But the Bush Administration has walked away from more than a hundred years of American leadership in the world to embrace a new – and dangerously ineffective – disregard for the world (France and Germany).

They rush to force before exhausting diplomacy. They bully rather than persuade. They act alone when they could assemble a team (see the list of excepted nations above). They hope for the best when they should prepare for the worst. (We should have sent MORE troops to Iraq!) Time and again, this Administration confuses leadership with going it alone (see the list) and engagement with compromise of principle (we should have waited for inspections to work, again). They do not understand that real leadership means standing by your principles and rallying others to join you (waiting for France and Germany).

Our overriding goals are the same as ever: to protect our people and our way of life (no more terrorist attacks, we promise!); and to help build a safer, more peaceful, more prosperous, more democratic world (unless we have to fight for it). Today, we face three great challenges above all others – first, to win the global war against terror (force a peace plan down Israel’s throat and run like Hell); second, to stop the spread of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (pay off Pakistan, Iran, North Korea, etc.); and third, to promote democracy and freedom around the world (send Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton on fruitless “peace missions”), starting with a peaceful and stable Iraq (we’ll get those troops out of there as soon as we think we can get away with it).

To meet these challenges, we need a new national security policy guided by four new imperatives: First, America must launch and lead a new era of alliances for the post-September 11 world (make nice with France and Germany). Second, we must modernize the world's most powerful military to meet the new threats (but not if it’s too expensive).

Third, in addition to our military might, we must deploy all that is in America's arsenal – our diplomacy (France and Germany), our intelligence system (reconnaissance satellites only), our economic power (sanctions not war), and the appeal of our values and ideas (they don't hate us, they just hate Bush).

Fourth and finally, to safeguard our freedom and ensure our nation's future, we must end our dependence on Mideast oil (but no new drilling in Alaska, or off California or Florida, or in the Gulf of Mexico).

DEFEATING TERRORISM

Today, the Bush Administration is waging a war against a global terrorist movement committed to our destruction with insufficient understanding of our enemy (Bush is stupid) or effort to address the underlying factors that can give rise to new recruits (like our support for Israel). […] Despite his tough talk, President Bush's actions against terrorism have fallen far short (he’s all bark and no bite). He still has no comprehensive strategy for victory (he’s incompetent). After allowing bin Laden to escape from our grasp at Tora Bora, he diverted crucial resources from the effort to destroy al Qaeda in Afghanistan (he couldn’t finish the job). His doctrine of unilateral preemption has driven away our allies (France & Germany) and cost us the support of other nations (China & Russia).

We must put in place a strategy to win – an approach that recognizes and addresses the many facets of this mortal challenge, from the terrorists themselves to the root causes that give rise to new recruits (our support for Israel), and uses all the tools at our disposal (like diplomacy, sanctions and cruise missiles). Agents of terrorism work in the shadows of more than 60 nations, on every continent. The only possible path to victory will be found in the company of others (France & Germany), not walking alone. With John Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, we will never wait for a green light from abroad when our safety is at stake (except from France & Germany), but we must enlist those whose support we need for ultimate victory (say it with me: “France & Germany”).

Victory in the war on terror requires a combination of American determination and international cooperation (with France & Germany) on all fronts. It requires the ability and willingness to direct immediate, effective military action when the capture or destruction of terrorist groups and their leaders is possible (with French and German approval); a massive improvement in intelligence gathering and analysis (but not actual spies) coupled with vigorous law enforcement (in absentia indictments); a relentless effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds (in a culturally sensitive manner); a global effort to prevent failed or failing states that can become sanctuaries for terrorists (massive aid to prop up floundering third-world socialists and other tyrants); a sustained effort to deny terrorists any more recruits by conducting effective public diplomacy (we’ll ask them nicely not to kill us); and a sustained political and economic effort to improve education, work for peace, support democracy and extend hope (pay them off with more foreign aid).

Improving intelligence to find and stop terrorists. […] From the failure to uncover the September 11th plot (Bush’s fault) to the deeply misguided reports about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction (Bush lied), we have experienced unprecedented intelligence failures in recent years (which had nothing to do with the hobbling of the CIA by the Church Commission). We must do what President Bush has refused to do (in the one week since the 9/11 Commission made the recommendation) – reform our intelligence system by creating a true Director of National Intelligence with real control of intelligence personnel and budgets.

We must train more analysts in languages spoken by terrorists. And we must break down the old communications barriers between national intelligence and local law enforcement (erected during the Clinton Administration), taking care to fully preserve our liberties (repeal the Patriot Act).

Cutting off terrorist funds. […] We will launch a "name and shame" campaign against those that are financing terror. If nations do not respond, they will be shut out of the U.S. financial system (you are either with us, or you are – wait, scratch that). And in the specific case of Saudi Arabia, we will put an end to the Bush Administration's kid-glove approach to the supply and laundering of terrorist money (Bush is in bed with the terrorists).

Preventing Afghanistan and other nations from becoming terrorist havens.[…] We must expand NATO forces (Frermany) outside Kabul. We must accelerate training for the Afghan army and police. The program to disarm and reintegrate warlord militias into society must be expedited and expanded into a mainstream strategy (we’ll do the same things Bush is doing, but FASTER). We will attack the exploding opium trade ignored by the Bush Administration (because he wants minorities to get hooked on drugs) by doubling our counter-narcotics assistance to the Karzai Government and reinvigorating the regional drug control program (which we criticized Bush for funding before September 11).

Beyond Afghanistan, terrorist attacks from Saudi Arabia and Indonesia to Kenya, Morocco, and Turkey point to a widening network of terrorists targeting this country and our friends (Bush’s fault). Failed and failing states like Somalia or countries with large areas of limited government control like the Philippines and Indonesia need international help (Frermany) to close down terrorist havens.

Increasing public diplomacy to promote understanding and prevent terrorist recruitment. […] America needs a major initiative in public diplomacy to support the many voices of freedom in the Arab and Muslim world. To improve education for the next generation of Islamic youth, we need a cooperative international effort (Frermany) to compete with radical Madrassas. And we must support human rights groups (like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, Medecins sin Frontiers), independent media (like al-Jazeera), and labor unions (our socialist brothers and sisters) dedicated to building a culture from the grassroots up.

More to follow...

ABCNEWS ASKS, "Who is Stephen Bing?"

I'M UNEASY about any voting system that doesn't leave an auditable paper trail.

Discuss.

MATT DRUDGE has his trademark "siren" flashing on his website.

(Caveat emptor: many of Drudge's "exclusives" have not stood up to scrutiny.)

Heres the headline:

A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam! The footage is at the center of a growing controversy in Boston...

Potentially devastating if true, but I'll wait to see if this one pans out before passing judgement.

UPDATE: Here's the story.

THE REPUBLICANS have released their own Kerry film.

KERRY'S FELLOW OFFICERS are complaining about his use of this photo.

THESE VETERANS, on the other hand, stand by Kerry.

BILL KELLER claims to have debunked these charges in a two-year-old New York Times op-ed.

WHY DOES NASA HATE KERRY?

NBC’S ANDREA MITCHELL reports on efforts by the Democrats to “soften the edges” of campaign rhetoric at their National Convention.

…The word is out: the liberal wing of the party is being told to avoid any harsh rhetoric. That could already be affecting tonight's headliners: last night, Al Gore's speech was basically torn up, according to two sources, and is now being rewritten, presumably to fit more closely with the party line.

You have to feel just a little bit sorry for Gore: four years ago, he was the guest of honor at this party. But today, he has to submit to the indignity of having his speech “softened.”

That’s gotta hurt, just a little bit.

ANDREW SULLIVAN attempts to make the case for Kerry:

Yes, Kerry's record on spending, defense and social policy has been liberal. But that is not the theme of his campaign so far. Kerry is as rhetorically dedicated to seeing through nation-building in Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush is. But where Bush has scrapped America's longstanding military doctrine of only attacking when attacked, Kerry prefers the old, strictly defensive doctrine. Where Bush has clearly placed American national interest above any international concern, Kerry insists that the old alliances - even with old Europe - need to be strengthened and reaffirmed. Kerry insists that he is a fiscal conservative, aiming to reduce the deficit by tax increases. He has argued that stability in some parts of the world should take precedence over democracy or human rights. He opposes amending the Constitution and supports legal abortion, the status quo Bush wants to reverse. He has spent decades in the Senate, quietly building an undistinguished and constantly nuanced record. He is a war veteran, who plays up his record of public service every chance he gets. He's a church-going Catholic who finds discussion of religious faith unseemly in public. In the primaries, he was the safe, establishment bore compared to the radical pyrotechnics of Howard Dean and the populist charm of John Edwards.

Is Sullivan angling for a last-minute invitation to speak at the Democratic Convention?

THERESA HEINZ KERRY, speaking at a campaign dinner for the Pennsylvania delegation to the Democratic National Convention, shared some thoughts about improving the tone of political discourse.

We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.

Shortly afterwards, a journalist asked her what she meant by "un-American." But Mrs. Kerry denied having made the remark.

You said something I didn't say. Now shove it.

So much for improving the tone...

(Hat tip: California Yankee)

UPDATE: John Kerry stands by his wife.

...SHE'S BACK!

(Hat tip: Dean)

A SAFE CHOICE -- Edwards won't help Kerry much -- but he won't hurt him, either.

MATT DRUDGE says Kerry will pick Hillary.

I still say the smart money is on Edwards.

THIS BUSH WEB AD was a monumentally stupid idea.

“The other side did it first” is not an acceptable excuse. Neither is “but we’re only showing clips from THEIR ads.”

I condemned the infamous “Bush = Hitler” ads when they were posted in a contest on MoveOn.org back in January. To their credit, the MoveOn management quickly disavowed any responsibilty for the ads (which were submitted as part of an online contest), and removed them from their website.

That should have been the end of the story.

Unfortunately, someone in the Bush campaign thought it would be fun to tar Kerry (who had nothing to do with the original contest) by resurrecting portions of these idiotic videos and splicing them in with images of Al Gore, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry.

I said it before, and I’ll say it again: comparing your political rivals to one of history's worst mass-murderers is a despicable tactic, which has no place in civil political debate.

Period.

SCOTT ELLIOTT has been running a presidential election projection, based on state-by-state electoral votes, since last August.

If the election were held today, Elliott projects a 269-269 tie.

Of course, this is just a snapshot, and there's still over four months to go until Election Day. But could you imagine what chaos an electoral tie would cause? If the vote were sent to the House of Representatives?

It would make Florida 2000 look like a lovefest!

Rant at NYU:
Al Gore goes off the deep end.
“They all must resign!”

DOES MICHELE CATALANO have adult attention deficit disorder?

My mother was saying something. A pilot. John Travolta. Movie. Oh yes, the trivia! I was part of a team, I needed to pay attention! No, no not Look Who's Talking. I think he just wanted to be a pilot in that movie. Broken Arrow. Yes, the movie with Howie Long. Trivia. FOX. President. Travolta. Babies crying. Kids shouting. Enormous claps of thunder outside. My head began to swim. I look at TV1 and Howie Long is giving a speech about Iraq and he's winking at me. Awww yea, baby. Come to me, Howie! My sister slaps me on the back of the head. Hello?? The food is here. Wake up. I ordered the steak that comes with the grilled portabello mushroom and some decadant sauces or glazes or something that for some reason make me think of Steve. The dinner comes with grilled slices of a zuchinni that must have been so large, which for some reason made me think of Howie Long again.

Or is our entire nation distracted?

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom.

Yes, and all of America should know about these five plans. They should not, at that very moment, be watching some chick get her boobs surgically lifted. We are a nation at war and our president is addressing not only how the rest of the war is going to play out, but how the war is going to end. I notice a few people starting intently at Bush. The people next to me, the KERRYPRZ table, they are staring intently as well, but I think they are using the advantage of hi-def television to see if the scrapes on Bush's face are consistent with the topographic generalities of Crawford, Texas.

For the record, I didn't watch the speech live. It was on at 5pm out here on the Left Coast, and the dog DEMANDED that I walk her as soon as I got home.

So I TiVo-ed it.

President will give
Major address on Iraq
But networks snub Bush.

What is the deal with
Presidential candidates
Falling off their bikes?

Kerry may delay
Accepting nomination
To raise more funds.

Polls look bad for Bush
So he climbs Capitol Hill
To rally the troops.

EARLIER THIS MONTH, I wrote an article about John Kerry’s "Change of Heart" in the early 1970s regarding the Vietnam conflict, and questioned how this experience might influence the candidate’s thinking about the current conflict.

Yesterday, John Kerry gave me an answer.

Perhaps Senator Kerry has been buoyed by the shadow that has fallen over the Bush Administration in the wake of the Iraq prisoner abuse scandal -- which completely eclipsed some welcome news on the economy and caused Bush’s approval numbers to dip below 50 percent for the first time since 2001. But whatever the reason, a newly reinvigorated Kerry has suddenly rediscovered his anti-war voice.

At a campaign stop in Arkansas, the presumptive Democratic nominee tried out a sparkling new soundbite:

...When Bill Clinton left office not one young American in uniform was dying in a war anywhere in this world.

He didn’t say it outright, but the immediate implications of this statement should be obvious: Kerry is opposed to the US occupation of Iraq, and if elected he would most likely withdraw the United States military from that country as expeditiously as possible.

So what about the greater War On Terror? Kerry’s revealing statement tells us that not only does he not approve of this conflict, but also that he would like to take us back to the Clinton Administration’s now-discredited law-enforcement approach to combatting terrorism.

My biggest problem with Kerry’s statement, however, is that he fails to recognize that Bin Laden was already at war with the United States when Clinton left office, and that “young Americans in uniform” were already dying. In fact, less than one month before the 2000 presidential election, seventeen sailors lost their lives when an al Qaeda bomb blew a large hole in the side of the USS Cole. Has Kerry forgotten this already?

Indeed, we know that al Qaeda had attacked the United States several times prior to the Cole bombing. The FBI has concluded that they were also responsible for the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998; the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers Air Force barracks in Saudi Arabia; the first World Trade Center attack in 1993; and that they had even played a role in the “Blackhawk Down” incident in Somalia later that same year.

It may not have been evident to many at the time, but in hindsight it should be obvious that the United States had been at war with al Qaeda throughout the entire eight years of the Bill Clinton presidency. Unfortunately, we had to experience the horrific murder of 3,000 civilians before we would begin to get serious about fighting back.

That John Kerry still cannot recognize this today speaks volumes about his fitness to be Commander-in-Chief.

MORE: Writing in the National Review, Victor Davis Hanson echoes my concerns.

...Either this year or sometime in the next decade a Democratic administration may well take the reins of power and in matters of national security it will be far to the left of the Liebermans of the world. And the disturbing events that we saw in the 1990s — constant appeasement of Middle East terrorists and their national sponsors, the emergence of a nuclear Pakistan and North Korea, sudden withdrawal from messy places like Mogadishu, a jetting special envoy Jimmy Carter — will return, though made worse through the prism of the present fury over Iraq.

But hey, that Tech Bubble sure was a fun ride, eh?

THE VIETNAM QUAGMIRE that this year’s presidential election has become will get a little bit murkier today when a group of Vietnam veterans releases a letter declaring fellow vet John Kerry “Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is a newly formed political action committee whose main purpose is to counter Kerry’s self-portrayal as a hero of the Vietnam War. The group claims to include “the entire chain of command above Kerry,” as well as “19 of 23 officers who served with him.” Later today, they will release a letter denouncing Kerry, signed by “Swift Boat veterans at all levels and from the entire political spectrum,” at a press conference in Washington, DC.

I'M REMINDED of a dream that I had shortly after I proposed to my wife. All of my former girlfriends get together to throw my fiancée a bridal shower. At first they’re nice and pleasant and friendly to her, but then there’s some whispering going on behind her back. Later, two or three of the ladies start getting openly catty with each other. Then they start swapping stories about me.

“He told me he loved me, but then he left me – he LIED to me!”

“But I didn’t lie!” I protest through the dreamy fog, “I had a change of heart!”

That’s when I would wake up in a cold sweat. It’s not that I had any dark secrets from my past; nor did I fear that my fiancée wouldn’t marry me if she met every woman I had previously dated. It’s just the idea of all these women who knew me so well getting together to talk about me to my future wife – what would they say? What emotions would surface? Would they try to poison her against me?

FORTUNATELY, it was just a dream. But for John Kerry, the nightmare is real. After he left Vietnam behind, he turned against his military brothers, accusing them of committing various acts of cruelty. He even went before Congress and testified about war crimes that he later admitted he had not personally witnessed.

Needless to say, some of these veterans aren’t very enamored with Senator Kerry. And now they’re throwing him a press conference.

Of course, this is all politically motivated. One can pick through Kerry’s military records, question whether he earned all of his medals, and ask why he requested reassignment after just four months in country – but none of this changes the fact that he volunteered for combat duty, and served bravely and honorably.

So why are partisan Republicans making an issue of Kerry’s military record?

Part of the blame lies with Kerry himself. Throughout the primary campaign, he repeatedly called attention to his service in Vietnam in order to differentiate himself from his opponents. He also brought along some of his fellow veterans on the campaign trail. He shouldn’t be surprised, then, that some of his former brothers-in-arms, who weren’t quite so happy about his post-war activities, have decided to speak up. While serving in Vietnam, Kerry was part of a very close-knit community of Sailors, Coastguardsmen, and Special Forces who make up the “Brown Water Navy.” Under fire, these men became as close as family. So Kerry’s sudden conversion from Navy Hero to Anti-War Activist must have come as quite a blow to these brave men.

Which brings us to the crux of the matter: Kerry’s political career begins with his decision to leave Vietnam, quit the military, and join the Anti-War Movement. To Kerry’s supporters, this decision represents a Change of Heart.

To his opponents, it was Kerry’s First Flip-Flop.

THE CENTRAL ISSUE of this campaign should not be a war that ended almost thirty years ago. As I have expressed many times on these pages, we have important issues to talk about that will directly affect our future. Hopefully, we can get back to these issues very soon.

But if Kerry is going to continue to highlight his service in Vietnam, he had better be prepared to answer questions about his subsequent “Change of Heart” about the war, and explain how it is relevant to him today.

If elected President, will Kerry abandon Iraq just like he left Vietnam? How about Afghanistan? Korea? Haiti?

If he promises that he won’t, can we trust him to keep his word?

How do we know he won’t have more such “Changes of Heart?”

JOE CONASON leads the counter-attack from the left.

JOHN O'NEILL, one of the vets criticizing Kerry, makes his case in the Wall Street Journal.

HELEN KENNEDY follows up with a hit piece on O'Neill for the New York Daily News.

STEPHEN BRAUN of the Los Angeles Times joins in the fray.

THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO, a young John Kerry threw a handful of military decorations over the fence of the US Capitol as part of a protest against the Vietnam War.

Today, in the context of a contentious presidential campaign, questions are being raised about exactly what happened on that day, and how Kerry later characterized his actions: Did he throw medals, or just ribbons? Were they his medals, or someone else's? Did he once claim to have thrown his own medals, but later change his story?

But these are the wrong questions.

THE "RETURNING" of Kerry's military decorations was clearly a symbolic act. The decorations themselves are symbols of a nation’s gratitude for heroic or otherwise meritorious actions. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons; nor does it particularly relevant to whom the decorations originally belonged.

This much we know: Kerry was there. He helped organize the protest.

The questions we should be asking, then, are these:

I think these are fair questions, and I'd really like some answers.

GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS!

THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO, a young John Kerry threw a handful of military decorations over the fence of the US Capitol as part of a protest against the Vietnam War.

Today, in the context of a contentious presidential campaign, questions are being raised about exactly what happened on that day, and how Kerry later characterized his actions: Did he throw medals, or just ribbons? Were they his medals, or someone else's? Did he once claim to have thrown his own medals, but later change his story?

But these are the wrong questions.

THE "RETURNING" of Kerry's military decorations was clearly a symbolic act. The decorations themselves are symbols of a nation’s gratitude for heroic or otherwise meritorious actions. Therefore, it doesn’t really matter whether Kerry threw medals or ribbons; nor does it particularly relevant to whom the decorations originally belonged.

This much we know: Kerry was there. He helped organize the protest.

The questions we should be asking, then, are these:

I think these are fair questions, and I'd really like some answers.

GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS!

I WAS PLANNING TO WRITE a review of John Kerry's Navy officer fitness reports, but Phil Carter beat me to it.

If you're a partisan hack looking for a scandal, there's nothing there. Kerry's evaluations reflect solid to outstanding performance, even accounting for the grade inflation typical in Navy officer fitreps. They are certainly better than mine.

I went on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday afternoon to discuss the release with Hugh and liberal blogger Matt Yglesias. Kevin Drum claims I "served up dark innuendos," etc. Kevin has an over-active imagination -- I did nothing of the sort.

My analysis of Kerry's fitreps was purely technical. The only negative things I had to say about the man were that his first Purple Heart appeared to be for a minor scrape, and I agreed with Hugh that Kerry flip-flopped embarassingly on Social Security during an interview this week on Meet the Press. Heck, even Matt agreed that Kerry wasn't consistent on the issue.

If that is an unfair partisan attack, then call me a hack.

GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS!

I WAS PLANNING TO WRITE a review of John Kerry's Navy officer fitness reports, but Phil Carter beat me to it.

If you're a partisan hack looking for a scandal, there's nothing there. Kerry's evaluations reflect solid to outstanding performance, even accounting for the grade inflation typical in Navy officer fitreps. They are certainly better than mine.

I went on Hugh Hewitt's show yesterday afternoon to discuss the release with Hugh and liberal blogger Matt Yglesias. Kevin Drum claims I "served up dark innuendos," etc. Kevin has an over-active imagination -- I did nothing of the sort.

My analysis of Kerry's fitreps was purely technical. The only negative things I had to say about the man were that his first Purple Heart appeared to be for a minor scrape, and I agreed with Hugh that Kerry flip-flopped embarassingly on Social Security during an interview this week on Meet the Press. Heck, even Matt agreed that Kerry wasn't consistent on the issue.

If that is an unfair partisan attack, then call me a hack.

GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS!

JOE GANDELMAN wonders why John Kerry hasn't yet released his full military records.

I have to admit that I wouldn't want the media going over my military records with a fine-tooth comb, either. Not that I have anything to hide, mind you, but the inevitable questions would just get tedious.

No, I don't think I would want to release my military service records for the whole world to read. But then again, I'm not running for President on my war experience...

GENERAL QUARTERS! GENERAL QUARTERS!

I CAUGHT A FEW MINUTES of Condoleeza Rice’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission this morning while eating breakfast.

Now I understand why the Bush Administration was so resistant to the idea of a 9/11 Commission. I understand why the President was reluctanct to have Rice testify publicly. And I understand why he’s denying them an extension to finish their report.

This is not, as advertised, a fact-finding commission. It’s just another vehicle for insipid, juvenile partisan bickering and Monday-morning quaterbacking. This panel is both an embarassment, and a distraction from the vital task at hand.

Can we get back to the War now?

WELCOME BACK to Election Projection blogger Scott Elliott!

Scott has been on hiatus for the past two weeks, mourning the loss of his parents. His latest projection of the 2004 Electoral College shows Bush regaining the advantage over Kerry, 290 to 248.

A BRAWL broke out between Union protestors and Bush supporters outside a Republican fundraiser in Boston Thursday night, the Boston Herald reports.

Tyler, Geoffrey, Matt Margolis, and his twin brother Aaron were all involved in the scuffle. No one was seriously hurt, and the Boston Police managed to seperate the crowds without making any arrests.

Yeah, not much has changed in Boston in the past three centuries...

JOE GANDELMANPERSON reflects on political correctness and satire:

Meanwhile, on the other side of the pond, Scott Burgess reports on a new British musical comedy that some folks might not find very funny at all:

When does satire "cross the line?"

JOHN KERRY won the endorsement of another "foreign leader" today, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.

Well, this should help Kerry lock up the crucial anti-Semitic voting bloc.

UPDATE: The Kerry campaign has released a statement disavowing any and all endorsements by foreign leaders:

I'm glad he cleared that up.

NEWSEEK’S MELINDA LIU was an eyewitness to the aftermath of yesterday’s hotel bombing in Baghdad, and notices an increasing trend towards attacks on “soft targets.”

Can we please stop calling these monsters “insurgents” or “anti-American elements,” and just use the more traditional and widely understood term “terrorists?”

ANOTHER HOTEL was car-bombed in Iraq today, this time in Basra. The attack killed three Iraqi bystanders and injured at least fifteen, AP is reporting.

Basra is the largest city in the Shiite dominated region of southern Iraq, and hosts the headquarters of the British military. The likely target of the attack was the British Army, who often uses the hotel to conduct press briefings – but no Coalition forces were injured in the attack.

Significantly, the citizens of Basra are beginning to take matters into their own hands.

This development does not bode well for the “insurgents.”

MEANWHILE, ethnic tensions are flaring up again in the Balkans.

Five years on, is Kosovo now officially a quagmire? Or does that term only apply to non-politically correct military actions?

SPANISH POLICE arrested four more suspects in the Madrid Massacre investigation today, bringing the total number of captured terrorist suspects to ten.

Incoming Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero repeated his promise to remove all Spanish troops from Iraq by June 30 unless the operation was brought under control of the United Nations.

Senator John Kerry urged Zapatero to reconsider his pledge, arguing that he should “send a message that terrorists cannot win by their acts of terror.”

Zapatero returned the favor by endorsing Kerry for President.

Was Zapatero one of the “foreign leaders” Kerry has been claiming support his candidacy? That’s just what he needs: the endorsement of a socialist and appeaser of terrorists.

Yeah, that ought to play well in the heartland.

NORTH KOREA is now claiming it "doesn't care" who wins the US Presidential election this November, Reuters reports.

So they "don't care" who wins, but they want a "switchover" in policy, or they'll crank up the nuclear weapons factories. And they won't likely get such a switchover under the current leadership.

Got it.

IN AN UNGUARDED MOMENT, John Kerry referred to the Bush Administration as "crooked" during a campaign stop in Chicago on Wednesday, CNN is reporting.

That's quite a broad accusation. Can he back it up?

Will he offer the President an apology?

Or will he try to explain it away?

UPDATE: Campaign spokesman David Wade now claims Kerry was referring to Republican "attack dogs," and not the Bush Administration itself.

ARIZONA REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN is hinting that he might accept an offer from John Kerry to run as Vice President on a bipartisan ticket.

Don't hold your breath, Democrats. Kerry won't offer, and McCain wouldn't accept. For all his centrist posturing, McCain is a loyal, conservative Republican. It will never happen.

Or will it?

Captain Ed wonders, "What in the world is John McCain thinking?"

Murdoc muses, "Is it me, or is that fear I smell?"

James Joyner jokes, "Well, they both served in Vietnam (or so I’m told), they both hate George Bush, and they’re both Democrats."

Kevin Drum: "He may be a nice guy to have a beer with, but he's really conservative, and the fact that he has an occasional spat with George Bush doesn't really change that."

Steven Taylor observes, "One thing is for sure, there are times when it is blatanly obvious that we sometimes see the world rather differently."

Matt Stoller: "McCain as VP would be a giant meme to the effect that the old party systems do not explain our political arrangements, and so shouldn't constrain them."

Doug MacEachern concludes, "The only thing that matters for Dems is to beat George Bush."

ARIZONA REPUBLICAN SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN is hinting that he might accept an offer from John Kerry to run as Vice President on a bipartisan ticket.

Don't hold your breath, Democrats. Kerry won't offer, and McCain wouldn't accept. For all his centrist posturing, McCain is a loyal, conservative Republican. It will never happen.

Or will it?

Captain Ed wonders, "What in the world is John McCain thinking?"

Murdoc muses, "Is it me, or is that fear I smell?"

James Joyner jokes, "Well, they both served in Vietnam (or so I’m told), they both hate George Bush, and they’re both Democrats."

Kevin Drum: "He may be a nice guy to have a beer with, but he's really conservative, and the fact that he has an occasional spat with George Bush doesn't really change that."

Steven Taylor observes, "One thing is for sure, there are times when it is blatanly obvious that we sometimes see the world rather differently."

Matt Stoller: "McCain as VP would be a giant meme to the effect that the old party systems do not explain our political arrangements, and so shouldn't constrain them."

Doug MacEachern concludes, "The only thing that matters for Dems is to beat George Bush."

Who: Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
What: Speech in opposition to amendment No. 1452 to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (excerpted from the Congressional Record).
When: February 2, 1994.
Where: The floor of the United States Senate.
Why: "As long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to stand in harm's way."

Emphasis added. To read the original text in the Congressional Record, click here, then click on "AMENDMENT NO. 1452"

Who: Senator Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).
What: Speech in opposition to amendment No. 1452 to the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (excerpted from the Congressional Record).
When: February 2, 1994.
Where: The floor of the United States Senate.
Why: "As long as we are confronted with madmen, terrorists, and countries with strained agendas, I think it would be prudent on the part of the United States to maintain a ready force of men and women who are willing to stand in harm's way."

Emphasis added. To read the original text in the Congressional Record, click here, then click on "AMENDMENT NO. 1452"

DIANA IS A BUSY MOM who lives in Florida. She sent me a nice email today, expressing her desire to become a savvy voter, and asking if I knew of any unbiased sources of information that she could use to educate herself.

Here is my reply:

Please pass this information along to anyone who might find it useful.

NOT SURE where John Kerry stands on Iraq? TIME magazine has an exclusive interview with the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee on that very topic.

That should clear things up.

Stephen Den Beste has much, much more.

Stephen Green has Kerry debating himself over Iraq.

Donald Sensing says Kerry "hit the nail on the head... albeit a bit clumsily."

NOT SURE where John Kerry stands on Iraq? TIME magazine has an exclusive interview with the presumptive Democratic Presidential Nominee on that very topic.

That should clear things up.

Stephen Den Beste has much, much more.

Stephen Green has Kerry debating himself over Iraq.

Donald Sensing says Kerry "hit the nail on the head... albeit a bit clumsily."

SOME REACTIONS to the media firestorm over the first round of Bush campaign advertisements, released yesterday.

Joe Gandelman, a twenty-year media veteran himself, declares it a classic "media event story," where the press searches out "people they know who will give them a fiery quote."

Dean Esmay opines, "Democrats have become a party of bitter, mean, angry people who stand for nothing except 'Bush sucks' and 'Republicans are evil.'"

La Gringa observes, "Well, at least Dubbya's done one good thing while in office: he's united the Democratic Party."

Reid Stott wonders if the Bush campaign "understand[s] the exact psychology of the association they are making."

Chris LLoyd: "Bush’s ads are Reagan’s 'Morning Again in America' but better."

John Hawkins describes the media reaction as "liberal bias at its worst ."

Josh Marshall says Bush's campaign slogan should be "It's not my fault."

Misha challenges, "Try again, terrorist-loving media, we're on to you."

Blake describes the ads as "subtle; or dare I say tastefully manipulative."

Robert Prather: "I don't believe their moral outrage for a second."

Jesse claims the uproar is "totally justified."

Cori Dauber cautions, "We all need to take a deep breath."

Curt Siffert declares (a bit prematurely), "Boy, these ads sure seemed to backfire."

DGCI retorts, "If the ads had simply featured President Bush against a bluescreen background saying nothing but 'I'm President Bush, please vote for me,' the left would still be attacking him on the content."

John Zepernick: "Bush has... missed no time exploiting the tragedy of Sept. 11."

Sean Hackbarth postulates, "If Bush can't use Sep. 11 images, then John Kerry has to stop mentioning his Vietnam War record."

Tom claims, "Dems are pissed because they have sole ownership in politicizing 9/11."

Solomon declares, "This so-called 'outrage' is so much media-manufactured piffle."

Michele Catalano asks, "John Kerry can trot Max Cleland around like a f---ing stage prop during the primaries and Bush can't use the defining moment of his career in a campaign commercial?"

Rob Bernard observes, "This seems like a lot of commotion over nothing."

AN ARTICLE in the New York Daily News claims that 9/11 widows and family members are steaming mad over a new Bush campaign series of advertisements featuring some video clips from the past three years – including September 11, 2001.

The article includes a somber photo of 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, holding her husband’s ring. She is very upset about the new ads. “After 3,000 people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that that takes an awful lot of audacity. Honestly, it's in poor taste.”

Breitweiser is a co-founder of co-founder of the group September 11th Advocates and a member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Independent Commission. Last September, she wrote the following in an article for Salon.com:

Another 9/11 widow quoted in the article is Monica Gabrielle, whose husband Rick perished in Tower Two of the World Trade Center.

Gabrielle is also a member of the same Family Steering Committee, and the founder of Skyscraper Safety, a campaign to upgrade building codes in New York City. In a letter to the editors of the New York Times last July, she wrote the following:

If President Bush is “politicizing” the events of September 11, 2001, he isn’t the first person to do so.

MRS. SMASH AND I HAD NO MAJOR PROBLEMS voting on the new touchscreen machines today, but apparently several hundred of our fellow San Diegans did.

When the polls opened this morning, many of the machines failed to start up properly. Poll workers turned away voters at several precincts around San Diego County, telling early voters to either find another polling place, or come back later.

Many voters are concerned that the process does not result in a paper receipt. They are very wary of putting their faith in a "black box" voting system.

I can't say that I disagree with them. I found the interface very user-friendly, but I would prefer a system that prints out each person's votes on a standard optical-scan type ballot. At the end of the day, votes from each machine could be tallied both electronically and by optical scan. Any discrepancy between the counts would then trigger a hand-count by real human beings.

Triple redundancy. Is that too much to ask?

Of course, there's always the amazing Reynolds Voting Technology. But would the younger crowd go for it?

ROGER HEDGECOCK is very unhappy about all of this. He's calling this election bogus, and threatening a lawsuit to demand a revote. You can listen to him rant and rave live over the internet on KOGO.

ARE YOU VOTING TODAY?

Tell us about it.

Click here for my recommendations on San Diego City & County issues.

Click here for my recommendations on California ballot issues.

Click here for my recommendations on partisan primaries.

Click here for a complete list of my recommendations.

Democratic Races

US President – John Edwards
State Assembly (District 76) – Heidi Von Szeliski

Republican Races

US Senator – Bill Jones
State Senator (District 39) – Larry Stirling
State Assembly (District 76) – Tricia Hunter

Non-Partisan Races

San Diego Mayor – Dick Murphy
San Diego City Attorney – Leslie Devaney
City Council (District 3) – Toni Atkins
Superior Court Judge (Office 5) – Kevin A. Enright
Superior Court Judge (Office 8) – Robert T. Plumb
Superior Court Judge (Office 24) – Joseph P. Brannigan

State Propositions

Proposition 55 Public Education Facilities Bond – NO
Proposition 56 Budget and Taxes Voting Requirements, Penalties – NO
Proposition 57 Economic Recovery Bond – YES
Proposition 58 Balanced Budget – YES

Local Measures

Measure A Rural Lands Initiative – NO
Measure B Construction Manager At Risk – NO
Measure C Transient Occupancy Tax Increase – NO

Don't forget to vote!

I JUST RECEIVED an unsolicited piece of "election spam" at my personal email address.

MEMO TO PETER Q. DAVIS: I wasn't planning to vote for you tomorrow, but now that you've cluttered my mailbox I'm going to tell all my friends not to vote for you, either.

Who gave you my email address, anyway?

RE-ELECT MAYOR DICK MURPHY!

IT’S DECISION TIME. In tomorrow’s California Primary, I’ll be voting on the Democratic ballot for John Edwards.

John Kerry is an establishment New England liberal. For all of his efforts to paint himself as an independent thinker, there’s really nothing new or unique about him. He consciously tries to draw parallels between himself and his childhood hero, John F. Kennedy. They both served in the wartime Navy as skippers of small patrol boats, they were both Senators from Massachusetts, and they even have the same initials.

But John F. Kerry is no John F. Kennedy.

Kerry’s Vietnam experience apparently made quite an impression upon him. He ran for Senate in 1984 on an anti-military platform, urging the cancellation of various weapons programs that later proved to be critical to our national security. Kerry was so eager to spend the “peace dividend,” that he wasn’t even willing to wait until the Iron Curtain fell.

And he really hasn’t changed much since then. If you visit his campaign website, you’ll be hard-pressed to find any discussion of military policy. In fact, outside of pandering to veteran’s groups, and the transcript of a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, he hardly mentions the military at all. In such tumultuous times as these, we can’t afford to elect a leader with such a huge blind spot.

John Edwards, on the other hand, is a southern populist. As a former trial lawyer, he’s also quite an eloquent and polished speaker. He consistently stands up for “working families,” and against “corporate corruption.” In the finest tradition of the Democratic Party, Edwards stands for the “little guy” against “moneyed interests.”

His main drawbacks are his relative inexperience, and his strong ties to the “lawyers’ lobby.” But at least with Edwards, you pretty much know what you’re getting.

Best of all, Edwards doesn’t share Kerry’s myopia on national security.

Unlike Kerry, Edwards actually gets it.

The latest polls show Kerry leading in every one of the ten states voting on Tuesday. But that doesn’t mean you have to go along with the crowd. If you’re a Democrat, follow my lead and vote for John Edwards.

ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE, there’s a race to see who will go up against California’s disappointing Democratic senator, Barbara Boxer.

While it may be tempting to vote for former United States Treasurer Rosario Marín, an Hispanic woman whose signature is in the lower left-hand corner of all US paper currency, she doesn’t stand a chance of winning on Tuesday. Bill Jones is going to run away with this one, as well he should – he’s the only candidate on the ballot to have won a statewide election, having served two terms as Secretary of State from 1994 to 2002.

But can he beat Boxer? Let’s hope so.

Click here for my recommendations for San Diego City & County issues.

Click here for my recommendations on California ballot issues.

Click here for a complete list of my recommendations.

VOTERS IN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO have three local questions to decide in Tuesday’s election: one countywide initiative, and two city measures.

If you live in San Diego, I’m gonna make it really easy for you to remember:

Just Say NO.

Proposition A, also called the “Rural Lands Initiative,” claims to tackle water pollution, air pollution, traffic congestion, urban sprawl, and gingivitis. Don’t believe a word of it.

This initiative would “re-zone” hundreds of thousands of acres of land in San Diego County, making it illegal for current landowners to sell off parcels smaller than 40, 80, or 160 acres depending on the location. It completely circumvents the normal rezoning process, and would apply a plan devised by a San Francisco law firm (representing various environmental interest groups) on San Diego County.

I don’t own any land that would be affected by this proposition. But if I did, I would be very angry that someone was trying to take away my property rights without due process.

This is a bad plan, which would do much harm and very little good. Vote NO on A.

Proposition B would allow the City of San Diego to award “Contract Manager at Risk” contracts for public works projects, as an alternative to using the currently mandated competitive bid process. Potential contractors would work with the City in the initial planning stages, and then submit bids for the “maximum price” of the project. If awarded a contract, the contract manager would subsequently assume all responsibility for cost overruns.

Here’s the catch: the City would no longer be required to select the contractor with the lowest bid. This proposition might result in lower overall contracting costs – or more favoritism and corruption. Given our city’s recent history, which outcome do you find more likely? Vote NO on B.

Proposition C would raise the City of San Diego’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) from 10.5 percent to 13 percent, and earmark a portion of the TOT for various public safety, library, and infrastructure improvements.

I’m not opposed to an increase in the TOT, because as a full-time resident it doesn’t impact my pocketbook. But I find it curious that the hotel industry is actually supporting this measure.

It turns out that the real story is in the “earmarks.” The sum total of the 2.5% increase in the TOT would go directly to the City’s Tourism and Marketing Promotion Fund, and much of the rest would be permanently earmarked for specific programs.

While the City could certainly use the additional funds, the TOT earmarks would ultimately serve as a fiscal straight-jacket, taking away the flexibility of the City Council to respond to future crises. This is exactly the sort of ill-advised initiative that has contributed to the State of California’s current fiscal woes.

We should avoid repeating the same mistakes at the local level. Vote NO on C.

The San Diego Union-Tribune urges NO votes on A and C, but YES on B.

The North County Times also says vote NO on A.

NON-PARTISAN RACES

San Diego Mayor

Three candidates are challenging incumbent Mayor Dick Murphy for re-election. If no candidate gets 50 percent of the vote in this round, the top-two vote-getters will face off in November.

Dick Murphy has had a rough four years. Shortly after he took office in 2001, the dot-com boom turned into a bust, and the local economy suffered accordingly. Three City Council members are under federal indictment for corruption charges, and the Securities and Exchange Commission has opened an investigation into the management of the City’s pension fund. As a result of the financial woes, the City’s bond rating was recently downgraded from AA to AA-. To make matters worse, the Chargers are agitating for a new stadium (despite the worst record in the NFL), and are making noises about leaving town if they don’t get their way.

Did I mention the fires? Fair or not, Murphy has taken some heat from his critics for his management of one of the worst natural disasters in the City’s history.

Is any of this Murphy’s fault? In politics, that often doesn’t matter. These things all happened on his watch, and his image has been tarnished as a result. Murphy has remained steady throughout these crises, sticking to his original “ten goals” for his first term – but is that good enough?

Peter Q. Davis is a successful businessman and the current Port Commissioner. He has one of the strongest resumes of all the candidates, but his outspoken support for Proposition A eliminates him from consideration, in my book.

Ron Roberts lost the 2000 election to Mayor Murphy by three percentage points. He is currently serving as County Commissioner, and by most accounts has done a commendable job in that office. His main point of attack against Murphy centers on the city’s fiscal troubles – Roberts claims that his experience “cleaning up” the County’s fiscal problems makes him the best man for the job.

Jim Bell, the sole Democrat in this officially non-partisan race, is an “ecological designer” by vocation. Bell is earning a reputation as San Diego’s perpetual “also-ran,” having been soundly defeated in the opening rounds of the last two mayoral elections. This year should be no different.

The most probable outcome of Tuesday’s primary will be for Mayor Murphy and one challenger to make it to the next round. I’m still not certain whether I will vote for the incumbent in this race, but of the three challengers I consider Ron Roberts to be the best choice.

San Diego City Attorney

Three candidates are running to replace Casey Gwinn, who has served two terms as San Diego City Attorney. As in the mayoral race, the top two candidates will have a run-off in November if no single candidate garners 50 percent of the votes.

Leslie Devaney is the Executive Assistant City Attorney, and Gwinn’s chosen successor. She pledges to maintain professionalism and avoid getting embroiled in politics. Devaney has been endorsed by the County Republican Party.

Michael Aguirre is a Consumer Fraud Attorney who has pledged to fight corruption and secrecy in City Hall. In the past, he has filed suit against the City for holding meetings in secret, and has taken on the role of civic watchdog. Aguirre has the support of the Democratic Party.

Deborah Berger is a Deputy City Attorney, with 18 years of experience in the City Attorney’s office. She pledges to save millions of dollars by fighting against waste and fraud in city contracts. Berger is also a Democrat, but does not have her party’s endorsement.

While none of these candidates stand out form the crowd, Leslie Devaney will win my vote for focusing on professionalism over political posturing.

Click here for my recommendations on statewide ballot issues.

Click here for a complete list of my recommendations.

Watch this space for more recommendations between now and Tuesday.

THERE ARE FOUR STATEWIDE ISSUES on the March 2, 2004 ballot in California. Before I give my recommendations, let me explain my philosophy on state governance, so that you can better decide whether or not to follow my advice.

Over the past several years, the State of California has been managed by some of the most corrupt, incompetent, and wasteful politicians we have ever seen. When the economy was strong due to the rapidly expanding tech sector, they spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. They helped out their friends and campaign contributors, as well as expanding state government programs with no regard to their future costs.

The bills are now coming due. Last October, we fired Governor Gray Davis because he misled us about the scope of the problem. But the cleanup has only just begun.

If you believe, as I do, that the California Legislature is out of control, I have some recommendations for you. On the other hand, if you would like to see the state government expand even more (and don’t mind having your taxes raised to pay for it), you might want to head on over to CalPundit to see what Kevin Drum has to say.

Still here? Good.

The first principal for responsible voting in California is simple:

Really, it’s just that easy. If a ballot issue looks OK on the surface, but you’re just not certain about it, vote NO. It’s not terribly difficult for people to get issues on the ballot these days, and more often than not they will try to disguise the true intent of the measure behind one of the following mantras:

Don’t believe a word of it – almost every ballot issue is about money or power. Knowing who will get that money or power is the key to becoming an educated voter in California.

Proposition 55 is a bond issue which will borrow $12.3 billion to pay for school construction and improvements. The money would be paid back over 30 years, at an estimated payment of about $832 million per year. That money would come out of the General Fund (your taxes).

In past years, I would have said go ahead and vote for the school bond. But the state is up to its eyeballs in debt, and we shouldn’t be piling more debt on top of it, even FOR THE CHILDREN. The State Legislature may not know how to cut the budget, but we can show them. Vote NO on 55.

Proposition 56 would lower the vote threshold in the Legislature for budget measures and tax increases from two thirds to 55 percent. It is also loaded with “get tough” gimmicks about passing the budget that are designed to distract voters from the main issue: this proposition is a power grab by the Democrats in Sacramento.

Democrats control more than 55 percent of both houses in the Legislature, but they still have to work with the Republican minority to reach the two-thirds threshold. If Prop 56 passes, the Republicans will become irrelevant, and the Democrats will enjoy unchecked control over the budget process.

Vote NO on 56, unless you want more spending and higher taxes.

Proposition 57 is a $15 billion bond issue, $10.7 billion of which would go to refinance California’s already existing debt. The remaining amount would go towards closing this year’s budget shortfall.

This is part of Governor Schwarzenegger’s solution to California’s fiscal crisis. If you want to help Arnold succeed in balancing the books, vote YES on 57. If you’re a spiteful, hard-core lefty who just wants revenge for Gray Davis’ recall, vote no -- but be advised that the Governator has promised "Armageddon" if he doesn't get his way.

Proposition 58 has three main provisions:

This is the second half of Schwarzenegger’s recovery plan, which would essentially make fiscal discipline the law of the land. Vote YES on 58.

WANT A SECOND OPINION?

DALE FRANKS and ROGER HEDGECOCK agree with my recommendations.

MILLER also says YES on 57 and 58.

ANGRY CLAM disagrees.

KEVIN MURPHY and TOM MCCLINTOCK just say NO.

NEWSPAPERS AROUND THE STATE:

BAKERSFIELD CALIFORNIAN, SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, and TORRANCE DAILY BREEZE concur with my recommendations.

LONG BEACH PRESS-TELEGRAM says NO on 55; YES on 57 and 58.

CONTRA-COSTA TIMES, LOS ANGELES DAILY NEWS, and SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS say YES on 55, 57, and 58; NO on 56

LOS ANGELES TIMES says NO on 55; YES on 56, 57, and 58.

SACRAMENTO BEE and FRESNO BEE say YES on 55 and 56; NO on 57 and 58.

ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER says NO! NO! NO! NO!

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE says YES! YES! YES! Oh, YES!

STILL UNDECIDED? Visit Smart Voter for more information.

Click here for my recommendations for San Diego City & County issues.

Click here for a complete list of my recommendations.

Watch this space for more recommendations between now and Tuesday.

HUGH HEWITT scored an interview with National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice today (the transcript is now up on his weblog). They discussed nuclear proliferation, including North Korea, Iran, Libya, and the unraveling of the AQ Khan proliferation network.

It’s all worth reading, but this particular exchange really struck me:

How did our intelligence apparatus reach such a horrible state? To answer that, let’s go back in time to 1994, when Senator John Kerry introduced a bill (S. 1826) to cut $1 billion from the intelligence budget, and freeze its future growth. That bill was defeated, but Kerry came back the next year to propose a $1.5 billion cut (S. 1290) in the intelligence budget over five years ($300 million per year).

Fortunately, that bill never even made it to the floor of the Senate. But in 1997, Kerry was again trying to cut the intelligence budget, when he made the following remarks:

A few months after Kerry made the above statement, Usama bin Laden declared war on America:

John Kerry is running for President of the United States.

THE DEMOCRATS will have a four-way debate tonight. As I’m voting in Tuesday’s California Primary, I’ll be watching with interest.

I haven’t settled on a candidate just yet, but suffice it to say that John Kerry has some serious explaining to do before he can earn my vote, and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are nothing but comic relief at this stage.

Not much of a choice, really.

MRS. SMASH and I have been together for the better part of a decade now, but we don’t always behave like an “old married couple.” I still hold doors open for her, and sometimes we’ll hug or kiss each other in public for no particular reason. People who don’t know us often ask if we’re newlyweds.

Last night we went to a party, and met another couple that have been together even longer than we have, but only very recently got married. They were still a bit giddy from the experience, and their affection for each other was obvious. They’re one of those couples that finishes each other’s sentences – you know the type.

Did I mention that they are both women?

Last week, they decided to get married. They drove up to San Francisco together, and waited outside City Hall for several hours in the rain to get a “marriage license.” They report that everyone was very friendly and supportive. The line wrapped around the block, but the spirit was festive. Complete strangers gave them flowers and hot coffee. When they told another couple they had driven up from San Diego, they were invited to spend the night in their home, even before they gave their names.

They realize, of course, that their marriage license may be declared null and void by a judge any day now. But they felt they had to do it anyway. They had already had a “civil union” in Vermont, which California refuses to recognize. Last year, they had a commitment ceremony and formed a “domestic partnership" under California law. Still, they felt that it didn’t quite reflect their devotion to one another. So, when they learned that San Francisco was allowing same-sex couples to marry, they decided to go for it.

The day before Mrs. Smash and I got married, we went to the County Courthouse to get a license. We filled out a form, and waited about ten minutes – it was easier than getting a driver's license.

These two women, on the other hand, have been fighting for years to get the state to acknowledge their committed relationship. They realize that their marriage license could be declared invalid – but they're not going to give up.

Yesterday, President Bush expressed support for a Federal Marriage Amendment. As Reid Stott points out, it’s highly unlikely that the FMA will make it very far through the constitutional process. After all, the Equal Rights Amendment has been just three states short of ratification for over three decades now – and that amendment would actually protect civil rights, rather than restrict their expansion.

But even if it does pass, the FMA would not settle the issue of same-sex marriage any more than the Dredd Scott decision settled the issue of slavery, or Roe v. Wade ended the abortion debate. Like it or not, this will be the great civil rights struggle of our generation. Years from now, our children and grandchildren will be asking us about this debate, and will want to know where we stood on the question.

ON MONDAY, I wrote a post criticizing John Kerry’s voting record on national defense issues. I’ve always been a proponent of a strong military, because I believe our nation has the potential to be the greatest promoter of freedom, prosperity, and justice in this world. I’m proud to have served in the military, and to have put my own life in danger in order to defend this great nation and the ideals she represents.

One of the commenters in that post accused me of being a Republican hack. I had to chuckle a bit at that – I’ve always considered myself an independent thinker, and I recently registered as a Democrat so I could vote in next weeks’ primary election.

As much as John Kerry’s weakness on national security issues illustrates why I’m uncomfortable with the Democrats, President Bush’s decision to support the FMA is a perfect example of why I can’t commit to the Republicans. National security has always been my primary issue of concern, but how can I vote for someone who doesn’t share my views on the meaning of liberty?

It’s a long way to November, folks. Color me undecided.

RALPH NADER will run as an independent candidate for President, FOX News is reporting.

That sound you hear is millions of Democrats moaning in agony.

(Hat tip: Dale Franks)

DIMMY KARAS: "Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!"

JERRY BOWLES: "Eaawwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwww!"

OLIVER WILLIS declares, "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush. Period."

ROGER L. SIMON asks, "Could the great Ralph Nader actually allow himself to be ignored during an election year?"

WILL COLLIER wonders, "How many disenchanted Dean Dongs will vote for him in November?"

KMAN of FREE SPECH: "Just what Bush (and maybe more than a few Deaniacs?) is praying for."

ROBERT PRATHER observes, "This has to be giving the Democrats fits."

BALTA begs, "Please Ralph, don't do it."

CHRIS OIEN ponders, "Is it wrong to hope that the Greens are right about him not being able to make it on many ballots?"

MR. LION gushes, "Thanks Ralph, we knew you could do it."

JOE GANDELMAN predicts, "Nader won't do as well and his getting in may actually force the Democrats to redouble their efforts in swing precincts."

PATTERICO exclaims, "Yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss!!!!!!!!!"

DAVID WISSING fantasizes, "How great would it be if Nader costs another Democratic candidate a general election?"

ROBERT GARCIA TAGORDA inquires, "Has anyone bothered to consider that this independent's candidacy might actually help Democrats?"

N.Z. BEAR explains, "Okay, the more I think about Nader getting in the race, the more sense it actually makes to me."

JESSE TAYLOR declares, "It's a selfish, pointless run, and everyone realizes it."

DAVID PELL observes, "Sharpton just got bumped out of last place."

KEVIN DRUM opines Nader is "not even worth criticizing or mocking anymore."

SAREK declares his weblog "a Nader-free zone."

MATT STOLLER says Nader "has lost touch with what drives the American conversation."

MATT ROSEBERG: "Thank You, Ralph... Thank you, Thank you, Thank you."

ED MOLTZEN: "The running complaint/conventional wisdom is that Ralph Nader is running only to feed his own ego. And, you know, nobody with an ego has ever run for president before."

FORMER FRONT-RUNNER HOWARD DEAN will throw in the towel later today, AP reports.

John Kerry emerged early on as the "anti-Dean" candidate. With yesterday's photo finish in Wisconsin, has John Edwards become the "anti-Kerry" candidate?

Will Dean throw his support behind one of these candidates, or wait until the nomination is locked up before endorsing anyone?

BLACKFIVE has written a musical tribute to Dean.

JOE GANDELMAN observes, "the more voters see of Edwards, the more they seem to like him."

WILLIAM SWANN declares, "Now we have a contest."

SEAN HACKBARTH predicts, "Tuesday's results stopped the Kerry steamroller."

PAUL MULLER asks, "I wonder what all those rabid Dean supporters are going to do now?"

SCOTT OTT notes that "close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades and [Kerry] know[s] something about throwing the latter."

MAC THOMASON wonders, "How can you go so quickly from runaway frontrunner to not winning any primaries?"

HOWARD DEAN spins his loss as "A Beginning not an end."

RICHARD BENNETT retorts, "The people have spoken, it's over, face the music and move on."

JIM GILLIAM hopes to "stop this collective Democratic delusion that Kerry is the most electable."

CHUCK CURRIE dreams, "We may get a chance to vote for Howard Dean again."

ARTICLE declares, "Howard Dean was the best thing to happen to the Democrats since Bill Clinton."

GREG of BEGGING TO DIFFER: "Dean's rhetoric (he's against special interests, you know) always seemed pretty vacuous to me."

JOHN J. MILLER: "Howard Dean sounds like a man planning to run for president in 2008."

STEVE ROSS must now "figure out whether to bother voting for either of the remaining viable Democrats"

JOHNNY reflects, "there were plenty of signs of trouble before Iowa."

DAVE PELL is "pissed."

JESSE TAYLOR hopes Dean will continue to serve as "a mobilizing agent for the activist wing of the party."

STEVE MACLAUGHLIN opines, "The real winner here is John Edwards."

PUBLIUS believes that "Dean has given America a blueprint for reforming politics."

CHASE draws a parallel between Dean and the Black Death.

JEFF JARVIS predicts, "Howard Dean will be a trivia question in no time."

I’VE MADE A PLEDGE to stick to the issues when discussing this year’s presidential election. I intend to keep that pledge. In recent weeks, I have felt that far too much focus was placed on what the candidates were doing in the early 1970s, rather than the past three years. While it’s important to understand the candidates’ backgrounds, I’ve found this intense focus on the past to be a major distraction from the critical questions of today.

Something happened yesterday, however, to make me reconsider my position: I heard the tapes of John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the Hugh Hewitt radio program.

I had previously read Kerry’s testimony, but you can’t really appreciate the impact of his words without hearing them. He spoke in low sonorous tones, his thick New England accent (which he has since lost) reminiscent of John F. Kennedy. His words unfold slowly, and he sounds very melancholy, even defeatist.

The victory of liberal democracy over communism was one of the greatest triumphs of the Twentieth Century. But in 1971, while thousands of American troops were still engaged on the battlefield, John Kerry was advocating retreat, if not outright surrender.

I do not dispute Kerry’s right to speak out against a war that he believed to be immoral. But Kerry’s words, whether he realized it or not, gave comfort to our enemies, and were used as propaganda to break down the resistance of American prisoners of war.

One former POW related his experience the Los Angeles Times:

It would be easy to dismiss Kerry’s 1971 testimony as misguided, youthful confusion. But when one looks at his voting record on defense and national security issues, it becomes clear that his philosophy has not altered significantly in the three decades since he made that speech.

In the 1990s, when I was trying to help keep my enlisted men out of financial trouble, Kerry voted against military pay raises, cost of living adjustments, and family housing almost every time they came up. He has voted on numerous occasions to freeze defense spending, and actually pushed to cut the intelligence budget.

I’m not sure I can trust this man to be Commander-in-Chief.

THE MODERN ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT is built upon foundations of ignorance and fear. Thirty years ago, environmentalists saw a cooling trend in the lower atmosphere, and warned of an impending ice age. Today, they claim that too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will cause global temperatures to rise out of control, melting the polar ice caps and inundating coastlines around the world.

Mind you, this accelerated warming trend hasn’t actually begun yet, but if we don’t do something about it right now, the environmentalists warn us, we’re going to be really sorry a few years down the road.

What these scaremongers are hoping we won’t notice is that our planet’s climate is not static, but actually quite dynamic. A number of factors play into the natural variability of our climate, including plate tectonics, volcanic activity, ocean currents, the orbit of the moon, meteor strikes, and solar storms. Human activity also plays a role, of course, but it is relatively small – a sudden shift in Pacific Ocean currents in the mid 1970s, for instance, is credited with bringing about a major change in weather patterns over much of the Northern Hemisphere. Such shifts happen every few decades, and are completely independent of human activity. We couldn’t prevent them if we tried.

Rather than trying to control the climate, we would be better off focusing our attention and resources on environmental problems where we can have a positive impact. We have already made substantial progress in fighting air and water pollution, but more work needs to be done. We also need to do a better job of managing our natural resources, including forests, fisheries, water, oil, and gas.

Radical environmentalists would outlaw logging, commercial fishing, construction of any new dams and aqueducts, and drilling for oil or natural gas. This is an extreme and unrealistic policy. Our modern society cannot sustain itself without the responsible use of natural resources. We have to make compromises between protecting the environment and exploiting it.

Our economy is heavily dependent on oil and natural gas. This will eventually change – one hundred years ago we burned coal for heat and energy. One hundred years before that, we were heavily dependent on burning wood. Indeed, because we no longer use so much wood, the east coast of North America is now much more densely wooded than it was two hundred years ago.

Eventually, we will become less reliant on fossil fuels and shift to new sources of power. Progress on hydrogen based fuels and improved solar cells over the past few years has been remarkable. A future breakthrough in fusion power may further reduce our dependence on oil and gas.

But all of this is decades away from reaching fruition. We should continue to invest in research of new power-related technologies, but we must not neglect our current requirements. It’s been said many times before, but it bears repeating: we are far too dependent on foreign supplies of oil and gas to meet our current energy needs.

WITH ALL OF THIS IN MIND, I’d like the presidential candidates to answer the following questions:

Are you committed to ratifying the Kyoto Protocol? If so, how would we meet our carbon target, and what effect would this have on the national and global economy?

How much money would you invest in future energy technologies, and how would you distribute the funds?

How do you plan on reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas? Will conservation be enough, or do we need to increase domestic production? Even if it means inconveniencing a few caribou? Will you open up more coastal areas to drilling for oil, or put more restrictions in place? Where?

How will we repair our aging electrical infrastructure? Will you increase or decrease regulation of electrical distribution? What about oil and natural gas distribution?

How do you balance environmental protection with the need to protect property from massive forest fires? Will you put aside more federal lands for protection? How will we compensate those who lose property, mining, drilling, logging, or grazing rights?

The General will return to "private" life.

And there was much rejoicing...

UPDATE: Michael Moore is not happy.

AMERICANS face a difficult choice in the presidential election.

The President’s record is far from perfect. He’s had to make some very tough calls, and has taken quite a bit of criticism for a few controversial decisions. Some of his policies have even drawn harsh criticism from his own party. But his supporters argue that he has ably led this great Republic through one of the most trying times in its history.

The Democratic front-runner, on the other hand, claims that the President has abandoned America’s moral leadership, and promises to restore honor and integrity to the White House. He claims that he would give us a foreign policy “to make us proud instead of ashamed,” and “restore our own country to a position of leadership in the world.” He also claims that our economy is a mess, but that he will balance the budget and “get our people back to work.”

Both the President and the presumptive Democratic nominee have served in the military, although only one has served in combat.

So will voters allow President Ford to remain in office, or will they choose the relatively untested Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter?

FROM ALL THE NOISE the pundits have been making, you’d think this was 1976, not 2004.

The Democrats have been attacking George W. Bush’s record of service in the Air National Guard, claiming that he was AWOL in 1972 and 1973. As it turns out, his drilling records for those years have surfaced, and he did miss some drills.

I’m also a reservist, and I missed four drills in 2001 (after 9/11) and twelve more last year. What was my excuse? I wanted to spend more time with my family. No problem, I just made them up later.

So did George W. Bush, according to his service records. And his excuse was much better than mine: he was working on a Senate campaign. This sort of thing happens all the time in the reserves. If you can’t make your unit’s regularly scheduled drill session for whatever reason, you simply drill with another unit, or make the time up later. It’s called "flex-drilling" or "rescheduling drills," and every reservist does it at one time or another.

This should put an end to the controversy – but of course it won’t.

REPUBLICANS HAVE RESPONDED to the attacks against Bush with a counter-strike: they accuse John Kerry of betraying his brothers-in-arms in 1971 when he testified before a Senate committee looking into the conduct of our soldiers in Vietnam.

Kerry didn’t claim to have witnessed this himself; he was merely repeating what he had heard from others at the “Winter Soldier Investigation,” sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

It was later uncovered that several of the participants in the Detroit event were not actual veterans, and had made up their stories out of whole cloth. So it would seem that the worst crime for which we could accuse Kerry in this instance would be repeating “faulty intelligence” to members of Congress. He wouldn’t be the first man to do this, nor the last.

The latest volley from the Republican side comes in the form of a photograph. This image, which can be found on several right wing sites, shows “Hanoi Jane” Fonda in the foreground, and a blurred John Kerry sitting a couple of rows behind her. A confidential source tells me there’s a chance that they might even have exchanged greetings.

CAN WE GET BACK to the issues at hand now? I have to say, as a member of “Generation X,” that this constant replay of the hot-button issues from the early 1970’s is getting very tiresome. For me, the most important issues of the time were diaper training and learning to tie my shoes.

So you want to talk about military policy? Let’s talk.

Between Afghanistan and Iraq, our military is spread pretty thin right now. And yet, President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld continue to resist any moves to increase the size of the Army, opting instead to invest the defense budget in “next generation” and “transformational” technology. How about another Army division or two?

Senator Kerry has a long record of voting against intelligence and military programs. Some of these systems, like the B-1 bomber, were plagued with cost overruns and ultimately did little to contribute to our national security. But many others, such as the F-14 and F-15 jets, and the Patriot surface-to-air missile system, have proved to be indispensable to our national defense. Heck, the Patriots may have even saved my life a couple of times – they did their job so well that it’s impossible to say where those missiles might have landed. What would be President Kerry’s spending priorities for the military?

I’d like both candidates to address the over-utilization of the Guard and Reserves. I’ve already spent eight months in the Sandbox – are they going to send me back? Why are some reserve units serving fifteen month tours, while the active duty guys spend a year or less in Iraq? What gives?

Senator Kerry voted to authorize the war in Iraq, but only (as he claims) to give the President more leverage to negotiate. At what point would Kerry have committed to military action? Would a French or Russian veto in the United Nations have deterred him? Would he get down on his hands and knees and beg for Chirac’s approval? Or am I to assume that if Kerry were President today, Saddam would still be in power? Would the sanctions against Iraq still be in force? How about the Oil-for-Food program? Would Libya and Iran still be working on nuclear weapons?

Would Kerry have taken the same military action against al Qaeda in Afghanistan? What if Pakistan had refused military overflight rights? Would he have responded with cruise missiles? Or perhaps a subpoena?

I’d also like to know if President Bush is committed to go after other state sponsors of terrorism. How do we address the problems of Syria and Iran, who openly sponsor Hezbollah? Will we consider an expedition into the Bekaa Valley? How about Yemen? Pakistan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? How far are we willing to go?

These are real issues – forget that 1970s crap.

IF YOU’D LIKE to address these issues in the comments, I welcome your input. Please try to avoid any reference to events that happened before 1980. If you want to attack Bush’s military record, go join the throng at CalPundit. Want to bash Kerry? Misha’s all over it.

But I don’t want that garbage here. It’s ancient history. Really.

FROM THE PEOPLE that brought you such hit reality series as Joke Millionaire and American Idle, FAUX network proudly presents the meanest reality competition ever conceived, American Prez!

Our celebrity panel interviewed scores of Presidential hopefuls, ruthlessly separating the men (and women) from the boys, in order to bring you a field of the best candidates that America has to offer.

Those that make it through our rigorous screening process will win a chance to go to Boston this summer, where they will compete head-to-head for an opportunity to take on the “reigning champion," and form their very own Administration!

But first, the preliminary auditions…

LYNDON enters. RANDY: What’s your name? LYNDON: Lyndon LaRouche. SIMON: Hold on – haven’t we seen you before? LYNDON: Yes, I auditioned last time. SIMON: Not just last time – you’ve been auditioning since the 1970s, haven’t you? RANDY rolls his eyes. LYNDON: That’s right, since 1976. I haven’t missed a single opportunity. PAULA: Didn’t you send a tape from jail one year? LYNDON (glaring): That was 1992. I was a political prisoner. SIMON: Well, I have to say I admire your tenacity. Why don’t you give us a taste of your wares? LYNDON: Let the cowardly slaves of the mass media be warned. It were better to defeat such follies as those of Cheney and his Chickenhawks as did El Cid, even in death, than bequeath such nightmares as these fraudulent – SIMON (interrupting): Thank you. Randy? RANDY: Hell, no. SIMON: Paula? PAULA (shivers): This guy gives me the creeps. SIMON: Well there you have it, Lyndon. I thought your speech was absolutely abysmal, and your delivery – LYNDON (interrupting): Don’t think I don’t see through your sinister British plot, Simon – that communist witch Thatcher sent you, didn’t she? (Turns to RANDY and PAULA) As for you two, you’ve been duped by the Cheney-Halliburton corporocratic propaganda machine, and you don’t even realize it! RANDY: Security! CAROL enters RANDY: Now that’s more like it! What’s your name, pretty lady? CAROL (smiling): Carol Mosely Braun. PAULA: Why are you here, Carol? CAROL: I’m going to be the next President of the United States. SIMON sighs. PAULA (ignoring Simon): I like that confidence! Let’s here what you have to say, sister! CAROL: In the past century, as a product of the struggle for equal opportunity in America, women have made enormous economic, political and social advances. Women are key contributors to every sector of our economy. Women hold leadership positions in academia, industry and government. True gender equity, however, has not yet been achieved. Women face income inequity, sticky floors and glass ceilings at work; they constitute a disproportionate number of those Americans living in poverty; they are systematically underrepresented – SIMON (interrupting): That’s enough. Carol? CAROL: Yes? SIMON: Are you running for President of the United States, or the National Organization for Women? CAROL: Presid – SIMON (interrupting): Because the name of the competition is American Prez, not American Woman. PAULA groans. SIMON: I vote “No.” Paula? PAULA: I like what she had to say. And as a woman, I want to hear more. I vote “Yes.” SIMON: Randy? RANDY: I’m sorry, Carol. You got the look goin’ on, but you’re just not "Prez" material. Didn’t do it for me. CAROL (with a forced smile): Thank you. PAULA (sweetly): Come back next time! (In the lobby) RYAN: Hold on, we’ve got a Very Important Person who just came into the lobby. Excuse me, Miss? HILLARY: Clinton. Hillary Rodham Clinton. RYAN: Yes, ma’am – I recognized you as you came in. What brings you here? HILLARY: I’m just looking around. Supporting my friends. (She waves to WESLEY.) WESLEY pretends not to see her, ducking into the Men's Room. RYAN: Will you be competing this year? HILLARY: Oh, no. Maybe. RYAN: Maybe yes, or maybe no? HILLARY: No. RYAN: So you won’t be competing? HILLARY: Yes. RYAN: Yes you will, or yes you won’t? HILLARY: No. RYAN: Is that “no” to what I said, or “no” to competing? HILLARY: Yes – maybe. RYAN: OK, well there you have it, America – Hillary says "Yes-No-Maybe!" RICHARD enters. RANDY: Ah, another familiar face. What up, Dawg? RICHARD: Hello, Randy. Paula. PAULA: Hi, Richard. How’s it shakin’? SIMON (impatiently): OK, Dick – let’s hear your stuff. RICHARD: My health care plan will put more money on the kitchen table of middle-class families than George Bush's failed tax cut. In fact, an economic study found that my health care plan would provide a middle-class family with between $2000 and $3000 compared to about $800 they receive from the Bush tax cuts. Some in this competition are promising to preserve some large part of the Bush tax cut. I think retaining a large part of a failure is still a failure. SIMON: Thank you. Randy? RANDY: I don’t know, man – sounds too familiar. Couldn’t you come up with any new material? I gotta vote “No.” SIMON: Paula? PAULA: He’s got pretty eyes. I vote “yes.” SIMON: Richard, you’ve auditioned for this competition before? RICHARD: Yes, in 1988. SIMON: And what did we tell you then? RICHARD: To keep my day job. SIMON: Well, the advice still applies. I’m sorry, but the world has changed, and you’re still spouting the same garbage that we rejected sixteen years ago. Good-bye. RICHARD shuffles out, resigned to political oblivion…

As the pressure builds...

The candidates "Go Negative!"

American Prez! -- The meanest competition on television!

AN ASSERTION MADE in my “Pass or Fail” post from yesterday has sparked some fiery criticism from several visitors, including notable lefty bloggers Kevin Drum and Max Sawicky.

Here’s what I wrote:

Kevin asks:

Max goes so far as to describe my statement as “emotional blackmail” and declare it “absurd on its face.”

I appear to have touched a nerve.

My statement was admittedly a bit simplistic. To be clear, I am not arguing that it is somehow unpatriotic or disloyal to speak out against a war that one feels is unjust. Indeed, if you strongly believe that a particular war (or war in general) is morally repugnant, then expressing your opposition is not just your right, but also your duty.

But if you truly “support the troops,” the proper time to express your opposition to the conflict is before the onset of hostilities. Because once the missiles start flying, your pubicly expressed dissent can and will be manipulated as propaganda by the enemy, and worse, can cause serious damage to the troops’ morale.

During my recent deployment to the Middle East, I received numerous letters and emails expressing support for our efforts, but not everyone was quite so positive. Some people actually wrote to tell me that they “supported me,” but went on to rant that I was merely a “pawn” in a game that I "couldn’t understand,” and other such patronizing nonsense. That’s the kind of "support" that I can do without, thank you very much.

It’s one thing to oppose the policy decisions that lead to conflict, or the administration that made those decisions – but it’s quite another thing to continue to undermine the war effort once the military is engaged. At that point, the surest path to peace is a swift victory.

I understand that one can still be a good citizen while expressing opposition to an ongoing conflict. It is possible to attend peaceful protests, to lobby the government to change its policy, and still remain safely within the realm of “loyal opposition.”

But if that is the path you choose, please don’t kid yourself that you are “supporting the troops.” The troops are committed to winning the war. If you don’t share that goal, then you are not, by definition, supporting them. You can still send them nice letters and care packages if you so desire, but that’s not really what “supporting the troops” means, is it?

KEVIN ALSO ASKS for further elaboration on “what would it take” in terms of military policy for a candidate to win my support.

The answers, for me, are not as clear-cut as some might imagine. What I’m looking for are qualities of moral conviction and intestinal fortitude, as well as the ability to make tough decisions under pressure.

Some questions I might ask myself when evaluating the candidates:

What does he (or she) believe is worth fighting for?

Has he had to make life or death leadership decisions before?

If so, how did he perform?

How will he hold up under pressure?

What life experiences might affect his decision to make or avoid war?

If we get a bloody nose, will he have the guts to see it through?

If the situation becomes untenable, will he know when to withdraw?

Will he avoid committing the military to unnecessary operations?

Will he be ready to commit the military when needed?

Does he have the good judgment to recognize the difference?

The answers are, of course, subjective, and in many cases unknowable. There is no simple questionaire that a candidate can fill out to provide satisfactory responses to these questions.

For those who have not yet been ‘battle-tested,’ the best that we can do is to extrapolate the answers from what we already know of their character and experience.

So how do Kerry, Edwards, Clark and Dean stack up?

I WAS SITTING in a carpet shop in Dubai when an Arab merchant asked me a startling question. “America is a very powerful country,” he began, “Why do you not finish Saddam?”

The year was 1998, and two US Navy carrier battle groups were on station in the Gulf, flying around-the-clock missions over the southern “no-fly-zone.” I took a moment to collect myself, and then offered the man a fumbling explanation about UN weapons inspectors and international law.

The merchant wasn’t impressed. “Saddam is a very dangerous man. You cannot trust him. Why don’t you finish the war? You do not need United Nations.”

That’s when it hit me: for many Arabs, the Gulf War didn’t end in 1991. They realized that Saddam wasn’t finished, and they believed that he was playing a waiting game, hoping that the Americans and British would ultimately grow weary of “containing” him and go home. Indeed, many Arabs suspected that Saddam had designs on the entire Arabian Peninsula.

They saw our reluctance to “finish the job” as a sign of weakness. But this wasn’t just an isolated incident. They remembered our tepid reaction to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and our helplessness during the Iran hostage crisis. They remembered how we turned tail and ran away after setbacks in Beirut and Mogadishu. They saw how we failed to respond after attacks on the USS Stark and, a few years later, the USS Cole.

In short, they believed we were a paper tiger.

It wasn’t the first time in history that we had created such an impression. When the Japanese Empire rampaged across the Far East in the late 1930’s, President Roosevelt responded with harsh condemnation and an oil embargo. Meanwhile, the Imperial Japanese Army raped and pillaged the Chinese city of Nanking, while the Imperial Japanese Navy made plans to seize the East Indian oilfields by force. But first they would have to strike a knockout blow to the Western powers that stood in their way.

We all remember what happened next.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is a superpower such as the world has never seen. This nation possesses unprecedented economic might, and all of the diplomatic leverage that goes along with it.

But such power and wealth inevitably attracts enemies. No matter how noble our deeds, no matter how pure our intentions, we will always experience resentment from those who feel threatened by our dominance – it comes with the territory.

If America is to remain a world leader, a credible military force must exist to back up this economic and diplomatic power. And our military force cannot be considered credible if our enemies doubt our resolve to use it.

It is precisely such a misperception of American resolve that resulted in the horrific terror attacks of September 11, 2001.

OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM wasn’t so much a new war as the sudden acceleration of a twelve-year-old simmering conflict. Most Americans had long since forgotten about Iraq, but the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon finally brought the problems of the Middle East back to the fore. Before the United States could begin to address the core problems that fed into the radical Islamic death cults, however, we first had to settle accounts with Saddam.

Any strategic plan for the Middle East that left Saddam in power was doomed to failure.

I supported the war in Iraq, and not just from behind a computer keyboard. It never ceases to amaze me how some people can claim to “oppose the war, but support the troops.” Let me clarify something here: we’re all volunteers. Almost every one of the brave men and women that I served with were proud to be defending our country, and passionately believed that our mission was worthwhile and just.

When you express opposition to the war, you’re pissing all over what we were fighting for. So please don’t insult us by explaining how we were just hapless victims of Dubya and his cronies. Our biggest complaint was that it took twelve years for someone to give us the order to finish the job!

HERE’S THE BOTTOM LINE: If you’re running for President and you want my support, you have to first convince me that you have the guts to make the very difficult decision to order the US military into action when the critical moment comes.

If you can’t pass that test, don’t even bother asking for my vote.

UPDATE: Please see my follow-up post "Loyal Opposition" for more.