Click to bookmark this page!

- Contact Me -
Include your email address

<< March 2004 >>
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31


Just in case you weren't sure...
If you want to be updated on this weblog Enter your email here:

Please sign the Ted Kennedy Resignation Petition!


rss feed

Shameless Self-Promotion

Buy this book (not just because it contains two of my op-eds):
Americans on Politics, Policy, and Pop Culture:
The 101 Best Opinion Editorials From OpEds.com


An Interview With the G-Man:
My first (hopefully not last) experience in live radio, being interviewed by G. Gordon Liddy!



Perspective
Joe Mariani

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by precision use of American military force under George W. Bush:
50 million in just two years

Number of people freed from totalitarian dictatorships by anti-American Bush-bashing terrorist-appeasing whining elitists:
Zero. Ever.
...

The problem seems to me to be the definition of "free speech". Liberals define it as anything they want to say or do that opposes America. I say "speech" ends where "action" begins. Once you pick up a gun for the enemy, throw a rock at a cop during a "peace" march, send money to a terrorist organisation, or travel to Baghdad to block an American JDAM with your ass, you have crossed the line from free speech to costly action.
...

Saying the War on Terror is all about al-Qaeda is like saying we should have fought the Japanese Naval Air Force after Pearl Harbor. Not the Japanese Navy, not the Japanese Army, not the Empire of Japan -- just the Naval Air Force.
...

Complaining about the "waste" when human embryos are destroyed instead of being used in medical experiments is a lot like going to a funeral and complaining about the waste of perfectly good meat.
...

Blaming CO2 for climate change is like blaming smoke for the fire. CO2 is largely a following, not a leading, indicator of a rise in temperature.
...

Cavalier's First Theorem:
Every time, Liberals will fight to protect the guilty and kill the innocent, while Conservatives will fight to protect the innocent and punish the guilty.

Cavalier's Second Theorem:
Liberals are just Socialists who want to be loved... then again, Socialists are just Communists who lack the courage of their convictions.

Cavalier's Third Theorem:
Any strongly moral, hawkish or pro-American statement by a Liberal will inevitably be followed by a "but."

Top News Headlines

Iraq Blogs

The Messopotamian
Iraq at a Glance
Iraq the Model
Hammorabi
Iraq & Iraqis
Nabil's Blog
Road of a Nation
The Sun of Iraq
Healing Iraq

Iraqi Bloggers Central

The Truth About Iraq
Liberating Iraq
Pictures from Iraq
The Iraqi Holocaust: a collection
Iraq's Mass Graves

Mudville Gazette:
News the media can't use

The Other Iraq:
The Iraq you never hear about in the MSM

Michael Yon - Online Magazine
Dispatches not filed from the Baghdad Hilton hot tub


United States Central Command


Humor

Infamous Monsters of Filmland

Day by Day: Chris Muir's witty comic strip with a political bent

The Ultimate War Simulation: Why does this scenario seem so familiar?

What Kind of Liberal Are You?
Save me the trouble of figuring out what kind of idiot you are

Blame Bush
Because Bush is to blame... for everything

Sacred Cow Burgers
Web Archive

Satirical Political Beliefs Test

Communists for Kerry

Cooper's Protester Guide

Fellowship 9/11: Sauron never attacked Rohan, Saruman did! Yet a small group of elitists convinced Middle-earth to divert resources from the real war to attack Mordor for personal gain.


Analysis

When Democrats Attack
Did prominent Democrats switch positions on Iraq just to attack President Bush for political gain? (See the updated list.)

Was Iraqi Freedom Justified?
An honest, step-by-step analysis of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq that Congress voted into law shows that it was.

Saddam's Philanthropy of Terror
Details of solid ties to organised international terrorism

How The Left Betrayed Iraq
by Naseer Flayih Hasan

Did We Botch The Occupation?
No, not of Iraq: of Germany. Read the media's take on how we "lost the peace" in 1946 and compare.

Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About the Conflict in Iraq

Pictures from Hate Bush/Hate America/Hate Capitalism/Hate Israel/general wacko rallies
- by Zombie

Jihad Watch


2004 Election Links

Looosers: Sorry, Everybody!
Winners: You're Welcome, Everybody!


2008 Election

Peace Through Strength PAC


Duncan Hunter in 2008
official site



Click to join duncanhunterforpresident2008 at Yahoo! Groups

Useful Links

FamilyWishList
Share your wish list with friends and family

Virtual Tourist
Travel tips from real travelers

RemBot.com
Appointment calendar with email/wireless notification

PriceGrabber.com
Convenient comparison shopping


Reading Material

RightWingNews
The best right-wing news and commentary

GOP USA Commentary Corner

Men's News Daily
The New Media

OpinionEditorials.com
a project of Frontiers of Freedom

ChronWatch
SF Chronicle watchdog and conservative news

American Daily
Analysis with political and social commentary

The Conservative Voice
Conservative news and opinion

News By Us
...not news bias

IntellectualConservative.com
Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics

CommonConservative.com
Practical conservatism for the common man

USASentinel
Analysis, Commentary and Opinion on the Real World

PhillyFuture.org
Philly news and blogs


Now Reading

The Fatal Conceit:
The Errors of Socialism
by F. A. Hayek



Articles Previously Published at
Useless-Knowledge.com

- When Good Liberals Go Bad - 05/29/03
- How Stupid Do Democrats Think You Are? - 05/31/03
- Who Are These 'Rich' Getting Tax Cuts, Anyway? - 06/02/03
- How Can We Miss The Clintons If They Won't Go Away? - 06/04/03
- Whining of Mass Distraction: How To Discredit A President - 06/05/03
- Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 06/10/03
- Liberalism: Curable or Terminal? - 06/14/03
- Filibustering Judges: Hijacking Presidential Powers? - 06/17/03
- Is Hamas Exempt from the War on Terror? - 06/22/03
- How Malleable Is The Constitution? - 06/26/03
- Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage - 06/30/03
- I Need Liberal Assistance, Now! - 07/02/03
- Bring Them On - 07/03/03
- We Need You Arrogant Warmongering Americans...Again - 07/09/03
- Much Ado About Nothing, Again - 07/13/03
- Double Standard: Blindly Blame Bush - 07/18/03
- Was WWII Also Unjustified? - 07/20/03
- Clinton Backing Bush? Don't Bet On It! - 07/24/03
- How To Be A Hypocritical Liberal - 07/28/03
- The Clinton Legacy: In Answer to Mr. Stensrud - 07/30/03
-What Is 'Good News' To Liberals? - 08/02/03
- Bush's Big Blunder - 08/06/03
- The Meaning of Right - Why I Supported the Iraq War - 08/10/03
- More Liberal "Rules" for Arguing - 08/14/03
- You Can Have Cary Grant; I'll Take John Wayne! - 08/19/03
- Where Is The ACLU When It's Actually Needed? - 08/25/03
- Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Ten Commandments? - 08/28/03
- From The Weasels: Thanks For Nothing - 08/30/03
- The Liberal Superfriends - 09/02/03
- Liberal Superfriends 2: The Sequel - 09/05/03
- Saddam and 9/11: Connect the Dots - 09/08/03
- Throwing Away the Southern Vote - 11/02/03
- Libya: The First Domino Falls - 12/20/03
- Is the UN Playing Games with American Politics? - 03/04/04


Blogs to Browse

Across the Pond
AlphaPatriot
Arts for Democracy
Betsy's Page
Bill Karl
Blonde Sagacity
Bull Moose Strikes Back
Common Sense & Wonder
Conservative Pleasure
Dangerous Logic
DowneastBlog
ElectionProjection
Everything I Know Is Wrong
Freedom of Thought
Sally Girl
Korla Pundit
LogiPundit.com
MarkLevinFan
Mark Nicodemo
Michelle Malkin
Moonbattery
My Arse From My Elbow
QandO Blog
RadioBS.net
Rebel Rouser
RightThinkingGirl
Sally Girl
Samantha Burns
Semi-Intelligent Thoughts
Sighed Effects
Sister Toldjah
Stark Truth
Take A Stand Against Liberals
The Resplendent Mango
The Right Society
The YNC
Tom's Common Sense
Tom DeLay
Tomfoolery of the Highest Order
Trying to Grok
TS Right Dominion
Violent Daydreams
Watcher of Weasels
Word Around the Net
WuzzaDem.com



Locations of visitors to this page


Sunday, March 07, 2004
Rogue's Gallery: Kerry Picks a Running Mate

Every Presidential candidate needs a running mate to help define his or her campaign, and John Kerry is no exception.  Now that the big primaries are over, the media needs something positive to report about their favored candidate (not that the media would ever take sides).  Expect the next media flurry -- the next one not attacking President Bush, that is -- to be about the burning question of who John Kerry will pick for a running mate. 

Some people are hoping (or fearing) that Kerry will choose Hillary Clinton as his Vice President.  Others think he will ask former Presidential hopeful Senator John Edwards to run with him.  A running mate is normally chosen for one of two things: the positives he or she can bring to a campaign (like energising the base, bringing in funding or helping to win a state or region), or the negatives that he or she doesn't bring.  This is especially true of Democrats, who tend to think of people more as representatives of a racial or economic group than as individual voters.

The huge amount of negative baggage carried by Hillary Clinton completely cancels out any positives she might bring.  Also, Kerry doesn't need to take out "insurance" in New York; there's very little chance the state will go Republican this year.  As for John Edwards, he held his own home state against Kerry, but his presence would be no guarantee that South Carolina or any other Southern state will suddenly vote Democratic.  Another reason to discount Clinton and Edwards is that no President wants a VP who's vastly more charismatic or personally powerful than he or she is.  Keeping all the above in mind, here's my list of probable VP picks for John Kerry.

Representative Dick Gephardt still has a huge amount of pull with the unions, and could (with a little hard-sell campaigning) bring in his home state of Missouri.  He might also have an effect in neighboring states.  Gephardt is more of a centrist than Kerry (for that matter, Ted Kennedy is more of a centrist than John Kerry!) and does not have a record of flip-flopping on every issue.  In my opinion, Gephardt's daughter's inability to stop pushing her gay activist agenda even when stumping for her father in a middle-of-the-road state cost him the primary in Iowa.  In a national campaign, however, it may actually come as something of an asset (if they confine her to more "Liberal" states like New York, California, Massachusetts and Vermont).  On the other hand, those who see Kerry as "Old-Time Washington Establishment" wouldn't find anything different to like about Gephardt.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana has many of the positives and few of the negatives of Gephardt. Though he doesn't have quite the amount of support from the unions, he's also younger and more charismatic (though not so much so as to overwhelm Kerry, the way Edwards would).

Senator Bill Nelson could ensure his home state of Florida, a very tightly-contested state.  With the President's own brother campaigning for him there, the Democrats will need every advantage they can get.  Senator Bob Graham is more well-known by far, but much of that notoriety comes from his "quirkiness"... or, if you're not a fan, his obsessive-compulsive madness.

Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante actually made a fairly strong showing in California's 2003 recall election, though he ultimately lost to Arnold Scharzenegger.  He brought in 52 percent of the Hispanic vote and 32.3 percent overall.  Though many people think that Kerry would choose New Mexico's Governor Bill Richardson for his influence with Hispanic voters, ensuring California may be considered far more important to the Kerry campaign.  California is considered to be "in play" for the first time in years, and a California VP would help to counteract Arnold's strong support for President Bush there.  However, his former membership in the Hispanic racist/separatist organisation MEChA would weight heavily against him. 

Representative Jane Harman would also help secure California's whopping 55 electoral votes (though not as much as Bustamante), and would have some appeal to women around the country.  At first glance, she doesn't appear to have any serious baggage to weigh her down aside from her pro-abortion, pro-gay "marriage" stances.  If Kerry wants to secure California and gain support with women, Harman might be a good choice.

A good choice for Kerry, that is.  Any of these people would do very little to mitigate the disaster that a Kerry Presidency would be for America.

Posted at Sunday, March 07, 2004 by CavalierX

American Joe
March 7, 2004   12:10 PM PST
 
The vice-presidential nominee will be whomever the Clintons say it will be. The big question now is whether or not Hillary wants it.
Mark from Colorado
March 7, 2004   06:20 PM PST
 
Dick Gephardt would be the best choice for VP. Missouri is a swing state, unlike California and New York (likely to vote Democrat), North Carolina (likely to vote Republican). This Bush supporter hopes that Kerry doesn't choose Gephardt.
Jamie G
March 8, 2004   09:46 AM PST
 
As for Kerry asking Hillary to share the ticket with him, I seriously doubt that will happen. (Things seem to happen to people who get in the way of the Clintons.) Besides, I don't think Hillary wants to play second-fiddle to anybody (any MAN) anyway. If she can't get on the ticket as the main player, she won't get on the ticket at all. The Clintons have control over a lot of what happens w/ the Democratic party. And as long as Terry McAuliffe is chairman, they will continue to have control, thru him. As far as that goes, Hill is probably pushing for someone who will help Kerry LOSE, so that she can go for it all in four years.....

Gephardt won't get the nomination, since Kerry already carried many of the unions that Gephardt thought he had the support of (remember the primaries?).

The man that Kerry hired to help with the search for a running mate is the same man who selected Geradine Ferraro for Mondale's running mate. What does that tell you? (By the way, one of the first times I realized that there was media bias was watching the news "analysis" of one of the debates between the VP candidates when Rerraro was running. I watched that debate and thought that she (Ferraro) had done poorly in the debate and the news analyst (for NBC, CBS, I don't remember which) came out and talked about how well she had done. I was astounded.
JM
March 8, 2004   10:40 AM PST
 
>And as long as Terry McAuliffe is
>chairman, they will continue to
>have control, thru him.

I agree. We may witness a fight for control of the Democratic party, if Kerry really is as arrogant as I make him out to be.

>the news analyst (for NBC, CBS, I
>don't remember which) came out
>and talked about how well she
>had done.

The way to "interpret" most Liberal praise is to add the words "for a (fill in the race/sex/orientation)". It's like adding "between the sheets" to a fortune cookie pronouncement... suddenly you understand what was truly meant.
Jamie
March 8, 2004   11:44 AM PST
 
I have already heard some that there were some rumblings from the Kerry camp about removing Terry McAuliffe and some counter-talk from the Clintons suggesting that his removal was not an option. (I still want to know how McAuliffe got away with making millions from Global Crossings before they went under. It reeks of insider info sharing...).

Kerry does come off as arrogant. It constantly amazes me how he can give speeches where he says things which suggests that the president's policies don't support our service men and women, when the policies have done nothing BUT support the troops! Kerry's voting record shows his total disregard for our service men and women. Not to mention his trashing of our military upon his return from Nam - does he think that shows SUPPORT for our troops? The audacity of the Demos to tell bald-faced lies and smile while doing it is amazing....
Jamie
March 8, 2004   12:03 PM PST
 
BTW - there is something out on Drudge about a possible "Kerry-Brokaw" ticket. Its a link to WSJ, but I can't seem to bring it up (I think its on the Political Diary and I don't subscribe to that....).

That's interesting. Maybe it a "tongue-n-cheek" suggestion. Can't be serious, can it? What would make anyone think that Tom Brokaw would draw voters? Wouldn't that be a first - a news anchor entering politics at that level?
JM
March 8, 2004   10:15 PM PST
 
News anchors deliberately create an aura of respectable believability about themselves, which is what Brokaw would bring to the ticket. It would, of course, put paid to years of Conservative assertions that the "news" media is heavily slanted towards the Democrats. Slanted? Hell, they're damn near horizontal!
Jamie
March 9, 2004   08:59 AM PST
 
Well, if they get too much more horizontal, they will be "in bed" with the liberal Democrats, and you know what the old saying is: "When you lay down with dogs....you get fleas".

More people need to read Goldberg's book "Biased", it would open up their eyes to the arrogance of the news media. But, the more obvious they get (it will really show during this election year), the more people will notice!
JM
March 9, 2004   10:37 AM PST
 
>the more people will notice!

I sincerely hope so, though I'm not wildly optomistic. Most people won't really start paying attention to politics until around September, anyway... and by then, they often have vague impressions already formed by the undertones and insinuations of the "news" media, and memories of newspaper headlines.
Jamie
March 9, 2004   11:00 AM PST
 
I agree with you. Its funny to see the news media referring to poll numbers already, when there are still many months left before the election.

Its also hilarious to hear the Dems complaining about Nader running for office. This morning I heard that Nader "stole" Florida votes from Gore in 2000. And this morning NPR had a woman reading an "open letter" that she had written to Nader, where she tells him she has "admired him since she was in the 4th grade, and "while other girls my age loved Donny Osmond, I loved you, Ralph Nader....". But this year "I can't spare my vote (i.e., waste my vote on YOU, Ralph).....I have to vote to get Bush out of office." ...blah, blah, blah. It was nauseating, to say the least.

I only listen to NPR to catch the news on my way to work, but its getting so bad that I can't do it anymore!
Christopher Taylor
March 11, 2004   11:36 PM PST
 
I'm tellin ya its Clark. He's a military guy, and the Clintons will probably force him onto the ticket.
JM
March 12, 2004   04:47 AM PST
 
>I'm tellin ya its Clark.

I don't think so, Chris... the Dems feel the need to balance the ticket out with a counter-weight to Kerry. I'll bet the Clintons are scrambling to get Richardson on as VP, though, since he was a Clinton cabinet member.
 

Leave a Comment:

Name


Homepage (optional)


Comments




Previous Entry Home Next Entry