Sunday, October 31, 2004

Squeaker vs Big Win

Margin of victory will have an impact on the aftermath of this election. A Squeaker (0-1% difference in popular vote) is analyzed vs Big Win (>5% difference in popular vote).

We read the tea leaves and posit these potential outcomes:

Squeaker For Kerry: Dan Rather declares landslide victory at 7:00 EST before polls close in Florida panhandle, Jennings and Brokaw quickly follow. New York Times leads with “Making of a Mandate: Kerry Crushes Bush – Tax Hikes for All” and argues for instantaneous transfer of power to Kerry administration. Kerry receives congratulatory phone call from Abu-musab -Al-Zarqawi. Spontaneous celebrations erupt in Qetta, Peshawar, Islamabad, and Paris. Theresa Heinz-Kerry orders wet bar for Oval office.

Squeaker For Bush: Kerry declares victory. David Boies files class action suit against Diebold, maker of the automated voting machine. Michael Moore claims film evidence of Halliburton employees stuffing ballot boxes. Jimmy Carter says Hugo Chavez more legitimate than Bush. John Edwards channels Christopher Reeve, says God wants Reeve to walk so election must continue until Kerry wins. Richard Holbrooke hosts U.N. observer conference on U.S. election fraud, chaired by Robert Mugabe.

Big Win for Kerry: see Squeaker above.

Big Win for Bush: Michael Moore has aneurysm, joins monastery, and shaves. Theresa Heinz-Kerry exercises pre-nuptial agreement, divorces Kerry, announces engagement to George Soros. John Kerry begins dating Athina Onassis. Al Gore asks for recount. . .Global War on Terror moves forward, Iraq holds elections, UBL is caught, tried, and executed.

Get out and vote!!

Saturday, October 30, 2004

Mustering the Slacker Army

Michael Moore has plans for those of you who will be voting in Ohio and Florida.

A slacker army of 1200 cameramen has been mustered and will descend upon polling places in these battleground states to intimidate the supposed intimidators, although the only evidence of voter suppression in the last election was the premature call of Florida for Gore.

Instead of exercising one's universal right to suffrage, voters in those states will be unwittingly exercising their rights to be extras in Moore's next film and litigants in David Boies' latest fishing expedition.

The circus is in town, and this carnival barker has dubbed himself the guarantor of the election. After proving to be Osama's most articulate spokesman, he's having himself quite a year.

The only thing more absurd would be a U.N. task force passing judgement on Americans performing their civic duties. Oh, wait. . .

Friday, October 29, 2004

Two Thumbs Up

Newsflash Update: Bin Laden Video

In his latest video, Bin Laden plays Roger Ebert and gives Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 two thumbs up.

Pet goats, Florida elections, Saudi connections, and the Patriot Act are all recounted like a teenager after his 20th viewing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

One can picture Osama late at night huddled in the corner of a Karachi flophouse, remote control in hand, replaying the outtakes and extra scenes on DVD - "we should offer the fat infidel a job at Al-Jazeera."

Meanwhile Moore's accomplices in the U.S. are busy spinning their impending defeat:

"Were bin Laden to turn the election for Bush, it would be fitting since he and Bush have fed off each others' power for more than three years."

So sayeth the Left's leading blogmeister. The Bush victory will be explained away as the result of Bin Laden's 11th hour re-emergence, Bush's exploitation of the 9/11 attacks, and the electorate's irrational, non-nuanced world views. Add a dash of moral equivalence and you've got a nice, cool, refreshing glass of Kool-Aid.

Let them have their fantasies. This victory will be an unequivocal repudiation of Moore, Soros, Dean, Kerry, Kennedy, Edwards, Springsteen, Franken, and that distinguished newsman Jon Stewart.

And then we can get on with the War on Terror. For this movie, it's time to shoot UBL's death scene.

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Zen and the Art of Vote-Chumming

Those of us who are compelled to hash out positions in the Competition of Ideas look forward to the election cycle in a way not dissimilar to how a Red Sox fan awaits the playoffs – anxious, hopeful, praying to win, but ultimately expecting to have an ineffectual impact on its fated outcome.

And in this year where momentous world events are broiling, we hope for an elevated discussion of the nature of the social contract, the role of the state, our position in the world, and the Destiny of Man.

These remaining days of the campaign could have been occupied with lofty rhetoric, philosophical discourse, and Calls to Arms.

Instead we’ve got an orgy of vote-chumming. And Kerry’s gonna need a bigger boat.

Fishermen throw bait over the side (chumming) to attract schools of fish who then are more easily caught by the line.

Kerry has been shoveling out fish entrails to the masses, from tainted flu vaccines, the outsourcing of Tora Bora, Canadian drugs, Halliburton, Heating Oil prices, outing lesbian daughters, Halliburton, and now Bush’s failure to get Saddam’s (re-emergent) Weapons of Mass Destruction – hoping to hook a few more voters on cheap gruel.

But none of this amounts to a positive message of governance nor the basis on which to build a personal bond. “George W. Bush is incompetent, I’m not George W. Bush, vote for me.”

In one scene from the 70s blockbuster Jaws, Chief Brody (Roy Scheider) is shown at the back of Quint’s boat, casually chumming to attract the villainous shark and secure its demise.

After the massive fish surfaces, Brody dryly replies: “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”

That churning outside Kerry's boat is an electorate waiting to surface on November 2.

Wednesday, October 27, 2004

Churchill or Chump?

As we are bombarded by the media madness of polls, accusations, attacks, and spin, it’s important to step aside and put this political contest in perspective.

This nation is at war. It was joined on September 11, 2001. The following quotes are from two speeches by President Bush, one at the National Cathedral on September 14, 2001, and at the Joint Session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Is George W. Bush America’s Churchill, or is he, as John Kerry asserts, our Chump?

Read these quotes and decide:

"The advance of human freedom -- the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time -- now depends on us. Our nation -- this generation -- will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future."

"But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer these attacks and
rid the world of evil."

"War has been waged against us by stealth and deceit and murder. This nation is peaceful, but fierce when stirred to anger. This conflict was begun on the timing and terms of others.
It will end in a way, and at an hour, of our choosing."

"Whether we bring our enemies to justice, or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done."

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until
every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

"These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us, because we stand in their way."

"By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions -- by abandoning every value except the will to power -- they follow in the path of fascism, and Nazism, and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends:
in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies."

"Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make.
Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

"And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom."

"This country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world."

"We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail."

"But the only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows."

"I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people."

"The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty, have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.

Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, the fact remains we are in history-making times. These quotes make all of the media madness and campaign charges seem trivial, don't you think?

"Victory in spite of all terrors. Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival" - you tell me, Churchill or Bush?

Monday, October 25, 2004

Closing Out the End-Game

The razor-close, hard-fought, and months-long contest comes down to the final week of bitter struggle.

Nothing less than the course of history hangs in the balance. And, despite the universality of our national pastime, I’m not talking about the Red Sox vs. Cardinals.

This is the election of the century.

Vladimir Putin understands the stakes. He, like Bush, has had the cold, dull knife of radical Islamism thrust into the soft heart of his body politic. The slaughtered bodies of the Beslan children, along with the Trade Center victims, are the future horrors made real for us to live through today.

But John Kerry says 9/11 hasn’t changed him. He of summits and diplomacy, of “thoughtfulness” and “sensitivity,” of terrorism as “nuisance” and “global tests”. . . my fellow Americans, this country needs an electoral outcome that is decisive and unambiguous.

Either we reaffirm our willingness as a nation to overcome the pathology of radical Islam and its tyrant-enablers or we slink away to become another stooge in Jacques Chirac’s U.N. parlor game.

Fear mongering? Visualize these fanatics with nukes.

So how to run up the score and demoralize the opposition? Like Foulke or Isringhausen, a couple of high and hard four-seamers is a start – and it’s Kerry and the Mainstream Media who have initiated this week’s battle.

Bush needs to fight back hard and fast. Whether or not this story is the DUI of 2004, it must be countered with similar shots to Kerry’s credibility, be it phantom U.N. meetings, his mental demons, or his pacifist record. Parallel this track with the optimistic rhetoric of Schwarzenegger and the straight talk (sic) of McCain in joint Bush appearances, and stay on the offensive.

This week is the World Series of Hardball. Catch it.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

"Presidential IQs for $500, Alex"

Ken Jennings: "Let's take Presidential IQs for $500, Alex"
Alex Trebec: "This 2004 presidential candidate had the highest IQ of the two opponents, ranking in the 95th percentile."
Ken Jennings: (buzz)
Alex Trebec: "Ken"
Ken Jennings: "Who is John Kerry?"
Alex Trebec: "No, I'm sorry, that is not correct."

The distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, who promised us a "smarter" war on terror, a more "thoughtful" foreign policy, and a more "sensitive" approach to our allies, who wrote a book about international terror rings years before 9/11, who went to Yale, who single handedly went to Paris and engaged the North Vietnamese, who wouldn't have "outsourced" the job at Tora Bora, who speaks in self-reverential tones and phrases that find new ways of qualifying and applying nuance, and who pronounces "Genghis" with a soft "G", is a dunce compared to George W. Bush.

Michael Moore, take your head out of the oven.

Even the Main Stream Media has had to acknowledge that conventional wisdom has been turned on its own pointy head. When does W. get his honorary Doctorate from Harvard's JFK School of Government? When does the NY Times Book Review do a feature on George W., politician-sage?

But those of us who understand the difference between intelligence and common sense have always known that it never was about IQ points but about horse sense: when we're attacked by Islamist Fascists with an ideology of Death and a hankering for nukes, you don't convene peace conferences in Geneva.

And now for Final Jeopardy: Answer: "This politician defeated the radical Islamists, freed 50 million people, removed tyrannical despots, stopped weapons of mass destruction programs, and set the Mid East on a course for pluralism and democracy.

You know the right Question.

Friday, October 22, 2004

Bipolar Nation

Despite recent polls that suggest some separation between Bush and Kerry, the remarkable story of this election cycle is the continued closeness of the contest, or so says David Brooks, our most insightful culture critic writing today.

After four years of historic events, from dot-com bust to corporate scandals, 9/11 and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the nation remains essentially divided in its world view - a condition that Brooks describes as “a deep, tectonic fissure that shapes the electorate, a fissure so fundamental that it is unaffected by the enormous shocks we've felt over the past four years.”

Brooks ascribes this “stable divide” to two factors: the self-fulfilling dynamics of partisanship - the coalescing of attitudes around two competing tribal groups.

The second is Brooks’ belief that the country is undergoing a conflicted discussion around the preferred nature of leadership and our chief executive.

But despite Brooks’ proven brilliance in identifying patterns of social perception, he doesn’t go far enough in addressing the root cause of our Bipolar Nation.

The democratization of information and technology (eg Internet), the freedom of travel and social exchange, and the professionalization of the political parties have removed any structural barriers (or “friction”) to the free competition of ideas. Institutional advantages such as the Main Stream Media bias towards Democrats or the financial advantages of the Republicans no longer are decisive, leaving what economists call a “market of perfect information” and what psychologists might call an “un-inhibited state.”

From this perfect market, the dueling elements fundamental to our psyches are free to roam unfettered across our political landscape – yin vs yang, introvert vs extrovert, passive vs aggressive, ego vs id, Kerry vs Bush.

With this psycho-social dynamic in play, it’s a wonder that anyone would want to govern this patient. Take two Prozac and call me in the morning.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Bob Dylan, Revisited

In his new memoir Chronicles, Dylan protests his protest-image.

My experience growing up at the tail end of the baby boom generation was not unlike the youngest child’s lament of having to wear the older sibling’s hand-me-downs.

The cultural milestones of the 60s were never mine to experience first-hand, but were related through the eyes, words, and interpretations of those ten and twenty years older, and who clearly reveled in their identification as part of a history-making generation. The cultural Zeitgeist, the seminal communal events, the political tragedies, and the inter-generational conflicts had already been put on, worn through, and passed down by their original owners.

My position as the youngest child in a large family of much older siblings only reinforced this feeling of being a spectator who just missed the parade.

But certain sixties cultural icons I would experience through a contemporary lens and call my own. Kurt Vonnegut, the Rolling Stones, and even Marlon Brando all continued their work through the 70s, 80s, 90s; they produced fewer works of artistic acclaim but their underlying talent was still satisfying as a fan.

But the most enigmatic and compelling “60s” artist who I devotedly followed through the years is Bob Dylan - the drama, beauty, skill, and cerebral power of his songs continues to move me in my forties.

But my appreciation of Dylan never seemed to square with the conventional narrative.

This standard bearer of the counterculture movement was, as the story went, to have been doggedly living out, post-60s, the downside of his career, offering up the occasional gem, but artistically adrift and politically irrelevant without the moorings of his “protest” roots. Dylan in the Disco 70s, the Punk 80s, and the Alternative 90s was simply an anachronism sans historical context who nevertheless was owed reverence as the Poet-Laureate of the Protest.

But I appreciated Dylan’s music without this historical baggage. For me, Dylan was just hitting his stride post ‘60s era:

After the universally acclaimed Blood on the Tracks, the panned 70s album Street Legal, and its opus “No Time to Think” were immediate and compelling, his critically impugned born-again period yielded up the elegant “Precious Angel,” “I Believe in You,” and “What Can I Do For You;” the dismissed Shot of Love album brought us “Heart of Mine” and the unmatched “Every Grain of Sand,” Infidels included “Sweetheart Like You” and “Jokerman,” and in the late 80s he delivered Oh, Mercy with “Ring Them Bells” and “Shooting Star” – masterworks all.

Not just lyrics, or rebel attitude – the conventional interpretation of Dylan’s power - these were works of art from a musician that knows how melody, rhythm, structure, and voice elevates a story and catapults words from poetry into a fully-realized song.

His resurgence in the critical media during the 90s (Time Out of Mind) and the recent Love and Theft have been treated as a return to his 60s form – but for me, Dylan had never left.

And now Dylan, in his own words in Chronicles, weighs in on the subject of his 60s persona and his role as an icon of a generation:

I was sick of the way my lyrics had been extrapolated, their meanings subverted into polemics and that I had been anointed as the Big Bubba of Rebellion, High Priest of Protest, the Czar of Dissent, the Duke of Disobedience, Leader of the Freeloaders, Kaiser of Apostasy, Archbishop of Anarchy, the big Cheese.”

You can almost hear the aging hipsters choking on their bean curd. But Dylan wasn’t at Woodstock, and wasn’t at Altamont. He did hook up with Joan Baez, a more outspoken political activist, but Dylan never took the Timothy Leary, John Lennon, or Abbie Hoffman path to social protest.

I had very little in common with and knew even less about a generation that I was supposed to be the voice of.”

Dylan even fantasizes, at the height of his fame, about a conventional suburban existence (of which he attempted in upstate New York), not out of a reaction to that fame, but as a realization of his own (yes) middle-American values and his new financial means to achieve it.

Whatever the counterculture was, I’d seen enough of it. . . I wanted to set fire to these people (who insisted that he lead a political movement).”

Somehow I don't think Dylan is nostalgic for those sit-ins. Dylan is an observer, and views the world through the sweeping archetypes and narratives of the folk singer – he was never going to be a leader of any contemporary social movement, other than that which furthered the expression of his art (ie plugging in at Newport).

All I ever done was sing songs that were dead straight and expressed powerful new realities.” – Absolutely. And his creation of those songs have continued through to this day for those who could divorce the conventional interpretation from reality and let his work stand on its own, timeless yet relevant, iconoclastic yet apolitical, and packed with truth not fashion.

As he sings on another of his powerful 70s-era works “when you gonna wake up, and strengthen the things that remain?”. . . Dylan has been rock solid, it’s those with superficial agendas that have obscured the genius of his music.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Persuading the Undecided in 250 Words or Less

Why vote for Bush?

1) The Islamic World is in a death struggle between its 7th Century ideology (Islamist Fascism) and the realities of Modernity (i.e. pluralism, individual rights, secularism).

2) This civil war has been brought to the Homeland of the United States. In fact, the most critical front of this Islamic civil war – both physically and intellectually - is the body politic of the United States.

3) The introduction of catastrophic weapons into this war, coupled with the burning desire of the Islamic Fascists to inflict mass casualties on Western “infidels” (and their absence of a moral governor to inhibit the scope of any such action) means that this is the gravest challenge that the U.S. has ever faced.

4) The only way to defeat the Islamists is through their physical elimination, as their ideology is completely irrational and immune to deterrence.

5) Should the Islamists prevail, or create a permanently cowed world in which mass casualties are used as a tool of intimidation, it will mean the end of Western Civilization and the beginning of a modern Dark Ages.

6) George W. Bush understands 1-5.

7) George W. Bush will not hesitate to summon all of the powers of the U.S. government to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby removing this grave threat.

What’s wrong with Kerry?

1) John Kerry does not understand 1-5, and will not summon all of the powers of the U.S. to proactively defeat the Islamist Fascists, thereby increasing this grave threat. QED.

Sunday, October 17, 2004

(I've got the) Tora Bora Blues

Went down to Tora Bora
To beg Bush for a job
Went down to Tora Bora
To beg Bush for a job

I said I’d go get Osama
But Bush outsourced it to an Afghan mob.

What’s one to make of John Kerry’s curious insistence in the debates that Bush failed to catch Bin Laden because he “outsourced” the Tora Bora operation to Afghan warlords?

Is this charge a way for Kerry to cast doubt on Bush’s wartime credentials while appealing to worker anxiety over plant closings in Ohio? Talk about your bank shots. . .

Maybe he should bring up Saddam Hussein’s lesbian daughter as an example of Bush’s go-it-alone foreign policy.

Doesn’t Kerry realize that the entire Afghanistan operation was in a sense “outsourced”, that is, U.S. special forces units were imbedded into the ground operations of Northern Alliance forces as force multipliers, coordinating air strikes and providing real-time intelligence to commanders as Afghan partisans did the hand-to-hand fighting. The swiftness, completeness, and casualty-light success of the Taliban defeat was a direct consequence of this strategy, RW Apple, Jr. notwithstanding (remember how the troops were bogged down for the long winter outside of Mazar-e-sharif?).

The only quagmire here is in Kerry’s logic and second-guessing.

This blogger remembers watching the vivid images of American bombers dropping ordnance in a frenzied pace around the Tora Bora mountains as Geraldo dodged bullets in the valley. Elite units directed ground fighters up into the redoubts as B-2 bombers peppered the area. Tommy Franks has indicated all that could be done was done to corral the fleeing Al-Qaeda leadership. Muhammad Atef, chief Al-Qaeda military commander, and his family took a direct hit. Many remain convinced that Bin Laden himself is nothing more than a DNA-stain on a Tora Bora cave wall.

Kerry might be singing the blues about Tora Bora, but, had he been in charge, we'd be begging Kofi Annan for the job.

Friday, October 15, 2004

John Kerry's Regression to the Mean

The press room groaned. The audience shifted in their seats. This blogger cringed. And the electorate began expressing its disapproval. John Kerry had just deliberately turned a question about the nature of homosexuality into a shameless exploitation of his opponent's family member:

''We're all God's children . . . And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

Gratuitous. Condescending. Calculated. Smug. Ruthless. Inappropriate. And entirely consistent with our gut instincts regarding Kerry's underlying character. His comment wasn't an "outlier" but Regression to the Mean.

No, being offended by Kerry's gambit is not a sign of one's intolerance towards gays. It is the appropriate reaction to a cynical politician's efforts to co-opt the ethos of his opponent's family.

And Security Moms aren't likely to reward this roadside bomb on the road to the White House.

Gratuitous Insincerity isn't a winning campaign slogan. And when Mary's mother Lynne expressed her outrage, Elizabeth Edwards decided to pile on the condescension like only a trial lawyer's portly wife could:

"She's (Lynne Cheney) overreacted to this and treated it as if it's shameful to have this discussion. I think that's a very sad state of affairs. ... I think that it indicates a certain degree of shame with respect to her daughter's sexual preferences. ... It makes me really sad that that's Lynne's response."

A Boston Brahmin outing an opponent's gay daughter. A frumpy running mate's wife presuming to tell her counterparts how to love their daughter. A campaign manager's description of spotlighting an opponents daughter as "fair game." Methinks this is the inflection point where policy positions and debate performance (outliers) are trumped by voter perceptions coalescing around the true nature of Mr. Kerry - mean.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Oh, Those Pesky Terrorists!

Dealing with radical Islamic terrorism is comparable to controlling "victimless" crimes, like prostitution and gambling.

Or so says Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in his latest New York Times Magazine interview:

''We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance. . . I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But (like prostitution and gambling) we're going to reduce it (terrorism)."

Oh, those pesky terrorists. Just when you think we've cleaned up the neighborhood, they start lurking around our street corners and lowering our property values.

Time to fire up the vice squad, catch a few "Johns/Muhammads" in front of the liquor store, and make them spend a night in the clink. After all, who hasn't engaged in a little shady terrorism at some time in their life?

Maybe Kerry should get off of his back and quit pimping for the pacifist left. A President Kerry is a roll of the dice I'm not ready to make.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Kerry Foreign Policy: Passion Fruit

When confronted with Duelfer's conclusion that Saddam intended to resume his WMD program as sanctions wore on and lost their effectiveness, Kerry responds:

"But we wouldn't let them (sanctions) just fritter away. . . You've got a guy who's dangerous, you've got a guy you suspect is going to do something, you don't lift the sanctions, that's the fruits of good diplomacy."

What's startling about this comment, much like his "global test" gaffe, is that it starkly communicates his true passion: the trappings, the process, the pageantry, and the global-chic of diplomacy as an end in itself. Process over results, form over substance, appearance over taste.

Kerry would rather stick to a failing process of diplomacy than address the harsh realities of a maniacal despot who is bent on restoring his reign of terror through bribes, intimidation, and obfuscation.

"Dateline 2005: President Kerry today arrived in Geneva to meet with EU diplomats to draft a communique of understanding between the United Nations, the U.S., and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for a normalization of relations, including a cultural exchange program and a commitment to more development aid."

Fruit ripens, becomes bitter, then whithers away. In a Kerry administration, don't bruise the fruit.

Sunday, October 03, 2004

Two Beheads Aren't Better Than One

Is the American revulsion at the terrorist practice of beheading as universal as Islam's lack of condemnation?

Or are we heading towards a red state/blue state bifurcated reaction to decapitation?

Red State: -these people are animals, they cannot be appeased, they must be destroyed. And God forbid if they get nukes.

Blue State: -the horrors that they are willing to commit are directly proportional to the injustices that we have imposed upon them. And did I mention Halliburton?

Unless we are of one mind on the nature of the enemy, it will be on all of our heads.

"Hey, Why The Long Face?"

John Kerry walks into a bar and orders a drink. Bar tender says - "Hey, why the long face?"

bada bing.

But is Kerry's Scream-like visage an impediment to electoral viability?

Not on the face of it. I think Americans can eventually accept a botoxed, peeled, orange, and capped-teeth countenance for our president.

But it cannot accept an "America-as-chief-nuclear-proliferator" world vision. What does Kerry have to offer to a body politic that is re-awakening to the uniqueness of its narrative? What's his One Big Idea? Kerry is so enamored with process, you wonder if he's more interested in the perks of the office (weekends in Gstaad, brunch at the Louvre, tea with Mrs. Chirac) than the potential to make history.

John Kerry needs a Big (Positive) Idea. Otherwise his gloom will be forever stamped on his periodically-wrinkled forehead.

Saturday, October 02, 2004

Hans Blix: New Chairman of the Joint Chiefs

John Kerry has found the enemy. He is us.

His priority will be invading the Pentagon, toppling the regime, installing a U.N.-friendly leadership (Hans Blix as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs?), and dismantling those WMDs.

No inspectors. No resolutions. No No-Fly zones. Just unilateral disarmament: "I'm going to shut that (U.S. bunker-busting weapons) program down, and we're going to make it clear to the world we're serious about containing nuclear proliferation. "

"You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using."

So - we can't expect Kim Jong Il or the Mullahs of Iran to disarm until we disarm. Why not get started right away, and throw in our conventional weapons as a good faith gesture?

Hey Security Moms - feeling safer?