October 2004

Check this link out. Note this picture, in particular, which is shown in better detail at Mudville Gazette. The link came from the comments.

Amazing what you can buy with a little help from the UN.


According to MEMRI, Osama said:

“This resemblance began with the visit of Bush Sr. to the region. While some of our people were dazzled by the U.S. and hoped that these visits would influence our countries, it was he who was influenced by these monarchic and military regimes. He envied them for remaining in their positions for decades, while embezzling the nation’s public funds with no supervision whatsoever. He bequeathed tyranny and the suppression of liberties to his son and they called it the Patriot Act, under the pretext of the war on terrorism.

“Bush Sr. liked the idea of appointing [his] sons as state governors. Similarly, he did not neglect to import into Florida the expertise in falsifying [elections] from the leaders of this region in order to benefit from it in difficult moments.

My bold.

Do good Democrats like the Patriot Act? No. Nor does Osama.

Do good Democrats think Bush stole the election in Florida? Yes. So does Osama.

There you have it. Osama is just another victim from the 70’s wanting a better world. Doesn’t that describe the leading Democrat, Senator John F. Kerry?

Of course, one reason Osama doesn’t like Bush is because Bush is beating him. Come Tuesday evening, John Kerry will feel the same way for the same reason.

And all Kerry will be able to say is, “Thanks, Osama. That video was a great help.”

Hindrocket at Powerline has more. Key point from MEMRI:

The tape of Osama bin Laden that was aired on Al-Jazeera on Friday, October 29th included a specific threat to “each U.S. state,” designed to influence the outcome of the upcoming election against George W. Bush. The U.S. media in general mistranslated the words “ay wilaya” (which means “each U.S. state”) to mean a “country” or “nation” other than the U.S., while in fact the threat was directed specifically at each individual U.S. state. This suggests some knowledge by bin Laden of the U.S. electoral college system. In a section of his speech in which he harshly criticized George W. Bush, bin Laden stated: “Any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.”

Hey, Ohio, Florida, and all you swing states: Osama wants you to vote Kerry.

The WPO has a reasonably balanced piece contrasting the leadership styles of the two men.

Back last summer, John F. Kerry made an observation that struck him and his partisans as so self-evidently true it could hardly be disputed. The Democratic nominee said the U.S. intervention in Iraq so far has done more to recruit terrorists than to defeat them.

President Bush reacted with a disdain and disbelief that no one who heard it could doubt was genuine. “I don’t think they need an excuse for their hatred and their evil hearts. You do not create terrorists by fighting back; you defeat the terrorists by fighting back.”

Very perceptive quotation. Now look at Osama’s latest tape. Is he appealing to Kerry or Bush? It shouldn’t take more than a nanosecond to figure out that Osama isn’t happy with Bush and would like a little respite. He says:

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al Qaeda. Your security is in your hands. Each state that doesn’t mess with our security has automatically secured their security.

Kerry might interpret that as a sign that dealing with Al Qaeda would reduce terrorism to a nuisance value. Bush would interpret that as indicating that Osama is on the run and now is the time to press the battle.

I’ve covered this topic in a previous post critical of John Edwards.

Here’s part of the ruling that blocked tort reform in Ohio:

The Ohio Supreme Court issued its ruling on August 16, 1999 holding Am. Sub. House Bill 350 unconstitutional in its entirety in State ex. rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, Case No. 97-2419. The vote was 4-3, with Justices Douglas, Pfeifer, Resnick and Sweeney in the majority.

Justice Resnick wrote the majority opinion and Justice Pfeifer wrote a separate concurring opinion. Chief Justice Moyer and Justice Lundberg Stratton each wrote separate dissenting opinions and each concurred with the other’s dissenting opinion. Justice Cook concurred with both dissenting opinions.

None of those justices finding for the trial lawyers is standing for election in 2004.

Chief Justice Moyer (R) is standing and should be the first choice of anyone interested in tort reform since he dissented in that crucial ruling.

His Democrat oponent, C. Ellen Connally (D) is an activist judge (“I bring a Democratic perspective”).

Judith Lanzinger (R) holds that judges should interpret, not rewrite the law. Say yes to her.

Nancy Fuerst (D) claims she “is no rubber stamp for the legislature”. Another activist judge.

Terence O’Donnell (R) is the incumbent.

William O’Neill (D) seems to think it is the court’s job to figure out school funding. Another activist judge.

Voting a straight Republican ticket will be the first step towards tort reform in Ohio.

Some of Slate’s slate of experts make this assumption.

That assumption ignores Kerry’s two constituencies within the Democratic party. On the one hand, you have centrist Democrats who will do what needs to be done to stay in power. If that means whacking bad guys, such as Osama, then they’ll whack bad guys. On the other hand, you have the Jimmy Carter/Howard Dean/Michael Moore wing of the party that wants to stop the War on Terror yesterday. Kerry’s instincts, which have barely changed since he met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in Paris, places him fair and square on the other hand. Satisfying both factions inside his own party means that he will waffle the talk, and miff the walk. Instead of policy, we’ll get polity. Instead of doctrine, we’ll get doubt.

If Kerry wins then he will become Jimmy Carter’s dim-witted heir, and the Republicans will loathe him even more. Unity? Not a chance. And he’ll suffer the same fate as Carter — a one term disaster.

If Bush wins, he’ll have a united party behind him and the grudging respect of the Democrat centrists who will blame the anti-war left for Kerry’s loss.

So, where’s Hillary? Stumping hard for Kerry? No. Waiting to pick up the pieces? Yes.

First the caveat. The Democrats and Soros financed allies have invested heavily in registering doubtful voters. Clinton appointed judges have blocked challenges to these activities. Democrat lawyers are prepared to fight a hunded Floridas if the election is anywhere near close. So, the Democrats are already prepared to steal the election.

Despite that, I believe Bush will win easily. Here’s why:

The polls have started swinging in Bush’s direction.

The Republican effort in 2002, when everyone predicted they would lose seats in both houses, shows they can get out the vote when it matters. Bush’s campaigning helped swing it back then. And he’s stumped well. I think 2002 is a better indicator than 2000.

Kerry has a poor record. His senate record is mediocre. The Swiftvets hurt him right where he was most vulnerable – Vietnam. The flip-flop label has stuck.

Kerry is a poor candidate. He doesn’t appeal to security moms or manly men. His super-rich (by widowhood) wife is no First Lady. He simply doesn’t connect with ordinary Americans and looks goofy when he tries.

The Kerry/CBS/NYT October surprise blew up, literally.

And then Osama popped up just five days before the election to remind everyone what the election is about. Talking points from Fahrenheit 9/11 won’t turn any sane person off Bush.

Bush will win most states in play, with the possible exception of my home state, Ohio.

Oh, and I think Thune will beat Daschle. I sure hope so.

Next Page »