Reality and Sanity

July 3, 2007

A Progressive Event

Filed under: Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 4:28 pm

Faces Red Over Strippers at Fundraiser.

TOLEDO, Ohio (AP) – A golf outing for local Democrats left some participants embarrassed after they found out strippers were handing out drinks at the event.

One participant said he saw a woman flash a group of golfers. Others at the fundraiser for the Lucas County Democratic Party said they didn’t see any inappropriate acts.

“When the word got out that these girls are strippers, it gave the party a black eye,” said Clerk of Courts Bernie Quilter. “Every elected official out there was embarrassed.”

Oh, come on. Aren’t you guys progressives?

I thought those stuffy neocon killjoys would react thusly:

Lucas County Treasurer Wade Kapszukiewicz said he saw one woman lift up her top and show her chest to a group of golfers. She then lowered her shorts, he said.

“What I saw was inappropriate, offensive and wrong,” Kapszukiewicz said. “What I saw did not represent the values of the Democratic Party.”

Think William Jefferson Clinton would place tremendous value on those club waitresses staffing the outing?


June 13, 2007

A Band For Every Continent

It seems Al Gore has fulfilled his Live Earth promise: Antarctica Cements Act for Gore’s Live Earth. (HT: Drudge)

Make sure you click the link to check out the accompanying picture…words fail me.

In an effort to fulfill his promise of a concert on every continent for his “Live Earth” event on July 7 to 8, Al Gore approached the British Antarctic Survey in February to explore the possibility of flying a band in to its Rothera Research Station in Antarctica.

No, he was told, July is mid-winter in Antarctica, and no planes or boats can get in or out.

But all was not lost. BAS officials told Gore that a band was already in place on the South Pole. BAS press representative Linda Capper told blogger Tim Slagle, “We have a house band — five of our science team. They are very good indie rock-folk fusion. The remaining 17 will be the audience on location.”

They’ve never played in front of an audience. To make matters worse, the band, named after a Greenlandic word for “summit,” will be playing outside on the ice, where temperatures could be as low as minus ten degrees Celsius. One of their colleagues will film the performance for broadcast on TV and the Internet.

I don’t even need to make jokes or snarky observations since the commenters are far more clever than I am. A sampling of my favorites:

shapiro: Just wait 2-3 years and it will be as hot as Florida in Antartica, and make the concert then. June 13, 7:40 PM

Cici: They should dress like Devo and shoot it like old-style MTV. June 13, 7:15 PM

manny: It figures, A concert about global warming and its -10c. When will they get it, the earth warms, cools, warms, cools, and thats been going on millions of years before Algore invented the thermometer! June 13, 5:55 PM

Bob Kelly: As a musician myself, it is virtually impossible to play any guitar or keyboards with gloved hands, let alone thick mittens, which leads me to believe this is a farce. Or, on the other (frostbitten) hand, they could attempt to play w/o the gloves and risk having their blued finger snap off! The drummer may be the only fella out there who has a chance to jam! June 13, 5:08 PM

Guitarist: How do you fret an E-shaped barre chord with those mongo gloves on? I sure couldn’t do it without buzzing like a bee. June 13, 4:59 PM

Steve-O: Its rather ironic that a group of scientists are planning a “concert” against global warming in an environment where their very survival depends upon….massive and continuous consumption of fossil fuels! Bunch of losers June 13, 4:15 PM


June 4, 2007

Fundraising Follies

Al Franken is short of campaign cash, and is griping about the effort to raise it: Gimme More $$$$.

Oh and “because he’s having so much trouble raising money, he now wants public financing of campaigns! Starting with his, of course.”


June 27, 2006

Campaign Finance Reform Follies

The NY Times comes out in favor for campaign contribution limits, applauding the Supreme Courts decison to leave intact Vermont’s tiny thresholds intact: Campaign Finance Reform Survives.

The Supreme Court struck down Vermont’s reform-oriented campaign finance system yesterday. But more important was what it did not do. The court, ruling on the issue for the first time since the arrival of two new justices, declined to overturn 30 years of precedents upholding limits on campaign contributions. That makes the decision a setback for the anti-reform forces who want to open the spigots for corporate and special-interest money to flood into American politics.

Open the spigots for corporate and special-interest money to flood into American politics?

You’d think these guys have never heard of 527s, or George Soros.

The decision striking down Vermont’s system was not unexpected. Vermont’s limits were the lowest in the nation — an individual could give just $400 to a candidate for governor or $200 to a candidate for state representative. Even some strong supporters of campaign finance laws worry that such low limits stack the deck in favor of well-known incumbents.

Hah. McCain-Feingold does that now, which is why I have long called it The Incumbency Protection Act.

Another part of Vermont’s law restricted how much candidates could spend, an approach that had already been struck down in Buckley.

Big-money interests that are challenging campaign contribution limits may be heartened by the fact that one state’s attempt to reform its campaign finance system has been rejected. But taken as a whole, the ruling is a strong reaffirmation of the principle that the Constitution permits reasonable limits designed to prevent what the court has called “corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

Actually, there is a far simpler way to handle “corruption and the appearance of corruption” in political donations. First, do away with all limits on contributions; anybody can give as much as they want, with this caveat: all donations recieved must be made public. All candidates for any office throughout the land must reveal the identity of the donor and the amount of cash involved. Everyone would know who gave what to whom, and voters could easily see any campaign awash in “corruption and the appearance of corruption.”

June 25, 2006

Little Hope For Democrats in ’06

Filed under: General Nonsense, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 9:55 am

Victor David Hanson offers a well-reasoned analysis of the Dems’ future election chances: Why the Democrats Won’t Win.

Will President Bush’s current unpopularity translate into a Democratic recapture of either the House or Senate this fall – or a victory in the 2008 presidential election?

Probably not.

Despite widespread unhappiness with the Republicans, it is hard to envision a majority party run by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.


All sorts of apparent and not-so-apparent reasons. First, recent events and trends have complicated Democrats’ talking points about George W. Bush’s purported failings.

The so-called “jobless” recovery has seen low unemployment rates comparable to the Clinton boom years.

Last September, many people blamed what they viewed as a stingy federal government for the chaos following Hurricane Katrina. But now we learn individuals’ fraudulent claims and spending accounted for $1.4 billion in federal largess. Too much was apparently thrown around from big government too generously, rather than too little, too slowly.

Karl Rove was supposedly going to be “frog-marched” out of the White House in cuffs for a role in outing CIA agent Valerie Plame. Instead, the special prosecutor recently found no evidence that he was involved in any wrongdoing.

And then there’s Iraq. The recent killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the establishment of a complete Iraqi democratic Cabinet will not ensure a quick victory, as we see from the recent slaughter of American captive soldiers. But both events still weaken the liberal clamor that the American effort at birthing democracy is doomed in Iraq. Calling for a deadline to leave, as Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., and Sen. John Kerry, D-Ma., advocate, is not so compelling when the current policy is based on training the growing Iraqi security forces so that American troops can come home as soon as possible.

Thus, looking ahead to the elections, there is little that the Democrats will be able to capitalize on.

Much more like this in the rest of the column.

Dean Sticks His Fingers in His Ears, Yells “LALALALALA”

Filed under: General Nonsense, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 9:02 am

Even though Iraq troop pullouts were rejected once in the House (256-153) and three times in the Senate (93-6, 86-13 and 60-39), Howard Dean continues down the same weather-beaten path: Dean Repeats Call for Iraq Troop Drawdown.

WASHINGTON (AP) – The head of the Democratic Party blamed the Bush administration’s “failed political leadership and lack of foresight and planning” for turning U.S. soldiers into targets for the Iraqi insurgency.

In his party’s weekly radio address Saturday, Howard Dean said the Republican plan of “stay the course” is not an option in the 3-year-old war and emphasized the Democratic call for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops to begin by year’s end.

He also rejected the Republican criticism that Democrats want to “cut and run.”

“Among the victims are brave American soldiers who are the targets of an insurgency because of failed political leadership and a lack of foresight and planning,” Dean said. “We don’t want another wall with 55,000 names of courageous Americans who were let down by their government.”

Another wall with 55,000?

Losing any of our troops is sad and unfortunate. That’s why we honor their sacrifices and bravery. But 55,000?

The AP and other news services recently marked the grim milestone of 2500 American deaths in Iraq. That’s in three years. Do the math, Howard. At that pace, 55,000 will be reached around 2072.

Back to Dean:

Dean argued that Republicans don’t have a plan.

“‘Stay the course’ is not a plan. Saying the problems in Iraq will be left to the next president is not a plan. Our troops deserve better,” he said.

Interesting how Dean (and the rest of the Left) conveiniently forgets that we still have troops in Bosnia, nearly a decade after Bill Clinton promised they’d all be home. How about that, Howard?

Dean added that phrases such as “peace is at hand” and “the insurgency is in its last throes” are made by what he called an increasingly desperate administration.

Uh, Howard, members of your own party voted down the Iraq pullout plan. What’s more, Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki offered the insurgents amnesty and the insurgents vowed to reject it. As Captain Ed observes:

That puts an end to the entire notion of negotiated peace with the insurgents. If they will not recognize the elected government as legitimate, then they will recognize no arbiter for a truce. The position leaves the insurgents outside the political process and in the sights of both American and Iraqi security forces. At the rate that their intel has improved, these groups may soon regret their stance.

This will come as a victory for Talabani, Maliki, and the new Iraqi government. Fourteen million people voted to put this government in power, which gives it a legitimacy that the sorry band of Iraqi deadenders will never win by blowing up security forces and civilians. The government has faced pressure to offer some sort of national reconciliation to the native insurgents, especially from the Sunnis in the center of the country. When Maliki makes this plan public, he will have given the best offer possible while maintaining self-determination for the Iraqi people. Their rejection takes the pressure off of the national government to be the prime mover for that reconciliation, and it will undermine what sympathy still remains for the insurgents.

What next? Expect a renewed security effort by the Iraqi government and a lot less pressure for an American wihdrawal in the near term. Maliki and Talabani have given themselves an open window for conducting further degradation of the insurgent networks. And now, the Iraqi people will know who to blame for the continuing violence — and the intel will improve that much more.

Howard, your stance, like those of the “insurgents,” is in its last throes. Give it up.

Howard reminds me of Baghdad Bob, who denied any of our forces advancing on Saddam and his government. Baghdad Bob’s game was deny everything in the face of unsurpassable odds, to the point that I said at the time “You could tell him the sky is blue and he would deny it.” I was waiting for American soldiers behind him waving to the cameras, like you see with a field reporter standing in front of a crowd.

Dean has plugged his ears and is shouting to cover up anything contrary to his views. Much like the mouse in The Last Great Act of Defiance, Dean will deny to the end.

June 23, 2006

Blabbermouth Press Splashes Another Anti-terrorism Tool All Over Its Pages

Filed under: Bias? What bias?, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 7:58 am

Great. Just f*****g great. Just what I wanted to wake up to.

Patterico won't, but I will say it: Ann Coulter was right about where Timothy McVeigh should have gone with his truck bomb.

So when we get hit with a terrorist attack, and many, many people die as a result because of the NYTimes and LATimes actively aiding the enemy, will they run apologies for their treasonous actions?

F*****g fools.

It wasn't always this way.

Also see A Salute to the Greatest Generation.

Homefront Posters at

Update: Patterico imagines what today's journalists would have done the week before D-Day:

We have listened closely to President Roosevelt’s arguments for withholding publication of the full details of the Allies’ plans for next week’s invasion of Europe in Northern France. We weighed these arguments carefully, and gave them the most serious and respectful consideration.

However, we have determined that it was in the public interest to publish these plans.

We believe that the government’s use of deception in attempting to mislead our enemy concerning the exact location of our invasion raises serious questions about governmental honesty — questions that merit a public airing and debate.

Additionally, the plans we have published anticipate severe casualties on the part of Allied forces. Publishing the details of such a plan is part of the continuing national debate over the aggressive measures employed by the government in attempting to win the so-called “war on Nazism and fascism.”

Patterico links to others with similar observations:

Well, I guess it’s just that obvious, isn’t it? Are you proud, Dean and Bill, that many people are having this exact reaction?

Update II: Captain Ed weighs in:

The administration has told us on many occasions that one of the main fronts in the war on terror would be the financial systems. We have seen plenty of coverage on how the US has pressured various banking systems into revealing their records in order for us to freeze terrorist assets. If anyone wondered whether our efforts had any effect, all they needed to read was the stories of Hamas officials having to smuggle cash in valises in order to get spot funding for the Palestinian Authority. Their neighboring Arab nations pledged upwards of $150 million in direct aid, which banks would not transfer lest the US discover the transactions and lock them out of the global banking system.

Did no one read that and understand that the US has an extensive surveillance system on financial transactions around the world? Perhaps Keller, Lichtblau, and Risen need facts spelled out for them using crayon and words of two syllables and less, but the thinking world already understood that American intelligence had thoroughly penetrated global finance — exactly like we said we would do in the wake of 9/11.

This story is only good for one thing, and that is an attempt to blow the program and stop our ability to follow the money. The New York Times apparently wants to stage itself as a publication written by traitors for an audience of idiots.

Update III: The lovely and articulate Michelle Malkin chronicles the backlash.

June 17, 2006

Clueless Chicks

Just read this Dixie Chicks fawning puff piece that Drudge linked from the UK Telegraph: How the Chicks survived their scrap with Bush. What I find even more humorous is that the writer is more clueless than the Chicks are.

When Maines made her comment on March 10 2003, 10 days before Operation Iraqi Freedom unleashed "shock and awe" over Baghdad, the Dixie Chicks were probably the biggest act in country music. Yet within days, their music vanished from the charts and the airwaves, apoplectic rednecks crushed piles of their CDs with tractors, and the FBI was feverishly monitoring death threats against the trio. It was the most heinous pop-star outrage since Ozzy Osbourne urinated on the Alamo."The reaction was as if Natalie had said 'Death to the President' or something," says violinist and vocalist Maguire.

"It was the bullying and the scare factor," shudders banjo and guitar player Robison. "It was like the McCarthy days, and it was almost like the country was unrecognisable."

Wow. Invoking McCarthy. That's the mark of a mooonbat.

The following paragraphs are submitted without comment, with key statements bolded. You make the call:

The level of debate can be gauged from the way Maines was compared to "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, who was photographed manning a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun at the height of the Vietnam war.The Chicks can't hide their disgust at the lack of support they received from other country performers. "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do," says Robison.

"A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism," Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

There can be no rational explanation of how Maines's remark came to drive a red-hot poker into America's divided soul, but it's only now that some of the poison has begun to dissipate.

Update: Others on Blogsville Right weigh in on this nonsense.

The post title at Hillbilly White Trash says it all: How stupid can these people get?
Little Green Footballs:

That may win [Natalie Maines] some fans at Daily Kos, but I doubt it will go over well with the country music audience.

The lovely and articulate Michelle Malkin has links and photos "to turn Natalie Maines stomach."

The Coalition of the Swilling also saw the McCarthy invoke:

Yes, it always comes back to McCarthy and Vietnam, that one-two combination of leftist martyrdom. Oh, I am called to task for a stupid comment! I'm being repressed! McCarthy! How dare people not buy my music because they think I'm an ass…

California Conservative suggests Maines "should hit the books, instead of just glossy magazines."

Layla at Freedom Watch thinks the Chicks should follow Johnny Depp's example.

The Bullwinkle Blog:

I guess if you hate America supporting our soldiers and exhibiting any love for your country at all is sickening. They should try telling Canadians how much their country sucks and see how ticket sales go up there. Then try it in France. They’ll rearrange their rioting schedule to burn your car. You too, if they can work it in.

Blue Crab Boulevard:

My guess is [Maines] just injected a new dose of poison into the whole situation. And this whole interview sums up exactly why, "the company was concerned about their commercial future".

Oh, and you don't have to question her patriotism anymore. She has none.

Below the Beltway, in a post titled "Another Stupid Career Move," makes a point I've made about the Chicks in the past, that they have First Amendment rights and "are entitled to their opinions about President Bush and the war, but they better not start complaining that people don’t like them again" after making their 'patriotic dissent' statements:

Well, Natalie, perhaps people care about patriotism because they love the fact that they live in a country where people are free to make stupid statements like yours without fear of the secret police taking them away in the middle of the night.

QandO says

As one wag described Maines' statement, it displays "all the political cunning of Homer Simpson".

Finally, WISN Early Spin Blog asks the question inquiring minds want to know:

By the way ladies, how’s the tour coming along?


Update II: Bryan Preston writes what could be their mainstream popularity epitath:

I can say I knew them when…when the Dixie Chicks were a red-hot bluegrass band that kept their idiot opinions to themselves. Now–they’re dead to me.

Welcome to "All Songs Considered," ladies.

Update III: I should have known the FReepers are all over this. Best reply so far to Maines "Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism."

Arlington National Cemetary

These folks may have the answer to [your] question.

June 15, 2006

Iraq Troop Withdrawal Measure Defeated in Senate 93-6

Filed under: General Nonsense, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 8:16 pm

The AP isn't happy. Check out the first line in the story:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Congress plunged into divisive election-year debate on the Iraq war Thursday as the U.S. military death toll reached 2,500. The Senate soundly rejected a call to withdraw combat troops by year's end, and House Republicans laid the groundwork for their own vote.In a move Democrats criticized as gamesmanship, Senate Republicans brought up the withdrawal measure and quickly dispatched it – for now – on a 93-6 vote.

"Gamemanship?" More like "Let's see the Dems replay the Vietnam pullout." Hah. NO way most of the Dems would go on record against the will of the American people. Heh-heh-heh.

So who were the six? All Democrats, all of them with locks on their Senate seats (hat tip: Hugh Hewitt, who calls them the KosCaucus):

Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
John Kerry (D-MA)

Not voting was Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

Update: Pullout also rejected by the House, though not as dramatically: 256-153.

Here's the full roll, thanks to Allahpundit

June 9, 2006

Plenty of Good Seats Still Available

Filed under: General Nonsense, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 6:32 pm

So what are you doing reading this? Go out and buy some tickets! Especially you liberal record buyers! Show these lovely gals they can count on your support! You just might get first row!

Nashville, they have a problem: Dixie Chicks Concert Sales Lacking.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) – While the Dixie Chicks' record sales are soaring, tickets for their Accidents and Accusations Tour are failing to take flight in some cities."I think before it's said and done the entire tour will be, at the very least, reorganized," Ray Waddell, senior editor of touring for Billboard magazine, said Friday.

Shows in cities including St. Louis, Houston, Indianapolis, Oklahoma City and Memphis, Tenn., are up in the air, according to Waddell.

The group said on its Web site that reports of cancellations are false.

Not yet, anyway. Stay tuned.

Live by the prop-up, die by the prop-up.

June 4, 2006

“You don’t need papers for voting”

Filed under: Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 8:26 pm

If an election can turn on a sentence, this could be the one.

June 1, 2006

Abolish College Commencement Addresses, Part 2

Filed under: General Nonsense, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 3:21 pm

It’ll keep them from embarassing themselves.

People from both sides of the aisle have made stupid remarks during commencement addresses, but this is an all-time blunder from the left side:

State Comptroller Alan Hevesi publicly apologized Thursday for a “beyond dumb” remark about “putting a bullet between the president’s eyes.”

Hevesi hastily called a mea culpa press conference hours after putting his foot in his mouth at the Queens College commencement.

The Queens College media relations office said it had videotaped the commencement but could not immediately provide a copy of the tape or a transcript.

At the press conference, a contrite Hevesi repeated what he recalled saying in the speech. The comptroller said he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president.

“I apologize to the president of the United States” as well as to Schumer, said Hevesi. “I am not a person of violence.”

“I am apologizing as abjectly as I can. There is no excuse for it. It was beyond dumb.”

A question: if “he was merely trying to convey that Sen. Charles Schumer has strength and courage to stand up to the president,” why not simply say that?

I’ll give him credit: he realized the stupidity of the remark, and apologized for it…ahem…out in front of the news cycle.

(Hat tip: the lovely and articulate Michelle Malkin)

May 28, 2006

Kerry: He Was For Moving On Before He Was Against It

Filed under: Bias? What bias?, Stupid Democrat Tricks — Paul @ 12:13 am

Scroll for updates…
John Kerry won't give it up: Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss.

Three decades after the Vietnam War and nearly two years after Mr. Kerry's failed presidential bid, most Americans have probably forgotten why it ever mattered whether he went to Cambodia or that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth accused him of making it all up, saying he was dishonest and lacked patriotism.But among those who were on the front lines of the 2004 campaign, the battle over Mr. Kerry's wartime service continues, out of the limelight but in some ways more heatedly — because unlike then, Mr. Kerry has fully engaged in the fight. Only those on Mr. Kerry's side, however, have gathered new evidence to support their case.

Maybe they're about to present some 'fake, but accurate' documents. Maybe they are getting too far out in front of the news cycle.

Mr. Kerry, accused even by Democrats of failing to respond to the charges during the campaign, is now fighting back hard."They lied and lied and lied about everything," Mr. Kerry says in an interview in his Senate office. "How many lies do you get to tell before someone calls you a liar? How many times can you be exposed in America today?"

His supporters are compiling a dossier that they say will expose every one of the Swift boat group's charges as a lie and put to rest any question about Mr. Kerry's valor in combat. While it would be easy to see this as part of Mr. Kerry's exploration of another presidential run, his friends say the Swift boat charges struck at an experience so central to his identity that he would want to correct the record even if he were retiring from public life.

Oh really? Then why is this paragraph in the story:

Mr. Kerry portrays himself as a wary participant in his own defense, insisting in the two-hour interview that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. "I'm moving on," he says several times.

Which is quickly followed by…

But he can also barely resist prosecuting a case against the group that his friends now refer to as "the bad guys."

John Kerry. He was for moving on before he was against it.

Update: Patterico's response to the "gathered new evidence" line is devastating.

Update II: Captain Ed also responds:

If Kerry really wants to open the topic for debate again, there are plenty of questions contained within the category that have never been answered. Here are just a few:

1. Why did Kerry appropriate Tedd Peck's battle record into his own record?

2. Why did Kerry allow David Alston to appear at numerous campaign events and misrepresent himself as an eyewitness to Kerry's Silver Star engagement?

3. Why did Alston disappear from the campaign after this became public, and why didn't the Kerry campaign explain his absence?

4. If Kerry came under fire on the December 2, 1968 incident for which he requested and eventually received his first Purple Heart, why then did Kerry write in his journal on December 11 that he had not yet been shot at?

If he can explain all this with new evidence, I'll be glad to post it. Until then, this looks like the same bluster that his supporters have used all along — to claim that the Swift Boat veterans have been thoroughly debunked and that Kerry had been vindicated without producing a single piece of supporting evidence for either conclusion. It also proves that Kerry will never get past Viet Nam, and as long as he occupies a leadership position in the Democratic Party, neither will the Democrats.

Update III: Scott Johnson, Tom Maguire and Jon Henke have joined the fray. Bruce Kessler of the Democracy Project is right on target: New York Times is full of Kerry.

Allahpundit points out a poll:

Well, Rasmussen decided to re-run the 2004 election and discovered two things. First, Kerry wins this time by seven points. And second, he’s still a terrible candidate:

President Bush is still trusted by a few more voters than Kerry on the National Security issue. However, the President’s advantage is much smaller than it was during the election season–44% now trust the President more while 41% opt for Kerry…

On immigration, 43% trust the President more while 40% prefer Kerry.

You don’t need a poll to tell you how terrible he is, though. Some of the righty blogosphere’s heaviest hitters are reacting this morning to news that Kerry wants a rematch with the Swift Vets.

Kerry better come up with some compelling evidence and answers to the myriad of questions about his service, which I'll be happy to post provided it's detailed and accurate. But there is so many holes that I doubt he can plug a few of them, let alone all.

Update IV: Here's excerpts from the book Kerry suppressed about his testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on April 22, 1971: The New Soldier.

Create a free website or blog at