These are the same people that can't stop screaming about a million disinfranchised voters in Florida. This doesn't surprise me.

You got Karl Rove we got an army of lawyers - fair fight!

This 1 million disenfranchised schtick is the Sasquatch of American politics. One grainy video, and that's about it.

I voted a straight Republican ticket today myself. My personal last straw was the flyer in the western half of my state saying Bush voters are retarded. I have a developmentally delayed child and I would have voted for the Dem. running for the State House of Representatives from my district had I not felt sick at the idea of voting for any Democrat after seeing that flyer. It was strike three after shooting a Knoxville GOP office (strike one) and Kerry's totally unnecessary mention of Mary Cheney last night (strike two). I read the Stephen Green piece afterward and was glad for what I had done.

If Kerry were to win, it would be a disaster for US freedom and democracy.

Can you imagine the abuses of power, with no MSM that would hold Kerry accountable?

Here's a really scary scenario: imagine if Kerry got elected, and then because of his appeasement and weakness, we experience another catastrophic terror attack on our soil, something far worse than 9-11, involving WMDs. Kerry then declares Marshall law and in essence becomes a dictator. Think it's farfetched? Hey, I wouldn't have thought the Dem party would have sunk to such lows as it already has in this election cycle, either...

We must defeat Kerry for the sake of our country and democracy...

Let's send a message to the Dem party that we will not stand for their unprecedented corruption and dirty tricks...

Even the Brits (or at least one left-wing newspaper) want to interfere -- by directly contacting potential voters in swing states. See here for details.

Was anyone really surprised to see the DNC efforts to muck up the works, even in print?

The MSM just does not understand how badly they have hurt their credibility as a result of backing Kerry to the max. Another Thought has a good point. Does anyone believe that the MSM would give us a true accounting of a Kerry presidency. Or hold a Kerry administration's feet to the fire over any of the substantive issues that concern Americans. The MSM thinks they have ONLY revealed their political and idealogical biases. But they have done much worse.

It really bothers me that Dems will instruct their campaign workers to claim intimidation even when nothing happens, while Republicans won't even stoop to using the Household Survey numbers to show that George W Bush added net jobs during his administration, even though the change in the Household Survey is probably a more accurate representation of today's new economy.

We didn't appreciate Newt Gingrich enoungh when we had him. Remember the Contract With America and the Republican revolution it spawned?

On a possibly related note...is anyone else getting a little worried about Allahpundit?

DNC In Favor of Pre-emption
I think Al Gore set a terrible precedent in 2000. The DNC has declared war on our democracy (preemptive) - I wish we could trust them to fight with such fervor the enemies of the U.S., but the DNC is more inclined to fight us. It's the coyote winning stategy - they're trapped with a rotten candidate, and they'd rather gnaw off the part caught in the trap, in this case sacrifice our electoral trust, for power.

The Monk,

That's something else that really makes me mad. Why the hell are foreigners like Soros and these guys allowed to influence our elections with money and campaigning? They don't pay taxes here. They aren't citizens. It's a violation of our sovereignty, and it should be taken far more seriously than it is. Do we really want our leaders chosen by the Europeans? Or in a few years, maybe the Chinese?

"Does anyone believe that the MSM would give us a true accounting of a Kerry presidency. Or hold a Kerry administration's feet to the fire over any of the substantive issues that concern Americans. "

Maybe, I think the MSM likes to play gotcha with the guys in politics, so while I think they wouldn't give Kerry a free ride (and I hear they don't really like him a lot anyway) I think they will be kinder to him than they have been to Bush.

The MSM has irrepairably damaged their reputation in this election cycle.

And if Kerry were elected, he would indeed get a free ride. The MSM was willing to give Clinton a free ride, but Drudge forced the issue and interfered with their plans. Then they spent the next year defending Clinton and rationalizing away his sins. In essence, they saved his butt from removal from office.

The MSM is deep in the tank for Kerry...I think Kerry and his allies like Ted Kennedy have some very serious ties and contacts within the MSM, even moreso than Clinton did at the time of his presidency.

Plus, the MSM has gotten worse...in this election cycle, it doesn't even try to hide its bias any longer.

A Kerry presidency, with his inclination to abuse power, along with the MSM who would not hold him accountable, spells disaster for our democracy.

The Democrats deserve to be spanked at the ballot box this November.

We need to send them a message that we the people won't stand for this type of corruption.

And then after the election, we need to organize and replace the MSM...nothing would be healthier for our democracy.

GOP for Kerry?

Ok, now it's getting freaky. Two different pubs, running material within days of the other (time span no more than a week) and so very close to 2 Nov, from two high-profile fellas who have a few notable things in common. Not freaked yet? How about if both of these gents are ideologically conservative, currently write for a conservative pub and are affiliated with mega-huge think tanks.

Here's what Robert Kagan, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and contributor to the Weekly Standard, said in a recent Financial Times piece [http://snipurl.com/9ns6]:
"There are many reasons why, in theory, the US would benefit from a Democratic victory. It is important for the Democrats to own the war on terrorism and not simply be the opposition. Also, we would have a fresh start with the Europeans and other allies, though they would quickly be disillusioned to learn that Kerry wouldn't be that different from Bush in some respects."

Here's what former WSJ'er Max Boot, currently with the Council on Foreign Relations and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard [http://snipurl.com/9s4u], wrote in the LATimes:
... I am not at all averse to giving a Democrat a shot. In fact, a Democrat might be better able to sell skeptics abroad and at home on the need for toughness. It also would be good for the Democrats to buy into this long-term struggle, just as Republicans bought into the containment policy with Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1952 election. ...

Talking points floating around? Coincidence?

Flash Question: Are some on the right preparing --maybe even positioning themselves-- for a Kerry win? You tell me.

###

I think with the huge increase of web based news and information, we can keep the Media bias from getting out of control. But to out right replace it would be a huge detriment to our society. Developing a small movement to ignore it, and watch as ratings drop and advertisers pull funding, thats the Capitalistic way. hit em in the pocket books, thats how they wake up. CBS will eventually either have to shape up, or ship out.

PS
Yeah whats with Allahpundit anyways...

Another Thought:
I don't think Kerry would abuse power so much as "misuse" it. Abuse implies he knows what he is doing and it is purposeful. Misuse implies a lack of knowledge, ability, and direction or goal. Since I feel, as many posters here have also stated, that Kerry goes where ever the polls blow him, I think that would be a better description. Clinton abused power, but he had a definite goal: personal gain and gratification. Kerry is too much the slave to opinion polls to be that focused.

Bill, have you read the DNC response on this yet?

Honestly, as I read it, Drudge badly overreacted. I mean, it still makes it clear that the Democrats mean to bitch and whine about voter fraud, but I don't think the whole thing, in context, is half as bad as Drudge made it out. I'm open to persuasion, though.

What's your take?

Another Thought,

Your scenario is implausible for one reason: Kerry, deep in his heart, is a dove. He doesn't have the balls to declare martial law. Hillary Clinton, however, would.

If the terrorists nuke NYC (killing me, incidently), Kerry would retreat. It is his natural reaction. He would immediately convene a summit in Brussels (at least the UN building would be destroyed) and would have the Phrench negotiate our surrender with the terrorists. In the short run, it might actually calm people down if it's done quickly enough.... Until Los Angeles is nuked. When the next city goes, widespread panic will grip the populace. That's when the riots will begin, and you'll either see Kerry impeached or people head to the hills, ignoring the government's failed promise to protect them.

Kerry's implicit fault is NOT that he is corrupt. You're fight the last Democrat president. His problem is that he is WEAK. He will utterly fail to protect America. Troops will be withdrawn from Iraq within several months of his election, and he'll abandon that country to civil war. Look for Iran to annex Iraq if that happens.

In short, electing Kerry would be an catastroptic global disaster.

My fear of Kerry is not only in his wakness though. I've been lucky enough not to hear too much about Kerry in the past, but his wretched Sen. brother Kennedy will probably have a lot to say on what goes on in this country. I have a huge problem with that many liberals controlling our country.

When this is what your up against,

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200411/green

well you gotta have your game face on.

Spoons, the Democrats trumped up stories of "voter intimidation" in 2000, in one example claiming that a police roadblock MILES from any polling place was "voter intimidation". Kerry's been going around claiming that 2 million blacks were "disenfranchised" in 2000.

What the Donks have admitted is that they're going to be even worse this year. THAT is unacceptable. If they have valid complaints, they should make them. If there's nothing happening, they should keep their accusations to themselves.

Kerry won't deliberately abuse his power, but he is certainly inept enough to misuse it (as has already been stated). Also, most Democrats are voting for Kerry simply because he's not Bush. If (and that's a big if) Kerry is elected, then that unity will evaporate. It would be a very difficult presidency for Kerry (not to mention the rest of us).

There's another point: If Kerry wins, that sends a message to the Democrats. If you want your guy elected, it is acceptable to spread hate and lies, to vandalize property of anyone supporting a Republican candidate, to break into Republican HQ and assault the volunteers, and so on. If Kerry wins, we will see this behavior in future elections, and not just Presidential ones. You'll see it in congressional races, senatorial races, and even in local elections. Bush needs a landslide victory to send a message to the Democrats - grow up.

5997 http://harley-parts.owns1.com harley parts
harley davidson parts
motorcycle parts

2888 .Way to poker online.

8763 http://www.totallyfreecreditreport.org

5280 You can take Generic Viagra to cure ed. We also offer name brand Viagra

7333 http://www.slots-big.com slots
online casinos
poker online.
internet poker
online poker
online poker

4351 http://www.online-casino-one.com
online casino
craps