Isn't that a great ad? Too bad the folks in the battleground states are slammed with ads already. I posted this a few days ago and have had a lot of positive feedback.

btw, really enjoy your stuff here.

have a great day!

Thanks, what a pleasant comment. Someone clone Jennifer, stat!

Good ad, it will be really good if some of the news programs pick it up and run it as a story-not sure about the big three, but I bet the cable news shows do.

Heh. Great commercial. Let's hope that history repeats itself.

I mean, why do the Dems nominate people like Mondale-Carter-Kerry-Dukakis anyway? These guys virtually never win, and yet time and time again they come up with another liberal clone, thinking that somehow this time things will be different.

(BTW, Bill, we were promised moonbats. Where are the moonbats?!?!?)

It's easy to forget what kind of man Reagan was, what an air of moral certainty and strength he possessed, especially in contrast to the Carter years. I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan, and am still proud of it.

And I agree with Jennifer, too.

I knew Ronald Reagan and you mr President are no Ronald Reagan.

This is one Reagan Democrat who remains unmoved.

Vote Kerry '04 - for a stronger America.

The 527s are again providing the Republicans' best advertisements.

Even Bush's Spanish language ads are far superior to the English ones. Honestly, who is in charge of his ad campaign? While I'm no "marketing expert," I do have eyes, and I can tell you plainly that GWB's English ads suck.

And I am in agreement with Big Brother...

Where are our moonbats? :)

I just heard a listener on 870 am use the name "ZarKerry" on the radio. The name took a total of 2 days to get to the who country. From this site striaght to the airwaves.

NICE

I'm quite certain that Reagan is rolling in his grave knowing that his voice is being used to promote GWB. There's so much dissent in the conservative camp right now, that I'm starting to hope that GWB is re-elected just so I can see what happens.

This is from the upcoming November 8 issue of American Conservative:

"George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration policies—temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election—are just as extreme. A re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans “won’t do.” This election is all about George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any conservative support."

For those of you having trouble the media player embedded in your browser, like me, here is the physical link to the movie: http://www.thestakesarehigh.org/media/tsah2.mov.
(Be curteous and still visit the main page even if you are downloading the movie directly.)

Great ad. Seems that any democrate these days is really just a cut and paste of any other democrate. The fact that Regan's own words fit JFK so precisely is proof that the democratic party has run out of new idea decades ago.

Great site here. I visit early and often for your perspectives.

Hmm, postit doesn't like the ad. I'm shocked, I tell you, shocked.

Anonymous Scientist:

There's so much dissent in the conservative camp right now, that I'm starting to hope that GWB is re-elected just so I can see what happens.

Dream on. There's a LOT less dissent than you'd think. AC magazine is a Buchanan mouthpiece, and ol' Pat hasn't recently shown that he can draw *any* sort of support from most conservatives. In any case, considering that the alternative to four more years of Bush is KERRY, methinks many conservatives who don't otherwise support W are going to hold their nose and vote for him anyway.

Don't imagine that there's some sort of fracture going on in the conservative movement, Anonymous. When you start seeing mainstream conservative publications like The Weekly Standard, NR, or the WSJ breaking ranks, then you might be on to something. Saying there's dissent because Buchanan and Co. are pissed off is like saying there's dissent in the liberal ranks because Nader is running for President.

Oh, wait, that's actually happening.

There is no doubt that Bush/Cheney 04 and the Republican leaning 527s this year have produced the best and most entertaining ads.

The Dem ads are just depressing...gloom and doom. They suck, to put it mildly...no creativity.

I also like the new BC04 ad with the wolves in it...very effective...

Hey Anonymous-

I'm quite certain you have no idea what Regan would have said or thought. Seems that conservatives, to you, are communists, or close to them anyway. So you are not qualified to comment on a conservative's views because you show a fundemental misunderstanding of them.

And what the hell does it mean when you say..."policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies—a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky’s concept of global revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft..." ?

Russia didn't liberate any country, it enslaved them. America liberates countries. People everywhere, even the foreign ones as you put it, crave freedom. Maybe the American Armed services is not Iraq's first choice in how it gets done, but in the end, after the elections in Iraq, what do you think the average Iraqi will say when you ask him about his new found freedom? Do you think he'll want to give it up for Hussein II? One day we will call the Iraqi people our good friends and allies in the defense of Freedom everywhere, just as we do with England, Austrailia, Japan, and so many others. Naive...jeeez.

Nice ad. Bush is no Reagan (and we voters have been spoiled lately with Reagan and Clinton as effective speakers), but he is willing to stand up for what he believes, even if it's unpopular.

after the elections in Iraq, what do you think the average Iraqi will say when you ask him about his new found freedom?

Naive. The perfect Bush supporter

I also like the new BC04 ad with the wolves in it...very effective...

You think? My girlfriend thought they were "cute".

The spot would have been much more effective if they'd used jackals or hyenas or some sort of ugly, scary animal.

But wolves? Come on. Those guys looked like they were straight out of a Sierra Club spot illustrating the nobility of nature.

-Fe Wm.

Bush ... is willing to stand up for what he believes, even if it's unpopular.

Well I'm so happy for him for that.

For the rest of us I whish he could ennunciate so we could perhaps understand WTF he believes and how he intends to clean up the mess he has made in Iraq and just what did he do with that fabulous economy we left him.

"I'm quite certain you have no idea what Regan would have said or thought."

Gary: How in the hell do you know what I know? You know nothing about me. You don't know my age, background, where I live, or anything about my life. I don't even remember seeing a post from you before. Have you read any of my previous posts? The posts where I talk about Reagan?

"So you are not qualified to comment on a conservative's views because you show a fundemental misunderstanding of them."

Gary: Please, read my posts before you you comment on them. I didn't write the quote at the bottom of my post -- I copied it from American Conservative magazine.

"Seems that conservatives, to you, are communists, or close to them anyway."

Gary: You said that I'm not qualified to speak about conservatives (which I was not doing), but you believe you are qualifed to speak about liberals beliefs? I don't know how you extracted this from my post -- I didn't say anything close to this. Just cut the crap.

Big Bro: I'm not imagining anything. I'm reading these things in Republican and Conservative publications. Or do you think I'm imagining reading these things?

For the rest of us I whish he could ennunciate so we could perhaps understand WTF he believes and how he intends to clean up the mess he has made in Iraq and just what did he do with that fabulous economy we left him.

God that statement is so shallow and context free ... where to begin? And why even bother?

Naive. The perfect Bush supporter

"Cynical, bitter jerk - the perfect Kerry supporter" Seriously, what a jerk you sound like, willing to piss on Iraqi Democracy and optimism, just because it serves your bitter political ends.

Go sign up and comment over at Kos, will you?

Bill, now that you've ripped postit a new asshole, how about a comment on Gary's post above. Really, how did he determine that, to me conservatives "are communists, or close to them anyway." Talk about "shallow and context free."

Bush's belief in American exceptionalism reminds me of Reagan.

Anonymous Scientist

"I'm quite certain that Reagan is rolling in his grave knowing that his voice is being used to promote GWB."

"His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies"

Now I don't know exactly how Reagan would react to the Bush administration, but some of the things he has said may help.

"Why should we be frightened? No people who have ever lived on this earth have fought harder, paid a higher price for freedom, or done more to advance the dignity of man than the living Americans, those Americans living in this land today."
- Ronald Reagan

"On the one hand is our belief that the people can and will decide what is best for themselves, and on the other side is the belief that a "few" can best decide what is good for all the rest." (January 1951)
- Ronald Reagan

"We in the West have a responsibility not only to preserve our own freedom but to nurture it where it does not exist."
- Ronald Reagan

and from Thomas Paine

"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from opposition; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach himself. "

Marc: Only one of the comments you quoted was from me. The other was from American Conservative. So, I will only bother defending the first. It's my opinion that Reagan was a far better president than GWB could ever aspire to be. It's also my opinion that GWB has modeled his "go it alone" policy after Reagan. Reagan had the knowledge, wisdom, and resolve to end the cold war. More importantly, the had the ability to mend wounds after the cold war. GWB may have the resolve to start a war alone, but I don't believe he has the knowledge or wisdom to finish what he has started -- at least not with the grace and tact that Reagan showed.

For "Cynical, bitter jerk" read realist, BTW I think you just busted your own posting rules but what the heck rules are for the little guy right?

And for your information GWB is the one "willing to piss on Iraqi Democracy and optimism, just because it serves HIS bitter political ends." in his complete inability or unwillingness to create any legitimacy for the project either with the American people or the world at large. Remember it was WMD and 'WMD related activities' that got us into this mess, NOT nation building.
Bush could maybe have sold the notion of re-making the ME in his own image to perhaps 20-30% of the population but that approach wouldn't have got us were we are now would it?

Sorry, didn't read it. Gary be nice.

But AS -

I thought that you viewed Conservatives as Communists as well ...

"I thought that you viewed Conservatives as Communists as well"

Bill... huh? Have I posted something on your site that suggests that Conservatives are communists? I may have used "Aristocracy" to describe Bush & Co, but not communism. You can search your database -- please correct me if I'm wrong.

postit -

You are delusional. How many times will you repeat that it's all Bush's fault that intelligence was wrong, and how many times will I point you to John Kerry's eerily similar words based on the same intelligence and how many times will I explain to you how self-interest and competition determine diplomatic cooperation and ... ah jeez, how many times will I get a headache.

You don't even understand that for all Bush's faults, it's this crap that drove a huge swath of sensible people far away from the left.

Because these points of view, these Michael Moorisms, represent rabid, non-contextual, annoyingly dissonant analysis. There's a case against Bush to make, but very few of you are smart enough to make it beyond the red haze of your own hate.

As far as this:

BTW I think you just busted your own posting rules but what the heck rules are for the little guy right?

Now I can't blame you for this, because you obviously have reading comprehension problems, considering your failure to absorb the Deulfer Report or John Kerry's October 2002 speech before the Senate ... but in the post where I laid out the rules, I specified ... that I am exempt because it's my blog.

And if you don't like that, go over to dKos and pound sand with all the other lab monkeys that are screeching and shaking the bars of their cage.

Bill... huh? Have I posted something on your site that suggests that Conservatives are communists?

Just yanking your chain, AS. Sorry, I knew you'd bite. :-)

Damn you Bill! Damn you!!!

Anonymous Scientist

Sorry. I did not mean to imply that it was a quote directly from you, but you did use the American Conservative quote as evidence of dissent among conservatives. It also appeared that you were trying to use this indirectly to support your opinion of how Reagan would react. From my limited experience Reagan seems more in line with Bush than the magazine you quoted from.

I will not argue that there isn't dissent among conservatives, but I do not think it is as striking as you put it.

My main point was that Reagan and the founding fathers knew the danger of tyranny even abroad. If tyranny is allowed to exist it spreads and becomes much harder to deal with. Eventually it cannot be ignored. Bush understands this. Unfortunatly I do not think Kerry nor many of those that make up the democratic party do.

Anyone know when/if they're running this ad? I live in Florida, and tonight, it seems like every commercial break has 2 ZarKerry commercials--have yet to see a Bush one tonight.

Marc: No need to apologize. I just didn't want the quote to be attributed to me.

I'm in the Democratic party, and I understand that tyranny must be dealt with. However, I don't believe that worldwide terrorism is something we can deal with alone. Reagan was fighting communism in the U.S.S.R. -- a concrete location. He was fighting their administration. Terrorism doesn't have an administration, a concrete location, or an organized set of ideals. So, if we wish to fight a war on terrorism, it's going to require more than just the U.S. forces. The war on terrorism is a war without neat boundaries. Realistically, we can't expect to have eyes and ears in every country in the world, so we need to coordinate our efforts with other countries. I don't think there are many countries in the world that would be willing to cooperate with Bush's administration, so for this reason, I'm voting against Bush. I really do care about fighting terrorism and tyranny, and in my opinion, this is the only way.

Anonymous Scientist
I think we can agree to disagree about whether or not the Bush doctrine is good. You are correct that terrorists are dispersed throughout the world. To fight them directly we will need all of the support we can get as this is heavily based on intelligence. (I do not think any countries have stopped supporting the war on terror because of Iraq).
This is not an answer though and there is no way to fully stop them in this way. If you will look at what these international terrorists have in common it is that they come from dictatorships. Democracies simply do not breed this kind of international terrorism. The ambitious and risky solution then is to spread democracy (also an ideal held by people like Reagan and Paine). This gives terrorists more ammunition for hate in the short run, but in the long run democracies will not breed international terrorists. The other option is to concede to there wishes and pull out of the middle east. In the short term this may end much of the violence. But in the real world people always disagree. We cannot please everybody. Civilized people deal with theses issues without targeting innocent people. As long as we allow this type of society to exist, that will resort to terrorism to get its way, we will always have to concede to it untill we are no longer free. Dealing with terrorism in either way has grave consequences. I think the latter is far more dangerous.

This is Kerry in a nutshell on the War on Terror:
There is no war on terror; it is more of a law enforcement issue, kind of like prostitution or gambling; we need to only "contain" terrorism to make it a "nuisance"; 9-11 really didn't change things and shouldn't alter our approach to national security; if we just talked nicer to our enemies they would become our friends; our allies are not really our allies, only bribed and coerced; the UN is the source of all hope in the world, while the US is the main cause of anger and discension.

That's Kerry in a nutshell...dangerous.

"I think we can agree to disagree about whether or not the Bush doctrine is good."

Marc: Fair enough. Terrorism will be dealth with by either administration because they have no choice. The important thing for me is that after the election, no matter who wins, that we have a president that can truly bring the country back together again. We really do need a uniter, not a divider. There's only so long that our country can remain this polarized before it becomes a detriment to our advancement.

AT: You are being a right wing nutshell.

Anonymous Scientist
"We really do need a uniter, not a divider. There's only so long that our country can remain this polarized before it becomes a detriment to our advancement."

I couldn't agree more.

Big Bro: I'm not imagining anything. I'm reading these things in Republican and Conservative publications. Or do you think I'm imagining reading these things?

No, I think you're out looking for exactly what you find, and are ignoring any evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis (that there is a split in the conservative camp). You *want* it to be true.

Not good science, scientist.

After all, give me a few minutes on Google and I could come up with quotes a'plenty showing an identical break on the liberal side. Would that mean there was really a break? Not particularly.

Like I said, come up with evidence from mainstream conservative publications that shows any major dissent and I might be impressed. And by "evidence," I mean MORE THAN ONE QUOTE. That is, after all, what you provided initially. One quote. From a "paleoconservative" magazine run by an antisemitic nut. If that's evidence of a split, then Worker's World counts as a mainstream leftist publication.

Don't fool yourself, Anonymous. You WANT this to be true, but wanting something to be true and having it actually be true are two different things entirely.

You're a scientist; you should understand that.

Big Brother: I don't have the strength or desire to reply to you. Don't preach to me about what a scientist is or is not - spare me the condescension. And please quit trying to make it seem like there are not dissenters galore in the Rep/Con camp -- you know damn well there are. Denial has been the cornerstone of both sides in this political season. It's really ridiculous.

Hey, Anon Scientist, I know a Dem who will vote for Bush in hopes of getting Hillary in 08....does that make a trend? Is this mass dissension in the Dem ranks?

Actually, it could be...there may be more than a few Dems who play this calculus and want to go for Hillary in 08...

You know, I can't grasp the Hillary thing. I can understand the base getting excited, but she just doesn't have the numbers to win ...

Another Thought: I would exchange comments with you if you weren't such a know it all prick. You've been preaching to me like you are some kind of political genius and it's really annoying. I rarely address another posters comments here unless they address mine first (with the exception of Bill, because he's somewhat reasonable to talk to). I try to stick to the issues, and I don't attack people for having a strong (and knowledgeable) opinion. I never tell someone that they are wrong, and I am right (unless it's a matter of factual data). You are so busy trying to be right about everything -- it's just boring.

"she just doesn't have the numbers to win"

Bill: She doesn't even stand a chance of being nominated. It's a pointless discussion.

AS:

Big Brother: I don't have the strength or desire to reply to you.

Or, apparently, the ability.

Don't preach to me about what a scientist is or is not - spare me the condescension.

Hey, you make a claim, you back it up with EVIDENCE. Scientists are supposed to do that. If you can't, then I have no reason to assume it's something other than wishful thinking from someone who wants Dubya to lose, and is looking for any hope of a break among conservatives which will make that happen.

And please quit trying to make it seem like there are not dissenters galore in the Rep/Con camp -- you know damn well there are.

Obviously there are "dissenters." We're not the frikkin' borg. Galore, though? That's up to you to prove. How many is "galore?" Who are they? Why did none of them run against Bush in the primary? Why aren't they out giving speeches and gathering crowds of like-minded conservatives?

Denial has been the cornerstone of both sides in this political season. It's really ridiculous.

I don't need to "deny" anything. It is your job to PROVE YOUR POINT. You haven't even tried.

Here's what you ORIGINALLY posted:

There's so much dissent in the conservative camp right now, that I'm starting to hope that GWB is re-elected just so I can see what happens.

Your evidence of "so much dissent" was ONE quote. From a magazine run by someone who left the Republican party years ago, who ran on the Reform Party ticket. I have asked you several times for quotes from mainstream conservative publications showing the split, and you have not provided them.

So c'mon, Scientist. Put your money where your mouth is. PROVE YOUR POINT. Don't sulk like a pissed-off teenager, give me evidence that you're right.

Another Thought: I would exchange comments with you if you weren't such a know it all prick.

Ah, so you'd provide the evidence I'm asking for if I asked nicely?

Please?

You've been preaching to me like you are some kind of political genius and it's really annoying.

No, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your claim. You haven't. I'm no political genius, but I do know a dodge when I see one.

I rarely address another posters comments here unless they address mine first (with the exception of Bill, because he's somewhat reasonable to talk to). I try to stick to the issues, and I don't attack people for having a strong (and knowledgeable) opinion.

You're a wonderful person. I take it you've never argued on the internet before?

Nothing you've posted here since your initial point has convinced me that you know anything about what is going on politically with conservatives.

I never tell someone that they are wrong, and I am right (unless it's a matter of factual data). You are so busy trying to be right about everything -- it's just boring.

Look, let me repeat it, for the last time: PROVE YOUR POINT.

Give me evidence other than a single quote from an obscure source of the conservative split you imply is happening. I've already adressed the fact that many conservatives who don't like Bush are going to hold their noses and vote for him anyway, I know, because I talk with MANY of them. I would imagine a similar attitude amongst Kerry voters. Is there a split there? No.

You can complain about my general meanness all you want. Hell, you can call my mother names if you'd like. Just prove your point.

I agree with Big Brother: Anon Scientist just engages in vague rhetoric and just lashes out at those who disagree. AS has not proven his point, and obviously cannot, or else he wouldn't spend so much time with his juvenile attacks.

Anon Sci writes that Hillary wouldn't stand a chance of even getting the Dem nomination. How naive...I'm certainly no fan of Hillary's, but all the polls showed consistently that Hillary could have had the nomination this year if she had wanted it, and had it easily over all of the other candidates. She trounced them in the polls, in fact.

Make no mistake, Hillary can have the nomination easily in 08 if she wants it...

As for her chances in the general election...I say never count a Clinton out...no one thought Bill could muster a real chance in 92...and she is building a formidable political machine quietly in the background.

So while I certainly wouldn't support Hillary in 08, I do understand how a Democract would consider that to be a very viable option, and might opt to vote for Bush in anticipating of getting to Hillary in 08.

Michael Moorisms?

I just use logic.

The 'same' intelligence wasn't just wrong it was manufactured in Feith's psuedo intelligence shop precisely because it fit the political needs of the policy makers to whom it was directly fed.

self-interest and competition determine diplomatic cooperation

which GHWB knew well and could exploit whereas GWB can't get to 1st base.

Could France and Russia have been brought onboard perhaps with promises of lucrative oil contracts and from the perspective of were we sit now would that have been a bad thing?

GWB failed to internationalise the solution to SH consequently we own it and can expect very little help while the current administration continues to call the shots.

That's not a very good situation to be in and we have only Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and rice and Powell and of course Rove to blame for it.

Exercise the synapses before pulling the lever on Nov 2nd, please.

postit writes:"Could France and Russia have been brought onboard perhaps with promises of lucrative oil contracts?"

How naive...France and Russia already had the lucrative oil contracts with Saddam...why risk a war? And we couldn't very well claim to liberate Iraq and at the same time hand over their oil fields to the French and the Russians, the very countries that enabled Saddam for all those years, to the detriment of his people.

Bush did build a great coalition to help in Iraq, the best he could have done.

All the rest of the talk is just that...empty meaningless talk. It's like saying that you could pitch better than Curt Schilling and would pitch no hit shutouts instead of those lousy games that Schilling pitched.

Oh, yeah, with regards to the first Gulf War, Bush 41 did indeed build a great coalition...too bad even that wasn't enough to meet Kerry's "global test." Let's also remember that Bush 41 had an easier time assembling such a coalition, because Saddam had invaded Kuwait and the obvious next target was Saudi Arabia.

But again, even that didn't satisfy Kerry...who would have left Saddam in control of Kuwait, on the march to Saudi Arabia, with a budding nuke program to boot.

Let's all remember: if Kerry had had his way through the years, the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain would still exist with all of the threat of nuke war; Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, but he would have control of Kuwait and probably Saudia Arabia...in essence, Saddam, a Hitler wannabe, would control the Middle East with all of its oil, and have nukes to boot. That's exactly where Kerry's weakness would have gotten us...

Bush did build a great coalition to help in Iraq, the best he could have done.

I wholeheartedly agree with the last part of this sentence which is why I will be voting for Kerry in November because George Bush's best simply isn't good enough!

Seems like we kinda can't compare Bush to Reagan... and I'm both a Bush and Reagan person, having voted for both of them....

But... Reagan didn't have to face 9/11. Bush has.. and I think Reagan would stand proud of how Bush has performed.

postit: your support for Kerry makes no sense...you admire Bush 41's Gulf War I coalition, yet even that did not satisfy Kerry...

The bottom line is this: Kerry would have not even had the guts to take out Saddam, and we all know that...if Kerry had had his way, Saddam would still be in power and the sanctions lifted, leaving him free to restart his WMD programs...under Kerry Saddam would be busy making WMDs like crazy, and Kerry wouldn't have cared...

Great commercial - living in Missouri, though, we will likely not see this on televison.

Then again, we won't see Kerry tripe on television.

..I'm certainly no fan of Hillary's, but all the polls showed consistently that Hillary could have had the nomination this year if she had wanted it, and had it easily over all of the other candidates.

Yeah, the polls also crowned Dean the victor pretty consistently until Kerry won. I don't think Dems are quite masochistic enough to nominate Hilary, knowing how many Republicans would show up at the polls just to vote against her.

I like Hilary just fine, but I think the Right hates her much more than the Left loves her.

-Fe Wm.

the Soviet Union and the Iron Curtain would still exist with all of the threat of nuke war

Do you guys have to sign some sort of Faustian pact when you get your little elephant lapel pins, that swears to constantly affirm that Reagan singlehandedly ended the cold war by wasting billions on SDI?

I just don't know when that crept into the conventional wisdom, and the way it's bandied about on Repub fora reminds me, spookily, of articles of faith.

Or Amway sloganeering.

-Fe Wm.

AT and BB: I didn't think I was being vague or evocative in my original post. And, AT, I don't lash out at anyone who disagrees with me -- that's your territory. I try to reach a reasonable concensus while you try to prove you are right - always. You're not.

My point is simple -- I have read many things in the past weeks that I see as dissent. Five things come to mind immediately:

1. The Tampa Trib's non-endorsement of Bush. They've endorsed every Republican since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
2. Scowcroft regarding Bush and Sharon.
3. American Conservative Magazine's split decision on Bush.
4. Robertson's no casualties statement.
5. Bruce Bartlett's statement: "if Bush wins, there will be a civil war in the Republican Party starting on Nov. 3"

All of these things represent disagreement or complete dissatisifaction with Bush.

irond_will: yes, the polls showed Dean with the lead until the Iowa primary, but Hillary's strength in the polls was far greater than Dean's, and Dean was the subject of a media hit job that brought him down, something that wouldn't have happened to dear old Hillary...plus, Hillary would not have made all the goofy statements that Dean made that caused him to be viewed as unelectable...bottom line: Hillary could have had the nomination easily, and could have it in 08 if Kerry doesn't win this year...anyone who thinks otherwise is only fooling themselves...

Add to the list:

1) Dwight Eisenhower's son
2) Sen. Lincoln Chafee
3) the New York Daily News,
4) The Detroit News
5) Chicago Sun-Times

on the up side for Mr. Bush, he's picked up Iran's endorsement

-Fe Wm.

Anon Sci: I thank you for your more complete list of supposed conservative disastisfaction with Bush, but it still is pretty thin...

One of your items is still regarding Pat Buchanan, and he isn't exactly representative of most conservatives...

Another of your items of proof concerns Pat Robertson, again, not the most credible conservative source...

Scowcroft is not a great representative of conservative thought either...while he certainly has more respect than Robertson or Buchanan, he more typifies a realpolitik philosophy rather than conservative philosophy...

As for Bruce Bartlett, I respect him but I disagree with him...and he's not that well known either...most people probably have never heard of him...

As for the Tampa Tribune, that's not exactly a bellweather...

So I'll give you credit for maybe 2 and one half of your citations, but again, that hardly represents some sort of trend...none of your sources exactly represent bellweathers for conservative thought...and given the millions upon millions of conservatives in this country, it would be unusual to not be able to find a few voices of dissension...but hey, I can find several among the Dem party as well...

irond_will: nice try with your list, but it still kind of sucks...

Since when has Lincoln Chaffee represented conservatives or mainstream Republicans...Chaffee is a very liberal Republican...

I know very many conservatives...just average folk...no famous names...but they are all jazzed up for Bush, and that counts with me far more than a few names dropped...

I could just as easily rattle off a list of Republicans who fervently support Bush, or a list of Dems who reject Kerry...

that swears to constantly affirm that Reagan singlehandedly ended the cold war by wasting billions on SDI?
Well, lets see. Reagan began the most aggressive peacetime build-up and modernization of a military force in history, and the USSR went bankrupt trying to match it, particularly since the possibility that SDI would work took the edge of their nuclear threat, and they had to focus on conventional systems, which they had always been behind the US in. The same effort that took a couple of percent of the US GDP swallowed the majority of theirs, and they still couldnt keep up. So even as a registered Independent, I'd have to say credit goes to Ronald Reagan above any other.

AT: Thanks for partial credit anyway. You didn't need to give me any really, but I appreciate the gesture of good faith.

John Irving

I agree with you -- Reagan is almost fully responsible for the breakdown of the USSR. I'm a liberal, and I have no problems admitting that.

Now listen here wing nuts, don't use my admission above as a reason to bash me. I'm a reasonable and logical liberal -- not a moonbat. I use this forum to learn.

um...me wonders?

Now that Drudge has broke the embedded reporters story that the explosives WENT MISSING PRIOR to the LIBERATION,

you know, the explosives the times didn't bother to verify the truthfulNESS of, the same LARGE STOCKPILE KERRY said George Bush FAILED to SECURE...

me wonders...

if the lying about a one-on-one at the UN might just be a little more significant than most gave Bill credit for?

huh? huh?

I'm not so certain about Mr. Reagan's grand role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. The short answer, IMO, is that the Soviet economy was a command structure, and entropy set in. It wasn't able to maintain its economic miracle that catapulted it from Europe's backwards cousin in 1917 to a world superpower in 1945.

Yes, Soviet military and prestige spending (e.g., their space program) played a role in this entropy. The Soviet economy spent around a quarter of its economic activity on its military, and around half of its manufacturing capability on the same.

The insistance on high military spending, however, was more institutional than reactionary. The Soviet method of dominance was primarily military in nature, and the Soviet modus operandi was largely defined by its military. It would probably be more accurate to say that the Soviet Union goaded the US into militarism more than the other way around.

No one seems to authoritatively know how the Politboro actually responded to SDI. I grew up in an SDI town, and it was pretty well known that it wouldn't work at all in the near future, and maybe never. Margaret Thatcher even famously remarked that it wouldn't work. Now, that being said, it's possible the Soviets were afraid of it - after all, our intelligence services consistently overestimated their capabilities; theirs might have done the same.

Reagan's greatest contribution towards the acceleration of the demise of the Soviet Union was his embrace of Gorbechev, glastnost and perestroika. These programs may have worked to ameliorate the flaws in Soviet system if started under, say, Khrushchev, but by the time Mr. Gorbechev took over, everything was too far gone to take even a minor shock.

In short, I find the triumphalism over the bloated Defense budgets of the 1980s misguided.

-Fe Wm.

Peapies,
If what that embedded reporter says is true (so far NBC has nothing online), than how come the WH says the DOD just found out about it? If we inspected upon invasion, found out the weapons were gone, and moved on how come the Pentagon has to look into it now? Why didn't they just say, "Oh yeah, those were gone when we got there. We checked."?

They're looking to construct a narrative. The Jerusalem Post has it that the explosives were still there, seal intact, in the aftermath of the invasion, yet the site was not secured:

At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said US-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. Thereafter the site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, also speaking on condition of anonymity.

-Fe Wm.

October surprise?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106

- More like a smoking AK-47....wonder if O'Donnell will be able to scream this one down.....

Did someone say logical liberal?
High taxes=revenue.
Universal Healthcare is affordable.
Spending $11,000 per student nationwide is not enough.
Howard Dean a viable candidate
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton speaking about integrity.
John Kerry has a clear message.

That's Some logic

- Heres a more complete article on the Amazing disapearing weapons stockpile...NBC hasn't made any official releases yet but the embedded reporter is named.....
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2004/october/1026_iraq_explosives.shtml

- If those FBI papers weren't typed on a 1971 IBM and Bill Burkette isn't involved then this could end up being the "Oktober suprise"...

- Would it be possible for Chris Mathews to get his nose any further up Kerry's ass...Guess he misses the heady days of working for the peanut farmer.....

Iron_Will:
Yes, the USSR's weapons development and procurement was institutional, but it was also reactive at the same time. It was institutional because they were paranoid and had a major inferiority complex. This also is what made it reactionary (responding to what we did). President Reagan understood this and used it to our, and the world's, advantage. He knew they could not match us on quality, no matter how hard they tried. He used this in the procurement of our conventional weapons like the M-1, F-15, and the B-1, knowing they would have to respond with a significant increase in their conventional weapons expenditures. The added expense of trying to respond to SDI while responding to our conventional weapons upgrades was too much for their structured economy to handle. President Reagan knew this and exploited it to cause their demise. That was the real beauty of SDI.

http://www.nysun.com/article/3756

I need some help from the blogging community. I was laying in bed unable to sleep tonight, thinking about the election. I was watching Paula Zahn on CNN earlier this evening and she presented her audience with an online question. The question was, “do you think that Bill Clinton’s speech for Kerry made you more likely or less likely to vote for Kerry?” So it seems to me that if you like Clinton you would go with the more likely group and if you don’t you would go with the less likely group. When Paula got her results back it turned out that 90% voted that Clinton’s speech would make them more likely to vote for Kerry. Now this seems like an incredibly high percentage to me. I cannot believe for a second that this many people now like Clinton.

Then I looked back at the debates and the online voting that occurred there. I took part in some of that voting at several of the major network’s web sites. I was very surprised at the results. After the first debate I got feedback that Kerry had won by as much as 80% to 20% on some of the sites. That seemed like a large winning margin, but not out of keeping with the way that the debate went. I went back and voted again on those same web sites after the second and third debates when I knew that Bush had done much better. To my surprise, these web sites showed almost the same huge win for Kerry. Later, when the results came in from people who were polled about the debates by telephone, the spread for those who thought Kerry had won was much, much smaller.

The online web sites will not allow anyone to vote more than once. They obviously have some system of taking a voter ID and retaining it to prevent multiple votes. But I’m beginning to seriously wonder about how foolproof this system is? Does anyone know how such a system can be gamed? I know, for example, that there is such a thing as IP address aliasing. This means that you take the data packets from your computer and change their source address to a different source address. If the on line voting system uses the IP source address of the computer that sent it the vote as the identification for deciding if it will allow another vote, then one would be able to send multiple votes using IP aliasing. It seems conceivable to me that someone could have a program that did automatic IP aliasing along with automatic voting. You would then be able to point your program at the server that was counting the votes, enter the number of votes that you want to submit and tell the program to go. I’m just conjecturing here based upon some limited knowledge. If anyone knows enough about this subject to help, please do so.

It seems to me that by playing this game the democrats could gain a great advantage. The news networks announce the results of their on line polls on the air. People listening to those results then are effected in their own opinion. If their opinion is at odds with the great majority they will doubt themselves. If it is in keeping with the majority they are then more sure that they are correct. When the phone calls come in requesting their opinion, those results may then be effected also. As all of these polls hit the news, the opinion that the public has of their candidate is then also effected. These seems to me to be a perfect way to game the public. And with a program that could submit automatic votes, it would only take a few people with copies of that program to dominate on line political voting of all types. What do you think?

"That's Some logic"

Bryan: Why don't you go read this. There are perfectly valid points on both sides. The concerns from the Democrats are just as real and logical as yours, so don't be pretentious.

If the on line voting system uses the IP source address of the computer that sent it the vote as the identification for deciding if it will allow another vote, then one would be able to send multiple votes using IP aliasing. It seems conceivable to me that someone could have a program that did automatic IP aliasing along with automatic voting. You would then be able to point your program at the server that was counting the votes, enter the number of votes that you want to submit and tell the program to go. I’m just conjecturing here based upon some limited knowledge. If anyone knows enough about this subject to help, please do so.

Swaying online polls is old business and fairly easy. Rather than server-side IP tracking, most online polls rely upon clinet-side cookies for tracking. Clearing the cooking allows one to vote more than once.

The practice is generally known as "freeping," as it seems to have originated at FreeRepublic.com. Currently, it seems, they've been outnumbered by the Dems doing the same thing.

-Fe Wm.

John Kerry is the anti-Reagan: Kerry is weak, appeasing, against all use of military strength, thought that we couldn't defeat Communism and shouldn't even try, and tends to blame America first.

Kerry: the worst possible choice for a president in time of war.

Tilo -

The DNC and leftie bloggers ran campaigns to stuff the online polls, thinking it gives them an advantage. But what 80% winning margins really do is invalidate respect for those polls, much like the democratic process in Iraq was sneered at whenever Saddam Hussein won 99.7% of the vote.

Don't sweat it.

- Maybe the best thing to come out of this election, aside from a re-election of W, is the "outing" of the new brand of leftist National socialists that have infested the Democrap party. Maybe we could dub them the "Commucans". Communist American's. Except I hate to use the two words in conjunction no matter how accurate it is.....

Regarding IP aliasing and cookies...

Cookies are the most unreliable way to track previous voters, because as irond_will said, a cookie can be deleted and a new vote can be cast. So, the more reliable method is IP tracking.

"You would then be able to point your program at the server that was counting the votes, enter the number of votes that you want to submit and tell the program to go."

Tilo: I haven't seen this done, but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. The radio button field in the poll form (and usually the DB field) are set up to accept a binary answer -- yes or no, 1 or 0. So, what you are suggesting is a robot that does the following:

1. Populate an online poll form
2. Submit at vote
3. Change the IP address of the voting computer
4. Return to the online poll form, and repeat step 1

I don't believe the computer could be on a typical cable or DSL LAN because these IP addresses are usually assigned by a DHCP server.

Hmmm. Actually this seems like a lot of work for very little gain. In my opinion, the reason that online political polling is inaccurate is not because of fraud, but because of people voting from other countries.

"The DNC and leftie bloggers ran campaigns to stuff the online polls"

Bill: You've said this many times, but I haven't seen anyone here adequately explain how they've "stuffed" the polls. If you mean that the leftie bloggers told everyone to go vote, then how is that stuffing the poll? The rightie bloggers could just as easily recommend the same thing, which would balance the online poll.

But it seems to me that you are suggesting that the left is cheating. It's extremely difficult considering most online polls are now using IP tracking, and most computers in the U.S. are on cable or DSL which are assigned an IP address by the host. But assuming that a cookie is used, deleting a cookie can still be a daunting task for a normal computer user.

I'm sorry Bill, but things are not desperate enough to make a bunch of people learn how to mask their IP address or delete their cookies to sway an online poll that is essentially meaningless. Again, I point to votes from abroad as being the factor that makes these online polls useless.

some problematic quotes from above:
1. His international policies have been based on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by American armies
you can expect this from the disaffected Buchanon, but this isn't the entire base of Bush's stance. it's a hope, but the strength lies in what we know happens after people are liberated, not what their oppressors allowed them to say beforehand.

2. what did he do with that fabulous economy we left him. you mean the one that tanked three months into Bush's term? the one that encapsulated the most devastating bubble the markets have ever experienced, with $7 trillion lost? yeah, gimme the Clinton years. where jobs grew about on par with growth during the Bush 43 years.

3. Terrorism doesn't have an administration, a concrete location, or an organized set of ideals. So, if we wish to fight a war on terrorism, it's going to require more than just the U.S. forces... I don't think there are many countries in the world that would be willing to cooperate with Bush's administration, so for this reason, I'm voting against Bush. I really do care about fighting terrorism and tyranny, and in my opinion, this is the only way. it would suck to govern from such a belief, no matter how hard a GWOT might be; more than 5,000 dead in a matter of hours, and we stand by and do nothing because there is a mythical bar for a coalition that even Bush-detractors cannot agree on, except to make the bar higher? so no war, because it's too hard. prepare the bunkers, keep the planes on the ground, stock up on bottled water and brace for the next attack, folks! me, I prefer someone who will defend my freedom and not defer it to those who do little to secure their own besides appease.

4. The important thing for me is that after the election, no matter who wins, that we have a president that can truly bring the country back together again. We really do need a uniter, not a divider. Bush spent his first several months meeting with and working to establish relationships and your precious "consensus" with Democrats - we called it his "hug-a-Democrat-a-day" campaign. if so many vocal Dems weren't opposed to anything but a Dem WH, more would have gotten done. JFkerry won't be that man. because of the Dems' nihilistically self-serving behavior, Bush struggles to be that man.

5. Could France and Russia have been brought onboard perhaps with promises of lucrative oil contracts and from the perspective of were we sit now would that have been a bad thing? dude, you bribe the kids once, expect to have everything become a negotiation that ends in you emptying your pockets. someone above acknowledged that a key lesson from the Clinton years was that character mattered. let's stop parsing whether that means if you use the Oval Office for trysts with an intern behind your wife's back or if you are willing to lie or bribe to achieve your goals.

last but not least: postit's sloganeering: which is why I will be voting for Kerry in November because George Bush's best simply isn't good enough! doesn't need any commentary, really.

my two cents on AS/postit vs AT et al.: it must be the nature of being permanent dissenters, but AS and postit come across as snarky, condescending, and a few other things that make it unpleasant to engage you. you deserve respect as does everyone, and it is yours to throw away. but you don't deserve a position of authority, you earn it.

AS, I didn't read all 85 posts, but I had to stop after reading a couple of yours, re: Bush/Reagan/Conservatives.

I'm a dissenting rightist. Soft libertarian with conservative positions on certain issues (i.e. abortion). I don't like Bush's spending, but I accept that it's necessary. Wasn't Reagan criticized for deficit spending, too? Gee whiz, Wally.

Bush has my complete support, even if his policies don't. I don't have to agree with all of the specifics to see that he's serving my interests much better than Kerry ever could. Four more years of Bush does not bother me. No politician is perfect, nor will any politician represent my preferences perfectly. I accept that, which is probably why I'm not a bitter, self-loathing Democrat.

Bush does not scare me. The Republican who scares me is RUDY GIULIANI. Our front-runner for '08 does not believe in the second amendment.

P.S. Reagan isn't rolling over in his grave because of Bush, Reagan is rolling over in his grave because of KERRY. The same Kerry who dedicated his early political career to opposing the Reagan Revolution, and who now mentions Reagan in every single stump speech.

It's true that Bush is no Ronald Reagan. But who is? Honestly, you need to take a look back at the record. I think you'll realize that GWB really is the *successor* to Reagan. He's not a clone of Reagan, but he advances many of the same ideals that Reagan did.

The foreign policy similarities are striking. Replace "Communism" with "Islamic Fascism + Crazy North Koreans" and you have the same damn policy. But I guess things like SDI and pissing off Europe don't count in your world, right?

I'm tired of people who slagged on Reagan while he was alive now suddenly holding him up as an idol. In twenty years, you'll be pulling the same shit with W.

tee bee: Glad you put your two cents in, but I really don't give a sh*t about what you think. I have no other way to respond to you -- you are an arrogant know-it-all.

Examples of things an arrogant know-it-all would write:

* "precious 'consensus'"
* "hug-a-Democrat-a-day"
* "the nature of being permanent dissenters"
* "you don't deserve a position of authority, you earn it."

You have no clue. Permanent dissenter? I have beliefs different from yours, and this makes me a dissenter? People become unpleasant to engage when they make stereotypical comments about people they don't know anything about -- much like you are doing. If you want to voice opposition to my beliefs, then feel free to do so, but DO NOT engage in ad hominem attacks against me.

Textbook: The problem with GWB advancing many of the ideals that Reagan did, is that the enemy and the world is totally different. The same event in two different contexts can be both good and bad.

"In twenty years, you'll be pulling the same shit with W."

I voted for Reagan, and in 20 years, I will still be slagging W - ass.

Again, I point to votes from abroad as being the factor that makes these online polls useless

Even more likely seems the point that most people are unaware or indifferent to these polls, and that a high-traffic partisan site directing people to the polls have a disproportionate effect on the outcome.

This is to say, perhaps, that a dedicated Conservative would very likely not be privy to a poll on TheNation.com, while a dedicated liberal would be less likely to stumble across a foxnews.com poll, unless they were specifically directed to the poll.

And - yeah - I've seen discussion of cookie-deleting for poll-rigging on both Dem and GOP-oriented sites. A little digging at FreeRepublic.com or DailyKos.com will yield a how-to manual. I have no idea, though, what the actual effect of "stuffing" really is.

-Fe Wm.

I really don't give a sh*t about what you think. then several lines dealing with peripherals. right.

DO NOT engage in ad hominem attacks against me. look out there, you've tripped over my point:

1. of the impact of liberation;
2. the nature of terrorism and the need for a resolve to defend;
3. Clinton's "fabulous economy";
4. what constitutes a uniter and which candidate has demonstrated an interest it;
5. bribery as foreign policy.

your gripes with me?
* "precious 'consensus'"
* "hug-a-Democrat-a-day"
* "the nature of being permanent dissenters"
* "you don't deserve a position of authority, you earn it." semantics, but it should be pretty clear to anyone who has bothered to ready your posts that it's the last one that really bites you. why else proclaim to the blogosphere that you are an anonymous scientist?

so you respond, saying no ad hominem! NO ad hominem! yes, daddy; the problem is that it would really be a case of me doing as you say and not as you do.

tee bee: I'm only going to defend things I've said, not things other people have said.

MY FIRST QUOTE:

"Terrorism doesn't have an administration, a concrete location, or an organized set of ideals. So, if we wish to fight a war on terrorism, it's going to require more than just the U.S. forces. The war on terrorism is a war without neat boundaries. Realistically, we can't expect to have eyes and ears in every country in the world, so we need to coordinate our efforts with other countries. I don't think there are many countries in the world that would be willing to cooperate with Bush's administration, so for this reason, I'm voting against Bush. I really do care about fighting terrorism and tyranny, and in my opinion, this is the only way."

NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. I'm not pushing some overly liberal agenda, just my opinion.

MY SECOND QUOTE:

"The important thing for me is that after the election, no matter who wins, that we have a president that can truly bring the country back together again. We really do need a uniter, not a divider. There's only so long that our country can remain this polarized before it becomes a detriment to our advancement."

NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS. I'm conceding that no matter who wins, I think the most important thing is that we become less polarized. You have an issue with this? Is it too liberal to hope that our country can be less partisan?

What is your problem with these statements other than the fact that you have an opinion that is different from mine? I'm making my point, and you are busy trying to make me look bad for doing it. You started this volley of B.S. with me nutbag!

Sorry, for the name calling Bill, but the "daddy" sh*t really pissed me off.

"why else proclaim to the blogosphere that you are an anonymous scientist?"

tee bee: First, it's not a proclaimation, it's my handle. Second, I am a scientist, so why not? Third, Bill yelled at me a long time ago about just being anonymous. I didn't want to be anything but anonymous because I provide my real e-mail address, and I've had some right wing nutbags send some rather evil sh*t to me (This event is partly what brought about Bill's "Plea for Civility"). So, in an effort to remain anonymous, I changed my handle to "Anonymous Scientist" after a conversation with another member of this site -- we were talking about my profession. I'm not going to change my name now, because my handle is known.

AS, my original assessment of your foreign policy re: GWOT stands. because it's your opinion doesn't strengthen your argument, nor does it give me reason to agree. which is why I posted in the first place. re: NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS, you seem to be overly fixated on right and wrong as absolutes over discourse. that is, when they work for you. when they don't, it's all about opinions.

part 2 of your post - the quote you've taken out of order of both posting above and of my comment - you do nothing to engage my point. so you know my opinion; I'm not sure about yours, other than a significant pessimism about the state of the nation. with regard to my point and to your extended comments, people live with dissent every day. not a problem, but it makes it harder to take when wingers of any stripe get vocal, pessimistic, and are splashed across front pages and news soundbites. it gives people a skewed view of the world outside their door, and ranters tend to like that. squeeky wheel and all.

it's hard to accept that you are a scientist, given your difficulty with order and facts. such as apologizing to Bill, after your initial curse-enhanced garbage post, about my "daddy" comment, which came after that in my second post, when I'd been ordered to desist in the nonexistant ad hominim you'd imagined. you ignored my points in the original post, then respond to them out of order in the second, completely ignoring your quote from Pat Buchanon. so it will be hard for you to believe that I don't have any particular interest in arguing peripherals with you. you just don't have much of a way with discussions here. you say, I'm making my point, and you are busy trying to make me look bad for doing it. you're creating a situation that doesn't exist, and feeding it with the ad hominem you abhor. no one can make you look bad by revisiting things you have said. that's silly. they are your own words.

PS leaning on the all caps is goofy.

Thanks to all those who answered my question regarding the rigging of on line polls. First, let me say that I apologize for being off subject. I usually don't do it but I thought that this was important.

It seems to me that the posters here are a fairly savy group and they know that these polls are meaningless. But the networks still seem to think that the information is meaninful and they continue to bring it to their viewers. These viewers probably don't know what the people on this blog know and they may well consider the information as important.

Now regarding the method, I'm not sure that having an assigned DHCP address would prevent IP aliasing. Since the data is only being sent out and no return is expected or necessary, it seems like the assigned DHCP wouldn't necessarily be a problem. Furthermore, there are many people who have static addresses now. And beyond that there are many people who have access to the net without going through an internet service provider.

Anonymous Scientist had the right steps, as I see it, for cheating the system. But he thought that these steps would be manaul, and therefore way too much work. In my mind a program could do all of those steps. Let me say that I do not believe that the entire online form is returned to the server that is collecting the votes. I think a simple response is returned. A good network software engineer could produce such a program in a couple of weeks. Then the user would only have to point the program at the server, define the vote, define the number of votes that he/she wants to submit and hit enter - job complete.

Tilo: I was suggesting a robot (program), not a manual method.

tee bee: You win, K? You're smarter than me, and I'm not a scientist.

2107 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack

3271 http://www.777-blackjack.com
online blackjack
blackjack

6689 http://www.online-casinos-w.com
online casinos

2304 http://poker-online-a.6x.to

poker online

8203 Ttry playing online pokeronline.

3963

Kona Coffee
Starbucks Coffee
Jamaica Blue Mountain
Coffee

coffee maker
gourmet coffee
green mountain coffee
kenya coffee
organic coffee
specialty coffee
folgers coffee
coffee brewers
costa rica coffee
Tullys Coffee
Millstone Coffee
coffee grinder

http://www.coffee-delivered.com