More on swift boat veterans for truth

Here's a Media Matters (David Brock) report on Jerome Corsi:

While much has been written about the identity and history of John E. O'Neill
-- one of the authors of the forthcoming Regnery book Unfit for
Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (whose links in
the GOP go back to his days as "protégé of Nixon-era dirty trickster Charles Colson") -- little has been said about his co-author, Jerome R. Corsi, PhD.
• Corsi on Islam: "a worthless, dangerous Satanic religion"
• Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is
okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"
• Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are
Women-Haters -- it all goes together"
• Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't
John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were
Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"
• Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't
keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

Wow. These are some honorable combat veterans we're dealing with here.

Here's another Media Matters report.

Trash

Here's a link to the infamous Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement.

That's probably the most dishonest thing I've ever seen. Pay close attention to the Sunday talk shows this week and see who disowns the ad and who refuses to.

It's almost GOP convention time

And you know what that means:
Lefty protesters. The puppet people and their like.
Whenever I meet people from these groups, I advise them to protest in preppie clothing rather than something they found in the dumpster behind the Goodwill.

It looks like they finally wised up:

Organizers advise protesters not to wear masks, which are illegal at New York
City protests, and to find alternatives to all-black clothing. Khaki is less
intimidating, one group suggests. It will also let them blend in. "They won't
know who to arrest or pepper-spray just by looking. Plus, the crowd will look
much more like the average American instead of a marginalized gang of
malcontents -- not that there's anything wrong with that."

That's the strategy put forth by one activism website. I hope they all follow it, and maybe someone will pay attention to their protests instead of dismissing them all as anarchists (in reality, only about 1% of the protesters will be anarchists). The reason why marches like the Million Mom March were effective is because they presented a moderate front to a left of center cause (gun control).

McCain defends Kerry

In the Post today...

Tuesday's Olympic Qualifier

If the Olympics are embarrassing for the US, then Kerry goes up in the polls.

If they produce a swell of optimistic patriotism, then Bush goes up in the polls.

Score this one for Kerry!

The United States was beaten 95-78 Tuesday, just 10 days before its first
contest in the Athens Games. It was the most one-sided and embarrassing loss
ever by an American team comprised of NBA players.

Oil

Oil may hit $50 soon. That's what many market anaylists think:

U.S. light crude struck $44.24 a barrel midday, the highest since crude futures were launched on the New York Mercantile Exchange in 1983. It settled at $44.15 a barrel, up 33 cents on the day.

London's Brent crude followed suit, scoring $40.52 a barrel, a level not seen since the
run-up to the first Gulf War when it hit an all-time high of $40.95. It settled up 67 cents to $40.67.

"It's just up, up and away. There's no stopping it," said Edward Meir, an analyst at Man Energy, adding some brokers believed U.S. oil at $50 a barrel was no longer inconceivable.

Three things are apparently driving oil prices up:
1. Fear of a disruption in the flow due to instability near the source (hmmm...who caused that?)
2. Lack of spare capacity cause by:
3. Higher than expected oil consumption in China.

High gasoline prices caused the economy to "hit a soft spot" in June, according to Alan Greenspan. And while he's still optimistic about the future, today's events cannot be helpful.

Does this mean the economy issue could actually benefit John Kerry in November? Possibly. In fact, they could hit a political home run if they follow my plan:

1. Tie the economy to the war in Iraq. If oil prices are causing economic misery, it's Bush's fault. His meddling in the Middle East has disrupted the flow. It's beautiful. Poor foreign policy choices lead to domestic pain.

2. Continue to push independence from Middle Eastern oil. Mention Saudi Arabia quite a bit in your rherotic. Blame our inability to break the grasp of foreign oil dependency on Bush's close ties to Saudi Arabia and oil companies. In other words: blame high gas prices on Bush's cozy relationship with oil barens. Now there's a corporate conspiracy that I can get behind (because it's real).

Of course, running on gas prices could be dangerous for Kerry, since he has proposed a gas tax hike in the past. If they try to throw that on Kerry, make sure you pull out this quote:

In October 1986, when Dick Cheney was the lone congressman from energy-rich
Wyoming, he introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have caused the price of oil, and ultimately the price of gasoline paid by drivers, to soar by billions of dollars per year.
"Let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States," Mr. Cheney, who is now vice president, said shortly after introducing the legislation.

More on party hacks

Jordan made a post on party hacks that I think I concur with.

This paragraph is especially good:

Sure, we want to protect our integrity and come off as having something valuable to say, rather than just spewing party talking points. But ask yourself: who's really faking it: the contrarians or the party hacks? It's the hacks! Watch Crossfire some day. It's excruciating. You're not watching two people debate; you're watching them stumble over their respective party lines, never admitting the faults of their own, always spinning events in the favor of whichever party they represent. It's sickening, and it's so obviously phony that it's positively unwatchable. Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson are the honest ones? Please. Does Terry McAulife really think John Kerry is the perfect candidate? Of course not.

My argument wasn't really that contrarians were faking it; rather, I think it makes them feel big to bash both parties and be "independent". It's hip to be independent these days.

However, I'd disagree with this part:

As for "liberals," I think people like Paul and I rail against them simply because we don't agree with them, and we find them uselessly idealistic. In addition to disagreeing with the substance of liberal politics, we object to the style as well. Holding demonstrations, talking endlessly amongst themselves, never getting their hands dirty and working in the system so they can hold on to their self-righteousness--most of the liberals I encounter are guilty of all these things, and I have no use for them. When I was in Tulsa, a guy came into
the office to make phone calls. We told him what he was supposed to say and handed him a page containing the candidate's positions. He sat down to read them, and instead of making calls he spent an hour airing his grievences to one of our organizers. Rather than work for the best candidate in the race, he
preferred to keep his purity. On top of that, he wasted an hour that he and another person could be making calls to undecided voters. As long as there are idiots like that in the world, I'm going to expose them for what they are. That is intellectually honest.

That guy in Tulsa is a stubborn fool. Him aside, liberals are the ones fueling the resurgence of the Democratic Party right now. They're donating millions of dollars, working at the grassroots, and just generally being politically active. You're right, many of them sat on their hands in 2000. But right now they're a best weapon against the GOP. They're motivated and they're working hard. If we win in 2004, we'll owe it to them.

Message from the Government:

It's quite possible that many of you will die today in a horrific terrorist attack.

But please stick to your normal daily routine.

The annihilation of John Kerry

It's coming.

The first barrage of ads in the spring were just an effort to plant the seeds for this fall's campaign against Kerry.

Expect the attacks to come on a few fronts:

First, they'll try to undermine his military service, namely through crackpot groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Then they'll hit the cable news air waves with a barrage of talking points spinsters. Their main mission: to repeat the phrase "most liberal Senator" (an outright lie) and "flip flopper" over and over. You'll hear it so many times that you'll want to get sick.

The "most liberal Senator" thing has already stuck to Kerry. In fact, many Democrats actually believe it. It's not true, but I'm not sure there's much we can do to combat the charge. The news media refuses to actaully do any reporting.

The flip flopper charge is easier neutralize. Kerry's line about taking "nuanced positions" is good. People are tired of Bush's stubbornness. They want someone who is willing to shift with a changing environment.

Housing bubble

Just a thought: We all know the conventional reason for the spike in housing prices: low interest rates have driven up demand. But I'd like to offer an alternate hypothesis.

In my recent study of local budgets, I noticed that many localities have almost doubled their tax base in the last three years (Charlottesville and Fairfax County, for example). That's because when property values skyrocket, property tax collections skyrocket with them.

I'm wondering - is there pressure on assessment officials to pump up property values? Think about it. After the recession of 2001, state tax revenue plummeted. The localities were often stuck with the bill or forced to raise taxes. Wouldn't it be easier to just let property values creep up to raise the extra revenue?

I know this sounds like a conspiracy theory. I'm just throwing it out there. Surely, during times of fiscal crisis, there is pressure (whether it's implied explicitly or implicitly) on assessment officers to deliver helpful numbers.

The process of assessment always struck me as sort of arbitrary anyway.

Why do I bash Democrats/liberals?

Most of the time I just say what I believe, but I wonder if there's more to it. I wonder if I just don't want to feel like a partisan hack.

I mean, everyone has problems with their own party. But some people might point to amount I complain about my own party (vs complaining about the GOP) and suggest that I join the Republican side.

It's not that simple. I love the Democratic Party. I'm socially VERY liberal. My economic views tend to be fairly moderate. On issues of war, I'm fairly hawkish (but I'm a realist). Where does that put me? Not in the GOP...

Anyway, back to the partisan hack thing. I think alot of political pundits try to avoid establishing themselves as strict partisans, because (1) they lose credibility if they appear to be working for one side or the other and (2) because it's just more interesting to read contrarian opinion.

Take Paul Krugman, for example. I used to love this guy. In 2001 and 2002, he seemed to be the only person in America willing to criticize George Bush. He was a rebel who dared do what others would not. Now he just seems like a blind partisan - a member of a million man echo chamber reciting tired cliches about the Bush administration.

Anyway, Atrios has a bit on the subject of partisan hackery:

One thing it's important to remember with all of these people - their public
personas, their public writings, are to a great degree a pose. The only way to
hold onto your reputation as being something other than a partisan hack is to
make sure to provide enough public statements to back that up. Similarly those
who really are supposed to be partisan hacks are only "allowed" a few chances to
stray from the reservation, particularly on the conservative side of things.
Ostracism from the movement can be quick and painful.

Incidentally, he's bashing Mickey Kaus in this post. Kaus (for those of you who don't read him) plays anti-partisan hack roll to a T.

No bounce?

The CNN/USAToday poll doesn't show a bounce.
In fact, that poll has Bush up 50-47 among likely voters.
The good news? Kerry's favorability is at 58%.

The Rasmussen Daily robot poll shows a 4 point bounce for Kerry.

Democrats using xenophobic appeals?

Sure, and it's disgraceful. Are we really going to run on "Those foreigners over there don't deserve those jobs. We do. We're better than them."

I'm fairly certain that this approach will work. Politically, it's ingenious. Right now, blue collar swing voters resent that fact that their jobs are going overseas. Maybe they have the right to be resentful, but politicians shouldn't use the anger of the jobless towards foreigners as an election strategy. Morally, it's pretty suspect.

What are Democrats going to do to bring these jobs back to America? Restrict trade? Unlikely. There's nothing we can do.

Kerry's firmly committed to free trade. His economic advisers are straight out of the Clinton Administration. So why the rhetoric about the "jobs going overseas"?

It works. But it's wrong.

Another take on the convention

The Democratic Convention had a net negative effect on Kerry's standing in the highly predictive Iowa Political Stock Market.

Buckwheat is shot

These two SNL skits sum up today's media (and they were written in 1983!):

http://www.angelfire.com/mo/stewie/thingy/buckwheat1.html
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/stewie/thingy/buckwheat2.html

The election starts SOON

That's because absentee balloting begins in earnest in two months in some states. In 2000, George Bush held a huge lead over Al Gore throughout October - and therefore won the absentee ballot voting by a considerable margin. Check out this post over at Mydd.com, they've got graphs and stuff.

I suppose absentee ballot voters could just tend to be Republicans. I've never seen any data on it.