SamSaid!

THE ECONOMY

     As a former debater, I enjoyed the enchanges between Kerry and Bush. Actually, they weren't debates, they were just two guys delivering well rehearsed speeches in response to unrelated questions. You know, “ask any question you like, and I'll give you my prepared answer on my subject”  Bob Schiefer asked a question about flu shots, which Geo Bush answered. In his turn, Kerry went on and on for his 90 seconds and never came within a country mile of flu shots. Never even mentioned them. Debate?? Not quite.

     I wonder who is giving advice to Bush and Kerry on these weighty questions. .On the state of the Economy, especially Prez Bush. Is it so tough to outline the health of the Economy?

     .  The rate of inflation is low.  Good news

     .  Interest rates are very low.  Good news

     .  Unemployment at 5.4% is low– lower than in the Clinton years.  Good News

     .  Mortgage rates are low.  Good news

     . Home ownership is at an all time high.  Good news

     . More American are actively at work than ever before. Good news

     .  The economy igrowing at 4.5 – 5% per year.  Good news

     Kerry rides one number  — the claim of the loss of jobs over the past 3 years  –  using payroll data that omit 1.5  – 2 million Americans who work out of their homes and do not appear in payroll statistics. I think the state of the economy is a “good news” message for Geo Bush, and a few simple uncomplicated numbers tell the story very well.

DEBATE

     John Kerry is a good pitch man. To his supporters, he is articulate; to his non-supporters, he is glib. Either way, he is a word merchant who is comfortable in the environment of debate. He did well last week.

     Debate is an interesting forum and I speak from first hand experience. I remember when the Debate Profs asked us to argue BOTH sides of an issue, and graded us on both sides. That's why John Kerry is a natural. And by the way, our issues were not softball pitches  –  like capital punishment, abortion, age limit on drinking,  compulsory military training, and movie ratings.

     There is a huge difference between debating and decision making. That's where I have a problem with Kerry. Not just a problem, several problems.

     First of all, Kerry is in love with the vertical pronoun. I  –  I  –  I–, on and on. Not a good sign. I think he has a tough time getting from I to we. I guess he figures that if he is elected, Congress will just go away.

    Second, Kerry has a very soft record on defense. Over the past 10-15 years he has consistently voted against major bills that would have upgraded our military programs. If he now has become a hawk, it must be a chicken hawk. I am not comforted by his obvious vacillations about Iraq  — where he has both supported and opposed the war, and has both voted for and against war measures. His track record on defense is highly suspect. Or, maybe that is just an indication of debating skills. He can have it both ways. He's never wrong, just misunderstood. Sure!

     Third, and possibly the most important, he is far too “internationalzed” for my tastes. Presumably he thinks that he can flip a switch, call his friend Jacque Chirac, bring in those big UN tigers, hold a big meeting, invite the terrorists, and make a deal to end the fanatical bombings and attacks.  Oh, and also delay making decisions pending the satisfactory “solution” to these global terrorist problems. He thinks that the terroists are a misguided bunch of ragheads that can easily be controlled if not converted to civilized behavior. He just refuses to see a world wide war for what it is.

     What better a forum for Kerry than the UN? There he can display his debating skills while seeking still another empty resolution. As Rome learned, Nero “fiddled while Rome burned”.

     Debating enables you to have it both ways. That's where debating and decision making part company. When push comes to shove, Kerry is a debater. That's not good enough for me.     

BOGUS

     After 2 weeks, Dan Rather and CBS have finally fessed up to running a news article based on phony documentation. Rather is a long time experienced reporter and he knows very well that sources of “news” items need to be authenticated. And that should be especially true when the story itself is attackiing the President of the United States. Yet Rather and CBS squirmed and wiggles on a skewer for two weeks before concededing that they were wrong. Notice that they say that they can't confirm the authenticity of the documents  –  not that the documents were bogus.

     The documents referred to are letters referring to Geo Bush's service in the national Guard many years ago. And it is clear that the letters are copies  — bogus copies made specifically to discredit the President. It isn't difficult to break the code in Rather's reporting. Having the chance to run an exclusive story that bashes George Bush, Rather just couldn't resisit the temptation to rush ahead  –  shortcutting the process of investigation and authenticating. Rather believed the authenticity of the documents because he WANTED to believe that they were genuine. Rathrer's tilt to the left is well know, and his antipathy to the Bushes (#41 and 43) is likewise common knowledge. Having the chance to discredit George Bush was simply more than Rather could handle and and he probably salivated over the prospect of sticking a voodoo pin into George's hide.

     Is the big media (Rather et al) biased?  Is the Pope Catholic? Did Dan just make a “mistake”? 

     Sorry Dan, I just don.t buy this innocent “mistake” idea. You just tripped over your own bias !

100

     Circa 1980, an author named Michael Hart wrote a book entitled “A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History”. His list is comprised of 100 famous people in all of the major disciplines worldwide  –  Religion, Military, Political, Medical, Philosophy, Education, Science,  the Arts, etc., etc. To give you an idea, Einstein ranked 10th, Martin Luther 23rd, Alexander the Great 33rd, Julius Caesar 65th, and Pablo Picasso 98th.  Benjamin Franklin and Leonardo Da Vinci were no better than runners-up. It is interesting, however that the first five were Muhammad, Jesus Christ, Isaac Newton, Bhudda, and Confucius. Such is the power and influence of religious thought and leadership. Four out of the top five.   Hart's choice as # 1 was Muhammad, and this reasoning was based on the founding of a great religion, the authorship of the Koran, and the secular leadership of an empire that would eventually stretch from Indonesia to the Atlantic Ocean. Hart's judgment and evaluations are not based on “greatness”  — only on “influence” on the course of human events over 3000 years.   

     Without passing judgment on Mr. Hart and his thought process, it is safe to say that Muhammad would roll over in his grave if he were to become aware of the actions of his modern day Imams, Mullahs, Ayatollahs, etc., and what they are doing in his name and the name of Allah and Islam. Most certainly he would not sanction the mindless slaughtering of innocents by the suicidal fanatics presuming to act in his name. Make no mistake, modern day terrorism is being carried out in the name of Islam. And until the modern day Muslim religious leaders quit teaching violence, murder and suicide, religious terrorism will not cease. We cannot persuade them of a different course, and neither can we threaten those to whom death is some kind of glorious event. Foreseeably, we don't have to many options. As long as the terrorists keep coming our only real choice is to “catch'em and kill'em”. Our bleeding heart left wing do-gooders rationalize some sort of “dialogue and compromise”, and in so doing they prove that their collective heads are buried very deep in an ostrich sand dune.

     Some Islam clerics and lay persons have spoken out to condemn the killings and terrorist acts committed in the name of Islam, but they are but a straw in the wind. It will take the big dogs in the middle east to throw cold water on terrorism, but that doesn't look too likely forseeably.

     George Bush is criticized for his “take no prisoner” attitude toward the terrorists. But no one with a functioning brain has come up with a better idea considering the opposition mind stet and the well spring of more terrorists supposedly acting in the name of Muhammad, Allah and the Koran. Indeed it will be a long battle.  We may as well accept it.

JOBS

     With just 2 months to go, three issues have taken the forefront in the Presidential campaign  –  the Iraqi War, taxes, and jobs. To be sure, there is an assortment of cultural issues, but these are the big three. The War can be an emotional matter to many and taxation is the classic battle over bigger and bigger spending by the governemnt. But “jobs” is a very personal matter to many Americans.

     When our candidates  — Kerry and Bush — talk about jobs, it sounds as though they plan to wave a magic wand and thus create more jobs, or, alternately, wave the wand to prevent the “loss” of jobs. The plain fact is that they can't to either one. They can put policies in place that will enhance job creation by stimulating the economy, but that's about the extent of it. Bush has placed his bet on reducing taxes so as to stimulate spending and investment. Kerry leans toward raising taxes and using the money on government projects of one kind or another. Taking tax money to spend on government projects is not creating jobs. It is more like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Pure and simple, job creation is a function of the private sector  — and that is where tax policy becomes of critical importance. Economists may argue hot and heavy over the effects of tax policy and interest rates, but one thing is for sure  —  successful businesses hire people, unsuccessful businesses do not.

    The Democrats raise a major fuss over “out-sourcing” which is just a different version of subcontracting. If they can legislate against out-sourcing, what about “in-sourcing” where foreign owned businesses increase employment in the US? Does it only work one way?

     Our economy is enormousely complex and is far beyond the control of any individual. Job creation is the by-product of sensible economic policy. Any self-serving declaration of “creating jobs” is a sham. When people are concerned over a potential job loss, it is unconscionable to falsely assure them of a safety in a political refuge.

GREATNESS

     The eloquent speakers at both the Democratic and Republican conventions dearly love to use the word “great” or some derivative. Great father, great leader, great president , great American,  —  great, great great. Frankly, I have a hard time applying that term to either John Kerry or George Bush. It seems to me that “greatness” is something that comes along once in a while, and only time will tell whether the label fits.

     Every time I hear a reference to a great President, I think of Harry Truman. Most historians will say that Harry ranks in the top five of the 43 Presidents of the USA. Harry was not an accomplished or eloquent speaker, and neither did he qualify as an Ivy League intellectual with an IQ high enough to qualify for Mensa. But Harry qualified as a “Great” President because he made some very big decisions, and almost without exception he was right. Harry made decisions that changed the world. Not bad for a mediocre politician who was a last minute pick by FDR to replace the discredited Henry Wallace as VP. In this day and age, the hotshots in the mass media would have a field day lampooning and discrediting the plain talking man from Missouri.

     George Bush is not a great speaker and is not some kind of high brow intellectual. But he is a leader and decision maker. While I stop short of equating George to Harry Truman, I would say that a lot of the media spokesmen couldn't spot a great leader if they tripped over him. It is amazing how so many of them are enamored with John Kerry whose most decisive word is “maybe”. He reminds me of the Chairman who calls a meeting of 10 people to make a decision. If the vote is 10-0, he will manfully rise to the occasion and make the decision; if the vote is 9-1 or 8-2, he will squirm, wiggle, equivocate and then check with Ted Kennedy.   

     I think George is made of sterner stuff. 

ERROR

     In an earlier publication (Politically Motivated), I referred to a WSJ article by John O'Neill, entitled “We are NOT GOP shills. Unfortunately, I dated the article for 6/27/04 when it should have been just yesterday  –  8/27/04. Sorry.

POLITICALLY MOTIVATED

    There is a major furor over the TV ads being run by an organization called The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The ads are being vehemently denounced by Democrats (and a few others) for both content as well as being “politically motivated”. Some time back I opined that Kerry would rue the day when he decided to make the centerpiece of his campaign his Vietnam military service. Now the chickens have come home to roost.

     “Politically motivated”? Anyone with a civics IQ over 20 knows that the ads are politically motivated. Of course they are. But when John Kerry trotted out his Swift Boat comrades to aid in his cause and embellish his heroics, that too was politically motivated. How could you describe it otherwise? The problem is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth see Mr. Kerry's service in a vastly different light  — and to make matters worse, they are throwing Mr Kerry's own words right back in his face, quote by quote. That's the worst kind of dirty trick.

     I don't think that the SWVT men are concerned all that much about a band aid Purple Heart or a phantom soujourn into Cambodia. But I think it rankles them no end that Kerry viciously condemned his military comrades in open public testimony that he no doubt now regrets. He simply cannot deny what he said.

     The leader and spokeman for the SWVT is John O'Neill, who has written a book entitled “Unfit for Command”, and his comments echo those of more than 250 other Swiftees who served in Vietnam at the same general time as Kerry. Naturally, the Democrats  blame the Republicans and George Bush for sponsoring and funding the “Swiftees” and their TV ads. On Friday 6/27, Mr O'Neill authored an article, “We are NOT GOP shills”, which appeared on the Op-Ed page of the Wall Street Journal. It should be required reading for all Americans. One key paragraph commands attention –  “Mr Kerry grossly exagerrateed and lied about his abbreviated 4 month tour in Vietnam. He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, and daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command. So, once Mr. Kerry decided to apply for commander in chief's job with a war hero resume, we felt compelled to come forward to explain why he is “Unfit for command”. The article is recommended reading   –  better than the left wing spin of the news media.

     Mr. Kerry opened Pandora's box. His choice. And now he wants George Bush to stop the ads. But the SBVT folks have their own agenda. Kerry will just have to stew in his own juice.     

HANDLERS

     John Kerry's handlers are bound and determined to make him a super war hero. But the Democrats aren't very skilled at transforming a chicken hawk into a war eagle. First there is the Cambodia fiasco where Kerry is pictured as a dashing Errol Flynn type of warrior whose acts of bravado are “seared” in his brain. Now it appears that he wasn't even in Cambodia and may not even know where it is. Excuse?  Well, the rivers over there are not very well mapped or posted by name.

     Then to suggest Kerry's relative disinterest in Intelligence matters, Kerry was criticized for missing a large number of meetings of the Intelligence Committee of which he was a member. In order to change the tempo, Kerry's people pointed out that he served as the Vice-Chairman of that Intelligence Committee. Turrns out that the Vice Chairman was BOB KERREY, not John Kerry. Wrong guy. Reminds me of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. My guess is that Kerry's handlers will say that he was offered the Chairmanship and turned it down.

     Kerry has a tough time retracting or apologizing for his anti – military stance during and after the Vietnam period, and throughout his 17 years in the Senate. Can you image a guy who voted to support the Iraqi war, voted not to fund it, and then bragged about it? Trying to sell a new image won't be easy. He just is not believable. He makes me very uncomfortable.

ATTACK ADS

     John Kerry and his advisors have decided to make his Vietnam experience the centerpiece of his campaign. A first class, honest-to-goodness war hero  — ultra strong on defense. Forget about him throwing away his medals (or whatever they were) and accusing his comrades of atrocities, just look at the photos with his Swift Boat buddies. It makes a pretty picture even after 30-40 years even though part of it has been embellished for maximum political effect.  

     But now some other Vietnam vets have produced another picture of John and the War, and their TV ad is being loudly denounced as a despicable “attack ad”. So let's get this straight. Kerry's record is being gussied up to make him look good, and that is OK. On the other hand, a group of Vietnam vets paint a different picture, and this is an attack ad. What is good for the goose is obviously not good for the gander.

     Those of us who were not in Vietnam cannot personally vouch for the truth, and there are varied versions of a very messy affair. But Kerry opened the door and literally asked for response considering his very spotty record during and after that war. Is he really in a position to claim “foul”? Let's say that whatever happed 30-40 years ago is of relative unimportance. Re-writing history is something else. But what about Kerry running to Central America to encourage Danniel Ortega nd the Sandinista Communists? Was that just another aberration?

Ask yourself the question  –  if Kerry became President and we capture Bin Laden, what do you think he would do with him?? Turn him over to the UN? Do you have a better idea?