Category: Politics – Politicians – Government in Action

More Old Presidents

REVISED (ADDITIONAL PHOTOS)

Several days ago I posted some photographs of Abraham Lincoln, including an early daguerreotype (taken when he was 31 or 32 years old) that looks entirely unlike the image of Lincoln we carry in our minds. That led me to remember the collection of presidents’ images at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery in Washington, D.C. (The Portrait Gallery is closed for major renovations but much of the collection is available for viewing online.) Here are two priceless photographs from the Portrait Gallery’s Hall of Presidents:

Daguerreotype of John Quincy Adams (1767-1848, president 1825-29), made in 1843 when Adams was 76 years old.

Daguerreotype of Martin Van Buren (1782-1862, president 1837-41), made ca. 1856 when Van Buren was about 74 years old.

Daguerreotype of Zachary Taylor (1784-1850, president 1849-50), with his aide and future son-in-law William S. Bliss, made ca. 1847 when Taylor was about 63 years old.

There’s a lot more from Presidential Hall here.

Message to Democrats: Get Over It

Democrats keep saying things like this: “Republicans are nasty.” “Republicans don’t fight fair.” Well, there’s plenty of that going around in all political camps. The real problem with Democrats is that they think they’re still supposed to be in the White House and in charge of Congress.

Well, the fact is that we’re in a Republican era that began as long ago as 1968, when Nixon beat Humphrey, even though Wallace took a lot of votes that probably would have gone to Nixon. (Don’t start on that racist crap, again, there’s a lot more to the South than race — and always has been.) Republicans have held the White House ever since, except for Carter’s term, which he owed to Nixon’s disgrace, and Clinton’s two terms, which he owed to Perot’s candidacy. Moreover, Republicans began to claw their way back into congressional power in the 1980s, when they held the Senate for several years. They regained full control of Congress in the election of 1994 — ten whole years ago.

So, it seems that Democrats are suffering from a bizarre form of near-term memory loss. They remember 1933-1969, when they held the White House for all but Ike’s two terms. (And what kind of Republican was Ike, anyway?) They mistakenly thought their White House hegemony had been restored with Clinton’s ascendancy, but Clinton was really an accidental president. Democrats vividly remember having controlled both houses of Congress for most of the 62 years from 1933 to 1995, and they keep deluding themselves that they will retake Congress in the “next” election.

Now Democrats are clinging to their old memories and crying “nasty” and “unfair” whenever they lose to Republicans. It’s childish behavior. Get over it!

The Politics of Gun Control in Action

Reuters — yes, Reuters — tells us:

More Smoke Than Fire as U.S. Assault Gun Ban Ends
By Michael Conlon

CHICAGO (Reuters) – A 10-year-old ban on assault weapons expired across the United States on Monday with a political firefight but no apparent rush to rearm by gun fanciers….[Fancy that! I’ll bet he thought every “gun fancier” would buy a dozen semi-automatic rifles and start shooting people from tall buildings.]

In Tennessee, at Nashville’s Gun City USA, firearms instructor Robert Schlafly said there had been no upsurge in orders or interest, adding it may be too early to tell what will happen.

In the long run, he predicted the end of the ban will drive down prices since new inventories will appear on the market.

“To me the ban was just a way for (former President Bill) Clinton to get more votes,” Schlafly said. “It’s all politics. It didn’t hurt the firearms industry but people were mad.”…[Darn tootin’. They thought there was a Second Amendment lying around here somewhere.]

In Washington, Democratic presidential challenger John Kerry accused President Bush of choosing “powerful and well-connected friends” [like the average citizen?] over police officers and families by secretly backing the gun lobby in its opposition to a renewal of the law.

Now, he said, “when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 [still illegal, try again: ED] or some other military assault weapon, they’re going to hear one word: ‘sure.”‘ [And when a homeowner who wants to defend himself from criminals and terrorists goes to a gun show or gun store somewhere in America, he’s going to hear one word: “Sold.”]

Bush spokesman Scott McClellan called Kerry’s remarks “another false attack” and said the best way to stop gun violence is to vigorously prosecute gun crime. [How true! A law has yet to deter a weapon.]

Hide the Children

Too good not to post:

No, it’s not John Goodman in his “West Wing” role as Glenallen Walken, the wild-eyed “cowboy” Republican Speaker of the House who became acting president (and made a right good job of it):

Sen. Kerry’s Vague Strategy of Denial

From a interview in the latest issue of Time:

KERRY

We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror….

TIME

Is the President being as aggressive as he should be in dealing with insurgent strongholds in Iraq?

KERRY

At this moment in time, I’m not sitting with the generals in front of me for the full briefing. I’m not going to comment on that right now. That is up to the President. It’s his decision to make. But I will tell you this, that we’ve gone backward in Iraq, and we’ve gone backward on the war on terror. I’m not President until Jan. 20, if America elects me. I don’t know what I’ll find in Iraq….

TIME

As President, who would be the first person you would phone?

KERRY

I’m not going to say one, two, three. I will tell you that I have 20 years of experience on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee….

TIME

You can’t be more specific?

KERRY

I know exactly what I’m going to do, but I’m not the President today….

TIME

Will you be more specific about timetables for getting troops out?

KERRY

I have said that I have a goal to be able to bring our troops out of there within my first term, and I hope to be able to bring out some troops within the first year. But what’s important here is that I can fight a more effective war on terror….

TIME

How would you go about winning the war of ideas in the Middle East?

KERRY

What I intend to do is to put in play the economic power, the values and principles, the public diplomacy, so we’re isolating the radical Islamic extremists and not having the radical extremists isolate the United States. It means bringing religious leaders together, including moderate mullahs, clerics, imams -— pulling the world together in a dialogue about who these extremists really are and how they are hijacking the legitimacy of Islam itself….

TIME

Our latest poll indicates that terrorism has become the No. 1 issue for voters.

KERRY

I will fight a more effective war on terror, and over the next weeks the American people will see the phoniness of the Bush efforts….

TIME

Are you surprised at the bounce Bush got out of his convention?

KERRY

I don’t know what you’re talking about in terms of the Bush bounce….

The part about “dialoguing” is preciousness itself:

It means bringing religious leaders together, including moderate mullahs, clerics, imams -— pulling the world together in a dialogue about who these extremists really are and how they are hijacking the legitimacy of Islam itself.

That’ll really impress the Islamofascists. No wonder liberals scare me. Then there’s this:

[O]ver the next weeks the American people will see the phoniness of the Bush efforts.

Is he predicting a major terrorist attack, or positioning himself to say “I told you so” if there is one? Unfair on my part? I don’t think so. The man is desperate. As I said here, “Absent a terrorist attack, the election is now Bush’s to lose.”

The Character Issue, in a Nutshell

The last paragraph of a piece by Sydney Smith at Tech Central Station nails the character issue:

Does it matter that George Bush is an alcoholic? Would it matter if John Kerry has post-traumatic stress disorder? It depends on how well they handle it. We know that Bush is an alcoholic, he freely admits it. And that admission is the first and foremost step in the successful treatment of any mental illness. We don’t know if John Kerry left Vietnam with lasting psychic wounds. He only evades the question when asked. And that evasion is the most disturbing aspect of the Teresa Heinz-Kerry anecdote [about Kerry’s nightmares]. It suggests that he has yet to come to terms with the question himself.

If you can’t deal with yourself, you’re ill-equipped to deal with the world.

Kerry for King of the World?

You may have seen this poll result (as reported by James K. Glassman at Tech Central Station):

At last, some good news for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry!

A new poll, using a huge sample of 34,330 people, shows Kerry is favored by 26 percentage points over the incumbent president, George W. Bush.

The survey, which has Kerry leading, 46 percent to 20 percent, marks an incredible turnaround from the latest Time Newsweek and Gallup polls, which have Bush up by between 7 and 11 points.

Only one problem for Kerry. The new poll, by a public opinion group called GlobeScan and the University of Maryland, did not survey Americans. It surveyed people in 35 foreign countries, from Mexico to Germany to Thailand. And, unfortunately, for Kerry, these folks won’t be voting in the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 2.

Kerry should take his act on the road — the road to Bali.

Too Pure for My Taste

William Watkins at Southern Appeal flaunts his ideological purity, after committing a logical flaw. First, the flaw:

There’s a good op-ed in the Washington Post on Cheney’s recent remarks that a vote for Kerry would increase the likelihood of another terrorist attack. Here’s the quote:

“It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on November 2, we make the right choice. Because if we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we’ll get hit again, that we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States,” Cheney said.

I forget just who was in office on 9-11? Certainly not Bush and Cheney. It must have been Clinton.

The point isn’t who was in office on 9/11/01, it’s who’ll be in office on 1/20/05, Bush or Kerry. The latter happens to be an infamous waffler, voter against defense programs, ardent mulitlateralist, and advocate of last-ditch self-defense. But that doesn’t seem to register with Watkins.

Now, for a bit of supercilious ideological purity, Watkins says:

I certainly won’t be voting for John Kerry, but this latest attack is yet another reason in the column of why I won’t be voting for Bush either.

Oh, let me guess, he’ll vote for someone from the Libertarian Party or the Constitution Party. If Watkins lives in California, where his employer (The Indpendent Institute) is based, that’ll make a big difference. It will reduce Kerry’s claim on California’s electoral votes by exactly one popular vote. That’ll show that George Bush a thing or three.

A Health Care Plan for Geniuses Only

Madame Heinz Kerry displays her deep understanding of economics (from an AP story):

Teresa Heinz Kerry says “only an idiot” would fail to support her husband’s health care plan.

But Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, told the (Lancaster) Intelligencer Journal that “of course, there are idiots.”

Kerry’s proposal includes health care subsidies for children, the unemployed, small companies and more; and government assistance to insurers and employers that keep premiums for workers down.

…She says, “Only an idiot wouldn’t like this.”…

Only a genius (a Paul Krugman, for instance) would believe in a free-lunch plan like Kerry’s. Who will pay for the subsidies? Is “government assistance” like manna from heaven? What happens to the incentive of workers who are forced to pay premiums for other workers through higher taxes? How will “free” or subsidized insurance help to reduce the cost of health care? And what about “moral hazard”?

The Young Mr. Lincoln

Thanks to American Digest, I found an article by Claude N. Frechette, M.D., “A New Lincoln Image: A Forensic Study,” in which Dr. Frechette documents his authentication of an early daguerreotype of Abraham Lincoln.

Believe it or not — and I believe it after having read Dr. Frechette’s article — the following image is that of Abraham Lincoln in the early 1840s, when he was in his early 30s:

The next image, about which there was no controversy, is that of Lincoln in 1848 at the age of 39:

Finally, we see Lincoln in 1862 at the age of 53:

A Good Reason to Favor the "Ownership Society"

Gregory Scoblete, writing at Tech Central Station, calls it the “Market State”. Whatever you choose to call it, here’s what it’s all about, according to Scoblete:

Bush’s domestic agenda, allowing younger workers to direct the investment (of their own money) in Social Security, of portable pensions to follow a mobile work force, and reforming a cumbersome tax code, is specifically aimed at devolving responsibility for individual welfare from the State to the individual. He touts it as an “ownership society” but it could just as easily be called an “opportunity society” — under Bush’s vision, the government promises that all citizens will have the opportunity to advance themselves, regardless of station. That is a distinctly different promise than the traditional Nation State compact that guarantees your welfare by redirecting wealth from one population segment to another.

Even the President’s proposed spending initiatives — increased money to education, to child heath care, and to junior colleges — had one consistent, Market State theme: the State is responsible for laying the foundation for your well-being but ultimate success is up to you.

The unspoken corollary — intolerable to Democrats — is that if you fail, the State will have a very limited capacity to help you. Indeed, critics of Bush will decry this as a move designed to ultimately gut the welfare state. And they will be correct — it is. And it is vital.

Why is it vital? The answer is simple: It reduces (if it doesn’t eliminate) a phenomenon known to economists as “moral hazard”. Put simply, if you are sheltered from the consequences of your actions because you know that others will make you whole, you tend to take risks that you wouldn’t normally take. That is, you make bad decisions.

People who have to live with the consequences of their decisions tend to act prudently. They may still make mistakes (who doesn’t?), but they will learn from them and go on to do better the next time.

That’s not universally true, of course. There are addictive personalities. Some people can’t quit gambling, others can’t quit drinking, and still others can’t quit taking debilitating drugs. But that’s not most people.

Most people — if left to their own devices — can and will manage their lives quite well, thank you. They will, for example, save for their retirement and do a better job of it than the nanny state, which doesn’t save at all — it merely runs a giant Ponzi scheme whose collapse is written in the actuarial tables.

No, Dummy, That’s Not What He’s Saying

Ventriloquist and blogger Joe Gandelman’s nose for offensive politicking is getting a tad too sensitive. Now he suggests that this quote from a news story:

Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

Means this:

[I]f voters don’t vote for this administration — even if they support it on terrorism and Iraq but have other serious disgreements that cause them to vote for someone else — they’re risking the destruction of the U.S?

No. It means that if Kerry is elected, for whatever reason, his lackadaisical attitudes about war and terrorism will invite terrorists to attack us. Remember why bin Laden thought he could get away with 9/11, Joe? He thought we lacked resolve. Clearly, Kerry lacks resolve. He can’t decide whether he’s for the war in Iraq or against it. He can’t decide whether he’s for pre-emptive war or against it — though he seems to be against it more than he’s for it. Get the picture, Joe?

Actually, Joe got the picture, because he said:

[Cheney] was suggesting a vote against the GOP or for John Kerry means exposing the U.S. to a terrorist attack and massive bloodshed.

Joe somehow finds that offensive. I find it compellingly logical.

But What About Kerry’s Voting Record?

Jimmy Carter, in a letter to Zell Miller, dances around the core of Miller’s speech before the Republican convention, which was Kerry’s record on defense issues:

You seem to have forgotten that loyal Democrats elected you as mayor and as state senator. Loyal Democrats, including members of my family and me, elected you as lieutenant governor and as governor. It was a loyal Democrat, Lester Maddox, who assigned you to high positions in the state government when you were out of office. It was a loyal Democrat, Roy Barnes, who appointed you as U.S. Senator when you were out of office. By your historically unprecedented disloyalty, you have betrayed our trust.

Great Georgia Democrats who served in the past, including Walter George, Richard Russell, Herman Talmadge, and Sam Nunn disagreed strongly with the policies of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, and me, but they remained loyal to the party in which they gained their public office. Other Democrats, because of philosophical differences or the race issue, like Bo Callaway and Strom Thurmond, at least had the decency to become Republicans.

Everyone knows that you were chosen to speak at the Republican Convention because of your being a “Democrat,” and it’s quite possible that your rabid and mean-spirited speech damaged our party and paid the Republicans some transient dividends.

Perhaps more troublesome of all is seeing you adopt an established and very effective Republican campaign technique of destroying the character of opponents by wild and false allegations. The Bush campaign’s personal attacks on the character of John McCain in South Carolina in 2000 was a vivid example. The claim that war hero Max Cleland was a disloyal American and an ally of Osama bin Laden should have given you pause, but you have joined in this ploy by your bizarre claims that another war hero, John Kerry, would not defend the security of our nation except with spitballs. (This is the same man whom you described previously as “one of this nation’s authentic heroes, one of this party’s best-known and greatest leaders — and a good friend.”)

I, myself, never claimed to have been a war hero, but I served in the navy from 1942 to 1953, and, as president, greatly strengthened our military forces and protected our nation and its interests in every way. I don’t believe this warrants your referring to me as a pacificist.

Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited. [From Talking Points Memo]

No further comment is necessary.

Triple-Wow Post at The American Thinker

Steve Gilbert of The American Thinker has this exclusive report at americanthinker.com:

Kerry, Kansas City, and the FBI files

September 7th, 2004

By now you’ve probably heard that John F. Kerry attended a meeting of his Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) group in Kansas City in November 1971, where they considered a proposal to murder top governmental leaders….

Here is a fuller description of subsequent events from [an] FBI file dated November 18, 1971:

VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR (VVAW)

STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

NOVEMBER 12, 13, 14, 1971

INTERNAL SECURITY – NEW LEFT

A confidential source, who was furnished reliable information in the past, advised as follows:

On November 12, 1971, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW) was convened in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was attended by approximately sixty persons, not more than seventy, which included the Executive Committee, people from the National Office in New York, the Regional Coordinators from around the country and some other representatives from some regions….

The Friday meeting ended at approximately 11:00 p.m.. A party ensued at the home of [redacted], which was attended by many of the delegates.

At the party SCOTT CAMIL, VVAW Regional Coordinator for [redacted] and [redacted] from Gainesville, Florida, bragged that he had a training range in either Florida or Georgia but would not divulge the location. CAMIL proposed the establishment of “readiness groups” of the “Phoenix type”….

When asked if CAMIL meant “Phoenix type” in the same context as understood by military personnel, CAMIL answered in the affirmative and outlined a plan for “political elimination” of the “governmental chain of command”. The “Phoenix type” is a military term given to groups with specific assassination assignments and the delegates knew that CAMIL meant political assassinations rather than political eliminations.

CAMIL said the activities would depend upon the men being devoted enough to carry out their assignments. CAMIL said that even talking and planning such activities was against the law and therefore the “Phoenix type” groups should carry out their assignments.

CAMIL said he had training ranges for rifle, pistol and mortar practice. He claimed he had rifles, pistols and rifle grenades, but no mortars. CAMIL’s proposal for the “readiness squads” and the training was favorably received by many of the persons present and was thereafter quietly disseminated to those at the party. CAMIL indicated he was already conducting his own training program…

The general meeting on Saturday, November 13, 1971, started at 9:00 a.m. and was held in a church, the Institute for Human Studies, near 40th and Main Streets, Kansas City. The first day and part of the second day was spent establishing order. There were numerous interruptions and discussions and very little order during that period.

On Saturday morning MIKE OLIVER, a VVAW national leader from New York, acted as chairman and recognized persons wishing to speak from the floor.

JOHN KERRY, a VVAW national leader from Massachusetts, arrived and spoke to the committee. He resigned from the executive committee of VVAW for “personal reasons” but added he would still be active in VVAW and available to speak for the organization….

The Agenda Committee again held a meeting of approximately one hour and returned to the general meeting prior to noon. SCOTT CAMIL proposed to the Agenda Committee the discussion of the training ranges and “readiness squads”. The Agenda Committee would not allow CAMIL to discuss his proposal at the general meeting, because of the time element and other matters to be discussed but placed CAMIL’s proposal on the agenda for a vote at the spring meeting in February, 1972….

Many of the delegates to the meeting slept in the basement of [redacted] house. A one-pound chunk of marijuana was made available for those delegates wishing to indulge, and many smoked themselves to sleep.

Some of the delegates who were present were: [redacted] Kansas City, Missouri, who was responsible for most of the arrangements; MIKE OLIVER; JOHN KERRY; SCOTT CAMIL from Florida…

It’s not clear to me that Kerry was privy to the discussions about a “Phoenix type” operation aimed at “political elimination” of the “governmental chain of command.” It is clear, from an FBI file marked “urgent” and dated November 12, 1971, that

JOHN KERRY AND AL HUBBARD, MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, VVAW, WERE PLANNING TO TRAVEL TO PARIS, FRANCE, WEEK OF NOV. ONE FIVE – TWENTY NEXT FOR TALKS WITH NORTH VIETNAMESE PEACE DELEGATION.

It seems that John Kerry was prepared to negotiate with the enemy, in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. That’s bad stuff, but probably not enough to kill Kerry’s candidacy.

However, if other sources confirm that Kerry was privy to discussions of a “Phoenix type” operation, and if the story is picked up by the mainstream media, Kerry might as well resign his candidacy and the Democrats might as well save their campaign funds for 2008.

Clinton’s Heart Surgery — Another Politically Incorrect Post for Labor Day

UPDATED FROM 09/04/04

Why have so many conservative and libertarian bloggers (e.g., Feddie at Southern Appeal and Virginia Postrel) made a special point of wishing Bill Clinton well before his heart surgery and issuing sighs of relief when his surgery was pronounced a success?

I don’t wish Clinton ill, but I sure as hell didn’t make a big deal about wishing him well, nor will I ooze delight at the outcome of his surgery. What’s the point? He’s not my friend or relative. Even if he were, I wouldn’t post about it.

Is Clinton related to all of those blogging well-wishers and congratulators? If so, why don’t they just send him a box of cigars and a get-well card? Perhaps my usually rational brethren are trying to compensate for all the bad things they said about him while he was president. Or perhaps they get a thrill from mentioning Clinton’s name in their blogs — a sort of vicarious association with the political version of Elvis. I wish they wouldn’t clutter their blogs with such treacle. They should save their sentimentality for someone they know and truly care about. And then, they should keep it private.

End of tirade.

Too Much Time in Space

John Glenn, who logged 218 hours in space as an astronaut, and later served in the Senate as a Democrat from Ohio, sizes up the Bush strategy:

Former senator John Glenn (D-Ohio) took the defense a step further by comparing the Republicans’ misleading statements to those of Nazi Germany. “You’ve just got to separate out fact from fiction….Too often, too often, in this country, if you hear something repeated, it’s the old Hitler business — if you hear something repeated, repeated, repeated, repeated, you start to believe it,” he said. [washingtonpost.com]

Not John Glenn, of course, because he’s a Democrat. And too dumb to come up with a new cliché.

I’d Rather Have Divisiveness

Some bloggers — most notably Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice and Jeff Jarvis at BuzzMachine — are touting political moderation or, as Jarvis calls it, “the militant middle”. Gandelman links to a post that links to a site called Centrist Coalition. Here’s a sample of what the coalition has on its mind:

On the one hand, we embrace an economic agenda focused on growth and fiscal responsibility. We believe in free trade, fair competition, and limited government.

On the other hand, we embrace an inclusive social agenda that celebrates the rich diversity of American life, and seeks to avoid imposing one person’s choices on another. We are pro-choice and pro-civil rights.

The first set of ideas in unexceptionable — though “limited government” is inconsistent with the second set of ideas, which seeks “an inclusive social agenda” by enabling legal murder and fostering racial quotas, the code words for which are “pro-choice” and “pro-civil rights”.

The coalition “endorse[s] candidates with a bold mix of views consistent with this vision of a prosperous and inclusive America.” Such a candidate is Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.):

He has a particularly bold record — solid in embracing pro-growth economic policies, but also strong on government reform issues. He was the chief Republican sponsor of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill, an initiative that ultimately succeeded in bringing fundamental reform to the electoral process.

On the one hand, Rep. Shays embraces a variety of conservative fiscal and economic policies, including free trade, welfare reform, partial privatization of Social Security, and bankruptcy reform. He favors tax cuts on capital gains, small businesses, and eliminating the estate tax.

On the other hand, he is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and has a strong environmental record, to go along with his passionate advocacy of campaign finance reform.

The coalition doesn’t want to impose one person’s views on others, but it is willing to abide restrictions on freedom of speech through campaign-finance “reform”. Then there is the obligatory bow to “choice” (legal murder), “gay rights” (don’t gays already have the right to own property and vote?), and “the environment” (a sign that these centrists have fallen under the spell of the hysterics and know-nothings in charge of environmentalism).

That’s too much moderation for me. I’ll take good old-fashioned divisiveness over wishy-washy, mindless compromise — any day.

Here Comes "Scandal"

Democrat “strategist” Susan Estrich — infamous for her success as Michael Dukakis’s campaign manager in 1988 — has called for an all out sleaze attack on Bush. So here’s Kitty Kelly, via Mirror.co.uk, with the first salvo in the Democrats’ last-ditch effort to find some mud that will stick to Bush:

BUSH ‘TOOK COCAINE AT CAMP DAVID’

Sep 6 2004

And wife Laura liked dope, says book

By Emma Pryer

GEORGE W Bush snorted cocaine at Camp David, a new book claims.

His wife Laura also allegedly tried cannabis in her youth.

Author Kitty Kelley says in her biography, The Family: The Real Story of the Bush Dynasty, that the US President first used coke at university in the mid-1960s.

She quotes his former sister-in-law Sharon Bush who claims: “Bush did coke at Camp David when his father was President, and not just once either.”…

Other acquaintances allege that as a 26-year-old National Guard, Bush “liked to sneak out back for a joint or into the bathroom for a line of cocaine”.

Even if it’s true — which seems doubtful, given the source — it’s hardly relevant in the way that Kerry’s voting record on defense and foreign policy is relevant. And since when have Democrats been against a bit of snorting and toking?

Looking Ahead

Assume that President Bush wins re-election, with a clear majority of the popular vote. Assume that Republicans gain seats in the House and Senate. In what major ways will the world and the United States change in the next four years? Here are 10 predictions:

1. International terrorism will be disrupted significantly through the combined efforts of the U.S., UK, Israel, and Russia — with increasingly enthusiastic support from France, Germany, China, and Japan.

2. The Middle East will become more stable, as Syria and Iran are brought to heel by the threat of massive military action by the U.S.

3. North Korea will be brought to heel by the same method.

4. China and Russia will more quickly accept the virtues of representative democracy and free-market capitalism. Russia will strive to ensure the success of its venture by more rigorously imposing the rule of law.

5. France and Germany, as beneficiaries of Pax Americana, will rediscover the virtues of American leadership in world affairs.

6. The global economy and the U.S. economy will make great strides, practically eliminating serious support for protectionism and anti-globalism.

7. The U.S. will take the first steps toward privatization of Social Security.

8. A healthy U.S. economy will quell demands for universal health insurance and greater government interference in health care.

9. Bush will nominate — and the Senate will confirm — judges who are committed to the enforcement of legislative meaning and who do make law for the sake of attaining particular social goals. Those judges will be “activist judges” in that they will overturn previous, unconstitutional decisions.

10. A clear majority vote for Bush will soften — though not eliminate — the tone of extreme partisanship that has dominated American politics since 1992, when Clinton beat Bush Senior by virtue of Perot’s candidacy. The next four years will be more like Reagan’s second term than like Clinton’s second term.

Boo, hoo!

Poor Democrats, poor Johnny Kerry:

Democrats Claim Bush’s Bounce Will Fade

By TOM RAUM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – Democrats on Sunday said President Bush’s post-convention bounce was triggered by “four days of mean, vicious attacks” on John Kerry, and would be short-lived.

They vowed a nonstop, two-month offensive to make up for any lost ground….

Mean, vicious attacks = True statements about Kerry’s record

Two-month offensive = Untrue statements about Bush’s record

That’s all they have left in their arsenal.