Thursday, October 28, 2004

Close Your Eyes...

Here's the challenge: In one sentence, make the case for your candidate.

Here's mine:

All other things equal, would you rather have an MBA from Harvard along with a former CEO of one of the world's largest corporations and former Secretary of Defense leading the country or two trial lawyers?

Please send your submissions to

What Will It Take?

I've finally figured it out. Democrats just don't care.

You don't care that your candidate negotiated with the enemy while our country was at war. You don't care. Its not a big deal that John Kerry sat in front of congress and the world's media and gave false testimony that our soldiers were guilty of horrible atrocities...You don't care...While we were still at war...You don't care.

I finally realize that Democrats don't make any correlation between our defeat in Vietnam and the anti-war activities of people like John Kerry. What do you think his goal was? You don't care. I also realize Kerry's anti-war history isn't giving you pause about having him lead us in the War on Terror.

You don't care that Kerry had to admit that his epiphonic "Christmas in Cambodia" story, a yarn that he told over 50 times over the years that was "seared, seared in me", was a lie. You don't care that the anti-war group which Kerry was a leader had a meeting in Kansas City where they seriously discussed a motion to begin assassinating seven pro-war Senators. You don't' care that for years, Kerry claimed he wasn't in attendance. He has now admitted that was a lie. But you don't care.

I've finally realized that Democrats don't care that John Kerry supported a nuclear freeze in the midst of the Cold War, supported the communist Sandanistas in Nicaragua and criticized the liberation of Grenada from a Cuban and Soviet backed thug. Kerry even said publicly "we don't have anything to fear from communism". You don't care

I've accepted that you don't mind Kerry voted against the liberation of Kuwait from Saddam in 1991, even though we had the U.N Security Council's blessing and a coalition that included France and Germany. You don't care.

You aren't troubled by the fact that had Kerry and 54 of his Senate Democrat colleagues had their way back then, the best case scenario today would be Saddam sitting on top of 20% of the world's known oil reserves and in possession of nuclear weapons. You don't care.

I realize that Democrats aren't troubled that Kerry voted in favor of our present war to liberate Iraq, but now jumps at every setback and ignores all the substantial progress. Kerry emboldens our enemies and shakes the faith of our allies, including the Iraqi people. You don't care.

Has America ever been in a conflict that could fully count on John Kerry's support?

You don't care that while promising to "bring our allies to the table" (whatever that means), Kerry's own sister was in Australia representing the Kerry camp, campaigning for the socialist candidate who promised to pull Australian troops out of Iraq immediately should he win. You don't care.

You see no problem with Kerry denigrating our allies who have risked lives and spent treasure to support us in Iraq by calling them "the coalition of the bribed and coerced", then pines for the affection of his beloved France. You don't care. Moments after the courageous leader of Iraq, Ayad Allawi came to America and thanked the United States in front of Congress for liberating his people, Kerry called him a puppet of the United States. You didn't care.

Kerry hints that he has the support of "world leaders", but refuses to name names. The ones who have made themselves known don't come out of the woodwork as much as they crawl out from under a rock. Seems every anti-Semitic thug, totalitarian dictator, theocratic butcher, appeaser and nut case academic aches for a Kerry victory, not to mention a terrorist or two. Do you wonder why our enemies root for Kerry? Do you care?

I'll trust the judgment of the Coalition of the Willing to defend Western Civilization, thank you.

What I am surprised about is how you are untroubled by all the outright lies Kerry says. Oh, I guess there is wiggle room with Kerry's charges of "unilateral" and "go it alone". I suppose the Tora Bora tale he keeps repeating could theoretically be true. He certainly doesn't know. I suspect he doesn't care.

I'm referring to lies. Not flip-flops, not errors, not mistakes, not stretching the truth, not fudging the numbers...outright lies:

1 million African Americans had their votes stolen in 2000
Bush's secret plan to reinstate the draft
Bush's secret plan to cut social security
This is the worst economy since Hoover

Bush is responsible for the flu vaccine shortage
Bush has "banned" stem cell research

I've accepted that Kerry being a flip-flopping, race baiting, soldier betraying, social climbing, lying liberal (with dangerous judgment) doesn't bother you because he's not a Republican. Maybe when you hear Kerry's own words and realize he is indisputably the world's most prolific double talker and will say anything to get elected you will reconsider your support.

Even if listening to this doesn't trouble you personally, imagine the message this sends to our true allies, including the Iraqi people many whom are still deciding which side to take. I beg you...

Click here to listen.

Thursday, October 21, 2004

Trust, judgment & Politics

23 Democrats voted against the war to liberate Iraq. Nothing too surprising there. Nothing too surprising until you consider that none of these Democrat Senators raised questions about Saddam 's WMD's as their reason for their vote. Think about that - Even though they, along with everyone else in the world, believed that Saddam still had his stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, these Democrats still voted against removing him from power.

Compare that with John Kerry's vote along with 54 of his Democrat colleagues against Gulf War I even though we had U.N. Security Council approval and an international coalition that included Germany and France.

Why were 55 against war in 1991 even with their beloved U.N. blessing and only 23 against war in 2004 without? Could it be a politics? Of course its politics.

Can we trust a party that so many members base their decisions on our national security on political expediency? They cannot be trusted.

Tuesday, October 19, 2004


In response to their endorsement of John Kerry, today's San Francisco Chronicle published my letter to the editor in support President Bush.

Reading the other letters that are in agreement with the Chron's choice of Kerry is revealing.

You are right to endorse Sen. John Kerry for president. George W. Bush is no longer an acceptable choice, unless one is in denial or simply greedy.

- Bill McCLanahan, San Francisco
I only wish the editorial could play in the Midwest where they still believe the Earth is flat.

- Dennis Richardson, San Jose

Liberals continually show themselves to be elitist and consider themselves morally superior.

I've written before: Liberals think conservatives are selfish, mean-spirited and/or evil. Conservatives think liberals are silly.

Sunday, October 17, 2004


Can somebody explain this to me?

The only way for our enemies to defeat us in Iraq is for the United States public opinion to change and we lose the will to fight.

The only war this country ever lost was Vietnam, where we lost not a single major battle, because of changing public opinion and losing the will to fight.

The Democrat nominee for president of the United States dedicated his life to changing public opinion of the Vietnam War ensuring that the United States lose the will to fight and thus the war.

Yet, this is the man some want to lead us in Iraq?

I just don't get it.

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Bush as CEO

A friend turned to me while we were having sushi and said "I don't want to talk politics all night, but I'm wavering. If Bush were the CEO of any corporation he would be fired. So why should I vote for him"?

He went on to intimate that his main concern was the missing WMD's in Iraq and that an error of that magnitude would doom anyone in the private sector.

I answered that we are not only deciding whether or not to replace Bush, but is the alternate choice an improvement. I went on to mention that the administration gave a laundry list of reasons to go to war, including violations of 17 U.N. resolutions and Saddam's violations of the armistice ending Gulf War I. The most compelling reason (WMD's are the simplest reason) is the attempt to "drain the swamp" of the environment that creates terrorists and that installing a functioning democracy in the center of that swamp is the most powerful and effective tool we have.

This seemed to resonate with him and we went on to a great evening.

Later, I started thinking about his initial premise. Would Bush be replaced had he been a CEO with his record?

To answer this honestly, you have to think about what your thoughts of the future were on the morning of September 11th after watching the World Trade Center Towers collapse. Did you dare hope that the United States would not suffer another attack in 3 years? Did you dare hope our economy, which was already sliding into recession by the time Bush took office, would recover to the extent that it has? 3 years hence, would you have settled for 5.4% unemployment, repeated quarterly GNP growth, repeated quarterly job growth, low inflation, low interest rates, ever increasing home values?

...and a tax cut?

Do you think on that morning had you been offered the above scenario you would have gladly taken it? Yes. Now lets add the Taliban would be routed, Saddam would be in prison awaiting trial, Afghanistan would have already held free elections and Iraq would be preparing for elections.

Bush deserves a raise.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

My Two Question for Kerry

Question #1

Senator Kerry, In Vietnam, we lost a war without having lost a single major
battle because Americans lost the will to continue fighting due to decreasing
public support for the war effort. Considering how we lost that war and
considering your active role in the United States losing that war by publicly
denouncing the war effort, organizing anti-war rallies and groups and even
giving false testimony against our troops in Vietnam to Congress, why should we,
as Americans think you have the capacity or even the will to win the War on

Question #2

Senator Kerry, When we lost the war in Vietnam the most visible casualty is
the continued enslavement of the southern half of the country by the
communists. Since the stakes in the War on Terror are so much greater to
Americans and to America's homeland, why would we trust someone with your
anti-war and anti-military history to conduct this life and death struggle?


While eating breakfast on Polk Street a few weeks ago, I noticed a group of men and women waiting for their table. Several of the members wore tee shirts from a 5 kilometer run called "Race For A Change". What was remarkable was this 5K was a fundraiser for Kerry/Edwards 2004.

Change. You never see Republicans endorsing "change" for the sake of change. This also explains the "Anybody but Bush" bumper stickers that are so prevalent in this area. Did you ever see an "Anybody but Clinton" sticker? Of course not. Besides...anybody? It's silly.

This romance for "change" or "reform" without acknowledging what exactly is going to replace the existing paradigm has an emotional appeal to liberals that is not present in conservatives.

Part of the reason is that liberal positions are more based on emotion than conservative positions. Since their beliefs are not entered into logically or factually, logic and fact do not hold as much sway when trying to persuade them of their folly. What facts they do glob onto to support their beliefs seem trivial, even if accurate (i.e. Bush National Guard service, second hand smoke, Halliburton...). If you don't acknowledge greater evils, you don't have to face dealing with them.

Since I'm big on acknowledgments at this moment, let me acknowledge a possible tangent coming - Perhaps this romance of "change" also explains Liberal's greater support of the Palestinians, even thought they don't share any of the same values (women's rights, gay rights, independent judiciary, free press, open elections...). Since it actually possible to force "change" on a democratic Israel (without risking your life), liberals feel empowered bullying the Jewish state. Once again, emotions playing a powerful role in behavior.

I'm sure this is a subject that I will expand upon later.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004


My post below, reminded me of something from the presidential debate that I am surprised hasn't received more play.

When asked what is the greatest danger to America, Senator Kerry replied "Nuclear proliferation". Had he stopped there, he would have had a point. But as he extrapolated, he revealed a great deal about his values and thought process about the dangers we face.

"Right now the president is spending millions of dollars to research 'bunker busting' nuclear weapons....You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons", but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon... I will shut down that program".

Please consider that no one is concerned about British nuclear weapons. Would you be concerned about British 'bunker busters'? Of course not. The problem isn't nuclear weapons or 'bunker busters'. The problem is nuclear weapons in the possession of our enemies. Mr. Kerry seems to think that the bad guys will pick up on our "good vibes" if only we don't provoke them! This is the same mindset Mr. Kerry had during the Cold War when he supported a nuclear freeze.

Mr. Kerry either hopes or believes the Chinese, Iranians and North Koreans will be influenced not to pursue advanced nuclear weapons if only we decide not to. Most frightening, is that this topic easily elicited the most passion from the Senator. History tells us, "hope" is not an effective deterrent against attack.

This fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our enemies is why we cannot trust Kerry/Edwards, or for that matter, the Democrat party with national security.


I wasn't able to watch the entire VP debates last evening. However, I did catch one exchange that I believe displays how un-serious Kerry/Edwards are, in these serious times.

I've written below, how the moment I hear "Halliburton" I know I'm not dealing with a serious person. Basically, terrorist are flying jumbo jets into skyscrapers and they are worried about a company?!?!?

Just as Edwards/Kerry deride and insult our coalition (and honor those countries who opposed us) by calling them "bribed and coerced", just as Edwards/Kerry insult our Iraqi allies, who are taking the gravest risks and paying the highest costs, by ignoring their contributions, Edwards/Kerry disparage the workers of Halliburton, who are also risking their lives in Iraq trying to give the people power, clean water, and a decent life. Over 40 contractors and employees of Halliburton have been killed.

While we are on the subject, I wish Cheney would have answered Senator Edwards remarks by saying "Yes, I am guilty of leading one of the world's largest corporations. A proud corporation that is in Iraq, Kosovo and other places around the globe because it has capabilities that no other company has. May I remind you, that while I was running this corporation, Mr. Kerry was in the midst of a completely undistinguished 20 year career in government, in between marrying one woman worth $200 million dollars and another now worth in the neighborhood of $1 billion. Mr. Edwards, here was busy making his fortune by suing doctors prior to his equally undistinguished, yet to be completed, one term in the Senate".

"Now, I ask all of you out there; whom do you trust with our economy and creating jobs? The president, who has a Masters of Business from Harvard and myself or these two lawyers?