NEW CARTOON
Check out our new cartoon on the real roadmap for peace.

DEM DEBATE -- EDWARDS WIN?
Did John Edwards win last night's debate by not condescending or assuming all southerners were redneck hicks in their F-150s, and will that performance jump-start his just-short-of-competitive campaign? Here's Stinging-Nettle's take.

I think a likely scenario is that the Democrats, who have already tossed over Lieberman and Kerry, may soon decide that they can't win with Clark or Dean either, and they will look again at the remaining candidates. If that happens, there's only two real candidates left, and only one of them could pull off a victory over Bush. Gephardt and Edwards. So, which one could beat Bush? I think that's obvious.

WHAT REPUBLIC, I'M A JUDGE
Disregarding the will of the people expressed in a bipartisan vote, some guy named Richard Kopf in Nebraska is blocking enforcement of the Partial Birth Abortion Act. Consider the power of one man, who helps our understanding by using the first person: "After hearing the views of the parties, and considering the evidence offered by them, I now temporarily restrain enforcement of the Act."

And to think, there are people who have to wait months for trial.

DRAFT CONSPIRACY
Extreme left (or The Onion-like comedy) website Common Dreams News Center and the Toronto Star think that they have discovered a nefarious and secret scheme by the Bush Administration to bring back the draft after the 2004 elections. Someone at sf.indybay.org got so rattled by the Bush draft that HTML started spewing directly on to the page.

BUSH CREATING 'INFRASTRUCTURE' TO BRING BACK THE DRAFT...
shouts Common Dreams. And the Toronto Star frets:

A call from the U.S. Defense Department for volunteers to sit on local draft boards has sparked debate here about whether a nationwide military draft could ultimately be needed to complete Washington's Iraq mission.
. . . The draft was abolished here three decades ago as the Vietnam War wound down, and the Defense department notice about draft boards is on an obscure link on its Web site.

Unfortunately for those looking for some conspiracy to ship off non-volunteers to Iraq, this is nothing new, it is not Bush's plan and it wouldn't have "sparked" anything suddenly in 2003. A simple check of the Internet Archive reveals that the plan has been in place since at least the Clinton Administration. Here's the October 2000 version of the Selective Service's web page on Draft Boards and how to apply. There may have been an even earlier version at a different URL, but this information appears at the same URL as the current page. No big deal. Common Dreams and the Toronto Star can remove their tinfoil hats, for now.

THE HEALTH OF THE . . . WHATEVER
President Bush signs the so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban, as it is called by abortion opponents, today. Opponents of this version of the law, who happen to favor the ban anyway (see Gephardt, who says he opposes it despite his vote for it -- this sort of reasoning is becoming epidemic) want an exception "for the health of the mother." Great, but first they need to explain when it is better for the mother's health to kill a partially delivered fetus than to finish the delivery. The law forbids terminating the so-called baby, as critics of abortion call a fetus, only when that fetus's head has entirely emerged from the body of its mother, or when, in a breach delivery, the body up to the umbilical cord is delivered. The so-called Partial Birth Abortion ban does not prevent a doctor from reaching inside the womb with a Henckel and a Hoover. So, when is it safer to kill the partially-delivered fetus than to finish the delivery?

And if critics of this measure don't like the absolutely accurate and descriptive name "Partial Birth Abortion," then may we suggest "Mid-Delivery Infanticide." No, I doubt the "pro-choice" people would go for that.

NO BELLWEATHERS
Pundits will wonder whether the election results in California, Kentucky and Mississippi signal a Bush victory in 2004. Don't put too much stock in these local state races that had, in each case, more to do with local issues than national ones. Sure, Bush's campaigning in KY and MS may have helped, but he won those states in 2000 and should expect to win them again even if he is turned out of office. There may be minor lessons to be learned about what issues played best, and those lessons might be applicable to the 2004 elections, but as a bellweather for the election as a whole -- I don't think so.

Watch the economic indicators and Iraq. That will tell you more about how next year's election will go. And watch the Democrats. Their best chance at winning would be to nominate Dean, Edwards or Lieberman.

CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE -- IRAQ CONTRACTING AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
Democrats like to complain about cronyism in the Haliburton and Bechtel Iraq contracts, although they never suggest any companies with the resources, experience and abilty to do the same work. I bet every one of them probably gives more to Republicans instead of Democrats anyway.

Well, Slate debunks the charge of any connection.

MORE CBS LIES
Andy Rooney lied his way through is 60 Minutes commentary on Sunday. Andrew Sullivan has the details in The New Republic, but not the same size audience. A pity. Sullivan on Andy's talent: "The only people dumb enough to pay for this drivel are your employers at CBS."

ANTI-REAGANS EFFORT CONTINUES
CBS decided today to move The Reagans to sister-channel Showtime. While liberals will surely call this "censorship", it just proves that the marketplace of ideas works. If you have an idea to peddle, you better be ready to either defend it or shut up. CBS has surrendered the first battle over whether Ronald Reagan was a bad man and has chosen to move its theories regarding private conversations between Ron and Nancy to its more limited Showtime audience. And now that it's on Showtime, I suspect that the producers are scrambling to insert graphic gay sex scenes and pump up the "edginess" of the language.

The battle continues, as many people on Republican friendly e-mail lists are receiving the following e-mail today:

Dear Republican Friends:

I am shocked and appalled by the cruel attack on Ronald and Nancy Reagan in the CBS network mini-series that has caused so much controversy in recent days.

Today the CBS network will announce that because of a public outcry they will not air the controversial movie, but insead move the offensive film to the Showtime network.

Whether its CBS or Showtime, I'm sure you share my sentiments that because this political attack is highly offensive and innacurate, that it should not be aired on any television network.

If you have not seen the news uproar over this matter, Bill O'Reilly recently said on Fox News Channel that these Hollywood hacks are purposely trying to make the Reagans look like, "bad, bad people." That they are even "making stuff up" trying to smear the Reagan legacy.

This outrageous movie, made by personal friends of the Clintons according to Fox News Network with no input from former Reagan aides, has been deemed cruel by Nancy Reagan herself, who is actively trying to stop its release.

As a former head of Americans for Reagan in the 1980s, I want to help Mrs. Reagan in this effort.

Barbara Steisand's husband James Brolin plays Reagan, and delivers ridiculous lines by Reagan during the film, such as our former President saying, "I am the anti-Christ!" The movie portrays Reagan as cursing and abusing his staff, and freely using profanities. They allege that Reagan even wished death on AIDS sufferers. (Drudge, 10.26.03)

Around the country, thousands of people organized themselves to boycott CBS during this Hollywood-coordinated personal attack on the Reagans. They got CBS's attention. I would suggest to everyone that if this offensive movie is moved to the Showtime network, that we refuse to watch it just the same.

So just how offensive is this attack on Reagan from the Hollywood left?

They attack without mercy both Ronald and Nancy Reagan. They "insinuate that Nancy pill-popped," that she physically abused their daughter, that her parents were racist, and that she was the hysterical "Mommie Dearest" of the White House.

Nothing could me more outrageous, unsubstantiated and offensive than this attempt by Clinton Hollywood leftists to smear the people we admire. The head of the boycott CBS effort said recently on Fox News, "If the American people think that this is a cruel movie to a dying man and the wife who is tending to him, CBC is never going to get over that." (10.26.03 Fox News Channel)

I am proud to have worked for Ronald Reagan's Presidency and I want to preserve his legacy. It is because of biased messages like this one coming out of Hollywood and the major TV networks that I launched "Fairness In Media" with Senator Jesse Helms in 1985. I urge all of you to refuse to watch this offensive mini-series no matter which network considers airing it.

Thank You, and as President Reagan always reminded us:

God Bless America.

Jim Cain

Personally, I think it should air in the form that the producers prefer. It will tell us a lot more about their twisted view of the Reagan presidency and make it all the more clear that they are out of touch with reality. Plus, since they know for a fact that certain scenes are untrue, it should not be too hard for Nancy Reagan to prove actual malice.

DEAN AND REDNECKS
Well, Howard Dean really screwed up. He said: "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks". That prompted John Kerry to say that he'd rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA. I don't know that Dean's statement was calculated to appeal to NRA voters, but at least the NRA is an organization who's mission is not based on skin colorn and an fundamental misunderstaning of the 5th and 14th Amendments.

Dean was excoriated by the other candidates, who decided that Dean must also want the votes of dumb, bigoted, racist rednecks with guns. Such is the understanding the Democratic party has of southern culture. Not all confederate flag waivers are racist (although many are). What Dean was saying was that he wants the votes of the conservative southern Democrats who elect Democrat governors in states like Mississippi and North Carolina while voting overwhelmingly for every Republican presidential candidate since 1980. Dean is smart to notice that national Democrats do poorly in the south, and he merely articulated the primary strategy of John Edwards and Wesley Clark.

Dean's mistake was stereotyping and insulting southern Democrats and southerners in general (our people are much more diverse than Vermont's) and his failure to have any policy proposals that appeal to them. They want lower taxes and they want to kick some terrrorist ass. If the Democrats would appeal to southern voters by articulating policies they prefer, then maybe they could win the South. Until that time, the South will be off limits to them. They would do well to read Zell Miller.

UPDATE: Another analysis of Dean's ignorance about the south.