HOLLYWOOD BLACKLIST
It looks like the blacklist is back. But instead of blacklisting suspected Communists (who turned out to be real Communists), the blacklist is based on religion and a refusal to publicly call your family member an idiot. David Geffen and Jeffrey Katzenberg are the McCarthy's this time around. One of them (they don't have the courage to allow attribution) said, of Mel Gibson: "It doesn't matter what I say. It'll matter what I do. I will do something. I won't hire him. I won't support anything he's part of. Personally that's all I can do." Maybe I'll remember this when the next DreamWorks movie is released.

SOVIET PROPAGANDA
A former chief spy from Communist Romania, Ion Mihai Pacepa, thinks that John Kerry's 1971 testimony sounded suspiciously like Soviet propaganda.

Former Vietnam POW and U.S. Senator, Jeremiah Denton, says, "If we had gone the way Kerry was voting while I was in the Senate, we would have Russian soldiers walking in our streets today."

John Kerry, like Ion Mihai Pacepa, may have changed since the 1970s, and it's a valid question to ask if he has. If his judgment is still this poor, then again I say to the Democrats, you should be nominating John Edwards.

THE CONSCIENCE OF THE CROWD
According the a Columbia professor of sociology, writing in Slate, John Kerry's all but certain nomination is merely more proof of a 1950s sociology experiment in social decision-making. He calls it "hindsight bias" but you know it better as the bandwagon effect. The same effect that produced a lot of Duke fans in 1991 has also manifested itself in polls in which more people claim to have voted for Bush than actually did in 2000. Now, according to the professor, it has also led a lot of Democrats to crown Kerry, even though they don't know him well or even like him.

For example, when New Yorkers go to vote next Tuesday, they cannot help but be influenced by Kerry's victories in Wisconsin last week. Surely those Wisconsinites knew something, and if so many of them voted for Kerry, then he must be a decent candidate. But the voters in Wisconsin were just as influenced by the decisions of voters from the previous round of primaries, who were in turn influenced by the round before theirs, and so on. Before any given primary, if all previous votes have resulted in an even split among candidates, then the prospect for independent thinking still exists. But as the sequence of primaries progresses, the likelihood of successive even splits rapidly diminishes, and one candidate inevitably starts to look like a winner. At that moment, the cascade starts, and all subsequent votes then become exercises in rubber stamping.

That's one reason Terry McAuliffe front-loaded the primary season. If there are enough wins by a candidate in February, the bandwagon should be at full throttle by March. That's what's happened. And Democrats are going to make the "irrational" choice and select Kerry "because he can win", even though he is the person who the Republicans prefer to run against -- and John Edwards is getting crushed by that bandwagon.

BUSH IS WRONG, KERRY IS RIGHT
I never thought I'd write those words, but President Bush is wrong to support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Kerry is right to say "I believe the best way to protect gays and lesbians is through civil unions. I believe the issue of marriage should be left to the states." Of course Kerry's formulation doesn't address the federal recognition of marriage (see, tax code) and Kerry is trying to have it both ways (as usual) by saying that he, too, opposes gay marriage.

As DrFrankLives points out, it is an ugly thing to advocate a specific amendment that restricts the ability of states to grant rights, as opposed to the rest of the Constitution, which restricts the ability of states to deny them. And I'm sure I know what Bush and many conservatives are thinking. If we don't pass this at a federal level, we won't be able prevent judges from usurping the power of the people to decide this issue. And while the constitutional amendment process is grounded in federalism, a better, more freedom oriented approach would be to let the people decide, state to state. But this goes to a bigger issue -- activist judges. This is just the sort of issue that the people should decide, whether through referendum or their legislatures. By supporting this Constitutional amendment, the President surrenders in the battle against judicial activism. And that surrender is an even greater injustice.

NOT "HORRIBLE LIES"
Shoveldog, from over at Stinging Nettle, a quite decent and interesting site from the left perspective, takes issue with two words from my post about John Kerry's childish letter to W. Not to have such a fine rebuttal buried on the "comments", I'll repost his argument here:

I seem to recall a few minor hearings about those war crimes. You know, like with sworn testimony? There are also any number of history books and eyewitness accounts which detail those war crimes, as well as a few military inquiries and the results of numerous military tribunals. "Horrible lies" is YOUR lie, Winston. You obviously don't know shit about what you're talking about, and now you're trying to change the subject because you're f#$king busted. You've lost all credibility with me over this one. So I'll tell you what, big boy, I ride bikes with a few guys that regularly drink in a little biker bar a few miles from my house. There are usually a few guys there that know a little about Vietnam. Bring your shit down there and we'll talk about Vietnam a little while. Come on down and talk about that "long list of BS." Tell these guys ALL about it. I'll buy the beer. Assuming you're old enough to drink.

He continues:

Calm down, huh? Hey, I'm calm. Hell, when you talk the talk like you do, I figured you'd be willing to walk the walk. Probelm here is that you're spouting shit, Winston. You have no idea what you're talking about, and now way of knowing if what you're saying is true, you're just apeing GOP chickenhawk talking points. You know it, and I know it. You want to talk to some people who actually DO know what they're talking about, the offer still stands. Hell, these guys have tattoos that are older than you.

I overestimated you. My bad.

Looks like I'm just too young to understand Vietnam. My bad. Maybe "horrible lies" was a little hyperbolic. I don't know. Instead of that line, perhaps I should have said that it was OK for Kerry to oppose the war, but it was poor, youthful judgment to allow himself to be a tool of anti-Americanism. Don't think he was a tool? According to websources (let me know if they are wrong) John McCain wrote in 1973, specifically mentioning the Fulbright committee and tetstimony before it:

All through this period, [his captors were] bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us.

Hey, John McCain can put Kerry's actions behind him, so should we. This shouldn't be an issue anyway. The issues relevant to being commander and chief have nothing to do with Kerry's command of a swift boat or his attack on the war and the people who fought it, nor is it about Bush's "Champaign Unit" and irregular attendence. It should be about Kerry's record on defense and foreign policy issues in the Senate and Bush's record as Commander-in-chief over the last four years.

CLINTON, KERRY AND BIN LADEN:
IT'S THE TERRORISM, STUPID

Today's New York Post is reporting that the Clinton Administration "failed to aggressively track one of the [September 11] hijackers after obtaining his first name and phone number more than two years before the attacks."

According to the article:

The tip, received in March 1999, appears to be one of the earliest signs that U.S. officials had about one of the 2001 hijackers. It also may have represented a missed chance for U.S. intelligence to uncover a terror cell in Germany that was a key element of the hijacking plot.

Despite the hopes and pleas of Democrats that Clinton's record has no bearing on the present, this information, if true, has implications for the 2004 presidential election.

Like Clinton, John Kerry, does not think the "war on terror" should be fought as a war, but as "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation." Further, not unlike Clinton, Kerry thinks the threat of terrorism is "greatly exaggerated," and we should, instead, be concentrating on domestic issues.

It is becoming more likely every day that the Clintonesque view of foreign policy allowed the attacks on September 11 to occur. Accordingly, we need to ask whether we want that view back in the White House, to further endanger our citizens.

JOHN KERRY'S LETTER - WHAT A JOKE
Kerry fired off a letter to the White House, complaining that the President is trying to make Vietnam an issue in the campaign. I guess this is his "bring it on" letter. Really, the man who reminds people at every opportunity that he fought in Vietnam, and that being a swift boat skipper uniquely qualifies him to construct a pluralistic democracy in Iraq and fight Islamic fascism, says that "it has been hard to believe that you would choose to re-open these wounds for your personal political gain." This from the man who testified to routine war crimes committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam.

Here's some of the hilarity of the letter. "Over the last week, you and your campaign have initiated a widespread attack on my service in Vietnam . . ." No, if there has been any attack, it isn't on your service. ". . . my decision to speak out to end that war." No problem with your decision to speak out, it's the horrible lies you spread. ". . . and my commitment to the defense of this nation." The commitment shown through opposition to new, important weapons systems, an attempt to slash the budget and powers of the CIA, and support for the nuclear freeze. Most impressive.

If Kerry intends to run such a sophomoric campaign, then there's another reason for the Democrats to have buyer's remorse before it is too late. But it may already be too late, as Democratic "SuperDelegates" -- those not committed by the people through primiaries (so much for being democratic, eh?) -- have begun lining up behind Kerry.

HOW BUSH COMPARES TO HOOVER: THE REST OF THE STORY

Today's Detroit News has a brilliant piece, deconstructing the democrat lie that the President has "the worst job loss record of any president since Herbert Hoover."

Besides noting that the job losses did not begin with President Bush, and that September 11 exacerbated the country's economic problems, the article points out:

True, under Bush, jobs have declined 2.2 million, about the same as under the four years of the Hoover administration from 1929 to 1933. But in 1929, when the population was 121 million, a job loss of two million was a national catastrophe. It sent unemployment rocketing from 3.2 percent in 1929 to 23.6 percent in 1932. In 2004, when the population is more than 280 million, a loss of two million jobs means a national unemployment rate of 5.6 percent, sorrowful for the individuals involved but hardly a national calamity.

It also reminds us:

During his four years in office, Hoover followed the very policies being advocated most ardently these days by the Democrats — tax increases, trade barriers and higher spending on social programs. If anybody is following in the tradition of Hoover, it’s Kerry and Edwards

Between this and Kerry's constant harping on his Vietnam service, maybe it's time for the Republicans to start pointing out the obvious: that the Democrats are living in the last century.