The Debates

From what I saw of the Debates, if you were for Kerry before, you will be now. If you were for Bush, you will be again. Kerry is an okay debater, but he wasn't so much better than Bush that it made a lot of difference.

The question still remains for the undecideds: Is Iraq the wrong war?

Bush said one thing. Kerry said another. Without looking at a third party to help you understand, you can't know. As most 3rd parties are biased, you can't really know anything. Thus, my opinion is the debates achieved nothing.

The Debate Rules?

A lot of people have been worried that we are missing something because there are too many rules for the coming presidential debates. Both parties now control the debates are watering them down in this is somehow bad for America. I don't think it really makes any difference.

1. All debates have rules. Why is this any different? I was listening to a talkshow host today who was complaining a little and stated that he liked the California gubernatorial debates from the latest selection which ousted Gray Davis. The only thing I remember from the debates was a lot of name-calling that did not tell me one thing about why I should oust Gray Davis. Some rules are good. As a lawyer, I'm used to 32-page documents. Frankly, 32 pages isn't really much at all. Besides, without rules, the more Machiavellian party will be slightly less gentlemanly and will do something with a gotcha quotient. Rules are good.

2. Having the two parties get together and run the debates is the best option. It's absurd to think that some third party would be able to create debates which are completely neutral and objective. No one is unbiased. No one. In this case, the two parties make the rules. They are the parties which are, by definition, mutually opposed to each other. They negotiate with each other and try to come up with the best possible outcome for their guy. In the negotiation context, each party gets a little something but neither party gets everything I want. If the League of Women Voters were a little liberal, even if they were not partisan, they would still be a little bias for Kerry. This way, the negotiation context causes a truly neutral situation where neither party has an ace in the hole. Each party is able to negotiate bias out of the system.

3. I am here to vote for a president, not the best debater. My understanding is that George Bush is not always the best speaker. Kerry isn't either, but I would say that he is better than George Bush. Nevertheless, I don't care how the president says what he says. I care what he says. The debates tell me nothing more than who use the best debater. It doesn't tell me what the policies really are and what kind of leader a president will be.

I will watch the debates a little. But what do you remember from the debates. George Bush looking at his watch. Al Gore sighing a dozen times. Richard Nixon's five o'clock shadow. Ronald Reagan's crack about Walter Mondale's youth and inexperience. Ross Perot's diagrams and graphs (anyone remember what was on his diagrams and graphs). How Dan Quayle isn't really like John F. Kennedy. Anyone remember anything else?

Republicans Trying to Divide the US Says Edwards?????

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday accused Republicans of an immoral attempt to divide the nation by taking partisan advantage of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

That's like the pot calling the kettle black. The democrats have been trying to incite class divisions for decades. Let's tax the rich. The republicans are the party of the rich. The Democrats are the party of labor and working families. Their social policies take money from the rich and give it to the poor. Come on. Bush only cares about his cronnies at Enron and other immoral corporations.

Nevermind that these same "immoral" corporations (I'm not talking about Enron, which actually did have folks working there who were immoral) give thousands of people jobs. Where will the Dems get money for taxes if all the corporations go under, because they can't make a profit? But the dems have been trying to divide the US for their own power (and without really helping anyone) for years. This is rich.

Trouble is: Some people buy it.

Some people don't get it

So I'm playing basketball with some friends and one liberal the other day. We know we are both on the other side of the fence, but something set this guy off and he goes into how terrible the Bush administration is. He's somewhat informed and he spokes about Bush's links to the Venzuelan Coup back in 2002. He said the Bush was behind it. I explained that that wasn't totally true. Bush may have known about the coup in advance. He may have even cooperated with the coup. But the coup was home grown. So this liberal says to me: You must listen to Fox News. Fox News????!!!! You're saying the news I listen to is biased!!!!???? When people are calling for Dan Rather's head and you are complaining that that news I listen to is biased????!!!

That's why the liberals are who they are. They think I'm stupid and ill-informed, because I have conservative views and love my Country. I happen to believe that all news is biased. Right now, all the news is just about entertainment and doesn't at all inform or put events in context.

But the liberals just don't miss a beat. The Dan Rather/CBS controversy is nothing. I would have expected a liberal (or progressive or whatever they call themselves these days) to at least wait a few weeks before beginning to make comments about how the right leaning media is biased. At least wait for the Rather scandal to die down. But they are right and we are wrong.

I just want to say that I do listen to left leaning media. I listen to NPR, for goodness sake. Some of the stories are good. Some are biased. I listed to one the other day that praised Fidel Castro and Cuban Communist Party. Nevertheless, all media is biased. The question is whether you are smart enough to see through the BS and come to your own conclusions.

The Liberals Did It Again On NPR

I was listening to NPR this morning. I often listen to it when the news talk gets a little repetitive. I also hate commercials. Anyway, there was this news story that essentially glorified Cuba's communist party. Apparently, no one died in Cuba when Huricane Ivan hit the country and the reason was because the communist party rules with such an iron fist that it makes sure everyone evacuates when they are supposed to and even makes sure that everyone participates in storm drills when the weather is nice, so that everyone knows what to do when the weather isn't nice. As the story said, Authoritarian regimes have an advantage in situations like massive evacuations, because they can order people to do whatever they want.

The story seemed to put a really possitive spin on Cuba's authoritarian govt. Of course, NPR failed to mention that when there is no storm, the people aren't free and that is a bad thing. Maybe a few people die in the US every time there is a strom, because people are free to be stupid, too, but NPR should remember that freedom isn't free and that there is no way to put a positive spin on anything the comunist dictator does. You can't see the benefits of freedom in the short term. But as the US has shown the world, over a period of 200 years, freedom has given us huge benefits. When the Cuban go back to their hovels with no hope of a better life until after Castro dies, they may not know what they are missing (and that is probably a good thing for them personally), but they are missing a lot. NPR should report that. Instead, they glorify communism. Didn't we figure out that communism doesn't work back in the early 1990s? Maybe we have been too complacent.

Kerry On Iraq Documentary

The RNC has put out a really good documentary on Kerry's flip-flops on Iraq. See http://www.kerryoniraq.com/. Back during 1998, Kerry was saying we should invade Iraq right now. He was a real hawk. But the documentary that you can download for free says it all and says it well, because it just uses Kerry's own words.

Another Couple of Reasons Why Arnold is a Great Governor

Arnold just vetoed 2 bills. One would have essentially ended all drug testing in schools for any reason, whether it be to play sports or anything. The bill would have made drug testing voluntary for the student. Duh!!! If the student is on drugs, why would he volunteer? I guess the democratic controlled legislature doesn't think drugs are a problem.

The other bill would have raised the minimum wage AND made it nearly impossible for Wal Mart like stores to open. Do the democrats just want to destroy California? Perhaps they are all environmentalists and want everyone to leave. We need to think about business once in a while.

Anyway, Arnold fixed those two problems.

Arnold

Arnold is an action hero on the screen and in the State Capitol. He's a no-nonsense powerful man with an agenda to help the state of California. It's too bad there is only one guy like him. I married a democrat, too, so I don't fault him for Maria. That gives him power with the Dems. What are they going to do? It's too bad there are term limits for him. What are we going to do when he leaves?

The First Blog

What is this blog all about? Politics? Law? Religion? It's about all of that. It's a social comentary.

First of all, if John Kerry wins the election, what is he going to do? Anybody know? Take our guys out of Iraq? Put more guys in? Anything else? I'm clueless. Perhaps he's going to do all things for all people. Don't know. But that's the point. At least, we know what Bush is going to do. Love him or hate him. We know with him and we don't know with Kerry. When I've got a bunch of killers with knives at our throats, I'm scared that Kerry won't do anything about it. His base won't do what it takes to win this war. His base denies that there is a war. Kerry may talk tough occassionally, but he can never be a wartime president. A wartme president isn't so wishwashy.