Friday, October 15, 2004
 WHAT'S ALL THIS ABOUT CHENEY'S DAUGHTER?
At first it didn't seem like that big of a deal in Wednesday night's debate. Bob Schieffer asked the candidates whether they thought homosexuality was a choice, and The Poodle brought up Vice President Cheney's daughter Mary, who is a lesbian. That turned out to be a big oops.
It was the second time Mary Cheney had come up in the debates, with The Super Lawyer mentioning it in the Vice Presidential debate. Well, the Cheneys didn't seem to appreciate it one bit, and apparently have had enough. Lynne Cheney let Kerry have it first: "Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man. Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick." Whoa boy.
Then came the Vice President, who said: "You saw a man who will do and say anything to get elected, and I am not just speaking as a father here, although I am a pretty angry father." So what exactly was the point of bringing her up in the first place? Then it was Elizabeth Edward's turn. She decided to chime in with her two-cents worth. The Super Lawyer's wife suggested that the Cheney's were ashamed of their lesbian daughter.
Later, when the steam started rising, The Soufflé issued a clarification, saying: "I love my daughters. They love their daughter. I was trying to say something positive about the way strong families deal with this issue." But if it shouldn't matter, then why is it an issue?
Those of you on the left won't admit it ... but you know it. You know it in the very depth of your soul. If it had been Republicans making similar comments about a lesbian daughter of a Democratic candidate all holy hell would be breaking loose. It would be on the front pages of every major liberal rag in the nation. Dan Rather's eyes would be bugging out like a dragon fly's. Gay advocacy groups would be demanding apologies. So .. why did it happen? I think one of my listeners pretty well nailed it in an email. Both John Edwards, in the vice presidential debate, and John Kerry, in Wednesday night's presidential debate, mentioned the fact that Dick and Lynne Cheney had a lesbian daughter in an attempt to drive a wedge between Bush and his hard-core Christian conservative supporters. WHAT SORT OF DEMOCRATIC MANUALS HAVEN'T WE SEEN? A plan was leaked yesterday from the Kerry/Edwards campaign and the Democratic National Committee advising Democrats that they should claim that there was voter intimidation, even if there was none. Of course this should come as absolutely no surprise, because the left has been claiming voter intimidation and "disenfranchisement" since the 2000 election, despite the fact that there no proof that such intimidation ever took place and the leftist U.S. Civil Rights Commission, given six months, couldn't find one single qualified registered voter who was turned away from the polls. If you think back to 2000, Democrats were claiming that police were using dogs and fire hoses to keep blacks away from polling places. Never happened.
I guess this is just the new Democratic Party. It used to be that when liberals couldn't win at the ballot box they would legislate from the bench. Their new strategy now is to not accept election results...and instead to pretend those evil Republicans intimidated people at the polls. Now that they have been exposed, let's look at the lies and the dishonesty.
In a Drudge exclusive, the 66-page Democratic mobilization plan says "If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a 'pre-emptive strike.'" The 'Election Day Manual' goes on to say that operatives should issue a press release and call out the race warlords to discuss the mythical "voter intimidation" in the press. It also says talking points should be provided to the "minority leadership." This is absolutely unbelievable. Essentially, it is the official position of the Democratic Party that even if there is no voter intimidation occurring, they should make some up. They are telling people to lie and to slander Republicans.
Fear mongering at its finest. But notice, please, just how this is being covered in the media. You see little criticism of the Democrats for this ploy. Instead, you see constant revisits to the election of 2000 and the disproved charges that somehow tens of thousands of voters were kept from voting in 2000. The seed is being planted from coast to coast, and if Kerry should lose on November 2nd. there will be a huge cry of "I told you so!" from the Democrats ... and the lawsuits will fly. One more thing. Studies of the 2000 election in Florida show that the vast majority of the problems there were caused by people who were not bright enough to figure out a simple punch-card ballot. Democrats were in charge of the election process in 24 of the 25 Florida counties in which these problems emerged. This means that the bulk of the people who lacked the limited amount of intelligence necessary to figure out how to punch a hole through a card were living in Democrat controlled counties in Florida. Is anyone surprised? FCC WON'T BAN POODLE DOCUMENTARY
Finally, somebody at the FCC seems to recognize the concept of free speech. Federal Censorship Commission Chairman Michael Powell said yesterday that the documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" that the Sinclair Broadcasting Group plans to air will not be blocked. Powell says that the federal government should not get into the business of telling broadcasters what they should and should not air. Said Powell: "There is no FCC rule of prior restraint of a program being aired on television. I think that would be an absolute disservice to the First Amendment and I think it would be unconstitutional if we attempted to do so. So don't look to us to block the airing of a program." Good.
Eighteen Democratic Senators and a couple of House members had complained to the FCC to no avail. They had argued that the documentary about The Poodle violated the equal time rules. But since Sinclair is providing Kerry the opportunity to respond to the claims in the broadcast, the FCC won't do anything there either. Score one for free speech.
It's too bad the FCC isn't this consistent when it comes to other broadcasts...but I suppose we'll take what we can get. SO --- LET'S THREATEN THE MEDIA WITH GOVERNMENT CONTROL Well, the liberals aren't going to take this defeat at the hands of the FCC lightly. Now it's time for the threats. Threats ... that's what any good politician would do when they feel slighted by some element of the private sector ... they threaten retaliation, usually through government action. Remember, government is the only entity in our society authorized to use force to accomplish its goals, whatever those goals may be. One official with the Kerry campaign actually said that the owners of Sinclair Broadcasting, the television group running the "Stolen Valor" program, had better hope that the Democrats don't win the election. Now what can that mean? Think it through. What happens if Democrats win? They control government, that's what. And if they control government they will be in a position to use that government to punish Sinclair Broadcasting. This, my friends, is why I have been rooting for Air America, the liberal talk radio network. If Democrats were to gain control, and if they did try to reinstate the absurdly-named "Fairness Doctrine," then Air America would have to air conservative talk show hosts to counter the likes of Franken. Liberals aren't likely to destroy their favorite radio network that way. Pray that Air America survives the election. ABOUT THE UNDECIDED Trey Parker, one of the creators of South Park and the new animated movie "Team America" is causing a bit of an uproar with is recent statement that those who are still undecided should just forget it. Stay home and don't vote. Why is this such a controversial statement? In this election, more than any other I have experienced, the concept of being "undecided" two weeks before the vote is impossible to understand. We are a nation at war. We have an intelligent, capable and well-funded enemy in Islamic terrorism -- an enemy that has pledged to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. This enemy is actively soliciting and seeking chemical and biological weapons. They're even looking for access to nuclear materials and hope to get their hands on a nuclear weapon. Their culture is one of death and destruction. They feel compelled by their God to kill, and they have the capability to do so in spectacular fashion. There is a stark difference between the two presidential candidates. George Bush, for all his shortcomings, is absolutely dedicated to the cause of searching out these Islamic terrorists and destroying them, along with the governments who harbor, encourage and arm them. George Bush takes seriously the oath he took when he was sworn in, an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." To protect the Constitution is to protect our country. George Bush believes that the Constitution and his oath of office is all the permission he needs to defend America. John Kerry needs more. He needs the rest of the world to give him a passing grade on some sort of a "global test" before he stands up to our enemies. Since 9/11 George Bush has wavered not one inch. While Bush stands resolute, Kerry first votes for the war, then refuses to vote to fund the materials our men and women in action need to pursue that war. He tells Americans that if he is elected he will manage to bring more allies to the cause by convincing them to put the lives of their citizens on the line for what he calls the "wrong war at the wrong time at the wrong place." Yeah, that should work. Do you remember in 1991 when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait? The world believed that his next target was his hated enemy, Saudi Arabia. John Kerry voted against repelling Saddam's invasion? Where would we be today if Kerry had won the day with his vote? It is quite possible that Saddam Hussein would still be in power today, and would be controlling the entire Middle Eastern oil supply. I can guarantee you that if Saddam was running the oil show right now Democrats like John Kerry would be blaming George Bush the First for not taking care of him in 1991 when he had a chance. Islamic terrorists want to kill us. Bush is resolute, Kerry wavers ... and there are voters out there who cannot figure this thing out? There is absolutely NO Constitutional guarantee of any right to vote in a presidential election. None. Go ahead ... look. Here's your link to the Constitution. Read it and let me know when you find your right to vote in a presidential election. It isn't there. So you can abandon that "right to vote" argument here and now. So .... having settled that misconception, let's get about the job of limiting voting to people who actually have a clue. If you claim to be "undecided" at this point in this particular election you fall into that "don't have a clue" category. Do future generations of Americans a favor and stay home on election day. READING ASSIGNMENTS Documents show that Saddam Hussein funded Palestinian terror groups. So Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, huh?
Joe Lieberman is praising President Bush over his support for Israel. It's too bad the Democrats didn't nominate Lieberman...that would be some race.
Was Bob Schieffer's questioning in the debate liberally biased? Absolutely, says Ramesh Ponnuru...who also says Bush won the debate.
The Swiftees are back...they have launched two new ads to run between now and election day. Will the media continue to ignore their story? Of course.
There was one issue not raised at Wednesday night's debate, or any of the debates for that matter: the concept of limiting the role of the federal government. Jeff Jacoby explains.
As the election gets closer and closer, and the campaigns run down to the wire, Charles Krauthammer says Kerry will say anything to get elected.
George Will talks about some of the issues confronting the next president that aren't getting much press, in particular the fact that whoever wins will nominate a couple Supreme Court justices.
The Poodle was a little short on facts in the debate Wednesday night, and Joel Mowbray does some checking. Factcheck.org finds distortions from both candidates.
With his second column in a series, Thomas Sowell talks about 'the tyranny of visions.' Today he looks at some increasingly ridiculous government regulations.
The presidential election will ultimately turn on who the public trusts more, and David Limbaugh says The Poodle comes up short in that department.
One college professor taking on another....Mike Adams strikes again. In today's episode, the professor reads a letter.
Mona Charen calls John Kerry's mention of Dick Cheney's daughter in the debate gratuitous and unnecessary.
More zero tolerance stupidity...this time a kid gets suspended for bringing a butter knife to school to spread his peanut butter and jelly. Does Bill O'Reilly suffer from falaphilia? You be the judge. [Don't read if you are sensitive to sexual humor] | 
Search Boortz.com
