ELECTION: Bush is in command.  It’s pretty much that simple at this point.  Kerry has backed off putting money in three battleground states.....Missouri, Colorado, and Arizona.  He’s ‘narrowing the front’, in other terms.  To continue the military metaphor, Bush has turned Kerry’s flanks, and controls the majority of the battlefield.  Kerry’s hope, right now, is to concentrate his fire where he is strongest, and blunt the Bush poll offensive.  The hope is that Bush will either exhaust his financial reserves early (mid-Octoberish) in states that are safe for Kerry (New Jersey, California....that ilk), or that Kerry can outspend Bush in a few states (Pennsylvania, Florida, Ohio, Michigan), and manage to turn those states into Kerry victories. 

My thoughts are this:  Kerry needs 270 electoral votes.  He can win the following states to get those votes:
California-55
New York-31
Florida-27
Illinois-21
Pennsylvania-21
Ohio-20
Michigan-17
New Jersey-15
Massachusetts-12
Washington-10
Minnesota-10
Oregon-7
Connecticut-7
Rhode Island-4
Maine-3
Hawaii-4
Delaware-3
DC-3

Right now, the ones that are bold are the ones that he has a lead in (clearly above and beyond the margin of error).  The ones that he is losing in, or at high risk of losing, are in italics.  Those states that Kerry is in trouble in account for 120 of those 270 EC’s.  In short, he’s in a world of hurt. 

If Bush wins all the states he is solid in (clearly leading above the MoE) at present, he’s at 222 EV’s.  Kerry is at 148.  If we give Kerry Maine, Iowa, Vermont and New Hampshire, he’s at 166.  Oh, hell, we’ll throw in Colorado, and that takes him to 175.  In fact, if we give Kerry West Virginia, Ohio, AND Michigan.  That takes him to 217.  Add Pennsylvania?  OK...he’s at 238.  New Mexico?  OK.....243.  Washington?  Oregon?  We’ll toss them in there as well, and Kerry sits at 261. 

The fact is, a lot has to happen, at this point, for Kerry to win this election.  In fact, Kerry has to win EVERY STATE THAT HE IS LEADING IN, PLUS SOME THAT BUSH IS AHEAD IN, in order to win.  All Bush has to do is take 1/2 the leaners, plus either Ohio, Florida, OR Pennsylvania to win.  Lastly, of the leaners, only one polls to Kerry.....that is Pennsylvania.  Florida is starting to trend towards Bush and Ohio is pretty firmly within Bush’s camp.  If Kerry gets behind by more than the MoE in Pennsylvania, all is lost. 

THE TANG FORGERY FIASCO: There is a lot of documentation (you’ve been to LGF, RatherBiased.com, and Instapundit and seen a lot more about it than I am going to get into here) about these documents being created by Microsoft, or whatever, and that isn’t really the problem.  The problem is that you have a major media group that isn’t willing to correct it’s own mistakes, because it would aid a person that they politically, and personally, oppose. 

This should show people the complete lack of objectivity at the major media outlets.  People have been saying that the MSM is biased.....polls of reporters show that they are three to four times more likely to be a Democrat than a Republican, surveys of actors show their incredible leftist bias, and even bigwigs at the NYT and Newsweek have come out and said they are liberal, and desire Kerry to win.  However, people have been trying to divorce what people do professionally, and personally, ever since Clinton was ejaculating on Monica.  What you do isn’t who you are, they said.  What you do in your personal life doesn’t matter in your public life, they opined. 

Bullshit.  Sorry, but bullshit. 

Kerry saying that he believes that life begins at conception, but that abortions should be legal and unfettered.  Was he challenged on that in the MSM?  He politically supports something he must, by his own words, believe is a mortal sin?  What kind of man is this?  And, what kind of belief system is this that can be supported by the press?

How is that comparable to Bush getting “slam dunk” intelligence from his ex-CIA director, and using that as a part of his justification to go to war in Iraq?  For that belief, shared by dozens of foreign powers, the CIA, and the population in general, Bush was bled with leeches, but Kerry’s belief in the same intel, then 1887 subsequent flip-flops, garner him no reaction except the justified eruption of the Blogsphere?

It’s like reading Andrew Sullivan in 2002, and then in 2004.  It just doesn’t add up.  The MSM is so pro-Kerry that it is becoming farcical.  The freeing of 50 million people isn’t justifiable on it’s own merit (according to the MSM), but an unresearched, unproven, uncertain, and unverifyable document is considered sacred? 

What.  The.  FUCK. 

VIETNAM:  WHO THE FUCK CARES. Kerry embelished his record.  So what?  He’s an anti-war slug, who distrusts traditional America.  Read this post to see why I say that.  Fact is, he didn’t act without substantial backup, or worth a Silver Star.  Was he brave?  Sure.  Not Silver Star brave, but brave enough for a mention.  And, if he wrote the action reports, as is widely believed (no-one likes paperwork), he had a hand in getting his Silver Star.  Are you surprised, knowing the kind of man he has been since 1971? 

I believe the following:  Kerry tried to get duty where he wouldn’t get killed.  Doesn’t surprise me...I’d have done the same if I would have had the chance.  Who wants to get killed?  And, a question for the vets, do you go into the military to get put into a situation that might kill you?  I think you go into the Service knowing that you MIGHT be in such a situation, but it isn’t a strong desire.  Those that lust for killing and death bother me.  Either way, Kerry gets wind of the fact that three Purple Hearts will get you home soon, and he gerrymanders one or two of them.  I mean, think about it with a modicum of common sense....Kerry didn’t want to be there.  He asked for a deferment before he joined up.  He hated the Vietnam War.  Consequently, when he found a loophole, he exploited it.  It isn’t that hard to imagine, is it? 

To sum it up, I think that Kerry’s Vietnam service is a wash.  He was a guy looking for an easy tour, and when he didn’t get his wish, he worked the system in order to get out early.  Like a guy who gets injured, or acts like he’s nuts.....Kerry is like Max Klinger from M.A.S.H.  He found a way, and took advantage of the system.  That’s not so cool to his buddies on the front line (and that is why they think he’s an A-#1 assclown), but it’s all John Kerry...self-important, self-absorbed, selfish, and patrician.  If you think he gave a dick-drip about his comrades in arms, you’re smoking some heavy hashish, daddy.

As for Bush....yeah....he got into the TANG because of his Dad.  So?  When he got in, he served.....for 6 years, at least two of which were consecutive active duty years.  He flew fighter planes, and discharged his duties.  Otherwise, he would have been Dishonorably Discharged.  In fact, he served longer on active duty than Kerry did.  Man....if his Dad gave him a easy job, I’d hate to see a hard one.  Bush did his job, got his breaks, and moved on. 

The real question is, what have they done where this election is concerned?  Who is direct, clear-headed, honest, and more dedicated to protecting and defending the COTUS?  A guy who is willing to act unilaterally, and take the heat, or a guy that has said that there the UN must be consulted first, and that they should command expeditions like ours in Iraq? 

OK.  Time to play with the kids.  You discuss.

Kerry finds himself in a dead heat with Martha Stewart and Joseph McCarthy, and behind Herbert Hoover—although he narrowly beats O.J. Simpson.

Michael Jordan: 83 (2000)

Tony Blair: 76 (2003)

Pope John Paul II: 73 (2003)

Democratic Party: 54 (2004)

John Ashcroft: 49 (2003)

Michael Dukakis: 47 (1988)

Prince Charles: 45 (2003)

Herbert Hoover: 43 (1944)

Jesse Jackson: 38 (2003)

Vladimir Putin: 38 (2003)

John Kerry: 36 (2004)

Martha Stewart: 36 (2004)

Joseph McCarthy: 35 (1954)

That’s gotta hurt!

Ain’t technology grand? The old Sci-Fi movie writers dream ‘em up, and this generation of geeks puts their heads together and gets it done.

We have seen 3-dimensional faxes, instantaneous communications - including high-quality video - from anywhere on the planet, and virtual surgery that is specific to each patient.

Remember (assuming you are old enough) what our world was like in late 1984.  The greatest threat to our nation was war with the Soviet Union. The Democrats were running Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro ("Fritz and Tits”, as the gutter vernacular went). Challenger was still 15 months in the future. Van Halen was still being fronted by David Lee Roth. Michael Jackson was still cool.

What is our world going to look like in twenty years?

Where are my flying cars*, dammit?

Although I really shouldn’t be surprised, given that Terry McAuliffe has called Bush a “deserter”, and a Kerry apokesperson has claimed that Bush “betrayed his country” by not going to Vietnam (and after having been given two separate chances to retract or amend her statement, she flatly refused).

Shall we start going down the list of officials who have “betrayed their country” by “not going to Vietnam”?

Such as Terry McAuliffe (who went from college straight into national Democratic politics for the Carter campaign)? Such as Bill Clinton (who not only didn’t go, he actually protested the war - in Moscow!), who has been defended on the Senate floor by Mr. John Kerry, his own self.

We do not need to divide America over who served and how.

[...]

We do not need more division. We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric.

Yet this is precisely what the Dems - and Kerry - are doing. They are trying to concentrate the attention of the Electorate on something that happened more than 30 years ago, rather than the actions of those thirty years, or even the challenges of today.

Bush wasn’t AWOL. Bush was honorably discharged. He spent more time on Active Duty simply learning how to fly fighter jets than John Kerry spent in Vietnam. Members of his squadron were flying missions over Vietnam, and Bush actually volunteered for that duty, only to be denied because the program that used those kinds of fighters were being phased out in favor of the newer planes. Besides, the war was being wound down.

But even if he was AWOL, so what? Does that change the fact that he is the right man for the terrible job of fighting the terrorist groups that want to kill us all? Does that change the fact that he is a man of convictions, saying what he means, and meaning what he says? Does that change the fact that not one, but two terror supporting nations are now free, and a third - Libya - has given up its WMD programs, while other nations were busy either twiddling their thumbs, waving their “shame, shame” fingers, or pocketing their bribes from Baghdad?

Does it change the fact that he managed to stop the recession he was handed dead in its tracks, and even though we have suffered the single worst attack on American soil, we still have economic indicators that are as good - if not better - than anything seen in twenty years?

Even if any of that debunked bullshit were proven true, does that disprove anything that Bush has done over the last 44 months?

I’m still waiting for Kerry to stick with an issue long enough to debunk it. So far, the only thing he has stuck with is that he was physically present in Vietnam for a period of four months (but he hasn’t even stood by all of that, even though it was “seared—seared” into his memory).

But that’s not the issue, folks…

My wife put it very well. “Ignore everything else. Which one of these guys do you feel safer running the War on Terror?”

I said, “Kerry hasn’t even admitted that there is a War on Terror. He keeps saying things like ’When we are attacked...’, while ignoring the fact that we have already been attacked.”

“That’s why I’m voting for Bush. We can’t have an economy if the terrorists are allowed free reign. No civil rights lost under the PATRIOT Act if we’re dead because of a suicide bomber. That’s why this one is important.”

Y’know what? She’s right…