The only thing that article proves is that indystar.com (or whoever wrote it) is biased up the wazoo.

"Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues..." my ass.

No it wasn't the last 3 republican presidents. It was only Reagan, and he was following on Carter. Carter was the one who started making human rights a major part of American foreign policy, Reagan to his credit picked it up. Bush 41 dropped the ball. Clinton had his faults but he tried. Bush 43 is the least human rights concerned American president I've ever witnessed.

Which will look fine in history compared to Bush being president during Darfur, Iran's nuclear rise, and Russia's descent into dictatorship.

Excuse me? It was Reagan, not Carter who directly took the Soviet Union on, opposed by all the bleeding-heart liberals, including one John Kerry.

And how did Bush 41 drop the ball exactly?

Darfur will be taken care of, unlike Rwanda or Somalia.

The other two you mentioned have not happened yet, so you can't pre-emptively blame Bush for them.

Fine. But if you're going to argue that the point that elections have nothing to do with the *vision* of the candidates, than I guess you must be considering voting for Kerry. Because regardless of his insistance that people making over 200K/year will have their tax cuts rolled back, we know the actuality of that happening is minimal. If we're going to argue that it isn't about intention at all, than Bush's "desire" to *restore democracy* to Iraq clearly has minimal sway. Since, to this day, he hasn't.

Your arguement will pretty much lead to such an appathetic approach to politics that a country like this that already has a sub-50% tunrout on election day wouldn't be able to handle it.

-Dolce

First of all, I would consider supporting Badnarik way before I would consider supporting Kerry's.

And the chief reason I don't do this, is because I am afraid of both Kerry's and Badnarik's view on national security. I just cannot trust Kerry to do the right thing, and I KNOW Badnarik won't do it.

You can't trust Kerry to do the right thing? Other than kowtowing to Sharon, what do you consider the right thing?

I'm sorry but after the collosal and obvious way Bush has screwed up, that is ridiculous. Bush has driven US foreign policy into the ground, and caused a foreign policy mess that will take 20 years of Republican and Democrat successors to clean up. That's not a partisan attack, it's an objective reality shared by a wide array of professionals in the field. *Any* senator, regardless of party, would do a better job than Bush. Yes even Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedy.

Is this your way of saying that Israel runs the U.S. foreign policy?

OH NOW, it is not a partisan attack, no siree. Well if it isn't, then you will have no problem whatsoever substantiating it.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... 4&ncid=716

So they're in a dead heat now. I'm curious as to why people are saying Kerry can't win?

I still think it comes down to Wisconsin.

-Dolce

Also, this: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~drtaylor/kerry/kerry.htm

P.S. If anyone is interested, I've got Colin Powell's phone number ;-)

On my way to vote today

Blog roundup.

- "Q: Scott, this morning Senator McCain said that he disagreed with the things that President Bush has said about Senator Kerry misunderstanding the war on terror. What do you guys have to say to that?

A: I think what Senator McCain said was that he believes that the President is the best one to lead us forward in the war on terrorism. He spoke about how the President is leading with moral clarity and strength, and that's what we need as we move forward in the war on terrorism. There's a clear choice on how we approach the war on terrorism and how we lead going forward. And Senator McCain—that's what Senator McCain talked about. I saw what he said earlier.

Q: He did say what you're saying he said, but he also said he disagreed with the characterization of Senator Kerry, so I wanted your reaction to that part of what he said.

A: I don't know if those were his exact words. I think what he focused on—what he focused on was the President's leadership, and how important his leadership is to prevailing in the war on terrorism. And that's what this election is about; it's about who can lead us forward to prevail in the war on terrorism. Senator Kerry has the wrong approach. The reality is we live in dangerous times, and the President has a comprehensive strategy for winning the war on terrorism, and we appreciate Senator McCain's strong support for the strategy that the President is pursuing.

Q: But he did say he disagreed with how the President is characterizing Senator Kerry. So can you guys react to that at all?

A: I think the choice is very clear for the American people. The President is—he'll talk about it again, today, in his remarks. If you look at what Senator Kerry's—if you look at Senator Kerry's record, and look at his views, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the war on terrorism. He has a record of weakness when it comes to national security issues. He is someone who has voted to significantly cut intelligence funding, right in the aftermath of the 1993 World Trade Center attacks. He has a view of retreat when it comes to Iraq. It's important that we succeed in Iraq. Senator McCain talked about that this morning, as well, because Iraq is a central commitment to prevailing in the war on terrorism.

—Scott McClellan answering questions at a White House press gaggle, Oct. 22"

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108562/ Slate's "Chatterbox"

-----------

Jesse Ventura endorses Kerry. Via Sullivan's blog.

http://www.kstp.com/article/stories/S3582.html?cat=1

-----------

Former Kentucky senator and staunch Republican Marlow Cook: "I am not enamored with John Kerry, but I am frightened to death of George Bush."

via washingtonmonthly.com

------------

http://sneakingsuspicions.com/prayer_cloths.htm

Kerry prayer cloths you can buy!

------------

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108513/

Bush virtually conceding Ohio. From kausfiles blog.

------------

White House pool report: "Flight and motorcade uneventful. Bush was accompanied on AF1 by his daughter Barbara, in tight jeans, and by Dan Bartlett and Karl Rove, who were not wearing tight jeans."

Reported on Wonkette

------------

Newsweek reporter Evan Thomas has a book coming out on how Kerry won the presidency. A snippet from the Amazon.com description "An extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at the 2004 Kerry presidential victory reported by Newsweek's premier political reporters, including bestselling biographer Evan Thomas."

Found on instapundit.com

Archie, I know you're a Democrat, but geez, do you have to be THAT partisan?

I'm not sure what you mean, I thought I was being helpful in culling some of the more interesting bits. I don't expect you to agree with them all, I just thought they were interesting. It's good to know what people are saying and what is going on.

I wouldn't mind if someone did the same thing with the republican blogs out there, though I did include a couple of them too. Kaus and Andrew Sullivan are moderate republicans.

Boyfresh,

Are you doing early vote casting?

-Dolce

And by the way you responded so fast you missed a lot of the point of it. It's ridiculous for evan thomas to be writing a how kerry won book before he even won. And the prayer mat thing was meant to be funny, as if Kerry supporters need to pray that they have a chance at winning.

But the first part, sure that was a bit partisan but then the spokesman was acting like Baghdad Bob, it was amusing and worth pointing out.

Anyway, I'm done explaining myself. I'm a centrist, it's just some republicans are so entrenched they think anyone who is not with them is against them.

There is updated information that she's begging for British troop withdrawel. I'm going to post it in a second.

-Dolce

The reason I responded so fast is because I've seen all of that stuff today. You're not the only one who visits blogs, you know ;-)

I dunno, I just find it hard to believe that you only look at the stuff that's damagin to Bush without seeing a lot of stuff that's damaging to Kerry.

And about that book: for what it's worth, if you actually follow the link, it says Kerry/Bush, meaning that whoever wins, there will be a book coming out about them.

Nobody is going to withdraw the troops. The beheadings are sad, but leaving Iraq is much worse.

Ok. i don't believe in immediate withdrawel. we dig the grave, I guess we need to lie down in it. But the question is really how to effectively finish this off. This is not a type of "military engagement" we have any previously existing knowledge of how to handle, or at least, I don't think so. I have heard little at this point from either candidate, and have heard nothing from England, about any *change* in tactics. All I've heard about fighting insurgency sounds like D-Day. Frankly, I just read another article saying the extremist groups are gaining funds and sympathizers, so I want to know when there is going to be a major overhaul of approaches and understanding of this war.

-Dolce

There doesn't have to be a major overhaul of approaches. What needs to happen is the election of a legitimate government in Iraq and increasing the contingent of Iraqi troops.