I hate having to pin my hopes on the idea, but KerrySpot has the evidence.

Posted by: Ace at 08:41 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, no one really did any trackbacks on this one the first time around. [Are you really re-pimping a piece just two and a half weeks after you wrote it?--ed. You betcha! And this isn't Kausfiles. Get the fuck out of here with that silly "editor" banter, you imaginary person you.]

This leads me to believe it 1) wasn't all that funny or 2) just "didn't find its audience."

My brain says "1" but my heart says "2."

Anyway, what follows is not work-safe, unless you work at, say, Hustler or Sausage Surprise. more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:27 AM | Comments (4)
Post contains 614 words, total size 4 kb.

The trouble with liberals is an overfondness of explaining every division that splits our nation or our world in terms of "miscommunication." The theory is that if we all just communicated a little better, all of the disagreements that separate us would simply sublimate into the ether and leave us all united together in one big hugging and snuggling peace-orgy.

The theory is simply jackass. What separates us is chiefly real differences and disagreements, not "misperceptions" or "misunderstandings." There is no amount of additional "outreach" and "exchange of viewpoints" that will erase the fundamental difference between a pro-choice voter and a pro-life voter.

Actually, in fact, it is not clear communication which helps bridge such differences, but artfully (i.e., dishonestly) unclear communication. Bill Clinton's "safe, legal, and rare" forumulation helped unite passionately-pro-abortion-rights liberals and more skeptical can't-there-be-some-restrictions? moderates, but the union was at its heart dishonest. They were politically united, but ideologically still opposed. And there was, in fact, an actual winner (abortion-rights absolutists) and an actual loser (moderates favoring some, but not absolute, abortion-rights).

Had Bill Clinton endeavored to more clearly "communicate" his actual position, he would have divided the nation more than his artful dodging did.

John Kerry similarly seems to think that the differences between the US and the Islamist murderers can be papered over with townhall-meetings and "outreach:"

''I think we can do a better job,'' Kerry said, ''of cutting off financing, of exposing groups, of working cooperatively across the globe, of improving our intelligence capabilities nationally and internationally, of training our military and deploying them differently, of specializing in special forces and special ops, of working with allies, and most importantly -- and I mean most importantly -- of restoring America's reputation as a country that listens, is sensitive, brings people to our side, is the seeker of peace, not war, and that uses our high moral ground and high-level values to augment us in the war on terror, not to diminish us.''

Most importantly, Senator? I'd've put that quite a bit down further on the to-do list myself.

What separates America from the Islamist killers and their supporters (both active and soft) is not the famous Cool Hand Luke "failure to communicate." Indeed, the communication is fairly clear:

* Islamists want to destroy Israel, and possibly kill every Jew living there, if it can be accomplished.

* Islamists want to repeal the Enlightenment, and they want to use mega-terrorism to limit the American projection of Enlightenment values until it can be repealed.

* Islamists support using terrorist violence against civilians whenever they believe, usually insanely, that they have a grievance with the west (or other Muslims, or Hindus, etc.).

These are not differences born of some "miscommunication" or lack of outreach or understanding. We understand each other all too well.

Or, rather, the Islamists understand that we are a subhuman enemy which God Himself has decreed must be eradicated from the face of the earth, and Americans, with the exception of John Kerry and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, understand that we must fight against them in order to convince them their demonic agenda will not be permitted to succeed.

Our "differences" with the Islamists are neither nuanced nor trumped up. They want to kill us, and we don't want to die. That's simply not the sort of "gap in understanding" that can bridged with happy-talk and summits, Senator.

Posted by: Ace at 08:13 AM | Comments (2)
Post contains 571 words, total size 4 kb.

Kaus' take is interesting enough (he thinks Bush tied, and therefore won), but he reports something I didn't catch:

After the debate, Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill said Cheney's daughter was "fair game." Fair game? Who was being attacked? (It was supposed to be a discussion of whether homosexuality is a "choice" or innate. Bush had said he didn't know.) ...

The Susan Estricth strategy -- "it won't be pretty" -- is in full effect.

More Great Stuff From Kausfiles:

Kerry was puncturing the "hypocrisy" of Bush's position, as some Kerry defenders claim, only if the sole reason to oppose gay marriage is homophobia. I support the idea of experimenting with gay marriage, but surely it's possible to be a non-bigot and be reluctant to immediately tinker with such a venerable social institution....

Once you admit this possibility of non-bigoted reluctance, then Kerry's move looks less like hypocrisy-puncturing and more like a straight appeal to homophobia. As such, it does no credit to Kerry. ...

Perilous race analogy: What if Kerry were debating a conservative on affirmative action, and that conservative had a black wife, and Kerry gratuitously brought that up in an attempt to cost his opponent the racist vote? Would Andrew Sullivan approve? I don't think so. ...

Posted by: Ace at 08:02 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 229 words, total size 2 kb.

Just go already.

Blaster offers:

Sonny Crockett : [after discussing Sonny's college football successes, Tubbs asked why wasn't he in the pros] Some Southeast Asian conference.
Ricardo Tubbs : Vietnam?
Sonny Crockett : [sarcasm] No, Coney Island...!

I don't know if it's relevant, but since I've still got that dumb Miami Vice picture in the sidebar, I guess I'm obliged to actually do something with the premise.

Thanks, Blaster. I've been all out of Miami Vice stuff since, um, two hours after I started this jackass schtick.

Update! Marcland has the jpg of the directive posted.

Posted by: Ace at 07:04 AM | Comments (12)
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

Nice. It's about time to call these assholes on this:

Lynne Cheney issued her post-debate rebuke to a cheering crowd outside Pittsburgh. "The only thing I can conclude is he is not a good man. I'm speaking as a mom," she said. "What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

Steven Fisher, communications director of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay and lesbian political organization, said Kerry "was speaking to millions of American families who, like the Cheneys, have gay friends and family members."

Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), also made a reference to the sexual orientation of Cheney's daughter, during the vice presidential debates, and Republicans complained that it was an underhanded way of trying to hurt the Bush-Cheney ticket with religious conservatives.

It's a cocksucker manuever, no doubt about that. And, lest I be accused of being homophobic myself, I mean "cocksucker" in its broader sense, i.e., a sucker of more metaphoric cock.

And would you look at this? Even the ultra-liberal New York Times is now forced to notice this nasty fart of a tactic. I guess the Times' commitment to actual sexual tolerance exceeds its gonzo Democratic partisanship-- for once:

Forget his health care plan. Forget abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Forget even how many times he did or did not vote to raise taxes. Senator John Kerry may have lost three critical votes with a simple aside, when he invoked Vice President Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter as part of an answer on same-sex marriage.

"That is very unfair," blurted Patsey Farrell, 64, one of a handful of undecided voters gathered here to watch the final presidential debate Wednesday night. "I'm sorry, that's too personal. That's too hurtful."

Her son-in-law, Kevin Uhde, the 50-year-old elementary school principal who held this pizza party, agreed. "Not by name," he said, shaking his head at Mr. Kerry on the 24-inch Phillips television set a few yards away. "Why single out one person?"

And Mr. Uhde's wife, Karlen, added, "I think it's like a low blow."

Charming man, this John Kerry.

He nastilly injects passive-aggressive homophobia into debates with the ferocity of a, say, Jenjis Khan.

Posted by: Ace at 11:18 PM | Comments (19)
Post contains 384 words, total size 3 kb.

So says James Lindgren on the Volokh Conspiracy.

You know what pisses me the hell off? They've got like six thousand people as a part of this so-called "Volokh Conspiracy" at this point.

And did any of them, at any time, think to themselves, "Hey, you know who might like to join our conspiracy? Ace. Ace seems like a good conspirator"?

No, they did not. Never got an invite.

And yet, I'm looking at the list of the people who are part of this rather cumbersome "conspiracy." It's not an exclusive club, I can tell you that.

Tony Danza-- what the fuck is he doing in the sidebar? Now Judith Licht-- sure, Judith Licht I could maybe see. She seems well-grounded. But Tony Danza is a fuckin' moron. How does he rate above me, precisely?

And fucking Caesar Romero isn't even alive anymore. Man's been stone dead for fifteen fucking years.

Makes no goddamn sense.

And-- look at this. Beaker? Beaker from the fucking Muppet Show? Beaker can be a part of the Volokh Conspiracy, but not Ace? What the fuck did he do to earn his membership card?

Beaker's not even A-List among fuckin' puppets, for crying out loud.

But Beaker, oh yeah, Beaker, sure, he's good. Scary-talented, that fuckin' Beaker. He gets to be in the Volokh Conspiracy.

Meanwhile, I'm sitting here alone. Alone, with not a friend in the world except my huge bottle of Val-U-Rite discount vodka and my reservoir of unrelenting hatred.

Life's not fair, man. Don't kid yourself on that score.

Update: I'm tipped that the ABCNews poll also shows a deadlock, but that more Republicans watched.

Hat tip to Beaker for that. Maybe Beaker's pretty good, after all.

Posted by: Ace at 10:37 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 303 words, total size 2 kb.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

MSNBC, Post-Debate Panel

About 12:10 AM EST (five minutes ago)

Joe Scarborough, to Ron Regan Junior: I would be angry if they turned around and attacked a decision you made [to hurt your father politically], whether it was drugs, or the ballet...

Ron Regan Junior: Hey... (laughing)

Scarborough: Make no mistake, John Kerry was tring to embarass the President, trying to embarass the Cheney family. It was way over the line.

Pat Buchanan (paraphrased): It was gratuitous... jolting... I turned to Chris Matthews, watching it at the time, and he looked at me, and I could tell he was stunned...

John Fuckface Kerry ain't necessarily getting away with this one. Even the liberal media can't help notice the stench of gay-baiting here.

And yes, I'm aware that Buchanan and Scarborough aren't the liberal media per se. But it's out there.

And jeepers, they were able to find this story without even reading blogs!

OgreGunner reminds me that Mort Kondracke was fit to be tied over the shameless lesbian-baiting of John Kerry.

Quick Crack Update: I'm surprised that the Kerry team didn't demand a debate dedicated entirely to the "issues" of kd lang, Melissa Etheridge, The Ellen Show, Angelina Jolie videos, flannel workshirts, and John Deere trucker's caps.

I guess Vernon Jordan got outfoxed by James Baker.

A Gay Reader Doesn't Appreciate It Much Either Update: Rob's kind of annoyed--

As a gay man, I was pretty annoyed when Edwards pulled the Mary Cheney rabbit out of the hat during the vice-presidential debate. It was low.

When Kerry did it tonight, I exploded in front of my liberal friends. "This is the motherfucker you fucktards support!" How I keep my liberal friends is beyond me.

I'm seriously, seriously pissed about this. I'm even more pissed when my gay friends try to tell me how the Democratic Party cares for me and I "owe" them my vote, because the Republicans are such "homophobes" (hate that word). Well, I've been watching this election closely, and I have to say the Democrats are out gay-baiting the Republicans two to one. Does anyone think a Republican would get away with this shit? Fuck no.

I'm tired of it.

Hmmmm... I don't know if Democrats are really "gay-baiting" two to one; it depends on how you define it. I'm sure a lot of gays (I'm thinking of Andrew Sullivan, here) define any opposition to gay marriage as implicitly gay-baiting, etc. And I figure a lot of gays, as well as the liberal media, feel that Kerry-Edwards therefore are owed a lot of free gay-baiting to make up for that deficit.

But just imagine if Cheney weren't on Bush's ticket but Dick Gephardt were.

What would the media say about not one but two gratuitous mentions of Gephardt's lesbian daughter during the debates?

Oh, how they'd howl. And on so many of these issues, I wouldn't mind their howling, so long as they howled in a fair and balanced manner. I might think they're being overwrought, but I wouldn't mind them so much if they were evenhandedly overwrought.

But they don't, and they won't. The Democrats are allowed to burglarize and vandalize Republican campaign headquarters and call for the shooting of Don Rumsfield without media comment.

Meanwhile, of course, the big issue confronting us is the fact that the Dixie Chicks feel "chilled" in their right to be mouthy millionaires.

Posted by: Ace at 08:14 PM | Comments (28)
Post contains 579 words, total size 4 kb.

Well, everyone on FoxNews seemed to think Bush won, and they've been very critical of Bush's past two performances.

Other takes...

Captain Ed:

Summary: Bush stomped Kerry, without a doubt. Not only did he project a more interested demeanor, but he also showed a more pleasant speaking style and a superior grasp of detail. He projected an optimism that completely escapes Kerry, especially tonight. Kerry was the one stumbling through answers this time, including inexplicably on the question about his experience with strong women. Kerry could not stay on topic, and like John Edwards, wound up simply regurgitating his stump speeches. Bush offered more thoughtful answers, more extemporaneous, and seemed much more genuine as a result.

This debate will wind up being recognized as a disaster for the Kerry campaign within the next 48 hours, and within 96 hours the polls will demonstrate it.

Digger's Realm doesn't offer an opinion on the whole debate, but he's annoyed by the elite media's (and both parties') refusal to even contemplate the immigration issue:

The sad thing is there was only one single question on immigration. The moderator prefaced the question by saying "I received the most email on this issue and next question", yet the candidates only spent maybe 4 minutes total on it.

Shameful!

Hugh Hewitt seemed overly impressed by Bush's performance in debate one, but he's a hell of a guy anyway, and he says Bush kicked ass:

Kerry on the defensive on many issues tthat matter to voters, and especially Catholic voters and voters with children. The worst fumble by Kerry: Not answering the cost question on health care

Talking heads beaking for Bush in a big way. Bill Kristol, always hard on Bush, acknowledges that Bush crushed Kerry on nearly every exchange. Moron K. outraged at "outing" of Cheney's daughter, which he calls a low, dirty trick.
[Ace here: I agree! It's loathesome. Does anyone doubt the MSM would call them on this if it were Republicans who kept outing a Democrat candidate's child as gay?]

Kerry finsihed the debate sequence as the candidate of global tests, truth tests, France, tax hikes, government health care....

Bush finished the debate ... promising to keep working hard for children and the armies of compassison, resolute in the war, thrilled by Afghanistan, optimistic about Iraq, and comfortable with every voter in his potential pool.

...

Sleep easy, America. W for four more years.

Hewitt has more, including a big chart grading each candidate on each question. Now that's diligence. (Hey, I was watching The Untouchables, which is frankly a better way to spend one's time.)

Instapundit has only a single word:

Heh.

No, really, he says he thinks Bush won "hands down."

Bill from INDC:

I know that this is a boring, repetitive assessment, but ... very close to an effective tie. But with the strength of his closing, Bush actually won. The momentum is to Bush.

Bill also has been posting other blog-reactions.

Michelle Malkin is steamed about the transparent, disgraceful "Your daughter is a dyke" bullshit, and annoyed at the immigration question. Or rather the answers.

Llama Butchers skips all this "what I thought" bullshit and gets right to the heart of the matter: where is the smart money headed? He says Tradesports has Bush up $4.00 and Kerry down $3.90, and he's got all sorts of graphs and whatsits to prove it.

PowerLineBlog, whoever they are, call it a split decision:

On the whole I thought that Kerry did somewhat better than Bush on the ordinary domestic issues. He was almost always on the attack and was better able to back up his arguments with (often misleading) data. On the other hand, Bush did better than Kerry on the "social" issues. As usual, Kerry seemed much less comfortable than Bush in this area, probably with good reason. Moreover, Bush had a significantly better closing statement. He was able to articulate something approaching a vision, while Kerry was on the defensive, trying to reassure voters that he would defend the country and not give foreign powers a veto over our use of force. This isn't a good place to be three weeks before the election. On balance, then, I think the debate was probably a draw on substance. If I had to pick a winner, in pure debate terms, it would be Kerry, since most of the debate was dedicated to discussing non-social issues.

If one analyzes the debate in the context of election politics, however, one could argue that Bush won. He probably came off as more human and likeable. He looked fresher than Kerry. And he certainly came across as more optimistic and visionary. Unless a majority of Americans are pessimistic this year, Bush may have won the debate that matters.

Qu'ran Project:

The President won and by a large margin. He looked calm, happy to be there and in control of his thoughts and emotions. While he made some solid attacks on Sen. Kerry (D-France), he always seemed positive and upbeat. Conversely, Sen. Kerry was whining about the attacks and repeating the same pre-debunked arguments from the last 3 debates. I just about fell out of my chair when he mentioned Tora Bora for the millionth time.
...

When the Gay Marriage issue came up, I was braced for a bloodletting but The President make a compelling case for his amendment. The case against activist judges is sound. I still oppose the amendment, but he made a really good argument. The best Sen. Kerry could do was to hit below the belt at Vice President Cheney's daughter. He may regret that remark in the days ahead.

Fuckin' a-- I love it when a meme begins to come together. Seems like everyone's pretty pissed off at this pussy-coward "Your daughter's a dyke" bullshit.

Fuck you, Kerry. You gonna tell me you never had a cock in that mishapen mouth of yours?

Protein Wisdom is, I think, overly cynical about John Kerry's ability to deliver on his various promises.

Travelling Shoes:

My first impressions are that this debate was a narrow win for Bush.

...

I did think, however, that Kerry scored points with his talk about jobs, and his attacks on the economy. However, I would also say that his non-stop attacking left him looking petulant and more than a little ridiculous. He was in danger of becoming a caricature of a candidate, always attacking but never offering a real alternative.

...

Happily, thanks to the last two debates and Kerry's recent interview in the New York Times, the Democrat in the household has become something of a security mom and has moved tentatively into the Bush column.

So, on those ground alone I can score this a Bush win.

PoliPundit:

However the President really did well tonight. He was focused, informative, and charming while driving home the point that his opponent is a Massachusetts liberal. His opponent, on whom the pressure was on to win the debate, was not as good as he was in the first debate or even the second debate.

Another PoliPundit contributor then offers an optimistic projection for the election.

Hat Tip to Foolsblog for the PoliPundit link.

Garfield Ridge:

The debates were a wash. This election is effectively tied. November 2nd is going to be decided by turnout.

I think that's wrong. The debates weren't a wash-- and that's why the polls are effectively tied. Bush had a 6-8 point lead before he decided to sleepwalk through the first debate.

Da Goddess weighs in:

Great debate! Bush was very effective, warm, and listened to Laura's advice. No slouching and no scowling. Kerry seemed off his game. THK is gonna take the strop to him tonight in the hotel suite. She was none too pleased with his comments about her.

...

Winner: Bush, hands down.

The idea of THK coming at me with a "strop" will give me nightmares for years to come, I'm certain.

Alarming News felt the whole thing was pretty tedious:

It was a deadly boring debate. I wrote in minute 9 that it was going to be hellish. There wasn't one 'zing' moment and there also wasn't anything new at all. I think it was a tie, with an edge to Bush for seeming more human than Kerry. This was a debate to get an impression for 'the person' and if you hate Bush then nothing was going to change that for you tonight. Similarly, if you think Kerry is a pompous ass, that impression was only solidified.

Having snapped off the debate within ten minutes to watch Elliot Ness throw Frank Nitti off a roof, I can't accuse her of not being sufficiently enthralled by the proceedings.

Ace of Spades really thought that Sean Connery deserved that Best Supporting Actor nod for The Untouchables:

MALONE: If Capone pulls a knife, you pull a gun. If he puts one of your boys in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue. That's the Chicago way.

So, so true. I still cry when Malone dies.

Closing the Round-Up: I think we've covered the big points by now.

Posted by: Ace at 05:07 PM | Comments (66)
Post contains 1495 words, total size 10 kb.

Michael Williams is able to figure this stumper out using about three seconds of internet-research, and he's curious why the author of this story on author fraud apparently couldn't do the same.

Any guesses which party the fraud is benefiting?

Once again, the liberal media avoids using the active voice and/or identifying the subject committing the action in order to obscure and hide rather than to inform and reveal.

Posted by: Ace at 04:16 PM | Comments (3)
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.