I wanted to hold off crowing about this until we had more numbers and more confidence, but Politburo Diktat has jumped the gun, and he wonders where all of this "bounce" might be.

Politburo Diktat observes, quite smartly, the this non-bounce is "suspiciously timed" to coincide with the end of Kerry's convention-- precisely when he was expecting a bounce.

Can this be a mere coincidence? Doubtful. Think about the odds against that.

I will, per Josh Marshall, have Thoughts of Surpassing Import about this non-occurrence later.

Maybe. Then again, maybe not. Who knows.

Posted by: Ace at 10:44 AM | Comments (11)
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

How about another haiku contest? They can be about Kerry, the convention, or the campaign generally; if there are enough entrants about a particular subject, like Oliver Willis, Joshy Marshall, or Andrew Sullivan, I'll spin off separate categories for those, too.

Lauraw offers the opening entrant, I guess in the General Election category:

Wild Reeds dancing in Summer Storm

Global warming ends
When Kerry is elected;
Teresa's nucking futs

No loose shit/integrity categories this time; that was just a big pain in the ass last time around, as I had to sit there counting syllables to make sure "integrity" entries had the right number. Just make it look vaguely like a real haiku and it's close enough.

I'll keep the contest open until Wednesday, then announce winners on Friday.

Or something.

Winners will be chosen by a celebrity (ahem) panel of myself, Smitty, Johnny Coldcuts (assuming he's alive), Geoffrey the Duck, and perhaps a special mystery guest judge of surpassing "conscious" and integrity.

Posted by: Ace at 10:08 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Ryan tips this Sullivan quote:

"A sincere and deep word of thanks to all of you who have contributed so far in this pledge week. By being so positive about the Democrats this week, I haven't
exactly picked the smartest moment to ask for support." -- Couple of days ago

Hmmmmm...? Was Sullivan's pro-Kerry boosterism driving down his bandwidth-o-thon money? Well, no problem-- we can fix that!!!:

Well, I guess there was always going to be a reality check. ...One thought sprang into my mind immediately: what an arrogant jerk.

... This was also, it seems to me, a very liberal speech. Domestically, there was no problem the government couldn't help solve. There was support for protectionism, and for penalizing the drug companies. Government-funded research into stem cells was described as revolutionary. But private drug research that has cured millions and saved my own life must be throttled to placate constituencies like the AARP. There was no mention of welfare reform in his past; no mention of education reform; and no firm commitment to seeing the war through in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is obviously what worried me the most. His goal in Iraq is to bring the troops home. Three words: not good enough. Here's the passage about the war:

[Kerry's paragraph:] "I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a President who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers, and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

...

No mention of democracy in Iraq or Afghanistan. No mention of the terrorist forces that are amassed there. No reference to the elections scheduled for January. No mention of Iran. And the whole point is about process - about how to wage a war, not whether it should be waged. This is a man who clearly wants the U.S. out of the region where our future is at stake, and who believes that simply by taking office, other powers can somehow pick up the slack. Memo to Kerry: no other powers can pick up the slack. They don't have the troops or the technology or the will. His strategy is pure defense. This sentence is his strongest threat: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response." So let's wait, shall we?

And he also touts this as the "best assessment" of Kerry:

The responsibility of sending troops into danger should weigh on a commander in chief. But so must the responsibility of protecting the nation against a shadowy foe not easily deterred by traditional means. Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq. He offered not a word to celebrate the freeing of Afghans from the Taliban, or Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, and not a word about helping either nation toward democracy.

But fear not. By Monday, Kerry will be redeemed as a Anti-Terrorist Crusader. This of course will have less to do with anything Kerry says about terrorism than what he doesn't say about gay marriage.

Sullivan seems to have discovered that the relationship between political incoherence and donations is much like the relationship between bisexuality and dating: It doubles your odds of getting lucky.

PS, Liberal Readers: I voted for Clinton in 1992. 'S true.

That's gotta be worth something.

Posted by: Ace at 09:53 AM | Comments (8)
Post contains 588 words, total size 4 kb.

My Pet Jawa looks into the numbers and finds that we're doing pretty darn well.

Posted by: Ace at 09:37 AM | Comments (6)
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

Let's keep this in perspective, ay?

The growth rate "plunged" to a healthy rate of 3.0% per annum in the second quarter. Clinton's average growth rate was 3.6%; during the much-feted "miracle economy" of which we've heard so much, there were numerous quarters featuring growth of less than one percent per annum, and even the occasional quarter featuring negative growth, or contraction. (Not "recessions," as his negative quarters were never back-to-back, as the common definition of a recession requires.)

Meanwhile, the growth rates during several of the past quarters were revised upwards.

Remember last quarter? The growth rate then had been originally noted as being 4.1% or so; it was then revised downwards to 3.8%, and the media declared -- I kid you not -- that the economy grew "much slower" in the first quarter than previously estimated. Well, now the first quarter GDP has been revised back up to 4.5%, and yet I doubt we'll be hearing the economy grew "much faster" than we'd originally thought.

Should the growth this quarter be revised upwards, as has been the strong trend of late, don't expect to hear about it from CNN.

Meanwhile, the growth for the previous year was revised upwards from a sizzling 4.8% to a downright sensational 5.1%, but don't expect to hear much about that, either.

We'll get one more of these quarterly readings, right before the election.

Now that I've put this into perspective, I'll say this is disappointing news, but only because I was hoping for fairly ridiculous numbers. I wanted a booming economy of such explosive growth that not even the liberal media could downplay it with a straight face. I wanted the election all over but for the shouting, based on economic data alone.

Unless there's a big uptick in growth, I'm sad to say that economic expansion won't be so enormous that the media can't pretend we're in a recession. Bush will have a two-year growth spurt exceeding Clinton's average by a whopping 1% or even 1.5%, and yet the media will compare unfavorable his piddling little 4.6% two-year average to Clinton's magical, supercharged 3.6%.

Which means, probably, that the economy won't re-elect Bush by itself, although it will become a neutral-to-slightly-positive issue. It seems we're going to have to have this stupid election anyway.

And I was so looking forward to a fascist takeover of the nation as predicted by Paul Krugman. Sigh.

Maybe next year. There's always next year.

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

Well, I got through that without watching so much as five minutes of it. I suppose that, as a political blogger, I was sort of obliged to cover the convention, but I have a good reason for not doing so:

I didn't want to.

What the hell could they say, after all? Figure I'll be different and provide a little counter-programming.

But, now that it's over, let me quote two key Kerry applause lines:

We wil fight a smarter war on terror. We will employ every weapon in our arsenal-- economic as well as military. Principle as well as firepower.

Wow. I figure Al Qaeda is just quivering over that threat.

Until, that is, they realize that "principle" is not in fact a weapon. It is the opposite of a weapon: it's a restraint on one's behavior. An often virtuous restraint, to be sure, but then, the forces of darkness do not tremble at the thought of their enemies behaving civilly towards them.

And that's precisely what John French Kerry promised them. Principle, and plenty of it.

Combining Edwards' and Kerry's promises: We will destroy Al Qaeda-- with principle.

Personally, I prefer killing or capturing as many of these animals as possible, and I'm not very particular as to how that might come to be. I like sausages enough to not question the manner by which the slaughterer and butcher bring them to my table.

Principle is an expensive virtue. It is often worth the costs. It is not worth the costs when we are threatened with thousands of American deaths in one day. If John Kerry fights this war with "principle," I hope he explains to the families of the next victims of terrorism why the abstract notion of principle was more important that doing everything in his power -- everything in his power -- to save their loved ones' lives.

I have a feeling the families of the dead Americans will end up preferring a war fought with more conventional weapons. And -- shivers! -- occasionally some rough handling of captured Al Qaeda mass-murderers.

Next quote:

[speaking about the Woodstock Moment:] It was a time for marching. Marching for civil rights, marching for voters' rights. For the environment, and for women. And for peace. We believed we could change the world, and guess what? We did."

Ahem. This shows the entire problem with liberalism, which remains firmly trapped in a timewarp in which it is always the Summer of Fuckin' Love.

We're in the middle of a war against the most savage animals we've ever faced -- and in terms of pure animal savagery directed towards Americans and American troops, they're far worse than the Nazis -- and this sixties throwback is talking about marching for goddamned peace.

Peace.

War is Over,
if you want it...
War is Over,
if you want it...

Everything is seen by liberal boomers through the prisms of their misspent, selfish, pampered youths, and through their one great triumph over war itself, their campaign to surrender in Vietnam.

If John French Kerry does win this election-- pass the joint. If our commander in chief is going to remain beclouded in a skunky fog of pot and juvenile naivete left hardened over forty fucking years of ignorance and stupidity like so much bong-resin spilled on the floor of your flower-spangled VW Bug, I might as well get stoned while I wait for my own anhiliation.

But when New York is bomed -- this time, bombed hard enough to shut down large sections of the city and leave me dead -- I'll at least be comforted by the notion that John Kerry confronted my killers with principle.

Posted by: Ace at 09:42 PM | Comments (20)
Post contains 615 words, total size 4 kb.

Jen Martinez is a little sick of metrosexuals.

She's begun a new movement: Retrosexuals. You know-- men who act like, um, men.

Thanks to the omnilinkable Michelle Malkin.

Posted by: Ace at 04:34 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: The time is now to resolve that the basis of a firm and principled foreign policy is one that takes the world as it is and seeks to change it by leadership and example; not by harangue, harassment or wishful thinking. The time is now to say that while we shall seek new friendships and expand and improve others, we shall not do so by breaking our word or casting aside old friends and allies." - Ronald Reagan, in his nomination speech in 1980. Doesn't it sound a lot like what you're hearing in Boston?

Guess who...?

Goshdarnit, now even I'm thinking of voting for John Kerry! Two days ago, I thought he was the most liberal senator in congress and a tough-talking, flip-flopping kneejerk pacifist on the war on terrorism; but jeepers, now I find out that he's Reagan's True Heir.

Which will be his next column.

Okay, I'm knocking off for a bit. Several of you think I'm getting too hot and that I need a drink; who am I to argue with such advice? Take care.

Posted by: Ace at 02:46 PM | Comments (6)
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

To: Al Qaeda-sympathizing liberals

From: Ace of Spades

Re: "Timing"

Sirs:

Please inform us all of when America is permitted to attack or capture Al Qaeda operatives. I ask specifically for you to provide us with a calendar of specified days upon which such anti-terrorist actions are permitted to be conducted.

You keep saying you object to the "timing." Well, then: If it's the timing you object to, surely there must at least nine or ten days between now and November 2nd upon which it is not "suspicious" to hunt terrorists.

I await the announcement of this calendar. Once you have provided it to me, I will coordinate with my corporate masters at the RNC to attempt to restrict all time-sensitive military strikes and covert operations to the specific days upon which you are so graciously allowing America to defend itself.

Please respond ASAP, as this is obviously a pressing matter.

Sincerely,

Ace of Spades HQ
Theocratic Liaison for Scheduling
Pre-Determined Announcements of
Victories in the Global War on Terrorism (TM)

PS: Do you really think that your bought-and-paid for liberal cheering section we call the "mainstream media" would ever allow such a minor event as the capture of an Al Qaeda general to overshadow their candidate's coronation?

How much time do you really imagine the media will give this story tonight? A thirty second mention, tops? Will CBS mention it at all?

PPS:

That's all I have to say, really. I think that says it all, right there.

"Like Kryptonite to Stupid."

Uh-huh.

Like Kryptonite to Good Arterial Health.

PPPS: Here's CNN's front-page.

Can you find the mention of the capture of an Al Qaeda general?

Joshua Ezekial Bucephus Bluebonnet Cougar Mellancamp Micah Marshall (thanks to a poster for a couple of those) whines about MSNBC's scary-huge coverage of the arrest:

Hmmm, seems pretty sedate to me there, too. It's the first headline under "MORE top stories," the operative word there being "more," meaning it isn't one of the actual top-of-the-page, picture-in-the-banner top stories.

And yet this is too, too much for our onanistic American Taliban Josh Marshall:

Actually, apropos of the previous post, the real sucker on this one seems to be MSNBC rather than CNN. At least thus far. As of 5:43, the Ghailani capture is the headline on the MSNBC website, while it gets lesser billing on CNN. MSNBC is even blaring it more than Fox News (oh the infamy!).

Maybe the media just should have embargoed the story entirely, Josh. It is, after all, just an Al Qaeda general captured. You let us know what sorts of news the media should, until election day, refuse to report entirely, rather than simply down-playing, as they're doing now.

These liberal media-types seem to have an awfully strange notion of what constitutes "informing the American public." Apparently there's a very large class of information which mustn't be reported at all, lest Americans "get the wrong ideas," to wit, ideas which are not pre-approved by members of the Idiotgentsia such as Marshall.

Posted by: Ace at 02:15 PM | Comments (27)
Post contains 507 words, total size 3 kb.

Again with the timing crap.

I'm sorry that hunting terrorists conflicts with your political calendar, Joshy.

Is Marshall suggesting that we delay capturing terrorists until after November 2nd so that we score no victories against Al Qaeda that might hurt John Kerry?

Remember, this is one of our fellow patriotic Americans talking. A fellow patriotic American who sees a captured Al Qaeda leader and screams in agony over it.

He'd rather have the terrorist free than in Bush's prison.

Hey, fuckface. Douchebag. Shall we delay all anti-terrorist measures until November 3rd? Please explain to us why we should do so.

Make you a deal. We'll cancel all such measures, but if there's a terrorist attack in the US that results in any American deaths, John Kerry concedes the election. Fair, asshole?

I'm sorry, but I just can't fucking take it anymore.

Update: At this point they -- meaning Marshall and his paranoid-fringe brethren at DU (except they're not fringe anymore; the liberals have embraced their inner lunatic) -- are actively on Al Qaeda's side. Any victory Bush scores against Al Qaeda is a victory against Kerry. Ergo, they're praying their little hearts out for Osama bin Ladin and Musab al-Zarqawi.

Is this an overstatement? Let's once again check in with Gary Kamiya, penning this "confession," self-justified though it is, in Salon after the fall of Baghdad:

"I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong. Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings.

"Some of this is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow. But some of it is something trickier: It's a kind of moral bet-hedging, based on a pessimism not easy to discount, in which one's head and one's heart are at odds."

The liberals keep claiming that these sorts of feelings don't exist. When confronted with statements like this one, they allow that such feelings exist, but are restricted to a tiny unbalanced fringe of lunatics. (Oddly enough, many members of this tiny fringe of lunatics seem to have permanent salaried positions in high-visibility mainstream media outfits, as well as in the Democrat Party.)

You combine these admissions with Marshall waving the bloody shirt over the fact that we caught a very high ranking Al Qaeda leader -- sad news for the nation indeed! -- and you tell me these people put the security of their country above getting their precious fucking liberals back into the White House.

Anti-American Minds Think Alike: No one ever accused Oliver Willis of possessing an overly-inventive mind.

Except when it comes to Filet-O-Fish sandwiches, of course. I have it on good authority that it was this brilliant thinker that thought of putting that little wedge of cheese on the Filet-O-Fish sandwich.

And this is the same asshole that's forever complaining, in his "cute" turn of phrase of which he's tremendously proud, of the "Right Wing Wurlitzer Machine," whatever that could possibly mean, parroting the day's official political talking points. But of course he's only too happy to ape Marshall's latest conspiracy theories.

I salute you, you obnoxious ovoid. You've got the triple-crown: You're you're untalented, you're unoriginal, and you're viciously hypocritical.

You've done a man's job. Why don't you reward yourself with a nice feedbag of White Castles?

Posted by: Ace at 01:14 PM | Comments (14)
Post contains 647 words, total size 4 kb.