Boom Chicago : Videos : Watch John Kerry practice his speech

I found this on my brother’s blog: Spoon Attack

It is obviously fake but very funny nontheless.

Hanoi Approved of Role Played By Anti-War Vets – October 26, 2004 – The New York Sun

From Blogs for Bush

Newly discovered documents show that the young John Kerry didn’t just meet with the Communist Vietnamese in Paris. He took orders from them. His activities, when he returned home and denounced his country and fellow soldiers, delighted the Vietnamese Communists and gave them hope that they could defeat America and enslave millions of Vietnamese in a genocidal slave state that persists to this day.

Is this the man you want to see in the White House? Do you want to wake up on November 3 and hear that John Kerry, Communist stooge, is the president-elect?

Re-elect George Bush to the presidency Written by Mark Bumgardner for The Badger Herald

“I don’t know what I’m going to find on Jan. 20, the way the president is going. If the President just does more of the same every day and it continues to deteriorate, I may be handed Lebanon, figuratively speaking. Now, I just don’t know. I can’t tell you. What I’ll tell you is, I have a plan.” – Senator John Kerry, Oct. 8, 2004, Englewood, Colorado

Many Americans remember hearing, “It’s the economy, stupid” — one of the most memorable lines from Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign. While Kerry has not yet resolved his message into one sentence, the quote above, in which he expresses great pessimism for America and claims to have a plan (although does not know), perhaps summarizes his campaign better than any other.

For those whose obsessive hatred of George W. Bush allows them to look past empty rhetoric, distortions and lack of true leadership, John Kerry is the clear choice for president. However, for those who seek a president with vision and leadership on both international and domestic policy, President Bush deserves the job for another four years. The world changed forever Sept. 11, 2001, and Bush understood this. Terrorists had declared war against the United States long ago, as exemplified by attacks on the Khobar Towers in 1996, the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 and the World Trade center bombing of 1993. The previous administration handled these attacks mostly as crimes, rather than acts of war.

In contrast, after September 11, Bush began fighting terrorists abroad, before they strike at home. Furthermore, he understands that spreading democracy and liberty to Afghanistan and Iraq represents an important step forward, not only as a moral victory against the terrorists’ ideology, but also as a victory for world peace, as throughout history, no two democratic nations have fought each other. Continue reading →

This past Saturday, Michael Moore came to the University of Wisconsin at Madison to speak to a crowd of over 4000 people. While Moore came to promote Kerry as somehow being a respectable contender for the Presidency, he really only came to promote himself. Our student fees allowed Moore to come and preach his lies. So, the UW College Republicans organized a Bush/Cheney rally outside of the Memorial Union (the entrance to Moore’s speech).

Here is a picture of all of us (except for me because I was taking the picture) before we walked over to the Union. Click “Read More” below to see more pictures of the event!

At the rally: (the kid was trying to block my view of a Kerry propaganda vehicle)

Continue reading →

Terrorists’ Candidates? (washingtonpost.com)

(from above site)
Terrorists’ Candidates?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 8, 2004; Page A35

Do the bad guys — the terrorists in their Afghan caves and Iraqi redoubts — want George Bush defeated in this election? Bush critics, among them the editors of the New York Times, have worked themselves into a lather over the mere suggestion that this might be so. A front-page “analysis” in The Post quoted several Republican variations of this theme — such as Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage saying that the terrorists in Iraq “are trying to influence the election against President Bush” — then noted that “[s]uch accusations . . . surfaced in the modern era during the McCarthy communist hunt.”

Intimations of McCarthyism constitute a serious charge. But the charge is not remotely serious. Of course the terrorists want Bush defeated. How can anyone pretend otherwise?

Why are we collectively nervous about terrorism as the election approaches? Because, as everyone knows, there are terrorists out there who would dearly love to hit us before the election. Why? To affect it. What does that mean? Do they want to affect it randomly?

(to continue reading please sign up for the Washington Post’s excellent online news site)

The official George W. Bush site declares a decisive victory in tonight’s debate. And I agree. Kerry appeared flustered and uneasy, while Bush was relaxed and at ease in the town hall setting. Bush stayed truthful throughout and did not waver in his stance. When asked the tough question of where did you fail (directly questioning Bush’s decision on Iraq), President Bush anticipated the question’s desired effect and remained steadfast and eloquently told the audience but most importantly told the American public and the world why he chose to remove Saddam. I can recount numerous instances of Kerry flip-flopping even during this short debate session. I’m voting for a president that is willing to take the unpopular route (as President Bush called it) if he feels that it is the right decision both morally and defensively for the country. Kerry’s record of appealing to the public to stay (or build) popularity does not appeal to me. Here’s an example of Kerry’s flip-flops to gain popularity: During the Democratic primary Kerry was Pro-Iraq war. However, his main opposition ran as an anti-war candidate. With this position, Howard Dean dominated the polls and caused Kerry to switch sides to improve his Democratic primary chances.

What does Kerry really think about the war? We’ll never know…but we do know that he is willing to adjust his position to the perceived stance of Americans to gain an advantage. Luckily, the majority of the American public is smart enough to see through Kerry’s lies and flip-flops. (It will be interesting to see how the American public, who still favored Bush after the first debate will react in the polls following the second debate’s decisive Bush victory. I anticipate that Bush will have solidified his lead.) Throughout Kerry’s “military” and political career he made switching his position to gain popularity the rule not the exception. I put military in quotes because I feel (as do the majority of Kerry’s Swift Boat crew) that his fight in Vietnam served only as a platform to gain popularity and was not truly to serve his country.

Plus, I know that my roommates (two of whom are liberals) think that Bush did very well in the debate. After the first debate they were laughing about his performance; after tonight’s debate they were silent.