Posted 22:30 by Grote 0 comments

Round 1!

Tonight is the first of three debates and as your source political commentary and opinion for the 2004 Presidential Election. Seriously though, you should watch at least one if not all three of these debates to make an informed decision. I know I'm not the only one not happy with the formats but we're going to have to make do with what we have, because let's face it, no candidate wants to look like a deer in the headlights by a surprise question. We'll be on MSNBC all night, unless I tell you differently. Our host will be Jim Lehrer from PBS.

9:00 And away we go.... Jim has written the questions and the candidates don't know what's coming to them.

9:05 First question deals with preventing another 9/11. Both thank Florida and they feel the pain and suffering of Floridians from the Hurricane. Both dance around the question. Neither provide a solid plan.

9:10 Will Kerry's election increase a chance of a second terror attack. Bush dodges the question by proclaiming he (Bush) will win. He puts out in front his achievements as President. Kerry's rebuttal includes the phrase "the President has made a collossal mistake by invading Iraq." I have to agree with Kerry here, we needed to go after Bin Laden before Saddam.

9:15 What collossal misjudgement has Bush made?" Alliances that were promised did not happen. We would go to war as a last resort. "I don't believe we reached that last resort."-- Kerry. Opium production, 10x number of troops in Iraq then in Afghanistan. Bush's rebuttal; brings up Kerry's agreement about removing Saddam. They're getting heated, although I suppose when you're called a liar you get kinda hot.

9:17 Going after Saddam vs. going after Osama. Bush: We can do both. We're making progress. "Iraq is a central part on the war on terror." But that's only because he made it part of the war on terror by destabalizing it. I have no problem with removing Saddam, we just should have gotten Osama first. Kerry basically echoes what I just typed. Me a genius? No.

9:20 Phone call, I'll catch up when I'm off the phone so nyah.

9:23 Still on the phone but MSNBC is breaking the rules by showing both candidates at the same time!

9:48 Finally off the phone, I kept half an ear on it and I don't think I missed much. One thing that really annoyed me that the President keeps calling Kerry, "my opponent". Come on, call him by his name or his title or something.

9:50 Huh. We're seeing a back and forth. Not really a debate but at least a back and forth.

9:50 What's Kerry's plan? I wait with baited breath. Convince the Iraqis that we aren't having a long term interest there. Close the borders. Bring the rest of the world in Iraq. EXCEPT IT WON'T HAPPEN. Changing horses midstream will not increase the posse (to coin a phrase). Is it me or is Bush leaning on his lectern?

9:55 George doesn't get it. We need to close the borders! Wait we haven't closed the borders?! WTF?

10:00 Kerry nailed Bush as Bush tried to link Saddam to 9/11 AGAIN. Bush really doesn't get it about Iraq. One more round of resolutions would have gotten more countries on board and probably wouldn't have changed much.

10:09 Leherer nails both campaigns about not stopping the genocide in Sudan. Nice. Kerry blames Iraq and the back door draft. Best quote I ever heard "No president has ever suffered politically or internationally by ignoring genocide."

10:19 This is my biggest problem with a foreign policy debate. You're making the grayest part of being president a black and white issue.

10:22 I got to agree with Bush. You HAVE to get the region in on talks with North Korea. We won't get anywhere except another war unless you have the weight of Russia and China behind you.

Ok I quit. The debates over except for the shouting. Really, I'm just as confused as I was 90 minutes ago. Iraq was wrong, but we need multilateral talks in North Korea and so we're doomed internationally with either candidate. Sigh.

Posted 21:26 by Grote 0 comments

Why Bother?

According to this NY Post Article our candidates don't even need to be in the same room Thursday when they debate each other. Here's a run down of the rules. Remember BOTH sides agreed to these.

*Answers are two minutes and rebuttals are 90 seconds.

*The candidates cannot address each other. No "There you go again" a la Reagan.

*The candidates cannot offer each other proposed pledges. NY Senate candidate Rick Lazio abandoned his podium with a pledge banning soft money. Which brings us to our next rule...

*The candidates must remain behind their podium.

*When a candidate is speaking there will be not TV cutawats to any candidate who is not responding to a question. So if Kerry or Bush sighs, shakes his head, or looks at his watch we won't see it.

*Members of the debate audience will be instructed not to applaud.

*The moderator is instructed to cut any audience member that reads a different question than that was on their card.

*The room will be at 72 degrees farenheit.

My question is: Why bother? This isn't a debate, it's a joint news conference. Debates are supposed to be spontaneous. They're supposed to help the undecided voters pick a candidate finally because one seems to think better on his feet (something required for the job) than the other. Well, I'll be watching and blogging on Thursday. Join me won't you?

Posted 15:57 by Grote 0 comments

This gets a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot...

Apparently since WWII, the United States and British Governments, and later a consortium have been working on a trans-atlantic tunnel. How come no one has told me of this, ever? I mean I'm pretty well plugged into the collossal engineering undertakings that we do, like for example the trans-bering strait bridge. Which could be very cool. However, the tunnel is due to be completed by the end of the decade. It'll take passengers and their cars from the UK to the US in 9 hours or vice versa. How cool is that? Although this does kinda scream FAKE! If it is, I'll keep you posted.
Website nabbed from Steve Jackson's Daily Illuminator

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot is code speak for WTF or What the F---
I was fooled, but apparently not the only one.

Posted 17:51 by Grote 0 comments

A spin-off if you will.

I’ve been lax in blogging the Republican National Convention, due to the fact a good friend of mine is moving into his new house on the fifth and frankly helping him takes precedence; a thousand apologies to those of you who were looking forward to reading it.

However, I do have a corollary to the Republican Convention, or at least my blogging of it. My good friend Mike Addison, took me to task on some of the things I said and in response to one of those items, I brought up an opinion I had been forming for the last week or so since the downing of the two Russian airliners. My theory, I believe, is given even more strength with the recent events in southern Russia.

By now you might see where this is going, so let’s look at the history of Chechnya

First of all here’s where Chechnya is located:


Starting, in 1830, Russian Imperial Forces began moving into Chechnya, after about 30 years of resistance; Russia had fully integrated Chechnya into its empire and secured its border with the Ottoman Empire. It received status of an autonomous republic under the Soviet Union (e.g. Ukraine) in 1936. During World War II, most of the citizens of Chechnya fought for the Nazis against the communists. After the Soviet Union fell, civil war started after the Russian Federation refused to recognize Chechnya as an independent state.

The First war lasted about 2 years (94-96) but only after Chechen soldiers began torturing and executing pro-federal citizens and federal soldiers, thus demoralizing the federals. The separatist president was supposedly killed by a Russian Rocket attack in 96, but accounts vary. A second war broke out in 99, after bombs destroy apartment blocks and killing about 200. Chechen Rebels blame the Russian Secret Service after the Russian government blames them.

The separatists are reportedly funded by our good pal Osama bin Laden, and in 2002, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed the war was over, even though most of the separatists still held the mountains and were being harbored in the country of Georgia. You can read a lot more of the history of Chechnya here.

Ok, so here’s my theory.

Chechnya has been a thorn in the side of the Russian Federation since 1994. Osama bin Laden has been, more than likely, funding the militant Islamic radicals and separatists in Chechnya. The Russian government had given us intelligence about Iraq’s pursuit of WMDs, but I believe Putin found himself in a pickle. If he supports the United States in the liberation of Iraq, then that gives the rebels in his country a new reason to step up the fight. At that point he’s now fighting a civil war and trying to keep the peace in Iraq. If he then pulls out of Iraq, the Russians now look ripe for the plucking terrorism-wise. So, the logical solution is to keep quiet all around. If I recall correctly, the Russians haven’t been as vocal as the French or the Germans or even the English about our involvement. If the Chechens had been put down, I’m sure we’d have Russian troops in Iraq.

Now with today’s massacre added with the suicide bombing in the Russian metro and the airplane bombings, Putin can claim that he only has one choice but to put down the rebellion once and for all and with the weight of the entire Russian army. Remember, this is a man who used to be a KGB agent. I’m suspecting that he’s got the “super-size” can of whoop-ass stashed on the border ready to go. I guess next, we wait and watch.

Posted 20:27 by Grote 0 comments

RNC Day 3...

...will not be blogged today due to Mike helping Rich paint the baby's new room at their new house.