I'm going to be heading to the beach today at about 4:00, which means this will be the last update until Tuesday. That's a shame because I was looking forward to liveblogging the debate tonight...

By the way: My prediction? The Dems way overspun the first debate so that expectations are that Kerry is going to clean Bush's clock tonight. Heck, the first debate was basically a draw even with Kerry basically getting a pass on his record (which isn't going to be the case this time). So I expect Bush will look fresher, more prepared, and will win the debate tonight. We'll see if I turn out to be right.

Bush should win by the way. Kerry's nothing but a "backseat candidate" who sits around and carps that he could do a better job driving, even though he supported almost all of what he now thinks were "wrong turns" at the time they were made. As Teddy Roosevelt pointed out, anybody can be a critic...

"It is not the critic who counts, nor the man who points out where the strong man stumbled, or where a doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs, and who comes up short again and again, who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause. The man who at best knows the triumph of high achievement and who at worst, if he fails, fails while daring greatly, so that his place will never be with those cold timid souls who never knew victory or defeat."

....but whether they can accomplish anything when it's their turn in the arena is another matter.

In any case, that's enough politics for me today. I'm heading to the beach. While I'm gone, how bout checking out my advertisers? Come on...just a few...please?

ConservativeMatch Dating Service
Intellectual Morons (Which I'm Currently Reading By The Way)
Light Calvary
Magnetic Bush / Cheney Bumper Stickers
Mr. Flip Flop!
RightWingStuff
Thank You Tony Blair
The All Right
The All Right
VitaminUSA

Last but not least, I wanted to give a little plug to Steven Pressfield's "The Virtues of War : A Novel of Alexander the Great". His publicist sent me an email asking if I wanted a free copy, I answered in the affirmative and Pressfield (he's the guy who wrote 'The Legend of Bagger Vance') quickly sent me a personally autographed copy along with a really nice note. I do plan to read the book -- which is a fictionalized account about Alexander the Great -- but I have to admit that Pressfield's book "Gates of Fire : An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae" appeals to me more. Alexander was sort of the Hitler of his day, but Thermopylae? 300 Spartans vs. 100,000 Persians and they held out for a week to give their people more time to prepare. It was like the Alamo on steroids. Now that's a STORY. That would actually make for a pretty nifty movie, and I think they made one back in the day, but the depressing way the battle ends -- with the "good guys" all dying probably means there won't be a remake any time soon.

Here's a quick summary, even though I'm on vacation. Note that I haven't seen or heard anyone else's analysis on the net or TV. (Am I a political junky or what?)

Moderator Performance: Excellent. I have no complaints about the questions.

Funniest moment: Bush on the Timber company.

Worst Reply: After Bush called Kerry a liberal, Kerry replied twice, that it's just a label. Totally ineffective reply.

Biggest beat-down of the debate: Bush mauled Kerry on abortion. Kerry gave a meandering, wishy washy reply while Bush was decisive and clear.

Kerry's Performance: One of the funniest things about him is that he'll say he's consistent, say he has the same position, and then immediately try to get on both sides of the issue. I'm for the Patriot Act, but we have to change it. I'm for No Child Left Behind, but here's what's wrong with it. Saddam was a grave threat, but it was wrong to go to war.

Bush's Performance: Bush looked much better than the first debate and was much more effective, energetic, and did a good job of refuting Kerry's points.

Verdict: Draw on foreign policy, Bush wins on domestic policy. Overall: Bush wins

Here's a little more reading material to keep you busy while I'm gone. Enjoy the humor...

-- Behind The Scenes In Iraq With Wolf Streisand
-- Canadian Man Mildly Offended That America Isn't Threatening To Invade Canada
-- Constitution Ruled Unconstitutional
-- French PM: 'It's Great to Be Collaborating with Germany Again!'
-- I Am A Paecemaker! Peace Is My Gun! (Icq Prank)
-- The Jacques Chirac Apology Song
-- Liberals On The high Seas
-- Politically Correct Fairy Tales
-- Proof That Bin Laden Was Framed
-- The Republican's Translation Guide: What Are Democrats Really Saying?
-- The RWN Idiot Test
-- The RWN Real-Estate Sale
-- U.S. Finds Iraq Contractor with No Political Ties
-- Why I Am A Democrat
-- Woman Speaks To Cat Like It Was A Human Being

Since I'm going out of town today and won't return until Tuesday, I thought it might be a good idea to give you a little Retro RWN releated to the election to chew on. Enjoy the Kerry bashing and Bush boosting...

-- 40 Reasons To Vote For George Bush Or Against John Kerry
-- A Response To "10 Reasons To Fire George W. Bush"
-- A Tale Of Two Polls
-- A Vote For John Kerry Is Like A Vote For Ted Kennedy
-- An Interview With John O'Neill
-- Bush Has Often Met With Wounded Soldiers & Families Of The Fallen
-- George Bush -- Again -- Meets With Families Who Have Lost Someone In Combat
-- George Bush's Wildly Successful War On Terrorism
-- How Many Times Does It Have To Be Said: There Isn't Going To Be A Draft!
-- John Kerry Didn't Support The Troops In His Post-Vietnam Days
-- John Kerry In Quotes: Version 4.0
-- John Kerry On Iraq: Weathervane In A Windstorm
-- Like Duh, Of Course Al-Qaida Would Prefer That John Kerry Become President
-- RWN's Favorite George W. Bush Quotes
-- So If Bush Is Hitler, Why Is He So Nice?
-- The Bush Record
-- The Case Against John Kerry
-- The Conservative Thinking Behind The War On Terrorism
-- The Top Speech Excerpts From The Republican Convention
-- The Type Of Man George Bush Is
-- The Questions The Mainstream Media Needs To Ask John Kerry About Vietnam
-- Transcript of GWB's Sept 20th, 2001 Speech
-- Why A John Kerry Presidency Would Lead To Doom In Iraq
-- Why Conservatives Should Vote For Bush
-- Why We Invaded Iraq

Since the Duelfer report has now definitively revealed that Saddam had no stockpiles of WMDs, I thought it was worth pointing out just SOME of the many reasons why taking out Saddam was the right thing to do.

1) Without question, Iraq was a nation that provided "safe haven" for terrorists with "global reach". Among them were terrormaster Abu Nidal, Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the conspirators in the 1993 WTC bombing, "Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over...Scotland,"Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer," & "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan" who is now believed to be leading Al-Qaeda's forces in Iraq. Quite frankly, any war on terrorism that didn't tackle that nest of vipers would have been a war in name only.

2) As George Bush has said many times, the war on terrorism CANNOT BE WON without stopping rogue nations from supporting terrorist groups. Since we had more than a decade of experience that showed it was impossible to reason with Saddam, it was clear that war was the only way to stop him from supporting terrorists. In other words, as long as Saddam Hussein remained in power, the war on terrorism would have been unwinnable.

3) As Vladimir Putin revealed, Russian intelligence believed Saddam was planning terrorist attacks inside the US,

"I can confirm that after the events of September 11, 2001, and up to the military operation in Iraq, Russian special services and Russian intelligence several times received...information that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations."

Because George Bush acted, we may have been spared Iraqi terrorist attacks here in the United States.

4) One of the likely reasons that we've seen such a decrease in Palestinian terrorist attacks in Israel is because Saddam is no longer around to pay the families of suicide bombers $25,000 per homicide bombing. How many buses and pizza parlors full of Israeli women and children would have been blown into chunks by now if John Kerry had his way and Saddam were left in power?

5) While Iraq has not been implicated in the 9/11 attacks, Iraq has had ties to Al-Qaeda for more than a decade. The evidence of this is irrefutable and the people who are denying it are doing so for political purposes. Here are just a couple of quotes that prove what I'm saying...

"(Abu Musab al) Zarqawi was said to have received medical treatment in Baghdad in May and June of 2002 after being wounded in Afghanistan during the war. His leg was amputated, U.S. officials say, by a surgeon in Iraq. Before the war, Secretary of State Colin Powell pointed to Zarqawi's al Qaeda-affiliated group that he said was operating inside Baghdad, as evidence of ties between al Qaeda and Iraq." -- Today, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was in Iraq before the war began, is leading terrorist attacks against the Coalition and Iraqi people.

"Credible reporting states that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." -- CIA Director George Tenet in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 7, 2002

6) Because we're fighting in the Middle-East, terrorists who might otherwise be coming to America to kill civilians are coming into Iraq to fight our troops. George Bush prefers it that way. He'd rather have the best trained soldiers ever to walk the planet fighting the terrorists in Iraq rather than here at home. If John Kerry had his way, we might have civilians being attacked by those same terrorists in the streets of New York, LA, or Chicago. Which makes more sense; soldiers fighting the terrorists in Iraq or civilians being attacked by them here in the US?

7) Even though the Deulfer report has revealed there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq, it also says that they were waiting for an opportunity to produce them,

"ISG has no evidence that IIS Directorate of Criminology (M16) scientists were producing CW or BW agents in these laboratories. However, sources indicate that M16 was planning to produce several CW agents including sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, and Sarin."

What the Deulfer report is saying echoes what the man Deulfer replaced, David Kay, said earlier,

"Even those senior officials we have interviewed who claim no direct knowledge of any on-going prohibited activities readily acknowledge that Saddam intended to resume these programs whenever the external restrictions were removed."

Weren't we better off taking Saddam out when he didn't have WMDs than waiting until he did have them in stock?

8) Iraq was not completely free of WMDs. "10 or 12 sarin and mustard gas shells" have been found. Furthermore, it's of course possible that there are more we haven't found yet. There was also plenty of radioactive material Saddam could have given to terrorists to make a dirty bomb. So did Saddam Hussein have the capability of giving WMDs to terrorists? Yes, he did. Apparently, John Kerry has no problem with that.

9) Because we invaded Iraq, nations like Iran and North Korea cannot blithely disregard the idea that we will attack them and they'll be much more likely to make a deal with us, just as Libya did. As Mark Steyn said,

"You don't invade Iraq in order to invade everywhere else, you invade Iraq so you don't have to invade everywhere else."

10) Obviously Saddam had such poor judgement that it was dangerous to allow him to stay in power. Just look at this quote...

"It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world....He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. ...We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future."

You know who said that back on 10/09/02? John Kerry. He was right the first time.

11) By taking out Saddam Hussein, we freed more than 25 million Iraqis and are helping them towards Democracy. This is no small thing given that Democrats justified military intervention in places like Bosnia and Haiti SOLELY on humanitarian grounds.

Conclusion: Would America be safer if a madman like Saddam Hussein were still around? John Kerry thinks so and that's one of the many reasons that he would make a poor Commander and Chief.

I am a senior citizen. During the Clinton Administration I had an extremely good and well paying job.

I took numerous vacations and had several vacation homes.

Since President Bush took office, I have watched my entire life change for the worse.

I lost my job.

I lost my two sons in that terrible Iraqi War.

I lost my homes.

I lost my health insurance.

As a matter of fact I lost virtually everything and became homeless.

Adding insult to injury, when the authorities found me living like an animal, instead of helping me, they arrested me.

I will do anything that Senator Kerry wants to insure that a Democrat is back in the White House come next year.

Bush has to go.

Sincerely,

Saddam Hussein

Hat tip to Strange Cosmos for this piece.

PS: Yeah, I know this isn't brand new, but I like it and it's particularly appropriate since Saddam would still be in power if John Kerry had his way.

Like a lot of political junkies -- and apparently Robert Reich, I find America's move to the right, particularly over the last 25 years to be fascinating. Here's the gist of Reich's take

"Then something quite strange happened. "Nearly everyone has a conversion story to tell -- how their dad had been a union steelworker and a stalwart Democrat, but how all their brothers and sisters started voting Republican; or how their cousin gave up on Methodism and started going to the Pentecostal church out on the edge of town; or how they themselves just got so sick of being scolded for eating meat or for wearing clothes emblazoned with the State U’s Indian mascot that one day Fox News [an unabashedly right-wing TV network] started to seem ‘fair and balanced’ to them after all."

As Frank emphasizes, the backlash has been cultural rather than economic.

So in Reich's view, the movement to the right has been largely cultural. I think that's correct -- at least in part. But, the cultural revolution hasn't taken place in America per se, it has taken place in the Democratic Party itself.

Remember that at one time, men like Ronald Reagan, Phil Graham, Trent Lott, & Jessie Helms all used to be at home in the Democratic Party. But as Ronald Reagan put it,

"I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. It left me."

And truth be told, it's very easy to see why he said that. Since the sixties, the Democratic Party has radically moved to the left and not just cultural issues, but on national security. Liberals may not want to acknowledge it, but the left-wing elite that runs the Democrat party today holds a lot of views that their own party members would have found abhorrent 40 years ago.

Today's Democratic Party is the home of people who believe in: gay marriage, government funded abortion on demand, ceding much of US sovereignty to the UN, crippling the US economy with Kyoto, taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, legalizing drugs, Reparations, Affirmative Action, giving felons the right to vote, coddling criminals, attacking Christianity at every opportunity, & weakening our military and intelligence services.

The Democratic elite, people like John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, Michael Moore, Nancy Pelosi, Jessie Jackson, etc, might have a lot in common on economic issues with Democrats who came along before McGovern ruined the party, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, etc, but they're way, way, to their left on social issues and national security.

That's often masked because as Ann Coulter has said...

"The common wisdom holds that "both parties" have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."

...but it's true nevertheless.

Furthermore, the conservative movement hasn't stood still as the Democrats have drifted ever leftward. Reagan, who was far more conservative than his predecessors like Ford and Nixon, or those who came after him like Bush 41 and Bush 43, had an enormously successful Presidency. Reagan's success proved without a doubt that conservatism works.

I'd also have to give a lot of credit for conservatism's growth to Rush Limbaugh for explaining conservative principles and Newt Gingrich for his political leadership which helped the GOP take back the House.

And last but not least -- although again, I'm sure liberals won't agree with this -- the right is ideology of ideas, where all the real debate is, while the left, has become very dogmatic. Put another way, conservatives are still trying to convince the American people that they're right, and they're slowly but surely succeeding, while the left has already lost the debate and is simply trying to hold on to what they have by branding dissenters from the liberal orthodoxy as evil fascist greedheads.

Liberalism is in many respects a failing ideology that is still limping along only because of friendly judges who legislate from the bench and the willingness of their candidates to pretend to be much more conservative than they really are when elections roll around. If the Democrats don't change their ways, I think that within a decade or two they may very well go into a deep decline from which they will never be able to recover.

"And now we go to our round table," Brit Hume announced, "Mara Liasson of National Public Radio, Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard, and Mort Kondracke of Roll Call. Of course, our subject is the Vice Presidential debate."

"Slam dunk for John Edwards, no question," Barnes stated.

"I dunno, seemed more like a body slam to me," Kondracke said.

"I'm not really an expert on this sort of thing, but it looked like a pile driver," Liasson commented.

"But we all agree, that, whether it was a slam dunk, a body slam, or a pile driver," Hume said, "Edwards's head was driven through the table at great force after Cheney grabbed him."

"And I think Cheney made his point," Barnes stated, "Contrasting strong leadership with weak furniture."

"You have to give points to Edwards for how he handled it, though," Liasson commented, "He took the attack quietly... much unlike his earlier crying."

"I think that was because he was unconscious," Kondracke said.

"What about the crying?" Hume asked, "Each time Cheney made an attack on Edwards's or Kerry's record, Edwards broke down crying. How do you think the voters will react to that?"

"I think people will sympathize with him," Liasson stated, "Cheney is a very scary man."

"I disagree," Kondracke said, "He made him look weak and, frankly, not presidential."

"Let's face it," Barnes exclaimed, "This was Bambi versus Godzilla. You wanted to avert your gaze from the slaughter, but you couldn't stop staring from morbid curiosity."

"Edwards made a few good points, though," Liasson declared, "between the whimpering that is."

"The whole venue was set against Edwards, though," Kondracke said, "especially how there was no rule to keep Cheney from thumping Edwards in the head."

"Which was inappropriate and made Cheney look mean," Liasson stated.

"On the contrary, I think Cheney looked calm and professional while he beat up Edwards," Barnes said, "Even after breaking the table with Edwards's head during his closing statement, Cheney then just fixed his tie and continued talking for the last twenty seconds like nothing strange happened."

"He was quite calm," Kondracke agreed, "Almost sedated."

"A sedated Godzilla," Hume suggested.

"And that's what people want now in this war on terror," Barnes said, "A calm, trustworthy giant beast from Monster Island, not some guy who got beat up in kindergarten."

"I think Edwards's toughness as a child is hardly the issue," Liasson responded.

"I mean last week," Barnes stated, "He visited a school, and the kindergarteners knocked him down and beat the crap out of him."

"Let's move on to Bush's speech," Hume said, "Do you think it gives any clue to his strategy for the Friday debate?"

"He is clearly trying to build off the momentum Cheney made," Kondracke stated.

"And he certainly hinted at something to come," Barnes commented.

"I believe you're referring to this statement," Hume said.

The screen showed Bush standing at his podium. "I have plans for the next debate," he stated, "Secret, evil plans. Muh ha ha ha!"

"Knowing Bush's record, I'd be worried that he might hurt himself with evil plans," Liasson commented.

"His crazy schemes do usually backfire with hilarious consequences," Kondracke said.

"I guess we'll all be watching then to see what happens," Brit Hume stated and then looked to the camera, "Remember to tune in Friday to FOX News for complete debate coverage, body slams, pile drivers, and all."

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, (John Kerry's) voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it." -- Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman

"(F)irst, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?" -- Dick Cheney

John Kerry's waffling on the war on terrorism is almost entirely based on politics. Quite frankly, that should scare the living hell out of anybody who cares about the safety and security of the American people. In an age when a failure in the war on terrorism may literally lead to nuclear bombs going off in American cities, can we afford to have a man in office whose first consideration is politics, not protecting our country? (Cont)

In America and around the world, conservatives and liberals have battled it out over the Kyoto Protocol.

Liberals argued that we absolutely had to sign the Kyoto Protocol, IMMEDIATELY, no matter what damage it might do to the economy! Why, if we didn't sign Kyoto, not only would the Europeans be angry at us (how can we ever bear the shame), but the entire earth will turn into a giant "Dune"-like desert minus the giant sandworms!

Of course, conservatives weren't having it. We said that we don't know whether man is causing global warming or not, the problem is a long time off, it's too expensive, even if man is the problem, Kyoto won't fix it, etc, etc. In other words it's a typically expensive, ineffective, liberal solution.

But, as the evidence continues to pour in, it supports the idea that conservatives, not liberals were right. Don't believe me? Just take a look at this article....

"THE Kyoto Protocol will not come close to solving the world’s climate-change problem - even though Russia has now agreed to ratify the agreement - according to a report in New Scientist.

"The Kyoto Protocol involves only very modest reductions of less than 5 per cent. The US does not support it, developing nations do not have to make any cuts and it expires in 2012. Perhaps most crucially, it does not provide a blueprint for where we want to end up and how we intend to get there."

That's right folks, the report says that the Kyoto Protocol will reduce carbon dioxide by less than 5 percent, but unless we can make a 66% reduction, we can't "stave off ever more severe climate change".

Setting aside the fact that we don't know whether they're even right or not about man causing climate change, much less the rest of it, the human race isn't currently, realistically, capable of cutting it's carbon dioxide production by 2/3rds.

Sure, maybe if we all traded in our cars for bikes and moved into log cabins powered by solar panels, we might be able to reach that number, but that's just not going to happen.

So in other words, if we agreed to the Kyoto Protocol which would gut our economy, we'd still have accomplished nothing....except making a bunch of environmental wackos and Europeans happy. Maybe liberals think that's worth it, but we conservatives know better...

"No seriously — imagine that you struck up a conversation with a relatively informed person who said, "I agree with John Kerry about the war on terror." What, exactly do you think that person would mean?

Would he be trying to communicate that we should stay the course? That we blundered going to war in the first place? That we were right to go to war but handled it wrong since we were there? That it was a good cause? A grand diversion? We should bug out? Finish the job? Or simply that he doesn't know anything about the war except that George Bush is always wrong?" -- From Jonah Goldberg

Oooh, oooh...I'm guessing it's "he doesn't know anything about the war except that George Bush is always wrong"!

In all seriousness, it's amazing to me that we're in a war on terrorism and we have a man running for President who can't coherently explain his own position on the war, whose supporters can't explain it, and whose views have radically shifted time and time again.

It takes a lot of gall to take a joke like John Kerry and try to pretend he's credible on national security, but remember that we're talking about a party that calls ex-KKK member Robert Byrd the "Conscience of the Senate" and Bill Clinton, "The First Black President". So I guess "gall" isn't a problem...

Some countries should have nuclear weapons, such as America. Then... well, that's about it, but I guess it's okay the British have some, and I don't mind much that India and Pakistan have them as long as they just keep them pointed at each other. But know who shouldn't have nuclear weapons? Iran, North Korea, and children.

Iran, North Korea, and children just can't be trusted with the responsibility nuclear weapons entail. Nuclear weapons can kill millions and put the world into the deadliest war in history, but we can't trust that Iran, North Korea, and children will be rational enough to understand that.

Also, look at the history of Iran, North Korea, and children; they often have been reckless with their possessions in the past, and it wouldn't be too surprising if Iran, North Korea, or children misplaced their nuclear weapons such that they ended up in the hands of terrorists. Sure we could scold them afterwards, but the damage would be done. That's why we need to keep Iran, North Korea, and children from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.

Iran, North Korea, and children probably won't accept this ruling and throw tantrums saying they should be able to have nuclear weapons too. It's best to just ignore them when they act like that. But, we need to keep a constant eye on Iran, North Korea, and children because they are likely to disobey us if they think we aren't looking. Perhaps we can motivate them by saying if they're good we'll make trade agreements, loosen sanctions, and give them cookies, things that Iran, North Korea, and children want.

It will take a stern hand to keep Iran, North Korea, and children in line, but the consequences of any of them getting nuclear weapons is too much for the world to bear. It's best we keep nuclear weapons up on a refrigerator or underground in a reinforced, concrete silo where Iran, North Korea, and children can't reach them. If they still persist, then harder actions must be taken. As the old saying goes, "Spare the rod, spoil the Iran, North Korea, or child."

Frank J. is a syndicated columnist whose columns appear worldwide on IMAO.us and is the author of such books as "The Monkey Was Dead When I Got Here" and "My Lord, Art is Boring!"

Here are what are in my opinion, the top 10 excerpts from last nights veep debate, in order.

10) Dick Cheney: "It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror. And, after 9/11, it became clear that we had to do several things to have a successful strategy to win the global war on terror, specifically that we had to go after the terrorists where ever we might find them, that we also had to go after state sponsors of terror, those who might provide sanctuary or safe harbor for terror. And we also then finally had to stand up democracies in their stead afterwards, because that was the only way to guarantee that these states would not again become safe harbors for terror or for the development of deadly weapons."

---

9) Dick Cheney: "It's awfully hard to convey a sense of credibility to allies when you voted for the war and then you declared: Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time. You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor. You're not credible on Iraq because of the enormous inconsistencies that John Kerry and you have cited time after time after time during the course of the campaign. Whatever the political pressures of the moment requires, that's where you're at. But you've not been consistent, and there's no indication at all that John Kerry has the conviction to successfully carry through on the war on terror."

---

8) Dick Cheney: "They talk about the top bracket and going after only those people in the top bracket. Well, the fact of the matter is a great many of our small businesses pay taxes under the personal income taxes rather than the corporate rate. And about 900,000 small businesses will be hit if you do, in fact, do what they want to do with the top bracket. That's not smart because seven out of 10 new jobs in America are created by small businesses. You do not want to tax them. It's a bad idea to increase the burden on those folks. The senator himself said, during the course of the primaries, that the Kerry plan would drive us deeper into deficit. Those were the senator's word about his running-mate."

---

7) Dick Cheney: "We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States. That's part of a track record that goes back to the 1970s when he ran for Congress the first time and said troops should not be deployed without U.N. approval. Then, in the mid-'80s, he ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs. In 1991, he voted against Desert Storm. It's a consistent pattern over time of always being on the wrong side of defense issues. A little tough talk in the midst of a campaign or as part of a presidential debate cannot obscure a record of 30 years of being on the wrong side of defense issues."

---

6) John Edwards:...We are for more tax cuts for the middle class than they're for, have been for the last four years. But we are not for more tax cuts for multimillionaires. They are. And it is a fundamental difference in what we think needs to be done in this country.

Gwen Ifill: You have 30 seconds, Mr. Vice President.

Dick Cheney: Yesterday, the president signed an extension of middle- class tax cuts, the 10 percent bracket, the marriage penalty relief and the increase in the child tax credit. Senators Kerry and Edwards weren't even there to vote for it when it came to final passage.

---

5) This one makes it for being the lamest line of the night...

John Edwards: "Here's the truth: I have grown up in the bright light of America. But that light is flickering today."

There they go again...

---

4) Dick Cheney: "It's hard, after John Kerry referred to our allies as a coalition of the coerced and the bribed, to go out and persuade people to send troops and to participate in this process. You end up with a situation in which — talk about demeaning. In effect, you demean the sacrifice of our allies when you say it's the wrong war, wrong place, wrong time, and oh, by the way, send troops."

---

3) John Edwards: And regardless of what the vice president says, we're at $200 billion and counting. Not only that, 90 percent of the coalition casualties, Mr. Vice President, the coalition casualties, are American casualties. Ninety percent of the cost of this effort are being borne by American taxpayers. It is the direct result of the failures of this administration.

Gwen Ifill: Mr. Vice President?

Dick Cheney: Classic example. He won't count the sacrifice and the contribution of Iraqi allies. It's their country. They're in the fight. They're increasingly the ones out there putting their necks on the line to take back their country from the terrorists and the old regime elements that are still left. They're doing a superb job. And for you to demean their sacrifices strikes me as...

John Edwards: Oh, I'm not...

Dick Cheney: ... as beyond...

John Edwards: I'm not demeaning...

Dick Cheney: It is indeed. You suggested...

John Edwards: No, sir, I did not...

Dick Cheney: ... somehow they shouldn't count, because you want to be able to say that the Americans are taking 90 percent of the sacrifice. You cannot succeed in this effort if you're not willing to recognize the enormous contribution the Iraqis are increasingly making to their own future.

---

2) Dick Cheney: The reason they keep trying to attack Halliburton is because they want to obscure their own record. And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

---

1) Dick Cheney: "And with respect to this particular operation, we've seen a situation in which, first, they voted to commit the troops, to send them to war, John Edwards and John Kerry, then they came back and when the question was whether or not you provide them with the resources they needed -- body armor, spare parts, ammunition -- they voted against it. I couldn't figure out why that happened initially. And then I looked and figured out that what was happening was Howard Dean was making major progress in the Democratic primaries, running away with the primaries based on an anti-war record. So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote and they voted against the troops. Now if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to stand up to Al Qaida?"

*** Update #1 ***: Josh Boruff over at the humor site Something Awful lists some of his favorite ** wink, wink ** moments from the debate =D

-- "Cheney, attempting to prove Edwards incapable of defending this country, shocked everyone with a startling revelation. "How do I know John Edwards can't defend our country?" asked Cheney. "Because I abducted him from his home when he was a child and threw him down a flight of stairs, obviously causing permanent brain damage."

Cheney cracked his knuckles and added, "and I could do it again." Edwards was left in tears."

-- "Both candidates struggled with Gwen's question, "if you could be any flavor of ice cream in the whole wide world, what flavor would you be?"

-- "When told not to mention John Kerry's name in his response, Edwards mentioned it twice. Legend has it that if you say John Kerry's name three times, he will appear and kill you with his hook hand. Gwen scolded Edwards for trying to invoke evil spirits."

-- "Meanwhile, in a remote cabin, Peter Camejo declared himself the winner of a debate he had with two effigies he built in his garage."

*** Update #1***: Apparently Cheney and Edwards have met together 3 times...

"On Feb. 1, 2001, the vice president thanked Edwards by name at a Senate prayer breakfast and sat beside him during the event.

On Jan. 8, 2003, the two met when the first-term North Carolina senator accompanied Elizabeth Dole to her swearing-in by Cheney as a North Carolina senator, Edwards aides also said."

Cheney should have had that straight before he said it because it would have been just as effective if he closed by saying that he hadn't seen Edwards on the Senate floor in 3 1/2 years.

In any case, Cheney should be chastised for not getting it right and Edwards attendance record in the Senate still absolutely stinks.

-- Let's get ready to rumble.....

-- Way to start with a loaded question. Here's a quote from Bremer "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq".

From Rumsfeld,

"Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Tuesday he was misunderstood when he stated hours earlier that he knew of no "strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda."

-- Good job nailing Kerry on his record, but Dick needs to look towards the camera and not down at his hands so much.

-- So far, Dick is doing a better job of bloodying Kerry/Edwards and getting out the talking points.

-- I think Gwen Ifill is doing a far superior job to Jim Lehrer. She's actually making Edwards answer some relevant questions.

-- "You probably weren't there to vote for that." Nice jab.

-- What is with this effeminate look Edwards is giving to Cheney while Dick is zinging him?

-- Dick Cheney is hammering the living hell out Kerry. I love this. I wish Bush could pop these guys like this.

-- My verdict so far...25 minutes in....Dick Cheney is winning B-I-G. Edwards is on the defensive and repeating Kerry talking points.

-- Gwen Ifill is nailing Edwards on the allies thing? Gwen, Gwen, Gwen, you are doing the job a moderator should...

-- "Wrong place, wrong time, then send troops". Not going to work. Exactly Dick.

-- Classic example, he won't include the contributions of our Iraqi allies. BAM -- Kapow! Lovin' it. He's beating Edwards like a pinata.

-- Forgot this one, "If they can't stand up to Howard Dean, how can they stand up to al-Qaeda?" Ooooh...

-- Gwen Ifill "Well (30 seconds) is what you got". Best. Moderator. Ever. Lovin' her.

-- Edwards is really hammering that "Israelis have the right to defend itself line". They must be trying to shore up the Jewish vote.

-- "Senator, you have a record that quite frankly isn't very distinguished" -- Your hometown paper calls you "Senator Gone". "The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight". If this were a boxing match, it would have been stopped by TKO already...

-- From Betsy's Page, "Cheney is doing so well that I fear it will resurrect all those slurs that Bush is Cheney's puppet."

-- "1.7 million jobs over the last year." Finally, they should be saying that all the time.

-- Ifill is asking how he's going to cut the deficit...lovin' it.

-- You know why Edwards sucks so bad tonight? Bush and Cheney always get the media's best pitch, but when Edwards and Kerry don't get huge, underhanded, floating, softballs, they whiff over and over.

-- Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, believes Edwards and Kerry are all about middle-class tax cuts. Nice comeback by Dick on the "they didn't even show up to vote for the middle-class" tax cut.

-- They always say "You can't force one state to recognize another's state marriage. Never happened in 200 years". Well, judges never forced a state to recognize gay marriages over the objections of the legislature and voters in 200 years either.

-- Cheney doesn't feel comfortable talking about the gay marriage thing. Too bad.

-- Cheney comes across as incredibly well informed -- on everything.

-- Putting Edwards in charge of legal reform is a joke. John Edwards whole career was built on frivolous, junk science, cerebral palsy lawsuits. Cheney could maul him on this, but he doesn't want to hit his personal cases. Edwards did a great job on this topic, probably because he had so much practice. Nice smackdown on the 600,000 dollar loophole by Cheney though.

-- This was a lot more fun when they were talking about foreign policy. I can practically feel people starting to see what else is on TV now...

-- They want to double the 15 billion to 30 billion? Good grief...how much money are we going to pour into that sinkhole in Africa? For all the money we spend down there, we never seem to accomplish anything...

-- Gwen Ifill nailed Edwards on the experience thing? She rocks so hard! I don't remember the last time a MSM person other than Tim Russert actually made these clowns answer hard questions. I'll be interested to see the Democratic reaction to her questions....

-- Awww...Dick is going soft on him. Beat him down on his inexperience Dick. Beat him! Dick is still doing fine, but the debate has been watching the paint peel off the walls dull since they switched to domestic issues...

-- Dick Cheney is doing the "humble origins" thing. Who knew?

-- Dick Cheney comes across as the experienced, competent, tough, leader who you can trust. Edwards looks like a used car salesman beside him.

-- "The light of America is flickering." What nattering nabobs of negativism these people are.

My conclusion from the Bush/Kerry debate.

"Bottom Line: Neither candidate really said anything new to people who have been following the campaign closely, no one made any major mistakes, or scored any big points."

The Verdict on this debate?

Bottom Line: Cheney absolutely dominated Edwards during the foreign policy debate and beat Edwards solidly in the more boring domestic policy debate.

How much will it help? Hard to say. There will be less people watching this debate than the Kerry / Bush debate and Veeps aren't nearly as important. But, whatever happens, it's going to help the Bushies.

Also, as a side note, if as expected Kerry and Edwards lose, I think Edwards killed his chances of running for President in 2008 by getting whomped so bad in this debate. I mean when you have a guy whose whole appeal is supposed to be his charm and charisma getting pounded by Dick Cheney of all people, it really undercuts his whole appeal as a candidate.

Side note #2: Gwen Ifill is the best moderator EVER. Every future moderator should aspire to be like here...which of course means all the liberals will probably complain about her.

*** Update #1 ***: Let's take a quick tour around the right side of the blogosphere to see what the immediate reactions are...

Kerry Spot: "The single most devastating drubbing since Lloyd Bentsen smacked Dan Quayle all around the stage in 1988."

Polipundit: "Cheney wins this debate. It won’t have much effect on the polls, because most people aren’t watching, and those who’re watching don’t vote for Vice President."

Outside The Beltway: "Overall, I think Cheney won this one. Moreover, the debate was much more illuminating than Round 1 of the presidential debates."

Jonah Goldberg at The Corner: "Personally, I thought Cheney won, clearly and decisively....Cheney won on foreign policy and Edwards won narrowly on domestic policy --- politically. Substantively, I think Edwards lost on almost every point."

Blogs Of War: "Dick Cheney victory. Edwards was smooth (well he stumbled a few times) but Cheney effectively countered every single point he made. No detail was overlooked in Cheney’s replies. This will only fuel paranoid liberal assertions that he is some kind of ozian puppetmaster but if you look for capable leadership in a Vice President Cheney is unmatched."

Betsy's Page: "The ABC instant poll gave it 43 to 37% for Cheney over Edwards. However, their talking heads thought it was even. I don't think they watched the same debate I did. I thought Cheney hit it out of the park."

Blogs For Bush: "Tonight, Vice President Cheney clobbered John Edwards in their first and only debate."

Hugh Hewitt: "A Cheney win, but no disaster for Edwards, though perhaps for Kerry."

Sister Toldjah: "GREAT debate. Cheney held his own against one of the most slick talking Senators in recent memory. My verdict: Cheney won."

Crush Kerry: "Somebody pick the carcass up off the floor of Case Western University. It used to be John Edwards, Democratic Vice Presidential Candidate. The only body part that's moving is his hand, which he kept pointing and poking in such an annoying and distracting manner for 90 minutes."

Captain's Quarters: "I think that the first half of the debate had the most resonance, and I think Cheney tromped on Edwards all night long, but especially during the first half. Edwards spoke well but only in slogans."

"Internet Polls: Few things are easier than influencing the results of an internet poll. All it would take to send tens of thousands of people to a local church website to write in Satan as a choice for a new pastor would be posts on a handful of large message boards and websites. In fact, this has been done so often by the folks over at Free Republic that the word "freep" has come to mean deliberately skewing a poll. Not to say that online polls aren't entertaining, they can be, as long as you don't confuse them with some sort of accurate reflection of the public's feelings on a subject." -- John Hawkins, "Get Your Antennae Up".

If you ever needed a perfect example of how utterly and completely worthless online polls are, the debates are providing it for you.

Before the Kerry / Bush debate, the DNC sent out an email. Here are some of the details...

"In an effort to manage the message, Democrats bombarded media websites with post-debate spin immediately following Thursday's Bush-Kerry face-off in Florida – and it appears to have paid off.

...(To) insure that voters “understood” Kerry won the debate, Kelly directed what he called a “comprehensive online multimedia strategy.” Friday morning, major media websites were strewn with banner ads linking to the DNC homepage. The McAuliffe email, sent twice Thursday to 5 million users, contributed to the DNC raising a “single-day record” of $3.8 million. During the debate alone, the DNC raised $1 million. Though quick to credit Kerry, Kelly believes the urgent tone of the email had a tangible effect."

Personally, I thought that was completely lame. Here we have a presidential debate going on which is going to help determine who the leader of the free world is for the next four years and you have one side encouraging their people to stuff the polls.

Most people -- but not all -- seemed to give Kerry the edge after the debate, but not by much. But if you look at some of these online polls, Kerry won by a landslide....

"The Chicago Tribune's online poll, for example, gave Kerry a 68-31 percent edge, while Newsday.com had Kerry ahead by 83-16 percent. Similar results were found in the Tampa Tribune online poll (74-23 percent in favor of Kerry) and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (Kerry the winner by 83-7 percent). The Denver Post online poll had Kerry winning 74-21 percent..."

None of this would matter, except the PERCEPTION that the Democrats managed gin up by rigging these online polls appeared to have helped Kerry make gains in at least Some of the REAL POLLS.

Furthermore, most -- but not all -- of the mainstream media seemed to treat the rigging of their polls as just a cute little media strategy. But don't be surprised if that attitude changes, because the Republicans are getting into the game now.

Here's an email from Ken Mehlman, the Bush campaign manager that's going around...

After last week's debate, the Kerry campaign spin machine managed to
mask their candidate's flip-flops on the war in Iraq, imposition of a
"global test" for protecting America, and repeated denigration of our
troops and allies.

Beyond tonight, you should return to these forums in the coming days and
make your voice heard and your support for the President known."

Now, I think that both parties should be chastised for getting into the online poll rigging business.

However, the MSM also shouldn't be giving them the opportunity to do this. Come on, how much sense does it make to put easily manipulated online polls that have absolutely no scientific validity up on these MSM websites when they apparently can even influence the outcome of a presidential election?

It doesn't make sense and it's time for the MSM to get rid of these online polls once and for all...

The VEEP debate tonight should be interesting.

We have John Edwards, AKA the fluffy puppy, a man selected for VP solely because he's pretty and slick, going up against Dick Cheney, a grizzled but not particularly charismatic political veteran who is far more competent than Edwards, but who usually gives the impression that he'd rather be at an undisclosed location poking terrorists with a pitchfolk just for the fun of it.

The smart money has to be on Edwards who'll be using those debating skills he honed while he was running up everyone's health care bills as a trial lawyer, but Tricky Dick may be able to score more points off of waffles jr. than you'd expect.

In any case, I will be live blogging it tonight. It should be "fun" as long as your definition of "fun" is loose enough...

Kerry mentioned a "global test" during Thursday debates, so I sent my crack research staff to find out what that could be. Ends up, it's freely available from the U.N. Here it is:

THE GLOBAL TEST FOR PREEMPTIVE STRIKES
Brought to you by your local U.N.

Please answer these questions with a "yes" or "no" in regards to your proposed preemptive strike.

* Is this action needed to protect your nation from an imminent threat?

* Have you considered all other courses of action?

* Will the U.N. actually have to do anything other than talk?

* Will this financially benefit France?

* Does Communist China think it’s a good idea?

* Do all Communist nations think it's a good idea?

* Even Cuba?

* Can you wait for at least 18 months of pointless U.N. debate before acting?

* Will this in no way help Israel?

* Will this interfere with any current kickback programs at the U.N.?

* Will this in no way anger any Muslims?

* Did you obtain the permission of the country you plan to invade?

If you answered "yes" to all these questions, then you will be allowed to do a preemptive strike after you allow for the debate, fill out an ecological impact form, and grease all the right palms. Thank you for supporting your local U.N. and have a peaceful, globally popular day.

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at Imao.

Since Ann Coulter has a new book out and since it has been about a year since the last time I compiled quotes from the bombastic blonde bomber, I thought it would be a good time to put together a year of quotes from Ms. Coulter's columns.

I think you'll enjoy the quotes, particularly the brutal jabs Ann takes at Senator Flip-Flop...(Cont)

In a sane world, you wouldn't need to explain why felons should be allowed to vote. But today, if you have enough votes to swing elections, somebody ** cough cough ** Democrats ** cough cough ** will rush to embrace you.

In this case, we have MLK's widow, Coretta Scott King, tying the rights of gang-bangers, murderers, crackheads, and serial rapists to the Civil Rights movement....

"Ending the disenfranchisement of convicted felons is part of the unfinished business of the civil rights movement, Coretta Scott King said at an NAACP event marking the 40th anniversary of the Portland chapter in Maine.

"Something is very wrong with laws that prevent any citizen from experiencing his or her democratic right, even when they have paid their debt to society," she told the crowd."

Don't ya love that line, "they have paid their debt to society"? Yeah, I wonder if Coretta Scott King would let her grandchildren stay at a day care that had several child molesters who had "paid their debt to society" working there? Would she leave a teenage niece alone with a rapist who had "paid (his) debt to society"? Ms. King was at an NAACP event and I wonder if they'd be willing to hire some people who had "paid their debt to society" for embezzling to handle their books?

What could go wrong? I mean there isn't any difference between people who "paid their debt to society" and the rest of us who have never committed a felony right?

Wrong!

We can let people out of jail, we don't have to keep them in there forever, but we should use common sense when they get out. I'm a huge proponent of the 2nd Amendment, but I don't want Joe the "Pistol Whippin' Rapist" to be able to buy a handgun when he gets out jail. Furthermore, I fully approve of Charley "the Child Molester" having to warn people in his neighborhood that he's a sex offender. Taking precautions like these with felons is basic common sense that protects society from criminals.

And one of the best ways to protect society from influence of known criminals is denying them the right to vote. Sure, maybe some people think John Walker Lindh, Charles Manson, John Hinckley, Jonathan Pollard, Terry Nichols, & their lesser known ilk should be able to vote if and when they ever get out of prison, but it's not in America's interest to have people like that voting...

Just take a look at these two survey/poll results and draw your own conclusions about who'd make a better President.

John Kerry?

"Nearly 9 out of 10 people in France would support John Kerry if they could vote in the U.S. election, according to a poll published Friday, Reuters reported from Paris.

Eighty-seven percent of French people would back Kerry and 13 percent would vote for Bush, according to the poll by the CSA research group and published by La Croix newspaper."

Or

George Bush?

"An unscientific survey of U.S. military personnel shows they support President Bush for re-election by a 4-to-1 ratio. Two-thirds of those responding said John Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam make them less likely to vote for him.

The survey was conducted Sept. 15-28 by the Army Times Publishing Co., which distributes the weekly newspapers Army Times, Navy Times, Air Force Times and Marine Corps Times."

Hmmmm....who would you rather become President, especially in a time of war? The guy supported by the cheese-eating surrender monkeys or the man supported by our troops?

That's not exactly a hard call to make...

*** Update #1 ***: Put another way...

Who do you trust to fight the war on terror? John Kerry, who's supported by the French or George Bush, who's supported by the troops?

or even...

If America's troops trust George Bush to fight the war on terrorism, shouldn't you?

Although it ran a scant 13 episodes, the western series ‘Johnny Nuance’ still prompts fond memories among baby boomers who followed the exciting weekly adventures of the treaty-slinging frontier diplomat. Featuring former matinee idol Lash LaDouche in the title role, the series debuted on CBS on March 4, 1958 as a mid-season replacement for the low rated ‘Walter Cronkite Presents Hackleigh Rich Tobacco Flavor Playhouse.” After its brief run, it was replaced by the SciFi classic ‘Enigma Sector.’

Lash LaDouche went on to star in several other short-lived CBS series, including the 1964 sitcom ‘I Married a Hag,’ the 1968 variety show ‘Flip Out,’ and the gritty 1975 police drama ‘Torino Squad.’ He retired from acting in 1978 to found the LaDouche Winery in St. Helena, California, but is still frequently recognized by fans -- an experience he relishes.

"I am proud of my work on Johnny Nuance," says LaDouche. "The scripts might have been awful, but we taught youngsters that you didn't have to be violent, or foolhardy, or particularly courageous to be a hero."

******************

THEME (sung by Eddie Fontaine and the Frontiersmenaires)

Johnny Nuance! Johnny Nuance!
From the shores of Martha’s Vineyard he rode his horse out West,
With a treaty in his holster and a medal on his chest,
Bringing law and justice to a wild and violent land,
Talking was his creed and sanctions were his brand!
Johnny Nuance! Johnny Nuance! (Hyahhh!)
Outlaws feared his blazing pen!

ANNOUNCER: Johnny Nuance… brought to you by Twenty Oxen Team Bleacho.

ACT I – TROUBLE BREWS

Scene 1 – The poker table at the Wild Baguette Wine Saloon

BARKEEP CLEM: I think you’re bluffing Johhny, I call.

JOHNNY: Read ‘em and weep Clem.. a pair of one-eyed jacks.

BARKEEP CLEM: What the…? You done out-thunk me agin, Johnny!

MISS TERESA: Eets no use, Clem. Johnny Nuance has the magic touch.

JOHNNY: No magic, Teresa. I learned to play poker the same time I learned how to fight - back in Antietam. The memories are seared, seared into my memory… me and my band of brothers were taking a clandestine canoe mission up Cripple Creek for a showdown with Johnny Reb, when…

(Old Chuckwagon Pete bursts through the saloon doors)

CHUCKWAGON: Johnny! Johnny! You gotta git out to Silverango Canyon!

JOHNNY: Get yourself together, Chuckwagon – where’s the fire?

CHUCKWAGON: Marshall Hayes needs your help, and pronto! That durned jackass got hisself into a gunfight with that desperado gang from up there in Sandy Flats!

JOHNNY: That fool! I told him that taking on the Sandy Flats would be nothing but trouble! I told him they had nothing to do with that dynamite attack on the Mercantile Bank! I told him not to go, right after I told him to go!

CHUCKWAGON: I tells ya it’s a quagmire, Johnny. A real quagmire!

JOHNNY: You don’t have to tell me, Chuckwagon! I fought in Antietam. Where’s the Marshall?

CHUCKWAGON: Silverango Canyon!

JOHNNY: I know what I have to do. Chuckwagon, fetch my golden fountain pen.

Scene 2: Exterior of Saloon – Johnny on Horse

MISS TERESA: Please don’t go, Johnny! It’s not your battle!

JOHNNY: I learned a little lesson back in ‘Tam, Miss Teresa. I learned that it’s always my battle. In fact I remember it as if it were yesterday... my band of brothers was surrounded on all sides by Jeb Stuart’s boys, and I was the only one who could save them. Luckily I had my lucky hat, personally given to me by General Meade. I carefully reviewed the situation and sprung into action….

MISS TERESA (sobbing): Go, Johnny! Just go!

ANNOUNCER: Johnny Nuance will continue after this message from our sponsor.

******************

COMMERCIAL SPOT ONE

LASH LADOUCHE: Hi everybody, this is Lash LaDouche, star of TV’s ‘Johnny Nuance.’ After a hard day on the set, my costume takes quite a beating - trail dust, horse perspiration, not to mention hard-to-treat ink and wine stains. That’s why my wardrobe crew at Catamount Pictures insists on Twenty Oxen Team Bleacho for the studio laundry.

VOICE OVER: Watch as the secret cleaning ingredient in Twenty Oxen Team Bleacho repels ground-in dirt safely back beyond the de-soilized zone, like a United Nations peacekeeping force.

LASH LADOUCHE: remember gals, get the laundry brand personally endorsed by UN Secretary Dag Hammarskjold – get Twenty Oxen Team Bleacho. Now with a free pack of Lady Tarboro filters in every box!

*******************

ACT II – RIDGE OVER SILVERANGO CANYON

Scene 1 – Johnny Arrives amid furious shootout

MARSHALL HAYES: Nuance! I never thought you would pitch in against these outlaws! Now grab a rifle and commence a-shootin’!

JOHNNY: Don’t flatter yourself, Marshall! If I were sheriff we wouldn’t be here in the first place. And also, I would be shooting better.

HAYES: Do you mind, Nuance? Me and the boys are a little busy here.

JOHNNY: You call this collection of drunks and layabouts a posse?

POSSE: Hey!

HAYES: Can it Nuance, we’ve got desperados to kill!

JOHNNY: Listen to me Marshall, I know something about desperate, no-win situations. Need I remind you that while you were dallying with the dance hall girls at Fort Sheridan, I was off fighting a little thing called ‘Antietam’?

DESPERADO (running): I can’t take it anymore! Arrgghh!

HAYES: Got ‘em!

JOHNNY: You fool – don’t you see? Killing them only encourages them! You’ve got to start engaging in constructive dialogue!

HAYES: Nuance! Get back here, man! Where do you think you’re going?

JOHNNY (mounting horse): To Fort Escargot, to get the only man who can save you!

HAYES: No, not him…

JOHNNY: Yes, Marshall. Lucky Pierre.

(Johnny rides to the horizon)

ANNOUNCER: Stay tuned for the thrilling conclusion of Johnny Nuance after these messages.

******************

COMMERCIAL SPOT TWO

VOICE OVER: Saddle up, buckaroos! Now you too can be an old west diplomat with the Johnny Nuance Deluxe Junior Negotiator Kit. It comes complete with authentic letters of reprimand, humanitarian aid resolutions, an official Johnny Nuance golden fountain pen and attache case!

BOY #1: Sign the cease-fire, Deadeye Dan… I’ve got you economically sanctioned!

BOY #2: Says who?

BOY #1: Says my broad multilateral coalition, that’s who!

CROWD OF BOYS: We pledge our support!

BOY #2: Grrr! I’m peacefully boxed in!

VOICE OVER: The Johnny Nuance Deluxe Junior Negotiator Kit from Plastico – now at Woolworths and wherever fine toys are sold.

******************

ACT III: PEACE IN THE VALLEY

Scene 1 – Pierre’s Trading Post, Fort Escargot

PIERRE: So you say Marshall Hayes is in quite a peekle, eh Johnny?

JOHNNY: I’m afraid so, Pierre. He’s really riled the Sandy Flats boys.

PIERRE: And why brings you to Pierre, eh?

JOHNNY: Because you’re the only one who can help, Pierre. You know the Sandy Flats gang, you know what makes them tick. You’ve traded with them. In fact, I think they were firing some of your rifles.

PIERRE: Johnny, Johnny. You know Pierre wants to help you, but how can I when this silly Marshall Hayes will not let Pierre trade for the Sandy Flats oil?

JOHNNY: You drive a hard bargain Pierre. Sign here.

Scene 2 – Back at the Saloon

MISS TERESA (hugging Johnny’s neck): Oh Johnny, The guns have stopped! I could kiss you!

JOHNNY: Easy there, Miss Teresa. Peace is my business.

BARKEEP CLEM: I gotta hand it to you, Johnny. Thanks to you, all the shootin’s done stopped agin! Just how did you do it?

JOHNNY: Well Clem, all it took was a little tact, a little diplomacy, and a little help from our little French friend. I brought in old Pierre to reason things out with the Sandy Flats boys. After doin' some horse tradin', Pierre convinced them fellers to hold fire until next Thursday. That gave us our chance to retreat!

PIERRE: Oh Johnny, mes ami, you know I would do anything for you.

JOHNNY: You don’t have to tell me about friendship, Pierre. I learned the meaning of friendship back in Antietam, from my beloved band of brothers. They know the real truth, that my medals are real, that I was unjustly branded by the Ironclad Veterans For Truth, that I…

PIERRE: Say Johnny, could I interest you in a friendly game of poker? I suddenly came into a large amount of oil money.

(Freeze frame)

*******************

THEME REPRISE

Johnny Nuance! Johnny Nuance!
With a blue hat on his head and Mont Blanc on his hip,
He’s laying down the law with a diplomatic whip (Crack!)
Taming Western badmen with the wisdom of the East,
He’s searching every channel to make a fragile peace!
Johnny Nuance! Johnny Nuance! (Hyahhh!)
Outlaws feared his mighty pen!

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.

So I hear a knock on the door and immediately my dog Patton is not happy.

You see, to Patton, if somebody makes a sudden move, it's fight or flight time. If someone runs, that means they must have done something wrong and need to be pursued. And if he hears a knock at the door, it's like a big neon sign saying "WATCH OUT PATTON, IT'S A POTENTIAL INVADER, POTENTIAL INVADER, POTENTIAL INVADER!"

So he's jumping around, barking, excited and I open the door.

At the door was a neighbor, one I didn't know very well, who was being quite nice. You see, when I had taken my keys out of my pocket to come in the door earlier, I had dropped two fives on my doorstep. She had noticed the fives and was knocking to see if they were mine.

Like I said, is that a nice woman or what?

So as I thank her for bringing me the money, Patton starts forcing his way past my leg. I tried to grab him, but no luck, he's out the door going for this woman.

Quickly, I blurted out "Don't worry, he doesn't bite," but as I was saying that, Patton jumps up and locks his front paws around her leg like he's getting ready to start humping. Immediately, the woman starts stepping back with a mixture of horror, fear, and puzzlement in her eyes which Patton apparently didn't care for. I could tell that he didn't care for it, because he clamped on to her sweat pants and started pulling for all he was worth. I again reached for his collar while apologizing profusely, but he let go and ran about 10 ft. away.

Then this poor woman took the opportunity, without saying a word, to try to hustle her way up the steps before "Cujo Jr." came back, but once Patton saw her trying to get away, he immediately turned around and took off up the steps after her.

He had almost caught back up to her when a loud "PATTON" from me stopped him in his tracks and sent him scurrying down the steps and out into the yard of the apartment complex, presumably looking for new victims, while my neighbor got away.

Now the problem was that Patton runs like lightning and doesn't come when he's called half the time, so I went back into the apartment, grabbed his leash, and prepared for thirty minutes of chasing him around the apartment complex.

However, before I could even get out the door, Patton runs back in, and looks at me like, "Was that the coolest thing you've ever seen in your life or what?"

What a bad dog....

If you're familiar with the basics of how your computer and the internet works, you're more unusual than you think. I can tell you that definitively because I do internet tech support and I've talked to people who have (and no, I'm not joking)...

-- Said they deleted all the .dll files on their computer to save space and wanted to know why their computer didn't work anymore.

-- Said they got an "illegal operation" while they were on the FBI page and hadn't turned their computer on for a year afterwards. Was it safe to turn it back on now?

-- Ran their tower through their dishwasher because the dog peed on it and are wondering why it isn't working anymore.

So in an effort to help people, because I care, and most importantly because it'll mean I have more time to screw around in between calls, I've decided to punch up a basic guide to computer maintenance. (Cont)

*** Update #1 ***: Laurence Simon, who used to be a tech himself, has a few more tips worth perusing.

Show your support of the RIGHT side with a Pro-Bush bumper sticker from The All Right. Stickers are 100% vinyl and graphics are silk screened for superior sharpness and color. All orders are shipped the next business day!