Rotating Header Image


BD21423_.gif As a voting Republican who plans to vote for the re-election of George Bush to the Presidency (actually, have already voted as and how, with my Absentee Voter Ballot completed on my desk beside me as I write this), there isn’t anything I could and have written, I realize, that’s going to make much of any difference to anyone who’s among the Liberal interest groups fomulating for Kerry, instead.

But, as someone who felt such distaste for what the Democratic Party has become during the past decade and returned my voter registration to Republican after being registered as a Democrat for about four to five years past, and whether or not most, if not all, Liberals want to believe me, these opinions in this blog are written by someone who tried very sincerely to remain with the Democrats but felt repulsed by the antagonisms lobbed my way by Liberals, and always about personal characteristics, about aspects to my person that they deride. No one wants, by choice, to interact with those who revile, so, by choice, I decline the Party offering by the DNC, based upon the Party personality and ongoing unreliable, uncomfortable negation that characterises what and who Democrats are today, to and about everyone else.

Such that, this is one voter writing here, one individual, one human in our country’s population, who made a decision about a year ago to vote my conscience and stop voting “Party.” When I did that, I changed my voter registration to Republican and when I did that, I felt a profound sense of misgiving for having withheld my support in the 2000 Election for now-President Bush.

My vote for Al Gore in 2000 was a vote for “Party,” and not for the person, not for ideals; and, worse, my vote for Al Gore in 2000 was a vote for a person I felt misgivings about and a vote denied for a person I found more believable, more likable and more reliable, and that was George Bush. I liked Laura Bush more (and still do like Laura Bush) than Tipper Gore and that made a difference to me as to how I perceived the two candidates (we DO elect “a family” when we vote for a President, particularly, when compared to other offices, and a spouse speaks loudly by presence alone as to who they are married to and I don’t believe you can disregard a spouse in this one voting process, thus I share with you here what my general perspectives were in the last Presidential Election process, and they’ll be applicable again in this 2004 Election).

Subsequently, when I read opinion masquereding as “journalism” (the recent article in DRUDGE about ABC NEWS Political Director Mark Halperin), and particularly Kerry masquereding as decent but who is not, or as one who makes sense but does not, and I hear and read from both that my opinion as an individual is denigratable based upon their own fears and irrational guesses — that is that I represent to them some cog in a “Republican attack machine” or “right-wing conspiracy” or other zealot language FROM THE LEFT — I wonder where my larger wheel is, where my conspirators are, because none of them are here with me as I write this, nor sitting beside me at my desk, nor advising me as to what to think, feel, reason and/or write. All of that, the whole person who is me, is formulated on my own, individually, mostly alone in my work, certainly always alone in my writing, alone when I publish my blog.

BD21423_.gif Reading the recent ABC Memo, referencing some “attack” on John Kerry by this undefined, vast right-wing conspiracy (Halperin describes “the Bush attack upon Kerry,” as if “Bush” is some huge gameplan that is coordinated by Republican voters based upon the DNC gameplan of conspiracies and coordinating players, moreso an aspect of Liberals, by Liberals, than present among other Americans), I wonder what this “journalist” is referencing. A “storm” upon a voting or candidate office? Those are Democrats doing that. Hacking upon political websites and authors? Those are Democrats doing that. Manipulating online opinion polls? Those are Democrats doing that. Issuing false press releases prior to a Presidential Debate? That’s John Kerry and his campaign doing that. Yelling at viewers from various political “talk” shows? Those are Democratic Spokespersons doing that.

As I also wonder what Kerry’s statement is referencing, that he thought that Bush would “hit Charlie” in yesterday’s Debate — what it indicates TO MY READ is that Kerry, the ABC “journalist,” and more, are persons PROJECTING THEIR OWN BEHAVIORS onto others: they rant and conspire, present false testimony and false statements, so they fear and assume from a point of fear that the “right-wing” is doing likewise. Maybe some are, but as a general population, the voting irregulaties, the frauds, the abundance of personal animosities, Democrats are responsible for those and they FEAR that everyone else is doing likewise, so they opine: voter, fear here, fear that, fear it.

And, Kerry is looking more and more paranoid and confused with each passing speech — he’s certainly now roamed farther into the land of personal attack, what with his speech earlier today, accusing Bush of “look(ing) like he was going to hit Charlie” at yesterday’s debate, mocking Bush for Kerry’s perceptions about Bush’s facial expressions.

Kerry’s now arguing about his own fears, debating his own perceptions.

If ANYone appeared threatened and fearful during the last Presidential Debate from St. Louis from yesterday, it was Kerry: sweating, frowning, even paranoid based upon his visible discomfort before the audience and almost always when the camera captured his face during Bush’s statements.

No, Bush didn’t look, not at all, as if he would or even could “hit Charlie,” (the moderator, Charles Gibson), Kerry, by comparison, looked like he’d like to throw a pale of water on the audience. He certainly looked compromised, as if Kerry had just been questioned about a line on a balance sheet that Kerry knew was inaccurate, and so he stared in that weird gloss-over in the eyes that says, “well, you found that lie but I’m trying here to pretend that you don’t know what you’re talking about and that the lie is true…” complete with a “I’m so tired” body language of one who wants an easy dismissal to avoid anything more closely exacting. No, it was John Kerry who looked dubious and questionable at that debate yesterday, not to mention his preposterous convolutions of issues — which I’m going to write about later tonight — and it was John Kerry who looked unreliable at that debate.

If Charlie, the moderator (who I thought did a great job), had anything to fear it was the wilt of John Kerry’s lack of potency at that debate, despite Kerry’s visible attempts to otherwise engage. Bush looked energized, interested, caring and intense. He also spoke definitively. Kerry looked questionable, the one you never are quite sure about who blows something up later.

BD21423_.gif The ABC “journalist,” (Mark Halperin), however well respected by other “journalists,” is, rather, another individual revealing his political plans, using the access of a network by which to proliferate his opinions: manipulate and encourage those he can influence to in turn manipulate information to benefit his preferred candidate, John Kerry. And, to manipulate whenever possible that which diminishes George Bush.

That there are media network resources available to that one individual — Halperin — and to those he influences is not a small thing. And this is just one memo, one document to read, from among how many others similar, or more extreme?

This one “journalist” is the Editor of ABC’s THE NOTE. I used to read that column on often but stopped after reading an increase in the use of exaggerated statements and “drama language,” such that I found myself reading a Soap Opera Digest whenever I’d access THE NOTE. You can point out to ABC specific examples of inflammatory, inaccurate, emotive language and descriptions and they’ll deny it even when confronted with their Soap Opera Digest descriptions. THE NOTE has degenerated into a Wonk Fest, and it’s a sad thing to behold.

Proof is in the columns. And that memo: ABC is another batch of Liberal philosophy trying to modify public perceptions. Not reporting information, but yes, reporting the emotional opinions of certain Liberal individuals getting paid to opine. Networks appear lately to have nothing to lose, and so they swing and say they’re still standing. But, it won’t and it doesn’t fly in most of the country.

Be square about it or stop the masquerede: accept the labelling that is attempted to be plastered upon anyone not among the Liberal Interests, or, stop complaining and just declare yourself Democrats and call ABC’s THE NOTE, along with CBS and similar to be (DNC) Party Operatives.

That is, let your politics be known and stop trying to blame everyone else for letting their politics be known while attempting to hide your own. “Journalism” is no longer a profession of balance (was it ever?) but of opinion. Kerry, he’s just always been about negative opinion, masquereding as a Senator.


BD21423_.gif Later Edit: read “IRAQ WAS A THREAT BEFORE IT WAS A THREAT” in Wizbang!

9 C O M M E N T S

  1. JayTea says:

    Suzy, GREAT piece. But the nitpicker in me was a skosh disappointed that you used the same picture of Kerry in both versions of the graphic. I wanted to see him flipped at the bottom.

    And you’re quite right about ABC. I personally lost a LOT of trust and respect for ABC’s news division when they got bought by Disney.


    (Jay Tea, of

  2. -S- says:

    Hey, thanks there, J…I’ll go see what I can do to adapt that second repeat graphic (you’re right about that, I took a lazy approach with the repeat in the original/first use).

    Nice to see you commenting here! Thanks, again, for the compliments.

  3. JayTea says:

    Holy crap… all I suggested was a simple flipping, and LOOK what you did!

    I now see why you’re a professional at this game… and more importantly, why I’m NOT.

    BTW, I’m still enjoying that picture you did of Kerry and his gun. Sigh… such a singularly APPROPRIATE image. But now that I’m thinking of it again, I’m wondering how it would look with barrels at both ends…

    I’ve kind of felt guilty about reading your blog without commenting, especially in light of a recent incident of name-dropping I committed. I bragged to a friend that “THE WOMAN WHO DESIGNED THE ‘STAR WARS’ LOGO actually commented on my pathetic love life!” He’s a HUGE Star Wars fan, so it put him in his place quite thoroughly.

    And to spare you further discomfort, I’m now going to pop off and delete that errant doubleposting, along with your apology. You have no IDEA how gratifying it is to be able to do these little things for people I admire.

    (Jay Tea,

  4. -S- says:

    And, yeah, about that Chop of Kerry shooting his own foot/feet, that appears to be popular in several other forums — been reproduced and linked to in several that I’ve found. STAR WARS logo even moreso, I guess it’s fair to say.


  5. suzyrice says:

    Jay…I was going to create an animation (first Kerry’s there, then he’s gone!) but thought it’d be too hokey, so just did what you see now. It’s not a deal, although I appreciate your comments and thank you.

    Thanks for the rest. I’d sure enjoy you commenting here, any time you care to, or can, what with that love life of yours! ~;-D

    I read through Wizbang! finally, after a week or so of not reading/commenting, and found that most of what I’d planned to write about here has already been covered over there…rather than reduce my own blog to Permalinks, I’ll try to write tomorrow, here, about something fresh, but several of Kerry’s statements on the last debate are still bugging me (thus, I’d like to write about them, specifically).

    Next and last debate is, I read elsewhere, going to include the topic of “outsourcing,” and I also had something in mind to write about that, here, even before the next debate. Anyway, nice to see you commenting here, hope you’ll visit more and often.

  6. suzyrice says:

    I just now saved that link to Sunday notes for to which to write about tomorrow! You and I continue to share a startling parallel in time and place as to what we read. Truly amazing…

    The ongoing contradictions by Kerry and Edwards would be remarkable if it wasn’t so well proven, evidenced by now, and that both of them continue to deny having multiple, even contradictory positiions of the same subjects…but, it’s plain to read, for anyone who cares to, just how contradictory both of them are as individuals and as a campaign duo.

    I was also just reading over at LittleGreenFootballs, a thread about Edwards’ appearance on Chris Matthews/MSNBC whereby he was quite enthusiastic and supportive of Bush’s position about Iraq, in October 2003…you might want to go read it, it’s horrifying to read that and now read/hear Edwards and Kerry try to deny saying what they said, and that they said something else when what they said was once so clear, then changed, then changed again, then changed yet again, then again, again…no wonder they’re confused about what they mean, because they are confusing, is what I mean.