Category — Oregon

Hmm…Blinded by science….Remember, somebody got paid to deliver this information.

Obama the vibrator?  Is this why Chris Matthews tingles all over when Obama is in view?  In Portland, they came to see Obama and a “Portland band”, who turned out to be The Decemberists.   Look, if stove bolt head John Kerry can draw 50,000 with Bon Jovi and Di Caprio, Obama can vibrate up another 22,000.  He stocked up on Double A’s. 

Uh oh.  Someone from inside the professorial coven - from Harvard no less, says Massachusetts should “TAX THEM! -  He’s gonna be Odd Job’d with a mortar board hat.

Nothing political here, just an interesting spot  (I looked for Robert Byrd here) to spend the time you aren’t at New England Republican.   Same here, if you speak German and, like the History Channel, you want All Hitler All The Time.

Finally, more global warming questions.  This time between college-education Republicans and Democrats.

“It’s wonderful to be back in Oregon”. Obama said. Over the last fifteen months we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to, even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it”.

Has this man lost his bearings? Or can we blame it on “Schoolhouse Rock” or that typical white grandmother?

Proposed SAT question: How many states compose the United States if politician (A) has visited 57 states and has one more state to visit which is actually two states? Show your work.

UPDATE: Isn’t capitalism wonderful? These available soon!

Need a raise?

The fastest way to increase your income is…work for the government. One may increase their hourly wage on average from $26.00 to $39.50 by this method. Explaining this gap simply requires noting that private employers need to be fiscally honest and keep certifiable books and MUST produce something, anything but mainly a profit. The difference of course is benefits, health care, a great pension and retirement medical programs, all unfunded liabilities, of more than $1 trillion to cover state and local government toilers. More here: Employee Benefit | BLS

From this stalwart student of Marxist economics:

“If there’s a benefit gap, it’s because the private sector is going the wrong way by cutting benefits,” says Paul McKenna, research director of the Oregon Public Employees Union.

… its probably because you are not a government employee. It seems the gap between private and public sector jobs is increasing. According to US Today, the gap is, “rising by an average $1.02 an hour last year and $2.45 an hour over the past three years

Widening Gap:Average hourly wages:

Year Public Private

2007 $39.50 $26.09

2004 $34.72 $23.76

State and local government workers are enjoying major gains in compensation, pushing the value of their average wages and benefits far ahead of private workers, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data shows. [snip]

A few governments are discussing how to cut costs:

• Rhode Island. Gov. Donald Carcieri, a Republican, wants to limit benefits and increase hours for state workers.
• Ohio. Gov. Ted Strickland, a Democrat, plans to sign legislation next week that will reduce the value of retiree medical benefits for newly hired school employees, excluding teachers. The law would push back early retirement ages for bus drivers, custodians and other school workers.
• California. The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to sue to repeal pension increases granted earlier to sheriff’s deputies.

Vermont. You are confused. The only growth industry in Vermont is local and state government.

 36 million drivers would flunk drivers tests

 Is it just your imagination, or do many of your fellow motorists lack even a rudimentary grasp of traffic laws?

Well, if a test administered by GMAC Insurance is any indication, one in six people cruising our highways and byways — roughly 36 million licensed drivers — would flunk their driver’s test if they had to take it today. Not only that, but based on the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test data the state with the most road-going dummies is New York, while the most knowledgeable ones are out West to Idaho. [snip]

Also of interest from the GMAC Insurance test:

• Drivers 35 and older were more likely to pass
• Illinois, Georgia, Washington, D.C., Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were the least knowledgeable states overall, with average scores under 75 percent
• Fifty-five percent of the respondents didn’t know how many feet before making a left or right to signal. [snip]

The following state rankings were released for the 2007 GMAC Insurance National Drivers Test:

• 1. Idaho.
• 2. Alaska
• 21.Vermont
• 36. Maine
• 37. New Hampshire
• 40. Connecticut
• 46. Pennsylvania
• 47. Rhode Island
• 48. Massachusetts
• 48. New Jersey
• 51. New York

After analyzing the article, before glancing at the list, I thought population was the key. That would place Wyoming first and Vermont second. Not so.

Perhaps, I reflected, the political belief system of the states held a clue. That appears to work for the bottom states, but didn’t vindicate Wisconsin at 4, Washington at 6, Oregon at 9 or Iowa at 10.

Given that the 2007 failure rate doubled to 18% from 2006, a reason exists. Combining both posits advances one conclusion.

I’ll let the reader ponder the possibilities for others.

…60 leading international climate change experts recently wrote a letter to urge Canada’s new Prime Minster to carefully review global warming policies, warning that “Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists…

British Judge Bruises Al Gore’s Movie

Critics of “An Inconvenient Truth” include Al Gore’s political opponents, global warming skeptics and even rank-and-file scientists. But the former vice president waited until today for a detailed review from a high court in Britain.

Asked to ban the film from secondary schools, Judge Michael Burton refused, as long as “serious scientific inaccuracies, political propaganda and sentimental mush” were explained at screenings, Agence France-Presse reported.

The bill of particulars that he issued, posted to the Web site of the plaintiff’s political party, had 11 points. Here’s the first and possibly most stinging, courtesy of The Times of London:

Al Gore: A sea-level rise of up to 20 feet would be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland “in the near future”.

The judge’s finding: “This is distinctly alarmist and part of Mr Gore’s ”wake-up call“. It was common ground that if Greenland melted it would release this amount of water - “but only after, and over, millennia.”

In an e-mail obtained by The New York Times in March, Al Gore answered earlier criticisms that were echoed by the judge today. Here’s a few excerpts from William J. Broad’s article:

Mr. Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made “the most important and salient points” about climate change, if not “some nuances and distinctions” scientists might want. “The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger,” he said, adding, “I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand.”

But is his work fundamentally accurate?

Stewart Dimmock Challenges the World According to Gore

[snip] Gore and his allies pretend all serious-minded scientists agree with them and that only simpletons or charlatans disagree. [snip]

Al Gore and other global warming enthusiasts are fond of reciting that 2,611 scientists have signed a letter stating that global warming poses a serious and real threat. Yet, only about one in ten of the so-called 2611 scientists had scientific expertise. And only 5 out the 2,611 so-called scientists had training in climate, weather or other atmospheric sciences. That is less than 1/2 of one percent. Excuse me, for being underwhelmed.

Perhaps more revealing is that Gore’s list of “scientists” included landscape architects, psychologists, lawyers, a philosopher, a dermatologist, a gynecologist, and a diplomat. On this flimsy basis, as only Al Gore can, he tells us that the “debate is over” and that there is complete agreement.

The truth is that more than 17,000 scientists (not landscape architects, dermatologists or diplomats) have signed a petition stating, in part, that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” This petition was circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research foundation that is not funded by industry. This petition was signed by more than 2,100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists and by more than another 4,400 scientists with expertise on carbon dioxide’s effects on plant and animal life.

An inconvenient truth that Gore has failed to reveal are his low grades in Environmental Science when he was in college. [snip]

That’s not all. Gore lied about living on a farm; in 1984, he didn’t work to defeat “big” tobacco. Of course we can thank him for the internet, right?

Liberals are always complaining about the lack of “progressive” talk radio, and now they have “proof” the system is rigged against them. But what our progressive friends always forget is the market they’re trying to serve. People driving to and from work are understandably not excited to hear about how they haven’t done enough for people who aren’t driving to work on a daily basis.

But at the end of the day, unlike their “progressive” friends at NPR, these stations are in the profit business. They cite a case in Portland, not exactly a conservative “Mecca”, where supposedly the evil conservative station owners won’t fill the void for “progressive” talk. I don’t see any evidence in their report to back up their Oregon claims, but the bottom line is still profit. Stations aren’t going to pass up profits for ideological reasons.

If people are dying for “progressive” talk, how do they explain Air America’s collapse? You can’t blame that on stations not being willing to carry the content. If only Soros and Bloomberg had been giving their money away earlier, maybe listening to Air America could have made the list of things the “poor” can do to get paid. That’s certainly the only way I’d willingly listen to Al Franken.

Ethics at work

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats rejected a Republican bid Tuesday to reprimand Rep. John Murtha, a senior lawmaker accused of threatening legislative reprisals against a GOP member who had crossed him.

Before and after the largely party-line vote, which caused some Democrats discomfort, Republicans taunted Democratic leaders about their campaign promises to run a more ethical and open Congress.

The House voted 219-189 to kill the Republicans’ motion to reprimand Murtha… [snip]

Two Democrats - Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Jim Cooper of Tennessee - voted against killing the motion. One Republican - Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania - voted for the motion to table, or kill, the proposed reprimand. [snip]

When Democrats took control of the House and Senate in January, they vowed to reform the practice of placing earmarks in spending bills. [snip]

By voice vote, the Dems tabled the motion to reprimand. When the GOP called for a roll call vote, the gavel pounded him down.

By all appearances, the only movement in this House is retrograde. Keep moving folks, nothing new to see here.

Apparently, Democratic pork is “good” and their campaign promises only apply when they’re out of power:

The U.S. Senate’s version of the fiscal 2007 supplemental appropriations bill that passed yesterday actually includes, among scores of other nonessential items, money for Christmas-tree growers.

Behind all their lofty rhetoric about the Iraq war and bringing home the troops, members of the House and Senate were busy tacking on $20 billion and $18.5 billion respectively in unrelated spending to President Bush’s $103 billion request. (He intends to veto the bill.)

Despite their campaign talk about earmark reform last fall, the new Democratic leadership shamelessly used pork to buy votes - before the vote, Representatives Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Peter DeFazio of Oregon acknowledged that add-ons for their districts would influence their decisions.

The heavyweights also led by example: the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, added $20 million to eradicate Mormon crickets, and David Obey of Wisconsin, the House Appropriations Committee chairman, came away with $283 million for the Milk Income Loss Contract Program.

A link to a more comprehensive list of pork is here. Another Democratic promise bites the dust.

A member in good standing of the Angry Left, Deb Frisch, managed to distinguish herself with a lengthy pattern of harrassment directed at blogger Jeff Goldstein, of the popular site Protein Wisdom.  Rather than confining her verbal rapier to attacks on Goldstein, she opined that the death of Goldstein’s young son (whether he was ’shot’ or ‘Jon-Benet’ed) would mean nothing to her, accused him of playing the ‘Jew card’ and, when confronted with the possibility of legal action, told Goldstein to ‘bring it on.’  These insults, while despicable, would have merited scant attention had not their author been an adjunct professor of Psychology at the University of Arizona.  In response to the outcry over her statements, Dr. Frisch issued an ‘apology’ conspicuously free of contrition that characterized the apparent wish that Goldstein’s son be raped and murdered as ‘over the line of nastiness.’  Depending on which line you read, she resigned or lost her job.  She will skip back to Eugene, Oregon with a martyrdom story to share with the ideologically sympathetic.

[Read more →]

The Boston Globe has an editorial today about the Supreme Court’s decision to allow physician-assisted suicide in Oregon (emphasis added):

THE SUPREME Court acted wisely yesterday to let Oregon continue its experiment with physician-assisted suicide. The justices ruled 6-3 against a Bush administration move to strip the licenses of doctors who help terminally ill patients end their lives. Whatever one’s view of this practice, Oregonians should be allowed to make this choice.

So far, about 200 have taken their own lives under the eight-year-old state law, which requires at least two doctors to attest that a patient has less than six months to live, is capable of making medical-care decisions, and is choosing suicide voluntarily. No physician is required to assist a patient in this way. Many physicians’ organizations oppose the law, as do many religious groups. Its core of support is the Oregon electorate: Voters supported the law in two referendums.

The court majority yesterday said that, when Congress passed the drug law used by the Bush administration in the Oregon case, the lawmakers had no intention of punishing physicians who use lethal doses of medicines to speed death in assisted-suicide situations. Congress could pass a law that explicitly forbids physicians to act in this way, but has not.

The ruling is a reminder of the common sense that retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who sided with yesterday’s majority, brought to the bench. In a 1997 ruling, the court said there is no constitutional right to assisted suicide and upheld two state laws banning the practice. But the court said states have the right to pass laws like Oregon’s, with O’Connor mentioning the ”laboratory of democracy” role of states to try out different approaches to difficult issues. A discouraging aspect of yesterday’s ruling is that the new chief justice, John Roberts, joined Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in dissent.

I have mixed feelings about this issue but this post is more about how the Globe chooses to defend their stance. As you can see from the bolded text above, the Globe’s main argument is state’s rights. So I have a few questions for the Globe:

1. Does your stance on this issue mean you now support the overturning of Roe v. Wade which would essentially put the issue back in to the “laboratory of democracy” that you now seem to cherish so much?

2. Does your support for hearing the will of the people in state referendums extend to those of us here in Massachusetts? If so when will you be writing an editorial calling for a referendum on gay marraige so that the people of Massachusetts can have their say rather than unelected judges?
3. Speaking of editorials on referendums, when will we see one saying the state tax rate should be lowered to the 5% rate that the voters overwhelmingly approved in 2000?

I think we already know the answers.

Cross-posted at Hub Politics

Time for another link roundup. This one will be longer than usual since I am catching up on my reading. I am also going to use a new format with three sections: Mainstream media, Blogs, and Satire/Humor.

Mainstream Media

• The NY Observer has an excellent report on the continuing chaos at CBS News caused by Rathergate.
• The New York Daily News reports that insurgents in Iraq may be running low on money.
• Brendan Miniter of OpinionJournal says there is no reason 2006 has to be an off year for Republicans.
• Jonah Goldberg has an interesting article on the differences between left-wing and right-wing bloggers. Michael Barone has a similar article on blogosphere politics. The last paragraph sums it up nicely:
  

  So what hath the blogosphere wrought? The left blogosphere has moved the Democrats off to the left, and the right blogosphere has undermined the credibility of the Republicans’ adversaries in Old Media. Both changes help Bush and the Republicans.

• Peggy Noonan gives 7 reasons why blogging is a public service, then concludes with some predictions.
• Rich Lowry has some questions for the AARP. Here are a few of my favorites:
  • Your group’s advocacy suggests that reform puts at risk the benefits of current Social Security recipients, even though cutting those benefits is off the table. Are you routinely so dishonest, or is this a special case?
  • In 1950, 16 workers supported each retiree. By 2040, there will only be two workers per retiree. Does it occur to you that that is very bad news for workers? Or is your ultimate ambition to have each retiree supported by his own individual worker? Perhaps this worker can be made to fan his designated retiree with a palm frond and deliver him fruity drinks poolside?
  • Your group has suggested that investing in the stock market is much too complicated and risky for anyone attempting to build assets for retirement. Do all your officials therefore eschew investing their own money in the market? If so, what is their preferred investment vehicle (and please don’t say stuffing cash under a mattress)?
  • During the past 70 years, Americans’ familiarity and comfort with capital markets has steadily increased. Do you realize that it’s not 1932 anymore?
  • Wouldn’t it be more efficient for AARP members to cut out the middleman and send their checks directly to the Democratic National Committee instead?
• Thomas Lipscomb brings us up to date on John Kerry’s Cambodia adventures.

Blogs

• Captain’s Quarters says Howard Dean will cost Democrats more elections. On a related note, John Hawkins at Right Wing News looks back at some of Howard Dean’s quotes.
• Opinion Times helps debunk some “evidence” of global warming.
• Speaking of debunking, Patrick Hynes does a number on Harry Reid’s new Social Security calculator.
• The Llama Butchers have a funny take on the Navy’s new submarine, the USS Jimmy Carter.
• Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice telles the AARP to run for cover.
• Pardon My English discusses Scott Ritter’s new job as a writer for Al-Jazeera’s English web site. Why am I not surprised.

Satire/Humor

• Andy Borowitz reports that President Bush has promised to bring the troops home . . . through Iran.
• Scrappleface has disturbing news about the weaponry on the USS Jimmy Carter.

Disgraced loser John Kerry is now looking to avenge his loss to Bush by taking out Massachusettes Governor Mitt Romney in 2006. Kerry lays out his anti-Mitt agenda in an email to supporters:

“Here in Massachusetts, we have many important battles to fight in the next several years, beginning with re-electing Ted Kennedy to the United States Senate and winning back the governor’s seat in 2006,” Kerry wrote in the e-mail.

As usual, super sensitive Kerry is politicizing with his heart and not his head. Even with Massachusettes’ far left ideological tilt, no Democrat has resided in the gov’s mansion since Kitty Dukakis binged on paint thinner fifteen years ago. Even more troubling for Kerry is the fact that Romney remains competitive in a dark blue state and Democratic turnout will be lower because Ted “waitress sandwich” Kennedy’s re-election is a foregone conclusion. Sen. Thin-Skinned should focus his political capital on helping vulnerable Democratic senators get re-elected in blue states like Maria Cantwell (WA) and Debbie Stabenow (MI) because they’re still favored to win and if they don’t, it doesn’t cost him personally. Kerry putting his neck on the line to defeat Mitt speaks to the core of his problem - he is, and always has been, a political amateur.

1964 was a Presidential election year. American policy on Vietnam was to make sure the S. Viets did not lose the war, and to keep the issue off the political radar screen as much as possible. Just muddle through 1964, and solve the Vietnamese problem after winning the election, that was the gist of it.

On sunday, August 2, Jim Stockdale, then Commander of Fighter Squadron 51, of the USS Ticonderoga was on a routine flight exercise, when he was vectored to assist the destroyer Maddox, then on patrol close to N. Viet territory. The Maddox was under attack by several NV torpedo boats. Stockdale recalled later it sounded on his radio like he was flying into WW II. The Maddox successfully took evasive action, and Stockdale and the rest of his flight strafed the retreating enemy vessels.

Washington barely reacted to the attack, and Secretary of State Rusk later that night, extolled the “restraint” of the administration in the face of this provocation. US Ambassador Maxwell Taylor thought the American response feeble. And informed Washington as much in a cable. The Pentagon ordered the USS Turner Joy to cooperate with the Maddox, and ordered the patrols to resume.

The purpose of the patrols was to show the flag and have destroyers proximate to the S. Viets, who were conducting sea borne raids on NV coastal targets, {known as OPLAN 34A}. The NV had launched guerilla operations against the south, and here the south was repaying the favor in kind, but along the coast. The NV torpedo boats were trying to intercept these amphibious operations.

On August 3, the S. Viet Navy sent a couple of their own torpedo boats to hit some more targets in the north, in accordance with OPLAN 34A. The boats returned home without incident.

But the events of the evening of the 4th would prove momentous. Maddox and Turner Joy were on patrol, within sight of the N.V. shore line. The men were anxious, having been engaged two days before. Enemy signals were intercepted, which identified the two American destroyers. This added an increased level of expectation to the evening patrol. The weather was heavy cloud cover and thunderstorms. In these conditions, both ships thought they were under attack. In response the Ticonderoga scrambled Stockdale to assist. Stockdale arrived on scene, and saw nothing. Nonetheless, Turner Joy and Maddox were radioing each other about the ongoing “battle.” Stockdale dismissed it all as raw nerves. He later wrote: “The Joy was firing on “targets” the Maddox couldn’t track on radar, and the Maddox was dodging “torpedos” the Joy couldn’t hear on their sonar…” He summed it all up as a “Chinese fire drill.”

Back in Washington however, it seemed the N. Viets had tried to attack American destroyers for a second time. McNamara informed LBJ, who told Congressmen at the weekly breakfast meeting that this time America would have to respond. LBJ wanted a carrier strike, which he intended to announce to the nation that very night. He desired that his announcment coincide with the actual strike itself. The planes on the Ticonderoga who would carry out the strike, needed to be refitted. That refitting took most of the day. LBJ, McNamara and the “Whiz Kids” entered a crisis mode. Numerous discussions were held at the highest level. Tension built up over the course of the day, as the strikes were prepared, speech drafts were written, edited and finalized.

Interrupting all of this “crisis mode[ing]” and “Whiz Kid[ing],” the Skipper of the Maddox signaled Washington that the enemy attack, upon reflection appeared “doubtful.” Later that afternoon, the story of the attack went public. McNamara summoned a meeting of the JCS, {Joint Chiefs of Staff} to find out what happened. He called Admiral Sharp, Pacific Commander, who gleaned from the conversation that Washington was preparing a response, and that it was now inconvenient that the Maddox Skipper now “doubt[ed]” the attack ever took place. Thereupon the Maddox Skipper changed his mind, and stated the attack was genuine. To which Admiral Sharp added that the “weight of the evidence” tended to agree.

Washington had radio intercepts of the N.Viet navy reporting they lost two torpedo boats, and had engaged two attacking American aircraft. This seemed to support the conclusion that a naval action had happened. This signal intercept however, could have concerned the action of the 2nd, and not the one of the evening of August 4th. Washington appears to have conflated the two actions into one.

LBJ for his part did not need any more evidence, to a group of visiting congressmen, he exclaimed “some of our boys are floating around in the water.”

A typical blowhard statement from him.

The crew of the Ticonderoga took time preparing the aircraft for the strike op. This forced the postponement of LBJ’s address to the nation. He missed the 7 p.m. deadline, and was getting anxious that he might miss the deadline for the morning papers. LBJ ultimately exploded at McNamara, saying that “I’m exposed here. I’ve got to make that speech now.” So LBJ finally went on the air at 11:36 p.m., and this is important, a full 90 minutes BEFORE the strike misson was executed. His concern for his own media exposure, he placed above the life of men, HIS men, who were going to execute HIS orders. Disgraceful. Simply disgraceful.

The address itself was more of the signal sending, “graduated pressure” nonsense, complete with LBJ assuring the enemy that “We seek no wider war.” He was always assuring them of that.

Meanwhile, back on the Ticonderoga, Stockdale left the ready room and was walking to his aircraft to carry out the mission, when he heard his Commander-in-Chief had ALREADY proclaimed to the whole world the still IMPENDING attack. For Stockdale, “that struck fear in my heart,” {nothing like going into action, when your President has already blown your surprise}. The attack went forward, a bombing mission on enemy torpedo boat docks, and oil storage containers. Stockdale returned safely to the carrier. BUT TWO PLANES WERE SHOT DOWN. One Naval aviator was KILLED, one CAPTURED, who spent the next NINE years rotting away in a N. Viet prison.

A couple days later, Congress gave LBJ full powers to conduct the war as he saw fit. Johnson’s approval ratings JUMPED fifteen points. One man was dead, another in captivity, their Commander-in-Chief blew their surprise, and LBJ’s approval ratings JUMPED. Appalling isn’t it.

There are those that focus on Tonkin, as evidence of a scheme to GET us deeply involved in the war. They are wrong. There were resolutions like the one finally adopted by Congress, circulating up on the hill through much of ‘64. If LBJ was determined not to lose Vietnam, then sooner or later he was going to have use military force. Tonkin then was but a catalyst for an event that was already a foregone conclusion. So long as LBJ was determined not to lose, force was going to be required.

LBJ was a heap of contradictory impulses. He promised Americans that he sought “no wider war,” that he “would not send American boys away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.” But he also said that “I am not going to lose Vietnam. I am not going to be the President who saw Southeast Asia go the way communist China went.”

The Republican Goldwater of course saw the thing right from the start, {we Republicans always do}. He said that orders ought to be given to the JCS to do what was necessary to win the war. Otherwise, get out. But the requests that the JCS made of LBJ were refused. LBJ never intended to “win” the war. He only wanted not to lose it. America was going to find out the hard way, that waging a “limited war” is more difficult than waging a full one.

The following letter is from 9/11 families that are supporting President Bush:

Three years ago, on the day that began as a beautiful September morning, 19 men and their sponsors carried out a brutal and devastating attack on our country, leaving 3,000 innocent men, women and children dead, including our loved ones. In those first agonizing hours, and for weeks and months afterward as we searched for word of their fate, we were aware that the shock and horror of that day was not ours alone. With a gratitude we could not yet express, we felt the strong and steady embrace of our fellow Americans. The words, “Never forget,” defiantly written in dust or humbly penned on makeshift memorials, were also permanently etched in our hearts. We will never forget your strength, your courage and your endless generosity.

We speak to you now in the same spirit that you spoke to us then, as Americans, united on behalf of our country. Like many of you, we feel that our nation is poised at a critical moment in history. Like our parents and grandparents before us, we know that the choices we make today will affect our children tomorrow. But we face a new challenge, a new kind of war and an enemy who is different from the enemies faced by earlier generations. This is not an adversary who can be reasoned with or appeased, this is an adversary who has repeatedly demonstrated that its means and ends are one and the same: the wanton slaughter of innocents.

After the attack, President Bush articulated the primary lesson of September 11, that simply reacting to danger after lives are lost is a weak and unacceptable national defense. He believes that taking the fight to the enemy is the best way to ensure that the enemy will not bring death to our doorstep here at home.

We agree.

Under the President’s strong leadership in the war on terror and through the heroic efforts of our military forces, we are a safer country today. Two-thirds of al Qaeda leadership is dead, incarcerated, or on the run, its financing disrupted. The Taliban has been removed from power and training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq have been eliminated. On the domestic front, our dedicated law enforcement agencies are finally able to fight terror the same way they go after drug cartels; terrorists and terrorist cells have been thwarted in upstate New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois and Florida.

The 9/11 Commission has provided this nation with a solid blueprint for going forward in the war on terror. It described the threat that killed our loved ones as a “gathering storm” which went unrecognized and unchecked for too many years and characterized the inability to predict the attack itself as a “failure of imagination.” Looking forward, the Commission offered this pointed warning, “Once the danger has fully materialized, evident to all, mobilizing action is easier–but it then may be too late.”

Through the prism of 9/11 and presaging the Commission’s conclusion, President Bush looked at Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s history, his willingness to use chemical weapons in the mass murder of his own citizens, his notorious attempts to acquire nuclear weapons, his record of giving financial aid and sanctuary to global terrorists–including members of al Qaeda–and his repeated refusal to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. He determined that this repressive regime was an intolerable danger to our country. Rather than waiting until it was too late to prevent a fully materialized threat, the President acted. We believe history will support the President’s decision.

We speak to you from the heart, as citizens from all across the country and every political stripe. We are Republicans and Democrats, “liberals” and “conservatives,” young and old. We are mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters and friends. We speak out from a profound sense of obligation to those we have lost and to the country that we love. Guided by core principles, President Bush has steadfastly told us who he is, what he believes and what he will fight for. He is a caring and decisive leader who is not afraid to make hard choices to keep this nation safe, by keeping it strong. He has sent a clear message to America’s friends and foes that he will not waver in his resolve as the winds of political fortune change. He will not revert to the failed policies of the past which only served to whet the appetite of those who would destroy us. He will stand firm against our adversaries.

As Americans who have keenly felt the scourge of terrorism, we are inspired and energized to follow the President’s lead, to rise to the occasion and get the job done. We are deeply grateful to President Bush, who rallied this nation on that dark September day, who has earned our respect and confidence, and whose leadership we trust to steer this country on the right path.

Three years ago, George W. Bush stood with us and vowed that he would “Never forget.”

We stand with him now.

There are a couple of new state polls that are good news for President Bush.

• Oregon - Bush 48 Kerry 43
• New Jersey - Bush 46 Kerry 46

This is the first time I have seen Bush ahead in Oregon. If this is true, Kerry is in serious trouble.

New Jersey has been getting closer for the last couple of months, but this is the first poll I have seen where Kerry does not have a lead. This quote from a New Jersey voter says it all:

Walk up to Carol Del Tufo in the parking lot at Pier 1 Imports and ask about her presidential preferences and her voice drops, confidential-like. She is a middle-age teacher and lifelong Democrat, and her usual preoccupations are education and jobs. Except this year.

“I had a neighbor who lost her husband in the attacks,” she said. “It was so scary. I’ve got kids. I don’t want another attack.” She purses her lips and makes her confession: “Look, I’m voting for Bush. He’s very strong, and there’s no ‘maybe’ in his voice.”

As I have said before, I think this election will be all about 9/11 Democrats.