Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

Jay D. Homnick, writing in Spectator, is not really surprised by RatherGate:

Gloves off, let’s tell it like it is. Like it has been for some time. Democrats lie. They lie all the time. Not just campaign promises, which are the political version of the pickup line: conceived in passion, developed in romance, aborted by reality. But vicious scurrilous lies of all stripes, seasoned by all manner of corruption and cheating.

Always Democratic candidates shout that Republicans are racists seeking to deprive minorities of their suffrage. Just yesterday I heard a John Kerry sound bite from a black church in which he said, “We hear that what they did in Florida in 2000 they are planning to do again all over the country.” How much gross falsehood weighs down that sentence? How much slimy mud-slinging? How much brute nastiness? How much patronizing of his audience? How much downright cheating in a contest calling for gentlemanliness?

I agree. Why, when truth is so obvious, do some people in this country continue to believe those lies. The fake Bush memos are okay because the facts are indiputable. Really? These people want someone to prove they are lying, and when it is proved they don’t accept it because the proof came from someone they don’t like. Facts are irrelevant. The story simply fits with their preconceived notion, so it must be true.

It is the same with the 2000 election. Some still cling to the idea that “all the votes weren’t counted.” Well, in this one they are correct–the Democrats made sure to exclude as many absentee ballots as possible for the most minor of technicalities. An apparently-dimpled chad carried more weight than an illegible signature from a military Voting Officer in a faraway land.

“Bush is a ‘Fortunate Son’ who got preferential treament in getting into the Air National Guard.” Prove it. Can’t. It may be true, but I’ve seen no proof. I’ve heard from several people that it has been proved. I’ve just never seen anything other than tenth-hand information and a discredited statement by Ben Barnes–not the most reliable source.

And I am constantly told by Democratic friends that “both sides do the same thing.” No, both sides pander with campaign promises. Only Democrats make up their own version of the truth.

Let the wailing begin.

This morning, a woman representing the 9/11 Family Steering Committee spoke about their endorsement of Kerry. She said that we need to change because what we’ve been doing cost us more than 2000 lives.

Funny, I didn’t realize Bush was responsible for the mindset regarding terrorism prior to 9/11. Or maybe she meant that Bush changed things so it was easier for terrorists to attack us, and hasn’t changed anything since 9/11.

Are any of these folks in touch with reality?

I turned on FoxNews because Big Trunk will be on with Brit Hume tonight. I caught a segment of John Gibson’s show, and he was talking to a familiar DNC operative, although I didn’t catch his name.

The discussion centered, once again, on Dubya’s TANG duties, and whether he fulfilled his obligation. Gibson tried to talk about other things, but the DNC guy insisted on stating, more than once, that Dubya was a “Fortunate Son” who used influence to get out of going to Vietnam. Gibson mentioned the faked documents, and they were brushed aside because, “The facts are indisputable.”

In other words, whether the documents are fake or not is irrelevant because we all know Bush ducked the draft. No proof required.

Well, I stated my opinion on this some time ago, and now I want to claim that my opinion is indisputable. No proof required.

But I think we need to look at things a little differently. Obviously, the Democrats believe that Americans think Bush is a pretty good president. He is doing a really good job. John Kerry couldn’t do it any better. So, in order to show a difference between the two candidates which is favorable toward Kerry, they must compare the two men’s pasts. Unfortunately, that dog won’t hunt, either.

curveball, today is your lucky day! Here is an open offer to “anyone who can reasonably recreate the CBS memos on equipment available in early 1972.”

Glenn Reynolds, as always, is on top of things.

Dubya had all those records secretly stashed away where nobody could find them… or so he thought. He was obviously trying to hide something. Thirty years ago, as he planned for his reelection, he found a loose board behind a filing cabinet in the Pentagon and stuck the offending papers away where nobody would ever find them. Evil genius… I mean evil idiot (must keep the story straight).

Byron York actually takes a look at National Guard attendance requirements, and whether Bush fulfilled his because

Now, it is only natural that news reports questioning Bush

This one will make you slap your forehead.

As I was reading through some other blogs this evening, I heard some of O’Reilly’s program in the background. I didn’t pay a lot of attention but heard the gist of it all. O’Reilly was interviewing a retired general who supports Kerry. Apparently this is the same man who “worked for Ronald Reagan” that the Democrats like to bring out to build some credibility for the cause. The man made a statement to the effect that Dubya screwed up in Iraq because he didn’t serve in Vietnam, and didn’t know what he was doing. Kerry, on the other hand, did serve in Vietnam. Therefore, Kerry would have done things right.

Let me repeat that so it sinks in.

Because Kerry served in Vietnam 35 years ago, he would have handled Iraq much better than Bush has. Bush, as you know, didn’t serve in Vietnam.

By the way, did you know Kerry is a Vietnam veteran?