personally i dont give much credence to the spouses/offspring of elected officials, but since everyone is freaking out about their speech i figured i should put it on here for the record. (via Seattle PI)

plus my true love questioned their sobriety. (bolded emphasises mine)

JENNA BUSH: It’s great to be here. We love Arnold. Isn’t he awesome?

Thanks to him, if one of us ever decides to marry a Democrat, nobody can complain, except maybe our grandmother, Barbara. And if she doesn’t like it, we would definitely hear about it.

We already know she doesn’t like some of our clothes, our music, or most of the TV shows we watch.

Gammie, we love you dearly, but you’re just not very hip.

She thinks “Sex and the City” is something married people do, but never talk about.

We spent the last four years trying to stay out of the spotlight. Sometimes, we did a little better job than others.

We kept trying to explain to my dad that when we are young and irresponsible, well, we’re young and irresponsible.

BARBARA BUSH: Jenna and I are really not very political, but we love our dad too much to stand back and watch from the sidelines.

We realized that this would be his last campaign, and we wanted to be a part of it.

Besides, since we’ve graduated from college, we’re looking around for something to do for the next few years.

Kind of like dad.

JENNA: Our parents have always encouraged us to be independent and dream big. We’ve spent a lot of time at the White House, so when we showed up the first day, we thought we had it all figured out. But apparently my dad already has a chief of staff, named Andy.

BARBARA: When your dad’s a Republican and you go to Yale, you learn to stand up for yourself.

I knew I wasn’t quite ready to be president, but number two sounded pretty good.

Who is this man they call Dick Cheney?

JENNA: I think I know a lot about campaigns. After all, my grandfather and my dad have both run for president, so I put myself in charge of strategy. Then I got an angry call from some guy named Karl.

BARBARA: We knew we had something to offer. I mean, we’ve traveled the world; we’ve studied abroad. But when we started coming home with foreign policy advise, dad made us call Condi.

JENNA: Not to be deterred, we thought surely there’s a place for strong willed, opinionated women in communications. And next thing we know, Karen’s back.

BARBARA: So we decided the best thing we could do here tonight would be to introduce somebody we know and love.

JENNA: You know all those times when you’re growing up and your parents embarrass you? Well, this is payback time on live TV.

BARBARA: Take this. I know it’s hard to believe, but our parents’ favorite term of endearment for each other is actually Bushy.

And we had a hamster, too. Let’s just say ours didn’t make it.

JENNA: But, contrary to what you might read in the papers, our parents are actually kind of cool. They do know the difference between mono and Bono. When we tell them we’re going to see Outkast, they know it’s a band and not a bunch of misfits. And if we really beg them, they’ll even shake it like a Polaroid picture.

BARBARA: So, OK, maybe they have learned a little pop culture from us, but we’ve learned a lot more from them about what matters in life, about unconditional love, about focus and discipline.

They taught us the importance of a good sense of humor, of being open-minded and treating everyone with respect.

And we learned the true value of honesty and integrity.

JENNA: When you grow up as the daughters of George and Laura Bush, you develop a special appreciation for how blessed we are to live in this great country.

We are so proud to be here tonight to introduce someone who read us bedtime stories, picked up car pool, made us our favorite peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and cheered for us when we scored a goal, even when it was for the wrong team.

BARBARA: Someone who told us we actually looked cute in braces, always welcomed our friends and was there waiting when we came home at curfew.

JENNA: Ladies and gentlemen, one of the two most loving, thoughtful people we know.

BARBARA: Your president and our dad, George W. Bush.

wonkette called it a disappointment + no more speeches from the twins + violet butcher

of the busblog:

our first exchange came after i wrote about missing Danielle:

Thank god. Back to a well written creative post and off the political hateration…at least for a minute.

– Derek

which is the normal sort of comment i get when i spend more than one post writing about politics, even though theres a convention going on. anyway, this is how i replied

pardon me for giving a crap about my government during an election year. – tony

and so Derek, a good reader and fan wrote back with:

o come on tony…just giving you a hard time. I’m extremely glad you give a crap about our government. however, given your obvious intelligence, i’d hardly say your recent posts have much to do with your concern about our government, but much to do with your hatred of the president, petty jokes about meaningless things, silly controversies over booing, and the cheapest of all media ploys – taking quotes out of context to try to make a point.

I mean, come on, I’m not crazy about him either, but you know what he was trying to say. You can never “win” a war on terrorism. It will always exist. It always has. They will never raise a white flag and the war will be over. If we stop fighting a “war” on terrorism because we think we’ve won, then that is exactly when we will surely lose.

Derek

i have recently been fascinated when people agree with the president’s first idea that this is indeed an unwinable war, and they defend him, but then they say nothing of the fact that he flip flopped and has begun saying at every chance that he can that we will win this war. whatev, this is what i wrote back

i would have to disagree with you derek, i did not take that quote out of context. i gave you the entire chunk where lauer asked the question and the president answered and the lauer follow-up and the president’s follow up.

what i didnt include was how after the president put his foot in his mouth lauer changed the subject and asked about the bush twins’ age.

and then i linked to the entire interview.

cheap media ploy? hardly.

hearing the president say that the war is unwinable is mindblowing. no i didnt know what he was trying to say other than the war is unwinable.

after being kicked in the head by the dems and his own people now he is saying that the war is not only winable but we are winning.

so apparently the war is winable according to the president, and the dems, and me.

it was a huge gaffe and indicative to the republicans’ Fear Doctrine that they think will assure them four more years.

I do not “hate” the president. I do hate the fact that he and his people are trying to make us so fearful of this unknown enemy that we will run to their awaiting arms to protect us.

even though they were the ones who ignored the cia report warning of osama and then let the bin ladin family fly home, etc etc etc

i also got a little heat for questioning the instapundit as i did yesterday for not mentioning the president’s flip flop on something as trivial as this unwinable/winable war.

several people wondered why i cared about the worlds most powerful blogger. some called him boring. some asked me to ignore him.

While I often enjoy reading your commentary and thoughts, I think you should try to define your views as FOR something rather than AGAINST instapundit. I get it. You don’t agree with him. But do we really need another instapundit-didn’t-write-what-I-wanted-him-to blog? – Mike

an interesting point, although not one that many bloggers or politicians follow. the instapundit, as i pointed out in the post that Mike commented on mentioned Kerry 7 times and mentioned the word “Bush” only 6 times throughout 35 posts.

and i sincerly doubt if you look through my archives that i have established positions about Anything solely based around being AGAINST someone else’s blog.

but what the Instapundit is doing is trying to comment and present ideas about politics unless they go against his ideals. it would be like a baseball columnist based in new york NOT writing about yesterday’s 22-0 loss.

that guy’s readers would be all, wtf?

i am a reader of glenn reynolds, and im all wtf.

tell people what happened, spin it if you must, but dont bury it. nazis buried news.

anyway, here is my response to the criticsm above:

instapundit is the most popular blogger. his power and influence around the blogosphere is huge. i’ve also met him, i enjoy his writing, and i appreciate his blog.

because of that it bothers me, as a reader, when i see him take his good thing and turn it into another Drudge Report.

it worries me when he turns his back on real news of the day and ignores it by burying his head in the sand on topics that will not hurt his candidate if he talks about them, but will hurt his blog if he continues to look the other way on Anything that is negative when it comes to the current administration.

and yes it’s annoying.

im not upset when Glenn doesnt write what i dont want him to write about, i get upset when Glenn doesnt write about what is huge news about the president of the united fucking states.

i look to blogs like his to give us republican points of views on these topics. shit, even Drudge linked the “unwinable” war story, so on this topic Glenn isnt even on par with drudge.

i admire his determination to blogging. i admire how prolific he is. but it bothers me that he is so paranoid that if he shines a light on the not-so-glorious moments of this administration that somehow he could possibly hurt the guy who he wants to win.

but what i really worry about is the fact that soooo many “moderate” blogs will not criticize Glenn because they are afraid that if they get on his shitlist then he will never link him and thus they wont get the instalanche that so many blogger want.

it also worries me that some bloggers who do get regular links to Glenn wont criticize him because now they rely on his hits to keep their hitcount up so that their BlogAds remain profitable.

Mike, you shouldnt be concerned when i question the motives and actions of the world’s most popular blogger, you should be concerned when i dont.

masslive bids farewell to danielle + adrants + vortexia

wanna make a quick $80 for two hours of “work”?

my pal liana works for a marketing company and asked me to post this. if you’re interested, email her.

I am looking for some Truly Trendsetting people to participate in focus groups in LA, Chicago, and New York.

The group will last less than 2 hours and pays $80. Come on, I promise it will be painless.

As long as you are between the ages of 16 and 34, and living in one of these three cities, then I want to talk to you. Or your friends! Pass this info along to them!

If you are interested, please email me ASAP.

Thanks!

Liana

Details:

Los Angeles: September 9th at 4:30pm and 6:30pm

Chicago: September 13th at 4:30pm and 6:30pm

New York: September 14th at 4:30pm and 6:30pm

last night when he got a jab in on Kerry/Edwards when he said that Edwards’ “two americas” included a country where Kerry would vote for one thing, and then flip flop and vote against it.

“John Kerry’s record of inconsistent positions on combatting terrorism gives us no confidence he’ll pursue such a determined course,” Rudy said to applause.

So I wonder what he will say today, a day after Bush was grilled for saying that we will not win this war on terrorism, and then this morning saying that we will… and that we’re winning it.

what a difference a day can make.

so is this a flip or a flop?

do flip flops matter when it comes to Bush. is it a b-lip and not a flip?

does anything matter when it comes to dubya?

not finding wmd’s didnt matter.

not finding his guard records didnt matter.

the $455 billion deficit didnt matter.

not finding Osama didnt matter.

not really winning the election didnt matter.

is this two americas: one where Kerry would get crucified if he would have said that we couldnt win the war on terrorism, crucified again if he flip floped – but Bush can change his whole outlook overnight without criticism?

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – President Bush said Tuesday “we will win” the war on terror, seeking to quell controversy and Democratic criticism over his earlier remark that victory may not be possible.

In a speech to the national convention of the American Legion, Bush said, “We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start yet one that we will win.

That statement differed from Bush’s earlier comment, aired Monday in a pre-taped television interview, that “I don’t think you can win” the war on terror. That had Democrats running for the cameras to criticize Bush for being defeatist and flip-flopping from previous predictions of victory.

– Associated Press

can the swift-boaters bail bush out on this one?

will instapundit totally ignore this like he ignored the president yesterday?

what will jeff jarvis say now that he agreed with what the president said yesterday about the futility of winning with war by saying “of course we cant (win the war on terrorism).”

a sentiment that was echoed by two commentors of this blog. our pal the Unsomnambulist said yesterday, “So, now I’m as equally distressed that our lesser of two evils morons known as ‘The Johns’ have decided to take up the mantra and say that THEY can win this bogus war on terror.

Idiots.

Now I’m tempted to vote Nader.”

does that mean that bush is an idiot for thinking we can win it?

wasnt communism and fascism crushed in its day?

what makes terrorism undefeatable? because it actually happened on our turf?

threaten to vote for ralph all you want Unsomnambulist, but i agree with kerry/edwards (and now Bush) that we can beat terrorism, and we are winning the fight.

greatest country in the world can defeat anything.

except lithuania in olympic hoops, apparently.

it was sk smith‘s birthday on saturday!

raptor blog + psychotic normalcy + metafilter + fags for bush

the number one republican blogger of all time had 35 posts today.

he began at 8:35 am and stopped at 11:26 pm.

fifteen hours of mostly political blogging for your ass. more than two posts an hour on this, the first day of the republican national convention.

the convention that among other things will rally the troops to re-elect the president of the united states, george bush.

and yet prof. reynolds mentioned “Bush” a mere half dozen times today, on what for even the prolific blogger was an impressively productive day.

what were the six times the blogfather mentioned bush? once to link the spoof Cheerleaders For Truth webpage; twice to get last night’s MTV Video award booing story wrong three times (could it be that i was the only person who actually watched the stupid thing?); once to link to a blog that speculates that the president somehow got an olympic bounce; twice in reference to a blog that reported that there were some absurd obscure leftists in the quarter million protestors yesterday including “a coven of conspiracy theorists” who had signs that accused the president of having advance warning of 9-11.

so cheerleaders for truth, the mtv booing, the olympic bounce and yesterday’s protesters saying that bush knew

35 posts and yet not one about what the President actually said today?

Did he say anything today?

yes, fellow readers of the instapundit, my favorite blog, he did.

George W. Bush began his morning on the Today show where he told Matt Lauer that we cannot win the war on terrorism.

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you’ll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

Bush: “I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let’s put it that way.

sen john edwards put that little quote in a press release at 1:30pm and later declared, “John Kerry and I believe that this war on terror is winnable; they don’t.”

in 35 posts, the worlds most popular blogger mentioned “Kerry” eight times. (swift boat, “distance itself from Kerry“, daughters getting booed, kerry lied, kerry mia, kerry should take speech-making lessons from mccain)

but strangely nothing about kerry and edwards saying that the war on terror was winnable.

earlier in the interview, the president explained how the $455 billion deficit was pretty good… or something

Lauer: “Let me ask you about deficits –- this year $445 billion. That’s ballpark? You think that’s pretty good?”

President Bush: “Yeah. I do. I do.”

Lauer: “Alright –- and by the way less than projected –- at that time we were projecting…”

President Bush: “Five.”

Lauer: “Five-hundred and fifty.”

President Bush: “Yeah, something like that.”

Lauer: “Does the deficit matter?”

President Bush: “Well, I think it does in the long run. I really do. And I think it’s very important for those of us running for office to explain how we’re going to deal with the deficit. I’ve laid out a specific plan that shows the deficit being reduced by half in five years. It’s going to require fiscal sanity in Washington, D.C.”

Lauer: “If the deficit does not come down, if you can’t pay it down in half by 2008, will you raise taxes?”

Bush: “It’s going to come down in half. That’s the goal. I mean I …”

Lauer: “If it doesn’t?”

Bush: “There’s no need to answer a hypothetical, cause it is going to. That’s what we’ve got in place and that’s what we’ve got in mind. Raising taxes now would be a disaster.”

because a $455 billion deficit after a $5.8 trillion surplus somehow isnt a disaster?

i suppose it all depends on what your definition of disaster is.

the president’s Time magazine interview might very well turn out to be… not so good. today it was embarrassing twice for him, but you’d never know if you only read the instapundit’s 35 posts.

according to the australian, the interview includes president bush admiting they hadnt planned properly for the iraq war, a “catastrophic success”, he called the $130 billion venture and cause of 975 US military deaths, 6,323 american wounded soldiers, and 12,000 iraqi civilian deaths

edwards, the australian reports, also jumped on that quote as well. handilly.

thirty five posts today, and yet the instapundit hasnt mentioned edwards once in three days.

president bush also unfurled a beautiful gem when he said “I’m not the historian – I’m the guy making history.”

Iraq success ‘catastrophic’: Bush

by Roy Eccleston

The Australian

August 31, 2004

[NEW YORK] George W. Bush has admitted the US failed to plan for a speedy victory in Iraq, describing the sudden collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime as a “catastrophic success”.

In a rare concession from the President, who dislikes admitting error, Mr Bush told Time magazine that his planners had not considered the prospect of a quick collapse.

“Had we to do it over again, we would look at the consequences of catastrophic success – being so successful, so fast, that an enemy that should have surrendered or been done in, escaped and lived to fight another day,” he said.

Mr Bush sought to blame the prolonged war – in which 969 US troops have been killed so far – on an over-quick victory that meant the US ended up having to fight “a third more” of Hussein’s Baathist supporters than military planners had expected.

Democrat vice-presidential candidate John Edwards seized on the comment, made as the President prepares for a high-profile week with the Republican Party’s national convention in New York.

“President Bush now says his Iraq policy is a catastrophic success,” Senator Edwards said yesterday. “He’s half right. It was catastrophic to rush to war without a plan to win the peace.”

Mr Bush said he believed the war on terrorism would be a long-lasting ideological struggle, but he declined to call it a fourth world war, saying: “I’m not the historian – I’m the guy making history.”

indeed.

ken layne + jim gilliam + fimoculous is back, thnx buzzmachine + flagrant airways

if he was running for president this time out i would have a hard time not voting for him. it’s safe to say i probably would.

Here are two excerpts.

Remember how we felt when the serenity of a bright September morning was destroyed by a savage atrocity so hostile to all human virtue we could scarcely imagine any human being capable of it.

We were united.

First, in sorrow and anger.

Then in recognition we were attacked not for a wrong we had done, but for who we are – a people united in a kinship of ideals, committed to the notion that the people are sovereign, not governments, not armies, not a pitiless, inhumane theocracy, not kings, mullahs or tyrants, but the people.

In that moment, we were not different races.

We were not poor or rich. We were not Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. We were not two countries. We were Americans.

All of us, despite the differences that enliven our politics, are united in the one big idea that freedom is our birthright and its defense is always our first responsibility.

All other responsibilities come second.

We must not lose sight of that as we debate who among us should bear the greatest responsibility for keeping us safe and free. We must, whatever our disagreements, stick together in this great challenge of our time.

My friends in the Democratic Party – and I’m fortunate to call many of them my friends – assure us they share the conviction that winning the war against terrorism is our government’s most important obligation. I don’t doubt their sincerity.

They emphasize that military action alone won’t protect us, that this war has many fronts: in courts, financial institutions, in the shadowy world of intelligence, and in diplomacy.

They stress that America needs the help of her friends to combat an evil that threatens us all, that our alliances are as important to victory as are our armies.

We agree.

And, as we’ve been a good friend to other countries in moments of shared perils, so we have good reason to expect their solidarity with us in this struggle.

and then later he took a jab at Michael Moore who was in attendence (who had been kicked off the floor earlier because of “lack of credentials”, and later allowed to return, although “roped off“).

After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq.

Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone.

The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal.

Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war.

It was between war and a graver threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad.

Not our political opponents.

And certainly not a disingenuous film maker who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty, torture chambers, mass graves and prisons that destroyed the lives of the small children held inside their walls.

Whether or not Saddam possessed the terrible weapons he once had and used, freed from

international pressure and the threat of military action, he would have acquired them again.

The central security concern of our time is to keep such devastating weapons beyond the reach of terrorists who can’t be dissuaded from using them by the threat of mutual destruction.

We couldn’t afford the risk posed by an unconstrained Saddam in these dangerous times. By destroying his regime we gave hope to people long oppressed that if they have the courage to fight for it, they may live in peace and freedom.

we need more leaders, from both side of the aisle to speak in these sorts of even terms. (even if theyre wrong.)

reason’s convention blog + moore’s usa today column today + lemon odor + found on floor

when i was in Hell last year they have an orientation that i was forced to attend.

unfortunately there wasnt a video clip of the Bush twins behind me. the room of evil people really did razz me.

here’s the post incase you forgot:

when i was in the orientation meeting everyone had to stand up and introduce themselves.

hi, my name is tony. i was an undercover superhero in hollywood, california, earth, and now im here.

everyone booed.

down here that means hi.

it also means boo.

what were my hobbies?

i liked model planes, horticulture and reading the Bible.

they booed louder.

tony was also a very popular blogger.

this made them stop booing.

and slowly

they started to laugh.

hysterically.

one guy was crying he was laughing so much.

soon someone knocked at the door to see what was happening, someone told the guy and they pointed at me. then they both started laughing and patting each other on the back.

then i started laughing cuz it was pretty funny.

then everyone settled down.

then some lady chuckled.

then another lady gafawwed.

a dude snorted.

then everyone laughed again.

i laughed, farted, then laughed harder.

someone tried to ask me a question, but busted out laughing.

then everyone joined in again.

a fat guy turned blue and wheezed while catching his breath, his buddy opened his shirt a little and waved some air at him. he took out his asthma thing and blew some air in his lungs and stopped looking blue.

then he coughed.

then he went back to laughing.

then he ripped a little fart.

then everyone started laughing all over again.

ah, memories

melting dolls has some tips for the terrorists + jaime + kool keith