The 2004 presidential election could very well be a major victory for the Bush White House. In fact, everything is going their way right now – in direct contrast to four months ago when the agenda seemed to have slipped away from the White House.

Back in the summer, the nation was consumed with a still-slow economy, a raging controversy over a White House leak about a CIA agent, no WMD found in Iraq and the entire mess surrounding Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger.

Underneath this summer of discontent was the steady drip-drip-drip of US military casualties in Iraq coupled with several devastating car bombings in Baghdad.

All of this combined to lower President G.W. Bush’s poll ratings to the lowest of his presidency. His crucial ‘re-elect number’ was under 50%, a worrisome sign for any incumbent.

Now, as we head toward Christmas, things have changed – radically. Let us examine Mr. Bush’s improving fortunes:

1) The crucial factor in any election is the underlying perception of the economy. Up until a month ago, the American people were expressing sourness and negativity about jobs and the economy. But that has started to change with the steady flow of positive economic data and the apparent creation of new jobs. True, we have a long, long way to go to get enough new jobs back into the system, but the general mood of most people is good and positive.

This – more than anything else – is why Mr. Bush is smiling these days. When people feel good about their jobs, their IRAs, their family’s jobs and the future, then their unhappiness with an incumbent president is reduced.

Right now Mr. Bush has that going in his direction for the first time since he took office.

2) Iraq: this is the other major factor that could undo the Bush campaign. If the deaths of GIs continue right through next November, then Team Bush will be in trouble. But they are taking steps now to reduce the chances of that killing continuing. By next summer the day-to-day police work will be transferred to new Iraqi troops; US soldiers will be safely garrisoned on their bases out of harm’s way. And June will hopefully see some sort of transfer of political sovereignty to a new Iraqi government.

If Team Bush can eliminate the killings of US soldiers, then the ancillary issues such as ‘Where are the WMDs? and Where is Saddam?” will not rise to sufficient stature to cause Mr. Bush to be voted out of office.

3) Prescription Drugs for Medicare recipients: Yes, Mr. Bush can take credit for doing something no other president – Republican or Democrat – has done: give this new benefit to some seniors. The chattering political class says this is a huge victory to President Bush. And it may very well be. But there is a deep, underlying cynicism among seniors. It is too early to tell if they are happy over this bill or not.

Don’t be surprised if this drug benefit political victory turns out to be a political negative.

4) Gay marriage: this divisive and contentious issue gives the Bush White House just what it wants: a ‘wedge’ social issue. If former Vermont Governor Howard Dean is the Democrat nominee, then he is the perfect target for the Bush campaign. As governor, Dr. Dean signed into law a ‘civil union’ law and is on record as favoring the concept of gay marriage. Team Bush will take this and use it the same way the 1988 Bush campaign ruined Governor Michael Dukakis over his membership in the ACLU.

Conservatives – some of whom are growing unhappy with Mr. Bush’s profligate spending – will rally to the GOP side over this gay marriage issue.

Summary: President Bush looks to be a good shape going into 2004. Sure, a lot can happen in the next 11 months. A new terror attack inside the US, a new scandal, an economic slow-down or something entirely unexpected can completely upset the apple cart.

But wouldn’t you rather be running the Bush campaign today than any one else’s?


Let’s have some fun and examine a few of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s statements out in Iowa last weekend as she emceed the big annual Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner for the Iowa Democratic Party.

Hillary’s job was to speak and then introduce each of the eight presidential candidates. Of course she stole the spotlight - which is what she wanted to do - while denying that she is running for President next year.

A clever technique: deny you’re running but act like a candidate even going so far as to upstage the announced candidates.

OK, let’s see what she said and then translate it into plain, simple English:

1) Hillary said, "The candidates are doing a pretty good job putting out a lot of positive messages on policies and programs that I'd like to see them get more attention for. That's something I'm encouraging them to do. It's important to fit the positive message into a broader, over-arching theme."

What she really means: None of these turkeys can hold a candle to me as either a star or as a policy expert. They are lost in the midst of Confederate flag controversies, misstatements about Iraq and confusion over Medicaid. They are so weak I can swoop in any time I like and outshine them all!

2) Hillary said of President Bush, "This is a president who did not have a mandate for this kind of radical agenda. He should have demonstrated more respect and even humility in light of that divided (2000) election, and instead they are driving a Mack truck through the American middle class."

Translated into English, that means: Gore really blew it by losing. That allowed the Republicans to undo all the new social programs Bill and I put in during the 1990’s. When I get back in the White House I am going to make sure they can’t cut anything ever again.

3) Hillary said, “You could reprise a lot of the ‘92 campaign and it would sound awfully fresh. Much of what this administration has done is undermine our ability to continue putting people first and encourage opportunity, responsibility and community - and to unify our country instead of driving these divisive ideological wedges. I believe we could do a much clearer job of articulating an alternative."

What she means is: I ran our 1992 campaign and it worked perfectly to get rid of the first President Bush. I can do it again and get rid of the second President Bush. None of these weak sisters knows how to beat the Bush Machine; I do. The Democrat Party – if they want to win – will come to me next Spring and beg me to be the Presidential nominee.

4) Hillary on her social agenda: "So, how do we get smarter and fresher in posing that alternative and making it clear that we're not just defenders of the status quo? We want to be looking for new ways to move the entire American enterprise forward."

What she really means: I will never rest until we have true European socialism in our government. The thing is, the media and the public are so damn easy to manipulate. I am going for cradle-to-the-grave coverage but will make it sound ‘compassionate’ and ‘fair’ by dumping on those ‘greedy’ corporate bastards who support Bush. If I call it ‘the American enterprise,’ I can then do anything I want. Just sound patriotic while instituting a true revolutionary agenda.

5) She said her "biggest critique of this administration is that they are mortgaging our future" with high deficits and more debt.

What this means is: Damn! The economy is improving and it may take away the best issue for defeating Bush next year. Who the hell really cares about debt? Hell, I love it!! That’s what we finance every social program with. But we have to have something to attack Bush on.

Just a sample of HillarySpeak.

Lesson learned? Do not believe a word she says.

2004: IRAQ

Last week the Bush Administration abruptly reversed course and began a pre-election plan to pull out of Iraq before our 2004 election.

Clearly this White House – which had publicly denounced the efficacy of public opinion polls – is transfixed by the meteoric drop in both the President’s approval ratings and in public support for the war in Iraq. And, wary of heading into next fall with GIs dying daily, the White House political operation has determined that Mr. Bush had to begin a withdrawal from Iraq.

Thus the emergency summons to Administrator Paul Bremer to return to the White House for two days of high level talks and the subsequent change in plans: Iraq is now going to hold elections next year before completion of a constitution.

The goal: a sovereign Iraqi government in place by next June – well before our political conventions. Team Bush isn’t stupid: the last thing they want to see here next summer is a daily reminder of the casualties of the Iraq War and more and more articles about amputees and widows.

No, the White House now wants to rejigger their entire election strategy away from Iraq – likely Democratic nominee Howard Dean’s raison d’être – and back on an improving economy. And to do that we need to begin now to scale back our presence in Iraq.

The problem is that the bad guys over there – Saddam disciples and imported terrorists – want to escalate the killing of American troops. This month has seen a dramatic increase in attacks on our GIs. We have lost over 50 troops already in November and the month still has two weeks left.

We know that America’s present enemies know they cannot defeat us militarily. But they crow about the “Somali Model,” based on the unfortunate American intervention in Somalia in 1992-1993. In that case, the unfortunate downing of a Black Hawk helicopter and the humiliating deaths of its crew led to an American pullout. The Iraqi Resistance – and Al Qaeda throughout the Muslim world - today are basing their overall strategy on this Somali Model: inflict enough death and pain on America and the election-conscious politicians will pull out.

And that is exactly what is happening.

In the course of six months – since the May 1 pronouncement of the “end of major combat operations” – this country has gone on a roller coaster of emotions over Iraq. As the President landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the polls showed huge public support for the war and for the Commander in Chief.

Then the sporadic killing of our troops began. And in July the President egged on the resistance by saying, “Bring ‘em on!”

And “on” they came. Soon it became an almost daily announcement: another American soldier has been killed.

Then came the horrific UN car bombing and the subsequent pulling out of all international organizations. That was followed by other nations backing out of pledges to dispatch troops to Iraq to help us.

All during this time was the steady drumbeat of no WMD found and the fiasco surrounding the Niger nuclear material story.

Then came the Muslim Holy month of Ramadan and the attacks have escalated precipitously. And so have the deaths and injuries to our soldiers.

This White House is absolutely desperate not to repeat the fate of the first Bush White House and go down to defeat after only one term. (All Presidents naturally want to get re-elected; this one feels the pain of defeat personally because 1992 was not that long ago and this President was involved in his father’s re-election campaign.)

So our 2004 elections have determined the timing and composition of the Iraqi government. Unfortunately, our radical Muslim enemies are going to read this pullout as verification of the Somali Model.

No wonder Saddam and Osama issue audiotapes all the time. They are crowing about ‘forcing’ America to pull back and withdraw.

If Iraq falls apart and descends into anarchy and chaos, this chapter in our War on Terror will have been a complete failure.


Unemployment is finally dropping. GDP is finally growing at an explosive rate. Things are really looking up economically for the first time during the Bush presidency.

Yet, for some reason, according to the new NEWSWEEK poll, 50% of Americans today would vote against a second term for President G.W. Bush. Only 42% would vote for him.

All along most political pundits have believed that if the underlying sourness that comes from a down economy was replaced by a new optimism then G.W. Bush would – like Ronald Reagan in 1984 – coast to re-election.

But something else besides the economy seems to be counteracting the good employment reports. And that ‘something’ must be the deteriorating situation on the ground in Iraq. Indeed, just as the NEWSWEEK poll shows the President’s positive rating on his handling of the economy has risen 6 points in just one month, his overall rating has dropped. And 51% disapprove of his handling of the Iraq war; this is higher than at any time since we invaded last March.

So, at least for now, it appears that Iraq trumps the improving economy in the minds of American voters.

What does this mean for the 2004 election?

1) The Bush Administration must quiet the situation on the ground in Iraq - without appearing to pull out ala Vietnam.

2) Our enemies – especially Osama Bin Laden – can now see that defeating Bush next year is their number one goal. Because if they can drive America out of the Middle East, then they can make an all-out push to take control of the entire region. This past weekend’s Saudi Arabian bombing is undoubtedly yet another Bin Laden attempt to destabilize his native land. His dream? A fundamentalist Muslim regime in Ryadh and reaching all the way to Asia.

3) The Democratic Party is now the anti-war party. Howard Dean’s rapid climb to the top of the polls shows that our two political parties are deeply divided on the Iraq War issue. Oddly an overwhelming majority of inside-the-beltway Democrats voted for the war resolution a year ago. And those same Democrats – including presidential candidates Lieberman, Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards – were only too happy to trumpet their support of a successful war until things started to sour. Only Howard Dean from the start was against the war. And he tapped into a firestorm of Democratic Party primary voters who are firmly anti-war. No wonder all the candidates are now turning strongly against the very war they voted for!

So, as we look ahead to 2004 it is clear that the Bush Administration has to calm down the situation on the ground in Iraq or else the increased American deaths will drive Mr. Bush from office the very same way American deaths drove another President from Texas – LBJ – from office in 1968.

The problem the President has is that things on the ground in Iraq may actually get worse. The Shiites have so far remained docile, but that cannot last much longer. The anti-American terrorists – whether they be Saddam leftovers or Al Qaeda imports – will want to incite a bloody Sunni-Shiite civil war that will consume any last vestige of international support for the liberation of Iraq.

And, of course, there is always neighboring Iran which also wants to see American fail. They, too, will contribute to a Shiite revolution in Iraq.

One of the basic problems with Iraq is that it is not a country that should be one nation; it should be three separate entities: Kurds up north, Sunnis in the triangle area and the Shiites down south. The British lumped them all together 60 years ago. It took a strong arm like Saddam to force three distinct nationalities to live together. America does not want to exert that kind of brutal force; nor should we even contemplate it.

It is a mess. Period.

Politically, Team Bush now knows that Iraq and GI deaths can undo the promising economic recovery and undermine the President’s re-election next year.

Now, what are they going to do about it?


CBS’ decision to cancel the Reagan Movie is one of the greatest victories – ever – for the conservative movement over the left-wing so-called mainstream media.

November 4th is a huge day for the Reagans, for truth and for America.

23 years ago today Ronald Reagan was elected President of the United States.

And 9 years ago today the former President told his fellow countrymen that he had Alzheimer’s Disease.

And now this November 4th the followers of the wonderful Reagan Legacy have taken on CBS, Viacom and all the lefties who run these disgraceful ‘entertainment’ companies and forced them to back down! Oh, what a sweet, wonderful victory!

We need to be clear about what happened here: CBS and the Streisand/Brolin Axis of Leftism that so dominate Hollywood were intent on trashing Ronald and Nancy Reagan through this movie. They were using Ronald Reagan – a tolerant and kind man – to fight yet another battle in the Gay Agenda. Only they made a tragic mistake: Ronald Reagan was never anti-gay. He and Nancy, as long-time Hollywood insiders, knew many gays and never did or said anything that could even be construed as mildly anti-gay. As Governor of California, Ronald Reagan was ‘progressive’ toward the gay movement.

The fabricated “I am the anti-Christ” statement attributed to President Reagan in this movie is a disgraceful attempt to make Mr. Reagan and the GOP seem intolerant and cruel. And it is an attack on all Christians by a nihilistic, agnostic Hollywood crowd.

All those who objected vociferously to this movie deserve hearty congratulations for forcing CBS to back down. In fact, it has never happened like this before. Brent Bozell and Reed Irivine have fought hundreds of similar battles and this is their finest hour.

Newsmax, Drudge and others also share in the credit.

And so do thousands of you readers who let it be known that we were not going to stand for this trash job of two wonderful people, Ronald and Nancy Reagan.

If Hollywood wants to write about trashy White House behavior, why not a movie about Bill and Hillary Clinton?

Saddam’s Revenge

Saddam Hussein is alive somewhere in Iraq. And he apparently is helping direct the insurgency against the US liberation – he would call it an ‘occupation’ – of Iraq. Here might be what he is thinking:

Bring democracy to my country? By having American troops create a government here in my homeland? Ha! I am not going to let that happen.

People seem to forget things. Back in 1991 I withdrew from Kuwait but I outlasted the first Satan, the first President Bush! He was thrown out in 1992 – and I remained in power. I then was able to re-take the areas in the north – the bastard Kurds – and the south where those filthy Shiites dared to defy me. Bush was off in Maine playing golf and I was stronger than ever!!!

Clinton was a piece of cake to play with. A total dove who would lob a few cruise missiles into an empty building at night to minimize casualties. He was so easy to deceive! I heard that he was spending more time with various women than with the head of his CIA. I don’t blame him. The CIA is pathetic. Couldn’t find my WMD when I moved it into Syria before the war – and still can’t find it. Can’t find all my cash either. And, thanks be to Allah, that cash is coming in handy these days.

Oh what a blood feud I have with the Bushes. And I am going to win it, too! I outlasted Bush 41, as they call him, and now I have plans to outlast his son, Bush 43. How, you ask? By following the Ho Chi Minh primer, given to me by my pal, Vladimir Putin. Basically this book says that Americans have short attention spans and hate blood and suffering. In Vietnam, Hanoi learned that they could merely ‘outlast’ Washington. And the American media would take care of the rest. Sure enough, by 1968 the media juiced up the Democrats who then threw out their own President.

I think that can happen now all over again. I plan on using these ‘useful idiots’ – as Lenin called them – traipsing all over my land with cameras and satellite dishes to send back to America pictures of dead and suffering American soldiers. Oh, that attack on the copter was our best yet! And we have more planned, too. Plus, Bush has done something I could never have done: he has made that religious fool – Bin Laden – send thousands of his suicidal maniacs in here to help me! Can you believe it? These fanatics want to die! Allah, what a wonderful weapon to have at your disposal.

We have a good little plan going now. Slowly but surely we will escalate attacks on Americans – soldiers and the others, too – while Governor Dean leads the charge to pull out of Iraq. Wonderful! Another George McGovern – only he can win next year because Bush is no Richard Nixon. Nixon’s lies caught him after he was re-elected; Bush’s lies are going to trip him up just in time for him to lose the election.

Yes, I am going to outlast both President Bushes. And then I am going to re-assert control here in my part of Iraq. I have billions stashed to pay for this insurgency and they will never find me down here; they’re looking in the wrong places thanks to the little tidbits of false information we leak to them.

As for my beloved two sons – Allah rescue them – they were stupid fools! I told them the last day we were in Baghdad that we should all split up and keep moving. Stupid fools stayed in the same house for 3 weeks! No wonder they were found! Oh well, I never thought much of Uday anyway. I tried to whack him in 1996. Qusay had potential; he did a wonderful job torturing those Shiites in 1991.

Still, my cause is bigger than a few boys.

We have to outlast Bush 43. And we will – thanks to the gullible media and an American people with no resolve.

Oh, I cannot wait for my revenge on the House of Bush!