Blogging

In Chicago, Blackfive has been kept from voting – and interestingly enough – ten of the others who were kept from voting were all Republicans.

They turned everyone (that was not in the books) away.

As I left on my way to the County Election Commission to file a complaint, I asked ten different people who were also denied a vote because they weren’t in the book, “Are you Republicans?”

All ten replied, “Yes.”

“Did you vote in the primary?”

Nine, “Yes.”

It’s impossible to know if the Republicans were removed from the book. But this is Chicago…where the dead count more than the living.

I’ll let you know what happens in a few hours. I’m calling my friend who’s an editor for the Tribune and another who’s an Assistant State’s Attorney.

The always eloquent Bill Whittle over at Eject! Eject! Eject! has this missive about today’s election:

On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.

I have tried to make clear the reasons I have, and continue to support, President Bush. Despite his many faults, he seems to understand that the only nations serious about this fight are already in the field at our side. We have recovered from budget deficits before. We have been debating abortion and gay rights and all the other lifestyle issues for decades, and these debates will not go away if John Kerry is elected.

I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work — that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.

I believe, from a reading of the history and the very words of the leaders of North Vietnam, that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home.

I further believe that history shows that the Ayatollah Khomeini had our number in this regard, and I regard the start of this current conflict as the day they overran the US Embassy in Tehran, to which our response was…what?

The murdering, beheading savages who are trying to steal victory from defeat in the American ballot box have seen these lessons of Vietnam, and Iran, and Somalia, and they are — and have openly said they are — doing their best to kill as many Americans as they can to win this election for the man they certainly seem to fear less. That tells me something.

[…]

President Bush has already done much to re-program our mortal enemies assumptions about our determination to finish what we start, no matter the cost. Three dangerous enemies have fallen during his watch — Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The first two were predicted to cause American streets to run red with blood as the Jihadists took their vengeance upon us. In the three years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on this country. That is a record to be proud of, and one that deserves the reward of my vote, at least.

I want to finish this fight, now. I don’t think our children should have to worry about this five or ten or twenty years from now, when Iran or North Korea has had a chance to spread some nuclear largesse around. I believe a badly wounded enemy is more dangerous than a dead one. I want this fight to be over so that the country can afford to elect someone who panders to everyone and speaks French and can undo all this animosity from Europe with a few well-placed toasts and a conciliatory speech at the UN. The time for that is when this thing is over.

There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President. But he means to finish this fight, and by that, I believe he means to finish it by winning.

Afghanistan did not go to the warlords. It went to the polls. There were not one million refugees. Iraq did not produce 10,000 US casualties in house-to-house fighting, nor did it splinter into 3-way civil war as so many predicted. In three months, Iraqis will also go to the polls, and they, by all accounts, will continue their widespread support for secular candidates and repudiation of the extremists that are fighting so hard to terrorize and dishearten them. But the Iraqis are not terrorized. They are signing on for their army and police forces in the face of great danger. We owe those brave men and women something better than “wrong war, wrong place and wrong time.”

This is failure?

Not by my standards, it isn’t.

So I promised you a final thought, and everything above this point is mere preamble to it. Here it is:

People are telling you that Tuesday will be the most important election of your lives.

That is not true.

The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. You just didn’t know it. Neither did I.

What happened on that day led to one man being in the White House these past four years, rather than the other one. Whether he has done enough to keep us safe, even if he should lose on Tuesday, remains to be seen. But the fact remains that George W. Bush was Commander in Chief and President when we needed him the most.

I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won’t make that mistake again on Tuesday

Telegraph | Opinion | Kerry isn’t the answer:

Britain has 9,000 troops in Iraq, hundreds of whom are being drawn into the less stable regions of the country at American request. For the foreseeable future, our troops will play a central role in the bringing of order to the liberated country. Mr Bush has made many mistakes in Iraq. But one thing is certain: Saddam Hussein has been deposed. Mr Kerry is not even sure that the Iraqi dictator’s tyranny would be over had he been President. “He might be gone,” is as far as he was willing to go in an interview with NBC last week.

Indeed, Mr Kerry’s position on the war could scarcely be more muddled. The Senator voted for the invasion (unlike the first Gulf War, which he voted against). However, last October, he voted against an appropriation to support American soldiers dealing with the aftermath of a war he had approved. He has said that Mr Bush failed to commit enough troops to Iraq, but at the same time has promised to start bringing American soldiers home six months after taking office. Who, then, will plug the gap? The French foreign minister, Michel Barnier, has said that France will “never” send its troops to Iraq, even if Mr Kerry does win. Germany is no less forthright. How does the Democrat candidate propose to “win” in Iraq – as he says he would – in such operational circumstances?

Mr Kerry has done everything to encourage the charge that he is stranded in the world of September 10. “We have to get back to the place we were,” he said this month, “where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they’re a nuisance.” That would no doubt be desirable. But nothing Mr Kerry has said suggests that he knows how to achieve this goal. The intellectual vacuum at the heart of his candidacy has profound implications for Britain’s strategic interests and the lives of our troops: in both cases, this country would be better served by the re-election of Mr Bush.

As usual, James Lileks adds much to the debate over the elections:

I am certain Bin Laden fears a Kerry presidency more than a Bush second term. He knows – and I think we all know this – that Kerry would summon in the military guys, and say “I want you to find bin Laden.”

Uh – sir, I don’t quite –

“I mean it. Find him. ”

You mean, find him? Why – such a thing has never been considered, sir; we’ve just been waiting for him to wander into camp looking for directions, or perhaps to use the bathroom. That whole Abu Ghraib thing – well as you no doubt know, we were just trying to provoke him to set his ol’ beard on fire and run screaming into camp waving a big-ass scimitar, and then we’d be like all Indy on him and pow! Pow! But it never worked out. We never even had a Plan B. Find him? You serious? This is so totally unexpected! You mean, actually go try and get him?

“That’s exactly what I mean. And I have a plan.”

Sir?

“I want you to go here –”

Where, exactly? Your hand is covering all of Afghanistan and northern Pakistan on the map –

“That’s right. I want you to go here, and I want you to look for him. And when you see him, get him. ”

Is that the plan, sir?

“No, there’s more. See this? I’ve drawn a blue line, making a wide new river to his exact position. Send the Navy.”

Uh – yes. Yes of course sir. Anything else, sir?

“Yes. Take this hat. If he’s invisible, you’ll see him – but only if you have the hat on. Now find him! ”