Anyway the two of us are on pins and needles here, with little more to do than watch the news and the poll numbers change all day long. I've had this crick in my neck that won't go away, which I'm convinced is the direct result of pre-election anxiety.

On the one hand I feel like in the end this election may not be as close as predicted...on the other hand I feel it could be even closer. Part of me truly believes that on election day, Americans will take a long hard look at President Bush and John Kerry and ultimately realize that they cannot vote for John Kerry because he has not defined himself in any way, shape or form. President Bush may not be the most articulate man, he may not have a way with words the way Clinton or a trial lawyer like John Edwards do, but President Bush has proven his ability to lead this country through tough times.

Just this week a new purported al Qaeada tape has been released, it says America must pay for decades of "injustice." This means that liberals cannot do what I'm sure they really want to do and claim that this tape is the result of a hatred caused by GWB and his actions. Maybe this is why they've been relatively quiet about the whole thing...it proves what we all already knew. The threat of terrorism is real. It is not "overblown" as John Kerry would have us believe and it should absolutely not under any circumstances be regarded as something along the lines of illegal gambling or prostitution (as John Kerry has said just recently). As much as we may want to live in a pre-911 world (although we were certainly not any safer then considering we had a major terrorist attack every two years against American interests) the fact is that we do not.

President Bush is following in the great tradition of Ronald Reagan who said, "We want to avoid a war and that is better achieved by being so strong that a potential enemy is not tempted to go adventuring." Well the Clinton administration gave Osama the idea that America is nothing more than a "paper tiger" (yes Osama did actually say this in an interview after Clinton pussied out of Somalia) and in the three years since 9/11 President Bush has been doing all he can to show our enemies that America will fight back and fight back hard if and when we are attacked. Our enemies know that as long as President Bush is the Commander in Chief any attack on American interests will be answered. Unlike under Clinton when our sailors were murdered, our embassies bombed and the heart of our financial district was attacked, without any real action on our part.

Common sense dictates that we re-elect the man who has kept us safe and knows how to keep us safe versus a career politician who has never governed, who despite 20 years in the Senate has had only 5 pieces of legislation with his name behind it, who has a more liberal voting record than Teddy Kennedy no matter how hard he tries to move to the middle during this election...Bleh I could go on and on about why John Kerry doesn't have what it takes, not by far. His entire political career is clearly documented but his supporters simply don't want to see him for what he is.

Explain to me this those of you across the aisle who claim Kerry is not a flip-flopper who will say whatever he has to during an election...Why is it that during the first Gulf War, when there was in fact a UN mandate in addition to a large coalition that even Kerry now identifies as a "real" coalition, Kerry still voted against liberating Kuwait because he said that he knew a vote to authorize the use of force was a vote for the use force...but now Kerry claims that when he voted for this war he did not believe a vote to authorize the use of force meant the President would use force. So in the early 90's he knew that a vote to authorize force (in a case where the use of force was clearly warranted, even by Kerry's own standards today) would translate into the use of force, but a little over 10 years later the same vote for authorization of force meant something entirely different? I don't know how good of a job I did in explaining that...but hopefully you get the gist of it.

Okay, I won't go on about it anymore for now...I've run out of steam. I could go on forever.

BUSH-CHENEY 04!

I've been able to spend a lot of time talking to Greg, who is currently the Mayor of Redondo Beach, because he's been sort of residing in our office dialing for dollars...He's a really nice guy, who deeply loves this country and is a small businessman (Farmer's insurance) who has balanced 8 city budgets. He is EXACTLY the kind of man that we need up in Sacramento helping the Governor fix the mess that the Democrats have left...His opponent is a sleazy telemarketer (for Gray Davis no less) who's been sued by charities (for not giving them the money he was supposedly raising for them) and who's "business" has been shut down in several states.

Anyway, it's an extremely tight race because President Bush's numbers in his district are dismal (down 12 points) and people in the northern part of the district (i.e. Venice) are reluctant to vote for any Republican. He's slightly ahead in all the southern cities in the district but not enough to offset what's happening with the northern part.

So please, if you're in the 53rd district, please please please vote for Greg Hill and try to convince as many people in your neighborhood to do the same =) His campaign is also pretty desperate for money at this point (his opponent is loaded and has the benefit of his telemarketing company...), they'd really liek to be able to keep campaign ads and mailers going out right up until Nov. 2. So if you can help, I would really appreciate it, I know the Mayor would really appreciate and if all goes well, all of California will benefit.

Please visit www.HillForAssembly.com for more information on how to help/donate.

NAME: John Kerry

RESIDENCE: 7 mansions, including one in Washington DC, worth multi-millions. I served in Vietnam (four months).

EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement - In my career as a U.S. Senator, I've voted to cut every law enforcement, CIA, and Defense bill. I ordered the city of Boston to remove a fire hydrant in front of my mansion, thereby endangering my neighbors in the event of fire. I served in Vietnam (four months).

MILITARY:

I served in Vietnam (four months). I used three minor injuries to get an early discharge from the military and service in Vietnam (as documented by the attending doctor). I served in Vietnam (four months). I then returned to the U.S., joined Jane Fonda in protesting the war, and insulted returning Vietnam vets, claiming they committed atrocities and were baby killers. I served in Vietnam (four months). I threw my medals, ribbons, or something away in protest. Or did I? My book " Vietnam Veterans Against the War: The New Soldier", shows how I truly feel about the military. I served in Vietnam (four months).

COLLEGE:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. Unlike my counterpart George Bush, I have no higher education and did not get admitted to Harvard nor graduate with an M.B.A

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

After College and Vietnam, I ran for the U.S. Congress and have been there ever since. I have no real world experience except marrying very rich women and running their companies vicariously through them. I served in Vietnam (four months).

ACCOMPLISHMENTS:

As a U.S. Senator I set the record for the most liberal voting record, exceeding even Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. I have consistently failed to support our military and CIA by voting against their budgets, thus gutting our country's ability to defend itself. Although I voted for the Iraq War, now I am against it and refuse to admit that I voted for it. I voted for every liberal piece of legislation. I have no plan to help this country but I intend to raise taxes significantly if I am elected. I served in Vietnam (four months).

My wealth so far exceeds that of my counterpart, George Bush, that he will never catch up. I make little or no charitable contributions and have never agreed to pay any voluntary excess taxes in Massachusetts, despite family wealth in excess of $ 700 million. I served in Vietnam (four months).

I (we) own 28 manufacturing plants (Heinz) outside of the U.S. in places like Asia, Mexico and Europe. We can make more profit from the cheaper cost of labor in those Countries, although I blame George Bush for sending all of the other jobs out of Country. I served in Vietnam (four months).

Although I claim to be in favor of alternative energy sources, Ted Kennedy and I oppose windmills off Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard as it might spoil our view of the ocean as we cruise on our yachts. I served in Vietnam (four months).

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

None. However, I served in Vietnam (four months).

PERSONAL:

I practice my Catholic faith whenever cameras are present. I ride a Serotta Bike. I love to ski/snowboard. I call my Gulfstream V Jet the "Flying Squirrel". I call my $850,000 42-foot Hinckley twin diesel yacht the "Scarmouche".

I am fascinated by rap and hip-hop and feel it reflects our real culture.

I own several "Large" SUVs including one parked at my Nantucket summer mansion, though I am against large, polluting, inefficient vehicles and blame George Bush for our energy problems. I served in Vietnam (four months).

PLEASE CONSIDER MY EXPERIENCE WHEN VOTING IN 2004.

I finally got my sample ballot and I'm such a huge nerd that I was actually really excited about it. I've been trying to figure out how I'm going to vote on all the props and things like that (the CAGOP provides a handy-dandy voter guide with all the props and how it stands on each one...but I still prefer to do a bit of research on my own first..) and here's what I've got so far:

YES
Prop 1A - It has bipartisan support and the Governor has endorsed it...it protects local city treasuries from the state. Sounds like a good idea to me, especially considering how greedy Sac can be.

Prop 64 - Prevent frivolous lawsuits against businesses, sounds like a winner to me.

NO
Prop 66 - Dumbs down the three strikes law enacted in the 1990's with overwhelming support...would allow for the release of 26,000 criminals in CA including child molestors and other violent offenders (keep3strikes.org)...it is opposed by all the DA's offices in California, not to mention a whole slew of other public safety organizations and the Governor.

Props 68 & 70 - First of all I've seen more commercials favoring these two propositions than anything else on the ballot this year which leads me to believe they have some serious money behind them...which leads me to believe that these are probably supported by the Indian tribes...the Governor claims that neither of these props gives California its fair share and I tend to believe him since they (tribes) are fighting so hard and spending so much money to try and pass these props.

Prop 71 - Gotta part ways with the Governor (and most people in my office) on this one...I don't think we should be spending 3 billion dollars we don't have in the first place on ethically questionable fields of study.

Prop 72 - This is one of our office's "babies" so of course I'm voting no on 72. Can you imagine how many jobs would be lost from the CA economy if Best Buy, Taco Bell, McDonald's, GAP...the list goes on and on...had to buy health insurance for all of their employees?

The rest are either too boring for me to read about or I just don't feel like I understand them enough yet...most likely for the ones I don't give a poop about I'll just follow the cagop voter guide's suggestion.

Grr...baseball is pre-empting Simpsons.

Kerry looks like he has a lot of powder and rouge on.

President Bush looks like he's trying not to make faces at Kerry when Kerry's talking.

So far I think the President is doing better, but then the sight of Kerry talking makes me want to puke, so I'm a little biased.

Being home all day is disconcerting now. I haven't spent a weekday home alone since I started working fulltime at the beginning of July. I think Taz is glad she has someone to complain about her hunger to (I put her on a diet).

Maybe if I stayed home all day long again I'd end up posting random bs a dozen times a day like I did as a first-year in college. This feels like my only connection to the rest of the world right now.

I think I'm gonna say something about the upcoming election now because John Kerry's ugly mug is on my tv screen at the moment...Truthfully this is the first election I've really cared about at all in my lifetime. Four years ago I forgot to vote and although I kind of felt like I wanted Bush to win (strangely enough since at the time I thought I was a liberal) I really didn't care that much either way. I was rereading this post from four years ago where I wonder if I should support Nader and then decide against it because I didn't know enough about any candidate to support anyone. Anyway, yeah, basically I was completely clueless and not that interested. The point I'm trying to make is that this feeling of being so committed to one candidate's victory is new to me, and can even be upsetting at times. I let things bother me more than I should. How can anyone honestly support Kerry and his positions, or rather lack of them. How come no one's pointed out the fact that we had a relatively major terrorist attack every two years while their man Clinton was in charge and yet so far since September 11 there hasn't been another major attack on the US. And Kerry wants to go back to Clinton's way of fighting this war...calling it a "law enforcement issue." Actually, Kerry, like Clinton, doesn't know what he wants, all he knows is he wants to be the President of the United States. How can people actually respect this man? Think of him as a great leader? President Bush may not be much of an orator but he can lead and has led us through very difficult times...Blah, I'm just ranting now...not making any sense >< Basically I just feel like if Kerry wins...our country is headed in a direction no responsible citizen should want it to go. And it bothers me that more people don't understand this. It's like that whole stupid draft scare thing. Why does anyone believe that idiocy?? Republicans (unlike Democrats) actually understand how to fight and win wars, which is why no one in the Bush Administration would ever support the re-instatement of the draft, which is why the moron who proposed the bill is a Democrat and the only two idiots who voted for it were also Democrats.

Sigh. Anyway, I know that made no sense, I guess I just feel kind of sad because I'm afraid of what could happen come November and if John Kerry wins I will be really disappointed...Maybe if Bush was up against Gephardt or Lieberman, I'd be less disappointed because at least it would be clear that those on the other side of the aisle get how important national security is and get how it needs to be handled in this day and age....But they nominated Kerry, a man with 20 years in the Senate and no notable legislation with his name behind it...who came home and lied to (oh I'm sorry "misled") the US Senate...lied about his brothers who were still out there risking their lives for their country...who were in enemy POW camps...They want this guy to be President of the United States??? This guy and a freaking trial-lawyer?

One of my coworkers sent me this article and I thought it made some excellent points I hadn't even really considered until now...

In his pre-baked soundbite of the night, Kerry said: "Well, you know, when I talked about the $87 billion, I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. But the President made a mistake in invading Iraq. Which is worse?"

Interesting question. The play-by-play pundits thought it brilliant, but I beg to differ. It would have been a better line if he'd said: "But the President's made a mistake in how he's fighting this war. Which is worse?" There may be a majority that thinks post-Saddam Iraq has been screwed up; there's not a clear, exploitable majority that thinks toppling Saddam was a disaster, and Kerry can't build one in the next month.

But it would still have been a lousy line for this reason: "Talking about" stuff is all Kerry's got. He has no executive experience, he has never run a state, never founded a company, built a business, made payroll. Post-Vietnam, all he's done is talk and vote. For 20 years in the US Senate: talk, vote, talk, vote. So, if his talking and voting are wrong, what else is there?

Speaking as a third-rate hack, I'd say that as a general rule articulacy is greatly over-rated. But, if articulacy is the measure, how come Kerry can't articulate an Iraq policy any of us can understand? By contrast, for an inarticulate man, Bush seems to communicate pretty clearly.

He communicates the reality of the September 12th world, a world where you can't afford to err on the side of multilateral consensus and Hague-approved legalisms and transatlantic chit-chatting and tentativeness and faintheartedness about the projection of American power in America's interest. Mr Kerry thinks he can rebuild the polite fictions of September 10.

A majority of the American people - albeit not as big a majority as it ought to be - gets this. John Kerry still does not. Which means he lost the debate. He got a technical win on points from the pundits, but this election won't be won on points. It's primal. The pundits keep missing this.

They thought Kerry was good in the debate, just as he was good in his convention speech, because on both occasions he was tactically artful. But that's not going to cut it. We're post-Clinton: you can't triangulate your way to victory.

God I hope he's right.