From the Miami Herald:

“John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:

“What will you do about Cuba?

”As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.

'I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning. Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''

”It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.

”There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.”

Don’t worry, don’t worry, he has an explanation:

”Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.”

There’s a bit of a pattern here, I think.

This doesn’t look good:

”Judges are to be given tough powers to protect Britain from pollution and over-development under proposals for a new environmental court.”

The law’s the law, and regular courts should be left to enforce it. Obviously, traditional impartiality is not enough for the UK’s Green enforcers. Still, this won’t worry the Independent. Its coverage of this story includes this gem:

“The move follows concern that the legal system has failed to meet the growing threat posed by industry and multi-national companies.”

The growing threat posed by industry? Yup. Jobs, prosperity, progress, threats like that, threats that have made the UK rich enough to clean up its environment to a degree unimaginable thirty or forty years ago.

Ridiculous.

Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

So my girlfriend is over who is most apolitical and not crazy about Bush. She sometimes accuses me of reading too much on the Corner. I pull up your link to Web of Connections just as she walks over. She’s looking at it and she says, “I don’t get it. That’s supposed to be funny?” I said I didn’t know what she means. “What,” she says, “this is supposed to be some NRO spoof on the Kerry Campaign?” Doh!

A brief history: 1) I'm against it, and you should vote for me over John McCain on this basis. 2) Some campaign-finance reforms amount to a restriction on free speech, and I'll veto them on that basis. 3) I'll sign the bill, let the judges sort it out. 4) The bill I just signed bans all those George Soros ads. 5) I'm going to sue to get those ads all banned. 6) I'm going to support legislation to ban those ads that I already banned, even though they used to be free speech. I think (5) and (6) are new this week.

Here's a better idea: Rep. Roscoe Bartlett's First Amendment Restoration Act.

David Frum had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal the other day arguing that pro-lifers should be willing to entertain the idea of supporting Rudy Giuliani for president in 2008 if he does a few things. Let me mention two things Frum urges Giuliani to do, and note one he doesn't.

First, the one he doesn't. Giuliani has not just been pro-choice: He's been against a ban on partial-birth abortion. It is very hard for me to imagine someone with that position winning a Republican presidential nomination, or getting significant pro-life support.

Frum suggests that Giuliani should agree to appoint judges who oppose Roe v. Wade (or whose originalism would make it likely they oppose it). Frum also says that Giuliani should say, "Today our challenge is to use the achievements of science and medicine to serve humanity--and never allow[] science to treat some human beings as mere tools for the use of others." I take this line to be a statement of support for limits on the federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research and for a ban on cloning.

Now one can certainly be pro-choice and anti-Roe. I can think of several journalists and the odd legal academic who take this position. But examples of practical politicians who take it are hard to come by. Most politicians seem to think that being against Roe is a harder sell, politically, than being generically pro-life, and tend to downplay their anti-Roe stance, in part because many people are under the mistaken impression that getting rid of Roe means prohibiting abortion. Certainly most politicians seem to think that opposing funding embryonic stem-cell research is harder than being generically pro-life. I'm just not sure there's a constituency for the position that Frum is advocating for the mayor. And so I think it's unlikely that Giuliani will take the advice, or that pro-lifers will support him in large numbers.

At the end of his acceptance speech Bush should forcefully call out John Kerry to a debate -- or more. He should end his challenge by shouting "Kerry" something like this

TRRRTLE BLAY....TRRRRTLE BLAY....That's what I plan on chanting with my NR beer hat and giant foam finger saying "Lowry's #1!" as I wander down the street -- right before I "water" the flowers at Dag Hammarskjold Plaza.

Be there, or risk being called the sort of kid who passed up seeing The Who in concert because you had to transcribe the minutes from the last Stamp Collectors' Club meeting.

Doug Brinkley is a nice guy. I've met him several times, though I doubt he remembers it. Anyway, he's managed to cultivate for himself a reputation as a major scholar very quickly and almost just as quickly he's earning for himself a reputation as an astounding hack and political star-f..., uh, Toady. John Miller's excellent piece in NR recently fleshed-out his latest stage of hackdom but it's been going on for a very long time. If memory serves, his exploitation of John Kennedy Jr.'s death was stunning. In the begining of the week he said he'd been an aquaintance of his, by the end of the week it almost sounded like John-John had bravely given his best friend the last parachute in the plane so that the Word could live on.

If John F. Kerry is burning with a desire to be the new JFK than I nominate Brinkley as the new self-appointed Arthur Schlesinger.

I don't know if James Carville is hurting for cash these days, but he's definitely over-exposed (note how I'm skipping the easy jokes here). First he appeared (in one of the most unfunny scenes) in Old School. Then he and his wife started shilling for an airlines in radio commercials. Now, he's doing kids books.

What I would really like to know is what kind of parent thinks it's just great to skip, say, Curious George and go straight to Lu and the Swamp Ghost.

From an advertisement in the New Yorker:

“In Lu and the Swamp Ghost…James Carville teams up with award-winning children’s book author Patricia C. McKissack to create a story about lending a helping hand. The book is based on an episode in the life of Carville’s mother, Lucille (known as “Miz Nippy”), who grew up in rural southern Louisiana during the Great Depression.”

Miz Nippy?

The vomit is rising in my gorge.

Over at Reason, Nick Gillespie is dancing with his usual gusto on the grave of that uniquely dull (beach volleyball excepted) spectacle known as the Olympics (copyright, trademark, yada, yada, yada).

This passage, in particular, is well worth repeating to a pompous US Olympics Committee that is, apparently, so enamored of its brand:

”The most disturbing of the political controversies was undoubtedly the murder of 11 Israeli athletes at the 1972 Munich games by the Palestinian group Black September. The terrorists' violence was compounded by the speech given by International Olympics Committee head Avery Brundage. Brundage declared that the games would continue—a controversial if defensible position. But in saying that the games "must go on," Brundage, who had enjoyed a warm relationship with Adolf Hitler during the '36 Munich Games, refused to plainly mention the killings. Rather, he bemoaned the fact that the Olympics had suffered "two savage attacks," a euphemistic reference to the murders and a campaign underway to expel Rhodesia, then a white-supremacist nation, from participating in the games.

Meanwhile, in other Olympics news, the eccentric, but occasionally entertaining UK Independence Party is doing its bid for London’s bid to host the 2012 games.

It’s announced its support for Paris.

The EU Referendum Blog has more on this, including a few details of London Mayor Ken Livingstone’s reaction.

”Mayor Livingstone also announced haughtily that 70 per cent of Londoners supported the Games and the investment, jobs and development they would bring to London. Subsequently, the figure became 81 per cent, then went back to 70 per cent. But one thing remained constant: no evidence of any poll was produced. So we still do not know how the figure was arrived at and who was asked.”

It seems that a trouble with numbers is something else that Livingstone shares with poor old Nurse Bloomberg, an enthusiast, of course, for bringing the Olympic plague to his city.

UKIP is also suggesting “that, as London taxes will go up enormously to pay for the bid, the Games and the fall-out afterwards, the people who live and run businesses in London should be asked in a referendum whether the bid should go ahead after a full and clear statement of the costings had been made.”

That’s a good idea. New Yorkers should insist on the same.

I have received some really awesome email from vets and non vets alike about the G-File. One point, however, lost on some of the angrier emailers is the point that while I have as much of a "right" to judge as anybody else, the validity of the arguments supporting some judgments is obviously superior to others. At some level this is a linguistic point. If I've never served in combat, I'd better have a pretty good command of the facts and the principles involved before I think I can persuade anybody. But I have just as much a right to try. I do not believe that experience isn't important or valuable. I simply think it doesn't trump everything else. I would certainly value the opinion of John Keegan about what it was like to fight in WWI than I would John Kerry, John McCain or most -- though perhaps not all -- Vietnam vets. I don't believe all opinions are equal and all judgments of identical value. How could I?

I'll be on the road -- actually in the air -- all day tomorrow (today, Friday, by the time you read this). I have to get the puddle-jumper to Seattle. Then a gnarly to leg flight to DC. So I won't be around. I have a conference on Saturday that I'm participating in (the excellent Arsalyn program which is run out of LA). And then Sunday I drive up to NYC for GOP-Palooza. Then, the following Friday, I fly back to Seattle, rejoin the family unit and drive back to DC where we'll be living in a small rented house while they continue to remodel our real home. And then I finish the book.

Oh, and: First post of the day!

Crazed, doubtless, by self-importance and who knows what else, the US Olympic Committee has (according to Reuters) asked the Bush campaign to pull its ad referring to, gasp, the Olympic Games. Apparently, the committee feels that this impertinently 'hijacks' the Olympics brand, even though the Bush commercial doesn't, um, actually display the games' logo.

For arrogance, this edict takes some beating. That sad little committee should be told to take a running jump.

For those that are interested, one notable moment in the history of this much-vaunted 'brand' can be seen here. There's a much better use for it here.

Another military reader:

Mr. Goldberg,

After reading your essay in the National Review, I felt it necessary to
email a personal view. To give perspective, my own military service has
included 7 years active duty Air Force, 2 years Air Force Reserve, 2 years
as a Traditional Air Guardsman, and one year as a fulltime active Air
Guardsman. During that time I have worked across many of the potential work
environments for communications in the modern military, to include 2 direct
deployments for operations in Enduring Freedom, and one during the
liberation of Iraq. I do feel that as both a student of military history
and a veteran I have some right to comment on many of the issues of military
force and service in America. But all of that is only a minor point.

I have stood up and taken an oath 3 times to defend the Constitution of the
United States of America. That simple document assures all Americans of the
right to have an opinion and to voice it in any civilized manner they so
chose. For me that is the end of the issue. It is not a matter of
objectivity or subjectivity, it simple a thing that is. I have lost friends
and loved ones in action from terrorist attacks in the mid 90's through the
atrocity of 9-11, right through to the current thuggery in Iraq. Those
individuals gave their life for that simple document. What it stands for and
embraces is all that matters to me in issues of who has the 'right' to speak
of an matter or event.

There are many American service personnel to my knowledge who are quite
unhappy with Bush's conduct of the war. Those personal reasons range from
inadequate post combat planning to going to soft and letting politics get in
the way of reality and operations. But many more voice distaste for Kerry's
lack of dignity in the 70's over his rejection of his military service. The
unspoken word hypocrite hangs in the air during those discussions. Just as
many serviceman have looked tight lipped and haunted eyed at the thought of
Al Gore being president during the past four years. Those of us who wear a
uniform are as diverse a group as any American demographic, but within my
subjective opinion most tend to favor a more conservative stance on issues,
thereby making Bush the canidate for the majority of the military, past and
present.

From a reader:

Sir, I enjoyed your logical and persuasive freedom of speech article. I served in the US Army for 21 years and in combat areas in both the Korean and Vietnam wars, and believe I have a right to comment on military matters JUST AS ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS A RIGHT TO COMMENT ON MILITARY MATTERS, BY REASON OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES. My rights do not exceed your rights so long as what we each say is true. I object to Kerry's lies about his Vietnam service. I know they are lies because of internal contradictions, because of the testimony of reasonable and valid observers, and because of Kerry's unfortunate tendency to lie about all things greaet and small. It matters particularly to me as a Vietnam veteran that, after becoming eligible for the draft and into the Army, Kerry applied for a one year extension so he could, as he put it, goof off in Paris. When it was refused, Kerry volunteered for the Navy, knowing the likelyhood of combat service there was much less than in the Army. He was also seeking to bolster his political future. Kerry volunteered for Swiftboats at a time when they were a coastal service, running up and down the coast, and shooting up unarmed sampans. He has said, "I didn't want any part of the war." When the duty changed, according to his fellow swiftboaters, Kerry, variously, acted like a maniac shooting up innocent people and burning villages. When actual combat happened, he fled the scene. After the way he maligned each of us who served in Vietnam for his own political advancement in -- God help them -- a state given over to liars and peacenicks like Ted Kennedy. He introduced the subject of Vietnam service into the campaign because he thought he could hammer Bush with it. Bush, incidently, served honorably in the Air National Guard, flying missions over the USA to keep out Russian bombers. Kerry, by his own admission, was a war criminal. So . . . you do have a right to speak about the war, about people's conduct in the war, and about anything else you damned well want to -- so long as you tell the truth (a condition which would keep you out of the Democrat party and the main line media, by the way). Thanks again,

From a guy in uniform:

As an officer I'm to remain impartial and publicly neutral. One point, though:

When Bush came into that mess tent in Baghdad (first hand account from two
friends), that place spontaneously erupted. Dudes had tears welling up in
their eyes (along with the president) and that place was shaking with
applause. That was not a scripted moment. I was north in Tikrit at the
time and we applauded when we saw the news report on AFN (armed forces
network).

I'd bet a month's pay that Senator Kerry would not enjoy the same response
in the same situation.

The vast majority of service men and women don't give two s**** whether
their commander in chief served in the armed forces 30 years ago. We just
want to be assured that he's looking out for our interests (collective
American interests) and making wise choices today.

The Bush administration is a fan of it, apparently. The New York Times has more:

"In a striking shift in the way the Bush administration has portrayed the science of climate change, a new report to Congress focuses on federal research indicating that emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global warming over the last three decades."

The "only" likely explanation?

Election year pandering, I suppose, and contemptible as it is counter-productive, sort of like an environmental McCain-Feingold-Bush. Pathetic.

Ifyou sent me an email this morning and it bounced back. The email box overloaded again. I think I've cleared out enough space.

And, yes, when things calm down a bit I will probably be shedding AOL. I need to find an email/internet connection I like. Thanks much to all the folks who offered Gmail as a solution to over-filled email boxes. The problem with Gmail is I really hate web-based email software. I don't know why.

Anyway, no need to send me suggestions on other email options. I know they're out there and I could handle the irony of having my email fill-up again by getting a zillion suggestions on how to avoid that problem.

A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said someone from the Bush campaign contacted him Wednesday morning and asked him if he would travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland to Texas and accept the former senator's letter to Bush.

"I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me," said Patterson. "He would not face me. He kept rolling away from me. He's quite mobile."

Patterson, who spoke with the president on the phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the Bush campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

They're discussing an amendment to express opposition to hate-crimes laws. I'm moving "left" on the question, or at least moving against the standard equal-protection argument against it that the delegate made (and made rather well). (Here's what I used to think about the question.) I take the theory behind hate-crimes laws to be that these crimes have a larger social impact than other crimes and that the law can take account of that. We treat cop-killers worse than other killers, I take it, because we owe cops something for risking their lives for us and a community is dramatically less safe if it's open season on cops. The unequal treatment of these crimes is not a denial of a basic equality in the right to life of cops and everyone else. Now it may be that hate-crimes laws are a prelude to a campaign to criminalize "hate speech" of various kinds, or some similar campaign, and that may be a reason to oppose hate-crimes laws. But in theory I can see a case for it, and yes, that includes for crimes against people based on their sexual orientation.

While I composed this post, btw, the amendment failed.

The platform committee just added lines commending the president for supporting a mandate that health insurers cover mental and physical illness on equal terms. Here's an argument against.

Meanwhile, a number of amendments are now being offered to move the platform rightward on embryonic stem cell research--including a proposal to ban it altogether. Frist is speaking against it as I post.

A pro-choice and a pro-life delegate, working with pro-choice and pro-life organizations, worked out an amendment to the "summary and call to action" part of the platform. Instead of saying that Republicans "recognize" disagreements on many issues and commit to civil discussion, Republicans will now "respect and accept" these disagreements. But abortion, same-sex marriage, and other issues will not be mentioned as specific causes of disagreement. The amendment doesn't, to my mind, change much, but I guess the sponsors thought that the way it was offered would be a useful show of unity.

Speaking of unity, the abortion section of the platform passed a little bit before this amendment, with no attempt at a challenge. Next up is the section of the platform that covers (among other things) stem-cell research and immigration. But really, people, if you're watching this on tv, flip the channel.

John Kerry speaking at a Martin Luther King day celebration in Virginia last year said, quote, "I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam. A place of violence. When the news reports brought home to me and my crew mates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King." That date, of Dr. King's death, was April 4, 1968. According to kerry's website, it was not until November 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.

Robert Samuelson on McCain-Feingold-Bush:

"The presidential campaign has confirmed that, under the guise of "campaign finance reform," Congress and the Supreme Court have repealed large parts of the First Amendment. They have simply discarded what were once considered constitutional rights of free speech and political association. It is not that these rights have vanished. But they are no longer constitutional guarantees. They're governed by limits and qualifications imposed by Congress, the courts, state legislatures, regulatory agencies -- and lawyers' interpretations of all of the above. We have entered an era of constitutional censorship. Hardly anyone wants to admit this -- the legalized demolition of the First Amendment would seem shocking -- and so hardly anyone does. The evidence, though, abounds. The latest is the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and parallel anti-Bush ads by Democratic "527" groups such as MoveOn.org. Let's assume (for argument's sake) that everything in these ads is untrue. Still, the United States' political tradition is that voters judge the truthfulness and relevance of campaign arguments. We haven't wanted our political speech filtered. Now there's another possibility. The government may screen what voters see and hear."

Read the whole thing.

Last night on a talk show…the Kerry spokesman said that the atrocities in Vietnam are well documented matters of record, and Kerry had every right to talk about them in 1972. My blood began to boil again.

As a military lawyer, I knew of the atrocities being committed by Marines in Vietnam. The atrocities were isolated incidents, and they were punished by every level of command at the time and before it became trendy for the media to sensationalize the crimes. They are matters of record because the perpetrators were court martialed, and you can read about them in the court martial reports.

Kerry's characterization of Vietnam atrocities as being widespread on a daily basis with the knowledge of all levels of command is a lie.

The Kerry machine’s sending spokesmen out to attest to widespread atrocities in Vietnam multiplies the insult. Not only should Kerry apologize, but every spokesman from the nameless man I saw last night to James Carville should apologize. Until they do, I will support the Swiftvets with my money and with my voice.

We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Vietcong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw Ammerica lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

Dear Senator Kerry,

We are pleased to welcome your campaign representatives to Texas today. We honor all our veterans, all whom have worn the uniform and served our country. We also honor the military and National Guard troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. We are very proud of all of them and believe they deserve our full support.

That's why so many veterans are troubled by your vote AGAINST funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, after you voted FOR sending them into battle. And that's why we are so concerned about the comments you made AFTER you came home from Vietnam. You accused your fellow veterans of terrible atrocities and, to this day, you have never apologized. Even last night, you claimed to be proud of your post-war condemnation of our actions.

We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home.

You can't have it both ways. You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up. There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it.

You said in 1992 "we do not need to divide America over who served and how." Yet you and your surrogates continue to criticize President Bush for his service as a fighter pilot in the National Guard.

We are veterans too -- and proud to support President Bush. He's been a strong leader, with a record of outstanding support for our veterans and for our troops in combat. He's made sure that our troops in combat have the equipment and support they need to accomplish their mission.

He has increased the VA health care budget more than 40% since 2001 -- in fact, during his four years in office, President Bush has increased veterans funding twice as much as the previous administration did in eight years ($22 billion over 4 years compared to $10 billion over 8.) And he's praised the service of all who served our country, including your service in Vietnam.

We urge you to condemn the double standard that you and your campaign have enforced regarding a veteran's right to openly express their feelings about your activities on return from Vietnam.

Sincerely,

Texas State Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson
Rep. Duke Cunningham
Rep. Duncan Hunter
Rep. Sam Johnson
Lt. General David Palmer
Robert O'Malley, Medal of Honor Recipient
James Fleming, Medal of Honor Recipient