WHY I THINK THAT JOHN KERRY WON THE DEBATE

You have to judge the winner of a debate on policy based on the expectations and desires of the people observing the debate.  If you're debating the pros and cons of abortion before a room full of Catholics, it doesn't matter who does the best job of defending a woman's right to control her own body.  The person with the anti-choice position will be the winner ... period. 

Last night, as in previous debates, John Kerry did a magnificent job of appealing to people who believe that government is the answer to every problem they face in their lives, whether that problem relates to their job, their health care, or just paying their bills. I believe that the majority of Americans, a slim majority perhaps, but a majority, look to the government for either help or a solution every time.  The very idea that they are responsible for solving their own difficulty, and that government's job is to get out of the way so that they can do so, is anathema to the majority of voters.  John Kerry appealed to these people last night.  That makes him the winner. 

IF I WERE BEHIND THAT PODIUM IN ARIZONA

You are about to read, my friends, why I could never possibly be elected if I were ever to decide to run for office.

Last night Bob Schieffer asked the candidates what they would tell to an individual who had lost his job to some worker overseas who would work for a fraction of the wages he was earning.  Bush gave a mealy-mouthed response, and Kerry ignored the question altogether. Here is what I would have said ... and here is why I would never be elected:

"First of all, Bob, I would tell them that it is not their job.  The job belongs to the employer, not the employee.  You have the job skills.  The employer has the jobs.  If the employer can make a profit by purchasing your job skills to perform his job then you get a paycheck.  If your job skills cost the employer too much, or if your job skills don't meet the employer's needs, then you don't get a paycheck.  If you fail to develop your job skills, you run the risk of not having a paycheck.  If your job skills don't match the employer's needs, you don't get a paycheck.  If you charge too much for your job skills, you won't get hired.  You have no right to a job.  You do have a right to be left alone by government and your fellow citizens  to develop your own God-given talents in such a way that employers will seek you out.  You also have a right to ignore educational opportunities and to develop a slovenly work ethic so that employers will shun you.  You make your choices, and you live with the consequences of your decisions.   I would tell that person that any American with desirable job skills and a good worth ethic, properly priced, would have to hide under his bed to avoid getting a good job.  If you believe in the year 2004 that you can build a sound career as a textile plant worker in South Carolina then you are living a lie, and that delusion will soon catch up to you.  You need to understand that you are a free and sovereign individual. You don't belong to the government,  and it's not the government's responsibility to provide you with a job.  It's the government's job to clear the way for you to exercise your free choices, develop your skills, hone your work ethic, and contract with an employer eager to hire someone like you.  Past that, you're on your own, and that's life in a free society."

And then there was the question about raising the minimum wage.  That's another one you don't want to ask me.

"Look, Bob.  Wages are something to be negotiated between the employer and the employee.   It is not the job of government to set wages for private sector employees.  Our Constitution specifically states that the government is not to alter the terms of a contract between individuals.  The matter of wages paid for services rendered is something to be resolved in negotiations between the employer and employee and then expressed in the terms of a contract between the parties.  The government has no role here.  And while I'm addressing this, let's talk about the people who are actually earning the minimum wage.  Most of these people are teenagers working in entry-level jobs.  They're developing job skills and will only spend a minimum amount of time at the minimum wage.  But what about that small number of people who are trying to raise a family on minimum wage.  My opponent won't say this.  It's harsh, but it's the truth.  If you have done such a pathetic job of developing job skills and a work ethic that you cannot earn more than the minimum wage, then you have no business having children.  We have far too many people in this country who have children that they know full well they cannot afford to raise.  The answer to this problem is not to force employers to pay them more than they are worth.  The answer is to educate people as to the cost of properly raising a child, and to encourage them to make sure they can pay the bills before they make the decision to have a baby."

Oh yeah ... that's going to get me a lot of votes.  I think I'll just keep doing a talk show. 

AND BOY, WOULD I HAVE JUMPED ON THIS ONE

John Kerry found an opportunity last night to praise the Constitution of the United States.  Perhaps he should read it before he talks about it.  If he has read it he certainly doesn't show it.  Last night Kerry said that we have "An unbelievable Constitution with rights that we afford people."

Rights that we afford people?  Just who is the "we" he's talking about?  If there is a great and glorious "we" out there that "affords" people their rights, then doesn't it stand to reason that that great and glorious "we" can un-afford those rights when the great "we" decides it's appropriate? 

And just how do you define "afford?"  The dictionary defines the word as "to make available, to provide."  So now we know that John Kerry believes that our rights are provided to us by some "we" out there.   The great "we" made those rights available to us.  How grand.  How grateful we are to the grand Imperial We.

Since most Americans were educated in government schools, I don't expect a lot of people to realize this; but our rights; our rights to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly ... all of our rights were not given to us by our Constitution or by any "we" out there.  The people who founded our country and wrote our Constitution felt that these rights belonged to us by virtue of our very existence.  The rights were "inalienable," not subject to being recalled by the Imperial We.  The Constitution was written to protect those rights, not to grant them.  The Constitution was written and ratified by the people to establish a government and to grant certain rights to government, not the other way around.  The Constitution specifically says that all rights not granted to government by the people are reserved by the people.  We are the "we" .. and we are the ones who empowered government, not the other way around.

John Kerry is not the first president to talk about the Constitution giving us our rights.  Bill Clinton was of the same mind.  He once talked of the Constitution giving Americans the rights they hold dear.  This is a fundamental fault of liberalism.  Liberals like John Kerry believe that America is great because of government.  They believe that our rights flow from government.  To believe that rights flow from government is to believe that these rights can be withheld by government.  To liberals America is government, and the people exist merely to serve through the confiscation of their labor.

OH .. AND HE PLAYED THE CLASS WARFARE GAME QUITE WELL ALSO

How many times last night did John Kerry refer to the top one percent of income earners in America?  At least a dozen times, if not more.  It seemed that every time I turned my head I heard something like "Eighty-nine billion went back to the top one percent of income earners."

OK ... first of all ... nothing "went back" to the top one percent.  The tax cut simply meant that these people --- the people who truly fuel our economy --- are permitted by the Imperial Federal Government to actually KEEP, not "get back," but to KEEP more of the money that they worked for and earned. 

This is all focus group stuff.  Political strategists ... in fact, anyone who gets out there and talks to people know that there is a deeply felt burning sense of jealousy and hatred on the part of many Americans toward the so-called rich.  These Americans resent having to depend on the high income earners for jobs.  They resent their cars, their vacations homes, their first class airline tickets ... they resent pretty much everything about the lifestyle of the high achievers.  They believe the rich got their money by exploiting the poor, by cheating, by lying and stealing, all with the help of crooked lawyers. 

There's a sound psychological explanation for this envy and hatred, and for the people that those with high incomes and great wealth got there through trickery, exploitation and dishonesty.  Stand by for a trip into the mind of the envious class that is moved by John Kerry's pledge to nail the rich with a tax increase .....

"I work just as hard as they do, in fact, I work harder,  and I don't have that kind of money.  They got that money by exploiting people like me.  They have politicians who look out for them.  They have crooked lawyers that help them set up huge tax shelters so that they won't have to pay their fair share of taxes.  I could have that kind of money if I was as lucky as they are, and if I wanted to exploit poor people and if I had friends in government and crooked lawyers.  Thank goodness there's a candidate I can vote for who will punish them for what they've done and who will even the odds. The rich have more money then they need and I don't have enough.  I'm voting for John Kerry."

Class warfare works.  This deep-seated envy is begging to be fed, and John Kerry has prepared quite a feast.

DEMS SAY BUSH VOTERS "RETARDED"

There is a Democrat running for a State House seat in Tennessee.  Who cares, right?  Well, the campaign of  Democrat Craig Fitzhugh is making news because of a flyer that he is circulating.  The ad shows a picture of a Special Olympics participant running a race, with President Bush's head superimposed on top.  The caption reads: "Voting for Bush Is Like Running In The Special Olympics: Even If You Win, You're Still Retarded."  Well isn't that nice.

The flyers have been distributed from Fitzhugh's campaign office for two weeks.  By the way, that office also serves as the Kerry/Edwards campaign headquarters.  So now what is The Poodle's campaign going to say?

Now imagine if you will what would happen if somebody on the Republican side had done this.  It could be somebody running for school board in the middle of Montana.  Immediately the mainstream media would pick it up, and the outrage would snowball.  As it stands now, other than a mention here or there, the Democrats are getting a huge pass.  It would appear they're going to get away with insulting people with disabilities.

Remember...there are two sets of rules.  One for Democrats, who can say anything they want without scrutiny, and one for Republicans who can't.

ABOUT O'REILLY

By now you know that dueling lawsuits have been filed in New York City.  Bill O'Reilly is suing one of his producers and her lawyers, and the producers and her lawyers are suing O'Reilly.  The producer says that O'Reilly engaged in a pattern of rather intense sexual harassment.  O'Reilly says that the producer and her lawyers are trying to extort money from him. 

Many of you know that I have my problems with Bill O'Reilly.  But I don't intend to make this a topic of conversation on the show except in a general sense.  Let's just leave it at this.  Throughout the American workplace there are men, and a few women, who will act like absolute pigs and who will make the lives of their female coworkers miserable with a constant barrage of sexual innuendos and demands.  There are also women who look at any comment of a sexual nature, even something as innocent as "you look very nice today" as their ticket to the great sexual harassment legal lottery.  One woman even filed a sexual harassment complaint because a coworker actually kept a picture of his wife on his desk.  The crime was that the wife was prettier ... a LOT prettier, than the female coworker. 

For now let's just sit back and watch.  Could be fun.

SO, IT'S ABOUT JOBS, IS IT?

OK ... so you've fallen for the Kerry line that George Bush is the first president in 72 years to actually lose jobs during his first four years in office.  Fine ... believe that if you want to.  Please, though, try to come up with a cogent and reasoned answer to this question if you can.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics issues a document entitled the "Employment Situation Summary" every month.  The most recent survey was released at 8:30 a.m. on Friday, October 8, 2004.  This survey indicated that there were 139.5 millions working during September.  That, my friends, is a record.  Never before have 139.5 million Americans had a job during any survey period.

Here's your question:  If a record number of Americans were employed in September of 2004, how can it be said that jobs were lost under President Bush?  Come on, folks!  Tell me!  How do you lose jobs and end up with a record number of Americans working? 

By the way ... some more information you can sling around at lunch or dinner today to make yourself seem inestimably wise.  The unemployment rate for September was 5.4%.  That's considered to be low.  Here's a breakdown:

• Adult men - 5.0%

• Adult women - 4.7%

• Teenagers - 16.6%

Now teenagers aren't generally heads of households.  That would mean that the unemployment rate for people who actually have to work for a living and support a family is somewhere between 4.7 and 5.0%.

If you want to base your vote for president on the current jobs situation ... fine.  Do it.  Just get the correct information before you do.

READING ASSIGNMENTS

Do you believe what John Kerry is saying about Bush's efforts to capture Osama?  Well, if you aren't afraid that the truth is somehow going to rob you of your health, you might want to read this.

In case you missed it, here is the full transcript of last night's presidential debate.  Thankfully, the final joint press conference of the campaign.

Well, if you aren't making headway comparing Republicans with Nazis, maybe you can tie them to the Confederacy somehow.  That's the tactic that race pimp Jesse Jackson is taking.

Lynne Cheney is, shall we say, less than pleased with John Kerry's references to her daughter last night. 

Of the two candidates running for president, which one is more likely to take on the terrorists?  Ann Coulter analyzes their positions.

A Fox News producer is claiming Bill O'Reilly sexually harassed her.  True or not, the lawsuit is a real page-turner (warning: contains graphic language.)

Here is the list of the lucky cities that get to view 'Stolen Honor,' the film about The Poodle. If your area is not on the list, other stations have asked to air the program as well.

The news reporting about whether President Bush was supposedly wired at the debates is rampant with media bias.  Byron York reports.

Based on his interview with New York Times Magazine, The Poodle is now our very own Neville Chamberlain.  William Tucker explains why.

You know the supposed "fact checking" that the networks are doing on the presidential candidates?  The Media Research Center found that they seem to be checking President Bush's facts a little harder...no surprise there.

Democrats are now getting back at Tom DeLay as payback for the Jim Wright affair 15 years ago.  Robert Novak calls it the criminalization of politics.

Winning the War on Terror isn't just about killing terrorists...Larry Elder argues we have to take on the blame America first crowd in this country too.

What does CBS' forged documents story and wrongfully convicting people have to do with each other?  Thomas Sowell calls it the tyranny of visions....where facts don't matter.

The NRA is gearing up to defeat The Poodle....and they're actually running billboards showing a French poodle.  George Will takes a look at the organization's activities leading up to the election.

WHAT THE HECK ARE THOSE POINTY HAND THINGS?
These are links to each individual story on the Nuze, p-links for the geeks out there. Plus, they work today and they'll work tomorrow. Now you can easily discuss/debate/rip apart the Nuze without worrying about the links going bad. Enjoy!

BOORTZ BLAST NEWSLETTER
Everyone is talking about the Boortz Blast newsletter. Do you want yours? Sign up here and we'll deliver it directly to your inbox every 2 weeks. If you signed up but aren't receiving it, either your company or your spam filter could be keeping it from you. Try using a personal email address and check your spam filter's junk folder for wayward newsletters.

NEAL'S FANS GET TOGETHER
If you like Neal and are looking for like minded people to hang out with online or off, check out these places:

• Talkmaster Yahoo Group
• Meet Boortz fans in your area
• alt.fan.neal.boortz newsgroup (note, you're going to have to figure out newsgroups all on your own)

NEALZ LINKS FOR NUZE The Atlanta Journal-Constitution World Net Daily NewsMax Wall Street Journal opinions Washington Times Washington Post Real Clear Politics Media Research Center Naples Daily News The Drudge Report The Associated Press SF Gate townhall.com

NEALZ AUDIO ARCHIVES Interview with Peter Jennings 1/26 Howard Dean Alarm System Neal talks with Ludacris Boo Got Shot CARTOON INDEX Check here for a list of cartoons that have appeared on Nealz Nuze.

Belinda Skelton, Ken Rogers, Laura Nunemaker and Brian Ganey assist in the daily preparation of Nealz Nuze!