With Denial of Service attacks coming from over seas, it's really not a surprise. The only surprise is that the media doesn't report that. Oh wait, that isn't a surprise.

The bigger questions is why hasn't Kerry denounced the attacks. And while we're at it, why hasn't Kerry denounced his supporters behavior in places like Florida, Kentucky, North Carolina and Colorado for ransacking, shooting into and throwing rocks into the Bush campaign sites. You call that leadership material?

How do you square your vote with a candidate who is backed by big media, hollywood and the trial lawyers? And you're jittery about a candidate who shuts off his site to France? You want reform in the medical industry? Your idea of reform and the trial lawyers idea of reform are two vastly different things my friend. Good luck.

I had thought you would focus more on issues instead of grasping at attempts to bash your non-preferred candidate, Brendan. Did somebody hack your account and post this?

To me, this is just another example of how Bush has shut out and alienated the rest of the world.

Darrell, since this came up at Netcraft, and was related generally to the topics of this blog, I thought I'd post it.

I just changed the title of this post from "Man, this guy's gotta go." admittedly biased, to the current title.

Last I checked, the Constitution of the United States only allows US citizens to vote. It is also unlawful for foreign entities to financially influence the election. As I recall, John Kerry was getting over seas donations in the beginning of his campaign. I think this is a very prudent to only allow people in the US view an official campaign site. My question is why John F. Kerry hasn’t done the same.

--Mark

So you're just another shrill, knee-jerk, non-thinking democrat. Understood.

Brendan, I wasn't saying you were OT. Thanks for the title change, I'm much happier, and I *know* that your blogging is based on my wishes. :)

Anon, is that short for Anonthony? Just wondering why you haven’t provided a link to your site or your name.

My views are in stark contrast with Brendan’s views. I am a very strong supporter of the president. However, I don't think he is shrill. In fact, I think he is a really intelligent guy. He is a thinking man.

My impression is that he is only supporting JFK because he doesn’t like the president. I’ve known Brendan for a long time. I think if any candidate matches Brendan’s views, it would be Nader. Why don’t you vote for a candidate that matches your beliefs?

It would take me a long time to list the many reasons I support the president. I don’t think the vast majority of non-Bush supporters can list reasons why they support JFK. What has JFK done that merits a promotion? Name one thing he has done in the senate that is noteworthy. Most of Kerry’s votes will come from people who don’t even support him. They are only casting a vote against Bush.

--Mark

Mark, Thank you for defending my intelligence. ;)

Mark,

I'm not just unhappy with Bush. I honestly believe that our country is in a serious mess right now. I honestly believe that Bush has put us there. I honestly believe that Kerry can and will lead this country into a better situation.

I'd no sooner vote for Nader than I would write in your name.

Ah it's ok, there's no US voters overseas...like the Middle East or anything...oh wait...

Yeah baby block em I say block em

I think that W has done a tremendously wonderful job leading our country. I think Kerry's entire political career is steeped in negative advertising. I would like for Kerry to give us one good reason to vote for him, rather than a million to vote against Bush. I don't like Monday morning quarterbacking in these perilous times. Anyone who thinks that the terrorists weren't being given safe harbor in Iraq before we ousted the tyrant Saddam from power is kidding themselves.

I also get tired of the chronicles of lie after lie that Kerry parades about, such as that W is jeapordizing social security, will institute the draft, lost 380 tons of weaponry, blah, blah, blah, without any evidence, proof, or substantiation.

W is positive in his approach to policy making and I think that is the only formula for success. He also recognizes who the real enemy is and is not afraid to confront the terrorists and tyrant dictators.

"lost 380 tons of weaponry, blah, blah, blah"

that has to be one of the funniest comments I've seen.

don't forget the important part:

without any evidence, proof, or substantiation

Kerry would have done things so very differently?

How about this...

December 14, 2001 – John Kerry discusses attacking Iraq and proclaims our need to go after Saddam Hussein.

Here’s a first exchange talking about the dangers of Afghanistan…

KING: Senator Kerry some have feared a kind of Vietnam quagmire here. Do you?

KERRY: Never. Not for an instant, it is so different from Vietnam, in every regard. I mean you don't have the superpower confrontation we had in Vietnam, you didn't have any ambivalence by the leadership, no ambivalence by Congress by American people. We were attacked on our soil the terrain is different, we didn't go into occupy, we have gone in for a limited target. I just think it is so different, and everybody saw that from the outset. This did not have the potential and does not have potential to be Vietnam.

And then later…

KING: What about enhancing this war, Senator Kerry. What are your thoughts on going on further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places...
KERRY: Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein.

http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/14/lkl.00.html

And now he says "wrong war, wrong time". Nice try.

Anon. You've convinced me. Changing your mind is the ultimate sin. I'm voting for Bush. I can't thank you enough.