My US Senator, John Kerry, said today that Republicans are afraid to debate "real men" like himself on the issues of Iraq, terrorism, etc.

What an interesting comment. For nearly a year now, I've been hosting a radio talk show here on 96.9 FM TALK in Boston. My producer has repeatedly called Sen. Kerry's office and requested that he join me for an on-air conversation--debate, if you will--on various topics of the day, including I'm sure, Iraq and terrorism.

Sen. Kerry has refused every invitation without explanation.

96.9 FM TALK is a successful FM talk station in Boston, not Boise. The vast majority of our listeners are John Kerry's constituents (we also reach NH and RI). And while I'm not a representative of the GOP, I did spend six years working on Republican political campaigns. I also happen to think John Kerry is wrong on almost every issue, including terrorism and the Middle East.

But John "Real Man" Kerry won't even debate ME? Some "real man."

Senator Kerry, I'll be on the air every day this week. As usual. There is an open invitation for you, sir, to join me any day, any time I'm on the air. As usual. All you have to do is call. Your press flak has the number. I know he does because we've left it with your office repeatedly.

Will you make the call this time, Senator? No, you won't. As usual.

I guess a "real man" really is hard to find.

I couldn't agree more.

What two things do the following all have in common:

Deval Patrick
Tim Murray
Martha Coakley
William Galvin
Timothy Cahill
Joe DeNucci
Martha Coakley
Marian Walsh
Pam Richardson
Robert O'Leary
Rachel Kaprielian
Ted Kennedy
William D. Delahunt
John F. Tierney
Stephen F. Lynch
John W. Olver
Michael E. Capuano


They've all been endorsed by the Boston Globe. And they're all (prepare to be shocked!)...Democrats.

Now, let's go to the list of Republican candidates for any office endorsed by the Boston Globe in the upcoming election.

...
...
...

Exactly. Not one.

Ah, but it's sheer coincidence, Michael! There just aren't any good Republican candidates this year.

OK, then what about 2002? How many Republicans for major offices did the Globe endorse?

...

OK, then what about 2000? Surely, in the past six years, the Boston Globe has given its endorsement to at least ONE Republican candidate--right? Just one?

The Globe has become so pathetically and openly partisan that, in at least one endorsement this year, they don't even MENTION the name of the Republican in the race. How sad is that?

Which is why, as of today, New England's Newspaper Of (Broken) Record is officially re-named:

The Boston Globe-Democrat.

There's nothing wrong with being partisan. But there's a lot wrong with pretending you aren't. UPDATE: The New York Times, which owns the Boston Globe-Democrat, has issued all of its endorsements this year and guess how many non-Democrats they're backing?

Ah, true love. He's been dissed by Deval Patrick (who went so far as to say that he still belongs in prison), but Ben LaGuer is still givin' it up for his former penpal:

As the Kerry Healey campaign continues to run smear and fear ads featuring me, I am hopeful that the people of Massachusetts will choose a Governor based on real issues that affect their daily lives. I only with that Republicans and Democrats could come together and act for the greater and common good of all people.

Notice that LaGuer is smart enough not the write out the actual statement "Please vote Deval Patrick." But as every lover knows, the truest words are often left unspoken.

A powerful US Senator is secretly communicating with America's military enemies. The Senator offers the enemy his political help in defeating America's defense plans and forwarding the enemy's objectives. He also suggests that the enemy's actions be coordinated (secretly, of course) with the Senator's in time with upcoming American elections. He does all this WHILE we are at war, while our soldiers are in harm's way and while every single American lives under direct threat of military assault from the very government the Senator is helping.

Is this news? Not at the Boston Globe, it's not. Especially when the enemy is the Soviet Empire, the American president is Ronald Reagan, and the US Senator violating his oath of office and betraying his nation is Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Kremlin).

If you haven't seen the media coverage of Sen. Kennedy's secret communications with Yuri Andropov in 1983...well, you must be a Boston Globe reader. Don't bother trying to justify the Globe's decision to completely ignore this story. It's the Globe. It long ago abandoned any pretense of objective journalism, and now contents itself to cheerleading for vacuous liberals and denouncing any journalism that upsets Islamists.

However, even the Kool-Aid drinkers at the Globe have to be feeling a faint spasm of guilt over ignoring a story about a local US Senator and his borderline treasonous activity on behalf of a Communist empire that, at the time, held 100 million people against their will. Secret letters to the leader of France about Merlot production would be bad enough. But Sen. Kennedy's collusion to advance a government of gulags against the defense of America is astoundingly offensive.

Isn't it? Or is the Globe's motto really "Any enemy of America is my friend?"

One of the most annoying characteristics of the bumbling Bushies is how they never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. When Dick Cheney made the mistake of an oblique reference to waterboarding terrorists ("dunk in the water"), Team Bush reacted in typical fashion--implausible denial.

Vice Presidents shouldn't be making comments about any interrogation techniques America might use on captured, high-value terrorists, but once he let it slip, why the denial? Why not come out and say what most Americans want you to say, namely that the temporary discomfort of waterboarding is nothing compared to the deaths that have ALREADY been prevented by using the technique on Khalid Sheik Mohammad (among others).

I'd love for Sen. McCain to explain to me why this technique--which we use on some of our own soldiers as part of their training--should not be used on an Osama or a KSM when we've captured them. I'd love for him to say that, when push comes to shove (or in McCain's coercive-interrogation-free world, when "finger poking" comes to "belly slapping"), that he'd rather see the next WTC fall than see a terrorist waterboarded.

Then again, a lot of people would love to hear a coherent explanation of Sen. McCain's "torture is always wrong...except when it's not" position. Not gonna happen.

But that's no excuse for the Bushies. Get tough, Dick, and stand up for the good guys. It's not just the right thing to do, it's also politically smart.

No wonder the Bushies won't do it.

UPDATE: This is an excellent overview of the issue of waterboarding and coercive interrogation.

Governor Mitt Romney delivers a heapin' helping of the Natural Truth to a pompous, deluded, self-important member of the Boston media.

It's hilarious.