Although I should not be, I am amazed at the fact that the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media, DDBMSM, does not get the importance of the Mitt Romney win in this past weekend's Iowa Straw Poll.
So uninterested, the Left Angeles Times thought it so important that it was on A-16 of Sunday's edition.
If there is not disinterest, there is the line about the fact that former New York City mayor, Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John "F--- You" McCain decided to skip the event and thus it made it less important.
I think that Mr. Romney answered that question himself. Mr. Romney pointed out on today's Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com radio show that the reason Mr. Giuliani and Sen. "F--- You" McCain did not compete is that they know he has the strongest organization. In Iowa, that matters because it is a caucus state and people will remember this result.
So desperate are the DDBMSM crowd that they are reading way too much in the second place finish of former Arkansas governor, Mike Huckabee. The reason Mr. Huckabee finished second is because a group supporting the fair tax got behind Mr. Huckabee because he supports their position. It shows how unknowing the DDBMSM is about Republican special interest groups.
Mr. Romney did spend a lot of money to win this straw poll, but because he did, it will get him a lot more attention. And that will translate into stronger national poll numbers. And, whatever one may think of the way it currently works, Mr. Romney is playing within the rules, such as they are.
The Iowa Straw Poll maybe the best political scam going in some ways, but it is the best indication of who voters like. That may change between now and January, but it is doubtful.
Oh, one other point. Before you fall for the DDBMSM scam about how so fewer Republicans voted compared to the 1999 straw poll, this was tightly staged. Unlike 1999, voters had to prove they were Republicans and Iowa residents. Before, all they had to say is that they were Republicans and they could be from the North Pole for all that was known. Thus, when then Gov. George W. Bush won, he got a lot of votes from non-Iowans. That makes this an even bigger win for Mr. Romney.
The fact is that this was a huge win for Mr. Romney. It is the first step towards winning the Iowa caucus in January, the New Hampshire primary later in January and some big wins on super-duper Tuesday in February. There will be no sweep. Mr. Giuliani and maybe even Sen. "F---You" McCain will win a couple of those primaries. But, Mr. Romney will end up winning the lion's share and will have a big lead in delegates.
Too bad the DDBMSM does not get the significance of Mitt Romney's big win in the Iowa Straw Poll. They will come February.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Dopey Dan Rather Now "Investigating" 2000 Presidential Election
You have to hand it to Red Dan Rather. It is not enough that he and Mary Mapes, his former CBS producer, are about the only two people on the planet to still believe the infamous memo in the George W. Bush air force "scandal" was real. So, one would think that Red Dan would stop going into conspericyland. NOT!
Ol' Red Dan is now on some outfit called HD News. Now, Red Dan is investigating the 2000 presidential election http://breitbart.com.
You know, Red Dan actually talked to someone who went so far as to blame the paper, yes paper, as a possible reason that the vote may have came out the way it did.
Only Red Dan could find someone like that!
What is amazing is that any news outfit would have hired the ancient lefty television anchor, but HD News did. I assume they believe that Red Dan would bring in a massive amount of viewers. Well, for the several years before Red Dan tried to throw a presidential election with false information, Red Dan couldn't keep an audience at CBS. Now, poor Katie Couric has the ignoble task of stopping the bleeding from CBS viewers switching to any other news. If ratings are accurate, Miss Couric is not doing much better than Red Dan.
I sort of like the fact that Red Dan is in the fever swamps and trying another set of falsehoods to try to discredit the win of George W. Bush in 2000. It shows what Red Dan, had he not been on some kind of leash at CBS, would have done to further discredit the CBS news division.
Red Dan's "investigation" should be watched by anyone with HD television and able to access HD News if nothing else for some good laughs. Red Dan has been a bad joke since 2004 when he and Mary Mapes went on a witch hunt that may have succeeded in ousting President Bush. Red Dan is a bad joke that keeps up the yuks.
Ol' Red Dan is now on some outfit called HD News. Now, Red Dan is investigating the 2000 presidential election http://breitbart.com.
You know, Red Dan actually talked to someone who went so far as to blame the paper, yes paper, as a possible reason that the vote may have came out the way it did.
Only Red Dan could find someone like that!
What is amazing is that any news outfit would have hired the ancient lefty television anchor, but HD News did. I assume they believe that Red Dan would bring in a massive amount of viewers. Well, for the several years before Red Dan tried to throw a presidential election with false information, Red Dan couldn't keep an audience at CBS. Now, poor Katie Couric has the ignoble task of stopping the bleeding from CBS viewers switching to any other news. If ratings are accurate, Miss Couric is not doing much better than Red Dan.
I sort of like the fact that Red Dan is in the fever swamps and trying another set of falsehoods to try to discredit the win of George W. Bush in 2000. It shows what Red Dan, had he not been on some kind of leash at CBS, would have done to further discredit the CBS news division.
Red Dan's "investigation" should be watched by anyone with HD television and able to access HD News if nothing else for some good laughs. Red Dan has been a bad joke since 2004 when he and Mary Mapes went on a witch hunt that may have succeeded in ousting President Bush. Red Dan is a bad joke that keeps up the yuks.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
A Little Mercy Would Have Gone A Long Way
Before continuing this post, a disclaimer.
I am a Christian. I am not a theologian or a total expert on the nuances of Christian doctrine. What I will write is my best understanding of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
In an AOL news article http://news.aol.com, an evangelical church in Arlington, Texas was going to have a memorial service for a former veteran of the Gulf War. The day before as they were preparing for the memorial, the pastor found out something that he did not know. The man was gay. And, according to their understanding because the man lived an immoral lifestyle and having the memorial service would appear to condone the gay lifestyle, the family could not have the service at that church.
There is a lot about this story that is troubling. One, if this pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, was doing a good pastoral job, he would have met with the family long before church staff found out while preparing a video tribute that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay. The article does not make that clear. But, while church staff were preparing the video, they noticed men "showing affection, kissing and embracing." So, Rev. Simons should have known this before the staff were preparing for the memorial.
Mr. Sinclair's brother is a janitor at High Point Church. If the brother talked to Rev. Simons at all, there had to be a mention that Mr. Sinclair was gay.
Now, according to Rev. Simons, his church understands that homosexuality is sinful behavior. Many Christians would agree. The sexual act of homosexuality is the sin.
But there is another message of Christianity. And that is mercy.
The Rev. Simons missed an important opportunity to teach about mercy without condoning the act of homosexuality.
As I understand it, God and Jesus Christ do show mercy, even and especially for the worst of sinners. If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, that is fine. But, when one dies, it may not be the right time to turn away a family in grief. It is important to show mercy. The Rev. Simons would have been able to do a memorial service and even talk about the church's view on homosexuality with out compromise but showing the family what relationship with Jesus Christ is about. Not just the rules, which are very important, but how God shows mercy.
What Rev. Simons did was stand on principle. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that. But, Rev. Simons gave every radical gay rights group a lot of ammo to condemn the Christian faith and especially evangelicals.
I would ask Rev. Simons this. Have you knowingly had memorials and or buried people you knew who were not Christians? Or have been notorious sinners who have not sought repentance? I think I know the answer.
An act of mercy by allowing the service and being able to expand on the doctrine of mercy would have been so much better.
This is why so many non-Christians and liberal Christians have open season on well meaning people like Rev. Simons. He believed so much that having a memorial for one who was gay and did have a "life partner" would have been more grievous and bad to God than showing the mercy of God by having a memorial means Rev. Simons is too tied to doctrine.
The church needs good people. It needs to remind people what sin is all about. But, there is a time and place for it all. This was not one of them.
I am a Christian. I am not a theologian or a total expert on the nuances of Christian doctrine. What I will write is my best understanding of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
In an AOL news article http://news.aol.com, an evangelical church in Arlington, Texas was going to have a memorial service for a former veteran of the Gulf War. The day before as they were preparing for the memorial, the pastor found out something that he did not know. The man was gay. And, according to their understanding because the man lived an immoral lifestyle and having the memorial service would appear to condone the gay lifestyle, the family could not have the service at that church.
There is a lot about this story that is troubling. One, if this pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, was doing a good pastoral job, he would have met with the family long before church staff found out while preparing a video tribute that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay. The article does not make that clear. But, while church staff were preparing the video, they noticed men "showing affection, kissing and embracing." So, Rev. Simons should have known this before the staff were preparing for the memorial.
Mr. Sinclair's brother is a janitor at High Point Church. If the brother talked to Rev. Simons at all, there had to be a mention that Mr. Sinclair was gay.
Now, according to Rev. Simons, his church understands that homosexuality is sinful behavior. Many Christians would agree. The sexual act of homosexuality is the sin.
But there is another message of Christianity. And that is mercy.
The Rev. Simons missed an important opportunity to teach about mercy without condoning the act of homosexuality.
As I understand it, God and Jesus Christ do show mercy, even and especially for the worst of sinners. If one believes that homosexuality is a sin, that is fine. But, when one dies, it may not be the right time to turn away a family in grief. It is important to show mercy. The Rev. Simons would have been able to do a memorial service and even talk about the church's view on homosexuality with out compromise but showing the family what relationship with Jesus Christ is about. Not just the rules, which are very important, but how God shows mercy.
What Rev. Simons did was stand on principle. In and of itself there is nothing wrong with that. But, Rev. Simons gave every radical gay rights group a lot of ammo to condemn the Christian faith and especially evangelicals.
I would ask Rev. Simons this. Have you knowingly had memorials and or buried people you knew who were not Christians? Or have been notorious sinners who have not sought repentance? I think I know the answer.
An act of mercy by allowing the service and being able to expand on the doctrine of mercy would have been so much better.
This is why so many non-Christians and liberal Christians have open season on well meaning people like Rev. Simons. He believed so much that having a memorial for one who was gay and did have a "life partner" would have been more grievous and bad to God than showing the mercy of God by having a memorial means Rev. Simons is too tied to doctrine.
The church needs good people. It needs to remind people what sin is all about. But, there is a time and place for it all. This was not one of them.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Romney Wins Iowa-Tommy Thompson May Drop Out
As expected, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney won the Iowa Straw Poll with 31% of the vote. An 18.1% was good for second place and that went to former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.
The big loser is former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson who managed a meager 7.3%.
A lot will be made that only a little over 14,000 participated in the straw poll, but that is really to be expected. The Republicans have had the White House for seven years and despite the poll numbers going up for President Bush, we are dealing with an unpopular president and the war situation in Iraq, which is all interconnected.
But intensity in this case counts and the Romney people showed it. Had the other two big contenders actually participated, it may have been marginally different. But, Mr. Romney would have still won.
I really think that this is going to be really important at caucus time and in the general election. The mood of the nation will be better as news from the Iraq front in the War Against Islamofascist Terror improves further.
This is also further proof that the tide may not show in national polls, but Mr. Romney's numbers will go up. Way up. And, it may change the mood of the longest unannounced candidate in history, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. He should have been in Aames, but because he was not, do not look for Mr. Thompson, if he enters the GOP race, to do any serious campaigning in Iowa.
A big win for Mitt Romney, a big loss for Tommy Thompson and a win for the Iowa Republican Party.
The big loser is former Wisconsin governor Tommy Thompson who managed a meager 7.3%.
A lot will be made that only a little over 14,000 participated in the straw poll, but that is really to be expected. The Republicans have had the White House for seven years and despite the poll numbers going up for President Bush, we are dealing with an unpopular president and the war situation in Iraq, which is all interconnected.
But intensity in this case counts and the Romney people showed it. Had the other two big contenders actually participated, it may have been marginally different. But, Mr. Romney would have still won.
I really think that this is going to be really important at caucus time and in the general election. The mood of the nation will be better as news from the Iraq front in the War Against Islamofascist Terror improves further.
This is also further proof that the tide may not show in national polls, but Mr. Romney's numbers will go up. Way up. And, it may change the mood of the longest unannounced candidate in history, former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. He should have been in Aames, but because he was not, do not look for Mr. Thompson, if he enters the GOP race, to do any serious campaigning in Iowa.
A big win for Mitt Romney, a big loss for Tommy Thompson and a win for the Iowa Republican Party.
Anytime Now, We Will Know Who Won The GOP Straw Poll In Iowa
According to National Review Online, some time after 5pm pacific time, we will have results from the Republican straw poll in Aames, Iowa. And that will be a very strong indicator of which candidate has organizational strength and who will come in second.
There is no doubt that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win. The question is how large the margin will be. But, one does not know who will be second place and possibly one who can keep going in this long death march of a campaign.
The results will be interesting.
****** Monday, August 13, I will have my latest straw poll of Republican candidates. There maybe a couple less than the last one! ******
There is no doubt that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney will win. The question is how large the margin will be. But, one does not know who will be second place and possibly one who can keep going in this long death march of a campaign.
The results will be interesting.
****** Monday, August 13, I will have my latest straw poll of Republican candidates. There maybe a couple less than the last one! ******
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Deadly Side Of Illegal Immigration
For those who were so fighting for the so-called "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam, one of the "highlights" for those looking for the security side was the "Z-Visa".
Allegedly, this "Z-Visa" would only be given to an illegal immigrant after a-get this-a 24 hour period in which the applicant would have a background check completed.
Now, lets us stop laughing and say that there is absolutely no way that thousands upon thousands of applications can be processed in 24 hours with a thorough background check. The fact is, the current "system" is fundamentally non-enforceable since there is not enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to handle the way things are now.
What is the side that those "comprehensive immigration reform" people never want to talk about is the criminal activity of illegal immigrants. And, sometimes that inability to enforce the law leads to deadly results.
The latest example is the case of four young people having a pleasant summer evening in Newark, New Jersey. That evening was ruined allegedly by one Jose Carranza, 28, an illegal alien from Peru. To make matters worse, there was a 15 year old boy with Mr. Carranza. What did Mr. Carranza and the boy do? Allegedly, Mr. Carranza and the boy forced the four black youths to their knees and blew their heads off. One girl did survive but is in critical condition. If that does not make you sick, consider this. Mr. Carranza was out on bail. And the bail was given as Mr. Carranza was charged with raping repeatedly a girl. And that started before the girl was five years old! Oh, but Mr. Carranza was using an alias and a fake social security number. But, according to Essex County sheriff Armando Fontura, the authorities KNEW that Mr. Carranza was an illegal alien!
UNBELIEVABLE!
There are countless cases of this nature throughout the United States. Another case involves an illegal alien in Virginia Beach, Virginia where the suspect was driving drunk and killed a pedestrian.
Yet, the proponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" would argue that we are just being alarmist and there are not really the numbers out there. WRONG!
And, this does fall into national security.
When Cuban dictator Fidel Castro dumped a slew of Cubans during the infamous Mariel boat lift in 1980, Mr. Castro made damn sure to dump his criminals onto our shores.
Do not think that the reform proponents were serious about the 24 hour background check to get the "Z-Visa", which also would have been able to be renewed into perpetuity by the illegal alien.
And that was a major problem with the bill-scam. It was not serious except to legalize 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.
Everything else thrown in later was a bone to get more senators to vote for the bill-scam.
But, the current situation and what was proposed does not nor did not be a solution to a serious problem. This should be an issue in the presidential campaign. But, lets see if it will.
Allegedly, this "Z-Visa" would only be given to an illegal immigrant after a-get this-a 24 hour period in which the applicant would have a background check completed.
Now, lets us stop laughing and say that there is absolutely no way that thousands upon thousands of applications can be processed in 24 hours with a thorough background check. The fact is, the current "system" is fundamentally non-enforceable since there is not enough Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel to handle the way things are now.
What is the side that those "comprehensive immigration reform" people never want to talk about is the criminal activity of illegal immigrants. And, sometimes that inability to enforce the law leads to deadly results.
The latest example is the case of four young people having a pleasant summer evening in Newark, New Jersey. That evening was ruined allegedly by one Jose Carranza, 28, an illegal alien from Peru. To make matters worse, there was a 15 year old boy with Mr. Carranza. What did Mr. Carranza and the boy do? Allegedly, Mr. Carranza and the boy forced the four black youths to their knees and blew their heads off. One girl did survive but is in critical condition. If that does not make you sick, consider this. Mr. Carranza was out on bail. And the bail was given as Mr. Carranza was charged with raping repeatedly a girl. And that started before the girl was five years old! Oh, but Mr. Carranza was using an alias and a fake social security number. But, according to Essex County sheriff Armando Fontura, the authorities KNEW that Mr. Carranza was an illegal alien!
UNBELIEVABLE!
There are countless cases of this nature throughout the United States. Another case involves an illegal alien in Virginia Beach, Virginia where the suspect was driving drunk and killed a pedestrian.
Yet, the proponents of "comprehensive immigration reform" would argue that we are just being alarmist and there are not really the numbers out there. WRONG!
And, this does fall into national security.
When Cuban dictator Fidel Castro dumped a slew of Cubans during the infamous Mariel boat lift in 1980, Mr. Castro made damn sure to dump his criminals onto our shores.
Do not think that the reform proponents were serious about the 24 hour background check to get the "Z-Visa", which also would have been able to be renewed into perpetuity by the illegal alien.
And that was a major problem with the bill-scam. It was not serious except to legalize 12 to 20 million illegal aliens.
Everything else thrown in later was a bone to get more senators to vote for the bill-scam.
But, the current situation and what was proposed does not nor did not be a solution to a serious problem. This should be an issue in the presidential campaign. But, lets see if it will.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Should We Blame President Lyndon Johnson For The Bridge Collapse?
As I wrote in the aftermath of the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, the Democrats were beginning to blame President Bush. I also noted that the bridge may have not been built to handle the capacity of 2007 traffic.
Well, I may have been right on the second point http://FoxNews.com. So, the question is, should we dig former President Lyndon Johnson out of the grave and blame him for the bridge collapse? After all, since the modern Democrat party was blaming President Bush as they do for all wrong, or even right, in the world, since the I-35W bridge was built in 1967, lets blame Mr. Johnson!
I am being somewhat facetious, but you get the point. Before bodies were pulled out of the wreckage, far-left Democrats starting with Minnesota's junior senator, Amy Klobachar, were quick to slam President Bush. It was pointless and dumb. But, by golly, that never seems to stop the Democrats.
The point is that people should have cooled their jets and let the investigation begin and run it's course. Politicians need to stop blaming and let the process take course. A simple fact is that someone with no understanding of the nuances of bridges as myself deducted that it was possible the design of the bridge may be the culprit.
Here is a deal. I won't blame former President Johnson if the Democrats suffering BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, stop blaming President Bush? See how easy life would be!
Well, I may have been right on the second point http://FoxNews.com. So, the question is, should we dig former President Lyndon Johnson out of the grave and blame him for the bridge collapse? After all, since the modern Democrat party was blaming President Bush as they do for all wrong, or even right, in the world, since the I-35W bridge was built in 1967, lets blame Mr. Johnson!
I am being somewhat facetious, but you get the point. Before bodies were pulled out of the wreckage, far-left Democrats starting with Minnesota's junior senator, Amy Klobachar, were quick to slam President Bush. It was pointless and dumb. But, by golly, that never seems to stop the Democrats.
The point is that people should have cooled their jets and let the investigation begin and run it's course. Politicians need to stop blaming and let the process take course. A simple fact is that someone with no understanding of the nuances of bridges as myself deducted that it was possible the design of the bridge may be the culprit.
Here is a deal. I won't blame former President Johnson if the Democrats suffering BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, stop blaming President Bush? See how easy life would be!
Wednesday, August 08, 2007
New Title For War
In this blog, I have referred to this as the War Against Terror. Not exactly a catchy phrase.
I have thought of what would be a catchy phrase and there is not really one that just rolls off the tongue.
But, I do have a more accurate description.
War Against Terror is too broad for I have been leaving out who that enemy is. Until Now.
From here out, it is now the War Against Islamofascist Terror.
Yes, it is a bit long and it does not roll off the tongue. But it is the accurate description of why there are thousands of brave Americans all over the world stopping fanatical Islamics from doing any more dastardly deeds that will cost untold loss of life.
I want to be clear. This is not a call of arms against all of Islam. There are too many good people of the Islamic faith that feel trapped by these fanatics that have perverted the religion and have used it against people rather than trying to, through deeds and evangelism, convert people. These thugs have decided that war is the only way to bring all the world to Islam.
So, in now calling it the War Against Islamofascist Terror, all that is being done is to crystallize what this is all about. I, of course, appreciate any comments. BUT, you must keep them clean and non-offensive. I will just remove them from the comment section.
I have thought of what would be a catchy phrase and there is not really one that just rolls off the tongue.
But, I do have a more accurate description.
War Against Terror is too broad for I have been leaving out who that enemy is. Until Now.
From here out, it is now the War Against Islamofascist Terror.
Yes, it is a bit long and it does not roll off the tongue. But it is the accurate description of why there are thousands of brave Americans all over the world stopping fanatical Islamics from doing any more dastardly deeds that will cost untold loss of life.
I want to be clear. This is not a call of arms against all of Islam. There are too many good people of the Islamic faith that feel trapped by these fanatics that have perverted the religion and have used it against people rather than trying to, through deeds and evangelism, convert people. These thugs have decided that war is the only way to bring all the world to Islam.
So, in now calling it the War Against Islamofascist Terror, all that is being done is to crystallize what this is all about. I, of course, appreciate any comments. BUT, you must keep them clean and non-offensive. I will just remove them from the comment section.
How Do We Serve In Wartime
Today, radio talker Hugh Hewitt http://hughhewitt.com, talked about the ambush of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney by an anti-war protester in Iowa.
The questioner, Rachel Griffiths, of a local group, Quad City Progressive Action For The Common Good, asked why had none of Mr. Romney's five sons served in the armed forces and if they had any intention to do so. Now, go to Mr. Hewitt's site for the answer.
What I want to ask is a broader question. How do we, who have never been in the armed forces, support not just those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but throughout the service branches?
I have thought long about this. The main reason I am not in the armed services is that I am too old. But, how else can we serve?
Well, for one, donate to any of the fine groups that help wounded soldiers. If one can not donate money, volunteer time.
Another is to simply write letters to the troops. Many school age children do that as class projects. It is a way that may change the way that they look at the soldiers, sailors, marines, air force personnel.
Still, another way is to pray for those that are near and dear to our hearts and serving in the front lines of the War Against Terror. My church does just that. We say the service personnel's name the first Sunday of the month and at both Wednesday services.
Support those in the entertainment community who are doing their part in taking fellow entertainers to Iraq and Afghanistan. One of those is actor Gary Sinise of Forrest Gump fame and the star of the hit CBS television show, "CSI New York." As important as it is to show the troops that we not only support them, but what they are doing is to support people like Mr. Sinise. Mr. Sinise is very lucky to be a major enough star that he is not blacklisted in Hollywood, a community that elevates usually the most banal in our society.
I often hear from mostly lefties that we who support the war but have not served are "chickenhawks." "Chickenhawks" is a chicken you-know-what way that the left tries to guilt those of us who support the war to their side. It is a bad analogy for if we take what that means, the left basically says that unless one has served, then they are not able to have an opinion or that they should not be for the war. The same people claim to support the troops, yet are on a constant campaign to make them look bad.
Most importantly in serving and supporting the troops and their mission, we must persuade those on the fence as to why success is vital. Believe it or not, there are people that can still be swayed. It is our duty to talk to those people and let them know that our troops are the best in the world and that they want to win and then come home. They do not want to leave their battle in midstream with their tails between their legs. Victory is the way to bring them home.
Serving in wartime without being a warrior in this polarized environment is so important to the morale of those who are in the armed forces. They need to know that the overwhelming majority of the American people are really behind them.
And, that is how I am serving. By writing this blog. By trying to educate people as to the cost of defeat. By exposing the Islamofascist threat that is real, not a slogan. That is service. We all can do our part.
The questioner, Rachel Griffiths, of a local group, Quad City Progressive Action For The Common Good, asked why had none of Mr. Romney's five sons served in the armed forces and if they had any intention to do so. Now, go to Mr. Hewitt's site for the answer.
What I want to ask is a broader question. How do we, who have never been in the armed forces, support not just those in Iraq and Afghanistan, but throughout the service branches?
I have thought long about this. The main reason I am not in the armed services is that I am too old. But, how else can we serve?
Well, for one, donate to any of the fine groups that help wounded soldiers. If one can not donate money, volunteer time.
Another is to simply write letters to the troops. Many school age children do that as class projects. It is a way that may change the way that they look at the soldiers, sailors, marines, air force personnel.
Still, another way is to pray for those that are near and dear to our hearts and serving in the front lines of the War Against Terror. My church does just that. We say the service personnel's name the first Sunday of the month and at both Wednesday services.
Support those in the entertainment community who are doing their part in taking fellow entertainers to Iraq and Afghanistan. One of those is actor Gary Sinise of Forrest Gump fame and the star of the hit CBS television show, "CSI New York." As important as it is to show the troops that we not only support them, but what they are doing is to support people like Mr. Sinise. Mr. Sinise is very lucky to be a major enough star that he is not blacklisted in Hollywood, a community that elevates usually the most banal in our society.
I often hear from mostly lefties that we who support the war but have not served are "chickenhawks." "Chickenhawks" is a chicken you-know-what way that the left tries to guilt those of us who support the war to their side. It is a bad analogy for if we take what that means, the left basically says that unless one has served, then they are not able to have an opinion or that they should not be for the war. The same people claim to support the troops, yet are on a constant campaign to make them look bad.
Most importantly in serving and supporting the troops and their mission, we must persuade those on the fence as to why success is vital. Believe it or not, there are people that can still be swayed. It is our duty to talk to those people and let them know that our troops are the best in the world and that they want to win and then come home. They do not want to leave their battle in midstream with their tails between their legs. Victory is the way to bring them home.
Serving in wartime without being a warrior in this polarized environment is so important to the morale of those who are in the armed forces. They need to know that the overwhelming majority of the American people are really behind them.
And, that is how I am serving. By writing this blog. By trying to educate people as to the cost of defeat. By exposing the Islamofascist threat that is real, not a slogan. That is service. We all can do our part.
Bad Move To Dismiss Iowa
The presumed front-running GOP presidential candidate, former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani and other front-runner, in his mind, Arizona Sen. John "F--- You McCain, are making a very big mistake by skipping the Iowa Republican party straw poll this weekend in Aames, Iowa.
Yea, yea, the inside-the-beltway analysts are saying that it is no big deal and that Iowa is no big deal. They have what I will call small stateaphobia. In their mind, Iowa fits that paradigm.
But, in the last two presidential elections, Iowa was a swing state. In 2000, it voted for Democrat Al Gore by roughly about 5,000 votes. In 2004, it flipped and went with President Bush by roughly about 5,000 votes.
So, what is the big deal about this straw poll in Aames?
It is a sign of organization and what candidate can get the most Republican voters to the caucus in January. That is how it works in Iowa. No primary. Thus, what Aames does is separate the cream of the top and the milk at the bottom. A little farmer lingo from this city boy!
Without a doubt, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has invested a lot in this straw poll. And that is a good thing. If he ends up with the most votes of this non-binding vote, it should translate to more in January. Mr. Romney has the most to lose if he does not win this straw poll.
As an aside, it is the most brilliant fund-raiser I have ever seen. A state party charging $35 a head for the right to vote for the candidate of the Republicans choice. Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 will attend this straw poll. At the least it will get $700,000 for the state party. At most well over a million bucks. I think about this happening here in California. Say at $50 a person, as many as 100,000 going to this say in Sacramento. That is $5,000,000 for the state GOP in California. Oh well, I am not the state chairman, but if I were I would look at this seriously.
Iowa is still a small enough state that organization matters and maybe Mr. Giuliani and Sen. "F--- You" McCain just do not want to make that effort. But, if one of them is the nominee and it is the kind of election that 2000 and 2004 was, getting Iowa in the GOP corner will be very important.
That is why Mr. Romney is working so hard to win this straw poll. It should translate to votes in January and votes in November if Mr. Romney is the Republican presidential nominee. It is smart, old-fashioned retail politics that do still work in a place like Iowa.
It is too bad that Mr. Giuliani and Sen. "F--- You" McCain have decided to not take part in the straw poll in Aames. They do not take Iowa seriously and they should. Mr. Romney does take Iowa seriously and this is another reason I believe that is why Mr. Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee.
Yea, yea, the inside-the-beltway analysts are saying that it is no big deal and that Iowa is no big deal. They have what I will call small stateaphobia. In their mind, Iowa fits that paradigm.
But, in the last two presidential elections, Iowa was a swing state. In 2000, it voted for Democrat Al Gore by roughly about 5,000 votes. In 2004, it flipped and went with President Bush by roughly about 5,000 votes.
So, what is the big deal about this straw poll in Aames?
It is a sign of organization and what candidate can get the most Republican voters to the caucus in January. That is how it works in Iowa. No primary. Thus, what Aames does is separate the cream of the top and the milk at the bottom. A little farmer lingo from this city boy!
Without a doubt, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has invested a lot in this straw poll. And that is a good thing. If he ends up with the most votes of this non-binding vote, it should translate to more in January. Mr. Romney has the most to lose if he does not win this straw poll.
As an aside, it is the most brilliant fund-raiser I have ever seen. A state party charging $35 a head for the right to vote for the candidate of the Republicans choice. Approximately 20,000 to 25,000 will attend this straw poll. At the least it will get $700,000 for the state party. At most well over a million bucks. I think about this happening here in California. Say at $50 a person, as many as 100,000 going to this say in Sacramento. That is $5,000,000 for the state GOP in California. Oh well, I am not the state chairman, but if I were I would look at this seriously.
Iowa is still a small enough state that organization matters and maybe Mr. Giuliani and Sen. "F--- You" McCain just do not want to make that effort. But, if one of them is the nominee and it is the kind of election that 2000 and 2004 was, getting Iowa in the GOP corner will be very important.
That is why Mr. Romney is working so hard to win this straw poll. It should translate to votes in January and votes in November if Mr. Romney is the Republican presidential nominee. It is smart, old-fashioned retail politics that do still work in a place like Iowa.
It is too bad that Mr. Giuliani and Sen. "F--- You" McCain have decided to not take part in the straw poll in Aames. They do not take Iowa seriously and they should. Mr. Romney does take Iowa seriously and this is another reason I believe that is why Mr. Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Bad News By The Bay
It had to happen. Tonight, it did.
San Francisco outfielder Barry Bonds hit the infamous 756th home run of his career and that breaks the previous record set by Hammerin' Henry Aaron.
Now, we should all hang our heads in collective shame.
Why? We should be celebrating, right?
NO WAY!
Unlike Mr. Aaron, Mr. Bonds maybe one of the least deserving major league baseball players to ever set a record.
As noted earlier this week, Mr. Bonds may have gotten a lot of those home runs juiced up on steroids. Steroids are banned by professional baseball and Mr. Bonds has been at the center of an ongoing investigation as to whether or not he obtained steroids, which would break the major league rules. Would his record have an asterisk, as it should? That is a tough question to answer.
Pete Rose, the former Cincinnati Reds and Philadelphia Phillies player is not in the baseball hall of fame and is banned from the game because he gambled on pro baseball and when he was manager of the Reds. According to Mr. Rose, he always bet on the Reds to win. That was very big of him!
So, if it is eventually proven that Mr. Bonds did take steroids, will he be banned from pro baseball and not be enshrined in the hall of fame? One would have to answer yes. Mr. Bonds will have been proven to have done as much a grievous act as did Mr. Rose.
The shame is that both Mr. Bonds and Mr. Rose are and were, respectively, great ballplayers. Why one is not in the hall of fame and another may not is not just based on morality being applied unevenly. It is that they will have been caught doing actions that are detrimental to the success of major league baseball.
So, tonight is a date which will live in baseball infamy. Barry Bonds breaks Henry Aaron's home run record. It could not have been done by a worse player.
San Francisco outfielder Barry Bonds hit the infamous 756th home run of his career and that breaks the previous record set by Hammerin' Henry Aaron.
Now, we should all hang our heads in collective shame.
Why? We should be celebrating, right?
NO WAY!
Unlike Mr. Aaron, Mr. Bonds maybe one of the least deserving major league baseball players to ever set a record.
As noted earlier this week, Mr. Bonds may have gotten a lot of those home runs juiced up on steroids. Steroids are banned by professional baseball and Mr. Bonds has been at the center of an ongoing investigation as to whether or not he obtained steroids, which would break the major league rules. Would his record have an asterisk, as it should? That is a tough question to answer.
Pete Rose, the former Cincinnati Reds and Philadelphia Phillies player is not in the baseball hall of fame and is banned from the game because he gambled on pro baseball and when he was manager of the Reds. According to Mr. Rose, he always bet on the Reds to win. That was very big of him!
So, if it is eventually proven that Mr. Bonds did take steroids, will he be banned from pro baseball and not be enshrined in the hall of fame? One would have to answer yes. Mr. Bonds will have been proven to have done as much a grievous act as did Mr. Rose.
The shame is that both Mr. Bonds and Mr. Rose are and were, respectively, great ballplayers. Why one is not in the hall of fame and another may not is not just based on morality being applied unevenly. It is that they will have been caught doing actions that are detrimental to the success of major league baseball.
So, tonight is a date which will live in baseball infamy. Barry Bonds breaks Henry Aaron's home run record. It could not have been done by a worse player.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Blogging Means Different Things To Different People And Groups
Why do I blog? It is simple. To share information and to have a free forum to discuss the events of the day and or just write about silly stuff on occasion. For me, it is freedom.
Why to the Daily Kos crowd, et al, blog? To make a difference and to influence a political party, the Democrat party, and possibly an election or two.
There is a huge difference. I do not expect my visit from Mitt Romney because I am sure to many I am nothing but a shill for his Republican presidential quest. I do not get a check from Hugh Hewitt even though I link to him quite often. I do not expect my Episcopal diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. John Bruno, to be all that thrilled when I write about the decrepit state of the Episcopal Church, USA. Won't be getting any love from Barry Bonds concerning my views on his home run "record." And that is the way I want it.
I have a lot of freedom having this blog site. I do not abuse it with a slew of pointless profanities. Even my references to Sen. John McCain are edited so any one can read this blog. I don't have as much an axe to grind, but what I try to offer on this site is stories and thoughts that you will not see in the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media, DDBMSM.
The Daily Kos crowd, as well as Huffington Post, claim to be something they are not. Free forums. But, why then when a United States soldier confronted a seminar at the recent Yearly Kos convention was he shouted down? If they are open, they should have let the soldier talk and debate. But, they are not really interested in debate. They want a seat at the political table and to be an influence on the Democrat party. So far they have succeeded at both. The top three Democrat presidential candidates went to their little convention this past weekend and groveled at the feet of the crowd, begging them to keep it up. Not one Democrat went to the meeting of the Democrat Leadership Council, the moderate Democrat group founded by, among others, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice-President Al Gore. They are just so old school.
These bloggers want power. I just want to be able to share with you information and ideas from the conservative side of the equation. With a lot of freedom to not have to be in the hip pocket of any group, organization or political party. For the record, I am a Republican and believe that one of the best ways to have a strong political party is not to always be in lockstep. That is why, for instance, we have primaries for the presidential nomination. There are nine announced candidates and a chance to check them all out. I do not think I take the conventional route since I support Mitt Romney. No, I am not on his payroll.
Only recently has a conservative alternative, townhall.com, been around to coalesce conservative opinion and be a somewhat answer to Daily Kos and the vomitorium of the left.
But, I choose to be out of their blog listing. I want the freedom of blogging on my own. All I can do on my own is write and do all I can to make this site even better.
I do not blog in allegiance to anyone but myself and those that read this blog, no matter what they believe. I wish the lefty bloggers felt the same way.
Why to the Daily Kos crowd, et al, blog? To make a difference and to influence a political party, the Democrat party, and possibly an election or two.
There is a huge difference. I do not expect my visit from Mitt Romney because I am sure to many I am nothing but a shill for his Republican presidential quest. I do not get a check from Hugh Hewitt even though I link to him quite often. I do not expect my Episcopal diocesan bishop, the Rt. Rev. John Bruno, to be all that thrilled when I write about the decrepit state of the Episcopal Church, USA. Won't be getting any love from Barry Bonds concerning my views on his home run "record." And that is the way I want it.
I have a lot of freedom having this blog site. I do not abuse it with a slew of pointless profanities. Even my references to Sen. John McCain are edited so any one can read this blog. I don't have as much an axe to grind, but what I try to offer on this site is stories and thoughts that you will not see in the Dinosaur, Drive-by, Mainstream Media, DDBMSM.
The Daily Kos crowd, as well as Huffington Post, claim to be something they are not. Free forums. But, why then when a United States soldier confronted a seminar at the recent Yearly Kos convention was he shouted down? If they are open, they should have let the soldier talk and debate. But, they are not really interested in debate. They want a seat at the political table and to be an influence on the Democrat party. So far they have succeeded at both. The top three Democrat presidential candidates went to their little convention this past weekend and groveled at the feet of the crowd, begging them to keep it up. Not one Democrat went to the meeting of the Democrat Leadership Council, the moderate Democrat group founded by, among others, former President Bill Clinton and former Vice-President Al Gore. They are just so old school.
These bloggers want power. I just want to be able to share with you information and ideas from the conservative side of the equation. With a lot of freedom to not have to be in the hip pocket of any group, organization or political party. For the record, I am a Republican and believe that one of the best ways to have a strong political party is not to always be in lockstep. That is why, for instance, we have primaries for the presidential nomination. There are nine announced candidates and a chance to check them all out. I do not think I take the conventional route since I support Mitt Romney. No, I am not on his payroll.
Only recently has a conservative alternative, townhall.com, been around to coalesce conservative opinion and be a somewhat answer to Daily Kos and the vomitorium of the left.
But, I choose to be out of their blog listing. I want the freedom of blogging on my own. All I can do on my own is write and do all I can to make this site even better.
I do not blog in allegiance to anyone but myself and those that read this blog, no matter what they believe. I wish the lefty bloggers felt the same way.
What Is The Big Idea If Someone Changes His Or Her Mind On An Issue?
I am continued to be perplexed by conservative Republicans who attack former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for being a "flip-flopper" especially on the issue of abortion. Is there not room for growth on an individuals part? Apparently not.
I will digress to point out on the issue of abortion, some Democrat politicians went from being pro-life to pro-abortion. Remember former house minority leader Richard Gephart (D-Mo.), former Vice-President Al Gore? Those are two examples of Democrat politicians switching sides as they moved up the political ladder. But, liberal people will say that these two have "grown" when they went from pro-life to pro-abortion. When a politician goes the other way, they are accused of pandering.
So, some Republicans are taking aim at Mr. Romney. People like Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) who are bashing Mr. Romney for not being pro-life all through his life and boosting the fact that he has been. Yes that is true, but my question to Sen. Brownback is this. How do we get more people on the side of life when we have a convert in Mr. Romney with your approach? You accuse the former Massachusetts governor of being pro-abortion as governor. It was during the time as governor that Mr. Romney changed his view. We should be welcoming that change of heart and hold Mr. Romney to that position.
It is just bizarre to me that someone like Sen. Brownback would by into the liberal definition of Mr. Romney's conversion on the issue. I know that Sen. Brownback has really been in front on the issue of life and abortion, but he should not be bashing Mr. Romney for coming around. This is an issue Sen. Brownback should stay away from and talk about other issues concerning Mr. Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts.
I take Mr. Romney at his word. How we as voters hold him to that is to make sure he is sincere is to ask about the kind of judges that he will appoint to the federal courts and the supreme court. And for good measure what kind of congressional legislation he would support to curtail abortion. The answers that you will hear will bear out the sincerity of his change of heart.
Here is a new paradigm. When someone becomes more conservative that is as much "growth" as any one who becomes a liberal. "Growth" is determined by how you and I stand on issues. We have to look at a candidates overall stands and see where he or she has decidedly changed their mind on an issue and why. Then we will see if they are "growing" in the direction we would agree with.
I will digress to point out on the issue of abortion, some Democrat politicians went from being pro-life to pro-abortion. Remember former house minority leader Richard Gephart (D-Mo.), former Vice-President Al Gore? Those are two examples of Democrat politicians switching sides as they moved up the political ladder. But, liberal people will say that these two have "grown" when they went from pro-life to pro-abortion. When a politician goes the other way, they are accused of pandering.
So, some Republicans are taking aim at Mr. Romney. People like Sam Brownback (R-Kans.) who are bashing Mr. Romney for not being pro-life all through his life and boosting the fact that he has been. Yes that is true, but my question to Sen. Brownback is this. How do we get more people on the side of life when we have a convert in Mr. Romney with your approach? You accuse the former Massachusetts governor of being pro-abortion as governor. It was during the time as governor that Mr. Romney changed his view. We should be welcoming that change of heart and hold Mr. Romney to that position.
It is just bizarre to me that someone like Sen. Brownback would by into the liberal definition of Mr. Romney's conversion on the issue. I know that Sen. Brownback has really been in front on the issue of life and abortion, but he should not be bashing Mr. Romney for coming around. This is an issue Sen. Brownback should stay away from and talk about other issues concerning Mr. Romney's term as governor of Massachusetts.
I take Mr. Romney at his word. How we as voters hold him to that is to make sure he is sincere is to ask about the kind of judges that he will appoint to the federal courts and the supreme court. And for good measure what kind of congressional legislation he would support to curtail abortion. The answers that you will hear will bear out the sincerity of his change of heart.
Here is a new paradigm. When someone becomes more conservative that is as much "growth" as any one who becomes a liberal. "Growth" is determined by how you and I stand on issues. We have to look at a candidates overall stands and see where he or she has decidedly changed their mind on an issue and why. Then we will see if they are "growing" in the direction we would agree with.
Sunday, August 05, 2007
Barry Bonds And 756 Homes Runs Will NOT Be Something To Celebrate
I may be in a large minority, but I do not believe that when Barry Bonds of the San Francisco Giants hits the all-time major league record 756th home run, it will be a time for celebration.
The obvious reason is because the issue of steroids. The fact that he has never come clean on whether or not he has taken banned steroids is what is so troubling. I think that because we live in such a confessional age-with no consequences-had Mr. Bonds told all, most would have shrugged it off and there would not be such a negative to Mr. Bonds impending breaking the all time major league home run record.
If you do not think that Mr. Bonds has had a little help from some friends, I submit that you look at photos from when Mr. Bonds played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and now with the Giants. The photos do not lie.
Another is that Mr. Bonds is just a very surly individual. He seems to forget, yes he is the player, but the fans who have flocked to see Mr. Bonds are his boss. After all, without the fans, Mr. Bonds would not be a multi-millionaire. By the way he interacts-or doesn't-with the fans is a sign of arrogance. Maybe he is just a reflection of this age, but that is what is wrong with this age. By the way, some fans are very pushy, but those that remember who they perform for are smart enough to handle uncomfortable situations with class.
Because Mr. Bonds has not come clean on the steroids issue, whenever he chooses to will be too late in the minds of many fans, including myself.
If you are old enough, you would remember a funny hall of fame pitcher by the name of Gaylord Perry. Mr. Perry won a lot of games with the help of, oh I am sure a lot of Brylcreem on the hair. Now, why the hair? Well, when you take off the ol' baseball cap and put your hand through your hair, a lot of Brylcreem stays on the hands and when he pitched, the ball did some strange things. Oh, and what he did and while he was a player, it was against the rules. Mr. Perry handled the whole thing with humor, no denial. Thus, he got to the hall of fame but what may have really paved his way to the hall was that he had class.
At the end of the day, that is what Mr. Bonds does not have-class. He treats people like dirt and never wants to be called on it. Had he any class, and a little humor, he might have escaped the wrath of fans that want to see a player break such a cherished record. But not with steriods banned by baseball and a bad attitude to match.
And, most nauseating is seeing the usual race hucksters go around railing that people really do not want to see Mr. Bonds break the record because he is black. Uh, the record holder, Henry Aaron, is also black. So, I do not get that logic whatsoever. The problem with the race hucksters is that they are not all that logical.
I will not celebrate when Mr. Bonds breaks the record. He will not deserve to be in the hall of fame. He deserves to slither away under his rock.
The obvious reason is because the issue of steroids. The fact that he has never come clean on whether or not he has taken banned steroids is what is so troubling. I think that because we live in such a confessional age-with no consequences-had Mr. Bonds told all, most would have shrugged it off and there would not be such a negative to Mr. Bonds impending breaking the all time major league home run record.
If you do not think that Mr. Bonds has had a little help from some friends, I submit that you look at photos from when Mr. Bonds played for the Pittsburgh Pirates and now with the Giants. The photos do not lie.
Another is that Mr. Bonds is just a very surly individual. He seems to forget, yes he is the player, but the fans who have flocked to see Mr. Bonds are his boss. After all, without the fans, Mr. Bonds would not be a multi-millionaire. By the way he interacts-or doesn't-with the fans is a sign of arrogance. Maybe he is just a reflection of this age, but that is what is wrong with this age. By the way, some fans are very pushy, but those that remember who they perform for are smart enough to handle uncomfortable situations with class.
Because Mr. Bonds has not come clean on the steroids issue, whenever he chooses to will be too late in the minds of many fans, including myself.
If you are old enough, you would remember a funny hall of fame pitcher by the name of Gaylord Perry. Mr. Perry won a lot of games with the help of, oh I am sure a lot of Brylcreem on the hair. Now, why the hair? Well, when you take off the ol' baseball cap and put your hand through your hair, a lot of Brylcreem stays on the hands and when he pitched, the ball did some strange things. Oh, and what he did and while he was a player, it was against the rules. Mr. Perry handled the whole thing with humor, no denial. Thus, he got to the hall of fame but what may have really paved his way to the hall was that he had class.
At the end of the day, that is what Mr. Bonds does not have-class. He treats people like dirt and never wants to be called on it. Had he any class, and a little humor, he might have escaped the wrath of fans that want to see a player break such a cherished record. But not with steriods banned by baseball and a bad attitude to match.
And, most nauseating is seeing the usual race hucksters go around railing that people really do not want to see Mr. Bonds break the record because he is black. Uh, the record holder, Henry Aaron, is also black. So, I do not get that logic whatsoever. The problem with the race hucksters is that they are not all that logical.
I will not celebrate when Mr. Bonds breaks the record. He will not deserve to be in the hall of fame. He deserves to slither away under his rock.
Friday, August 03, 2007
The "Straight Talk Express" Is Just Another Politician
While I welcome the fact that Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) has come around on the immigration issue, it appears that the so-called "Straight Talk Express" is just another desperate politician seeking to attain the Republican nomination for president.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain has spent the last several years excoriating politicians on all sides for not having principles and the like and while his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination is on life support and the plugs are coming off one at a time, read what our friend says now:
"We can still show the American people that we are serious about securing our nation's border that the new bill will provide an essential step toward achieving comprehensive reform in the future."
So, why did Sen. "F--- You" McCain fight tooth and nail for the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam? Is it a coincidence that he has to fly commercial airlines and carry his own luggage on the campaign trail and be driven to events by supporters? (HT-Politico http://politico.com) Is it a real conversion, or one of political convenience?
For someone like Sen. "F--- You" McCain to bash former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for changing his mind on abortion, at least Mr. Romney did not humiliate himself as Sen. "F--- You" McCain did in pushing the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Mr. Romney, I believe with my all my mind, had a genuine conversion. Sen. "F--- You" McCain has long claimed to be pro-life and votes accordingly, but has not been a leader in the pro-life movement. Nor has Mr. Romney. But, I would say that a convert often is more willing to take the lead than one who has just voted and never given the kind of story as to how he or she came to the position of being pro-life.
So, maybe, just maybe, Sen. "F--- You" McCain has a genuine change of heart. But I am very suspicious. I want to know more about how the senator has come around. It will be then that we will know if it is out of political expediency or the reality that border security trumps "comprehensive reform".
Otherwise, Sen. "F--- You" McCain proves that straight talk for him is just another buzz word and he is just another troll wanting to be president.
Sen. "F--- You" McCain has spent the last several years excoriating politicians on all sides for not having principles and the like and while his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination is on life support and the plugs are coming off one at a time, read what our friend says now:
"We can still show the American people that we are serious about securing our nation's border that the new bill will provide an essential step toward achieving comprehensive reform in the future."
So, why did Sen. "F--- You" McCain fight tooth and nail for the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam? Is it a coincidence that he has to fly commercial airlines and carry his own luggage on the campaign trail and be driven to events by supporters? (HT-Politico http://politico.com) Is it a real conversion, or one of political convenience?
For someone like Sen. "F--- You" McCain to bash former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for changing his mind on abortion, at least Mr. Romney did not humiliate himself as Sen. "F--- You" McCain did in pushing the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam. Mr. Romney, I believe with my all my mind, had a genuine conversion. Sen. "F--- You" McCain has long claimed to be pro-life and votes accordingly, but has not been a leader in the pro-life movement. Nor has Mr. Romney. But, I would say that a convert often is more willing to take the lead than one who has just voted and never given the kind of story as to how he or she came to the position of being pro-life.
So, maybe, just maybe, Sen. "F--- You" McCain has a genuine change of heart. But I am very suspicious. I want to know more about how the senator has come around. It will be then that we will know if it is out of political expediency or the reality that border security trumps "comprehensive reform".
Otherwise, Sen. "F--- You" McCain proves that straight talk for him is just another buzz word and he is just another troll wanting to be president.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
General Obama Is Loony
I know that the top-tier Democrat presidential candidates want to appear as they are tough and can fight the War Against Terror if, God forbid, one of them is elected president. But, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill) is just plain loony!
At this point, I will refer to Sen. Obama as General Obama because when he spoke yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, he called for the United States to send troops into tenuous ally Pakistan-with or without the approval of President Pervez Musharaf.
Now, Gen. Obama just two weeks ago said he would meet any rouge leader any place, any time, with no preconditions.
For one, it appears that Gen. Obama is schizophrenic. On the one hand, he will extend an olive branch to tyrants as Castro of Cuba, Chavez of Venezuela, Kim-jong il of North Korea, Assad of Syria, and my personal favorite, Ahmenawhackjob of Iran. But, to an ally that is siding with us at great risk and is now a low-end nuclear power, he would all but invade to "get the terrorists and bin-Laden".
Ralph Peters, one of the great military annalists of this age wrote in today's New York Post http://nypost.com why this is a bad idea. I will point out the highlights of Mr. Peter's epic piece.
1) Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction-or terrorists?
Exactly! Mr. Peters hits the nail on the head. Gen. Obama would put United States soldiers not only in harm's way, but possibly hit with nuclear weapons. I guess Gen. Obama has not thought about that.
2) Even those tribesmen who don't support the Taliban or al-Queda are proud and xenophobic to extremes-they'd rally against us. And all of the senator's bloggers couldn't stop them.
Ouch! Going after bloggers-even loony tune ones?! Again, Mr. Peters is spot on. I guess in all the time that Gen. Obama has lived overseas, which he says himself, gives him more knowledge in international affairs, Gen. Obama doesn't see this forest through the trees. The central government in Pakistan has little control over the so-called tribal region along their border with Afghanistan.
3) President Musharaf's government would fall-probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.
Right on! That is what makes Gen. Obama's "plan" so asinine. Sure, end the action in Iraq just because you do not like the fact that President Bush has been right all along and that the mass of terrorists are fighting us their instead of here. Then send an already belgared armed force into an absolute hostile fight. If Gen. Obama thinks our troops are not fighting the terrorists in Iraq, what in the name of almighty God does he think our troops will be fighting in Pakistan? An army, terrorists and tribal chiefs. A trifecta as they say at the race track!
4) Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President, Gen. Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other mega cities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of the beasts?
What say you, Gen. Obama? Sen. Obama thinks that we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Fine, but we are there now and we should fight for victory, not run with our tails between our legs. Maybe we should send more troops to Afghanistan, but not until the situation in Iraq is under control.
The bottom line is now is not the time for amateur hour. Maybe in another time and under different conditions, Sen. Obama would be a good choice for the Democrat party. But, not now. With beyond irrational international affairs rhetoric like this, Sen. Obama may have just lost some support from the left-fringe bloggers and the like that have supported him up to now. That would be good for America. The Democrats and America can not afford someone to lead as commander-in-chief such as Barack Obama.
At this point, I will refer to Sen. Obama as General Obama because when he spoke yesterday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, he called for the United States to send troops into tenuous ally Pakistan-with or without the approval of President Pervez Musharaf.
Now, Gen. Obama just two weeks ago said he would meet any rouge leader any place, any time, with no preconditions.
For one, it appears that Gen. Obama is schizophrenic. On the one hand, he will extend an olive branch to tyrants as Castro of Cuba, Chavez of Venezuela, Kim-jong il of North Korea, Assad of Syria, and my personal favorite, Ahmenawhackjob of Iran. But, to an ally that is siding with us at great risk and is now a low-end nuclear power, he would all but invade to "get the terrorists and bin-Laden".
Ralph Peters, one of the great military annalists of this age wrote in today's New York Post http://nypost.com why this is a bad idea. I will point out the highlights of Mr. Peter's epic piece.
1) Pakistan is a nuclear power on the brink of internal collapse. Do we really want to drive it over the edge and see loose nukes in the hands of a radicalized military faction-or terrorists?
Exactly! Mr. Peters hits the nail on the head. Gen. Obama would put United States soldiers not only in harm's way, but possibly hit with nuclear weapons. I guess Gen. Obama has not thought about that.
2) Even those tribesmen who don't support the Taliban or al-Queda are proud and xenophobic to extremes-they'd rally against us. And all of the senator's bloggers couldn't stop them.
Ouch! Going after bloggers-even loony tune ones?! Again, Mr. Peters is spot on. I guess in all the time that Gen. Obama has lived overseas, which he says himself, gives him more knowledge in international affairs, Gen. Obama doesn't see this forest through the trees. The central government in Pakistan has little control over the so-called tribal region along their border with Afghanistan.
3) President Musharaf's government would fall-probably overthrown by Islamic nationalists in the military and security services. Welcome to your Islamofascist nuclear power, senator.
Right on! That is what makes Gen. Obama's "plan" so asinine. Sure, end the action in Iraq just because you do not like the fact that President Bush has been right all along and that the mass of terrorists are fighting us their instead of here. Then send an already belgared armed force into an absolute hostile fight. If Gen. Obama thinks our troops are not fighting the terrorists in Iraq, what in the name of almighty God does he think our troops will be fighting in Pakistan? An army, terrorists and tribal chiefs. A trifecta as they say at the race track!
4) Even setting aside the nuke issue, what would President, Gen. Obama do when Pakistan, an Islamic nation of 170 million, broke into bits? Would we also occupy Karachi, Lahore and other mega cities, after they turned into urban jungles where the terrorist became the king of the beasts?
What say you, Gen. Obama? Sen. Obama thinks that we should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Fine, but we are there now and we should fight for victory, not run with our tails between our legs. Maybe we should send more troops to Afghanistan, but not until the situation in Iraq is under control.
The bottom line is now is not the time for amateur hour. Maybe in another time and under different conditions, Sen. Obama would be a good choice for the Democrat party. But, not now. With beyond irrational international affairs rhetoric like this, Sen. Obama may have just lost some support from the left-fringe bloggers and the like that have supported him up to now. That would be good for America. The Democrats and America can not afford someone to lead as commander-in-chief such as Barack Obama.
Only Liberals-Democrats Can Think This Way
It is not even a full 24 hours since the 35W interstate bridge collapsed over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis and the Daily Kos crowd can not let this disaster go without blaming the eeeevilllll President Bush.
I did not think that the reason this major auto artery into Minneapolis had a bridge collapse was because of President Bush and, well you name it. The War Against Terror. The tax cuts. Not having the international community love us. And the list for the left goes on and on.
Here is something for those in the fever swamps on the left. Sometimes, events just happen. In this case, a bridge may have been overused and it's shelve life came up faster than when it was built in 1967. The population and traffic may have been underestimated and that is a possible reason as to why this disaster happened. It is not a nefarious plot by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Haliburton to create a problem.
But, I am a masochist and I strayed over to that vomitorium of left-wing thought, the Daily Kos http://dailykos.com.
Some of the comments were just out of left field. Hell, out of the solar system as far as Pluto.
It is just astounding that the visceral hatred of President Bush and company clouds otherwise probable rational minds to write what comes out of the keyboards.
Another thing for you in the swamps on the left. Not everything in life is the fault of whoever the president maybe.
In a post yesterday, I commented on how many Americans just can not take it anymore with George W. Bush as president and are moving to Canada. Is one person so bad that you would leave the nation that you were born in? Have you lost your job? Your home? All of your means? Of course not. But, you have put way too much on the shoulders of one individual.
I am waiting to hear that President Bush did not interrupt his dinner and fly right over to the scene of the disaster, as if he could do something about it!
I really think that liberal Democrats need to take a breather, let the story unfold in Minneapolis and then talk about as to why the disaster happened. Stop blaming President Bush and his allies for everything that goes wrong in this life. in fact, you all need to GET A LIFE!
I did not think that the reason this major auto artery into Minneapolis had a bridge collapse was because of President Bush and, well you name it. The War Against Terror. The tax cuts. Not having the international community love us. And the list for the left goes on and on.
Here is something for those in the fever swamps on the left. Sometimes, events just happen. In this case, a bridge may have been overused and it's shelve life came up faster than when it was built in 1967. The population and traffic may have been underestimated and that is a possible reason as to why this disaster happened. It is not a nefarious plot by President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and Haliburton to create a problem.
But, I am a masochist and I strayed over to that vomitorium of left-wing thought, the Daily Kos http://dailykos.com.
Some of the comments were just out of left field. Hell, out of the solar system as far as Pluto.
It is just astounding that the visceral hatred of President Bush and company clouds otherwise probable rational minds to write what comes out of the keyboards.
Another thing for you in the swamps on the left. Not everything in life is the fault of whoever the president maybe.
In a post yesterday, I commented on how many Americans just can not take it anymore with George W. Bush as president and are moving to Canada. Is one person so bad that you would leave the nation that you were born in? Have you lost your job? Your home? All of your means? Of course not. But, you have put way too much on the shoulders of one individual.
I am waiting to hear that President Bush did not interrupt his dinner and fly right over to the scene of the disaster, as if he could do something about it!
I really think that liberal Democrats need to take a breather, let the story unfold in Minneapolis and then talk about as to why the disaster happened. Stop blaming President Bush and his allies for everything that goes wrong in this life. in fact, you all need to GET A LIFE!
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
President Bush Driving Libs To The Great White North
According to ABC News http://abcnews.com, more Americans over the past four years have been moving to Canada. The reason? Its President Bush and his policies, of course!
According to the story, the two people that were mentioned was a gay, male, labor organizer and a woman. I kid you not. They are much happier in the more open, tolerant Canada than the eeevillll United States ruled by the maniacal George W. Bush.
What is my thought?
Please, if there are any more of you, flood the Canadian embassy and consulates with applications for Canadian citizenship. Also, give up your United States citizenship if we are, in fact, such an evil place that you can not live your life freely.
I write that somewhat in jest, but it is a serious problem. If people like another country, I have no problem with them moving there and getting citizenship to that nation. It is their right. My problem is with people who bash the United States and then want duel citizenship. The United States is not a perfect nation but I should think that those who move abroad would at the very least want some connection to the land of their birth. But, if we are to believe ABC News, the majority of those leaving the United States for Canada are so tortured by the Bush administration. I put up with William Jefferson Blythe Clinton for eight years and live to tell about it.
I think those that leave because of a single administration have serious problems. Democracy means that every once in a while we will not have a president, a governor, or mayor or whatever. It is up to us all to make sure we have the government we want. Leaving the United States does not make that problem go away.
I wonder if more Americans will leave for Canada if, God forbid, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) is elected president? I wonder if it will get coverage in the DDBMSM?
According to the story, the two people that were mentioned was a gay, male, labor organizer and a woman. I kid you not. They are much happier in the more open, tolerant Canada than the eeevillll United States ruled by the maniacal George W. Bush.
What is my thought?
Please, if there are any more of you, flood the Canadian embassy and consulates with applications for Canadian citizenship. Also, give up your United States citizenship if we are, in fact, such an evil place that you can not live your life freely.
I write that somewhat in jest, but it is a serious problem. If people like another country, I have no problem with them moving there and getting citizenship to that nation. It is their right. My problem is with people who bash the United States and then want duel citizenship. The United States is not a perfect nation but I should think that those who move abroad would at the very least want some connection to the land of their birth. But, if we are to believe ABC News, the majority of those leaving the United States for Canada are so tortured by the Bush administration. I put up with William Jefferson Blythe Clinton for eight years and live to tell about it.
I think those that leave because of a single administration have serious problems. Democracy means that every once in a while we will not have a president, a governor, or mayor or whatever. It is up to us all to make sure we have the government we want. Leaving the United States does not make that problem go away.
I wonder if more Americans will leave for Canada if, God forbid, Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY) is elected president? I wonder if it will get coverage in the DDBMSM?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A Tribute To A Hero
I write this brief post because even though we are gaining the upper hand, militarily, in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror, we have some Americans trying to say it is too late and to pull out and admit defeat. We have too many Americans who do not want to win here or anywhere. There are too many Americans who think, quite bluntly, we are getting what we deserve.
I want to focus on someone who has died for this cause and why we should not stop in Iraq until there is total victory.
The American is James P. Blecksmith. He was a marine who died in the battle of Falujah in 2004. November 11, 2004, Veteran's Day.
Second Lt. Blecksmith was not a soldier who, as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) came from a lower class background, but was born and raised in San Marino, California, an upper middle-class enclave in the San Gabriel Valley near Los Angeles. He went to Flintridge Prep, a prestigious private high school, then the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Entered the marine corps voluntarily to fight for the United States in the War Against Terror. I am sure that he knew he would be in the front lines whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Second Lt. Blecksmith could have not gone to the Naval Academy and instead possibly an Ivy-League school and done something with himself in the private sector. But, he followed a long line of family who served their country, asked or not. Second Lt. Blecksmith's father, Ed, served in the marine corps in Vietnam. That was the last war the United States lost. What a tragedy that this could be the second.
Second Lt. Blecksmith was in the thick of the action in Falujah on that fateful November day when he was involved in heavy fighting, literally house to house combat. Second Lt. Blecksmith was shot by a sniper who hit him in the right spot. The bullet went right through 2nd Lt. Blecksmith and he died instantly.
His parents, Ed and Pam Blecksmith got the news the way almost all soldiers families get the news no one wants to hear. Two members of the armed forces went to the Blecksmith home and then they knew. Their son died a hero.
The memorial was held at the church they have attended for years. Yes, I was there and it was amazing seeing 2nd Lt. Blecksmith's flag-draped casket moving about the church and then the very short drive to the graveyard next to the church. Those that spoke talked about an amazing young man. Some referred to 2nd Lt. Blecksmith as a "Soldier for Christ" and his faith even going into the field of battle.
The reason I can write so intimately about this is that the Blecksmith's are members of my church, Church of Our Saviour, in San Gabriel, California. They are really down to earth people that have had to endure more than most Americans will ever have to endure.
And they want to see it through. They want victory in Iraq and in the War Against Terror. They understand as do so many military familes what we are doing not just in Iraq but overall to beat the Islamofacists.
I also write this because we hear so much about the thuggish soldiers in Abu Graib and now recently the writings of a so-called member of the military bad-mouthing the troops in the way that the war has turned them into sociopaths. That is what the DDBMSM wants to paint the picture of the American soldier.
I just want you to know some one like 2nd Lt. James P. Blecksmith, an American hero
I want to focus on someone who has died for this cause and why we should not stop in Iraq until there is total victory.
The American is James P. Blecksmith. He was a marine who died in the battle of Falujah in 2004. November 11, 2004, Veteran's Day.
Second Lt. Blecksmith was not a soldier who, as Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass) came from a lower class background, but was born and raised in San Marino, California, an upper middle-class enclave in the San Gabriel Valley near Los Angeles. He went to Flintridge Prep, a prestigious private high school, then the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Entered the marine corps voluntarily to fight for the United States in the War Against Terror. I am sure that he knew he would be in the front lines whether in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Second Lt. Blecksmith could have not gone to the Naval Academy and instead possibly an Ivy-League school and done something with himself in the private sector. But, he followed a long line of family who served their country, asked or not. Second Lt. Blecksmith's father, Ed, served in the marine corps in Vietnam. That was the last war the United States lost. What a tragedy that this could be the second.
Second Lt. Blecksmith was in the thick of the action in Falujah on that fateful November day when he was involved in heavy fighting, literally house to house combat. Second Lt. Blecksmith was shot by a sniper who hit him in the right spot. The bullet went right through 2nd Lt. Blecksmith and he died instantly.
His parents, Ed and Pam Blecksmith got the news the way almost all soldiers families get the news no one wants to hear. Two members of the armed forces went to the Blecksmith home and then they knew. Their son died a hero.
The memorial was held at the church they have attended for years. Yes, I was there and it was amazing seeing 2nd Lt. Blecksmith's flag-draped casket moving about the church and then the very short drive to the graveyard next to the church. Those that spoke talked about an amazing young man. Some referred to 2nd Lt. Blecksmith as a "Soldier for Christ" and his faith even going into the field of battle.
The reason I can write so intimately about this is that the Blecksmith's are members of my church, Church of Our Saviour, in San Gabriel, California. They are really down to earth people that have had to endure more than most Americans will ever have to endure.
And they want to see it through. They want victory in Iraq and in the War Against Terror. They understand as do so many military familes what we are doing not just in Iraq but overall to beat the Islamofacists.
I also write this because we hear so much about the thuggish soldiers in Abu Graib and now recently the writings of a so-called member of the military bad-mouthing the troops in the way that the war has turned them into sociopaths. That is what the DDBMSM wants to paint the picture of the American soldier.
I just want you to know some one like 2nd Lt. James P. Blecksmith, an American hero
The County Fair-Americana At Its Best
This past Sunday, Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I went to the Orange County Fair in Costa Mesa, California. I really love county fairs, and one of the best is in Orange County.
It is not just because it is deep in the heart of Red Southern California, but just the feel of the people, the carnival, the performances, the food and the animals, really just about everything.
Most importantly, it is an amazing place where Americans of all groups, incomes, status and the like can let it hang out, so to speak, and have a good all-American time. Mrs.rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I are not real fans of the carnival. We leave that for the teenagers. One of our favorite places is where all of the products are sold. It is like one huge television infomercial on steroids. Everything from George Foreman grill knock-offs to mops that leave no streaks and everything else in between. Amazingly, many people watch the demonstrations and really do buy the stuff. We did not. Sometimes, the missus buys some kind of jewelry or some kind of wonder jewelery cleaner.
My favorite place is the livestock. I love seeing all of the farm animals. There seemed to be an endless supply of sheep. I have to say, I love the sheep. But, I wonder one thing about sheep. How do they see? I mean, their eyes are so wide apart and, even though it seems like they are looking at me. If anyone knows, please comment.
Anyhow, at the OC Fair, there is the funnest thing to see-the All-Alaskan Racing Pigs. Now, it is not the two-ton Tessies running around a small track but piglets. And they are so amazing they can even jump over like horses in a steeplechase. The piglets are so cute and amazingly fast! Afterwards, the local big-chain grocer, Ralph's, aka Kroger gives coupons away for a free package of bacon.
The food, now that is a gastronomical delight. One can get almost anything fried. Fried candy bars, fried cheesecake, fried avocados, beer battered Australian potatoes, which is one of our favorites and of course we consumed. If I were left to my own devices, I would still be recovering at a local hospital with all that I would consume if it were not for the missus keeping a good leash on my eating habits!
What I find so refreshing about a county fair is that it is inter-generational. I mean, we saw grandparents with their grand kids, moms and dads and many kids and people from all walks of life, a little bit of America and all enjoying themselves at a relatively inexpensive price to walk in the gate compared to the big amusement parks like Disneyland and the like.
I hope that this slice of Americana is maintained in a big way throughout the United States. I think this is a perfect gateway to show those from foreign lands what America is all about.
It is not just because it is deep in the heart of Red Southern California, but just the feel of the people, the carnival, the performances, the food and the animals, really just about everything.
Most importantly, it is an amazing place where Americans of all groups, incomes, status and the like can let it hang out, so to speak, and have a good all-American time. Mrs.rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I are not real fans of the carnival. We leave that for the teenagers. One of our favorite places is where all of the products are sold. It is like one huge television infomercial on steroids. Everything from George Foreman grill knock-offs to mops that leave no streaks and everything else in between. Amazingly, many people watch the demonstrations and really do buy the stuff. We did not. Sometimes, the missus buys some kind of jewelry or some kind of wonder jewelery cleaner.
My favorite place is the livestock. I love seeing all of the farm animals. There seemed to be an endless supply of sheep. I have to say, I love the sheep. But, I wonder one thing about sheep. How do they see? I mean, their eyes are so wide apart and, even though it seems like they are looking at me. If anyone knows, please comment.
Anyhow, at the OC Fair, there is the funnest thing to see-the All-Alaskan Racing Pigs. Now, it is not the two-ton Tessies running around a small track but piglets. And they are so amazing they can even jump over like horses in a steeplechase. The piglets are so cute and amazingly fast! Afterwards, the local big-chain grocer, Ralph's, aka Kroger gives coupons away for a free package of bacon.
The food, now that is a gastronomical delight. One can get almost anything fried. Fried candy bars, fried cheesecake, fried avocados, beer battered Australian potatoes, which is one of our favorites and of course we consumed. If I were left to my own devices, I would still be recovering at a local hospital with all that I would consume if it were not for the missus keeping a good leash on my eating habits!
What I find so refreshing about a county fair is that it is inter-generational. I mean, we saw grandparents with their grand kids, moms and dads and many kids and people from all walks of life, a little bit of America and all enjoying themselves at a relatively inexpensive price to walk in the gate compared to the big amusement parks like Disneyland and the like.
I hope that this slice of Americana is maintained in a big way throughout the United States. I think this is a perfect gateway to show those from foreign lands what America is all about.
Victory In Iraq=A Problem For The Democrats
According to the Washington Post http://washingtonpost.com, South Carolina representative James Clyburn, the third in the Democrat house leadership admitted that if the situation in Iraq shows vast improvement in September, it will be a problem for the Democrats.
As if we did not know!
In an interview, Mr. Clyburn states the obvious and thus what the strategy has been all along for the Democrats. Invest in defeat in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror and that is good news for the Democrats. Winning in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats.
So, if General David Petraeus comes to Washington in mid-September and tells congress that the military mission in Iraq is vastly improved and that the surge should keep going for total success, what do the anti-war people do?
They will be rightfully exposed and that will, I believe, get the American people back to supporting that the troops leave Iraq with victory, not their tails between their legs as in the Vietnam era.
The war in the Iraq theatre or anywhere else should not be a partisan issue. Victory should be non-partisan.
But, Rep. Clyburn let the cat out of the bag and that is why we are in the position we are in today.
Let us hope that Gen. Petraeus comes back with good news and that the big problems come for the Democrats. That can only be good for America.
As if we did not know!
In an interview, Mr. Clyburn states the obvious and thus what the strategy has been all along for the Democrats. Invest in defeat in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror and that is good news for the Democrats. Winning in Iraq is bad news for the Democrats.
So, if General David Petraeus comes to Washington in mid-September and tells congress that the military mission in Iraq is vastly improved and that the surge should keep going for total success, what do the anti-war people do?
They will be rightfully exposed and that will, I believe, get the American people back to supporting that the troops leave Iraq with victory, not their tails between their legs as in the Vietnam era.
The war in the Iraq theatre or anywhere else should not be a partisan issue. Victory should be non-partisan.
But, Rep. Clyburn let the cat out of the bag and that is why we are in the position we are in today.
Let us hope that Gen. Petraeus comes back with good news and that the big problems come for the Democrats. That can only be good for America.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Democrats And Voter Fraud? NAH!
In today's Wall Street Journal http://opinonjournal.com, columnist John Fund has a fascinating column on voter fraud being perpetuated by Democrats throughout the United States and the in credulousness of the aforementioned Dems and their allies.
You see, for the past eight years the Democrat machines in many parts of the United States has been talking about voter fraud that was done by Republicans with the largest being, take your pick, Florida in the 2000 presidential election or Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.
In 2000, then Governor George W. Bush won Florida by 527 votes after the Democrats tried as they could to steal the election by forcing local election boards to count potential votes. Yet, the same Democrats saw nothing wrong with that. These are the same Democrats who tried to suppress the votes of military members serving abroad in both 2000 and 2004. The fact is, George W. Bush won Florida no matter how the Democrats tried to divine votes. A consortium of news groups, led by the old gray lady herself, the New York Times, concluded that Gov. Bush won Florida.
But, the Dems still do not believe that to this day. Dems still think that Florida was "stolen".
Let me say that if any group knows how to steal votes and or elections, it is the Democrat party. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mayor Daley in Chigago had not waken the dead to vote and Sen. Lyndon Johnson made up voters in Texas, Republican Richard M. Nixon and not Democrat John F. Kennedy would have won the 1960 presidential election.
But, somehow the Dems have perpetuated another myth. That the Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election in Ohio by a few tricks such as voter suppression and broken voting machines. Yes, the Republicans suppressed over 120,000 Ohio voters who would have voted for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass). Yet, too many people believe that.
Thus, when in the Mr. Fund column he cites cases of Democrat voter fraud, no one on that side wants to talk about it. In fact, Vermont Sen. Patrick Lehey says that there is no voter fraud problem. Boy, did he say that in 2000 and 2004 in regard to the Presidential election?
Read Mr. Fund's column, but note what Mr. Fund wrote in his book on election fraud.
Democrats need to win elections and need to be in power because many can not do anything else. It is essentially what they trained for. They know nothing else. Republicans usually do not have the same problem as so many come from the private sector and can always go back there.
So, Democrats will ignore blatant voter fraud to their benefit, but make up voter fraud when Republicans win elections because, yes the Democrats do believe this, people can not really vote for Republicans. But, the dead always vote Democrat
You see, for the past eight years the Democrat machines in many parts of the United States has been talking about voter fraud that was done by Republicans with the largest being, take your pick, Florida in the 2000 presidential election or Ohio in the 2004 presidential election.
In 2000, then Governor George W. Bush won Florida by 527 votes after the Democrats tried as they could to steal the election by forcing local election boards to count potential votes. Yet, the same Democrats saw nothing wrong with that. These are the same Democrats who tried to suppress the votes of military members serving abroad in both 2000 and 2004. The fact is, George W. Bush won Florida no matter how the Democrats tried to divine votes. A consortium of news groups, led by the old gray lady herself, the New York Times, concluded that Gov. Bush won Florida.
But, the Dems still do not believe that to this day. Dems still think that Florida was "stolen".
Let me say that if any group knows how to steal votes and or elections, it is the Democrat party. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mayor Daley in Chigago had not waken the dead to vote and Sen. Lyndon Johnson made up voters in Texas, Republican Richard M. Nixon and not Democrat John F. Kennedy would have won the 1960 presidential election.
But, somehow the Dems have perpetuated another myth. That the Republicans stole the 2004 presidential election in Ohio by a few tricks such as voter suppression and broken voting machines. Yes, the Republicans suppressed over 120,000 Ohio voters who would have voted for Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass). Yet, too many people believe that.
Thus, when in the Mr. Fund column he cites cases of Democrat voter fraud, no one on that side wants to talk about it. In fact, Vermont Sen. Patrick Lehey says that there is no voter fraud problem. Boy, did he say that in 2000 and 2004 in regard to the Presidential election?
Read Mr. Fund's column, but note what Mr. Fund wrote in his book on election fraud.
Democrats need to win elections and need to be in power because many can not do anything else. It is essentially what they trained for. They know nothing else. Republicans usually do not have the same problem as so many come from the private sector and can always go back there.
So, Democrats will ignore blatant voter fraud to their benefit, but make up voter fraud when Republicans win elections because, yes the Democrats do believe this, people can not really vote for Republicans. But, the dead always vote Democrat
Friday, July 27, 2007
What Is And Is Not Shown On Television
Today, two television helicopters crashed into each other while covering the end of a police chase in Phoenix. There is footage of the final moments already on the net http://drudgereport.com and http://breitbart.com. It is sad as the pilot has no idea of what was about to unfold.
I guarantee that this will be shown constantly. That is tragic. But, there is another tragedy.
That is, when is the last time that you saw footage from the events of 9/11?
The reason I bring it up is that it seems like everything else is fair game, including titillating footage on supposedly all news cable outlets (and that includes Fox News Channel.).
I think that because the so-called news channels and the big three networks never show the footage of the attacks, that is why Americans are not believing that we are fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so many unknown areas of the world.
Here is a trade off. Stop showing this kind of stuff and start reminding Americans what the events of 9/11 were. Maybe that will wake a slumbering nation!
I guarantee that this will be shown constantly. That is tragic. But, there is another tragedy.
That is, when is the last time that you saw footage from the events of 9/11?
The reason I bring it up is that it seems like everything else is fair game, including titillating footage on supposedly all news cable outlets (and that includes Fox News Channel.).
I think that because the so-called news channels and the big three networks never show the footage of the attacks, that is why Americans are not believing that we are fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and so many unknown areas of the world.
Here is a trade off. Stop showing this kind of stuff and start reminding Americans what the events of 9/11 were. Maybe that will wake a slumbering nation!
Can't Wait For The On Air Promos
***********WARNING! ***** WARNING! ***** WARNING! *********For those sensitive to vulgarity, please do not read the following!
It appears that the FCC missed this new name for a radio station http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/26/businiess/engle.html.
I for one do not believe that this made it this far. But, you can say this would get a lot of listeners just to hear the station announcements!
It appears that the FCC missed this new name for a radio station http://starbulletin.com/2007/07/26/businiess/engle.html.
I for one do not believe that this made it this far. But, you can say this would get a lot of listeners just to hear the station announcements!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
A Memo To The GOP
That is the title of a very important post by radio talker Hugh Hewitt today http://hughhewitt.com. There are two very important points I would like to give my take on.
Firstly, that the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees not waste money on candidates without a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I would refer anyone to the absolute waste of GOP cash trying to keep Lincoln Chafee's Rhode Island senate seat in the "GOP corner". I put that in quotes because Mr. Chafee was the least Republican elected official in either the house or senate. I suppose that someone has to be, but Mr. Chafee enjoyed tweaking the GOP leadership and, as they tried with former Sen Jim Jeffords of Vermont, they got burned. Also in Mr. Hewitt's post is that if necessary, yes the Republicans should get involved in primaries. The White House was very involved in the 2004 campaign of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) backing Mr. Specter to the hilt over conservative Republican congressman Pat Thoomey. We know who won that race and is still a sitting senator.
Secondly, and I think very important, is to get veterans from the Afghanistan and Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror to run, especially in congressional races. The Democrat brain trust was actually smart enough to recruit en masse veterans who were opposed to the war, especially in Iraq and that translated into votes and some wins for the Dems. Imagine veterans running in the Republican camp who were for the invasion of Iraq and winning primaries and being in the front lines of the political wars winning seats for the Republicans.
The memo of Mr. Hewitt's is because the Republican committees I wrote about earlier are way behind in money to the Democrats. The Dems are banking on their base being excited to possibly retain congress and take the White House. The Republicans just don't seem to care. But they and we should care.
The question I have for disgruntled Republicans of all stripes in the coalition is this.
Do you like what the Democrat control of congress hath wrought? In other words, all the doom and gloom that many predicted has happened. The investigation machine is on warped speed, trying to find anything to nail on President Bush and even Vice-President Cheney so as to impeach both and lead Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) to become president. If it is not the investigative machine, the continued blocking of federal judical appointments? And the constant seemingly weekly votes in both houses to wear down Republicans and set a pull out date in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror?
Pay attention to all of Mr. Hewitt's letter. It is a big way to victory for the GOP in 2008.
Firstly, that the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees not waste money on candidates without a snowball's chance in hell of winning. I would refer anyone to the absolute waste of GOP cash trying to keep Lincoln Chafee's Rhode Island senate seat in the "GOP corner". I put that in quotes because Mr. Chafee was the least Republican elected official in either the house or senate. I suppose that someone has to be, but Mr. Chafee enjoyed tweaking the GOP leadership and, as they tried with former Sen Jim Jeffords of Vermont, they got burned. Also in Mr. Hewitt's post is that if necessary, yes the Republicans should get involved in primaries. The White House was very involved in the 2004 campaign of Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) backing Mr. Specter to the hilt over conservative Republican congressman Pat Thoomey. We know who won that race and is still a sitting senator.
Secondly, and I think very important, is to get veterans from the Afghanistan and Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror to run, especially in congressional races. The Democrat brain trust was actually smart enough to recruit en masse veterans who were opposed to the war, especially in Iraq and that translated into votes and some wins for the Dems. Imagine veterans running in the Republican camp who were for the invasion of Iraq and winning primaries and being in the front lines of the political wars winning seats for the Republicans.
The memo of Mr. Hewitt's is because the Republican committees I wrote about earlier are way behind in money to the Democrats. The Dems are banking on their base being excited to possibly retain congress and take the White House. The Republicans just don't seem to care. But they and we should care.
The question I have for disgruntled Republicans of all stripes in the coalition is this.
Do you like what the Democrat control of congress hath wrought? In other words, all the doom and gloom that many predicted has happened. The investigation machine is on warped speed, trying to find anything to nail on President Bush and even Vice-President Cheney so as to impeach both and lead Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) to become president. If it is not the investigative machine, the continued blocking of federal judical appointments? And the constant seemingly weekly votes in both houses to wear down Republicans and set a pull out date in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror?
Pay attention to all of Mr. Hewitt's letter. It is a big way to victory for the GOP in 2008.
Obama, The Arrogant
It seems that Sen. Barrack Obama (D-Ill.) believes that he knows all about foreign policy and that he was so right about the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. Also, he will make Iraq, socialized medicine, and the usual Democrat claptrap his main priorities if he is elected president http://drudgereport.com.
I do not think that Sen. Obama has ANY foreign policy experience. I mean, this is his third year as a senator and before that he was a state legislature in Illionis. He criticizes those that have a vast reservoir of foreign policy experience including Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), who may be second least foreign policy experience in the Democrat field, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Sen John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) and my favorite second tier GOP candidate, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Cal.). Of course it is easy to criticize and offer nothing more than retreat in Iraq and to be willing with no conditions to meet the rouge gallery of dictators within the first year of his presidency.
It is just Sen. Obama's narcissistic, arrogant attitude that rubs me the wrong way. Instead of sounding like he wants to do the job of president for the American people, Sen. Obama wants you to think that he is Mr. Know-It-All and that he and he alone can solve all the problems of the nation and the world.
It may turn on the wackadoos in the left wing of the Democrat party, but the supposedly charismatic Sen. Obama may strike many Americans the wrong way. The way of, oh maybe someone like Sen. Clinton!
This arrogance is what I believe will drive voters away from the Democrats. It is why people have not voted for the Democrats in recent presidential and congressional elections. Yes, I know the Democrats regained congress in 2006, but chalk that up to frustration with an equally arrogant Republican congress. People want to hear a candidate that thinks and speaks like them. Dr. Frank Luntz, whose book about "Words That Work", points this out constantly and it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Lest you think that arrogance is only on the Democrat side. There is the infamous Sen. John "F--- You" McCain who showed extreme arrogance during the debate on the failed "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam.
It is as if these politicians continue to separate themselves from the American people and think that they are potentates or some kind of royalty.
But, Sen. Obama may take the cake in how he sees himself and that is when the American people in all of our wisdom give our check to that by, in Sen. Obama's case, not voting for him for president.
I do not think that Sen. Obama has ANY foreign policy experience. I mean, this is his third year as a senator and before that he was a state legislature in Illionis. He criticizes those that have a vast reservoir of foreign policy experience including Sen. Hilary Clinton (D-NY), who may be second least foreign policy experience in the Democrat field, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), Sen John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz) and my favorite second tier GOP candidate, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-Cal.). Of course it is easy to criticize and offer nothing more than retreat in Iraq and to be willing with no conditions to meet the rouge gallery of dictators within the first year of his presidency.
It is just Sen. Obama's narcissistic, arrogant attitude that rubs me the wrong way. Instead of sounding like he wants to do the job of president for the American people, Sen. Obama wants you to think that he is Mr. Know-It-All and that he and he alone can solve all the problems of the nation and the world.
It may turn on the wackadoos in the left wing of the Democrat party, but the supposedly charismatic Sen. Obama may strike many Americans the wrong way. The way of, oh maybe someone like Sen. Clinton!
This arrogance is what I believe will drive voters away from the Democrats. It is why people have not voted for the Democrats in recent presidential and congressional elections. Yes, I know the Democrats regained congress in 2006, but chalk that up to frustration with an equally arrogant Republican congress. People want to hear a candidate that thinks and speaks like them. Dr. Frank Luntz, whose book about "Words That Work", points this out constantly and it seems to fall on deaf ears.
Lest you think that arrogance is only on the Democrat side. There is the infamous Sen. John "F--- You" McCain who showed extreme arrogance during the debate on the failed "comprehensive immigration reform" bill-scam.
It is as if these politicians continue to separate themselves from the American people and think that they are potentates or some kind of royalty.
But, Sen. Obama may take the cake in how he sees himself and that is when the American people in all of our wisdom give our check to that by, in Sen. Obama's case, not voting for him for president.
Back From Canada
I am sorry that I have not been blogging the past several days, but I was off on a secret mission to Canada, Vancouver in fact. No, it was not really a secret mission but a wedding that Mrs. rightviewfromtheleftcoast and I attended.
Now I am back and, for once, no major catastrophe occurred but a lot of news, so away I go.
Now I am back and, for once, no major catastrophe occurred but a lot of news, so away I go.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The Dems Keep Losing
Today, the United States senate voted once again to end cloture on another meaningless resolution to get out of Iraq. Once again, the vote was 52-47 with the three GOP stooges, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska joining the Surrender Caucus. And, of course, Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted with the Victory Caucus and thus, the surrender first crowd fell eight votes short of ending cloture.
This, like everything else the congress has voted on regarding the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror is pointless. The Democrats are in control of congress and the purse strings. Thus, they can at any time cut off the fund to the troops in Iraq and end the war in a blink. So, why do they not go for broke and all out to cut the funding?
The answer is that they know they do not have anywhere near the votes that will withstand the certain veto of President Bush. They also do not have the guts to bring a fund cutoff to a vote because they will be seen as the cut and runners that they really are.
So, we are treated to these dog and pony shows, meaningless votes every so often to remind the American people that these principled Democrats are still trying to bring some Republicans along and vote for a staged withdrawal.
The congress that is now controlled by the Democrat party is at a lower polling than the Republican congress ever was in 12 years of control. The reason is simple. The Dems are obsessed with keeping Iraq on the front burner while doing nothing to really change things. The Dems believe that this will ride them to keep congress and their presidential candidate to the White House. Well, the polls seem to bear that out.
But while that goes on, do they not think that the American people are not going to catch on their cynical strategy? I think they already are and that the present polling numbers will turn around.
But, that is not what is the current situation is. The senate is going to try this again after the August recess. And that will be about the time that Gen. David Petraeus will deliver the all important report on progress in Iraq. That is when this may get serious.
This, like everything else the congress has voted on regarding the war in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror is pointless. The Democrats are in control of congress and the purse strings. Thus, they can at any time cut off the fund to the troops in Iraq and end the war in a blink. So, why do they not go for broke and all out to cut the funding?
The answer is that they know they do not have anywhere near the votes that will withstand the certain veto of President Bush. They also do not have the guts to bring a fund cutoff to a vote because they will be seen as the cut and runners that they really are.
So, we are treated to these dog and pony shows, meaningless votes every so often to remind the American people that these principled Democrats are still trying to bring some Republicans along and vote for a staged withdrawal.
The congress that is now controlled by the Democrat party is at a lower polling than the Republican congress ever was in 12 years of control. The reason is simple. The Dems are obsessed with keeping Iraq on the front burner while doing nothing to really change things. The Dems believe that this will ride them to keep congress and their presidential candidate to the White House. Well, the polls seem to bear that out.
But while that goes on, do they not think that the American people are not going to catch on their cynical strategy? I think they already are and that the present polling numbers will turn around.
But, that is not what is the current situation is. The senate is going to try this again after the August recess. And that will be about the time that Gen. David Petraeus will deliver the all important report on progress in Iraq. That is when this may get serious.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
I'll Take The GOP Top Tier Over The Dems Top Tier Anyday!
I, for one, do not get the Republican angst over the candidates running for the presidency. I think it is a very diverse field, not just politically but socially, and economically. The four leading Republican candidates for president can leap any day over the three top Democrat candidates.
So, I will take the candidates background and, as Fox News Channel says, we report, you decide.
For the Republicans.
Sen John "F--- You" McCain. Besides getting a nice profanity or two to supposed allies, the man is a patriot and great American. Entering the air force during the height of the Vietnam war, he was shot down and became a prisoner of war under the worst of conditions. After the war, he went into the private sector and ran for congress as a Republican from Arizona and later Senator. Sen. "F--- You" McCain has basically seen it all.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was a deputy attorney general during the first Reagan administration and later became United States attorney for New York. Then he left for a short stint in the private sector and ran for mayor of New York City. Lost the first time and then won two elections and was the mayor during that fateful day, 9/11/01. For the most part, Mr. Giuliani has been with the Justice department or mayor of New York City. A legal and political background.
Then there is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Very interesting background. Has both a legal and business degree from Harvard. Made a lot of money in the private sector, particularly with Bain Capital. A businessman who has had to actually meet payrolls. Mr. Romney took a stab at America's favorite alcoholic senator, Teddy Kennedy back in 1994. Mr. Romney has the distinction of giving Sen. Kennedy his closest reelection since he was first elected to the senate. Then, Mr. Romney became Mr. Fix it and saved the mismanaged Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from financial ruin. It was one of those America coming together moments as it was not long after the 9/11 attacks. After that, he ran for and became governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney is a successful businessman, fixer-upper and governor.
Most intriguing is former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Mr. Thompson is a pulling himself up by the bootstrap story of marrying his high school sweetheart and working his way through college and eventually law school. Then he became lead counsel for then Sen. Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings, where he got his start. Then, he hung up a shingle in Tennessee and became famous for bringing down a sitting governor. When Hollywood was making a movie about the exploits, they could not find the perfect Fred Thompson actor. So, Mr. Thompson said he would play himself and that became a successful career in film. In the Republican sweep of 1994, Mr. Thompson ran for the unexpired term of then Vice-President Al Gore and won in a landslide and subsequently reelection six years later. Upon retiring from the senate, Mr. Thompson merged the law and acting to become New York county district attorney Arthur Branch in the NBC hit series "Law And Order." Mr. Thompson has been in a little of everything and brings a real world experience to the campaign.
Now, for the Dems.
Front runner Sen. Hilary Clinton. Lets see, she served as first lady of Arkansas while Gov. Bill Clinton was in office. She was a partner in the highly controversial Rose Law Firm. Then Mrs. Clinton became first lady of the United States when Gov. Clinton was elected president in 1992. She wrote a highly controversial book on child rearing and parleyed her status to carpetbag a senate seat from New York state. Mrs. Clinton could have easily ran in Arkansas or her home state of Illinois. Now, she runs for president. She has no real accomplishments as a lawyer or a senator, but she is running on being a Clinton and a woman.
Sen. Barrack Obama from Illinois gets a lot of press because he is the first really serious black candidate for president. He did not live in a life of poverty but was rather privileged. Sen. Obama went to law school and was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a real major accomplishment. Sen. Obama then became a politician, first in the Illinois statehouse and then was elected to the senate in a landslide in 2004. Another lawyer and politician, not much in the real world.
Then there is former North Carolina senator John Edwards. At least Mr. Edwards did come from almost nothing to succeed and go to law school. But, upon becoming an attorney, he became what is commonly called an ambulance chaser. Mr. Edwards became wealthy by a percentage of huge lawsuits won by plaintiffs. Then, Mr. Edwards ran for and became senator from North Carolina in 1998. In a mystery, Sen. John Kerry chose then Sen. Edwards to be his vice-presidential candidate in 2004. Sen. Edwards did himself no favors and was seen by many on both sides of the aisle as an empty suit. And, of course, this could not stop Mr. Edwards from thinking he should be president. Another lawyer and politician.
Here is what separates the GOP from the Dems. Three of the four top tier candidates have had a career out of politics. Thus, they do have a better pulse on what people are thinking than career politicians that surround themselves with yes people and never really know what people are thinking. Also, there is more diversity in the GOP field with social moderate Mr. Giuliani, businessman Mr. Romney and actor Mr. Thompson. The Dems give us three lawyers and or career politicians.
I, for one, think that the GOP field is a good one and I have already mounted my saddle on the Romney horse. I think that when the dust settles, the American people will like either Mr. Romney or if it is another GOPer as the nominee, and the gap will close and this will be another close election.
So, I will take the candidates background and, as Fox News Channel says, we report, you decide.
For the Republicans.
Sen John "F--- You" McCain. Besides getting a nice profanity or two to supposed allies, the man is a patriot and great American. Entering the air force during the height of the Vietnam war, he was shot down and became a prisoner of war under the worst of conditions. After the war, he went into the private sector and ran for congress as a Republican from Arizona and later Senator. Sen. "F--- You" McCain has basically seen it all.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani was a deputy attorney general during the first Reagan administration and later became United States attorney for New York. Then he left for a short stint in the private sector and ran for mayor of New York City. Lost the first time and then won two elections and was the mayor during that fateful day, 9/11/01. For the most part, Mr. Giuliani has been with the Justice department or mayor of New York City. A legal and political background.
Then there is former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. Very interesting background. Has both a legal and business degree from Harvard. Made a lot of money in the private sector, particularly with Bain Capital. A businessman who has had to actually meet payrolls. Mr. Romney took a stab at America's favorite alcoholic senator, Teddy Kennedy back in 1994. Mr. Romney has the distinction of giving Sen. Kennedy his closest reelection since he was first elected to the senate. Then, Mr. Romney became Mr. Fix it and saved the mismanaged Salt Lake City Winter Olympics from financial ruin. It was one of those America coming together moments as it was not long after the 9/11 attacks. After that, he ran for and became governor of Massachusetts. Mr. Romney is a successful businessman, fixer-upper and governor.
Most intriguing is former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson. Mr. Thompson is a pulling himself up by the bootstrap story of marrying his high school sweetheart and working his way through college and eventually law school. Then he became lead counsel for then Sen. Howard Baker during the Watergate hearings, where he got his start. Then, he hung up a shingle in Tennessee and became famous for bringing down a sitting governor. When Hollywood was making a movie about the exploits, they could not find the perfect Fred Thompson actor. So, Mr. Thompson said he would play himself and that became a successful career in film. In the Republican sweep of 1994, Mr. Thompson ran for the unexpired term of then Vice-President Al Gore and won in a landslide and subsequently reelection six years later. Upon retiring from the senate, Mr. Thompson merged the law and acting to become New York county district attorney Arthur Branch in the NBC hit series "Law And Order." Mr. Thompson has been in a little of everything and brings a real world experience to the campaign.
Now, for the Dems.
Front runner Sen. Hilary Clinton. Lets see, she served as first lady of Arkansas while Gov. Bill Clinton was in office. She was a partner in the highly controversial Rose Law Firm. Then Mrs. Clinton became first lady of the United States when Gov. Clinton was elected president in 1992. She wrote a highly controversial book on child rearing and parleyed her status to carpetbag a senate seat from New York state. Mrs. Clinton could have easily ran in Arkansas or her home state of Illinois. Now, she runs for president. She has no real accomplishments as a lawyer or a senator, but she is running on being a Clinton and a woman.
Sen. Barrack Obama from Illinois gets a lot of press because he is the first really serious black candidate for president. He did not live in a life of poverty but was rather privileged. Sen. Obama went to law school and was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, a real major accomplishment. Sen. Obama then became a politician, first in the Illinois statehouse and then was elected to the senate in a landslide in 2004. Another lawyer and politician, not much in the real world.
Then there is former North Carolina senator John Edwards. At least Mr. Edwards did come from almost nothing to succeed and go to law school. But, upon becoming an attorney, he became what is commonly called an ambulance chaser. Mr. Edwards became wealthy by a percentage of huge lawsuits won by plaintiffs. Then, Mr. Edwards ran for and became senator from North Carolina in 1998. In a mystery, Sen. John Kerry chose then Sen. Edwards to be his vice-presidential candidate in 2004. Sen. Edwards did himself no favors and was seen by many on both sides of the aisle as an empty suit. And, of course, this could not stop Mr. Edwards from thinking he should be president. Another lawyer and politician.
Here is what separates the GOP from the Dems. Three of the four top tier candidates have had a career out of politics. Thus, they do have a better pulse on what people are thinking than career politicians that surround themselves with yes people and never really know what people are thinking. Also, there is more diversity in the GOP field with social moderate Mr. Giuliani, businessman Mr. Romney and actor Mr. Thompson. The Dems give us three lawyers and or career politicians.
I, for one, think that the GOP field is a good one and I have already mounted my saddle on the Romney horse. I think that when the dust settles, the American people will like either Mr. Romney or if it is another GOPer as the nominee, and the gap will close and this will be another close election.
JetBlue and Daily Kos-A New Partnership
It appears that JetBlue airlines is sponsoring the Daily Kos convention of the Nutroots. Nothing all that wrong on the surface. Except that JetBlue is the only sponsor of the convention of lefty bloggers. So, why the fuss.
As Dean Barnett http://hughhewitt.com points out that JetBlue is not a Democrat or liberal airline. Thus, will they sponsor a convention of righty bloggers?
No one knows because when a producer for the O'Reily Factor http://FoxNews.com confronted the new CEO of JetBlue in a recent episode of the Factor.
Here is why this is a story.
When an airline flown by many Americans and non-Americans openly supports a fringe group not just in political money but a sponsorship, it makes those who do not support the views on the Daily Kos wonder what are the values and views of the airline that they choose to fly on? If JetBlue sponsors the convention of some of the most vile bloggers, does JetBlue think those views are a-ok?
Here is another problem, the new CEO should not avoid answering pointed questions. By doing that, it keeps a potential non-story going.
As they say at Fox News Channel, I report, you decide. But I will not cloud your judgement except to say I will think twice before ever flying on JetBlue.
As Dean Barnett http://hughhewitt.com points out that JetBlue is not a Democrat or liberal airline. Thus, will they sponsor a convention of righty bloggers?
No one knows because when a producer for the O'Reily Factor http://FoxNews.com confronted the new CEO of JetBlue in a recent episode of the Factor.
Here is why this is a story.
When an airline flown by many Americans and non-Americans openly supports a fringe group not just in political money but a sponsorship, it makes those who do not support the views on the Daily Kos wonder what are the values and views of the airline that they choose to fly on? If JetBlue sponsors the convention of some of the most vile bloggers, does JetBlue think those views are a-ok?
Here is another problem, the new CEO should not avoid answering pointed questions. By doing that, it keeps a potential non-story going.
As they say at Fox News Channel, I report, you decide. But I will not cloud your judgement except to say I will think twice before ever flying on JetBlue.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Graham Vs. Webb. And The Winner Is. . .
Yesterday on the premier Washington, inside the beltway, gasbag show, Meet The Press, Tim Russert, former aide to New York Democrat Gov. Mario Cuomo, had Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) and Sen. James Webb (D-Vir) and the fireworks exploded over the situation in the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror http://realclearpolitics.com.
While both men were trying to stick to their talking points, passion took over. While Sen. Webb was trying to act as if he knows the feelings of boots-on-the-ground soldiers in Iraq, which he is basing on polling done by the New York Times, Sen. Graham asked a simple, devastating question. "Have you been to Iraq, Sen. Webb?" Sen. Webb was grandstanding and Sen. Graham asked several more times and Sen. Webb even said that Sen. Graham had never been to Iraq either. WRONG! Sen. Graham answered Sen. Webb "I have been there seven times." Seven to none. A shutout. And, Sen Webb is the Democrat big military expert who beat former Sen. George Allen. And, he has not been to Iraq once.
I think that Sen. Webb does not want to look the soldiers in the eyes and tell them with false bravado that they are wasting their time in Iraq. Sen. Webb knows that he maybe in for a good ol' fashioned butt kicking.
The winner with one devastating question is Sen. Lindsay Graham.
The loser is a bitter troll, Sen. James Webb.
While Sen. Webb's son is or has been to Iraq, and since he has been elected a United States senator, I find it odd that he would not want to get a first hand account by seeing his son in the field of battle. Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com has a lot of points on that score that are correct.
One thing that should be noted. Sen. Webb was a Republican and he was not happy with President Bush or former Sen. Allen because they did not listen to what he had to write and say about the Iraq front on the War Against Terror. Sen. Webb got angry. But being a coward rather than really doing a political fight, Sen. Webb became a Democrat. Because Sen. Webb knew that he could not beat Sen. Allen in a Republican primary with his position on Iraq. Suddenly, with public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, then Mr. Webb announced that he was going to run in the Democrat primary in 2006. In shady campaigning, Mr. Webb defeated a longtime state senator and set his sights on Sen. Allen. And, as a guerrilla fighter he did eventually best Sen. Allen.
Well, here is something for Sen. Webb to chew on.
George W. Bush in 2009 will not be president at this time. Sen. Webb, your whole campaign was essentially about the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. More than likely, many troops will be home and, God willing, Iraq is on the road to becoming a stable, democratic nation. Then, Sen. Webb, what will your angry act be?
I respect the fact that Sen. Webb and his family have had a strong military sense of honor. I did and still think highly of the book "Born Fighting", which was a definitive tome on the Scots-Irish influence in the United States. But, Sen. Webb, you are a coward when it comes to Iraq. You will not go there to see first hand what the situation is. If you don't like the "Dog and pony show", ask to go out of the Green Zone into the field. Then if your position is still the same, I may not agree but will have a little more respect for you. And another thing, Sen. Webb. I would not quote an alleged poll of military people and the source is the New York Times. There should not be polling of soldiers in war time, and we are in a war. And, even taking the poll at face value, no armed forces can conduct a war based on any polling data. You could not be an officer and thus lead on polling only. That is not a leader, that is a bureaucrat at best, coward at worst.
But, as far as who won yesterday's showdown on Meet The Press, it was Sen. Lindsay Graham. Oh, and Sen. Graham is a reserve military officer, not some "chicken hawk."
While both men were trying to stick to their talking points, passion took over. While Sen. Webb was trying to act as if he knows the feelings of boots-on-the-ground soldiers in Iraq, which he is basing on polling done by the New York Times, Sen. Graham asked a simple, devastating question. "Have you been to Iraq, Sen. Webb?" Sen. Webb was grandstanding and Sen. Graham asked several more times and Sen. Webb even said that Sen. Graham had never been to Iraq either. WRONG! Sen. Graham answered Sen. Webb "I have been there seven times." Seven to none. A shutout. And, Sen Webb is the Democrat big military expert who beat former Sen. George Allen. And, he has not been to Iraq once.
I think that Sen. Webb does not want to look the soldiers in the eyes and tell them with false bravado that they are wasting their time in Iraq. Sen. Webb knows that he maybe in for a good ol' fashioned butt kicking.
The winner with one devastating question is Sen. Lindsay Graham.
The loser is a bitter troll, Sen. James Webb.
While Sen. Webb's son is or has been to Iraq, and since he has been elected a United States senator, I find it odd that he would not want to get a first hand account by seeing his son in the field of battle. Rush Limbaugh http://rushlimbaugh.com has a lot of points on that score that are correct.
One thing that should be noted. Sen. Webb was a Republican and he was not happy with President Bush or former Sen. Allen because they did not listen to what he had to write and say about the Iraq front on the War Against Terror. Sen. Webb got angry. But being a coward rather than really doing a political fight, Sen. Webb became a Democrat. Because Sen. Webb knew that he could not beat Sen. Allen in a Republican primary with his position on Iraq. Suddenly, with public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, then Mr. Webb announced that he was going to run in the Democrat primary in 2006. In shady campaigning, Mr. Webb defeated a longtime state senator and set his sights on Sen. Allen. And, as a guerrilla fighter he did eventually best Sen. Allen.
Well, here is something for Sen. Webb to chew on.
George W. Bush in 2009 will not be president at this time. Sen. Webb, your whole campaign was essentially about the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. More than likely, many troops will be home and, God willing, Iraq is on the road to becoming a stable, democratic nation. Then, Sen. Webb, what will your angry act be?
I respect the fact that Sen. Webb and his family have had a strong military sense of honor. I did and still think highly of the book "Born Fighting", which was a definitive tome on the Scots-Irish influence in the United States. But, Sen. Webb, you are a coward when it comes to Iraq. You will not go there to see first hand what the situation is. If you don't like the "Dog and pony show", ask to go out of the Green Zone into the field. Then if your position is still the same, I may not agree but will have a little more respect for you. And another thing, Sen. Webb. I would not quote an alleged poll of military people and the source is the New York Times. There should not be polling of soldiers in war time, and we are in a war. And, even taking the poll at face value, no armed forces can conduct a war based on any polling data. You could not be an officer and thus lead on polling only. That is not a leader, that is a bureaucrat at best, coward at worst.
But, as far as who won yesterday's showdown on Meet The Press, it was Sen. Lindsay Graham. Oh, and Sen. Graham is a reserve military officer, not some "chicken hawk."
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Yasser Arafat DID Die From AIDS
A not overly shocking revelation has now been confirmed. Yasser Arafat, hero of the Palestinian movement and one of the most evil terrorists of all time did, in fact, die from AIDS http://littlegreenfootballs.com/.
I, for one, am not shocked that this is finally being revealed. I mean the French medical report was suppresed and it was very sugar coated indeed. It was a dirty little secret that Yasser Arafat was a sexual pervert. And that nothing was off limits.
It is good that the Palestinian people are told the truth. Their God has been exposed as the charlatan that he was. While the Palestinian people were suffering, he was getting rich. When the Fatah movement was corrupted, Mr. Arafat did not care. For a terrorist thug that he was, he left this world a very rich man while he robbed nations blind that bought his sob stories about the plight of "his people". The truth is, he and those who have used the Palestinain cause have caused the plight.
As a Christian, I do not wish harm on people as a rule, but I will end with this. If there is a hell, as I believe there is, Yasser Arafat is leading the Devil's Brigade.
I, for one, am not shocked that this is finally being revealed. I mean the French medical report was suppresed and it was very sugar coated indeed. It was a dirty little secret that Yasser Arafat was a sexual pervert. And that nothing was off limits.
It is good that the Palestinian people are told the truth. Their God has been exposed as the charlatan that he was. While the Palestinian people were suffering, he was getting rich. When the Fatah movement was corrupted, Mr. Arafat did not care. For a terrorist thug that he was, he left this world a very rich man while he robbed nations blind that bought his sob stories about the plight of "his people". The truth is, he and those who have used the Palestinain cause have caused the plight.
As a Christian, I do not wish harm on people as a rule, but I will end with this. If there is a hell, as I believe there is, Yasser Arafat is leading the Devil's Brigade.
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Barbara Boxer, California's Embarrassing Junior Senator
Being from California to many Americans is bad enough. But to have Barbara Boxer "representing" me and my fellow Californians is an outright embarrassment and today's latest shot across the bow regarding potential impeachment of President Bush solidifies that claim to fame.
Sen. Boxer was on liberal radio talk show, the one success, Ed Schultz when she blathered on that "impeachment should not be off the table." Not off the table? It shouldn't even be under the table.
Whenever anyone talks impeachment, we should always ask for what reason. Well, Sen. Boxer laid out a list of them http://drudgereport.com, but none of her citations has been proven to be against the constitution and or rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
But, 300 separate investigations are an attempt to find a smoking gun. While Democrats like Sen. Boxer feel that is a worthwhile time that congress should be spending, nothing of real substance is getting done. And while in a half-joking way I thought that was good, it is not good to see congress going down this road. And leading the misfits is Sen. Boxer.
To say that Sen. Boxer is a liberal is like saying the Pope is German. She is to the left of almost everyone in the United States senate. She is the street fighter compared to the senior senator from the Golden State, Diane Feinstein. Sen Feinstein is one that I strongly disagree with, but unlike Sen. Boxer, Sen. Feinstein is not disagreeable.
The fact that a senator, with no proof of any deliberate wrongdoing on the part of President Bush or any one in the administration, says that impeachment should be out there like a Damocles sword shows that she does not realize that the whole reason for impeachment is not to be on a political witch hunt.
So, why did I FAVOR impeachment of former President Clinton? Because he did violate the law. Not in having relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, but in lying about it under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. If a president is willing to so easily lie to cover him or herself from charges of sexual harassment, then the course of action that congress took had to happen. Never mind that the reason it was all found out was because of the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, investigating the matter under the Whitewater investigation. It was the special prosecutor law that the Democrats fought for in the wake of the Watergate scandal. But, when it was turned against their own, President Clinton, Democrats joined Republicans in scrapping the law, which was unnecessary to begin with. It was an overreaction to Watergate.
I am sorry to digress, but a little history was needed.
If this congress had some legislative accomplishments, maybe all their poking and prodding can be somewhat overlooked. But, it is the investigations, subpoenas, and the time being wasted that makes this Democrat congress a travesty. So, leave it to Sen. Boxer to be the ringmaster of this circus.
If people like Sen. Boxer and her gang want to continue to turn more people off from politics and the process, by all means keep this up. For Sen. Boxer, et al, it is all about getting even. Too bad there are 300 million other people that would like to see Sen. Boxer and the gang actually to some real work. That would get in the way of trying to oust President Bush.
I apologize to the rest of the United States that the good people of California keep sending this embarrassment back to Washington, D. C. every six years. Maybe next time. . .
Sen. Boxer was on liberal radio talk show, the one success, Ed Schultz when she blathered on that "impeachment should not be off the table." Not off the table? It shouldn't even be under the table.
Whenever anyone talks impeachment, we should always ask for what reason. Well, Sen. Boxer laid out a list of them http://drudgereport.com, but none of her citations has been proven to be against the constitution and or rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors.
But, 300 separate investigations are an attempt to find a smoking gun. While Democrats like Sen. Boxer feel that is a worthwhile time that congress should be spending, nothing of real substance is getting done. And while in a half-joking way I thought that was good, it is not good to see congress going down this road. And leading the misfits is Sen. Boxer.
To say that Sen. Boxer is a liberal is like saying the Pope is German. She is to the left of almost everyone in the United States senate. She is the street fighter compared to the senior senator from the Golden State, Diane Feinstein. Sen Feinstein is one that I strongly disagree with, but unlike Sen. Boxer, Sen. Feinstein is not disagreeable.
The fact that a senator, with no proof of any deliberate wrongdoing on the part of President Bush or any one in the administration, says that impeachment should be out there like a Damocles sword shows that she does not realize that the whole reason for impeachment is not to be on a political witch hunt.
So, why did I FAVOR impeachment of former President Clinton? Because he did violate the law. Not in having relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky, but in lying about it under oath in a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. If a president is willing to so easily lie to cover him or herself from charges of sexual harassment, then the course of action that congress took had to happen. Never mind that the reason it was all found out was because of the special prosecutor, Kenneth Starr, investigating the matter under the Whitewater investigation. It was the special prosecutor law that the Democrats fought for in the wake of the Watergate scandal. But, when it was turned against their own, President Clinton, Democrats joined Republicans in scrapping the law, which was unnecessary to begin with. It was an overreaction to Watergate.
I am sorry to digress, but a little history was needed.
If this congress had some legislative accomplishments, maybe all their poking and prodding can be somewhat overlooked. But, it is the investigations, subpoenas, and the time being wasted that makes this Democrat congress a travesty. So, leave it to Sen. Boxer to be the ringmaster of this circus.
If people like Sen. Boxer and her gang want to continue to turn more people off from politics and the process, by all means keep this up. For Sen. Boxer, et al, it is all about getting even. Too bad there are 300 million other people that would like to see Sen. Boxer and the gang actually to some real work. That would get in the way of trying to oust President Bush.
I apologize to the rest of the United States that the good people of California keep sending this embarrassment back to Washington, D. C. every six years. Maybe next time. . .
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Democrat Congres Less Popular Than President-Time For A Change Of Direction!
In another beautiful piece of logic, go to Rush Limbaugh's website http://rushlimbaugh.com for how he sees the Democrat congress.
All I can say is that if the Democrat "logic" on the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror were applied to them, forget it! The Republicans would be back in charge of congress and on a "new direction."
Somehow, I do not think that will happen until 2008.
All I can say is that if the Democrat "logic" on the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror were applied to them, forget it! The Republicans would be back in charge of congress and on a "new direction."
Somehow, I do not think that will happen until 2008.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)