Not The Way To Victory

Hugh Hewitt (www.hguhhewiit.com) had a very revealing interview with retired Lt. Gen William Odom. Let us just say two things. He is not a fan of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. Also, he is very dismissive of history. Go over to the Hugh Hewitt website and read the transcript of the interview. All I can say is thank God he is retired!

Obama Announces...YAWN!

So, the new Great Democrat Hope, Barack Obama has made it official, he is running for the Democrat nomination for president.
What a yawn!
Obama, besides being "multicultural" as in black and white, is as to the left of the nation as any other Democrat in the field of announced and semi-announced candidates.
What will give him any edge is that he is, as Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del) put it so subtly, a "clean" and "articulate" black candidate, why the first in the Democrat party. I guess we should not count the Reverends Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. I wouldn't either if I was a Democrat!
But more than that, where the the first term senator stand on the issues?
He does get an "A" for consistency as he has streadfastly been against the Iraq theatre in the War Against Terror. We do not know if he takes the fallback, Hillary Clinton position of wanting to put more United States troops in Afghanistan for any reason but to show NOT a total withdrawal from the War Against Terror.
On taxes, he wants to repeal the Bush tax cuts.
On health care, he would fast track the United States into socialist medicine.
On the social issues, he is pro abortion and we are not sure his stand on same sex "marriage". But, he does belong to the most liberal Christian Protestant denomination, the United Church of Christ, which performs same sex "marriage".
Basically, he is to the left of most Americans. He makes Hillary look positively like a moderate.
He will only be able to use the "African American" aspect of his candidacy for so long. Eventually, even the Democrat left wing will want to know how he will govern.
They may be happy, but the rest of America will not and whether or not he wins the Democrat nomination, he, nor any Democrat will be elected president in 2008.

The Border Agent Fiasco

The recent case of two border control agents convicted for shooting and illegal alien and drug runner fleeing back to Mexico is a complex and convoluded case that shows our southern border to be nothing but a mess that the clowns in Washington do not want to seem to solve.
The agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, were convicted on Decmeber 1, 2006, for trying to detain a suspected Illegal, Osvaldo Aldrete Davila. He fled and had marijuana in his possesion. Essentially, the two agents were convicted for a bad shoot, going into Mexico to get him and trying to cover it up.
There are a lot of flaws in how the agents were convicted.
It has become a cause celebre for the Pat Buchanan shut the borders down crowd.
But, those of us who want legitimate border control, which includes a fence, major increases in the border patrol and utilizing the National Guard much more than being done now, are realizing that something is not right.
What needs to be done?
A) Get to the bottom of the Homeland Security agent in charge who testified before congress as to why he lied before them. FInd out if the subordanates gave false information.
B) Expedite the trial transcript. Once there is a complete reading of the trial transcript, one of two conclusions be drawn. Everything that the prosucution presented was acurate and the agents were given a fair trial. Or there was faulty evidence and the agents have grounds for an appeal.
C) Make sure that the agents are NOT in the general prison population. Agent Ramos was severely beaten by, you gussed it, illegal alliens in the fedreal prison system. The agents must be protected while they are in prison and pending appeal of the conviction.
The president CAN pardon the agents and end this potential debacle. He can do it in good faith to negotiate real immigration reform. It is a long shot, but something has to be done to put this issue to rest.

Intelligence

Just a question.
Why do the Democrats point to latest National Intelligence Estimate concerning the situation in Iraq, but now say that it was wrong and they were "mislead" into voting for war in Iraq?
For political reasons, as almost anythings with the Democrats, they will say "See what the intelligence says now" But they were so quick when things have not looked so good in Iraq to bash intelligence. What makes them think that this is any better? Maybe it is wrong and the situation will vastly improve in Iraq.
Remember those that wanted to teach the GOP a lesson and we have the Democrats. We get this illgical leap and have a lot to look forward in this regard for the next two years.

Stop Taking Conservatives For Granted

To those who think that we who have signed the pledge NOT to give any money to any GOP senator who votes for any resolution that opposes President Bush's increase of troops in Iraq, it is just one more case of establishment GOPer's taking the conservative, dominent wing of the party for granted.
They like our money to get them elected or reelected, but ingore the issues that matters most when it comes time to take lesgistative action. In fact, they mock us as not really understanding how things really work. It is really sickening how this plays out when the Republican party is NOT in the majority in the House or Senate.
The mulitude of resolutions that are floating around the Senate almost all oppose the troop buildup in Iraq. Sen. John Warner (R-Virginia) is leading a "less strongly" worded disaproval. He says that it is either too late or will not help. How does he know? Is he clairvoient? And, what if the situation does improve in say six months? By not even giving the increase a chance, he has indicated he is giving up. So is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), Sen Brownback (R-Kansas), Sens Snowe & Collins (R-Maine).
Yes, there have been mistakes made. Now we do have a chance to rectify it and should do everything we can to win as the president says.
The above mentioned Senators are part of the problem. They will say that we who support the president's plan are not realistic. They look at polls and can not stand on principle. Look at Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). She cravenly said over the weekend in Iowa that she did not vote to give President Bush the use of force in Iraq and that he "misused" it and if she knew what she knows now, she would have not voted for the war. Wonderful; standing by what you believe, or don't believe.
To those lacking backbone, please develop one. Stop looking at polls now. They are not a real indication of what will be next year when the situation will be different.
You who voted for the war, and you did vote for a war, stand by the vote and stand by the president. Stop worrying about YOUR political future. You will not get the support of the people you need to win reeelction, conservatives. Either you believe we will win or you want us to lose. There is no in between. No deal to cut.

Sign The Pledge!

Sorry, I have had some computer issues and not been able to blog.
But, the capitulation of the Republican leadership to allow the Biden Resolution to come to a vote without a serious fight is undermining the war effort in Iraq. If you do not believe me, General Petraeus, who was confirmed today by an 81-0 vote of the senate, says it will.
It is nothing more than the I-hate-George W. Bush crowd to stick it to him. Of course, this is a meaningless resolution because it is just a sense of the senate resolution, no legal binding. But, while the Bush haters go after the president, they are using American soldiers for their cheap political stunt.
Please, go to www.truthlaidbear.com and show the senate Republican leadership that you mean business. Sign the pledge that Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) that WE will not support their cave in and to stop using us when it comes to election time and OUR cash and not even stand up to cheap-shot Democratic senators.

Someone Needs To Defend Dennis Prager

Poor Dennis Prager! He is making one of the most salient points about the evils of multiculturalism in the United States and no one, not even the most conservative out there seems to be defending him when he is right. Well, I will
This is in reference to a column he wrote (www.pragerradio.com) in reference to the newly elected Keith Ellison, congressman from Minnesota, and that he will be taking the oath of office on the Koran rather than the Holy Bible. Prager had the nerve, the nerve I tell you, to suggest that he not take the oath on the Koran but instead on the Holy Bible as have every other congressman, Christian or not, has done in the previous 230 years of America.
Well, after that firestorm, Mr. Prager amended that to let Mr. Ellison take the oath on the Koran and the Holy Bible. Still, no one has looked at this as multiculturalism and multireligiousity gone amok.
But look, no one is saying that Mr. Ellison can not practice Islam, but what Islam supports and runs counter to is the Sharia law, based in part on the Koran. Not to go into the history of the Sharia, but lets just say it is alive and well in Saudi Arabia.
Like it or not, our founding was based in the strong belief of many of the founding fathers in the Christian belief that all comes from God, including law. That is something Mr. Ellison and most Christians can in fact agree on. So, why the resistance and intransigence by Mr. Ellison and the CAIR crowd? Because it would put Islam as equal with Christianity and thus one does not really know if when the United States constitution conflicts with Shari, where will Mr. Ellison's loyalties lie? How will he vote? No answer on that because no one wants to bring up those points.
I say that Mr. Ellison should take the oath with both the Koran and the Holy Bible as a recognition that the Holy Bible is the basis for law and order and that the Koran is the holy book of the God he worships. That is what Mr. Prager has come to.
Rather than to out and out lie as the opponents of Mr. Prager do by saying that he said in his column that this would lead to a neo-Nazi wanting to do the oath on Mein Kampf, read the column.
I think we should have a reasonable debate on this issue, but I also think that Mr. Ellison should be thankful that this is happening here, not in the land of Islam.

Yesterday, the Iraq Study Group report came to fruition and was formally presented to President Bush and congress, who set up this abomination in the first place. All I can say is what a big yawn.
This is what we waited for? To suck up to Iran and Syria with nothing in our hip pocket? To seriously consider the Palestinians "right of return", which will wipe out the State of Israel?
Firstly, let me be blunt. I don't trust anything James Baker is involved in. Ever since he was in charge of prepping then President Ronald Reagan in the first debate with Democrat Walter Mondale in 1984, which was a disaster, there has been less to trust. And, I will say it, he is an anti-Semite. The infamous line, "F--- the Jews, they didn't vote for us anyway." says it all.
Then look at the rest of the panel, an average age of 67. Sixty-seven?! Where is someone who has been post cold war? Of course, for different reasons, one can not trust a panel that former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Indiana).
The prescription that this "Study Group" is for retreat and defeat. That simple.
fortunately, President Bush is not saying "Gee, thanks I will do all 79 recommendations today!" No, Mr. Bush is saying he will wait until the more serious Pentagon report comes out. Also, the administration immediately dismissed direct talks with Iran and Syria.
At least when then President Reagan finally talked seriously with the Soviet Union, he was holding all the good cards in the deck. What do we have now to even seriously think about conversing with Iran and Syria? Nothing.
The bottom line, Mr. Bush should have said, "Thank you very much for all your hard work, considering when you were in Iraq, only one of you got out of the Green Zone. I will read and consider what you have recommended." Then, he should have thrown it in the trash can.

Newt Hits It Out Of The Park!

Newt Gingrich gets it right what went wrong in last weeks midterm elections (www.humaneventsonline.com).
In his piece, he says it like it is. Conservatism did not lose but the Republican party lost its way. He offers the Reagan prescription, not the give in to the Democrats, "bipartisanship" formula for certain disaster for the Republican party.
Boldness, not cowardice, will bring the Republicans back to control not only the congress but the White House in 2008.

Give Me A Conservative GOPer Over A Moderate Anytime

The recent midterm election is instructive in how different media likes to spin it.
For instance, many of the Republicans who lost in the house were moderates, to the left of President Bush and rank-and-file Republican voters. My theory is that in a marginal district, given the choice between a moderate Republican and a Democrat, the Democrat will win. Why would those voters want watered-down Democrat lite when they can have the real thing?
But because California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger won reelection in convincing manner, many tout him as a future for the GOP. NOT!
Why you may ask?
During the last weekend of the campaign, his reelection all but assured, he did not campaign for fellow Republicans down ticket. Instead, he campaigned for five bond measures to "rebuild" California. They were assured of passing and all did by varying percentages.
But, there were other candidates like Lt. Governor candidate Tom McClintock that could have used some face time with Gov. Arnold. After all, McClintock made nice with Gov. Arnold and staved off a conservative revolt. The thanks he got was like all other Republican candidates was get to the back of the Arnold bus. By the way, McClintock lost by only two percent.
To build a party, you must all be together, after all, it is a coalition. When personalities get in the way, as it has with Gov. Arnold, then what could have been is that-what could have been.
Take New York state. Gov. George Pataki ran 12 years ago as a conservative and party builder. Since then he built a cult of personality and decimated the Republican party in New York. The only candidate to get 40 percent or more of the vote in the last election was the candidate for Controller-he still lost.
The worst case is the money that the NRSC spent on Sen. Lincoln Chafee to try to get this least Republican reelected in Rhode Island. Now, he is still holding up a vote on UN ambassador John Bolton. And to top it off, he is thinking of leaving the Republican party. That is the thanks we get supporting a moderate.
Here is a clue about those who are moderates. It is not all about you. It is about building up a party with some different elements. Some may not be social conservatives and that is ok. Some may not be fiscal hawks and that is ok. All should at the very least believe in the core of the party values.
But, alas, these days the moderates, driven by the DBDMSM are convinced that they are the saviors of today's Republican party. We won the White House in 1980 with conservative Ronald Reagan. We won the complete control of congress in 1994 overwhelmingly with conservatives. It is conservatives that always seem to have to help the moderates, never the other way around.
Moderates in the Republican party today seem to only be looking out for number one-themselves. Conservatives look for the whole party, including moderates.
For the above reason, I'll always take a conservative over a moderate GOPer any day!

The GOP Leadership Battle

I recommend that if you have questions for the candidates for the Republican leadership to the house of representatives, check out TruthLaidBear (www.truthlaidbear.com).
My question is, will they realize that raw power does not matter if you tolerate the corruption that was rightfully exposed in the 1990's?
It appears that maybe the case if they elect John Boehner (R-Ohio) as minority leader. I think that would be perfect irony. I mean, why did Ken Blackwell lose his bid for governor? Mike De Wine reelection to the senate? Because the Ohio GOP was so corrupt that the governor, Bob Taft, had to plead no contest in court. No, Mike Pence (R-Indiana) is the right choice. New face, committed Reagan conservative. One who will hold the Democrats accountable.
And why would Republicans elect Roy Blunt as minority whip? He is a huge part of the problem. He still does not get that the "earmarks" that went up from 1,500 to 15,000 is part of the problem. John Shadegg (R-Arizona) is a much better choice.
I say ask the questions. What they need to know before the leadership elections on Wednesday is where the grassroots stand on major issues and and they perceive the election loss of congress. I mean, some governorships are easy to explain and are not potentially as long term as congress.
What the Republican party needs to do is twofold. Reinjuvenate the conservative coalition. It does not help when just before the election, former house majority leader Dick Armey is blaming conservative Christians. Nor for now DBDMSM author David Kuo to blame White House insiders for disrespecting conservative Christians and not being enthusiastic about President Bush's faith-based initiative. Stop the finger pointing. We are all conservatives and, if we respect each other will have a fair hearing and up and down votes on issues that concern both, which is the vast majority of issues.
After that, have new leadership that remembers what the Republican party is all about. It is the real reform party. We don't stand for watered down liberalism, being better at making the trains run on time so to speak. When the Republican party came to power in both houses in 1994, it was on reform. What happened is we got drunk on power and many within our great coalition just could not take it anymore. Only new faces and aggressiveness can bring about reform. We have to be worried when in consistent polling data after the elections, many thought the Democrats would be better and keeping government spending and the size of government under control better than the Republicans.
Go to Truth Laid Bear and ask the questions they will ask. Also, look for new people to lead. It is the only way we can reform and lead back in congress.

Why The Los Angeles Times Is A Failure No Matter Who Owns It

As a conservative Republican in Southern California, one thing that I notice is how many no longer read and or subscribe to the Los Angeles Times, the largest newspaper in the region and the west, or left, coast. It is many judging by the consistent plunge in subscribers and readers. It begs the question, why?
It has, for most of my 42 years on God's green earth been left of center. It has been not exactly a supporter of Ronald Reagan's two runs for governor or president. It rarely supports any Republican candidates for office, but did endorse Governor Arnold this year.
But it goes beyond that. It is the culture of the newsroom and the editors and the lack of understanding the diversity of the area that they cover.
If the Washington press corps is hovering around 90% in favor of Democrats and their policies, do you not think it is the same at the Times? Do you not think it permeates in the way that a story is covered, and what kind of story is pursued? Of course it does and conservatives have come to realize that the Times does not care about having a conservative readership.
I am not suggesting that they become a shill for conservative Republicans, but for all the left wing criticism of Fox News Channel, it does make a concerted effort to present both sides to a story. It does cover stories that the DBDMSM won't. That is why it is so popular.
Look at the way that the recent election was covered. It was tilted worse than an old pinball machine in favor to the Democrats. It never refers to current house minority leader Nancy Pelosi as a left winger. In the prism of the DBDMSM, there are no left wingers. But, any casual observer would have to see that Mrs. Pelosi is a left winger. So are many of the incoming chairs to the house and senate committees.
While the Republicans deserved in a sense the beating we took, where is the story about what the Republican party will do now?
The most glaring problem, not just with the Times, but in general, how religion is covered. Only when there is scandal does the DBDMSM seem to care. Does any one over at the Times ever do positive or in depth articles about evangelical Christians, observant Jews and mainstream Islamics without and slant or bias? No. But, you will see how they are mocked or treated with such disrespect. I mean, we all know that Pastor Ted Haggard had a seedy life with drugs and a gay prostitute. But, had there been any articles about the good and positive things that the New Life church had accomplished? We are treated to how terrible it is that the IRS is going after very left wing All Saints Episcopal Church, or as I refer to it as All Socialists. Where were they when the IRS during the Clinton administration went after a church in upstate New York and took away their tax-exempt status?
It is, simply put, the world view of the average journalist today that vanity and celebrity is good. Modesty and piety are a thing of the past and should not be taken seriously. Social justice is ok. Personal behavior does not matter unless one is being exposed for seemingly hypocritical behavior. Big government is good. Small government bad. Feeling is better than thinking.
That is why the Times will not change. Any owner will face the same problem unless they set down serious guidelines. Such as having a balanced op-ed page where multiple points of view are on display. Occasionally, have a pro conservative point of view in an actual editorial.
Have people that can write a coherent story about religion with some basic knowledge, not an agenda.
Don't look at conservatives as an expendable potential readership.
And maybe, don't be shy about how journalism is presented. In other words, make clear that "analysis" is really a point of view and don't hide behind that word.
The irony is that recently, the top 25 newspapers in the United States went down or flat in circulation. Except one. Do you know what that is? The New York Post. Some call it a tabloid rag, but it is the ONLY newspaper in the United States that has had consistent growth. Maybe it is because when you read the Post, they do not hide what they are.
Maybe that is what the DBDMSM should look at.
The culture of the newsroom has to change. Until then, conservatives will stop buying the Los Angeles Times and the other DBDMSM newspapers until they are treated with respect. Afterall, most American cities are now down to one newspaper. That alone one would think would make them MORE, not less, to reach out to a wider audinence.
Now, I will read the New York Post as I am watching FNC!

What Do We Do Now?

First, the Democrats deserve to have won both the House and Senate. Unlike the Republicans, they have been on offense for over a year. But, what do we Republicans do now.
Well, we do need to clean house and senate. So far that is a mixed bag. In the senate, Mitch McConnell will be the minority leader. Maybe Trent Lott will be the minority whip. I am not sure how that will play out. I like Mitch McConnell. He will give the Democrats fits. But Trent Lott, I wonder how that will play out. I think the senators need a fresh and engaging face. One thing is who they get to recruit candidates in 2008, when they have a good chance to take the senate back. Rumors are John Ensign of Nevada has the inside track. I think that is a good choice.
In the House, it is murky.
There are three candidates. They are John Bohener, I think a mistake. Also Mike Pence, a Reaganite and a much better choice. Also, Joe Barton of Texas, also a Reaganite. That is what we need, some one who remembers what it means to be a Republican.
It is not to have "earmarks" or cravenly keep raw power. It is not to try to keep scandalous people and encourage them to run for reelection. We probably lost at least 10 seats because of just that!
We need to stop being watered down Democrats. We need to stand on what got us the majority in 1994 in the first place. We need to reinvigorate the Contract With America. The Republican party was founded and thrived on reform. Not to expand government, one of the great failings of the present Bush administration.
One other thing. WE MUST get all 50 state parties in order. We need to, if it takes the next RNC national chairman to do it, get strong chairmen and recruit good candidates to run everywhere. We can not give up on places in the Northeast. We can't keep running squishy moderates who do not give the voters in this part of the country a real choice. Remember, they took a brunt of losses last night. Yea, we can lose a couple of election cycles in Massachusetts, but people will take a look if we provide a viable alternative. I would refer anyone to read "Painting The Map Red" by Hugh Hewitt (www.hughhewitt.com) for a roadmap. New York state should not suffer because soon to be former Governor George Pataki made it all about him at the cost of building a viable Republican party. Note that Governor Arnold!
That maybe a good long term strategy. Right now, we need to show America that we listened and will return to our roots at the national level. We have to keep that in mind at the state level as well.

A Mixed Bag

Tonight, nationwide it is not good for the Republicans. However, here in California, reason to celebrate as Governor Arnold is trouncing Phil Angelides. It will have the coattails I predicted. But nationwide, not good.
Firstly, a lot of the loss is easy to explain. Hardly a chance to keep Tom Delay's and Mark Foley's seats. But they should be easy GOP recaptures in 2008. We may lose the senate, but I do not think any of this is all bad.
Remember, there will not be a huge mandate and there is still President Bush who will finally have to use the veto pen. Many of the Dem gains are on the backs of moderates that may not be comfortable with the potential shenanigans of the leadership. Maybe it will force the president to increase the troops in Iraq and finish the job and get a majority of troops home.
Looking ahead to 2008, all bets have to be off. Both parties have wide open races to the presidential nomination and that will be good for both.
The Dems will not have overwhelming majorities in either the house or Senate. They will overreach and the voters will remind them in 2008.
Since I am in California, this is a BRIGHT spot for the GOP.
Governor Arnold having a landslide, taking along conservatives Tom McClintock, Tony Strickland and Steve Poizner to constitutional offices.
Won't hold my breath about any gains in the state legislature.
But, having a strong Republican governor will probably put California in play in 2008. WOW! A real big state in play for the White House!
Also, the big five bond measures that Gov. Arnold backed look like they will pass. But, there is still law and order as Prop. 83, Jessica's Law is passing with ease. Also, abortion parental notification is neck and neck. Surprisingly, Prop. 90, the eminent domain measure is passing up against a barrage by opponents.
So, nationwide not good, but in California, a good night for the GOP.
Now, on to 2008!

California Recommendations

Here are my recommendations for those who live in California for voting.
I will not make a recommendation for the United States senate as, for whatever reason, the Republicans did not put up a serious candidate. I will vote for Republican Richard Mountjoy, but I can not ask all fellow Californians to do the same. So, here goes.
Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger. He is not a Reagan conservative, but who is now a days? But, he will not raise taxes and, occasionally stumbling has back conservative positions. He should win in a rout over socialist, er Democrat Phil Angelides. But remember TO VOTE!!!! There are some other races.
Lt. Governor: Tom McClintock. He IS the Reagan conservative and was really the better choice over Arnold in the recall election in 2003. But, alas, it was not the right time. Because he smartly did not lead a conservative revolt against Arnold, he will ride the coattails.
Secretary of State: Bruce McPherson. Like Arnold, a moderate but a Republican and will not let any shenanigans be pulled off by the Dems come election time in 2008.
Controller: Tony Strickland. Like Tom McClintock, a conservative. Someone we can trust with writing the checks. Also, has a great TV ad campaign as "Tony the Tiger"
Treasurer: Claude Parrish. A solid Republican. Has an uphill fight, but if it is Arnold's landslide night, he may ride the coattails.
Attorney General: Chuck Poochigian. Unfortunately, he is running against Jerry Brown and even now he can win a statewide race and looks conservative compared to Angleides. Any other year, Chuck would win, but this may be the only bright spots for the Dems in California.
Insurance Commissioner: Steve Poizner. He will bring respectability to this office. Ironically, it was in the middle of a corruption scandal when the GOP last had this office. Won't happen under Poizner. Not taking any insurance money.
On the propositions, I will just give the recommendation. Please refer to your sample ballot booklet for details.
1A) NO, 1B) NO, 1C) NO, 1D) NO, 1E) NO, 83) YES, 84) NO, 85) YES, 86) NO, 87) NO, 88) NO, 89) NO, 90) YES.
All I can write is that while I believe that it will be a great night in the rest of the United States for the Republicans, it will even be better here in California.

See, The Polls ARE Wrong

If you believe, as I do, that the polling this election cycle is , if not biased, but an outright fraud, check this out(www.pollster.com). Yeah, there is no bias and all the polls are not flawed whatsoever.

Races Are Gaining For GOP

As I have written in many previous posts, don't take too much stock in polls. But, there is a trending Republican thread, particularly in the key senate races that may show the Republicans holding on to the senate.
The race in Ohio is actually tightening up as Sen. Mike De Wine is now down in single digits. Just last week, the Democrat challenger Sherrod Brown was up by as much as 12% in some polls. May not be enough to pull a win, but that should not stop the effort to GOTV.
Same in Montana, given up for dead three weeks ago. Sen Conrad Burns and Jim Tester are in a dead heat. The same for Maryland Lt. Governor, Michael Steele vs. Ben Cardin. Tied at 47%. Even Democrats are worried that "Republican" Sen. Lincoln Chaffee is now back within striking distance.
Even in many of the endangered house races, Republican candidates that have been down are gaining ground. There is even a report in National Review online (www.nationalreview.com) that turnout will be low in North Carolina, where there is a barnburner of a race between Congressman Charles Taylor and former pro quarterback Heath Schuler. That may mean, low turnout, Republican hold.
Despite what the DBDMSM says, that some seats are already being written off by Republican strategists, don't believe it. That is what they said in 2002 and what they tried to say in 2004. Because of the Republican GOTV machine, they were proven wrong. I think we are about to do it again.
As pointed on by Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt's site (www.hughhewitt.com) Republicans are going to vote as if this was a presidential election year. That will offset any supposed high Democrat turnout.
John Kerry opened his yak and the GOP came home to snatch defeat. Maybe a long headline on Wednesday morning, but there is no denying that Republican voters are coming home and keeping congress in GOP hands.

GOTV The Easy Way

Here is a cool thing to do between now and Tuesday. Follow the link (www.GOP.com) and you can make a half hour of GOTV calls to people in key race areas. This is being a volunteer under the radar!

Final Predictions

OK, its crunch time and we are now, finally, in the infamous 72 hour drive that will keep the Republican majority in the House and Senate. With that, here are the final predictions for how this will end up Wednesday morning.
House of Representatives:
Republican: 225
Democrat: 210
Senate:
Republican: 57
Democrat: 42
Independent: 1
Yea, yea I know, but Mark, the polls, the polls! I mean, the Arizona senate seat is in play! They Dems are pouring money everywhere, we can't stop this juggernaut and that is because the drive-by, dinosaur MSM says so!
But that is it. The drive-by, dinosaur MSM has been so in the tank for the Democrats that Republicans are coming home and making all the senate races too close to call.
Yes, despite what the DBDMSM says, Sen John Kerry's slam on the the United States armed forces is resonating with the Republican base and I am certain even fair independents and Democrats. The hysteria of Howard Dean is rearing its ugly head and Nancy Pelosi is being let loose to rain terror on the Pennsylvania countryside is finally waking up the fence sitters.
All campaigns throw money at races they know they can not win. Look at President Bush in 2000. He spent quite a bit of money here in California with no chance of even making it close. But, it may Al Gore have to spend time and money here, taking him away from an area that he could have had more in his camp. That is what is happening in Arizona. So, fellow 'Zona GOPers, don't be fooled! GET OUT AND VOTE!
The reason I believe that the DBDMSM does not get the real dynamics of the race is because they are the DBDMSM!
They have no idea how conservatives communicate around their prism.
As reported earlier this week in the Drudge Report (www.drudgereport.com) Republicans are more online than Democrats. Conservative blog and information sites are more than 2-1 outhit over liberal blog and information sites. Also, there is talk radio. Even with the feeble attempts by bankrupt Air America to make a breakthrough, talk radio is still dominated by conservatives and or libertarians. Of course there is Fox News Channel, the most popular cable news network in the United States. It takes two liberal slanted DBDMSM networks, CNN and MSNBC just to try to keep up with FNC.
We know that we will not get a fair shake on the DBDMSM networks unless we are conservative critics like Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough or Dick Armey.
So, since they are not really taking the pulse of the American public as a whole, we are getting skewed, and screwed, polls and downplaying GOP votes and voters.
Come election night, when the Democrats do not take the House or Senate, what will the DBDMSM have to say then? Will they even know what hit them?

The Apology

So, thanks to the heat of the American people and those that have or are serving their country in the armed forces, Sen John F. Kerry(D-Mass) has given what can only be an apology, with a caveat.
He says that he is sorry that his words may have been misinterpreted and that he did not mean to imply anything negative about those serving in the armed forces.
Too bad that he also did not take the time to apologize about the comments earlier this year that troops were breaking down the doors of innocent Iraqis in the dead of night and torturing them. He said that with no proof.
Or how about when he came home from the war that he says he was proud to serve in, Vietnam. He testified at length to the senate about all the horrible things that American soldiers did to Vietnamese, comparing them to Gengis Khan. As a sidebar, don't you love the way he said Gengis Khan?
No, Sen Kerry won't apologize for all of that. He said that he was proud of what he did when he came back from Vietnam. Oh, and by the way, he said that in his apology statement that is on his website(www.johnkerry.com).
Hence, he did not really apologize. He is still fighting the Vietnam war. Somebody needs to tell the junior senator from Massachusetts that the Vietnam war ended in 1975, in no small part because of the contributions of a Democrat dominated congress in refusing to aid the beleaguered South Vietnamese government.
So, what does all of this mean?
It means that you can do something about it on Tuesday. GO AND VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!! That is the only way to keep Sen. Kerry and his ilk on a leash. Electing the Democrats in the majority only means that they will try to stop funding in Iraq and eventually in Afghanistan and pull back from the War Against Terror.
Then, Sen Kerry can really apologize for opening his mouth so close that he blew another election for the Democrats.