Q&A Friday #20: Should The Roberts' Kids Be Investigated By The New York Times?
Question: "Should Judge Roberts and his wife be investigated for buying two (2) beautiful little children from Central America (today's fees/cost is roughly $30,000 to adopt a child from Central America using legal agencies -- call it what you want to but you do buy these kids) or should he be slammed for not getting his kids here in the States? What is the best attack strategy for the Dems to take? Second Part: Did the Roberts family get a "Lawyer's discount" from the other lawyers that handled their adoptions and should the children be taught Spanish so they know their natural heritage?" -- Redfish
Answer: I'd like to take a contrary view on this subject, one that many of my reactionary conservative brethren will surely disagree with. Personally, I think it's very courageous and appropriate for the New York Times to investigate the children of John Roberts.
I mean, take little Jack, for example. Everyone saw the kid dancing around, right? It's entirely plausible that sort of "acting out" could be a result of witnessing John Roberts pouring toxic sludge into the habitat of a spotted owl at the behest of Haliburton. Perhaps that may sound farfetched, but unless we have documentation proving that it didn't happen, I think the Democrats may need to filibuster rather than allow an extremist judge to wipe out the noble spotted owl.
Also, did you notice the daughter, little 5 year old Josie clinging to her mother's skirt while President Bush was talking? That could, quite possibly, be some sort of traumatic reaction to hearing her father say that he would let his personal beliefs interfere with his decisions from the bench. That is certainly something that needs to be investigated.
Moreover, let's be very frank here: the fact that John Roberts would adopt children at all, as if children were some sort of property which could be passed around, is a strong indication that he wants to take this country back to pre-Civil War days, where people could be treated as property. Do you want 130 years of civil rights progress wiped out? If not, then tell your Senator to vote against John Roberts.
Last but not least, it's very important to find out if little Jack or Josie have ever had temper tantrums or broken the rules in a game because those are things they could have conceivably learned from their father. Do we really want a man with a berserk, out of control temper who believes in breaking the rules on our Supreme Court? I think not!
So, kudos to the New York Times for going after the Roberts' kids. It's a dirty, filthy, rotten, stinking job, but somebody had to do it!
*** Update #1 ***: After having someone ask about it, I wanted to make it clear that, yes, this is satire.
Q&A Friday #20: Do Conservatives Disagree With Bush About Anything?
Question: "to conservatives, is bush infallible?
as a liberal, it seems like almost everything he does is wrong but i can admit to a few things he's done with which i agree or don't care about. i certainly wouldn't back clinton 100% or even 75% (carter was before my time but i'd probably have said the same about him).
but i've never seen a right-wing website (or even a thread comment, and i've probably read hundreds or even thousands) where any conservative admitted that they disagreed with Our Leader on any topic. it just seems weird that his decisions have amazingly matched the way all republicans feel about every issue.
so i guess i expect one of three answers:
a) he is never wrong about anything
b) he is wrong but we don't admit it because that would encourage the democrats (a reasonable position in today's climate)
c) i've disagreed with him about X, Y, and Z." -- by j0e
You know, it's not unusual to hear that sort of odd claim from liberals, "Oh, you conservatives never disagree with Bush about anything."
Well, maybe it just doesn't register because the criticism of Bush is coming from the right ideologically or because the Bush bashing on the left-side of the blogosphere is relentless to the point of being obsessive, but people on the right have hammered Bush on a variety of issues.
Just to give you a few examples right off the top of my head, I have criticized Bush on this very blog for:
-- Deficit spending.
-- His immigration policy.
-- Imposing steel tariffs.
-- Imposing tariffs on Canadian lumber.
-- For signing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill.
-- Increasing funding for the National Endowment of the Arts.
-- For being willing to sign the Assault Weapon Ban.
-- For the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill.
-- For getting the Federal government more involved in education.
-- For increasing the size of government.
I'm sure I could pad that out a bit if I wanted to spend some time pouring through the archives, but those are enough examples to make the point.
If that's not enough criticism for you or the issues don't suit you, well, -- we're conservatives -- we don't agree with liberals on most issues. So that's just how it is and how it's going to continue to be...
Q&A Friday #20: What's Your Favorite Movie Ending?
Question: "What is your all-time favorite movie ending?" -- maledicta
Answer: Here are my 3 faves...
3) Army Of Darkness: Ash kisses the girl and says "Hail to the King baby" after shooting the witch.
2) Scarface: The massive gun battle where Tony is killed and also gets off the classic line: "say hello to my little friend."
1) Unforgiven: Will Munny takes revenge for his friend and rides off after saying, "You better bury Ned right. You better not cut up nor otherwise harm no whores, or I'll come back and kill every one of you sons of b*tches." Then he prays at his wife's grave.
Q&A Friday #20: Why Would Being A Mormon Hurt Romney At The Polls In 2008?
Question: "My other question is in response to a post last week when I was out of town I think. There was a post about Mitt Romney and how he won't have a chance to be president. You said that because he was a mormon people wouldn't vote for him. You said: Some things Mormons believe in come off as very strange to most Americans. What is it that you think mormons believe that is so strange? (Just a note pretty much every mormon is conservative) You also said Romney is pretending to be pro-life; I can tell you that if he's a mormon there's absolutely no way he's pro-choice. Abortion is definitely against what the mormon church stands for." -- the_sacrificer
Answer: First things first, Romney has recently veered to the right on abortion because conventional wisdom is that if you're not pro-life, you can't win the Republican nomination for President.
"In various interviews of the last several months, Romney has said that he no longer supports legal abortion and he has called himself "pro-life." Romney also vetoed a bill promoting embryonic stem cell research and said the measure forced him to take a new look at the beginning of human life."
"When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he said he supported the "substance" of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion and signed a pro-abortion pledge sponsored by Planned Parenthood."
In my opinion, Romney is making a purely political conversion on pro-life issues which means that if he were elected in 2008, it's entirely possible he might revert to form.
As far as the strange Mormon beliefs go, I was referring to some of the religious beliefs they have. For example, here's the how Book of Mormon came to be written:
"I will now give you a description of the manner in which the Book of Mormon was translated. Joseph Smith would put the seer stone into a hat, and put his face in the hat, drawing it closely around his face to exclude the light; and in the darkness the spiritual light would shine. A piece of something resembling parchment would appear, and on that appeared the writing. One character at a time would appear, and under it was the interpretation in English. Brother Joseph would read off the English to Oliver Cowdery, who was his principal scribe, and when it was written down and repeated to Brother Joseph to see if it was correct, then it would disappear, and another character with the interpretation would appear. Thus the Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God, and not by any power of man."
Then there's the fact that blacks couldn't join the priesthood until 1978 & the Mormon belief that some Native Americans are actually members of the Lost Tribe of Israel, among other things.
Don't misunderstand, I'm not putting down the Mormon religion & I would personally have no problem whatsoever voting for a Mormon candidate. However, I am saying that there would be a significant number of Christian voters who would find Mormon beliefs to be strange or might even look at them as members of a cult. My guess is that alone would probably cost Romney a few points at the polls.
Personally, I don't think it's going to matter because Romney is going to be viewed as a RINO in conservative clothing and he'll have a lot of trouble getting traction in the first place, but to be totally honest, I do think his religion will be a negative for him on the whole.
Q&A Friday #20: Why Do The Democrats Think Karl Rove Is An Ultra-Genius?
Question: "Mr. Hawkins, my question pertains to Karl Rove. From reading various liberals' posts it is clear to see that they view Mr. Rove as a puppet-master, an evil genius and the real power behind the throne. I feel that they give him a bit much in the way of credit but that's just my opinion. In fact, I really don't know that much about the man other than the facts that he is President Bush's top advisor and personal friend.
So, my question is: Is there anything about Karl Rove's past, such as school records or being a member of Mensa, that would indicate that he is, indeed, a genius?" -- Good_Ol_Boy
Answer: Although Karl Rove is a sharp guy, the real reason they've built Karl Rove up into this super-genius is because they can't bear that they're wrong about Bush.
See, they portrayed Bush -- just as they did Reagan and Quayle -- as this incredible moron. Bush? He's so stupid he can barely tie his own shoes! Come on, Bush? His IQ is lower than the score Tiger Woods racks up playing 18 holes of golf. Plus, he looks like a chimp! Oh, and he's religious! Don't forget that he can barely put a sentence together. Yep, Bush is a total, moronic, Chimpy loser!
The problem with that belief is that Chimpy McBushHitler keeps outmaneuvering the Democrats. He beat Gore and Kerry. The GOP has a firm hold on the Senate and Congress. The Democrats couldn't stop W. from going to war in Iraq.
Politics is always a, "win some, lose some," proposition, but Bush has won a lot more of the big battles with the Democrats than he has lost.
"According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior."
The way the Democrats reconcile the idea that they think Bush is a drooling idiot with the fact that he keeps outsmarting them is by building Karl Rove up into this super puppet-master who's pulling all the strings to make Bush look good and the Dems look bad.
Rove is smart, but he's not that smart. As a matter of fact, nobody is that smart...
Q&A Friday #20: Why Are Neo-Nazis And KKK Members Considered Members Of The Right-Wing?
Question: "Why are neo-nazis and KKK members considered members of the right-wing?" -- Rooster349
Answer: For the most part, it's spin. Democrats have been falsely portraying Republicans as racists who hate blacks and Jews for years, and since that's what Neo-Nazis & members of the KKK actually are, it fits in with the Democratic propaganda.
Of course, I did say for the most part.
Because I've perused a lot of Nazi & KKK sites while compiling the Anyone Can Post On The Internet section, I think I have a pretty good perspective on how a lot of these racist scumbags think.
Certainly, there are some of them who do fit into the mold of racist Republicans. In fact, Pat Buchanan seems to be the favorite "mainstream" political figure that a lot of these bigots like. On the other hand, you'll find that a lot of them tend to be Socialists and it's no coincidence that the only former member of the KKK in Congress is a Liberal Democrat, Robert Byrd.
But in truth, from what I've seen, most of these KKK/Nazi ignoramuses hate Republicans and Democrats, many of them are Fascists or radical Socialists, and for all practical purposes the vast majority of them have goals and aims that mean they'll always be outsiders in our political system. When you're talking about people who ultimately believe that the United States needs to purge everyone who's not lily white, there's just no way they can truly fit in with Conservatives or Liberals, Republicans or Democrats.
Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Can you take a look at the ads please? Oh, you will? Fantastic!
I copied that technique from an episode of the "The Simpsons" where the kids ask Homer for a pool over and over until he gives in. Glad to see it worked! It did work didn't it?
Come, Pllllllleeeeeaaaasssssseeeee take a look at just a few ads? It would really, really, help me out....
So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
So ask away!
*** Update #1 ***: You can still comment in the thread, but I've already picked out the questions I'm going to answer.
-- The movies I'm watching right now, as I type this? "Mystery Science Theater 3000: Vol. 6: Disc 1: Attack of the Giant Leeches". Next up: "XXX: State Of The Union." Man do I love Netflix!
-- Key dates to watch for in Iraq over the next few months:
August 15, 2005: The Iraqis are supposed to finish the draft of their Constitution.
October 15, 2005: There'll be a general referendum where Iraqi decide where to accept the Constitution.
December 15, 2005: The Iraqis are scheduled to elect a legislature.
-- I ran across this line in a Des Moines Register column trashing bloggers:
"..(R)emember the allegations by the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that, after weeks of reporting, were found to be unsubstantiated?"
That line and the whole "Kerry was too late in responding to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" that is also tossed around on occasion are both bogus. The truth is, Kerry never had a good response to SBVFT, they publicly forced him to change his story several times, and moreover, even in retrospect, they came across as far more credible than John Kerry on his Vietnam record.
In fact, the whole "SBVFT aren't credible" line was nothing more than propaganda from the Kerry campaign that was immediately picked up by their allies in the MSM who were anxious to try to minimize the enormous damage that was being done to "their candidate".
Of course, now that Kerry is branded as a loser and doesn't have a chance in 2008, it's tempting to just let it go. But since the way that the SBVFT were -- and still are -- treated by the media is such a perfect example of liberal bias, it's worth pointing out the MSM is still spinning hard on this issue.
"In the days after President Bush won a second term, the number of U.S. citizens visiting Canada's main immigration Web site shot up sixfold, prompting speculation that unhappy Democrats would flock north.
But official statistics show the number of Americans actually applying to live permanently in Canada fell in the six months after the election."
-- There has been a claim floating around on the left that Ann Coulter plagiarized some other writers in a column called "Thou shalt not commit religion." It's complete bunk. Coulter listed 23 piece of speech that have been "funded in whole or in part by taxpayers". The "plagiarism" here is supposed to be that several of the items appeared on other lists in conservative publications and that in some cases, the wording was similar. Gee, maybe's it's just me, but how many different ways are there to say "A female performer inserting a speculum into her vagina and inviting audience members on stage to view her cervix with a flashlight?" The lefties are just being silly.
-- By the way: "XXX: State Of The Union?" It stunk. Any movie that features Ice Cube and a bunch of car jackers going toe to toe with the US military, while they're on alert, and creaming them is about as realistic as Michael Jackson punching out Mike Tyson in a street fight. Plus, I loathed the President, who reminded me of Jimmy Carter. The whole movie was just ridiculous from start to finish. Big thumbs down! But "MST3000: Attack of the Giant Leeches" was superb.
"Democratic Party pollster Stan Greenberg said Wednesday that "one of the biggest doubts about Democrats is that they don't stand for anything." -- Newsmax
The Democratic Party's liberal base wants them to take unpopular positions that will alienate much of the rest of the country. So faced with a choice between angering their base and turning off the moderates they need to win, the Democrats have chosen to obscure what they believe in hopes of not offending anyone. But, many of the moderates have caught on to the game and are getting down on the Democratic Party because they refuse to take a stand on so many issues.
This is the feedback loop the Democratic Party is stuck in and the only true way to get out of it long-term is to disappoint either the base or the people in the middle the Dems need to win. Logically when you're in that situation, you have to stick it to your base and hope that they're loyal enough to stand by you even though they're unhappy with you.
But, in the case of the Democratic Party, the liberal ideologues have such a lock on the levers of power and influence in the Party, that thus far, the politically savvy crowd -- like the people who run the DLC -- have been unable to put them in check.
Until the Democratic Party gets their liberal base under control, they may make gains in certain elections, but they're doomed to continue a long-term slide into political oblivion.
Quote Of The Day: Isn't It Time To Take PBS Off The Public Dole?
"Public broadcasting is a classic example of welfare for the well-off. We PBS viewers are 44 percent more likely than other Americans to make more than $150,000 a year.
I enjoy PBS, but it hardly seems fair that the government demands you buy it for me. If I want to see opera, I should pay for it myself. Why should you be taxed to pump "La Boheme" into my living room? It barely made sense in 1967, when most Americans only had the Big Three broadcast networks, but now there are hundreds of channels. If there's a demand for opera or BBC drama, the market will provide it." -- John Stossel
Do We Really Need A Book For Teenagers That Glorifies The Life Of A Suicide Bomber? By Betsy Newmark
I'm not calling for censorship, but for good sense. Do we really need a book for teenagers that glorifies the life of a suicide bomber?
A new novel for teenagers about a mixed-race girl who trains to become a terrorist suicide bomber has become a bestseller in mainstream bookshops since its publication a month ago.
Checkmate, by the award-winning children's writer Malorie Blackman, features a heroine who is groomed by militant members of an oppressed ethnic group in an unspecified country - but there are many clues to it being Britain - to wear a vest bomb to kill a senior politician in a suicide mission on her 16th birthday.
Far from stoking controversy after the London bombings, the book looks set to become a sensation, with experts and children saying that Checkmate fulfils teenagers' need for contemporary, gritty fiction.
This seems more of the "let's explain the terrorist and how he or she suffered so much that killing innocents just seemed the only way" mentality. It does not seem like the sort of gritty subject that teenagers need. And the author's and publisher's responses seem to do more of this excusing terrorist behavior by blaming society.
Blackman, who says she abhors violence but that terrorism can breed in unequal social conditions, blamed the September 11 terrorist attack for making American publishers too timid to take the book on. Annie Eaton, Blackman's editor at her British publisher, Random House, said yesterday that it was "a complete coincidence" that the author had included suicide bombing in Checkmate. "We had the manuscript months before the London bombings."
She denied that Blackman's subject matter was too tough for teenagers: "They see far worse things on television and I think people realise that what she is doing is very important, making this age group think and be led by their own judgments.
"We have not had a negative reaction at all. The emails that Malorie has been getting from readers, and we just don't know whether they are black, white or Asian, is that they are amazingly moved. It's been particularly heart-warming that a lot of them have been from teenagers who say they don't normally read books."
John Webb, children's book buyer for Waterstone's, said yesterday that there was no question of withdrawing Checkmate from shops. "The earlier books have had a massive following and I was unaware of the contents of the final book.
"A suicide bomber is horribly untimely but teenage readers ask for challenges. They are sophisticated and this is not a book that is going to encourage them to do it. It's a book that investigates why people do these things and opens people's minds."
The 9/11 bombers were not downtrodden. The guys in London could have easily made something of themselves. One was on welfare living off the dole, but I think that two of them had jobs, wives, and small children. They weren't trying to change racism in England; they were killing for a fundamentalist Islamic way of life. They were killing people, many of whom were not members of the supposedly oppressive upper class, but just some people going to work on a Thursday morning. You don't hit the upper class in the Metro. But kids seem to be reading these books and thinking that it tells them something about those who are killing innocents throughout the world.
Katie Twyford, 15, of Braintree, Essex, said: "Why wrap teenagers in cotton wool? It is very important to open people's eyes up to racism and terrorism. Soon enough we are going to have to go out in the real world and we watch the news anyway."
Amelia Farmer, 11, of Cambridge, said watching coverage of the London suicide bombers after reading Checkmate "made me wonder whether they were nice people when they were children and whether they might have been bullied at school like Callum is in the book or whether life might have been unfair to them".
Henry Page, 13, of Winchester, said: "Checkmate is a fantastic book. It showed how difficult it must be to be a different colour from other people. It opened my eyes and it was quite sad."
So, the author creates a fictional world that is quite racist. As a little touch, the blacks are the upper class and the whites are the mistreated lower class. See, that can open up our eyes in case you're too insensitive to understand racism if the victim is black. And then she creates a world so terrible that the heroine decides to become a suicide bomber. Actually, I think it conforms more to some stereotypes about terrorists as poor victims who find that murder is the only way to change society. The publisher says it's just a coincidence that this book came out after the London bombings. Well, there have been terrorist bombings for decades. Some in England, too. So, even without the 7/7 bombings as a backdrop, the publisher could do some good hard thinking about whether this is a good topic for teenagers.
As a teacher, I'm so sick of the idea that the only good subjects to appeal to teenage readers are books about suicide, divorce, sex, death, and other topics that supposedly evoke the real-world problems that teenagers face. Including, I guess suicide bombing. According to these books, teenagerdom is one terrible Hobbesian state of nature where all the pretty girls are nasty and cruel; the good-looking boys just want to use everyone; and the parents are either dumb, alcoholic, or absent. Maybe, I'm just a middle-aged Pollyanna, but that isn't the world I see. I see kids who are concerned about doing well AND being good people. They are interested in their communities and their futures. Those who have had tough breaks such as parents dying or going through bitter divorces are terribly saddened, but also quite determined that they aren't going to be brought down by their own bad luck. I find the kids I interact with every day an inspiration and a great source of optimism. Sure, there are some mean kids and some unhappy, unpopular kids, but they are more the exception than the rule.
Readers, what are you seeing in your own experiences? Do you see teens living in the rather dark world that fiction-writers seem to think is out there or do you have more reason for optimism?
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
First of all, I find out that RWN is being blocked by The United States Army Reserve and then I don't even get an offer from Pajamas Media. Granted, I probably wouldn't have signed on the dotted line, but it would have been nice to have at least gotten an offer, because sometimes, it really is the thought that counts.
As to why I didn't get an offer, I do have some suspicions.
I've always gotten along with Charles Johnson & Roger L. Simon, so I'm guessing that either I was too closely associated with Blogads for their taste (I'm going to be running a conservative MiniNetwork for them) or more likely, I was making too much money with Blogads -- for my traffic -- for them to match.
As a side note, the reality is that a lot of bloggers don't charge enough for their Blogads. I don't want to mention any names, but there are several conservative bloggers who are bigger than I am who could probably double their prices and not see any significant drop in demand for their ads because they're so underpriced right now.
But anyway, since I don't have that problem and since from what I'm hearing, Pajamas seems to be offering people about what they're making with Blogads right now or just a little more, bringing on a blog like RWN at the same level I was making with Blogads probably would have eaten into their profit margin too much for it to be feasible.
Still, even setting RWN aside, from what some bloggers who have gotten offers have told me privately and from what Ann Althouse & Ace have said publicly, Pajamas Media isn't putting great deals on the table at this point.
They're asking bloggers to leave a proven advertising agency (Blogads) in order to make at least a year long commitment to an agency that has changed its roll-out date & business plan over and over, that doesn't have an up and running web page, and that doesn't seem to be offering people significantly more than they're already making.
With all due respect to Charles and Roger, I'm not sure what the appeal is supposed to be.
I mean I understand that some people may love the idea of getting a "guaranteed salary," but is it really guaranteed? Keep in mind, they haven't even gotten started yet, so who's to say they'll even be in business in a year? Take it from me, I was running a humor zine on the net back when the tech bubble burst and all the advertising money dried up. There were a lot of people making "guaranteed" money then, too. Guess what? The advertising agencies paying them had to default because there simply were no ad dollars rolling in. Don't think the exact same thing can't happen with Pajamas Media, because it can.
Furthermore, even though Charles & Roger are both talented and successful bloggers, in the world of internet advertising, they're totally unproven rookies starting a brand spanking new company -- and start-ups are tough business under the best circumstances. The reality is that most new businesses don't make it.
That's not a slam at Charles and Roger, because they're both sharp guys and I certainly hope they do succeed because the more competition there is for blogger advertising space, the more all of us stand to make in the future.
But right now, Pajamas Media has a very short and unimpressive track record, they're being very secretive (What's going on with syndication and Marc Danziger? Why didn't we hear about this 12-18 month deal until the last minute?) and they're looking for some very long commitments. Until that changes, Blogads is probably the better deal for Bloggers.
PS #1: More from Ace & Ann Althouse (here & here) on this subject.
PS #2: This post has been edited slightly, mainly for the sake of readability.
*** Update #1 ***: Does anyone else find it odd that you can still buy 3 month Blogads on both LGF and Simon's blog at this point? Is that an oversight or are they still a long, long way from rolling out?
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: The Republicans Cheated Again By Winning!
Let's say a Democrat loses a race for Congress in a heavily Republican district. Is your first thought: "Gee, that's to be expected," or is it, "Those Republicans did it to us again, gah! They must have rigged the race to win! Yargh, must control spiraling rage at all things Republican!"
If you took the second option, you would probably fit in at the Democratic Underground, where the general opinion seems to be that since Paul Hackett lost, that proves fraud.
I know, I know, it seems that there should be a little more to it than that and I'm sure they'll come up with some sort of "evidence" to support the conclusion they've already reached over the next few days, but at this point they haven't gone much beyond the whole, "We lost so they must have cheated meme."
Just take a look at these 11 threads -- not 11 posts mind you -- 11 threads (and there were more I could have posted) on the Democratic Underground and you'll get an idea of how wacky it is over at the DU right now...
The fact that the lefties are already crying "fraud" about a race they lost in a district that gave Bush 64% of its vote last November shows you they're just going to claim every race they lose is fixed. That may not be a surprise, but it goes to show you that a lot of people on the left are willing to do anything, even try to undermine the American people's confidence in our whole system of government, if they think they can achieve some sort of political advantage by doing so. That sort of cynical posturing is bad for America...
For another RWN post on the Hackett vs. Schmidt race, click here.
Hey, look, the ultra-libs at Counterpunch are actually denouncing terrorism! Believe it or not, that's actually pretty rare on the left. Usually, if you read a liberal blog or web page talking about terrorism or Iraq, it's usually just an opening they use to launch into an attack on the Bush administration, the war, or America.
But in this case, Norm Dixon, in his column "The Worst Terror Attacks in History," actually sticks it right to the terrorists -- oh wait, he's actually attacking America's decision to nuke Japan.
Big surprise there, huh? Well, as per usual, the theory in Dixon's column is that the Japanese were just about to surrender and we nuked them anyway, because America being -- ya know, the source of all evil in the world -- just does that sort of thing. In this case, our "war crime" was really all about impressing the Soviets, because Japan was done for.
Ya know, liberals keep putting forth this theory over and over, that the Japanese were through, they were finished, but they never explain why, if that's the case, that they didn't surrender EVEN AFTER we nuked Hiroshima. Only after we dropped a 2nd nuke on Nagasaki did the Japanese finally call it quits.
Furthermore, the Japanese were the ones who started the war, they raped and murdered their way across China & the Pacific, they savaged our prisoners, & they bombed Pearl Harbor. So as far as I'm concerned, they deserved everything they got and much, much more.
Last but not least, consider that had we not nuked the Japanese, we likely would have gone in with conventional forces and it would have led to a massacre on both sides that dwarfed anything that happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So not only did we save hundreds of thousands of American lives by dropping nukes, we likely spared millions of Japanese lives. Stephen McFarland explains:
"The Army favored a direct, frontal invasion of the Japanese home islands as the quickest means of forcing Japanese unconditional surrender. By April 1, 1945, Japan showed no signs of surrender, encouraging the Joint Chiefs to order the invasion of Okinawa. Three months of ground, sea, and air warfare cost the United States 50,000 casualties and Japan 110,000 dead. The Okinawa experience colored all future plans for defeating Japan. An invasion force against the home islands would confront a Japanese army of possibly five million and many times more civilians receiving rudimentary training in how to oppose any landing. Japan also prepared more than five thousand kamikaze aircraft. The Army's invasion plan called for Operation OLYMPIC, the invasion of Kyushu, to begin November 1,1945, followed by Operation CORONET, the invasion of Honshu (specifically, the plain around Tokyo), to begin sometime in 1946. No one doubted the invasions would be successful. The question was whether the United States could withstand the American casualties that would result and whether it could stomach the millions of Japanese who would be killed in the process.22
Casualty figures were largely the product of the American experience on Saipan and Okinawa. Using the "Saipan ratio," staff officers predicted American casualties could reach 1.7 to 2 million, though by the spring of 1945 this number had declined to 500,000. They knew, however, that the Soviet Red Army had suffered 352,000 casualties attacking Berlin in the closing days of the European war. The Army made plans to recruit and train 720,000 soldiers to replace those injured, killed, or otherwise indisposed in the invasions. It also ordered the production of 400,000 Purple Hearts.23
This is what the United States faced when General Lauris Norstad, chief of staff for Twentieth Air Force, told his chief operational commander, General Curtis LeMay, that "If you don't get results it will mean eventually a mass amphibious invasion of Japan, to cost probably half a million more American lives." Norstad and LeMay knew that Japan had already been defeated- the Navy blockade had assured that. The task was how to get the Japanese to surrender. As early as 1932, Billy Mitchell, sent on a tour of the Far East to get him out of the United States, observed that, though he was opposed to the bombing of civilians, the best way to defeat Japan would be to attack what he called Japan?s "congested and highly inflammable cities." He was there just after a fire in Tokyo had killed 100,000.24
General Haywood Hansell began the precision bombing of Japan?s industries in November 1944, largely without effect. B-29s had to fly too far to carry meaningful bomb loads, but most importantly, the jet stream discovered high over Japan played havoc with the workings of the Norden bombsights that were to aim Twentieth Air Force bombs. Defeating Japan by destroying its capabilities or industries was not going to work. LeMay replaced Hansell, prompting Norstad to explain to Hansell that "LeMay is an operator, the rest of us are planners.? His assignment was to firebomb Japan's paper and wood cities to weaken the ability of the Japanese to resist the impending invasion, but more importantly, to force the Japanese to surrender without an invasion. 25
After the war LeMay explained his intentions: "I'll tell you what war is about. You've got to kill people, and when you've killed enough they stop fighting."26 Tokyo was the first to burn on March 9, followed by Nagoya, Osaka, Kobe, Kawasaki, and Yokohama. Hundreds of thousands were killed or injured, some incinerated and dead, some burned and scarred, some just shocked. Still the Japanese refused to surrender. Atomic bombs came on August 6 and 9 against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, targeted not so much as military weapons at the people of those cities, but as psychological weapons aimed at Japan's military leaders.
In August and September 1945, 650,000 American soldiers were completing the last phases of their training for the invasion of Kyushu. Japan had concentrated its defensive forces near the beaches of Kyushu, where they would have been exposed to the concentrated firepower of 2,500 ships and 5,000 aircraft. Meanwhile B-29s, now joined by B-17s and B-24s flying from Okinawa, were preparing to burn the remaining Japanese cities. Mercifully, for both sides, the word to quit came in August, with the Japanese surrender following on September 2. The largest amphibious invasion planned in world history never happened."
Because we nuked Japan, WW2 ended and the lives of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers were saved. That's enough to satisfy me that it was an excellent decision...
Somebody Call The Pentagon Because RWN Has Been Banned!
What is up with this?
How in the world can the Army reserve ban RWN? Come on, my dog is even named after General Patton. It's like banning Oliver North, Tommy Franks, and Norman Schwarzkopf all rolled into one.
Oh, and since when does the military ban websites for political content?
All I can say is, "Call Donald Rumsfeld, call the Joint Chiefs of Staff, get Dick Cheney on the phone, just do whatever it takes, and let's get RWN back up and running before our troops become brainwashed by the liberal hippies who are somehow managing to slip through the military filters."
Do it for the troops, folks, do it for the troops!
Hat tip to a reader at IMAO for letting me know about this.
Gloat Of The Day: Hackett's Toast -- Just Like I Said
Yesterday, I hammered Chris Bowers over at the liberal blog MyDD, for thumping his chest about what an incredible impact the left-side of the blogosphere was having on an Ohio special election. Bowers was talking about the potent "blogswarm" the lefties had going and he explained that the libs, unlike the conservative blogosphere, were going to make this hugh splash in the election.
Yeah, yeah, right.
Here's what I said:
"Well, let's put the left side of the blogosphere's influence to the test, shall we? The special election is Tuesday and I, John Hawkins, here at Right Wing News, say that the great, big bad left-wing blogswarm is going to amount to diddly squat and Jean Schmidt is going to beat Paul Hackett."
Well, at least the lefties can console themselves with the fact that it was close...oh wait, this isn't horseshoes or hand grenades, is it? So, "close" is just another word for "loser".
So let's tally up the scorecard on this race, shall we? People with a solid grasp on political reality (1) vs. -- people who like to think of themselves as part of "the reality based community" (0).
The Israeli Wall And The Settlers On The Other Side
There's still a lot of hot and heavy debate about the wall Israel is building between themselves and the Palestinians. Predictably, many people oppose the wall, but let's face it, for most of them, it's knee jerk opposition since Israel can do no right in their eyes.
But, there are even a sizable number of Israeli supporters who're opposed to the move because they see it as a capitulation in the war on terrorism and also because Israeli settlers are being forced give up their homes. The latest column by Jeff Jacoby, who's a superb columnist by the way, is a good example of this school of thought:
"And yet there is no getting around the fact that Israel is about to become the first modern, Western nation in more than 60 years to forcibly uproot a whole population -- men, women, children, babies -- solely because they are Jews. There is no getting around the fact that the forthcoming expulsions are rooted in the belief that any future Palestinian state must be Judenrein -- emptied of its Jews. And while it goes without saying that Sharon and every member of his government abominate the Nazis and all they stood for, there is no getting around the fact that disengagement is meant to appease an enemy that has always regarded the genocidal hatred of Jews in a very different light.
Long before there were "occupied territories," Haj Amin El-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem and leader of Palestine's Arabs, urged Hitler to "solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries . . . by the same method that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries." When five Arab armies invaded the newborn Israel in 1948, the secretary-general of the Arab League vowed to wage "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
More than half a century later, how much has changed? The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is the author of a book denying the Holocaust and claiming that Zionists collaborated with the Nazis against the Jews of Europe. Palestinian Authority TV broadcasts poisonous diatribes, like one Friday sermon by Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris. "The Jews are a virus resembling AIDS, from which the entire world suffers," he preached. "The Jews will not enjoy a life of tranquility under our rule, because they are treacherous by nature and have been throughout history."
...The abandonment of Gaza and northern Samaria plays directly into the hands of the haters. The sight of Jewish troops expelling Jewish families from their homes and schools will do nothing to promote Arab-Israeli peace. It will reinforce instead the notion that any Jewish presence is intolerable on land the Arabs claim for themselves. And if that is an argument against Jewish life in Gaza, it is also an argument against Jewish life in Israel."
You know, I'm not even going to disagree with any of that. But, what I will say is that Israel doesn't have any fantastic options here. They're dealing with a bunch of fanatical, completely irrational savages.
The Israelis have tried reasoning with them, as if they were civilized people, for more than a decade and they've gotten absolutely nowhere. So to continue along that path is nothing more than masochism.
Now ideally, the Israelis could simply drive all the Palestinians out of their homes at gunpoint, take their land, and bomb any of the neighboring states that make too much of a fuss about it. But, the Israelis don't have the political will to do that and the United States wouldn't back their play at this point, so a transfer is out.
On the other hand, the Israelis could go in the opposite direction and let the Palestinians have a State. But, even setting aside the fact the Palestinians insist on the Right of Return, which would bring in millions more Palestinians and lead to demographic suicide for Israel, nothing would be gained by giving the Pals what they want.
Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad openly say that their goal is the destruction of Israel, not a State. Furthermore, whether you're talking about Arafat or whether you're talking about Abbas, very little of consequence has been done to curtail the activities of the terrorist groups in the territories and there's no reason to think that would change if the Palestinians had their own nation. So even if the Israelis were inclined to trade "land for peace," the Palestinians aren't putting peace on the table.
Which brings us to Sharon's plan: walling off the Palestinians. Granted, you may occasionally have a suicide bomber slip through and the Pals can still fire rockets over the wall, but the number of casualties produced by terrorist attacks has been and will continue to be dramatically reduced by walling off the terrorists and their supporters. Furthermore, the wall will reduce the strain on the Israeli military and it'll make life better for many Palestinians who'll no longer have to go through checkpoint after checkpoint under the eyes of lethal and understandably nervous Israeli troops.
On top of that, look at the demographics in Gaza: there are "1.3 million Arabs (and) 9,000 Jews." Now how much sense would it make to build a wall and then take a big chunk of your army and put it on the other side to defend 9,000 settlers who are outnumbered nearly 150 to 1 by bloodthirsty Palestinians? That just wouldn't make any sense.
So, despite the fact that it's going to be tough on those settlers, they're going to have to leave their homes. I'm sure Sharon doesn't like making them move, but he, and the rest of the Israeli people, have got to make the best of a bad situation -- and building this wall is doing exactly that.
The Democratic Underground Thread Of The Day: Americans Are Dumb & Ignorant
Why? Why? Why don't the American sheeple respond to the brilliant and incisive messages of people like Michael Moore, Howard Dean, & Kos? I mean, did they not point out that Republicans are evil? Did they not explain that George Bush should be impeached, not reelected? So how can it be that the American people didn't get the message?
It must be because they have little tiny pea brains that are incapable of grasping what towering intellects like John Kerry & Al Gore are saying -- at least that's basically what a lot of people at the Democratic Underground seem to think.
Kentuck: "Democrats must understand that American people are dumb and ignorant. Not meant as a putdown, but stated as a fact. And when they talk to the "American people", they need to speak to them in much simpler laguage. A very small percentage really understands intellectual discussion of the issues. They want it put on a bumpersticker for them. It does no good for our candidates to come out with a 12-step program to get our economy going again. Democrats need to re-learn language. They need to learn to talk with the people like they are in the first grade. Don't confuse them or waste their time with "political" talk."
radwriter0555: "Ignorant, yes, dumb? Not really. Americans are LAZY by and large what with being addicted to teevee and radio... just think; they're addicted to 'getting' information fed to them in 12 second sound bytes, then run around waving their arms (see the 600+ false terror alerts) in horror.
Americans are lazy. They buy what they're told to; listen to the music spoon fed them by morons in the radio biz; watch the movies the suits n ties tell them to watch and actually believe that talking heads on teevee are reliable sources of genuine truth, news and information.
Americans don't READ. They don't apply logic, they don't discern; they have no critical thought process... they simply take the easy way out, and now, thanks to that apathy, we have the new hitler in the white house controlled by the New Americanazis in the republican party.
Thanks."
Maestro: "I've deal with the public on a daily basis. People really aren't dumb just completely ignorant of the big picture. They fail to see how what happens in the world affects them and future generations. To be intellectual takes too much energy. They just think that someone else will fix the problems of the world. Also, they are quite selfish in thinking that they don't need to worry about world hunger, environmental disaster, and general strife because they are fine, relatively speaking, where they are. It is quite pathetic really."
Nimble_Idea: "Dude where have you been sleeping. Listen to talk radio and hear what garbage is fed to these people. They vote the way they do because Thugs far smarter and evil than they are manipulate them. It's called White Power and dixie and all it implies. That's all you need to know to figure those sheep out."
Tom Yossarian Joad: "Unfortunately, speaking English on a level above third grade to the "average american" seems to leave most English speaking people (51% anyway) in a daze. Then they call the speaker an elitist.
America, the land of stupidmotherf*ckers."
theophilus: "This should be a top ten point on Howard Dean's bulletin board! Sad but true. I agree with radwriter that it is more ignorance and laziness than "dumbness" but the results are pretty much the same. I truly believe that this is the reason that Mr. Gore did not win in a landslide. He underestimated the ignorance and the anti-intellectual climate that has been created and nurtured by the RW over the last twenty to thirty years.
How does one get in touch with Dr. Dean? I'd love to have a conversation with him on topics such as this. I wonder what Hillary thinks? If we don't deal with this fact then we, as Democratic Progressives, are going to be living with the DoDo, imho."
seabeyond: "i refuse kentuck i just refuse. why do you think the people are so dumb because they have been being dumb down consistantly alst decade especially during bush time. i refuse and tell my children i refuse to allow them to be dumb down. they had better use their brain to follow me. i have high expectation,. i will not feed into the dumbing down of america. i tell my friends, exactly i expect more out of them, i especially tell my older nieces and nephews and their friends, i will not play their dumb down game
no no no"
Hat tip to RWN reader vogz for pointing out this thread.
Quote Of The Day: The Democratic Party Is In Deeper Trouble Than People Realize
About the only thing Democrats here seemed united on was a deep dislike for President Bush. But that won't be enough, they were told by Al From, founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, which organized this "national conversation."
Employing statistics from the national census and the 2004 presidential election, From hit his audience, including some 300 elected Democratic officials, with this grim picture of why he believes Democrats need a new act:
For every two Americans who say they're liberals, three are conservatives. Democrats lost 97 of the 100 fastest-growing counties in the country last year. Small cities and most suburbs buried the Democratic ticket. Ditto married couples with children. The Democratic vote among the Hispanic population fell 40 percent from 2000. And it collapsed among voters earning more than $40,000 a year.
Noting that Sen. John Kerry got a bigger vote among Democrats in losing than Bill Clinton did in winning, From declared that "the Democratic base is not big enough to win. The country is more conservative." -- The Star-Ledger
In the past, to inspire people to suggest new music that I might be interested in and just for entertainment's sake, I've posted the music I was currently listening to on RWN. But, thanks to wonders of modern technology, I can now tell you which songs I listened to the most over the last month.
Here's the list for July...
9) Phunk Junkees: I Love It Loud
9) Marcy Playground: Sex And Candy
9) Lindsey Buckingham: Go Insane
9) Five For Fighting: Superman
9) Filter: Hey Man Nice Shot
5) The Chemical Brothers: Galvanize
5) Pink: Get The Party Started
5) Johnny Cash: When The Man Comes Around
5) Waylon Jennings: The Dukes Of Hazzard Theme Song
4) Toby Keith & Willie Nelson: Beer For My Horses
3) Kid Rock: Country Boy Can Survive
2) Live: Lightning Crashes
1) Lynyrd Skynyrd: Sweet Home Alabama
I'm a huge Jonah Goldberg fan and generally I agree with him on almost everything. However, his latest column, in which he advocates putting the American public under the watchful and all seeing eye of the government in the name of security, is the exception. Here's the crux of Goldberg's piece:
"Take closed-circuit security cameras in public areas, like they have in London. I don’t like the idea that much myself — it just feels icky — so I’m a bit sympathetic to those who oppose such things here. But at the end of the day, opponents are offering excuses — not arguments — for their recalcitrance.
Opponents say it’s an intrusion into privacy. No, it’s not. A policeman — or anybody else not burdened with a restraining order (man, I hate those things) — can watch you in a public area to his or her heart’s content. That’s why they call it a public area. It isn’t any more of an infringement if they watch you with an unhidden camera than if they do it with their naked eyeballs.
Another claim is that cameras won’t prevent attacks. Well, who says? Doesn’t it become slightly more problematic for a terrorist cell to send one of its stooges to his death if his face can be traced back to the mosque from which he came? Isn’t it possible that cameras, combined with other intelligence, may alert authorities that an area’s being cased before the actual attack?
When that line fails, opponents of security cameras fall back on my own sentiment. “It’s just icky” — i.e., it will have a “chilling effect.” “When citizens are being watched by the authorities,” whines Barry Steinhardt of the American Civil Liberties Union, “they are more self-conscious and less freewheeling.”
Actually, there’s very little evidence of this. (Has no one at the ACLU been watching any of the “caught on video” TV shows?) But there is a great deal of evidence that decent citizens become a lot more freewheeling when they think there are no terrorists or criminals around.
Besides, is it so outrageous that preventing a suicide bombing might come at the cost of certain folks moderately curbing their wild, freewheeling ways on the morning train to work? Either that or some accountants will have to live with the fact that somewhere at police headquarters there’s a video of them wearing one of those Carmen Miranda fruit-basket hats on the 8:15 train from the suburbs.
...But the most dishonest argument about security cameras, searches, profiling, etc. — one we hear constantly — is that they won’t stop terrorism. Well, no one thing will stop terrorism. But to conclude, therefore, that we shouldn’t do anything — that’s not an argument, it’s an excuse. And a bad one."
To me, this is sort of an odd take for a conservative to have on this subject. Aren't we the guys who're always complaining about the nanny state? Yet, here we have a conservative who wants to put cameras up everywhere so the nanny state can watch baby's every move.
Then there's, "Don't trust the government:" wasn't that practically the conservative motto during the Reagan years? Furthermore, didn't the head of security in the Clinton administration, Craig Livingstone, get caught paging through the FBI files of the Clintons' political enemies? Do we really want to give people like that the capability to watch what we do, where we go, and who we talk to on a daily basis? That's certainly not something I support.
On top of that, whatever happened to conservatives getting worried about "the slippery slope?" If you're talking about issues where we can give up part of our individual privacy to make society safer, there's a slippery slope that runs from the top of Mt. Everest down into the bottom of the Grand Canyon.
Goldberg mentions searches and racial profiling, but there are also red light cameras, national ID cards, requiring all citizens to submit to DNA and drug tests, and soon it will be possible (if it's not already) to put chips under our skin so the government can always track where we are and identify us. Once people are used to having Big Brother watching their every move, all of the other invasions of privacy become that much easier to accept.
Also, take a look at this line from Goldberg:
"A policeman — or anybody else not burdened with a restraining order (man, I hate those things) — can watch you in a public area to his or her heart’s content. That’s why they call it a public area."
While that may be true, when was the last time any of us were followed, doggedly, day and night by the same person everywhere we went? For most people, the answer to that question is, "never" and in any case, would you feel comfortable with an ex-boyfriend, a cop, or even just some stranger following 50 steps behind you wherever you went or would that be weird, disquieting, and creepy? Maybe it would be fine with Goldberg, but most people wouldn't see it that way.
Goldberg also notes that filming your every move isn't an "intrusion into privacy." Well, sorry, I have to strongly disagree. "The average commuter in London is filmed 300 times a day," and make no mistake about it, that's what would happen here in America as well. Like many conservatives, I don't believe we have a Constitutional right to privacy, but we do have a right to privacy, and having some nameless, faceless government goon ogling you through a camera all day long violates it as far as I'm concerned.
In the end, perhaps what it comes down to is the instinctive reaction a person has to knowing that the government always has a set of eyes on him. Some people, like Goldberg apparently, may think "Oh good, Big Brother is always looking over my shoulder." But for many of the rest of us, it's more like, "Oh God, Big Brother is always watching over my shoulder." Don't look for those of us who feel that way to ever support turning this country into a giant government peep show.
Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select Their Least Favorite People On The Right
Right Wing News emailed more than 200 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of whom they considered to be their "Least Favorite People On The Right." Representatives from 47 blogs responded.
12) John Warner: A particularly embarrassing squish since he's from a conservative state like Virginia.
11) George Voinovich: Crybaby.
10) Michael Savage: Like Ann Coulter except with 1/2 the talent and 1/4 of the charm.
9) Arlen Specter: I'll never forgive him for trashing Bork.
8) Pat Robertson: Stick a sock in it, big mouth!
7) Jerry Falwell: Ditto my answer for Robertson.
6) Chuck Hagel: John McCain, Jr.
5) Duke Cunningham: Crooked.
4) Andrew Sullivan: Does he even count or has he done a full David Brock yet?
3) Christopher Shays: A RINO/Weasel hybrid.
2) Pat Buchanan: I agree with him on 80% of things, but he constantly harps on the other 20%.
1) John McCain: (R-NYT)
Liberals always insist that they love America, despite their constant complaints, but they can never seem to point out exactly what it is they love about it. Whereas most Americans can simply say, "I love my country," and leave it at that, Liberals always have to follow that statement with a "BUT..." But what?
Consider a relationship in which one person demands that the other change his or her taste in music, books, television shows, movies and style of dress. Imagine that person also being coerced to stop wasting time with cherished recreations, cease eating favorite foods, alter old habits and drop old friends. Is that indicative of a healthy relationship? It's a selfish, controlling kind of affection... "I love you not for who you are, but for what I can change you into." That's how Liberals seem to feel about America.
Ask Liberals why they love America. Really listen to their answers. Do they say they love America for her tolerance and diversity? Then why do they not tolerate those who have opinions that differ from their own? Do they profess to love America's economic opportunities? Why do they want to cripple businesses with oppressive regulations and punish those who succeed with higher taxes? Do they tell you they love America for her beautiful forests, plains, rivers and mountains? If so, why do they complain about the manner in which those lands became part of this country, and demand that it all be preserved as if behind glass? Do they claim to love America for the freedoms we enjoy? Why, then, do they despise the military and police that protect our freedom? Why do they protest our military for helping others secure freedom for themselves and their children?
Liberals claim to support our military... but it's an odd kind of "support" that primarily consists of comparing them to Nazis and Soviet thugs, and accusing them of torture and wanton slaughter. What kind of "support" calls for them to abandon their mission before it's completed, and run away from an enemy who chose this fight? How can you say to someone, "I support you, but despise everything you stand for and everything you do, and will take every possible opportunity to make my feelings obvious for all to see?" That's not love and support; that's utter contempt, lacking even the common decency to be honest about it.
There seems to be nothing about America of which Liberals whole-heartedly approve. When they encourage teachers to stop using red pens because red is "pretty frightening," and feel that testing students at their grade level is "inherently unfair," you know they can't think much of our educational system. Liberals take no pride in our history, our political system, our traditions or our ability to exercise our religious freedom. Don't they frequently accuse America of committing horrible atrocities and being a nation of religious extremists? Don't they condemn patriotic displays and complain about "rigged" elections whenever they lose one, without serious evidence or reason? They claim they're just looking at America "warts and all," but the warts are all they see. Imagine saying to a person in earnestness, "Sure I love you, but you're ugly, stupid and smell bad." Wouldn't any reasonable person characterise that as emotional cruelty, at best?
It's time for America to get out of this abusive relationship. We've put up with Liberals bad-mouthing our country for far too long without putting up a defense. The next time you hear a Liberal insisting that he or she loves America and supports the troops, "BUT..." gently interrupt and ask, "why?" If you get an answer at all, it should be enlightening
Jabber All You Want, You Left-Wing Bloggers, Paul Hackett Is Still Going To Lose
There's a special congressional election in Ohio that is getting all the lefty bloggers hyped up. In this election, Republican Jean Schmidt is going toe-to-toe with loud mouthed Iraqi war vet, Paul Hackett. Hackett has called Bush a "chickenhawk," has said that W. is the biggest threat facing the United States and has generally made a...well, made a donkey of himself. Of course, lefty bloggers are all excited about Hackett because they love brash and obnoxious candidates, so they just can't shut up about this race.
In fact, Chris Bowers over at the liberal blog MyDD has actually tabulated the number of posts about this election on the left and right side of the blogosphere and is crowing about the publicity the lib bloggers are showering on Hackett:
"In the midst of a full-out progressive blogswarm on Paul Hackett's behalf, conservative blogs, who love to boast of their ability to swarm, have done nothing to help out Schmidt in OH-02. In fact, they aren't even writing about it.
...Even when the news aggregators are removed, progressives blogs have written roughly ten times as much about this election as conservative blogs. What's more, since Blogopshere Day, the advantage in liberal blog posts has been around 20-1. Even further, the vast majority of conservative blog posts on Hackett over the past two weeks have been from a fairly unknown website, Weapons of Mass Discussion, which averages a whopping 130 page views per day (less than 1,000 per week). By contrast, I believe that literally every single blog in the Liberal Advertising Network, all of which have vastly more traffic than Weapons of Mass Discussion, has discussed Hackett.
Those action-oriented conservative bloggers have completely ignored this race, while us divisive liberals have engaged in an all-out blogswarm that has gone a long way toward making this campaign close. While the MSM cannot help but fawn over the media scalps most often associated with conservative blog influence, the fact is that outside of a select (and admittedly very capable) few, such as Red State, Captain's Quarters and Patrick Ruffini, conservative bloggers are straight up ineffective when it comes to actually influencing electoral politics. How many elections have gone by now where conservative bloggers offered almost nothing in the way of resource support to conservative candidates? If they had jumped into the OH-02 race (or SD-AL and KY-06 special elections for that matter) with the same force as the progressive blogosphere, Hackett would probably still be way, way behind.
They haven't however, and Paul Hackett is now close. However, the same cannot be said of the current capabilities of the progressive and conservative blogospheres."
Boy, he's all jazzed up about what a great job the left side of the blogosphere's doing "influencing electoral politics," isn't he?
Well, let's put the left side of the blogosphere's influence to the test, shall we? The special election is Tuesday and I, John Hawkins, here at Right Wing News, say that the great, big bad left-wing blogswarm is going to amount to diddly squat and Jean Schmidt is going to beat Paul Hackett.
I base that on the fact that Bush took 64% of the vote in that district last November and on this statement from Larry Sabato:
"It's a totally safe district," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "The only question you ever have is that special elections can be squirrelly in terms of turnout."
So by late Tuesday, we should see who got it right: blogs like this one, that didn't waste a lot of time on the race because it's in a heavily Republican district, or the lefty bloggers who think they're accomplishing something by incessantly talking up a guy who's almost guaranteed to lose.
The smart money? It's not on the side of the left-wing blogger who's writing a triumphant post about what a huge impact liberal bloggers have had on an election that hasn't even happened yet...
