The mature follower of Jesus stops asking, "Who's going to meet my needs?" and starts asking, "Whose needs can I meet?" Do you ever ask that question? -- Rick Warren
Format Break: Ok Big Mouths, Vote On An Iraq Pull-Out
This is a shrewd political maneuver by the GOP (and how often have any of us had an opportunity to say that over the last year or so?)
"House Republicans, seeing an opportunity, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker's call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"We want to make sure that we support our troops that are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan," said Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill. "We will not retreat."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of California had no immediate reaction to the idea of a quick vote before Congress leaves Washington for two weeks.
GOP leaders decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. John Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops.
By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.
Murtha offered a resolution that would force the president to withdraw the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." It would establish a quick-reaction force and a nearby presence of Marines in the region.
House Republicans planned to put to a vote - and reject - their own resolution that simply says: "It is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately."
Ok, so you Democrats want to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq by cutting and running? Fine, then right here, right now, tonight, they should vote to do just that. Let them go ahead and show the world that Democrats have failed a gut-check, that they don't have the stomach or the heart to stick in there. Go ahead, you Dems, vote for the "victory for Al-Qaeda" bill.
On the other hand, Democrats could stand up and show the troops that they support their mission and simultaneously infuriate the nutty Daily Kos/Michael Moore wing of the Democratic Party that wants nothing more than to give up on Iraq.
Wasn't John Murtha -- a "hawkish" Democrat who has been complaining about the war in Iraq since 2003 -- just saying yesterday that he wanted our country to collectively tuck our tails between our legs and abandon the Iraqis to Al-Qaeda?
Fine, let's vote on it and see what happens.
This is a good move by the GOP because it'll make these Democrats get on the record and then next year, as we get nearer to the election, when the troops are coming home and public opinion is zooming up, let the Dems defend their decision to attempt to rob our troops and our country of victory in Iraq.
It's put up or shut-up time, you Donks, so let's see what you got...
Q&A Friday #27: With Whom, And Where, Would You Go On Vacation?
Question: If you were going on vacation with any 3 other bloggers, where would you be chilling and with who? -- Compiled
Answer: Hmmm....this is a tough one. Vacation wise, I'm one of these homebodies who doesn't even want to go anywhere...although actually, one of those National Review political cruises would be fun. It would also be a blast to go on a trip down the Amazon -- assuming you didn't get killed. Greece, Israel, and Italy might be fun too -- a lot of historical places to check out there. If I had to pick just one and I was going by myself, I would go with the National Review cruise. If I were going with other people, I think might go with Greece.
Now, as far as whom I'd take with me goes....
My very first choice would be Sarahk of Mountaineer Musings, Frank J.'s gorgeous fiance and t-shirt girl. Yep, she's first, she's the person I'd pick numero uno, the person I would vote for, absolutely #1!
Then, because Sarahk hates me and would be pining away for Frank -- which would make her miserable company -- I'd need to pick two other people whom I would actually hang out with.
I think I'd have to go with Mary Katharine Ham, who's blogging over at Hugh Hewitt's place these days. The fact that she is a North Carolina girl, born and raised, gives her the edge.
Then there's Megan McArdle from Asymmetical Information. She reminds me of Dagny Taggart from Atlas Shrugged and I expect she'd be a fun person for a conservative guy to hang out with.
Give me those two and Sarahk (after we "ungrumpified" her) and I bet we'd have a blast on vacation somewhere. But, if any of the three of them couldn't make it, I think I'd go with...
Honorable Mentions
Ann Coulter (that thing on the right side of her page counts as a blog, right?)
Right Thinking Girl (She's taking a break from blogging, but ya gotta love her).
Risawn from Incoherant Ramblings
Pam from Atlas Shrugs
Joyce from Transcended
Do me favor -- just a small one. Click on a few of the links below. It'll help me out and it'll reward these advertisers for supporting conservatives blogs like this one with their advertising dollars. So, click...just a few of them...please?
PS: I now have 2 out of 4 banner ad slots available. The cost is $60 for a 468x60, 20 kb or less banner ad that runs at the top of RWN for a month. If you're interested, send me an email letting me know, click on the "donate via Paypal" in the support section to get the money to me, and I'll have an ad up for you ASAP.
Q&A Friday #27: What The Government Should Do About Obscenity
Question: I've noticed that rightwingnews touches on a lot of topics, but there is one topic that is very important to me but has not been considered. And that is violence/obscenity in movies, tv, and videogames (especially videogames). And it's not like there hasn't been anything to comment on either. For example, last summer there was the "hot coffee mod" in GTA that got the game essentially banned in the state of California. I haven't seen hide nor hair of this story or any others like it. No posts in favor of the banning or against it. Are you just indifferent to this topic or conflicted or what? -- mightysamurai
Answer: I'm basically a free marketer when it comes to decency / obscenity and the media. So, while I didn't approve of Janet Jackson flashing her breast at what most people could have reasonably assumed was a family friendly half-time show, I did not support increasing fines for indecency on the radio.
What it all comes down to is that I think some very basic steps need to be taken to protect people from exposed to indecent or obscene material who don't want to see it and then from there, people should be able to make their own decisions.
When it comes to kids, I believe strongly that the government should not usurp the role of parents in deciding what their children should be exposed to, although of course, some people want them to do just that.
Personally, I think parents have a responsibility to look in on what sort of TV shows, radio shows their kids are watching. They also should check in on what their kids are looking at on their computer or in video games. If the parents aren't doing that, it's not the responsibility of the government to step in and do their job for them.
That is in part because when it comes to the media, the government always ends up swinging a wrecking ball to try to hit a fly. For example, take Grand Theft Auto. If you ban the game, yes, the job of parents who -- understandably -- don't want their kids playing GTA gets easier. On the other hand, the vast majority of people who play the game -- who are either adults or kids whose parents aren't concerned about what they're doing -- will have been unfairly inconvenienced by the heavy handed actions of the government.
In short, beyond setting and enforcing the most basic standards of decency, the government shouldn't be involved in telling people what kind of media people can consume.
Format Break: OSM Media -- I'm Still Not Getting It
If anything, the whole Open Source Media project is more puzzling than ever now, 2 days after their debut.
It's becoming clear that they don't intend to be a big portal, given that they only had 3 new articles on their main page yesterday (There have been more than that today) and the articles written by staff are, well, pretty run-of-the-mill. There are a lot of blogs signed up with OSM that are pumping out more (and better) content than the OSM homepage.
So the home page is inferior to the blogs of many of the members and, therefore, doesn't seem designed to be a traffic magnet, like let's say The Huffington Post.
So, what about advertising? Well, judging by the list of blogs involved and the traffic they've done at Blogads, they're probably serving up 5-6 million impressions per week with Glenn Reynolds, Michelle Malkin, and Little Green Footballs making up a little over 2.5 million of that total. Can you make enough money off that many impressions to support parties at the Rainbow Room, a LA office, a New York Office, 8 staff members & two owners, after paying the bloggers their cut, which probably comes out to something like 5k-6k (if not more) a week, given what these people were making with Blogads? Given the advertising rates being paid out of the web right now, it's hard to see how they could come anywhere close to breaking even with those kind of numbers.
So, if they're not going to be drawing massive traffic to their homepage, they're probably not making a profit selling advertising, and they're not breaking news (none so far), what exactly are they trying to do?
That's a little hard to say, but there are lot of good and decent people involved with this project, so hopefully things will become clearer. Anything that brings more money, attention, and competition to the blogosphere is good for all of us, so let's hope OSM is successful.
PS: I sell Blogads and run a Conservative MiniNetwork for them, which is an unpaid position. Since I don't work for Blogads, I don't think it's a conflict of interest to talk about OSM, but I figured I'd note that anyway.
There was another Alito conference call today and this one featured former Senator Dan Coats, who is out introducing Alito to Senators up on Capitol Hill.
This time around, there didn't appear to be an overriding theme to the Conference Call. They just wanted to let us know that they didn't think there would be a filibuster, Alito has done an extraordinary number of visits already (more than 60), that Alito should get the same fair treatment that Ruth Ginsberg did, and that we should look out for liberal groups trying to smear Alito (no big shocker there).
In general, Coats did a good job of answering people's questions and he answered mine as well.
My question was:
"Judge Alito said he thought there was no right to abortion in the Constitution back in 1985, which was right and correct, in my opinion. However, since there have been some rulings on abortion since then, like Planned Parenthood vs. Casey, wouldn't it be entirely appropriate for Judge Alito to still cite the Ginsberg Precedent and refuse to say how he will rule on abortion and Roe v. Wade because of those other cases?"
Coats said that the Ginsberg Precedent still stands and that Alito will not be answering how he would rule on Roe V. Wade, although he may talk a little more about precedent and Stare decisis.
The message I took out of what Coats said was don't be alarmed if he starts talking a lot about the importance of precedent when it comes to abortion. That's something he may have to do more of because of that letter, but it doesn't mean he won't rule against Roe v. Wade when the time comes.
Q&A Friday #27: What Really Happened When Kennedy Was Assassinated?
Question: "At the risk of opening the door to one of the widest arrays of conspiracy theories the world has ever seen, what do you think actually happened with the Kennedy assassination?" -- maledicta
Answer: Unlike most people, I think Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, shot and killed him. Despite the bottomless well of conspiracy theories that have sprung up about Kennedy's murder, I haven't seen anything that has convinced me that Lyndon Johnson, the mob, Commies, the CIA or anyone else other than Oswald was involved in his murder.
A lot of people, undoubtedly, will disagree with that, but from my point-of-view, the conspiracy people have had more 40 years to make a case and, if anything, there are more competing theories, based on often conflicting sets of dodgy facts and assumptions, than ever.
So, if the truth goes beyond the obvious -- and if you dig into it a little on non-conspiracy sites, it seems more likely than not that it doesn't -- then it seems unlikely that we're going to find out what really happened at this late date anyway. But again, I think already we know what happened...
Q&A Friday #27: Will We See McCain Run As Hillary's Veep?
Question: "John can you see what i see? or am i wrong? - Hillary Clinton running for president while having John McCain as her vice presidential candidate, running on a campaign of bipartisonship, lets bring republicans and democrats together now. what do you think?" -- abel
Answer: McCain is a complete crapweasel and it's always possible that he'd run as an independent or as a Democrat, but my guess is that if he were content to play 2nd banana, he would have done it already with John Kerry in 2004, since the two of them are friends.
Question: "How accurate is snopes.com on political-related stuff? It's take on Kerry's Vietnam service, for example, would seem to contradict things I read in the MSM, let alone some rightish outlets. Csn it be depended on to accurately debunk political urban myths - or does it show a bias on those items?" -- BMasso
Answer: Snopes does tilt to the left politically. That doesn't mean they'll make things up to stick it to conservatives or to help "their side," but they will, at times (not always) ignore inconvenient facts, make questionable judgements, etc., if it'll help someone on the left.
So, when it comes to politics, just be aware of their political bias. Maybe what they're saying is right, maybe they're fudging a little to help a Democrat. That's worth remembering when you read their material.
Q&A Friday #27: Will The Bush Administration End Up On Trial For The War In Iraq?
Question: John, I have a question:
In the infinite splendor that is your mind - in its vast reaches and incomprehensible pockets of brilliant, flashing thought - can you pull out an answer to this rather small question:
WILL THE B*STARDS THAT SUPPORTED THIS WAR, NOT TO MENTION THE ONES THAT KEEP IT GOING ( BUSH, CHENEY, RUMSFELD, RICE, THE LOT OF THE SH*TTING GANG), NOT TO MENTION ALSO CONDONING AND SUPPORTING TORTURE, WILL THEY SOMEDAY BE SITTING IN THE DOCK, THEIR CRIMES COMING THROUGH THEIR NUREMBERG-STYLE HEADSETS?
Thanks John! You're the greatest!" -- crappy_jack
Answer: Not only will the Bush Administration never end in the dock for imaginary "war crimes," if history is any indicator, 20 years from now, the American people will view Iraq as an incredible victory, liberals will be claiming that they supported Bush in Iraq all along, and if you have any kids, they'll probably be going to the George W. Bush High School down the block.
Sound far fetched? Not if you're a student of history. In fact, I'll bet there are at least a few diehard lefties who thought Reagan was a warmonger & loved the Sandinistas, whose kids are now getting an education at one of the many high schools named after Ronald Reagan. How do you like the Reagan Raiders logo from Ronald Reagan High School in Pfafftown, N.C.? Pretty sweet, isn't it? Well, in 20 years it'll be nice to see the George W. Bush Cowboys or the Bush High School Crusaders out there.
PS: When you see that your keyboard is typing in all capital letters like that, it means the Caps Lock button is on. Hit that button, on the left side of the keyboard, and things will go back to normal. There, now you don't look so angry or deranged, even if you are =D
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.
George Galloway On Those "Dignified" Terrorists In Iraq By Betsy Newmark
Can George Galloway get any more vile? Is there any dictatorship or sponsor of terrorism that he won't cuddle up to? Now, he's praising Syria.
"In a speech that will incense Syrian democracy campaigners, the former Glasgow MP urged Syrians to take pride in the Baathist authoritarian, who inherited rule from his father, Hafez Assad.
An anticipated UN report into the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the former Lebanese prime minister, would "frame" Syria, Mr Galloway told an audience at the University of Damascus in a highly charged lecture.
"All dignified people in the world, whether Arabs or Muslims or others with dignity, are very proud of the speech made by president Bashar al-Assad a few days ago here in Damascus," he said.
"For me he is the last Arab ruler, and Syria is the last Arab country. It is the fortress of the remaining dignity of the Arabs, and that's why I'm proud to be here."
The Respect MP, who formerly sat for Labour in Glasgow, has some track record for praising isolated leaders: in 1994 he travelled to Baghdad and "saluted" Saddam Hussein's courage.
Not only does he suck up to Damascus, but he's also encouraging the terrorism in Iraq.
In his latest speech, broadcast on al-Jazeera, Mr Galloway said Iraqi resistors were defeating US soldiers on their soil.
"No American soldier who leaves his barracks can be sure that he will come back alive," he said, to applause.
US forces could not control a single street in Iraq, which was why they would not dare invade Syria, he said.
"America is losing the war in Iraq and she cannot dream of starting a new war in Syria," he said.
"If they dared to invade Syria, every dignified person in the country would fight them exactly as the people of Iraq are fighting them now."
Syrians would rise up and fight Americans in the same way that the British had resisted Nazi occupiers, he said.
Got that? This worm is proud of the adherents of Zarqawi in Iraq. He doesn't seem to even recognize the innocent Iraqis who are suffering the bulk of the killing. I guess that he would regard them as collaborators. This man is so vile; it's hard to believe that he comes out of free country, but alas, it is so.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Apparently, there are a bunch of liberals out there whose ideal world consists of aging, childless hippies sitting around in some solar paneled commune, eating organic wheat, and waiting for all the people to die so the world can be turned over to the caribou and spotted owls. Don't buy it? Then read this column at the San Francisco Gate:
"...(T)here's an undeniable logic to it: Human activities -- from development to travel, from farming to just turning on the lights at night -- are damaging the biosphere. More people means more damage. So if fewer people means less destruction, wouldn't no people at all be the best solution for the planet?
I've been thinking about this a lot lately because my wife and I have been talking about having a child. We're the kind of people who reduce, reuse and recycle. We try hard not to needlessly fritter away resources. We think globally and act locally in our day-to-day decisions. So while the biggest quandary of most couples in our shoes might be what color to paint the nursery, we have to ask ourselves, Is the impact of a new person justified?
The problem is stark: The United Nations estimates that the human population, currently at 6.5 billion, is well on its way to 9.1 billion in 2050. Many estimates place a sustainable population in which most of the people on Earth are able to enjoy their lives at between one and two billion.
By nearly every measure -- pollution, carbon emissions, forest loss, fishery depletion, soil fertility, water availability and others -- the growing population is wreaking havoc on the Earth's systems. And it's setting our civilization up for a big, hard fall.
..."May we live long and die out," says Naomi Thompson, quoting the VHEMT slogan. Thompson, who is in her late 20s and works as an analyst for Wells Fargo in San Francisco, has also concluded that childbearing is irresponsible. "It's not about wanting to kill people, but it's selfish to have a kid at this point when so many aren't getting the love and attention that they deserve."
...I'm more like Mary and Mike Brune. The Alameda couple are longtime environmentalists. Mike Brune is executive director of the Rainforest Action Network, so he spends his entire workday thinking in excruciating detail about just how much trouble the planet is in.
Like most environmentalists -- even most Americans -- the Brunes have taken steps to reduce their environmental impact.
"We certainly do as much as we can to limit our consumption," says Mike Brune. "We made sure we live near mass transit. We have one of the new Priuses. We buy organic food almost exclusively. We feel that it's very important to connect our personal values to all aspects of how we live: where we work, what we eat, what we buy."
But when, after six and a half years of marriage, it came time for the couple to consider a child, those strong personal values came up against an even stronger drive.
"I understand rationally the argument for not having children -- I can see the point," says Mary Brune, a technical writer and, since becoming a mother, co-founder of Making Our Milk Safe, an organization that monitors industrial toxins in human milk (watch this space for more on that issue).
"I've talked to friends who have made certain that they can't have children so they don't bring another person into the world," she continues. "But for us there's a real primal need to have a child. For me, personally, I had a desire to bear my own child."
...Even Knight, in his oddly cheery brand of pessimism, thinks that the drive to breed may be insurmountable.
"It's not too likely that the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is going to succeed," he told me. "I don't think any of us are so naive as to think that 6.5 billion people are going to say, 'Yeah, let's stop breeding, this is great.' But it's still the right thing to do."
You see the damage all you people who've already had kids are causing? Because you've pumped out your little rugrats, it's making life unsustainable in other parts of the world like Belgium and Venezuela. In fact, your children are probably, somehow or another, responsible for the riots and car torchings those nice French people have had to endure.
Meanwhile, if human beings were just a little more responsible, just a little less willing to be such breeders, none of us would be here and the noble snail darter, cockroach, and, yes, even the seven tailed skunk loach, could be roaming about in peace, enjoying the earth without any of us noisy humans around.
Oh, how selfish those of us at the top of the food chain have been... ;D
Quote Of The Day: When The Democrats Put Politics Above America's Safety
"And when I'm asked by reporters (which I am often) of whether or not the accusations that the president "lied" to go to war are gaining traction, I note that it's been the same accusation lobbed by the Dems for 18 months+ now, and is a smear that is obviously not sticking. After all, if you throw a noodle on the fridge to see if it's done, and it keeps sliding off, throwing it over and over again isn't going to change the fact that it's not going to work. The smear in this instance not only is an insult to the president, but to all of us. It also sends a message to the enemy--that half of the leadership of this nation have a vested interest in us losing this war because they are controlled by a sickness which makes them believe them they can only win when bad things to happen to this nation.
Think about it this way--what if during World War II the Republicans kept arguing that the war was a "quagmire" and that President Roosevelt "lied" about Pearl Harbor, and that the Germans had done nothing to us, as a result he had "misled" us into the war. Then they start asking for a "time table" to get out of Europe. Does that sound normal to you? Or reasonable? Or does it sound like a defeatist, Hate-America first attitude? It certainly would have been manna to the ears of Hitler and Tojo." -- Tammy Bruce
Just When You Thought The Poll Numbers Couldn't Get Any Worse...
You always have to take the numbers from any one poll with a grain of salt, but if these numbers in the latest Harris poll are even close to correct, the American people are basically saying that they hate just about everybody and everything in Washington...well, except for maybe Condi Rice =D.
Just take a look at this:
"Bush's current job approval rating stands at 34%, compared with a positive rating of 88% soon after 9/11, 50% at this time last year, and 40% in August.
And he's not alone. Cabinet members, Congressional leaders and both parties in Congress have also seen their ratings slip, with Democrats seeing one of the biggest dips in approval, the telephone poll of 1,011 U.S. adults shows.
Vice President Dick Cheney's approval ratings slipped to 30% this month from 35% in August, while Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's approval ratings dropped to 34% from 40% and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's approval ratings fell to 52% from 57%, according to the poll.
At the same time, only a quarter of Americans polled give Democrats a positive rating in the latest poll, compared with 31% in August, while Republicans' approval ratings fell to 27% from 32%.
...In the most recent poll, Americans were also asked to name the two most important issues that the U.S. government needs to address. When considering the most important issues, 34% of those polled say the war is most important, 13% said the economy and 13% said Iraq. Other issues mentioned were health care (11%), education (10%) and taxes (9%)."
Some points worth noting:
-- Everyone focuses on Bush's approval rating, but the American people like him better than Congress, and interestingly enough, the Republicans in Congress better than the Democrats.
-- Admittedly, an anti-incumbent mood favors the Democrats more than Republicans, simply because there are more Republicans in office. But, it's hard to see how the Democrats are going to be able to take much advantage of that when people like them even less than Republicans.
-- Also, it seems to be the American people are being way too pessimistic all around. If the war on terrorism is the most important, well, it's going fairly well despite the bumbling and incompetence we've seen in Congress as of late. There haven't been any more 9/11's, fifty million people have been freed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda is significantly weaker than they were before the war started, etc., etc. That should be a positive.
As far as the economy goes, it has been strong for 2 full years now. Jobs are being created, the economy is growing, and gas prices are even plummeting (Wonder if there will be a psychological impact when gas drops below $2.00 again?)
Then there's Iraq where we just had a successful election and have another one scheduled for December. Saddam is being tried, we will likely have a lot of troops coming home next year, hopefully by mid-summer, because the Iraqis are getting closer and closer to handling their own security. People talk about the "light at the end of the tunnel," well, it's right there. We have dappled sunlight on our faces, we can see the trees outside and smell the fresh air. Victory is not far away at this point.
Then there's health care (What about the Medicare Prescription Drug debacle?), education (What about the massive spending increases on education and No Child Left Behind?), and taxes (When will those tax cuts ever become permanent?) which have been addressed, although not particularly well.
-- Last but not least, there is some good news for the politicians currently in power: it's November of 2005, not November of 2006. So, there's still time to turn things around.
"Prices are perhaps the most misunderstood thing in economics. Whenever prices are "too high" -- whether these are prices of medicines or of gasoline or all sorts of other things -- many people think the answer is for the government to force those prices down.
...Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on whether sellers are "greedy" or not. In the competition of the marketplace, prices are signals that convey underlying realities about relative scarcities and relative costs of production.
Those underlying realities are not changed in the slightest by price controls. You might as well try to deal with someone's fever by putting the thermometer in cold water to lower the reading.
Municipal transit used to be privately owned in many cities, until local politicians' control of fares kept those fares too low to buy and maintain buses and trolleys, and replace them as they wore out. The costs of doing these things were not reduced in the slightest by refusing to let the fares cover those costs.
All that happened was that municipal transit services deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying through the nose as city governments took over from transit companies that they had driven out of business -- and government usually did a worse job.
Something similar has happened in rental housing markets, where rent control laws have kept the rents too low to build and maintain rental housing. Whether in Europe or America, rent-controlled housing is almost invariably older housing and more deteriorated housing.
Costs don't go away because you refuse to pay them, any more than gravity goes away if you refuse to acknowledge it. You usually pay more in different ways, through taxes as well as prices, and by deterioration in quality when political processes replace economic process." -- Thomas Sowell
Hat tip to Betsy's Page for pointing out the column.
Dick Cheney has now joined the “push back” with a forceful speech. Here are a few excerpts:
"What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.
We can never say enough how much we appreciate them, and how proud they make us. They and their families can be certain: That this cause is right … and the performance of our military has been brave and honorable … and this nation will stand behind our fighting forces with pride and without wavering until the day of victory."
Hell, yes!
This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.
Today, Pajamas Media, now known as Open Source Media, had their big roll out and...I still don't totally get it.
Don't get me wrong, like everyone else, I'm very impressed by the endless assortment of big names associated with OSM, like Michelle Malkin, Mark Steyn, Glenn Reynolds, and Tammy Bruce among many, many, others. Also, the fact that they're having a roll-out at the Rainbow Room and have attained $3.5 million dollars worth of venture capital is certainly a sign that someone thinks they're on the ball.
That being said, there are a lot of things I still don't understand yet.
For example, is OSM trying to be the Huffington Post, Blogads, the Associated Press, or something inbetween? The homepage for the site is -- in my opinion -- more than a little clunky compared to the The Huffington Post. So, if they're looking to turn OSM into a major portal, the page still needs work.
On other hand, if they're looking to be the next Blogads, then again, their approach is a little puzzling. They did manage to capture about -- oh -- I'm going to say half, maybe a little more, maybe a little less than that -- of the conservative blog traffic out there. But, there are very few liberal and "other" types of blogs involved. So, if you look at demographics and the actual volume of impressions that they can sell to advertisers, they're small and limited compared to Blogads. Moreover, given that we're talking about long contracts every time a new blogger is added, they seem unlikely to ever catch up.
Furthermore, unlike most group blogs, OSM must have some very high fixed costs. They're paying salaries out to all the bloggers at OSM. On top of that, they have a New York office, a LA office, and a staff of 8 people plus the 2 owners, none of whom are likely working for peanuts if they have to make a living in LA or New York.
Can they make enough off of tower ads in order to break even with that kind of overhead? Given what I know about the kind of ad rates that are being paid out right now on the net and the number of impressions they're going to be able to serve, my gut instinct is no, they can't even get close.
That's why this whole venture seems to be a head scratcher. It's sort of like back in the internet boom days. You saw large amounts of money changing hands and people getting all excited, but you didn't see the "there there," and you had to wonder what was really happening behind-the-scenes. Of course, Charles Johnson and Roger Simon are both sharp guys, so you have to think there's more to this than what they're showing to the public right now.
In any case, Open Source Media is going to bring more attention to blogging and there are a lot of people I know and respect involved with OSM, so I wish them all the success in the world. Let's hope they make a mint...
Some other bloggers commenting on Open Source Media today, pro and con, include:
On Monday of this week, I was fortunate to have the opportunity to interview Tammy Bruce via phone. Ms. Bruce is a syndicated radio host on 163 stations, she also blogs, and has a new book out: "The New American Revolution.”
In the interview, we discussed Tammy's Bruce's new book, the left, hate mail, fascism, and lesbianism among other topics.
You can read the transcript of our interview, which was edited for the sake of clarity and to avoid repetition, here.
The Republican Party Shouldn't Get Involved In Lincoln Chafee's Primary
You want to know why Republicans in Congress, particularly in the Senate, seem so weak, disorganized, and inept? It's because of the same sort of mentality that led them to do this:
"The National Republican Senatorial Committee is up with its second ad this month attacking Cranston (R.I.) Mayor Steve Laffey, who is challenging Sen. Lincoln Chafee in next year's GOP primary.
The new ad, which takes the form of a cartoon, paints Laffey as a comic-book character starring in "Laffeyland Tales."
The narrator says Laffey used taxpayer dollars to soundproof his mayoral office and spent "thousands on spy cameras to spy on employees."
"Bizarre...but the joke's on us," the narrator says, adding that Cranston had the highest property taxes in the state under Laffey and that Laffey raised taxes twice. "Tax and Spend Steve Laffey ... Nobody's laughing now," the narrator intones at the ad's close.
The commercial, which hit the airwaves Sunday, was produced by OnMessage Inc. for the NRSC, according to spokesman Brian Nick."
First of all, the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is supposed to represent all Republicans, has no business getting involved in primaries at all. Imagine giving money to the NRSC and then having them spend it to support the prototypical RINO in a race against a slightly more conservative Republican. No wonder their fundraising stinks.
Aside from that, this is a dumb move for a second reason: it sends the message to Republicans up on the Hill that the Party will support them no matter what.
That's a huge mistake.
Look, we all know that there are a lot of squishes in Congress, particularly from some of these North-Eastern states, and that they're not always going to support the party. We should be able to live with that because the reality is that you're not going to get a Tom Coburn or George Allen elected in liberal states like Rhode Island or Maine.
Still, even if you're stuck with these RINOS, you should at least be able to count on their support when the going gets tough -- but that's not true at all. Even when we really need their votes, the RINOs may go the other way.
Why is that?
It's because the GOP doesn't enforce Party discipline. In Chafee's case, you have a left-of-center "Republican," who people thought might switch parties in 2002, and he didn't even vote for Bush in 2004. Yet, you have the GOP running ads against another Republican in an effort to get Chafee reelected.
Why?
Let Chafee sink or swim on his own and if he sinks, Laffey wins, and horror or horrors, we lose the seat -- which isn't a given by the way -- and then guess what? We'll have a bunch of squishes thinking seriously about whether they want to keep crossing the Party over and over on important issues if it costs them support at election time.
The truth is that we may have 55 Republican Senators, but since 4-7 of them may jump ship on any given issue, in practical terms, the GOP can never be sure of getting 50 votes when it counts. That needs to stop and if the GOP were to stand by and watch as Lincoln Chafee's political career came to an abrupt end, it would be a great way to send a message to the other RINOs.
Excerpt Of The Day: The Watergate Babies In Congress
"It was 30 years ago when Congress last took the reins of national war fighting. In August 1974, Nixon had been scandalized and left office. The November 1974 election brought forth the "Watergate babies" congress filled with young anti-war Democrats. One of the first actions of the Watergate Congress was to vote to deny an appropriation of $800 million to pay for South Vietnamese military aid, including ammunition and spare parts. Historical records now are known that reveal that five weeks after that vote, the North Vietnamese started planning their final offensive. The morale of the South Vietnamese was broken by that symbolic Congressional act of betrayal. The actual dollar cuts forced South Vietnamese President Thieu to abandon the Central Highland in March of 1975, leading to the collapse of our ally and the onset of genocide and police state brutalities that killed more Asians than all the thousand days of the war did.
Now the Watergate babies have grown old -- and age has not improved them. They plan to finish their careers as they started them -- in defeatism, betrayal and national dishonor." -- Tony Blankley
RWN's Favorite Quotes From Tammy Bruce's The New American Revolution
(*** You can purchase Tammy Bruce's The New American Revolution at Amazon and you can read more of Tammy's work at her excellent blog, which is located here. ***)
"The American Left complains that we have no right to be the world's police force. On the contrary. We've been the world's janitor for almost a century, and after September 11, it became obvious it's better, safer, and more productive to change things instead of cleaning up after the mess." -- P.1
"Our greatness perturbs many in the world for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it reminds the mediocre of, well, their own mediocrity. So, we acquiesced to the Left's command that we pretend to be like everyone else. More concerned with hurting others' feelings, we retreated. Any show of strength or, God forbid, superiority, is to be avoided lest we make another country feel bad about itself. And how better to make others feel better about themselves than to deny our own greatness, the Left malevolently insists. The Leftists taught us to hate ourselves so that other nations could feel adequate." -- P.5
"Our tendency to respond only when attacked cost the United States five hundred thousand lives in World War 2, and the world fifty-three million lives. September 11 did what even Pearl Harbor did not -- it caused us to decide that waiting to be killed by Fascists around the world would not do." -- P.7
"Despite the ban on human cloning, the Left has quite the stanglehold on replicating themselves. Truly unique individuals, those who think for themselves and question authority, are not welcome, nor do they survive in today's Leftist establishment. -- P.63
"While we are a trusting people, we cannot afford to become gullible. We must be suspicious of government because the more powerful it becomes, the more individuals will suffer. The bigger government grows, like any parasite, the more it will suck the life and freedom out of every man, woman, and child." -- P.72
"(T)he Left has moved so far to the left that this pro-choice, lesbian feminist is now considered a Right-Winger!" -- P.77
"If you looks at history clearly, it has been conservatives who have been out on the front line in the last two decades (with Ronald Reagan leading the way), creating change and expanding freedom, not only for Americans but for the world....Last time I checked, the famous feminist - tolerant - expansive - freedom - loving - progressive Left here and around the world were still tearing their hair out over the idea of people in the Middle East being free." -- P.89
"In fact, it has been American Nationalism that has given us the wherewithal to defeat countries mired in the hell of socialism and determined to take everyone with them. Make no mistake, no matter what you call it, our devotion to American values and willingness to die for them moves beyond patriotism. It is the only nationalism -- American Nationalism -- that has saved the world three times over since our inception and has liberated hundreds of millions of people worldwide." -- P.113
"What would be the difference if we retreated and let the French and Germans make decisions for the world? We tried that twice in the last century. Isolationsim, refusing to accept our role in the world, and delaying our response to evildoers ultimately cost fifty-three million lives in World War 2 alone. The preemption policy of the Bush administration, taking the war to the enemy and exporting democracy and freedom, has liberated fifty million." -- P.117
"(G)overnment is government, and any type will, if left unchecked and allowed to do so, run roughshod over the citizenry. It is its nature to do so." -- P.128
"For the past thirty years it has been illegal to own a handgun in DC, giving criminals and savages carte blanche. As the national crime rate has declined, DC's has gone up. Finally, in 2003, the DC chief of police declared a "crime emergency." That's an awfully ironic position to be in considering the banning of guns was supposed to make everyone safer." -- p.134
"(A)nything not acting as a propaganda arm for the Democrats or the Leftist agenda is considered conservative these days." -- P.151
"I have to tell you, it's a pretty heady thing to have the media on your side. This is a little difficult to explain -- when I was in NOW and worked hand in hand with the media, I never saw our relationship as "biased" or unfair in any way. You see, we all have our opinion, our points of view. Those positions are deemed normal for us. So being on the Left, and working with media that think just like you, is not perceived as "bias," it's seen as normal.
Of course, when you don't associate with anyone who thinks differently from you, it does begin to seem as though everyone thinks like you. Eventually, those who dissent or have different ideas are marginal and odd. They are not like you and certainly not part of the real world.
It is in this environment where groupthink festers and prevails. This is why, when a Leftist or a water carrier of the media insists there is no liberal bias, they're serious, they really mean and truly believe that to be the case." p.157
"And Jesse Jackson "counseled" Bill Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal. What was his advice? How to get away with it?" -- P.175
"I bring up Bill Clinton again to remind you what lwhat led us into this discussion -- Clinton angling to become UN secretary-general, a post now held by Kofi Annan. It's an odd job for a man to want whose inability to deal properly with international threats and problems still haunts the world." -- P.201
"For Leftists, however, the psychological damage of victimhood, instilled in childhood, is the cornerstone of their identities. Psychological recovery is out of the question, because eliminating victimhood threatens their very existence." -- P.202
"Imagine my shock when I realized through talk radio that the enemy wasn't thinking day in and day out about me. And most inexplicable, they didn't hate me at all. Oh sure, there (was) frustration and irritation, mixed in with a bit of the perplexed, but with the exception of the marginalized few who still have white robes and hoods in their closets, they certainly weren't wasting their time "hating" me. But my feminist cohorts and I, on the other hand, were obsessed with them." -- P.207
"In the decade-plus of my work as a radio talk show host and writer, I have spoken with thousands of Christians from across this country. What I have found, coming from the feminist establishment as I do, is that while they hold religoous beliefs against homosexuality, they are the most tolerant, understanding, and kind people I have ever met." -- P.237
With large 120x240 ads that load quickly and a sign-up process even a Democrat could figure out, BlogAdSwap should offer a great opportunity for bloggers to promote their sites with no cost. What's even more exciting is that the click-through ratio has been fairly consistent at between 1:70 to 1:100 (Clicks:Impressions). That's exceptional considering most sites average between 1:1000 to 1:10,000 for ads roughly the same size. Since BlogAdSwap offers some fairly specific categories, it allows ads to be targeted very efficiently.
BlogAdSwap offer a two for one ad swap. For every two ads that are displayed on your blog, one of yours will be shown on another blog in our network of blogs. When you sign up you get a free 500 impressions credited to your account. From there your earned impressions are credited as soon as they're earned. And you can monitor your stats at any time through the convenient User Account Page.
Don't have an ad? Don't worry. Our online ad creator will allow you to create one quickly with a variety of fonts and styles. You can even upload images and insert them into your ad! The final ad will be a complete graphic, that you can even download and use elsewhere! (Some people have a blast just playing with the ad creator!)
The RNC again exposes the Democrats who are claiming Bush lied about Iraq's WMDs as the incredible hypocrites that they are, but this time it's on video.
That's right, you can see Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Jay Rockefeller, and Nancy Pelosi among many others talking about regime change and WMDS, in their own words, on video.
Don't just watch this, send it out to all your friends!
Zarqawi Backs GOP Call to Unveil War-Ending Plan -- Satire by Scott Ott
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, today endorsed a measure introduced by Senate Republicans that would force President George Bush to lay out his plan for ending the war against terrorists in Iraq.
“We think it is important for a democracy such as the United States to be transparent with the public,” said Mr. Zarqawi in a video statement released to al-Jazeera TV and CNN. “We’ll all feel better when we learn strategic and tactical details of how Mr. Bush intends to stop al Qaeda from turning Iraq into the first major victory in the global jihad.”
As a show of ‘good faith’ diplomacy, Mr. Zarqawi said he would soon release his own detailed plans for “casting the American infidel and his Zionist conspirators into a lake of burning sulphur.”
Sen. John Warner, R-VA, who sponsored the bill, said Mr. Zarqawi’s backing should help garner votes from Senate Democrats who are typically reluctant to support any Republican measure.
“It’s really a tri-partisan effort,” Sen. Warner said.
This content was used with the permission of Scrappleface.
"A blind and deaf Australian woman who claims she never should have been born is suing a doctor for a lifetime of suffering in the country's first "wrongful life" suit.
Alexia Harriton, 24, is seeking compensation from the doctor who misdiagnosed rubella in the first trimester of her mother's pregnancy, claiming Olga Harriton would have aborted her had she been aware of the potential birth defects arising from the illness.
Lawyers for the Sydney woman argued in Australia's highest court Thursday that Dr. Paul Stephens is liable for the costs arising from a lifetime of medical treatment that Harriton needs to survive.
Harriton's lawyers claim that Stephens had a duty to Olga Harriton and to her unborn daughter to inform her of the risk of the infection passing to her child.
"Had the rubella been diagnosed, Olga [Harriton] would have exercised her lawful right to terminate the pregnancy," court documents state.
The suit says Harriton, 24, who was born mentally retarded, spastic, deaf and blind, is in need of constant round-the-clock care from which she "can look forward to no improvement" in the future.
Harriton's attorneys asked Australia's Court of Appeals Thursday for unspecified damages associated with Alexia's "rubella affected life," including the costs of special care, medical expenses, housing and other expenses, according to a press statement. The lawyers would only speak to Courttv.com through their spokesperson, Kerry O'Shea.
A statute of limitations prevents Harriton's parents from filing the claim, making the case the first in Australia to be filed against a health-care specialist by a child born with congenital defects."
First of all, is this kid even sentient enough to understand the nature of this suit? Does she really get that, "mommy wishes she was dead?" If so, for the mother to have had her even file a lawsuit like this is monstrously cruel.
In any case, life is always better than death in a case like this and once you decide that it isn't, you've taken the first step down the road towards eugenics. If Alexa is better off dead than alive because of her disabilities, then the next logical question is in what other cases is the child better off being murdered in the womb? What if the child is just retarded? What about crippled? Heck, what about a child with a harelip or a clubfoot? Are they such abominations that they deserve to be ripped to pieces by an abortionist rather than allowed to live?
If Alexia is paid for not being snuffed out before birth, then expect those sorts of questions to be fully explored and do not be surprised if the answers the court system comes up with are callous, cold, and inhumane. Let's hope that the Aussies don't take a step down that dark path, if only because a successful lawsuit of this sort would inspire legions of imitators here in the US...
The Democratic Underground Post Of The Day: BushCo At It Again In Kuwait
itzamirakul: I don't believe the "failed bomber" woman woman was involved at all...I think this is just one more staged event by BushCo..
First, they claimed it was Al Quaidea but they had no actual proof to make the public believe that claim. After all, any teenager with a computer and a wicked mind could send off THAT claim.
So suddenly the mysterious woman appears. Her story has changed with the wind. She said she saw her husband detonate his bomb, but miraculously she was not hurt. In another report, she claims that when her husband saw that her bomb did not go off, he signaled her to run. How did he do that if he was dead?
She looks too emotionless, forced and flat to me. I have the feeling that her children may be being held as hostages, thus forcing her to tell any tale the REAL perpetrators want her to tell.
Someone has supposedly "disarmed" her bomb and put it back on her for the photo op, otherwise the camerapeople are just plain fools for being that close.
And isn't it strange, she is supposed to be the sister of another RIGHT HAND MAN to some supposed Al Quaida biggie?
Every d*mned time BushCo gets in trouble, somewhere in the world gets bombed...New York, Spain, London and now Jordan. So Al Quaida wants to make the entire world mad at them, huh? No, BushCo wants to make the entire world at this phantom organization they started right after 911 and named it Al Quaida, which simply means, "the base".
How about you? Do YOU believe this woman is truly a failed terrorist?
Excerpt Of The Day: The Bush Counter-Offensive Continues
Tonight, Bush has unloaded another salvo at the Democrats over the war in Iraq and luckily, the RNC sent me the text of his remarks. So from my inbox to your ears, here's an excerpt from the speech that features George W. Bush laying a smackdown on the donks:
"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war –but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people. Leaders in my Administration and members of Congress from both parties looked at the same intelligence on Iraq –and reached the conclusion that Saddam Hussein was a threat. Let me give you quotes from three senior Democrats: First, quote, “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons.” End quote. Here’s another one, quote, “The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as [Saddam Hussein] is in power.” End quote. And here’s the way another Democratic leader summed it up, quote, “Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion.”
The truth is that investigations of the intelligence on Iraq have concluded that only one person manipulated evidence and misled the world –and that person was Saddam Hussein. In early 2004, when weapons inspector David Kay testified that he had not found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, he also testified that, quote, “Iraq was in clear material violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1441. They maintained programs and activities, and they certainly had the intentions at a point to resume their programs. So there was a lot they wanted to hide because it showed what they were doing that was illegal.” Eight months later, weapons inspector Charles Duelfer issued a report that found, quote, “Saddam Hussein so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.”
Some of our elected leaders have opposed this war all along. I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand. Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible.
As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory." -- George W. Bush
"_"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
_"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." - Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich.
_"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev."
*** Update #2 ***: In the comments section, Maledicta asks a question that has been heard all across the blogosphere since Bush first went on the offensive last Friday:
"Why the hell did he wait so long to say this stuff?" -- Maledicta
Of course, no one definitively knows the answer to that question except W. and a few of his close advisors, but I have a theory that I wrote about back on September 12, 2005:
"Bush started campaigning in early 2004, continued right up to the elections, then Bush moved on from there to governing. However, that's not the case for the Democrats and the allies in the mainstream media. For them, the 2004 campaign NEVER REALLY ENDED. Sure, their candidate may have lost, but very little changed for them. They haven't come up with any new ideas, they haven't worked with Republicans to make the country better; instead they've put together an agenda that revolves around one simple goal: get Bush.
Maybe the Bush team has already realized that. If so, after having watched W., I can guess his strategy. In a way, it's almost like an old military strategy. You allow your opponents to attack as you strategically retreat and then when they're tired and their supply lines are overextended, you counterattack and smash them.
That's a big part of how W. won the election in 2004. From 2000-early 2004 he stuck to his "new tone." He rarely criticized the Democrats, he reached out to them, and then he ignored them when they went overboard. Then, when the time was right in early 2004, the Bush administration went on the offensive and buried the Democrats with their own words."
Bush allowed the Democrats to throw everything they had at him for an entire year. They called him a liar, he said nothing. They were shrill, contradicted themselves, and became increasingly hypocritical and yet, Bush said nothing.
Now that the Dems have gotten way up high in the tree and way out on a branch, Bush is whipping out the hacksaw and getting to work. It would have been great if he'd gotten started on this a couple of months ago, but sometimes patience is a virtue, and because Bush took his time, he's going to be particularly effective at cutting these liberals down to size -- and oh yeah -- it'll be a lot of fun watching him do it.
How Many Other Mary Mapes Are Working In The Mainstream Media?
Mary Mapes, the disgraced former CBS producer who was fired over the fake memos CBS was peddling during the election last year, is still out there telling anyone who'll listen that they were legit. Here is an excerpt of note from her appearance on Good Morning America:
"Ross: "After 12 days of defending them, CBS and Dan Rather later admitted they could not vouch for the authenticity of the documents and that they should not have been used and the story should not have aired.
"Do you still think that story was true?"
Mapes: "The story? Absolutely."
Ross: "This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards."
Mapes: "I'm perfectly willing to believe those documents are forgeries if there's proof that I haven't seen."
Ross: "But isn't it the other way around? Don't you have to prove they're authentic?"
Mapes: "Well, I think that's what critics of the story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false, yet."
Ross: "Have they proved to be authentic though? Isn't that really what journalists do?"
Mapes: "No, I don't think that's the standard."
So in essence, according to Mapes, it's not the responsibility of the media to prove to the public that its stories are true, it's the responsibility of the public to prove that its stories are false to the satisfaction of the media.
It doesn't matter that Mapes never got the original memos, that her source admitted he lied about where he got the documents, that the memos -- which are supposedly from the early 70s -- are written in the default font of Microsoft Word, or that countless experts, even some that were hired by CBS, have said these documents can't be authenticated -- that's not good enough for Mary Mapes.
Now some of you are probably thinking, "Come on, Hawkins, Rathergate is old news, so why does this matter?"
Why does it matter? Because you have to wonder how many other Mary Mapes-types are in the mainstream media just throwing anything out there as long they think it hurts a Republican President. How many people like Mary Mapes are deciding which sources are credible or whether a story based on anonymous sources holds up? Can you trust stories at the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, CNN, and the New York Times if you have people like Mary Mapes making decisions about what goes into the paper and what doesn't?
So how many Mary Mapes are out there? Well, we can't know for sure, but it would seem to be very significant that almost all of the criticism being aimed at Mapes is coming from people on the right. Apparently, the "Mapes-standard" isn't bothersome enough to people on the left (other than her former employers at CBS), the sort of people who control the flow of news in the MSM, to merit comment.
Perhaps that's because criticism of Mapes might feel a bit hypocritical given the way many MSM publications and shows handle the news themselves. After all, if you're ignoring or burying good news about Iraq and the economy, hyping terrorist attacks, quoting 3 or 4 Iraqis you know are out of the mainstream and trying to present their view as common, and running dubious stories based on anonymous quotes, it's hard to be too critical of someone like Mary Mapes.
There sure are a lot of excited Democrats out there who think they've got George Bush and the GOP right where they want them. They think they're going to get the Senate back, they think they're going to get the House back, they think it's going to be their year in 2006.
But, they have one big problem: they peaked a year too early.
For example, just consider Iraq.
Today, Iraq is hurting Bush at the polls. But, after Saddam is tried (and hopefully hung), the Iraqis have another election in December, and large numbers of our troops come home in 2006 because the Iraqis are able to defend themselves, support for the war will likely go north of 50% again. Heck, if Iraqi President Jalal Talabani turns out to be right and no more American troops are needed in Iraq by the end of 2006, 70% support of the war in Iraq by November of next year wouldn't be out of the question:
"Iraqi President Jalal Talabani said on Saturday that it may be possible to reach an agreement by the end of 2006 on the withdrawal of foreign troops from his country.
Speaking to reporters in Rome at the end of a week-long visit to Italy, Talabani said the Iraqis were training their police and soldiers to try to create the conditions for foreign troops to be able to leave.
"We are looking forward to the day we can say goodbye to the forces of the coalition," he said. "If things continue as they are I think by the end of 2006 we can discuss the end of the presence of foreign troops."
Even if Murphy's law kicks in and things don't go as well as Talabani is saying, imagine the reaction of the American people to having 40k, 50k, 60k American troops come home because they're no longer needed to keep the peace in Iraq. Bush has been saying that American troops would stand down as Iraqi troops stood up and bringing the troops home from Iraq would prove he was right.
But Iraq isn't the only issue. Take a look at the economy; it has been strong for two full years now and because of the bias of the mainstream media, most Americans have no idea the economy is strong and vibrant. How much longer can the truth be hidden from the American people?
Then there are gas prices, which are still high, but on their way down. It seems to me that it's significant that the Democrats are fighting against ANWR tooth and nail even while the average American family is paying a big price at the pump. Sure, there are a few Republicans against ANWR, but the overwhelming majority of Republicans are fighting to drill. So what we see is that even during a gas crunch, Democrats still oppose looking out for America's future energy needs.
Next are the spending cuts in the Senate and the House. Granted, the cuts are smaller than we'd like, and not through Congress yet, but it's telling that the overwhelming majority of the GOP is supporting these cuts (with a few dissenting RINOs causing problems), while almost all of the Democrats are fighting against cutting spending. That tells you that even the most fiscally responsible Democrats aren't any better than the worst Republicans when it comes to controlling spending.
Then we have to consider the White House move to replace Harriet Miers with Samuel Alito, Bush finally fighting back against the left's lies, the Plamegate investigation fizzling out, and Congress working to protect people's homes from Kelo-inspired government seizures with the Private Property Rights Protection Act. There's a lot of momentum building there for Republicans.
Sure, the GOP has more to do, but they seem to be getting the message and are starting to do a much better job of responding to the American public. Meanwhile, what do the Democrats have to offer? Nothing but negativity, knee jerk oppositionalism, and appeasement of our country's enemies.
Just watch the GOP poll numbers, folks, because they're going to start going back up relatively soon and by the time everything is said and done, assuming the GOP keeps listening to the people, don't be surprised if we add seats in the Senate and House in 2006.
Quote Of The Day #2: It Almost Sounds As If They Hate Them For Their Freedom
"The United States faces a lot of foreign enemies in Iraq. Most of these are individuals from other Moslem countries, come to oppose the "American war against Islam." These are usually the foot soldiers and suicide bombers for al Qaeda. But this year, another foreign foe has been showing up in larger numbers; Saudi Arabians opposed to democracy. Many religious Saudis believe democracy is un-Islamic. They tolerate a king, as long as he says that his primary job is to guard Islam's holy cities of Mecca and Medina, with running the kingdom just an incidental chore (done in consultation with Islamic clerics and scholars). But democracy implies that people rule themselves, which is blasphemy. God rules man, via the holy scriptures and the guidance of Islamic scholars and clerics. So many more (we're talking hundreds here) young Saudis are heading north to fight the democracy evil, and taking with them lots of money (we're talking millions of dollars here) from older, but wealthier, Saudis who agree on the evils of democracy. Most Saudis also despise the idea of Shia Arabs running Iraq, which is what is going on right now. To compound that sin, the Iraqi government was elected by majority votes. All very un-Islamic, and worthy of the most severe punishment." -- Strategy Page, Nov 12
"It is regrettable that Senator Kennedy has chosen Veteran's Day to continue leveling baseless and false attacks that send the wrong signal to our troops and our enemy during a time of war. It is also regrettable that Senator Kennedy has found more time to say negative things about President Bush then he ever did about Saddam Hussein. If America were to follow Senator Kennedy's foreign policy, Saddam Hussein would not only still be in power, he would be oppressing and occupying Kuwait." -- Scott McClellan
Sound far fetched? Not if you're a student of history. In fact, I'll bet there are at least a few diehard lefties who thought Reagan was a warmonger & loved the Sandinistas, whose kids are now getting an education at one of the many high schools named after Ronald Reagan. How do you like the Reagan Raiders logo from 