The poor are not the "less fortunate." They are instead, the "more irresponsible." They put themselves there, and they drag their children into that status with them. They are the "less prepared," the "less diligent," and the "less able." They weren't unlucky. They did it to themselves. -- Neal Boortz
Quote Of The Day: Democrats Need To Do A Better Job Of Lying About Their Opposition To Gay Marriage
...I would further strongly urge Democrats who don't believe marriage is between a man and a woman but who feel they ought to pretend to believe this in order to win elections (a plausible position) need to do a better job of pretending. I've heard a shockingly large number of politicians say things, in rooms where journalists are present, that make it perfectly clear that they think gay marriage is just fine but that the voters aren't ready for it. That's a sensible thing to believe, but you can't go around saying it if you're trying to win votes. If you're going to lie, then lie -- and lie convincingly!" -- Prominent liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias
RWN now has two banner ad slots available and since July has been such a slow month for ad sales so far, I'm having a one time only special. Both banner ads will be on sale at 50% off through COB on Monday. That's right, $30 gets you an ad banner on every page of RWN for a month.
If you're interested, send $30 to my Paypal account (which is also located in the support section -- please mention what the money is for in the comments section) and email me your 20kb or smaller banner ad at johnhawkins-at-rightwingnews.com. I will sell a maximum of 4 of these ads per month and if a refund is given for any reason, it will be prorated.
Last night, my liberal pal Dani Cutler and I had a conversation on instant messenger about Israel's fight with its neighbors and I thought it might translate well into a post on RWN. I got permission from Dani to post it and here it is, cleaned up a bit for clarity's sake:
John Hawkins: So what do you think about Israel creaming Lebanon and the Palestinians?
Dani Cutler: War is war, and it sucks all around :( Vague enough?
John Hawkins: Be more specific =D
Dani Cutler: Things certainly do not seem to be getting better, whether the US is involved or not. Think they'll target Iran next?
John Hawkins: I hope so, but I am not sure.
Dani Cutler: Well you know the US will support it... it's what the Bush admin wants right?
John Hawkins: I believe either the US or Israel will end up bombing Iran anyway, so having Israel go ahead and do it now would suit me just fine.
Dani Cutler: Sigh... sorry my touchy feely tree hugging side is trying to see the point of it.
John Hawkins: The point of which part?
Dani Cutler: Any of it. Who "wins" in something like this? No one.
John Hawkins: Here's something I haven't written about yet, but...
John Hawkins: In the Palestinian territories Israel prefers to have Fatah in charge and there's a looming civil war between Hamas and Fatah. So, by killing a lot of Hamas people, it tips the scale towards Fatah.
John Hawkins: In Lebanon, Hizbollah is in a political battle for power with the Christians and non-Shias who aren't terrorists, even though they haven't insisted on disarming Hizbollah. By reacting this strongly they can severely weaken Hizbollah and give the other side the political momentum to help get them under control.
John Hawkins: In Iran, it's hard to say how long Iran has until they get weapons, but they are likely to build them as soon as possible. A strike could put their program back a decade which would give the democratic forces in the country more time to overthrow the government.
John Hawkins: Plus, as an extra added bonus, they all deserve it for picking a fight with Israel and the deterrent value of killing lots of people and breaking things can be very high. So, ideally, Israel will win in all cases by being willing to bomb.
Dani Cutler: Well, OK then, but it still sucks. :)
John Hawkins: War always sucks. But, if it wasn't necessary, it wouldn't have continued all throughout human history through to the present day.
Dani Cutler: Yes, it doesn't keep the peace for long does it?
John Hawkins: It depends. Carthage and Rome had a permanent peace =D
Dani Cutler: LOL
John Hawkins: We've had very long peace with Canada and Mexico too, haven't we? Then there's Germany, Japan, Italy...
The Democrats have a lot of trouble appealing to religious voters not only because of the positions that they hold on issues like gay marriage and abortion, but because there are a large number of liberals who are extremely hostile to religious people.
So, how can the Democrats appeal to the religious voters out there in what some of them mockingly refer to as "Jesusland?" Lorie Byrd has the scoop:
As part of the Democratic Reunion campaign, resources have been made available to assist those canvassing their neighborhoods on behalf of the Democratic Party. A canvassing tip sheet at the website instructs volunteers to discuss the issues important to their neighbors and then lists things to look for in order to get an idea of what those issues are. The first two items listed are:
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean speaks at the League of United Latin American Citizens convention Wednesday, June 28, 2006, in Milwaukee.
Bumper stickers or window decals: What issues are brought up? Do they indicate issue preferences? Do they indicate particular values?
Religious items: Do they have any religious items in view? What can you tell by the nature of their religious display?”
The tip sheet continues, “Take a quick look around. What do you see and what might it tell you about the person whose home you are visiting? What might each of the cues listed below tell you about the voters who live there?” Cues then listed include “religious symbols,” “U.S. flag,” “well tended flower garden” and “expensive car.”
Here's an artist's rendering of how this might work:
Instead to trying to take a look at "cues," why not go after the ACLU for being so hostile to Christianity? How about the Dems stop calling Christians who don't support gay marriage, "bigots?" Maybe, when there are liberals out there talking about Christians like they're a bunch of mouth breathers and theocrats, more Democrats could step up and criticize them.
Doing those things would have a lot bigger impact than trying to tell people what they want to hear based on whatever "religious symbols" they happen to have around their house.
"Comprehensive reform" is just another way of saying, "We want amnesty for illegals now and then we'll talk about securing the border and enforcing our immigration laws later." Here's one more piece of proof that's the case:
"Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it.
"We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. "The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there."
Mr. Sessions offered his amendment to authorize $1.8 billion to pay for the fencing that the Senate voted 83-16 to build along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border.
But the May vote simply authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers, which on Capitol Hill is a different matter from approving the federal expenditures needed to build it.
"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions told his colleagues yesterday before the vote.
Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber's lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session's amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats -- Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware -- supported funding the fence.
All told, 34 senators -- including most of the Republican leadership -- voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it."
They can find money for bridges to nowhere, for pay raises, for PBS, for the National Endowment of the Arts, and for every ludicrous scientific study and pork project imaginable, but when it comes time to build a wall to secure our Southern border from illegals, criminal gangs, drug dealers, and terrorists, it's, "We just can't seem to find room in the budget for it."
That's how it always goes with illegal immigration. All these politicians talk about how tough they are on illegal immigration. They want the laws enforced and they want the border secured...at least that's what they tell the voters. Then somehow, the funds for it never quite get appropriated, and the border patrol never gets the manpower it needs, and successful programs that actually get rid of illegal aliens are immediately killed after complaints from lobbyists and members of Congress.
These guys want to legalize the illegals that are here and start a guest worker program? Ok, tell you what: the day after...
-- We actually start deporting every illegal alien we catch.
-- The wall is fully built.
-- The number of border patrol agents is doubled.
-- 250 business owners who knowingly hired illegal aliens are in jail.
...then come back and let's talk about putting together a guest worker program and amnesty for the illegals who are still here.
How does that compromise sound?
Hat tip to Polipundit for the story, where they have it under the headline of, "They Voted For It, Before They Voted Against Paying For It!"
Last night, Hugh Hewitt did his weekly interview with the best pundit walking the earth, Mark Steyn. And Steyn, who has been to Israel and the Palestinian territories, had some really fascinating things to say.
Mark Steyn: If you were born in Gaza or the West Bank in 1948, and you're told this is just a temporary situation, and you're soon going to be back in your land with all of the olive trees and all the rest of it, you might stick that out until 1953 or 1958 or 1963. But by the year 2006, pretty much any Palestinian who wants a life for his children or his family has got out of that dump of Gaza. And I think that is the reality, that stability, the stability of the management by the U.N and their refugee camps over all these years has, in fact, created this situation.
Hugh Hewitt: Mark Steyn, we come back, time and time again, to the strong horse, that mythical figure first cited by Osama and others. Who's running the strong horse in the Middle East right now?
Mark Steyn: Well, I would say at the moment, Israel is, because just in doing things like, for example, buzzing the Syrian president's palace. You know, it wouldn't take much to topple Baby Assad from his presidential palace. And I think when it became clear in the region that for example, Syria was allowing all kinds of insurgents to cross into Iraq, I think it should have been the United States Air Force that should have been buzzing Assad's palace three years ago now.
Mark Steyn: ...The salient fact about Gaza is that the average age in Gaza, the median age is 15.6 years. You're dealing with a population of unemployed teenage boys, raised in a death cult, and encouraged to think that Jew killing is the highest fulfillment of life.
Mark Steyn: ...You go to London, you go to Paris, you go to Montreal, you go to any city in the Western world. You meet talented Palestinians working at lawyers and doctors. They're all the people who made the right decision, in a sense, in the 50's and 60's, and they got out of that hellhole. And we...we're very deceived when we see these people like Saeb Arakat and Hanan Ashwari appearing on CNN and the BBC. That's not what the people in Gaza are. The people in Gaza are people who...they're mothers who are proud of the fact. This one woman was elected to the legislature in this Hamas landslide. She's proud of the fact that she's a mother of six, down to a mother of three right now, because three of them blew themselves up trying to kill Israelis, and she wants the other three to follow in their footsteps.
Hugh Hewitt: Because Israel cannot allow Haifa to be hit with rockets...I mean, they can't.
Mark Steyn: No, and they don't have that sense that the Europeans have. You know, basically, if you talk to, say, British officials and French officials, they accept the fact they're going to have Tube trains and buses blown up every couple of years now, and they figure they can live with that death scale. Israel is in a worse situation, and can't. So Israel, in a sense, can only win by going on the offensive.
Hugh Hewitt: Any doubt in your mind that if Hezbollah had weapons of mass destruction to put on their rockets, they'd be using them right now?
Mark Steyn: No. That's the ridiculous thing. It's not just...the problem for these guys is that they've always made no doubt that they...what the ends will be. They've only lacked the means. Now, this guy, with the help of the disgusting and contemptible International Atomic Energy Authority, is getting near to having the means. And when they have the means, they'll use them. I mean, they used them always.
"Republicans are in jeopardy of losing their grip on Congress in November. With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.
Further complicating the GOP outlook to turn things around is a solid percentage of liberals, moderates and even conservatives who say they'll vote Democratic. The party out of power also holds the edge among persuadable voters, a prospect that doesn't bode well for the Republicans.
...The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.
Not surprisingly, 81 percent of self-described liberals said they would vote for the Democrat. Among moderates, though, 56 percent backed a Democrat in their district and almost a quarter of conservatives - 24 percent - said they will vote Democratic.
Democrats also held the advantage among persuadable voters - those who are undecided or wouldn't say whom they prefer. A total of 51 percent said they were leaning Democrat, while 41 percent were leaning Republican."
Here's the thing: None of this means very much. People don't vote Democratic and Republican slates of candidates. They don't choose between generic Republicans and generic Democrats. They choose between real people with flaws, quirks, and different positions on key issues that matter to the voters.
For a perfect example of how this plays out in the real world, take a look at this excerpt from an article at Betsy's Page that was based on something written by the Mystery Pollster:
With no names mentioned, things do not look good for the Republican incumbents in these three districts.
Generic Ballot
NJ 07
D 45
R 44
PA 07
D 51
R 39
OH 01
D 47
R 44
So, if you just looked at the generic poll number for these three districts, you'd think that those incumbent Republicans congressman are in a lot of trouble. They may well be. But, look at how the numbers switch when the respondents are given the names of the candidates.
NJ 07
Linda Slender-D 41
Mike Ferguson-R 50
PA 07
Jo Sestak-D 41
Curt Weldon-R 51
OH 01
John Cranley-D 43
Steve Shabot-R 52
So, if these polls don't matter, what does?
Approval ratings and multiple head to head match-ups of the candidates in a race based on registered, or even better, likely voters, not adults.
A single poll can often be wrong. The demographics used to compile it can be slanted and the margin of error can distort what's happening as well. However, if you can take a look at the results of several head to head polls, in the period before the election, and see who's ahead in a race and which way the numbers are trending, you can usually get a pretty good idea of what's going on. But, generic data? Of course, you'd always rather have your guys running ahead rather than running behind, but whatever the case may be, you can look at those numbers all day long and it won't give you an accurate picture of what's going to happen at election time.
America's Most Annoying People According To The General Public
Here are the most annoying people on the planet, as voted for by the general public at Am I Annoying (All the top 10 and the others who jumped out in the top 50 are included)
1) Jamie Foxx
2) Oprah Winfrey
3) Michael Jackson
4) Star Jones
5) Terry Nichols
6) Donald Trump
7) Kenneth Lay
8) Geraldo Rivera
9) Al Sharpton
10) Ron Artest
13) Tom Cruise
18) Jesse Jackson
19) Jacques Chirac
21) Kim Il Sung
24) Britney Spears
26) Benito Mussolini
27) Barbara Walters
28) Richard Reid
29) Scientology
32) Charles Manson
38) Bryant Gumbel
41) Louis Farrakhan
42) Paris Hilton
45) Josef Stalin
46) Muqtada Al-Sadr
47) Barbra Streisand
48) John Allen Muhammad
Wow. No conservatives. No elected politicians except Jacques Chirac. And the fact that Barbra Streisand is on there between Muqtada Al-Sadr & the Washington sniper is just HILARIOUS!
There are now claims that the kidnapped Israeli soldiers are being moved to Iran. Well, since the Israelis are already bombing everything that moves, have called up their reservists, and the Israeli people are prepared for an attack, why not go ahead and use the pretense to bomb the nuclear sites in Iran? Since diplomacy isn't getting anywhere, isn't now as good a time as any to bomb the Iranians?
Maybe.
Whether Israel will go ahead and take that next step probably depends on how far they think the Iranians are from getting nukes and what the Bush Administration is telling the Israelis behind the scenes about the chances of UN sanctions, but I think they deserve the full support of the United States if they launch an attack against Iran. That's not just because Iran may end up with those captured soldiers, but because they pull Hizbollah's strings and nuclear weapons in Iranian hands are a threat to Israel's very existence.
Whatever happens, let's hope Israel retrieves its kidnapped soldiers and inflicts great harm upon its enemies. Good luck and happy hunting to Israel in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories, and maybe even Iran...
Who's To Blame For Zidane's Head Butt In The World Cup? Why Bush, Of Course! By Betsy Newmark
Did you know that it was Bush's fault that Zidane headbutted Materazzi? Apparently, it is.
Zinedine Zidane, who is of French and Algerian ancestry, head-butted an Italian player who insulted him. Although Zidane in an interview Wednesday would not say what words provoked him, a lip reader hired by the Times of London claims Marco Materazzi called Zidane "the son of a terrorist whore.''
That's pure trickle-down politics. From the White House to the soccer pitch, "terrorist" has "cooties" and "your mother wears combat boots" flat beat as the top playground potty-mouth slur for the 21st century.
Who's surprised? The Bush administration has been scattering the word like ticker tape on a Manhattan parade. Old McDonald left the farm for the NSA, and now it's here a terrorist, there a terrorist, everywhere a terrorist.
Of course, now that Zidane has said that he was never called a terrorist, there goes the hook for that whole column.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Reid-Kennedy Vs. Frist-McCain + The Pay Scale For Guest Workers
This tells you everything you need to know about how popular the Senate Immigration Bill is with the American people:
"House Republicans are so critical of the Senate bill that they can't bring themselves to call it by the name of any of the several Republicans who played a larger role in passing it than Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada or Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.
"Two-thirds of the people who voted for that bill coming out of the Senate were Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Senator Kennedy. So, it's the Reid-Kennedy bill," House Majority Leader John A. Boehner said yesterday when asked why he refuses to credit any of the Republicans who were instrumental in drafting the bill or any of the 23 Senate Republicans who voted for it.
For their part, Democrats have begun calling it the "Frist-McCain" bill, a reference to Mr. Frist and Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has been one of the chief architects of the Senate bill."
When you have both parties trying to convince the American people that the other side is responsible for the bill, that tells you a whole lot.
PS: Also, in the same article, we find this:
"The Senate immigration bill would require that foreign construction laborers here under the guest-worker program be paid well above the minimum wage, even as American workers at the same work site could earn less.
The bill "would guarantee wages to some foreign workers that could be higher than those paid to American workers at the same work site," says a policy paper released this week by the Senate's Republican Policy Committee. "This is unfair to U.S. workers, inappropriate, and unnecessary.
...The Davis Bacon Act of 1931 (DBA) requires that the local prevailing wage be paid to all workers employed in federally contracted construction or projects done for the District of Columbia. Those wages -- up to four or five times higher in some fields than the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour -- are set by the Department of Labor.
The Senate's immigration bill would require that the higher wages be paid to foreign temporary workers in all construction occupations, even if the project isn't federally funded and doesn't otherwise fall under DBA.
"In other words, foreign workers employed in a construction job for which a DBA wage rate has been determined could be guaranteed wages higher than those paid to American workers doing the same job on the same private construction project for the same employer," the policy paper reports."
What's the main reason American businesses want to hire illegals? Simple: they can get them cheap. Well, if we have a guest worker program and the workers have to be paid Davis Bacon wages, will get Social Security, and have to pay taxes, they won't be cheap labor anymore. To the contrary, as the article points out, you could have foreign workers actually making more than American workers in some cases. This leads to two questions...
#1) Doesn't this kill the whole, "Prices will skyrocket if we don't have illegals to do construction and pick lettuce," argument dead as a doornail since the guest workers will be making comparable (or even higher wages) than the American workers?
#2) Now, we've got illegals competing with Americans for jobs. Isn't this just going to lead to illegals competing for jobs with guest workers and Americans? Aren't the same businesses that are already hiring "undocumented workers" still going to be motivated to continue doing so even when guest workers are available because the illegals will still be much cheaper than the guest worker?
Of course, if you drop the Davis Bacon requirement, what you'll have are businesses slashing salaries so low that Americans won't take the jobs, then proclaiming that they can't find any American workers, and hiring guest workers to "do jobs Americans won't do (because the pay is too low)."
So, what's the answer? Avoid the whole mess by cracking down on illegals and refusing to start up another guest worker program. That will cause the labor market to tighten for a short period of time, but, as always, the market will adjust, and after a relatively short period of time nobody will even notice that the illegals are gone.
"In place of "Land for Peace," the Israeli political activist and columnist Yael Amishav (who happens to be married to my father) suggests a new concept of "Land for Terror." For each terror attack across the border, Israel will seize more land --- establishing a publicly declared ratio of acres-per-casualties. The seizures must be firm, decisive and immediate-- and long term, if not permanent. "The Land for Terror" concept guarantees negative consequences for outrageous behavior. If Palestinian leaders refuse to rein in the terrorist mass murderers, then they will see their little empire (established by Oslo) begin to shrink, piece by piece. It's not a pretty concept, or an easy one to enforce. But "Land for Terror" makes more logical sense than "Land for Peace." -- Michael Medved
A Conversation I Had On Instant Messenger Yesterday With An Anonymous Congressional Aide About The Senate Immigration Bill
Hawkins: ...(S)o no chance of a bill or only a chance if the Senate goes 90% of the way towards the House? Anon Aide: They need to drop certain provisions Anon Aide: Reid/Kennedy is one of them Hawkins: Reid/Kennedy/McCain is the whole bill =D Anon Aide: Yup :) Hawkins: Heh
Presidential press secretary Tony Snow yesterday emphatically stated that there would be no "EU in the U.S." when asked about administration efforts to more closely integrate state relations between Canada, Mexico and the U.S.
As WorldNetDaily reported, some critics of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America have said the program, though supposedly beneficial to the U.S., will lead to a North American superstate similar to the European Union, open borders, loss of sovereignty and even a common currency.
WND asked Snow about the criticism, stating, "As WorldNetDaily's lead story pointed out yesterday, critics are expressing concerns about the president's cooperative efforts with Mexico and Canada regarding the Security and Prosperity Partnership. And my question: Will the president categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America?"
Responded Snow: "Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."
Congrats go out to Les Kinsolving for asking Tony Snow one of the 10 stupidest questions he has ever actually answered. It's about time someone other than Helen Thomas made it onto the list!
Here are what appear to be, at least at this early stage, the key Senate races to watch for 2006:
Connecticut: Incumbent Joe Lieberman (D) Vs. Ned Lamont (D) Vs. Alan Schlesinger (D)
The number one priority of the Democratic "netroots" right now seems to be beating Joe Lieberman. All that attention seems to have paid off for Ned Lamont who has managed to close the gap and narrow Lieberman's lead over him to just 6 points according to a Rasmussen poll. If Lieberman loses, he has made it clear that he plans to run as an independent and this is where things could get really interesting. Some Democrats would undoubtedly back Lieberman, who would still probably be the strongest candidate, while others would back Lamont. If that were to happen, is it possible that Alan Schlesinger, who's polling way back at the moment, might be able to sneak in and win the seat? Perhaps, but even if Lieberman won as an independent, it's conceivable that you could see him take a few steps towards the center. This race has the potential to be a lot of fun if
Lieberman loses the primary.
Maryland (Democratic Seat): Michael Steele (R) Vs. The Winner Of Ben Cardin (D) & Kweisi Mfume (D)
Normally, a Republican Senatorial candidate would have an extremely difficult time making any headway in a Democratic stronghold like Maryland. However, Michael Steele is drawing a lot of national attention -- and a strongly contested Democratic primary between Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume may create an opportunity for the GOP. According to a Washington Post poll, Mfume leads Cardin 31% to 25%. "Among registered voters, Cardin leads Steele, an African American, by 10 points while Mfume leads him by three points. Mfume and Steele are tied among likely voters." If Cardin wins, Steele will probably have to make an uphill slog to attain victory, but if Mfume pulls off a win in the Democratic primary, look for this race to turn into a real dogfight that Steele has a decent shot of winning.
Minnesota (Democratic Seat): Mark Kennedy (R) Vs. Amy Klobuchar(D)
Minnesota seems to be a state in transition. Not that long ago, it was considered a Democratic stronghold. Then, Jesse "The Body" Ventura was elected as Governor. After the Independent Ventura stepped out of the picture, Republican Tim Pawlenty captured the governorship and Norm Coleman managed to take a seat held by the late, great liberal Senator, Paul Wellstone. Can Mark Kennedy continue to pull Minnesota to the right? Maybe. It's a nip and tuck race with a
TARGET="_blank">Rasmussen poll showing Klobuchar ahead of Kennedy, 47% to 44%. This one still looks to be up in the air.
Missouri: Incumbent Jim Talent (R) Vs. Claire McCaskill (D)
This race is still wide open with a St. Louis Post Dispatch poll showing McCaskill up 49%-43% while a Zogby poll has Talent up 49% to 44%. Meanwhile, the latest Rasmussen poll has it tied at 42%. Who's going to win in the end? It's impossible to say at this point, although Talent has 3 times as much money on hand; so just grab the popcorn and keep your eyes on Missouri.
Montana: Incumbent Conrad Burns (R) Vs. Jon Tester (D)
You'd think a state like Montana, where George Bush won by 20 or more points in the last two elections, would be an easy retention for the GOP, but that is not proving to be the case. Conrad Burns, who had a surprisingly tough time with Democrat Brian Schweitzer in 2000, has been hampered by his ties to Jack Abramoff and is down to John Tester 50% to 43% in the latest Rasmussen poll. Those are poor numbers for an incumbent to have at this point in the election cycle and Burns is going to need to step his game up a notch or two to pull this one out.
New Jersey: Incumbent Robert Menendez (D) Vs. Tom Kean (R)
Ohio: Incumbent Mike DeWine (R) vs. Sherrod Brown (D)
Mike DeWine has managed to infuriate a lot of conservatives by supporting the controversial Gang-of-14 compromise on judges and by being for Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill. Fortunately for DeWine, a bruising battle between Sherrod Brown and Paul Hackett seems to have dampened Democratic enthusiasm for Brown. At the moment, Rasmussen has DeWine up 46% to 39%, although Brown has been staying within striking distance.
Pennsylvania: Incumbent Rick Santorum (R) Vs. Bob Casey (D)
Rasmussen Reports puts Casey's lead over Santorum at a staggering 15%, while Zogby puts it at 7 points. Either way, Santorum has been in a deep hole since the beginning of this race and has been desperately trying to climb out. On the other hand, he does have a much larger campaign chest than Casey, who is thought to be a less than exciting candidate who has largely gotten by in Pennsylvania politics by exploiting his father's good name in the state. So, at the moment, the odds seem to be against Santorum, who's widely considered to be the most vulnerable GOP incumbent, but he still has a chance to pull out a victory before it's all said and done.
Rhode Island: The Winner Of Incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R) & Steven Laffey (R) Vs. Sheldon Whitehouse (D)
Lincoln Chafee, a left-of-center Republican, has been engaged in a vicious primary with Steven Laffey. Because Laffey could conceivably defeat Chafee in the primary, but couldn't win in the general election, the National Republican Senatorial Committee has been attacking Laffey at every opportunity, even though it has probably cost them countless millions of dollars in fundraising opportunities because of complaints like this one.
So if Laffey pulls it out, he'll be slaughtered. If Chafee wins, you'll see a demoralized Republican base being asked to support a candidate many of them don't really like in one of the most liberal states in America. That's not a very promising scenario for the GOP, especially since Whitehouse leads Chafee 38% to 37% and Laffey 55% to 25% in a Brown University poll.
Washington: Incumbent Maria Cantwell (D) Vs. Mike McGavick (R)
Maria Cantwell eked out a victory back in 2006 over Republican Slade Gorton by a little over 2000 votes -- and now she has another strong challenger in Mike McGavick. Perhaps that's why the National Journal's Hotline & the Cook Report have both said that Cantwell is the Democrats' most vulnerable incumbent. Of course, knocking off an incumbent is always tough duty, but with the latest Strategic Vision poll putting Cantwell up only 47% to 43%, McGavick should have a chance to pull it off.
Which Is More Popular Among Republicans: The House Immigration Bill Or The Senate Immigration Bill?
Have you heard the latest line from the supporters of the pro-amnesty bill in the Senate? It's that the House should buckle and support amnesty because it's so incredibly, wildly popular among Republicans. Why, they just love it!
There are several examples I could use, but this quote from the The Wall Street Journal does a good job of summing up the argument:
"Which brings us to the politics. Contrary to what you hear on talk radio and cable news, polls continue to show that the conservative silent majority is pro-immigration, and that it supports a guest-worker program as the only practical and humane way to moderate the foreign labor flow.
According to the most recent Tarrance Group survey, 75% of likely GOP voters support immigration reform that combines increased border and workplace enforcement with a guest-worker system for newcomers and a multiyear path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here--provided that they meet certain requirements like living crime free, learning English and paying taxes. "Support for this plan," the poll found, "is strong even among base Republican voter demographics like strong Republicans (77%), very conservative Republicans (72%), white conservative Christians (76%), and those who listen to news talk radio on a daily basis (72%)."
Let's take a few moments and break down the popularity of the House Bill Vs. the popularity of the Senate Bill in a number of different ways, shall we?
-- The Wall Street Journal quotes a poll by the "Tarrance Group?" Well, let me quote a poll by Zogby. According to the Zogby Poll, 69% of Republicans, 87% of "very conservative" Americans, and 72% of "conservative" Americans support the House Bill.
-- I've seen literally hundreds of comments from readers across the blogosphere saying they will sit out the election if the Senate Bill passes, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.
-- I've received about 8-12 "chain emails" suggesting that Republicans sit out the election in 2006 if the Senate bill is passed, but not a single person saying the same about the House bill.
-- I polled right-of-center bloggers on their preference between the House and Senate bills and 88% said the House Bill, "would be best for America" while 91% said the House Bill, "would most benefit the Republican Party in the 2006 elections."
-- Among the conservative "punditocracy" the Wall Street Journal and to a lesser extent, the Weekly Standard, along with Larry Kudlow, Jack Kemp, and a few others support the Senate Bill, while the other big name pundits and radio show hosts support the House bill. An 80-20 split in favor of the House Bill sounds right although it may be overly generous to the Senate Bill.
-- In the elections this year, everybody is talking tough about border security and cracking down on illegals, but no Republicans running for reelection that I've seen are putting their support for the "comprehensive plan" front and center. Sure, they mention it and then usually mumble something about having to allow the illegals to stay here because we, "can't deport them all," but none of the Republican candidates I know of are out there running ads bragging about massive increases in legal immigration, giving social security for illegals, and allowing all the illegals to stay here. Instead, they're trying to make themselves as indistinguishable as possible from the people who support the House plan.
-- In the Senate, 32 Republicans voted against the legislation while 23 voted for it.
-- In the House, according to Jack Kingston, there are about 180 House members opposed to the "amnesty" in the Senate Bill (and my guess is that number has probably increased since he made that statement). Even if it's still at 180, that would leave 51 Republicans who are willing to support the Senate bill.
I could actually go on and point to how the President's poll numbers plummeted when illegal immigration was in the news every day and only started to come back up when it looked like the Senate Bill was going to stall in committee. I could also point out how the, "President was met with dead silence at the Republican Party's biggest annual fund-raising dinner when he mentioned his position on immigration." You can go on and on with these examples.
The bottom line is that the Senate's Bill is about as popular as gun control or gay marriage with the Republican base. They don't like it, they don't want it, and no matter how much lipstick you slap on the pig, it's still not going to start appealing to them.
The dirty little secret is that even the President and the Wall Street Journal know this to be true. If they didn't, they'd be happy to split the border security/immigration enforcement part of the Bill off to push it through the House. Then they could bring the amnesty / social security for illegals / massive legal immigration increases, etc., up in another bill. If the Republican base wants all those things, then why does the open borders crowd have to continue to hold border security hostage to get anyone to consider amnesty? It's because if they uncouple the security features of the immigration bill from everything else, it'll become immediately apparent how wildly unpopular "everything else" is and it'll die a quick and ugly death in Congress.
No matter how they try to spin it, the plain fact of the matter is the House bill is what the Republican Party and the majority of America wants, while passing the Senate Bill would be a huge political liability. That's the obvious truth and the Republicans in Washington had better not forget it.
Apparently, the terrorists in Lebanon are jealous of the massive beating that Israel has been delivering on a daily basis to the Palestinians and so Hizbullah has decided to get in on the "fun" by kidnapping 2 Israeli soldiers.
"Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the attack as an "act of war" and not terror. During a press conference with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi Wednesday afternoon, he called it an unprovoked assault by a sovereign nation and held Lebanon, where Hizbullah has a minister in the government, fully responsible.
"Israel's response will be restrained but very, very, very painful," Olmert added."
You know, he sure did use the word "very" a lot in that sentence before the word "painful" and if this report from the Jerusalem Post is accurate, I'd say it was merited:
"Israel rejected a cease-fire request made by the Lebanese government, via the UN, after IDF troops entered its territory to rescue two soldiers captured by Hizbullah Wednesday morning.
A very high ranking military officer said that if the soldiers were not returned in good condition, Israel would turn Lebanon back 20 years by striking its vital infrastructure."
When this is all finally said and done, and half of Lebanon is left trying to pick bodies out of the rubble in the dark while simultaneously trying to figure out where to get food, maybe they'll start to figure out that they should stop picking fights with the Israelis -- or maybe not. Even a country full of village idiots would have figured that out by now.
Either way, it's good to see Israel treating these terrorist attacks as what they are: acts of war against their nation. You allow a terrorist group to freely operate on your soil and provide them with sanctuary, succor, shelter, and support, then the government is directly responsible when they launch an attack and the whole country deserves to suffer as a result.
So, give 'em hell, Israel, because they certainly deserve it.
The Republican Party wins elections by coming up with good ideas and convincing people they're the right way to go and the Democrats win by handing out swag and pandering.
"In a lunchtime talk at the National Council of La Raza's annual conference, the Republican advisor outlined Bush's plan for stronger border security, workplace enforcement, a guest worker program and earned legalization for undocumented immigrants.
"He understands immigration is a positive force in this country … vital to keep this country going," Rove said, prompting applause from the crowd of a few thousand.
But he drew scattered boos when he highlighted Bush's recent approval of $1.9 billion in funding for more border security, including deployment of National Guard troops, and was disrupted twice by hecklers who unfurled antiwar and anti-Bush banners."
Yes, folks, Karl Rove was actually booed for talking about improving border security. Then there's this section of the article which talks about Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign:
"Hours after Schwarzenegger's appearance with Latino supporters, the state's highest-ranking Latino Republican, Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, questioned the governor's loyalty to Latinos.
"Our governor cares about one thing only, and that's Arnold Schwarzenegger," Maldonado said in a telephone interview requested by his staff.
Maldonado, who lost the Republican primary for state controller last month, said he was disappointed that the governor declined to support his candidacy.
At Schwarzenegger's request, Maldonado had sponsored a bill to raise the minimum wage, a move that irked conservatives in the primary. "I kind of felt like I got left holding the bag," Maldonado said.
The senator also said many Latinos thought Schwarzenegger had shown "a lack of respect" with the Latino community by spending too little time in Mexico. Schwarzenegger has visited Mexico twice as governor and plans to visit again before the election.
"When he needs Latinos, Latinos are always there for him," Maldonado said. "When Latinos need him, the answer's been no."
You know what really jumped out at me besides the fact that this guy is obviously a bitter hack who is taking shots at Arnold because he didn't support him in the primary? It's that this guy defines respecting American Latinos as visiting Mexico over and over. Visiting Mexico?
All the people advocating the Wall Street Journal/John McCain/George Bush approach to illegal immigration should really think about where the Republican Party and the country is going to end up if we continue to go down this road and try to keep people like the National Council of La Raza and Abel Maldonado happy.
After some posts along the lines of "that's not fair" and "of course we want these butchers caught," etc., someone does in fact rise to the challenge:
IT IS HIS FAULT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUSH AND COMPANY HAVE CREATED THE ATMOSPHERE THAT ALOWS THESE ATTACKS TO TAKE PLACE.
THERE WAR MAKING MACHINE IS MAKING OUR WORLD A MORE VIOLENT PLACE.
It is a little known fact that Bush, while serving as Texas Governor, went back in time to cause trouble in the controversial partition of Pakistan from India.
"I understand the frustrations a lot of Republicans feel. We're not representing their hopes and dreams and aspirations. We worry about Ms. Schiavo before we worry about balancing the budget. We're going to take up this Family Marriage Amendment again. Why? The Republicans will vote one way, and the Democrats will vote another, and everybody knows it! It's pointless. I've never seen Washington as polarized as it is today."
McCain: "I would never say this publicly, but some of these talk-show hosts -- and I'm not saying they should be taken off the air; they have the right to do what they want to do -- I don't think they're good for America."
McCain: "I urge my friends who complain about the influence of the religious Right, get out there and get busy. That's what they do! Now, if we believe in the Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, the big-tent party, then we have to get out there and show that. The fact is, some of us have sat idly by while those very active people have basically set the agenda for our party. I get attacked everyday because I'm working with Ted Kennedy. How can I work with Kennedy? Because I want to get something done."
See, this is McCain's very subtle way of reassuring people that the "Jesus freaks" haven't gotten to him despite the fact that he's making nice with Falwell.
Let's take it from the top, shall we? Trying to save Terri Schiavo's life? Stupid. Trying to protect marriage? Stupid. Then there's the implication that social conservatives don't believe in the, "Republican party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt" and that he doesn't like the agenda of the Religious Right.
It's amusing that McCain takes all these very indirect shots at Conservative Christians while simultaneously talking about how the GOP needs to be a "big-tent party." Newsflash, Johnny Boy: there is no group outside the tent looking in that's bigger than the social conservatives who are already inside. Moreover, one of the best ways to bring more people into the tent is via social conservatism, since there is already an anti-religion Party (the Democrats) that has lots of religious, black and Hispanic, Americans in it.
As an aside, I'm not a social conservative, but I've never really gotten this sort of weird hostility some Libertarian/financial conservatives have towards Christian conservatives. As a general rule, you don't see social conservatives complaining that we're trying to balance the budget or cut taxes, do you? No, they support those goals even if they're not always as vocal about them as conservatives with different priorities tend to be. But, then when social conservatives turn around and want their agenda pushed, not only do they not get the same support that they generally tend to give, they get huffy whiners like McCain complaining that anyone pays attention to them at all. The whole attitude is, "Who do these Christians think they are"? They're the people who helped turn the GOP into a Majority Party. How about saying, "thank you," to the social conservatives some time instead of sneering at them -- or at the very least trying to disagree with them without being disagreeable?
Now, back to one last telling comment from McCain:
"I would never say this publicly, but some of these talk-show hosts -- and I'm not saying they should be taken off the air; they have the right to do what they want to do -- I don't think they're good for America."
Of course, McCain is going to take that line because he's roundly disliked in the new media. Bloggers can't stand him. Talk radio hosts think he's a big part of what's wrong with the Republican Party. Rush Limbaugh, the biggest fish in the conservative media, regularly singles McCain out for ridicule.
So, McCain would love to find a way to marginalize all these voices before they fall on him, like a school of piranha on wounded fawn, during the primaries. Unfortunately for him, but fortunately for the Republican Party, it's not going to work. All those social conservatives and the new media are going to team up to beat John McCain down in the GOP primaries and then McCain will have lots of free time to focus on "working with Ted Kennedy" in the Senate.
* Hawkins' note: This post has been edited slightly, mainly for clarity's sake.
The Precursor To The Greatest Post Ever In The History Of The Democratic Underground
As you regular readers of RWN will recall, last week, I introduced you to the The Greatest Post Ever In The History Of The Democratic Underground, in which someone called spooked911 conclusively proved that George Bush knocked down the Twin Towers using only a rabbit cage, a cinder block, and some burning kerosene.
Well, thanks to fine folks over at Instapinch, I've now learned that the magnificent effort you saw at the DU was the 2nd effort of spooked911. That's right, folks, there is another ground breaking experiment out there.
Granted, what you're about to see doesn't quite do it justice, but this should give you an idea of what the post is like:
"If my flimsy bent-coat-hanger wires could support their load after a big fire, how is a strongly-built steel framed building supposed to collapse from fire?"
Unfortunately, this sort of brilliant analysis was too difficult for some people to grasp, so it produced comments like this one:
"Holy Sh*t!
That structure looks just like the World Trade Center!!!
The coat hangers, the pot of water...PERFECT!!!!"
Geniuses are so often underappreciated in their own time.
"Seven explosions hit Bombay's commuter rail network during rush hour Tuesday evening, killing as many as 100 people, the city's police chief said. Chaos engulfed the crowded rail network in India's financial capital following the blasts that ripped apart train compartments.
Doors and windows were blown off the train cars, and luggage and debris were strewn about.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility for what appeared to be bombings, but the blasts came in quick succession _ a common tactic employed by Kashmiri militants that have repeatedly targeted India's cities.
Police Chief A.N. Roy said 20 bodies had been taken to hospitals, but "there are more casualty reports coming in."
This was a despicable attack perpetrated by demented, evil savages and our sympathies should be extended to our friends in India who've suffered this atrocity.
Via Michelle Malkin, I see that Cindy Sheehan's hunger fast seems to be going swimmingly:
"I find traveling out of the country very challenging being on a fast. When I was on a layover in Madrid on my way to Venice, Italy yesterday, the closest thing I could find to a smoothie to get a little protein was a coffee with vanilla ice cream in it. Traveling for 22 hours is very taxing under normal circumstances--but then again, when have we had normal circumstances since the 2000 and 2004 successful coup attempts that have brought BushCo into power?
I traveled from Venice to the frontier of Italy to the province of Udine which is right at the foot of the pre-Alps. I am here for a huge youth festival which includes many elements of social justice and peace work. It is beautiful and the air feels different from other places that I have travelled. It is strangely soft and gentle as is the natural light. However, there is not a Jamba Juice on every corner, so blended juice drinks with protein powder are impossible to find."
I wonder if Gandi drank "coffee with vanilla ice cream in it" during his famous hunger fasts? In fact, does this even count as a fast? I mean, I've heard of juice fasts, but not coffee and ice cream fasts. Plus, have you...wait, did she just call the 2000 and 2004 elections, "successful coup attempts?" Obviously the hunger is making her even nuttier than before. Someone get that woman some fried chicken before she goes completely around the bend...
Ralph Peters answers the question posed in the title of this post with a resounding, "Yes, it is!"
"Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
...The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
...Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.
Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.
Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help."
There are three practical reasons to take non-uniformed terrorists alive:
1) They may have intelligence we can use. Of course, Peters is probably right when he says that, "Few have serious intelligence value." While some of the leaders may be able to impart a lot of useful information, the street soldiers may not have much to add.
2) Theoretically, the enemy could also kill our soldiers instead of taking them captive. However, given that the terrorists torture our soldiers, if they started immediately executing them, that would probably be an improvement.
3) If we refuse to take prisoners, we can always count on terrorists fighting to the death. Of course, the flip side of that is if we take no prisoners it would also have a deterrent value and we'd see fewer terrorists willing to go into a fight if they knew that either they had to win or die against the best military the world has ever seen.
Granted, if we started executing non-uniformed combatants on the spot, there would be lots of complaining, but it's likely going to be from the exact same people who are complaining about the war anyway. Furthermore, given the Supreme Court's ludicrous Hamdan decision and all the silly hand wringing over how Korans are treated at Gitmo and whether tactics like sleep deprivation constitute torture, just killing every non-uniformed terrorist we capture would probably save us a lot of trouble. That's why this is an idea whose time has come...again.
NY Times Discovers Supply-Side Economics By Jonathan R
Conservatives have touted the growth-stimulating benefits of marginal tax rate cuts (as opposed to ineffective "targeted" credits and refunds) for decades. Every 20 years, U.S. presidents have expounded on those benefits and enacted tax policies that have resulted in bountiful economic growth, from John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush.
Well, lo and behold, the newspaper that bills itself as the finest in the nation belatedly, and surely grudgingly, has happened upon this economic truism.
An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief.
On Tuesday, White House officials are expected to announce that the tax receipts will be about $250 billion above last year's levels and that the deficit will be about $100 billion less than what they projected six months ago. The rising tide in tax payments has been building for months, but the increased scale is surprising even seasoned budget analysts and making it easier for both the administration and Congress to finesse the big run-up in spending over the past year.
Tax revenues are climbing twice as fast as the administration predicted in February, so fast that the budget deficit could actually decline this year.
The main reason is a big spike in corporate tax receipts, which have nearly tripled since 2003, as well as what appears to be a big increase in individual taxes on stock market profits and executive bonuses.
On Friday, the Congressional Budget Office reported that corporate tax receipts for the nine months ending in June hit $250 billion — nearly 26 percent higher than the same time last year — and that overall revenues were $206 billion higher than at this point in 2005.
Congressional analysts say the surprise windfall could shrink the deficit this year to $300 billion, from $318 billion in 2005 and an all-time high of $412 billion in 2004.
Republicans are already arguing that the revenue jump proves that their tax cuts, especially the 2003 tax cut on stock dividends, would spur the economy and ultimately increase revenues.
"The tax relief we delivered has helped unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of America and kept our economy the envy of the world," President Bush said in his weekly radio address on Saturday.
I wonder why it took their reporters so long to discover this? And the Times even reported, probably accidentally, how the "rich" shoulder most of the tax burden.
contrary to a popular assumption, a disproportionate share of income taxes is paid by wealthy households, and their incomes are based much more on the swings of the stock market than on wages and salaries. About one-third of all income taxes are paid by households in the top 1 percent of income earners, who make more than about $300,000 a year.
This content was used with the permission of GOP Bloggers.
"The report states that a man with a Middle Eastern name and a ticket for a Delta Airlines flight to Atlanta shook his head when screeners asked if he had a laptop computer in his baggage, but an X-ray machine operator detected a laptop.
A search of the man's baggage revealed a clock with a 9-volt battery taped to it and a copy of the Quran, the report said. A screener examined the man's shoes and determined that the "entire soles of both shoes were gutted out."
No explosive material was detected, the report states. A police officer was summoned and questioned the man, examined his identification, shoes and the clock, then cleared him for travel, according to the report.
A TSA screener disagreed with the officer, saying "the shoes had been tampered with and there were all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself," the report says.
The officer retorted, "I thought y'all were trained in this stuff," TSA officials reported.
The report says the TSA screener notified Delta Airlines and talked again with the officer, who said he had been unable to check the passenger's criminal background because of computer problems.
The incident gained enough attention at higher levels of the TSA that the FBI was asked to investigate. The TSA issued a statement saying its screeners "acted in accordance with their training and protocols."
FBI Special Agent Stephen Emmett in Atlanta said agents there investigated the passenger.
"It was looked at and deemed a non-event," Emmett said, declining to give further details."
A man "with a Middle Eastern name" who lied to the screeners, had a clock with a 9 volt battery taped to it in his luggage and had gutted out shoes, was allowed to get on a plane and the FBI called it a "non-event?" What, what, what?!?!?
Perhaps he had a legitimate reason for lying to the screeners and getting on a plane with Richard Reid style footwear and "all the components of (a bomb) except the explosive itself"...It's just hard to come up with what that reason might be.
It's also hard to believe they let this guy get on the plane. It's bad enough that they hassle everyone who gets on a plane with these obtrustive, invasive security measures, but then when they find someone incredibly suspicious, they let the guy get on the plane anyway. Isn't the point of all these irritating security measures supposed to be to stop potentially dangerous people from getting on the plane in the first place? If this guy was just waved through, you've almost got to wonder if they're just going through the motions.
The Daily Kos: America Is Becoming Like Nazi Germany
Over at the Daily Kos, there's an article called Nazi America by a diarist called Ultra Liberal. Here's a sentence at the start that will give you an idea of what Ultra Liberal's article is like without forcing you to wade through his entire, nauseating post:
"And if you, like me, will take a close look at what has been happening in America, you will see an huge similarity between modern day America and Nazi Germany."
At the end of the post, there's a poll called, "Is America Becoming Like Nazi Germany?" Here are the results as of 4:15 AM, EST.
So, 55% of the Kossacks responding think America is like Nazi Germany, 14% are saying "maybe" America is like Nazi Germany, and 30% are saying no, America isn't like Nazi Germany.
On the one hand, sadly, having only 69% of the Kossacks thinking that America is like Nazi Germany or is "maybe" like Nazi Germany, seems lower that I would have expected....which is a plus.
On the other hand, somewhere between 55%-69% of the people at the most popular, mainstream liberal blog in America hate and despise this country and its citizens so much that they're comparing it to the most evil regime in history.
Keep in mind that these are the sort of people Mark Warner is trying to appeal to by throwing a $50k party. These are the sort of people that Democratic politicians are trying to convince to pony up money for their campaigns. People with this mentality are the sort that would be welcomed in the White House and asked for advice if a Democrat were elected President.
This is what the people who make up the "netroots" really think of America and it's not a pretty sight.
"It's quite reasonable to conclude that Bush will harm the nation more — if not more than Bin Laden would like to, than more than he actually can." -- Johnathan Chait, deep in the throes of Bush Derangement Syndrome, on the pages of the LA Times
Sure, Bin Laden might want to set off nukes all across the United States and kill tens of millions of Americans in a nuclear holocaust and there's always the threat of another 9/11, but Bush is in favor of tax cuts and democracy in Iraq -- and worse yet, he's keeping the politicians Johnathan Chait likes out of power. So, that makes him worse than Bin Laden.
It really makes you wonder if guys like Chait ever actually talk to other human beings who aren't also rabid liberals. Do they ever, let's say, ask their non-political barber whether he hates Bush? Do they ask their non-political friends if they think Bush is worse than Bin Laden?
If Chait and Company actually did that and saw the reactions on people's faces, I sincerely doubt if they'd continue these obnoxious and insanely over-the-top attacks on Bush.
When I'll Start Feeling Sympathy For The Palestinians
In general, it's hard to feel any sympathy for people who "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity," like the Palestinians, but when you see poll numbers like these, any pity you do have for them just evaporates:
"The Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre surveyed a random sample of 2,000 people in the Gaza Strip and occupied West Bank during an ongoing Israeli incursion in Gaza to free the soldier captured in a June 25 cross border raid.
...The poll, conducted on July 6 and 7, showed 77 percent of Palestinians backed the capture of Corporal Gilad Shalit, while 22 percent were opposed, a statement from the centre said.
More than 60 percent favoured the rocket attacks on southern Israel, the survey found, though Israel has vowed to put a halt to such fire as an additional aim of the current offensive."
The Palestinians voted in a group of genocidal terrorists as their leaders, they support kidnapping Israeli soldiers, and they favor firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Then after ceaselessly and relentlessly provoking the Israelis into attacking them, it's, "Wah! The Israelis are being mean to us!"
You know when I'll start caring about what happens to the Palestinians?
1) When they recognize Israel's existence and start adding Israel to their maps.
2) When they stop selecting terrorists to run their government.
3) When they disarm all the terrorist groups.
4) When the Palestinian people stop backing kidnappings, suicide bombings, and terrorist attacks.
