While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security. -- Ann Coulter
Q&A Friday #51: Who's To Blame If The GOP Loses Congress?
Question: "Serious question: If the democrats take back the house and senate - not a given, but definitely a possibility - who's fault is it? Who do you blame it on? Soccer moms that switched back to democrat? Reagan democrats that switched? Moderates tired of the Iraq war?
I mean, at some point -if the democrats win- do the ultra conservatives say "it's because the average American voter is so stupid, they don't know any better"? -- bcb1
Answer: See, this is the difference between liberals and conservatives. When liberals lose elections they blame the voters for rejecting them. It must be those darn Jesus freaks or racist Southerners or the people in the middle-class who are too dumb to understand that liberals know what's best for them.
That's not the way conservatives handle things. The reason the GOP is going to lose seats in November is primarily because the Washington DC, GOP crowd hasn't done a good job of governing or explaining themselves to the American people over the last couple of years.
Republicans in Washington abandoned their conservative principles on issues like deficit spending and illegal immigration. They got complacent and didn't fight back when the Democratic Party lied about them and undercut the war in Iraq. Bush made a lot of amateurish political mistakes. Now, it's time to pay the piper.
So, you want to know whom I blame? I blame the Republican Party and whether the GOP holds or loses Congress in November, they need to make some real changes in how they're conducting business in Washington so they can earn back the trust and support of the American people.
Q&A Friday #51: Do Conservative Bloggers Get "Talking Points Memos?"
Question: "Hawkins - Given that RWN has become an important blog for the GOP, I'm wondering if you receive talking points memos from the GOP? If so, what's your take on them and do you feel obligated to use them? I only ask because I have noticed that you have been falling into line more with GOP electoral strategy, which I think you might normally take issue with.
Take, for instance, your parroting of the line that voting for the GOP is necessary because voting for the Democrats is worse: The Steyn posting, the Pelosi Posting, the Zogby Comment, the Bill Bennett posting, etc. There is a theme here that surfaces much too often to seem coincidental or even reflective of your own convictions, which have tended in the past to focus on GOP positives as opposed to being the lesser of two evils. I would think that this line, while it may resonate as a political electoral strategy, isn't really a Hawkins thing. It's too compromised a position for you to take." -- huckupchuck
Answer: Let me answer the 2nd part of the question first with some quotations from a column that I wrote back in 2004 called, Why Conservatives Should Vote For Bush:
"Most conservatives would rather put a "I Love Michael Moore" tattoo on their arm than pull the lever for the Massachusetts liberal and the left-wing trial lawyer in November.
...However, when I think back to all of these disappointing decisions that Bush has made, I always view them in light of one very pertinent question,
"On which of those issues would John Kerry better represent my interests as a conservative?"
The answer is always, "None of them". Think about it...wouldn't John Kerry sign the Assault Weapons Ban, too? Kerry would have signed Campaign Finance Reform as well, right? What about the Medicare Prescription Drug Bill? Heck, the Democrats favored a BIGGER package than Bush did. You may not like Bush's immigration plan, but Kerry is openly promising to put America's illegal immigrants on the "path to citizenship" in his first 100 days. So what would you gain by having Kerry in office?
...Moreover, we should remember that W. has delivered the goods for conservatives on more than a few issues. First and foremost, how about the tax cuts? You think we would have seen those under a John Kerry presidency? More importantly, do you think we'd KEEP THEM if John Kerry became President?
...Who would you rather see picking 3 or 4 new Supreme Court Justices over the next four years: George W. Bush, an imperfect conservative or John F. Kerry, one of the most liberal members of the Senate?
...In a world where Al-Qaeda wants to strike in the US with weapons of mass destruction, can we trust that a dove like John Kerry is up to stopping them from making an attack that would make 9/11 look like a trip to summer camp?"
Pointing out that the Democratic Party is going to be worse for conservatives on every single issue that they care about than the Republican Party makes perfect sense. Why in the world would you want to kick someone out of office because he disagrees with you on a few issues when his replacement will be someone who disagrees with you on almost every issue?
As far as the "talking points memos from the GOP" goes, if you mean press releases, I get gazillions of them from the White House, RNC, and various campaigns and conservative groups. If you mean "orders" of some sort, give me a break. I've flogged the Republican Party on illegal immigration, deficit spending, Harriet Miers, the way Bush handled the Dubai Port Deal, FEMA overspending on Katrina relief, the party taking sides in Republican primaries, and countless other issues -- and that's nothing unusual for a conservative blogger.
How about clicking on just a few of these ads? It helps support Right Wing News and it rewards advertisers for spending money on conservative blogs. So, hope you'll help out!
Q&A Friday #51: The GOP Going To Retain Control Of Congress?
Question: "John, what's your assessment, now that we are closer to the election, of the Republicans maintaining control of both the House and the Senate?" - N. O'Brain
Question: "John I just have a hard time believing anything the liberal news media says, but it seems a lot of conservatives still do kinda,even though they know how wrong and biased the liberal media is.I believe the republicans are going to keep both the house and the senate simply because I know the news media is always wrong.They are creating polls to imply a democrat victory,etc. What do you think? Do you think republicans are going to win?" -- abel
Answer: Make no mistake about it, when election day rolls around, the GOP is going to get hammered hard. The only question at this point is how bad of a beating we're going to take.
In the Senate, there are still 3 Republicans in deep, deep trouble: Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, and Lincoln Chafee. Then, there's Mike DeWine, whose race is a complete toss-up at the moment. After that, there are two toss-ups that appear to be barely leaning towards the GOP: Jim Talent and Bob Corker. There's also at least one toss-up race where the GOP has a chance to pick up a seat: Tom Kean.
Of course, all of this can and quite possibly will change in the next few weeks. For example, Michael Steele, Mike McGavick, and Mike Bouchard still have a chance to win their races if they can close fast. But, at the moment, the Dems would probably have to run the table on every one of these seats to take control of the Senate and that seems unlikely. So, what will probably happen in the Senate is that the GOP will barely hold onto control.
Because you have so many races to track, the House is harder to predict, but it's not quite as bad as you're hearing right now (although, it's certainly not good either). There are maybe 3-5 seats where the GOP is in deep trouble. Then there are maybe another 5 or 7 seats that could fairly be called toss-ups, that are leaning toward a Democratic takeover at the moment, although of course, the GOP candidates could still pull out a win. But, after that, what you run into is maybe another 15-18 seats that are competitive, but leaning towards a Republican retention. Then once you get beyond that point, there aren't very many good pick-up opportunities for the Democrats.
So, when you hear people speculate that the GOP is going to lose 30 seats, what they're essentially saying is that the GOP will lose everything that's even close in a gigantic wave. That seems really unlikely. To the contrary, given the strength of the GOP GOTV effort and the cash advantage we have, it seems likely that a lot of these seats will move towards the GOP in the home stretch. We'll see how it works out. At the moment, I'm sticking with an estimate of 11-19 seats lost, with 15 needed for the Dems to takeover. So, whether the GOP holds onto the House or not is basically a coin flip at the moment.
Q&A Friday #51: How Does Mark Warner Deciding Not To Run For President Change Things?
Question: "John, with the news that Virginia's governor, Mark Warner, will not seek the Democratic nomination for President next year, how do you see this affecting the Democratic political outlook?
I'm in Northern VA right now and the mood among most people here is shock, as most had expected him to run. Does this bode well for the Republican nomination or is it still to early to tell? Could this be ground work for Hillary's Presidential bid?" -- DCS
Answer: Mark Warner was the strongest candidate the Democrats had -- by far. He is a "moderate" Democrat, with some charisma, who could have conceivably captured 3 or 4 Southern states.
Could he have made it out of the Democratic primaries? My gut instinct is that he couldn't have pulled it off, but you never know.
The Dems do have another couple of "moderates" who may run, Bill Richardson and Evan Bayh, but neither of them is as high profile as Warner and so they'll have a lot of trouble getting any traction in the primaries.
The good news for Republicans is that this probably means that one of the usual suspects, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Al Gore, will be the Democratic nominee in 2008. Although anybody the Democrats put out there will likely have a real shot to win, all 4 of those candidates come right out of the standard liberal mold and those are exactly the kind of candidates that Democrats lose with over and over and over again.
The Democratic candidates who win, Carter (first term), and Clinton, are the candidates that can compete in the South and convince the American people that they're actually moderates. Warner was that type of candidate and it's definitely good news for Republicans that he won't be in the race.
Q&A Friday #51: What Are The Greatest Sci-Fi Movies Ever Made?
Question: "Greatest Sci Fi Movies ever?
My List:
1. Return of the Jedi
2. Matrix
3. Independence Day
4. Aliens
5. Predator
6. Event Horizon" -- D-Vega
Answer: Here's my list and yes, as you can see, I'm not a big fan of the Star Trek movies or Star Wars.
Honorable Mentions: Bill And Ted's Excellent Adventure, Flash Gordon, Ice Pirates, The Matrix, Predator, The Terminator, Terminator 3, Time Bandits,
10) Serenity
9) The 5th Element
8) Spaceballs
7) Aliens
6) Starship Troopers
5) Independence Day
4) Equilibrium
3) The One
2) Fist of the North Star (Anime Version)
1) Signs
Q&A Friday #51: Should Conservatives Only Date Other Conservatives?
Question: "Hypothetical: John, say you met this gal and she was really something, I mean, looks, intellect,tons in common, great cook, cultured, loved movies, music, sex, the whole nine yards, but she had one problem, she wasn't completely Republican, she leaned more to the left, but everything clicked for the two of you, only when you talked about politics you just couldn't see her point or get around her political choice. What would you do? Would you dump her or would you stomach it? Be honest." -- karensp9
Answer: If what you're saying is, this person is fantastic in every way except that she's not conservative, then there's a simple solution: don't discuss politics. Personally, I think politics is important, but it shouldn't trump everything else.
Q&A Friday #51: What's Wrong With Judicial Activism?
Question: "Explain to me what's so terribly wrong with judicial activism. Hasn't activism been used to accomplish all sorts of good things in the past, like school desegregation?" -- maledicta
Answer: What is judicial activism? It's a judge or group of judges that believe their mere opinions should be given precedence over the Constitution of the United States and the will of the American people. Show me someone who supports judicial activism and a "living Constitution" and I'll show you someone who will support tyranny over democracy just as long as his views get to carry the day.
PS: I would argue that, Brown v. The Board of Education, which is the key school desegregation case, WAS NOT judicial activism. To the contrary, it was simply a correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
Question: "What do you think is a great idea for a movie?" -- D-Vega
Answer:300.
The Persian empire was marching against Greece, the cradle of Democracy, with a massive army. Although the Greek kingdoms usually spent most of their time squabbling with each other, they united to fight for their freedom against the Persians.
In an effort to hold off the Persians in order to give the Greek populace more time to prepare for war, a few thousand Greeks headed to the pass at Thermopylae, where the Persians would have to meet them head on and couldn't overwhelm them with their superior numbers. The Greek force was anchored by the most dangerous warriors walking the earth at the time, the Spartans, and one of their two kings, Leonidas.
Even though they were outnumbered by somewhere between 35 to 1 to 400 to 1 (depending on what troop size estimates you believe), the Greeks fought the Persian Army to a standstill until a local betrayed them and pointed out a pass that allowed their enemies to get at their backs.
Leonidas had time to escape, but he knew that if his men ran away, it would be viewed as a dispiriting loss for the Greeks. So, he sent most of the other Greeks away and the Spartans, along with a few stalwart allies, fought to the death.
Their courage inspired the other Greeks and discouraged the Persians, who had been taught the hard way that the Greeks, man for man, were far better warriors. It turns out that the Greeks were far superior to them in warfare at sea as well because soon after, an outnumbered Greek force crushed the Persians in a naval battle at Salamis, while united Greek armies annihilated the Persian forces on land.
That was very significant because had the Persians conquered Greece and destroyed those nascent democracies before they were able to prove the merits of that form of government, it's entirely possible that human history would have been far different -- and it's likely that it would have been far, far worse.
So, all of us living in free nations owe a debt of gratitude to those brave Spartans who fought to the death to protect their homes, their families, and the freedom of their people. Even though Sparta was not a democracy per se, the Spartans played a significant role in making sure that Democracy was preserved for all of us.
300, which is adapted from a graphic novel by Frank Miller (and yes, he does take some artistic license with some of the details) is the story of those brave Spartans and I, for one, absolutely cannot wait to see the movie. Here are a couple of trailers for the film you may want to check out:
Late Wednesday night, I was on, The Furious Truth with Kit Jarrell, radio show. My segment ran about 30 minutes and we talked about everything from the elections to Mark Foley to North Korea. It was a fun show, seemed to go pretty well, and you can listen to the whole thing, here.
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, later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.
Earlier today, I got in on a teleconference with Mike Bouchard, the Rightroots Endorsed Senate candidate from Michigan, who was announcing that the Minutemen had endorsed his campaign.
Chris Simcox from the Minutemen dropped a few interesting numbers during the teleconference. He said that last year, that there were 1.2 million illegals of 89 different nationalities captured coming over the border. Now, what does that tell you? That people all over the world are using Mexico as a launchpad to try to sneak into the United States.
Also, I asked Simcox the following: The President, a while back, referred to your group as a vigilante group. Since then, your group's endorsement has become very welcome and a valuable endorsement for Republicans across the country. Do you think the President regrets that characterization?
Here's his response, which is from my notes, not a quotation.
Simcox: Yes, I do. The President sort of apologized to us by saying people shouldn't have to help the government on the borders. We're a neighborhood watch group taking the President's plea after 9/11 to be vigilant seriously. There has never been a case where the Minutemen have taken the law into their own hands, but we have helped the border patrol make 20k arrests.
If you're wondering what's going on in the Michigan race, Stabenow is definitely vulnerable, Bouchard is running a good campaign, and with the poor economy in Michigan, people are definitely dissatisfied and willing to consider a change.
Unfortunately, the Michigan Republican primary was competitive and very late in the cycle. Furthermore, Stabenow has a big edge in cash and Bouchard has been running about 10 points behind. Can Bouchard close the gap? Well, if he's going to do it, he needs to start making up some serious ground in the next couple of weeks -- which is possible, since it's not unusual to see a lot of movement in Michigan Senate races late in the cycle. Time will tell if Bouchard can pull it off.
It looks like someone has gotten a little freaked out after watching, "The Day After Tomorrow," one too many times:
"A U.S. based environmental magazine that both former Vice President Al Gore (http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no) and PBS newsman Bill Moyers, for his October 11th global warming edition of “Moyers on America” titled “Is God Green?” (http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/index.html) have deemed respectable enough to grant one-on-one interviews to promote their projects, is now advocating Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for skeptics of human caused catastrophic global warming. Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “b*stards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”
Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these b*stards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.” http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no."
So, we now have environmentalists demanding Stalinesque show trials for their critics, after which, Global warming dissenters will presumably be executed or imprisoned for disagreeing with people like Al Gore?
Make sure to tune in for next week's edition of Grist Magazine when they'll be calling for SUV owners to be placed in gulags right after they finish flogging anyone who refuses to go see, "Earth in the Balance".
In all seriousness, what do you even say to that sort of insane comment? These people are just getting so far out into Cloud Cuckoo land that you almost have to wonder if anything can snap them back to reality.
Rightroots was formed in July, went live in August, and as of today we've raised $211,451. That's not too bad for a group of bloggers who were figuring out this whole fund raising gig on the fly.
Still, things aren't going so well for the GOP right now and unfortunately, we're almost out of time. You see, it takes time for ABC PAC and the campaigns to do the paperwork on the money that's received, so Oct 15th is about the last day that contributions sent into Rightroots will be able to make an impact in this election cycle. That's why we decided to have one last big push for our candidates today.
So, if you haven't given any money yet and you'd like to do so, today is the day to do it. Heck, maybe you have given money already and you'd like to chip in some more; now is the time and our candidates will appreciate the help.
Furthermore, if you're a blogger who wants to help out, jump in; the water's warm -- and you may make more of a difference than you think. Even if you have 50 readers, one of them might chip in a couple of thousand dollars or even make small donations to all 20 candidates.
Every little bit helps and it would be fantastic if we could have one more big day just to put a cherry on top of what has been a very successful effort.
PS: If you do blog about Rightroots tomorrow, shoot me an email, trackback to this post, or say something in the comments section and I'll give you a link.
If it seems as if, "With Republicans, it's sex. With Democrats, it's money," it's because immoral Republican sexcapades and greedy Democrats bending the rules to fatten their pockets run contrary to what both parties claim to stand for. In reality, the Democrats have more scandals related to both sex and money because they have an easier time getting away with it.
"Academic Freedom" AKA As The We Can't Fire Those Left-Wing Kooks Policy
"Academic Freedom" at universities is just supposed to mean that professors are allowed to research and express controversial ideas without being fired. In theory, that's a good idea. However, because it has been taken to such an extreme in academia, in practice, what it means is that Communists, conspiracy theorists, and left-wing wackos are allowed to indoctrinate college students with their bizarre ideas without getting fired.
"A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor who has come under scrutiny for saying that the U.S. government orchestrated the Sept. 11 attacks compares President Bush to Adolf Hitler in an essay that his students are being required to buy.
The essay, "Interpreting the Unspeakable: The Myth of 9/11," is part of a $20 book of essays from 15 authors called "9/11 and American Empire: Muslims, Jews, and Christians Speak Out," according to an unedited copy first obtained by WKOW-TV in Madison and later by the Associated Press.
The book is on the syllabus for the twice-a-week course, "Islam: Religion and Culture," being taught by part-time instructor Kevin Barrett, but only three of the essays are required reading, not including Barrett's essay.
Barrett is active in a group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth, whose members say U.S. officials, not al-Qaida terrorists, were behind the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001.
"Like Bush and the neocons, Hitler and the Nazis inaugurated their new era by destroying an architectural monument and blaming its destruction on their designated enemies," he wrote.
Barrett said Tuesday he was comparing the attacks to the burning of the German parliament building, the Reichstag, in 1933, a key event in the establishment of the Nazi dictatorship.
"That's not comparing them as people, that's comparing the Reichstag fire to the demolition of the World Trade Center, and that's an accurate comparison that I would stand by," he said.
But he did say in an interview: "Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler."
You can be sure that the University of Wisconsin-Madison wouldn't allow someone who claimed the Holocaust didn't exist to teach kids. You can be sure that they wouldn't allow a KKK member who believed minorities were inferior to whites to teach kids. They wouldn't let one of Fred Phelps' God Hates F*gs lunatics teach a class. So, why should they give a pass to a left-wing kook who thinks Bush is Hitler and the WTC was knocked down by our own government?
The last place any of the twisted nutjobs with these sorts of views should be is in a university teaching students and if the University of Wisconsin-Madison doesn't understand that, then the taxpayers in Wisconsin should insist that their funding be cut until they start to get the picture.
Quote Of The Day: The South Park 9/11 Conspiracy Song
On South Park last night, they made fun of conspiracy theorists who think the government was behind 9/11. Here's a funny little song Eric Cartman sang about his belief that 9/11 was a conspiracy...
"Is it wrong for me to ask questions
Is it wrong to seek the truth
I can't just blindly accept their version
I can't base my logic on proof
Almost all the evidence points one way
but I'm like Charlie Sheen and Gloria Estefan
I need to know what really happened on 9/11
9/11, 9/11, what really happened on 9/11 -- Cartman, South Park"
Excerpt Of The Day: Steyn On A Democratic Return To Power
"A vote for the Democratic party is basically a vote to return to Bill Clinton’s holiday-from-history. It would be nice if the Dems were full of Joe Lieberman types who are serious about national security or even Joe Biden types who at least talk in a portentous voice and pretend to be serious about national security. But you know that Peter Beinart book? “Why Liberals — And Only Liberals — Can Win The War On Terror”? If that’s true, we’re all doomed. It’s like publishing a book in 1942 called “Why Swedes — And Only Swedes — Can Win The Second World War.” The truth is 99.99 percent of them have got zero interest in getting in the game. They want to return to the Nineties when politics was about new Federal regulations for mandatory bicycling helmets, or whatever the hell Bill Clinton’s “legacy” is." -- Mark Steyn
Whatever you think of Arnold Schwarzenegger's stewardship of California, occasionally he gets something right. And vetoing the effort of the California legislature to tie California's electoral votes to the popular vote winner in the country was a very good thing to do. This is a setback to the efforts of people to create a workaround of the Constitutional provisions for the winner of the Electoral College to win the presidency. They wanted to create a compact among enough states to agree that, no matter which candidate won the popular vote in their own states, they would cast all their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote. That would have necessitated California to have cast all their 55 electoral votes for George W. Bush in 2004. You think that such a move would have made Californians happy? One of the rationales behind this is that candidates would spend more time in a populous state such as California and pay more attention to Californian issues.
George Will credits Schwarzenegger today and gives a well-reasoned defense of the Electoral College.
Furthermore, the electoral vote system is a wholesome political market: It provides steady incentives for parties to change the attributes that make them uncompetitive in many states. How long will the GOP be content not to contest California?
The system aims not just for majority rule but rule by certain kinds of majorities . It encourages candidates to form coalitions of states with various political interests and cultures. Such coalitions can be assembled only by a politics of accommodation. So the electoral college system discourages attempts to build narrow ideological or geographical majorities. Today the system is helping the Democratic Party by nudging it to be less of a coastal party -- less reliant on a risky 20-state strategy in presidential elections.
As the rules now stand, the Democrats have to figure out how to win in some red states that went for George W. Bush. Such calculations will force them to move to the center or continue to lose. There is a benefit to requiring such adjustments in a party's stance. That is why a potential candidate like Mark Warner is so much stronger than a John Kerry or a Russ Feingold, not matter how much they can stoke up the liberal base of the Democratic Party.
Another benefit of the Electoral College is the limit it puts on third parties. It is not so much a third party I worry about, but the fourth and fifth and sixth parties. I don't want us to disentegrate into something closer to a parliamentary system where a small party can hold disproportionate control over the nation's politics as it auctions off its support to whichever major party needs their votes to win an election.
Imagine 2008 with independent candidacies by, say, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo (deport illegal immigrants), Pennsylvania Rep. John Murtha (out of Iraq immediately), New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (independence from the two parties is a virtue) and Jesse Jackson (he would think of a reason). None could win, but cumulatively they could prevent the major-party winner from reaching even 40 percent.
And, if we went to a popular vote system, just imagine the possibilities for fraud or for complaining about fraud in a close election.
It is perverse that the 2000 election, which culminated with the lawyers' riot in Florida, is cited to undermine an electoral vote system that prevented 2000 from being a calamity. If, in presidential elections, popular votes were poured into one national bucket, a close election such as the one in 1960, which was decided by fewer votes (118,574) than there were precincts (166,064), would unleash a coast-to-coast frenzy of litigation -- about ballot design, voting hours, alleged voting-machine malfunctions, etc. The electoral vote system quarantines electoral disputes to a few closely contested states.
Imagine Florida 2000 in 50 states in every single precinct. I shudder to think of it. At least now, the luncay is confined to one or two key swing states rather than the entire country.
Bravo for Governor Schwarzenegger. It's for measures like these that the veto was created.
This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.
Tonight at 11:10 pm EST, I'm going be on a show called, "The Furious Truth with Kit Jarrell." I think we're going to talk about Rightroots and then freelance a little bit. You can listen to it live, here.
Christopher Shays Unleashes The Chappaquiddick Bomb On His Opponent
I have to admit that I'm not a big fan of Christopher Shays, but he launched a truly AWESOME counter-attack at his opponent, Diane Farrell, when she tried to use the Foley scandal against him:
"When the congressional page scandal broke last month, Democrats across the country saw a chance to lambaste Republican leadership - including Diane Farrell, who called on House Speaker Dennis Hastert to step down.
But when Sen. Edward M. Kennedy came to Connecticut last week to help her campaign, Rep. Christopher Shays hit back.
"I know the speaker didn't go over a bridge and leave a young person in the water, and then have a press conference the next day," said Shays, R-4th District, referring to the 1969 incident in which the Massachusetts Democrat drove a car that plunged into the water and a young campaign worker died.
"Dennis Hastert didn't kill anybody," he added."
Here's more info from the same article that seems to show that the Foley scandal isn't turning into the backbreaker that some people speculated it would be:
"An ABC News/Washington Post survey taken Oct. 5 to 8 found that three of every four respondents did not think Democrats would have handled the Foley matter any better, and roughly two in three thought Democrats were pursuing the matter for political gain, not to raise legitimate concerns.
"The Foley scandal has not earned the Republican leadership any goodwill, but neither does it look like a point of differentiation for the Democrats," poll director Gary Langer said.
A Pew Research Center survey taken Sept. 21 to Oct. 4 had similar findings. Before the Foley scandal broke, voters preferred Democrats to Republicans by 13 percentage points - and after the congressman resigned Sept. 29, the margin was the same.
Job approval of Republican leaders, 33 percent before Foley quit, went up 1 percentage point afterward."
So, a small plane has hit a building in New York, on October 11th, one month after the 5 year anniversary in New York. Luckily, the damage appears to be very minimal although 2 people have been killed.
First thoughts:
#1) Of course, the first thing they're saying is that there is no indication of terrorism. Want to know if it's terrorism or not? Find out if a Muslim was flying the plane. If it was a Muslim, it was terrorism. If it wasn't a Muslim, it was someone who was suicidal, homicidal, had horrible equipment problems, or had some sort of terrible accident.
#2) I am looking forward to finding the first liberals claiming that Karl Rove and/or George Bush is behind this. That's just the way that they think.
Update #1: Apparently, New York Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle was piloting the plane. That's a heck of a twist to the story, but at least it wasn't a terrorist attack.
Update #2: Here's video of the aftermath of the crash. Witnesses say the plane appeared to be out of control which may indicate that there was a malfunction or that Lidle had some sort of medical emergency that was keeping him from properly piloting the plane.
Here are a few "uncomfortable" truths that liberals are afraid to face:
* If greenhouse gasses are indeed responsible for global warming, there is no practical way that exists, worldwide, to cut them by a margin large enough to make a real difference. So even if you think global warming exists and is caused by man, there's no real solution for the problem.
* Social Security is going to reach a "crisis" point and it'll start, not in roughly 40 years when the IOUs for the money we've already spent run out, but in about 10 years when the program starts taking in less money than it pays out.
* You don't have to "pay" for tax cuts in a country taxed as heavily as the United States. That's because when taxes are extremely high, cutting them actually increases the amount of revenue that the government receives. That may sound counterintuitive, but it's true. Take a look at the Laffer Curve to get an explanation.
* The First Amendment does not require government and religion to be totally separated; it simply prevents the government from establishing a state religion. So, prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments in courthouses, and nativity scenes? The Founding Fathers would have seen no conflict between any of those activities and the First Amendment.
* There may be a legal difference between aborting a baby in the womb and drowning the child in a bathtub after birth, but there's no moral difference between those two acts.
* If you can't succeed in a great country like America, especially in these days and times, it's almost always going to be because of your poor choices, not because of any sort of "ism."
* The United States has done more good for the world than any other 10 nations combined. In fact, it's fair to say that other than perhaps Christianity, the United States has been the single greatest force for good in the history of the world.
* Many of the people who claim to buy into Evolution do so because it's used, by some people, as a litmus test for people's commitment to science. In other words, if you favor science over religion, you believe in evolution and if you favor religion over science, you don't believe in evolution. However, the real conflict isn't between evolution and religion, it's between evolution and science. Evolution is a poorly constructed theory that isn't supported by the fossil record, the existing evidence, or logic. It's hard to say exactly how all the different species we have on this planet developed, but it almost certainly wasn't via Evolution.
* Illegitimacy and the social ills associated with it are a much bigger problem for black Americans today than racism.
* Although Jim Crow laws affected more people, there is no moral difference between Jim Crow laws and Affirmative Action. Discrimination based on race is wrong, no matter which race is impacted.
* Taken beyond a certain level, tolerance changes from being a virtue to a vice.
* In the United States, the bigger and more powerful the government becomes, the less free and well off the American people will become.
* The government shouldn't be in the business of taking care of people; it should be in the business of making it easier for people to take care of themselves. There's a difference.
* The insurgents in Iraq are hoping that they can get us to leave before the local government is strong enough to take control of the country, which would cause chaos. Then, the terrorists could build an army that could take over. Since that’s their strategy, it means that when the Iraqi military is strong enough to hold the country together and crush any fledging army that may arise, the terrorists are doomed. So out troops don't have to defeat the insurgency in Iraq; the insurgency has to defeat us before the Iraqi military gets strong enough to stand on its own two feet.
* Mikhail Gorbachev is a not a great man, nor is he responsible for ending the Cold War. He's an incompetent, Communist thug who lost control of the Soviet Union while trying to make their system more competitive with the United States. The only nice thing that can be said about him is that he didn't send in the tanks to hold the whole sorry mess together. There's something to be said for that, but it doesn't make him a hero or for that matter, even a decent man.
* No nation we have ever fought has abided by the terms of the Geneva Convention. Since that's the case, and since we are unlikely to fight any nations that would abide by the terms of the treaty in the foreseeable future, the Geneva Convention is only an unnecessary inconvenience, which provides no protection for our troops.
* Having a powerful military and letting everyone know our nation is willing to use it if need be is of more use diplomatically than any 10,000 silver tongued diplomats, sanctions, good will, or the UN, when we have to deal with unfriendly regimes. These rogue regimes may not respect our country or the international community, but every nation respects and fears a credible military threat to their nation, whether they will admit it or not.
The Daily Kos Theory Of The Day: Bush Let North Korea Get Nukes... On Purpose, People.
Daily Kos diarist Kosmo takes on old lefty meme from the run-up to the war in Iraq, "We're going to war to help make Haliburton rich," dusts it off, gives it a new coat of paint, and tries to apply it to North Korea:
"I heard it on Al Franken this morning and it's frickin obvious.
And the only conclusion here, and the only thing people really need be talking about (while they're taking a break from talking about Foleygate) is that Bush let North Korea get nukes in order to start an arms race in Asia. He did it so American weapons manufacturers will make money, like we do with Israel.
We need to start talking straight, people. We need to start being up front about what this is all about. We can't wait until Bush walks up and blows our brains out to call this what it is."
Bush deliberately allowed North Korea to get nukes? During the Clinton Administration? Was a time machine involved in this maneuver?
Also, setting aside the obvious timeline problems here, isn't this a bit of a flawed strategy? Letting America's worst enemies have nuclear weapons in hopes of starting an arms races that will make more money for American companies? Gee, money is great, but it's hard to spend it when the city you live in has been turned into a radioactive pile of rubble and melted glass.
PS #1: This post just goes to show you the mindset so many liberals have. Not only do they believe that Bush and the Republican Party are evil and capable of anything, their first tendency is simply to assume that if something bad happens, there are Republicans in the background making it happen.
PS #2: It must be comforting for Kos to know that when he quits political blogging next year to build sports blogs and megachurches without God for liberals, that the website he built from scratch into the biggest political blog in the world will be in the hands of diarists like Kosmo.
Want to do something fun? Sure you do! Guess who said this:
Ann Coulter is a, "drag-queen who pretends to be a conservative for money."
Here's your only hint: If you had to pick one pundit whom that quote most closely describes, it would be the person who actually said that about Ann Coulter. Make your guess and see if you're right!
"Mexico's Teotihuacan, once the center of a sprawling pre-Hispanic empire, is set to become the launch pad for an attempt to communicate with extraterrestrial life.
Starting on Tuesday, enthusiasts from around the world will have a chance to submit text, images, video and sounds that reflect human nature to be included in the message.
...In the 1970s, astronomer Carl Sagan compiled a record with sounds and images, including a mariachi band and greetings in an ancient Sumerian language, to portray the diversity of life and culture on Earth.
His record was sent out with the Voyager spacecraft in the hope that extraterrestrial life forms would eventually find it."
Consider this: if there are actually aliens out there and a message from Earth reaches them, we don't have the slightest idea what would happen. If they get the message, they might show up with a big basket of intergalactic flowers or, on the other hand, they might round up our entire population and send us across the galaxy to be made into human space jerky.
But, while we don't have the slightest idea how the aliens would react, we can be sure that if they can actually receive our message and travel here to meet us, they will likely be so technologically superior that we would be completely at their mercy.
Since that's the case, does it make sense to try to call attention to ourselves? It's like a lamb sitting in the middle of the jungle baaing at the top of his lungs in hopes that it will attract another animal. Yes, eventually another critter may come along, but when it does, there might not be anything left but a little wool and half a lamb chop when it's done.
Why I Will Vote Democrat Or Not Vote By Rusty Shackleford
I have decided to vote a straight Democratic ticket. Why? Because if I do, I will be sending a message to Republicans. That message is that I want Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) as Speaker of the House.
Nancy Pelosi would be a much better Speaker of the House than that scoundrel Dennis Hastert (R-IL).
Here is what you will get if you vote, like me, for Democrats this fall.
Nancy Pellosi is a member of the House who represents San Francisco, California. As a representative of that fair city, Speaker Pelosi would be much less tolerant of gay sexual deviants. Much less so than the current Speaker from the Illinois corn belt.
That's right, Nancy Pelosi scores a whopping ZERO score on the ACU scale. That's out of a possible score of 100. Oh, Dennis Hastert scored 100 in 1995. He has a lifetime score of 93.
How does she score on the National Journal's Liberal Score? These are different than the ACU's score. The rankings measure how liberal she is compared to other Congressman. In other words, a "90" means she is "more liberal than 90% of other Congresspeople" on that issue.
Composite (overall) 2005 = 90
Liberal on Social Policy 2005 = 96
Liberal on Foreign Policy 2005 = 82
Liberal on Economic Policy 2005 = 91
I, for one, welcome our new Democrat overlord!
Now, if you're a libertarian, like me, you'll also be happy to know that the new Speaker of the House scores a whopping 10% on the Liberty Index's support for economic liberty in 2005 scale.
The ACLU gives her a 100% score in 2004 & 2005. A victory for the GWOT!
The radical abortion rights advocacy group NARAL gave her a score of 100% from 2000 - 2003. National Right to Life 2000-2003, 2005. 0 every year. 2004, 13%. Pro-lifers, stay home!
The liberal advocacy group Americans for Democratic Action gave her a score of 95% in 2005. 100% from 2000 - 2004.
The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation gave her a score of 64% in 2005. Jews, vote for Pelosi!
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce.....33%. Business owners, vote Democratic!
National Taxpayers Union gives her a 17% in 2004. The best way to lower taxes and fight for small government---the Democratic Party.
Family Research Council 0. That's right, zero. EVANGELICALS, DON'T VOTE.
League of Private Property Voters 2000 - 2004, zero. Every year.
And what better way for immigration reform advocates to send a message to the sole institution--the Republican House-- that stood in the way of President Bush, the entire Democratic Party, and a few Republicans in the Senate who favored granting amnesty to illegal aliens then electing Nancy Pelosi?
U.S. Border Control gives her a 0 score for both 2004 & 2005.
Nanci Pelosi as Speaker of the House. What could possibly go wrong?
This content was used with the permission of The Jawa Report.
Claire McCaskill: Bill Clinton Can Raise Money For Me, But Keep Him Away From My Daughter
Claire McCaskill is running against Jim Talent for a Senate seat in Missouri. Check out what she had to say about the Big Dog on Meet The Press:
MR. RUSSERT: You’re having Bill Clinton come in to raise money for you. Do you think Bill Clinton was a great president?
MS. McCASKILL: I do. I think—I have a lot of problems with some of his, his, his personal issues. I said at...
MR. RUSSERT: But do you...
MS. McCASKILL: I said at the time, “I think he’s been a great leader, but I don’t want my daughter near him.”
Clinton was a great President? She has gotta be kidding. Worse yet, Clinton was a great President, but she doesn't want to leave him alone with her daughter because he'll go all "Gropey McFeelyhands" on her? And that's coming from a Democrat who presumably is toning down what she really thinks of Clinton because he is doing a fund raiser for her.
That has got to hurt....still, it's harsh but true. Well, the you can't trust him alone with your daughter part is harsh, but true. The great President part? Get real. History will remember Clinton as a mediocre President whose administration was primarily notable for staying enmeshed in sordid scandals.
The New York Post's Page Six Sleazeballs Vs. Keith Olbermann
It's hard to say why, perhaps because he hasn't been paying them enough bribe money, but Page Six at the New York Post has apparently got some sort of major beef with Keith Olbermann.
"A BROWN-haired beauty who claims she had an unsatisfying one-night stand with Keith Olbermann is getting her sweet revenge - she's launched a blog to warn other women about the acerbic MSNBC commentator's boorish bedroom habits.
... A 30-something office worker of Caribbean descent, KarmaBites1 said she struck up an e-mail friendship with Olbermann, whom she admired, and agreed to fly to New York to meet him last May. She says he came to her hotel room and opened a bottle of Merlot which he "spilled all over." Then, when "sexual activity began [in] less than an hour," Olbermann had difficulty. "I pretended he knew what he was doing," the embittered blogger writes. "I adored the guy. I didn't want him to think he was a dud in bed," so she faked experiencing ecstasy.
...Six days later, she claims, Olbermann e-mailed her to tell her never to contact him again. "I practically begged him to explain what I did wrong. I told him I deserved some kind of explanation for such a dismissal, but I never heard from him again." She said she's since heard from six other women who say they had brief sexual relationships with Olbermann."
To begin with, if your first reaction after having an unsatisfying hook-up with a celebrity is to create a blog to discuss it, you have serious head issues you should probably be working out on a psychologist's couch. Of course, that's just me -- a Psych Major saying that, so what do I know? A lot actually -- get some help, KarmaBites1, because you're a mess.
But, moving on, why is the New York Post running this trash? Granted, it's about the loathsome Keith Olbermann -- but, I still feel compelled to say something because if the New York Post ran a similar hit piece on someone like Ann Coulter, conservatives would be up in arms.
Now, I will grant you that this is a gossip column, but come on, is this something that should make the news? Just because you can print something doesn't mean you should. And, "Celebrity has sex with woman. She says it wasn't that great," is probably in the realm of material that shouldn't be "fit to print."
Bush Is Going To Pocket Veto The Secure Fence Act? That's Ludicrous!
The oddest non-story/story of the last couple of days has been the speculation that Bush is going to Pocket veto the Secure Fence Act, which would build 700 miles of fencing on the border.
Mickey Kaus got the ball rolling based on, well, basically nothing -- and because of the almost Hunter Thompsonesquely weird and mean vibe going around the right-side-of-the-blogosphere, which is very frustrated with the GOP -- people seem to be buying into it.
Why in the world people would think George Bush, a guy who has vetoed exactly one bill in his entire Presidency, would step up and veto a wildly popular bill right before the election despite the fact that he has given no indications whatsoever that he's even considering it, is beyond me.
But, here's the reality: Patrick Ruffini from the RNC has sent out an email saying Bush is going to sign the bill. The White House press office told Mickey Kaus that Bush is going to sign the Bill, although he's trying to find "wiggle room" in their statement.
So, George Bush will sign the Secure Fence Act. Bet the farm on it. In fact, there's a better chance that Bush would talk Dick Cheney into resigning so he could be replaced with Barbra Streisand than there is that George Bush will pocket veto the Secure Fence Act. Keep that in mind and just don't worry about it.
"U.S. intelligence agencies say, based on preliminary indications, that North Korea did not produce its first nuclear blast yesterday.
U.S. officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that seismic readings show that the conventional high explosives used to create a chain reaction in a plutonium-based device went off, but that the blast's readings were shy of a typical nuclear detonation.
"We're still evaluating the data, and as more data comes in, we hope to develop a clearer picture," said one official familiar with intelligence reports.
"There was a seismic event that registered about 4 on the Richter scale, but it still isn't clear if it was a nuclear test. You can get that kind of seismic reading from high explosives."
If it is confirmed that the Norks didn't actually explode a nuclear bomb yesterday, that brings to mind two possibilities.
The most likely, given the failure of the Taepodong-2 launch back in July, is that they tried to detonate a nuclear weapon and failed. Is that reassuring? Not really. Incompetence and nuclear weapons are not two things that go well together, like Peanut Butter and Jelly.
Another possibility, which is admittedly less likely, is that they haven't built any nuclear weapons and were attempting to fake an explosion. Granted, the general consensus does seem to be that the Norks had nukes since the Clinton Administration, but in a closed society like North Korea, do we really know that for a fact or are our intelligence agencies simply guessing?
Why would they fake an explosion? Perhaps because they errantly believe that nuclear weapons are the only thing keeping the US from attacking them. On the other hand, maybe it's just a delaying tactic and they're trying to, "fake it until they make it." Then there's the possibility that they want the world to believe they have nukes so they can use that as a bargaining chip in negotiations. Otherwise, what does a poor, backwards country like North Korea have to offer other than its willingness to give up nuclear weapons in exchange for goodies?
Whatever the case may be, we still have a starving, threatening, incompetent, unpredictable, dictatorial regime that may or may not have nuclear weapons. That's a dangerous situation and it really needs to be taken a little more seriously by everyone involved, from the Bush Administration to the Democrats who've offered no support for Bush's policy or workable alternatives to it, to the "international community."
"This could very well be a pox-on-both-parties election. The Republicans are severely wounded, but while Democrats are leading in the House races, it's hard to see any enthusiasm there."
Right now, the voters seem to despise both political parties. While that hurts the GOP the most, because they hold the most seats, it will help Republicans in another way. That's because when the atmosphere gets this poisonous and voters don't like either party, it kills turnout. However, the GOP is generally thought to have a far superior Get Out The Vote campaign. So, if turnout is really low overall, the effectiveness of the Republicans GOTV push could be amplified. That could be enough to swing a victory for the GOP in a few key races.
-- "In an unusual move, the Republican National Committee is investing heavily in television advertising in Senate races in Ohio, Tennessee and Missouri in what officials describe as a firewall strategy designed to limit Democratic gains in the Nov. 7 elections and maintain the GOP majority." -- Seattle Post-Intelligencer
If your strategy is, "Ok, we know we're going to get shellacked, so let's pick a few key Senate races and really pour it on in hopes of holding the Senate," the RNC should be pumping money into Tom Kean's campaign in New Jersey instead of the Talent campaign. Talent has already raised more than $20 million dollars and if that campaign can be won by simply outspending the other side, Jim Talent is going to win. On the other hand, Tom Kean is right in the thick of it in New Jersey despite the fact that his opponent, Robert Menendez, has a huge money advantage. You have to think that if Kean can get the money, he can pull out a win.
-- My current projections, post Foley, are Democrats +5 in the Senate and Democrats +11 to +19 in the House. Despite everything you're hearing, Republican control of the House IS NOT definitely gone yet, although the Foley scandal has certainly made things tougher.
Senate
This week: 49 GOP, 49 DEM, 2 IND - DEM +5, GOP -6, IND +1
Last week: 52 GOP, 46 DEM, 2 IND - DEM +2, GOP -3, IND +1
House
This week: 220 GOP, 215 DEM, 0 IND - DEM +13, GOP -12, IND -1
Last week: 221 GOP, 214 DEM, 0 IND - DEM +12, GOP -11, IND -1
Governorships
This week: 24 GOP, 26 DEM - DEM +4, GOP -4
Last week: 22 GOP, 28 DEM - DEM +6, GOP -6
-- "A new CBS News/New York Times poll discovered, that despite day after day pounding from the news media, two-thirds said the Foley matter will make “no difference” in how they vote -- with 72 percent of independents saying so as well as a majority of Democrats (51 percent)." -- Newsbusters
-- Peter Brown from Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, provides this wacky analysis in a column at RealClearPolitics:
"If you want to know how John McCain will run for president in 2008, just watch Joe Lieberman's campaign this fall as an independent candidate in Connecticut's three-way Senate race.
There will be a lot of similarities in the strategy, rhetoric and even some personnel between the two, although since McCain and Lieberman come from different political parties it is an inexact comparison.
Three-term Democratic Sen. Lieberman, his party's 2000 vice-presidential candidate, lost an August primary to Ned Lamont. Lamont ran a stridently partisan campaign, capitalizing on resentment among Democratic activists to Lieberman's support of George W. Bush's Iraq War policy, and working relationship with the president.
McCain is an early favorite for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination. He has provoked antagonism from some in his party who view him as not partisan and conservative enough. And, he will need to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in the primaries to get nominated."
But, if McCain is Lieberman and Lieberman lost the primary...ehr, well, the candidate who loses the primary isn't going to be the Republican nominee. Moreover, if McCain were to lose and try to "pull a Lieberman" and run as an independent, it would be impossible for him to win because the Republican candidate isn't going to be pulling only 5%-7% of the vote like Alan Schlesinger. Moreover, McCain isn't going to capture 20%-30% of the Democratic vote like Lieberman will likely do in November, either. In other words, McCain's campaign would actually have very little in common with what Lieberman has been doing.
Excerpt Of The Day: Bill Bennett On Conservatives Sitting Out The Election
"Look, if you want John Paul Stevens replaced on the Supreme Court with a carbon copy, pro-choice, pro-racial preferences Justice, stay home.
If you want Donald Rumsfeld hauled before Congress every week justifying the war rather than fighting it, stay home.
If you want spending to increase even above the levels you are unhappy with now, stay home.
If you want Henry Waxman holding hearings on every aspect of the administration's actions, stay home.
If you want to see the war in Iraq defunded to the point of withdrawal so that the worst elements in Iraq take over and a repeat of the helicopters-fleeing-Saigon-type-images come back all over again, signaling a decade-long disrespect and doubt of American power, stay home.
If you want to keep the border unsealed, stay home." -- Bill Bennett
The Only Effective Compromise to End Our Illegal Immigration Problem Is to Destroy Mexico -- Satire By Frank J.
The United States of America has a huge problem with illegal immigration. Many say this is the fault of America for being so super awesome that everyone wants in. This is a valid criticism. The current proposal to handle the problem is to build a wall along the Mexican border. Of course, natural selection means we'll then cause a new breed of super-Mexicans to evolve and jump over the wall. They will not only do the jobs Americans are unwilling to do, they will do the jobs we are physically incapable of. So, what is the solution? Some say we should deport all the illegal immigrants here now, but there are millions making that infeasible. Others say we should let anyone in who wants to be here, but then we lose our border and finally our sovereignty and national security. The only real compromise I can see is to destroy all of Mexico.
I know many of you are thinking "Isn't destroying Mexico the same thing as amnesty?" Since Mexicans in our country would now have no where to be deported to, they would effectively get amnesty. But, we could be sure they will be loyal to America since they have no other country to be loyal to. Why do marches with a flag of a non-existent country? Also, having utterly destroyed Mexico leaving nothing but murky water filled with radioactive sharks, we could be sure no more illegal immigration will come from the south. Thus, both sides get something they want: the pro-illegal immigration is assured that Mexicans who came here just to better their families get to stay, and the anti-illegal-immigration people get to know that no more Mexicans will be flowing into the country.
You're probably now wondering how much will this innovative solution cost? Well, the cost of the nuclear weapons needed to completely obliterate Mexico will be more than the cost of the wall, but, those are resources we own now and have already paid for. Others, especially illegal-alien sympathizers, may worry how many innocent Mexicans will die because of this. The answer is none, because no Mexicans are innocent in my mind. Still, we will give Mexico warning, and station our troops on our border so the Mexicans are forced to flee to Venezuela... or whatever is south of them. Check a map yourself, I'm busy.
Now, unfortunately, this solution will not work for any border problems we have with Canada. While Mexico only produces burritos and tequila Mexican alcohol and clay pots - things we can get plenty of here in America - Canada has oil, something we can never have too much of. Instead, we'll simply have to intimidate them into bowing to our will. I suggest bombing their places of worship - maples trees and hockey rinks - until they surrender. Many of them are French, so surrender is in their blood and they've probably been dying to capitulate to us for years.
Thus, we see the solution to our problem of illegal immigration is as simple as bombing the crap out of one of our neighbors. This compromise will let hard working Mexicans stay with no worries of being deported while making sure we no longer have anymore influx of illegals. Thus, everyone is happy, and, as with all my plans, there is no downside. So write your Congressman and let's get a bipartisan commission working on this right away.
Apparently, the Norks have tested a nuke. In one sense, that doesn't change anything. Most analysts thought it was highly likely that the North Koreans had acquired nuclear weapons during the Clinton Presidency and this just confirms it.
On the other hand, the 6-way talks with North Korea have been going nowhere of late, perhaps because Kim Jong-Il was hoping to wait until Bush left the White House in hopes of getting a Democrat in office who'd agree to let him keep his nuclear weapons.
This event will be used as an excuse to ratchet up the pressure on North Korea -- and more importantly, on China, the real key to getting this situation handled once and for all. Ostensibly we could hit the Norks with new sanctions, suspend all aid shipments, and try to cut off imports from, and exports to, the country.
But really, what it all comes down to is getting China to pick up the phone, and say, "Enough is enough, the nukes have to go or we'll make life unbearable for you." What would cause that to happen? Maybe Japan and/or South Korea threatening to build nuclear weapons as a deterrent to the North Koreans. That's certainly not an outcome that China, or anybody for that matter, should want, but it's eventually going to become a reality unless something is done.
So, let's hope the nuclear test gets things going in the right direction again -- or we could conceivably end up with a member of the Axis of Evil selling nuclear weapons to the highest bidder along with a new arms race in the East.
PS: How's that National Missile Defense looking now, you libs? A little better, maybe?
"My wife and I just got back from the 12-week ultrasound, and seeing that everything looks healthy and normal, I think it's safe to announce that yes, we're about six months away from having our second child.
The due date is early April. And while it's been a rough pregnancy thus far (just like the first), it was great seeing our very active 3-inch baby on a monitor."
That's a nice little post, isn't it? However, it's worth noting that Kos referred to his baby as, well, a baby.
Now, courtesy of Riehl World View, here's a more typical liberal view of the baby in the womb, but in this case, it's from a lib who wants to have an abortion:
"As I posted this morning the EC failed and I'm currently taking other steps while I gather the money I need to finish this thing once and for all. And you know what? Every time I think about it I refer to this fetus as a 'parasite', a 'tick' and other things I won't even mention.
....I resent this fetus. I resent the f*ck out of the fact that something which is 1/16 of an inch long and which looks amazingly like a reptile trumps the life of a woman and her three children. I resent that this glob of cells which is smaller than a wad of snot is clearly valued more than the life of a 34 year old woman who is trying like hell to support her existing kids." -- Biting Beaver
See, is a fetus a baby or "a 'parasite', a 'tick'?" For liberals, it depends on whether they want the baby or not. For conservatives, it's always a baby, which means that whether you kill a baby in the womb or drop him face down into a toilet to drown when he's a few months old, there's no moral difference. If you understand that, you understand why conservatives are so hellbent on seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.
