The Zen Pagan CHT Backup

Obama: GOP Plan "Doesn't Seem Like A Serious Plan To Me"

2011-07-15T11:31:00.000-05:00

Obama: GOP Plan "Doesn't Seem Like A Serious Plan To Me"

New URL to the main blogBack in business?

2009-07-27T18:58:00.002-05:00

Main Blog

We'll see how long this lasts!

Please bookmark both the new URL and the blogspot back up.

Facebook Members don't care for Obama..

2009-07-27T13:23:00.004-05:00

Of course this is not exactly a "scientific poll" but it does say alot about how the popularity of Barack Obama has tanked. If you add up the numbers, about 63% say they would not vote for Obama if given the chance...

Much like the phenomenon in 2000 when a few weeks after the election, most voters claimed that they voted for Gore, and not Bush... there may be some apprehension for Obama voters to participate, or more incentive for non-Obama voters to take the poll. Also, with no mention of any other names, one can assume that Obama is losing to the ever popular "unnamed challenger". Or maybe, just maybe, I could pretend that I am a 2000 conspiracy theorist and suggest that these results prove substantially that the 2008 election was littered with fraud (ahem).

Moving back?

2009-07-25T18:47:00.002-05:00

I believe that starting Monday I will move things back to the main blog under a different url suffix... which will keep some of the bots, crawlers, and spammers off the site, at least for a while.

I have made a few "minor" changes in hopes that something I did will help keep the CPU usage under control. The main change I hope helps was setting used for PHP that puts a ceiling on CPU usage. I hope this works and the blogging host stays off my back!

Worse case scenario is that I will end up making the coldheartedtruth domain some sort of static site that would (among other things) use some "feeds" to show the latest posts, but would link back to the blogspot site (or multiple blogspot sites) for comments, etc. While this would not have the robust functionality of my B2Evolution blogging software (multiple blogs that roll into one, etc)... it would also reduce the cost to run the site down to a few dollars a month. (no more donation drives).

Mr Under 50%

2009-07-24T12:28:00.002-05:00

Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.

Couple that with the 38% of Likely Voters who "strongly disapprove" of the President and you have a political problem.

The funny thing is that there is this sort of media generated false sense that Obama is still overwelmingly popular and has all of this built up political capital to simply throw around. But even those media commissioned "all Americans" polls are showing a considerable dip in the President's approval numbers. The latest FOX survey shows him with a 54% approval while Gallup and AP show him at 55%. In fact you need to go back nearly a month to a CNN poll that still showed Obama above the comfortable 60% threasold.

To put this in perspective... at the same time in his first term, President Bush held a 59% rating in a FOX poll through July 25th and a 56% rating in July 22nd Gallup poll. Meaning that even after the fractured 2000 Presidential elections, Bush was actually slightly "more" popular than Obama is at the same stage of his Presidency. That tells me that Obama has used up most (if not all) of his political capital that he had from his 6 point victory last November.

Obama was wrong!

2009-07-23T13:20:00.005-05:00

So a man is apparently breaking into his own home. Someone notices and calls the cops. The cop comes, the guy acts as if it is his house, the cop asks for ID, the man refuses and calls the cop a racist. He get loud, makes a scene and gets arrested.

Now... which part of all of this appears to be outrageous?
- Was someone alerting the police outrageous?
- Was the policeman questioning the guy trying to break in outrageous?
- Was asking for identification of a guy trying to break into a house outrageous?

What appears to be the most outrageous act would be the refusal to produce an ID and the personal attack on a policeman who was simply doing his job. What also is over the top outrageous is that our President decides (without having the full story) to jump into the fray and suggest that this was somehow an act of racism.

The reality is that if I was attempting to break into my own house, I wouldn't be upset in the least by the idea of the police being called and showing up at the scene. Nor would I be upset that they don't simply give me the benefit of the doubt that I am who I say I am. If asked I would most certainly produce an ID and if I didn't have one, I would offer to have them wake up a neighbor to vouch for my identity. I fail to see why cooperation in this situation is somehow an issue.

Police have a hard enough job as it is with real criminals committing real crimes. They should not have to deal with unruly attitudes from law abiding citizens who simply want to raise a stink. A little bit of cooperation and understanding of what appears obvious to most people would have made all of this a moot point.

Obama in trouble for 2012?

2009-07-22T22:37:00.002-05:00

2012 Match-ups: Obama, Romney Tied at 45%

If the 2012 presidential election were held today, President Obama and possible Republican nominee Mitt Romney would be all tied up at 45% each, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Hey... I recall how the "incumbent under 50%" rule was pounded on us by hopeful Liberals when Bush was running ahead but under 50% leading into 2004. But to be only at 45% against what one might have to assume to be the GOP front runner must be a little unnerving... especially this early on.

Yeah, yeah, I know I pass myself off as a Pawlenty guy and in most ways I am. But I am also a realist, and the GOP is often times a "next in line" sort of party when it comes to choosing Presidential candidates. Often times the guy who came in "second" or the guy who was the VP is the guy who gets the nod next time (ie - McCain, Bush 41, Nixon - heck even Reagan ran twice before getting the nod). So it wouldn't be unusual or even unexpected for a guy like Mitt Romney to end up as the next nominee.

That being said, I also saw some numbers showing Ms Palin behind Obama and I would be very curious to see what an Obama Pawlenty poll might look like (probably not so hot for Pawlenty as he is fairly unknown). Assuming that the Party is seriously looking at trying to win back the White House (rather than make a statement) they will likely look pretty hard at any candidate who is polling well against Obama.

Another interesting matchup poll I would like to see? An after the fact, Obama McCain poll?

Health Care - lose lose proposition for the President

2009-07-22T22:06:00.004-05:00

Leading Blue Dog Democrat: Pelosi Does Not Have the Votes for Health Care Reform

“No, I don’t think they have the votes,” Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., said, arguing if that were the case he and the other six Blue Dogs on the House Energy and Commerce Committee who have been holding up the bill in committee would be under far less pressure.

This is politics talking here folks... Mr 35% strong disapproval is wanting to spend some of his "political capital" on a bill which according to the most recent Rasmussen poll is fairly unpopular with the general voting public.

Given a choice between health care reform and a tax hike or no health care reform and no tax hike, 47% would prefer to avoid the tax hike and do without reform. Forty-one percent (41%) take the opposite view.

The opposition is stronger when asked about a choice between health care reform that would require changing existing health insurance coverage or no health care reform and no change from current coverage. In that case, voters oppose reform by a 54% to 32% margin.

The reality is that if Obama succeeds in pushing through this sort of bill (which will require a tax hike) then he may actually do harm to vulnerable Democrats in conservative districts, and likely to the overall image of the Democratic Party. But if he fails to succeed in pushing through this sort of bill, he stands to take a hit (possibly a significant one) with his personal image. Certainly only a few months into a Presidency he won by a significant margin he should not be having trouble promoting one of the signature policy initiatives he promised to his base... especially with the sort of margin his party holds in both the House and Senate.

Obama likely sees this as now or never. Anything later than August or September and believe it or not but we start getting into the early moments of the next Election cycle, or at the very least, we are at a point where the votes our elected leaders make will matter significantly to their reelection chances. Of course with something as big as a $1 Trillion or $1.5 Trillion Health Care Reform bill will probably still have political ramifications even if it is passed by August. But one suspects that the political hit would have softened by the time next November comes around.

Either way, the best chance for this sort of bill to get passed is now. In spite of the hard core partisans on the left believing that they now hold a permanent majority that will only expand with future elections, the polls are suggesting something different. It could be that much like the 1992 Clinton Majority, this one will also be short lived.

Open Mic

2009-07-15T22:01:00.002-05:00

Obama pushes for Health Care reform

2009-07-15T12:47:00.003-05:00

In a party-line vote that reflected deep concerns over costs, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee voted 13-10 Wednesday, with all Republicans on the committee opposing, to pass a $600-billion version. It would expand coverage by requiring individuals to get insurance and employers to contribute to the cost.

That's just the beginning. The Senate Finance Committee is working out its own bill. And House Democrats have rolled out a bill estimated to cost between $1 trillion and $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

That package is drawing fierce opposition from Republicans who say it costs too much and will create a "web of bureaucracy," but Obama promoted the work that is underway and pushed the House and Senate to press for a final package.

"When this proposal is combined with other proposals that the Senate Finance Committee is working on, it's estimated that health reform will cover 97 percent of all Americans," Obama said in a written statement following the Senate panel vote Wednesday morning. "The HELP committee's success should give us hope, but it should not give us pause. It should instead provide the urgency for both the House and Senate to finish their critical work on health reform before the August recess."

There are a bunch of mixed messages here folks. First of all, how can Obama continue to claim that Health Care Reform will not add a dime to the Deficit and then push a bill that will cost $1.5 Trillion? Secondly, what exactly does this proposal do (when not tied to other proposals) and what will the other proposals cost when they are packaged in with this proposal? Lastly, what does it mean to say that the health care reform will cover 97% of Americans?

I think I can actually answer the last one. As it stands, according to the National Coalition on Health Care there are about 46 million Americans uninsured. Of those about 36 million are actual native or naturalized citizens. Approximately 97% would sill leave around 10 million uninsured. Which means the plan is likely designed to cover at best 36 million Americans, so the best case scenario is that this part of the plan will cost about $42,000/person to insure. Over ten years, that would cost the taxpayers about $4.2K per person per year, or about $16.7K for the average family of four. According to the same NCHC the average cost of private insurance for a family of four is about $12,700. So it would cost us about $4,000 more a year than it would if we just went out and bought them private insurance.

Oh... and that only includes the cost of this particular bill, and does not include the cost of the "other proposals" mentioned by the President.

A plan for economic disaster

2009-07-14T16:14:00.006-05:00

The Consequences of Big Government

For the past half-century, federal spending has averaged about 20 percent of GDP, federal taxes about 18 percent of GDP, and the budget deficit 2 percent of GDP. The CBO's projection for 2020 -- which assumes the economy has returned to "full employment" -- puts spending at 26 percent of GDP, taxes at a bit less than 19 percent of GDP, and a deficit above 7 percent of GDP. Future spending and deficit figures continue to grow.

Actually the deficit this year (1.8) is running around 12% of the GDP, and the planned budget deficit for next year will be at about 8%... so we really do not have to wait until the year 2020 to get to this level of deficit spending. In fact, I suppose one might suggest that deficit spending and the budget will "improve" to the 2020 numbers. Pretty scary stuff.

What this means is that balancing the budget in 2020 would require a tax increase of almost 50 percent from the last half-century's average. Remember, that average was 18 percent of GDP. To get from there to 26 percent of GDP (spending in 2020) would require another 8 percent of GDP in taxes. In today's dollars, that would be about $1.1 trillion, a 44 percent annual tax increase.

Of course, Obama suggested that he would get by "without" increasing taxes on anyone making less than $250K/year... which means that either he will break this promise, or we will simply keep running giant deficits. There simply isn't enough rich people to tax when you're looking at needing well over one trillion extra dollars a year. Remember folks, the reason why big spending liberal governments have failed throughout history is because you eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.

Suppose Healthcare reform (which will cost us money) or new Green energy proposals (which will cost us both money and jobs) or education reform (which will cost us money) will be put on the backburner so that we don't completely bankrupt our future? Not if Obama has his way. Sure, some of these programs are very popular with plenty of Americans, as long as these Americans continue to believe that someone else will pay for it. But the reality is that we will run out of people to pay for them... and likely sooner rather than later. No way will anyone ever suggest that the lower income Americans pay more in taxes. Of course the only other option is to continue to run trillion dollar deficits which will eventually run the counrty into the ground and make any Heathcare or Education reform completely moot.

Now this is not to say that we shouldn't attempt to make healthcare more affordable, or eventually move to more efficient fuels, or improve our educational system. We should work to do all of that in a fiscally sound and responsible manner. A fiscally sound and responsible manner that does not include a requirement of trillion dollar deficits.

An Alternate View Regarding Sarah Palin

2009-07-13T13:17:00.004-05:00

So, we have all seen the politician who knows his times is over announce to the world that they are giving up the job they love to spend more time with the family, concentrate on personal issues, blah, blah, blah. We also know full well that 99 times out of a 100 the politician is hopelessly full of crap. But isn't it possible that sometimes that 100th politician (who maybe isn't much of a politician at all) really does decide that politics is not for them and that they would rather spend time with their family, concentrate on personal issues, blah, blah, blah.

Regardless of what you think about Sarah Palin, there is no question that part of her appeal (to those who did support her) was that she did not appear to be a typical politician. In many ways she appeared to be more the self described "Hockey Mom" than a Governor or a Vice Presidential candidate.

So as we all analyse what Sarah Palin did from a political standpoint, perhaps we miss a broader point in all of this. Perhaps Sarah Palin, in the end, wasn't really cut out to be a national player in the political scene. Perhaps she really was just more of a Hockey mom thrust way in over her head. If someone with a normal job had to put up with the sort of job related nonsense Sarah Palin has put up with, there is little chance that they would have remained a loyal employee. Does the job "really matter" that much? Why should you have to remain a Governor, when nobody in their right mind would have expected you to put up with the same shit if you were the Manager of the local Hardware Store.

So maybe, just maybe, it would be better to judge Sarah Palin's actions from the standpoint of a Mother and Wife, rather than as a politician looking to further advance in the arena? Perhaps her actions actually make sense if you stop looking for the "political angle" in the entire thing and just ask yourself what you would do if your current job became this much of a hassle to both you and your family.

Now everyone wants to attack Sarah Palin for her decision. But this entire process may be more of an indictment of our political system as a whole and how it is covered by our MSM than any sort of indictment of Sarah Palin. If taking the heat from your opposition and the media while having your family ridiculed on national television over and over is a prerequisite for national politics, then is it any wonder those who make it to the top are many times callous and corrupt? We force the people who actually care about those closest to them to drop by the wayside, in favor of people who's biggest attribute seems to be thick skin.

More investigations?

2009-07-12T20:15:00.005-05:00

Obama doesn't want to look back, but Attorney General Eric Holder may probe Bush-era torture anyway

Um... Two things I would like to say about this. First and foremost is that this is just another attempt to "change the subject" as the news is more and more focused on the failures of the Obama Administration to find solutions to our economic problems. The simple concept of both Obama and Biden embarking on mini-tours designed to shore up support for their policies is an obvious clue that the general public has lost confidence. They seemed intent on gaining back support. But the new President seems confused that speeches and political trickery isn't helping. Apparently he missed the part of the job description where as President he is responsible for results, not speeches.

Secondly, I would like to point out that it simply won't work. People are way beyond these issues and are (unfortunately for Obama fans) focused almost solely on the economy. In fact, I might offer that it will work against Obama and the Democrats. If George Bush was still in office, still looking at possible reelection, or still the "face of the GOP" then it may have an effect of bringing down Bush and/or the GOP. But as it is, it would appear to most people as a complete waste of time and resources when there are obviously bigger problems to solve. Besides, the entire concept of the enhanced interrogation techniques being investigated as illegal torture is not even a remotely popular position. Maybe, maybe, it's just me... but I don't believe you gain votes by catering to the minority position on issues that are politically dead and would appear at first glance to be a commitment to energies in the wrong direction.

New Ad

2009-07-10T17:53:00.003-05:00

Want to post here?

2009-07-10T14:49:00.007-05:00

I am allowed to have up to 100 authors on this blog... so if anyone (preferably posters from CHT) is interested in becoming an Author (perhaps to drop a post or two while I am gone) - leave the email address.

If you don't have a google account for that email, they will require you to create one to become an auther.

Website Update

2009-07-10T14:00:00.004-05:00

I have done a few things already that will likely help my issues with the RAM. The first was archiving about 3000 older posts so that the main page does not have to filter through them. I also eliminated the "next page" links at the bottom, since there appeared to be a script that had to go through all posts to determine how many pages need to be listed. Of course, I many be doubling my efforts to eliminate one problem, but I believe will likely be worth it, as the page loads much faster than it did prior.

I have also found out that I "should" be able to limit how much RAM the site uses by setting a PHP memory limit (done with a simple line of code). What this would effectively do is prevent my site from using up more resources than it has (thus eliminate my "bursting" into the shared RAM) and slowing down the rest of the server. Of course this would be done at the expense of my own blog possibly running slow. But better to run slow than to not run at all. I still need to do some experimentation as to the levels vs speed, etc. Since the information I found actually has allowed people with PHP blogs to remain on "shared hosting" I certainly should be able to make it work fine with the VPS. (btw... if anyone knows anything about this, feel free to leave a comment or even email me at coldheartedtruth@yahoo.com).

The other thing on my to-do list is to get to the latest version of my v 2.4 software which includes a bunch of fixes and some more spamming protection. I have been toying with the concept of bringing up the blog on the new 3.X (which is in a beta mode) with a fresh install and fresh sql database... and sort of start the blog from scratch with a links back to the current blog for people wanting to search the archives or look at what happened in previous elections. The downfall would be having to recreate all of the user blogs and having everyone sign back up as members.

Because of the situation and the fact that I will be gone on vacation starting next week, and through the 23rd of July, the alternate site will likely remain my main site till I get back. I don't want to be shut down while on Vacation and not able to do anything. Also, the longer I can keep my main users off the site, the more I can find out if there are other problems effecting the memory usage due to spammers, hackers, bots, or anything else. So far I am not running across anything peculiar or alarming... so that is actually good news.

2nd Stimulus?

2009-07-10T13:30:00.006-05:00

So we are now hearing some buzz surrounding a "second" stimulus bill on top of the many questions about whether or not a 16 year old girl "stimulated" our President.

Of course the idea of sticking our fingers back into the piggy bank right now is fairly controversial, and the variety of positions on a second stimulus bill would make Baskin Robbins blush. On one side we have people like Paul "there is no such thing as bad government spending" Krugman arguing that not only is another stimulus bill necessary, but that the reason the first one failed is because it wasn't "big enough". On the other we have actual sane people who look at how little our first Stimulus has gotten us and wonder just how many stimulus bills would be needed to actually "stimulate" anything.

The reality is that we have an economy of around 15 trillion dollars. Had you added the entire $800 billion all at once, you would have the opportunity to impact the overall economy in one year by about 5%, which may have helped if you included substantial tax refunds and shovel ready projects. Of course, the actual amount of money actually spent (or slated to be spent) in 2009 will be about 10% of that, which only adds about on half of one percent (0.5%) to our over all economy. It doesn't take a Harvard doctorate in economics to conclude that stimuating a 15 trillion dollar economy with about $80 billion is not going to achieve the desired impact, especially in a struggling economy. While in theory, you should be able to stimulate an economy with some Government spending, in reality a $15 trillion dollar economy is almost immune from this form of help. Unless, of course, you want to talk numbers so obscene that even Obama himself might shy away.

So... looking forward, will we see another stimulus bill? Not likely. First and foremost, the general public is starting to sour on the economic principles of our young President and are sorting wondering back home to the GOP as the more "trusted" party to handle these sorts of issues. Politicians up for re-election in 2010 are already on the spot in terms of the first stimulus bill. With only 27% of the public supporting the idea of a second stimulus package, I cannot possibly see anything passing, and I doubt seriously that Obama will use any of his dwindling political capital to try to force something.

She got legs...

2009-07-09T16:15:00.002-05:00

Minus 8

2009-07-09T12:24:00.003-05:00

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of –8. The President’s Approval Index rating has fallen six points since release of a disappointing jobs report last week

Thirty-four percent (34%) of voters nationwide say the U.S. is heading in the right direction, the lowest level of optimism since mid-March. The Rasmussen Index shows consumer and investor confidence are down again today reaching the lowest level in three months.

So after less than six months on the job, the hard-core Obama supporters now make up approximately 1/3 of Likely Voters... assuming that probably 99.99% of those who are daft enough to believe we are headed in the right direction believe so because they have gotten drunk on the Obama kool-aid. The reality is that slogans and chants may make for good campaigning, but they don't seem to help too much when you are actually required to solve problems.

Letter from the webhost...

2009-07-08T16:12:00.002-05:00

Hello,

coldheartedtruth.com is experiencing issues because the system RAM is getting exhausted.

Based on your memory usage we strongly urge you to consider upgrading to a dedicated server with at least 2GB of RAM or more.

We would suggest a system such as this, which would give you a lot more RAM, disk space and bandwidth:

Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz
2-150GB Hard Drives
2048MB Memory
Centos5
8 ips (5 usable)
1500 GIG Bandwidth
Monthly Price $139.95
Setup Fee $59.95

Please let us know if you wish to proceed.

This for a site that gets about 200 unique visits a day... My plan for now will be to look into what can be done to update/tweak the blogging software I have, since I love all of the options (such as multiple blogs, multiple users with various permissions, etc). Worst case scenario is that I will need to find a different blogging software (possibly html).

Open Mic

2009-07-08T13:48:00.003-05:00

Welcome to the new old "temporary" Coldheartedtruth back up blog... Once again I am running into issues with excessive "RAM usage" and need to figure out once and for all how to resolve this.

In the meantime, you can start your threads here...

Open Thread...

2006-04-10T11:17:00.000-05:00

Open Comment thread on the how the left is trying to redefine the President's authority to declassify material as a 'leak', about immigration reform, and about why the heck this site is called the Zen Pagan?

Update on the Republican Caucus ethics rule change

2004-11-28T20:45:00.000-06:00

It was argued here that we would not know at first if the rule change was a cheap political stunt designed to insolate Tom DeLay from legitimate charges or a legitimate preemptive move to remove a bad rule that allowed for the opportunity of politically driven persecution.

By matter of principle there is always a danger when you allow for punishment for those who have not been convicted of any crime. By matter of American principle we have always allowed that people are inherently innocent until proven guilty. For that lone reason it would appear to me that any rule that immediately punishes someone for a simple indictment without any further consideration would be wrong. When you add into the mix the fact that this rule effective high profile politicians who are already targeted by many, this rule become even more troublesome. So they changed it.

The rule change added harsher punishment for those who are actually convicted of any offense, but determined that any indictment in and of itself would require only mandatory review. This review would be made by a panel and the recommendations would be made public. Someone like DeLay 'could' lose any leaderships if it was deemed that the indictment was serious and provided good evidence to substantiate it; but it would also allow for the panel to recommend a wait and see approach if the charges appear dubious. Because the recommendations are public and because the public eventually holds these politicians accountable... they would have every reason to be fair, rather than partisan.

In the aftermath of this rule change it appears that Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle has had a change of heart and has concluded that it now unlikely that DeLay would be indicted. Before this rule change the indictment was almost a forgone conclusion. This would appear to substantiate the original charges of the Republicans that the looming indictment was nothing more than a partisan cheap shot designed to take advantage of the old rule.

The Earle reversal would also appear to make the charges from the left ring a bit more hollow than they already were. After all, the Democrats have no such rule in place themselves and have people in leadership positions that have been indicted, convicted, or fined in connection with violations of various laws. Outspoken critic Nancy Pelosi herself is one example. Oh.. and lets not forget that none of these people now barking at the moon over the bogus indictment were calling for former President Bill Clinton to step down when he was leveled with contempt of court charges. Bottom line is that one of the two parties has rules that holds itself accountable for higher ethical standards, while the other does not. Seems to me to be disingenuous for the party with no standards to be critical of the standards of the other.

Transposing Values

2004-11-27T09:44:00.000-06:00

One of the most polarizing aspects of today's electorate is both side's insistence on transposing their own values onto those they disagree with. It seems that when comes to politics... we have no empathy and very little sympathy for the beliefs and values of those on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Some of these examples are simple. People who have religious or homophobic reasons for resisting gay marriage; do so without any real consideration for the values and beliefs of those that they have decided to restrict. Likewise, people who feel that the rich need to be taxed more; do so without the slightest consideration that they may be asking people to fund government programs that they have no interest in funding. To look at it another way, those opposed to gay marriage have every right not to get married to someone of the same sex, but probably have less right to impose this on others.... and those who want certain government programs are free to give whatever they can to fund them, but probably have less right to ask other to do it for them. In both of these examples the parties in question may believe that they hold morally or ethically superior positions and therefor are entitled to override those with morally or ethically inferior positions... in spite of who is ultimately effected. This certainly doesn't seem right, and is probably the main reason that our divide is so wide right now.

Over the holiday I ran into a classic example of this that seems to somehow float below the surface of the more obvious examples. In this case it is the anti-war advocate who uses the soldiers who are fighting or have gotten killed to justify their anti-war stance. The argument is generally keyed by some sort of phrase that involves over 1000 Americans who have died in an (unjust/illegal/personal) war. Somewhere in the conversation the idea of the President 'lying' will also invariably come into the fold. But like in the previous examples given, this argument transposes personal anti-war feelings unto people who largely share an nearly opposite feeling. The vast majority of these soldiers do not believe that they are fighting an unjust or illegal war, they do not believe that they were lied to, and most importantly they overwhelmingly support this President and his decision to go to war. As much as the homophobe has no business speaking for what gay people should and shouldn't do... the anti-war person has equally little right to pretend that they somehow speak for the soldiers who are fighting and risking their life in Iraq. In fact, I would offer that in terms of seriousness... the case of two gay people not being given the privilege to be married takes a back seat to soldiers who risk their lives for a cause that they overwhelmingly see as just.

The real problem (and why I will get disagreement on this) is that the anti-war crowd is generally elitist and certainly arrogant about what they feel is an ethically superior position. It's hard for them to even phantom how people cannot see what seems so obvious to them. But it is this very arrogance that makes it so difficult to see that it is still no different than the person who has religious or personal reasons to oppose gay marriage. What is worse, is that they maintain this arrogance in spite of being played fools by illogical and silly arguments at nearly every turn.

For one example of this I give an argument that was made by none other than Michael Moore. His spin was in regards to the 'President lied' line that the left loves to go with. When asked if there was a difference between someone being 'wrong' vs someone 'lying' he basically was forced to argue that anytime someone says something that does not end up being right, that it is basically a lie. This of course is the centerpiece to the whole 'Bush lied' argument. Admitting that he might have believed all the intelligence that suggested WMD would open up a possibility that he didn't really 'lie'... but that he happened to trust intelligence that turned out to be wrong. The best way to insure that the attacks of 'Bush lied' live on is to argue the elimination of all 'right/wrong' and turn everything in 'truth/lie'. Using this mind set, in my upcoming football pool this week, I will not have X amount of game right and X amount wrong, but rather I will have told the truth about X amount of games and lied about the remaining ones. No doubt my commissioner must be a conservative, because he still believes in going with the 'right/wrong' method.

The alternative argument which is still used is that while Clinton used the same intelligence believed there was WMD, John Kerry saw the same intelligence and believed there was WMD, other foreign leaders also saw much of the same intelligence and believed there was WMD... that only George W Bush decided to go to war. Now the inherent question here is whether or not the "Bush lied" crowd is suggesting that all of these people lied too, but that it was o.k. because they didn't invade Iraq... or if the actually act of Bush going to war is what made his otherwise honest statements turn into lies. Just a warning: don't pry too deep here, because there is nothing more dangerous than a cornered anti-war "bush lied" liberal.

Either way... to explain this in the simplest terms possible: The fact that most people do not believe the President lied isn't due to Fox News or any mental troubles. The reason is that deep down almost everybody expected that we would uncover large amounts of WMD in Iraq. We believed that Clinton was acting in good faith when he bombed facilities that were creating WMDS, and we believe that Bush was acting in good faith when he made the decision to invade and remove Saddam from power. There is always the possibility of being just right or wrong... rather than everything being about telling the truth or lying.

This brings us right back to the beginning. If you want to be anti-war... so be it. But you simply cannot judge the actions and the beliefs of others based on your own personal perceptions. (This is especially true if any of your beliefs or perceptions come from anything the Michael Moore has come up with). You won't get anywhere but frustrated using this approach and you become nothing more than the homophobe who is against gay marriage. There are reasonable arguments to be made against the war... the idea of preemption in general and preemption in this case could keep us busy for ever. Use them, and forget about the over the top stuff that you know the other side doesn't buy. Empathy for the beliefs of others is what is needed right now in modern day politics. Nobody deserves this empathy more right now than the fighting soldiers of our United States of America.

2004-11-23T14:05:00.000-06:00

Richard Morin took the time over the weekend to address the 'exit polling' controversy, but also found plenty of time left over to take a shot at bloggers.
________________________

"It's also time to make our peace with those self-important bloggers who took it upon themselves to release the first rounds of leaked exit poll results. Those numbers showed Democrat John F. Kerry with a narrow lead, which ignited premature celebrations in one camp and needless commiseration in the other -- until the actual votes showed President Bush had won. (snip)

But rather than flog the bloggers for rushing to publish the raw exit poll data on their Web sites, we may owe them a debt of gratitude. A few more presidential elections like this one and the public will learn to do the right thing and simply ignore news of early exit poll data. Then perhaps people will start ignoring the bloggers, who proved once more that their spectacular lack of judgment is matched only by their abundant arrogance."
_________________________

Now I don't know about anyone else... but to me this reads an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black. If the MSM has one trait that runs true across the board it is their own self-importance and abundant arrogance.

The obvious problem that these people have with 'us bloggers' is that they feel that we are moving in on their turf. But I would argue that the blogosphere is creating a whole new turf that much of the MSM would rather ignore in hope that it goes away. In regards to the exit polling numbers for example... it's not like the Blogosphere scooped the MSM. The MSM had the numbers too and they were even being reported on slate from MSNBC. It's just that the public went to the blogosphere to pick up the scoop because they knew that it would be reported and there would be instant opinion. A guy like Morin doesn't like this because he doesn't write real time posts on a website somewhere; he write opinion pieces that come out the next day. He is at a tremendous disadvantage when it comes to giving analysis on fresh information. Of course who knows... perhaps old Rich doesn't think on his feet very well, and it takes him 2 or 3 days with constant editing and rewriting to turn in his bi-weekly column to the Washington Post. Perhaps he is jealous of the fact that bloggers can push out a dozen posts of substance in the time he comes out with one article?

Truth is that for every talented MSM journalist who makes a good living... there are probably 1000 equally talented bloggers out there doing it just for the love of doing it. Like the sports fan who doesn't understand how a professional athlete can turn down a $21 million dollar contract because he has to 'feed his family'... it is equally hard for a blogger to understand why these people in the MSM complain about anything. They have a built in audience, so even if what they write is crap it gets read. They get paid for writing at worst a daily piece, but usually only 2 or 3 articles a week. But yet they complain.

Funny thing is that many of the MSM outlets are now picking up on the trend and starting their own blog of sorts. ABC has 'the note'... other journalist such as Chris Matthews 'blogged' the election... Alterman has done sort of a blogging theme on MSNBC for some time. While this may be an attempt to move in on the blogosphere's turf... fighting back so to speak... it carry with it a dangerous risk. What happens if these MS journalist start blogging only to find that the public prefers the bloggers that they are already reading? What if these MS journalists simply can't keep up with bloggers in general? If these are the professionals... shouldn't they provide a better blog than the hacks in pajamas? If you went to a Richard Morin blog and found it boring, would you still read his column in the Washington Post? Or would you wonder why the Washington Post doesn't ask the Powerline bloggers, Wonkette, the Vodka Pundit, T.L. Bear, or even C.H. Truth to replace him?

Anyways... it seems that there is going to be some back and forth for a while here. The MSM is nowing trying to lay the blame of the exit polling problems at the feet of the blogosphere... fine and dandy. I posted the raw numbers. I feel absolutely no responsibility for the fact that they were skewed. In fact I was openly skeptical about them when they came out and was quick to post anything I found regarding 'any' suggested problems. I didn't denounce them... but why should I have? If Kerry and Edwards were giving each over high fives at 3:00 in the afternoon based on the exit polling... how the hell was the blogosphere supposed to know better?

Bottom line: This is what we do... we throw out the information, give our opinion, and let our audience take it however they would like. Oh yeah... and then they can add their own damn comments too because we are open to feedback.

Strib Strikes again

2004-11-22T13:17:00.000-06:00

Latest ridiculousletter to the editor published by the local Strib rag. Do these guys even realize how stupid they make themselves look??
________________________
Back to the past

Picture it. On one side, a uniformed army from across the sea, well-armed and trained in conventional war, on the battlefield because their commanders ordered them there.

On the other side, a rag tag army passionately fighting an unconventional guerrilla war, on the battlefield because they want to expel the invaders so they can live as they choose.

In the countryside, a populace divided, some supporting the invaders, others supporting the insurgents.

This is Iraq 2004, yes. But it's also colonial America 1775, the Continental Army vs. the British Redcoats. And we all know who won that war.

Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Look at the picture again. Still think we're going to win this war? I don't.

Sandra Berthene, St. Louis Park.
_______________________

Now where does one start in critiquing the thinking of Ms Berthene? Let's see... how about in the American Revolution there was a group of local people who wanted to set up a democracy and wanted to choose their own leaders... but the Iraqi insurgents are mostly foreign fighters looking to prevent the local population from setting up a democracy and hold free elections. Or how about the fact that the Americans were being helped by another major power (France) whereas no other government has or will support the Iraqi insurgency. Or we can compare the British who were looking to keep America under British rule... vs the Americans who are looking to turn over power to the local Iraqis?

Bottom line: Fighting for freedom and liberty is nearly always a just and true cause... repeated successfully throughout history. Fighting against freedom and liberty is always an unjust cause that usually fails in the end. Ms Berthene can see things however her scrambled brain sees fit. My best guess is that she is just so anti-war, anti-Bush, pro-Democrat partisan that she simply only sees what she wants to see.

The DeLay Deal

2004-11-18T11:56:00.000-06:00

I am withholding judgement at this point on this because there are several possibilities as to why the turnaround on this congressional rule... and because we don't know for sure what is actually happening in any possible indictment of DeLay.

First - I see three possibilities as to why this rule was changes:

1) The rule was originally passed by the Repubicans with political intentions to harm Democrats in leadership positions at the time. The Republicans now do not believe in 'what comes around goes around' so they are now getting rid of what was a bad rule to begin with.

2) The rule was originally passed by the Repubicans with honest intentions to clean up ethical problems in Congress. But now for purely political reasons they are changing the rule to protect DeLay.

3) The rule was originally passed by the Republicans with honest intentions to clean up ethical problems in Congress. But now both sides have figured out ways to manipulate it to damage the other side with weak politically motivated indictments. Therefore the thing to do is to change the rule back to treating an indicted member as innocent until proven guilty.

Second - What we have in this specific case is entirely unknown. But what happens in the coming months may tell us more. There are two distinct possibilities that would add clarity.

1) Tom DeLay is indicted in spite of the rule change and eventually is found guilty of something... then we can assume that the move by Republicans was motivated by the desire to protect him up until the very end.

2) Tom Delay is not indicted of anything now that the rule has changed... then we can assume that any possible indictment was actually politically motivated in order to manipulate the rule and hurt Delay.

As far as the sidekicks to DeLay already being indicted on all sorts of charges... it reminds me a great deal of a certain ex-President that we all know and loved who faced possible indictment a couple of times, and found many of his closest business partners similarly indicted for all sorts of things that he was also involved in.

Didn't prevent this President from completing his two terms.

Condi

2004-11-17T10:32:00.000-06:00

There can be no question about the qualifications and intelligence that Condi Rice brings to the job... However the left seems to have some issues with whether will stand independent from Bush or run lockstep with the President at every turn. In fact, I would offer that this is a legitimate concern.

One of the things that Powell brought to the State Dept was another point of view. He was the yin to the Rummy/Cheney yang. I believe that some actual real disagreement at that level of government is good, if not necessary. One would hope that Condi Rice brings her own independent POV just as the former Secretary did, so that this back and forth is not lost. Again... the concerns that she won't are legitimate ones, if somewhat unfounded.

The fact is that it is entirely too soon to tell what sort of Secretary of State Condi Rice will become. In my humble opinion, she has as much chance of being an even better Secretary of State than Powell was, for no other reason than she has the President's ear. The assumption from many on the left that she is close to the President because she agrees with him and tells him what he wants to hear is just that... an assumption. It could very well be that the President trusts her judgement even when she disagrees with him. She's probably flat out the smartest person in the President's inner circle... so who would blame him for listening to what she has to say?

Bottom Line: I like the move. She could be my Secretary of State any day of the week.

Will the MSM start reporting reality again?

2004-11-16T09:40:00.000-06:00

Now that the election is over and the country is either ‘blessed with’ or ‘stuck with’ 4 more years of George W Bush depending on your point of view…I have a question for the MSM: Can we all start rooting for America and Americans again, instead of hoping for failure? I have made the assumption that the negativity coming from the media was an attempt to influence the election. I am now hoping we can get on with our lives in reality rather than the fictional world that the MSM was trying to create. While I have my doubts, here are a couple of suggestions non-the-less.

First thing they can do is to stop pretending that we are losing a war in Iraq. By ANY relative objective standards, the Iraqi war has been one of the most impressive and effective military actions in the history of warfare. People forget that we invaded another country and took control in a matter of weeks, and now have occupied this country for over a year with a historically insignificant amount of American casualties. I know that this statement about the casualties appears coldhearted, but in terms of warfare it is non-the-less true.

Yet the MSM would have you believe that this is a military action that has gone dreadfully wrong and is doomed to eventual failure. That somehow a largely outnumbered ragtag group of insurgents providing resistance will inevitably overwhelm the best trained and best equipped military force in the history of mankind. Lets get real here folks. In the recent assault of Fallujah only about two dozen American soldiers were killed; while over 1000 insurgents were killed and another 500 or so captured. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out who won that battle. Yet the media jumps all over some peripheral violence in other parts of the country as a sign that again we are losing, and that we are simply doing it all wrong. I could only imagine what they would write if it was the Americans that lost 1500 troops while killing only 24 of the enemy in return.

I say to the MSM… stop it. It doesn’t do you any good anymore. It didn’t get John Kerry elected and it won’t help America or the troops moving forward… and it certainly won’t help your own credibility. Start reporting the truth. Stop muzzling the good. Tell it like it is: a good old fashion butt kicking with our boys and girls doing 99% of the kicking. Lets root for our team and give them their props. Let’s have stories about their heroism and their bravery, not just stories about what they may have done wrong. We are not going to lose, and there is no sense in covering it that way. The longer we are there, the more Iraqi troops and police are trained, the more the Iraqis realize that they have a real shot at Democracy, the harder the battle becomes for the insurgency. Time is on our side on this. The only way we lose in Iraq is to give up and walk away. That is a military reality.

Secondly… stop pretending that we have a bad economy. We are currently into the 13th consecutive quarter of positive GDP growth. We are currently at 5.5% unemployment and the economy has seen 14 straight months of job growth. But while the unemployment rate has dropped from 6.3% in June of last year to the 5.5% we have now, the MSM keeps alive myths that our job growth isn’t keeping up with the workforce growth? If the job growth has not keeping up… then our unemployment rate would be rising, not coming down. And no: there simply isn’t any evidence, in any statistic, coming from anywhere, to defend the oft suggested MSM theory that the unemployment is going down because of mass amounts of ‘people have given up’ looking for work. Yet the argument keeps being made ad nauseam that unless the economy creates ‘X’ amount of jobs, that we are still in a ‘jobless’ recovery… and we have all these folks out there so despondent that they sit at home in their underwear watching soap operas and Oprah because the horrible economy has caused them to lose all incentive to look for work. Please. Talk to someone who lived through the unemployment of the late 70’s or the double-digit unemployment in the early 80’s.

On top of this, during the past year or so the MSM became an amplifier for the Democratic Party’s distortion of almost every job and employment statistic out there… often times even parroting the suggestion that it is the President’s policy that is to blame. Once again… I ask that the MSM lay off the partisanship that they have shown, and simply report the economic and job numbers as they are; without including all the desperate negative editorial opinion. This economy is at worst is a mixed bag… and without a doubt it is better than most economies over the past few decades, and most definitely better than is being reported. Let’s give America and hard working Americans a break by allowing us to hear about a growing economy without the all of the negative spin nonsense. After the troubling tech bubble burst recession and the after effects of the 9-11 attacks Americans deserve to feel good about where we are and where we are going.

Yeah, I can hear it already. My critics will suggest that I am asking the mainstream media to become a cheerleader for the administration rather than the hard-hitting watchdog that they are designed to be. Nope. I don’t expect the media to suck up to the President or the Administration… I just expect them to report the news fairly and accurately. I just expect to hear as much about the good as I do about the bad, especially in situations where there seems to be an overwhelming amount of good when compared to the bad. I want them to be above partisanship and do their jobs. In this humble guy’s opinion that job description did not include trying to get John Kerry elected, and it shouldn’t include distorting reality to make George W Bush look bad.

Officially reporting nothing about Ohio

2004-11-15T09:19:00.000-06:00

The Zen pagan has nothing to report regarding a possible legal contest in Ohio... it's all just rumor and heresay.

It's not really the message

2004-11-14T20:51:00.000-06:00

For the second straight week, the local Sunday editorial page was filled with different analysis coming from the left regarding how best to move the Democratic party forward. In one column the writer explained that Democrats have to do a better job of explaining their own vision of morality and religious views to counter the Republican success in that area. In another the writer suggested that the Democrats need to pretty much argue everything better than they have; implying the Democratic/liberal message can win if argued effectively. Several other letters to the editor were similar in the general theme that Democrats need to come up with a better message and/or argue that message better. While I tend to agree in some ways with this basic premise, I still think it misses the point.

The problem for the Democrats isn't the message, it's the messengers. I mean this in two ways.
First is that the Democrats simply need better people in key positions throughout the party. John Kerry simply wasn't a good Presidential candidate. John Edwards wasn't much better as a V.P. candidate. Terry McAuliffe is a horrible party chair. With the exception of Barack Obama, they have few rising stars. Hillary sits in the wings as the only legitimate top flight name, but probably isn't likely to win a national election due to her polarizing nature. They need people to step up to the plate, and step up in a hurry. Republicans have a sure bet in 2008 with John McCain (if he decides to run), and popular moderates like Rudy and Jeb lurk in the weeds waiting for a shot. Heck, Arnold is probably a constitutional amendment away from being President. But right now nobody (besides Hillary) pops into my head when I think of big name Democrats.

But probably as important as who the Democrats don't have is who they do have... In the void created by little top notch party stars, alternate voices have crept into the Democratic party in an alarming manner and with damaging effect. While some on the left enjoyed the Michael Moore films, the effect was largely negative for the actual candidates as it turned off the moderates. With the unions and other labor organizations unable to give large sums of money directly to the Candidates and the Party... they instead funded the 527's such as Moveon.Org who's extreme messages inflamed more people than they moved. Think about it: with $26 million dollars of donations to several 527's that spent in the 100's of millions in advertising dollars... George Soros had nearly as much to say about the message on the left as the Party or John Kerry himself did. To further the problem, the Party invited people like Michael Moore and Al Franken to actual Democratic functions, and party members often praised them as patriots and heroes. These non-politicians in large part become figure heads to a Party who had very little national leadership at the top.

So what you got in the end is a Party that has too many chefs in the kitchen, no real sense of itself, and no real unifying national leadership. They still have the old fashion Democratic values and Democratic populist message. They just don't have the right people out there on the stump to sell it. Worst of all... in 2008 the most one person capable of unifying the party will no longer be around. George W. Bush will ride off in the sunset leaving the left with nobody to hate.

The Perspective of a Zen Pagan

2004-11-12T20:52:00.000-06:00

Many people believe that religion, morals, ethics, etc… was the defining story of the 2004 election. This election wasn’t about specific policy issues they argue; but it was about a broader feeling of trusting one candidate over the other on the issues or morality and religious ethics. Some of these people will go so far as to say that Republican victory on November 2nd was a mandate for religion more than a mandate for the President and his party. They suggest that the democrats lost because they just didn’t deal with the issue of religion very well… or at least not as well as the Republicans did.

Now all the thinking type pundits are all out in full force with suggestions and advice for the liberals as to how to deal with the problem of religion. But as a guy who is a self described Zen Pagan… I believe that I offer a unique perspective on the issue of religion and politics. More importantly I can offer a unique perspective on why the left is having so much trouble with it. The much needed perspective that comes from being outside of the Christian mindset.

First and foremost the left has to accept the fact that America is a Christian society. Over 80% of those who voted in the last election consider themselves Christians. In fact, to take it one step further, the left has to accept the fact that the ‘separation of church and state’ is not part of the constitution, but rather an ‘ad nauseam ’ argument derived from one judge’s decision. Certainly the constitution does bring up religion; but a closer inspection of the 1st amendment will show that it was designed to protect Religion from the Government… not the other way around. Let me repeat that: The 1st amendment was designed to protect Religion from the Government… not the other way around. In short, the Democrats need to refrain from trying so hard to keep the religious views of 80% of Americans out of the government. It is not only bad politics, but also not necessary defendable in a pure constitutional sense.

Now to add insult to injury, along with some salt in the wound, the left has this tendency to brand a large portion of this electorate into the status of being ‘extremists’. If you attend church once a week and voted for Bush then you are automatically grouped in with Jerry Fallwell as some sort of religious ‘wing-nut’. Not only is this not usually the case; but it also misses the fundamental point. Unlike the mainstream left who embraced Michael Moore and the Hollywood elite, the mainstream right does not embrace the religious extremists that are out there. Certainly they want to get that vote, but not at the expense of allowing Jim Bakker, Pat Robertson and gang to run with the crowd.

So what it becomes is a situation where the left is insulting and criticizing those who practice their Christian values in hopes that they will see the light and figure out that they have it all wrong. It’s as if the left seems to believe that they can somehow ‘shame’ Christians into believing that the values of 80% of Americans have no place in our lawmaking or government. This goes back to that whole “you’re stupid if you believe that” argument that the liberal elite loves to make… but then can’t figure out why the masses don’t respect the argument or listen to it? Sorry, but when you have one party that embraces the ideals of 80% of Americans, and the other who works to keep those ideals out of politics all together, the choice for many becomes clear. Which is why morals and ethics are playing a bigger and bigger part in politics.

Now… many argue that John Kerry is a good Christian and even took the time to quote scripture during one or two of the debates in an attempt to prove this point. Doesn’t that count for something? Sure… but the problem is that ultimately being a Christian is more about what you do than about what you say. Funny thing about this religious deal… everyone ‘wants’ to be a bit more religious than they are. If you ask the person who attends church 4 or 5 times a year, they will tell you that they should attend more. If you ask the person that attends once or twice a month, they will tell you that they would like to attend more. But you won’t find anyone who attends church twice a week who will say: “yeah, I go twice a week… but I really should cut down.” Christians respect those that practice what they preach so to speak, and most strive to be a better Christian, not less of a Christian. So when John Kerry talks about abortion, and says that he is ‘personally against’ it but feels that he has no right to impose his views on others, it doesn’t stick. While I personally find this to be an altogether justifiable, if not noble position to take ‘outside of religion’… even I have a tough time if I consider it through the eyes of the Christian that Kerry claimed to be. So in spite of my disagreement with the right on the issue, it is not hard for me to see why many Christians faulted Kerry for this view.

To be clear on this: if John Kerry believes what the Catholic Church teaches, then abortion is murder and abortion is a sin in his eyes. If he believes that the time of conception is when life begins (as Christians do) – then as a member of the government he would have an obligation to protect the life of this ‘unborn child’. One of the government’s fundamental requirements is to protect the weakest members of our society from harm (an especially large part of liberalism). Who would be weaker than the unborn child? What sort of Christian would offer that child up as a political sacrifice to the pro-choice vote? Well John Kerry would. But George Bush would not. That turns out to not just to be a religious conviction, but also a measure of the personal convictions that these two people have and how much they are willing to act on their convictions and their beliefs. In other words… while it may have had something specific to do with religion, there was a larger issue involved that had little to do with religion. It was this larger 'moral' issue where Kerry and the Democrats ran into all sorts of trouble.

Democrats really have two choices with the religious thing. They can change… or they can hope society changes. I see neither happening, and therefore I believe that we are just beginning to see the tip of the iceberg in what could be a very large culture war in our society. Honestly… I think that the Democrats ultimately need to fight the war, even if they are in many ways wrong, and even if they lose politically because of it. When it comes to something this important, we do need people fighting on both sides.

Note: there seems to be some argument about the 1st Amendment. So I will reprint what it actually states

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Notice again that this Amendment makes no mention of separation, or of restricting religious influence.. in fact it specifically 'prohibits' the abridging of the right of everyone (including the religious) to petition the government.

Life and death election?

2004-11-10T20:59:00.000-06:00

About a half a block from a giant Bush/Cheney sign with the word Nazi spraypainted on it... is a little cross with stuffed animals, flowers, and other items meant to pay tribute to a 10 year old girl who was killed the other day at a busy intersection.

This young girl went to my oldest son's gradeschool. We recieved a note from the school explaining how they were trying to handle the situation. My son knows a girl in the after school care program who was very good friends with the victim of this horrible tragedy. It's tough on the kids right now, and I cannot imagine the grief that the family is feeling.

The situation was a virtual mistake fest. The street she was crossing was a 50 mph divided 4 lane county road. She crossed against the don't walk sign into on-coming traffic because a driver (who thought he was doing her a favor) stopped and signaled her across. This stopped car blocked the view of another driver from the other lane who hit her front tire causing her to fly into the air and onto the hood of the car. She wasn't wearing a helmet.

I am quite certain when I see the Bush/Cheney sign with the word Nazi spraypainted across it that both parties responsible for that sign believe that this election was about life and death. But when you see the tribute to the fallen 10 year old just a half block away, you realize how wrong that they were. It was just an election.

Kerry's compency argument didn't work

2004-11-08T21:16:00.000-06:00

John Kerry tried to make this election somehow about 'competency'. However, the spin at this point is that it all boiled down to 'morals' or 'culture' depending on your take. I certainly am as guilty as any when it comes to this spin as I devoted an entire piece to culture and morals of Republicans and Democrats.

But taking a step back and looking at this objectively... only slightly more than 20% listed morals as their reason for voting. If about 80% of those people voted for Bush (which appears to be the number)... he still needed a large portion of the vast majority that did not vote based on moral values to win. Where did the rest of the support come from?

Well here is a guess... Kerry was able to successfully make it about competency to a great deal of voters. But when those voters took a real hard serious look at the background and accomplishments of these two politicians, they didn't see what Kerry was hoping to see.
Face it... here is a man in his 6th term in the Senate who has authored only 11 bills that made it into law... most of which were purely ceremonial. He has not made it to any significant leadership positions in the Senate, or any real ranking member status in any significant committees. He was really the backup choice for Democrats who really didn't have a good first choice.

On top of that, he was running against an incumbent who had led the nations through extraordinary times, was able to accomplish much of what he set out to do legislatively, and was successful in helping his party across the board. Like him or hate him... you cannot claim that he wasn't accomplished.

So when it comes to competency... it really is a two way street, but the left was hoping to make it a one way.

Kerry and his surrogates did their best to show that Bush was 'incompetent' by calling everything he did a mistake or an error of judgement. But on the flip side they gave the public very little to show that Kerry was any more 'competent'. They banked on the public trusting that Kerry had the ability to become a competent, get things done sort of politician. They banked heavily that this possibility would be more comforting to voters than the thought of staying with the President.

I think this backfired. If you want to argue competency... you need to find a candidate who is proven. Kerry wasn't that guy and he lost because of it.

Bottom Line: Reason number 2 that Kerry lost the election was that he didn't win the competency argument.

Moral or Cultural War?

2004-11-07T21:19:00.000-06:00

Many have suggested that this election boiled down to a question of morality. That Rove and gang catered to the base of the party by running on god, gays and guns. While admittedly there is some truth to this suggestion, it still misses the broader point. Yes, there is a cultural war going on right now… but the center of it is not about religion or gay marriage.
Now they say that politics brings strange bedfellows. Certainly I would be the first one to admit that I do not particularly care for the idea that my candidate relied on homophobes who may have supported him for no other reason than the gay marriage issue. However, I would have just as much trouble if my candidate relied on the vote of those who thought that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9-11 was a factual documentary. In other words: both sides have their extremes.

Thing is that those extremes are not really where the battle lies. Sure, the Evangelistic Christian vote probably had a lot to do with the extra 8 million votes that George W Bush got this election, but there is still another 50 million or so that have other priorities and other reasons for voting Republican. Even on issues where the mainstream Republicans agree with the party extremes; they usually come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

I happen to be a fiscal conservative, social libertarian atheist who understands and is willing to take into consideration the realities of the American mindset. I think there are 6 of us. We should start a club. I also happen to vote Republican more often than not. I think this gives me a rather unique perspective on why people may be drawn into the conservative movement in spite of not being deeply religious. It certainly deals with cultural issues where the conservatives are at odds with the liberals, but it rarely has anything to do with religion. After all… John Kerry was a Catholic, even an alter boy. He spoke of his faith and even quoted scripture. It didn’t impress me, nor did it impress many on the right side of the cultural war. One of the problems for John Kerry is in his conviction regarding what he states he believes. There is none. That seems to be a theme in the Democratic Party. But the real issue isn’t the religious conviction; it’s the whole question of what direction that we want to go as a country. It is a question of what sort of democracy and society we want. The soccer dads and the security moms don’t give a hoot about whether the candidate prays, they care about their family and their future.
Let me jump into the gay marriage issue here because it just seems so out of place and I got nowhere else to go. Personally I couldn’t care less if Gays got married. If it had been on the Minnesota ballot as an amendment, I would have voted to support the idea of gay marriage. But I understand and accept why people would want to see this on a ballot for people to chose. These sorts of questions are too important to American culture to allow one judge from Massachusetts to make the call. While the extremes from both parties see this about Gay Marriage, the mainstream sees this as a question of who decides.

Let me clarify how a social libertarian can write this. Going back to my own personal acceptance of the American mindset I can point to many apparent arbitrary laws that we have on the books that in spite of my personal disagreement seem important to a large segment of our population. For instance, you can go out and get drunk in a public bar tonight, but you cannot stay home and smoke a joint in the privacy of your own home. A consenting adult can hire another consenting adult to give them a 60 minute massage and pay whatever he/she charges… but if this person massages the wrong part of the body it becomes a crime. So if Americans feel that ‘these’ arbitrary laws are important then why ‘not’ allow the same choice of an arbitrary law for gay marriage. After all we have made it through over two centuries without allowing two men or two women to marry… what’s the big deal now? Why not allow people to have that say?
Unfortunately the answer is because the liberals are afraid of what the public will say. They basically are saying that you cannot trust Americans to decide what is best for America. That job should go to a few elites in black robes. Now this is just one example how an atheist such as me, can basically disagree with a liberal on how to handle a somewhat religious issue that we basically agree on. How deep is the cultural war here… when we can’t even agree when we agree?

The issues where we disagree are even bigger. As a parent of two children under the age of 10 my main concern are my children. When it comes to choosing between the freedom of a Gangster Rap group to promote their latest ‘kill whitey’ CD and protecting my children from that particular hate art… I choose the protection of my children without hesitation. This isn’t some sort of 1st amendment question as much as it is a common sense question about what it in the best interest of society. If that statement appears to be not very ‘politically correct’… well so be it. In fact, the whole politically correct deal is a lion’s share about what this cultural war is all about. The fact that the liberal elite basically forced Joe Lieberman and Tipper Gore to apologize to Hollywood for wanting to put warning labels on movies and CDs… really shows me how far gone the left has become over being ‘PC’. I mean, nobody was saying that people couldn’t write, perform, or record what they wanted… they just wanted the public to know what was in the art that they were looking to buy. Common sense? Certainly, but trumped by the liberal infatuation with being ‘PC’.

Another large chasm in the cultural war is one of personal responsibility or personal accountability. It seems that every time someone wants to put some responsibility on the individual, the left goes into a rampage.

Look at voting. According to the liberals it was unfair to require a valid Identification? C’mon. According to the liberals it was too much to ask that people know where they are supposed to vote? Please. In some cases it is too much to ask that the voter actually fill out the ballot correctly and follow simple instructions. I mean really; should election judges be required to spend the time to try to figure out the ‘intent of a voter’ if the vote isn’t properly cast. Now maybe it is just me; but if someone can’t fill out a ballot correctly, I have a deep seeded problem with people trying to get inside that person’s head.
But it is not just voting. Look at education. Testing the students to see if they are actually learning what they are supposed to be learning? According to the left, this is a bad thing. How about private accounts for Social Security? The left believes you can’t trust the public to take care of their money. They might do something stupid with it, or at least more stupid than what the government might do. Taxes? Again, the government knows better how to use your money for your own greater good.

But the most obvious and important cultural difference right now between the left and the right is the attitudes regarding the war on terror. First and foremost, there are many on the left who don't really recognize this as a real war. I have heard them compare it to the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on crime'; and have even heard them offer that it cannot be won. In fact, John Kerry suggested that we need to get back to the point where it is just a nuisance. I don't know John, but does blowing up buildings and killing 3000 people sound like a nuisance to you? Fact is that not only is this a war... but it may be the most important historical war we have ever faced. I want a President who recognizes this. If there is any disagreement on the situation I hopes that he views more seriously (not less seriously) than I do. If there is a disagreement about what to do, I want a President who is more aggressive (not less aggressive) than I would have been. To err on the side of caution? I don't want someone who believes that the 'side of caution' includes doing nothing, but rather I want someone who believes that the 'side of caution' includes being too agressive. Take the war in Iraq for example. Fight it and even if you were wrong about the threat...you still removed probably one of the worst outlaw dictator regimes in history. Don't fight it and end up being wrong... you simply can't take that chance. Bottom Line: I don't want a more sensitive war. I don't want to have any 'global test'. I want a straight shooter who understands the life and death struggle that we are in. Who understands that this just isn't going to go away on it's own. But most importantly, I want someone who is willing to fight it for me and my family, not for international acceptance.

I don’t know, folks… There definitely is a culture war going on right now. The lines have been drawn and sides have been taken. In many ways it is about mainstream America vs. Hollywood, it is about common sense and political correctness; but most of all it is about taking care of my family… I think the conservatives deep down really want to take care of and protect American families. Unfortunately, I don’t get that same sense from Michael Moore, George Soros and the rest of the liberal elite. More unfortunate is that I also didn't get that sense from John Kerry or John Edwards.

The Bush Political Machine

2004-11-05T21:20:00.000-06:00

A record amount of votes; a 3.6 million margin; an actual majority; and best of all… no litigation: this is the accomplishment of one George W. Bush during the 2004 election. Oh yeah, and he helped expand his party’s lead in both the House and the Senate, even knocking off the opposition Senate leader Tom Daschle.

This was a pretty big night for the President and his political machine. If memory serves me, it was a pretty big night for the President and his political machine in 2002 as well, as he became the first sitting President to gain midterm seats in both chambers of congress since politicians wore those silly white wigs. It seems as though big nights are becoming a habit for one George W Bush, the man the left loves to hate.

Now I had an epiphany the other day… got that feeling kind of like the first time you realized that the silly ABC song had the same tune as twinkle-twinkle little star. (Some of you are humming the two right now, going, "huh… never noticed that before"). What I realized is that one of the main reasons that some people hate George W Bush so passionately was that he took the 90% approval rating from 9-11 and turned it into political capital. Those who may have been temporarily part of that 90% feel as though they were taken advantage of to some degree… fooled into following the man. In retrospect they feel that he used his high approval ratings to gain their trust; only to use that trust to bully the opposition, to squelch criticism, to further his own causes, and eventually to give his own party an unfair advantage in the midterms. I think when they look back they feel at the very least they as though decorum should have left him on the sidelines during the 2002 campaigns. Instead Bush was using this political power by being out front and center stumping for his handpicked crew of Conservative Politicians. And worst of all I imagine, was that they feel he was handed this tremendous political capital by events completely out of his control. What should have been ‘payback’ for the 2000 fiasco; became another decisive blow from the right… and mostly because of 9-11.
But it was all a fluke. 2004 would be different. Or so they thought.

Turns out that the President didn’t necessarily need 90% approval ratings to have another banner election. He didn’t have and apparently didn’t need the political capitol that he had (and then lost) from 9-11. In fact, he had some problems. He had problems with Iraq, he had problems with commissions and reports, he had problems with scandals, and he had problems with silly media ploys such as the fake memo story. The deck was stacked against him. The Democrats, the liberal elite, much of the mainstream media, and the masses of 527 volunteers were out in full force with only one goal in mind… to bring down George W Bush in a powerful fashion. The left was planning to make a statement, and to gain back what they had lost over the past two elections. But George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the political machine that is “team Bush” simply wasn’t going to let it happen.

Comparing what this administration has done over the past two elections with the other two term Presidents of our generation… is really no comparison. Certainly Ronald Reagan won his reelection by a larger Electoral College vote landslide, and he too had some coattails. Certainly Bill Clinton was impressive in beating Bob Dole for his second term. But the truth is that neither of those two men had the impressive midterm election that Bush had. (In fact Clinton’s was one of the worst in history for a sitting President). Neither of those two men had the sort of issues before them, or the raging opposition that Bush had to overcome to win a second term.
What I think we are witnessing here is exactly what Bush set out to do when he decided to become President: to win two terms, to expand his party’s power in the congress, and to pass his conservative agenda. Much of his agenda has already passed, so his second term can become even more aggressive in some areas and concentrate on fine-tuning the others. What we are witnessing here is probably the most impressive and powerful political machine of our generation. George W Bush called this one over the scoreboard, off the flagpole, out the window, over the fence, off the building… and he made it.

Nothing but net.

Why Higher Turnout won't necessarily help Kerry

2004-11-02T21:23:00.000-06:00

The conventional wisdom is that a high turnout will favor John Kerry substantially and probably overcome any polling difficulties that he currently is experiencing. The expectation is that if we get an extra 2 or 3 percent participation; that it will likely be because of that 19-25, cell-phone-carrying crowd that will favor the challenger by a huge margin. But is this the ‘only’ reasonable explanation of a higher voter turnout??

I would offer that we are almost assured of a higher voter turnout this year… with or without the younger crowd. I would also offer that it doesn’t automatically bode well for Kerry.
Traditionally the Republican base is more faithful than their Democratic counterparts when it comes to voting habits. This has caused some laziness among the Republicans when it comes to the get out the vote drives, while it has forced the hands of the Democratic party to work harder to get their people to the polls. Given a pretty static Republican base it makes sense that a higher turnout would be better for the Democrats, and the lower the turnout the better for the Republicans. For example: assume that there are 50 Republicans that vote every time. No more, no less. A total voter turnout under 100 certainly favors those 50 Republicans… but if you bring 120 people to the polls, well then those 50 are outnumbered.

But what happens if the Republican Party decides that they too should get into the get out the vote business that the Democrats have used over the years? Well that sort of happened in 2002… and they had a pretty good election. This year the GOP and the Bush campaign have spent record amounts of money on the classic ‘ground game’ that they pretty much took for granted in the past. They attempted to match registration for registration the Democrats’ attempts to bring in new voters… they attempted to match phone call for phone call the Democrats’ attempts to get voters to the polls. In short, they got in the game.
In fact... much of the President's early campaign war chest was used to set up shop in battleground states long before John Kerry was even nominated. They not only got in the game, but they got a head start as well.

Is it too hard to imagine the possibility that some of these new voters will be Republicans? Is it too hard to imagine the possibility that the record amount of money spent by the GOP and the Bush campaign will help Republican turnout? Could be that they break even in this game... could be that they lose by a bit... could be that they finally get the better of the Democrats in the get out the vote drive... But whatever happens, the fact that they are in the game changes the dynamics of the election in a manner that not too many pundits care to talk about.

Bush Endorsement

2004-10-28T21:25:00.000-05:00

First and foremost let me address the incorrect notion that I am some sort of right wing fanatic who has a house littered with Rush Limbaugh books and Sean Hannity posters. I have seen my website described as a GOP playground, hard-core right, Republican biased, and hopelessly partisan… and those are just the nice descriptions. Truth is that I am a fiscal conservative and a social moderate (I used to say social liberal, but that is a whole other can of worms). I was a Reagan Republican; a Clinton Democrat; and even kind of a Jesse Independent for a while: which is to say that while I admittedly lean to the right, I can vote for Democrats and Independents when the right person comes along. Unfortunately, John Kerry is not that right person.

Now generally these endorsements start off with the author going over each and every important issue and telling you why their candidate has a plan that nearly guarantees America will be headed for utopia, whereas the other guy’s platform consists of evil plots that will no doubt ruin civilization as we know it. Perhaps they indulge you in past actions that have routinely led their guy to Nobel Peace Prize caliber results, or why the other guy has a history of catastrophic failure at every turn of their life. Now not to say that platforms and records are not important… because they are. But that stuff has been done to death; and deep down we all know that the decision regarding the leader of the free world is most definitely an issue where the general sense of the whole is much, much greater than the sum of the parts. When it comes to measuring the general sense of these two candidates as a whole; it boils down to character, integrity and commitment to the job. In those regards I see George W. Bush as a man who is head and shoulders above his opponent.

I am voting for George W. Bush in spite of the fact that I don’t agree with him on plenty of issues. But in this case, the potential presidency of either candidate would no doubt present decisions that I would disagree with. So in many ways how these two campaigns make me feel in both situations of agreement ‘and’ disagreement is paramount to why I would rather have George W Bush making the tough decisions.

I will give you a couple of examples:

I support the President’s decision to invade Iraq and bring down the Hussein Regime. I do so because I believe that the President acted in good faith on what he (and most every other world leader) believed was solid intelligence. He believed and still believes that what he did was/is in the best interest of the country. I am not going to hash into specifics on this, other than to repeat the most important part of this; I believe that the President acted in good faith, and I believe he acted in a manner that he believed was in the best interest of the county. Now there is certainly reasonable room for disagreement on this issue, and there are reasonable arguments that can be made. John Kerry has made some of these reasonable arguments, but he completely wastes all of those arguments by indulging in the over the top criticism that has no place in this race. John Kerry believed that the intelligence was good; he believed this when he voted to authorize force in Iraq in both 2002 and in 1997. He is on record several different times as stating that he thought Hussein was a threat and that he had WMD’s. He made some of these statements prior to Bush even taking office. So why now, does he claim that he was mislead by the President?? Why make statement that John Kerry himself can’t possibly even believe? Because John Kerry lacks conviction, character, and integrity; and will say anything to sway voters.

To flip this around, I disagreed with the President’s decision not to fully fund stem cell research. But listening to his reasoning regarding how he came to his conclusions and why he made the decision he did… I can fully respect his view. He did his best to accommodate the researchers without stepping over the boundaries of his own personal morality. But even when in agreement with the Kerry campaign on this issue, they have managed to lose me. Who could not be turned off by the comments from John Edwards, who stated that people like Christopher Reeve would get up and walk if John Kerry was President? Does John Edwards truly believe that if John Kerry had become President in 2000 instead of George W Bush, that more federal funding the stem cell research would have not only prevented the death of Reeve; but also cured him of paralysis? This statement shows immaturity, lack of character, and was another glaring example of saying anything to get elected.

This has certainly been a brutal campaign, with charges leveled by both sides that don’t meet the standards that Americans would hope for. But as we move deeper and deeper into this campaign, and we learn more and more about these candidates, the difference of these candidates as a whole is becoming painfully obvious to me. In the current Administration we have clarity about what they believe is ultimately right and good, and a clear sense of what they would do for the next four years. In Bush/Cheney, I see serious politicians with respect for the office. In Bush I see a man who sees the Presidency as an honor, a burden, and most importantly a duty to serve the best interests of the nation. The possible Kerry/Edwards administration is sorely lacking in either clarity or a clear sense that they understand what the office would hold. In Kerry and Edwards I see two opportunists who are in this for their own ambition, haven’t really looked past winning an election, and have not focused into the seriousness of what the highest office in the land would hold in the most turbulent time in our generation. It’s like men vs. boys… or serious politicians vs. a couple of guys with good hair. To me the choice is all too obvious.

Myth of the Great Debater

2004-10-20T21:33:00.000-05:00

Boy… Remember back when John Kerry slapped around those other 63 Democratic candidates this summer during the Democratic Primary debates? Remember how it was John Kerry who stood out, head and shoulders above the crowd with his keen debating skill and unparalleled ability to connect with the crowd?

No? Don’t worry; neither do I. Fact is that he probably wasn’t all that great, and clearly there were others who stole those particular shows. So why all the fuss about John Kerry: the great debater?

Well the truth is that this was a story that simply fit the bill. The media was dying to write the Kerry comeback story… and the debates became the story. Was John Kerry good? Certainly. But the truth is that the main reason John Kerry looked so good in the first debate was because the President looked so bad. In fact, even with the President appearing to be highly sedated during the first debate, the snapshot polls taken that night showed nearly 40% thought Bush sleepwalked his way to a victory; and Bush actually gained a point in the CBS undecided poll. How good could Kerry have really been?

Now keep in mind that those polls were taken ‘before’ the media started to write their story. By the time we were done the 62 million who watched became about 124 million (all the retro added viewers believe it was a Kerry landslide) and many of the 40% who thought Bush won, eventually saw the error of their ways and changed their mind. The next thing you know. Boom! Mighty Mo.

This led to the belief that Kerry was simply too good to lose a debate to the President. So even though the President held his own in the second debate, and probably got the better of the third debate… the polling numbers were still pretty consistent in that Kerry won. Not by much, but by enough to claim some sort of victory.

Don’t get me wrong; Kerry did what he had to do in all three debates, but the real issue is that the President didn’t do what he had to in debate one. Had Bush given a reasonable performance in the first debate… this story may have never been written.

Why you ask; does this matter now? Because: if the great debater was as good as advertised, his ideas and connection from the debates would not simply drift away. His bounce following the first debate would not fall back to earth, but rather continue skyward as real live momentum. Right now, it is simply too hard to tell. Some polls still show the close post ‘debate’ race; but others are starting to repost the pre-debate numbers of a big Bush lead. So the question becomes; did those debates really fuel Kerry momentum, or was it all a mirage? IOW... Fact or fiction?

Hard to watch Hardball

2004-10-12T21:35:00.000-05:00

Just watched an agonizing few minutes on Hardball where people who don't keep up with polling are talking about the polls. On a day where ABC/WP, TIPP, DemoCorps, CBS, ICR and Rasmussen all come out with polls showing the President ahead... they start off the broadcast under the false pretense that the polls are some Kerry and some Bush and it is essentially even. On top of this, you have these supposed pundits 'still' claiming that Zogby's 2/3 point lead for Gore in 2000 was 'right' while others (including Harris and Fox which had it dead even) were all wrong? Oh, and they posted the Gallup poll incorrectly, too...

It would be similar to a halftime football program where the analysts taking part in the discussions did not know what the scores of that day's games were... posted the wrong scores for the 2 or 3 that they seemed to notice... and spent 10 minutes on a line that assumed that the Panthers won last year's superbowl.

Why is it that we expect more out of Terry Bradshaw and James Brown than we do out of Chris Matthews and Joe Scarbough?? UGH!!

Kerry: as good as he could be

2004-09-30T21:30:00.000-05:00

Considering...

John Kerry performed well tonight. He looked presidential, looked cool, looked calm, and looked collected. He may have done the very best with the hand he was playing. Problem for John is that he holds a 9 high poker hand, and the President has a full house.

Try as he may, Kerry cannot get past the reality of what he has said and what he has done in the past couple years. While he hopes that the American public judges him solely on what he says today... the President was quick to remind people what John has said in the past, and how it does not reconcile with his present rhetoric.

IE:

- Kerry wants people to believe that he could do better than Bush at putting together a coalition... yet he has openly criticized many of the very leaders he hopes to lure. Doesn't take a genius to see the problem he might face as President.

- Kerry believes that new leaders will come to his aid to support and commit troops to Iraq if he is elected President... yet he expects them to come to his aid in a war he calls a mistake and the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Like any salesperson knows... it is extremely hard to sell a product that you do not believe in.

- Kerry want's to imply that he knows how the world thinks, yet it is the President who has dealt with these world leaders directly for the past 3+ years. Something that Kerry was forced to concede tonight.

- Kerry is forced to take the minority side to the Iraqi war argument. A majority of Americans want us to stay in Iraq and win the war... exactly the sort of message that Bush portraits. A minority believe that we need a whole new direction... which is what Kerry is hoping to champion. It's always harder to 'push' people toward your side, than it is to 'pull' them to where they already lean.

On paper, John Kerry probably wins the debate... but the President scored points over and over by pointing out the numerous Kerry changing positions and attacks on the other world leaders. Kerry has a credibility problem... and being a good debater (unfortunately for Kerry and his supporters) doesn't get him past that problem. More to the point... this debate provides some more fuel to the fire for the Rove machine to go to work on some effective ads featuring clips from the debates showing Kerry stating things 180 degrees from what he has said in the past.
I would suspect that both sides will declare victory... There was no knock-out and no horrible mistakes... and at the end of the day the race may tighten a bit (as it always seems to) but this debate won't make this race.

They Forgot Step Two

2004-09-20T11:13:00.000-05:00

The conventional thought process coming from the left was to make the 2004 election a referendum on the President. They would first tear down the President to such a point that it would make the choice to reelect him appear to be a poor, if not dangerous one. They would then swoop in with a competent candidate that offered the public viable alternative to Bush, and the election would be in the bag. Or so they thought.

Part one of this process started out about the time it became apparent that the Iraqi War was not going to carry Bush into a landslide reelection. Democratic leadership started hitting hard on the WMD questions, the economy, and the military casualties from Iraq. Soon after, the liberal 527’s started in with a series of anti-Bush ads that featured black and white film of little kids performing hard labor as they worked off the ‘Bush deficit’… as well as accusations that Bush lied to America in the build up to the Iraqi invasion. Cries of miserable failure and a war for oil became less muffled and more and more present in the rank and file Democrats who were no longer wary to attack a popular war time President. The Democratic candidates showed unusual unity in the primary race as they took more time attacking the President than each other. The damage was hitting home, and the President’s approval numbers were dropping. Dropping to a level that the President could not recover from. Or so they thought.

The problem at the time was that the Democrats seemed to be backing a less than safe choice in Howard Dean. Dean was just the sort of controversial, ideological liberal that could alienate the moderates and blow the whole thing for the Democrats. They needed a safe, competent, viable alternative… not Howard Dean. Then came Iowa, Jim Rassman, the infamous Dean scream and it all fell into place. War hero, 19 year Senate veteran, and Presidential looking John Kerry stepped up, and the left had finally found the other piece to the puzzle. Or so they thought.

With the American Public being made witness to John Kerry primary victories a couple times a week on the nightly news, with the national pundits talking up the choice of Kerry, and with events in Iraq turning sour, the Democrats were making inroads in the polling. When Kerry chose John Edwards as his running mate the snapshot polls showed 7 to 8 point leads for Kerry/Edwards. This election was in the bag. It was a certain Landslide victory for the Democrats. Or so they thought.

But then came a less than enthusiastic Democratic National Convention, a better than average Republican National Convention… and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. While the Democrats seem content to talk about how John Kerry was a Vietnam War Hero, the Republicans were starting to dig in and attack Kerry’s Senate record on national security, his Senate record on taxes, and his public records of speaking out of both sides of his mouth. They set the stage during their convention that it was George W Bush and George W Bush alone who could be trusted to lead us forward in Iraq and on the war on Terror. Meanwhile a conservative 527 group was attacking Kerry where it hurt most; questioning his military record and doubting his self proclaimed heroism. Of course, none of this would work. The public would see the attacks on Kerry’s record as an attack on his patriotism, and nobody would believe the SBVT group… and it would most certainly backfire on Bush and the Republicans. Or so they thought.

However, after an odd lack of polling bounce from the Democratic National Convention, the President was enjoying large polling bounces from his convention. In 2 polls out right after the convention, what once was a 7-8 point Kerry lead was now a double-digit lead for Bush. It was time for Kerry to sharpen his message and take off the gloves. The Democratic convention was too nice, and Kerry wasn’t attacking nearly enough. In another campaign shakeup Kerry added some former Clinton aides who promised to start getting tough again. They need to bring the President back to earth, and surely the polling bounce would go away. Or so they thought.

Problem is that much of the polling since the convention has shown that the public believes that Kerry is being too negative and that he has not clearly communicated his agenda. In fact, polling suggests that more people think Bush has done a much better job of telling Americans what he will do for the next four years. In spite of deserves reelection numbers mostly in the upper 40’s and direction of the country numbers in the upper 30’s and lower 40’s… Americans still don’t want to vote for John Kerry. What does it tell us when people have heard what the President wants to do, are not all that happy with it, and by a plurality do not feel Bush should be reelected? It tells us that the Democrats were successful in the first part of their basic strategy. But what does it tell us when those same people still decide that Bush would be a better choice than Kerry? It tells us that the Democrats have not been successful in their second part of the basic strategy. They have not come up with a viable alternative to Bush. As they have assumed all along.

So now we have about 6 more weeks before the election; plenty of time for the dynamics to change again. But the Kerry plan seems to be to continue to attack the President, specifically about the same things that the Democrats and the 527’s have attacked him on before. As if somehow John Kerry is the guy who can deliver the message better than anyone else, and it will therefore become that more effective. Sorry folks… but I don’t buy it. Kerry chance to win is floating away with every day he ignores the second part of the plan. Every day that Kerry spends attacking the President rather than giving Americans reasons… good reasons… to vote for him is another day he wastes. Of course those on the left will continue to declare that Kerry is the viable alternative and that he will get his message out. No doubt they will point to the debates as the next turning point. The debates are where Kerry will show the public why he should be President. Or so they think.

Gross Hypocrisy of Rather and CBS

2004-09-15T11:22:00.000-05:00

Dan Rather has offered that his partisan critics are attempting to change the subject of his story by attacking the messenger.

He has pretty much accused the President of not wanting to answer the serious questions about his military record... and suggested that he is offering 'memogate' as red herring.

Problem is... without the memos there is no real story about the President's military record. It's all been hashed over and over and nobody really cares. The story IS the memos and why CBS used them in spite of obvious reasons to believe that they are forged.

In other words... in response to charges that CBS used forged documents to question the President of the United States two months before an election... Rather and CBS chose to shoot the messenger (by calling ABC, Washington Post, the NY Times and many others partisan) and is attempting to change the subject away from what could be considered criminal negligent behavior by CBS.

Worse yet... they are attempting to implicate the White House as being the ones who are leading the charge, when in fact the White House has remained quiet on the subject. Check me if I am wrong, but isn't this very accusation (made to defend themselves from the implication that the story was a false partisan attack) actually just another example of a false partisan attack coming from Dan Rather against the President?

Angry Liberals Fight Reality

2004-09-13T20:40:00.000-05:00

Cognitive dissonance. Intellectual dishonesty. Call it what you will, but many on the left are going off the deep end on this whole CBS forged document issue.

It is becoming increasingly clear that there is no chance that these documents are real, and not just because they were typed in Microsoft word. Yet many (including CBS) are still stubbornly sticking to the idea that they might be. The arguments being made are so poor that it would be laughable if they were not so sad.

Just as the bloggers on the right are working the case, so are the bloggers from the left… and just as those from the right are uncovering interesting tidbits, so are those from the left. Unfortunately for the liberal bloggers; not much of what they find is relevant. One example that comes to mind was regarding Times New Roman font. The revelation was made on the Daily Kos that this style font had in fact been around since the 1930’s. Great fact finding… but a closer look shows that the font wasn’t actually used in typewriters or word processing till long after this memo was supposed to have been written. Of course this didn’t stop the apologist from the left from citing this unrelated fact as if it was proof that the whole forged memo thing was just a made up conspiracy.

The truth of the matter is that the right really has a sizable advantage in this debate. That advantage would be that the memos are forged. It is easier to prove something that is true, than it is to prove something that is not. It is easier to argue the point when the spouse, the son, as well as the guy who ran the records dept, all state for the record that they believe the memos to be forged. It’s easy when every single expert in the field (with the exception of the one paid CBS expert) states that they are forged. It’s easy when the memo has the wrong letterhead, and the wrong style of signature. It’s tough when the technology of a 1973 typewriter cannot reproduce the memo in testing. It’s tough when CBS’s trump card authenticator was never actually shown the memos. It’s tough when you have to try to explain why the memo references a guy who wasn’t even in the guards at the time of the memo.

So why is the left being such pills?? Five words: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Deep down the left probably believes that it really doesn’t matter if the memos are real. They feel that these memos deserve to have the same effect on Bush as the Swifties have had on Kerry. After all, these Veterans are just as phony and dishonest as the memos were… at least according to the left. The Swift Boat Vet deal has not really backfired on Bush, in spite of Kerry himself trying to put it on the President… but yet memogate seems to be backfiring on CBS and possibly the Kerry camp. Meanwhile the President just stays on message and everything is hunky dory for him. In the eyes of the left, this simply isn’t fair.

What the left doesn’t understand is that this isn’t a matter of fair or unfair; but a simple difference between good and bad politics.

First and foremost, Kerry is running as the war hero candidate, this left him wide open to the very attacks that are coming from the Swift Boat Vets. Being such a large part of the Kerry campaign, the attacks are damaging. However, the President doesn’t pretend to be running on his National Guard record, everyone knows he slacked off during the later part of his service, and very few people care about it anymore.

Secondly, while the Swift Boat Vets may have some skeletons in their closets, they can afford to… as long as they expose some of Kerry’s skeletons. The upside on these attacks is huge, whereas the downside is minimal. But on the flip side, CBS cannot afford to take the hit as a surrogate Kerry cheerleader, and the Kerry camp cannot afford to be tied to this sort of stupid deal, especially considering that whatever skeletons were uncovered about the President was old news. Little upside; alot of down side.

Last, but not least, Kerry himself chose to make the accusations against the President and called on him to condemn the ads. Yet Kerry refused to condemn his own ads and refused the President’s offer to push for all 527’s to cease and desist. He came across as scared of the Swift Boats, lending them credibility. On the flip side the Administration has done their best to stay out of the fray, relying first on bloggers and now on the mainstream media to discredit the memos. There was no quick attack on the Kerry camp, no finger pointing, and really little acknowledgement of it at all.

In the end, it would appear that the SBVT group has more credibility than CBS right now… and this is tearing up the left. They are angry with the recent turn of events, angry with the Swift Boat Vets, angry with Bush, and probably deep down angry with Kerry for bumbling everything. With anger comes irrational thinking, cognitive dissonance, and intellectual dishonesty. I don’t blame them, nor do I pity them.