Best wishes, Senator Johnson

Senator Tim Johnson is in critical condition as I write this. He had a hemorrhage in his brain and had to be given emergency brain surgery.

The news has been filled with vultures all saying the same thing: "Control of the Senate is at stake!" With all due respect, is that really as important as the man's life and health?

I vote Republican. I'm a Christian, and a conservative, and I think it would be a very good thing if the Senate were not in Democrat hands. But this is not the way I want it to happen. Not by taking advantage of a man's illness.

So get well, Senator Johnson. Your wife and family need you. Let's just hope your party doesn't do too much damage while they're in charge the next two years.

The Six Year Itch

We saw an ugly election result a few weeks ago. What can I say? I called it wrong.

The Six Year Itch has struck again. When you go back and look at off-year elections in a President's sixth year in office, there is almost always a loss. Sometimes a huge loss. Clinton was a bit of an exception, in that his loss occurred in 1994, his second year in office. Let's look at a few numbers.

1874, Grant's sixth year in office. Lost 8 in the Senate, 96 in the house.
1894, Clevland re-elected, defacto sixth year. Lost 5 in the Senate, 116 in the House.
1906, Teddy Roosevelt's sixth year, bucked the trend a bit. Gained 3 in the Senate, lost 28 in the House.
1918, Wilson, lost 6 in the Senate, lost 19 in the House.
1938, the great FDR, lost 6 in the Senate, 71 in the House.
1950, Truman, lost 6 in the Senate, 59 in the House.
1958, Eisenhower, lost 13 in the Senate, 48 in the House.
1966, Johnson, lost 4 in the Senate, 47 in the House.
1974, Nixon, lost 5 in the Senate, 48 in the House.
1986, the great Ronald Reagan even lost seats, 8 in the Senate and 5 in the House.
1994, Clinton bucked the trend with early losses, losing 9 in the Senate, 54 in the House.
2006, Bush, loses 6 in the Senate, 28 in the House.

Bush's losses are just about average.

I sense a historical trend here, not a massive upset. I feel more cheerful now.

I do hope that with the Republican spanking we'll see a return to a more conservative party. I won't hold my breath on that, but I'll be hopeful.

That was ugly...

All I can say is... ouch.

Ok, I can say more than that. The Republicans got hammered. From what I can tell it was a combination of scandals and the war in Iraq. Which leaves us the unpleasant reality of a Democrat controlled House of Representatives, and possibly the senate as well.

Time for the Democrats to put up or shut up. For six years they've done nothing and offered nothing except second guessing and wild criticism of President Bush. They have yet to produce a plan for Iraq, and most of their actions in the War on Terror seem designed to help our enemies and make it harder for us to gather intelligence. I'm pretty concerned about just how much damage they'll cause in the next two years.

Let's hope it doesn't happen. Let's hope they tinker around with social issues and try to raise taxes and open twenty investigations into the Bush administration and behave in the obnoxious way that Democrats in power generally do. Couple that with a decent conservative Republican candidate in two years and we'll take back the government and put the grown-ups back in charge, rather than the juveniles who are about to start running the show.

Time to Vote - watch out for those crying wolf - again

Tomorrow is the big day. I'll be going to the polls. Not bright and early... I have to be at work the same time the polls open, but you can be sure I'll be there after I leave work for the day.

This will be an election to watch. The liberal mainstream media has been salivating over the possibility that the Democrats will regain control of either one or both Houses of Congress. They've not only been drooling with anticipation, they've actively been trying to make it happen. From skewed poll methodologies to the Foley scandal to the constant feed of nothing but negative from Iraq, they've tried to chip away at Republican support, and suppress evangelical turnout.

It gets worse. The premptive strikes against the integrity of our system started early this year. Stories about "the problems" with electronic voting began back during the summer, and continue. Just in case the results are not to their liking, they can say "we told you so... take a look back at story x from August! We knew this would happen!!"

Our system is slowly being undermined. Not by non-existent fraud by the Bush administration and boogeyman-in-chief Karl Rove, but by the "cry wolf" media and their buddies in the Democratic Party. By hook or by crook they are determined to win or take the country down with them. The grand irony of all this is that the Democrat party, the party that perfected stealing elections and registering the dead and the illegal immigrants to vote for them are the very party that protest their innocence.

Every time they accuse the Republicans of wrongdoing, you can be sure they are the guilty party, ascribing their actions to someone else. EVERY TIME.

Go out and vote. Don't be talked into not voting by the mainstream media. Ignore the polls that have been weighted with more Democrat than Republicans to obtain skewed results. Go out and vote, and then accept the results. The next election is always two years away, and contrary to what the delusional on the left claim, martial law has not been declared.

Which is a bigger win for the Islamofascists?

Is it better for them if the Republicans win and we stay in Iraq, or is it better if the Democrats win and force us out?

It does seem like an easy and obvious question, doesn't it? Of course it's better for them if we leave. We'd stop killing so many of their foot soldiers, and they'd have an enormous propganda victory which they could use for recruiting.

Right now, it's "Come to Iraq and become a martyr by helping us drive out the United States and the Zionists!"

If we leave, it'll be "We beat the United States. We can beat anyone. You go fight in Great Britain. You go to France. You go to Japan. We cannot be beaten. They have no stomach for a fight."

It's all common sense, and yet if you listen to some, they'll try and tell you that the United States' presence in Iraq is just what the insurgency wants. Think about that carefully. Certainly our presence there is a recruitment tool, but is it really what they want? Even if they want a war against the west, which they so plainly do, don't you think they'd rather fight it over here rather than in their country? Don't you think the slogan "we beat America" would be far more effective than "come to Iraq and die"?

Common sense says yes. We'd better not leave Iraq until the job is done. It's suicidal to leave and hope the problem solves itself.

Mr. Arrogance is back

John Kerry, Vietnam war "hero" flubbed an attempt at a cheap shot towards President Bush yesterday. It sounded for all the world as if he were smearing the troops in Iraq. Here's the quote:

"You know, education -- if you make the most of it, you study hard and you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well.

"If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

That's what he gets for trying to look like he has a sense of humor. He ends up putting his foot in his mouth again, and makes everyone mad. He compounded the error by coming out with both guns blazing in a rather amusing press conference. Having learned the wrong lesson from 2004, he's convinced that if he'd fought back against the Swift Boat Vets he'd have won the election, so he's fighting back and making himself look like a jerk. Which he undoubtedly is.

I personally am delighted that Kerry's attempt at a cheap shot at Bush has come back to bite him in the rear. He really is one of the most arrogant men in politics today.

Having said that, had he come out and been somewhat good humored about it, the brouhaha would have fallen flat. But when he came out today in that press conference and tried to preach about how bad the Republicans are, and how he would never attack the servicemen, I kept having flashbacks to that 'army of Genghis Khan' comment and others like it in the 71 hearings.

No senator Kerry, those of us who think you'd attack the troops are not crazy, because you've done it before.

I think Kerry will be the topic of conversation for a few days now rather than Iraq or the economy. It's helpful to my side quite honestly. Kerry is a big, arrogant, elitist left wing Democrat, and the Democratic party does not like to trot those guys out right now.

Election predictions

It's anyone's guess as to how things will turn out a week from Tuesday. I have my own idea about how the house and senate will look on November 8.

I think the Republicans will hold both. I think the margin by which they control both houses will narrow. I can't say by how much of course.

The mass media orgy of polls predicting doom and disaster for Republicans have made me suspicious because of the fact that there are so many of them, and the results are so eagerly reported by the left-wing press. The polls are the equivalent of "the lady doth protest too much". The endless barrage of numbers showing massive Democrat leads and upsets is clearly little more than wishful thinking on the part of pollsters, who weight their polls with too many Democratic participants so they can get the numbers they want. All of the numbers are designed to create a sense of fait accompli, and make those of us on the right think that the election is all but over so we won't bother to vote.

I can't say how such an approach affects most voters. I can say that in my case, it doesn't change my mind. I'd vote for the candidate I favor if I was the only one to do so.

There's little doubt that the war in Iraq has hurt the popularity of President Bush, and the Republicans in Congress. But with a good economy, lower gas prices and low unemployment, there's no real solid reason for people in general to be as angry at the party in power as the press would have us believe.

The attempt to depress the vote on the right has taken other forms besides loaded polls. The Mark Foley scandal was meant to drive away Christian voters. It's interesting to me that Foley resigned right away, and yet the story dominated the news for at least a week. It's all anyone wanted to talk about. North Korea was setting off a nuke, but ABC wanted to play up the latest dirty instant messages. They fired the gun too soon though. The Foley story has played itself out already. No one cares any more.

I don't think there's a "throw the bums out" landslide in the mold of 1994 approaching. We'll see if I'm right or not. I'm ready to head to the voting booth myself. I won't be staying home.

How many constitutional rights should terrorists be given?

This is a valid question. Depending on who you listen to, they ought to have the same rights as citizens of the United States.

How much do we as US citizens value our rights and privileges? Are they something that we can freely confer on anyone? Do those rights and privilges come at a price?

Yes, no and yes.

It makes me angry when Democrats and others believe that Al Queda prisoners captured on the battlefield or elsewhere should have their day in American courts. That they should be able to see the evidence against them like any American citizen, and be given the same due process granted to citizens. That's an insane position to take.

These men are not citizens. They do not live, work and care for the United States. They fulfill none of the responsibilities of citizenship. In fact, they are actively trying to destroy this country and kill our citizens. The idea that we should protect them astonishes me. It angers me. Should we not be protecting the people of this country instead? Why extend the privileges of citizenship that so many have fought and given their lives for to terrorists who want to commit mass murder?

I suppose there are some answers. Some people think the United States is at fault, and that the captured Al Queda are victims. That's the delusional approach.

Some believe that it's simply justice to treat them as one would treat a citizen of the United States. Citizenship is cheap then, isn't it? We freely give away to murderers what many have paid a steep price for. That's the numbing effect that moral equivocation has on common sense.

Some people just hate Bush, and if he's for harsh interrogation, they're against it. That's the mindless rage of the hateful.

The last option is somewhat reasonable. Some people honestly believe that by denying captured Al Queda members due process in a civlian court that the slippery slope towards being able to hold anyone for any reason has begun. While there may well be some merit in that, my response would simply be to remain vigilant. We have to extract information from these prisoners somehow, and we have to have a method of trying and convicting them that keeps classified information and intelligence secret. A normal courtroom is not sufficient. If those who feel that rights are being eroded have a better option, it ought to be put forth for consideration.

As for me, I'll continue to side with the citizens of the US. I don't hold any sympathy for those in CIA prisons or at Guantanamo Bay. I don't have a lot of regard for those who do sympathize. When, God forbid, the next 9/11 happens, we may all wish that the naysayers had been ignored.

Harry Reid's crooked land deals... ignored.

Senate minority leader Harry Reid, the soft spoken and morally pompous Senator from Nevada has been making money off of land he no longer owns.

He sold it to a partner. He claimed on his Senate ethics committee report that he still owned it. He's been very contrite and offered to amend his report, which is very magnanimous of him, to be sure. I'll offer to change my story that next time I'm caught in a lie too.

Is the media obsessed with his lies? No. Not at all. They're still harping about Foley, who resigned weeks ago.

A scandal that can hurt Republicans is worthy of weeks of coverage. If it hurts a Democrat, it needs to be buried and forgotten as quickly as possible. Typical.

650,000 dead in Iraq? Not likely.

A report was released today (not politically timed, according to the authors... hah) claiming that over 650,000 have died since we invaded Iraq in 2003.

Never mind the fact that no one else, include United States and Iraqi governments, as well as several independent groups disagree, putting the number of dead at around 40,000. This new figure was gleefully jumped on by CNN and other media outlets, as well as Bush-haters in general. Check their blogs if you don't believe me.

Why would anyone be happy that over ten times more people are dead than most of us previously believed? Because it's ammo to attack George Bush, the devil himself. The famous compassion that we conservatives know nothing about rears its head again. Bush killed 650,000 in his illegal war for oil! Hooray! Let's impeach him.

It's sickening behavior.

Of course, I don't know the actual number of dead. I do know that with a few exceptions, America and Great Britain do not intentionally kill civilians. We don't lace cars with explosives and detonate them in crowded markets. We don't strap bombs under shirts and kill soldiers eating lunch or Iraqi police brigades. And we certainly don't behead young men on videotape with dull knives and then post it on the internet.

Our enemies do that. But somehow, we're the bad guys. That's the twisted morality of the left for you.

The media obsession with Mark Foley

Why?

Aren't there more important things going on in the world? North Korea has a nuke test. Iran says Israel must be wiped off the map and is also pursuing nukes. Iraq is getting more violent by the day, or so it seems.

And yet, with the election three and a half weeks away, the media is obsessed over Mark Foley and his sexual indiscretions with underage pages. Hmmmm...

Think they're rooting for the Democrats to win? Yep. Think they're trying to make it happen?

Absolutely.

The Mark Foley attack machine

Like many of you, I've been listening and reading about the continuing developments in the newest scandal to hit Washington in October right before a major election. Yet another one of these Congressional dimwits seemed to believe that his actions would never see the light of day. But they have, and the accompanying media frenzy is probably the nail in the Republican's coffin.

A few weeks ago, I didn't agree with the doom and gloom predictions that the Republicans would lose the House and the Senate. It didn't make sense that people were that angry with them, quite honestly. But with this made-to-order scandal involving a member of Congress and a young page, we may have raised the disgust levels just enough for the Democrats to benefit.

Think about the results if they win one or both houses of Congress. Tax cuts repealed. Possible impeachment proceedings. Funding cuts or votes to shut down key programs like the NSA wiretap or the interrogations of high-value Al Queda captives. The Democrats have been obsessed for six years with stopping anything President Bush has tried to do, and if they become the majority party rather than the opposition, they'll be dangerous.

Let's just hope that I'm wrong, and the voters are as ho-hum about this sex scandal as they were about Bill Clinton's dalliances with Monica Lewinsky. We'll see in about four weeks.

Jumping on the bandwagon

Hello.

Well, this is an experiment. Or perhaps I'm just jumping on the bandwagon, and feel like posting my thoughts and reactions to things as they happen.

We'll see.

Welcome. I suppose I'll update sporadically.