Circling the bowl

Hugh Hewitt has developed a spine! He was arguing , and heatedly,with Senator Ensign, head of the National Republican Senate Committee about Republican Senators supporting or considering supporting various resolutions questioning President Bush's recent troop deployment. Hugh blasted the Senator Ensign when he said that the NRSC is about getting back a Republican majority and Hugh was very clear: resolutions of this sort will NOT a majority remake. Hugh went on to say that he has split ranks with many of his Senate friends on this matter.
Hugh has a pledge to sign here that puts any and all Senate Republicans on notice.
I've also sent a webmail to Senator Norm Coleman (here) attempting to be direct while also being diplomatic that he should not even consider supporting any Warneresque, Hagelesque or Bidenesque "Sense of the Senate" resolution concerning the troop deployment. Even Tony Snow said that war trumps party. Agreed.
As I heard someone say in reference to Senator Coleman on this matter "Can anyone say 'Senator Franken'?"
P.S. I've just heard that Senator McCain is "doing for the war what he did for judicial nominations" (remember the Gang of 14?). Adios any chance he ever had to be President.

Another hit

My respect for Pat Robertson of the 700 Club has just taken a significant hit.
I'm doing some late night work and was watching the 700 Club when there a brief report about Los Angeles considering banning trans fat ala New York. Mr. Robertsons comments:
"Well, I'm not in favor of Big Brother, but..." whereupon he launched into the evils of trans fat (heart disease, cancer, etc). His closing comments "Well, if we don't do it ourselves, government will have to. So I approve." In other words "I approve of tyranny when I agree with it's motives." Well, Pat, why not mandatory taking of vitamins with random urine tests and blood work. Or, exposure meters ensuring that our sun UV exposure doesn't exceed safe limits? Or government required exercise with again random tests? Why not? It is for our good after all. If we don't do it voluntarily, the government should.
Right?
Walter Williams sees again the tyrananny state at work. I wonder why Mr. Robertson's vision is so occluded here?

CIC

I listened to the President;s speech last night. I like the point he made about where and why the troops where going where they're going (over 80% of the terrorists' attacks happen within a thirty mile radius of Baghdad. Very similar to the vast majority of shootings, murders and assaults happen in just two zip codes in Minneapolis).
Now, I'm a military history buff. I took a full year of the history of WWII in college. Well over half of all the hundreds of books I own are military related. They go from front line soldiers (Band of Brothers for example) all the way up to the diplomatic papers between Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt. I have a number of books dealing with that war that was the genesis for all modern warfare-The War Between the States. Now, all that being said, I probably have done deeper studies of war tactics and strategy than the vast majority of Congress. And we have a Commander-in-Chief and a military that is far more qualified to determine what's needed in Iraq than elected representatives. Period.
I just got off the phone with a good friend of mine. He's exasperated with Pawlenty and Coleman and their lack of support for the President. He said he'd be willing to give a pass to soemone who complains BUT offers an alternative to the President. Pelosi, Rangel, Hillary, Murtha even Coleman have absolutely NO counter plan. None at all. And none of the critics has stated what would happen if we left. I stated to my friend a great example of what would happen if we left is Fallujah. There was the first and then the second battle of Fallujah. The first was prematurely ended due to politics. And the second cost many more lives but was necessitated by the failure of the first. And what do those who oppose the battle against radical Islam in Iraq suppose will happen if we don't win there? What happened when we left Somalia? Lebanon? All that happened was that the radical Islamisists were encouraged.
And so it will be in Iraq.
So, when you hear someone criticize the battle in Iraq, as for a detailed counter plan.

Coined

The day before her coronation, I heard Nancy Pelosi say this "Democrats are back and that is cause for celebration," Pelosi told the crowd. "Thanks to you, working moms in this country know there's a mom in the speaker's office..."
My term for San Fran Nan: Tyrananny Nancy.
And as for the lefties sweep in November? So many have accused the Republicans for straying from the platform, both here in Minnesota and nationally. Nah. Not true. I only wish that were true. However, every one of those Republicans was elected. And they were elected by people who wanted to see the gavel in the hands of someone who had the "R" designation after their name. I've seen it here locally. I've seen it statewide. I've seen it nationally. The electorate was unwilling to hold Republican politicians responsible and accountable. They were elected by us and passed laws in our name.
Same holds true for every single erosion of our liberties.
As Walt Kelly so eloquently stated:

Hit the street running

Less than a week in power and as I posted here the lefties are lefties. Newly installed MN AG Lori Swanson has already lodged her first big lawsuit (as a matter of fact, her first lawsuit period) against a Minnesota company, Allianz Life. AG Swanson is a legal superwoman! She has the ability and the talent, in less than five working days, to gather all the evidence and file all necessary papers to enter a lawsuit against a major PRIVATE Minnesota employer and major provider of annuities. All I can say is-wow!
Now, I noticed that she's hired former MN AG Mike Hatch. A few loose dots and I'm wondering: do you think that this was one more lawsuit that Mike Hatch just longed to launch but ran out of time? That perhaps , just perhaps, all that paperwork was just sitting there at 1400 Bremer Tower just aching to be filed? And Ms. Swanson has decided to become Ms. Michelle Hatch, jr. And that she's hired Mike Hatch to assist here in her quest to follow her mentor and predecessor in making the business climate in Minnesota even more inhospitable?

And in those same five working days, the MN State Legislature has a $2,250,000,000 surplus (meaning that you and I have been overtaxed. This surplus did NOT come from reduced spending). And the lefties response to your being overtaxed? Come on. That's a rhetorical question. Their only answer is: Increase taxes. A sales tax increase. An increase in vehicle registration fees (a tax increase by another name). Increase vehicle taxes. Increase the gas tax. Allow counties to charge a wheelage tax. Allow counties to impose a county wide sales tax (if Hennepin County can do it, why not us?). And of course, the cry is for a cap on property taxes. How? Increase other taxes to be sent to St. Paul and then sent to sent back to the local governments, after of course the bureaucrats all along the way take their cuts to administer all the comings and goings of your money. Take that money from your back pocket (exactly like a pick pocket, and for exactly the same reasons) so the locals won't take it from your right pocket.
Oh, and as they increase taxes all around, they want to cap health insurance premiums. No irony or duplicity there.

The Republicans: The newly recognized party of Big Government

Ever wonder what really happened on Election Day 2006? Despite all the Republicans protests with their abysmal campaign slogan "It Will Be Worse With Them!", the election proved again that perception is reality in politics. The following survey shows that the electorate believed that "it would be worse" with the Republicans! We conservatives had been warning the Republicans for years and started calling for "General Quarters" two to four years ago.
Due to some technical problems, it wasn't able to be posted until today.

Still thinking that Tuesday was Democratic Victory Day? Disabuse yourself of that notion immediately. Rush was right. Tuesday was a repudiation of Republicanism, not conservatism by a long shot.
Pat Toomey has an excellent article on National Review Online where he cites a survey from Basswood Research that shows how the perception of the Republican Party has changed. The summary is here...and is a real eye opener:

In these key districts that were so instrumental in the Democrats’ takeover of the House it is clear that the national Republican Party is not seen as embracing the pro-economic growth, smaller government concepts that majorities of voters favor.

An overwhelming 73% of voters correctly perceive that the size and cost of the federal government has gone up in recent years. However, in an odd twist on President Clinton’s 1995 declaration that “the era of big government is over,” it is now the Republican Party that is viewed as being the “party of big government,” and the Democratic Party is widely seen as doing a better job of eliminating wasteful spending.

Among Independents, the swing voters in these swing districts, 40% said they saw no difference between the parties on “eliminating wasteful spending,” while by a 2.5:1 ratio, more saw the Democrats as superior to the Republicans in this area. Similarly, among Independents, 23% viewed both parties as “the party of big government,” but twice as many describe the Republicans than Democrats that way. Stunningly, even 29% of Republicans said the Republicans are the “party of big government,” with an additional 17% of Republicans saying both parties fit that description.

Those who say the Republican Party in Washington has lost its way on issues of fiscal discipline and economic growth include 72% of Independents and 43% of Republicans.

Despite the clear rejection of the Republican Party on fiscal issues, there remains widespread majority appeal for the principles of lower taxes and smaller government. The same Independent swing voters show strong majority support for extending the 2003 income, capital gains, and dividend tax rate cuts, as well as permanently eliminating the death tax. They also show solid majority support for reducing federal spending, even if that means reducing spending in their own districts.

If Republicans can strongly reclaim their previous branding of being the party of smaller government, or, conversely, if the Democrats refuse to extend tax cuts or curtail massive pork spending, then the Republicans have a chance to again win over many of these swing districts in the next election. Alternatively, if the Republicans continue to present voters with no reason to prefer them to the Democrats on fiscal issues, they likely will fail to reclaim these lost swing districts.

Methodology

This survey of public opinion in 15 congressional districts across the nation was conducted November 4-5, 2006, among 800 likely general election voters. All interviews were conducted by professional interviewers by telephone. Interview selection was at random from among lists of registered voters with a history of voting in general elections in each district. The sample was equally weighted among the 15 districts. The accuracy of this survey with 800 likely voters is within +/-3.46% at a 95% confidence interval.

The Districts

The survey was conducted in the following 15 congressional districts: Arizona-8; Colorado-7; Connecticut-2; Florida-13; Iowa-1; Illinois-6; Indiana-2; Indiana-8; Indiana-9; North Carolina-11; New York-24; Ohio-15; Pennsylvania-6; Virginia-2; and Washington-8.

These 15 districts have the following significant characteristics:

v All were House seats that were held by Republicans going into this election (9 by incumbent Republicans seeking reelection; 6 open seats left by retiring Republican incumbents)

v All were races that were generally thought to be among the most competitive districts for Republicans to hold this year; however, no district was including that was touched by major scandal (i.e. FL-16, OH-18, PA-7, PA-10, and TX-22 were excluded).

v The districts were distributed relatively evenly throughout the country: 3 in the Northeast; 3 in the South; 3 in the West; 6 in the Midwest.

v In 2004, President Bush carried 10 of the 15 districts over John Kerry, making the overall sample somewhat skewed toward Republican districts.

v On Election-Day 2006, Democrats were elected to replace Republicans in XX of these 15 districts, providing YY% of the gains the Democrats needed to take over the House majority.

Key Findings

Party Preferences

• Q: With which political party are you registered or affiliated?

A: Republican 37.6%

Democrat 40.6%

Independent 19.4%

Refused 2.4%

• Q: Would you prefer to see the Democrats or the Republicans in control of

Congress when the new Congress meets in January?

A: Democrats 50.8%

Republicans 36.3%

Refused 13%

Attitudes About Size of Government

• Q: In the last four years, do you think the size and cost of the federal

government has gone up, gone down, or stayed about the same?

A: Gone Up 73.0%

Gown Down 5.5%

Stayed the Same 14.4%

Don’t know/Refused 7.1%

• Q: All other things being equal, which type of candidate for Congress would

you be more likely to vote for? A candidate who wants to reduce overall federal spending, even if that includes cutting some money that would come to your district; or, a candidate who is willing to increase overall spending on federal programs and grow the federal budget, in order to get more federal spending and projects for your district?

A: Cut spending 57.3%

Bring home projects 27.6%

Don’t know/Refused 15.1%

Beliefs About the Two Parties’ Stands on Size of Government Issues

Introduction to Questions: Now, I’m going to read a list of issue topics. When you look at Washington today, please tell me whether you think the Republicans or the Democrats are doing a better job on each issue. If you see no difference between the parties on these issues, just say so.

• Q: “Promoting Economic Growth”

A: Republicans 37.5%

Democrats 36.1%

No Difference 21.8%

Don’t know/Refused 4.6%

• Q: “Eliminating Wasteful Spending”

A: Republicans 24.6%

Democrats 39.1%

No Difference 30.3%

Don’t know/Refused 6.0%

Introduction to Question: Now tell me whether you think the following phrases better describe the Republicans or the Democrats in Washington.

• Q: “The Party of Big Government”

A: Republicans 39.3%

Democrats 27.9%

Both 16.3%

Neither 9.3%

Don’t know/Refused 7.4%

• Q: Would you agree or disagree with the following statement: “The

Republicans used to be the party of economic growth, fiscal discipline, and limited government, but in recent years, too many Republicans in Washington have become just like the big spenders that they used to oppose.”

A: Agree 65.8%

Strongly Agree 43.4%

Somewhat Agree 22.4%

Disagree 26.4%

Strongly Disagree 13.4%

Somewhat Disagree 13.0%

Don’t know/Refused 7.9%

Views on Current Tax Policy

• Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered tax rates on capital gains and dividend

income. In two years, those taxes will go up if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower rates on capital gains and dividends, or do you support allowing those taxes to go up?

A: Extend the tax cuts 62.1%

Allow taxes to rise 24.8%

Don’t know/Refused 13.1%

• Q: The 2003 federal tax cuts lowered income tax rates across the board,

cutting the lowest tax rate from 15% down to 10%, and cutting the highest tax rate from 39.6% down to 35%. In four years, those tax rates will return to their previously higher levels if Congress does not extend the tax cuts. Do you support extending the current lower income tax rates, or do you support allowing the income tax cuts to expire and let rates return to their previous higher levels?

A: Extend the tax cuts 59.1%

Allow the tax cuts to expire 26.8%

Don’t know/Refused 14.1%

• Q: The 2001 federal tax cuts phased out the inheritance tax, also known as the

death tax. The law is currently scheduled to completely eliminate the death tax in four years, but then it allows the death tax to return in the year 2011. Would you prefer to have the death tax permanently eliminated, or would you prefer to see the death tax brought back in 2011?

A: Permanent elimination 61.6%

Brought back in 2011 21.5%

Don’t know/Refused 16.9%

Analysis

In these key districts that were so instrumental in the Democrats’ takeover of the House it is clear that the national Republican Party is not seen as embracing the pro-economic growth, smaller government concepts that majorities of voters favor.

An overwhelming 73% of voters correctly perceive that the size and cost of the federal government has gone up in recent years. However, in an odd twist on President Clinton’s 1995 declaration that “the era of big government is over,” it is now the Republican Party that is viewed as being the “party of big government,” and the Democratic Party is widely seen as doing a better job of eliminating wasteful spending.

Among Independents, the swing voters in these swing districts, 40% said they saw no difference between the parties on “eliminating wasteful spending,” while by a 2.5:1 ratio, more saw the Democrats as superior to the Republicans in this area. Similarly, among Independents, 23% viewed both parties as “the party of big government,” but twice as many describe the Republicans than Democrats that way. Stunningly, even 29% of Republicans said the Republicans are the “party of big government,” with an additional 17% of Republicans saying both parties fit that description.

Those who say the Republican Party in Washington has lost its way on issues of fiscal discipline and economic growth include 72% of Independents and 43% of Republicans.

Despite the clear rejection of the Republican Party on fiscal issues, there remains widespread majority appeal for the principles of lower taxes and smaller government. The same Independent swing voters show strong majority support for extending the 2003 income, capital gains, and dividend tax rate cuts, as well as permanently eliminating the death tax. They also show solid majority support for reducing federal spending, even if that means reducing spending in their own districts.

If Republicans can strongly reclaim their previous branding of being the party of smaller government, or, conversely, if the Democrats refuse to extend tax cuts or curtail massive pork spending, then the Republicans have a chance to again win over many of these swing districts in the next election. Alternatively, if the Republicans continue to present voters with no reason to prefer them to the Democrats on fiscal issues, they likely will fail to reclaim these lost swing districts.

About Basswood Research

In the past six years, Basswood Research has conducted hundreds of thousands of public opinion survey interviews covering hundreds of states, localities, and legislative and congressional districts. Its clients include a dozen Governors, U.S. Senators, and Members of Congress, as well as state and national political party committees and leading issue advocacy organizations. In 2002 and 2004, Roll Call newspaper listed Basswood’s Jon Lerner as one of the nation’s leading political consultants.

Nancy, Margaret and Roger

Years ago I saw the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Judge Doom (Christopher Lloyd) who hunts cartoon characters finds them by playing the first notes of "Shave and a Haircut" (shave and a haircut...two bits)knowing that any and all cartoon characters, no matter how hard they resist, no matter their resolve must complete the ditty. Roger hears the the first five taps, and goes through all kinds and sorts of contortions and seizures battling the impulse that will betray him...and must finally give in.
Can't help it. It's his nature as a cartoon character.
And in like fashion, despite promises and blood oaths to be inclusive, to hold to their campaign promises, that they will be bi-partisan, the Democrats are tax and spend, a pox on Republicans, away with small government- just as sure Roger Rabbit is shave and a haircut. They can't help it. It's their very nature nature, their very essence.
The first order of business in Saint Paul: raise wheelage taxes, the gasoline tax, minimum wage, sales taxes. And In Washington, we see that the old saying "The Democrats never learn and they never forget" is alive and well . Queen Pelosi is talking about rolling over the Republicans by bypassing all committees and bringing bills directly to the floor of the House. So much for Pelosi's pledge for "openness". No debate, no witnesses (as if that had ever once even slowed down an assault on the Constitution by either side).
So, as my friend said yesterday "Buckle yourself in for the next two years!" And he personally thanks the Republicans.

Sandy Burglar, now serving 15-25 in Leavenworth (or Marion, IL or Atlanta, GA) Maximum Federal Penitentiary

Well, seems that Sandy Berger, who plead guilty to stealing and destroying archived documents from the National Archives, is even more guilty. It was reported by the Inspector General that Berger hid papers under a construction trailer before taking them home to be "accidentally thrown away" after he "accidentally" may have inadvertently stuck these archived documents down his pants...accidentally.
My question is, why was this Clintonista allowed to get away with a felony with a hard misdemeanor punishment? And why isn't he in prison? And why did it take the Inspector General a year to make this report?
My suggestion: sweat him real hard as to what were in the documents (all related to the Clinton Administration and terrorism) and offer him 10 years off a 20 year hard time sentence at hard time place like Leavenworth if he is forthcoming...fully forthcoming.
But, this is an administration that's let run the Washington Post, New York Times that's become the reporting arm for Al Jezeera and seems to be, for all practical purposes, on Al Qa'ida's payroll. And not a whimper from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue about aiding and abetting from the MSM.

Boo-hoo and LONG overdue!

Prairie Pravda has a feel bad story about the ICE raids on six Swift meat processing plants last week. It's a "those poor victims" story that Prairie Pravda loves to tell about criminals and their hardships (I remember a horrid story in 1992 about a black punk who broke into a home in one of the northwest suburbs, stayed the day and found a shotgun that he modified by cutting down the barrel. The mother came home with her children, a son and a daughter, all white (I, unlike Prairie Pravda, have no hesitation at all to tell the race of perpetrators or victims). The little puke killed her and her daughter in cold blood. When he was caught, the despicable asses at Prairie Pravda ran an article, front page, telling us that this murderer had had a hard life. The term is "garlanding" where the perpetrator becomes an elevated victim. Like the reason a rapist rapes is that he didn't get a hug at his fifth birthday party from his great aunt).
Well, the story about the raid says that there is great trepidation up and down a 75 mile stretch of Hwy. 60. And every one of those towns mentioned is one I know intimately as they are all ones that I've been traveling through for 58 years to go to my Mom's home town of heron Lake.
So, all I have to say about the raid is: GREAT!!! WONDERFUL!!! Seems that this is exactly what's needed. Enforce the law with vigor and HOOZAH! The broken windows theory of crime applied to ILLEGAL immigrants. Seems that this should have been done years ago, especially after there was an increasing gang problem, Hispanic gang problem, in East L.A.? No. Dallas? No. Phoenix? Uh, uh. Sioux Falls? Yup. Sioux Falls with a gang problem. Hispanic gang problem!
Good for ICE...finally!
There also an excellent story on why this flood of illegals is NOT immigration (which is what my great grandparents from Sweden did over 120 years ago) but is migration. Brown America vs. America. Again, an excellent read showing once again that the left is at war with America and all things American. And nothing less than the destruction of America is their goal. Nothing less.

Liberty Lovers United

Last night about 70 like-minded people gathered at Stub and Herbs to eat, drink and discuss what ideas we had to keep our Second Amendment rights here in Minnesota in light of the left wing take-over (or rather Republican dereliction of duty) last 7 November. Joel Rosenberg invited conceal carry advocates for a get together to assess what needs to be done to preserve the MN Personal Protection Act (MNPPA). I sat and talked with Mitch Berg (A Shot In The Dark) and John Caile (information officer for MNCCRN) about politics, conceal carry, the best firearm to carry and a host of other topics. I also had the opportunity to talk briefly with my friend Duke Powell (R-40A) on what happened on 11-7-06. Not a pretty picture. Duke worked very hard and very long sensing that Republicans were in deep trouble. And he did yeoman labor in an unfortunate losing effort. He and I agreed that the public's disgust with Republicans extended and splattered even to rock ribbed conservatives, like Duke, ample evidence of collateral damage from the electorate's deserved anger. I also had the opportunity to talk again with Sue Jeffers about post election politics and her upcoming stint subbing for Jason Lewis after Christmas.
John Caile had an idea that Mitch grabbed right away and that I titled. John suggested that the Minnesota bloggers (MOB) get together for a shoot at one of the local ranges. I suggested the event be titled "The MOB Shootout". Joel also liked the idea and the title when Mitch and I talked about as we were leaving. So, watch for details. And be sure to listen in when Sue takes over the airwaves just after Christmas.

Current Events Quiz

OK kids, it's time for a quiz on current events. So, put away your books, take out a clean sheet of paper and a pencil. No, we don't need a #2 pencil as this will be a written test where we don't have to fill in ovals. Please keep your eyes on your own paper. Here we go.
1. Name one thing that you know about Paris Hilton?
2. What is Brittney Spears known for?
3. Who is the producer/director of the new movie "Apocalypto"?
4. Name one member of the womens' show "The View".
5. Name Tom Cruise's current wife and any one of his previous two wives.
6. Name just one Medal of Honor winner from Iraq.
7. Tell of one good story you've read, not heard, about Marines, soldiers or sailors involvement in Iraq.

Pencils down.
Self scoring:
Zero points for any answers for questions 1-5.
A thousand points for any correct answer for 6 and 7.
If you were able to answer any question 1-5 and couldn't answer either 6 or 7, deduct a million points, then go to the nearest mirror, look long and hard, and weep bitter tears of shame at what you see.
Then go here and here to right the wrong.

Musings from an amateur historian

Yesterday, as was my habit on Wednesday, I was having lunch with my WWII friends, and the topic was what were they doing when they heard of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. About ten or twelve of the guys got up and told stories of being in a theater watching a movie when the movie was stopped and the announcement made. Or being on a date and asking their date "where's Pearl Harbor?". Another one of the guys told about also being at the movies with his friends and again, the movie being stopped and the news reported. And he and his friends seeing that they were seated behind a group of girls, proceeded to introduce themselves. And that was the first time he met his future wife. And with the report of the Baker/Hamilton Commission I've been thinking and reading about the comparisons between WWII and the GWOT.

I'm a WWII history buff. I have been for most of my life. And it appears to me that many Americans (and seemingly all Europeans) have yet to apply critical analysis to the GWOT. And as I see politics evolve, it appears to me that many Americans do not have the ability to do critical analysis. That being said, I'll take the title from a Victor Davis Hanson (VDH) book called "A War Like No Other" and apply it to the GWOT.

In the GWOT there is no enemy with a return address. There is no Tokyo Bay to sail into to have surrender documents signed. There is no school house in Reims were we can take the unconditional surrender of the combat leaders to order their soldiers to lay down their arms. There is no Berlin to bomb to kill all the leaders of the enemy in one fell swoop. There is no Battle of Midway that signals the turning of the tide of battle. No Battle of Leyte Gulf where we can point and say we established supremacy over our enemy. This is a war that may easily go on for decades.
I have a number of friends who are retired Special Operations (Spec Ops). They range from a Green Beret, a Force Recon sniper, a Navy SEAL, a couple of Airborne Rangers, and even a former member of Spetsnaz . And most of the GWOT is fought by the Special Warfare troops. You and I will never hear of the SEALs Boat Squads that will insert and carry out an intelligence gathering mission or maybe even a Direct Action. Special Air Services will do high level assassinations-and you and I will never know happened.This is a war where the vast majority of the war is fought off the front pages and top of the hour news reports. Accept that fact! This is a war where the troops believe they are obeying their god, not following a political leader who can be proven wrong. And the enemy has no respect for any infidel-conservative, liberal, Jew, Christian, Hindi, Buddhist, man, woman, child. He wants to kill them all.
It's wrong to refer to the conflict in Iraq as "The War in Iraq". It's properly referred to as the "Battle in Iraq". Or even as "The Battle for Iraq". The war with radical Islam will continue on no matter what the outcome is in Iraq. This is a single battle in that war. As I've heard it said "Rather fight them there rather than here."
And you hear the public discourse hover around the point that we're "losing the war in Iraq". Time for a little critical analysis:
One of my Christian friends always believes that we should be able tell what we believe and also why. That we have an obligation not to just spout an opinion or a position but be able to defend it by sharing the reasoned knowledge that led us to that conclusion.
So, when you hear someone say that "we're losing the battle/war/whatever" ask them why they believe that. Ask them upon what do they base their opinion. I remember a business associate that always had an opinion. And always wanted to have an opinion. But he never wanted to exert any effort to be able to have an informed, reasoned, well thought out opinion. Ask them where the vast majority of conflict takes place (there are eighteen provinces. The bulk of the fighting and killings take place in two, two of those provinces). Ask them to list any successes that they're aware of that have taken place in Iraq (here is a list of accomplishments as of 10-03 and this from a short article on Fox News Sunday in June, 2004).
Here is a clip that preceded a follow-up to the Fox News Sunday article called "Winning Iraq-The Untold Story" that was broadcast about a year ago. Greg Palkolt was the reporter and readily admits that he was not a war supporter. But, the Fox News team roamed Iraq for about five weeks. Here is brief clip highlighting the story (be sure to view it in Internet Explorer). Pay very close attention to what he says about "The Green Zone" and that this is where almost all American reporters keep themselves. And then remember that the Baker/Hamilton committee, save one member, ever ventured out of the Green Zone when the went on their "fact finding" trip to Iraq. And then ask your "we're losing the war" nay sayer why they've never seen or heard anything like this...or this (and be sure to read the comments).
Here is an audio clip of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Victor Davis Hanson about the battle in Iraq. And about the larger GWOT.
This is a war like no other. And most Americans do not understand that they and their loved ones are targets. And the enemy is already here . As Caroline Glick of the Center for Security Policy stated in the film "Obsession" "Remember, the nineteen Arab (Muslim) hijackers trained for this attack on America IN America."
And Baker/Hamilton Report is a joke. And the committee members are an embarrassment to me, personally, as an American. And to the country as a whole.

Your fees are too high, your taxes are too low

Yup, now that the DFL (an acronym for Dumb-Something-Loser) is in charge, let it be known that the losers with no clue legislators feel that a voluntary business arrangement between you and a business that offers gift card is in need of gross meddling. Seems that the DFL thinks that fees are too high and other parts of the gift card arrangement need to be changed or eliminated. Of all the pressing needs in this state (such as cutting needless regulations just like this), this is the first story Minnesota Izvestia comes out with for the DFL. So, private party fees are too high and unnecessary. But, taxes are just way too low. Just watch and see what the DFL does with taxes to correct that problem.
So, we'll watch as the DFL crimps business and watch the gift card business erode.
After all, the Dimwit Farout Lefties (DFL) surely know best.

Tim on Hugh

5:37 p.m.-OK, so I'm listening to Hugh Hewitt online. He's going to interview Gov. Tim Pawlenty in a few minutes, and he's introducing Pawlenty as the Last Red Governor Standing. I sent Hugh and his producer an email about five minutes ago asking that as long as Hugh has excoriated Republicans for straying badly from conservatism, that I'd suggest asking Gov. Pawlenty about his comments supporting universal health coverage for Minnesota children. We'll see if Hugh's got the spine to pop that question on the Governor.
5:53 p.m.-yup. No spine in either interviewer or interviewee. Pawlenty was asked by Hugh as a surviving Republican Governor what recommendations he had for the Repubs across the nation. "They need to do some soul searching." "We need to espouse those conservative values..." His veto pen is handy, but hopefully there will be "good products" coming down the line so he won't have to use that veto pen.
Yah...
Here is my email to Hugh on 9 November, 2006:

Dear Hugh-

I’ve been a loyal listener for as long as AM1280 The Patriot has been on the air here in Minneapolis. And have been a caller on a few occasions.

I was glued to your program on 9-11. I had very painful foot surgery that very morning, but delayed getting my pain medication prescription filled because I wanted to hear Frank Gaffney’s comments on what was happening.

That being said, I listened to as much of your program last night as possible as I was traveling and the AM1280 signal weakens at local sunset.

And I was taken aback by your strong stance on your stated reasons for the Republican shellacking on Election Day. You stated that the Repubs had strayed, they brought this on themselves. There wasn’t anything that you said last night that I didn’t agree with. The reason for my amazement was your timing. You said that you had written about the danger to Republicans in March, 2006 in your book “Painting the Map Red”. And I thought “What took you so long?” March, 2006 was way too late to come over from the Dark Gray Side. I and many others were concerned in the 2002 Election about this shift away from the class of the 1994 Election. And many of us were writing and calling to our Senators and Congressmen in 2004 and sounding hard alarms then.

But Hugh, you were quite clear on 15 April of 2005 that you supported moderate and center right Senators. You stated that on your show. And then you went on to say how upset you were that there was such a horrible battle going on to confirm federal judicial appointees. What on earth did you expect? And when I got home on the 15^th April, I heard you go on to say that you’d support liberal Republican Senators if they supported the Republican Party (post here ). An oxymoronic phrase if ever there were one. And yet these very same Senators that you supported in 2005 were the very same Senators that you railed against yesterday!

I agree that we now, at least for the next two years, have little if any hope of getting judicial nominees through Congress. But, I’m wondering what GWB will do to set the stage for the 2008 elections. Set the stage and make the appointments anyhow.

This is definitely a Romans 8:28 moment. Adios RINO’s. Time to clean and clear house.

Interesting times indeed for Republicans.

Best regards,

Kids, if Hugh's interview is what we can expect from media "conservatives" we as conservatives and Republicans are surely in the very deep weeds.

Cut and run or trim and trot, smell the dead as they rot

Redeployment. Time schedules. Mile markers. Phased withdrawal(s). All the synonyms for turning tail and running. Cowardice. Lying.
And the left has a long record of doing all of that. A very long record.
The death of millions in Vietnam is put directly at the feet of the Ted Kennedy and the Democrats. The Paris Peace Accords were quite explicit that the Americans would leave S. Vietnam and the North Vietnamese were not to invade the South. If they did, the Americans would intervene on behalf of the South. Enter Watergate. Here at last was the liberty loathing lefties opportunity to extract revenge on Richard Nixon for his fighting Alger Hiss in the 40's and his anti-communist positions 50's. And with Watergate, the Democratic controlled Senate flatly refused to fund the U.S. military going back into to Vietnam after the North invaded the South in direct violation of the Paris Peace Accords. In other words, the Democrats in the Senate broke the word of the United States of America. And millions died. Millions because of the likes of Ted Kennedy.
And we're now in a parallel situation where again, for political revenge, millions will die thanks to Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and all their ilk should they get their way. Real blood for political blood is always a bargain for the left. This time though it won't be faceless Asians that won't disrupt Kennedy's and Kerry's vacations due to their inherited millions. This time, the beheading knife will swing across the globe:

"For one thing, a post-U.S. Iraq could make the Vietnam bloodbath seem like a tea party, given the traditions of savagery among terrorists and their ilk in that part of the Middle East.

Then, swooping down like vultures on the Iraqi carcass would be - you count on it - Iran and al Qaeda.

Separately, or in alliance.

That should send shivers down the spines of Iraq's regional neighbors: the Gulf states, Saudi Arabia and, most particularly, Israel - which Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vows to wipe off the map.

Anyone who cares about the fate of the only law-abiding, democratic bastion of civility in the Middle East should dread a U.S. surrender in Iraq.

Here's the worst part: With America gone and its enemies in control, how long before oil becomes a powerful strategic weapon - and before those enemies set their sights beyond the region, to places like Europe? And, eventually, America itself?

Do Americans really want Iraq left to become a staging ground for terror attacks on New York or Washington?

The irony is that the Dems' delusions and calls for surrender only make it more difficult to end the violence and defeat the terrorists now. Why should militias disband when America may be about to head for the hills? Why halt their suicide bombings when they seem to be pushing America to flee?

Having captured Congress, Democrats now need to act responsibly. Talk of defeat and "cutting losses" must end.

Or defeat will come sure enough.

With losses that know no end." From the N.Y. Post

And from an editorial in August in the WSJ:

This means that if Democrats retake Congress, we will be back where we were in Vietnam circa 1975. Early that year the Congressional left blocked funds for our allies in the government of South Vietnam, weakening its defenses even as Hanoi massed for an attack. Within weeks, the North was on the march and the last American helicopters were leaving Saigon. The stakes are just as serious today in Iraq. The defeat in Vietnam could at least be contained elsewhere in Southeast Asia, although the Soviet Union was clearly emboldened to assert itself via proxies from Afghanistan to Central America.

A precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would likewise signal a defeat echoing far beyond Baghdad. Iran would exploit the turmoil in Iraq to assert itself in the Middle East, and both terrorists and their state sponsors would feel they could hit us again, this time with confidence that any U.S. response would be limited, as it was before 9/11. The idea that quitting Iraq would be discrete penance for President Bush's invasion is a delusion against an enemy that cited our 1993 withdrawal from Somalia as a reason to believe it could attack New York with impunity."

Lefties conspire, millions expire.

The passing of a champion of liberty

The Cato Institute has posted the passing of Noble Laureate Economist Milton Friedman. Friedman wrote extensively on and about free markets and on public policy always with the mind set of liberty, personal freedom and personal responsibility.

Horizon shot

I race sailboats. One of the most satisfying views in a race is near the end when you look back and see all the competition far behind. It's called a horizon shot. Newt Gingrich refers to horizons as he lists the seven things that the Republicans need to regain majority status (again HT to Tapscott). And the horizons that he refers to are the House and the White House. In two years, GWB retires. The entire House of Representatives faces election in two years. A two year horizon for both with completely different perspectives. And Gingrich warns that the House's perspective had better be getting along with the voters instead of getting along with the White House.
And again, we'll see what that perspective really is depending on who the House leadership elects tomorrow.

Is it safe?

The title comes from "Marathon Man" where the Laurence Olivier character is asking for a sign if it's safe to conduct business. I chose it because the vote last Tuesday was a sign to the Republicans that doesn't seem to be taking. And I asked myself what does it take for conservatives to vote as they did? What would drive some of them, though a small but significant percentage, to vote for someone other than a Republican candidate? I came across an article by Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation giving, again, telling information about the election (the article is linked from Tapscott's Copy Desk).Franc repeats that the Repubs lost, not conservatism. But, the telling part of the article is how conservatives voted:
"exit poll data demonstrate that self-identified conservatives who supported the Democratic House candidates made up fully 6 percent of the electorate, while liberals who gravitated to the Republican amounted to only 1.7 percent of the total. That means the "my-conservatives-for-your-liberals" trade netted a loss of 4.3 percent of the total electorate."

And it seems that Bill Clinton caught the movement fairly accurately:
"The reason we are at this moment," he said in a campaign speech last week, "is that [Republican leaders] do not represent faithfully the Republicans and the more conservative independents in the country." He stretched reality a little, but not by much, when he argued that anyone who takes the conservative view on the budget, law enforcement and other issues ought to cast his or her lot with the Democrats." Seems that that is exactly what some conservatives did.

Now, here's my thought: With all the warnings about a Nancy Pelosi Speaker, no constructionist judicial appointments, a weakening of national security, there were conservatives that took to voting for Democrats. Why? I posit exasperation. The Repubs were being warned in 2002 (though there is also a thought of those people who voted Repub in 2002 because of 9-11, supported GWB against Kerry, but went away by 2006). The conservatives were talking about "holding their noses" and pulling the lever for Repubs in 2004. And with no veto's (save one), amnesty, Harriet Miers, No Child Left Behind, Mediscare Prescription Drug Plan, McCain/Feingold, the conservatives saw no out. That with all the warnings being sent to conservatives by Karl Rove and the neocons ("It will be worse with THEM"), the Repubs were ignoring all the warnings sent to them by conservatives. And so, in exasperation, the voters voted for reform,change.
And once again, there is this telling statistic: "one election-eve poll found that Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to control spending by a remarkable 53 percent to 29 percent."
Franc also writes: "Republican strategists, and more than a few Democrats, will undoubtedly take note of how easily legions of conservative voters switched their partisan loyalties, and will scrutinize the data for clues as to how this could have happened." The Republican strategists will take note. The Senate has not and it looks like the House will follow suit. The Senate leadership has voted for their leadership and the House will elect their leadership tomorrow.
So much for sober reflection.
We, the voters, taught the lesson. The Senate Republican leadership didn't learn it at all by returning Trent Lott to leadership (in a parallel move that mimics bringing out Walter Mondale to replace Paul Wellstone). Tomorrow we'll see if the House Republicans have learned the lesson.
And if the House Republicans don't get their act together and show they've learned the lesson the voters taught them, well, they have two years to practice saying "Madam President".

And lessons taught but obviously not learned

And Trent Lott returns to kill the base even further.
And I'd be willing to bet that if the Senate Republicans ran White Star Line that they would put Captain Smith at the helm of RMS Olympic or HMHS Britannic .
Let's hope and pray the House of Representatives shows a higher degree of learning ability.
Let's hope.

The lesson we hope they learn