President George W. Bush gave an impressive speech today at the Little Rock, AR opening of the Presidential library for former President William Jefferson Clinton. Bush's speech was reverential and respectful, as it should be. We have traditions in this country and civility in the highest political office in the land is one of them. We don't need presidents sniping at their predecessors.
However, the rest of us can - and should - be real about the situation.
A presidential library is the ultimate in spin. All of them, including presidents from both parties, are glass and marble monuments to spin. The president in question gets to set the agenda for the library. He selects the exhibits and the display and context of his presidential papers. He, in short, tells the story of his presidency his way and with the power and eloquence that millions of dollars can buy in marketing prowess. In this case, Bill Clinton personally directed and approved each detail present in the library.
We can debate how the library presents "the record" on important issues of the day like the budget, welfare reform, the Middle East peace process, NAFTA, etc. President Clinton will present them all as historic triumphs. Us partisans will quibble. Historians (mostly liberal) will judge. The end.
Clearly, however, the most interesting part of the library will get the most spin. That would be the "Lewinsky wing", or the part covering the first impeachement and trial of an elected president. Will Ms. Lewinsky's tapes be there? Or the blue stained dress that ultimately brought him to trial? I'm guessing not.
From the early indications, I'm correct in calling it the Lie-brary. Clinton has cast this section as his version of those historic events. You know the story: the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy set out on an unconstitutional coup by means of an illegitimate impeachment. Please - I may gag.
An honest portrayal of the impeachment would address the fact that Bill Clinton lied to the American public when he wagged his finger in our face and said "I did not have sex with that woman...", and it got worse from there. He lied to a federal judge and to a grand jury. He tampered with witnesses and obstructed justice. And he threw all of his trusted aides under the bus to go out an perpetuate his lies. But those lies are probably not represented in the lie-brary. Only the lie that he wasn't guilty and that it was a illegitimate partisan witchhunt.
And for that I blame not only President Clinton, but the U.S. Senate for failing to do their duty after listening to the evidence and for acquitting him. They left him standing. And now he gets to gloat and tell it his way in his lie-brary.
Thursday, November 18, 2004
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Ashcroft and Arafat: History's Judgement
This week has seen the departure from the political scene of two historic men: John Ashcroft and Yasser Arafat.
The media coverage of these two men by the MSM and the "conventional wisdom" on them held by the American left demonstrates clearly why the left cannot be trusted with the responsibility of providing for our national security.
The left in America and across secular Europe loves Arafat and despises John Ashcroft. This cannot possibly be a more upside down view of reality.
First Arafat, who the MSM elevates to a co-equal among statemen. A champion of his oppressed people. The reality is the polar opposite. Arafat was a thug and a terrorist who, at the end of the day, left his people in refugee status and deep oppressive poverty for 40 years while he pilfered billions from them for his Swiss bank account. He deserved to die in ignominy instead of being welcomed by the terrorist-coddling French.
Second, John Aschroft - who the liberal elite and the MSM despise and caricature as a prudish religious fanactic facist who ran roughshod over the constitution and our civil liberties. Again, the polar opposite of the truth. I could recount his record as our Attorney General, but that has already been done here by Terence Jeffrey better than I could do it.
I will note a ridiculous observation by a celebrated pundit who said this week that clearly, in hindsight, the fear of a terrorist attack during our election cycle was overblown and hyped. Why? Because an attack didn't occur, of course. It doesn't occur to this man that the opposite is true - that the threat was very real and that the reason that we weren't attacked was the courageous and effective work of our Attorney General in thwarting the attacks. Our national security will be set back tremendously if we allow this misunderstanding of Ashcroft's role to go unchallenged in the MSM. I say thank you, John Ashcroft, for you hard work in the face of withering fire from the left. Thank you for keeping us safe.
Ashcroft and Arafat. I trust that history will judge them more wisely than the talking heads of our time have done.
The media coverage of these two men by the MSM and the "conventional wisdom" on them held by the American left demonstrates clearly why the left cannot be trusted with the responsibility of providing for our national security.
The left in America and across secular Europe loves Arafat and despises John Ashcroft. This cannot possibly be a more upside down view of reality.
First Arafat, who the MSM elevates to a co-equal among statemen. A champion of his oppressed people. The reality is the polar opposite. Arafat was a thug and a terrorist who, at the end of the day, left his people in refugee status and deep oppressive poverty for 40 years while he pilfered billions from them for his Swiss bank account. He deserved to die in ignominy instead of being welcomed by the terrorist-coddling French.
Second, John Aschroft - who the liberal elite and the MSM despise and caricature as a prudish religious fanactic facist who ran roughshod over the constitution and our civil liberties. Again, the polar opposite of the truth. I could recount his record as our Attorney General, but that has already been done here by Terence Jeffrey better than I could do it.
I will note a ridiculous observation by a celebrated pundit who said this week that clearly, in hindsight, the fear of a terrorist attack during our election cycle was overblown and hyped. Why? Because an attack didn't occur, of course. It doesn't occur to this man that the opposite is true - that the threat was very real and that the reason that we weren't attacked was the courageous and effective work of our Attorney General in thwarting the attacks. Our national security will be set back tremendously if we allow this misunderstanding of Ashcroft's role to go unchallenged in the MSM. I say thank you, John Ashcroft, for you hard work in the face of withering fire from the left. Thank you for keeping us safe.
Ashcroft and Arafat. I trust that history will judge them more wisely than the talking heads of our time have done.
Scott Peterson's Lesson for America
Fortunately, I avoided immersion in the OJ-like celebrity obsession with the Scott Peterson murder trial. I tuned in briefly at critical moments and passed on the non-stop cable coverage of every witness and trial development.
I know four things about the Peterson trial:
1. I had no doubt that he was guilty based on his behavior during her disappearance and his run for the border with the bleached hair and the bags of cash.
2. I did have doubts about a jury's ability to arrive at that conclusion. I think the OJ jury lowered everyone's expectations for the forseeable future. This jury went a long way toward restoring our trust in the system.
3. I have no problem with the death penalty for Peterson, should the jury that heard the evidence vote for that. The man is a psychopathic monster who killed a vivacious young woman and her unborn child just to get out of parenthood.
4. There is a broader lesson for America in this case, and unfortunately it is not about Laci Peterson. There are way too many murders of innocent spouses in this country for there to be a lesson here.
The lesson is with the "death" of the unborn baby, Conner. The 2nd degree murder conviction for the murder of Conner exposes an untenable dichotomy on the issue of abortion.
Someone explain to me how it's rational to hold these two positions simultaneously:
1. If the "unborn baby" is wanted (as Conner was), and a person violates it's rights by causing it's "death", then a legal crime of "murder" has taken place that can be adjudicated by a jury with a penalty attached.
but....
2. If the "fetus" is unwanted (as 1.5 million per year are not), then it has no rights, and a doctor can be paid to "terminate" it with no penalty and the "right" to do this is celebrated by enlightened elite in this country.
The answer is that it is not rational to hold these two views. The biological and legal fact of whether or not it is an "unborn baby" with rights or a "fetus" without rights cannot be determined by whether or not it is "wanted".
Sadly, America will continue a divided partisan struggle on this question until we come to grips with that. And Scott Peterson inadvertently advanced the discussion.
I know four things about the Peterson trial:
1. I had no doubt that he was guilty based on his behavior during her disappearance and his run for the border with the bleached hair and the bags of cash.
2. I did have doubts about a jury's ability to arrive at that conclusion. I think the OJ jury lowered everyone's expectations for the forseeable future. This jury went a long way toward restoring our trust in the system.
3. I have no problem with the death penalty for Peterson, should the jury that heard the evidence vote for that. The man is a psychopathic monster who killed a vivacious young woman and her unborn child just to get out of parenthood.
4. There is a broader lesson for America in this case, and unfortunately it is not about Laci Peterson. There are way too many murders of innocent spouses in this country for there to be a lesson here.
The lesson is with the "death" of the unborn baby, Conner. The 2nd degree murder conviction for the murder of Conner exposes an untenable dichotomy on the issue of abortion.
Someone explain to me how it's rational to hold these two positions simultaneously:
1. If the "unborn baby" is wanted (as Conner was), and a person violates it's rights by causing it's "death", then a legal crime of "murder" has taken place that can be adjudicated by a jury with a penalty attached.
but....
2. If the "fetus" is unwanted (as 1.5 million per year are not), then it has no rights, and a doctor can be paid to "terminate" it with no penalty and the "right" to do this is celebrated by enlightened elite in this country.
The answer is that it is not rational to hold these two views. The biological and legal fact of whether or not it is an "unborn baby" with rights or a "fetus" without rights cannot be determined by whether or not it is "wanted".
Sadly, America will continue a divided partisan struggle on this question until we come to grips with that. And Scott Peterson inadvertently advanced the discussion.
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Advice to the Left: Ratchet back the Rhetoric
I'd like to comment on the outrageous observations made by Maureen Dowd last week. Writing from "Murderer's Row" at the nation's leading liberal newspaper, The New York Times, Ms. Dowd flailed out in her post election despair:
Before I comment on what specifically I find so offensive in that writing, let me offer some advice to my friends on the left of the political spectrum: (And, believe it or not, I have some friends on the left.) I've been where you are. I understand the feelings that come after a defeat in a presidential election that you care about. I understand the anger, despair, confusion, and general disbelief that so many of your fellow countrymen could be so foolish or deceived. Welcome to my world during two elections of Bubba Clinton.
My advice, free of charge and hard won by experience, is to do three things:
First, take a deep breath and realize that you will survive. I survived eight years of Clinton and you will survive eight years of Bush. You might not like it. It may grate on you. But you will survive. America as a whole survives even our worst Presidents. (Jimmy Carter, pick up the red phone). I was confident of a Bush win and was deeply opposed to John Kerry, but I had already resolved to myself that I would survive a Kerry Presidency if that unimaginable scenario had materialized.
Second, seriously re-evaluate your thinking. You can go through the next four years believing that an evil administration conspired to steal another election by duping a huge majority of "sheep" in the heartland that are ignorant, religious fanatic, bigots who are bent on oppressing minorities and turning back progress and science due to inbreeding. Or you can allow yourself to consider that there is a sizable portion of America, at least 59 million strong, who have rational, informed, deeply held core principle beliefs that are in opposition to yours. You can read my posts on this blog about topics that Ms. Dowd mentions like stem cell research or gay marriage and agree that they are thoughtful and resonable contrary positions, or you can continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a porch-sitting banjo-picker straight out of "Deliverance". I gaurantee you that you'll live a healthier life if you give up the sterotypes.
And finally, you can ratchet back the over-the-top Michael Moore-ish hyperbole that passed for campaign rhetoric for the last two years. Think back over the positions your side took in the heat of battle. "Bush lied, kids died". Cheney is Hitler. Ashcroft is a facist. The Patriot Act set up a police state. Tax cuts for the rich. It was too much. It was all inaccurate, it didn't help you win, and it was harmful to the political discourse in America.
Back in the Clinton days we were called Clinton-Haters. The irony is that we didn't really hate Clinton. We despised him for his personal corruption. And we strongly felt that he should be removed from office for perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice and the like. But we didn't hate him. The difference is that the left really hates Bush. I have no doubt that Moore and Garofolo and Franken really deeply hate George Bush. And it comes out in the rhetoric.
Which brings me back to Ms. Dowd. I find her observation that "W. ran a jihad in America" to be deeply offensive and the overwrought rhetoric of hate.
Jihad? Is she insane? Jihad? Talk about de-valuing a word.
After 9/11 don't we recognize what a jihad is?
Flying planes loaded with fuel and people as bombs to kill thousands more to the glory of Allah is jihad. Do you see anything in the Bush campaign that resembles that?
Slaughtering hostages with a long knife in grisly and barbaric beheadings is jihad. Is Ms. Dowd confused between those events and a Bush campaign rally?
Slaughtering 50 Iraqi police officers on their way to an R&R simply for cooperating with America is jihad. Slaughtering moms and kids in a school in Beslan is jihad. Sending armed warriors to blow up airliners in Moscow is Jihad. Suicide bombers in grocery stores in Jerusalem is jihad.
Are you really that confused, Ms. Dowd, that you relate a gay marriage referendum in Ohio to these atrocities? Do you compare 250 honorable decorated Swift Boat veterans signing an affadavit to the unfitness of Sen. Kerry to the insane ravings of Osama bin Laden who echoed the Democratic talking points in his last video.
And how was Ms. Dowd's ridiculous screed treated by the MSM. Was she rebuked? Reigned in? Did anyone object to her equating the Bush campaign with jihad - an intentional murderous plan by our nation's enemy to destroy us by violent and barbaric means? No. On the contrary, she was feted this morning with a fawning segment on "Meet the Press".
Let me just say the obvious to Ms. Dowd, Sen Kerry, and the partisans on the left: not being able to distinguish between the President of the United States and our mortal enemy with whom we are at war in a substantive and rational way is what lead 59 million of your countrymen to conclude that your candidate could not be trusted with our national defense. Period.
This over-the-top rhetoric needs to stop. It is inaccurate and completely unhealthy for us as a nation. And it has consequences.
Fox News carried a tragic story today of a 25 year old man who committed suicide at Ground Zero in New York this week. He was "upset about the result of the presidential election". He was a student and was due to be married, but he ended it all in despair. I don't know anything about this young man or his mental state, but this story made me very sad. What a tragic and senseless waste. I won't lay his death specifically at anyone's feet, although I'm tempted to. (Michael Moore, call on line one) But I will urge my friends on the left to spend the time until the inauguration re-examining the rhetoric. Ratchet it back, please.
I'm trying to help you. Really.
The president got re-elected by dividing the country along fault lines of fear, intolerance, ignorance and religious rule. He doesn't want to heal rifts; he wants to bring any riffraff who disagree to heel.
W. ran a jihad in America (emphasis mine) so he can fight one in Iraq - drawing a devoted flock of evangelicals, or "values voters," as they call themselves, to the polls by opposing abortion, suffocating stem cell research and supporting a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.
Before I comment on what specifically I find so offensive in that writing, let me offer some advice to my friends on the left of the political spectrum: (And, believe it or not, I have some friends on the left.) I've been where you are. I understand the feelings that come after a defeat in a presidential election that you care about. I understand the anger, despair, confusion, and general disbelief that so many of your fellow countrymen could be so foolish or deceived. Welcome to my world during two elections of Bubba Clinton.
My advice, free of charge and hard won by experience, is to do three things:
First, take a deep breath and realize that you will survive. I survived eight years of Clinton and you will survive eight years of Bush. You might not like it. It may grate on you. But you will survive. America as a whole survives even our worst Presidents. (Jimmy Carter, pick up the red phone). I was confident of a Bush win and was deeply opposed to John Kerry, but I had already resolved to myself that I would survive a Kerry Presidency if that unimaginable scenario had materialized.
Second, seriously re-evaluate your thinking. You can go through the next four years believing that an evil administration conspired to steal another election by duping a huge majority of "sheep" in the heartland that are ignorant, religious fanatic, bigots who are bent on oppressing minorities and turning back progress and science due to inbreeding. Or you can allow yourself to consider that there is a sizable portion of America, at least 59 million strong, who have rational, informed, deeply held core principle beliefs that are in opposition to yours. You can read my posts on this blog about topics that Ms. Dowd mentions like stem cell research or gay marriage and agree that they are thoughtful and resonable contrary positions, or you can continue to believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a porch-sitting banjo-picker straight out of "Deliverance". I gaurantee you that you'll live a healthier life if you give up the sterotypes.
And finally, you can ratchet back the over-the-top Michael Moore-ish hyperbole that passed for campaign rhetoric for the last two years. Think back over the positions your side took in the heat of battle. "Bush lied, kids died". Cheney is Hitler. Ashcroft is a facist. The Patriot Act set up a police state. Tax cuts for the rich. It was too much. It was all inaccurate, it didn't help you win, and it was harmful to the political discourse in America.
Back in the Clinton days we were called Clinton-Haters. The irony is that we didn't really hate Clinton. We despised him for his personal corruption. And we strongly felt that he should be removed from office for perjury, tampering with witnesses, obstruction of justice and the like. But we didn't hate him. The difference is that the left really hates Bush. I have no doubt that Moore and Garofolo and Franken really deeply hate George Bush. And it comes out in the rhetoric.
Which brings me back to Ms. Dowd. I find her observation that "W. ran a jihad in America" to be deeply offensive and the overwrought rhetoric of hate.
Jihad? Is she insane? Jihad? Talk about de-valuing a word.
After 9/11 don't we recognize what a jihad is?
Flying planes loaded with fuel and people as bombs to kill thousands more to the glory of Allah is jihad. Do you see anything in the Bush campaign that resembles that?
Slaughtering hostages with a long knife in grisly and barbaric beheadings is jihad. Is Ms. Dowd confused between those events and a Bush campaign rally?
Slaughtering 50 Iraqi police officers on their way to an R&R simply for cooperating with America is jihad. Slaughtering moms and kids in a school in Beslan is jihad. Sending armed warriors to blow up airliners in Moscow is Jihad. Suicide bombers in grocery stores in Jerusalem is jihad.
Are you really that confused, Ms. Dowd, that you relate a gay marriage referendum in Ohio to these atrocities? Do you compare 250 honorable decorated Swift Boat veterans signing an affadavit to the unfitness of Sen. Kerry to the insane ravings of Osama bin Laden who echoed the Democratic talking points in his last video.
And how was Ms. Dowd's ridiculous screed treated by the MSM. Was she rebuked? Reigned in? Did anyone object to her equating the Bush campaign with jihad - an intentional murderous plan by our nation's enemy to destroy us by violent and barbaric means? No. On the contrary, she was feted this morning with a fawning segment on "Meet the Press".
Let me just say the obvious to Ms. Dowd, Sen Kerry, and the partisans on the left: not being able to distinguish between the President of the United States and our mortal enemy with whom we are at war in a substantive and rational way is what lead 59 million of your countrymen to conclude that your candidate could not be trusted with our national defense. Period.
This over-the-top rhetoric needs to stop. It is inaccurate and completely unhealthy for us as a nation. And it has consequences.
Fox News carried a tragic story today of a 25 year old man who committed suicide at Ground Zero in New York this week. He was "upset about the result of the presidential election". He was a student and was due to be married, but he ended it all in despair. I don't know anything about this young man or his mental state, but this story made me very sad. What a tragic and senseless waste. I won't lay his death specifically at anyone's feet, although I'm tempted to. (Michael Moore, call on line one) But I will urge my friends on the left to spend the time until the inauguration re-examining the rhetoric. Ratchet it back, please.
I'm trying to help you. Really.
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Senatorial Smackdown in Progress
Personally, I don't have much use for the United States Senate and, consequentially, the 100 U.S. Senators. The White House, I like. The House of Representatives, I like. The Senate, I could do without it.
The main function of the Senate is to act as a patrician brake on the rabble rousing will of the people. We can't have mob rule breaking out. So the job of the Senate is to be obstructionists. Stick in the muds. Can't get alongs. Activity which doesn't win many points with me, me being a radical get-something-done activist type. The only reason that conservatives would like the function of the Senate is that they contribute to gridlock in Washington D.C. And, for small government conservatives, gridlock is a good thing.
While I merely dislike the Senate, I usually hold Senators in contempt. They are to a man, and occasionally a woman, pampered elites. Millionaire Ivy Leaguers. If America had royalty, it would be the U.S. Senators. The 100 princes and princesses of American government. They are bloated with power wielded over decades with Presidents coming and going while they sit on their thrones. As I recall from my history, Americans don't nuture an overfondness of royalty. Somehow the Senate survived our purging of the royals.
And now, post election, the Senate has come back into focus. With one Senator failing in his bid for the presidency and fading from the stage, another has emerged to engage the formidable focused energy of the blogosphere.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has stepped his pampered, pedicured, toe in the mud on the day after the election and is now front and center in the direct line of ire from the same conservative forces that swept President Bush to a convincing re-election.
Senator Specter has been here before. He routinely angers conservative Republican with his RINO (Republican in name only) stances. Most notably, he disgraced himself during the Senate's darkest hour by voting "not proved under Scottish Law" in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. We don't forget such disgraceful behavior..
Senator Specter survived a fierce primary challenge this year from a principled conservative rival who was clearly the superior candidate. How did he survive? President Bush dropped into Pennsylvania and campaigned for him. And how does Specter pay him back. He stabs him right in the back. Ted Kennedy couldn't have done it any better (although he tried on the education bill.) On the day after Bush's election victory, Specter held a press conference to announce that he would obstruct Bush's judicial nominees, from his pending position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if they were "out of the mainstream". That' liberal speak for conservatives, especially conservatives who are pro-life.
Imagine: A Republican, and a Republican who owes his seat directly to President Bush, steps to the microphone on the day after 59 million people spoke in support of the President to say essentially "not so fast, you've got to get past me".
Bottom line: Senator Arlen Specter must be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when the Senate meets next month to choose its leadership. Tradition be damned. Seniority be damned. You cannot reward this blatant disloyalty with power. Especially on the committee where possible Supreme Court nominees will be vetted. It's not going to happen.
The blogosphere is available, postelection, to be fully engaged in this fight. And if Sen. Arlen Specter thought he had a tough fight in his primary - he hasn't seen anything yet. We will bring him down. It's on now.
The main function of the Senate is to act as a patrician brake on the rabble rousing will of the people. We can't have mob rule breaking out. So the job of the Senate is to be obstructionists. Stick in the muds. Can't get alongs. Activity which doesn't win many points with me, me being a radical get-something-done activist type. The only reason that conservatives would like the function of the Senate is that they contribute to gridlock in Washington D.C. And, for small government conservatives, gridlock is a good thing.
While I merely dislike the Senate, I usually hold Senators in contempt. They are to a man, and occasionally a woman, pampered elites. Millionaire Ivy Leaguers. If America had royalty, it would be the U.S. Senators. The 100 princes and princesses of American government. They are bloated with power wielded over decades with Presidents coming and going while they sit on their thrones. As I recall from my history, Americans don't nuture an overfondness of royalty. Somehow the Senate survived our purging of the royals.
And now, post election, the Senate has come back into focus. With one Senator failing in his bid for the presidency and fading from the stage, another has emerged to engage the formidable focused energy of the blogosphere.
Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania has stepped his pampered, pedicured, toe in the mud on the day after the election and is now front and center in the direct line of ire from the same conservative forces that swept President Bush to a convincing re-election.
Senator Specter has been here before. He routinely angers conservative Republican with his RINO (Republican in name only) stances. Most notably, he disgraced himself during the Senate's darkest hour by voting "not proved under Scottish Law" in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. We don't forget such disgraceful behavior..
Senator Specter survived a fierce primary challenge this year from a principled conservative rival who was clearly the superior candidate. How did he survive? President Bush dropped into Pennsylvania and campaigned for him. And how does Specter pay him back. He stabs him right in the back. Ted Kennedy couldn't have done it any better (although he tried on the education bill.) On the day after Bush's election victory, Specter held a press conference to announce that he would obstruct Bush's judicial nominees, from his pending position as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, if they were "out of the mainstream". That' liberal speak for conservatives, especially conservatives who are pro-life.
Imagine: A Republican, and a Republican who owes his seat directly to President Bush, steps to the microphone on the day after 59 million people spoke in support of the President to say essentially "not so fast, you've got to get past me".
Bottom line: Senator Arlen Specter must be denied the Chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee when the Senate meets next month to choose its leadership. Tradition be damned. Seniority be damned. You cannot reward this blatant disloyalty with power. Especially on the committee where possible Supreme Court nominees will be vetted. It's not going to happen.
The blogosphere is available, postelection, to be fully engaged in this fight. And if Sen. Arlen Specter thought he had a tough fight in his primary - he hasn't seen anything yet. We will bring him down. It's on now.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
More Red than Blue
I have 3 thoughts about the election results this week.
1. I am, of course, mind-bogglingly happy that my guy won. But I was not at all surprised. Friends will attest that I've been very confident all year that the election would turn out with a Bush re-election and strong gains in the House and Senate. Confident enough that I went to bed at 8:30 pm on election night with only a cursory glance at the returns on the networks.
What made me that confident? The candidate? The conventions? The debates?
No. All of those reinforced my confidence. But the clincher that made me confident came much earlier in the year. It was the phenomenal success of the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ". I had been telling people that the movie would open big, stay strong, and rake in millions. Nobody outside of my church believed me. Even my favorite radio drive time talk jock dismissed it the day before opening and guessed that it may break $30 million. Last time I heard it was heading toward $1 billion foreign and domestic box office and DVD sales. Watching the MSM (mainstream media) be totally clueless about that phenomenon was a giant lesson. I knew that the same majority that turned out for that movie to vote at the box office would turn out to support a President who was a genuine man of faith. I was right. The MSM was completely shell shocked, again.
2. There's even more red areas (republican) than blue areas (democrat) if you look at the county - by - county map than there is if you look at the electoral college map. Take a look:
Electoral College map:
and county-by-county:
Check out, for example, Michigan and California which went blue in the winner-take-all electoral map but have sizeable areas of red.
Clearly the divide, if it exists geographically, is between large cities and rural areas.
3. The big loser in the election is the credibility of old MSM journalism, which was so far in the tank for Kerry that they risked blantantly unethical get-Bush "gotcha" pieces and sold their credibility in the process.
- Dan Rather, the "Memogate" fraudulent attack on the President is not forgiven. Your days are numbered.
- Ted Koppel, that hit piece where you went to Vietnam to find Vietcong soldiers to rebut decorated U.S. veterans on Nightline was unexcusable. God bless John O'Neill and the Swiftboat veterans for their service, then and now.
- 60 Minutes, your attempt to explode the bogus "missing ammo" story 30 hours before the election was not unnoticed.
The new media is watching and will hold you accountable. Viva bloggers!
1. I am, of course, mind-bogglingly happy that my guy won. But I was not at all surprised. Friends will attest that I've been very confident all year that the election would turn out with a Bush re-election and strong gains in the House and Senate. Confident enough that I went to bed at 8:30 pm on election night with only a cursory glance at the returns on the networks.
What made me that confident? The candidate? The conventions? The debates?
No. All of those reinforced my confidence. But the clincher that made me confident came much earlier in the year. It was the phenomenal success of the Mel Gibson movie "The Passion of the Christ". I had been telling people that the movie would open big, stay strong, and rake in millions. Nobody outside of my church believed me. Even my favorite radio drive time talk jock dismissed it the day before opening and guessed that it may break $30 million. Last time I heard it was heading toward $1 billion foreign and domestic box office and DVD sales. Watching the MSM (mainstream media) be totally clueless about that phenomenon was a giant lesson. I knew that the same majority that turned out for that movie to vote at the box office would turn out to support a President who was a genuine man of faith. I was right. The MSM was completely shell shocked, again.
2. There's even more red areas (republican) than blue areas (democrat) if you look at the county - by - county map than there is if you look at the electoral college map. Take a look:
Electoral College map:
and county-by-county:
Check out, for example, Michigan and California which went blue in the winner-take-all electoral map but have sizeable areas of red.
Clearly the divide, if it exists geographically, is between large cities and rural areas.
3. The big loser in the election is the credibility of old MSM journalism, which was so far in the tank for Kerry that they risked blantantly unethical get-Bush "gotcha" pieces and sold their credibility in the process.
- Dan Rather, the "Memogate" fraudulent attack on the President is not forgiven. Your days are numbered.
- Ted Koppel, that hit piece where you went to Vietnam to find Vietcong soldiers to rebut decorated U.S. veterans on Nightline was unexcusable. God bless John O'Neill and the Swiftboat veterans for their service, then and now.
- 60 Minutes, your attempt to explode the bogus "missing ammo" story 30 hours before the election was not unnoticed.
The new media is watching and will hold you accountable. Viva bloggers!
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
My Election Day Hopes
It's all over now but the voting. And then the cheering or booing. All I know for sure is that half of the country is going to need Prozac for a while whichever way the vote goes. I'm envisioning people curled up in the fetal position for a week.
So, as I finish work today and head home tonight to watch the returns, here are my simple election day hopes:
1. that people vote. All people who are at least moderately informed, vote. Don't hide behind a confusion because you don't like either candidate. Take a stand, make a choice, and vote. We need to have a strongly voiced referendum this year, either way it turns out. Don't stay on the sidelines.
2. that the vote isn't close, either way. Please, campaigns, spare us the litigation wars. It's not healthy for America to have so many people distrust the process. I can't take another 4 year debate on who "stole the election".
3. that we have a gracious concession, either way. Please candidates, don't drag this out for personal power.
4. that there's no violence. Let's demonstrate to the watching world how peacefully democracy works. And if Kerry wins, how a peaceful transition of power looks.
5. that there's no gloating, either way.
6. that we wake up tomorrow and move on with our lives, either way this comes out.
Happy Election Day! Viva America!
So, as I finish work today and head home tonight to watch the returns, here are my simple election day hopes:
1. that people vote. All people who are at least moderately informed, vote. Don't hide behind a confusion because you don't like either candidate. Take a stand, make a choice, and vote. We need to have a strongly voiced referendum this year, either way it turns out. Don't stay on the sidelines.
2. that the vote isn't close, either way. Please, campaigns, spare us the litigation wars. It's not healthy for America to have so many people distrust the process. I can't take another 4 year debate on who "stole the election".
3. that we have a gracious concession, either way. Please candidates, don't drag this out for personal power.
4. that there's no violence. Let's demonstrate to the watching world how peacefully democracy works. And if Kerry wins, how a peaceful transition of power looks.
5. that there's no gloating, either way.
6. that we wake up tomorrow and move on with our lives, either way this comes out.
Happy Election Day! Viva America!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)