Still Hate Polls

This post from the Washington Post's blog The Fix reminds me of why I don't like polls. It suggest, citing polls, the Democrat base is fired up: It reads in part:

The most striking finding in the Pew poll was the comparisons between Democratic and Republican energy levels in the last midterm election year and today. In 2002, 40 percent of Democrats said they were enthusiastic about voting in the fall while 44 percent of Republicans said the same thing. Four years later, 51 percent of Democrats said they were enthused while just 33 percent of Republicans said the same.

This is one of the reasons I hate polls. If I were polled and asked whether I was "enthusiastic" to vote or not, I'd say "not." Does that mean I'm not going to vote? No. I'm not happy about a lot of things the Republicans have and haven't accomplished, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm doing to sit it out and suffer the consequences. I suspect that most of the Republican base feels the same.

Anger Managment Might Help

I received an email for John Kerry yesterday titled: Stay In Their Face! That's basically what they've got to work with, anger. Has anger ever won an election? I've always thought the best way to win people over was with optimism, hope, and inspiration. Who the hell wants to be angry all the time? But alas, that appears to be what the base of the Democrat Party is all about today. Will it work? Who knows, but if it does I don't see how turning all of that anger into action can be good for the country. I guess I forgot that it's President Bush supposedly dividing the country, how silly of me.

Polls, Polls, And More Polls

Most political junkies love polls -- I hate them. So much polling is done any more that the polls seem to drive the news rather than the other way around. You have a policy you want to find support for? You can have a poll done to do just that.

Having said that, I notice that the liberal flagship blog Daily Kos is flush with polls. Of course there are plenty of conservative blogs that track polls closely such as my favorite, RealClearPolitics, but at Daily Kos it seems they are constantly sighting this poll of that poll to reflect what they believe to be true. Granted, Kos himself usually adds a preface to his posts indicating he is still pessimistic about the election despite what the polls say. He’s been wrong so many election cycles I don’t blame him for being gun shy.

Jim Geraghty at TKS has an interesting discussion about the accuracy of modern day polling (keep scrolling, there are several posts.) With the rapid increase of cell phones and many homes going without a land-line altogether, just how accurate are polls anymore? Who are the people that answer the polls? Are they answering honestly? What are the demographics? It’s a fascinating discussion and as the electronic revolution continues the dynamics of polling will have to adapt in order to provide accurate information.

For my part I’ve been polled one time, and will never do it again. It takes entirely too long and as it drug on I became less interested and therefore was paying less attention to what they were asking. I tend to believe that most people who vote regularly such as myself would probably have the same reaction. This years election will be interesting to watch and see to what degree the polling is accurate. If the polls are not even close and the Democrat Tidal Wave doesn’t happen, the KosKidz are going to have to be put on suicide watch.

Lessons Not Learned

I've always been perplexed by the Democrats insistence on repeating our defeat in Vietnam. I know they hate George W. Bush and have never gotten over their defeat in 2000, maybe even their lose of Congress in 1994. However, even taking their bitterness into consideration, what kind of pathology drives you to advocate a policy of defeat when history so vividly reminds you of the consequences? Here's an example of that history from Michael Rubin at The Corner:

The Ghosts of Defeat [Michael Rubin]

Realists exist in a freeze-frame reality—blind to the long-term consequence of cold, calculating, short-term decisions. Several argue for a pull-out from Iraq. Discussions of time tables and phases are mere spin for withdrawal. It’s too easy to forget or ignore the human costs of such a decision, or the sense of betrayal which we telegraph around the world. In his history of the 1970s, my colleague David Frum relates the story of Sirik Matak, whom the US embassy in Phnom Penh offered to evacuate as the Khmer Rouge closed in on the city. Matak refused, writing this letter to the US ambassador. It should be a must read for the “abandon Iraq” crowd:

Dear Excellency and Friend,

I thank you very sincerely for your letter and for your offer to transport me towards freedom. I cannot, alas, leave in such a cowardly fashion. As for you, and in particular for your great country, I never believed for a moment that you would have this sentiment of abandoning a people which has chosen liberty. You have refused us your protection, and we can do nothing about it. You leave, and my wish is that you and your country will find happiness under this sky. But, mark it well, that if I shall die here on this spot and in my country that I love, it is no matter, because we all are born and must die. I have only committed the mistake of believing you.

The Khmer Rouge shot Matak in the stomach. He took three days to die.

History also teaches us that our abandonment of the South Vietnamese led to the death of hundreds of thousands innocent Vietnamese and Cambodians. It was also a complete and utter humiliation for our military and led ultimately to the feckless presidency of Jimmy Carter, which in turn emboldened our enemies around the world and more humiliation at the hands of the Iranians during the hostage crisis until finally Ronald Reagan (RIP) rode into office and restored a sense of pride and courage in our great nation once again.

Today's Democrats can't see beyond their hatred of George W. Bush and their thirst for power, leading them to openly root for our defeat in Iraq while leaving the fate of millions of innocents, once again, to be brutalized at the hands of a ruthless enemy. This is the face of the Democrat policy on Iraq, and I strongly suggest to anybody who believes the Republicans deserve to lose and is going to sit out this election, please think again.

As Opposed To Behind The Bush?

What Not to Wear in Front of Bush

Things Are Gonna Change, I Can Feel It

This is an classic example of why liberals are disappointed again and again the day after elections:

As I mentioned before, I'm in Connecticut again. Kos, sitting in nice sunny Berkeley, has it right - this campaign just feels better, it feels like there's momentum behind it. That doesn't always mean that this impression is correct, but politics is more about feel than one might think.

This is a classic combination of the echo chamber and liberals natural inclination to judge everything by ones "feelings." At least he throws in the token CYA of he may not be right, but dammit it just feels right. I have no doubt that Joe Leiberman will win reelection easily, and once again left in it's wake will be the KosKidz wondering how they could lose when everybody they know voted for Lamont. Simply being the loudest does not make you right, nor the majority.

What's That Word? Chutzpah?

Now this is rich:

WASHINGTON -- Democrats seized on North Korea's brazen act to criticize President Bush's record in confronting the communist regime, contending the administration's focus on Iraq ignored legitimate threats.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the president's rival in 2004 and a potential 2008 candidate, assailed Bush's policy as a "shocking failure," and said, "While we've been bogged down in Iraq where there were no weapons of mass destruction, a madman has apparently tested the ultimate weapon of mass destruction."

So let me see if I've got this straight: because we're in Iraq, that allowed North Korea to develop The Bomb? That makes absolutely no sense. I guess if we weren't in Iraq, we could maybe follow a policy of signing an agreement and building nuclear power plants for them? Oh wait, we already did that and it's the exact reason "Me So Ronery" Kim Jong Il now has the bomb (possibly.)

Democrats have simply gotten so used to blaming Bush for everything that they say stupid things like this and nobody bats an eye. I sure hope Kerry runs again in 2008, he's non-stop material.

On another note, read the entire article linked above so you can gather such nuggets of liberal wisdom such as this from the unbiased, straight-down-the-middle Seattle-Intelligencer:

In the nearly five years since Bush labeled North Korea part of an "axis of evil" with Iran and Iraq, Kim Jong Il's government has withdrawn from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, announced it has nuclear weapons, refused to return to six-nation talks and launched seven missiles into the Sea of Japan, including a long-range Taepodong-2.

You see, it's all Bush's fault!

Foleygate, Revisisted

I've been waiting for the whole Foleygate thing to settle down before commenting on what I thought the fallout wil be. Things were moving so fast with one new revelation after another, frankly even I couldn't keep up. If you want the details I would suggestion visiting Gateway Pundit for the low down (he's got all the inside stuff.)

Enough time has passed and the results are coming in, and they don't look good. That being said, I still think there is more at play here than simply reading the polls. I've picked up a vibe from conservatives that the whole episode has generated some motivation among the base. I wouldn't expect that to show up in the polls, so I'm still taking them with a grain of salt. The polls, I think, reflect the general attitude of people such as those that work in my office. They seem to get their news from The Daily Show and of course are clueless about the details of the story. For instance, they think that Denny Hastert knew of the lurid IMs, when in reality it was the emails Hastert knew about. That's probably neither here nor there, because I don't think any of them vote Republican anyway. But I do believe they probably reflect the general population represented in the polls.

So, the bottom line is that it certainly has caused some problems, but I believe there is still time to motivate the base that so desperately wants to be motivated. The story seems to have dropped a little too early and events such as North Korea's nuclear test pushed the Foley story off the front pages and reminded people of the dangerous world we live in (damn that Karl Rove is good.) Remember Gary Condit? He was front page news on September 10, 2001. Enough said. Also, another reality not reflected in the polls is the superiority of the GOPs Get Out The Vote (GOTV) effort. It is time to see how effective Ken Mehlman's machine can be.

Time and events will tell, but there is no doubt that it'll be tough going for the next few weeks.

Tolerance, The Liberal Way

Ah yes, Babs, a model of tolerence, love, and peace. During a concert in which she was performing a skit portraying President Bush as a "bumbling idiot" (gee, that's original), some in the audience, after shelling out big bucks, were none to please. Babs response?

"Shut the **** up! Shut up if you can't take a joke!"

Nice. They love to dish it out, but they just can't take it. Actually, I was surprised that people in the audience weren't just lapping it up. Considering how well her radical views are known, it's surprising that anybody who doesn't agree with her in lock-step would give her money. Oh well, I guess they got just what they deserve.

Hastert Not Hasert

Ooops.

Should Hasert Resign?

I'm perplexed by the Washington Times' call for Denny Hasert to resign as Speaker of the House. The meat of their argument:

Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, the Republican chairman of the House Page Board, said he learned about the Foley e-mail messages "in late 2005." Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, the leader of the Republican majority, said he was informed of the e-mail messages earlier this year. On Friday, Mr. Hastert dissembled, to put it charitably, before conceding that he, too, learned about the e-mail messages sometime earlier this year. Late yesterday afternoon, Mr. Hastert insisted that he learned of the most flagrant instant-message exchange from 2003 only last Friday, when it was reported by ABC News. This is irrelevant. The original e-mail messages were warning enough that a predator -- and, incredibly, the co-chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children -- could be prowling the halls of Congress. [emphasis mine]

If the initial emails weren't enough to raise even the hackles of liberal newspapers such as the St. Petersburg Times or the Miami Herald, they were supposed to be "warning enough" for Denny Hasert to launch an investigation? The Washington Times dismisses the differences between the emails and the IMs as "irrelevant"? If Rep. Hasert launched an investigation into every such matter concerning questionable behavior of a fellow Representative, the House would be one big non-stop investigation of itself.

So far, I've seen nothing that indicates the House Leadership knew anything more than the contents of the original email. Could you imagine the uproar from liberals if they had launched such an investigation of Rep. Foley, long known inside the beltway as a homosexual, based soley on such ambiguous emails. Liberal would have been screaming "homophobia" at the top of their lungs. They would have accused Hasert of painting all homosexuals as pedophiles.

With everything we now know, I not only hope that Denny Hasert doesn't resign, but I hope he digs his heels in and fights back. There have been some pretty ugly accusations tossed in his direction, including covering for a known pedophile. That is not something you should take lying down Mr. Speaker.

UPDATE: Mark Levin at The Corner makes some good points along the same lines that I believe I'm following here. Of course he's much clearer and better spoken on the matter than I, but then again I'm only about half as smart as he is. Also notice the mature discourse displayed by conservatives on this matter in contrast to the... ah, you know.

UPDATE II: Investor's Business Daily appears to be the first to call into question the timing of Foleygate and questions about what did "Democrats know, and when did they know it?" As the story continues to unfold, it should begin to become clear that the Democrats will have quite a bit to answer for as well. This is politics at it's dirtiest and the only way for the Republicans to fight back is, sadly enough, to get down and dirty with 'em.

Foley, Foley, And More Foley

The left side of the blogosphere is going absolutely nutso about the Foley resignation. As of this writing, seven of the last twelve post in KosLand has been about Foley. It's pretty clear that Foley is a sick perv who got exactly what he deserved. The real question surrounds what the House leadership knew and when they knew it. Of course the left has already decided that it's a clear cut case and Denny Hasert and the entire House leadership should be run out of town on a rail. The facts, or lack thereof, of course tell a more ambiguous story.

I'll let those facts shake out before passing judgement. I've always been apathetic towards Denny Hasert as Speaker of the House. He seems like a nice guy, and as a former teacher if he really knew the perversity of Foley's exploits I have a hard time believing he would simply look the other way.

As far as the possible fallout and impact this story has on the elections, I don't see a lot to it. Of course that could change if it turns out that the House leadership was complacent in the matter, but as of now I don't see it. The story involves sex, so of course the press will cover it in the most sensationalist fashion possible. And right now the dems are taking full advantage of the situation, which of course I don't blame them for doing. In the end, however, I suspect once again they'll over-play their hand on this, because they have nothing else to offer, and within a week or so barring any further incriminating developments it'll be back to business as usual as we head down the home stretch leading to the November elections.

To be continued...

UPDATE: I found this headline from ABC News blog, the Blotter, very interesting:

E-mails Show Foley Sought Rendezvous with Page

My understanding is that there are two completely different issues between emails and Instant Messages. The emails, while creepy, are not explicit and didn't warrant any disciplinary action against Foley. The IMs, on the other hand, are perverse and may land Foley in jail. It's a very sloppy piece written as if they want to blur the line and confuse the story. Big surprise? NOT!

Bush Blast With Both Barrels

President Bush is a master at lower expectations and sandbagging his opponents. Many times persons like me find ourselves criticizing him for not fighting back, only to find out later he was letting his opponents climb further out on the limb before he starts the cutting. Well, he's at it again with this blistering speech at a funder raiser in Alabama yesterday. A little taste:

Some Democrats in Congress say that we should not be fighting the terrorists in Iraq; it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place. I believe these Democrats need to answer a simple question: Do they really believe that we would be better off if Saddam Hussein were still in power? In a recent interview, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee was asked this very question. And his answer was, yes, yes, and, yes.

If this is what the Democrats think, they need to make this case to the American people: They need to make the case that the world would be better off it Saddam Hussein were still in power.

[snip]

After the attacks of September the 11th, it became clear that the United States of America must confront threats before they come and hurt us. Saddam Hussein's regime was a serious threat, a risk the world could not afford to take. America, Iraqis, and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein is not in power. (Applause.)

In a recent series of speeches, I made it clear that we're in the early hours of a long struggle for civilization. I have made it clear that we're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century. I've also made it clear that the safety of the American people depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.

I strongly believe that Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. The Democrats may not think so, but Osama bin Laden does. Here are the words of bin Laden, "I now address... the whole... Islamic nation: Listen and understand... The most... serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War... [that] is raging in [Iraq]." He calls it "a war of destiny between infidelity and Islam." He says, "The whole world is watching this war," and that it will end in "victory and glory or misery and humiliation."

For al Qaeda, Iraq is not a distraction from their war on America, it is a central battlefield where there's -- outcome of the struggle will be decided.

The NIE I quoted earlier says this about Iraq. It said, "Perceived jihadist success there," in Iraq, "would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere. It also says that "Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

Democrats in Washington have been quoting the NIE a lot in recent days, but you don't hear them quoting that part of the document. The Democrats can't have it both ways. Either they believe that Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror or they agree with the intelligence community and the terrorists themselves that the outcome of Iraq is important in the war on terror. Truth is, the Democrats are using the NIE to mislead the American people and justify their policy of withdrawal from Iraq.

[snip]

The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9/11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut-and-run. (Applause.)

That last part will have Democrats in full purple-face rage. More Mr. President, please.

Dems, Follow These Men

Senators Leahy, Kerry, Feingold, and Dodd, that is. They're up in arms over the terrorist detainee legislation which passed the House yesterday and is now before the Senate. Nothing would be better for the Republicans than for the Democrats to get behind these Senators in their quest for bestowing the right of habeus corpus upon terrorist being held at Club Gitmo. Liberals cheered when the Supreme Court ruled the military tribunals proposed by the Bush Administration unconstitutional. Now, though, they have to deal with the reality of coming up with a solution themselves. Gee, things get a little harder when you actually have to come up with ideas as opposed to just heaping non-stop criticism.

That's My Niece!

This is an article about my niece, Laura. She helped pass a law in New Jersey that allows students to opt out of dissecting animals, without penalty, as required in some classes. Apparently there are other methods that can be substituted. Good for her. Towards the end of the article you learn she's working to start a Young Republicans Club. Brains, looks, personality, Republican! Oh, sorry, a button just bounced off my screen. And by the way, big brother is a Marine. A big thumbs-up to my sister, Karen.

Ahhh, Is That It?

Now that portions of the NIE have been declassified and we get to see the key conclusions, we can make a few conclusions for ourselves.

First, if this is representative of what the intelligence community is generating, we're in big trouble. There is absolutely nothing of substance in the document. A lot of "if's" and "maybe's" and nothing more. Second, it is clear that the information leaked to the New York Times was cherry picked to put the Administration in the worst possible light and the New Yorks Times ate it up without a single critical thought. The New York Times has abandoned any pretence of objectivity and is nothing more than an extension of the Democrat Party and should be viewed as such. And lastly, the Democrats have once again demonstrated they can not to be taken seriously when it comes to fighting the War on Terror (a phrase which I despise by the way.)

In the end, this is a big todo about nothing. The report is from April, tells us nothing new (other than our intelligence agencies remain inept,) and within a week will be forgotten. Next.

UPDATE: I forgot to add that with the Democrats demanding the President Bush release the NIE in it's entirety, it proves they don't like the results of Bush calling their bluff. They know perfectly well that the President won't declassify the document, so now they can run around blabbing about how the President isn't being honest with the American people. They're not serious about this, they simply want cover for the fecklessness.

Stepping In It

The Democrats are going to regret jumping on the leaked information from the NEI. Now that President Bush has order it's declassification we will get the complete picture. This was nothing more than a political hit job by President Bush's enemies within the intelligence community.

Nancy Pelosi's request for a rare closed-door secret session to discuss the analysis is a sure sign of panic. In their zeal to denounce Bush and the Iraq War they once again put their complete unseriousness and pure partisanship regarding the War on Terrorism on display for everyone to see. They simply are not serious and cannot be trusted with the defense of the this country.

Now, let's get to bottom of who continues to leak classified information to the The New York Times and start prosecuting theses people to the fullest extent of the law.

Fighting Enemies Makes Them Mad

This just in, fighting your enemies makes them mad. Much is being made of the latest National Intelligence Estimate in which it states that our invasion of Iraq has help create more terrorists. Let's put aside the fact that, once again, classified information is being leaked in an effort to undermine the Bush Administration, and look at the logic of the Democrats criticism. I think Neal Bortz has the perfect analogy. He ask us to think about the Civil Rights movement and about how that helped recruitment for the Klan. Does that mean that it was wrong? Of course not, and it doesn't make any more sense in the case of Iraq.

Islamists had been gaining momentum from the time of the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Iran through the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole and ultimately 9/11. The latest National Intelligence Estimate appears to view terrorism as a threat that began with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, ignoring the history of the Islamist movement. Judging by the reactions of the Democrats, they want to go back to what we were doing on September 10th, 2001 -- nothing.

The Wagging Finger

When was the last time I saw Bill Clinton wagging his finger in indignation? Hmmm... Oh, yeah, when he was lying through his teeth to the American people about the whole sordid Lewenski affair. Now he's wagging it again complaing about the "right wingers" criticism of his less than agressive approach to capturing or killing Osama.

Look, nobody took terrorism seriously enough from Jimmy Carter through George W. Bush's first eight months in office. Mistakes were made and the threat was underestimated. Frankly, I don't really care much about pointing the finger of blame as much as I care about making sure we don't make those same mistakes again. Clintons outrage, much the same as his protest concerning the ABC miniseries Path to 9/11, does nothing more than draw attention to his abysmal record on fighting terrorism during his eight years in office. By attempting to rewrite history in an effort to salvage his "legacy," he's only undermining himself.

Mr. President, my advice to you concerning this matter is to follow the words of the immortable Sergeant Hulka, "Lighten up Francis."

Osama Dead... Again

Here we go with another report that Osama bin Laden is dead. Of course nobody believes these reports anymore when they come out. I almost convinced myself that he was dead up to the 2004 election, but when he reappeared just before the election I learned my lesson.

It's curious that this news comes out a few weeks before a new rumored video message from Osama is to appear. This has to do with the chatter that another, spectacular, attack is to occur sometime during Ramadan of this year. We shall see within the next few weeks.

Personally I'd like nothing better for this rat bastard to die of typhoid in some dark, damp, cave, in the hills of Pakistan. Nothing would be better than to deny him the supposed glory of having died as a martyr.