South Park Conservatives: The Revot Against Liberal Media Bias: Brian Anderson
Letters to a Young Conservative: Dinesh D'Souza
Politics
Pol·i·tics: the art or science of government or governing, especially the governing of a political entity, such as a nation, and the administration and control of its internal and external affairs. Posts in this category pertain to local and national politics.
Arianna Huffington acrimoniously asks "What would Jesus do... with Tom Delay?" and then fatuously answers her own question:
Would Jesus strong-arm lobbyists to pay for his golfing trip to St. Andrew’s in Scotland? Would Jesus let a lobbyist pay for him to stay at the Bethlehem -- I mean, London -- Four Seasons?
Would Jesus, were he to smoke, and were he to be smoking on federal property, and were he asked politely not to, then reply: "I am the federal government."
Would Jesus say, "Judges need to be intimidated. They need to uphold the Constitution… We're going to go after them in a big way."
If DeLay and his pious pals had been around for the Sermon on the Mount, perhaps the most famous line about humility ever spoken would have been given a rewrite:
"Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth… unless the pushy hire Jack Abramoff at 750 shekels an hour; then the meek (and the Indians) are screwed."
Oh, why not? I'll have a go at it. Of course, I'll just use one example - actual words of Jesus - as He might have responded to Arianna Huffington and her rock-wielding circle of friends:
If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.(John 8:7 NIV)
Several St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnists downed a full dose of Liberal Kool-Aid today...
First is Jo Mannies' giddy commentary on several examples of apparent conservative dissention:
"We're frustrated that we have to fight this issue with Republicans in charge," said Messer, who's also a lobbyist for the Missouri Baptist Convention. "We hadn't expected it."
That seems to be a frequent complaint among conservative activists as they head into the session's final week. Social conservatives eager to take on abortion, gambling and stem cell research are shocked at seeing their dreams stymied by those they'd helped elect last fall to control the state House, the state Senate and the Governor's Mansion.
The new Republicans in charge have chosen to focus primarily on economic and education issues, while also opposing some of the social conservatives' initiatives.
Ironic, isn't it, that the party constantly maligned for consisting of rank-and-file marching lock-step in tune to the "party line" - not to mention, for being under the control of "right-wing" special interest groups - elicits such elation from a liberal columnist for the implied detriment of doing just the opposite?
Next up is Robert Joiner, who is beside himself in reaction to President Bush nominating Catherine Hanaway as the US Attorney for Eastern Missouri:
Hanaway's nomination, in contrast, seems to belie her party's platitudes about merit and qualifications. If she were African-American and Democrat, I suspect you would hear hard-line conservatives mouthing the usual cliches about affirmative action run amok. There has been no such whispering from the right about Hanaway, once known as much for her vindictiveness in Jefferson City as for her trademark cigars.
No, what I expect to hear from hard-line conservatives this time is . . . silence, as they figure out how to rationalize this embarrassing contradiction between what they preach and what they practice.
Such vitriol from the Party of Tolerance. And what, pray tell, are your views on the US Senate Democrats' obstruction of Justice Priscilla Owen; or more telling: Janice Rogers Brown, who happens to be not only black, but also eminently qualified to fill the position to which she has been nominated? Which party is it, again, that consistently plays the Race Card?
Finally - and still on the subject of judicial activism - we have a Post-Dispatch editorial that still can't understand how judicial activism undermines the role of the judiciary in the check-and-balance system:
Under the proposal, known as House Joint Resolution 23, impeachment trials would be conducted by the state Senate instead of by leading judges. Let us count the ways this is a bad idea: One, it ignores the lessons of Missouri history. Two, it would subject judges to political pressures in violation of the concept of separation of powers. Three, it stems from a profound ignorance of the role of the judiciary in a democratic society.
The only "profound ignorance of the role of the judiciary" apparent here is that of the Post-Dispatch editorial board. A fundamental premise of the check-and-balance system is that powers are separated between the three branches, and that the three branches cannot act independently of each other. How can the judicial branch be truly "checked" if it polices itself - as is the case with the judiciary carrying out impeachment proceedings on judges? Apparently, most of the rest of the United States agrees:
He says he simply wants Missouri to follow the same procedure for impeachment that is followed in 48 other states and the federal government, with the Senate holding trials. That also was the Missouri procedure before the 1945 state constitution was enacted.
And what was it that happened prior to 1945, that was so egregious that the rules were changed? Somebody almost was convicted by a partisan state senate in an impeachment trial:
In 1931, Democratic state Treasurer Larry Brunk was acquitted by the state Senate of converting state money to his own use, thus frustrating the House member who managed the effort to remove Mr. Brunk... Mr. Brunk got off because he was a former state senator himself. Mr. Limbaugh said that only the partisan politics of the Senate trial saved Mr. Brunk.
So... what? By most counts, the impeachment of Andrew Johnson happened for purely partisan reasons, and to this day, democrats whine that President Clinton's impeachment for obstruction of justice and perjury before a federal grand jury was a similar ploy of partisan politics. Would supposedly impartial judges provide any better balance than a bicameral legislature buffered by a two-party system? As if we need any more evidence of the editorial board's bias, they state it here, explicitly:
The group says that judges should be impeached if a decision is "clearly in opposition to the plain meaning of the constitution," even if a judge "simply misunderstands" the law.
The proposed amendment might be dismissed as the rantings of fringe groups and legislators...
Holding judges accountable to uphold the law, as written by the legislature and enacted by the executive, against bench-legislation and incompetence, embodies rantings of fringe elements? And the Post-Dispatch editorial board deigns to presume whom does and does not understand the role of the judiciary in a democratic society...
(Hat Tip: JohnCombest.com)
Challenger #1 is wooed. According to ArchPundit:
This will be a meeting where Chuck Schumer and the DSCC try and court her and convince her they can support her bid well enough to win.
Which is exactly why I'm already on TalentWatch. One of the first things I did when moving to St. Louis in September 2002 was change my voter registration, so I could be sure to help Jim Talent beat that political hack, Jean Carnahan. My involvement in the '06 race - whether officially or, more likely, unofficially, will be considerably more than simply casting my vote. More details to come...
UPDATE: The Kansas City Star covers the same story.
Mark at Decision '08 doesn't even have him on his RADAR yet, but could Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) be positioning himself for a White-House run?
All the signs are there: a stuffed campaign war chest, frequent mentions by the political pot-watchers. Even his dad said it: Democrat Sen. Evan Bayh is seriously considering a 2008 run for the White House.
In incumbent Democrat who runs well in a heavily Republican Red State would be an infinitely more difficult challenge than the New-England Liberal John Kerry, and Bayh, unlike boy-wonder John Edwards, actually has experience and credibility. He is the chairman of the Clinton-wing Democratic Leadership Council, a quasi-centrist wing of the Democrat Party.
Can he win? Against George W. Bush, no; against an untested Republican candidate, possibly.
Vyvoda asks what "Bush supporters" have to say about this Reuters article, which in typical roto-Reuters fashion is headlined World Terror Attacks Tripled in 2004 by U.S. Count:
The U.S. count of major world terrorist attacks more than tripled in 2004, a rise that may revive debate on whether the Bush administration is winning the war on terrorism, congressional aides said on Tuesday.
The number of "significant" international terrorist attacks rose to about 650 last year from about 175 in 2003, according to congressional aides briefed on the numbers by State Department and intelligence officials on Monday.
Sounds pretty bad for the Bush Doctrine, and the Global War on Terror, no? Oh, but wait; let's dig a bit deeper, shall we? Elsewhere in the article, we find:
Waxman's letter said that of the about 650 significant attacks last year, about 300 reflected violence in India and Pakistan, leaving some 350 attacks elsewhere in the world -- double the total 2003 count.
He suggested this reflected enhanced U.S. efforts to monitor media reports of violence, thereby leading to the identification of "many more attacks in India and Pakistan related to Kashmir."
Okay, stop right here. Which is it? Terrorist attacks tripled, or we just weren't counting them in the first place? Is it even plausible that the number of terrorist attacks in Kashmir alone is double the total number of terrorist attacks in the entire world just a year prior? Obviously, this year's count reflects better information/intelligence gathering with respect to world terror. So, this story is really a non-story, right? Oh, no - Reuters can't end it without letting some Democrat hack take a cheap shot at Bush:
"What it effectively means is that the Bush administration and the CIA haven't been putting the staff resources necessary and have missed 80 percent of the world's terrorist incidents" in past years, said a Democratic congressional aide. "How can you have an effective counterterrorism policy from that?"
So, it's Bush's fault! Of course! But, wait; a little earlier in the article we read:
It later said the number killed and injured in 2003 was more than double its original count and said "significant" terrorist attacks -- those that kill or seriously injure someone, cause more than $10,000 in damage or attempt to do either of those things -- rose to a 20-year high of 175.
(Emphasis added)
So what's the implication? Roto-reuters would have you believe 1) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to count terrorist attacks accurately, and 2) Bush's counterterrorism policy has been an abject failure due to its inability to prevent terrorism from spiraling to more than three times its 20 year high.
So what's the truth?
Congressional aides said about 10 full-time employees worked on the 2004 count, up from about three in past years, and that this produced a more complete count.
So, Bush put together the Department of Homeland Security, has made a good-faith effort to enact intelligence changes proposed by Congress, and is generally putting significantly more resources into HumInt than previous administrations ("previous administrations", referring directly to Clinton, is the correct translation of Reuters' misleading "past years") - and Roto-reuters manages to blame him at every turn.
A better analysis of this information is that world terrorism was higher all along, and the Bush administration should be praised for dedicating the manpower to track and count terrorist acts more accurately and completely.
While I don't often agree with their politics, I generally enjoy reading the sub-/counter-culture weekly Riverfront Times. It usually has well-written articles of local interest, like this one, which ConservativeDialysis found and wrote about. (Ditto the caveat: RFT doesn't fall under "family-friendly" in the language department.)
Some choice nuggets:
Samir says a soldier fired several blank rounds into the bunker's exposed opening, and a man's voice cried out from the spider hole, pleading for his life.
"He said, 'Don't shoot. Don't kill me,'" recounts Samir.
How appropriate. The last, defiant words uttered in freedom by the murderous tyrant were a plea for mercy. Mercy, I might add, he would never have dreamed of giving anyone.
Later, when the world's most wanted man was whisked onto an awaiting helicopter, Samir remembers Saddam muttering to himself in English, asking the same question again and again: "America, why? America, why?"
And the cries continue to rise from the mass graves, filled with those killed by the Saddam regime, the silent din crying out in unison: "Why, Saddam?", "Why, Saddam?"
Samir was a twenty-year-old college student living in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah when he joined a civilian uprising against Saddam. It was 1991, and U.S. and coalition fighters had just declared a ceasefire after liberating Kuwait.
Encouraged by the Republican Guard's swift defeat, Samir grabbed the family AK-47 and joined thousands of southern Shiites organizing a massive rebellion. In hindsight, Samir says, the revolution was doomed from the start.
The ceasefire allowed Saddam to regroup and launch a counterattack against his own people. It soon became clear that the United States never planned to assist the Shiites with any tactical support. The failure of the U.S. government to provide military assistance during the uprising still strikes a sour chord with Samir and countless other Shiites.
"We were defenseless," fumes Samir. "Saddam began a retaliation campaign with tanks and helicopters. Our guns were useless."
George Bush Senior's worst mistake: not finishing what he started. How long did it take Coalition forces to rebuild the trust lost by this perceived betrayal?
The next morning Samir hopped on a Humvee for the half-hour drive to his parents' home. The entire neighborhood, some 700 residents, poured into the streets to greet him."It was an awesome feeling," he says. "I felt like I was coming with the U.S. forces to free my family. It was the best feeling of my life."
Not a bad homecoming, for someone who left in fear for his life - returning like the conquering hero from the Hollywood westerns he loved as a child.
Samir is quick to anger when people dismiss the necessity of the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- or, even worse, when they question the validity of Saddam's capture.
Not that they elaborated on this point, but kudos to RFT for even writing it; it pretty well flies in the face of the beliefs of most of their readership.
Late last month Samir returned to Iraq for the third time since the fall of Saddam's regime. This time he's working not as a interpreter but as a political and cultural consultant in the U.S. government's rebuilding efforts. The job can earn Samir in excess of $100,000 a year, though he says he'd do it for half as much.
As to the risks of arbitrary suicide bombings, Samir says he'd rather die in Iraq than here in a car accident or from a heart attack.
"Everyone dies one day," he muses. "Dying with honor is better than dying with nothing. At least you're going to be remembered."
And this man will be remembered well, of that I am quite sure.
Stones Cry Out reports on much ado about nothing in the Washington Post:
Yet there's lots of chatter in the blogosphere, but little coverage in the mainstream media, of a study that suggests the early exit polls that showed Kerry beating Bush may have been accurate after all. The study, conducted on behalf of U.S. Count Votes, a non-partisan but left-leaning non-profit organization.
Let's have a look at their conclusions, shall we?
But in some ways they seem to be playing a game, too, because the study clearly leaves the impression that the authors believe there was wholesale fraud in the 2004 presidential election.
The methodology and math of the study are far too complicated to get into in detail here. But here is a link to the entire study for your reading pleasure.
Among other things, the study reports that some of the largest discrepancies between exit polls and final vote tallies occurred inexplicably in battleground states.
I'll revisit this post after reading the report, but here are my initial thoughts:
We have a case in which a sample varied significantly from the population. On the face, we are faced with three possibilities:
- The sample was accurate, but a statistical outlier
- The sample was accurate, and the population inaccurate
- The sample was inaccurate, and the population was accurate
It appears that the first goal of this report is to rule out option #1. Fair enough; I'll agree whole-heartedly with ruling out option #1. However, I suspect the report spends the rest of its pages supporting option #2 over option #3. To wit:
Among other things, the study reports that some of the largest discrepancies between exit polls and final vote tallies occurred inexplicably in battleground states.
"This discrepancy between exit polls and the official election results has triggered a controversy which has yet to be resolved," according the report.
If true, this analysis again has multiple explanations. The report chooses to favor option #2 (above), and probably goes to great length trying to support that conclusion. However, what the report implies as "wholesale vote fraud" I propose is actually "wholesale exit poll fraud". Which is more plausible? Top-to-bottom coordination across state lines to throw the election to Bush through vote fraud, or misleading exit poll data?
Looking at the 2000 election, incorrectly - and prematurely - calling Florida for Gore suppressed the Bush vote in the yet-to-close Florida panhandle precincts, and in a ripple effect suppressed the Bush vote across the rest of the country. Might it be plausible to think that someone concluded that a similar tactic could be used to "throw" the election for Kerry, by reporting biased exit poll data indicating a Kerry victory, with the assumption that such flawed data would become a self-fulfilling prophecy by once again suppressing the Bush vote across the country? If I recall correctly, the 2004 exit poll data over-sampled demographics that indicated biased results in favor of Kerry. (Which, if true, would really be more Option #1, with intentional, malicious intent.)
More later...
(Temporary: original Haloscan Comments - Comments)
BlogsforBush reports common-sense election reform in Georgia:
Common sense prevails in the state of Georgia, with Governor Sonny Perdue signing into law today a requirement that voters show photo ID before casting ballots.
Of course, the liberal reaction was as predictible as it was inevitable:
The AP reports that most black lawmakers walked out of the state Capitol as a result.
Democrats were not happy about this bill, and cited ridiculous accusations that the law targets the elderly, the poor, and minorities.
This whole issue is a perfect example of liberal sophistry. Possibly without intending to, the original AP article points out the idiocy of the liberals' complaint (NOTE: emphasis added):
Previously, registered voters could present a Social Security card or other non-photo ID when they arrived to vote. Republicans, who control both legislative chambers, pushed the plan as a way to crack down on voter fraud...Democrats argued the law would unfairly target the elderly, the poor and minorities - those most likely not to have photo identification.
So, the liberals' primary concern is that the bill targets those most likely not to have photo identification, while the bill itself does not require photo identification. The bill does however target exactly what it says: fraudulent voters - multiple-voters, ineligible voters (felons, non-citizens, non-residents, dead people, etc.).
Now, just imagine Missouri passing a similar law (though I personally favor the requirement of photo identification, not just any form of identification). St. Louis City poll workers would probably be able to go home hours earlier, without the Return of the Living Dead that occurs every Election Day - and activist judges would likely have no need to keep polling places open illegally past the legislated hours of operation. And it might be fun to watch some Carnahan or Gehpardt storm out of Jeff City in a huff due to the disenfranchisement of 25% of the local Democrats' voting base (the ones who roll over in their graves right before casting their ballots).
Michelle Malkin comments on yesterday's atrocity in Iraq, in which a civilian helicoptor was shot down, and then a survivor murdered.
The Islamic Army in Iraq has claimed responsibility and posted video it claims is of the wreckage. Shocking footage of the terrorists shows them discovering a survivor of the crash (whom analysts say is one of the Bulgarians); helping him to his feet; and then shooting and murdering him.
Let us take a survey of how the MSM describes those who perpetrated this atrocity:
The New York Times, "A Private Copter Crashes in Iraq; 6 Americans Die"
Eleven people, including six Americans from the security firm Blackwater USA working for the United States military, were killed Thursday when a commercial helicopter crashed near the capital, according to officials from Blackwater and the company that chartered the aircraft.
Several officials said the helicopter appeared to have been brought down by hostile fire but there was no official confirmation of the cause of the crash.
The Washington Post, "Insurgents Down Civilian Helicopter Near Iraqi Capital"
Insurgents shot down a helicopter with a heat-seeking missile north of the Iraqi capital Thursday, killing all six American security contractors and five others on board, according to U.S. officials and insurgents.
The attack marked the first time in the two years of the U.S.-led occupation that fighters in Iraq have succeeded in bringing down an aircraft contracted for transporting civilians. Planes and helicopters are being used increasingly around the country as attacks make road travel on vital routes deadly for Iraqis and foreigners alike.
Reuters, "Commercial Helicopter Shot Down in Iraq, 11 Dead"
Guerrillas shot down a Bulgarian commercial helicopter in Iraq Thursday, killing all 11 on board including six Americans, as hopes of forming a new government were dashed by last-minute disagreements.
Times (UK) "11 killed as guerillas shoot down helicopter"
GUERRILLAS killed 11 international workers in Iraq yesterday when they shot down a civilian helicopter 20 miles north of Baghdad.
Six American contractors working for the Blackwater security company, two Fijians and three Bulgarian crew died after their Mi-8 helicopter was apparently struck by a missile.
The Islamic Army in Iraq, a militant group, claimed responsibility for the attack. If confirmed, it would be the first shooting-down of a civilian aircraft in Iraq.
So we have the usual suspects: "insurgents", "guerillas", "militants", "rebels", and of course, the Gray Lady refuses to say the helicopter was shot down at all, though admitting that "hostile fire" alegedly brought down the aircraft.
Now my question is this: had this attack taken place at any other time in history, in any other place - especially right here in the US - by adherents of any other ideology, how would it have been covered? Just as a reminder, let's take a look at some commonly accepted definitions of terrorism:
Dictionary.com aggregates several definitions, as summarized by this one from the American Heritage Dictionary:
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The Council on Foreign Relations gives the following criteria:
In another useful attempt to produce a definition, Paul Pillar, a former deputy chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, argues that there are four key elements of terrorism:
- It is premeditated—planned in advance, rather than an impulsive act of rage.
- It is political—not criminal, like the violence that groups such as the mafia use to get money, but designed to change the existing political order.
- It is aimed at civilians—not at military targets or combat-ready troops.
- It is carried out by subnational groups—not by the army of a country.
Clearly, yesterday's attack meets both the dictionary definition of as well as the criteria for classification as terrorism. Yet the MSM, once again blinded by their own ideology, will fail to report this attack accurately as an act of terrorism (as with all the other acts of terrorism carried out in Iraq). The MSM have no problem referring to the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing a terrorist attack, especially, as exemplified by ABC, when such attacks can be labeled as "right-wing".
And as the MSM continue to refuse to separate themselves from their own ideology, they continue to separate themselves from all remnants of relevance and usefulness in a post-9/11 world.