11/29/2006
Beldar has a breathtakingly good review of the decision against the NYT and the terrorist enablers in it’s employ. Here’s a quick look:
Now, if the NYT could ever hope to find a friend on the SCOTUS, it’s Justice Ruth Bader “ACLU” Ginsburg. My conservative non-lawyer friends sometimes ask me how I can respect Justice Ginsburg even though I almost never agree with her legal opinions, and this is a good example of why that’s so: Whatever her personal inclinations may have been, in this case she obviously recognized that it just wouldn’t be appropriate for her to make this ruling alone — even though she had the nominal power to do so. Instead, as yesterday’s order recites, she referred the NYT’s request to stay the Second Circuit’s mandate to the full Supreme Court. And the full Supreme Court refused that request, without any dissents. So the Second Circuit’s mandate will promptly issue (or may already have, as of yesterday), and Mr. Fitzgerald’s FBI agents will be poring over those phone records toot sweet.
The case isn’t over. The NYT will still ask the Supreme Court to review the merits of the Second Circuit’s decision through a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court might agree to hear the case — although that would surprise me very much. And yesterday’s ruling doesn’t necessarily mean that neither Justice Ginsburg nor any other member of the Supreme Court would vote to overturn the Second Circuit’s ruling if cert were granted and the Supreme Court thereby agreed to review the Second Circuit’s decision on its merits. In fact, if I had to guess, I’d guess that she and Justice Stevens almost certainly would. That there were no dissents yesterday — not even from Justices Ginsburg or Stevens — may only mean that there aren’t five Justices who are dad-gummed eager to use this particular case to create a new federal common-law privilege for reporters to shield their confidential sources. But maybe four Justices can be persuaded to vote to grant certiorari, and maybe five can be persuaded to create a privilege that Congress has so far refused to. Or so Mr. Abrams and the NYT will hope.
And in due course, Mr. Abrams will write another fine petition for a writ of certiorari toward that end. But whatever he says for his client or other MSM outlets to reprint, I’ll bet he’s not going to be holding his breath waiting for cert to be granted. Not in this case, not on these facts. Not to protect whoever it was who broke the law to protect terrorists. Someone rabidly pro-media could at least argue with a semi-straight face that chasing down whoever supposedly “outed” Valerie Plame wasn’t such a really big deal, and that the “public’s need to know” (as purportedly protected by reporters’ promises to keep sources confidential) ought to trump that search for evidence.
But not many people or entities besides the New York Times have the unmitigated chutzpah — combined with a breathtaking, and breathtakingly dangerous, childlike naïvety — to argue that someone inside the government ought to be able to tip off the NYT before an FBI raid, and that the NYT’s reporters ought to be able to tip off the terrorists, and then that those criminally stupid tipsters, like the terrorists, should just be able to get away with it.
“I’ll bet this will make Bush look bad,” the tipsters probably thought. And that, in their eyes, is a goal that can justify anything, including another 9/11 or worse.
Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin
11/27/2006
Coloradopols.com Not As Non-partisan As They Claim?
A fellow Colorado blog site — ToTheRight.org — has found information that Coloradopols.com — a blog that has long claimed to be non-partisan — is actually funded by the George Soros mini-me trio of the west; Polis, Stryker, and Gill.
Despite the insistence of the authors of ColoradoPols.com that the site is nonpartisan, during the last election it became increasingly clear the site was nothing more than a vehicle for releasing opposition research on Republican candidates into the mainstream. The reality of the matter is ColoradoPols.com was a stealth project launched with the intention of manipulating media coverage in Colorado to favor Democrats. John J. Miller explained the forces at work behind the scenes in the article “The Color Purple†in the latest issue of National Review:
The mini-Soroses of Colorado [Gill, Stryker, & Polis] aren’t merely dabbling in elections — they’re building a permanent infrastructure. “We are finally realizing that how we win is by creating an envrionment of fear and respect,†boasted Gill adviser Ted Trimpa — described by one politico as “the Karl Rove of Colorado†— to the Bay Area Reporter, a gay newspaper in San Francisco, earlier this year.
They’ve established several websites, including Coloradopols.com, that have started to shape political coverage in the state.
Investigation has revealed a tangled web of paid, liberal bloggers in the state of Colorado who have taken advantage of loopholes in campaign-finance laws to obscure the flow of money. Under the guise of “nonpartisan groups,†Tim Gill has been able to subsidize and fund a number of liberal bloggers including those at ColoradoPols.com.
Of course, the folks at Coloradopols have done everything from deny to say “so what”, but the evidence that ToTheRight.org has put together looks pretty damning. Go read the whole post.
Here’s one for the “you cant be serious” files courtesy of Jonathan Chait…
I wrote my column as a kind of thought experiment for thinking through the way forward in Iraq. Unfortunately, it’s hard to convey ideas that are less than 100 percent serious but more than 0 percent serious.
So let me try to explain it a bit more earnestly. If I was granted power over Iraq policy, would I install Saddam Hussein in Baghdad? No.
On the other hand, I do believe that things are so bad in Iraq it may be worth considering it, at least as an intellectual exercise. Right now, Iraq is a massive humanitarian disaster, probably as bad as or worse than under Saddam Hussein, and likely to get worse. It is also a budding strategic disaster, allowing for greater Iranian influence, and possibly creating a terrorist haven. If Saddam were in power, the humanitarian situation probably couldn’t get worse, and might get better, and the Iranian and terrorist problems would abate as well. Again, I’m not saying I’m sure this is a good idea. But it’s worth discussing, because, to repeat the point I was trying to illustrate, the alternatives are all very, very bad.
Is anyone else as tired of the defeatist left as I am?
Even Susan Estrich things Alcee Hastings is a bad choice…
But perhaps most important, there is the question of corruption and Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla.. Corruption was the number two issue mentioned by voters as a reason for not returning the Republicans to control of Congress. Democrats have an opportunity to do something significant about ethics reform. It doesn’t cost money. Why blow it before you start?
When you go back and reread the history on Hastings—who, prior to his election to Congress, was impeached and removed from office as a U.S. District Court judge— it just doesn’t sit well. The vote to impeach him in 1988 was 413-4, with not a single member of the House standing to defend him. While he had been acquitted of bribery charges at trial, a post-trial investigation by the U.S. Court of Appeals concluded that he lied at his trial and faked evidence, and he had in fact plotted with a lawyer to take a payoff for reducing the sentence of a supposed racketeer.
In his Senate trial, John Conyers, a leading black liberal, was one of the prosecutors.
He said: “We argue that he must be removed from office so that he does not teach others that justice may be sold.” In 1989, he was convicted by the Senate and removed from the bench.
Is this who Pelosi is going to pass over Jane Harman to put in charge of the Intelligence Committee?
The fact is that whatever rivalry Pelosi and Harman have had over the years is over. Nancy won. She can afford to act like a winner, and appoint Jane. Alcee Hastings is more of a threat to her than Jane.
Of course, I guess when it would obviously be hypocritical to appoint Hastings there’s not much she can say.
11/25/2006
A Knowledgable Response To An Idiot
I had thought about trying to tear apart this op-ed myself, but after reading Sergeant Chris Whitaker’s response to it, anything I could say would only proove to be woefully inadequate.
On the 19th of this month, the NYT editorial board published an op-ed titled The Army We Need. It’s obvious just by reading the editorial that the author doesn’t have the slightest idea of how the military works, or just what kind of damage the Clinton peace dividend did to it’s capabilities. I won’t go on about this — as I said, the Sergeant says it better than I ever could. So, here is his response to the editorial unedited:
In their editorial entitled The Army We Need, the New York Times editorial staff displays their ignorance of both the nature and history of the United States military both previous to and during the current Administration. In their zeal to portray the outgoing Secretary of Defense, Mr. Donald Rumsfeld, as the architect of the military’s supposed collapse, they neglect a number of facts. These facts show that, contrary to the Times’ editors’ opinions, it is the hangover from the Clinton administration’s Defense inadequacies that has led to the majority of the military’s training and equipment deficiencies.
It was during President Clinton’s presidency that the significant drawdown of the defense budget began. From 1992 to 1996, the defense budget was reduced from $339 billion to $277 billion. This slashing of the defense budget was the primary source of the “Peace Dividend†that the Clinton Administration touted as its “budget surplus.†In effect, the Clinton Administration was mortgaging the military’s future to achieve a false “savings.†It is important to understand the nature of military spending in order to truly understand why this drawdown was so destructive to the military the United States found itself with prior to the events of September 11, 2001.
The need for military spending is determined not just by how many soldiers or tanks or airmen or aircraft the military purchases. All these wonderful systems and people require maintenance, training, modernization and replacement. The current generation of systems the military is using was originally purchased during the Reagan military build up of the Cold War. While many of these systems were designed to be updated, there is a limit to how much updating that can be done on a system more than 20 years old. At some point it becomes more expensive to repair and upgrade the weapons system than it does to procure a new, updated system. Given the glacial speed and unpredictable nature of the procurement process, it behooves the military to continually acquire new and improved systems.
The greatest shortfall forced on the military by the Clinton era drawdown was the loss of research and development dollars that lead to the development of new systems. In addition, the loss of those dollars meant that fewer defense dollars were available for the upgrade of current systems and even the procurement of spare parts. Procurement of newer systems was also delayed, as systems tend to be acquired over several years, partly due to costs, but also because complicated systems, like F-22’s, or M-1A3 tanks cannot be bought in bulk as they take a fair amount of lead time to build and the contractor doesn’t exactly keep a bunch of stock sitting around. The funding shortfall is estimated to be upwards of $50 billion. That much money could go a long way towards providing much needed parts, equipment and training. In addition, much of the spending during the Clinton era went towards contingency operations and other readiness shortfalls; it did not pay for the deferred modernization that was has been so desperately.
The article claims that Secretary Rumsfeld refused to adapt, yet adaptation for a new type of conflict and style of engagement is exactly what the former Secretary was trying to achieve. The military had previously been configured for set-piece force-on-force battles with primarily heavy units in areas where maneuver was possible. However, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact there are few, if any, opponents that can even come close to matching the battlefield firepower of the US military. This means that the current force structure is dramatically unsuited to fighting the light, rapid conflicts of the new era. In addition, transitioning the force to a leaner, meaner, and more easily deployable one was the Secretary’s primary aim. It is not the Secretary of Defense that was slow and resistant to change, but the bureaucratic inertia of the United States military. The purpose of this transition was to create a force that used the US’s singular advantages: speed, and the ability to apply overwhelming firepower with pinpoint accuracy, without the need for massive and unwieldy blocks of tanks and armored vehicles. The utter annihilation of the Republican Guard during the second Iraq War is evidence of the gradual evolution towards that end. Overwhelming force does not necessarily require massive numbers of troops and vehicles, which are unwieldy at best, but the author seems to have little awareness of military capability in this regard,
The author also states that Secretary Rumsfeld was opposed to the “…Clintonian notion of using the United States military to secure and rebuild broken states.†Apparently the author is not aware of the purpose of a military. It is not a kind of gigantic Peace Corps that is sent in to fix broken states. The purpose of the military is to defend the nation’s interests and it does that by obliterating the enemy’s ability to threaten those interests. The military is not equipped, trained, or interested in the kind of feel-good, half-hearted nation building of which the author is apparently enamored. In addition, it is apparent that this kind of thing simply does not work, as evidenced by the failure in Bosnia/Herzegovina. Admittedly, much of the failure was one of tactical and strategic failure by politicians, but it is also evidence that the military is ill-suited to the kind of mission the Clinton Administration had in mind. To make things simple, the military is very good at breaking things, but is not trained or designed to put them back together. The author refers to the “…need to renew the morale and confidence of America’s serving men and women…â€. As a current service member, currently serving in Iraq, I am not sure of what “morale problem†the author is referring to. The primary morale problem for most service-men and women is the continual uncertainty that the mission will end without completion. In addition, the ridiculously restrictive Rules of Engagement that US forces have to work under wear away at a force that is trained to be aggressive and to take initiative to find, fix, and destroy the enemy. As far as “…restoring the appeal of career military service for the brightest young officers…,†I wonder to what the author is referring. After all, it is those on his side of the argument, along with fools such as Senator Kerry and Representative Murtha, that have denigrated the military profession and attempted to make it an undesirable career for America’s best and brightest. Fortunately their efforts have failed miserably, as the current force, at both the officer and enlisted levels, is the best educated and most capable military force in the history of the profession of arms.
It would be painfully easy to pick apart the rest of the author’s argument, but it would require far more time and space than I am willing to spend. Regardless, it is obvious that the author’s understanding of the working of the military is limited at best and his understanding of the systems the military uses is even more so. Perhaps he should spend a little time with persons from the military, getting a more complete and valid understanding of its workings before offering a prescription based on bias and ignorance that would be even more damaging to the military than his beloved President Clinton ever could.
Hat Tip: Black Five
11/24/2006
Why The MSM Can’t Be Trusted On Iraq
Patterico gives us yet another great example of why the MSM can’t be trusted to get it right on — or in — Iraq.
Is the L.A. Times reporting unconfirmed enemy propaganda from an Iraqi stringer with ties to the insurgency? Or is the paper simply misreporting the facts, and failing to seek out and report the military’s side of the story?
You be the judge.
On November 15, the L.A. Times ran an article titled Iraqi residents say U.S. airstrike kills 30. The article emphasized that 30+ people, including women and children, were killed in an airstrike. A headline proclaimed: “Victims include women and children, witnesses in Ramadi say. The military has no immediate comment.†The story began as follows:
BAGHDAD — A U.S. airstrike in the restive town of Ramadi killed at least 30 people, including women and children, witnesses said Tuesday.
The aerial attack, which took place late Monday, brought the number of violent deaths reported in Iraq on Tuesday to at least 91, according to military sources and witnesses.
. . . .
A Times correspondent in Ramadi said at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment and families could be seen digging through the ruins with shovels and bare hands.
Last Friday, my reader Tom Blumer sent me a link to an interesting blog post, by a blog called “One Oar in the Water,†which attacked the L.A. Times story about the Ramadi airstrike. The post quoted what purported to be an e-mail from a soldier who was involved in the Ramadi incident. The e-mailing soldier claimed that the “Times correspondent in Ramadi†has ties to the insurgency, and is knowingly repeating enemy propaganda
The soldier claimed that there were no airstrikes in Ramadi that day, while the L.A. Times stringer claimed there had been an airstrike. When I checked into it, the weight of the evidence indcated that the soldier was right and the L.A. Times was wrong.
The military flatly denies that there was an airstrike — a denial that the L.A. Times has failed to report to this day. Several other media reports state that civilians died from small-arms fire and tank fire, and not an airstrike.
The soldier claimed that only insurgents were killed in the fighting, while the L.A. Times claimed that women and children were killed. Once again, the soldier’s claims appeared to be true, and the L.A. Times claim false.
Other than the L.A. Times report, there is no evidence that women or children were killed in the attack. The available evidence, including other media reports and information through a contact at a Ramadi hospital, indicates that the bodies brought into a Ramadi hospital were all adult males. This fact is suggestive of the possibility that those killed were insurgents, not innocent civilians.
The soldier claimed: “No houses were destroyed and only one courtyard wall was damagedâ€; by contrast, the L.A. Times stringer claimed that “at least 15 homes were pulverized by aerial bombardment.†There are no media reports with reliable firsthand accounts of pulverized homes.
Indeed, I found only one story (published by Reuters) in which a journalist claims to have been on the scene to report observations of the damage firsthand, and he said: “One small structure was burnt out in that street.†Once again, the objective evidence seemed to favor the claims of the soldier.
Patterico’s post is very well thought out and researched, please go and read the whole thing.
This certainly lends weight to what I was saying earlier this week (thanks to an Austin Bay post) about the uncharted amount of negativity toward the war effort by the MSM.
This is an excerpt of an email sent back to the States from the front line in Afghanistan.
The election results have caused us a bit of a problem here. The Taliban are telling everyone that they are winning the war and that the Americans are cowards because we voted for the peace party. Since the election the Taliban have stepped up their attacks because they believe victory is near. Usually, in November the fighting stops until April, but not this year. You should hear what Al Qada is saying, they released a tape the day after the election in Pakistan telling their supporter, “Soon we will drive the American Satan out, Devil Bush and his henchmen are gone and the weak have taken America over. Now we will take the Jihad (Holy War) to the shores of America, where we will kill the children and wives of the infidelsâ€*** “We vow not to stop until we destroy the White House, even if it takes us a 100 years†“Death to America, Death to the Jewsâ€. Now there is a picture of what we are dealing with. To them this is a religious war and they will not stop until the world turns to Allah. They intend on bringing the war to American. We are going to be at war for a long time, if not here back home.
These bastards bomb schools with kids in them. Every time we mistakenly kill a civilian the news makes us out like animals. These fanatics attack us then grab women and children and continue to shoot at us, who are the real animals? Lately, the Taliban have taken to executing people with college degrees or attending college because they are evil. “All you need to know is in the Koran, so those who study are Zionist trying to make us submit to the will of the Jewsâ€. These people are just crazy, and you can’t reason and negotiate with crazy uneducated, religiously brain-washed people. The distain and hatred they have toward Jews and Christians is unbelievable. There I have to pontificate a little in each newsletter so why stop now. I don’t think people back home realize that even if we pull out this war will not be over, they will just bring it closer to our homes. [Emphasis Mine — TR]
Remember, elections have consequences.
Hat Tip: Jared @ Exultate Justi
11/23/2006
Austin Bay has a great post on the overly negative reporting of the Iraq war. Here’s the key ‘graph
Between January 1 and September 30, 2005, nearly 1,400 stories appeared on the ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news. More than half focused on the costs and problems of the war, four times as many as those that discussed the successes. About 40 percent of the stories reported terrorist attacks; scarcely any reported the triumphs of American soldiers and marines. The few positive stories about progress in Iraq were just a small fraction of all the broadcasts.
When the Center for Media and Public Affairs made a nonpartisan evaluation of network news broadcasts, it found that during the active war against Saddam Hussein, 51 percent of the reports about the conflict were negative. Six months after the land battle ended, 77 percent were negative; in the 2004 general election, 89 percent were negative; by the spring of 2006, 94 percent were negative. This decline in media support was much faster than during Korea or Vietnam.
Truly there’s something wrong when the decline in support is faster than during either the Korean war or the Vietnam war.
I believe it also says something that there is an absolute absence of reporting on the good things coming out of Iraq — stories about schools, water treatment plants and hospitals being built. And believe me, there are good things happening over there. I hope to have a first hand account of some of those things from a relative that is serving there right now later next week.
11/22/2006
On The Ball Passenger Catches Suspicious Imams
This is a copy of a note given to a flight attendant in Minneapolis, Mn the other day. It covers the locations and actions of six Imams that were acting — by anyone’s reckoning — strangely right before a cross country flight. The six Imams — who were removed from the flight and detained for several hours before being allowed to continue to their destination on another flight — were offended by their treatment.
Apparently the six Imams were praying loudly before boarding the flight — certainly nothing illegal there. But they were also apparently criticizing (loudly) US involvement in Iraq, and requesting seat belt extensions even though — by most accounts — none of them needed the extensions, chanting “Allah” first when they boarded the plane and then again when they were led off of the plane, and in general making the other passengers extremely nervous about their presence on the flight.
Now, because these six men were offended, the NAACP and CAIR are calling for a congressional investigation into racial profiling taking place on airlines. No… really… a congressional investigation.
Is this the pitiful point that we have reached in this country? Do we really need to have a congressional investigation into racial profiling when racial profiling is the common sense course? I mean, I could understand having a congressional investigation over the unnecessary profiling of say… elderly Caucasian war heros, but really, that we profiled Muslim men? Have we forgotten who was involved in the 9-11 attacks?
One of the Imam’s from the Minneapolis episode has had problems with reality and terrorism before. Apparently, not to long after 9-11 Imam Shahin expressed doubt that Muslims were behind the attacks. Coincidently, a couple of the organizations that Shahin has been associated with have supported terrorism and terrorist organizations such as Hamas.
Real upstanding people there… Profiling indeed.
From Hugh’s show yesterday:
HH: Let me play for you a clip of Maureen Dowd, New York Times columnist, sort of articulating perfect pitch of what the Syrians and Iranians and their proxies must be hearing:
Don Imus: Why do you think the President fired Rumsfeld, to switch gears here?
Dowd: Well, I heard you talking to Frank (Rich) about this. I think that you know, I talked to some of the old 41 people, and they agree with you guys, that…this is what one of them said to me. He said, “Junior can get us back up, and he may start moralizing again, and get back in the missionary position.” And they think it’s just the beginning of trying to capture him with the butterfly net, you know, that the door will be open to the father and Brent Scowcroft, but not…you know, that Cheney is still there, and Sy Hersh has this New Yorker piece suggesting that they’re going to bomb Iran, so…
Imus: They’re attacking poor, old Sy Hersh, who has had his problems, but I mean, why not try to debunk the story? I mean…
Dowd: Well, Cheney…I mean, I agree that as long as Cheney is there, who knows…it’s going to be very hard for W. to just sort of flat-out admit my father was right, everything I’ve done has been wrong, and has made the situation worse in Iraq, which is has, and the Middle East. And I think, you know, that for him to dismantle that reality, and just suddenly say my father was a better president is just going to be almost impossible.
HH: Victor Davis Hanson, this is silliness and absurdity on an epic scale, but it’s also dangerously idiotic.
VDH: Yeah, well…yeah, but here’s the height of moral depravity. We have this New Yorker/Washington insider, this high nasal twang acting silly and stupid when thousands of people’s lives are in jeopardy, and Americans are fighting for freedom, and she’s looking at this as some type of Oedipal arrangement between Bush I and Bush II. It’s just ridiculous, because what’s happening right now is that a government is trying to have a systematic plan of assassination to destroy democracy, and she can’t seem to make the simple moral calculus that people who are risking their lives every day in Iraq need our support. And it’s not just some stupid, little political inside the Beltway game that she writes her stupid, little columns about. It’s people’s lives at stake. Just listening to that just reminded me how amoral these people have become, when they don’t believe in anything anymore.
This is something that has amazed me about most on the left and some of us on the right. It seems that they just can’t get it through their heads that the war we are involved right now is about far more than inside the beltway theory and arguments. People’s lives are at stake. This is not about whether Bush 41 is better than Bush 42. It’s not about stupid and snarky NYT op-ed columns, it’s about the survival of democracy — not only overseas, but here at home. The radical Islamofacists have said time and time again that their goal is to institute Sharia law on everyone. The Koran — time and time again — says that non-muslims are to be sold, killed, or converted. It’s high time we wake up, realize this, and do something about it.
11/21/2006
If the Cedar Revolution came on the heels of Purple Stained Pride in Iraq, then the trouble today has come on the heels of November seventh’s election of the “Run Away” party. Belmont Club has some concise analysis:
The results of the November election have sent the clear message that America is in retreat. Barack Obama recently said:
These are serious times for our country, and with their votes two weeks ago, Americans demanded a feasible strategy with defined goals in Iraq – a strategy no longer driven by ideology and politics, but one that is based on a realistic assessment of the sobering facts on the ground and our interests in the region. …
It may be politically advantageous for the President to simply define victory as staying and defeat as leaving, but it prevents a serious conversation about the realistic objectives we can still achieve in Iraq. Dreams of democracy and hopes for a perfect government are now just that – dreams and hopes. We must instead turn our focus to those concrete objectives that are possible to attain – namely, preventing Iraq from becoming what Afghanistan once was, maintaining our influence in the Middle East, and forging a political settlement to stop the sectarian violence so that our troops can come home. …
Shorn of its rhetoric, Obama’s message is simple. It is not a formula for winning. It is a formula about how to get the hell out of Dodge. The obvious question is what signals this sends to the struggle between democracy and dictatorship within the region. The Cedar Revolution was all about attempting to establish a genuine Lebanese Democracy by evicting the Syrian occupiers. The Cedar Revolution, according to Wikipedia was:
the most commonly used name for the chain of demonstrations and popular civic action in Lebanon (mainly Beirut) triggered by the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri on February 14, 2005. The primary goals of the original activists were the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, the establishment of an international commission to investigate the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri, the resignation of security officials, and the organization of free parliamentary elections. The demonstrators requested the end of the Syrian influence in Lebanese politics.
Elections have consequences.
Well, two weeks in the hospital isn’t bad… considering my past history of being in for months at a time. I’m still pretty washed out, but I hope to return to a somewhat normal posting schedule after Thanksgiving. I know I certainly have a lot to be thankful for this year!! Please take some time over the next couple of days to sit down and thank God for the many blessings He has given us!
11/17/2006
Just wanted to let everyone know that Jim is much better. However, the docs do expect him to be in the hospital until the middle of next week. Just between you and me though, he must be getting a whole lot better…he’s starting to complain about his nurses…Ha!
Thanks for all you thoughts and prayers.
Guy (Jim’s Dad)
11/11/2006
Time for another short update on Jim. I just finished talking with Jim on the phone and the news is all good. He is feeling much better today. His white blood cell count is down (a good thng) and the doctors feel as if he has “turned the corner”.
Once again, thanks so much for your prayers and concern.
Guy (Jim’s Dad)
11/9/2006
I wanted to make one quick entry to let those of you that check these pages on a frequent basis know that Jim is in the hospital with pneumonia. As many of you are aware, Jim has had multiple health problems over the last four years or so….most of which are respiratory related. At this point in time, the doctors are telling us that Jim’s stay in the hospital will likely be a lengthy one. The good news is that as of right now, the docs don’t feel as if he’ll need to go into ICU. I’ll do my best to keep you updated on his condition. For those of you that are so inclined, we would greatly appreciate your prayers for his healing.
Thanks to all.
Guy (Jim’s Dad)
11/7/2006
The Left Announces It’s Agenda
From the HuffPo comment section:
If you win, your first order of business is impeachment. By: willie on November 07, 2006 at 03:26pm
***OK, but when you get to Hour 101 I want a vote to impeach Bush. Seriously.
By: rmwarnick on November 07, 2006 at 03:33pm***
Dear Nancy.
Thank you for being.
NOW, don’t go all “PC” on us.
INVESTIGATE-INVESTIGATE-INVESTIGATE.
I don’t want to hear the phrase “WE MUST GO FORWARD FROM HERE - NO NEED TO LOOK BACK”
If this country is going to be turned back to it’s pragmatically special self: WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT’S BEEN DONE “IN OUR NAME”.
PS: skip the Bush impeachment - GO STRAIGHT FOR THE CHENEY. That will cure manymany ills.
Onward!
Your constituent…..
By: mommadona on November 07, 2006 at 03:45pm
Hate to say I told you so…. but…
It’s early, with only 1% of precincts reporting, but the news is encouraging in TN.
Corker 54%
Ford 45%
And in Virginia with 32% reporting?
Allen 50%
Webb 49%
Remember, Exit Polls Are Typically Skewed To The Left
ABC’s early exit polls don’t look promising. But, I didn’t expect them to. Remember, exit polls have been proven to be skewed towards the Democrats by at least 6 points. Besides, if early attempts at apparent voter fraud are any indication, this might not be settled for quite awhile. Colorado voters, you still have 1:45 left to vote… get with it!
Can’t Win At The Ballot Box? Go To Court Part II
Another Dem request for extended hours here in Denver.
Democratic party leaders are planning to seek a two-hour extension for voting in Denver, due to massive computer problems which have created long lines, and kept many from casting their vote.
Party spokesman Brian Mason said a motion is being prepared, in response to “the huge problems in Denver this morning.”
The problems began right at 7 a.m. as computer problems at the voter-check in stations bogged down, creating a bottleneck in the first hour of voting as a rush to the polls overloaded the system.
Shortly after 8 a.m., election judges reported better service and lines began moving.
It strikes me that the left has turned into a bunch of pansies. The Iraqi’s that voted had to deal with long lines and suicide bombers, they didn’t get an extention.
Curious Stranger has provided some information for me. I need to amend some of my earlier remarks. A USAID report shows that 27% of Iraqi voters that arrived after 5 pm were allowed to vote. The problem is, that answer is not consistent with other answers in the study. 92% of polling places say that their polling ended at 5pm. 91% of the polling stations say they closed on time. So, what I will say is that if 27% were allowed to vote then I stand corrected.
That however doesn’t change my opinion of the left in this country. The inssesant whining from the left that they had to stand in line, that their polling places didn’t open on time stands in clear contrast to Iraqi’s facing suicide bombers on their way to vote.
Some Early Unofficial Turnout Numbers
Here are some early turnout numbers from the GOP via an email from GOP.com
NATIONAL
*Of the precincts that the RNC is monitoring turnout, we have a ½% turnout advantage over the 2004 turnout (GOP precincts are turning out at 32.9% of 2004 vote while DEM precincts are turning out at 32.5% of 2004 vote)*Many states like Colorado, Nevada, Arizona have 25% of votes cast before election day.
ARIZONA
*There were 60K more ballots submitted by Republicans before Election Day – and 41% of the state has already voted.
*In 2004 Exit Polling was off by 3.5% (they had it at 7%, actual results was 10.5%)
CONNECTICUT
*In the precincts that the RNC is tracking turnout, GOP precincts are turning out at 8% higher rate (42% to 34%) from the 2004 vote.
FLORIDA
*Republicans have a 140K advantage though absentee and early voting before Election Day – and 36% of the state has already voted.
*Exit polling got it wrong in 2000 and wrong in 2004 (4% off in 2004)
MARYLAND
*Republican absentees had pulled within even of Democrats before Election Day – in a state with a 2:1 dem registration advantage.
*Of the precincts we are tracking, Republican precincts are turning out 3% higher than Dem precincts off 2004 turnout (51-43).
MISSOURI
*Of the precincts we are tracking, Republican precincts are turning out 2.6% higher than Dem precincts (42.3% to 39.7%) based off of the 2004 vote.
*2004 exit polls had a 3% dem bias.
OHIO
*In 2004, exit polling was off by almost 9% (they had Kerry winning by almost 7%, we won by 2%)
TENNESSEE
*Not much to say here…turnout looks against us, no exit polling from ’04 and absentee data is from MT data
*In precinct turnout tracking, dem precincts are turning out 1% higher off 2004 vote.
*We estimate a 1% advantage on the absentee voting.
VIRGINIA:
*In 2004, exit polling had the presidential within 1%, yet President Bush won by over 8%.
*Of the precincts we are tracking, GOP precincts are turning out at 48% of 2004’s turnout while Dem precincts are only at 41%.
Courtesy of Hugh:
We all prepared for this year’s elections to be heated, particularly in PA with so many contested races. But even with teams of lawyers on the ground, I don’t think anyone anticipated what is going on right now. I expect this will be THE national story by 5pm today if not sooner.
37 counties in Pennsylvania use the ESS & Ivotronic.
These machines are experiencing massive failures.
If you vote for one candidate, the opposing candidate lights up.
Rendell votes are counting for Swann. Santorum votes are counting for Casey and so on
County Boards of Elections or the PA Dept of State are refusing to take action.
They don’t see the disaster that is coming.
Hundreds if not thousands of voters are alerting the authorities of these problems.
This may warrant a revote in these 37 counties.
Also, per Free Republic:
ALLENTOWN, Pa. - A man was arrested at a polling site Tuesday after election workers said he smashed an electronic voting machine with a paperweight, police said.
Michael Young, 43, of Allentown, will face charges of felony criminal mischief and tampering with voting machines, Assistant Police Chief Ronald Manescu said.
Authorities said they did not know the motive for the incident, which happened around 12:30 p.m. at the polling place inside the Good Shepherd Home.
“He came in here very peaceably and showed his ID, then he got on the machine and just snapped,” volunteer Gladys Pezoldt told The Morning Call of Allentown.
Witnesses said Young then sat down and waited for police, who arrested him without incident.
The machine’s screen was damaged and it was not immediately clear whether the votes recorded on the machine could be retrieved. More than 130 people had voted at the site by the time of the incident.
The machine is valued at more than $5,000, police said.
Can’t Win At The Ballot Box? Go To Court Part III
Dem lawyers have succeeded in keeping the polls open late in Indiana. They’re now asking for late voters to be able to cast regular ballots rather than provisional ballots. I’m not sure of all lf the ramafications of this, but, I would say that they are probably many… and lean in the Democrats favor.
From the article:
The Republican attorney for the Indiana Election Division has argued that voters in Delaware County must use provisional ballots after the polls close. Provisional ballots are not initially factored into vote totals. They are typically set aside and counted later if necessary.
Makes sense to me. I mean we should make sure that these folks haven’t already voted before we count the late ballots. Of course, the Dems are against it. They want them to be able to cast a “real” ballot.
Can’t Win At The Ballot Box? Go To Court!
Dem lawyers in Tennessee will go to court this afternoon to try to keep polling stations open late.
Lawyers with the Tennessee Democratic Party will file suit early this afternoon asking that voting hours be extended due to reports of infrastructure problems, a party spokesman said.
The party has received reports that some precincts lacked enough voting machines, voting machines that are not working, long lines and delays in the openings of polling paces, said the spokesman Mark Brown.
Heavily GOP Precinct Lacks Ballots
Ken Mehlman confirmed it to Hugh this morning. A precinct in New Mexico which is heavily weighted towards the GOP was only provided 150 paper ballots. No complaints yet in Dem precincts. Lawyers from both sides are on scene.
Just heard on the radio that a heavily republican precinct in NM district 1 (Wilson / Madrid race) had only 150 printed ballots this morining. As of 7 AM, there were over 200 people in line to vote. This is a mostly GOP-favorable precinct. The poll workers were actucally turning people away, telling them they’ll call them (yeah, right) when new ballots are available. Heather Wilson was interviewed and she said it is criminal to have so few ballots (150 for over 2000 registered voters) for this polling location (this problem wasn’t reported for Dem-leaning locations, of course). Lawyers for both sides are are on scene.
11/6/2006
Vote. vote. vote. vote. vote!! I know it’s a midterm, but as I’ve said before, tomorrow is about saving the progress we’ve made on so many fronts. It’s about saving tax cuts for every American (not just the rich — like the Democrat’s would like you to believe). It’s about preventing tax increases. It’s about saving the progress we’ve made in the GWOT. It’s about making more progress in the GWOT, including our efforts in Iraq. Please get out and vote for the serious party. Vote Republican!
I will try to post updates through out the day tomorrow. I am facing another case of pneumonia and another possible hospitalization right now, so I’m trying to take things easy.
11/5/2006
So Who Will The Senior Windbag From Mass. Work With Next, Bin Laden?
New papers that have been released from the cold war era show that Teddy “Chappaquiddick” Kennedy worked hand in hand with the KGB during the cold war to thwart US Policies.
(CNSNews.com) - While Soviet troops occupied Afghanistan in 1980, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) worked in close concert with high level Kremlin officials to alter the direction of U.S. policy, according to documents made available through a KGB defector.
Details concerning Kennedy’s correspondence with KGB agents are included in the writings of the late Vasiliy Mitrokhin who defected to Britain in 1992. The Mitrokhin papers highlight a meeting that took place at the behest of Kennedy between former Sen. John Tunney (D-Calif.) and KGB agents in Moscow on March 5, 1980.
As was previously reported by the Cybercast News Service Kennedy also subsequently made overtures to Soviet officials aimed at thwarting Reagan’s military buildup in the 1980s.
Kennedy had offered to help the Soviets organize a public relations campaign in the U.S. that would dilute support for Reagan’s policies. Once again, it was Tunney who traveled to Moscow on Kennedy’s behalf to relay the senator’s proposals.
The particulars of Kennedy’s proposals are discussed in a letter dated May 14, 1983, that was sent from the head of the KGB to Yuri Andropov, who was then general secretary. Romerstein acquired a copy of the letter from a contact in Moscow who had access to the Kremlin archives.
“The letter speaks to the degree of opposition and the lack of understanding liberals like Kennedy had toward Reagan’s policies,” said Lee Edwards, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
So, on the eve of a midterm election that will determine the fate if the war on terror we learn that in the past Ted Kennedy has worked with our enemies to thwart our national interests. In addition to Kennedy’s traitorous actions, we have Kerry’s slander of the troops, we have John Murtha calling our troops murderers, we have Dick Durbin , comparing our military to Nazi’s, Pol pot, and other horrible fascist organizations. We even have the enemy themselves using the rhetoric of the radical left in this country.
One question dear readers, is there anyone left out there that is seriously considering turning over the reigns of our wartime military to these nutballs?
Unfortunately, there are. I would submit to you though, that those on the very edge of deciding who they’re going to vote for need to rethink their decisions and consider the fate of not only our brave men and women overseas, but, indeed the fate of our nation.
You see, Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, and Ed Perlmutter here in Colorado portray themselves as centrists just like Salazar did. However, a vote for them — centrist or not — is a vote for Pelosi, Kennedy, Reid, and the rest of the nutter left. Most Senators — regardless of what they portray themselves as during the campaign — will caucus with the party that elected them.
11/4/2006
Rather than using the next few days to reflect on what jerk he was, and keep his mouth shut, Kerry has decided to unapologize for his remark last week by highlighting a editorial from the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Confederate Yankee provides the screen capture… you know, just in case he decided to take it down. Here’s the link to the editorial. Isn’t it clear yet that we can’t trust people like John Kerry with our nation’s security?
