11.01.2005

O Those Crazy Senate Dems!

Today Harry Reid, with a second from Dick "Turban" Durbin, forced the Senate into closed session to supposedly figure out something having to do with pre-war Iraq intelligence and the Fitz investigation, however unrelated the two may be.
Apparently Reid wants "answers" about the Libby indictment, which is ridiculous because the charges against him took place during the investigation, and Fitz has found that no crime was committed in the first place.
The whole thing was obviously a publicity stunt, but yet a very poor one, because it's not easy to spread your propaganda in a speech not released to the public. The Powerline guys seem to think that the Dems wouldn't want the voters to hear what they said.
I think the whole thing is backfiring majorly on Reid, because the video clip of him making the motion is getting a lot of airplay, and I must say his demeanor is so overblown and blatantly fake that few will take him seriously. He has a scary face that you can tell is masking a smile, as he thought he was executing some sort of coup.

10.25.2005

The MSM tries desperately to snap defeat from the jaws of victory.

This MSNBC story is an interesting profile in the twisted mindset of the mainstream media today. While it is significant that the MSN front page displays a coffin and a large headline proclaiming the '2000 deaths' milestone while putting the news about the passage of the Iraqi constitution at the bottom, the content of the constitution article is also disturbing.
Right from the get-go, the news is negative and defeatist. NBC makes no secret of promoting the view that the election was some sort of scam.
Iraq’s constitution was adopted by a majority in a fair vote during the Oct. 15 referendum, as Sunni Arab opponents failed to muster enough support to defeat it, election officials said Tuesday. A prominent Sunni politician called the balloting “a farce.”

"A prominent Sunni politician"? Please. But now it gets better! Completely ignoring the subject at hand, NBC realizes that this one story, however biased, might just be too much good news for the uneducated masses to digest all at once. So the second paragraph is totally seperate from the rest of the story, and has no relation to the headline other than the fact that the event takes place in the same country.
The U.S. military announced the deaths of two Marines in fighting with insurgents last week in Baghdad, bringing to 1,999 the number of American service members killed since the war started in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The third paragraph continues to insinuate that the elections are a fraud and refuses to utter a single sentence on the subject without going negative in some way.
The referendum results, announced after a 10-day audit following allegations of fraud, confirmed previous indications that Sunni Arabs failed to produce the two-thirds “no” vote they would have needed in at least three of Iraq’s 18 provinces to defeat the constitution.

Finally we get a neutral part, quickly followed by an odd statement that tries to somehow twist the passage of the Constitution as a bad thing.
The charter is considered a major step in Iraq’s democratic reforms, clearing the way for the election of a new, full-term parliament on Dec. 15. Such steps are important in any decision about the future withdrawal of U.S.-led forces.

However, some fear the victory, which came despite a large turnout by Sunni Arabs to try to defeat it, could enrage many members of the minority and fuel their support for the country’s Sunni-led insurgency.

That seems pretty silly to me. It almost seems to be saying: "Hey, let's not pass the constitution because if we do, the people who opposed it in the first place will be even more angry." That line of thinking passes for news these days? The rest of the article devotes about 3 paragraphs to the positive interpretation of the vote by the American and British governments, and the UN elections chief. But then it ends with two sections devoted to the protests of one Sunni politician and the details of the provinces that rejected the constitution.
Altogether, it's hard to believe this biased trash is considered journalism.

10.17.2005

Finally a new Governor poll!

The Chicago Tribune has a new poll out testing both Blagojevich's support (or lack thereof) and the potential of various GOP primary candidates. I'd like to see some more polls on head to head matchups, but the info given will suffice for now.

On the Blago side, only 35% of voters said they would like to see him reelected, and under 40% are satisfied with the job he has done. Since the conventional wisdom is that a candidate with ratings below 50% is vulnerable, these numbers bode well for Republicans. Unfortunately Blago already has $14 million to spend attacking his opponent and defending himself.

On the GOP side, the poll indicates Judy Baar Topinka would have a run-away win in the primary. Unfortunately, it's not at all certain that she will run, and my sense is that she doesn't really want the governor's job. Oberweis comes in 2nd, and would be the front runner if Baar Topinka opted out. I don't know what it is, but I get bad vibes from him, and the rich, fiery brand of conservatism doesn't strike me as sellable in a general election. The two conservatives I like, State Sens. Bill Brady and Rauschenberger seem to be splitting the conservative primary vote. Topinka's lead may be insurmountable, but without her I think Bill Brady needs to drop out and run for Lt. Gov. to help Rauschenberger defeat Oberweis in a primary. I think Rauschenberger could win, and it would be no harder for him to win than Oberweis. Joe Birkett and Ron Gidwitz are meaningless, money-wasting sideshows, polling less than 5%. Both need to drop out and consider runs for other state offices.

10.10.2005

Merkel to take over as German Chancellor

Angela Merkel of the more conservative Christian Democrat Party in Germany will become chancellor after a tight election, nudging out Gerhard Schroeder. She campaigned on free-market economic reform, which Germany (a big welfare state) desperately needs. She has been compared to Margaret Thatcher, but unfortunately her party didn't get an outright majority in the election, so the CDU is making major concessions to make sure Merkel becomes the leader.

So this certainly leads to the thought, if the the US acted so unilaterally in Iraq, and most of the people in other countries hate us, how is it that Shroeder (and soon to be Jacques Chirac), leaders of the antiwar sentiment, can't win relection? How come supposedly anti-US populations continue to elect pro-US leaders like Tony Blair, John Howard, and Merkel?

10.04.2005

Shelley Capito throws away the WV Senate Race

Shelly Capito has decided she will not run for Senate against 87 year old Robert Byrd, meaning that the WV seat will be safely held by him. Read the story for the details. Apparently she is waiting for the seat to be open 6 years down the road, when the race will be much easier.

While Byrd might have won anyways, the race needed to be tight to keep the Dems spending in incumbent held races. Now they are free to spend more money on offense, something the likes of Santorum and Jim Talent don't need.

And Mrs. Dole, how could your recruiting possibly get worse? And how come Chuck Schumer is out-fundraising you?

At this point, the GOP is looking at losing Santorum, fighting hard for Talent in MO and Chaffee in RI, and probably winning in MN, with fighting chances in MD, and to a lesser extent, MI. Suddenly, a +2/3 situation is looking like a +0/1. Not good, Liz, not good.

10.02.2005

No go for Hoeven

Looks like Kent Conrad is going to win reelection in ND. Republican Governor Hoeven could have won, and was heavily recruited by Karl Rove, but in the end decided not too. Why can't the GOP win just ONE FRIGGIN RECRUIT? I don't know but if Steele doesn't run in MD my head is going to implode, and at that point I really would be worried about the GOP losing seats in 2006.

9.30.2005

Can't say I didn't see it coming

Edgar has officially declined to run for governor. I don't blame the guy, but I wish he'd stop appearing to consider races that he invariably declines to enter. Well I don't really know who my next choice is, I'll need to see some more polling numbers. And I'm gonna throw out this idea, to continue the cycle, how about Edgar for Senate vs. Durbin in '08?