The Corner 'Pub

O Those Crazy Senate Dems!

2005-11-01T22:23:00.000-06:00

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.

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

2005-10-25T18:44:00.000-05:00

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.

Finally a new Governor poll!

2005-10-17T17:42:00.000-05:00

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.

Merkel to take over as German Chancellor

2005-10-10T14:37:00.000-05:00

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?

Shelley Capito throws away the WV Senate Race

2005-10-04T17:03:00.000-05:00

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.

No go for Hoeven

2005-10-02T21:26:00.000-05:00

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.

Can't say I didn't see it coming

2005-09-30T22:42:00.000-05:00

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?

Shed a tear, hope for the best.

2005-09-29T21:33:00.000-05:00

The Draft Jim Edgar folks are putting out the word that Jim will decline to run tomorrow at noon. Whatever his decision, it will be made tomorrow at noon. After I was convinced he was seriously considering a run, I was very enthusiastic for his candidacy, given that he had a suberb chance of winning and a good record to run on. Alas, all is not lost, but just the same, I don't suspect 5th period is going to be a happy time tomorrow.

Maybe this is paranoid and I'm thinking a little too much, but...

2005-09-22T17:47:00.000-05:00

When the NBC nightly news reviews the stock markets, why do they use orange instead of green for the color on days where the markets gain? The background is dark blue, so it's not a matching issue. Is the MSM going that far to keep the people from realizing how the good the economy really is?

A quick look at where the 2006 Senate races are headed

2005-09-20T17:38:00.000-05:00

Here's a good thread on Free Republic about the 2006 Senate races as a whole. Here was my post in response to the questions posed in the thread:

Will Hoeven run in ND?

I don't know, but I hope so.

Can the GOP actually take one from the Great Lakes states?

Kennedy will most likely take Minnesota. Butler in Michigan is a long shot against Stabenow, he needs fundraising. No way GOP can win Wisconsin

Is Ohio REALLY in play?

No.

Is Santorum already dead and buried?

No, he can be saved, but it will will cost a lot of money, and I personally would like to see Rove take over his campaign.

Is Florida trending GOP, and can we pick-up Nelson's seat?

I don't know about trending, but I would say it's doubtful that Harris could beat him. Rep. Foley maybe could win if he wasn't forced to spend all his money to beat Harris in a primary.

Can the GOP win back Jefford's seat? Who could do it?

Not sure, but probably not. I think the Lt. Governor of Vermont (R) just declared like yesterday, but I haven't seen any polling. But I think a well funded candidate has a chance seeing as how Sanders is independent.

Is Byrd an inevitable winner in a state that might be renamed after him in the next ten years?

No, but it is going to be harder than it should be. Capito is a good candidate and one would think that the more WV really knows about Byrd, the less they will want to vote for him.

Is there a true dark horse race out there where the GOP can pull an unexpected upset?

I think Steele in MD is too good to be called a dark horse, but Cardin is a worthy challenge. Butler in Michigan perhaps, or maybe even a challenger to Cantwell in WA. The real dark horse would be the guy running against Chaffee in the GOP primary beating him and then winning the general election, but that horse is so dark I can't see it happening.

What will the final tally be?

Worst case: GOP loses PA, MT, TN (Frist's seat now) and one of MO, RI, or WY. All dems hold GOP -4 (less than 10% chance of this). GOP STILL HAS MAJORITY.

Best Case: Santorum pulls the miracle off, GOP gains MN, WV, MD, ND and one of WA, MI, VT, or FL. GOP +5 (Making the Rinos more irrelevant)

Most likely case: Santorum goes down, Chaffee wins in RI, Kennedy takes MN for pubs, Burns holds on in MT, Nelson wins in FL, Stabenow holds MI, Cantwell reelected in WA, Byrd wins in WV, Pub candidate holds TN, Hoeven wins ND, Socialist Bernie wins VT (we'll count him as a dem), Nelson keeps NE, and Steele beats Cardin for the MD seat, giving us: GOP +2

I don't see the GOP gaining more than 3 seats or losing seats in 2006.

Edgar: 50-50 Chance

2005-09-08T21:32:00.000-05:00

I never like to hear that there is a 50-50 chance of things. Because especilly in politics, it always seem to go against me. This kind of makes me think that he is leaning against running, but who knows? The Republicans have failed miserably in Senate candidate recruiting, I'd at least like to see a good guy like Edgar make a come back in one of the hot governor races.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist Dies

2005-09-03T22:26:00.000-05:00

I never saw this coming. Apparently it was quite sudden. RIP.

LaHood playing the money game

2005-08-31T19:53:00.000-05:00

It all starts to make sense now. It was somewhat unexplained why Rep. Ray LaHood dropped out of the governor's race., but this article helps us see the logic. LaHood made a substantial amount of money in fundraising even while being doused with rumors that he wasn't serious about winning the mansion back. He dropped out very soon, and since I believed him to be a possible primary winner, I couldn't work it out until now. It appears LaHood had meetings with Jim Edgar about a possible run, and LaHood encouraged him to run. LaHood raised money in order to spend it. He will give his donors a refund if they wish, but will spend the rest on support of other races, including what he says would be "a big check" to Edgar if he runs. From this perspective it appears that LaHood may be looking for higher office, but not the governor's seat. He probably figured that he couldn't win against a well-funded Blago, then set his sights on Dick Durbin's Senate seat up for reelection in '08. He figured he could help Edgar win the governors mansion back, then have a strong duo of Governor Edgar and Speaker Hastert to help him defeat Durbin, whose poll numbers are sliding. Of course, LaHood could just be doing to do his best to defeat Blago, and maybe he just has fun campaigning across the state. But I personally don't think that is a career politician's thinking.

Sidenote: In the article, LaHood says that he thinks Edgar will run, while a spokesperson for Rauschenberger complains that donors are holding back until Edgar makes up his mind. I can't decide whether that is for real, or just Rauschenberger's excuse for poor early fundraising.

This one is self explanatory.

2005-08-26T19:00:00.000-05:00

I'm not agreeing or endorsing this little chart here, but I must say those guys over at Free Republic can be a hoot. Sorry for the pixelation. If I try to make it any bigger it pushes it down the page to below where the links are. If you are having trouble reading it though, go here. You'll have to blow it up with the right bottom corner button, but that should be needed only for people who are too blind to be using the internet anyways.

LaHood drops out, Oberweis attacks Kjellander

2005-08-20T12:05:00.000-05:00

Mostly bad news here. I thought LaHood was looking strong. The article explains the Oberweis bit, which I really don't have anything to say about, other than that the act was quite tasteless and helps to authenticate a negative feeling I had about Oberweis. O'Malley, Bill Brady, and Birkett need to drop out now, they are going nowhere. The GOP needs to fill out a ticket for other offices than governor, and Brady, Rauschenberger, and Birkett can fill those roles. Judy Baar Topinka needs to get her butt in gear and stop acting like she has the whole thing nailed down, because she needs to have money to fend off Oberweis and Gidwitz. Jim Edgar needs to make a decision soon. Baar Topinka has said she would drop out if Edgar entered the race. I can't see Oberweis overtaking Edgar in a primary, but you never know. So in conclusion (from polls numbers, current campaigning, and fundraising numbers), I have belatedly come to the same conclusion Karl Rove did months ago: A Edgar-Baar Topinka ticket is our best hope. Judy would face a very uphill battle against Blagojevich, but with Edgar the odds are much better. I've become quite sure that Oberweis would fall flat on his face if he won the primary.

Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world

2005-08-20T11:33:00.000-05:00

We need more of this gambling and Ansari X-Prize type stuff in the science world. It certainly would stop all the crazy, unproven studies out there if they had to put money on whether their conclusion was true. I bet the Russians win!

I love it: John Roberts hates Michael Jackson as much as I do!

2005-08-20T11:27:00.000-05:00

Since the Washington Post doesn't have anything else to do, and since they are desperate to get some dirt on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, they have published an article about 3 of his memos while working for the Reagan administration that condemn the presidential act of giving an award to Michael Jackson for his work against drunk driving. I love this part in particular:

"If one wants the youth of America and the world sashaying around in garish sequined costumes, hair dripping with pomade, body shot full of female hormones to prevent voice change, mono-gloved, well, then, I suppose 'Michael,' as he is affectionately known in the trade, is in fact a good example. Quite apart from the problem of appearing to endorse Jackson's androgynous life style, a Presidential award would be perceived as a shallow effort by the President to share in the constant publicity surrounding Jackson. . . . The whole episode would, in my view, be demeaning to the President."

Rasmussen gets really bored

2005-08-19T14:22:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen has done a poll on Cindy Sheehan. She is found to have a favoribility rating of 35% (much lower than even, *gasp*, President Bush!). It would be even lower if the MSM ever bothered to report what Drudge does.

Cindy goes totally insane!

2005-08-18T14:51:00.000-05:00

The Drudge Report has brought to my attention some very outrageous statements made by that wacko anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan. Cindy's son was killed in Iraq, and she got to meet with president Bush. Though she said then that she was against the war, she made clear at the time that her opinion of the President was very high, and that she was pleased with his sentiments during the meeting. A while ago, she did a total 180, making absurd insults at the President, then began an anti-war protest outside his Crawford, TX ranch. Her family has practically disowned her for her actions, and her husband has filed divorce papers over the matter. Cindy disgusts me in the usual way of vulgar, irrational leftists, but also because of the dishonor and downright exploitation of invoking her son's death. Her comments today and in the past are so crazy that I really have no comment, because if you can't understand what is wrong with them, then you are beyond help:

"We are not waging a war on terror in this country. We’re waging a war of terror. The biggest terrorist in the world is George W. Bush!"

So declared Cindy Sheehan earlier this year during a rally at San Francisco State University.

Sheehan, who is demanding a second meeting with Bush, stated: "We are waging a nuclear war in Iraq right now. That country is contaminated. It will be contaminated for practically eternity now."

Sheehan unleashed a foul-mouth tirade on April 27, 2005:

"They’re a bunch of fucking hypocrites! And we need to, we just need to rise up..." Sheehan said of the Bush administration.

"If George Bush believes his rhetoric and his bullshit, that this is a war for freedom and democracy, that he is spreading freedom and democracy, does he think every person he kills makes Iraq more free?"

"The whole world is damaged. Our humanity is damaged. If he thinks that it’s so important for Iraq to have a U.S.-imposed sense of freedom and democracy, then he needs to sign up his two little party-animal girls. They need to go to this war."

"We want our country back and, if we have to impeach everybody from George Bush down to the person who picks up dog shit in Washington, we will impeach all those people."

Ahhhh! The glories of Reaganomics!

2005-08-15T13:26:00.000-05:00

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office is predictly a sharply lower deficit for the current fiscal year. The Bush economic policy is similar to Reaganomics: Increase spending by making tax cuts. The increased deficit forces Congress to cut spending. Final result: the deficit comes down, the economy goes up, and the size of government becomes smaller.
I for one am not quite ready to buy the line of all those who say that Bush is an out of control spender. Sure that transportation bill was filled with pork, but if Bush hadn't threatened to veto it, it would have been even more expensive. I think I've come to the conclusion that the nature of Congress is to spend, spend, spend, no matter which party is in control. It is the duty of the president and the small group of true small govenment conservatives in Congress to stop it. Reaganomics basically was a way around the roadblocks of a porking, spend-happy Democratic controlled Congress. Unfortunately Bush has had to do the same to the Republican controlled Congress.

The Howard Dean Quote-A-Thon

2005-08-15T13:16:00.000-05:00

The next round up here got a short mention by the Washington Times. Since it is relatively brief, I will just post the whole thing here.

"Dean's latest
Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman who was the hero of his party's anti-war wing before his gaffe-prone 2004 presidential candidacy crashed and burned in Iowa, still doesn't think the Iraqis are better off with dictator Saddam Hussein out of power and in prison.
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
Mr. Dean was the guy who said right after Saddam was found hiding in a "spider hole" that his capture by U.S. troops "has not made America safer," a statement ridiculed and condemned by most of his Democratic rivals at the time.
In a brief statement yesterday, the Republican National Committee said, "Dean's wild assertion that Iraqi women would be better off living under Saddam Hussein than democracy is not only counterproductive to meaningful debate, it demeans the hard work of American servicemen and women serving in Iraq."

TheDrudge Report also picked up on this.

The most fun I've ever had at College Confidential

2005-08-14T20:07:00.000-05:00

I feel like a dweeb posting a link to a thread on a discussion forum, but I'm very proud of my work there. I'm not proud of highjacking the poor person's thread, but these six pages basically sum up the argument over affirmative action. This illustrates the principles of liberal indoctrination I just read in the newest D'Souza book. The people on the forum defending AA didn't counteract anything I said. As D'Souza siad: If you ask a liberal professor about the Communist contras in Nicaragua, they wouldn't tell you that the contras weren't Communist. They wouldn't argue with you. They just stare at you as if to say "Are you from Iowa?". If you persist, they might call you an uneducated racist and then ignore you. No matter what, the result is that they don't even have to defend their position, but eventually you are conditioned not to question their liberal authority. Matt 1, liberal elite 0.

The least noticed of the UN related scandals

2005-08-13T21:22:00.000-05:00

The link is to an article called "The Theology of Global Warming" by James Schlesinger in the Wall Street Journal is a good overview of the current situation of the debate around global warming. I now pause to recommend State of Fear by Michael Crichton both as an excellent read and an accurate source of information on the subject. Schlesinger notes the scientific data behind global warming, the incredibly biases MSM reporting, and the most important biased source, the UN itself. We have discovered on the foreign policy front that the UN is corrupt and undependable for good actions and solutions, and in my opinion, that is increasingly the same situation the rest of the UN is in.

The best site ever! Watch ALL the old campaign commercials!

2005-08-11T13:08:00.000-05:00

I love this site! Watch every TV commercial for the all the presidential campaigns since 1952. I reccommend the musical ones for Adlai Stevenson and Eisenhower in '52, and the two most famous ones of all time, the '64 Lyndon Johnson nuclear blast/girl with flower ad, and the '84 Reagan bear ad. They are all good. Also, look at how much younger W. looked in his 2000 ads.

Gubernatorial update

2005-08-04T20:54:00.000-05:00

Well I'm back from the whiskey-filled wilderness called the Upper Peninsula. And there is a plethora of news articles about the 2006 governor's race. It seems the leading GOP fundraisers are so far: Gidwitz, Baar Topinka, and LaHood. Gidwitz has over $3 million, and Topinka and LaHood are over a million. Oberweis is midpack with about $800,000, and Rauschenberger and Brady lag behind with greater than $500,000 a piece. It doesn't bode well for Rauschenberger, he is virtually tied with necomer and lightweight Bill Brady. On the other hand, Judy Baar Topinka hasn't even begun anything resembling a campaign right now, yet has lots of money. I don't know much about Gidwitz, but something tells me that despite the cash, he would flop in a general election.

RSCC opens fire

2005-07-30T21:11:00.000-05:00

The first sling of mud in the 2006 elections has been flung. The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee has announced an ad campaign against sitting Senator Robert Byrd, who has been reelected 8 times in his home state of West Virginia. Since Byrd has not explicitly announced his bid for reelection, and is getting quite old (87 years), I believe this move by the GOP is made in effort to show him how serious a challenge he will get, and hence influence him to step down.

Bill Frist throws curveball at White House

2005-07-29T11:03:00.000-05:00

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has endorsed embryonic stell cell research, putting a rift between him and President Bush, who has threatened to veto the bill currently waiting a vote in the Senate. Frist, a doctor, made a speech that puzzled me as to his position. He is using phrases like "within ethical bounds", and saying "I give huge moral significance to the human embryo, it is nascent human life", to come across as centrist on the issue and, well, confused. I believe Pres. Bush has made clear he will only allow research on embryos that will be discarded if not used for science. Frist's position on when to use the cells is not clear, but we can assume he remains against creation of embryos for the sole purpose of destroying them. So what does this mean?

Well, since the beginning here I have tried to avoid '08 presidential politics as much as possible, but this announcement screams for commentary. Prior to this announcement, Frist was considered the frontrunner among the vital religious conservative vote in the '08 primary. Sen. George Allen (R-Virginia)(who has a convoluted abortion stance) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) were also courting this moral vote. Rudy Guiliani and Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona), though leading polls including all Republicans at this time, are probably going to have to work hard to win, given that they are not as conservative as the primary voters. The leadership establishment seems to like Allen best at this time. Brownback could emerge as the candidate of the religious right instead of Frist, which would make his run much more potent.

But perhaps the condemnation of the comments by the Christian Defense Coalition was exactly what Frist wanted. He, like Hillary, might be playing the centrist game, figuring that a candidate labeled as "the candidate of the religious right" would fail in a general election. If you have to split with the base on an issue, stem cell research is probably the least damaging to you. Thought I suspect that most Republicans would support using embryonic stem cells that were scheduled to be destroyed anyways, the argument against it is somewhat of a slippery slope. I will leave you with this quote from the MSN story linked above, and would like you the readers to tell me the difference between the positions, because I can't figure it out:

When Bush announced his position on stem cell research, he said the government should pay only for research of stem cell colonies, or lines, that had already been created at that time, so that the “life or death” decision had already been made.

Frist said additional stem cells should be used, so long as there was a careful process of informed consent in which the parents had decided that the embryos should be discarded, not adopted or frozen.

State Sen. Bill Brady to announce run for governor

2005-07-25T12:50:00.000-05:00

State Sen. Bill Brady, of the Bloomington area, will announce his candidacy on Wed. and Thurs. in various locations around Illinois. Click the headline to go to his campiagn site. All I know about Brady is that he was previously mentioned as a possible candidate, and he is pro-life and against embryonic stem cell research. I believe I read something about him having a good relationship with Rauschenberger, also being a candidate trying to play up his budget skills. The big question with Brady is how much money he has raised. If, as I suspect, we find Rauschenberger and Brady nearly on the same page issue-wise, one has to drop out if either wants to win. Perhaps a Steve/Brady ticket of some sort? Brady seems to be the only fresh face on the scene in the race so far, which may help some primary voters sick of the self-destructive tendencies of the state GOP.
In other thoughts, what is Judy Baar Topinka doing? At this point I wouldn't be terribly surprised if she didn't even run, or jockeyed for a spot on the GOP ticket as Lt. Governor.

Could Durbin be brought down?

2005-07-23T13:16:00.000-05:00

Dick Durbin is up for reelection in 2008. This cites a poll showing Durbin's approval rating at 50% favorable, 34% unfavorable BEFORE the outrageous Gitmo remarks. And it looks like there may be a plethora of good candidates to run against him. It could be sweet revenge to the Dem leadership if they take down Santorum next year!

New Polls throw wrenches in my analyses

2005-07-22T13:13:00.000-05:00

Rasmussen has the latest Pennsylvania Senate race poll. At first glance it looks really bad for Rick Santorum: 41% for Santorum, 52% for Bob Casey. But if we look at the internals, we find weird things that my be good or bad for Santorum. We see Casey garnering 85% umong self-described liberals, and 62% of moderates. But Santorum only gets 66% of conservatives. Now we could look at that as being a bad sign, but I thnk it is good that Santorum has much room for improvement umong conservatives. Being one of the most conservative Senators there is, this should be done easily. Also, Casey's unfavorability rating is really low at 27%, while Santorum's is 43%. Driving up the negatives will be easier for Santorum to do to Casey thn for Casey to do to Santorum. In fact, since conservatives are going to be the key to the election, if Casey makes negative attacks, it may hurt Casey more than it would help him. The internals show that Santorum needs to use Rovian strategies to pump up his base and use GOTV efforts to win in a state he should probably lose. And also of note, Santorum has raised twice as much as Casey to date.

And a new poll of the Florida Senate race might not be as bad as Rove, Bush and co. seem to think. A Strategic Vision poll, which RCP often calls (with some debate) a Republican polling firm because a lot of their clients are Republican, puts the race at Nelson 48%, Katherine Harris 40%. That, my friends, is a winnable race. Gov. Bush and his allies have been pushing House Speaker Alan Bense, who, in a Republican primary is down 59% to 13%, and polls the same against Nelson as Harris, except that in a Nelson vs. Bense matchup, there are more undecideds. Harris's negative ratings are high, supposedly the reason the GOP leadership wants to run the unknown Bense, but Nelson's negatives are high also. Since I believe Harris can raise enough money to at least win a primary, I think it would be better to let her run unopposed. She actually polls similar against Nelson to anyone except retired Gen. Tommy Franks, who has flatly declined to run. The dilemma to getting the slightly better candidates against Nelson is that they cannot win a primary against Harris. I can't believe I'm taking issue with Karl Rove on political strategy, but I think it's time for both Bushs to suck it up and get ready to endorse Harris.

EDIT: Actually, now that I look at it, Toni Jennings, considered a gubernatorial candidate, polls within 6 points of Nelson with a large segment undecided. Jennings has the fundraising power and name recognition to possibly beat Harris, and he should try. Congressman Mark Foley could be a possibility also. I think that if Rove doesn't want Harris, Bense isn't the best option. But there are NO indications that Foley or Jennings would even consider running against Harris.

It's Roberts!

2005-07-22T13:11:00.000-05:00

A good pick. The media really had me thinking it would be a woman, but I guess that was a ploy by the White House to throw the Dems off. In any case, Roberts will make it through, and if the Dems try to filibuster, it will be seriously damaging to them, with or eithout successful initiation of the constitutional option.

Supreme Court Nominee being announced tonight!

2005-07-19T13:07:00.000-05:00

White House Press Seceretary Scott McLellan has announced that at 8 P.M. central time, President Bush will announce his pick. It is looking like he will pick a woman, probably Edith Clement, who should be confirmed fairly easily, but does not have a strong and proven conservative track record. Al Gonzales seems totally out of the picture. I can't wait to see Ted Kennedy explode!

An outrage, a scandal, a total DISGRACE to the art of journalism

2005-07-19T12:52:00.000-05:00

Well I got my Newsweek today, and boy was I, for lack of a better word, pissed. I couldn't have found a more twisted, biased, and downright false magazine even in the tabloid section. I know that the MSM is very liberal, and Newsweek as well, but devoting a whole magazine to a crap story just to bring down Karl Rove? They spend pages theorizing on how Rove could have leaked (though the whole time they just assume he did do it) even though at this moment in time we (people that know the facts) know fairly certainly that this is not the case. They go on about how Rove supposedly "leaked the name of a covert CIA agent" (which Valerie Plame was not), how he could face jail time (which he could not, under current law, since Plame was not covert at all, in fact most of her neighbors knew she worked at the CIA, and she also appeared in Vanity Fair magazine), the testimony of her her husband to the grand jury (where they forget to report that he admitted that she was not undercover) and completely ignore his testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee (which found unanimously that he had lied on several occasions about his mission to Niger and other important facts). In all truth, the only evidence aginst Rove is that when a reporter told him about the Plame story over the phone, Rove replied, "Yeah, I heard that, too", apparently a reference to what a different reporter told him. The silliness of the whole controversy is that there is no evidence against Rove, nor any evidence that the leaking of Plame's name (which the media and many others knew before the supposed leak) actually caused any damage, so tell me, Newsweek, the White House Press Corp, the NYT, why can't you at least lie about something important, like the Supreme Court of Social Security reform?

Nobody yet knows who really "leaked" Valerie Plame's name, but two things are certain: Wilson is using this as a political attack against Bush, just like he tried to do with his Niger story during the 2004 election (which he lied about), and that Rove is innocent of any crime.

Doh! I forgot one

2005-07-17T14:51:00.000-05:00

In the 2006 Senate post, I forgot to mention that Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) is not running for reelection in 2006, presumably to focus on a presedential bid. Of the current candidates, the top Republican has out-fundraised the top Dem by $1.2 million, but I can't find any polls, so I will assume that this is going to be a close race at the moment.

A few more, random, disconnected '06 thoughts...

2005-07-16T14:27:00.000-05:00

Well I've returned from schol bowl camp, where I discovered that there actually are people my age who are interested in politics, ranging from a scary looking, unshaven, scraggly-haired guy reading an Al Franken book to people who look like hippies whering Bush shirts. The world is a strange place. So after catching up with the world, here goes:

Governor's Race:
In an article I can't find, it was mentioned that Steve Rauschenberger got a DUI in 1997. This is not good for his candidicy, even though it is apparently a well known fact already. His fundraising report looked good, with $800,000 I believe.

Ron Gidwitz: I previously wrote him off as a candidate, but his fundraising is very high, although much of it is from him and his family. His biggest problem is name recognition, and he in full campaigning mode already to combat this.

Judy Baar Topinka: Is she running or not? She hasn't done anything that has got any press, and you here nothing about her activities. She may do well in polls, but she needs to step up to the plate if she wants to win. She hasn't updated her website since winning reelection, and looking at her site, I just had a revelation: Judy Baar Topinka is really, really, ugly.

Senate Races:
MD: It appears from finance reports that Lt. Gov. Michael Steele has amassed 5 million dollars for a run for Senate, 5 times as much as his closest Dem competitor.

MT: Incumbent Conrad Burns (R), who was thought by some to be a vulnerable target for Dems. Finance reports show that he has 8 times as much money as any Dem thinking about running against him.

WA: Rossi has officailly said he won't run, bumping up Maria Cantwell's chances to retain her seat.

NE: Republicans are lining up to challenge moderate Ben Nelson, for who I have much respect. The White House continues to make overtures to him for his vote on several issues, so it isn't likely the GOP candidate will get much national support.

RI: Chafee looks somewhat weak in the polls, and few self-respecting Republicans really care whether he is ousted. Nevertheless, I'd like to see him win, unless the Dem he is running against is named Zell Miller.

Lane Evans: A disgrace to the 17th District

2005-07-09T13:03:00.000-05:00

I've never like Lane Evans, but aside from a very liberal voting record, I can't say I've really had anything to complain abut. Until now. The good old Daily Gazette carries this AP story about an illegal second campaign fund set up by Evans. Evans claims that the fund was entirely legal. The Federal Election Commission has found otherwise. So how does Evans explain this? He claims that the FEC is a "Republican leaning organization", without bothering to cite how that would even be possible. Then he goes on about completely unrelated topics, trying to equate the ruling with racism with these awkardly put sentences:

"I think it's part of a problem happening with minorities, for example, being intimidated from going out to work for candidates, Mexican-Americans who are citizens being harassed and turned away from the voting booth," said Evans. "There's something wrong with America when you have institutions that are so clearly out of touch with the people."

He also tried to compare the efforts of the fund to those of people risking their lives to register blacks to vote during the civil rights movement. Wait, back up Lane. How again did your campaign workers risk their lives?
Can anyone tell me what all that is supposed to mean? The FEC is racist because it punished you for spending half a million dollars in illegally raised funds, including $200,000 from unions? Arguments by non sequitar don't work for us, Lane, and yes, the rules apply to you too, not just Republicans. Best of luck to Lane Evans' next opponent in 2006.

EDIT: I've posted the story along with my comments over at FR, and a Freeper noted that according the the FEC website, members of the six person panel are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. But it is illegal for more than 3 members to be of the same political party, and there must be four votes to make decisions. Therefore, it is impossible for the FEC to be Republican leaning.

Also, in response to the accusations about Mexican-Americans being harassed and turned away from the voting booth, is there ANY evidence of this whatsoever. The only way I could possibly imagine this happening is if the person couldn't provide proper ID to show that they are a citizen, in which case turning them away is the correct and legal thing to do.

In seemingly dark times, a look at the big picture.

2005-07-07T13:07:00.000-05:00

Simply the most uplifting article for Republicans that I have read in a long time. It's called "Cheer Up, Conservatives!".

A prelude to '06

2005-07-07T12:53:00.000-05:00

Well besides the IL governor's race and a brief tangent on the Florida Senate race, I haven't gotten into the 2006 races much. The link is to RCP's overview of all of the 2006 elections.
But first off, there are two gubernatorial races going on in 2005. Republican Doug Forrestor faces a slighty uphill battle against US Senator Jon Corzine. In Virginia, Republican Jerry Kilgore, a former attorney general, leads Democratic Lt. Gov. Timothy Kaine. The GOP should win at least one, and both seats were previously held by Democrats, so a tie is the worst case scenario.
The 2006 gubernatorial races are not so rosy. The math is heavily against a Republican, simply because 22 seats currently held by Republicans are up for re-election, while only 14 seats are currently held by Dems. Also, in seven of the 22 Republican held states, the incumbent is term limited, meaning an open race. Currently I see 4-6 Dem held races that may be competitive, with 7-10 possibly competitive races in the Republican held states. Overall, the conventional wisdom doesn't look good for Republicans, but a lot of the news out about the governor's races bodes well for Republicans, so it may not turn out as bad as expected.
The Senate races, much more important to me as they change national politics that effect everyone in the country, are a tough nut to crack right now. There are 15 Republican controlled seats up for 2006, and 17 Democratic seats. This looks like tossup scenario, until you look down the list and discover that while there are perhaps 8-9 potentially competitve races in currently Dem held seats, including an open race in Maryland, and possibly an open race in New Jersey if Corzine wins the governor's mansion, there are only 1-3 Republican controlled seats that could possibly change hands. Now lets look at some individual Senate matchups:

MI: Incumbent Senator Debbie Stabenow (D) facing the winner of a somwhat crowded GOP primary. She polls better than I expected against most opponents, but with significant money and the right candidate, she could be brought down.

WA: Incumbent Sen. Maria Cantwell (D)is probably the weakest Dem incumbent running for reelection. She polls slighty above the likely challengers. But against Dino Rossi, the failed gubernatorial candidate, she loses by more that the margin of error. Unfortunately, despite heavy pressure from the national GOP, he has indicated that he wants to run for governor again, and wouldn't move his family to Washington.

FL: Incumbent Sen. Ben Nelson (D) likely faces Rep. Katherine Harris, infamous for her role in the 2000 election as Florida secretary of state. Harris polls in the 30s against Nelson, a former astronaut, and her negatives are so high that the national GOP is looking elsewhere, despite her superior fundraising ability. Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman have reportedly been encouraging state House speaker Allan Bense to run, even though he has little name recognition and actually polls 2 points below Harris. It is their belief that Harris cannot win, given her past.
But Harris leads Bense 54 to 6 according to a Qiunnipiac poll.

MD: An open race where Lt. Gov. Michael Steele will likely be the Republican candidate. GOPers are hoping for a bloody Dem primary to soften up the winner. Steele, an African American, is very capable of winning, and this is so far a great chance for the GOP to gain a seat.

MN: One term incumbent Mark Dayton (D) will not seat reelection. Al Franken thought about entering the race, but decided against it. The Dem will face a hard fought race against the winner of the GOP primary. I'm not all that familiar with this race, but it could be a very good chance to win, given that it is one of only two open Senate races in 2006.

WV: In 2006, incumbent Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D), a former leader of the KKK, will be 89 years old. If he doens't retire, then health and age could play a major issue in his reelection. He is way more liberal than West Virginians, but manages to get reelected thanks to massive amount pork barrel projects totalling millions of dollars. The winner of the GOP primary will be strong, and this race, while sort of a backburner at the moment, could heat up soon.

PA: Incumbent Sen. Rick Santorum (R), the number 3 Republican in the Senate, is facing the fight of his life against Pennsylvania state treasurer Bob Casey, Jr. Currently, Santorum polls 7 points behind Casey, a pro-lifer and self described moderate. However, with a lot of money, and I mean a lot, and a little good campaign strategy, Santorum could hold on. Never the less, this is definitely a good chance for a Dem pickup, and they would love to defeat one of the most conservative Senators there is.

MO: Jim Talent (R) is a one term Senator with fairly low approval ratings. This could be a tough race, except for the fact that the Dems haven't found a good candidate yet. Even if they do, a little campaigning and some national money should keep this seat in red state Missouri.

RI: Incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R) is considered vulnerable by some, but many Republicans would actually enjoy watching him go. Chafee is often considered a liberal, and it seems like he votes with Democrats more than Republicans. He has threatened to leave the party on numerous occasions, most recently over the Gay Marriage Amendment, I believe. But it is for these reasons I believe he will be reelected.

There are other races that may be close, but as of yet there is nothing important to say about them. My prediction is that at worst, Republicans will draw even. And if they come out with a monetary advantage (as seems to be happening) and a get-out-the-vote effort half as good as 2004, then the GOP could inch closer to that magic filibuster-proof line of 60 Senators.

Rauschenberger is in

2005-07-07T12:10:00.000-05:00

Steve Rauschenberger, a top state legislature, will officially announce his campiagn for the Republican nomination in the gubernatorial race in 2 weeks, reports the Daily Herald, a suburban Chicago paper. He claims to have already raised $800,000, which he also claims is greater than anyone currently in the race, except millionaire Ron Gidwitz, who currently polls at 1% and is not considered a real threat (by me at least). This bodes well for Raschenberger and his chances at the nomination and th election, especially if he can round up some endorsements from the likes of Dennis Hastert and Andy McKenna.

London Terrorist Attacks

2005-07-07T11:10:00.000-05:00

Well all those both left and right who believed that the war on terrorism was basically over, this is what you get. Most of the news reports seem to say that people are getting on with their business, being a city used to terrorist attacks by th Irish Republican Army. I really hate to say this, it seems so bad, but here goes: 4 bombs in the heart of London during rush hour killing only about 40 and a couple hundred people injured definitely wasn't what Al-Qaeda planned for. The Spain bombings killed almost 200 and injured nearly 2,000, all with backpack bombs, although arguably the main goal in Spain was not casualties but political change. In any case, say a prayer for all the families, and hope that the political result of the Spanish attacks do not repeat themselves.

IL Governor's Race News Update

2005-07-05T19:36:00.000-05:00

The media is finally digging into the story of the race with a couple of articles. This one deals with the fundraising efforts that are the number one concern to all of the Republican candidates. Another talks about Blago's downstate problems.

After the last few articles in the paper and online, I have decided that so far, on the issues, I believe Steve Rauschenberger is the best candidate. But he hasn't polled well in the primary according to the only 2 or 3 polls done to date. He is confident he will raise enough money, but we will have to see his campaign finance report to ojudge that for ourselves. So for me, it is a decision between Rauschenberger (shouldn't he run his campaign as "Steve") and current frontrunner Judy Baar Topinka, who has the best name recognition and will make a lot of money, despite sometimes being to moderate for my tastes. First and foremost, we need to elect a person who can beat Blago. Everything else is secondary. In a few months, we should be able to tell who the main contenders are, and hopefully eliminate some candidates so as not to waste all our money infighting.

Liberal fallicies alive in Live 8

2005-07-05T13:53:00.000-05:00

Read a couple of interesting articles on the recent Live 8 concerts via RCP that discussed the problems with Live 8 and it's associate "Make Poverty History" campiagn. Anti-poverty campaign gets it almost all wrong by John O'Sullivan and What rocks is capitalism... yeah, yeah, yeah by Mark Steyn both offer in-depth analysis of what is wrong with Live 8.

I watched a bit of the Live 8 concerts, and couldn't help but think critically of it the whole time. First and foremost, it seemed such a waste of time and energy to put on such an event, which raised a grand total of $0.00 and in the long run will effect nothing. 20 years ago, chief organizer Bob Geldorf held LiveAID, which raised a large sum of money for Africa. But for some reason, they refused to charge or even ask for donations this time, instead just pressuring the G8 leaders to spend absurd amounts of taxpayers' money. The whole event must cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to put on, all of which, in the name of stopping poverty, could have been given to Africa. The celebrities involoved in this have joined the cause, which calls for a certain percantage of each countries expenditures to be spent on Africa. It is shocking to see them, with their Hollywood mansions and European vacation homes, people who were given gift baskets worth 7,000 pounds just for coming to Live 8, and many with their own clothing lines, request that the lower and middle class tax revenue be spent on helping corrupt foreign governments, especially when they themselves, who after all, have more giving power than many countries in the world, refuse to give a penny.
But that wouldn't have helped, because, as both Steyn and O'Sullivan point out, a capitalist economy together with a freely elected democracy where the impoverished have the ability to lift themselves out of bankruptcy is not only the best, but the only way Africa is going to improve. The problem with Africa today is not so much one of a lack of aid, it is that the aid is not getting to the people, thanks to the terrible regimes in Africa. Bush knows this, and adjusts aid based on the level of economic freedom and the general state of the government in each country. As Mr. Preston (social studies teacher) would say, throwing money at the problem won't work.

To the G8 leaders: Teach a man to fish!

O'Connor retires!

2005-07-01T12:29:00.000-05:00

Well for a week or two it has appeared that Justice O'Connor, and not Rehnquist, would be the first to step down. O'Connor, the notorious swing-vote of the Supreme COurt, has retired at 75. Finally, conservatives have a chance to change up the current liberal leanings of the court. So PLEASE Bush, DO NOT nominate Alberto Gonzales. This seems to be th eworry of conservatives right now, but I really don't expect Rove or Bush to be dumb enough to do this, unless Rove thinks the Senate Democrats would try to filibuster Al, which would really work in conservatives favor as far as reaching out to Hispanics and angering independent voters. Now if only we could get Souter, Kennedy, or Ginsburg to retire as well.

Dean cancels Columbia visit; GOP cashes in

2005-06-30T13:36:00.000-05:00

Interesting title for this AP story I noticed via Drudge. It discusses Dean's canceled trip to South Carolina that was supposed to net $20,000 (but because of his no-show only raised $5,000) for the state Democratic party. Unfortunately for the Democrats, it inspired a Howard Dean scream contest held by the GOP that raised $22,000. One HAS to wonder whether Dean's appearances actually raise more money for the GOP than they do for the Democrats.

Oberweis gets first endorsement

2005-06-29T21:02:00.000-05:00

Jim Oberweis has been endorsed in the Republican primary by the Family Taxpayer Network. This will lend financial help to Oberweis and may start a movement towards unification behind him. I hope this is not the case, as I believe he takes too many conservative stances to beat Blago, and his image as a wealthy businessowner won't help. Also mentioned in the article is the campaign of Steve Rauschenberger, who is expected to announce his candidacy in July, and has already met with Chicago leaders. If we are going to run a real conservative against Blago, it needs to be Steve, because Oberweis simply carries to much baggage. Currently, I am deciding between Judy Baar Topinka and Rauschenberger. Of course I would immediately endorse Jim Edgar were he to enter the race.

It's All About 9/11

2005-06-29T19:47:00.000-05:00

This beatiful article by Andrew C. McCarthy of NRO defends President Bush's use of 9/11 last night in his remarks at Fort Bragg. In it, he goes through step by step how Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda were directly involved with eachother, criticizing the "no connection" crowd along the way. It is very informative.
I myself have never bothered to challenge the notion that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no relations. It doesn't matter to me, and it shouldn't matter to you. Why? Because as I repeatedly said in my not-so-stellar debate performance last fall, we are in a war on terror, not a war on Osama Bin Laden or a war on Al Qaeda. This is about defeating terrorists, not a certain subset of them. In the debate I qouted John Kerry himself stating that Saddam was a terrorist. No can reasonably deny that this was true. Therefore, it made perfect sense to after Saddam with or without a conection to 9/11. Furthermore, his terrorist like actions against his people and constant violation of UN resolutions necessitated action with or without WMDs as well.
So in light of all this, the Saddam/Al Qaeda connection hasn't really interested me much, so I foolishly bought the mainstream media lie that it was nonexistent. McCarthy brings the proof needed and then some. Interestingly, many of his points are from documents and statements from the Clinton administration and it's appointees. Don't believe me? Read the article.

Obama on Lincoln

2005-06-27T15:59:00.000-05:00

US Senator Barack Obama, a smart man and great orator, has gotten more and more on my nerves since his election. Elected with something over 70% of the vote and delivering a keynote address to the Democratic Convention between appearances on Oprah, he is as popular as any Democrat today. In TIME magazine he has done a well written piece on Abraham Lincoln, called "Uncovering the Real Abe Lincoln". Don't get me wrong, the rest of the article is quite good, but this one statement makes me angry:
"I cannot swallow whole the view of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. As a law professor and civil rights lawyer and as an African American, I am fully aware of his limited views on race. Anyone who actually reads the Emancipation Proclamation knows it was more a military document than a clarion call for justice."
Not the Great Emancipator? Lincoln and Lincoln alone wrote, and more importantly, made the decision to write, the Emancipation Proclamation. Yes, the document had political purposes. Yes, it had errors. But no one, no one else, had the guts to come out (aginst some of his advisors advise)and make such a bold declaration against a reprehensible action. One could easily see how another president would have backed down from such a daring stance against slavery that wasn't totally popular in Lincoln's day, and the changes for the better that took place all those years ago and those since then might not have taken place at all. It is odd for Obama, a direct beneficiary of the Proclamation, to belittle it and it's effects on the course of history.
Obama also sites Lincoln's "limited views on race". Given that a stance against slavery was the most radical held in the timne period, it is an odd choice of words. Does Obama believe that Lincoln should have supported affirmative action and civil rights issues before even half the country believed that they should be free men? That seems a little ridiculous to me.
Some other things have always bothered me about Obama. Chiefly among them is how the whole of IL embraced him as an aisle-crossing moderate when he had no record of moderation in his previous service as an IL Senator. THe only reason he made statements about cooperation is that he had the money to spare on this, since he was guaranteed a win against Alan Keyes, and because it was politically convenient to do so. Keyes, angry and misguided though he was, was partially correct in his views of Obama as a hypocrite. Keyes constantly lambasted Obama for voting in favor of partial-birth abortions and other votes, but because of Keyes' own extremism, nobody listened. So how has Obama the chivalrous been acting in the Senate. As a bipartisan? No. As a compromiser? No. As I watch the Senate roll call votes, Obama is as consistently liberal as his colleages Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, and Dick Durbin. He obeys the party line on every vote I've ever seen where less than 10 Democrats switch sides, and even then I can count the crossover votes on one hand. More disgustinly, he has been out campaigning for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. Sen. Byrd is a former leader of the KKK, who has frequently lied and avioded discussion of this time in his life. He also (along with Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska) brings millions of federal tax dollars in pointless and wastefull pork projects. Sen. Byrd represents all that an upstanding Senator should not. He is a criminal to the common taxpayer, and still, after decades, can't straightforwardly answer questions about his segregationist past. Yet the "fence-mending moderate" and of all things, African American Senator from Illinois is aiding in his reelection.

So here is my projection. In 2012 or 2016, Barack Obama will try to run for president. With a combination of fervor for a minority president and fabulous oratory, he will win the Democratic primaries. But in the general election, he will fall on his face. Without the liberal media to hide and sugarcoat his record, he struggles to explain away the facts brought against him. And who will be the Republican to beat him? Now the little known Secretary of State of Ohio, Ken Blackwell will become Governor of Ohio in 2006. In my opinion, he is more honest than Obama, and will play much better in the West, Midwest, and South. Remember that George Bush is plainspoken for a reason. Obama will fail to learn from Kerry that poeple don't like being talked down to. O, and don't let me forget; Blackwell, like Obama, is an African American.

Ron Gidwitz declares for governor's race

2005-06-22T14:30:00.000-05:00

Title says it all. It's too bad I hadn't profiled him in the earlier post. Anyways, is the former president of a cosmetics company and recently served as chairman of the IL board of education. He made the announcement in Dixon to stir up some Reagan nostalgia. His primary poll numbers are, so far, horrible, and make no mistake, he will not be the Republican pick.

Mixed news for Florida Republicans

2005-06-21T21:44:00.000-05:00

Saw this poll on RCP and it alarmed me. Sen. Ben Nelson has long been considered a prime target for the GOP in 2006, as Florida seems to be trending Republican and a first class candidate in Katherine Harris is running against him. She was in charge of the 2000 recount, which made her a polarizing figure. She now serves in Congress, and has declared she will run against Nelson. Unfortunately a poll by Mason-Dixon has Nelson up 53% to Harris' 36%, with 11% undecided. Considering Nelson's considerably liberal stances and Harris' name recognition and strong standing in her district, these numbers are dissapointing. It seems the internals show the problems:
Harris' favorablity rating - 32% fav. 30% unfav.
Nelson favoribility rating - 44% fav. 10% unfav.
Republicans - Harris 64% Nelson 17%
Democrats - Harris 8% Nelson - 86%
Independents - Harris 27% Nelson 54%

I guess polarizing is an understatement when applied to Katherine Harris, but nevertheless these numbers need to turn around fast or the GOP will be righting off on if it's key '06 races.

And what will it take to do this? MONEY! I believe Harris will be able to fundraise very well, and most likely outspend Bill Nelson by a lot. Why can't Nelson fundraise? Partially because Howard Dean won't raise enough money to match the RNC's contributions to Harris, and also because the Florida Democratic Party, with Nelson the only statewide elected official, has almost no money.
I really thought this seat would be competietive, but a candidate coming in with only 65% of her party's vote doesn't look good. Expect Rove and Co. to do some early testing, and if necessary yank the funds from Florida to defend Rick Santorum or win Senate seats in Maryland, Washington, Michigan, or elsewhere.

EDIT: Looking at the previously mentioned SurveyUSA poll, Nelson polls a 47% appoval rating, with 29% disapproving. Those aren't terrible numbers for Harris to work with, but what is horrible is again the internals, showing more Democrats disapprove of Nelson then Republicans, and 49% approval by members of bith parties. Also, more who call themselves conservative approve of Nelson then those who consider themselves liberal.
An important discrepancy between the polls is that while Mason-Dixon gives Nelson over 80% of the black vote, his SurveyUSA approval is only 33% for vs. 44% against umong blacks. I think this is a demographic where Harris' polarity scares away voters not all to comfortable with Nelson.

Another aspect of Immigration debate

2005-06-21T21:33:00.000-05:00

I discovered this interesting and inflammatory site from a link on Free Republic. It brings up a facet of the immigration debate I had not previously thought of.
If an an illegal commits crimes in the United States, there are fewer, if any, ways of tracking him or her and subsequently bringing them to justice. Specifically mentioned on this site is the situation with illegal sex offenders who aren't put on any of the lists or databases used to track citizen offenders. This is a deeply concerning development. The site also claims that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation rounded up over 4,000 illegal sexual predators, over 200 of them in IL.
I have found myself rationalizing both sides of the discussion involving President Bush's guest worker plan, but the more I here about the ugly side of illegals and their burden on American taxpayers, the more I am opposed to such legislation.

Thoughts on Vietnam

2005-06-21T14:51:00.000-05:00

Today the prime minister of communist Vietnam visited the White House to sign an accord on religious freedom. This was the first time the leader of a Communist country has visited the White House. It is also noted in the article that some people protested outside against Vietnam's violations of human rights. That was an important note to me, because for some reason I couldn't help but think that those protesters were the same ones that protested to end the Vietnam War, a loss that has caused the violations they now object to.

The Idiocy of Cloture Votes

2005-06-20T20:03:00.000-05:00

As those familiar with the Senate may know, a cloture vote is to end debate on a certain topic. A cloture vote requires 60 votes to proceed to a floor vote. It is the mechanism used to filibuster. Lately, it seems the Democrats have been using it on everything they can. Judicial appointments aside, I believe the use of the filibuster on any nominee of any sort is unjustified. It's just wrong to oppose a nominee who would easily get the required floor votes to be appointed. It's a sick abuse of the rules to, more or less, impede anything the White House or Congressional Republicans try to do.
Before the first cloture vote on John Bolton, it never even occured to most Democrats to vote against it. But then some of the leaders got this wild and crazy idea that they could get any with it if they based their decision on the principle of congressional oversight (pertaining to classified documents they want the White House to release) rather than John Bolton the person. I have had my doubts about Mr. Bolton, but as long as a plurality of the Senate is willing to agree on his character, then I agree with them. I don't know if the average voter realizes this,but, via cloture votes and delaying tactics, the obstructionists in the Democratic party are slowly and methodically shutting down the government. And we know what happens when people do that, don't we Mr. Gingrich (mastermind of the Republican shut down that lost the GOP seats). However, the mainstream media will continue to approve of these actions, and no such fallback will occur.
All I have to say is thank God for recess appointments.

Polling bodes well for state GOP

2005-06-19T12:35:00.000-05:00

Found some interesting polling data today from the Glengariff Group via Capitol Fax. While doing a poll for a corporate client, the pollster threw in political questions just for kicks. He finds that umong Republicans, Judy Baar Topinka leads the race for governor, with Jim Oberweis just behind, and everyone else in single digits. However, 42% are still undecided.
The most interesting part shows Attorney General Lisa Madigan in a statistical dead heat with Blagojevich in the Democratic primary. But as of now, there are no signs she will run. I think it would be advantageous to Republicans to see a prominent Democrat give Blagojevich a tough primary where he has to spend a lot of money.
In a theoretical general election (with leaners), Topinka leads Blagojevich 39% to 36%, with 20% undecided.
This is probably good news, but I'm not sure whether Blago will become more or less poular in a general election. One would assume he would become less favored after stinging attacks sure to come, but then again, he will have at least 20 million dollars to spend defending himself. In any case, a couple of years ago I would have thought a Blagojevich defeat nearly impossible. Let us hope he shoots himself in the foot a few more times before the election cycle begins.

A Treasure Trove for Political Junkies

2005-06-17T15:31:00.000-05:00

SurveyUSA has approoval ratings for all 100 US Senators. It is useful for checking the 2008 presidential prospects as well as 2006 trends. I know I put too much faith into polls and that I'm addicted to them, but this is awesome stuff. I'll try to post on some of the unusual or interesting numbers later.

EDIT: You can also find all the governor's approval ratings by following a link at the bottom of the original link.

Of the Tom DeLay "scandal" and Hypocrisy

2005-06-16T15:36:00.000-05:00

The great website Political Money line has published the data from financial reports of the members of Congress. Congressional Democrats and purportedly some Republicans have been pressuring Tom DeLay to step down as Majority Leader of the House of Representatives due to ethics "scandals" that center around him having taken numerous trips paid for by lobbists and interest groups. All of this would be well and fine, except for the fact that EVERY member of Congress does the exact same thing. In fact, some of the Democrats accusing DeLay of ethics violations also had trips paid for by the same lobbyist as DeLay. This section on the site chronicles the free trips taken by various members of the Senate. These were not required to be reported, so it is safe to assume that many more took place.

Senators Report More Free Trips

U.S. Senators today disclosed 41 more free trips they received in 2004. Senators did not previously disclose these trips in reimbursed travel reports under Rule 35. Some of these trips may not have been required to be reported on those forms. Although the cost of a trip is required to be shown on the reimbursed travel reports, these Senators have reported the trips only on their personal financial disclosure reports that do not require the cost to be listed.

Sen. Paul Sarbanes (7 trips); Sen. Joseph Biden (5 trips); Sen. James Durbin (4 trips, including one to Hawaii and another to South Africa); Sen. Robert Byrd (3 trips); Sen. Samuel Brownback (3 trips); Sen. Thomas Carper (3 trips); Sen. James Bunning (2 trips, cost listed); Sen. Judd Gregg (2 trips, including one to the Bahamas); Sen. Mary Landrieu (2 trips, including one to Uganda, and another to Honduras/El Salvador); Sen. Joseph Lieberman (2 trips); Sen. Larry Craig (1 trip); Sen. Michael Crapo (1 trip); Sen. Norman Coleman (1 trip on private jet of Nassar Kazeminy, cost listed); Sen. Saxby Chambliss (1 trip, cost listed); Sen. Pete Domenici (1 trip but three sponsors); Sen. Orrin Hatch (1 trip) Sen. E. Benjamin Nelson (1 trip); and Sen. George Voinovich (1 trip).

Some of the organizations paying for these trips include: Exelon Corp, Edison Electric Institute, American Bankers Assn, National Rifle Assn, Aspen Institute, Behlen Manufacturing, Princeton University, Commonwealth Fund (NY), Congressional Coalition for Adoption, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Dick Durbin: Not my Senator.

2005-06-16T14:31:00.000-05:00

This is the type of thing that makes me embarassed to be a citizen of Illinios. No self-respecting bloc of voters should continue electing this guy. It is not just Dean causing the Democrats problems, leading Senators like Dick Durbin here and the inncident where Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) called President Bush a loser continue to shift the country, if not towards the right, at least away from the left.
As you will see in the article, Senator Durbin (D-IL)took the floor of the senate to read an e-mail from an FBI agent pertaining to Guantanamo Bay. After the reading, he uttered these words:

"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

So what terrible, heinous crimes of war did the agent claim took place? Being chained to the floor, in very cold temperatures, being forced to listen to loud rap music. Now no one wants to be in that situation, but I think most reasonable people realize that this is NOTHING compared to the regimes mentioned. Is America killing Muslims en mass? No. Is America piling the skulls of innocents? No. Do we make furniture out of anyone's body parts, gas people, or use them for gross medical experiments. No, no, and no.
A lot of people would not agree with Durbin that the treatment at Gitmo even qualifies as torture. Among them would be many Holocaust survivors, gulag survivors, Cambodians, Iraqis, and Afghans. All have seen real torture all to often, and don't appreciate the belittling of their experience by comparing some uncomfortable terrorists to genocide. And I also suspect the Iraqis and Afghans in particular would like Mr. Durbin to answer a question: In your long speech that includes not only these accusations but references to Abu Ghraib and the WWII Japanese internment, why didn't you bother to mention the torture that took place under Saddam Hussein? Certainly you could accuse Americans of being like him, too. But Durbin doesn't, because if it were up to him, Saddam Hussein would still be in power.
Also in part of his flawed tyrade, he accuses the United States of breaking the codes of the Geneva convention. Now one could argue whether or not a lot of the statutes in it are still relevant or practical today, but that is not the point. The point is that the Geneva convention does not apply to the detainees, as none were wearing the uniform of a country when captured. They are terrorists; they do not follow the rules of the convention, so we are not obliged too in dealing with them.

Michael Jackson ruling: Not Guilty

2005-06-14T21:23:00.000-05:00

No words can describe such an injustice to mankind

Umm... no comment

2005-06-14T20:56:00.000-05:00

Well forgive me, MoveOn, you were right all along. Now the truth comes out. I expect impeachment proceedings to begin tomorrow.

The Howard Dean Quote-a-thon!

2005-06-13T14:10:00.000-05:00

Well after the last couple of weeks' outrageous rants, I believe Howard Dean has finally been shut up by his own party. I caught a couple minutes of the meeting with the DNC executive committee linked above, and he seemed much more reserved and quiet than he has been in a while. However, that doesn't mean he has stopped lending new ammo to us Republicans. At the meeting Dean still had some interesting lines:

“We’re going to make it easier for parents to teach their kids right from wrong”
Sounds good. Now the only question is how he will accomplish this. Does he believe our kids are going to learn moral values from parents who support partial birth abortion and the radical gay agenda?

(Democrats will appeal to voters as the party that)“will build national defense based on international cooperation”. Isn't that an oxymoron? National defense based on International cooperation. Isn't national defense about those times when the other countries refuse to cooperate? I guess it's just the imperialist, unilateralist pig in me, but you know what? I don't think anyone wants to base our defense decisions on whether or not other countries agree with us. Remember, Mr. Dean, your party tried that approach in 2004, and it absolutely flopped.

Gov. Rod's Fee Increases

2005-06-12T16:53:00.000-05:00

This gets little play in the media, but as I have mentioned before, the governor's fee increases are killing the IL economy. The title links to a PDF file showing the fee increase last year alsone. As one can see, most of the fees are doubled or worse, and several are increased by 900% or over. While I realize that the IL government needs the money, shooting your businesses in the foot and forcing them to leave the state will only hurt in the long run. IL is running behind every state adjacent to it in economic growth, and it's easy to see why.

A Rundown of the Republican gubernatorial candidates

2005-06-11T16:35:00.000-05:00

Well personally, I believe on the IL state GOP has been in self-destruct mode for quite a while. But Governor Rod is unpopular enough to give the leadership a nice shot in the arm. So far, many names have been mentioned, with priority on a person who can win, no matter where they are on the issues. So here is everyone I've heard of so far:

Judy Baar Topinka - Originally from the Chicago area, she is the highest ranking Republican left in IL as the state treasurer, an elected position. She served as state GOP chairman before current one Andy McKenna. She has served 4 years in the state House, 10 years in the state Senate, and 12 years as treasurer. In the most recent election, she won 56% of the vote. Considered a moderate and a defender of abortion and gay rights, she is not extremely popular with grassroots conservatives, making a primary win difficult. Perhaps the party base will be concerned enough about electablility to ignore this. Rumor has it that Karl Rove has suggested that former Gov. Jim Edgar should run with Topinka in the lietenant spot. She has already begun making some trips and fundraising, though like most other candidates, hasn't officially declared herself in.

Jim Edgar - A former governor, he is moderate and extremely popular. He could probably raise more money than any other potential candidate. He would also have name recognition. Easily the best candidate as far as electablility, he has not begun any campaign-like activities. Rumor is that White House strategist Karl Rove is advocating Edgar for the primaries.

Steve Rauschenberger - A state senator for the 22nd district since 1993, he was invoilved with the importing of Alan Keyes for the '04 Senate race. He is the chief budget negotiator for Senate Republicans. He resides in Elgin where he was born, and attended the College of William and Mary. A true conservative, he was plagued by low fundraising in the 2004 US Senate primary, but with the support of the establishment, still got a good share of the vote. Strapped for cash, he pulled publicity stunts to get the public aware about him. He ordered flowers to Jack Ryan after Ryan refused to participate in the primary debate. A campaign theme of his was experience in government, so as a stab at frontrunner Ryan's inexperience, he applied to be the Chicago Bears head coach, and was of course rejected.

Ray LaHood - A US representative from a district covering Peoria and part of Springfield, he won his 6th term with 70% of the vote. A frequent officer of House debates, he ran the precedings against Bill Clinton. He began testing the waters for a run early, appearing at the Whiteside County Lincoln Day Dinner. Unfortunately he has made a habit of attacking fellow Republicans, including forcing Jack Ryan out of his bid over a sex scandal, and foretelling US Rep. Phil Crane's impending defeat. His stances are mostly conservative, especially socially, but he has moderate streaks on the environment and taxes, and is considered liberal on illegal immigration.

James "Jim" Oberweis - Owner of Oberweis Dairy in Chicago, he got second in the 2004 Senate primaries after spending much of his own money on the run. His is firmly against illegal immigration. He is the only Republican candidate officailly declared for the governors race so far. Both in the 2002 and 2004 Senate primaries, he was endorsed by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.

Other names mentioned such as former governor Jim Thompson (and a member of the 9/11 commission), former US Senator Patrick Fitzgerald, and current IL GOP chairman Andy McKenna are not, at this time, considered potential candidates. If any more names surface, I'll update everyone.

The Howard Dean Quote-a-thon!

2005-06-08T14:53:00.000-05:00

Since well before he was named chairman of the DNC, former Vermont governor Howard Dean has been making outrageous statements that can be, at times, both alarming and amusing. But recently he has really been outdoing himself. Republicans celebrated when he became chairman, but we've got even more than we could have hoped for: gifts including incredibly lackluster fundraising and some great quotes. I've decided to post some of his quotes here in the original post, and will add more as they appear. A lot of Democratic senators and '08 Dem hopefuls have already begun distancing themselves from Dean. The link is to an MSNBC article about his most recent offense.

I'll start with some of the more famous recent ones:

(Republicans are) “not very friendly to different kinds of people, they are a pretty monolithic party ... it’s pretty much a white, Christian party.”
As mentioned in the article, RNC chair Ken Mehlman is Jewish. I would also like to note some other prominent minority Republicans: Senator Mel Martinez, former Education head Rod Paige, Condeleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Supreme COurt justice Clarence Thomas. Clinton was called the first black president, but did he have half the diversity of the Bush administration? No. Bush also won 60% of the Hispanic vote in Florida, add increased his percentages among nearly all racial and religious minorities from 2000 to 2004. 'Nuff said.

Republicans “never made an honest living in their lives.”
He later said that this only applied to the leadership, as if that makes a difference.

"We're going to use Terry Schiavo later on."
I thought it was about respecting the family's rights, Dean? No, you just wanted something to cling on to in '06.

"Tom Delay ought to go back to Houston, where he can serve his jail sentence down there courtesy of the Texas taxpayers"
Well I guess Dean disagrees with the law on that innocent until proven guilty part. And on the matter of lobbyist related ethics, if Delay is guilty, so is nearly every other person alive who has served in Congress.

And some other good ones:

"We won't always have the strongest military."

"I've waffled before. I'll waffle again."

"I don't care what you label me as long as you call me president."

"I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks."

And the most telling about why he can't succeed as chair in any area:
"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for."

I'm sure there will be plenty more in the future.

The '06 IL Governor's Race

2005-06-07T16:22:00.000-05:00

Well few sites I know of on the net are into any non-national elections, except for ones involving Arnold or the screwed up Washington governor's race. So I thought I would put some info out there for others who are interested.

Democrats:
It would seem as though governor Rod Blagojevich should have a state like Illinois wrapped up. It is a very blue state, and only one statewide position is held by a Republican. Never-the-less, Blago has made so many errors and left himself open to so much criticism that his terrible policies are but a sidenote. He has constantly feuded with other Democrats, including Chicago mayor Richard Daley, Illinois Senate leader Emil Jones, and even the powerful pair of Lisa and Michael Madigan (Illinois Attorney General and Speaker of the Illinois House, respectively). He has been plagued with as many lawsuits and scandals as George Ryan. Therefore, it would be much easier than usual for another Democrat to win the primary. But at this point, which admittedly is early, no one seems interested. The two most likely, the Madigans, seem to have reached a peace with Rod.

In the general election, his largest advantage is money. He has ammassed a huge 10.1 million dollar warchest, almost certainly more than any Republican could raise. Fortunately for Republicans, his approval ratings have tanked recently, and that is not surprising.

He is the defendant in a court case as we speak, has been accused of mismangement of various sorts (both employment practices and illegal contracting), and even feuded with his own family. He pledged to clean up the George Ryan practice of awarding government contracts to companies he favors or is involved with, but instead went further in this than Ryan himself. Early in his term, he fired all the snowplow employees in the state that were registered Republicans.

He literally overtook the state board of education, changing the rules so that he himself could appoint a majority of it's members this alienates members of his own party, and strongly liberal teacher's unions that should be among his best supporters.

Since elected, he has talked about his success in not raising taxes, which is true, sort of. He has gone mad raising fees for everything from car titles to alcohol licenses, putting a serious dent in the already struggling economy. Make no mistake, Mr. Blagojevich has made Illinois a terrible place to have a business. I was recently told by a knowledgeable individual that he has been told by numerous individuals that putting a business in Iowa rather than Illinois will cut the government related costs in half.

Rarely in Springfield, many say he has moved the real capitol to Chicago. I believe this plays strongly with the non-Chicago vote, even Democrats. The rest of Illinois doesn't identify Chicago as part of their state, and they don't want to be affiliated with it.

His incompetent spending and budget proposals have prevented even a largely Democrat controlled legislature from passing them with any ease. He has channelled extensive money to Chicago (especially in education) at the expense of the rest of the state.

A smaller matter, he is habitually late for everything from meetings with legislators to (I'm not kidding) funerals. We are not talking about 5 minutes here either, we are talking 2 to 3 hours, and many times he does not bother to show at all.

I believe the net effect of this is that many Democrats, unenthusiastic about Rod's reelection, will stay at home on election day, while Republicans will come out in force to try to defeat someone they hate with a passion. While the states blue leanings and his cash will help, ultimately I believe a good Republican candidate could win.

I'll get to the Republican candidates in the future.

Yet another paper!

2005-06-06T23:03:00.000-05:00

Here is a paper I wrote as an assignement of the cause and effect type. The topic, as you will see, was 9/11. Again, bare with the grammar.

No single event in modern American history has come so violently or as unexpected as the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. It has left footprints in the minds of people who experienced it and thrown our country into a new era of foreign policy. But before we can decide what to do in the future, we must understand the past. It is important to examine the causes of this tragedy in two different perspectives. What could possess people to give up their lives to kill thousands of innocents in the name of God? And the most pressing concern immediately following the attacks: why couldn’t our country of such military might and power stop these people?
The first cause of any event such as this is people who have the motive to do it. Each of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers was a fanatical Arab Muslim with a deep hatred for us. Radical Islam is nothing new, but it has been growing for several decades. Osama Bin Laden and his associates believe that by killing those that they label infidels, which includes Americans, Israelis, and even moderate Muslims, they gain entrance to heaven. They believe that any foreigner in an Islamic country is a threat to their religion. To promote their radical agenda, the extremists use what Muslim scholars decree as a gross misinterpretation of the Koran (the Muslim holy book). This set of beliefs allows them to incite their followers against other groups. Radical Muslims are very anti-Semitic and have labeled America as “The great Satan” (Terrorism).
Free and prosperous citizens of developed Western countries struggle to comprehend how a person could subscribe to such a hateful and violent sect. One of the main reasons it is successful is the level of poverty in the Middle East. A lot of Al-Qaeda recruits come from impoverished areas of Palestine and the country of Pakistan. There most of the people have no hope to overcome the situation they are in. Al-Qaeda is able to take the despair of these people and turn it into anger against Western powers and Israel. Without a public school system in Pakistan, fanatical Muslims set up Madrasas, religious schools where, along with math and reading, they learn to hate America and praise Osama bin Laden as a hero. A large help in this is a media throughout the Middle East that sympathizes and plots with radical groups (Terrorism).
When one realizes that much of radical Islam’s existence is due to hatred of certain peoples or countries, we must examine why. Chief on the list, at least for Osama Bin Laden himself, is the U.S. military presence in Saudi Arabia. Prince Sultan Air Force Base in Saudi Arabia is a base used from the Gulf War until this day to patrol no-fly zones over Iraq. Many Muslims detest this presence in the land where the prophet Mohammed was born, and the country of the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. Al-Qaeda uses this both as a recruiting tool and a reason for violence. They see it, as well as other situations, as the U.S. colonizing the Middle East for oil gathering purposes (Terrorism).
Also a motivator for fundamentalists is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since it’s creation in 1948, Israel’s Muslim Palestinian minority has tried to create a separate state. The problem lies in the fact that the Muslims were there first, and lay claim to Jerusalem as a holy site, as do the Jewish Israelis. Radical groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah, which have ties to Al-Qaeda, resort to suicide bombings to advance their cause. Israel responds with strong showings of military force that often harm Palestinian civilians. Each side blames the other and is unwilling to compromise, meaning that at least for now, there is a continual circle of violence. The U.S. government has a long history of supporting Israel, and continues to send military and economic aid. Some in the Arab public, however, see Israel as an oppressor, and view suicide attacks on innocent civilians as acceptable. To them, America is supporting the killing of Palestinians, and is just as guilty as Israel itself. Because this issue is so polarizing for Arabs, Bin Laden uses it to persuade the public (Terrorism).
The most common reason for 9/11 given by our government is one version or another of the simple phrase “they hate our freedoms”. While we should all realize that the situation is much more complex than that, it holds some truth. A certain amount of jealousy can be expected from people who come mostly from countries where laws are dictated by religious clerics and women are forbidden from showing their faces in public.
However, the most important factors they resent are our economic power and the prestige of our military. They refer to us as an “evil empire” because they recognize and hate the influence we have everywhere in the world. It is this power that we have that they were trying to undermine with the attacks of 9/11. They knew that the images we saw on our televisions would paint a picture of America as weak and vulnerable, which plays perfectly to their objectives.
All these factors combine to help far out ideologies take hold in the Arab world. But why, then, should they resort to terrorism, which is viewed with distaste around the globe. Against an enemy as powerful as the U.S. (and Israel, which also has a large army) the only course of action left is terrorism. Guerrilla warfare is historically used when an enemy is well trained and better equipped than you. A direct and honest military assault would be fatal to them. Consequentially diplomatic efforts would be worthless without the threat of military action. Nor do radical groups have significant financial reach to influence other’s policies. The only option left is to strike unexpectedly against weakly guarded targets in a manner that most civilized peoples deplore. Yet we all saw videos of Palestinians dancing in the street, throwing candy and having parades, on the day we know so infamously as September 11th. Only the fact that some Arabs have been convinced that we deserved this allows Al-Qaeda to continue to exist and operate (Terrorism).
Beyond this complex motive, perhaps the causes easier understood are those that are directly our own fault, though they are by no means easier to stomach. Radical Islam as a philosophy survives because of state sponsors of terrorism. The State department lists seven countries as sponsors of terrorism (Commission). Some others are excluded for political reasons, while still more are not sponsors, but simply provide havens for terrorist cells. Some of the more potent sponsors are Iran, the former Taliban government of Afghanistan, and Syria.
The single country most responsible is Afghanistan. In the early 1990’s, the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islamic group, took control of most of the country. They ruled with an iron fist, forbidding women to go to school or appear publicly. Osama Bin Laden shared their political and religious views, and made his bases there. Afghanistan was used to construct terrorist training camps and operations centers. Without a harbor such as Afghanistan, it is doubtful that Al-Qaeda could have pulled off such an attack (Terrorism).
Overall, state sponsors allow rogue organizations to become highly organized and orchestrate complicated strikes. While it is not our fault that they exist, we hold the responsibility for not acting against them, be it financially, diplomatically, or militarily. Several administrations over several decades ignored them because they didn’t believe action was economically feasible. We needed the Oil exports of these countries, and continue to need it, sometimes so badly that we were willing to ignore the human rights violations and blatant acts of violence of these rogue states. Arabs see this and call on us to stop sponsorship of oppressive regimes, which is one of the most legitimate claims radical Islam makes (Commission).
9/11 seemed quite unexpected to most Americans, but in reality, Islamic terrorists have struck many times before. Though earlier attacks occurred, the root of the power Islamic fundamentalism enjoys today is rooted in the terrorist attacks of the early 1990s. After the first (unsuccessful) attempt by Al-Qaeda to blow up the Twin Towers, it would seem obvious that we were a sitting duck. Unfortunately, policymakers in Washington failed to take action. In 1993, American troops were sent to Somalia on a humanitarian mission. When Special Forces got in a firefight with Al-Qaeda trained fighters and 18 American soldiers died, you would think retaliation would be in line. We did not attack or even identify the enemy; we abandoned the country. Bin Laden said of it, “The youth realized that the American soldier was a paper tiger”. In 1996, Al-Qaeda bombed the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. 19 Americans died, and the radical Islamic government of Iran was to blame. Instead of action against them, we avoided looking into the situation further specifically because it might force us into military action. The attacks came to a climax in 1998, when Al-Qaeda obliterated two U.S. embassies in Africa. Our response was cruise missile strikes. Gen. Wayne Downing, who is the former commander of U.S. Special Forces, lamented, “We used kids gloves after the embassy bombings. Cruise missiles – that’s the cowards way out.” Right before the end of the Clinton administration in 2000, Al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen rammed a boat of explosives into the destroyer USS Cole, and 17 servicemen were killed. There was no response (Lowry).
All of these successful strikes emboldened radical Muslims. Their plotting became increasingly larger in scale and ambitions for a major hit on American soil arose. They continued to spit anti-Americanism from Afghanistan, now confident that the United States of America was unable to defend itself (Commission).
Also disturbing was the lax security at vital points in our interior. Our borders were weakly defended, and we accepted foreigners too quickly and easily. Al-Qaeda cells from California to New York (including one in Peoria, IL) easily came into and out of the U.S., and received funds disguised as Muslim charities. Airport screening and immigration processes put in place after 9/11 could have kept Mohammed Atta and the rest of the hijackers out of the our airplanes and our country. On that fateful day, we saw the failures of the intelligence community and a government communication structure that was unable to deal with such a horror. It was a high price to pay to realize the failures of our government to adapt to changing threats (Commission).
While Bill Clinton gets credit for helping the economy, his Neville Chamberlain-like foreign policy was at least partially responsible for the loss of those 2,792 lives. By September 11th, George W. Bush had not even finished appointing his Cabinet, but was faced with the largest attack ever in our nation’s history. The 9/11 commission, being half Democratic, didn’t want to put blame where blame was due, but the facts speak for themselves.
No one sentence can sum up the complexity of why September 11th, 2001 is a day that will surely live in infamy as much as Pearl Harbor or D-Day. It is important that measures be taken to prevent it from happening again. But true safety will come only by understanding the culture of the people that harbor such hateful feelings toward us. We have endured the effect of these causes, and may we use the knowledge we have gained from it to bring freedom and prosperity to the world.

Works Cited

Lowry, Rich. “What Clinton Knew – And What Clinton Did”. National Review Online.
October 17, 2003, 9:39 a.m. December 9, 2004.
Terrorism: Questions and Answers. 2004. December 9, 2004.
“The 9/11 Commission Report”. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States. September 20, 2004 12:00 a.m. EDT. December 9, 2004.

Re: Supreme Court ruling

2005-06-06T22:54:00.000-05:00

Here is the text of my paper. It is unedited so expect errors. Also, the paper was required to be only a page in length, so many details were removed for the sake of my grade. Thanks for reading!

This March, the United States Supreme Court made one of its worst decisions since Plessy vs. Ferguson. The 5-4 vote ruled that individuals under the age of eighteen can not receive the death penalty. Justice Souter, in his affirmative opinion, cited scientific evidence, overwhelming public opinion, and international decisions.
It is a sad day in America when the law of the land is changed on the whims of justice systems with no relation to ours, and located thousands of miles distant. Our laws and principles are determined by our people, not the French or the Dutch. It is for this reason that the United States does not take part in the International Court of Justice. One is reminded of the saying, “if they jumped off of a cliff, would you, too?”
Souter also claims there is an overwhelming public opinion against the death penalty being applied to minors, but does so without saying where this information appears. The best way to gauge public opinion is by the content of laws passed by elected legislatures, not day-to-day polls that are notoriously inaccurate. Upon examining records, one finds that only 47% of states that allow the death penalty forbid it for minors. This is duly noted by Justice Scalia in his scathing dissenting opinion.
Also an issue brought up by Scalia is the claim that scientific, as shown to the court by the American Psychological Association, says that minors don’t emotionally grasp the concept of killing. In fact, the APA testified the exact opposite to the court only months before in a case involving parental notification for minors wishing to have an abortion.
Unless it is believable that 47% is a large majority, and that foreign powers should determine our legal basis, action should be taken against this ruling. Of course, one should not turn to violence, unless one is 17.

I'm back....Again

2005-06-06T22:42:00.000-05:00

Well, to quote the great conservative Alice Cooper, "School's Out For Summer" so I've gotten back to this page. Lately I haven't had time to be an active member of the ever-growing blog community, but I'm going to take another stab at it. Anyways, I'll try to begin some posting about the upcoming 2006 elections, including the exciting gubernatorial Republican primary.

Death Penalty for Minors Case

2005-03-15T21:47:00.000-06:00

I've written a paper for an english class on some of the things wrong with the court's decision to forbid the death penalty for minors. I hope to upload it later this week. The link is to the PDF on the Supreme Court site for the case, Roper v. Simmons. Start on page 64 to read Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion, which is excellent if I do say so myself. Loading the page may take a long time on a slow modem.

Newsweek Ignorance

2005-03-15T21:23:00.000-06:00

Well buried in this week's Newsweek we find an interesting fact.

Correction: In "King of the Hill" (Enterprise, Feb. 21), we reported in a graphic that American Skiing Co.'s stock price had fallen 460 percent between February 2000 and February 2005. In fact, the drop was 82 percent.

If Newsweek has any editors, I wonder how much they are paying them. Is it any small wonder that distrust of the media by the population as a whole continues to rise?

Greenspan a Hack?

2005-03-15T21:13:00.000-06:00

Well the Dems have made a new enemy this Congressional session. Alan Greenspan, chairman of the Federal Reserve (and first appointed by Reagan), is being labeled as a political hack by Dem senators after he supported private accounts for Social Security. Today, Hillary Clinton took a dig at him about the 2001 tax cuts. Apparently todays' Democratic party believes anyone who in any way agrees with President Bush is a political agent of some sort. God forbid this ever happen to the GOP.
Personally, Greenspan has more control over the state of the economy then the position of president. He of all people is responsible for the boom in the 90s. One questions whether it is smart for the Dems to go after a person I believe is held in esteem by many people. I look for todays' remarks to come up in the 2008 elections.

I'm Back!

2005-03-15T21:07:00.000-06:00

Well it took that long to get back to this place. Had a lazy streak. Maybe I shouldn't run for prez after all. Anyways, I'm still working out the particulars here before I get up to day-to-day posting. In the meantime be satisfied with Powerline, it never disappoints.

It Begins Today

2005-02-25T19:08:00.000-06:00

Well, bored on a Friday night I decided to start my own blog. I'm an avid reader of the Drudge Report, Powerline, and am a member of Free Republic. I decided to start my own foray into the world of weblogs, whether anyone is ready to read it or not.