Bad, Bad Conservative!

I'd love to fill this blog with my stunning insights on the Democratic National Convention. Unfortunately, I was a bad conservative. Why? I couldn't stomach this claptrap. Oh, I caught a little bit here and there on Fox from 10-1 am, but not a lot. Instead I drank beer, played softball, drank beer, watched baseball, and drank beer. The political convention is dead. It is more tradition than substance today. I'm a poli-junky just looking for reasons to criticize the Democratic party, and I couldn't get myself to sit down and mine from the wealth of material they were offering up for me on prime time. I know I'm not alone here. Reports are that the ratings are low. I'm curious if this will have any affect on the Kerry campaign. A lot of my fellow bloggers seem to think that this will be a negative for Kerry. I'm still firmly in the less is more camp when it comes to the Kerry campaign. In other words, the less people see him, the less they know about him, the better his chances to win are. While I firmly believe that is a formula for a disastrous Presidency, I still believe that is what it will take for Kerry to win. And considering how few people seem to care about this convention and Kerry, the apathy just may play into his hands. And I'm a bad conservative for not watching myself and proclaiming from the blogger-tops what a putz this guy really is.

John 'Rambo' Kerry

Something has got to stick to Kerry sooner or later.  The RNC seems to think it will be an 11 minute tape of Kerry contradicting himself on Iraq over the years that they are releasing tomorrow.  I doubt that will dent him.  Another video tomorrow could, though.  The video that will introduce him tomorrow has some of his Vietnam 8 mm clips in which he would return to the place of a skirmish and re-enact it for his own pleasure.  It probably only has about a 20% chance of becoming a Dukakis moment, but if the press were to run with it hard, it could.  What kind of freak re-enacts war and video tapes himself doing it?

Random Thought

Democrats are terrific at identifying America's problems, our weaknesses, and our faults.  Just don't ask them for solutions, because they don't have any.

Pandering

Blech. I've watched a number of the speeches tonight. I'm gagging on my bile. Do the Dems ever stop pandering?

In a related note, I will be able to better withstand 4 years of Kerry than 4 years of Te-re-za. Please, America, do not give this woman 4 years of free press.

And good environemental policy is good economics, by the way. Bad environmental policy is not though (*cough* Kyoto).

What a Cheeky Dish that Theresa is...

From the AP:

BOSTON - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites) doesn't have a problem with his wife telling an insistent journalist to "shove it" when urged to explain her plea for more civility in politics.

Not a Tight Ship

John Kerry was recently in Michigan projecting a blue collar message to the middle class masses of auto workers. So what does his campaign put on the press passes? A Rolls Royce. This faux paux will have little affect on the campaign in Michigan because most voters will never know about this, but it just goes to show the general incompetencies in the Kerry campaign. To me, a sloppy campaign is a predictor of a sloppy chief executive.

We've Forgotten

I woke up this morning warm and safe in my bed. I have my worries and stresses like everyone else, but I woke this morning without a care in the world. Then I turned on ESPN and watched their #8 sports headline-9/11 and the effect on sports. They opened up with the scenes of 9/11, scenes we've all seen hundreds of times, but with less and less frequently of late. My head began to ache, and my eyes misted up. I began to relive the emotions of that day, which for me were deep and strong, but not nearly as those of people who were in Washington and New York that day, or those who had loved ones who died. And as I watched these scenes anger welled up inside me. The anger was a mix of the anger that I am well familiar with, that which is directed at those who did this, and a new anger. My new anger is that so much of America has forgotten what happened that day. I am glad dissenting opinion has returned to America. I never thought that a permanent bi-partisanship attitude in Washington was a good idea. What angers me is the nature of the dissent. It is irrational, it is light on truth, it is propagandistic, it is viscious, and it is born out of the fact that this is the only way the left could regain power in 2004. Face it, Bush has performed well since 9/11. Since the possession of Power is all that matters to the left, they have engaged in near treasonous ways since late 2002. Lies are puked out, their whores in the media repeat the lies, and then when disproven, the media ignores the controversy. There was Nigerian Yellow Cake, Joe Wilson lied, those 16 words were accurate? Ah who cares the damage is done. No WMD in Iraq? Forget about the 35 sarin shells that have been found so far, they don't matter. Iran (a member of the Axis of Evil) had ties to 9/11? Ah well, Bush must just be beating the drums for a new war. Oil prices are hitting record highs? Huh, guess the war wasn't for oil after, but so what, it was worth 5 points in the polls.

I will go on the record as saying this. If John Kerry is elected president, the scandals that will result will make Clinton look like an alter boy. Our strength will be diminished at least 5 fold. The economy will be in shambles by 2009. Finally, the civil rights of dissenters will be grossly trampled on. September 11 will continue to be forgotten, justice will not be served, and we will be well on our way to losing this war with Islamism.

Caging Protestors?

So, the Democrats are going to cage protestors at the Democratic National Convention. Intriguing. While Mrs. Heinz Kerry bankrolls anarchists who plan to disrupt security at the Republican National Conventions, the Democrats are going to show their love of free speech and their tolerance of dissent by caging those who practice both. I expect nothing less of the party whose goal seems to be acquiring absolute power in the United States.

More Gloom in the Skies

Well, there has been little hard reporting on the Northwest Airlines Flight 327 story since it broke a week ago, and the major news media have been loathe to touch the story in great depth. The Washington Times today covers the story with a few new wrinkles.

The Administration that Won't Go Away

The Clinton administration just will not stop breaking laws and obstructing investigations.

Celeb Speech

I know it is tough for celebrities to understand and accept, but at least half of any given audience does not want to hear that celebrity's opinions on anything.  They want to see/hear that celebrity perform.  After all, these people did not become celebrities because of their intelligence or their beliefs, but because they act, sing, or perform comedy well.

 

That leads into my next point.  Any celebrity who pops off about censorship after the market or private business punishes them financially for exercising their free speech immediately displays their lack of intelligence.  The free market and private businesses have every right to disassociate themselves from those who hold beliefs they disagree with.  What these celebrities fail to understand is that we have freedom of speech but not speech without a price.  We are all accountable for what we say, and that includes Whoopi Goldberg, Linda Ronstadt, the Dixie Chicks, etc, etc.  You want to spout off, fine, but don't whine when you have to face the consequences of your own words.

In Review Part Deux

*In addition, Mrs. Heinz Kerry's foundation is funding an organiztion which funds anarchists who plan to wreak havoc on the Republican National Convention. Given that these anarchists plans will make the Convention inherently less safe and more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, Mrs. Heinz Kerry's actions are at best revolting and irresponsible; if the actions of the anarchists lead to an attack, they could be consider treasonous.
*Meanwhile, with all of the serious threats we face today, Democrats main concern in California is the Governator calling them girly men.

In Review...

Well, it’s summer, I’ve been busy, and I haven’t taken the time to formulate my thoughts on numerous items of interest that have arisen the past several days. Because of that, I’m following a policy of if you don’t have anything intelligent to say, don’t say anything at all. Just the same, I do have a couple of items for review:
*This apparent dry run of a terrorist attack had the &%@# hitting the fan late last week. While fear for her own safety may have slightly tainted the author’s viewpoint, I suspect that by and large her story is accurate. I would expect a trained writer who was interrogated immediately after the event to be able to provide a lot of details. This story shines a light on the ignorance our government is showing when it comes to profiling. Is profiling for profiling’s sake be the policy of airlines? No, of course not. Al Qaeda would just shift tactics and begin using white recruits for operations. Should profiling be a tool that government forbids airport security from using? Again, my answer is no. In moderation, it can be a useful tool. To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand.
*On the heels of the story above is a book claiming that Al Qaeda already has suitcase nukes in place here in the states. While I deem this story as a little less credible (at least until I can get a gander at the book), it deserves a good hard look none the less.
*Combine the two above with this recent quote from Tom Daschle (from The Federalist):

When one reporter asked Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle if the terror announcement could have been timed to steal the "political thunder" from the announcement of John Edwards for the Demo VP slot, Daschle replied, "The report is so sobering and so serious that I cannot bring myself to believe anyone in this administration would use this for political purposes."

Unorthodox Solutions

One of the Democrats favorite (but weak) causes is the low salaries of teachers.  It is a topic that is tough to fight them on because everyone wants talented, well compensated teachers for their kids.  A recent survey shows that the average teacher makes $46,000 a year.  That ain't too shabby, especially when you factor in that is for less than 9 months of work a year.  So I have a solution.  Since teachers only work from September to June, they have that natural downtime from June to the end of August.  My proposal is that we make teachers part of the city street department in the summer.  Put 'em to work mowing grass, filling pot holes, and cleaning out sewers.  This way they have a well paying job over the summer to supplement their income.  It's still a government job, so they won't have too work too hard, but they will work up a sweat instead of just getting fat.  I'm sure the teachers' union would be fully supportive of municipalities having teachers work a little more for a little extra pay.

This is going to be a "Dewey Defeats Truman" type election.  My educated guess is that 40% of people have fully made up their mind to go to the polls and vote for Kerry.  Likewise, 40% have set in stone their decision to vote Bush.  Another 5% are probably going to vote Kerry, and 5% will probably vote Bush, but they will be highly influenceable between now and then.  The wild card is the last 10%.  I think that last 10% will make their decision once they get in that booth.  They make this election completely unpredictable.  I have no science or research to back that up, so I will not speculate heavily on what that 10% might do once in the voting booth, but I think they might surprise the press.

 

Some predictors:

*If Bin Laden is caught and Iraq remains stable, Bush will lose.  Anglo states have shown a tendency to toss leaders out of office once they perceive that leader to have won a war, even if he hasn't yet.

*The economy will have no bearing on the election unless it worsens.  The press has been too good at turning good news into bad news for this president for him to capitalize on a good economy.  Caveat to this-if the Bush Boom becomes a household phrase, Bush wins by a large margin.

*Running on raising taxes could come back to bite the Democrats in the butt.  People don't care about the deficit, they care about making the payment on the car they overextended themselves to buy.

*If there is a major act of terrorism on election day, and the election is not postponed, Bush wins a landslide, but Kerry contests the election, contending too many voters were disenfranchised by their inability to vote during a national emergency.  The press will not bring up the present Democratic opposition to planning on postponing the election.

*If a major act of terrorism on election day is thwarted within a month of the election, Bush wins going away, with no serious controversy.

*If there is a major act of terrorism on election, and the election is postponed, Bush will lose.  He will lose because Kerry et al will claim that the postponement is a heavy handed act by Bush to illegally remain in power.

*Kerry will stick his foot three feet down his throat at some point between now and November, and it will cost him 5% in the polls.

*If the Republican Convention is sabotaged by the loony left anarchists, it will give Bush a big bump, provided the NYPD isn't shown beating the hell out of protestors like the Chicago PD was in 1968.

Conspiracy Theory

I'm thinking about floating a conspiracy theory out there via those endlessly forwarded e-mails. It came out this weekend that Homeland Security is studying options for delaying the election should there be a major terrorist attack. Now Jane Harman, the top Demo on the House Intelligence Committee, is calling that excessive. ???? Does anyone remember how this country came to a standstill on September 11? My theory: Democrats are passively hoping for a terrorist attack on election day. The turn out will be automatically depressed. This will hurt both parties, but the Democrats have shown a talent for getting out the vote of the homeless and and poor on election day. These are two groups that would least likely be sitting in front of the tube, watching the coverage of a terrorist attack.

Do I actually believe it? Not really. It is almost impossible to predict the group psychology that would occur that day. But how can you play politics and say that merely planning for the worst is excessive. You know that if we didn't plan for it, and the worst occurred, and Bush won, that it would be made into a huge scandal. Maybe that is what they are hoping for.

Loose Lips Sink Ships, Volume I

Welcome to the first edition of Jiblog's "Loose Lips Sink Ships". We are once again at war in America (albeit undeclared, again), and my mind hearkens back to the wonderful posters of WWII. My favorite is "Loose Lips Sink Ships" because it so effeciently taught Americans that their own big mouths could lead to the death of their fellow citizens, including their loved ones. Well, it is also a lesson we've forgotten over the years. Today, the biggest loose lips belong to our news media. Over the past two and a half years, I've been continually amazed at the stories that editors and producers decide to run with, stories that illuminate out weaknesses and blind spots not only to you and I, but also our enemies.

Our example today is the normally stellar Washington Times. Today they tell us how terrorists can pick up on the identity of air marshals, and also gives them tips on how they can incapcitate the marshals. While I understand the spirit of the piece is pro-marshal and anti-beaurocracy, which is good, it does not change the fact that the story tips the air marshals' hand even more to terrorists.

Congratulations, Washington Times. May American blood never stain your keyboards.

Crib Notes

*The 2 Johns. It’s kind of sad. The Democrats so desperately want to recreate Camelot, to continue the political dynasty that was robbed of them by two assassins that they have to cobble together two men to come up with enough of JFK’s qualities to satisfy them. Could this also be part of their hatred for Bush? It was theirs for the taking, a political ruling class in the name of Kennedy. Instead, it ended up being the Bush family that Americans have put their trust in. Now we are getting 2 Johns in the place of one Jack.
*Question: Why has gay marriage not been an issue before the present? Answer: It used to be, back when this country acknowledged it’s Christian roots, that marriage was moored in the strong foundation of Christianity. Now that we cannot utter the name ‘Jesus’, except as a curse, in a public place without being threatened with legal action, the morality of homosexuality is off the table, as is the traditional moral structure of marriage. The Baby Boomers’ “If it feels good, do it” motto is coming to fruition; those of us opposed to the anti-values of the counter culture left can do little but watch on in abject horror, because the left has deemed our thought and free speech intolerable, and therefore unacceptable.
*The New Republic is spinning a new pseudo-lefty-not-really-a-scandal. The July Surprise (link from Jonah Goldberg at the Corner) reports that we are pressuring the Paki’s to deliver us some of the top terrorists by November. Who the hell cares if we’re pressuring Pakistan to deliver high value targets by election day? I want these murderers caught ASAP, and I don’t care how we go about doing it. I suspect most of America agrees. On top of that, what is TNR’s counter proposal? That we tell Musharaff, “Hey dude, better not catch anybody until at least December. We don’t want to put out the Democrats.”? This is more stupid crap that the left is throwing against the wall to see if it sticks as a scandal, and frankly, it’s embarrassing.

The Best Hair?

Kerry claims he and Edwards have the best hair in this presidential race. The Wahl Clipper Corp says the American people think otherwise. In a recent hair grooming survey, the American people say Bush has better hair than Kerry by a 51% to 30% margin. So I put the question to my wife. "Kerry and Edwards have smarmy hair. Bush has honest hair." What incredible good sense this woman has, and she's one of my two readers. Occasionally.

Crib Notes

Crib Notes
*Look, a Republican ammo dump! Whatever will they do with all of that ammunition?
*Britain’s rather flacid response to Iran commandeering their ships and kidnapping their troops will have consequences down the road, as Iran continues to push the coalition, knowing that we don’t care to push back at the moment.
*If we were to have another terrorist attack on American soil on par with 9/11, and all of the ‘experts’ seem to think that it is inevitable, what should our response be? The incomparable Victor Davis Hanson has some great thoughts here. Personally, after an attack, I think we should do a couple of things. First, re-institute the draft, but through a mandatory national year of service program for 18 year olds. Give ‘em a choice, hold them to it, and make voluntary military service one of the more attractive options. Any male who has not volunteered for service of some sort is then eligible for the draft. Heck, include females in there, too, just not for combat roles. Next, somebody will need to be made an example of. Who and what example we make would be dictated by the nature and nationality of the attackers. I’ll let my two readers use their imagination as to how best make these examples. Third, somebody gets an official declaration of war, be it Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, or whoever has the most culpability for the terrorists involved. And instead of this soft Axis of Evil rhetoric, we put these nations on official alert that we are lowering our threshold for holding them and the terrorists they support culpable for terrorist actions. VDH takes this a step further by attempting to preempt the next attack by making similar plans known ahead of time, thereby putting our enemies on notice to stop harboring and supporting terrorists. I like that idea, but I am nervous about 2 things. One, that plan could cost Bush the election because two, we just don’t have the will nor the back bone nor the spine for it right now.
*For the record, I despise the government mandating that the people do anything. In the example above, the mandatory national service plan would be up for renewal about once every three years or so. I think it is a fine wartime plan, a time when a nation can ask its young men and women to give for their country, but it is a terrible plan for peace time.
*When it comes to foreign policy, the left acts like a bunch of insecure teenage girls who want to be popular. “Look, there’s France. She’s so cool. Maybe we can be cool like her some day, too. Maybe we can even eat at her lunch table. What, oh, hi Germany! I saw your war 60 years ago. I’m sorry you lost, but you played hard. Did you see me cheering? Yeah, that was me. We can be you girlfriend? Really? I have to do what, though? If I do, will you tell me you love us? You will?! Swell! We don’t swallow, though. Well, unless you really want us to.”
*Ugh. The Johns are both lawyers. If they win the presidency, maybe they’ll peacefully sue Al Qaeda out of existence.

Zarqawi Targets Women

~Sigh~ I'm anything but a sexist. In fact, I kinda like this equality amongst the sexes thing. It makes women an even more interesting and fascinating gender. I have always been opposed to the women of our armed forces being in hostile territory, though. My opposition is not because I think women are incapable of the rigors of working in hostile territory; quite the contrary, I think they are capable of incredible bravery, if only to show us boys that what we can do they can do better. My problem with it is it makes them bigger targets for our enemies than the average male. Zarqawi understands that the average American's heart is softer for women than it is for men, and that is where this story comes from. I'm going to say this now before we find out an American Service Woman is abducted and killed, because it would be wholely inappropriate after: The abduction, abuse, and death of an American service woman is inevitable. Our enemies understand the political hay they can make with such actions, and they have no qualms about doing so. Some of us will get very angry with these cowardly men who perpetrate such atrocities, but others will blame the Bush administration. Others will include the mainstream media. I tell you all now, blame will first lay with the perps of that crime. The 1% of so of the remaining blame that is available to the government should sit squarely on Bill Clinton's shoulders for allowing this to ever happen in the first place.

Jonah Goldberg's Syndicated Column Today

I'm a fan of Jonah Goldberg's, as are many here in the blogosphere. In fact, he's the first columnist whose work I had developed a strong fondness of since one of my professional heroes, Mike Royko, passed away. I also love The Corner at National Review Online because not only is it informative and entertaining, but everyone over at National Review does such a great job of interacting with the readers. I try not to bug them with emails, because I'm sure they get overwhelmed with it, but once in a while I do send one. Goldberg, Rich Lowry, Kathryn Jean Lopez, and John Derbyshire have all been nice enough to send me replies (Derb is now one of my favorites, as well, as he sent me a quite thoughtful reply the one time I wrote him). But anyway, last night I sent an e-mail to Jonah Goldberg. The crap coming out of the left about Bush and supporters being Nazis, Hitler, Brownshirts has been irritating me, especially considering that Gore, Dean, and friends have been taking a page out of the fascist public speech book by appealing to the anger, fear, and hate of voters rather than to the rational world of ideas and ideals, which is much more the American political way. My email to Goldberg essentially asked his opinion on this matter, since I already knew he was writing a book on fascism. He did not reply, but a reply was not needed. I saw his syndicated column today, which covered the topic nicely.