Archive for June, 2008
In 1995, Bill Clinton had the opportunity to sign a bill that would’ve allowed drilling on ANWR’s Coastal Plain. He vetoed the bill, creating the mantra of not ruining the “pristine wilderness’ found in ANWR. Among other things, Bill Clinton took other oil-laden federal lands offlimits via executive order. The simple truth is that this is a well-planned ‘crisis’ of choice. We all remember Obama’s saying that $4 a gallon gas wasn’t too expensive; it’s just that it reached that price faster than he would’ve liked.
This ‘crisis’ was completely avoidable. Democrats chose this crisis because they supported policies that put huge known oil reserves offlimits.
During the 2004 presidential election, John Kerry promised that he’d filibuster any bill that permitted drilling in ANWR. That’s been the Democrats’ position for at least a decade.
Which leads us to today’s high gas prices. Clinton could claim, feebly in my opinion, that ‘ruining’ ANSWR’s pristine wilderness wasn’t worth it when oil was being traded at $10 a barrel. Since oil isn’t being sold at $10 a barrel anymore, doesn’t it seem wise to change policy? I posted a quote from John Maynard Keynes in this post:
When asked why he changed his position on an issue, John Maynard Keynes said: â€œWhen the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?â€
The Democrats have given us their answer. Unfortunately, they aren’t as smart as Mr. Keynes. The facts changed, Democrats didn’t.
BTW, that pristine wilderness that Bill Clinton and Democrats after him don’t want destroyed isn’t as pristine as they’d have us believe. Certainly, we’ve seen pictures like this:
Or perhaps you saw this picture instead:
To be fair, those are pictures of ANWR. The truth is that they aren’t pictures of where the drilling would actually happen. Here’s a more accurate picture of the drilling site:
That isn’t quite as pristine as Democrats want you to believe, is it? Well, that’s their story and they’re sticking with it:
Democratic leaders were not subtle about their plans to use the vote against Republicans in November. “Of everything they have done so far in terms of obstruction, this is the politically most damaging,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who heads the Democrats’ Senate campaign committee.
Sen. Schumer’s shills might not get hurt this year but his House colleagues will be hurt by the Senate Democrats’ obstructionist ways. Polling shows overwhelming support for opening up the OCS and ANWR. People want a solution. ASAP. They’re convinced that a windfalls profits tax won’t make gas a penny cheaper at the pump, either.
Klobuchar is backing a bill that would give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission additional authority to investigate the energy markets. Republicans, in a comprehensive energy plan presented Thursday, made a similar proposal.
“The experts tell us that a good amount of the money we now pay at the pump is going into the bank accounts of financial speculators,” Klobuchar said last week at a meeting with business leaders in Minneapolis.
During last week’s blogger conference call, Rep. John Peterson talked about the fastest way to put speculators in their place. Rep. Peterson noted that there was a gap of about 9 million barrels a day when oil was selling for dirt cheap. He then said that today’s margin was about a million barrels a day. Rep. Peterson is exactly right in saying that the fastest way to put speculators in their place is to increase production.
Democrats don’t want that. More accurately, the environmental extremists don’t want that. When the environmental extremists say jump, Democrats ask how high. Until they abandon the extremists, we’ll be stuck with high gas prices. It’s just that simple.
Here’s a thought worth pondering: Democrats say conserve, conserve. How does an OTR trucker conserve? How does a farmer working his crops conserve?
When you have the answer, let me know.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
I just read the stunning statement that Gen. Wesley Clark (ret.) made with regard to John McCain’s qualifications as commander-in-chief. Here’s a transcript of Gen. Clark’s idiotic statement:
Gen. CLARK: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it’s a matter of understanding risk, it’s a matter of gauging your opponents and it’s a matter of being held accountable. John McCain’s never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded wasn’t a wartime squadron. He hasn’t been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn’t seen what it’s like when diplomats come in and say, `I don’t know whether we’re going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly?’
After a moment of stunned silence, here’s how Bob Schieffer responded:
SCHIEFFER: I have to say, Barack Obama has not had any of those experiences either, nor has he ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down. I mean…
Gen. CLARK: Well, I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.
Gen. CLARK: But Barack is not, he is not running on the fact that he has made these national security pronouncements, he’s running on his other strengths. He’s running on the strengths of character, on the strengths of his communication skills, on the strengths of his judgment, and those are qualities that we seek in our national leadership.
Gen. Clark is getting drilled by Rush as a hypocrite. Rush is playing a tape of Gen. Clark’s speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Here’s what Gen. Clark said then:
John Kerry has heard the thump of enemy mortars. He’s seen the flash of the tracers. He’s lived the values of service and sacrifice. In the Navy, as a prosecutor, as a senator, he proved his physical courage under fire. And he’s proved his moral courage too.
John Kerry fought a war, and I respect him for that. And he came home to fight a peace. And I respect him for that, too. John Kerry’s combination of physical courage and moral values is my definition of what we need as Americans in our commander in chief.
To put it politely, Wesley Clark is a political chameleon. To put it bluntly, Wesley Clark is a political hack who’ll say whatever makes his candidate look best.
Let’s be clear about something: Gen. Wesley Clark is a sleazebag who hates Republicans. It’s nothing more complicated than that. It doesn’t have anything to do with principle. It doesn’t have anything to do with intellectual honesty. It’s all about political opportunism.
Let’s return to what Gen. Clark said. In 2004, Gen. Clark said at the Democratic National Convention that John Kerry’s military experience in Vietnam made Kerry the most qualified to be the next commander-in-chief. Now he’s saying that John McCain’s being held as a POW, having his arms broken, then serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee doesn’t qualify John McCain to be our next commander-in-chief.
Only a mental midget would attempt making that case. In that sense, Gen. Clark is the most qualified person to make such a silly argument.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
According to Peter Brown, the director of Quinippiac’s polling, history shows that Democrats have long had trouble with white voters. He makes his case in this WSJ op-ed.
For those voters, especially ones without college degrees, the fact that Sen. Obama is black may not be as much a disqualifier as his background as a Democrat from the Frost Belt with no national security or executive experience and a voting record judged by the nonpartisan National Journal as the Senateâ€™s most liberal during 2007.
Yet, the focus on Sen. Obamaâ€™s relative weakness among the white working class has become the hot topic among many who say racial bias explains it. Of course it would be naive to believe that race is not a factor in America today. But that doesnâ€™t necessarily mean Mr. Obamaâ€™s relative weakness among white voters is solely, or even mainly, due to the fact that he is black and that three quarters of voters this year will be white.
Why would anyone think that policies matter? Obama’s troubles with white working class voters has far more to do with the fact that he’s the most underqualified major party candidate in my voting lifetime. OLet’s not forget that white working class voters haven’t forgotten (or forgiven) Obama for his SF fundraising speech, either.
Setting that speech aside, Obama would still have trouble with white working class voters just based on the history of the Democratic Party. White working class voters, generally speaking, prefer muscular foreign policy based on the cliche that “Might makes fright.” That certainly doesn’t describe Sen. Obama’s foreign policy approach. He’d rather befriend tyrants like Ahmadinejad and Chavez than scare them into major concessions.
Although Mr. Clinton won enough votes to take the presidency, after his reign, Democrats continued to see the formula for victory as before; increasing minority turnout, especially African-Americans, and to a lesser degree Hispanics, while winning those white voters most likely to see things their way, single women, union members and those with low incomes who viewed government as their salvation.
Ignoring Views and Values
Such a focus ignores the views and values of the larger group of white voters.
The truth is that, more than we like to admit, polls consistently show a correlation between race and ideology in American society. White voters, as a group, are more likely to favor a limited role for government here at home and a more aggressive posture overseas. In general, polls show Democrats, and a disproportionate share of black voters, favor a smaller, less adventurous military and a larger role for government on the domestic front.
Alot about this race will come down to the candidate that runs the best campaign. Much of that will have to do with how Sen. Obama perceives his chances of winning white working class voters. If he sees proof that he can’t win enough of those voters, he’ll likely work on increasing voter turnout for Democrat-friendly groups.
Sen. Obama touts his fifty-state plan but I don’t see why he’s wasting money in Montana, North Dakota and Utah. I can’t imagine John McCain worrying even a little bit about those states. Money spent in Georgia isn’t likely to help either, especially after Rasmussen’s latest polling on the state of that race:
McCain 53, Obama 43, Barr 1
BTW, Barr getting 1 percent in his home state says everything you need to know about Barr’s impact on this election. Pundits keep saying that Obama has a shot in states like North Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Arkansas because of their large African-American populations. I won’t buy that because those states are also largely conservative states. It’d take an incredible, possibly unprecedented, increase in black voter turnout to wipe out a 10 point lead.
Bill Clinton had the ability to win over white voters. I’d seriously doubt that Sen. Obama has that ability. That’s why I think this race is McCain’s to win.
It doesn’t hurt that people confer national security credibility to Sen. McCain but not to Sen. Obama. People like Sen. Obama but they’re worried about the people who he’s associated himself with.
That will weigh on him far more than any racial bias ever will.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
This Boston Globe article says everything that needs to be known about how serious Democrats are about winning in Iraq. That is, they aren’t the least bit serious. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:
Three Massachusetts congressmen called for a United Nations security force to replace American troops in Iraq as part of a phased plan for withdrawing US soldiers after a new president takes office in January.
Yesterday’s proposal, sponsored by Representatives James P. McGovern, John F. Tierney, and William D. Delahunt, calls for an end to ongoing talks between the United States and Iraq on a long-term security agreement. Instead, according to the proposal, US authorities should immediately start negotiations with the UN on a mandate to govern the “internationalization of responsibility for aid and support to Iraq.”
Reps. Tierney, McGovern and Delahunt are idiots for proposing such a plan. The U.N. can’t focus on killing al-Qa’ida like our troops are currently doing. The U.N. won’t take sides like U.S. troops are taking sides against anyone plotting against the sovereign Iraqi government. They can’t involve themselves in demolishing malicious militias like those funded by Iran.
While it’s true that Iraqi security forces now control every major citiy in Iraq, it’s equally true that the U.S. military is still needed to wipe out the last of al-Qa’ida’s terrorists and the last of Sadr’s militias.
Here’s what Rep. McGovern sees happening:
The current UN mandate, under which American forces legally operate in the country, expires on Dec. 31. The US and Iraqi governments have no plans to seek its renewal and are drawing up a bilateral agreement that could keep US forces in the country indefinitely.
McGovern, a Democrat from Worcester, said such an agreement “will lead to a US commitment to endless war.” Congress, he said, must help the next president chart an alternative.
“For those of us who opposed the war, it is not enough to say the war was a mistake and we should immediately withdraw,” McGovern told reporters in a conference call by the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Commonwealth Institute, a Cambridge-based independent research center that helped draft the report. “Every time we try to bring up the issue of withdrawal, the [Bush] administration shouts ‘bloodbath.’ They make it seem as if there is no choice but to stay. The fact is there are alternatives.”
Talk about hyperbole. A sovereign government asks another sovereign government’s forces to clean out the last of the bad guys means neverending war? Rep. McGovern is an idiot for thinking that. Rep. McGovern is an even bigger idiot for thinking that we’re losing. Col. Peters skillfully explained that we’re clobbering the bad guys in Iraq:
I think itâ€™s easy to get wrapped up with details but this isnâ€™t one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front, then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. These are big stories and I can tell you, Geraldo, that at the New York Post, that we found that people do want to hear positive things about our troops. They do want the news from Iraq and the last thing Iâ€™ll say of this is that Iâ€™ll say of this is that if in the Year of Our Lord 2014, that if Iraq is a perfect, peaceful democracy, better than Iowa, the NY Times will run an article above the fold, shoplifter arrested in Sadr City, surge failed.
What’s the color of the sun in Rep. McGovern’s world? Based on his answers, it can’t be the same color as our sun. He’s just too far gone to be from this solar system.
While Col. Peters is talking about the significant achievements in Iraq, Rep. McGovern is talking like it’s 2004, which is typical for Democrats. They have a penchant for talking down to people.
Here’s one of the trio’s ‘alternatives':
Those alternatives include normalizing relations with neighboring Syria and seeking a rapprochement with Iran, two nations that have been blamed for fomenting some of the civil strife within Iraq, according to the 30-page report. The plan also calls for “vigorous diplomatic steps” to stop the flow of arms into the country.
According to dictionary.com, here’s rapprochement’s definition:
an establishment or reestablishment of harmonious relations
Why on God’s green earth would we seen to establish “harmonious relations” with a terrorist nation that’s building nuclear weapons? What possible benefit would we get from such a policy? Is there a benefit in pursuing such a policy?
These Three Stooges need to be highlighted for holding the views that Democrats typically hold. The sole exception to that policy is Joe Lieberman. Isn’t it iteresting that the Nutroots love idiots like Reps. Tierney, Delahunt and McGovern but hate Sen. Lieberman?
Don’t think that that’s coincidental. After all, the Nutroots love defeat.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
I can’t believe I almost forgot this but it’s time to wish Harmon Killebrew a happy birthday. Harmon turned 72 today. It seems like just yesterday that I was watching Harmon playing at Metropolitan Stadium down in Bloomington. (Yes, it was first called Metropolitan Stadium before it got nicknamed The Met.)
My first Twins game was in August, 1966, against the Baltimore Orioles at the Met. When the Twins rallied for 9 runs in the bottom of the 8th inning, Harmon & Tony O were in the middle of the uprising.
I can’t honestly claim to have attended the game when Harmon hit a shot into the upper deck in left against the Angels but I was there the next day when Haromn hit one off the facing of the second deck against lefty Lew Burdette. Utterly crushed the ball. The ball hit off the centerfield side of the scoreboard, which meant it was in the power alley portion of the outfield. Easily 450+ feet.
Harmon was a gentleman’s gentleman, too. I’m proud to say that I met Harmon in St. Cloud when Crown Auto opened at 24th & Division. He came there & signed autographs for well over an hour. What’s neat was that Harmon smiled the entire time. He was joking much of the time.
If I’m sounding like a Twins homer, well, that’s because it was impossible not to be if you grew up during that era. With Harmon, Tony Oliva & Rod Carew anchoring the batting order & with Jim Kaat, Jim Perry & a young Bert Blyleven (Bert was a 19-year-old rooking 1970) anchoring the pitching staff, the Twins had a ton of talent.
BTW, if Harmon played today, he wouldn’t have finished with 573 HR’s, which was 4th best at the time. This Baseball Almanac diagram shows the difficulty of hitting a ball out in the power allies. It was entirely possible to hit a ball 405 feet into the leftfield power alley & get robbed of an extra base hit by Paul Blair. In today’s game, a ball hit 405 feet in a power alley wouldn’t even warrant a chase. It’d clear every park in America, with the exception of Yellowstone, by 20 feet. More times than I care to remember, Harmon had doubles that landed at the base of the 430 foot sign just to the rightfield side of centerfield.
That’s only one side of Harmon, though. Harmon still shows up in Ft. Meyers every spring to work with that year’s power hitters. Many is the lesson that Justin Morneau & Michael Cuddyer have learned from Harmon. In future years, I’m certain that players like Jason Kubel & Delmon Young will learn from him, too.
That’s part of the Twins’ magic. Rod Carew & Tony Oliva teach the kids hitting, with Rod working with guys like Denard Span, Alexi Casilla & Carlos Gomez on bunting. Paul Molitor spends time workingh on baserunning.
Now you’re seeing why it’s easy being a Twins fan. If you love baseball played right, it’s impossible not to love them. They play the game right. Day after day, game after game, season after season.
I’d like to think alot of that’s happened because it all started with Harmon. Happy Birthday, Harmon. You’re the best.
Yesterday, I ran across a poll from Goodwin Victoria Simon Research on Swing State Project. Here’s what SSP said:
How big will 2008 be? Big enough to see a few presumed safe Republican districts painted blue in November? Anything’s possible. A Goodwin Simon Victoria Research poll (5/19-22, likely voters) of Minnesota’s 2nd CD suggests that this R+2.7 district is turning a bluer shade of pale. From the polling memo:
It has become very clear in this election cycle that many Congressional seats formerly considered “Republican” seats are now in play; very little is safe for the GOP at present. Our recent poll results indicate that Minnesota’s 2nd Congressional District has officially reached the tipping point, as the generic ballot between any “Democrat” and a “Republican” for Congress starts out as tied, 40% to 40%, for the first time in this district’s history. Add to this Sarvi’s compelling personal narrative and moderate inclinations, and Democrats have a real chance to take this district in November.
Today, I googled Steve Sarvi to see what, if any, play this poll was getting. Instead of finding the Sarvi playing this poll up, I found an article telling a much different story. Here’s what that article said:
Rep. John Kline, R-Lakeville, held a 20-point lead over Democratic candidate Steve Sarvi of Watertown according to a recent poll commissioned by the Sarvi campaign, but the challenger took hope from apparent generic support for a Democratic candidate against the three-term lawmaker.
The poll of 400 likely voters in the southeastern 2nd Congressional District was conducted May 19-22 by Goodwin Simon Victoria Research. It found Kline leading Sarvi 48 percent to 28 percent when voters were asked who they would choose if the election were held that day. The poll had a margin of error of 4.9 percentage points.
Among undecided voters, 5 percent each said they leaned toward Kline, a retired Marine colonel, or Sarvi, an Iraq veteran and former city administrator for Victoria.
Sarvi issued the results Thursday without including the head-to-head percentages, but provided them on request. His campaign sought to emphasize a tie, at 40 percent each, in the so-called generic ballot, where respondents were asked whether they support a Democrat or Republican for Congress. The result indicated to Sarvi that he has an opportunity to even the race with the better-known Kline, if the campaign can reach voters, his campaign manager Bridget Cusick said.
It’s interesting that the post and the article was based on polling done by Goodwin Victoria Simon Research. It’s more interesting to Team Sarvi spinning the polling this way. Ms. Cusick likely won’t volunteer this answer she must know that the generic ballot is meaningless. She must know that horserace numbers are what matter.
It’s worth noting what the reporter said, too, because it’s quite telling:
His campaign sought to emphasize a tie, at 40 percent each, in the so-called generic ballot, where respondents were asked whether they support a Democrat or Republican for Congress.
In other words, they’re spinning to the Nth degree. They know that the generic ballot is meaningless.
Another thing I find interesting is that this is that this poll was the Sarvi campaign’s in-house polling. Usually, that type of polling isn’t released unless it’s particularly good news for their candidate. Frankly, I don’t see anything positive for Sarvi in this poll.
Similarly, I don’t find anything but spin in Goodwin Victoria Simon Research’s memo. As delusional as their memo is, SSP’s commentary is more delusional:
With no head-to-heads released, we can safely assume that Kline leads at this early stage. However, after hearing a positive statement about the Democratic candidate, Steve Sarvi, Sarvi pulls ahead by 49%-37%.
SSP’s assumptions have left them looking just a little bit foolish. That’s the price people pay when they assume that their best case scenario is reality. In this instnace, it’s obvious that SSP is doing its best to make this look closer than it is.
The message behind Kevin Rennie’s column is simple, concise and unmistakeable: Sen. Dodd, it’s time to come clean because we’re not going away. It’s a message that Sen. Dodd doesn’t want to hear but it’s a message that isn’t going away.
‘I would never take ‘trust me’ for an answer, not even in the best of times. Not even from a president on Mount Rushmore.” So declared Sen. Christopher J. Dodd last week on the floor of the U.S. Senate during a debate on government surveillance.
Dodd declared he will not trust our leaders unless he gets to see certain national security documents. Dodd insists, however, that we trust him when he says he didn’t know he received special treatment when he borrowed nearly $800,000 from Countrywide Financial Corp. in 2003.
This calls for an FOIA request. If Sen. Dodd won’t voluntarily comply with our request that he produce documentation on what was or wasn’t said in his negotiations with Angelo Mozilo, then we’ll demand his compliance. Sen. Dodd would be wise to remember that summers are when many scandals are exposed. That’s because there’s a lull in the news. If he wants someone digging into his financial affairs, I’m certain someone will be more than willing to do that.
One thing that’s obvious is that Dodd will play this as long as possible. Here’s what I’m basing that opinion on:
Connecticut’s senior senator engaged in more disingenuous maneuvering Tuesday, telling reporters the details of his mortgages were already public records. But the mortgage deeds on the land records in Washington, D.C., and East Haddam don’t tell critical aspects of the Dodds’ odyssey with Countrywide in its heyday.
Dodd knows those publicly recorded documents do not reveal the details of his storied life on “Angelo’s List,” the hit parade of the powerful who Angelo Mozilo, head of Countrywide, took care of when they needed to borrow money. The documents Dodd won’t release might explain how he got a reduction in interest rates and fees. A copy of the commitment letters from Countrywide to the Dodds would show the initial terms of the deals, which were not as generous as the ones they got in the end.
It’s one thing for a nobody representative on an unrelated committee to play coy. It’s another when the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee plays show-and-tell with the mortgage’s documentation. That might be enough cover for Beltway media types to ignore the issue but it won’t deter bloggers from digging into things. (Personally, I’d love seeing American Thinker’s Clarice Feldman to dig into this.)
Since the devil’s always in the details, Sen. Dodd’s evasions hint that there’s something unseemly hiding in the papers that he hasn’t released. Rest assured that Sen. Dodd will release the information during a weekend or over a holiday.
BTW, it isn’t a matter of if he’ll turn the documentation over. It’s a matter of when.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Yesterday, I posted about Ralph Peters’ column in which he debunks the whoppers thats Democrats have told about Iraq. Gateway Pundit just posted the YouTube of Col. Peters’ appearance on last night’s Geraldo At-Large. It’s simply the best anti-Reid/Pelosi refutation known to mankind. Here’s a partial transcript of Peters:
I think it’s easy to get wrapped up with details but this isn’t one or two little things going right. for the last eighteen months, the positive trendlines have been overwhelmingly positive. The Iraqi military has been doing a remarkably good job. Even last year, the Iraqi parliament passed more pieces of major legislation than the U.S. Congress. Our troops can now focus on killing the remnants of al-Qaeda, killing the key Shia militia leaders and Iranian special groups. Every major city in Iraq is now in the hands of Iraqi security forces, backed by the U.S. forces. And on top of all this, Geraldo, al-Qaeda suffered a collosal strategic defeat by declaring Iraq their central front, then having Sunni Arabs turn on them by the millions. al-Qaeda is a broken organization, not defanged entirely, but broken. These are big stories and I can tell you, Geraldo, that at the New York Post, that we found that people do want to hear positive things about our troops. They do want the news from Iraq and the last thing I’ll say of this is that I’ll say of this is that if in the Year of Our Lord 2014, that if Iraq is a perfect, peaceful democracy, better than Iowa, the NY Times will run an article above the fold, shoplifter arrested in Sadr City, surge failed.
Last week, I quoted Charles Krauthmamer as saying that Democrats were the “Party of 2 years ago.” I also said that the 110th Congress isn’t just a do-nothing congress but that it’s a No Solutions Congress, too.
Now we can add that they’re the clueless Congress, too. Thankfully, we now have a strong, credible voice who’s willing to speak out on Iraq’s successes.
What’s great is that Obama can’t argue with Col. Peters’ military knowledge because Peters has actually been to Iraq several times since the surge began. Pelosi and Reid can’t argue with Peters’ political knowledge because it’s a well-documented fact that the 110th Congress doesn’t have a signature achievement it can point to. Meanwhile, the Iraqi Parliament has passed major legislation. That’s quite a contrast.
It’s time we demanded serious politicians that were solely interested in decisionmaking based on facts, not propaganda. We can do something about the politicians part of things this November.
It’s time we demanded reporters that are solely interested in reporting the facts, not their political agenda. Thankfully, Col. Peters is already on that job.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
That’s essentially the question Ralph Peters is asking in this column. Based the evidence, it’s clear that we’re safer now than we were during the Clinton administration. Here’s the first proof Col. Peters offers:
Whopper No. 1: America is less safe today than it was on Sept. 10, 2001. Oh, really? Where’s the evidence? The Clinton years saw New York City attacked and Americans slaughtered by terrorists around the globe. Nothing was done to protect us.
And the true end of the Clinton era came on 9/11. A record to be proud of.
Democrats have put forth their propaganda for the past 6+ years and no one’s called them on it. Until now. Allegations aren’t proof. Allegations shouldn’t be treated with respect. They should be ridiculed, which is what’s happening in Col. Peters’ column.
Whopper No. 2: Al Qaeda is stronger than ever. Al Qaeda just suffered a strategic defeat in Iraq that may prove decisive. It can’t launch attacks beyond its regional lairs. The cowardly Osama bin Laden can’t show his face (remember his Clinton-era pep rallies?).
Yes, terrorists can still murder innocents on their home court. I personally prefer that to them killing Americans in Manhattan and Washington. Even in Iraq, al Qaeda’s been beaten down to violent-fugitive status.
By what objective measurement is al Qaeda stronger today than it was when it had an entire country for its base and its tentacles reached all the way to Florida and the Midwest?
Let’s give President Bush credit for coming up with an aggressive plan to go after terrorists where they live rather than prosecuting them where we live. President Bush’s is to go after them where they live. President Clinton’s policy was to prosecute then where we live after they’ve killed innocent Americans. Which like the better policy of protecting us?
More importantly, which policy kept us safer?
Col. Peters made a great point in debunking the first whopper. He asked where the proof is. That’s what I’m asking evertime that Democrats repeat their mantra that we can’t drill our way out of this oil crisis. Where’s their proof of that? They don’t offer any because it doesn’t exist.
Here’s the whopper that’s most powerful to me:
Whopper No. 4: Iran is stronger than ever. Tell that to the Iraqis, who’ve rejected Iranian meddling in their affairs, who’ve smashed the Iran-backed Shia militias and who didn’t take long to figure out that Tehran’s foreign policy was imperialist and anti-Arab.
The people of Iraq don’t intend to trade Saddam for Ahmadinejad. Iran has lost in Iraq. At this point, all the Iranians can do is to kill a handful of innocent Iraqis now and then. Think that wins them friends and influence?
The next time you hear or read a Democrat spouting their talking points, ask yourself what their proof is. Better yet, write editorials asking them what proof they have for their allegations, whether it’s about oil, the Middle East or whichever subject they’re talking about.
I said during the 2006 campaign that Pelosi and Reid were utterly incompentent. Now I have proof. That’s why I’ve given them the nickname of the ‘No Solutions Congress’. When I asked King yesterday what the 110th Congrss’s signature accomplishment was, it took him a few seconds before he said “I suppose the Minimum Wage Bill”, which I agree with. The thing is, that didn’t pass the first time. It passed the second time because they included it in the Iraq supplemental bill. Some accomplishment. By comparison, eight of the ten items in the Contract With America are now law.
The proof is in the pudding. It’s time we realized that Democrats haven’t made much ‘pudding’ lately. (Thankfully.)
Cross-posted at California Conservative