Thursday - November 16, 2006

Has Anyone Seen Elvis Lately?

For those of you who don’t know Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), he’s the little dwarf who looks like a cult leader or some kind of mutant cross between a retarded human and a stalk of celery. As evidence, here is the text of HR. 2977 “Space Preservation Act Of 2001” which Congressman Kucinich introduced to ban weapons systems that, among other things could be used ...

It’s sort of a Congressional tinfoil hat for those who cannot afford tinfoil. Congressman Kucinich is definitely looking out for the conspiracy retards on the Left. These are the same people who believe Elvis is alive and well in Minnesota living in disguise. In a shared condo with Big Foot. And Jimmy Hoffa.

Now, Congressman Kook has decided to pull the plug on Iraq by simply cutting off all funding for the war, possibly leaving our troops to hitchhike their way home on their own. It’s really nothing new. The Democratically controlled Congress pulled the same stunt back in 1973 when they cut off all funds to support South Vietnam and threw the people there to the Commies. Some things never change, do they ...

Kucinich Calls for Cutting Off Iraq War Funds
“That’s the only way we’re going to end this war.”
_{(KUCINICH.US) - Nov 15, 2006}

Congressman Kucinich called Wednesday for cutting off funding of the Iraq war, as the surest way out of Iraq. His statements were made in an interview by Democracy Now!’s Amy Goodman.

“I want to say that there’s one solution here, and it’s not to engage in a debate with the President, who has taken us down a path of disaster in Iraq, but it’s for Congress to assume the full power that it has under the Constitution to cut off funds. We don’t need to keep indulging in this debate about what to do, because as long as we keep temporizing, the situation gets worse in Iraq.

“We have to determine that the time has come to cut off funds. There’s enough money in the pipeline to achieve the orderly withdrawal that Senator McGovern is talking about. But cut off funds, we must. That’s the ultimate power of the Congress, the power of the purse. That’s how we’ll end this war, and that’s the only way we’re going to end this war. We need to shift our direction.”

“We have to take a whole new approach. We’re spending over $400 billion a year, money that’s also needed for healthcare, for education, for job creation, for seniors. We have to take a new look at this. We need to be a strong country, but strength isn’t only military. Strength is also the economic strength of the people, their chance to have good neighborhoods. We spend more money than all the countries of the world put together for the military.

“It’s time for us to start to shift our vision about who we are as a nation, because if we don’t do that—we’re borrowing money right now to wage the war in Iraq. We’re borrowing money from China. We’re not looking at our trade deficit. We’re not looking at conditions, where people are going bankrupt trying to pay their hospital bills. We need to shift our direction, and the direction has to be away from the continued militarization of the United States society.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 11:48 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Iraq • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (1) • Permalink •  

Exit Strategy

It is my considered opinion that John Murtha should be declared mentally incompetent and forced to step down from Congress and institutionalized somewhere quiet and restful. Otherwise, he stands to break a lot of things in the near future. In addition, for some odd reason, Nancy Pelosi has decided to not only defend Murtha but to employ a full-court press to get him appointed majority leader of the House.

While watching all of this unfold, I have the feeling that I am staring down into the abyss ... and the abyss is staring back ... and chuckling. I hate it when that happens. The abyss is not supposed to derive this much satisfaction from mere mortals shaking in our boots. Bad things are going to happen and real soon, I’m afraid. This bodes ill and I hate that even worse because I have no idea what it means to “bode”. Does the abyss know how to bode? Maybe I’ll ask it while I’m here.

In the meantime, Iraqis better go ahead and grab a seat on the next chopper out of town. With Pelosi and Murtha running things in Washington, now is not a good time to bode in Iraq ... or anywhere in the Muddled East ...

_{Aislin - The Montreal Gazette}

Abandoning Iraq
- by Robert Kagan & William Kristol
_{(WEEKLY STANDARD) - 11/28/2005, Volume 011, Issue 11}

Rep. Jack Murtha has had a distinguished congressional career. But his outburst last Thursday was breathtakingly irresponsible. Nowhere in his angry and emotional call for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq did the Pennsylvania Democrat bother to ask, much less answer, the most serious questions his proposal raises. What would be the likely outcome in Iraq if the United States pulled out? Does Murtha actually believe the Iraqi people could fight the al Qaeda terrorists and Saddam Hussein loyalists by themselves once American forces left? He does not say. In fact, he knows perfectly well that the Iraqi people are not yet capable of defending themselves against the monsters in their midst and that, therefore, a U.S. withdrawal would likely lead to carnage on a scale that would dwarf what is now occurring in Iraq.

But that would be just the beginning. If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the Iraqi people were not able to defeat the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, what would happen? What if Zarqawi and his al Qaeda allies were able to make common cause with the Baathists to turn Iraq into a terrorist state or to provide a haven for terrorists, complete with an oil supply to finance their global activities? And what of Iraq’s neighbors, which include Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia? They would likely decide that they could not afford to let a vacuum develop in Iraq or allow their adversaries to establish a base there. All these nations would contemplate military intervention in Iraq, directly or indirectly through the arming of allies. The possibility of a regional conflict erupting among any or all of these powers could not be excluded. Is this is a tolerable outcome for the United States?

In fact, Murtha does seem to be aware of the disasters that are almost certain to follow the immediate withdrawal he demands. He calls for the creation of “a quick reaction force in the region.” He calls for “an over-the-horizon presence of Marines.” And he calls for the United States “to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq.” We have too much respect for Murtha to believe that he seriously imagines we would be able through diplomacy alone to bring “security and stability” to Iraq. But the question is, when the inevitable disaster unfolded as a result of his proposed withdrawal, what would be his plan for the “quick reaction force” and “over-the-horizon presence” of the Marines? It seems he would have us withdraw our forces, hand a monumental moral, political, and military victory to the terrorists in Iraq and all over the world--only to take us back into war when the inevitable disaster began to unfold.

Murtha, of course, claims that the U.S. occupation is the primary problem in Iraq and that “our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces, and we have become a catalyst for violence.” This is nonsense. For many months now, the insurgents have been shifting their attacks away from U.S. and coalition forces and directing them at Iraqis instead. Iraqis now make up the overwhelming majority of casualties resulting from insurgent attacks. This shift is evidence not only of the effectiveness of our protective measures, but also of the growing vitality of the Iraqi political process, which the insurgents, according to their own statements, fear and hate more than the U.S. military presence. As for the rise in the number of “incidents” against U.S. forces to which Murtha points, those numbers do not distinguish between incidents initiated by insurgents and those initiated by Americans. Recent U.S. operations have generated a large number of incidents, indeed--almost all of them supporting the coalition’s goals and harming the insurgents.

We do not pretend that all is well in Iraq, although things are starting to look a bit better. We agree with Murtha, and have written repeatedly, that the military is stretched thin and needs to be increased. The congressman, however, is in a position to do something about that. We, for one, would support any legislation he offered to increase the size of the Army and the military budget in this time of war.

In 1946, George Orwell remarked that “the quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."Victory is in fact possible, though it will require a longer war than anyone would like, but not so long a war as to be intolerable. What would be intolerable would be to lose to the terrorists in Iraq. Immediate withdrawal from Iraq is a prescription for catastrophe. Far from extricating ourselves from a crisis, we would have driven ourselves into an even deeper crisis. It is no favor to the members of the armed forces who have served or are serving in Iraq to declare now that all their efforts and sacrifices are in vain. The way to honor their sacrifices is by winning.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 05:00 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Iraq •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

The Diebold Conspiracy

Whew! That was a close one. We certainly dodged a major bullet in the recent election, didn’t we? Of course I’m referring to the hackers who were going to break into the Diebold voting machines as well as Hugo Chavez who also planned to tinker with the boxes to steal the election from Democrats ... AGAIN!

Is it just me or does anyone else smell a rat? A DemocRAT? The lamestream media and practically every talking head in the Democratic party has been spewing one conspiracy theory after another for months now about how the Diebold voting machines were going to be hacked and another election would be stolen from the Donks.

So, what happened? The Donks won and ... the tinfoil hat brigade went silent. Whazzup wid dat? If I didn’t know better, I’d say the Donks and their liberal pals in the MSM were merely paving the path for a gazillion lawsuits to contest the election if they lost. There is just way too much tinfoil on the Left nowadays for it not to be a concerted effort to disguise their own sleazy plots to rig elections.

I demand a Congressional investigation. I want to know why the Diebold machines worked so well after all. There’s something fishy going on here and I intend to get to the bottom of it .... after I re-adjust my tinfoil hat, that is ....

Electronic Voting: The Catastrophe that Wasn’t
After election, media silent on left-wing claims of Diebold-Bush conspiracy
_{(BUSINESS & MEDIA INSTITUTE) - 11/15/2006 2:30:56 PM}

Like claims the U.S. was responsible for 9/11 and Republicans were fixing gas prices, the media promoted the left-wing electronic vote-rigging conspiracy. Now that the votes have been cast and counted, Republicans lost, and the silence of the national media has been deafening.

The idea was that somehow the company Diebold had programmed the machines to let Republicans win. The theory, perpetuated by left-wingers posting on Daily Kos and The Huffington Post and Bev Harris’ book, “Black Box Voting,” was embraced by all three broadcast networks, as well as CNN and MSNBC.

Following Sen. John Kerry’s (D-Mass.) defeat in 2004, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann ignored statements by the candidate’s own Ohio attorney about the lack of evidence of “confirmed fraud.” Instead, Olbermann ranted for days about fraud causing the Kerry defeat during his show “Countdown with Keith Olbermann.”

Leading up to the 2006 election. Lou Dobbs and Kitty Pilgrim waged a five-month long, two-person war against electronic voting in regular “Democracy at Risk” segments during CNN’s “Lou Dobbs Tonight.”

Dobbs fostered mistrust of electronic voting throughout his broadcasts. “When it comes to the federal government, don’t expect much assurance that your electronic vote will be counted accurately. New standards for electronic voting machines may not be ready in fact, for years,” he warned on Oct. 29, 2006.

And on election day 2006, NBC’s Brian Williams said there were complaints of “plain old trickery at the polls.” As Williams tossed the story to reporter Chip Reid, the response came, “Well, most of it, Brian, is electronic voting.”

Ironically, electronic voting went national because of a bipartisan push for election reform after the disastrous 2000 Florida recount. But that bipartisan support for such voting machines turned into allegations and conspiracy theories after the 2004 elections.

Before the 2006 election, news media were buzzing about the dangers of electronic voting, parroting left-wing vote-stealing conspiracies and even warning that Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez might sway the results. That story was forgotten almost as soon as the ballots were tallied.

But from 2004 to Nov. 7, 2006, the media dragged the Diebold Corp. – the largest of the four makers of electronic voting machines – through the mud. Some even went so far as to color Diebold as a potential election thief.

“The CEO of the company last year held a fund-raiser for the Republicans, and he said that he believed his job was to make sure that he got every delegate in Ohio voting for George W. Bush,” NBC reporter Tom Costello said of Diebold on Olbermann’s MSNBC show Oct. 20, 2004. “That is the CEO of a company that is making voting machines. You can understand why there’s some mistrust out there.”

Despite CEO Walden O’Dell’s resignation from Diebold in late 2005, the media continued the onslaught. CBS Chief Investigative Correspondent Armen Keteyian did a story on suspicion of the corporation on Nov. 1, 2006, “Evening News.” “Diebold is the largest supplier of electronic voting machines. The absolute control over the election process that a company like Diebold potentially could have from tabulation to the software that’s inside, to the certification, it’s concerning to people.”

The media interviewed liberal experts critical of Diebold or those who believed elections had been rigged. Bev Harris, author of “Black Box Voting,” was interviewed or mentioned in stories by all five networks. Harris has been lionized by liberals, called “heroine” by the left-wing site Buzzflash.com and has held a joint press conference with Ralph Nader.

Another expert critical of Diebold was David Dill of Stanford University and founder of VerifiedVoting.org. He popped up on CBS, CNN and MSNBC. “That person who hacked the machine could be an insider, even a programmer at the company,” said Dill during a discussion about the possibility of hacking Diebold machines on CBS “Evening News.” That was May 1, 2004. What the networks didn’t say is that Dill is listed as a contributor to the liberal Huffington Post blog.

Although it wasn’t a news program, HBO too featured Diebold prominently in a documentary titled “Hacking Democracy” the week before the 2006 election. Meanwhile, on the Oct. 20, 2006, edition of ABC’s “The View,” Rosie O’Donnell accused Diebold of cheating Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) out of the presidency in 2004.

“What was he doing conceding the day after when the votes weren’t all counted and they were cheating with the Diebold machines?” O’Donnell asked. In reality, when election day rolled around there were not many fingers left pointing at Diebold, although ABC News did mention one. Democratic Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr. worried about “Diebold machines not working” during Nov. 7, 2006 “World News Tonight with Charles Gibson.”

“I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated,” quipped conservative commentator Ann Coulter in her Nov. 8, 2006, column.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 01:38 AM   
Filed Under: • Insanity • Liberals •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks (1) • Permalink •  

The Perils Of Socialized Medicine, Part #2

Think this story is funny? Well, think again, Tonto. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats are already spreading rumors that they intend to continue to fight for “universal health care”, i.e. socialized medicine. All for one and one for all. Everybody gets healed. One low price. Step right up and .... kiss the best health care system in the world goodbye.

Admittedly, with the greedy HMO’s, there are problems with the system but we do have the best doctors, nurses, dentists, etc. in the world thanks to a free market economy. As evidenced in Britain and Canada, the first thing that happens when government socializes medicine is the medical professionals disappear and suddenly there is a shortage of doctors and patients have to wait months for an appointment. I kid you not. Ask anyone in Canada.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary (Britain, Canada, France) that socialized medicine really sucks, Democrats here in the US are still trying to convince us that we need it and they are going to give it to us or die trying. Now would be a good time to stock up on Super Glue™. In addition to gluing teeth back in, you may be able to re-attach severed limbs too ... or you can wait three years for an appointment with a doctor like this poor chap ....

Dentist Shortage Leads Man To Superglue Own Tooth
_{(DAILY MAIL) - 09:41am on 14th November 2006}

A man fixed his front tooth with superglue after failing to find an NHS dentist. Gordon Cook, 55, has used the bizarre “DIY dentistry” technique on a loose crown for the last three years - with each fresh application of glue lasting around two months.

The father of seven, who was erased from his original dentist’s register after moving to a new home in Tranmere, Merseyside, said he turned to glue after losing hope of finding a dentist. He said: “I tried to find a new dentist but they had all gone private.

“A lot of them said they would take me on as an NHS patient, but only if I agreed to have the loose crown fixed as a private patient, which would cost around £100. “In the end, I just decided to take matters into my own hands. I had read somewhere that super glue was invented for medical use, to bond skin, so I gave it a go.

“I tried a few different brands but the one I use now, which is just called Industrial Super Glue, is the best. “You can’t really taste it but you do have to be careful not to use too much, in case you glue your mouth shut.”

Mr Cook, a security manager, has now found an NHS dentist and hopes to have the crown fixed professionally. Councillor Chris Blakeley, chairman of Wirral Council’s social care and health overview and scrutiny committee, said: “Mr Cook’s solution was rather extreme but he is not alone when it comes to dentistry horror stories.

“People are finding it extremely difficult to find an NHS dentist, and we are currently gathering evidence to assess the scale of the problem, which is not unique to this area.”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/16/2006 at 01:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Medical •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Wednesday - November 15, 2006

Through The Looking Glass

“Don’t Look Down”

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 05:03 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography • Military •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Weird News Bytes

• Five-year-old kindergarten kid busted for bringing a pocket knife to school. The boy held police off for hours while sucking his thumb and screaming, “You’ll never take Rico alive, coppers!”


• Global warming is messing up bears hibernation patterns in Russia. The bears are wandering around and can’t sleep because Al Gore is keeping them awake with his endless babbling.


• If E.T. looks down on Earth he will see the Great Wall of China and ... Kentucky Fried Chicken. Will he land and say “Take me to your Colonel!”


• In Australia, a lot of dead men are getting traffic tickets. “But officer, I was only on the way from the morgue and I only had a single beer. Really!”


• Bats are taking over Americus, Georgia! Get Commissioner Gordon on the phone and tell him we need Batman ASAP - we’ll be hiding in the bat room.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 03:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Odd-Strange •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Battle For Middle Earth

War has broken out in Middle Earth among evil Sauron’s minions. Gollum (James Carville) is attacking the Orc Leader (Howard Dean). Carville has broken out the Rumsfeldian Club from its secret hiding chamber and is proceeding to hack away at Dean. Stay tuned as Frodo (George Bush) tries to stop tripping over his hairy little feet on the way to Mordor (Iraq) with Sam (Dick Cheney) at his side.

James Carville

Howard Dean

Carville Says Dems Should Dump Dean over “Rumsfeldian” Incompetence
_{(STATESMAN.com) - Wednesday, November 15, 2006, 12:00 PM}

Democratic strategist James Carville says his party should dump Howard Dean as chairman of the Democratic Party because of incompetence. Carville, during coffee and rolls with political reporters today, said Democrats could have picked up as many as 50 House seats, instead of the nearly 30 they have so far.

The reason they didn’t, he said, is the Democratic National Committee did not spend some $6 million it could have put into so-called “third tier” House races against vulnerable Republicans.

Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt. He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.

Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, “In a word, do I think? Yes.” He added, “I think he should be held accountable.” He added, “I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.”

Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated. “We should have chased them down,” Carville said. There was no immediate response from Dean or the DNC.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 02:45 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Fun-Stuff •  
• Comments (6) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Most Ridiculous Item Of The Day (so far)

If you ask me, this goober is gettin’ closer and closer every day to actually confessing to the murders. Give him time. His conscience will eventually get the better of him ... if he doesn’t go stark, raving mad first. Then again, maybe he is already looney-tunes. I’d put money on it ...

O.J. Simpson To Promote “If I Did It” On Fox
_{LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Tue Nov 14, 2006 11:06pm ET162}

Fox said Tuesday it will air a two-part interview with O.J. Simpson at month’s end in which he describes the 1994 murders of his ex-wife and her friend that he says he didn’t commit.

The interview will be conducted by editor and book publisher Judith Regan. On November 30, her Regan Books is publishing a book Simpson wrote with the working title “If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened.”

Fox said Simpson’s book “hypothetically describes” how he would have committed the murders. The special will air at 9 p.m. November 27 and 29 on Fox.

Fox executives declined comment about the show Tuesday. In a statement released Tuesday, executive vice-president/alternative programming Mike Darnell said: “This is an interview that no one thought would ever happen. It’s the definitive last chapter in the trial of the century.”

Fox is a subsidiary of News Corp., which also owns Regan Books. A spokeswoman for Regan Books didn’t return a phone call or an e-mail seeking comment Tuesday.

Simpson was acquitted in 1995 of the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman; he can’t be tried again for those crimes. In 1997, a civil court found him responsible for the slayings and ordered him to pay $33.5 million to the victims’ families.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 11:36 AM   
Filed Under: • Celebrities • Crime • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

A Chorus Line

_{Gary McCoy - Cagle Cartoons}

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 10:52 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Not So Fast, Donks!

Now, the generals who were screaming bloody murder and calling for Donald Rumsfeld’s head have suddenly decided we don’t need to hurry up and get out of Iraq. In fact, they think we need to increase troop levels. This has the new Democrat majority somewhat confused as to what to do now. Pardon me while I clap my hands, stomp my feet and cackle gleefully to myself. Lemme hear you all say “QUAGMIRE” one more time! Bwah-hah-ha-ha-ha-ha ....

_{Matt Davies - The Journal News}

Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - November 15, 2006}

One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.

But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.

“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

Reid Pledges To Press Bush On Iraq Policy
_{(WASHINGTON POST) - Wednesday, November 15, 2006}

Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who was elected Senate majority leader yesterday, said last night that President Bush still has not grasped the urgent need to change course in Iraq. Reid vowed to press quickly for phased troop withdrawals, a more international approach to Iraq’s problems and a rebuilding of the depleted U.S. military.

In his first extensive interview since the Senate Democrats’ leadership election, Reid also said members of his party will have to think big on the nation’s domestic issues. That includes tackling the budget deficit with strict new rules on spending, exploring an eventual expansion of Medicare to address the uninsured, and examining an increase in tax rates on upper-income Americans.

But it was on the issue of Iraq that he was most passionate. Voter anger over the war swept his party to power with the unlikely defeat of six Republican senators, he said. Democrats must respond to that anger, he added, with hearings to keep the heat on the Bush administration, and with calls for a regional Middle Eastern conference and a revitalized Iraqi reconstruction effort.

To that end, he said, one of the first acts of the new Democratic Congress will be a $75 billion boost to the military budget to try to get the Army’s diminished units back into combat shape.

Democrats will not try, Reid pledged, to play the strongest hand they have—using Congress’s power of the purse to starve the war effort of money and force the president to move. Such an effort would only elicit a veto from Bush. But he said Democrats will marshal their newly acquired power—in hearing rooms and on the Senate floor—to stoke public opinion and drive the debate.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 10:17 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats • Iraq •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

How Sweet It Is

I’m sorry but this is just getting better and better. Sure, Republicans are now going to have to try to work with Democrats and get along but at the same time Democrats have their own little “problem” ... and its name is “Joe”. They’re sucking up big time to Joe Lieberman now. Which I think is absolutely hilarious.

Only a few months back they threw him to the wolves and practically frog-marched him out of the party. Now, he’s the only thing standing in the way of total gridlock in the Senate. If “Jilted Joe” would just flip to the Republican Party, the rest of America could go on about our business without any fear of being harassed by Washington. The Senate would be split 50-50 and peace would reign over the land. Please, Joe! Just do it! For the people’s sake!

_{Bob Englehart - The Hartford Courant}

Enter, Pariah: Now It’s Hugs for Lieberman
_{WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - November 15, 2006}

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman strode into a Democratic caucus gathering like he owned the place or, at the very least, like someone who is a flight risk and could leave at any minute, taking the Democrats’ new majority with him. In other words, everyone was extra-special nice to the wayward Democrat on Tuesday.

“It was all very warm, lots of hugs, high-fives, that kind of stuff,” said Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado. Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon marveled, “One senator after another kept coming up and shaking his hand.” And Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas noted, “I gave him a hug and a kiss.”

Mr. Lieberman received a standing ovation at a caucus luncheon after Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, who is poised to become the majority leader, declared, “We’re all family.”

All of which is particularly touching in light of recent history. It was, after all, just three months ago that Mr. Lieberman became something of a party pariah after losing the Democratic primary in Connecticut but continuing his re-election bid as an independent.

Mr. Lieberman won re-election last week without help from most of his Democratic Senate colleagues, who backed Ned Lamont, his Democratic rival, over their “good friend Joe Lieberman.”

These would be many of the same good friends “who were happy to leave my dad by the side of the road,” as Mr. Lieberman’s son, Matthew, put it in an election night speech. These, presumably, would include “friends” like Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, all Lamont supporters.

“It’s clear that the Democrats need him at this point more than he needs them,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, whom Mr. Lieberman genuinely does consider a close friend. “How sweet is this?”

Indeed, it is hard to imagine how Mr. Lieberman could have emerged better from last week’s election. He was re-elected comfortably, and the Democratic Party he still belongs to is now in the majority, assuring him the chairmanship of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.

Yet that majority is slim enough, 51 to 49, to turn Mr. Lieberman into arguably the Senate’s most influential member. If he defects, the Senate would effectively be under Republican control because Vice President Dick Cheney would cast tie-breaking votes.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/15/2006 at 10:04 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

   Tuesday - November 14, 2006

Through The Looking Glass

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/14/2006 at 05:06 PM   
Filed Under: • Art-Photography • Military •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Morale Is Low

I received the following e-mail a short time ago from a fellow conservative blogger and a dear friend in the blogosphere. She is quite depressed about the election as you can see from her correspondence below. I had noticed that she hasn’t been posting much in the last week and was starting to get concerned. Today’s e-mail clarified it for me and I decided it was time to ‘splain to her and all the troops what this war is all about.

Needless to say, the name of the blogger has been changed to protect the innocent ... and no, don’t even ask me to give up her real name. Some of you feel the same way and I’m damn sick and tired of hearing this defeatist bullshit. Read my reply and then get off your ass ....

Dear Betty,

Let me quote for you the words of Marine Corps General Chesty Puller when he found his troops surrounded at Chosin Reservoir during the Korean War: “So they’ve got us surrounded, good! Now we can fire in any direction, those bastards won’t get away this time!”

For six years you and I and many other conservative bloggers have been in the unenviable position of constantly defending “the gang that couldn’t shoot straight”, i.e. RINO’s who spent wildly, indulged in porkbarrel greed, took bribes from lobbyists and finally got us into Iraq with absolutely no plan for what to do with that country after we beat the shit out of Saddam’s army and took over the place.

Last week’s election was the best thing that could happen to all of us, the RINO’s and the bloggers who defended them. Now, we bloggers get to play offense for a change. We get to watch the Democrats as they now have a chance to “put up or shut up”. Of course they have no plan and are already proceeding to shove their foots in their mouths at every opportunity.

Voters didn’t vote for Democrats as much as they voted against Republicans disguised as conservatives. Conservative bloggers now have an opportunity to sink our teeth into the Liberals and Leftists’ asses in the Democratic Party with a vengeance. For six years they whined, carped, complained, moaned, bitched and did everything in their power to get in the way of any sort of progress in health care, border security, the war on terrorism, social security, education, etc. Now, it’s our turn. The shoe is on the other foot and we can have immeasurable fun poking the Democrats in the eye and asking, “So ... now you have the power. Fix what you’ve been complaining about. Show us what you’ve got.”

You already know what the answer will be. Nothing. This is going to be like shooting fish in a barrel, sweetie! We are surrounded by Leftists on all sides. We have them right where we want them. So get off your (cute) butt and pick up a rifle, soldier. Start firing in any direction. You’re bound to hit a Moonbat no matter where you aim for the next two glorious years.

To paraphrase General Patton, “We’re going to kick the Leftist in the ass and we’re going to keep kicking him in the ass all the way back to Hollywood and Massachusetts!”

All the election did was change the strategy. We’re now the underdogs and we’re on the attack! Screw the RINO’s! This blog war is now about saving America. No more defending idiots who were supposed to be in our camp. Now we can concentrate all of our firepower on the real enemy.

So don’t let me hear any more of this defeatist whining. The more you whine and feel like giving in, the louder will be the derision and laughter from DailyKOS, Democratic Underground, MoveOn.org and Huffington Post. They want you to roll over and give up. They think you’re weak and all wrong. Are you going to sit there and tell me they’re right?

BAH! I thought you had a pair, soldier. Maybe you would be better off blogging about interior decorating. After all, frilly lace doilies don’t fight back.

Skipper

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/14/2006 at 04:10 PM   
Filed Under: • Cyberspace-Internet • Personal •  
• Comments (22) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

Godless?

Today’s NY TIMES has a fairly reasonable analysis of the election and why what happened did happen in an editorial entitled ”The Real Message Of The Midterms” (requires subscription) by Andrew Kohut, a nonpartisan pollster and president of The Pew Research Center. According to Mr. Kohut, the election didn’t mark a real about-face in the voters but it did involve a few things that bear looking into.

I was particularly concerned with the third item in the list, which showed that voters with little or no religion in their lives voted for Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin. This bothered me immensely as I began to wonder if America was really becoming a nation of godless secularists.

As if to reinforce this worry, last night when I was channel-surfing I stumbled across a comedy special on HBO with Roseanne Barr live at some comedy club. I tuned in just in time to hear the bloated blimp dressed in a garish, eyeball-bursting muu-muu declare to the audience, “I hate religion. Don’t you? Religious people really suck.” --- and the audience applauded.

I had to turn off the TV at that point. I just sat there in the silence for a few minutes pondering the statements I had just heard. Statements that were disguised as “comedy”? I’m probably not the most deeply religious person in the world. I attend church fairly often but not every week and I don’t go around trying to convert the “heathens” among us. I feel it’s their choice and they can live (and die) with it. What I do believe in is that this nation is “one nation, under God”. After all, if we’re not beholden to The Creator for the good things we enjoy, then who should we thank ... Hollywood?

• Political Realignment: The Democratic win is not a sign of political realignment. Yes, the Democrats won the popular vote, and the exit polls showed that more Democrats than Republicans voted (by 2 percentage points). But the popular vote margin favoring the Democrats was relatively modest, even though it resulted in many Democratic victories. Democrats won by almost the same margin by which Republicans won in 2002. The turnout pattern was not that unusual either. A plurality of the electorate has been Democratic in three of the last five elections.


• The Moderate Voters: The outcome of this election – and others in our recent history — was determined by the shifting sentiments of independents and moderates. It is no exaggeration to say that the views of the least ideological voters decided this election for the Democrats. Political independents, who divided their votes evenly between George Bush and John Kerry in 2004, swung decisively in favor of the Democrats this year. And moderates voted more Democratic than in 2004 by a 10-percentage-point margin as shown in the table below.


• Religious Voters: There are few signs that the Republican base deserted the party. Christian conservatives, and conservatives generally, voted as Republican as they did in ’02. Nor did white evangelical Protestants defect to the Democrats in any substantial number, as a number of post-election news stories have suggested. The real religion story of this election is that the least religious Americans — voters who attend church rarely or never — made the biggest difference to the outcome of the election. This group gave Democrats an even greater share of their vote — 62 percent, up from 52 percent in 2002.


• Referendum On Bush: The current election was not about social values or other broad ideological issues. It was a referendum on Bush and G.O.P. control of Congress. As is so often the case in times of change, performance, not ideology, is what counts. The exit polls showed that Bush was much more of a drag on G.O.P. candidates than was former President Clinton on the Democratic candidates in 1994. More than a third of those polled (36 percent) said they voted to oppose Bush; that compares with 27 percent who voted to oppose Clinton in 1994, and 21 percent in 1998, the year Congress impeached the president.


• The War In Iraq: The Iraq conflict was the central issue of this election — by election time only 42 percent of the public approved of the war, compared with 56 percent who disapproved. Eighty percent of voters who disapproved of the war favored Democrats. And although war supporters backed the Republicans in their districts by virtually the same margin, there weren’t nearly as many of them. The war, together with a number of performance failures — notably the administration’s handling of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina — took Bush’s approval rating down from 52 percent in Jan 2005 to 42 percent on election day.


• Redistricting Effect: This election should moderate concerns that redistricting significantly reduced political competitiveness. Democrats won a number of seats in supposedly safe Republican districts and in districts where Bush sailed to victory in ’04. In fact, Republicans managed to win the popular vote by a comfortable margin only in districts where Bush won more than 60 percent of the vote in 2004. No doubt, gerrymandering affected the outcome of this and other recent elections, but it provides no bulwark against the sentiment of an aroused electorate.

Posted by The Skipper     on 11/14/2006 at 01:42 PM   
Filed Under: • Politics • Religion •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks (0) • Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner