The Occasional Observer

Reasons for Republican optimism here.
Can you imagine the finger-pointing, despair, and destruction the Dem party will go through if they fail to win at least one chamber of Congress?

You gotta love this.

As I read My Yahoo! this morning, I look at the top four headlines of Al-AP. They are as follows:

1. North Korea agrees to nuclear talks


2. Iraq to lift Sadr City checkpoints


3. Wages, benefits up at 2-year best pace


4. Saddam trial witness describes massacre

Ok. Let me see if I understand.

1. We attempt diplomatic solutions - and we appear to be making a little progress.


2. The Iraqi government is starting to take control of their own security.


3. The economy is in great shape (due to the many tax cuts IMHO)


4. The Iraqi people are trying their former despot

How will the MSM/Dems spin all of this to make Republicans look bad? Did GOP underlings hold back diplomacy with N. Korea until right before the elections? Did they collude with the Iraqi government to wait to make decisions until right before the election? The economy isn't in great shape despite every single indicator, so there's no conspiracy there.

Oh, and let's not forget that Republicans conspired to lower gas prices leading up to the election. What other horrible things like diplomacy and a strong economy can we conspire for now?

The Occasional Observer
Hmmm, potentially significant event for Steele in MD race.

As a follow up to my earlier post The Real Problem with the War in Iraq, I'm posting a link to this Newsweek article that shows emails from a heroic soldier killed in Iraq. We need to untie our soldiers' hands and let them actually fight if we want a chance of success.

What should Christians do in reponse to the article referenced in this NewsBusters post?

Should we issue a Fatwah, calling for the execution of Joel Stein?
Should we burn down buildings and kill people?
Of course not. It's ok to bash Christians.

Feh!

Boo hoo, no one wants to come to my birthday party :(

So there's been an unending slew of articles proclaiming that this election is a referendum on Bush, I'm sure you've all come across many of them in MSM. The subtle (or sometimes not-so-subtle!) subtext is that the author clearly expects Dem landslide in mid-terms, thereby providing "definitive" proof that the American people reject Bush and his policies.

My question is, when Dems don't get a landslide victory, will these same authors in MSM publish articles about how the election was indeed a referendum, illustrating support FOR Bush? Or will they change their tune, and suggest these types of mid-terms can never truly be a national referendum; rather, they are individual elections on a district-by-district basis.

Caught Steele vs. Cardin on MTP this weekend. Steele rolled him, I hope he catches up in that race and wins. RCP put an earlier debate between them in context, suggesting Steele took Cardin "to the woodshed"! It would also be nice to see Healy beat Patrick in MA Gov race, and Swann beat Rendell in PA, but both seem unlikely. The more I read about Swann, the more I like. Check out his website and positions..

So about 5 weeks ago we voted on how the House and Senate elections would go, results here.

Does everyone still stand by their original picks or want to make any changes? I still say we keep senate but lose house.

As a follow-up to earlier post below about Lindsey Graham, Bush himself has come out today with similar comments. The timing of Bush's comments clearly reflects heavy pressure from Republicans in Congress facing uphill battles in upcoming election. Presumably they hope that people on the fence will hear Bush's comments and consider voting Republican if they feel that Bush agrees with them that the situation is not ideal but he wants to make the appropriate changes to head in the right direction.

Interesting article here, explaining why a loss may be good for Republican party (at least longer term). Another possible benefit is '08 presidential elections - regardless of who wins Congress in '06, I doubt any meaningful legislation will pass between now and '08. If that's the case and the public gets even more disillusion with Congress, and Congress stays Republican, there is a chance that we lose presidential election on that basis.

Just trying to find whatever silver lining there might be, longer term.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, a.k.a., John McCain's Fluffer, offered this bit of constructive criticism of how our CIC and other military commanders have prosecuted the Iraq war:

"We're on the verge of chaos, and the current plan is not working," Sen. Lindsey Graham (news, bio, voting record), R-S.C., said in an Associated Press interview. U.S. and Iraqi officials should be held accountable for the lack of progress, said Graham, a Republican who is a frequent critic of the administration's policies.

Asked who in particular should be held accountable — Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, perhaps, or the generals leading the war — Graham said: "All of them. It's their job to come up with a game plan" to end the violence.

While the point may or may not be valid (as per this earlier post), the weasel from SC needs to be held accountable for his political betrayal. After all, his criticism is not being offered in good faith. He offers no suggestions on how to improve the situation. He's just dumping on those who are trying to deal with the tactical situation on the ground in Iraq.

And why is the Bush-slap being offered now, with only two weeks to go until a general election that, even at this late hour, could place the House and Senate in the control of either party?

My guess: as McCain's willing surrogate, he's helping the Straight Talk Express play both ends against the middle. McCain has triangulated that being "pro-war" and "anti-Bush" is his best chance in '08. And right now, with the election cycle in full swing, is when he can get the most press coverage for himself and his cronies. The majority status of the G.O.P. be damned.

During a debate with a (liberal) co-worker today, he brought up the war in Iraq (big surprise). I told him that I believed that we should be fighting the war, but that I didn't like how we were doing it. This article articulates the problems well.

This post on Human Events is the scariest thing I've read in a long time. The fact that MSM outlets like the New York Times feel the need to expose our government's counterterrism techniques but not report on this shows just how dangerous they really are. There goes my plan to move to The Republic of Texas after the U.S. dissolves. Maybe Montana?

Add Google to the list of companies to boycott. See this excerpt from The American Spectator:

Google has become the single largest private corporate underwriter of MoveOn. According to sources in the Democrat National Committee, MoveOn has received more than $1 million from Google and its lobbyists in Washington to create grassroots support for the Internet regulation legislation. Some of that money has gone to an online petition drive and a letter-writing campaign, but the majority of that money is being used to fund their activities against Republicans out in the states.

Please add other companies that we should boycott to the list.

The List
Citgo
Google

Harry Reid should resign at once for his inappropriate use of funds! Or so the headlines in MSM and Dem leaders would say if Reid were a Republican. Fortunately (for him) he's a Dem so we can bury this story and instead over-inflate the next similar story about a Republican.

Paul Cella is, IMHO, the most perceptive, grounded and interesting political and social writer out there today. Every now and again, when I'm not having a genius inspiration of my own, I like to peruse the links on his blog to some of his older material. In doing so today, I saw a great article on the situation in the Middle East called "Why Be Partial to Israel?"

If you're interested, it's a worthy read. But the main thrust of his article is not the reason for my post: he makes a tangential point in the course of the article that is one I've never been able to express myself. At least not as concisely and powerfully as Paul does here, so I thought I'd share it:

"...I think it interesting to note how quickly commentators -- most of whom have only the most minimal acquaintance with the Middle Ages -- solemnly deplore the efforts of the Crusaders; and implicitly agree with Osama bin Laden that that period in history was among the more dishonorable for the West. Bill Clinton made some remark to that effect, I recall, just after September 11, saying that "those of who come from various European lineages" are "still paying" for the Crusades -- all of us, presumably, having descended from the Franks and all of us, presumably, being orthodox Christians. I confess that I rather feel a strange stirring in my breast when I think of men willing to uproot themselves from home and family and undertake a long journey punctuated by disease and hunger and great discomfort only to engage in ferocious warfare against alien people for the sake of a small strip of land called Holy, where their Savior lived and perished. Most people today call that insanity -- with, perhaps, a certain superficial justice; I hope I will be forgiven for calling it heroism. "

Forgiven? You should be congratulated. It's too bad the crusaders didn't have the military superiority that the West has today. Maybe the world would not have endured the continuing violence wrought by the religion of the sword--a religion that demands infidels convert, appease, or be killed.

Now you know why Dem politicians want to keep their most strident supporters in the closet.

Please, please, please check out this RedState post and video. Listen to it when there are no children nearby.

China Erects Fence Along N. Korea Border
Oct 16 8:43 AM US/Eastern

By NG HAN GUAN
Associated Press Writer

HUSHAN, China

China has been building a massive barbed wire and concrete fence along parts of its border with North Korea in the most visible sign of Beijing's strained ties with its once-cozy communist neighbor.

Scores of soldiers have descended on farmland near the border-marking Yalu River to erect concrete barriers 8 to 15 feet tall and string barbed wire between them, farmers and visitors to the area said.

I can't believe this. They're erecting this fence, and it's the first I've heard of it? Whither all the hand-wringing? Is this fair to North Koreans who want to smuggle through China? After all, Korean smugglers are just poor people in search of a better life. The Chinese should be flattered that Korean smugglers think so highly of Chinese roads and their black market.

And what message does this "wall" send about China's ethno-superiority complex? Clearly racism against Koreans lives on.

China should forget their physical fence. They need to be seeking a "comprehensive solution." No border security until root causes have been dealt with. First China must agree to spend billions on humanitarian aid to Korea, give Korean manufacturers unbridled access to their market, increase their Korean immigration quota by 3000%, give a guest worker card to any Korean citizen who wants to work there, and put in place a structure by which any guest worker has a guaranteed path to Chinese citizenship and government benefits. Then, and only then, can they start erecting a virtual fence using cameras and loudspeakers. Anyone who puts up barbed wire could injure an innocent refugee and should be dealt with accordingly--as a war criminal.

Liberal Americans, to the barricades! Let's confront this Chinese racism and stop it in its tracks!

I don't even know what else to say about this. Obviously BA could care less what I think, since I'm not a frequent trans-Atlantic traveler. But could you just imagine this happening to a Muslim employee? How would the Islamic community in Britain react?

Yet another example of the secular-progressive set, self-styled protectors of "individual liberties," trampling on individual rights.

Sure, America is the land of democracy, ever proud to have continually extended the vote to all quarters in our society, save illegal immigrants and felons (although that will be coming too, if Democrats have their way). And I suppose it's all for the good.

Of course, our founders had a stricter notion of what would be required of its citizens--personal learning, discipline and civil responsibility--to make a democracy work than we have today. It was unfortunate that not everyone's voice was accounted for in the early days of our republic, but at least citizens took their civic obligations seriously, both for themselves and their fellow countrymen. What I'm fairly sure of is that the political dynamics that existed back then are completely dissimilar to the fickle, vain, and unserious way that we pick our elected officials today. Take an excerpt from this WaPo article, for example:

AUBURN, N.Y. -- Maybe Democratic candidate Michael Arcuri is running strong in this Republican House district because he pledges to expand health coverage, balance the budget and raise the minimum wage.

Or maybe it's his piercing Italian eyes and runner's physique.

"He is pretty good-looking," observed Paula Ferrin with admiration, as the 47-year-old district attorney worked the crowd at a local senior center.

"What we want is brains, honey," scolded her friend Rose Oliver.

"True," Ferrin answered, "but handsome doesn't hurt."

The research is unambiguous that Ferrin is right: Attractive politicians have an edge over not-so-attractive ones. The phenomenon is resonating especially this year. By a combination of luck and design, Democrats seem to be fielding an uncommonly high number of uncommonly good-looking candidates.

I'm pretty sure I remember similar chatter during the election for our 4th grade class president.

Look, I'll lay it out there: I love Mel Gibson. Love Braveheart. Love The Passion of the Christ. Love his commitment to the Latin Mass.

That said, the guy's more primed to self destruct than a recording on Mission Impossible. Mel: if you're position is that Jews are the biggest problem in the world, you're not going to get a lot of backing among most mainstream thinkers in America. But if you want to stick to that position anyway, hey, that's your choice. But don't apologize for your statements, claim to want meetings with Jewish organizations to help you gain "sensitivity," and then offer this lukewarm pseudo-apology to Diane Sawyer.

"But there's a difference between saying that place is a tinderbox and the constellation of things happening there could take us all down, and saying the Jews are responsible for all the wars," Sawyer said.

"Well, I did," he said of his comment to the officer that night.

"The Jews are responsible?" Sawyer said.

"Well. Strictly speaking, that's that's not true

Strictly speaking? Let's not mince words here, Mel. We're not asking you what the definition of "is" is. Are the Jews responsible for all the world's wars? Yes or no?

If "strictly speaking, no" is your answer when you're contrite, sober and apologetic, I guess we all know where you come down on the issue. So stop the dance and admit it. Sure you'll be blackballed in Hollywood for the rest of your life, but at least you can stop blaming booze for your actual opinion.

Great news here.

Air America has filed for bankruptcy.

Former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, an '08 favorite amongst the Kos Kiddies, has decided not to run. This guy would have been a dangerous candidate because he could have credibly run as a moderate, and still have maintained Dem unity: for some reason he still seemed to have the moonbat wing (i.e., "the Democratic wing") of the Democratic party behind him.

One bullet dodged, one to go: if we clear Evan Bayh off the list of '08 possibilities, we'll have eliminate their two best chances. Of course, the field just opened up considerably for Sen. Bayh, so the probability that he'll run just went up. The rest of the '08 field? Biden? Billary? Gore? Kerry? I like our chances. Edwards might make a dangerous candidate, but it's going to be hard for anyone who was on a losing ticket previously, save Gore, to get traction with the Dem base. You know "progressives," always looking for the flavor-of-the-week.

I just hope this means the pastor at my parish will now squelch the 7 PM youth-group rock mass (which oddly seems to have at its core a bunch of 50-somethings who came of age in the 1960's playing drums and guitar). I guess in place of a bad Cream cover band we'll have to settle for the timeless sound of liturgical chant. Hey, bandana boy: See-Ya!

I'm sure most of you have seen this, since it's been out on Drudge for a few days now. The headline of the you-tube clip is, "Ted Turner says he can't pick sides in the War on Terror." His actual words were as follows:

"There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me, and one of them is...the attitude that was well expressed by our President...[that] either you're with us or you're against us. And I had a problem with that, because I hadn't really made my mind up yet..."

Upon reading that Teddy T wasn't sure whether to support his countrymen risking their lives abroad, I have a confession to make: I wasn't angry. I should have been outraged, but I chalked it up as just one more example of liberal America-loathing, moral equivocation, and political "gotcha."

Having seen the headline 4, 5 or 6 times, it finally started to sink in. This was the warped mentality that was the founding inspiration for one of our major MSM news outlets. The entire CNN network, which bangs the anti-GOP drum 24-7-365, was built on the foundation of Teddy's America-hating. I know he'd recoil at being called an America-hater and probably fancies himself a good citizen. Unfortunately, his idea of America has little to do with our historical culture. In his world, millionaire yachtsmen sell-out their countrymen, cooperate with special-interest group shills to hold taxpayers hostage, and force secularism and defeatism down the throats of their fellow citizens. It's the bizzaro America that has taken root in the last 40 years, and is now bearing fruit in the American left stating aloud that losing to Islamists is just as good as winning; preserving our way of life is not morally superior to surrendering.

Those of you who read this blog know that I am no blind supporter of the current President's foreign policy, but make no mistake: the President wants victory. Ted Turner isn't sure if there's anything worth fighting for. There is a big difference.

Why people like this get to serve as the filters, deciding what is news-worthy for the American people, is beyond me. Why real patriots can't infiltrate the news industry, and speak truth to moral equivocation (to use some dKos language), escapes me. Here's hoping for a better press down the road, and the marginalization of crackpots like Ted Turner.

UPDATE:

Michelle Malkin, goddess of the conservative blogosphere, weighed in on Turner's comments here. She focused on Teddy's distate for patriotic symbols, and hit another column out of the park.

If you've ever read any of her books, as well researched and fact-oriented as they are, Michelle would be the perfect person to give an investigative reporting show, if there's a network gutsy enough to stand up to the liberal establishment. I don't know if she'd be willing to give up the flexibility she has now, but I can only imagine what she could do with 30 minutes a week on the tube.

With a sombrero tip to absentee at RedState, this is one great collection of links.

The hypocrisy of the left strikes again. Jefferson doesn't have to resign. Clinton didn't have to resign. Reps. Studds and Frank didn't need to resign. But every single Republican needs to resign. What a joke.

From time to time (as the blog title suggests), I weigh in on whatever the heck I feel like. Today's installment, starting an O.O.S.C. award that I'll give out periodically to people who, in my view alone, have earned it. Number one on my list: Tom Monaghan.

Here's an entrepreneur who built a fortune, and then donated $1 Bil to a charitable foundation which is committed to catholicizing our culture and sanctifying our nation. He's built a university and a law school in order to leverage his investment: each person he helps educate can bring the gospel to others. Through his foundation, he's also funded the Thomas More Law Center, Legatus, and a radio network.

Thanks for all you've done, Mr. Monaghan, and all you have yet to do.