Bloggocritic

Flat Tax?

2005-02-02T13:18:00.000-06:00

This is written by a friend of mine who asked me to post it for him. I agreed because... well, because I agree!

When Are People Going To Finally Get Fired Up Enough To Demand Change In Our Screwed-Up Tax System?

by Craig Vanbebber

On January 27, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial from Stephen Moore, a senior fellow in economics at the Cato Institute, entitled “How Much Tax Would You Like To Pay?” in which he outlined a very simple but effective plan for the creation of a flat tax system he calls the Alternative Maximum Tax (AMT). The tax rate would be a fixed 20 percent. But if a taxpayer was emotionally or philosophically tied to the existing code, or discovers that he/she would be paying less than 20 percent under the current system, that person could continue under the present system indefinitely, until he/she decided to either move to the AMT or exits the system (death, income drops below taxable level, etc). But new workers entering the workforce would automatically be enrolled in the AMT system, having no option to participate in the current debacle.

This makes a lot of sense on many levels, but perhaps the most compelling argument for the AMT or a variant thereof is the ability of a flat tax to remove the inherent discrimination and abuses within the system. For example, two individuals making exactly the same wage and having predominately the same lifestyle can conceivably be paying a wildly disparate tax bills due to investments, shrewd or unscrupulous tax advisors and the like. With the ATM or flat tax, both individuals would pay relatively the same amounts, with only slight variations due to the amounts given to charities (as one of the only a handful of possible deductions). Additionally, those individuals in higher income brackets would have no tax loopholes into which untold millions (billions?) of dollars are regularly hidden from the taxman. Even though the wealthiest one percent of all Americans pay 33.9 percent of all income tax collected by our government, the AMT would certainly be more fair than what we have now.

So is this flat tax idea nutty? Most of the leading economists in America do not think so. Another editorial in the Journal in 1996 quoted many of America’s top financial minds regarding their thoughts about the flat tax. Here’s what they said:

“The basic structure of the flat tax… offers a recipe for a uniform, simple, airtight, fair system.” – David Bradford, professor of economics at Princeton University

“A single tax rate on all income above an exemption would restore the tax system to its proper purpose. It would make it difficult, if not impossible, to manipulate the tax code to favor, or punish, special interests.” – Milton Friedman, senior research fellow at the Hoover Institute and a Nobel laureate in economics

“Every economist believes that a flat tax would raise economic growth.” – William Poole, professor of economics at Brown University

Should I go on? OK, I will!

“… the double taxation of corporate income would end – all business income would be taxed once, at the level of the firm, increasing fairness and efficiency.” – Harvey Rosen, chairman of the department of economics at Princeton University and former deputy assistant secretary of the U.S. Treasury

“A flat tax that eliminates most deductions would be far more efficient and equitable than the present tax system.” – Gary Becker, economics professor at the University of Chicago and a Nobel laureate in economics

“A uniform-rate tax on all income, by whomever received and in whatever form, with no exemptions or deductions, should be the primary revenue source in a society that values the rule of law.” – James Buchanan, Nobel laureate in economics and a professor at George Mason University

“A flat tax is sound. A movement to a flat rate tax – with no change in government spending – would stimulate economic growth….” – Robert Barro, economics professor at Harvard University

There’s more, but I could go on all day.

How many of the country’s leading economists have to back the flat tax before the American taxpayer figures out it’s a good idea? Isn’t it about time that the country had a tax system that the average citizen could not only understand, but fully support? That’s certainly not the case now. Our tax system is a complete joke. The current tax code is so absolutely arcane, even the most seasoned tax accountants have difficulty keeping up with the yearly flood of new tax law that is foisted on the system by lawmakers trying to scratch some imperceptible itch within their constituency or brought on by special interest groups.

As our system now stands, according to The Dallas Morning News, if you earn more than $56,085 in a year, you are in the top 25 percent of all taxpayers, and you pay 82.9 percent of all income collected by our government. The bottom 50 percent of all taxpayers pay only 3.97 percent of all income tax in America. Half of America only pays 3.97 percent of their income in tax? The top 1 percent pays 33.9 percent of all taxes? Something’s so screwed up here it’s not funny. Should there be a “poverty” level at which you pay no taxes? Absolutely! But to have 50 percent of the population in that category is absolutely unbelievable. Set a cutoff income (say, $20,000/year) below which you pay only 2 or 3 percent of your income in tax, not the 20 percent level everyone else pays. But NO FREE RIDES should be allowed… everyone pays their fair share as their civic duty.

Taxpayers in America should contact their Congressional representatives in untold droves and DEMAND they support a flat tax, or be voted out of office. This one single issue should so clog the phone and e-mail systems of our elected officials that they are unable to conduct any other business until real change is made.

One real hindrance to the flat tax is the special interest group… those that are quite happy with the current debacle. I’m sure that the major tax preparation firms have dozens of lobbyists in Washington fighting tooth and nail to prevent the idea from every gaining a foothold in the halls of Congress. A flat tax would pretty much put them out of business. But the economic benefit of the AMT or the like to the individual American and the economy at large is far greater than the downside to certain companies or groups. The “it would put us out of business” argument doesn’t hold water.

It’s time for action on our tax system. It’s broken. It cannot be repaired by any means other than a complete overhaul… a new start. For the sake of our future and our children’s’ future, it’s time for everyone to get on board with the flat tax and take action. The alternative is unacceptable.

Apologies

2004-12-16T13:22:00.000-06:00

My apologies to folks who read this blog regularly. Once again, I'm failing to keep up with this thing very well. As it happens, the easiest time for me to post has been during the week while I'm at the office. But things have been a little hectic for the last couple weeks, since I'm trying to square everything away before I go on vacation. Alas, vacation will mean another prolonged absence. Please save your bookmarks.... I'll be back after New Year's.

Merry Christmas to all. Please remember the reason for the season.

Luke 2:8-11
And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.

Taking Back Christmas

2004-12-15T07:02:00.000-06:00

Following is the text of Cal Thomas's column today. There's nothing I can add to this, except to say that I agree completely.

Taking Back Christmas
Cal Thomas

In Charles Dickens' "A Christmas Carol," Ebenezer Scrooge is surrounded by merriment and acts of charity. None of it, not even the long-suffering kindness of his nephew, has the slightest influence on his hard heart. It is only when the angel prototypes - the "ghosts" of Christmas Past, Present and Future - confront him with what might be called his "sin" that Scrooge comes to his senses, repents and is "converted."

That message of conversion - indeed the "original intent" of the Christmas message - is obscured not only in the boisterous celebration of something that has nothing to do with the "reason for the season," but now also involves lawyers and complaining liberal and conservative ministers who either demand that people not celebrate Christmas or want everyone to celebrate it as they do.

The battles of Christmas 2004 include protesters in Denver who marched and sang carols along an official parade route because they had been denied entry by "Parade of Lights" sponsors. Rules written by event sponsors prohibit floats and other expressions with a Christmas or religious theme. Officials did allow the Two Spirits Indian group to participate. The group considers homosexuality to be "holy."

In New Jersey, the school district of South Orange and Maplewood has decreed that school bands will be limited to secular songs, such as "Frosty the Snowman" and "Winter Wonderland." The school district policy also bans instrumental "religious" songs, perhaps because some non-Christian might be reminded of Jesus, get offended and file a lawsuit.

In malls everywhere, store clerks are instructed to say "Happy Holidays" to customers. You never know when a Kwanzaa shopper, a Hanukkah observer or an atheist might hear a greeting that does not reflect the sentiments of their "holiday."

Among the problems of trying to have it both ways - Christmas and "holidays" - is having it neither way. The message of "O Holy Night" cannot co-exist with "Sleigh Ride" and "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire." Equating or synthesizing the two has diminished the One who defines Christmas.

The culture has shoplifted a most glorious event - God becoming Man - and appropriated it for the sole purpose of persuading people to buy stuff they can't afford for people who don't need it.
Culture increasingly prohibits any discussion or expression in public places of the real meaning of Christmas, lest that message inhibit the promotion of commerce.

Even Thanksgiving is being transformed from an event in which Pilgrims thanked God for His blessings into a meal of Super Bowl proportions and football. Children's textbooks teach the fiction that the Pilgrims thanked the Indians, not God, for their bounty.

Easter long ago ceased being about resurrection, but bunnies, eggs and chocolate. Santa has become a God-substitute, who gives but requires nothing more than a child being "nice," and even that is negotiable.

Christmas observers should end this charade. People who take the central meaning of Christmas seriously should not lend their credibility to those who obscure and subordinate that meaning to drunken office parties and shopping mall visits where they buy gifts for everyone except the One whose birthday is supposedly being observed.

The Christmas celebrant has become too fixated on the secular culture and desires to go along in order to get along. What would happen if increasing numbers of Christmas believers declined to participate in the orgy of consumption and instead asked the baby who became a man - and much more - what He would like for His birthday?

He gave us plenty of instructions, beginning with "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison" and "care for widows and orphans," not to mention "love your enemies" and "pray for those who persecute you." That last one is especially tough, so we file lawsuits and complain that we get no respect.

The secularists can still have their days off and they can call those days, including Dec. 25, anything they wish. Let them display on public or private property whatever they like, or nothing.

Let those of us for whom Christmas has a historic and eternal meaning celebrate it in our hearts, our lives and our relationships as never before. You never know when an Ebenezer Scrooge might take notice and be converted.

Choice or Genetics?

2004-12-08T14:22:00.000-06:00

Homosexuality is NOT my favorite subject. Honestly, it’s something I would shove under the rug and ignore if I could. But that’s not possible, so here's what I think.

For starters, I think that what two people do sexually in the privacy of their own home is between them and God, and is no one else’s business. I do not believe that the government or any law enforcement agency has any business interfering with what happens there. I do not believe that any sexual activity between two consenting adults (meaning: no children, no animals and no unwilling adults) should be made illegal. Simply put, I don’t believe the government should have any position on homosexuality at all. It is not a government matter.

If only it were that easy.

Unfortunately, people on both sides of the issue are pressing the government to take a position. Our courts are making decisions right now that will affect us all someday. So the government is getting involved. And if the government is going to take a position, then I’m going to voice my opinion on which position it should take.

I do not believe that homosexuality is genetic. Scientists have been trying to find a “gay gene” for years, and they can’t do it. There is simply no proof, or even any credible indication, that anyone is “born gay.” Just a few years ago, I believed it had to be genetic because I couldn’t understand why anyone would intentionally put themselves through the pain that inevitably comes with being publicly (or secretly) homosexual. Back then, however, my own opinions were shaped almost exclusively by the liberal (and thus heavily pro-homosexual) national media. But if you want the other side of this particular argument, you have to go looking for it. Since I’ve done that, I have found good explanations for why people make this choice, and I’ve changed my thinking.

I believe that some people involuntarily become drawn to homosexual activity as a result of the events of their life, particularly the events of early childhood. For example, if a child is raised around people who are openly homosexual, he learns that this is normal behavior and is much more likely to experiment with such behavior himself. This (along with constant glorification of homosexuality in TV, movies and pop culture in general) would explain why this lifestyle is becoming increasingly prevalent in today’s society.

Studies have also found a pattern between homosexuality and people who were sexually abused as children. I can’t cite the actual studies or the details, so I won’t go so far as to say that there’s a definite link there. But I do think it’s reasonable to suspect this could be the case. I think people in these two categories deserve our sympathy and our support.

But I also think that a third distinct group actively chooses homosexual activity, simply because that’s what “turns them on.” Different people get sexually aroused by different behaviors and activities, some more degenerative than others. For homosexuals in this category, I don’t view them as being any different than someone who gets off on pornography, bondage, incest or even pedophilia. They may say that they can't control how they feel, but they're misleading themselves as well as everyone else.

They are perfectly capable of leading normal heterosexual lives, but they choose a different path. This path is nothing more than a lustful desire, a weakness and a conscious choice to give in to something that they know isn’t quite right. They know that it’s harmful to them, but they do it anyway because they just don’t have the willpower (or the inclination) to overcome the desire. They do it because in today’s world, people do whatever makes them “feel good.”

Once again (if you haven’t read the previous post) none of this means that I hate homosexuals. In many cases, I have a lot of sympathy for them. But I simply don’t believe that they were just “born that way. ” It is not an inherited trait like race, height or hair color. Thus, I don’t believe that as a group, they are entitled to some of the “rights” that they are seeking.

This is running long again, and I want to break it up into readable pieces. Next up: gay rights, gay marriage, etc.

Disapproval does not equal "hate"

2004-12-08T13:19:00.000-06:00

Obviously, you can’t talk about values without talking about homosexuality. It’s simply the most debated and controversial “values” issue out there today. And there are probably a thousand different subjects within the subject that you can debate about. I’m really not interested in getting into most of it. I want people to know primarily one thing about my feelings on the matter.

If homosexual activity runs against your values, it does not necessarily mean that you “hate” homosexuals. There are plenty of people out there who hate homosexuals, to be sure. But most of those people hate just about everybody, whether it’s based on sexual preference, economic standing or skin color. These people usually don’t have any values, and their feelings on homosexuals are not related to values at all. I’m no psychologist, but I think the vast majority of people who feel this way are simply bitter, angry people who have serious inadequacy issues. I would also bet that pretty frequently, these people have repressed homosexual urges. Their “values” have nothing to do with their hate.

So if you wish to challenge my opinions on homosexuality, bring it on. But be forewarned that I have no time or patience for people who reflexively call me “hateful” because they disagree with what I’m saying. I think that this is a crutch that the weak-minded portion of the pro-gay crowd uses when they have nothing more intelligent to say. In this group, if you can’t win the argument, you just slander the opposition. And if that’s your tactic, I won’t waste my time on you. I'll probably just say that you "hate" people who disagree with you, and I'd probably be right.

I had to get that all out of the way before going any further on the subject. I’ll post soon on what I think are the essentials of the debate.

"Values"

2004-12-07T15:41:00.000-06:00

Much has been written lately about the impact of “values” on the election. I think most of that is just hype. The people who voted for George Bush based on his values are the people who would have voted for him in almost any case. Values were not the defining issue of this election. Taking an appropriate stance toward terrorism was the defining issue.

Bush wasn’t re-elected because he has favors a Federal Marriage Amendment. He was re-elected because people remember September 11, and they know that Bush will use our military to kill terrorists abroad before terrorists come over here and kill more Americans. The people who try to tell you otherwise are most often the anti-war nuts who like to say that “war never solved anything.” (This is idiocy, of course. We’ll talk some other time about all the things that war has solved.) These people just want to blame the election results on anything but the fact that they’re so far out of step with what mainstream America thinks. As a result, we’re getting a media firestorm against anyone who supposedly has “values.”

Nevertheless, the “values” issue was hugely important. A growing contingent of the country is increasingly concerned with the moral direction in which we seem to be headed. Pop culture (movies, TV, radio, magazines, the internet, etc.) is an obvious indicator. Quite a few people, myself included, think pop culture is a cesspool of filth -- especially compared to what it was 20-30 years ago.

Primetime television is dominated by sex of all varieties. Kids spend all their time and money on video games where they pretend to do things like buy drugs, solicit prostitutes and kill anything that moves. Hardcore porn is available free to anyone at the click of a mouse, and millions of people are addicted to it. And this is what the liberals call “progress.”

I have friends who call themselves “moderates,” and they say that none of this is any cause for concern. It’s just the natural progression of things. They say that people were saying the same things about society 30 years ago, and that people will still be saying the same things 30 years from now. Well, yeah. But isn’t that precisely what’s bothering people…that we’re on a continuous slide into the toilet, and half the country thinks it’s all completely normal?

It’s not that I don’t understand where these people are coming from. Take TV for an example. I’m fully aware that shows like “Leave it to Beaver” showed Ward and June’s bedroom with twin beds because they didn’t want people to think that they were (gasp!) sleeping together. And of course this seems incredibly silly to us (even me) now.

But if TV producers hadn’t crossed that line back in the 50s, maybe we wouldn’t have shows like “Desperate Housewives” today. And you don’t have to be a prude to think that the world would be a better place without shows like Desperate Housewives. It’s low-level, mindless entertainment for people who watch TV with their crotches, like most TV shows.

There’s not one thing wrong with being concerned about things like this. Nor is there anything wrong with voting for a candidate who you believe shares your opinion, even if he can’t do much about it. Some people might be OK with the idea that America is slowly turning into one big Las Vegas, or one big Amsterdam. I’m not, and a lot of people agree with me.

The point is this. People with “values” aren’t necessarily religious, though I certainly am. People with “values” aren’t necessarily prudes, either. I certainly am not. And most definitely, none of this means that people with “values” hate people who don’t share their values. I know of very few people who fit that description. (Another future subject: why liberals think that anybody who disagrees with them is “hateful.”) People with “values” simply think that America was a better place when it wasn’t quite so infected with all the crap that infects it today. And they’d like people to think a little more carefully about what is “progress” and what is just crap.

I’m going to have to cut this off, because I’m reaching the point where people are going to stop reading anyway. I’ll have to pick back up next time, and talk about the clashing viewpoints on homosexuality, and how this all fits into the “values” debate.

Snooze

2004-12-07T10:55:00.000-06:00

Finding stuff to write about for this thing isn't always easy. I just can't sit down and spend hours of my time writing about something unless I really have some passion for the subject. The election, obviously, was a subject of intense interest to me. Now that it's over, I'm finding it a little difficult to find stuff that I want to write about.

I wrote a little bit before about how I think liberals are mostly decent people, but that they're wrong on just about every important issue of the day. So I thought I could do some in-depth examination of that statement. One post at a time, I'm going to tell you my position on some of the major issues confronting our society. Most of the time, I'm also going to tell you why I think liberals and Democrats are on the wrong side of those issues.

Sometime today, hopefully, I'll have the first one up. It'll be about morals, values and the place of religion in society. That seems to be a pretty hot topic at the moment. Stay tuned.

Election Explained

2004-11-29T08:40:00.000-06:00

I post a lot of links to good articles here. But occasionally I come across something so good that I wish I'd written it myself, and I want other people to read it right away. Pete DuPont has just such an article in today's Wall Street Journal.

Here's the link, if you want to go there. But in this case, I'm all about serving the lazy folks, so here's the text:

_____________________________________________________

The real reason Republicans win.
BY PETE DU PONT Monday, November 29, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

A prescient friend among serious Democrats explained last week what was wrong with his party and how it had contributed to liberalism's defeat on Nov. 2. He believes a growing majority of Americans simply don't trust Democrats because Democrats don't trust Mr. and Mrs. America to make sound decisions for themselves and their families.

Blue-collar Americans believe liberals are anti-Christian and seek to suppress all public expression of religious beliefs, including school prayer. That they are amoral--or, as Irving Kristol once said, a liberal is someone who thinks it is all right for an 18-year-old girl to perform in a porn film so long as she is paid the minimum wage.

Liberals see themselves as self appointed Robin Hoods, but they are seen by red-county Americans as taking from the productive and giving to the indolent. They look down on average Americans as misguided and too dumb to know what is good for them and their families. Since such people are unlikely to make the right decisions, a wise government must do it for them. And of course the bigger the government, the better.

An equally serious friend on the other side of the political spectrum says the acrimony of the past four years may have been intensified by social issues, but it is the economic issues that are determining the outcome of elections. He believes the liberal left may actually be winning on the social issues--that gay rights and stem-cell research, for example, are trending in their direction--but that liberals have suffered a wholesale rout on their economic beliefs. They were wrong about communism (it was an economic failure), wrong about socialism (it didn't work either), wrong about the welfare state, wrong about high taxes and government regulation of economic matters.

But what was determinative in this election was not that one party is a religious party and the other is not; nor that one party is in favor of same-sex marriage and the other is not; nor that liberals are for raising the minimum wage and gun control and conservatives are not.
What was determinative is that the two political parties view the American people very differently.

The Republican Party has become the party of individualism, believing that free enterprise, market economies, and individual choices give people the best chance of a good life; that if ordinary Americans are left alone to make their own decisions, they will generally be good decisions, so they--not the government--should have the power to make them.

Conversely, the Democratic Party is the party of centralization, believing that a wise and benevolent, best-and-brightest, urban blue-county government can make better choices than those of rural, red-county Americans. This is not a new belief; it is the legacy of the 1930s (the New Deal) and the '60s (the Great Society). It was fully reflected in John Kerry's campaign: Taxes must rise and government must grow; trade must be regulated and limited; the 1935 Social Security system is perfect and nothing about it may be changed.

But America today is very different than in the '30s and '60s. Socialism is dying; collectivism is vanishing. Market economies have overtaken government-run ones around the globe. Life expectancy is increasing; inflation-adjusted median family income is up 24% in 20 years; 69% of American families own their own homes, and 52% own stocks, bonds or other financial instruments. Americans have expanded their vision and abilities and prospered; we have become an opportunity society where individualism is far more important than centralization. People want to be a part of that progress, to participate in the pursuit of happiness.

And so red-county Americans resent elitists, Hollywood, the establishment media and the Democratic Party telling them they can't participate:

• That taxes must always be higher, never lower, because in the words of one traditional Democrat "I want the government to have the money."

• That Americans should be protected from free trade, because lower-cost foreign goods in the marketplace interfere with higher-priced American ones.

• That you should not be allowed to invest some of your Social Security taxes in a personally owned account that will grow over your lifetime and give you some asset ownership upon your retirement, because it is a bad thing for you to have such assets.

• That allowing parents to choose the best school for each of their children is also a bad thing; you might make the wrong choice, so it is better that government make the choice for you. Or in the words of former teachers union president Keith Geiger, why should some children be allowed to "escape" from bad public schools?

Rather than applauding Hillary Clinton's telling them last summer that their taxes must be raised because "we're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good," they prefer Newt Gingrich's observation that the Declaration of Independence's Pursuit of Happiness includes an active verb: "Not happiness stamps; not a department of happiness; not therapy for happiness. Pursuit."

If the Democratic Party allows itself to be defined by Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore and the editorial page of the New York Times, while Republicans, their president and their strengthened congressional majorities encourage the pursuit of happiness in an opportunity and ownership society, then Mr. and Mrs. America will make sure conservatives are in power for a great many years to come.

Mr. du Pont, a former governor of Delaware, is chairman of the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis. His column appears once a month.

Ignorance and Apathy

2004-11-24T10:01:00.000-06:00

I love getting good comments like these last few.

Tommy says: "I don't think that its the education our kids get that instills them to believe only what they hear, I think that they are lazy. Ask your average teenager what the ramifications of a new Supreme Court Judge appointment would have on the country. They won't care, they may know but it doesn't matter as much because its not important at the time."

(I'm not really speaking directly to Tommy here, just thinking out loud.)

I certainly agree that kids are lazier today than they used to be, but I'm not so sure the education system has nothing to do with that. I know there are thousands of factors in the laziness equation, like technological advances and such. But specifically with regard to how the government works, how can you not place a good portion of the blame for youth apathy on our schools? I really don't think schools are teaching kids to think for themselves. I think there are a lot of teachers who are trying to teach kids to think the "proper way," and it's not working. Kids don't respond to having things shoved down their throats. So rather than teaching kids to make their own choices about how they view government, the end result is that we're teaching kids not to care.

I know I'm running the risk of starting to sound paranoid, with all the writing I do on media bias and the like. I suppose I probably crossed that threshold a long time ago with some people. But I don't think it's paranoia to say that public schools, like the media, are also an overwhelmingly liberal environment. Before you dismiss that idea, consider for a second how long the teachers' unions have been endorsing Democrats. Teachers and other academic types, along with trial lawyers, are probably the biggest and most powerful liberal constituency in America. And we're supposed to believe that this doesn't affect our kids' educations? There are plenty of people who are seeing it. It's no coincidence that enrollment at private schools is way up, and that homeschooling numbers are going through the roof.

Some good reading today...

2004-11-24T09:17:00.000-06:00

Ben Shapiro: "I'm just an Orthodox Jewish hillbilly from Los Angeles."

National Review's Deroy Murdock with an excellent piece on the Unhinged Left.

A hilarious look at the divide between Red America and Blue America.

Back for More

2004-11-23T11:32:00.000-06:00

Sorry for the long absence. It's been a crazy week.

A comment on my "Liberal Romper Room" post elicited a lucid and reasonable response from "Sparkey." I highly recommend reading it. I don't agree with much of what she says, but the level of discourse is commendable.

I appreciate anyone who can make a point in this manner, even if I disagree with it. Her point that liberals also find it difficult to have a civil conversation with those on the right is not lost on me. I know there are many people who share my beliefs who can't keep that kind of a discussion on an emotionally mature level. Occasionally, I'm one of those people. When somebody challenges or assails your passionate beliefs on how things ought to be, it's difficult not to lash out in anger. All my life, I've had difficulty in controlling my emotional responses. This blog is part of an effort to do that better. So with that in mind, here's what I have to say about Sparkey's remarks.

First, more than anything else, Sparkey reinforces my opinion that most liberals are good people who have just been force-fed the liberal line all their lives, and don't know any better. That's honestly not meant to be condescending, because I used to be one of those people. Growing up, my parents called themselves Democrats, and so I naturally thought Democrats were on the right side of everything, even though I had no clue about what they believed. My parents were pretty young at the time, and later came to see things differently, but my indoctrination had begun. It was reinforced by the occasional news and political coverage that I did pay attention to. Looking back, I can see that what I was watching was just as slanted as what you see on the news today. The media back then did their best to do to Reagan what they're doing to Bush now… make him look like some weird combination of an inbred moron and a scheming, evil dictator. And because I watched it without question, I disliked Reagan. But I was young and stupid.

Interestingly, it appears that Sparkey thinks liberals are at a disadvantage in the media game. She says "I think (liberals) should have done what the Republicans did back in the 80s and early 90s - established an immense base of power by investment in and development of their own media outlets in radio, television, etc."

I'll give her a pass on the notion that the Republicans have established an immense base of media power for themselves. But she ignores the fact that Democrats have had their own immense base of power for years in the mainstream media. That media base of power continues today, and it's probably the biggest reason why an ultra-liberal candidate like John Kerry can get even 48 percent of the vote in a national election. If it weren't for liberal cheerleading (for Kerry) and undermining (of Bush) this election would have been a blowout of McGovern-esque proportions. It's a serious blind spot on the part of Sparky and most liberals to think otherwise.

Most people get their news from CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, USA Today, MSNBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Associated Press and Reuters. That's what you call the "mainstream media." And if that's the only place you get your news, you're getting a one-sided version of the story. On one level or another, those are all outlets that acknowledge themselves to be liberal. Surveys of people who work in these outlets indicate that they're better than 90 percent liberal.

They're all a little more hesitant to admit that their liberalism creeps into their news coverage, but it's true. They all allow the occasional conservative "commentator," but liberal thought dominates everything they do. If you get your news exclusively from those sources, you're being trained to be a liberal, and you're being trained to oppose conservative thinking. You can reject that premise if you wish, and continue your training.

Or you can think for yourself. Do a little reading on the conservative side of things, and decide if the other side is really as evil and wrongheaded as we're being made out to be. See my links over there if you'd like some suggestions. If you're truly interested in hearing both sides of things, a good place to start would be to read some specific examples of how the media is biased toward the liberal point of view. The best place I know to do that is the Media Research Center.

Responding to my assertion that liberals have lost it when they start talking about secession and civil war, Sparkey dismisses it by saying: "Both sides have represented themselves poorly in the past, and I am sure both will continue to do so in the future. Do you embrace those such as Michael Savage, when they say things like "I hope you get AIDS and die!"?

Well, of course not. I don't know much about Michael Savage, but what little I do know leads me to believe he's either a crackpot nutcase, or he's just trying to generate shock value entertainment like Howard Stern. In either case, I'm not really interested in what he has to say. When I made the statement about liberals and secession, I was talking about liberals that are a whole lot more mainstream than Michael Savage. Consider this from MSNBC Senior Political Analyst Lawrence O'Donnell, when asked about secession:

"Well, I'm not, uh, a proponent of it but what I've pointed out, which is separate and apart from the election result, is the dynamic that can make a discussion of secession over the next 20 years or so for certain states somewhat more serious than it is now, and that is the fact that the blue states pay for the federal government. Every single blue state pays more into the federal government than it receives from the federal government in federal spending. Virtually all of the red states, all but three of the red states, collect money from the federal government. They are, in effect, welfare recipients."

So you've got a "Senior Political Analyst" of a major cable network saying that he's not personally in favor of secession of the blue states, but trying to stir up people to think about it, and generating class division and resentment in the process. Hey, way to be a "uniter, not a divider," Larry. But even Lawrence O'Donnell has a certain fringe element about him. It's not like MSNBC has more than a few thousand viewers every night. When I talk about liberals going off the deep end, I'm talking about major networks like CBS using faked documents to try to defeat George Bush. How can anybody believes CBS gives unbiased coverage after that? I'm also talking about major, influential media figures and elected Democratic officials saying things that are just plain nuts.

So I'll wrap this thing up by asking Sparkey and other liberals if the following people are more mainstream and influential than someone like Michael Savage, and if they embrace comments such as these:

Former CBS Anchor and "the most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite, on CNN’s Larry King Live, October 29, saying that he believes Republicans were working with Osama Bin Laden to manipulate the results of the election:
"I have a feeling that it [the bin Laden tape] could tilt the election a bit. In fact, I’m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing."

Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, implying that the Bush administration was complicit in the 9/11 attacks:
"We know there were numerous warnings of the events to come on September 11th. . . . What did this administration know and when did it know it, about the events of September 11th? Who else knew, and why did they not warn the innocent people of New York who were needlessly murdered? . . . What do they have to hide?"

Senator Ted Kennedy, asserting that the Iraq war was a fraud cooked up by George Bush and other Republicans for political and financial purposes:
"There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud. My belief is this money is being shuffled all around to these political leaders in all parts of the world, bribing them to send in troops."

Former Vice President Al Gore, saying that the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison is what should be expected when Republicans are in power:
"What happened at that prison, it is now clear, is not the result of random acts of a few bad apples. It was the natural consequence of the Bush administration policy."

More Gore:
"(Bush) promised to 'restore honor and integrity to the White House.' Instead, he has brought deep dishonor to our country and built a durable reputation as the most dishonest President since Richard Nixon."

Liberal Romper Room

2004-11-11T10:25:00.000-06:00

I need to make something clear right up front. I don’t hate liberals.

I think most liberals are well-intentioned, but severely misguided people. I think they are wrong about almost every major issue of the day -- from national defense, to abortion, to taxes, to capital punishment and gun control -- they’re wrong about almost everything. But I don’t hate them. I can have a civil conversation with any liberal who wants to have a civil conversation with me. If the liberals were to be swept back into power in four years, I wouldn’t be worried that the country would immediately self destruct. I would view it kinda like forcing everybody to go to work in a building full of loose asbestos. It certainly wouldn’t be a good thing, but it wouldn’t kill everybody immediately. We would survive it.

Now, that all being said, I am continually amazed at the visceral hatred that most liberals seem to have for people who think like me. When I say I’m a conservative or that I voted for Bush, I’m immediately tagged as a Nazi and/or an inbred moron. Most of them can’t have a civil conversation without using terms like that. These people don’t seem to be interested in anything I have to say on behalf of myself as a reasonably intelligent, caring and non-genocidal human being. They only seem interested in dominating discussions and having things their way.

If you need evidence of this, all you have to do is look around at the aftermath of the election. People are really wigging out. Take a spin around the internet and read some of the liberal reaction to Bush’s re-election, and you’ll see a meltdown of epic proportions. These people really think the end of the world is at hand. They’re talking about secession and civil war.

I try my best to understand these people, but their childishness is simply overwhelming. Civil War? Secession? Good grief, people… you lost an election. Are the terms “liberal” and “adult” mutually exclusive? It’s really frightening that people with this mentality are allowed to vote in the first place. This liberal reaction to the Bush win really has me wondering about the future of political and intellectual discourse in this country.

We’ve just had a major political party suffer a decisive loss in a national election, and they have now essentially explained the loss by saying that “the majority of people in this country are just stupid.” What are we coming to here? Is this Romper Room? Have Democrats on the far left become so deluded by their hatred of George Bush and the fantasies of their own intellectual superiority that they are completely losing their grip on reality?

Look, let me explain the United States of America to you liberal kids. You can think whatever you want in this country, and you can cast your vote for government representatives who think the way you do. But that doesn’t guarantee you that things are going to go your way. And when things don’t go your way, that doesn’t mean everybody else is just not as smart as you. That’s second-grade logic. Don’t embarrass yourselves that way.

Now, I’m well aware that liberals don’t have a monopoly on childish behavior. There are plenty of Republicans who just make me cringe. But collectively, when the Republicans were swept out in 1992, they didn’t throw a temper tantrum. They went to work recreating their image, and they subsequently came up with the “Contract with America” and won a decisive mid-term victory in 1994.

Where is that attitude among Democrats today? If these people can’t accept that the other side has a respectable knowledge base and a significant amount of appeal with the American people, do they really have much of a future? The Democrats have some legitimate ideas that resonate with a large portion of our population. Right now, those ideas, and really the whole Democratic approach, are in danger of becoming underrepresented because they’ve got too many children in charge.

Sometimes, gloating is justified.

2004-11-09T10:46:00.000-06:00

Predictably, the post on "gloating" was received with mixed results. I'm getting calls to "rise above it" and "not be a force for division" etc. etc. And that's fine. Anybody who can demonstrate to me that they truly want healing more than division will get as much cooperation as I'm capable of giving.

But I simply ask those people to read that post again and take note on where it was specifically directed. To repeat really quickly, here's who I was talking to:

"For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here… For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on… For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc. For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea..."

Now, forgive me for being so blunt, but I don't have enough time to listen to anybody waste good air by defending these people. These are not people who want healing, or to bridge any divide. These are people who think that anybody who voted for Bush is an idiot and a nazi who should be run out of the country post-haste. Go read some of the things that these people were saying before the election, and what they've said since. If they had won, they'd be giving no quarter right now. They should expect none. Bridging a divide, when properly done, happens from both riverbanks at the same time. But what you have here are a bunch of people throwing rocks at the people on the other side of the river, and all the while yelling at them to start building the bridge.

There are many people on the Kerry side who are deserving of respect, consideration, humility and cooperation today, and I will gladly give it to those people. But the people I'm talking about are not among this group. If you think they are, you're probably not as objective and non-partisan as you think you are.

You want healing? Really?

2004-11-09T10:32:00.000-06:00

My good friend Beau says in regard to unification and healing, that the most important thing that Bush opponents can do is to “get behind our troops in word and deed.” I couldn’t agree with that more.

You may think that Iraq isn’t the best choice to front the war on terrorism right now. Fair enough. But this President has made that decision and is fighting terrorists the best way he knows how. Public mockery of that decision, and of the job that our troops are currently doing, does nothing but make the situation worse. Do you really want healing? Then put up or shut up. Quit paying superficial lip service to the idea of “supporting the troops,” and get behind the troops and behind this effort that people have voted to support. If you still feel the need to dissent in the midst of your “support,” then write your congressman. But continued public mockery of what we’re trying to do in Iraq isn’t helping anything. Do you want to help, or do you want to hurt?

Beau also says, “We have a great opportunity to unite as one America. We can all support our troops and their Commander and Chief, or we can continue to tear apart the war effort for personal gain.”

Exactly, people. Which way do you want it?

Winners and Losers

2004-11-08T09:11:00.000-06:00

My good friend J.R, in response to my "Divided? So What?" post, says the following:

I can't beleive you are actually saying that Bush has not responsibility to placate the people who didn't vote for him. He is the President of the United States of America, not just the part who voted for him. He has just as much a repsonsibility (maybe even more) to those who didn't vote for him than for those that did. Here's why. "One nation under God" soudn vaguely familiar. Does that mean he needs to rethink his position on fetal stem cell research or gay marriage? No, not really. But he is obligated to listen to dissenting viewpoints and consider the thoughts of people who disagree with him. ALL, not some, ALL the great advances in this society came from either third party issues that became part of the mainstream or from compromise among dissenting views. The Electoral college? Compromise. Balanced Budget amendment? Third Party issue (remember Perot and his charts) Abolition of slavery? Third party issue. Please rethink your stance on this.

Third, Federal Marriage Amendment? By that I suppose you mean saying that marriage can only be between and man and a woman. Well there you seem to be with the majority. But again, the majority of the weren't against slavery. The majority of the people were against women's suffrage. The majority is not always right on thing and they clearly aren't this one either. Let me quote again, "We hold the truths to be self evident...that all men are created equal" Hmmm unless of course that man as a consenting adult want to devote his life to another man who is also a consenting adult. Here's the deal. Marriage is, always has beenm and should always remain a religious issue. The government shouldn't be involved in the issue at all. That's right you heard me. No more marriage certificates. No more blood tests. Leave it up to the churches. If your church doesn't want to sanction gay marriage, that's fine but the government doesn't shouldn't have any say in the matter. I say the government gets out of the sanctioning of marriage all together.

Where to start? Well, first I'll give full disclosure that J.R. and I have had more than our share of animated political discussions. In fact, I still owe him a case of beer from a political bet that's almost 3 years old now. (We both insist that the bet be paid and consumed in person, which is proving to be problematic.) Politically speaking, I don't agree with him very often, but I respect his opinions and I always like to hear what he has to say.

With that out of the way, I suppose I should begin with a little clarification on my earlier post. I'm fully aware that the President presides over the entire country, not just those that elected him. I'm fully aware that he's just as responsible for the well being of his opponents as he is for his supporters. And I'm fully aware that a wise president considers all views, especially dissenting ones, before making decisions and before formulating policy.

None of that has any bearing on the point I was trying to make. My point is this:

After four years, everybody knows where George Bush stands on just about any subject. At this stage, you have to figure that he has heard all the various viewpoints on any number of issues. He's done his due diligence and he has decided where he stands. And he has made his positions very clear to the public. Now… the people of this country, knowing George Bush's policies fully well, just re-elected him to a second term quite decisively. A clear majority in this country, both in the electoral college and the popular vote, has said "we approve of the way you're doing things."

At the same time, the minority (with 30-something fewer electoral votes and 3.5 million fewer popular votes) is screaming that it is now George Bush's responsibility to "heal the nation" by doing what THEY want him to do. Ummm… wait a minute. How does that work? The anti-war liberals lost, so now we're supposed to pull out of Iraq or something to make them happy? If not Iraq, then what? George Bush was re-elected for (in order of importance) his stance on:

1.Terrorism
2. Moral values such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research
3. Tax cuts and monetary policy

So…which principle should George Bush toss over the side of the boat to placate the losing side?

That's my point. He need not, and MUST not abandon any of those principles… in the interest of "healing" or anything else. It is the LOSING side who must come to grips with the results of this election, not the winning side. It is the LOSING side that must come to grips with the fact that they are currently in the MINORITY in the United States of America, and that the minority does not rule. It is the LOSING side who bears more (but not all) of the responsibility for healing and conciliation. The people elected Bush to fight terrorism, oppose gay marriage and keep their taxes low. He now has an obligation to DO IT.

Should the other side still be treated with respect, and have a regular forum for their views with the President? Of course. Should he still take their opinions into account when making decisions? Of course. But should Bush let down the people who elected him in the interest of pacifying the people who hate him? No way, buddy.

Look at it this way. Let's imagine that:

1. John Kerry had just won 286 electoral votes and 51 percent of the popular vote; and
2. The Democrats had picked up 4 Senate seats and several House seats; and
3. Amendments banning gay marriage had been soundly defeated in 13 states

If that were the case, what chance would there be that the people now screaming for a voice would be worried about a "divided country" or preoccupied with "healing a nation"? If John Kerry had won decisively, would he not have an obligation to implement the platform on which he ran? Of course he would, and the people who elected him would be demanding it. If that were the case, it would make me sick to my stomach that the majority of the country thought that way. But I would have to accept the results, and wait for the next election.

Let me be clear that I don't expect Bush to now be immune from criticism… from the left or anywhere else. I fully expect his opponents to be as critical as they've always been. That's part of the game. But a decisive re-election trumps complaints and criticisms from the losing side... at least for now. It is time to get on with the business of moving this country in the direction that it has voted to be moved.

To Gloat, or Not To Gloat?

2004-11-04T11:10:00.000-06:00

A friend of mine who is anti-Bush called me the day before the election. He felt pretty sure that Bush would win, and wanted to warn me that if I were to do any gloating afterwards, it might well be disastrous for our friendship. That really took the wind out of my sails, since I was really looking forward to stamping big W's on my butt and mooning him. Just kidding, dude.

But as the reality of this election sets in, I find that the instinct and desire to gloat is stronger than I expected. Not at my friend, really, because I like the guy and I know he wouldn't take it well… and I never intentionally offend my friends. I still haven't spoken with him since his call. I hope he's doing well, and I'll be calling to touch base soon. But right now, I've still got this primal urge to dance in circles around a large bonfire in nothing but my "W" boxers, beating a drum, drinking whiskey, breathing fire and chanting "Hail to the Chief." It's probably not a good time to call just yet.

It's not that I want everybody who voted for Kerry to be forced to sit in a pile of cow manure, drinking sour milk and watching an endless-loop tape of W saying "nook-ya-ler"… although that does have a certain appeal. I do believe that there are actually some Kerry supporters who were honest, fair and objective in their assessment of the presidential race, and who treated the President with the respect he deserves. For those people, I say 'no hard feelings, and I hope the next four years turn out well for you.'

But then there are the vast majority of Kerry supporters. These are the people who deserve to listen to a LOT of gloating.

For Hollywood types like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Janean Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streisand… gawd, I could go on forever here…

For "news" types like Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, Chris Matthews, Paul Krugman, and on and on…

For political types like Ted Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Jim McDermott… etc. etc. etc.

For anyone who has said (or even suggested) that George Bush is a liar, an idiot, the modern equivalent to Hitler… you get the idea...

You people need a nice long vacation at someplace like this.

It warms my cockles to think that you are crying in your latte's right now, thinking the world is about to end. It breaks my heart that you were unable to convince the heartland of America of your vast intellectual superiority, and that you know more about what's good for Ma and Pa Smithbucket than they know about what's good for themselves. It's so sad that a majority of Americans can't stand your socialistic and morally bankrupt worldview. Life is so unfair, isn't it?

Here's an idea for you: Go to France. Or to the Gaza Strip, where they danced in the streets on September 11. Go anywhere that most people hate what America is and what it stands for. Go someplace where you can spout off slanderous, deluded lies about a great American, and people will applaud you for it. Stay there a LONG time. Many of you promised to leave the country when Bush won 4 years ago, but either you were lying or you didn't have the stones to follow through on it. Now is your chance to redeem yourselves. Just go. We'll hold down the fort for you here, and we'll probably never even know you're gone… except when the blissful silence and domination of rational thought just becomes too much to bear.

Hitler won, so you’d better get the hell out while you’ve still got the chance. Just go.

Divided? So what?

2004-11-04T09:41:00.000-06:00

On matters of great importance, the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal usually gets it right. Their interpretation of the election results absolutely nails it.

George Bush has no responsibility to placate the people who voted against him. He has no responsibility to "move to the center" in the interest of "healing a divided nation." People who say such things are inevitably people on the losing side who are trying to salvage some small victory in their loss. They're entitled to respect and consideration, but not much more. I don't expect them to stay silent when they don't get their way. But neither do I expect their complaining to have much of an effect for the next four years.

When liberals said that Bush's loss of the popular vote in 2000 should mean a less conservative policy approach, they had a legitimate point. But now it must work the other way. Now, he has been given a mandate… a solid electoral win and a decisive popular vote margin. Now he has a responsibility to the majority who elected him, much more so than to the minority who desperately wanted him gone. Logic dictates that it is the MINORITY that bears the greater responsibility to compromise.

Now, we must see a continuation of the administration's policy on terrorism… hopefully with better results. Now, we must see a Federal Marriage Amendment. Now, we must see an end to the Democrats' obstruction of qualified conservative judges. Now, we must see a reform of Social Security. And so much more. It's what the people voted for.

To the victors go the spoils. Gimme.

Kerry's Choice

2004-11-03T11:43:00.000-06:00

In 2000, people finally embraced Al Gore when he (belatedly) accepted the inevitable and gave a gracious concession speech. Since that time, he has reverted to form and become a cartoon character. A radio show guy I listen to called him a "combination of Orel Roberts and Chucky." Love that.

John Kerry now has the choice of who he wants to be. Does he want to be the gracious Al Gore, or does he want to be Chucky? He can concede today and people will applaud him for it. Or he can prolong this thing, and people will view him as a guy who thinks that HE is more important than the good of the country.

Your choice, Jean-Francois.

UPDATE: Kerry will concede at 1 p.m. Eastern today. I congratulate him and thank him for this wise and magnanimous decision. Thank you, Senator, for not putting this country through what Gore did. I mean that in all sincerity.

What it ALSO means

2004-11-03T11:17:00.000-06:00

Despite the perception that I knowingly create, I'm no shill for George Bush. I want to see a LOT more from him in his second term. I want to see some spending bills vetoed. I want to see him force a couple judges down the liberals' throats. Lots of things. So, to me, George Bush getting re-elected is only the second most important thing that happened last night.

So what's number one? Easy...

We found out that John Kerry is NOT going to be President of the United States. And that's good news for all Americans, whether they realize it or not.

What it means

2004-11-03T10:58:00.000-06:00

Some random, post-election thoughts:

1. There can be no more talk of a "selected" president without a mandate. Bush just got the biggest popular vote total of all time, and the first actual majority since Reagan. That's a mandate. Deal with it. Will liberals now quit complaining about our judicial nominations? I doubt it. Expect them to find a new reason to torpedo Bush's legitimately qualified judges.

2. Florida 2004 is the REAL Florida. The 2000 election was a joke. Bush lost about 20,000 votes there when the liberal networks called Florida for Gore too early. But with all precincts allowed to vote before the outcome was predicted, Bush won 52-47, with a margin of more than 375,000 votes. This is what happens when you let a Republican run a fair race in a moderate/conservative state. This is justice.

3. Bush's re-election, plus the pickup of three seats in the Senate and four in the House validates the conservative approach to the War on Terror. Saddam-esque despots and others are now on notice: the left fringe in America does not determine our foreign policy. If you are connected to terrorism, you could be next on our list.

4. I wonder what Michael Moore has to say today…..

Shameless

2004-11-03T08:57:00.000-06:00

Let's get this straight right off the bat. Ohio 2004 is NOT a repeat of Florida 2000. There is no comparison between the two. Florida had a margin of about 1,500 in favor of Bush when Gore asked for his first recount. With a margin that small, asking for a recount was entirely reasonable. So they recounted the whole state and Bush's margin went down to about 500 votes. That's where Gore should have stopped, but let's not get into all that.

With all precincts reporting, Bush leads Kerry in Ohio by about 136,000 votes. Obviously, no recount is going to overcome that. So the Dems are trying to say that there are 250,000 "uncounted" votes in Ohio. I'm sure they're talking about provisional ballots.

Provisional ballots are ready made for voter fraud. If you show up at the polls and they don't let you vote because your name isn't on the list, or it shows that you've already voted or whatever… you can get a provisional ballot. You "vote" with that provisional ballot and it goes into a pile for later inspection and verification. So what we apparently have here is a bunch of Democrats who, knowing that Ohio would be close, maneuvered within the system to make sure there were a bunch of "uncounted" ballots out there. Now they're going to repeat the refrain from 2000 that "every vote should count" even though the vast majority of those provisional ballots are probably fraudulent. It appears that they're going to hold up the entire American election process with their army of lawyers once again.

If this is indeed the Democratic strategy, it is a shameful piece of electioneering. The most important number right now is the exact number of provisional ballots issued in Ohio. If it's really 250,000, this could be another nightmare. I want to know exactly how many provisional ballots are out in Ohio, and how many were out by comparison in 2000. Maybe, just MAYBE... Kerry will have the grace to give this thing up before he makes a complete disgrace of himself. We can always hope, I suppose. But if this goes on past noon today, and the Dems are still crying about provisional ballots, then they are trying to steal this election.

This election has been decided. Bush has won the popular vote by 3.5 million votes. He has already won Ohio, and he is going to win Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada. The final electoral margin is most likely 290-248. Like it or not, that is a decisive Bush win. If Kerry and the Democrats refuse to accept that fact and continue to contest this election over provisional ballots, then they are putting their own desperation for power ahead of the interests of the country. But did you really expect anything less from these guys?

Election Day

2004-11-02T07:57:00.000-06:00

The day is finally here, and it couldn't come soon enough. I've still got a really good feeling about this election. I still think Bush will have enough of a popular and electoral vote margin by tonight that Kerry will look silly if he mounts a legal challenge. Of course, that may not stop Kerry from hauling out the lawyers. Looking silly doesn't seem to bother him too much.

For as long as I've felt confident about a Bush win in this election, I've struggled to put a finger on the source of that confidence. This paragraph, from a source of Jim Geraghty at National Review's "The Kerry Spot," encapsulates it about as well as I ever could.

“Bush will win, pretty decisively… Maybe, worst case scenario, it's 51-49 [percent]. But everyone has looked at how the voters will decide too cerebrally. You walk into that voting booth, you pull the curtain behind you, and you’re alone. It’s the centerpiece of our democratic process, and voters take that responsibility seriously. It’s almost a religious experience, a sacred rite. And they’re going to go with who’s going to keep them safe. Who’s been tested. It’s an emotional, gut reaction.”

That's it. All these polls that are calling it such a close race… this is why they're off base. Because you can't poll people when they're alone in that voting booth. And when people are alone in there, Kerry is going to become a much less viable option. When some pollster calls them while they're sitting in their living room eating beef macaroni and listening to Dan Rather, Kerry seems OK. But for people who take this stuff as seriously as they should, when the weight of the world is on their shoulders, they're going to go with the safe choice.

I've never been too good at making predictions, and maybe I'll be eating a big serving of crow in this space tomorrow. But I think it's going to be big for Bush. I think he'll outperform the polls by about 4-5 percent for a convincing popular vote victory. And my current guess on the electoral college has Bush winning Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa and Hawaii… for an Electoral College win of 300-238.

Please God… let it be so.

The Caveman Returns

2004-10-30T06:29:00.000-05:00

Well.... damn. I see that Osama bin Killin is still alive. Quite honestly, this surprises me. After this long without seeing the old goat, I really thought he was under a couple tons of rock somewhere in Afghanistan. Big surprise that he should show up 4 days before our election. Though the fact that he just put out a squirrelly little videotape instead of blowing something up in New York City should tell you something. We have severely crippled this man's capabilities.

Now, maybe he understands that another attack at this point would just inflame our resolve against him. Honestly, if he's trying to influence our election, he did about the smartest thing he could do. But I don't think his grasp of the American psyche is nearly that deep. I think if he was in a position to attack us before the election, he would have done so. Now you gotta wonder who the guy in the turban was, promising that "blood will run red in the streets." His message seems to contradict that of the Big Boss, who says that they won't mess with us, as long as we don't mess with them.

Hey, I got news for you, pal. You already messed with us. You remember that little thing with crashing jetliners full of people into skyscrapers full of people? Remember 3,000 Americans dead? You took your shot, so to go around trying to imply that this is OUR doing just isn't going to wash. It's too late for that. If you think this little commercial is going to frighten us into giving up this war that you started, you don't understand America at all. We want you dead, and we will get you. If you know what's best for you, you'll get back into that cave.

Pretender in Chief

2004-10-29T15:56:00.000-05:00

You know Kerry's world is crumbling when even Tom Brokaw isn't buying into his act anymore.

From Bill Kristol's Campaign Memo at the Weekly Standard:

SOME PEOPLE WORRY that John Kerry doesn't know what he will do once in power. But that's not the half of it. Kerry doesn't even know what he would have done had he already been in power.

Last night, Tom Brokaw gently pushed Kerry into yet another remarkable instance of utter incoherence. Brokaw, to his great credit, managed to make the key point about the "missing munitions" story that almost everyone else seems to have missed: If John Kerry had been president, no munitions would be missing in Iraq. They'd all be under the control of Saddam Hussein!

Kerry's handlers unfortunately had not prepared him for so basic a point, and the result is a new Kerryism that ranks up with there with his famous, "I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it."

Stolen Honor

2004-10-29T15:04:00.000-05:00

I know people who think the Swift Boat veterans are lying for political purposes. I know people who think that John Kerry's record in Vietnam should never be questioned because "our veterans deserve better than that." What I don't understand is why Kerry is deserving of this respect, but the men who served with him are not. I don't believe that most people who are slandering the Swift Vets have really paid any attention to what they're saying.

I defy anyone to go watch the 40-minute video Stolen Honor, or these 5-minute short videos and honestly tell me that these men have no credibility. These are simply men who saw John Kerry's dishonesty up close, and were slandered by his lies. These men simply want their honor back, and they don't want the man who took it from them to become president.

No kidding

2004-10-29T09:00:00.000-05:00

This guy gets it.

Final paragraph:

"Any conservative who stays home next week has only himself to blame for a Kerry win. If you care about your principles — if you believe conservative ideas and values matter — you have only one choice. Vote for President Bush on Tuesday . . . and do everything you can to bring everyone else you know to the polls as well. The stakes could not be higher. "

But if you're thinking about not voting, you should probably read the whole thing.

How quickly we forget...

2004-10-29T07:32:00.000-05:00

Charles Krauthammer is a genius. His column today talks about something that's been bumping around the back of my mind in several pieces for a few weeks now. But I couldn't put it together.

Now, anybody who has ever talked with me about Iraq knows that I'm a huge supporter of what we're doing there. I think it was something that had to be done... both to "drain the swamp" of terrorism funding, and to remove a murderous madman from power. But just for a second, let's assume that the people who are against this war are right, and the whole thing was a mistake.

Even if that were true, Bush's record in the terrorism war would still be 1-1. Afghanistan was a complete and unqualified success on half a dozen different fronts. People forget all the predictions of disaster, and all the obstacles we had to overcome there. But we did, and we replaced a murderous, totalitarian, terrorist regime with a democracy where women now freely walk the streets and people are actually VOTING. Even if Iraq was a mistake, doesn't Bush deserve a huge amount of credit for that?

As Krauthammer says:

"Who do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire'' during its second week, and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything'' differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now."

Video

2004-10-28T16:01:00.000-05:00

This is a great video. Complete with the Blues Brothers' rendition of "Rawhide" and everything...

Telling it like it is...

2004-10-28T15:58:00.000-05:00

GWB sez:

"This week Senator Kerry is again attacking the actions of our military in Iraq, with complete disregard for the facts. Senator Kerry will say anything to get elected. The Senator's willingness to trade principle for political convenience makes it clear that John Kerry is the wrong man for the wrong job, at the wrong time."

Nice.

(hat tip to KJL and The Corner)

Hypocrisy

2004-10-28T15:19:00.000-05:00

I've had a long-running discussion with a good friend of mine who absolutely hates George Bush with every fiber of his being. He's told me on more than one occasion that he hates hypocrisy in politicians more than anything else. Today, he sends me this e-mail:

Let's see, Kerry is all over the TV saying Bush has failed in his duty as C-in-C because he failed to secure the mountain of ammo that is now missing. Some of Kerry's own advisors have said we don't have all the facts so its not clear when the ammo went missing. In return Bush attacks Kerry for jumping to conclusions before all the facts are determined. So Kerry is guilty of being a typical scumbag, exaggerating (lying?), overblown, say anything politician.

I know you can see where I'm going with this:

Without determining all the facts, Bush jumped to the conclusion that it was vital to invade Iraq, which has resulted in over 8000 American casualties. What's the word I'm looking for? Hypocrite?

Of course, charges of hypocrisy will always strike an immediate chord with true fans of "The G-Man"... aka Jonah Goldberg. I give the G-Man full props for helping to shape my opinion on the subject, and thus this response to my misguided friend...

Here's what I think about hypocrisy.

Somewhere in the last couple hundred years or so, the word "hypocrite" has attained a severely negative stigma that it doesn't necessarily deserve. Or maybe the label of hypocrite has always been bad, but somehow we've watered down the meaning of it.

Being a hypocrite isn't a good thing, to be sure. But some people would rather be labeled a liar, a fraud, a thief or any number of worse things, than to be called a hypocrite. Reasonable people say that nothing else infuriates them the way hypocrisy does. Why is that? What is a hypocrite, exactly? The strict definition would probably be somebody who criticizes others for things he does himself. Lately, we seem to have expanded upon that definition to say a hypocrite is "a person who criticizes other people for actions that MAY be similar to something he has previously done himself."

Here's what I think. Hypocrisy, to most people, is little more than perceived inconsistency between previous statements and current statements. And by that measure, we're ALL hypocrites, to some degree. Bush is a hypocrite. Kerry is certainly a hypocrite as well. You're a hypocrite. So am I. You simply can't avoid occasionally saying something that can be construed by someone as inconsistent with what you said 3 years ago.

If you're going to criticize Bush for being a hypocrite on "jumping to conclusions," that's fair. But if hypocrisy is supposedly the most important measure by which you judge a candidate, then YOU are being hypocritical if you don't criticize Kerry as well. He has only contradicted himself a couple hundred times. Let's look at a couple examples:

John Kerry, September 2002: "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." Kerry voted for authorization to use force in Iraq on October 11 that same fall.

John Kerry, January 2003: "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."

Kerry based these statements on the very same evidence that George Bush had. But once he became a presidential candidate, and once he understood that he'd never get the Democratic nomination unless he was anti-war, he changed his tune:

John Kerry, April 2004: "George Bush sold us on going to war with Iraq based on the threat of weapons of mass destruction. But we still haven't found them. ... We were misled about weapons of mass destruction."

And of course, we're well aware of his continued refrain of "wrong war, wrong place, wrong time." But that's not what you SAID, Senator.

Second example:

John Kerry, September 2004: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

Of course, we all know by now that Kerry did, in fact, vote against the bill to support the troops. He later tried to explain this incredible hypocrisy with the famous line, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And later, he even had the nerve to criticize Bush by saying:

"You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service."

That's exactly right, Senator. So why did you vote against the $87 billion to buy (among other things) BODY ARMOR???

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's some pretty messed up, hypocritical (stuff) right there. What I want to know is... if hypocrites are at the top of (your) sh- list, how can you vote for this guy?

End of my response to my buddy. My point.... Bush is not perfect and has been hypocritical on occasion. But anybody voting for John Kerry has zero room to be complaining about hypocrisy. Best to keep that one in your pocket if credibility is of any importance to you.

Well, well, well...

2004-10-28T07:45:00.000-05:00

Russia tied to Iraq's missing arms - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - October 28, 2004

This explains the missing explosives. And it sure makes you wonder if this is what happened to all of Saddam's WMD, too. If this is true, I think it means two things:

1. The Russkies got a lot of 'splainin to do, and...
2. Bush gets a big boost. Kerry is finished.

The Choice

2004-10-28T07:23:00.000-05:00

It just can't be made any clearer than Cal Thomas makes it today.

Backtrack

2004-10-27T16:02:00.000-05:00

I should do my math homework before posting. After doing some studying and playing with electoral vote maps, I'm going to have to soften my prediction that Bush wins by 100 electoral votes. That just doesn't appear possible, even if he picks off several blue states, as I think he will. Kerry can keep it closer than 100 just by winning California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts and most of the northeast.

I still think it will be a comfortable win with almost none of the drama of 2000. I still think Bush will win a couple blue states that nobody expects him to, like maybe Pennsylvania or Michigan. And I still think he takes the popular vote by 3 percent or better. But a 100-electoral vote margin would really require a dream scenario.

I'm new at this, but I will learn to rely less on emotion and more on fact and logic. That's not in my nature. :-)

UPDATE: The LA Times has a cool electoral tracker map. (Right side of the page, about halfway down.) Try it out and see what you get. Right now, I've got it at 296-242.

Comments!

2004-10-27T15:33:00.000-05:00

My first unsolicited comment… and good stuff, too…

If there is a disdain that the press has with the White House/Bush it may be have something to do with the fact that this administration has been very secretive when going about their business. Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially. He does not do well without a script to read from (or a bug in his ear??) :-)

Regarding the press, they do a horrible job of informing the general public, it is not relegated to just one political party. All of our news seems to come with a point of view. How I long for the days of Walter Cronkite. Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.

I want spin free information. I am not a sheep that needs to be fed, I am just a US citizen seeking informational nourishment.

Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.

So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore. If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him.

Is that the case today?

Point by point response:

“Very few press conferences - by far the fewest by any administration in modern times. When was the last time the President appeared by himself and not in front of a gaggle of supporters? Lord help him if he is forced to answer a tough question. I seriously doubt that he can. Just look at his performance in the debates, the first one especially.”

It would be foolish to say that Bush’s lack of oratory/presentation skills hasn’t been a factor here. People naturally try to avoid what they don’t do well. But I have to dispute the notion that he’s never been forced to answer a tough question. Despite what you think about who “won” the debates (I’d submit that they tied in the second and Bush won the third one hands down) Bush answered the tough questions very well. On the other hand, the moderators were throwing Kerry softballs. Bush gets nothing BUT tough questions.

A lack of charisma and speaking skills is a legitimate criticism of a president. But I don't think it's a very important one. I would love it if George Bush was a slick and polished public speaker. But given the choice between style and substance, I'll take substance every time.

Mistake after mistake has occurred in Iraq yet nobody is asking the tough questions and holding him to his prior convictions that our President should be answering.

Once again, the idea that nobody is asking tough questions is just not right. Of course mistakes have occurred in Iraq. War is hell. Nothing goes as planned. We had some big time screw-ups in World War II, but our less than perfect performance didn’t change the fact that we had to win.

Being the President is "hard work". One of those jobs is dealing with the press whether you like it or not. This administration does not and will not cooperate with any press that does not sympathize with him.

I’d probably amend that to say that “this administration will not cooperate with any press that actively works against him.” CBS used fake documents to try to make up a bogus story about his National Guard service. Now the New York Times has run with a story about Bush’s incompetence for allowing a stash of high explosives to be “stolen.” Except it turns out that the explosives were already gone by the time our troops showed up. And CBS had planned to put this on national TV the Sunday before the election. Bush has no reason to believe that these people will accurately portray what he says and does. He has every reason to believe that they’re using their influence to get him out of office. A president can keep the American people informed without CBS and the New York Times. What incentive does he have to “cooperate” with them?

So, I can see why, if it is actually true, that the press does not want him as President anymore.

The idea that the press doesn’t want him to be president is a given. The point I’m trying to make is that this same media is supposed to be “objective” and presents itself to the public as such at every turn. That is plainly not the case. If CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc. all want to come out and say that they despise the President and want to see him defeated, I’m perfectly fine with that. But they won’t do that because people will no longer see them as an objective source with no agenda. The fact is, they DO have an agenda. They’re more concerned with influencing people’s votes than they are with providing fair and unbiased news coverage.

If the President is as right as he says he is, then he should be able to override what the press may say about him. Is that the case today?

To a certain extent, yes. And I think that you’re seeing it happen right now. Despite facing about 80 percent negative media coverage (my guess), the President is leading the polls. He’s going to win this election. People are seeing through the BS. But the true override will happen about 20 years from now. Ronald Reagan was attacked by the press every bit as savagely as Bush has been. Now, the world sees what Reagan did and the press has been forced to change its tune about him. I think history will be equally kind to the Bush presidency.

Thanks for your comments…

Think, people!

2004-10-27T12:59:00.000-05:00

Is it really a good idea to try and save Ben Affleck's career?

Please... just let it go.

RIP, Rodney

2004-10-27T12:51:00.000-05:00

This is a good place to start.

I don't often mourn the passing of a celebrity these days. But I'll make an exception for Rodney Dangerfield. I still laugh at Caddyshack and Back to School. And when my good buddy Dave starts up with his Rodney imitation, I always bust a gut. I enjoyed the man's work, and I'll miss him. Now, maybe he'll get some respect.

Here's a good article on Rodney.

(Thanks for the reminder, BP.)

Help!

2004-10-27T11:25:00.000-05:00

This thing is totally politics-heavy already, and that's not the way I want it. I want to write about sports, music, movies, TV, radio... all that stuff. And I'll be looking for some of that to add very soon.

Topical suggestions from the peanut gallery, of course, are completely welcome. Go over there on the right side of the page, and select the link to this post. ("Help!") Then go to the bottom of the page and select "Post a Comment."

Media Campaigning for Kerry

2004-10-27T07:48:00.000-05:00

When you read your newspaper or watch TV news coverage about this election, you probably think you're getting an objective point of view that doesn't favor one candidate or the other. You would be wrong. Make no mistake about it, most of the mainstream media is very liberal and desperately wants John Kerry to win this election. Their "news" stories, which most people assume to be objective, are almost invariably tilted to make Kerry look good and Bush look bad.

As Linda Chavez writes today, "The media rule seems to be if a story might hurt George W. Bush, play it up big; if it might help Bush, bury it; and if might hurt John Kerry, ignore it altogether."

Think this is paranoia, or Republican propaganda? Think again, because people in the media occasionally even admit that it's true. See Brent Bozell's column today... particularly the final two paragraphs:

In July, Newsweek's Evan Thomas said the media would favor and promote Kerry and Edwards as "young and dynamic and optimistic and all," and "that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." At the Democratic convention, New York Times columnist John Tierney asked a sample of 50 Washington-based journalists who they favored, and they said Kerry, by 12 to 1. In May, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 34 percent of national reporters surveyed described themselves as liberals, while only 7 percent said they were conservative.

A majority of 55 percent told Pew pollsters the media weren't critical enough of President Bush, while only eight percent thought they were too critical. How critical is critical enough for the national press? Enough to get President Kerry elected.

So if you're relying on information from the media in trying to decide between these two candidates, you'd be doing yourself a disservice by relying only on the TV networks and most U.S. newspapers. Seek out the other point of view. Watch FOX occasionally. Read some conservative news and opinion websites like Townhall or National Review. There is a whole other world out there, and it's a lot different from the one that the mainstream media is painting for you. Your choice is to either seek out the other side of the argument, or take their word for it.

Reading Material

2004-10-26T15:20:00.000-05:00

Best stuff I've read today:

David Limbaugh: "Liberals And National Security Don't Mix"

Cal Thomas: "The Media Vote"

Jonah Goldberg: "Put Down the Duckie!"

Prediction

2004-10-26T12:42:00.000-05:00

I decided to finally get this thing rolling and commit to it now, because I want to have something publicly on record before November 2.

I think Bush is going to win... big. I think he'll win the popular vote by at least 3 percent, and the electoral college by at least 100 electoral votes. Maybe that doesn't sound like a landslide to you, but I think that's a pretty significant margin in a race that everybody says is going to be "extremely tight." I make this prediction not as a reaction to any poll, because I'm generally a skeptic of polls. I've been saying this for months, before any polls started showing up. I've said the same thing through the highs and lows of both candidates. It's just a gut feeling I have about how the American people really think.

I'm under no illusions about the general popularity of George W. Bush. I'm fully aware that a significant chunk of the country completely loathes the man, and another significant chunk is ambivalent at best. But when it comes time to actually cast votes in a time of war, I just don't believe that most Americans will want to trade him in for the likes of John Kerry. No matter how much some people may dislike Bush, I just don't think enough of them will be able to cast a ballot for what is easily the worst presidential candidate since Dukakis. If Hillary had summoned the guts to run this year, I'd be worried. If the Democrats had nominated any other candidate in the field, (even Howard Dean) they'd have a real shot at this. But they nominated a guy who just can't be trusted in a time of war. If this was 2000, it might have worked. But not this year.

No need for in-depth analysis of all that right now. I just wanted to throw that out there first thing. Bush wins big on November 2. It probably won't be the last time that I stick my neck out on the chopping block...

Wazzup

2004-10-26T12:20:00.000-05:00

I’m quite sure that the world doesn’t need my opinions. My friends don’t need my opinions either, but that’s never stopped me from force-feeding my friends. So I’m expanding the franchise.

I’ve started this stupid blog at least 10 different times, and I’ve always quit after one post. Not this time. I’m going to do it and I’m going to keep doing it, for many reasons. For one thing, people tell me I have talent for writing, and I happen to enjoy it. So that seems like a good combination. I also have some twisted psychological need to convince people who disagree with me that they are wrong... or at the very least, misinformed. And this seems like a good place to try and do that. :-)

I suspect that I’ll fill this space mostly with commentary on the politics of the day. (Full disclosure: I’m just a wee little bit right of center.) Maybe some sports and pop culture stuff as well. Here goes nothin’.