Friday, November 05, 2004

Let the good news begin to trickle in

377,000 jobs created in October. It's okay to release good news now, MSM...it can't hurt your candidate anymore.

More to come, I'm sure...

: Link

Thursday, November 04, 2004

Calling a spade a spade

"On Tuesday, America voted to hand George Bush a shovel and get on with the business of decapitating snakes."

I would like to say right now ... wow ... you're getting good at this.

How long before you take this thing national?

Great post. Great synthesis. Great work. I have something to strive for now, thank you.

:

Point well made

I absolutely love this quote from Scott McClellan today:

"I might point out that (the President's) arms are only so long; it's important for others to reach back as well."

All this talk from the Left (the losers) about wanting to unify America (in other words, give us losers a job in your administration)...I wonder, will it go both ways?

:

Why We Won

Zell Miller (everyone's favorite Democrat) tells a great story about a day he was doing some yard work in his back yard. He needed to remove and replace a stone step leading up to his porch. Upon removing the old step, he uncovered three snakes nesting -- poisonous, venomous snakes.

He says, "I had a number of options at that point. I did not call my wife, like I usually do when I need help. I suppose I could've tried to reason with the snakes. I suppose I could've called my neighbors and friends -- my allies -- in for help to deal with the snakes on a multi-lateral basis. I suppose I could've seen if killing the snakes would pass the global test.

"No. Instead, I grabbed the nearest shovel and quickly, forcefully offed their poisonous heads. They were a threat and a danger to my wife, my children, my home and all that I hold dear. For that, they needed to be eliminated -- immediately. And I took it upon myself to unilaterally rid my home of those dangerous beasts."

Nice. This is W's philosophy in waging the war on terror, and it's a pretty stark contrast to that of the Left. It's pretty clear to me that this, above all else, is why W won re-election, despite the MSM and countless odds against him. Never underestimate the vote of a security mom...or security dad...or security uncle...or security brother.

On Tuesday, America voted to hand George Bush a shovel to get on with the business of decapitating snakes.

:

Two days in a row

Katie Couric and Matt Lauer were both wearing black again today. So sad. Perhaps they should just both take a leave to cope with their loss. Four years or so might suffice.

(They both took a leave of their senses years ago.)

:

Wednesday, November 03, 2004

Pretty pitcher, 2004


2004countymap
Originally uploaded by ralphphillips.
This is preliminary, but pretty much a repeat of 2000 (as posted here before).

Tell us there's not a mandate. Tell us that there must be something afoul with the results. Tell us how Michael Moore, Bruce Springsteen, the Hollywood Left, MoveOn.org and Liberal Elite are changing the political mood of this country.

Methinks they need a new plan for '08. Bush hatred ain't getting it done.

:

Just for Funsies

Democratic Underground is precious right now.

: Link

Predictions

I believe mine was 280-260, give or take.

Final, as it stands now: 286-252.

:

The cowards are out!

This year's biggest election-season losers:

1.) Michael Moore

2.) Dan Rather

3.) John Kerry

4.) Terry McAuliffe

5.) John Edwards (in both Americas)

6.) Tom Brokaw
6.) Peter Jennings (tie)

8.) The New York Times

9.) Washington Post

10.) Mainstream media at large (but getting smaller)

11.) Osama bin Laden

12.) MoveOn.org

13.) George Soros

14.) Zarqawi (the end is near, my man)

15.) North Korea
15.) Iran (tie)

16.) Tom Daschle

17.) The extreme left (What's left of the left, besides the extreme?, I wonder.)

18.) Teresa (You may remove foot from mouth now, Dear.)

19.) Bill Clinton (couldn't move the vote)

20) Katie Couric

21.) P. Diddy

22.) Bruce Springsteen, John Mellencamp and the rest of the Vote for Change ilk

23.) The Hollywood Left and the Liberal Elite

24.) The Dixie Chicks (still ashamed, for FOUR MORE YEARS)

25.) Chris Matthews

26.) 60 Minutes

27.) Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson, Sandy Berger, Bob Woodward (4-way ick)

28.) Campaign Finance Reform

29.) Liberalism, whithering on the vine......

:

The awards are in!

2004 Election MVPs:

1.) Sean Hannity (God bless his determined heart)

2.) National Review staff and NRO

3.) George W. Bush

4.) Rush Limbaugh

5.) The blogosphere for exposing Rathergate, NYTrogate, and all of the MSM's diabolical hit jobs

6.) Dick Cheney

7.) Zel Miller

8.) Laura Bush

9.) Conservative, alternative media in general (whatever that means to you)

10.) An optimistic, sane, sober electorate

11.) Fox News (just looky at the ratings reports)

12.) Thune, and other Senate pick-ups

13.) Swiftboat Vets for Truth

14.) Neocons everywhere

15.) Karl Rove
15.) Ed Gillespie (tie)

16.) Dennis Miller, Ron Silver, David Zucker and others who have seen the light since 9/11

But most of all, conservatism and conservatives everywhere! God bless your voting hearts!

:

Good morning, good morning!

.)(.

<

\_/

:

Tuesday, November 02, 2004

I Hear "Here"

Finster, Hannity put it even better yesterday.

Paraphrasing badly:

"That message that Osama delivered on that tape last week was NOT the message he WANTED to deliver. Believe that."

Yes indeedio....something in a large explosion would've fit his fancy more, I reckon.

Thank you, W, for keeping us safer for three years plus...

:

Here Here

The Internets are slow so I'll just copy and paste. From NRO and Cliff May ...

"AN HISTORIC ACHIEVEMENT [Cliff May]
It’s 3 PM on November 2, 2004. There has not been a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11/01.

If Osama bin Laden could have attacked us over the past three years, he would have.

If OBL could attack us today, he would.

Whoever is responsible for keeping the barbarians outside the gates deserves praise – and re-election."

That sounds about right to me.

:

Something to consider on election day

THE ECONOMY CONTINUES TO GROW!

I've been waiting for these numbers for a long time. Of course, the MSM will suppress this news until after election day, much the way they did to W's father in '92.

" Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.7 percent in the third quarter of 2004,
according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the second quarter, real
GDP increased 3.3 percent.

"The major contributors to the increase in real GDP in the third quarter were personal consumption
expenditures (PCE), equipment and software, exports, government spending, and residential fixed
investment. The contributions of these components were partly offset by a negative contribution from
private inventory investment. Imports, which are a subtraction in the calculation of GDP, increased."

: Link

Go sell crazy somewhere else!

Michael Moore, in his open letter to voters claims of Bush, "This guy doesn't have a clue about how to win a war."

Um, sir: See Afghanistan. Um, sir: See the fall of Baghdad in 21 days.

Um, sir: See your candidate...

Votes against weapons systems.
Votes against funding (after he votes for it).
Votes to cut intelligence programs.
Serves four months in a war then protests it endlessly after meeting in person with the Communist enemy.
Votes against armor, munitions, military aircraft.
Votes for a war, then campaigns against it.

Um, sir: Is this how you win a war?

: Link

"Rock the Vote Irks Republicans"

Umm....you might say...

: Link

Monday, November 01, 2004

And this is news how?

Flooding in Venice. Hmm, that's odd. (HT Drudge)

But most importantly, "Venice's boat public transportation system suspended service for about one hour..."

Huh?!!

In other news, Chet's All-U-Can-Eat Buffet in Walla Walla, closed temporarily today after patrons complained "too much food" was available.

: Link

Jonah's got it good

What'ya know? I say something, then Jonah says it...only better.

I guess this is where I was going:

"No, it does seem far more plausible that Bin Laden would want Kerry to win. I'm largely persuaded by the Belmont Club's analysis. Bin Laden is offering a truce. A time out. The sort of "Wait, wait, wait!" you used to plead to your big brother right at the moment the pummeling was to begin. He seems to be saying that if America rejects Bush and accepts Kerry — if we reject the American way and accept, literally, the Swedish way (read the transcript) — then maybe we can all just get along. That, I think, is the plain meaning of the text."

I like agreeing with smart people not on purpose.

Read the whole thing:

: Link

A vote for Osama

Several months ago, I had a ridiculous argument with my lefty friends about "who the terrorists would rather have as our president." See, I told you it was ridiculous. The ridicularity was not so much that we were even having the argument, but moreover that the lefties were claiming that UBL would want Bush to remain in power to help his recruiting efforts.

Bush = kill all terrorists
Kerry = summits and the like, more sensitive wars and what not

In light of UBL's recent get out the vote campaign ad, can we now all put this argument to rest? Question answered: terrorists want Kerry. (Remember, Arafat endorsed him a couple of weeks ago...before/after losing his mind.)

The cruxt of my argument back then, and remains today, is that, for this reason alone -- the world's most important campaign issue -- we need to re-elect Bush. Anything UBL wants can't possibly be good for America or the world. Anything UBL fears is what America needs the most.

: Link

"A dramatic reading of Farenheit 9/11"

That's what this author calls Osama's recent tape.

Funny.

: Link

Isn't it telling...

...that UBL is now telling us how we can be spared? Does this sound like a maniacal murder who believes he is winning? To me, it sounds like a desperate bid to prove that he is maintaining control over the situation. If Kerry wins, he will think/claim it is because he told us how to vote. Yet, he is offering to spare the states that vote Kerry. Just six years ago (and several times more recent than that) he proclaimed all of America and her allies to be sitting ducks waiting to be sacrificed for Allah. Now he's trying to make nice with the Michael Moore's of the world. To me, he sounds far more demure this time around than he did when pounding his chest in the days following 9/11. Could be he needs a rest and respite from the manhunt.....poor guy.

Interesting.

:

...but who's counting?

Good electoral map.

Good, because it has Bush winning, and doesn't jump the gun on the up-in-the-air states.

: Link

Check your sensitivities at the door

This is VERY un-PC. I even winced at a couple of them. But the "Arrested Protestor" costume is hee-LAR-ious!

: Link

Still unscientific

Now only a day out, I stand my prediction, in part because it's unscientific and in part because it's arbitrary. What it lacks in research it more than makes up for in wimsy.

I repost it here:

Entirely Unmathematical Prediction

I hereby proclaim that Bush will win by 22-25 electoral votes.

I've done no research to support this. I've consulted no speculative electoral vote maps. I've heard no other "expert's" prediction. I haven't even done the work to figure out which state each candidate has, which are leaning which way, or which are undecided.

I just felt like predicting something. Also, the Tigers will win the World Series this year.

So there it is. Bush 280 or so to Kerry's 260 or so, give or take. Further, Bush will win the popular vote 52% - 46%.

Also, the weather will soon turn cold here in Michigan.

:

Bold-n-spicy

Oh, and one more reason why I think it won't be close (in case I wasn't clear below) is ... because everyone is saying that it IS going to be close!

Remember when Gore couldn't lose? Remember when the Repubs locked up both sides of Congress ... how shocking that was?

Well now its, "we're so bitterly and evenly divided!" Nope. I don't believe it. I'll give ya bitterly, but not evenly.

:

Osama bin hidin'?

Ralphie baby, why am I STILL not convinced that OBL hasn't assumed cave temperature?

And, strangely, isn't it odd, that we've never seen OBL and our "emailer who shall remain anonymous" at the same place together?

Hmmm ...

:

Bold Prediction

In a similar vein ... let me just say that the "Closest and Most Important Election in Our Lifetimes" will NOT be all that close!

I don't have any numbers to back it up. (How many electoral votes are there?) But, c'mon ... who can really take Kerry seriously? If the Dems had fielded a real candidate (or Bill Clinton) I would be worried. But nobody who has been paying attention to the past few months can really take the man seriously.

Do I need to update the " -Gate" list again?

:

What he said!

I don't know how you can argue against logic like this ... (see link).

: Link

Another CBS hatchet job

I saw this hit piece too, and was going to post on it, but Rich Lowry at the The Corner does a much better job than I ever could:

: Link

Osama

So, I guess I was wrong. He's not dead. Or, something crazy's going on. But someone else was wrong, too: the scads of lefties and conspiracy theorists who insisted that W, or Rove, or somebody had Osama all holed up and ready to present to the American people when things went sour during W's campaign. What a joke. This theory is borne from an irractional hatred of Bush as conniver, liar, opportunist, fascist and traitor. At least my theory was grounded somewhat in reality...we hadn't seen the man since 2001.

So now he pops up to tell us how to vote. Ironically, I think he pops up also in time to remind us that one candidate has a demonstrable track record of aggressively seeking to destroy terrorists and their state sponsors, and the other has a track record of voting against wars, against arms, against funding wars, against intelligence spending, against weapons systems. One candidate's commitment to winning this war cannot be questioned; the other is for something before he's against it, has a plan that he still hasn't shared with us, will bring allies to the table (which, to date, has resulted in 0 enemy deaths in the history of the world), and will lead a smarter war against terror...at least until it's reduced to a nuisance, like the good ole' days.

I think I'm going to be happy Wednesday morning....

:

What a bunch of babies!

I read two reviews over the weekend of the movie "Voices of Iraq," both saying essentially the very same thing.

If you are unaware, the filmakers passed out 150 video cameras to Iraqi citizens and set them loose to capture their lives, environs and events on camera. Much to the chagrin and shock of the lefties of the world, their first-person view of life in Iraq was NOT bombs, terror, beheadings and slayings. Shock! You mean there's good news in Iraq too?!?!?!?!?

A snippet:

"Despite a good amount of balance allowing for the expression of some anti-American sentiment, “Voices of Iraq” comes down squarely on the side supporting the war in Iraq.

"At the very least, the cumulative impression it leaves after all the myriad voices have had their say, is that life in a post-Saddam world, with all its hardships and heartaches, is still better than the alternative. As we listen to young people and old, to men and women, the well-off and the poor express their hopes, dreams and fears, one set of voices seems curiously absent from the conversation. They are the so-called insurgents, most of whom are dismissed out of hand by the film’s subjects as not being Iraqis.

"But if they’re not, then who are they, and why are they still killing coalition soldiers and Iraqis (especially those who are being trained as soldiers and police)? Are they really, as many in the film speculate, outside agitators paid by despotic foreign regimes that are nervous about the spread of democracy if real representative government takes root in Iraq? Or could they actually be Iraqis who, for whatever reason, don’t like things the way they’re going? Whoever they are, and however inarticulate their rage, we never get a chance to meet them or hear their voices."

Um, yes you do...it's called the nightly news programs, the New York Times, Newsweek, Washington Post, Time, etc., etc., etc. The REAL story is that this side of Iraq is NEVER -- I repeat, NEVER...this is NOT an exaggeration...NEVER -- ever portrayed in the MSM. Yet, there it is, for all to see. And, yet, the movie review must dismiss it out of hand as coming "down squarely on the side supporting the war in Iraq."

Now, sure, one can argue that perhaps the editors of this film did over-represent the positive over the negative. I don't know...and neither does the reviewer. What can't be argued, though, is that this story is out there, and it isn't being represented in the MSM. The only thing that can honestly be argued is, why?

And why does this review not provide examples of that to which he objects? Is it so hard to get some good news about Iraq on paper in the MSM?

Another reviewer had this to say:

"Kids practice in a rock band after listening to black-market Metallica CDs. But mostly these are people with high hopes, who long for more security and see democracy as the key to happiness. Kids want to grow up to be doctors or Arnold Schwarzenegger."

He too objects to this one-sided portrayal of life in Iraq, after conceding that, "Yes, there are interview subjects who believe that the U.S. presence in Iraq has been a disaster. Some even say they would prefer the return of Saddam Hussein."

So, both sides were represented in this film, but only one -- the grim -- is believable. I wonder why that is. And both reviewers question the motive of this film, as well as its timing...and they have a problem with that as well. Both reviewers, I suppose, need to watch more network news to get their fill of relatively limited blood, mayhem and chaos, all the while ignoring the lives of the other 24.99 million Iraqis who look ahead to freedom and democracy with hope, while enjoying life without tyranny and opression at present.

Funny how neither reviewer questioned the motives of Michael Moore. I wonder why.

: Link