About Me

Name: Gary Gross
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Hagel: Thy Middle Name Is Chutzpah

Posted by Gary Gross on Monday, August 21, 2006 3:51:01 AM
To see the Agenda Media swarming around chuck Hagel after an appearance on a Sunday morning talk show isn't unusual. He's gotten into the habit of saying all kinds of sour things about Republicans, which means he's the Agenda Media's go to guy. This week's appearance on Fox News Sunday didn't disappoint them.

Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined, fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"
His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs. "I think we've lost our way," Hagel said. "And I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable."

While it's true the GOP can't accurately be described as the party of fiscal responsibility, the GOP is pretty strong on free trade, individual responsibility and  most pocketbook issues. As for his statement that I think the Republicans are going to be in some jeopardy for that and will be held accountable", I wish that he'd let the political strategists handle that and get back to not being such a foreign policy wimp.

Frankly, it's people like Hagel that most conservatives are upset with. there's little, if any, difference between Hagel's worldview and John Kerry's. That's all you need to know what type of elitist Hagel is.

Hagel has not decided whether he will run for president in 2008. But he respects his wife's reservations about being first lady, cited in a book about Hagel.

What chutzpah. We don't care if he's made that decision. We've made it for him. He's a foreign policy wimp who pays more attention to the amount of microphone time he gets than he does to foreign policy solutions. If you've ever read his comments on foreign policy, they're totally focused on process, not solutions. Politicians like that are a dime a dozen.

Furthermore, what makes him think that he's got the mettle to handle the job? for that matter, what makes him think that voters would pick him over a real heavyweight?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time To Take Care Of Business

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 17, 2006 12:35:21 AM
That's the first thing I thought after reading this article about how Lebanon won't disarm Hezbollah.

By now everyone knows that the Lebanese government won't disarm Hezbollah. They've told the Hezbos to just keep their RPG's and Katyusha's out of sight. (I'm guessing that they're advocating a different policy on rockets and mobile launchers.) No comment is needed in terms of whether UNIFIL will disarm the Hezbos after failing to do so for three decades. Like Lebanon, UNIFIL is part of the problem.

That leaves the disarming of Hebollah to just one group: the IDF. This time, they'd better be serious about it because they won't get an unlimited amount of opportunities to protect their country. It's time that they stopped being timid. It's time that they stopped caring about civilian casualties. It's time that they focused on one thing: killing and/or disarming Hezbollah. It's time for Israel to send a message to its 'neighbors' and let Syria and Iran know that they mean business. It's time they let them know that they'd best not mess with Israel because the price the terrormasters will pay will be substantially higher than what Israel will pay. It's just that simple.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Bogus Poll Warning

Posted by Gary Gross on Wednesday, August 16, 2006 6:33:02 PM
Earlier today, I read a Detroit News poll that seemed to be an outliar so I checked further. Here's what caused me to question it:

Granholm's job approval ratings have shifted dramatically since June. In a June 13 poll, only 40 percent approved of her job as governor. In the latest survey, 51 percent give her passing grades for the job she's doing. The governor's personal favorability rating was at 58 percent in this poll, 6 percentage points higher than in June.

I'm skeptical of any poll that shows an 11 point jump in an incumbent's JA rating over time. I'm even more skeptical when that jump happens in a two month. If it's possible, I'm more skeptical now. It's also worth noting that Granholm's ratings were in the disaster range because of Michigan's freefalling economy. Nothing's happened to change that reality.

Here's why I'm so skeptical: I wanted to check the poll's internals so I emailed Mark Hornbeck, who wrote part of the article, asking where I could find the internals. Here's his response:

We don't share any polling data other than what is published...if you have questions about methodology, I'd encourage you to contact EPIC/MRA in Lansing.

One of the things that I've always demanded before believing that a poll is credible is that they publish the breakdowns. While they aren't exactly hiding the information, they aren't being totally open either.

The good news about the Michigan governor's race is that Dick DeVos is in good position to beat failed Jennifer Granholm. This coincides with Debbie Stabenow's decline in the Senate race. Stabenow was leading the Republican by double digits but now she leads Mike Bouchard by only 5 points.

EPIC/MRA doesn't have a great reputation for accuracy. I've read other bloggers who've said that it's usually off by 5-10 points, always in the Democrat's favor.

Kinda sounds like the Minnesota Poll, doesn't it?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fisking Reid: As Easy As It Gets

Posted by Gary Gross on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 5:21:52 PM
Democrats are convinced that they can win the national security issue this year. To emphasize their 'seriousness', Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid issued a statement on that subject:

Today the president once again tried to convince Americans that he's taken all the steps necessary to keep them safe. Unfortunately, the facts of the last five years aren't that convincing.

Sen. Dipstick, the facts are that (a) we haven't had another successful terrorist attack since 9/11 and (b) we've thwarted numerous attacks, including thwarting the terrorist plot in England last week plus the capturing three Arab-American youth with 1,000 cellphones that were likely part of a plot to blow up the Mackinac Bridge on Labor Day weekend. That isn't even including capturing terrorists that wanted to blow up a skyscraper in Chicago and the Lackawanna 6.

Five years after 9/11, the President still has not taken the necessary steps to prevent terrorists from taking explosives onto airplanes.

Five years after 9/11, the President took steps that prevented terrorists from taking liquid explosives onto at least ten airliners flying from the U.K to the U.S.

Five years after 9/11, al Qaeda has morphed into a global franchise operation, terror attacks have increased sharply across the world and the President has shut down the program designed to catch Osama bin Laden.

Five years after 9/11, al Qaeda has morphed into a global franchise operation because President Bush's policies have killed or captured most of AQ's leadership and put the rest of them on the run. AQ had to morph into smaller franchises because of the damage that they've sustained as part of the President's policies.

"Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, the chairman and vice chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said this week that that the Iraq war has depleted our resources and distracted the Bush Administration from making homeland security a priority. These failures demonstrate that the lessons of 9/11 are being ignored by the White House and the Do Nothing Republican Congress.

The Bush administration's successes point to the President's wisdom in choosing policies that have kept us safe for almost five years following 9/11.

We must change course in Iraq, and implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission recommendations so that we are doing all we can to protect Americans at home and abroad.

Wrong, Moosebreath. We must not change course from intelligent Bush administration policies. The last thing we need is a Senate Majority Leader Reid, especially after Reid's infamous "We just killed the Patriot Act" statement.

I'd doubt that that's the type of direction many Americans want to take.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Olmert's Ouster Just a Matter of Time

Posted by Gary Gross on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:27:34 PM
That's the only fitting title I could think of after reading these three articles. Here's a portion of Caroline Glick's column, which is essentially a stinging itemized indictment of the Olmert government:
Every aspect of the government's handling of the war has been a failure. Take relief efforts as an example. For five weeks the government ignored the humanitarian disaster in the North where over one million Israelis are under missile assault. The government developed no comprehensive plan for organizing relief efforts to feed citizens in bomb shelters or for evacuating them.
And then there is the military failure. The IDF suffers from acute leadership failures, brought to Israel courtesy of Ariel Sharon who hacked away at the General Staff, undermined its sense of mission and treated our generals like office boys just as he decimated the Likud by undermining its political vision and promoting its weakest members.
It was the government's responsibility to critique and question the IDF's operational model of aerial warfare and to cut its losses when after two or three days it was clear that the model was wrong. At that point the government should have called up the reserves and launched a combined ground and air offensive.
But the government didn't feel like it. It wanted to win the war on the cheap. And when the air campaign did not succeed, it abandoned its war goals, declared victory and sued for a cease-fire.
All the while, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni did her best to demoralize the IDF and the public by publicly proclaiming that there is no military solution to what is clearly a military conflict.

Olmert is simply the wrong man for this situation: a clueless moderate. In times of war, which is what they were faced with following Hezbollah's attack, hardliners must step to the fore. They couldn't because this is a government purged of hardliners. It sounds like Sharon purged the generals who'd fight like the military of the sixties and seventies.

Foreign Minister Livni sounds like she was another nobody getting on-the-job training. Her ouster is also mandated. She clearly doesn't have a clue.

The bottom line for me is that I'm hard pressed to find any justification for the Olmert government to exist past this week. How is it that he didn't act with ferocity when President Bush green-lighted him and Arab 'neighbors' didn't jump to Hezbollah's defense? It's one of the great mysteries of this situation. Rather than investigate the why's, it's better to just purge that clueless government and start with a competent government.

Here's a sample of Yossi Klein Halevi's column:

With an unprecedented green light from Washington to do whatever necessary to uproot Iranian front line against Israel, and with a level of national unity and willingness sacrifice unseen here since the 1973 Yom Kippur War, our leaders squandered weeks restraining the army and fighting a pretend war.
...As one outraged TV anchor put it, Israeli towns were exposed to the worst attacks since the nation's founding, a million residents of the Galilee fled or sat in shelters for a month, more than 150 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed along with nearly a thousand Lebanese, all in order to ensure the return of U.N. peacekeepers to southern Lebanon.

This is just more proof that Olmert is justifiably called the Jewish Jimmy Carter. I've seen no proof that he isn't a pacifist. Sayonara.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Lieberman Hit Squad Emerges

Posted by Gary Gross on Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:19:57 PM
DeWayne Wickham has written a column that amounts to a lunatic's view of the Lieberman-Lamont general election. Here's a sampling of Mr. Wickham's stupidity:

But Lieberman is not the party's savior. He's its nightmare. Lieberman is an anti-Democrat Democrat, a fifth columnist who has chosen to flout the will of Connecticut's primary voters by filing papers to compete as an independent in the general election. "For the sake of our state, our country and my party, I cannot and will not let that result stand," he said of his loss to Ned Lamont, a newcomer who waged a largely anti-war campaign against the three-term senator.
Lieberman has called Lamont an extremist. And to prove it, he told O'Brien caustically that Lamont's "No. 1 supporter" is Maxine Waters. She's a Democratic member of the House of Representatives from California whose passionate representation of her constituents Lieberman apparently thinks is more of a threat to the Democratic Party than his act of political defiance.

Mr. Wickham is a male version of Eleanor Clift: a card-carrying member of the Left's lunatic fringe and a media apologist for the Left's lunatic fringe. For him to say that Maxine Waters who represents "her constituents" passionately is ludicrous is utter nonsense. Ms. Waters is a whack job nutcase that makes Cynthia McKinney look moderate. Here's a glimpse at Ms. Waters' quotes:

"Policy, for the most part, has been made by white people in America, not by people of color. And they have tended to take care of those things that they think are important. Whether it's their agricultural subsidies, or other kinds of expenditures that are certainly not expenditures for poor people or for people of color. And so we have to band together and keep fighting back."
"We're building a growing movement against the war in Iraq that will give people who feel uncomfortable about the war a place to share their concerns and discuss and work through a solution, should it be immediate withdrawal or an exit strategy. We want to build a consensus that we want to get out."
"They are already working on the articles of impeachment. They know where they are going. No, they are not going to allow any censure motion. They do not care...what evidence is presented by the White House or anybody else."

This is the pillar of integrity and wisdom that Mr. Wickham is propping up. And he's castigating Sen. Lieberman as being outside the mainstream? Riiiiight.

Most Senate Democrats voted for the Iraq war before the Bush administration's claim that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction proved bogus. But Lieberman still says the administration's war was the right thing to do, a view not widely held among his Democrat colleagues.

Mr. Wickham doesn't even bother to consider the possibility that Mr. Lieberman just might be right because of his gaping ideological blindspot. Shame on him for that.

But now that voters have given him the boot, Lieberman is in no mood for making concessions. He's still pursuing his political insurgency even though many national Democratic leaders have endorsed Lamont. "But the battle goes on," Lieberman told O'Brien, "and now it's among Democrats, Republicans and independents. And I'm carrying it on because Lamont really represents polarization and partisanship."
What Lieberman didn't say is that Lamont's candidacy also represents the wishes of Connecticut's Democratic Party voters, who Lieberman apparently thinks have drifted "far from the mainstream of American life."

Who cares if last Tuesday's election shows the Democratic Party's preference? The state constitution allows for candidates like Lieberman to find out the will of the people, be they Democrats, Republicans or Independents. If Mr. Wickham doesn't think that should be the law, then he should 'write his congressman'. That is if he's from Connecticut. If he isn't, then he should just shut up or just whine to his friends.

The truth is that Wickham is just like the rest of the liberals who are trying to chase Lieberman from the election. He's really just afraid that Lieberman will win, thereby deflating the Nutroots' current jubilation.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Is Lamont Ready?

Posted by Gary Gross on Sunday, August 13, 2006 10:07:44 AM
That's the question Lamont must answer. Let's look at how the Washington Post writes about Lamont's victory:

Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont will launch a general election bid in Connecticut next week with an expanded campaign operation of Washington-based reinforcements, in preparation for a bitter brawl with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman over the Iraq war and national security.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that the anti-establishment candidate sends to Washington for "reinforcements"? For all Lamont's railing against inside-the-beltway types, it's now obvious what he means by that: He just distrusts the establishment types that aren't working for him. How convenient.

The political novice is seeking help from party veterans in fundraising and communications, and in answering Lieberman's increasingly aggressive war defense.

Lamont's seeking help "in answering Lieberman's increasingly aggressive war defense" now? Isn't it a bit late for that? Aren't primary campaigns supposed to teach candidates how to answer policy questions?

Excuse my cynicism. It just comes out when a naive political wannabe thinks of himself as being a real candidate because people to the left of Katrina vanden Huevel pump him up and tell him that he's their kind of candidate.

The reality is that he's just a bored millionare who thinks he can do whatever he wants just because he wants to try it. He doesn't come with understanding of the world's hotspots as shown by his 'remedy' for Iran:

"We should work diplomatically and aggressively to give them reasons why they don't need to build a bomb, to give them incentives. We have to engage in very aggressive diplomacy. I'd like to bring in allies when we can. I'd like to use carrots as well as sticks to see if we can change the nature of the debate."

It wasn't Karl Rove that dug that up on him; it was liberal Cold Warrior Martin Peretz, writing an op-ed for Opinion Journal.com. Here's the best shot Peretz takes at him:

Oh, I see. He thinks the problem is that they do not understand, and so we should explain things to them, and then they will do the right thing. It is a fortunate world that Mr. Lamont lives in, but it is not the real one.

Mr. Lamont best get used to getting bloodied like that because he won't get kid glove treatment from Lieberman like he got from his Kos Krowd gang of groupies. There's another question Mr. Lamont must answer to 'seal the deal': will he be able to hold his cool when Sen. Lieberman starts putting the pressure on him for some of his lame declarations?

Until now, the Kos Krowd buried those comments. Now the spotlight's on him and it's anybody's guess how he'll handle the bigtime. To me, the question is whether he's got a Deaniac's temper. If yes, which I suspect, then he'll stumble badly in the eyes of independents, costing him the election.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Aftershock Begins

Posted by Gary Gross on Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:53:42 PM
I just stopped past Michael Barone's blog and found out that blogger Brendan Loy is abandoning the Democratic Party as a result of Ned Lamont's primary victory over Joe Lieberman. Here's some tasty snippets of Brendan Loy's wrath:

But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.

As you read Brendan's post, (It's must reading, IMHO) keep this in mind: What the extreme left has done is tell moderates that they aren't welcome in the party anymore. The impact of this will be big this fall. It'll be huge in 2008. I don't see this as automatically bringing disenchanted Democrats into the GOP, though some definitely will make the switch. Where there's a noticeable shift, I suspect, is in reliably red states, making those states redder. It also might affect states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, which could easily flip into being red states.

Democrats don’t consider Lieberman a Democrat anymore. That’s the cold, hard truth of today’s results. He’s been kicked out of the "big tent" because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough, because his conscience wasn’t pliable enough. He’s been replaced by the shiny new millionaire who said all the right things to win over the hearts and minds of the netroots. The war in Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong; President Bush is bad, bad, bad; and Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a traitor, a traitor. That’s the undeniable message that Democratic voters from my home state have sent out across the land this fateful day.

It's a sad day when the Joe Liebermans and Brendan Loys of the world feel ostracized and alienated from the Democratic Party. I sincerely doubt that Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, JFK, FDR and Harry S. would recognize today's Democratic Party. I sincerely doubt that they'd caucus with them, either. Why should they? Their brand of patriotism wouldn't be welcome in the Nutroots Party.

Loy's right on the money when he talks about the Nutroots gang as Bush-haters, the extension of which is hating anyone who agrees with President Bush.

This might seem like an overreaction to a single primary result in a single state, but really, it’s just the straw that broke the donkey’s back. As I said, the Democratic Party and I have been drifting apart for some time now. I believe it began on a Tuesday morning in the fall of 2001; I can’t exactly remember the date, but let’s just say a certain catastrophic event happened which changed the world in the eyes of most people, but not of many liberals and Democrats. Oh, they were sad and mad, just like everybody else. But as the weeks and months wore on, I learned to my dismay that the far left didn’t see 9/11 as a world-changing event or a paradigm shift, but rather, just a minor historical blip that didn’t require any adjustments whatsoever to their worldview or their policy ideas.

Loy's distress is obvious. He'd worked hard to make the Democratic Party a 'big tent party', only to have the Nutroots gang tell him that they didn't want a big tent, that they wanted a pure tent. Shame on them for holding that view.

That's how you become a minority party for a generation.

Stop past Loy's blog and read the entire post.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Exposing Clift's Delusional Beliefs

Posted by Gary Gross on Saturday, August 12, 2006 10:42:47 PM
I just finished reading another of Eleanor Clift's delusional meanderings. To say that she's clueless is a bit mild for my thinking. Here's proof for my opinion:

Republicans are whistling past the proverbial graveyard if they think the Connecticut results bode well for them. The high turnout reflects voter anger with the war and with President Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress, meaning that Rep. Chris Shays and two other moderate Republicans in the state will likely be swept away in the tide of anger come November. "Bush is poison; that’s the overarching message of this election," says Paul Equale, a Democratic lobbyist. "Everything else is parlor talk." Illinois Democrat Rahm Emanuel, who chairs the Democratic congressional campaign committee, called Lieberman Bush’s "love child." His point is that the election is a referendum on George Bush, "and the person standing closest to Bush gets burned," a spokesman explained.

The truth is that Connecticut is a goldmine for Republicans when placed in the context of the thwarted terrorist plot of this past week. he truth is that Lieberman losing the primary means that alot of Republicans turning out to vote for Lieberman. That means that Republican turnout will be high, which gives Chris Shays, Nancy Johnson and Rob Simmons a much better shot at getting re-elected.

Mr. Emanuel is whistling Dixie when he opines that Bush equals instantaneous death for Republicans. That won't be the case in the context that we're living in a dangerous world where the GOP wants to prevent attacks and Democrats prefer cleaning up after the terrorists attacks.

Democrats desperately want Lieberman to step aside and not create a sideshow that diverts attention from Bush. But that will take finesse backed up by poll numbers. "Democrats need to take it easy on Lieberman, not go and hammer on him 12 hours after he’s eked out a defeat that’s much narrower than was forecast," a party strategist told NEWSWEEK. "Better to wait for the court of public opinion and build a prima facie case with the right messenger [to deliver it]: Bill Clinton, [Connecticut Senator] Chris Dodd, or better yet, someone who has resonance with Hadassah [Lieberman’s wife.] She’s got a major say in this."

This is purely delusional thinking. Let's start with the biggest flaw: "Better to wait for the court of public opinion and build a prima facie case with the right messenger [to deliver it]" That's assuming that the court of public opinion will send Lieberman the message that he can't win. That isn't likely to happen because Lamont now has to make his case to people who aren't as nutty as his Nutroots protectors. That isn't likely to happen because they know that Lieberman is serious about fighting terrorists before their attacks are underway.

Clift doesn't realize that Lamont is the sideshow, not Lieberman. The only reason why Lamont won was because everything was quiet on the 'terrorist attack' front. That's been shattered with Wednesday's attempted terrorist attack. Lamont is utterly clueless when it comes to the issue of protecting Americans. That matters.

Hillary Clinton got out ahead of the storm with her sharp attack last week on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Critics on the left called her an opportunist, but in the world of politics, is there anybody who isn’t? "The way she took on Rumsfeld was great for her," says Republican pollster Frank Luntz. "She took on the manager rather than the war itself, how it’s administered. "You criticize the process rather than putting out an alternative."

Luntz is clueless this time. The truth is that Americans aren't satisfied when politicians just criticize something. They're demanding solutions. The notion that you can win with just criticizism is pure folly. Clift is again delusional if she thinks people like Hillary just because she's popular in the Northeast. She turns peoples' stomaches in the Midwest.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Truth Behind Terrorism

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 1:35:09 PM
Alan Dershowitz has written another insightful op-ed, this time for the NY Daily News. I'd like to thank him for writing with such moral clarity and with such historical accuracy:

First, Palestinian terrorism began well before there was any Israeli occupation. It started in 1929 when the grand mufti of Jerusalem ordered a terrorist attack against Jewish residents of Hebron, whose families had lived in that Jewish holy city for generations.
Second, terrorism against Israel got worse after Israel ended its occupation of southern Lebanon and Gaza, as these unoccupied lands became launching pads for rockets, missiles and kidnappings.
Third, other occupied people, for example the Tibetans, have never resorted to terrorism against innocent Chinese civilians, though their occupation has been longer and more brutal than anything experienced by the Palestinians.
Fourth, while it may be that a brutal occupation can increase the number of people willing to become suicide bombers, it is also true that no suicide bomber ever sent himself. They are sent by well-educated, affluent leaders like Osama Bin Laden, who do not live in occupied areas.
Fifth, Islamic terrorists have sworn to continue terrorism even if Israel were to end its occupation of the West Bank. They regard all of Israel as occupied.

Terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have been held to such a low standard that they're used to getting their way. The truth is that they're hate-filled monsters who'll kill anyone, including their own children, if they think it'll advance their overall goal of worldwide domination.

It's apt that Dr. Dershowitz cites the Tibetans. Why haven't they resorted to daily violence against their oppressors? For that matter, why haven't others living in disgusting conditions gone on killing sprees of their oppressors? The truth is that terrorism is the result of deep-seated hatred, not occupation.

Let me pose a hypothetical question: If, God forbid, Israel were destroyed, would that be the end of Islamic terrorism? I'd suggest that that wouldn't end it at all. I'd suggest that it would simply mean that they'd move onto another target group.

Something I pointed out earlier is this observation:

"The consensus here is that if Israel laid down their arms, there would still be fighting. But if Hezbollah laid down its arms, there would not be," Mr. Fraser said in a telephone interview.

That's characteristic of the hatred terrorists have against everyone. We've seen other examples of their hatred. It was hatred that led to Zarqawi's assasination Danny Pearl and Nicholas Berg. It was hatred that led Mohammed Abul Abbas to push wheelchair-bound Leon Klinghoffer overboard from the Achille Lauro.

Hatred of that sort is a consuming fire that won't be extinguished by Israel's destruction.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Time Running Out for Republicans

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:54:56 PM
So says Carl Leubsdorf in  this article. Here's a review of his logic:

Polls show negative attitudes are hardening on key factors that will shape the November landscape: public approval of Mr. Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress; the Iraq war; and the country's direction.

Let's take these one at a time, starting with public approval. While President Bush's approval ratings are low, it doesn't automatically correlate into votes for Democrats. The truth is that some of the dissatisfaction is that America isn't conservative enough. That's part of the explanation of the right track-wrong track figure. As I've said numerous times, generic ballot and the right-track-wrong track polling are almost useless in predicting elctions.

Republicans plan this month to renew their stress on the need to strengthen border security. But there's little sign lawmakers will be able to pass meaningful immigration measures before the election.

I don't know why this is a negative, especially with vast majorities of Americans wanting an enforcement-first immigration reform. The American public understands that Democrats and moderate Republicans would write what amounts to an open borders immigration reform bill. It's clear that that isn't where the American public is.

If Americans think that Democrats aren't serious about enforcement of our borders, doesn't that translate into more troubles for them than Republicans? Mr. Leubsdorf is onto something worth considering, though:

Neutral analysts note that the GOP has shown in recent elections a remarkable ability to turn out its vote, and expect a similar effort this year. The question is whether that effort will be equally successful in a year in which the political landscape is far less friendly to the GOP than in both 2002 and 2004.

I've written before about the GOP's GOTV operations. I'm willing to predict that that will be a decisive factor in this fall's elections. If you don't get your voters to the booth, you're in trouble. Leubsdorf's observation ties into Jim VandeHei's article The truth is that Democrats aren't in nearly as good of shape as they're being given credit for. It's equally true that Republicans aren't in nearly as dire straits as the Agenda Media tell us daily.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Murtha: I've Been Vindicated

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 4:57:18 AM
It's hard imagining how Murtha believes that but that's the impression this Washington Times article suggests. This part of the opening paragraph gives us the news:

Democratic strategists yesterday said a revised proposal to begin withdrawing some U.S. troops from Iraq by year's end is a more appealing campaign position than an immediate pullout that draws little voter support. "That is how the Democrats are going to frame this debate for the voters and that's the choice before them in this election," former Clinton administration official John Cowan said of the proposed withdrawal, which was outlined Monday in a letter to President Bush from top congressional Democrats.

Here's why they've gotten a new direction:

"Only 19 percent of Americans favor an immediate pullout" and "only 30 percent of Democrats favor that option," Gallup reported at the end of last month. That poll also found that 38 percent of Americans support staying in Iraq "as many years to do this as are needed" and an additional 7 percent want to send in more troops.

When a fifth of the population wants an immediate pullout and half the people want to either increase troops deployed in Iraq or at least staying as long as it takes, the electoral message was clear. This re-inforces a longheld belief of mine, namely that Democrats are for the inevitable. Democrats can be in favor of a policy that's the polar opposite of Republicans right until they see a poll showing the public siding with Republicans. Then they believe the same thing as Republicans.

That isn't the picture of leadership that's needed to win undeniable mandates, which is what Democrats need this November. Voters won't take them seriously when they're seen as panderers without a set of core beliefs. That's why the so-called value voters voted overwhelmingly for President Bush and Republicans in 2004. That margin isn't likely to shrink much this time around. You might say that this is the Democrats' latest 'cut-and-run' plan, with them doing the running.

Now for Murtha's whopper:

Murtha said in a statement Tuesday that the party's campaign position on Iraq validated his earlier position and that he was satisfied that his colleagues agree "we must change course in Iraq."
Murtha, in a statement released by his office today said he was satisfied that his colleagues agree "we must change course in Iraq." He noted that his was not a popular position when he first stated it in November, "But I’ve thought all along, it was the right thing to do for our country, particularly the courageous fighting men and women in our military.
Murtha said, "Things are not getting better and what we Democratic leaders are saying is that we must set a new direction in Iraq. America is not safer today because of the war there, we must refocus our resources on fighting terrorism more effectively."

Jack, Your position still isn't popular. Only a fool thinks that garnering 19 percent of the voting public's approval qualifies as verification of one's position. If that statement had any more spin on it, Murtha would corkscrew himself into the ground.

As for this perceived new direction, that's utter nonsense. Troops will eventually start coming home when Iraq is able to defend itself. That's hardly a change of plans. It's just an eventuality that hasn't happened yet.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

In Sharia Law We Trust

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:58:38 AM
In a show of disrespect for the rule of law, the militant Islamic group The Islamic Movement made comments that said that they won't obey anything but Shariah law. Here's what I'm talking about:

"Extremist Jewish groups may damage the Al Aqsa Mosque. If this were to happen, heaven forbid, it would inflame the region," the MKs wrote. The Islamic Movement's Northern Branch also warned of what could take place Thursday in the vicinity of the Temple Mount. The head of the movement, Sheikh Raed Selah, said in a radio interview that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to rule on the matter. According to Selah, "The Supreme Court isn't worthy of deciding on matters pertaining to the Al Aqsa Mosque, because Israel does not have sovereignty over it. Selah called on Islamic Movement supporters to reach the Al Aqsa Mosque on Thursday.

When Israel's Supreme Court rules on something, that settles it, despite Selah's claims. Selah wasn't done there:

The Islamic Movement warned Wednesday against the possibility that Jewish groups would try to reach the Temple Mount on Thursday (The Ninth of Av) and damage the Al Aqsa Mosque. The group's warning follows a Supreme Court decision made earlier this week, ordering police to allow whoever wants to visit the Temple Mount during regular visiting hours on the Ninth of Av.

Here's a little glimpse of Islamic Movement's beliefs:

The Islamic movement is a popular work based mainly on self-motivation and personal conviction. It is a work performed out of faith and for nothing other than the sake of Allah, in the hope of being rewarded by Him, not by humans.
The core of this self-motivation is that unrest which a Muslim feels when the Awakening visits him and he feels a turmoil deep inside him, as a result of the contradiction between his faith on the one hand and the actual state of affairs of his nation on the other. It is then that he launches himself into action, driven by his love for his religion, his devotion to Allah, His Messenger, the Quran and the Muslim Nation, and his feeling of his, and his people's, neglect of their duty. In so doing, he is also stimulated by his keenness to discharge his duty, eliminate deficiencies, contribute to the revival of the neglected faridas [enjoined duties] of enforcing the Sharia [Islamic Law] sent down by Allah; unifying the Muslim nation around the Holy Quran; supporting Allah's friends and fighting Allah's foes; liberating Muslim territories from all aggression or non-Muslim control; reinstating the Islamic caliphate system to the leadership anew as required by Sharia, and renewing the obligation to spread the call of Islam, enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong and strive in Allah's cause by deed, by word or by heart, the latter being the weakest of beliefs, so that the word of Allah may be exalted to the heights.

This is pretty straightforward stuff. What this is unmistakeably saying is that everywhere is Muslim land and the only law that's to be obeyed is Sharia law. They don't hide their disdain for all other systems of laws. These are true believers. What's also clear is that they're trying to incite a riot. We'll keep you posted on that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fireworks in Seattle

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 3:29:17 AM
Appearing at the July 30 Filipino Festival Pista Sa Nayon, Steve Beren and Baghdad Jim McDermott took to the "microphone to address the crowd from the stage." Here's a glimpse of the exchange:

Speaking first, Beren told the audience that he was running for congress because of his desire to work on behalf of the people and families of the Seattle area. He noted that people who are born elsewhere and immigrate to the United States often appreciate our freedom more than some native-born Americans, who sometimes take freedom for granted. "In today’s world, there are great challenges and we need to stand up for freedom," Beren said. He noted that the Philippines, India, Israel, and other countries, like the United States, face the threat of terrorism. "I support our troops," Beren declared, "and I am for victory in the war against terrorism." The Republican candidate received a good round of applause from the crowd.
---------------
McDermott spoke next, also addressing the issues of immigration and the war. With regard to immigration, McDermott said that during the course of the campaign "some people are going to tell you that immigrants are the problem, that immigration is bad." With regard to the war, he said that situation in Iraq keeps getting worse, that there is no way for us to win, and that we should withdraw all our troops from Iraq before Election Day. The response from the audience was tepid, but polite.

Let's hope that McDermott's defeatism doesn't play well in Seattle. Steve Beren is facing an uphill but winnable fight against Seattle's 'Congrssman for Life." Based on the response he got, I'd say that Mr. Beren's message resonated quite well with the audience. That's becoming more of a GOP trademark with minority communities nationwide because of the RNC's outreach programs.

These outreach programs are just one of the things that flies below the Agenda Media's radar screen because it doesn't have the splashy headlines that a new poll or a new development might have but it's the type of thing that topnotch political strategists pay attention to.

One thing that's becoming rather apparent to me is that the GOP candidates are strong communicators, making them great campaigners, too. I have the privilege of being able to vote for three such local candidates this fall in Mark Kennedy,  Michele Bachmann and Jeff Johnson. (Follow the links to contribute to their campaigns.)

Let's hope that the people of Seattle realize what a great representative they'll be getting in Steve Beren. Let's close with a great exchange between Beren and McDermott:

"Congressman, we’ve really gotten to the point where our staffs have to get together to discuss the scheduling of some debates," Beren said. "We’ll see," McDermott replied.  Beren persisted, saying, "You keep saying that there needs to be a debate between Republicans and Democrats on the issue of the war. Let’s have that debate."  McDermott replied, "We’ll see how the campaign develops." "The campaign is developing very fast, Congressman," Beren answered. "I’m going to be on you about this challenge every day throughout the campaign."

I remember Paul Wellstone's last nminute ad blitz when he first defeated Rudy Boschwitz where Wellstone appeared to be stopping at Boschwitz' campaign offices. The ads later became known as the "Where's Rudy" ads. They were the main reason why Wellstone overtook Boschwitz in the last couple days. In fact, political analysts from both sides think that those ads were among the most creative and effective ads in recent campaign history.

I think Mr. Beren would be wise to run a similar set of ads against McDermott, who isn't nearly the campaigner that Sen. Wellstone was. An ad campaign like that would put McDermott in a defensive position at the most crucial stage of the campaign, too. He'd be faced with either debating Beren or looking like he's afraid of debating him. Neither is a position of strength for an incumbent.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rome: Jewish Shops Defaced With Swastikas

Posted by Gary Gross on Thursday, August 03, 2006 2:46:54 AM
In a great display of anti-semitism, Jewish shops were defaced with swastikas.

Jewish shops across Rome were vandalized and defaced with swastikas in an apparent neo-fascist attack linked to fighting in the Middle East, officials said Wednesday.
Owners of about 20 shops in the center and outskirts of the Italian capital reached their workplace Tuesday morning to find door locks filled with glue, shutters nailed closed and swastikas defacing nearby walls, said Riccardo Pacifici, a spokesman for Rome's Jewish Community.

As I wrote last week, the world is upside down. This is a perfect example of that. In my lifetime, it's always been that the world rails against Israel when Israelis respond to an act of war. This is the first time that they've responded where there wasn't an outpouring of outrage. There have been some comments expressing that perspective this time but not nearly as many as in the past.

The people that would paint swastikas on Jewish shops are themselves hate-filled people who should be sternly chastised and punished. PERIOD. Painting swastikas on the doors of Jews is as morally repulsive as it would've been to paint a KKK cross on a black businessman's shop door. A healthy society should react with outrage over such acts. Let's hope that happens in this instance.

Flyers signed by a group calling itself Armed Revolutionary Fascists were left at the shops denouncing "the Zionist economy" and including pro-Hizbullah slogans, Pacifici said. "There are still anti-Semites in Italy," Pacifici said. He told The AP that Italian Jewish organizations have been flooded with dozens of e-mails blaming Jews for violence in the Middle East.

Let's hope that Rome's police department apprehend and convict the hatemongers who did this soon. Let's hope that if they're caught and convicted, that they'll be sent away for a very long time.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12345678Next »