More Bad News for Dems and Clyburn from Iraq – U.S. Death Toll Hits 8 Month Low

(July 31, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you need to pull for the right team.

Here is an article detailing more “bad news” for the Dems in Congress.  That is bad news in the way the Congressman Clyburn (D!) S.C. defines bad news.  Apparently, Mr. Clyburn defines positive news in Iraq as bad for the Dems in Congress.

Apparently, in July, American deaths in Iraq are at their lowest level in 8 months.  Granted, one death is too many, but this is good news.

Notice, however, that the AP article then goes on to include bad news about the political progress to counter the positive news.

Its time that we realize just who is pulling for the good guys and who would rather we fail.  I for one am pulling for the good guys.

Dems Want More Bad News From Iraq

(July 31, 2007) – Like I was sayin… they just don’t care about America.

I have been saying this for a long time now.  The Democrats in congress want America to be defeated in Iraq.  Their sole focus is defeating Bush regardless of the cost to America.

In a recent Washington Post article, Congressman James Clyburn (D!) from S.C. admits that any positive news in Iraq is bad for the Dems.  I find it hard to believe that a sitting U.S. congressman view good news from Iraq as bad and news of car bombs, IEDs, and the deaths of U.S. forces as “good” news.

Clyburn indicated that a positive report in Sept. from Gen. Petraeus would be “a real big problem for us”.  I assume he means the Dems.

In another statement from the article Clyburn indicates that “People feel good about the Democratic Party, they just don’t feel real good about the Congress itself.”  No Mr. Clyburn, we do not feel good about a party that has vested itself in the defeat of America.

As I have been saying all along if it is good for the Dems, it must be bad for America.

Hurry Up and Exit Iraq Before We Win This Thing

(July 30, 2007) – Like I was sayin… its more about scoring political points than what is good for America.

Recently, there have been reports of good news from Iraq.  Apparently, commanders and journalists are reporting that ‘The Surge’ is having a positive impact in Iraq.  Its probably pre-mature to call the surge a success until we hear back from the gernerals in Iraq in September, but the news is reassuring.

That is why I find it so bazar that Democrats, like John Murtha, are doing everything they can to try and draw down troops and hinder war progress as soon as possible.  Here is a link to a post that details how Murtha wants to tie funding to us begining to leave within 60 days.  Odd that we need to begin exiting before we get the final say on the surge.

I think I say this about every other post or so, but why do the democrats want to end this as soon as possible as more and more good news about progress comes to light?  It seems like they are more concerned about handing Bush a political defeat than about letting America acheive success. 

Gonzales Told the Truth

(July 30, 2007) – Like I was sayin…  you need to get to the details.

Here is an interesting post refering to a New York Times article.  It sort of echos a theme I had earlier about Gonzales saying the trip to the hospital was about another program and the dems saying that it wasn’t.  This article indicates that it was about a program other than the TSP.

I imagine the Dems will still want to investigate and investigate all the while other real issues go unaddressed.  There is blood in the water and they are looking to score political points as usual.

Is the Surge Working?

(July 30, 2007) – Like I was sayin… the news can’t be all bad.

 If you look hard enough, you can find good news from Iraq.  Its not the there isn’t any good news, its just that it is hard to find as the media trumpets every IED, car bomb, and fatality.

I was shocked to find this article from the New York Times.  The article says that it is important for Americans to understand that we are making significant military progress since the surge.  You can also find news like this in other blogs and here too.

The political landscape in Iraq is still fairly bleak, but the surge wasn’t to address political issues directly.  The surge was to send the necessary troops in to secure Bagdad and other areas.

Other important changes are the changes in attitude about Al Qaeda and Moktada al-Sadr’s Madhi Army as the population becomes tired of the constant violence perpetrated by the terrorists.

So with the surge having positive impacts in Iraq, are the ‘get out now folks’ pushing to snatch military victory out from under America?  I believe that it is far more important for America to win than to score a few political points.

Keep this article in mind when you hear people like Harry Reid (D!) declare Iraq ‘a lost cause’ and that we should pull out now.

Gavin Newsom Pro Military?

(July 30, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you can’t always disagree.

Let’s face it, the mayor of San Fran, Gavin Newsom, isn’t one of my favorite left-leaning people.  Just recently, he acted to prohibit bottled water in SF and there is a long list of other things that I whole heartedly disagree with.

However, I was shocked this morning when I saw a news story about fleet week in San Francisco.  Apparently a city councilman, with the backing of several groups like code pink, was working to prohibit the Blue Angles from doing fly overs during fleet week festivities.  They state several reasons such as noise levels, waste of fuel, and they find it unescessary.  They also feel that fleet week should be used to highlight things other than the military (kind of like having Santa at the 4th of July celebrations).  They also point out that fleet week is a recruiting tool for the military, which I believe is their biggest issue.

However, Mayor Newsom seems to be in favor of the Blue Angels fly overs.  Other than the obvious reason that the fly overs are cool, Newsom mentions all the money fleet week brings to the area and how thrilling it is to watch.  He also pointed out that every year they get noise complaints, but the one year the Angels didn’t perform, they got many more complaints.

Granted, there are some ligitimate saftey concerns that can and should be addressed, but I really don’t believe those are the true issues.

In any case, I am marking my calendar today as one of the first times I have ever agreed with Newsom.  Lets hope we find more common ground in the future…

Bring Back Fairness by Shutting Down Both Sides?

(July 29, 2007) – Like I was sayin… if you can’t win, you might as well demand that everybody shut up.

An article I found this morning made an interesting point.  Philip Terzian points out that there WAS a fairness doctrine in place before being repealed in 1987.  Interestingly enough, you would be hard pressed to find political discussion on the radio before then.  Now it is everywhere, although be it mostly conservative in nature.

This is why people like Dick Durbin (D!) want to bring back the ‘fairness’ doctrine.  They know that forcing stations to carry viewpoints of Jim Hightower, Mario Cuomo, and Al Franken will pretty much bring silence back to talk radio.  The fact that there isn’t radio audience for the liberal viewpoint on talk radio doesn’t matter to people like Durbin.  Stations would be FORCED to include an hour of Al Franken for every hour of Rush, which in effect would cause the station to change formats as they couldn’t make any money during the Al Franken hour.

In an interesting exchange on the Senate floor, Norm Colman and Durbin discuss the issue.  Colman points out that we shouldn’t want the government to regulate the content of the media, especially since there are so many opportunities to get opposing viewpoints in the media for those of us who want to listen.

In 1987 the FCC said, “the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists,”.

And then there is another thorny issue about who gets to determine what is ‘fair’?  Does a radio station who carries Limbaugh also have to carry the views of liberals, communists, libertarians, christian right, the catholic church, green party, used car salesmen, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers, and little ol’ me?  Who then decides what are the pertinent views to counter?

Anytime the government wants to regulate speech in any form, we all run the risk of losing out in the end.

Must We Silence all Opposition?

(July 29, 2007) – Like I was sayin… some people just can’t stand to hear other opinions.

Here is an article that shows the true nature of groups like MoveOn.  They want to pressure advertisers to not advertise on Fox News.

The question is why?  The say that they campaign against fox because it says that it is ‘fair and balanced’ but favors a conservative view point.  No argument there, many of the COMMENTATORS are conservative.  Just as on CNN, the COMMENTATORS are liberal leaning.  It is also pretty well assumed that the fox NEWS anchors are conservative just as CNNs are obviously liberal.

 The interesting point is that the few times I watch CNN and some of the other networks, they often don’t present the ‘other side’ of an issue at all.  They will bring on Democrat after Democrat to tell you why the president is wrong on this or that, but rarely does anybody offer a contrary opinion.  On Fox, I constantly see liberals and democrats that are offering opinions that differ from mine.

The sierra club even takes issue that Fox often has people on that question global warming.  Why is that wrong?  If there is evidence of other causes, why must we not only ignore it, but try to silence it?

I don’t watch CNN because I like to see both sides of an issue.  I tend to watch fox as I get some opposing view points.

In America, aren’t we supposed to be able to express opposing views?  I think so, but many people would prefer to silence anybody that doesn’t agree, which is by far more dangerous to our country.

The Cowards Are Afraid of a Little Debate…..?

(July 28, 2007) – Like I was sayin… you should only point fingers at the other side….

 I came across an interesting post earlier today.  It basically calls the republican presidentcial candidates cowards for not signing on to do a CNN/YouTube debate and take questions akin to America’s Funniest Home Videos from ‘regular’ Americans.

Seems odd critisim since all the dem candidates refused to attend a Fox News dem debate.  Were the dems afraid to take a little questioning from a news network that doesn’t support their every cause?  Do THEY have something to hide?  Keep in mind that the CNN debate questions were screened and CNN picked the questions to be aired (which is appropriate elst we would all know if Hillary wears a thong or granny panties ala MTV (boxers or briefs)).

Yet again, it all comes down to party politics rather than issues.

Schumer Says to Heck with the Constitution

(July 27 – 2007) – Like I was sayin… it is more about party politics than what is best for America.

Here is a great post over at Byrne’s Rightings about a recent speech by Sen. Shumer (D!) from New York.  It it, Shumer says that the senate shouldn’t confirm another Bush Supreme Court nominee as the court is ‘dangerously out of balance’.

 I was trying to find the article of the constitution that says that the court must be made up of at least 5 liberals and no more than 4 conservatives.   I belive that the constitution indicates that the president appoints justices with the advise and consent of the congress.  What he is really saying is that a conservative isn’t fit to serve on the court regardless of their qualifications.  He also seems to indicate that he would allow a vacant position on the court unless there is some sort of emergency that needed the full court rather than confirm a qualified (although conservative) nominee.

Half the blogesphere is screaming that Bush is a dictator, but which party leadership is saying that you aren’t qualified to be in high positions in the government unless you are a member of THE ‘party’?  Hmmm, that sounds vaugely familiar….

 Over the last several decades it has become more about what party a judge leans toward rather than their ability to do the job.

Here we see another example of OUR government being more concerned with party politics rather than what is right for America.