Non-Binding Cartoon Surge

What do the majority of Republican voters want?

Taken for what polls are worth, it's not even close:

Given that the majority of Republicans approved of President Bush's speech, do you think they'd really approve of Republican leaders who are supporting Biden's nonbinding resolution, which clearly stands as a statement against President Bush? And how can such a resolution be perceived as being supportive of the troops?

Senator McConnell: Phone: (202) 224-2541 Fax: (202) 224-2499E-mail here.

Senator Lott: Phone: 202-224-6253 Fax: (202)-224-2262 E-mail here.

Senator Kyl: Phone: (202) 224-4521 Fax: (202) 224-2207 E-mail here.

Senator Ensign: (202)-224-6244 Fax: 202-228-2193. E-mail here.

Senator McCain: Phone: (202)-224-2235 Fax (202)-228-2862. E-mail here.

Senator Warner: Phone: (202) 224-2023 Fax: (202) 224-6295. E-mail here.

Senator Cornyn: Phone:202-224-2934 Fax: 202-228-2856. E-mail here.

Senator Smith: Phone: 202-224-3752 Fax: 202-228-3997. E-mail here.

Senator Coleman: Phone: 202-224-5641 Fax: 202-224-1152.E-mail here.

27,500 have signed.

Please check out RoxieAmerica's post on Iran lies of wanting peace:

Also blogging:
The Chatterbox Chronicles
Grizzly Mama
Midnight Blue
Mike's America

Sign the Pledge!

Write.

All weekend long. Write.

And don't forget to sign.

It is this important.

We need Republican activism. Drown out this nonsense, and send a more meaningful message. Appeasement and compromise are not the answer, here.

Do not be discouraged. Do not allow McConnell to cave to McCain.

McCain...#$%^&%*......."a great American....lousy Senator...and an awful Republican."- Hugh Hewitt

This is why we lost in November. We had a Republican majority that didn't behave like a majority. Without cohesive party discipline and party loyalty, we gave it away.

This is the final straw. "The anti-war resolution is a frivolous thing, a pathetic exercise in rear-end covering."- Dean Barnett

Above all, write your senators and sign the pledge because it is the right thing to do. Let history show that America is no paper tiger.

Darth Cheney vs. Pelosi Galore: Blink Count

Hat tip: The Political Bull (go there for more such videos).

The Non-Biden Resolution: "We win, they lose"

Psst....Hint to new readers: click on the photos

A Hillary-ous Billemma

In case you missed it the last time at the bottom of my previous post....

Plus a companion audio with the article. It was quite good.

The Military Times Poll: Spin or Substance?

"The majority of the nation no longer supports this w- the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military; nor does the majority of Congress."

-Senator Jim Webb, D-Virginia, SotU Democratic Response

There's much buzz about on what basis Senator Webb makes the claim "the majority of our military" no longer supports the way this war is being fought". If you listen carefully, Senator Webb almost said "the majority of the nation no longer supports this war"...but caught himself, and said instead, "the way this war is being fought." (you can listen to it yourself here....3 minutes, 49 seconds into it). Why do you suppose that is? Because disagreement with the way the war has been waged is not the same thing as disagreement with the war itself.

There's a recent military poll out that the lefties are giddy over; and perhaps it is the basis for Senator Webb's claim.

Polls are a tricky business. As one person said, he can make you draw whatever conclusion he wants you to by how he chooses to frame the question.

If you examine the article, conclusions drawn from the poll are not so concisely neat and clearcut as laying claim that "the majority in the military no longer supports this war". Take for instance, the following:

While approval of Bush’s handling of the war has plunged, approval for his overall performance as president remains at 52%.

The poll also found that while the personnel believe the public has a positive view of them, they are convinced the media do not — only 39 % said they think the media have a favorable view of the troops.

“Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of those surveyed said the senior military leadership has the best interests of the troops at heart. And though they don’t think much of the way he’s handling the war, 48 percent said the same about President Bush… And only 23 percent think Congress is looking out for them.”

I e-mailed CJ about his soldier's perspective on this; here's his response back:

I honestly don't believe that the majority of troops are against the war. I think the majority of the troops are against the WAY the war is being fought. The administration has recently lifted a lot of what was preventing us from doing our job. In the past two years, the insurgents and terrorists have been able to regroup and rearm because of our policies following everything that happened with Abu Ghraib and Haditha. While I was against the surge initially, now that I know we don't have as many restrictions, I think it will help in the long run. But, I digress.

I think a lot of the negative opinion about the war has to do with two factors: 1)media and political opinion and 2) battlefield restrictions. The media and left has done a SUPERB job of making this war a political hot potato and lost cause. Our politicians have done NOTHING to encourage the American people with facts and the Soldiers hear this from all angles. It's no wonder the troops don't feel we can win this when their own politicians are saying so. They say they support the troops yet don't have the confidence in us to believe we can win.

Patriot wrote a little about this, but didn't go into too much detail at the time for some reason. My thought is that poll is being misinterpreted to think that the troops are anti-Iraq war, and I don't think that's accurate.

One of the poll questions asks "Should the U.S. have gone to war in Iraq?" Of the 944 troops polled, 199 either had no opinion or declined to answer. 390 said yes, while 355 said no. So, if you look at it with the raw numbers, the media's claim that "only 41 percent of the military said the U.S. should have gone to war in Iraq in the first place" in not correct. In actuality, almost 52% of that answered think we should have gone in the first place. we can't speculate on what the 109 respondents would have said had they answered.

When asked "We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?" only 121 answered "0". Yet, surprisingly 363 of the 584 troops (62%) said that we need more troops in Iraq. Only 125 said we need between between 1 and 144,000.

Those numbers weren't touted in the media. I wonder why. For the record, I got all this information from the publicly available raw data. Here's something else staggering. Under many columns, there were a lot of soldiers who simply didn't answer at all. However, under the "how does the media view the military" question, only 14 of 954 left that question empty. Of those, 207 said that the Media views the military VERY UNFAVORABLY while only 57 said that the Media views the military VERY FAVORABLY. So, when you only factor in those extreme opinions about the media, over 78% of them think the media is against us. That's very telling.

I know this was long and boring, but there is a lot in the raw data that wasn't covered and analyzed. And I think I've said enough.

Well said, CJ.

Hat tip: MDConservative (who also reminds that The Military Times is NOT the military) for putting me on the path to posting on this; and Marie's Two Cents for getting bent out of shape by Senator Webb. Lol.

Another Military Times poll of note: Service members' job satisfaction still high

Resolute in Rejecting the Resolution

Why Iraq matters. Why history is on the side of those who stand with the President.

Why our resolve must not waver...why our intestinal fortitude must be greater than that of the enemy.....why we must pay any price and bear any burden to succeed.

Why Hagel and defeatist Republicans need to hear from you.

Take the pledge; and spread the word. Defeat and failure does not an option nor solution make.

State of the Onion

Milblog Contest (final 24 hours!)

UPDATE II: (01/23/07 13:48) And the winnah is.........A SOLDIER'S PERSPECTIVE!!! Congratulations, CJ and Crew! And thanks to all who answered my call for votes (including those I alerted who know nothing of this blog of mine).

*end update II*

*UPDATE* This thread's being bumped, because there's less than 24 hours left, and it's time for a vote surge! Go people!

*end update*

(The following was originally posted on 01/15/2007 oo:30)

A Soldier's Perspective needs your help. So please vote (for A Soldier's Perspective, of course).

Last Monday....

....Lt Mark Daily was killed in Iraq. A UCLA graduate, Lt. Daily was named ROTC's outstanding cadet in his region in 2005 and distinguished Military Graduate. Read what this 23 year old wrote on his MySpace, to explain his enlistment into military service.

Hat tip: Hugh Hewitt

His funeral will be next Saturday, and is open to the public (details can be found here).

Family's request: Donations are being accepted to carry out Mark's wishes for a family celebration of his life in Oregon. Checks can be made payable to Janet Daily and sent in care of Jeanne Hunter, 22 Stonecreek North, Irvine, CA 92604.

He hated bullies.

Tonight.....

The way to pull the mat out from under our military

Discount Floor Mats.

Give 'em hell....then let 'em know how you really feel.

Affirmative Action for Liberalism

That's how Laura Ingraham described the movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

As most of you probably already know, The National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, Tennessee a couple of weeks ago. I really can't believe that this will realistically gain much traction; but with Democratic control of Congress, you never know.

The idea that diversity of opinion isn't available to people, in this day and age of the internet, is absolutely ludicrous! Go to YouTube and run a search for "George Bush" and you tell me how many anti-Bush videos come up. To suggest that conservatives dominate information outlets tells me that you are so far out in the left field fringe, you have only yourself to blame for feeling like your voice is being plutoed.

If we're going to instigate media reform, why don't we start with the drive-by media with their liberal-agenda-driven news stories and anti-war bias? The audience pull of the major news broadcasters and national newspapers in being able to reach people is much larger than the audience share that tunes into FOX News and talk radio.

The fact is, the National Conference for Media Reform is not interested in fairness in the media. According to Cliff Kincaid (who was in attendance) of Accuracy in the Media, what they are interested in, is shutting down outlets for conservative voices. Just look at who funded this event: George Soros, Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Overbrook Foundation, Quixote Foundation, Progress Foundation, and the Haas Trusts. It's Orwellian newspeak to refer to your organization as "Free Press", when its aim will bring about the exact opposite of the stated intentions.

The Revolutionary Communist Party was on hand as an official exhibitor, along with the Newspaper Guild, Consumers Union, Mother Jones magazine, and Pacifica Radio. Also on hand, was the 9/11 truth movement. You know it's bad when Hillary is considered "too conservative" to have books on hand by her and about her:

While the Democratic Party and its political leaders were embraced by most of the participants and usually met with standing ovations, the official conference bookstore didn't offer any books by or about Hillary Clinton. I was told by the bookstore owner that that she was perceived as too conservative by this crowd and that those books wouldn't sell.

On the other hand, books by Senator Barack Obama and Al Gore were prominently featured. Books by Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Mikhail Gorbachev, former White House reporter Helen Thomas, and Webster Tarpley, a former associate of Lyndon LaRouche, were also available. Tarpley, an "expert" on how 9/11 was a U.S. plot, was a featured guest for two hours on Air America, the liberal radio network now in bankruptcy because of bad management and dismal ratings.

A special screening of the film "Reel Bad Arabs" was held, in order to argue that Arabs and Muslims deserve more favorable coverage from the media and Hollywood. The film is narrated by Jack Shaheen, who recently appeared on Al-Jazeera English making charges of anti-Arab media bias.

One book on hand is titled "10 Excellent Reasons Not to Join the Military". And yet we are told not to ever question the patriotism of those on the Left; nor accuse them of not supporting the troops. Certainly there are those on the left who are patriotic and who are supportive of our military; but they find alliances with those who are neither.

Now look at this list of speakers and performers:

Jonathan Adelstein, FCC commissioner
Ben Bagdikian, author, The Media Monopoly
Duncan "Atrios" Black, blogger
Eric Boehlert, author and journalist
David Brancaccio, PBS
David Brock, Media Matters for America
Adrienne Maree Brown, Ruckus Society
Jeff Chester, Center for Digital Democracy
Rosa Clemente, R.E.A.C.Hip-Hop
Jeff Cohen, writer and media critic
Steve Cohen, U.S. representative
Flavia Colgan, MSNBC commentator
Mark Cooper, Consumer Federation of America
Michael Copps, FCC commissioner
Malkia Cyril, Youth Media Council
Davey D, DJ and hip hop activist
Phil Donahue, television host
Deepa Fernandes, WBAI and Radio Rootz
Laura Flanders, Air America
Linda Foley, Newspaper Guild-CWA
Jane Fonda, actor and co-Founder, Women's Media Center
Wayne Ford, Iowa Brown & Black Forum
Kim Gandy, president, National Organization for Women
Dan Gillmor, Center for Citizen Media
Danny Glover, actor and activist
Juan Gonzalez, New York Daily News
Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Al Green's Gospel Choir
Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Maurice Hinchey, U.S. representative
Ben Hooks, civil rights leader
Janine Jackson, FAIR
Rev. Jesse Jackson, civil rights leader
Van Jones, Ella Baker Center
Gene Kimmelman, Consumers Union
Eric Klinenberg, author, Fighting for Air
Sonali Kolhatkar, Afghan Women's Mission
Mark Lloyd, Center for American Progress
Rev. Tim MacDonald, civil rights leader
Ed Markey, U.S. representative
Joan "McJoan" McCarter, Daily Kos
Robert McChesney, president, Free Press
Bill Moyers, journalist and Author
John Nichols, journalist
Alex Nogales, National Hispanic Media Coalition
The North Mississippi Allstars
Geneva Overholser, University of Missouri
Chellie Pingree, Common Cause
Anthony Riddle, Alliance for Community Media
Paul Rieckhoff, Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America
Jay Rosen, New York University
Bernie Sanders, U.S. senator
Danny Schechter, news dissector
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Media Access Project
Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge
Norman Solomon,media critic
John Stauber, Center for Media and Democracy
Matt Stoller, MyDD.com
Makani Themba-Nixon, Praxis Project
Helen Thomas, Hearst Newspapers
Jenny Toomey, Future of Music Coalition
Gloria Tristani, former FCC commissioner
Cenk Ugyur, The Young Turks
Patric Verrone, Writer's Guild of America, West
Noah Winer, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Tim Wu, Columbia University
Rev. Lenox Yearwood, Hip-Hop Caucus

and you tell me with a straight face that all those in attendance want to expand free speech, equalize the playing field, and make sure that talk radio pundits like Laura Ingraham "stay on the air" (as congressman Maurice Hinchey claims).

Congressman Hinchey points out that the Fairness Doctrine was instituted back in 1949 as a means to prevent fascist governments to enable a single ideology to dominate, as it did in places like Hitler's Germany. But what he doesn't acknowledge, is that we live in a vastly different world today than we did 60 years ago. Today, we have access to more information and more choice; not less. And to seek government regulation of the airwaves of the kind Representative Hinchey and Senator Bernie Sanders are calling for, "sounds absolutely Soviet", as Ingraham says in her interview with the congressman.

What a dishonest facade! Can they honestly believe they are advocating for "fairness in the media" and not for stifling conservative speech, through government restriction? Their idea of "balance" is"progressive ideology". Anything that isn't, sounds rightwing conservative and partisan, to them.

While listening to Michael Medved discuss this last week, he gets the typical caller (funny how 90% of Medved's callers are those who disagree with him and how Ingraham debated on her program with Congressman Hinchey, and yet talk radio is accused of not allowing for liberal voices to air their opinions) who makes the same failure of distinction between straight news, and opinion journalism. Talk radio doesn't pretend to be nonpartisan, straight news. The LATimes, CBS News, and all their ilk does.

You can find videos of many of the major speakers, here. Cliff Kincaid observed during his interview on Laura Ingraham last Thursday, that Jesse Jackson, who has such a prominent voice in the media, at the end of his speech, then goes on and plugs his radio and tv program!

Special thanks to Greg at The Political Pit Bull for providing me with audio to The Laura Ingraham Show.

Resources from Accuracy in the Media:
The Plan to Silence Conservatives
Congressional Liberals Bare Plan to Muzzle Conservative Speech

Also blogging:
Casting Pearls Before Swine
Marie's Two Cents

Sunday Funnies with Saturday Night Live!

And here's a bonus, follow up to the previous Danny Bonaduce post. Who's the delusional one, again?

Hat tip for both videos: NewsBusters.org

"Obama-mania is running wild!"

As Michael Medved warns: "We dismiss him at our peril."

Some other points made by Medved:

He's the first candidate to post an announcement on his website, rather than hold a press conference or announce it in a tv ad. Why is that significant? Because part of Obama's appeal is that he represents a younger generation (he will be 47 when he runs); a fresh change at a time when many of our Congressional leaders are aging baby-boomers.

He may be "inexperienced" and "untested" in the eyes of many of his critics and supporters; but never underestimate the power of charm and charisma over substance. And he has it in plenty: articulate, bright, and quite impressive, when you look at how he did not put his announcement for an exploratory committee up until the day after Martin Luther King Jr. Day, with an explanation in the Chicago Sun Times that he did this so as to not draw false parallels to King's heroic struggles. It may be politics, but it is a smart, classy thing for him to put out there.

In many ways, he actually has more experience than Hillary Clinton, when you look at his record of campaigning. Hillary may have 6 years to his 2 years serving in the Senate; but his total years of public office is 10 to her 6, as before becoming a Senator, her only experience was being the wife of Bill Clinton. Obama ran twice for state senate, and won both times; he ran for U.S. congress, and lost.
Medved believes that if during the democratic primaries, other candidates end up dividing the votes, then Hillary will win over Obama. This is because Hillary has a core base of Clintonista loyalists. But if it turns into a strictly Obama-Clinton confrontation, Medved believes Obama will be the Democrat's choice.

Another thing that Medved points out, is that the media has yet to pick up on Obama's wife. He may be the media darling; but Medved says when the media picks up on his wife's credentials, they will be fawning all over her. She, in her own right, apparently, is a very impressive, remarkable lady.



Obama has a very liberal voting record. However, in a reality where we have big-government Democrats and big-government Republicans, Obama is calling for "smart government". It sounds good, and that's part of Obama's charm: making things sound good, and fostering the sense of bipartisan solutions.


What worries me most, is that should Obama become the Democratic Party's candidate, I don't know if the Republican Party has anyone comparable, of rock-star status. Giuliani has name-recognition and charisma; but I don't know if most Republicans will support him, unless they have no choice. And of course McCain has so many Republican voters absolutely stir-crazed angry at him, it is difficult for me to believe that he could possibly get through the Republican primaries. No other Republican candidates has their level of media name recognition and exposure. We need someone who has both the ability to charm and be substantive. So who do we have?