The Necessity of the War in Iraq - Unfortunate But Needed

With all the uproar about the war the reasons why we're there have been all but forgotten. Unfortunately, even a cursory view of the situation, the way it is and without the hype, shows the necessity of the operation, not only because we're there, but mainly because this operation was needed all along. This is proven by a rudimentary analysis of cold hard facts, something missing in almost all discussions.

To begin with, UN weapons reports documented every weapon owned by Saddam in the 90s as well as as all that had been seized or destroyed to date. Based on these reports Saddam controlled thousands upon thousands of tons of weapons that could have done serious harm. By their own admission, the previous regime had stockpiles of VX, Sarin, Anthrax and Mustard Gas. Many of these items were found, as were 500 tons of more or less unenriched uranium, I say "more or less" because the anti-war at all costs paper, the New York Times, found evidence that Saddam had begun to enrich this stockpile, reporting on May 22, 2004 that 1.8 tons had already been transformed to low-enriched uranium.

Opponents of the war originally asked: What about Iran and North Korea? But they fail to realize two things. Unlike Iran and North Korea, Iraq had been given 12 years and warning upon warning to comply with destruction of their weapons piles. Had we still failed to act the threat of sanction have been rendered meaningless and there would have been no hope of a diplomatic solution with Iran or North Korea. Furthermore, concentrating first on Iran and North Korea fails to take into account the very nature of the threats posed by each. Iran and North Korea have one goal, to become nuclear and will not attack us beforehand. They have their eye on the ball. As such, we had a window of time in which to try several non-military options. This cannot be said of Saddam's Iraq. He was content with trying to off a former US President and would have been equally content to organize or support smaller, non-nuclear attacks against us. Stopping him was therefore an immediate priority for the security of our nation.

Keep the conversation to facts. President Bush did not "lie." His reports were based on international intel and the operation was extremely necessary if we were to preserve the effectiveness of diplomatic efforts and send a message that potential dangers would be acted upon. He acted in the best interests of the nation and all congressional leaders, in both parties, who had access to the same international intel that the President and CIA did - some of it coming from French and UN sources, were in agreement at the time.

There's also a humanitarian aspect to the invasion that detractors on the left ignore. Until we entered Iraq the main criticism of our policy was that sanctions were harming the populace while doing nothing to harm Saddam. This was true and needed to be corrected. Iraqis suffered because of a lack of food and an inability to clean up the chemical damage left from the Iran-Iraq War and the first Gulf War and Americans were wrongly, but nevertheless seen as the reason for this. Removing Saddam was therefore the compassionate thing to do.

This also goes to the criticism that fighting the insurgency breeds more hatred. It is true that when fighting any enemy, the enemy will gather supporters and will feel a sense of emboldenment. But not fighting an enemy that poses a risk to you will only allow the enemy to grow and strengthen, less emboldened than when war is declared against it, but in a way that it poses a much greater danger when it's finally ready to attack - on its terms, not ours, as we'll have let it grow out of control. But as we see above, they did not need the Iraq War to hate us. Many hated us before precisely because we did not get rid of Saddam but instead imposed sanctions on the populace. Doing nothing was also not an option, as that would have clearly enabled the unfettered growth of Saddam.

But What About the Implementation?

Some like to criticize the President for not sending enough troops. Surprisingly, this argument is sometimes advanced by the anti-war critics themselves. It seems that any criticism of the war is popular, no matter what that criticism might be. It doesn't matter if one says "Bush sent too many troops," "Bush sent too few troops," "Bush lied" "Bush doesn't know the facts." Any criticism of the President, no matter from what angle or even if it's wholly contradictory to other criticism, is all lauded and applauded by the same group. But it's also all wrong and ignores pertinent facts.

Too few troops would have made the war ineffective. But too many would have turned the civilians against us and served as proof in their eyes that the insurgents' claims of an American takeover were founded. This would have also greatly weakened the current Iraqi Government, who would simply be seen as US puppets and enablers of the "takeover."

This also needs to be pointed out: Contrary to the belief that the President has a "go it alone philosophy," he is in fact one of the few who have actually listened to the generals and military strategists on the field. It is the detractors, both those who call for a withdrawal and those who call for more troops, who are "going it alone" and who are truly ignoring the advice of on the ground military experts. It is they who can cause real harm, both with their calls for a premature exit and with their calls for an intensified number of troops.

This is similar to the criticism John Kerry tried to launch against the President for not "getting Bin Laden." Kerry argued that had he "been President" he would have sent many more troops into Afghanistan and not allowed the Northern Alliance to lead the battle. Yet it's precisely because we allowed the Northern Alliance to take a lead role that the population cooperated and didn't treat us as intruders. When the war started, a former Soviet officer who had long since defected told me that while he's very supportive of American efforts, he was in Afghanistan and can attest that the population is so weary of occupiers that when the Soviets were there they trained their small children to shoot at soldiers. This former officer felt that they would see us as occupiers as well and therefore warned of a long struggle. That may well have happened had John Kerry "been President." This President fortunately had the wherewithal to listen to military experts and continues to do so. And he's being blamed for it.

In Short

To be sure, a withdrawal would only embolden the fanatics and those who wish us harm around the world. Is there any other reason why the insurgents fought especially hard before the elections, hoping to secure a change in course? It's to the great credit of this President that he is not switching course. Had the media done the same in World War 2 - asking why we're "attacking" Germany when it was Japan who attacked us, blaming Roosevelt for military failures - of which there were plenty in every battle, as is the nature of war - you can be sure that public opinion may have forced us to abandon our mission, only to have to face a stronger and harder to defeat Germany a few years later.

Let us pray that the same doesn't happen here. This President definitely deserves credit for realizing what all of us should. It is also important that the entire case be laid out repeatedly to the public, so that we do not make any dire mistakes.

Let's Not Forget - What Else We Lose By Ignoring These Facts

Aside from the risk to national security, there are many other serious issues that both the right and the left should concentrate on. There are issues affecting everyday Americans such as reform of the justice system so that we stop making career criminals out of non-violent offenders and change that system to make it both more humane and more effective, access to alternative medicine and a parent's right to choose a medical strategy for their children, tax reform, how to overhaul Social Security and Medicare and what further steps should be taken to effectively ensure national security and how to balance this with, and indeed promote, civil liberties. But all this goes by the wayside as we concentrate on blaming the President for a war he would have been derelict in duty not to have entered.

Preparing for the '08 Senate Race

This summer I wrote a guide that I think would have been helpful in '06 (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1688222/posts). It's long and drawn out but it needed to cover all of the points that it did. It can and should be used now to help the GOP but winning in '08 is somewhat simpler. A strong national message will definitely help but there are simple things we can do on a race by race level.

For starters, winning the Senate in '08 (or keeping it if the Dems manage to turn off Lieberman or even Tester) seems more than doable. Off hand, it seems that we actually have an advantage. Don't be fazed by the number of seats facing reelection (21R - 12D). There are only 3 or 4 GOP that need protection (NH, MN, CO and maybe OR) and the Dems are extremely vulnerable in cases where you'd least expect it.

Here are the top potentials for the GOP in the Senate and who to run in each.

LA - Suzie Terrell, Bobby Jindal

MT - Marc Racicot - He refused before when asked only once (after the candidate withdrew late in the race) but give him a 2 year start and enough funding (and prodding) and let's see if he bites.

AR - Gov. Huckabee - UPDATED - I'm amazed to see how well Gov. Huckabee handles himself on the national level. Far more important, he's the ideal candidate on many issues. Conservatives need to rally behind a single presidential candidate quickly and Huckabee is a great candidate, as is Duncan Hunter. While I thought that the candidates who've been running for some time now would have unfortunately drowned Huckabee out, I'm pleased to see that this is not the case. Huckabee for President (and for Senate if the GOP does not nominate him). We have two good conservative candidates who come across very well, Gov. Huckabee and Rep. Hunter. Of the two, Huckabee has a much larger organization and considering the way his support base has kept growing, if it continues he may have a realistic shot at the nomination.

SD - Mike Rounds

NJ - Lautenberg may not run again. Even if he does, he's weak compared to Christine Todd Whitman. Sure, she may be the next coming of Lincoln Chafee but I think she'd be more of an Olympia Snowe, her book notwithstanding and that's a chance we'd have to take.

MA - John Kerry is seriously damaged goods. So is any Republican running for Senate in MA. But enter former Governor Celucci and the Dems have a race where they least expect it. Yes, they'll try to brand him as they do with all Republicans, but that doesn't always work and Kerry has more than his fair share of problems. If Celucci reminds people of the reasons for his popularity in MA we'll have a race on our hands.

Other races potentially up for grabs include IL (Turban Durbin), IA (radically left Harkin) and even DE if Biden retires from the Senate and a suitable GOP candidate is found). In CO, if Sen. Allard retires, the GOP would be well advised to look at retiring Gov. Owens. He is still seen as an excellent Governor and is a popular choice. Rockefeller in WV can also be exposed for the ultra-liberal that he is and the danger to national security that he is. Hagel in Nebraska needs to be given every incentive not to retire and some pundits are even looking at a return of Chafee in RI against weaker and less known Dem. Jack Reed (not that this thrills anyone but you've got to take what you can get and Chafee is better than Reed - if he runs as a Republican).

Some of these candidates won't readily wish to run and that's an understatement. Recruitment therefore needs to start now. It took a lot of coaxing to get many of our best candidates to run in '02 and it's fair to expect that this time they will need to be offered many incentives. Appointments can be given to them now and other incentives need to be looked at as well. The GOP can't accept their refusals and needs to pursue them vigorously.

Democrats Would Raise Taxes on the Lowest Income Earners by 50%

It's true. Not that you'll be hearing it in the media, which by the way, makes it even more true. The party that feigns compassion while maligning real progress would raise taxes on the lowest income earners by 50%. Average income earners would also pay thousands of additional dollars in taxes every year. Am I making this up? No. The Democrats want to do away with all of the Bush tax cuts and after years of labeling them "tax cuts for the rich" they believe that the public can't differentiate between truth and fiction. But the fact is that those "tax cuts for the rich" were first implemented for the poor and middle classes, who now pay a far smaller share of the overall tax burden as a result. And it's these tax cuts that Democrats, so eager to get rid of anything "Bush" (for fear the truth will come out and expose them as the party that stands in the way of economic betterment for all and that hasn't had a coherent idea for the advancement of society in numerous decades), that the Democrats want to stamp out and they've convinced their following that doing so would just be getting rid of "tax cuts for the rich." But what they won't tell you is that doing so also involves raising taxes on the poor by 50%, from Bush' 10% to Clinton's 15%. The middle class would also be affected, with thousands of dollars in higher taxes per household. The GOP has long ceased to be the "party of the rich" but what they won't tell you is that Democrats have just as long ago become the party of no one.

This needs to be the GOP's message going into the final days of the election. Just state the simple fact: Democrats want to raise taxes on the lowest income earners by 50%. The party of compassion? No. The party of JFK? Hardly, that party morphed into the GOP years ago. The party of 60s radicals trying to relive their "glory" days, days which by now they should be embarrassed of, who will stop at nothing, including Goebbels-like distortions of their opponents record, in an effort to fool themselves and others into thinking that they actually stand for anything at all. That's, unfortunately, them in a nutshell. Yet we've failed to respond and now only plain, pure unadulterated and easily explained facts seem to be the only effective weapon against the madness. So why aren't we hearing this message?: Democrats want to raise taxes on the lowest income earners by 50%.

It's true that their foreign policy is so foolish that would that the terrorists could they'd be hanging campaign signs for Democrat candidates in the front yards of their enclaves. A lot of other things are true about them and their cohorts in the media's deception of numerous events. But we failed to respond to idiotic smear after idiotic smear until those smears took hold. We've dealt with these topics before on Myth Debunker and such discussion and exposing of facts needs to continue but that's for another thread. It's too late to change public perception of major events, no matter how skewed and out of touch with any facts such perceptions may be, in just a few short days. So let's get this easy to understand, true and very telling message out instead: Democrats want to raise taxes on the lowest income earners by 50%.

We really do need to give ourselves a shake and ask why no effective refutation was provided to the nonsense the Democrats and their pseudo-intellectual cohorts in the media, possibly the most disingenuous and intellectually vacant group of journalists ever. But that's stuff we should have done long ago and what we need to do in the future. One thing we can say is "lesson learned." We must never stop teaching the reasons for our positions. Doing so allows vicious idiots, devoid of any coherent policies and jealous of ours to mischaracterize our policies and our motives. But there are few minds that will be changed on the major issues from now until Tues. To change anyone's mind holdovers need to hear the facts and just the facts. Democrats are the party of compassion no more. Democrats want to raise taxes on the lowest income earners by 50%. Who said there wasn't truth in politics?

A Topic That Will Resonate in Any Election - Alternative Sentencing

Great campaigns have been formed when bright ideas, rarely at the forefront of the public mind but which resonate with vigorous strength when introduced, are presented. I can think of no better issue that could accomplish this in this day and age than alternative sentencing. The issue, if presented correctly, has the power to change the focus of the election.

The reasoning is simple. Most people believe that in today's day and age, when a variety of options exist to deal with and deter crime, no one who isn't a threat to society should ever be locked up. Indeed, it is cruel to incarcerate someone who poses no threat to society.

But one may ask, what of the crime epidemic? Well, study after study has shown that menial labor is a far greater deterrent to criminals reoffending than prison. In fact, prison makes career criminals out of non-violent offenders for the simple reason that when someone is locked up, bored to death with only criminals surrounding them, the likelihood that they'll simply "join the club" is immense.

Just ask anyone which of the two is a greater deterrent to society, which of the following sends a clearer, more visible impression to potential criminals? Locking up a criminal so that no one sees them or sending a bus to pick them up every morning in full view of their neighbors, taking them away until late at night for back breaking work and then dropping them off tired and disheveled? Imagine that happening day in and day out! Which of the two punishments truly accomplishes what prison was supposed to do?

Add to that the fact that a greater percentage of Americans are incarcerated than in any other country and the fact that juries have shown a tendency to convict based on suspicion alone and the case for alternative sentencing becomes clear. Then add to the mix the fact that alternative sentencing would force criminals to pay for their own upkeep instead of society doing it for them with our tax dollars and at the expense of other needed programs.

The Corrections Industry would benefit from such a program too as prison guards would become work duty supervisors or organizers. Owners of private prisons stand to benefit by administering these labor contracts, sending non-violent offenders to work for companies that need hard, menial labor, the type of labor that few others will do.

Now ask the American people if it really makes sense to punish families by sending parents away from young children for years at a time when they pose no threat to society and often due to accidental crimes when there's a far better and far more effective way? Ask the American people which system truly deters and truly provides corrective punishment.

Add to that another simple fact. If you take a sixteen year old kid who was involved in minor crime and sentence him to 6 months in prison you'll have a career criminal on your hands in no time. Take the same kid, wake him up early every day and send him out to shovel ditches for half that time or less and he'll never offend again.

In short, any party that wants to win this election and remind the American voters which party is the party of ideas should be promoting this issue in full force. Let's get this election back to issues that voters care about. This one will resonate.

Note: The President's foreign policy, which may be unpopular now but which will be seen as having been necessary and an example of foresight in the future, is already a legacy builder as are the tax cuts that stimulated the economic success that is recognized by all who follow the markets, but to cement his legacy as a truly "Compassionate Conservative," one who did what was right and changed society for the better, in the most effective and memorable way, there's no better issue to accomplish this than to cite the facts laid out above in a clear and concise manner, followed by memorable action.

If President Bush gets up and makes the case for alternative sentencing and then boldly offers a Presidential commutation to all non-violent and non-willful offenders from prison to a daily labor program he'll not only have cemented his reputation as a man who changed society and taught a lesson in true justice that will last and will resonate. Even his sharpest critics would be forced to say "this man gets it." This issue, more than any other, can shock people into realization, with an "Of course - Why didn't I think of that?" It certainly has the ability to shift the topic of conversation, memorably so.

Despicable Democrat and Media Tactics and Ineffective Republican Communication

This is insane. The GOP leadership doesn't know how to deal with the Foley scandal or the ridiculously false portrayal they've received in the media as a result, when all they need to do is to simply state the truth. One thing is clear. No GOP leaders or anyone other than Foley and possibly ABC News knew anything about the IMs until the story broke nationally. The leadership's sole knowledge of the case boiled down to bland emails that news organizations and the page's own parents had seen months ago found possibly disturbing, but agreed that they had crossed no line.

So why are the Washington Times and Roy Blunt not saying exactly that? Furthermore, neither Boehner nor Hastert himself are defending themselves when all they'd need to do would be to state the obvious. They're allowing Democrats to lie and skew the situation as if this were something Hastert should have known about. They give the public the impression that Hastert was in on a pedophilia cover up and did nothing to stop it.

It's really unbelievable. Bloggers spend much time defending the White House and Republican policies by stating the obvious. But when put to the task the GOP Leadership somehow can't to do it for themselves.

This isn't the first time we've seen this situation. When it comes to the Iraq War all the White House needs to do is to remind the people of the UN weapons reports documenting every weapon Saddam had in 1991 and the paltry few he destroyed. Hiding them is not the same as not having access to them and on that information alone it would have been an impeachable offense not to have acted. In fact, anyone who's When it came to Katrina all the White House had to do was again tell the truth, Gov. Blanco (D-LA) had asked for a 48 hour delay, Brown was demanding that proper resources be used from the beginning and even after all that it was still the fastest response the Federal Government ever deployed to a disaster area. Brown may have messed up in media interviews because he was focused on doing the job in the here and now but it was clear that he was achieving, even while rioters and looters were shooting at rescue helicopters. But instead of rightly accusing Democrats of politicizing a tragic disaster, they apologize.

Maybe Roy Blunt thinks the baseless targeting of the GOP leadership will go away if they just acquiesce to the media's ramblings a few more days and agree to have committed some impropriety when they knew nothing that could have been acted on. If not then it's he, not Hastert, who needs to resign his leadership post for being an ineffective communicator. The Democrats' attack on Hastert for not being Miss Cleo or having a crystal ball and the attempts by their media cohorts to confuse the issue by refusing to differentiate between bland emails and the Instant Messages speaks volumes about the lengths the Democrats go to confuse, manipulate, defame and destroy anyone who doesn't share their world views. Why is no one calling them on it? Why is the GOP, which have been so effective at governing in many areas, so ineffective at conveying their position when all they need to do so is to simply point out the truth?

Responding to Dangerous Liberal Lies

After last week's attempt by the media to take a 40 minute speech in which the President outlined the necessity of overseas intelligence gathering programs, which liberals seem intent on demolishing one by one, and portray it as a one minute "admission" of secret prisons, it's become increasing important to respond to the fallacies put forth by liberals. It's truly a shame that conservatives and all common sense people haven't learned how to do so yet.

In the above cited speech the President spent 20 minutes laying out the chain of successful intel gathering that CIA interrogations provided. The media libs, as usual, completely distorted the story, this time making up news in the process. Anyone watching their coverage on any of the networks would have thought that the President had made a one minute speech in which he "admitted" to secret CIA operations. They would have known nothing of the success of the program, which is what the entire speech was about.

It's true that the Administration had never formally acknowledged the existence of CIA prisons (nor did they in that speech) but whenever a major terrorist has been captured they have always announced that he was in US custody and was being interviewed by intelligence officers. The exact location was always kept secret as a security measure but there really was no news in that speech other than the transfer of these terrorists to Guantanamo. But you wouldn't get that from the media reports.

The media libs didn't stop there, further calling the speech "an admission that the well of information has dried up" (the terrorists have been transferred, ergo no new information can be provided). Really?! In truth, the information gathered was useful in capturing many other terrorists, including last week's capture of the second in command of al Qaeda in Iraq. New captures lead to further intelligence gathering. As long as this program remains in place only the end of terrorism would cause "the well to dry up." Of course, that's unless Liberal Democrats and their cohorts in the media succeed in completely shutting down the "well."

In short, within the span of four hours the media had spun a crowning success into abject failure. The Administration has yet to properly respond. It is imperative that the libs' lines, all one liners which ignore crucial facts but ferment their impression in the public's mind, be refuted with equally effective talking points (the only difference being that our's are based solidly on military intel, reasoned calculations and truth whereas theirs are little more than hyped up liberal fiction).

One major problem has been that when most conservatives go on the air they usually detail a well thought out argument. While they show reason and intelligence the argument is lost on 50% of viewers, those who don't care to bother studying the issues and are more receptive to the knee jerk opinions of liberal reporters unless a short, concise and effective argument is made on our side. While it is hard to take a case that involves much thought to understand and is based on reams of intel and break it down to a few sentences, this is precisely what needs to be done to effective reach a majority of voters. Details and facts are, very unfortunately, less effective than idiotic one liners. What's essential is to break down the truth into equally effective talking points.

The following points are all 100% factual. People are receptive to but generally ignorant of their message. Why conservatives aren't better trained to attack liberal spin head on is a mystery. But these can be a good place to start from:

1) Saddam was interested in attacking with whatever he could use as evidenced by his attempted assassination of a former President. He was known to have chemical weapons and UN reports themselves confirmed that he was a threat. Unlike North Korea and Iran, who are both planning thought out and long ranged strategic attacks which make them dangerous but also give us time to deal with them, only Saddam would have been satisfied with attacking us effective on a much smaller scale, as evidenced by his sponsor of suicide bombers in the Mideast. It was a matter of time before he tried to inflict damage within the United States.

2) Since 9/11 the United States hasn't again been the victim of terror although many such attacks have been planned. The total revamping of the intelligence services can be credited solely to this Administration. Democrats have never once even tried to offer effective solutions, being instead content on pointing to what they perceive as failures. In the 8 years before this administration took office the US or US personnel were victims of several attacks including one on the World Trade Center, on the USS Cole and on offices in Khobar. A millennium attack was barely foiled. And Democrats offered no solutions and made no changes to intelligence. These are the same people who are now complaining about the comprehensive changes we have made and once again, they offer no solutions.

3) This one is for when libs sanctimoniously claim that our response has hurt America and emboldened the terrorists: Al Qaeda attacked us on Sept. 11. Cries for the destruction of America, egged on by vicious leaders, have been common place in that region for decades. The only thing that emboldened the terrorists was our failure to properly respond to previous attacks. They hated us before. Of course they're upset with the fact that we responded. They're upset precisely because our actions have produced results.

It's unfortunate but true. The primary failure of this Administration is their failure to respond effectively to liberals whose positions are as dangerous as they are incredulous. Something must be done about this. For starters, all conservatives who go on talk shows or who are interviewed by the media need to use some of the above critical talking points and they need to be distributed effectively.

Winning in '06

Having worked on several political campaigns, it is my strong opinion that the following strategies should be implemented in the '06 election. These consist of three strategies:

a) On a local level - A strategy employed by a Conservative Canadian politician who won every polling station in his district

b) On a national level - Explaining our reasoning, why our programs and solutions are right; putting the Democrats on offense, exposing their record of cowardice, complacency and ineptitude on security and their disastrous record on economic issues (including their 50 cent/gal gas tax proposal) and exposing their hypocrisy, their politicizing of world events and their lie and smear campaign which targets vulnerable seniors

c) Changing the frame of the debate and catching the opposition off guard by raising "sleeper" issues which no one has advocated, no one expects you to and which will nonetheless attract profound attention from a receptive public. These are the kind of issues that make the public think to themselves "these people are interesting, why didn't I think of that." These include advocacy of seniors' health concerns; advocating alternative, smarter not harsher sentencing (the Dems' worst nightmare is that this becomes part of a GOP campaign); alternative health care legislation (allowing parents not doctors, to make decisions for their kids, another issue that would take the Dems by surprise). These issues show the GOP to be the party of ideas and expose the Dems as malcontents, devoid of any ideas.

Note: The following is a detailed explanation of the above three pronged plan. While I recognize that it's somewhat lengthy, I believe that each idea covered will be beneficial to campaign organizers and strategists.

Locally:

Bob Mills is a member of Canada's Parliament. He's a Conservative who speaks his mind. Yet he won every single polling station in his district in more than one election. In his book "Vote for Me, I'm from Mars," he lays out an effective method for any candidate to pursue. It's one of the best works of political strategy. The method consists of dividing the district into polling stations (i.e.all houses whose residents vote at the same poll station are grouped together), each one being assigned a number. Then volunteers are put in charge as Captains of their own mini-district and of finding Captains for each mini-district without a volunteer. Each Captain then goes door to door in his allotted area and talks with people about the candidate. Instead of "Hi, I'm from the .... Campaign" it's "Hi, I'm your neighbor. I live down the road on .... Street. I'm volunteering for the ..... Campaign because of the great job .....'s done for the community." After getting to talk with their neighbor they can ask they to spread the word as well.

Now here's how to provide incentive according to Mills (and this is why I call it one of the most effective methods). As we said, each district is now divided into a series of smaller districts, numbered 1 - whatever (let's say 50). After appointing a number of Captains, the candidate hangs up a Campaign Football in his/her office. Then a competition ensues between the Captains of districts 1-3, 4-6, etc. Only one Captain for every three mini-districts will get their name on the Campaign Football (they are made aware of this before they sign up). The winner will be the one whose polling station returned the highest % of votes for the candidate out of the three. True station number 2 may poll only 51% and win while station number 19 polled 61% but lost to station 18, but this is what provides incentive.

Some notes:

As Bob Mills says, it's fairly easy to get station Captains. Just have some volunteers visit areas with no Captain. Have them go door to door speaking with people until they find a supporter and then ask him/her if they can speak with their neighbors and become a "Campaign Captain."

In larger districts and polling stations you may want to divide this strategy by block or even apartment building. You will need to find another method for choosing which of the three Captains wins because voting results won't be available by apartment/block. Maybe consider number of hours spent campaigning door to door in this case.

As a veteran politician whose name escapes me once told a candidates/campaigner's meeting, if there's a sign on someone's door that said "Beware of Dog," you should probably obey that sign and move on. At the very least and aside from all other obvious reasons you want to ensure that a volunteer or a candidate is not nursing a bite for two weeks during the campaign.


Nationally:

On all matters, set the record straight and take the issue back to the Dems. Specifically:

The Dems want to make this election all about Iraq. Fine! But explain that the Iraq war is viewed as crucial by the terrorists and explain over and over again why the war was necessary. We hear all of the reasons for opposition to the war repeated hourly by the media, all of which are myopic and blatantly ignore facts such as UN weapons reports, other intelligence reports, the fact that Saddam didn't need nukes to hurt the US and sarin gas is a WMD (which he had) but we never hear supporters of the war effectively countering this attacks that are so easy to counter. We never hear the truth, even from supporters. An opponent of the war recently wrote that the 500 tons of uranium are a hoax because if they were true war supporters would be hammering it to death. Well, it is true. So why aren't we? People are generally receptive to the truth, so why aren't we repeating it for them often enough for them to hear it?

Now please note. It is clear that someone running a local campaign shouldn't get caught up in the debate. Nor should national leaders do so when talking directly about the midterm elections. This is because not everyone who hears the truth will be willing to accept it. But Generals who go on Sunday morning shows and the President need to be making these points regularly.

Here's some help with countering liberal misconceptions on the issue:

When a liberal strategist says that the President should have concentrated on North Korea or Iran state these facts:

First of all, Iran, North Korea and Iraq were all dangerous but the first two are interested in a long term build up leading to their acquisition of nukes and are not a danger until then (they won't launch little attacks lest the reprisal rob them of their goal). Iraq was run by a madman who had already once tried to off a US President, who met with terrorists, who was a prime sponsor of suicide bombings in the Middle East and who would not wait given an opportunity to launch small attacks on the US that would terrorize its civilians. Look at the kind of terror he was proud to sponsor elsewhere and connect the dots with regard to his plans for America. So unlike Iran and North Korea, in which the problem is a prolonged, step by step build up, giving us time to attempt other methods of dealing with the problem, only Iraq was run by someone who would pose an immediate to the United States.

On top of all that, Iraq was given 12 years to comply with 17 UN resolutions. President Bush himself gave Saddam over a year to comply after first warning that action would be taken. Had we failed to then put our money where was there could be no hope of a diplomatic solution to Iran or North Korea. Our threats would be seen as the same jokes they were when uttered by Clinton.

When war opponents fallaciously state that "we were lied to" or "there were no WMD" (displaying pure ignorance):

The entire world agreed on the intelligence at the time, including the French who came up with most of it. They only differed with regard to whether more inspections should continue before military action were taken - a ludicrous proposal given that inspectors had to give notice to Saddam's government a week in advance of their location. France, Germany and Russia were mostly against the war because each had significant oil rights under Saddam. It was that side that was "only interested in oil". In any case, all agreed that Saddam had WMD. UN weapons reports themselves gave evidence of WMD and contrary to media reports we did uncover mass quantities of sarin gas as well, plenty of standard bombs and chemicals, 500 tons of unenriched uranium (1.8 tons of which were already enriched). Why haven't we heard more of this from conservative leaders? And what we uncovered does not include anything that may have been shipped to Syria or Libya as all intel officers believe to be the case (again - largely because UN weapons reports document many weapons known to be in Saddam's possession in the early 90s, most of which were not destroyed). Just because we didn't find all of the weapons doesn't mean that UN weapons reports, which list all weapons that were in Iraq in the early 90s and which ones were destroyed, were wrong. It doesn't mean that Saddam didn't have access to them until he hid them to protect them and it certainly doesn't mean that we were "lied" to unless one wishes to believe that the French, the Germans, the Russians and the UN were in on the lie.

But why aren't we hearing any of this from GOP leaders?

When opponents of the war bring up the loss of lives:

2,500 soldiers dead is tragic 2,500 times over. But unfortunately there has yet to be a modern war in which such a toll would not have seemed small. If we didn't go to war in WW2 because of the cost of lives, the end toll would have been far worse. Same goes with Iraq. Had we failed to act the consequences would have been foreseeably worse given Saddam's track record as listed above, including sponsored attacks on US soil.

When they do their parrot imitation "Republicans say 'stay the course, stay the course, stay the course'":

So yes, stay the course when not doing so is taken by the enemy to mean capitulation. Stay the course when not doing so only emboldens terrorists (who have repeated said that as far as they are concerned, Iraq is central to the war on terror).

When they talk about the "execution of the war":

Now some others fault the President for not sending in "enough" troops to begin with. I don't. Such an act would have unnecessarily aggravated those who would interpret it as a sign of permanent occupation as opposed to transition. Furthermore, most attacks happened in the form of roadside killings. A larger force cannot stop these easily and chances are that the end result of sending in more troops would have been an equally effective force with possibly an increased death toll due to such roadside attacks (more soldiers = more targets and greater numbers doesn't translate into greater ability to find underground rebels). Removing a terrorist regime and sponsor of terrorism was necessary. But further acts of unnecessary provocation are not.

Now here's another national issue that we failed to answer to even when we were right. Although it seems like it is it may not be too late as people are always receptive to the truth.

I'm talking about Katrina.

For weeks before the storm, as other minor hurricanes were hitting, liberal activists were blaming Bush for the storms because of "global warming," which I guess as far as they were concerned was caused by the election of George W. Bush. They even floated the idea that Bush had ordered the seeding of clouds. And then along came Katrina and gave the lunatics and the normal Democrat strategists a chance to work together in exploiting a natural disaster.

The only possible mistake made by the White House was getting up and "taking the blame." These aren't the Clinton years and the media has no interest in a Presidential apology other than in exploiting it. The best course of action would probably have been to lay out the facts.

Here's the type of speech that would probably have been most effective (I'm writing this because you know that any natural disaster this year will be exploited tenfold):

"The response to this disaster was the fastest of any Federal response to any natural disaster. It was only delayed at the explicit request of the State of Louisiana. Mike Brown and the rest of us favored an immediate federal response but differed to the request of state officials. In light of the firing at helicopters we view the request for delay to have been prudent on their part. I am greatly appalled by the politicizing of this natural disaster by many Democrat leaders. They have offered no solutions and many of them voted against funding the levees that wouldn't have been close to being ready by now in any case because they too viewed them as an ineffective solution. Many of them started blaming this administration for this year's hurricane season long before the tragic advent of Hurricane Katrina. Again, I am appalled by their exploitation of natural disasters and personal tragedy for political purposes. I urge them to work hand in hand with FEMA relief efforts and hope to recognize and honor their roles in so doing in the near future.

The attacks against Mike Brown, who prior to being appointed Director had been the Assistant Director of FEMA for years are also appalling. Director Brown may have been too involved in rescue efforts in one location to pay attention to media reports or to provide the type of interview some reporters wanted, but his steadfast determination at providing hands on assistance speaks for itself. Never before has a Director of FEMA spent as much time and effort working hands on at the location of the disaster. Mike was also the main proponent on quick action and opposed the delay requested by state officials. In view of these facts I again ask Democrats and Republicans to work together on this front, just as President Clinton and other prominent and honorable Democratic leaders are doing."

People are receptive to the truth. We just have to counter the lies and misconceptions put forward by the other side and rehashed by the media ad nauseum. Even if we have to do so ad nauseum. The Dems are waiting to attack hurricane relief efforts this year again and the attacks they launched last year still hold water for many. It's time to turn the farce they perpetrated back on them and we should do so as soon as possible.

Likewise when Dems sanctimoniously bring up the 2000 election. Give it to them. Don't be afraid to tell the truth. "You mean the one in which Democrats tried to throw out military ballots? The one in which Democrats tried to have over 25,000 legitimate votes tossed (Seminole and Martin Counties) on a technicality while their protestors went running around yelling 'count every vote?' The one in which Democrat Supervisors overturned voting standards in place since 1990, changed the standards repeatedly and sued to count votes as being for Gore even when no Presidential candidate was selected based on the voter's choice for Senate or Congress? That election of 2000?"

The same is true of Social Security. Democrats are again airing ads about the GOP wanting to take away Social Security (you think we'd have done it after 6 years if we were going to). Counter that the GOP was the only party to provide prescription drug relief after 8 years of Democrat inaction on the issue. Say that Democrats know full well that President Bush promised not to touch the Social Security structure for seniors or for anyone close to retiring. Say that Democrats know this full well and they are lying and patronizing people with their ads. It's the truth and people will be receptive, There was also a lot of misconception fed by the media about the President's plan which again, didn't change anything for seniors or those close to retiring and only allowed a portion of funds to be invested in safe funds that all economists would confirm are better retirement options than the current system. It has yet to pass due to our failure to combat Democrat misconceptions. I even know some people who thought it meant that they'd lose all they put into the system before. We have call lies for what they are and do so enough times to get the public's attention. Sometimes truth is just as hard to spread as their lies and sitting back and allowing professional liars to define the issues doesn't help.

The same is true of many issues the Democrats have distorted the facts on including stem cell research. In all cases we must counter with plain hard facts.


Sleeper Issues (the kind no one pays attention to until they're raised but are extremely receptive to them once they are):

Do whatever can be done to promote seniors' issues. This will cast the GOP in a good light with all swing voters, not just seniors. I'm not advocating increased spending in any form. There's no reason to alienate the base. We've already allocated money toward these issues. Now we simply need to take advantage of it politically.

Specifically, many seniors who've been sitting on the fence are fed up with the Dem's reactionary liberalism but have fallen for some scare tactics with regard to Social Security or have misconceptions about the prescription drug program. Aside from highlighting Democrat inaction on the prescription drug issue, a must do, we should also look to promote any issues that seniors would be receptive to. These include better services for retired vets or announcing a stipend for geriatric research or for MDs going into Geriatrics. Such stipends and grants are awarded regularly with little fanfare. They've increased substantially in recent years and we may as well get some PR out of it.

A key sleeper that would work very well for the GOP is alternative sentencing. The majority of people recognize that a better option to locking someone up who is non-violent would be to give them hard labor and menial tasks. The non-violent convict could stay at home, thereby sparing the family most of the punishment and the sentence would be far more rehabilitative and in a much shorter time. Locking someone up for 2 years would affect their family, make them useless and surround them with criminals who will only influence them to commit more crime. Giving them hard labor, the kind that would teacher them a lesson, from 6 am - 7 pm with a few needed breaks for 6 months not only makes them more productive but virtually ensures that they won't reoffend. Such a proposal can save many youth headed on a downward spiral. An approach to crime that advocates the death penalty for murderers and labor vs prison for those who are non-violent is not only a far more effective deterrent, far more lucrative for corrections contractors, far more tax effective, fair to families, rehabilitative to convicts and an issue that would have a solid majority of supports, it is also innovative enough to become a coup de grace for the GOP, cementing its reputation as the party of ideas and the party with the best proposals for society. People would wonder why Democrats who supposedly want social change have never advocated this issue and people who bought into the misconceptions that the GOP doesn't care about social responsibility would be proven wrong.

The most effective way for it to work would be as follows. The criteria for being classified as non-violent should be anyway who does not maliciously commit acts of violence. This proposal is also excellent for the corrections industry. Its staff would oversee labor assignments and it could contract out convict labor to cities, mines and factories who need it, something that would be far more lucrative than current corrections contracts.

Another sleeper issue that the GOP can capitalize on and by doing so knock the sails out of the Dems is the right to choose alternative medicine. There have been several cases in which parents of sick teens have been sued for custody by state child care services for choosing alternative medicine, even methods which studies have shown to be effective. Advocating parental rights would be another issue that would garner strong support, present the GOP as taking a lead on social issues while the Democrats are asleep and greatly change the misperception that some have bought into after years of Democrat lies about the GOP not caring about issues that affect society as a whole.

Following these steps; concentrating effectively on local races on a local and even neighbor to neighbor level as outlined above, setting the record straight on national issues while turning the table on the Dems (who rightly deserve to have the tables turned on their spin or misconceptions) and promoting new and innovate solutions that will be well received are a three pronged strategy for success and for making the GOP the party of the future. I'll be more than happy to provide specific advice to individual campaigns beyond this framework.

Next Mike Wallace will ask Ahmadinejad to marry him in Massachusetts

For years 60 Minutes has been second only to Nightline (pre Terry Moran, who's a significant improvement) in deceptive, one sided current events programming. Their presentation of events is usually appalling to anyone who researches both sides of any issue they cover, but this seems to be a new low even for them.

Surprising? Not really. Just take a look at some of the fine fellows who've made Time Magazine's list of Man of the Year over the past 70 years.

Three cheers to 60 Minutes. In the course of one year they've managed to hype Jim Cramer as a stock guru even though more than half his picks are wrong, repeatedly air feature stories on Iraq that distort both the mission and public sentiment and now they bring us this. Certainly, we must try to understand the kindhearted soul of poor, misunderstood Mahmoud. Too bad they didn't get a shot of him and Mike Wallace holding hands and breaking out in song.

See story at:

www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/09/60minutes/main1879867.shtml

The Truth About Stem Cell Research, The Media and More

The mainstream media's reporting of the stem cell research debate is disgraceful by any standards. The picture they present is a distorted one that has little to do with fact and everything to do with the promoting of an agenda. Here are a few facts they aren't telling you. Any responsible journalist would not failed to mention any of these. Of course, if they were responsible journalists they'd be ignored by our media except for the occasional smear job they'd be given the honor of receiving.

For starters let's review a little background info. President Bush is the first president to provide federal funding for stem cell research. That's right. President Clinton refused to commit to the issue and when doctors demanded funding in 2000. He claimed it was a touchy subject best left to his successor, who'd have time to review and ponder the situation.

In 2001 President Bush struck a balance between the two sides of the issue. Most had expected him to take one position or another on the issue. With necessary thoughtfulness, the President instead decided that Federal funding would be given to research done on non-viable embryos, those from which human life can no longer be formed. At the same time, the destruction of viable embryos which can grow to become babies if implanted would not be funded. And why not, even according to stem cell research's most vocal proponents, there is no difference between the cells of the viable embryos and those of the others (some scientists contend that adult stem cells, which are also being used for research, are less potent than those taken from embryos but none contend that the viability of the embryo plays a factor in this - and in any case, once the stem cells are taken the previously viable embryo ceases to be so). The only difference between them is that one embryo is a developing human life and the other isn't. Those who are now pushing for more funding had to come up with the excuse that there are too few existing lines (of already non-viable embryos) to work with, a claim that they are hard pressed to back up and which does not supersede the ethical issues involved in creating any stage of human life, with the potential to grow into a fully functional human being, merely to destroy it to be used on research.

Note that President Bush didn't outlaw the use of even the viable embryos for research. He simply stated that all federal funding be allotted to research on non-viable embryos, the stem cells of which all scientists agree are just as potent. President Bush also did not seek to stop funding committed by foreign governments to studies conducted abroad, nor did he prohibit state funding of this research, he simply put up ethical boundaries by which certain research would be granted federal money.

Now fast forward to the present day. Stem cell research has gone on for 6 years. Throughout this time the world of science has been given grants by the state of California, foreign governments have poured money into research as have private donors, and the federal government has committed billions to embryonic stem cell research that falls within its guidelines. One might comment that many other promising areas of medicine have been neglected throughout this time and one would be right. But instead the American Medical Association, who have never seen a grant opportunity they didn't like no matter how well funded their projects are from other sources, is demanding further funding with no ethical restrictions.

Despite the fact that 6 years of research have been done with governments and foundations across the globe pouring more and more money into this research, scientists have demanded more and more funding. Nothing is enough. Democrats, trying to make this a political issue, go along for the ride and are only too happy to take every Republican who is either ignorant of all of the above or who actually believes that the future of this project depends on federal revenue despite the fact that any increase in federal funding, even the amounts they propose, would be a mere drop in bucket compared to the amount already spent worldwide on this endeavor. They are receiving federal money. The federal government is sponsoring stem cell research. What's more, all federal funds allocated to this research are courtesy of President Bush, who funded a project that President Clinton had refused to for all intents and purposes.

Instead of reporting the real situation, the media paints a picture of a scientific community unable to perform a life saving experiment. By only allocating billions and by insisting on certain guidelines that have no bearing on the effects of or the ability to perform the research, President Bush is depicted as having shaken the bottle that contained the cure for rabies out of the hand of Louis Pasteur. President Bush, with the superhuman yet villainous abilities his critics in the media ascribe to him, has single handedly halted the cure for AIDS, Heart Disease the tightening of one's knee joints and the inevitable flatness of uncapped soda. And no one challenges them for the ridiculousness of their assertions.

To recap: Instead of innocuous but truthful headlines that would read something along the lines of "President Bush Refuses to Remove Viability Restrictions on Stem Cell Funding," and instead of mentioning that it was President Bush who commenced embryonic stem cell research funding, we are instead treated to a farcical circus of headlines such as "President Vows Veto On Stem Cell Research" courtesy of the Washington Post propaganda machine. These headlines are then read abroad by agencies wholly unfamiliar with the issue and are accordingly reported as "Bush turns back on science to veto stem cell Bill," this comedy courtesy of the London Telegraph.

What's more, aside from the obvious distortions, the end result of this nonsense is that any hope for serious discussion of whether funding should be allocated to other areas of research, given the amount already poured into this form of research cannot hope to take place. Do other forms of science hold more promise? Should they too be explored in greater detail? These discussions cannot take place as long as an ignorant media seeking solely to promote a false agenda control the conversation.

Stem cell research is not the only subject in which the mainstream media have taken over the conversation to the detriment of progress. Skewed information making informed debate and the progress which stems from it impossible is an infection that affects every subject the media is allowed to falsely define. Yet whenever the President articulates his views people listen. In every speech given on a substantive issue those who hear it are largely receptive to views advocated by the President. However, once the media has broken any given speech down to sound bites and inflected their own spin before and after, the damage is done. As a result, those who rely on standard television, radio or print news and who fail to do their own research are not only given false information, they are left unknowingly ignorant of pertinent facts.

The solution to this can only be one thing. On every issue of substance, the President and his supporters need to articulate their views, not just repeatedly but constantly. And this goes beyond stem cell research. When the media discusses NSA surveillance but fails to report that every president since Carter has employed similar methods without court approval, based on their constitutional power granting authority over military matters, when they seek to define the debate on Iraq without ever mentioning that President Bush gave Saddam over a year to comply with inspections, that all UN intelligence reports as well as those of French and German Intel reported that Iraq had left over WMD and that both sarin gas and tons of uranium were found afterward they remove pertinent facts from the debate even on important issues of national security. And in all of these cases the President needs to take command of the issue. Each time he reaches out
to the public and explains his position he enjoys an increase in support. And while he's at it if his staff could point out the hypocrisy of the media, the ones who report every 1% drop in the polls as headline news but who never give mention to an increase in support by five times the size. Yes, those hypocrites.

The President made a great decision in appointing Tony Snow as his Press Secretary and Snow deserves the thanks of the nation. He's one Press Secretary who doesn't mince words and who wastes no time at White House briefings pointing out certain reporters as the fools they are. But we need more of this.

Take an example from last year. The President lost ground last year when he apologized for failures in Katrina relief and to some extent this has hurt his popularity till today. But when we look at the facts what do we see? The President dispatched FEMA quicker than they'd ever been dispatched in
any previous disaster, despite the fact that for the first 24 hours, Louisiana's own Governor asked that no federal forces be sent. Mike Brown was the most experienced Director of FEMA appointed to that position. Unlike any other, he had previously been Assistant Director and had held senior positions at FEMA for years. Before then he'd been a competent and successful attorney. But because he was not able to properly respond to media inquiries while working around the clock in ravaged New Orleans and with no PR staff, the media chose to trash him and pointed to his side hobby of running dog and pony shows.

To anyone who knew the facts this tactic was beyond the pale. It was akin to saying that an experienced doctor is unfit to practice because he doesn't speak well and he spends his Sundays frequenting coin and stamp fairs. Yet the tactic worked because no one responded. The President nobly took responsibility for actions that were in reality beyond his control when he may have been better served, and the truth would have been better served had the White House instead pointed to the deplorable way partisan Democrats in Congress and even more partisan Democrats in the media distorted the facts in a despicable effort to exploit a natural disaster for political gain. As I mentioned, the President is still affected by this.

Let's learn a lesson and not allow the Democrats to do this again. Just point out the true reasons for their actions and the falsehoods they knowingly spread (though in the case of the media I'm not sure of the "knowingly" part, perhaps "ignorantly and without an iota of fact checking" suits them best). The nation is best served by exposing the truth, the facts, about stem cell research and about the deplorable state of our media.

Democrats and Gas Prices - Where the Blame Really Lies

Sen. Barack Obama, one of the more decent Democrat senators (who's shown increasing signs of being infected by his comrades and by the Senate in general), has just come out with a letter to Dem. diehards blaming Republicans for high gas prices. Talk about spinning the truth! In it Obama conveniently fails to point out that while oil companies now make 8 cents a gallon as opposed to 5, the government now gets 18 cents as opposed to the 8 it got 18 months ago. The Democrat solution, proposed not by him but by Bob Menendez, would reduce taxes on the consumer for 60 days a year but would also impose taxes on the oil companies who would then pass it on to the consumer.

Obama also spoke at Kerry's convention. Kerry at one time sponsored a bill to impose a 50 cent a gallon tax on gas.

Senator Dems (and unfortunately some moderate Republicans) have been blocking drilling in ANWR since 2001. North America is the only oil producing continent that has seen its level of production drop since 2002. All others, Europe, Asia, Africa, South and Central America, have all seen huge gains. Why? Because Dem Senators like Kerry, Obama and Hillary helped block the energy policy favored by the President, one designed to relieve us of Arab and Hugo Chavez oil. They instead chose to pander to crazed environmentalists who claimed that drilling would hurt the caribou (the proposed drilling area is one small fraction of ANWR and that part is complete wasteland). These people care little for the truth and their efforts to blame those who proposed a solution which they proceeded to block is appalling.

Response to That Nonsensical "Qualm 23"

A Ridiculous "Qualm 23" has been circulated around the internet blaming President Bush for anything from increased logging, to deceptions with regard to Iraq, to cutting taxes for the "rich," etc. In other words, it's a rehash of the standard fallacies and distortions of the left, this time strung together with the help of ninth rate poetry.

I choose not to repost it here so as not to give it further publicity (beyond that which is necessary to refute it and the marching cries of the left found therein).

Here is my response:

More reforestation has been done in Pres. Bush's term in office than in any previous administration.

The Iraq war was not an "ego" trip - I feel absurd even answering this. The war was necessary based on Saddam's refusal to open the country to full inspections. UN reports documented the weapons he had at the end of the first gulf war minus the ones he destroyed and showed that he still had tremendous arsenals at his disposal. All intel agencies around the world showed the same.

Whether they were hidden underground, shipped to Syria and Libya or whether UN reports were wrong to begin with is irrelevant. What is relevant is that if Bush had not acted based on the intel at hand - from all world intel agencies, he would then have been derelict of duty.

President Bush also gave Saddam over a year to comply with inspections. Perhaps the "Qualmist" forgot this.

The author complains of international disgrace. That term could more aptly describe the situation had the US not taken action after 12 years of warning Saddam concerning numerous blatant ceasefire violations. That term best describes the UN which indeed took that course of action.

The author blames Bush for tax cuts for the "rich" and for joblessness. Sorry Chuck, you can't have it both ways (and you're actually wrong on both). First of all, the tax cuts were across the board. In fact, the lower brackets were cut far more than the highest was. But it was the cuts to the highest bracket and the investor cuts (which mostly benefited the middle class - but benefited the wealthy as well) that led to the economic recovery that happened after the tech bust and the 1 million jobs lost in one day alone after 9/11. They are what led to us having the lowest unemployment rate after WW2 - Yes, during Bush's tenure.

Most pitiful and pathetic are the lines about "foreign oil" and "media censorship." In 2000 now Pres. Bush was the only candidate ever to stress drilling in Alaska, warning that we must curb our reliance on foreign oil. The pretentious poet who wrote this was certainly laughing mightily at the time, along with all other libs. But that doesn't stop them from blaming Bush for the oil crisis they prevented him from trying to avert.

But this does not come close to the line about media censorship. Whoever wrote this is kidding, right? Does he mean the media that has been on an all out campaign to bend the popular opinion of this President? If they had pulled the same antics during World War 2, focusing on each war casualty and every accusation the opposition hurls while never mentioning the reasons for going to war, a significant portion of the country would have been up in arms about that war as well. Thanks to the media we hear about every war protestor while rarely, if ever, are credible advocates of the war brought on to explain the reasons this war is necessary. The same holds true with regard to every policy of this administrator. The opposition, whether warranted or consisting of nothing more than malcontents, is trumpeted out and their views are given full coverage. Quite different to the situation when Clinton when President and the exact opposite was true. Yet the author of "Qualm 23" insinuates that Bush controls the media. To be polite - Thanks for the laugh!