Saturday, July 31, 2004

Dancin' for those four points!

YIPEEE! We've got a four point bounce! Look out, Bush, here we come!


Hat tip to Matt Drudge for this one, its another pic worth a thousand laughs. Here's the full story from MSNBC: A Baby Bounce?

TABOR upheld in Colorado

Looks like the "experts" who are trying to get the Taxpayers Bill of Rights amended or repealed have lost another battle this year, albeit voluntarily, reports the Rocky Mountain News today: story link here.

Once again, the people have won a battle against those who feel that government should have unlimited access to your wallet and can spend tax money any way they please. What a great stand for taxpayers' rights. Now if we could only do the same thing nationwide and at the Federal level, the politicians would understand just how we really feel about tax hikes and entitlement programs.

Marines not impressed by Kerry

Looks like JFK is trying to capitalize on his vertan status by associating himself with current service members against their will: Yahoo News.

Just another sorry attempt to re-invent himself and his hopes for the campaign. When will he ever learn, tricks are for kids, and veterans don't like wishy-washy leaders who don't support them or their mission.

Friday, July 30, 2004

Just remember to flush twice for good measure!

I think this is a great post-convention suggestion:



Hat tip to a YotaTech member for this one.

Moore on the Tonight Show tonight

One last post from Illinois:

Moore's on The Tonight Show tonight, and Jay's falling all over him with softball questions and free publicity for his "documentary" trash film.  To use a large word, Jay's being obsequious towards Moore, and it makes for such bad t.v.  This is enough to give me nightmares tonight!

Flash:  Moore just admitted that the film is less than fair to President Bush, verifying the film's anti-Bush leanings.  He also just coined a new word, "hate-riots", which he uses to describe Republicans who don't like the left and actively speak out against people such as Moore and Linda Ronstadt.

Wow, we really need people like him coining new words to describe people & views that he doesn't like or disagree with his opinions.  We already have plenty of words that exist to describe him and his ilk, but I'm not going to lower myself to his level.

Thursday, July 29, 2004

DNC Convention wrap-up

Well, we've made it through the first half of the convention season, and what a trip it's been to this point, some what akin to driving through a cornfield at high speed.  Not a lot to see, and what there is isn't of much substance.  Most of the week's events were composed of minor league players using the podium to preach to a half-full room of party faithful who were more interested in coming to Boston for some fun and a pep rally than some meaningful policy decisions and political discourse.  Some of the highlights (loosely used) were as follows:
  • Sen. Barak Obama from Illinois:  very charismatic speaker, seen by many as a rising star in the Democratic party by both sides.  He'll be one to watch since he seems to be a shoe-in for the Senate seat from Illinois this November.
  • Sen. John Edwards:  Did what he does best, appeals to the sympathetic side of the audience much as he plays to the same in a courtroom, even when he doesn't have a good case to present.  As I said earlier, he's a balancing factor for Sen. Kerry.
  • Sen. John Kerry:  Tried to shed his stiff New England intellectual image to try and appeal to the masses; tonight he was the most animated and relaxed I've ever seen him.  They must have found the handlers that they needed for Al Gore's campaign in 2000, as well as talking some lessons from his running mate.

In general, I found this convention to lack the substance of those from year's past on both sides, especially when I have only three "highlights" from the four nights of this event.  Instead, this event became an homage to Michael Moore and all the extreme left-wingers that have hijacked the Democratic Party, and this was made painfully clear by the amount of media attention paid to these fringe elements at the expense of the candidates themselves.  Even Ted Koppel on Nightline, once one of the most respected journalists in the nation, was fawning all over Moore last night on Nightline, acting like he was an emissary from on high.  I find it sad and disturbing that these people are able to wield such influence over the most important process in our nation's government, and even more so that the saner elements of the DNC allow this to happen with relative ease.  Talk about dividing the nation, these fringe elements have it down to both a science and an art form!

Well, with the wrap up of this week's events, I'm going to take a couple of days off to wrap up my trip to Illinois and spend some off-line time with The Fetching Mrs. Morrison.  I'll be back sometime early next week once I get settled back at home, so keep checking back for more exciting political analysis, commentary and insight.  After tonight, all it can do is get more exciting as we head toward the RNC convention and Nov. 2nd. 




I'm John Kerry, and you're not...

...and he's reporting for duty.  But just what duty is that?  He did arrive for his speech, so I guess that's his duty for tonight.  But what about his duty to the people of Massachusetts for the majority of this year's Senate session, when he hasn't been present for many key votes?  I guess that doesn't fit in with his sense of duty to the American people.

West Wing of Fitzsimmons Army hospital?  What a horrible joke, and it showed in the tepid response.  I almost thought that he was going to say his mother was his wolf den mother, but he pulled that one off.

He learned to be an American by riding his bike into East Berlin and then getting grounded.  Sounds like another bit of confusion about his sense of duty.  He also answered JFK's call to action and duty; unfortunately, he and his party left the goals and ideals of JFK far behind a long time ago.

He's going to tell the truth to the American people and restore trust to the White House.  How, by cheating in a close election?  He also fought to increase police officers, for women's rights, and worked with Sen. McCain on the POW issue, all of which are good issues.  But what about terrorism and arming our troops to fight ant win those battles?  Oh, I guess his sense of duty kept him away from those votes on those issues.

He's going to help motivate our economy, improve wages, create jobs and stop outsourcing.  He says people are worse off if they have to work two or three jobs, and on weekends to make ends meet.  How's he going to make life better for these people, tell businesses to pay them higher wages, that they can't be open on the weekends, and then tax them into oblivion for all this?  He's really trying to win the presidency of the United States of France!

What a surprise, he accepted the nomination!  Going through the family thing and railing on President Bush and V.P. Cheney in standard form.  And as for embracing Theresa as the First Lady, I'd rather embrace a porcupine than her.

He's complimented President Bush on the unity of the nation after the 9/11 attacks, but then blames him in the same breath for dividing the nation.  And as for fighting a war on the cheap, all I need to say is he voted against the $87 million dollars for equipment after voting to send the troops in.  He also has a plan to tell every soldier & sailor that we'll never fight a war without knowing how to win the peace.  Strange, we haven't had a Democrat since Truman who had an end strategy for a war.  It's taken the Republicans to bail us out of each war since the end of WWII that the Democrats have gotten us into.  Instead of adding more troops, why not bring them home from such areas as Haiti, the Balkans and other areas that are of little, if any, value or threat to the U.S., and who were deployed there by President Clinton under U.N. control.

I didn't know we were feared around the world, but maybe that's a good thing, since most cultures equate strength with respect and fear being conquered by a more powerful nation.  This helps stabilize the world and makes it safer for all.   He's also going to tell the terrorists that they won't win and that we'll stop them under his presidency.  How, by using harsh language and U.N. mandates?  We've seen how well those worked in the past, so I'm sure they'll work against a group of lawless, nationless thugs bent on destroying our way of life.

He's talking about family values, so here comes abortion, gay marriage, poor education, blah, blah, blah.  Same old tired rhetoric.  He's also not going to privatize Social Security, so we'll still be stuck with an insolvent retirement plan that we still have to pay for and that has outlived its useful and purposeful life span.  Why doesn't he just take all the retirement plans in America and roll them into Social Security?  After all, we know the government is great at managing your money and will look after your best interests better than you can.

"Help is on the way"?  That sounds very similar to "I'm from the government, I'm here to help you."  If that's help, I'd rather be left helpless and run as fast as I can in the opposite direction.

Here's his economic plan:  a list of feel good ideas that fly straight in the face of our capitalist economic system and try to impose government's control over it.  Very reminiscent of France or most of socialist Europe.  Pay as you go?  Under the Dems, that would be a neat trick without looting my wallet at payday.  He's going to tax those earning over $200,000/year and give it to those who don't.  Only in America, the land of success and dreams, are you taxed and repressed for working hard and being successful.  

Uh oh, here comes the pitch for socialized medicine.  Same old pitch, same old socialism a la Canada.  Gee, let's stifle medical advancement when we need it the most.  We're the only nation in the world that doesn't give every one health care?  And where did the Founding Fathers state in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that medical care is a right?

Energy policy and dependence on foreign oil?  Equating Iraq war and oil again (yawn).  Wants to end our dependence on foreign oil but yet won't allow us to explore domestically for new sources of oil.  Some great energy policy he has, won't eliminate any dependencies we have at all.

Called on George Bush and both parties to come together in unity and follow the Constitution in this election.  I thought this was a Democratic convention; isn't party differences what this is all about in order to WIN the election?  As as far as abiding by the Constitutional process, why has his side hired 2,000+ lawyers in case the election doesn't go his way?  Hmmm....

His theme is now, "What if...?"  Mine is too:  What if JohnJohn does actually win this election, then what?  He and his party really don't have a plan beyond regaining the seats of power in D.C.  Then what?  Ad lib, make up the rules as you go along, fake it 'til you make it?  I don't think that's a very good plan for anyone, let alone someone who wants the most powerful and important job in the nation and the world.  He talks of looking toward the future; my vision of JohnJohn's future is extremely dystopian and dark and one to fear.

Sen. Kerry's speech was much like Sen. Edwards's last night: one of quick sound bites and very little substance, packaged in a feel-good wrapper and handed out to the audience much like a Tootsie-Pop, except that when you reach the middle there isn't much there at all, let alone a sweet center.  If this is an indication of the campaign ahead for the Democrats, then I don't think that President Bush and V.P. Cheney have nothing to fear, especially when you take substance and actions into account. 




Well, the big(?) night has arrived

Well, tonight's the night we finally get to see John Kerry at the convention and hear him speak.  I'll be tuning in, but if the sample remarks that Hugh Hewitt has posted on his site, we should be scared of what Kerry has to say and what JohnJohn have planned for the nation if they are elected.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Also, Mr. Bob has a great list of stats on his site.  Check it out:   The Daily Blogster .

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

Success is awesome

Congrats to my friend Mr. Bob in Colorado.  His site, The Daily Blogster, got so much publicity from the Opinion Journal article on Monday that he had to move to a new site due to the traffic.  Way to go, Bob.  Make sure that you link to his new site here:  The Daily Blogster.  It's still under construction, but he's blogging as normal.

John Edwards: Just a po' boy from SC who done did good!

Watching John Edwards make his nomination speech after both his wife and daughter have made their introductions, you might get the idea that he truly cares about the welfare of our nation and its citizens.  He's spoken about his beginnings and how he's fought for 20+ years for the people he can relate to against "big HMO's, insurance companies & corporations."  He then went to D.C. to continue his fight and also to fight for health coverage for everyone, a better school system, educational opportunities, after school programs, etc.  He also blames people's individual financial management problems on major corporations and the Bush tax breaks instead of on personal financial responsibility.  Instead, he & Kerry are going to let big government fix the problems by handing out tax credits and money to anyone who wants it versus having people find work and earn a decent living themselves.  And they're going to finance this massive new welfare program by rolling back tax cuts and raising taxes across the board.

Just how close is he to his "poor boy" image?  He's built his success by being a personal injury trial lawyer who pursues large corporations on the behalf of the "victims injured" by the practices of these companies. 

My personal take on this is that he's made his money on the backs of these unfortunate individuals by attacking large corporations and winning large jury damage awards which financially cripple these companies, out of which he takes his cut before his clients are paid, if they ever are. 

He mentioned 35 million unemployed people and the fact that we need to create jobs for them to improve their lot in life.  How does JohnJohn want to do this?  Their plan is once again to attack the segment of the economy which generates jobs in order to take money from them and give it to the government before the people, who might never see it.  And then, to turn around and force these companies to pay all workers a higher wage which will buy less, forcing many smaller businesses into bankruptcy.  Then those employees will be out of work and on unemployment/welfare, right where JohnJohn want them!  Talk about a plan for economic stagnation and unemployment, you have it right there, the creation of a new welfare state.  He's created a whole new segment of people receiving government money, and they don't even have to go to a government office and fake working every day!

He's played the race card very ineffectively.  I'm reminded of the opening line from the movie "The Jerk" where Steve Martin says, I was born the son of a poor black family."  Obviously this was a comedic line, but JohnJohn is trying to make it seem to be a serious take on his relationship with minority voters.

He mentioned national security, playing on the fears and needs of the military.  Strange, this coming from a man who's never served anything larger than his own self-interests, let alone his country through military service.  Needless to say, that part of the speech left me dry.

He also mentioned the "two Americas" that has essentially been his stump speech throughout the campaign to date.  Once again, he's attacking the wealthy by saying that they're dividing America into two camps and hurting the working class.  Sounds like his entire career and money earning plan to date. 

He also brought up national security and Iraq in an attempt to sound hawkish and pro-military, but that garnered little support from the crowd when mentioned.  That shows where this crowd stands on the important issues of the day.

Overall, I think that John is a very charismatic speaker, but like most of the speeches I've heard this week, most of what he said was just a rehash of old ideas intermixed with campaign speeches and pieced together to provide good sound bites for the network news programs.  He does have the energy and telegenic edge that John Kerry lacks in this campaign, which helps to balance the ticket for the television cameras.  He also brings an image of southern "good ol' boy" charm to the ticket in an attempt to balance Kerry's "stiff intellectual" image, though unsuccessfully to this point in the campaign.  He attempted to portray America as a nation divided on many issues to the point of polarization; however, I feel that with the exception of the crowd in attendance, this point fell on deaf ears across the nation as the nation as a whole feels more unified now than it did in 2000.  He made vague general references to their plans for America, but no specifics.  In short, while he delivered a rousing speech appropriate for a pep rally/party convention, he said very little of importance and no more than I expected for this event.

Now the states are going through the roll call of delegates for the formal nominations for President/VP candidates (yawn).  Gee, I wonder who will win?


Al Sharpton for national strength?

He's speaking right now at the Convention, more like yelling even though he has a complete sound system at his disposal. Not sure what he's saying, I don't think the audience knows either. Just another unemployed, self-important hack that populates the modern Democratic party.

Ann Coulter's "banned" article

As has made news around the Blogosphere, columnist Ann Coutler was contracted by USA Today to cover the DNC and write a daily column.  Well, apparently she wasn't of the correct tilt for the editors of USA Today and their parent, Gannett Media, so they yanked her Monday column from print.  Here's the link to her column about the "Spawn of Satan".

Just remember, her article was pulled by the same people who hired Michael Moore to cover the RNC in NYC in August.  Fair's fair, I think, he should have his column of bilge pulled the first day.  We shall see if that actually happens.

Farenhype 9/11 analyzed

Great article from the Independence Institute's Dave Kopel about 56 error & falsehoods in Michael Moore's anti-Bush slam film.  Just click on the title of this post.



Michael Moore, need I say more?

I'm listening to Hugh Hewitt playing the Michael Moore speech from yesterday while staying in Springfield, IL.  Mr. Moore has gone beyond the fringe, the edge, and has fallen off the edge of the earth.  He is so out of touch with mainstream America that he is frightening in his ignorance.  But some of what we said is true:  yes, our side does get up at six in the morning and plot to do new things; unfortunately for him and his disciples, those ideas usually have to do with working hard, furthering our careers, growing our businesses, keeping the taxman at bay, caring for our families, and protecting our nation from people like him.  As for the comment about his side not seeing six o'clock all that often, I'll take that as genuine fact garnered from personal experience:  there's not much need to get up early when you don't work or otherwise contribute positively to society.  How else do you explain the professional image that he manages to portray on a daily basis?

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Death stare: Hillary to Theresa

Fox just zoomed in on Hillary, and she had the death stare directed at Mrs. Kerry.  Does she feel threatened by Theresa?  We may never know.  I guess that's Hillary's way of saying, "Shove it!" to Theresa from the balcony.

Other thoughts from tonight

Here are some other thoughts about tonight's convention:

-Sen. Ted Kennedy:  I missed him.  Oh well.

-Ron Reagan Jr.:  Just spoke about stem cell research, equated it with an ideological position held by a minorty of people who don't care about medical research and battling diseases such as Alzheimers and Parkinsons. 

  • News flash:  President Bush and Congress didn't ban stem cell research, only the Federal funding of such research, cloning of humans for research (or any other reason), and the use of aborted fetuses in such research.  There is no limit on private stem cell research or private funding of the same.

However, the major research organizations seem to think that they need federal money to conduct their research.  That flies straight in the face of capitalism and makes them voluntary recipients of corporate welfare!  There are statistics that show that research funding has increased since President Bush signed the bill banning federal funding, thus eliminating a major source of corporate welfare and pork-barrel spending.  If the medical community thinks that stem cell research is such a great idea, then they should and will find ways to finance it in order to further the science and market it to the public. 

Ron Reagan Jr. is definitely not his father's son ideologically.

-General tone of the convention:  subdued and quiet.  The delegates must be having a really great time in Boston, expending lots of energy during they since they very little energy tonight.  That or we have the B-string in the audience tonight, saving the A-string for Thursday night when Sens. Kerry & Edwards arrive for thier coronation...I mean, nomination...speeches.

-Theresa Heintz Kerry:  might watch her, not sure.  Don't want to see a foreign gold-digger with more money than the entire economy of her native Mozambique (French colony) stand up there and play politics for her hubby since she thinks this is an amusing diversion.  She might even tell more than just one reporter to, "Shove it!" while on the podium and then walk away in a huff.

  • Edit:  I was right, she didn't say much.  Tried a half-hearted approach to appeal to minorities and imigrants by using the unity card, but only received mediocre applause during her speech.  She also said that "we" (she and John) will create new jobs, guarantee education for all children food for all families.  Can you say F.D.R.'s famous "a chicken in every pot" statement?  If all else fails, trot out the tried and true welfare statement.  Over all,  my original impression still stands and she is not First Lady material.

Not sure who else is on the card for tonight, mostly minor pinch hitters, so not going to stay up for them.  Tomorrow should be more interesting as Sen. Edwards will be there along with Gov. Bill Richardson (D- NM) , Elizabeth Edwards and others.  The theme?  Why, a stronger, more secure America, of course!

Click here for a list of speakers from the official convention website:  DNC Speakers.

Check back tomorrow for more insightful commentary and analysis of the convention.



Watching a rising star?

I'm watching Sen. Barak Obama, Illinois state senator, speaking as the keynote speaker tonight at the convention.  So far, he's introduced himself to the crowd, praised the party platform and endorsed John Kerry.  He even got a standing ovation from Jesse Jackson.  But other than that, he's receiving a fairly tepid response from the audience tonight.  He's even said that people shouldn't look to government to solve their problems, which goes against the basic tenet of the modern Democratic party.  He's also brought up unity and that we are all one nation, and that the other side is dividing the country.  He even said that John Kerry wouldn't hesitate to use force to defend our nation, but only after he's exhausted other options (read: U.N. kowtowing).

So far, he's said nothing new that would convince me that he, Sens. Kerry & Edwards, and the Dems as a whole, would bring any positive or beneficial change to our nation if they we're to be elected.  Instead, he's making a feel-good positive spin speech at what has become nothing more than a very expensive pep rally for the party faithful.  I will compliment him on the fact that he is a very charismatic orator and said nothing negative about President Bush in his entire speech.  But since it was nothing more than a puff piece, he couldn't do much harm with it even if he tried.

Now, why did I call him a rising star?  He's currently running for the Senate from Illinois in the much publicized race against Jack Ryan.  That is, until Jack Ryan was forced to quit the race because the Chicago Democrat controlled media (read: Richard M. Daly machine) dug through the court records of his divorce from actress Jeri Ryan and published them for the world to see,  even though both parties to the divorce thought the records were sealed after the divorce.  So Sen. Obama seems to be a shoe-in for the Senate seat this November.  But what of the Republican challenger?  So far, the party has approached several prominent figures, including former Bears coach Mike Ditka, to run, but all have refused for various reasons.  And even if they did find a replacement candidate, they couldn't officially list them on the ballot since Mr. Ryan hasn't completed the paperwork to officially terminate his candidacy with the state election board!  And who said that politics in Springfield were boring?

Now you know why his star is rising, but if he's the best hope the Dems have, then we have nothing to fear.




Monday, July 26, 2004

Fair and balanced

Fox News's Sean Hannity has been broadcasting from the floor of the convention, a lonely position indeed.  That must be how they're balancing Howard Dean in the press box with Colmes during the broadcast.

Done for tonight, going to watch Bill & Hillary on TV.  More on this tomorrow.

A picture says a thousand words.

Hat tip to Rush for this pic of Sandy Berger, I think it says it all.


Here's the article.

Smart or scared?

Have heard that the Dems have banned some of the greatest liberal celebs of the current era, Michael Moore and Whoopi Goldberg (among others), from the convention floor.  Have they done this so that the convention doesn't become an anti-Bush rally (hmmm, it IS the DNC convention, after all) with the true pillars of the party's thought platform stealing the show from Hillary, John & John?  Or is it because they don't want the delegates and the general public to see just how far to the left the party has swung under the influence of these two-bit psuedo-intelectuals and politcal neophytes?  I'm leaving that one for you all to ponder & decide on individually?

Also, Ralph Nader has been banned from the Convention.  Not a great loss, since he left the good graces of the party elite decades ago and hasn't contributed much to their cause except to siphon votes away from the nominee.  All I can say is, "Run, Ralph, Run!"  Keep up the good work.  Speak of the devil, he's on O'Reilly right now.  Ahh, the wisdom and armchair quarterbacking from the non-influential fringe of politics.

More to come...

CNN is salivating...

I'm sitting here at the United club in Dulles Airport and watching CNN, and they are just beside themselves with this convention.  They're proud that they have center billing and a floor-based broadcast area.  I guess I shouldn't be surprised since CNN follows in the line of such other great media outlets as Pravda in Soviet Russia and Granma in Cuba, a propoganda arm of the party.

They just aired a snippet from a taped interview with Hillary Clinton, and she said that she also wished they could change the date of the election & inauguration.  Not due to terrorist threats, but so they could place Sen. Kerry in office and we could all "benefit from a change in leadership".  How, like we did when President Clinton was in office?  Social Security recipients, veterans and interns beware!

Sunday, July 25, 2004

Candidates, conventions and correspondents, oh my!

Spent part of the day watching the political shows from the Fleet Center in Boston, host of the DNC National Convetion.  All I can say is that pandering and being obsequious is the name of the game this week.  The networks haven't been this excited about a convention since Clinton's in 1992.  Between this and helping Sandy Berger "duck & cover" during his investigation, it should be a fun week.  I can't wait to see what Jay Leno has to say in his nightly commentary monologue.

The fact that the Big Three broadcast networks will only show three hours total of the convention proceedings has me torn.  On one side, I think that the networks are doing the American people a great disservice for not broadcasting anything other than the highlights (edited, of course) and not allowing people to see for themsleves who they might be supporting.  On the other, their denial of full coverage might help shield us from the blatant hatred that the current crop of Democratic supporters has for our president, a la the Paul Wellstone memorial service.  Since the nominating conventions have devolved into nothing more than five day long parties with lots of rhetoric and little accomplishment, it should be in the least some good entertainment to those of us with C-SPAN access.

Saturday, July 24, 2004

9/11 Report, initial thoughts

Since the 9/11 Commission Report was released Thursday, I've had some time to think about its findings and the implications of this report.  I haven't had time to read it yet (Mrs. Reporter is currently reading it), but have only heard the sound bites from the major general news sources, and then only briefly since the issue of Mr. Berger and his antics at the Nations Archives have managed to eclipse the report's release.  However, I've been able to formulate some initial thoughts about the report's findings:

1. There is no one agency to blame for the 9/11 attacks.  This is true since you have a myriad of government agencies that historically have not worked well together while working the same missions.  These agencies have been were banned from sharing information by Cold-War era rules to separate the various agencies into foreign & domestic for management and general citizens' rights protections.  This, along with the fact that most of our intelligence gathering agencies are still working on fighting the Soviet Union in World War III exposes the inflexibility of our intelligence gathering programs and the reluctance to change that is exhibited daily by the senior management of these agencies, as well as their respective Congressional oversight committees. 

2. There is no one president/administration to blame.  This may come as a shock to many on the left side of the house, but President Bush and his Cabinet are not the singular scapegoats for the events culminating in the attacks, let alone the troubles of the world.  They did not come into office in 2001 and have all this knowledge suddenly implanted in their heads by the outgoing administration.  The issue runs much deeper than that, and spans multiple administrations over a time span of 15-20 years.  While presidents from the 1946-1990 prioritzed fighting (and winning) the Cold War, global terrorism was a tertiary issue at best, an annoyance to be left to analysts and small sections of the Middle Eastern desks of the CIA & FBI.   After 1990, the world changed but our methods didn't, hampered by presidents who didn't understand global terrorism, let alone foreign policy in the Middle East.

3.  Airlines have placed profits above passenger safety and security.  Let's face it, all companies are in business to  make a profit.  However, ethical businesses tend to also place some emphasis on customer satisfaction and safety so those same customers will live and return another day.  Our major domestic carriers have yet to turn a profit or refuse a government handout in the past 30 years.  This is due in large part the to the contracts that the various unions have imposed upon the airlines and that hamper the management in making decisions in these areas.  AS a result, things like safety tend to get side-stepped and thus exploited by those who committed the 9/11 attacks.

4.  The military/law enforcement community didn't do enough to stop the attacks.  Let's face it, the 9/11 attacks we're a complete departure from the standard hijacking methods of the past 40 years.  During this time, almost all hijackings led to the plane landing and the hijackers making demands of various governments, and then the passengers being released.  Our military/law enforcement agencies had no precedent for attacks on this scale or type, thus were caught unprepared.  Also, the entrenched mentality of "I'm not sticking my neck out" hampered the quick decision making process that was needed by the military when the attacks happened, since most in command were/are more worried about losing their jobs than doing them to protect the country, which is their primary duty.
Note:  this also applies to this day to previous presidential administrations as is evidenced my Mr. Berger treating the National Archives as his own personal lending library in order to cover his own backside and keep his former boss out of trouble.

5.  The report/commission were non-partisan.  To quote COL. Sherman from MASH, "Horse-hockey!"  The committee was indeed partisan in the way it treated people such as Condoleeza Rice, who has more experience in foreign policy issues than the majority of the committee, to the way they treated President Bush while giving President Clinton a virtual pass-over in the testimony.  Although they released a report which raised a lot of issues and has many good recommendations for improving our security, it was still a partisan attempt to pin blame upon our current president.

I've also heard that there is some reaction to the news that President Bush is going to have a committee review the report and give him an analysis of it.  For those of you who live in the ivory tower of academia or the land of TV news sound bites, here's a fact:  President Bush has an entire nation to run and a war to be fought, and that takes up a good part of his day.  He doesn't have time to read the report from cover to cover, so his advisors will analyze it and give him a summary so that they can all plan a course of action for implementation of the recommendations in the report.  This is known as an executive summary and is used daily around the world; if its good enough for the chairman of General Motors, then its good enough for him.  That's why he has a Cabinet, to advise him on a course of action.

These are my initial thoughts, I'll have more once I've read the report for myself.

-GOP Man

 

Opening day, first report

Well, I'm finally getting into the blogging thing, having been tempted by such people as The Daily Blogster and the other members of the Rocky Mountain Alliance.  And a special mention to Hugh Hewitt, one of the most informational and influential radio talk show hosts in America, who has made excellent use of blogging and was the person who first exposed me to the concept via his radio show.  

Having just moved to Northern Virginia from Denver, I do miss listening to Hugh on the radio, but then I have the miracle of the Internet which allows me to be educated and informed while relaxing here at home.  And with luck, soon he'll be back on in the D.C. market.

Speaking of good things, I've also just ordered Hugh's new If%20It/104-5634324-0284765'>book along with his previous book as a combo from Amazon, so I'm eagerly awaiting them both to arrive.  My wife has also brought home The 9/11 Report, so I'm also going to read that and give my interpretation of the findings. 

Now, a little about me.  I've moved to Northern Virgina from Denver about 8 weeks ago, and got married in mid-June.  I'm a contract computer engineer for the Federal Government and the DOD by trade, and a political consultant the rest of the time.  I'm a lifelong Republican and have been involved in the party for the past five years in Metropolitan Denver, especially in the Denver Metro Young Republicans.  Having moved to the center of politics for the nation, I'm going to work at getting as actively involved out here as I was in Denver; there are always causes to be championed, candidates to be aided, campaigns to run and work to be done.   When I grow up, I'd also like to do political commentary on a radio show and teach constitutional law.

 I'm also a Petty Officer Second Class in the Naval Reserve, and have been for about three years; that has been one of the best and most interesting experiences of my life, and would do it again if given the choice.  I did join later in life (when I was 31) but it was a life-long goa of mine to serve my country and the Navy had the best program for doing so.  It also helped the my dad and many friends were/are in the Navy, so I was a little biased!

I will try to post as often as possible, but not daily due to work & travel constraints.  If you have questions or comments, please email me.

-Rich a.k.a GOP Man