Thursday, October 14, 2004

Optimism and the election

There is an old adage that you get what you ask for.
 
I have said this before but I think it is especially important in this election.
 
Opponents of President Bush keep talking about how bad things are in Iraq and how bad the economy is. And the worse the news is in Iraq the better they feel about their prospects. And the worse the news could be on the economy the better off they are. So they keep spreading bad news.
 
President Bush is talking optimistically about the future. The United States of America is a force for good bringing freedom to Afghanistan and Iraq. The economy, by several measures, is growing at a very nice clip. Home ownership is up. And the President is talking about initiatives in education and taxes that promote an optimistic growing economy.
 
You get what you ask for. And that's why President George W. Bush deserves the vote of all Americans.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

How Far We Have Come

83% of U.S. adults surveyed on 10/7/2001 thought a terrorist attack was VERY or SOMEWHAT LIKELY over the next several WEEKS.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Oct. 7, 2001. N=660 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.

"How likely is it that there will be further terrorist attacks in the United States over the next several weeks: very likely, somewhat likely, not too likely, or not at all likely?"
%
Very likely 41
Somewhat likely 42
Not too likely 9
Not at all likely 4
No opinion 4

A Stark Contrast

The most interesting thing to me is that Bush's opponent has slid by with just about no scrutiny of who he really is.

The fact is that he has no record of ever reaching across the aisle to get things done-- IN 20 YEARS.

The link below shows how much George W. Bush has accomplished in his 4 years in office. As a governor of Texas and President of the United States, George W. Bush has demonstrated what is actually a pretty amazing record of being part of legislation that gets sweeping bi-partisan support.

Examples include the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind Act. Opponents now criticize this legislation or embrace it where necessary. But the fact is that these two bills passed the Senate on something like 90 to 10 votes.

That is why this country needs George W. Bush in the White House. A firm leader and also someone willing to bend with the trees to craft legislation that everyone can agree makes sense.

Here is a link to George W. Bush's accomplishments in the White House. A very notable one is the INCREASE in HOME OWNERSHIP. Critics say that the economy was better when there were high flying internet stocks. In my very humble opinion, an increase in home ownership and the increase in home prices is much more beneficial to a wider amount of people.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/achievement/index.html

 

 

Terrorism

We have gone from a country that really, all of us, saw a major terrorist threat and rallied behind stopping it. Many of us still understand what all of us (Americans, Iraqi citizens longing for freedom, and really the world) are up against.

Now, its strange to think that it is not an outrage that a candidate for president called terrorism a 'nuisance'.

Did George W. Bush do that good of a job?

Well he did.

AND, it IS outrageous that a candidate for president believes terrorism is just a nuisance.

Score two easy points for George W. Bush. Its hard, with one statement to make 2 excellent points for your opponent.

 

Tony Blair

 Blair: "I will not apologise for removing Saddam Hussein. I will not apologise for the conflict. It was right then, is right now and is essential for the wider security of the region and the world."

Your lonely voice in the woods (me): 'sometimes I think that had this been a Clinton/Blair mission it would today, given all that has occured, be viewed as a huge triumph (with some setbacks) and a huge success.'

The story:

Blair: I won't say sorry
13 October 2004

Tony Blair has refused to apologise for the way he presented the intelligence over Iraq's illegal weapons.

Challenged by Michael Howard, the Prime Minister said he could not bring himself to apologise for misrepresenting the evidence "since I do not accept that I did".

Mr Blair said: "I apologise for any information given in good faith that has subsequently turned out to be wrong."

"What I do not in any way accept is that there was any deception by anyone. I will not apologise for removing Saddam Hussein. I will not apologise for the conflict. It was right then, is right now and is essential for the wider security of the region and the world."

Mr Blair said he still believed it was right to go to war and that the conflict was "essential" for regional and global security.

Mr Howard pressed Mr Blair to say sorry for telling the country that the intelligence showed that Saddam continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Are We Safer?

Using CNN/USA TODAY DATA (I'm using liberal generated statistical info to prove that they are wrong. Guess they don't analyze their own data)....

First I started with the question: Do people feel more worried or less worried about terrorism today than before the takedown of Saddam?

I added 'very' and 'somewhat worried' together to create "Worried" and added 'not too' and 'not at all' to create "Not Worried".

My first analysis was everything prior to the beginning of the Saddam takedown compared to everything after. 39% were worried before and 35.9% are worried since. Then I compared the five 2002 surveys with the most recent 5 surveys (basically 2004). 38.6% were worried in 2002. And 36.4% were worried in the last 5 surveys.

Basically, STATISTICALLY DEMONSTRATED-- people DO feel SAFER ("less worried") today then prior to the takedown of Saddam.

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 3-5, 2004. Nationwide:

.

"How worried are you that you or someone in your family will become a victim of terrorism: very worried, somewhat worried, not too worried, or not worried at all?" Form A (N=488, MoE ± 5)

.

Very Somewhat Not Too Not
At All
No
Opinion
% % % % %
9/3-5/04 11 32 36 21 -
8/9-11/04 8 26 36 30 -
2/04 10 30 36 24 -
1/04 5 23 42 30 -
12/03 9 28 38 25 -
8/03 11 30 33 26 -
7/03 6 24 38 32 -
4/03 8 26 39 26 1
3/03 8 30 38 24 -
2/17-19/03 8 28 33 31 -
2/7-9/03 13 35 34 18 -
1/03 8 31 36 25 -
9/02 8 30 37 25 -
5/02 9 31 37 22 -
4/02 8 27 39 25 -
3/02 12 33 32 23 -
2/02 8 27 39 25 1
11/01 8 27 34 30 -

President Bush

An interested fact picked up from the link below.

People have forgot that the bill that Congress voted on for the Iraq War was called:

The congressional Authorization of Force Act of October 2002

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/9895209.htm?1c

Sunday, October 10, 2004

Australia

You would have heard all about the elections in Australia-- except they didn't go the way Brokaw and Rather were hoping. You see, the prime minister who was part of the U.S. COALITION in Iraq WON re-election.
 
So, Tom and Dan are busy waiting by the AP news wires (eyes wide open; drool dripping from their mouths) waiting in eager anticipation for a car bomb from Iraq.
 
 

60 Minutes and the Kerry Campaign

If Kerry needs an issue 60 minutes and Dan Rather deliver one.
 
Any reason why the media, Democrats, and the U.N. haven't done anything about Sudan (an issue that has been known as a crisis for MONTHS and MONTHS) ?
 
Well, they wanted an election issue.
 
The Democrats have been pressing the U.N. to stand by and do as little as possible so that Kerry and the Democrats could use Sudan as an election issue.
 
60 Minutes tonight ran a story they could have run months ago. Instead, they sat on the story waiting to spring it on the election.
 
Any idea why the public is just now starting to learn about Sudan? Any reason why the U.N. hasn't done anything about it?
 
CBS, Newsweek, the New York Times, Brokaw, Rather, the L.A. Times, NPR, Slate, and the Washington Post, have there news cycle all laid out until election day. Every story you read about today has been coordinated with Kerry's campaign speeches, and his debate talking points.
 
 

The Bushes

In 1992, the Democrats succeeded to drive George H.W. Bush out of office BECAUSE he:
 
- Did NOT remove Saddam from power,
   
        and
 
- RAISED taxes.
 
In 2004, the Democrats are an eyelash away from driving George W. Bush out of office BECAUSE he:
 
- REMOVED Saddam,
 
        and
 
- LOWERED taxes.

It's interesting

It's interesting what this country has become in the last 12 months.
 
It is now more important to be anti-American. The more anti-U.S. you are, the better your chance to become U.S. President.
 
It is more important now to have a media you can be counted on to expose every flaw in the country and make darn sure everyone in the country is fully aware of every flaw the President has.
 
Finally, its interesting that the Democrats got momentum in their campaign with a message of hatred for one person--- the President of the United States. There are Anybody But Bush bumper stickers all around to preach this hatred.
 
Moreover, propagandist films are an excellent way to put your message in front of people for 2 hours. They come off as entirely factual based documentaries and rally up support for your candidate.
 
Then, through all of the above, there becomes absolutely no focus on the fact that we are an inch away from putting two of the top 3 most liberal Senators in the United States into the White House. And no focus on how hawkish they have become while maintaining their anti-war doves via the propaganda films and Anybody But Bush hatred.
 
So who will get let down by a Kerry presidency. Will it be the doves, as Kerry marches around the world carrying out the Pentagon's missions? Will it be this country, as Kerry bows to the doves and takes far too long to make the critical decisions necessary to protect this country from the terrorists the Democrats have so artfully made sure we have forgotten about? Will it be the economy that suffers from this sort of indecision and higher taxes on the rich? Could it be all three as Kerry a) moves too slowly, b) then reacts too aggressively?
 
Well, these are the questions the media isn't asking. And the two sides which the Democrats are trying to reel in (anti-war and pro-defense) do not seem to understand that 1 or both will be let down.

Iraq

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
 
Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
 
We have the right people doing it.
 
And if not now, when?
 
 
Democracy, and most importantly peace and freedom, are in grasp for the Iraqi people. And we are working hard to make this gigantic vision a reality.
 
 
 

Iraq

If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything.
 
Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do.
 
We have the right people doing it.
 
And if not now, when?
 
 
Democracy, and most importantly peace and freedom, are in grasp for the Iraqi people. And we are working hard to make this gigantic vision a reality.
 
 
 

My Politics

The other day someone who was trying to get to the bottom of why I have switched to be a Republican over the past few months.
 
Their conclusions didn't quite shock me, because I know the stereotypes and myths are out there. As background to the story--- the two people who were trying to figure out why I am so Republican are very supportive Democrats.
 
Their conclusion. I must be going through a mid-life crisis. And then they said I might be struggling with racist feelings.
 
First, I found it hysterical that the only people crazy enough to be voting for George W. Bush (given how so clearly and obviously evil he is) must be actually crazy or going through some sort of personal crisis.
 
Second, what a nice way to perpetuate the number one myth of the Democratic Party. Their ultimate wedge issue that does keep 95% of one race squarely behind their party.
 
I responded very simply:
 
First, economic pessimism doesn't resonate with me.
 
Second, anti-American and anti-war messages while troops are in harms way, in a world changed by 9/11 FRANKLY DISGUSTS ME. I have always believed the U.S. is a force for good in the world.
 
That's why I support George W. Bush and that's why I have become a Republican.