TeacherJoeInLA

Mr. Rutten, can you at least admit this?

2005-08-29T22:58:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. Rutten

Thank-you for both agreeing to Hugh Hewitt's conditions for an interview and allowing us to deluge you with email. I hope you don't feel like Louisiana in the aftermath of Katrina.

May I also commend you on your general openness and attitude in the interview. Few who debate Hugh are as good natured.

For backgroundÂs sake I am currently a public school history teacher, but had 6 years experience in newspaper and radio production and advertising (in the mid-80Âs). My higher educatioincludesds a minor in Communications/Journalism.

I was trained, like you, in the philosophy and craft of objective writing. That belief began to crack in 1975 the day I attended a labor march in Washington D.C. and saw how distorted its coverage was when I saw it reported on the evening newscast.

I find iunbelievablele that you think the LA Times is neither anti-Arnold nor anti-Republican. In the next month I hope to find the time to document the prejudiceI i see and forward them to you.

I'd like to take this opportunity to make one point.

In your interview you agree with Hugh that "reporting should not be condescending to the center-right of the populace." Yet you make several condescending remarks about Hugh which by extension I find condescending to me ..Andnd my politics is to the left of Hugh's.

Let me specifically note 3 instances of condescension.

1) "his Republican politics and unwavering certainty ... are standard issue"

If you want to say Hugh's opinions are standard, OK. But you'rintelligentnt and savvy and know the meaning and implication of "standard issue." You're kidding yourself if you don't think you're implying here that Hugh's opinions are either taken from Republican Party "talking points" or at least are not derived from his own experience and logic. At best it is a little "cheap shot", a denigration, a condescending attitude of someone center-right.

2)"... as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, most of talk radio ...."

I recall 3-4 times in your interview with Hugh where you call him on the sources of his information or conclusions. Of course you KNOW talk radio is far from literally being a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party. Whether you argue as a "Column" you may have looser, less literal standards than reportage, OR if you argue this statement is acceptable as metaphoric or hyperbole, YOU MUST ADMIT you did not mean it as complimentary. Rather it IS belittling. It is again condescending to the center-right.

3) "In this, as in so many instances, the taste for talk radio is like a fondness for grand opera Â to indulge it, you have to listen to the same song over and over.

Frankly, hearing this I knew I was being insulted but I had to go back to the transcript to see precisely how. Correct me if I am wrong here. This quote means: to have the opinion (indulge), that "doing unbiased journalism" is impossible, you have to hear talk radio repeat the opinion over and over because the truth of its antithesis is so obviously apparent. Sir, You Insult Me! AS I stated at the top of this letter I first came to this conclusion before the birth of talkradio. Later I saw evidence of this conclusion in every newsroom I worked, with virtually every reporter I worked. (BTW: those reporters included, one who went to work for the NY Times, another to Christian Science Monitor Radio, andthirdrid became a CNN foreign reporter.) I grant that you believe what you say. But you can't grant that telling me I can't, won't, or don't think for myself isn't patronizing ... condescending. Why can't YOU entertain the logic that many come to this conclusion out of facts and experience?

MY POINT ...
from an interview where you state its wrong to be condescending to those who politically oppose you (the center-right) you write an article where you commit that offense at least 3 times. Doesn't that suggest you may not be good at self analysis, let alone the self-restraint to achieve objectivity

If I am wrong please find the time to correct me.

Sincerely and respectfully
Joe Sterbinsky

Something positive from CBS

2005-03-10T18:57:00.000-08:00

Our friend and godblogfather Hugh Hewitt has oft been critical of the former leader of the MSM, CBS News. I hope Hugh and others who watched on the first night of the post-Rather era noticed this positve development. CBS did a piece on private Social Security Accounts that was neither a hatchet job nor a mindless, useless series of he said-she saids. The piece, reported by a Ms. (Michelle?) Regan was about how Chile's 20 year old privitazation system has worked.

The piece was accurately promoed.

It set the situation how the system came about, though offerred no details.

It told that it was a "forced-savings" account requiring all workers to put 10% of their gross into a private retirement account, with an additional 2.3% taken for administrative costs. It did not question this high percentage for overhead. It quoted a few workers who liked it .... for the reason that it gave them "control over their futures."

The counterview presented was that of small self-employed businesses, specifically showing "farmers' market-type" vegetable sellers. It noted they weren't making enough money to put aside the 10+2.3%/year. I wondered if such people even pay into the US social security system as they would have to claim their cash income and pay income taxes on it as well as the worker and employer portion of the tax. The report didn't take note that such small cash business are in exactly the same position in the US today.

They report also implied that the system's success seemed to be dependent on the rather booming Chilean economy. It said people were getting a 10% a year return on investment ... neither saying if that was compounded nor if that were the true average over 5 years?, 10 years? 15 years?.

It also did not take the time to say how the system might have fared if the economy wasn't booming, nor did it say if investment accounts were limited in any way. It did say that the investment ... the accumulated available capital ... was a cause of the economy's boom.

On the whole the report gave me new information NO OTHER MEDIA SOURCE has given me. It was POSITIVE about an Administration proposal (to the point where a liberal could be upset that it was biased'right"). It gave me reasons to consider the viability of private SS accounts and has caused me to seek deeper information.

If this is the new CBS news ... I may begin to watch it again.

P.S. Bob Schieffer is a gentleman.

Not Grant, McClelan, Lee, or Custer, but Pickett, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse - Vox Blogoli 2.2: if Harry Reid "Goes Gingrich?"

2005-02-26T13:36:00.000-08:00

TeacherJoeInLA

Should we get rid of the filibuster for judicial nominees is Harry Reid does not have the votes.

I want to be Grant. My gut says however this is Lee at Gettysburg commanding Pickett's Charge.

(Would somebody email me directions on how to include links in this. I've love to link readers to the historical illusions I'm about to make. I just know how. Then again if you've got a good OLD edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica pick it up and read about the Battle of Gettysburg especially day 3)

This battle is Gettysburg not Grant barnstorming through an indefensible rural South. The Dems stand opposite us on a ridge. Within their "hook" is the MSM ready to bring reinforcements to the argument whenever necessary. Liberal lobying Orgs. are close ready to bandage the wounded in their field hospitals.

We cannot, like Pickett charge across a mile of open field and be weakened by artillery (This is what's beginning to happen as the talking heads and talk shows discuss this fight in the preliminaries. We are already being stained in the wording of he fight. "Nuclear Option" is not good phrase to stand on. Defendinng Minority Rights IS" Everytime I hear those phrases I can feel the shrapnel hitting brother soldiers on either side of me)

We may have a successful strategy to capture "The Angle" but we must also have the additional arguments to push forward across the field, over the ridge line or else we too will find our "High Water Mark" in gathering of trees.

We are NOT YET READY for this battle. As I've suggested some words and arguments already have at a disadvantage. IF we make a stand here we need reinforcements positioned (a.k.a. proven arguments and positions ready for battles today's political battle grounds ... the water coolers, coffee rooms, lunch tables and of cource blogs.)

First, the Democrats hold the high ground as did the Union south of Gettysburg. The high ground here is the tradition of the filibuster and the protection of "minority rights." a.k.a. "The purpose of democracy is to protect the rights of the minority"

There is higher ground than this idea. Can you easily articulate it? I dare you to in the comments section. I don't think we've found that ground/argument and certainly have not laid its foundation in the square of public opinion.

Second. What is the argument for changing the rules for judicial nominees and not other cases. Is it only that we're frustrated by the Dems tactics? What is the moral reason for the difference? I can think of none, thus we this change of rules will be seen as a power grab not as justice.

Is this filibuster unjust? YES, it is! But this is the argument we must make and make and make to the electorate. If we shove this filibuster changed down their throats we will fast return to being the minority party.

Again a fundamental PR foundation must be laid. The public does not know
1) The constitutional role of advise and consent is written in the consitution is to take place in the VOTES of the whole Senate. The filibuster DENIES the Senate its role in advise and consent as 40% of the senate gets to stop the expression of the whole.
MAKE THIS CHALLENGE
If these judges are so abhorrent to the majority of the country - FIND THE VOTES find enough elected sentors to vote against them on the floor AS THE CONSTITUTION INTENDED.

The catch phrase can/should be the Democrats are guilt of TYRANNY OF THE MINORITY

2) The filibuster is NOT in the constitution.
The constitution does NOT provide for a filibuster
It exists because the constitution allows for each body of Congress to write its own rules and the Senate ALONE has chosen this rule.

This rule was changed before in the '60s
WHEN SOUTHERN SENATORS TRIED TO KEEP OUT CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION.
Make the Robert Byrd tie, again and again and again.
Byrd filibustered civil rights legislation in the '60s and is filibustering judges who believe the CIVIL RIGHTS of the UNBORN.

(I believe we can ride the abortion issue to victory here. Most AMericans ARE against abortion. Give them cases of rape and incest. Give them when the mother's life is in danger. Never give them the mental health - its a universal catch-all. Take the partial victory. Get momentum on our side. Reducing the number of abortions by 80% would be a tremendous victory even if it codified the above exceptions for a century)

IF WE ARE TO FIGHT THE BATTLE HERE we must also wait out the enemy some. Lee could have surrounded the Union and weakened them with starvation. We need to weaken the Dems with a series of reasonable attempts to get judges through. Let them filibuster. Let them close the Senate for a while ... Then We Pull Back A Nominee FOR THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY! Yes, sacrifice a nominee! Watch....

Put up another ... better qualified one. LET THEM FILIBUSTER and close the Senate again. Who's starting to look like they're obstructionist. A public debate over this second nominee will take place. The polls will tell us whether we push this one or not. In any event we need to be humble, and self-sacraficing AGAIN, for the good of the country

Would the Dems dare try this again!. They simply look bad if that's the only way they can govern. Its a reciepe for disaster .... if we lead them there.

IF WE ARE NORMAL, REPUBLICAN, "TYPE A," General George Armstrong Custer Full of Ourselves Jerks WE WILL FIND A WAY TO SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT or the MSM will do it for us!

Again. This calls Not for GRANT but for Andrew Jackson ... or better still the Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse who defeated Custer at Little Big Horn!

So. It's not McClellan, nor Grant, nor Lee, we want to follow. Rather lets follow Picket's advice to Lee.

The enemy is in our sight. We can lose him if we do nothing. We can lose us if we are not superior in every facet of the battle field.

Define the battlefield. Define each place we need to be superior. Get superior. Then start the battle on our terms, by our design.

When you play chess you give up some wonderful, qualified judges ... ah, pieces in order to protect your king and queen and capture theirs.

How many Supreme Court openings might there be by 2008?

The Ist Amendment to a New Bill of (Blog)Reader's Rights

2005-01-16T12:24:00.000-08:00

I sat down this morning to finish a response to Hugh Hewitt's response of a Howard Kurtz article.

Stopping first at (blog-godfather) Hugh's site, I read his disertation on the ethical failures of the Kos/Armstrong Williams/John Lauck blogs to disclose that each was receiving money from a particular political organization.

They have dirtied us all.
THEY HAVE DIRTIED US ALL!

I teach 8th grade U.S. History and tried this week to convey to my students the responsibility and excitement George Washington felt as FIRST President of the U.S. Everything he did set a precedent.

I feel that same excitment about the blogoshere.

So let me propose a Bill of Rights for Blog Readers.
Let me propose Bloggers convene to discuss the ethical standards we will set and agree by which to abide.

Now ... where to have this Ethics Setting Convention ...
hmmmm
a humid Independence Hall in Philadelphia?
the spas of Park City?
I've got it how about right here in my virtual Convention Hall ... a.k.a the Comments Thread of this article.

You're all invited. Or as we say at my church, "All Are Welcome!"

Like the Convention of 1787 we'll start and now and end whenever we're done. I can only hope we create something as practical and long lasting as did those 55 Framers in Philadelphia

To start, what do you think of this:
Today in my Blog Title I have added the Statement: I ACCEPT NO MONEY FROM THE GOVERNMENT, POLITICAL CANDIDATES, UNIONS or 527s. IF AND WHEN I DO I WILL COMPLETELY DISCLOSE THAT INFORMATION.

How Will we Practice the First Amendment with Regards to Religion

2004-12-20T14:08:00.000-08:00

I'll leave the macro-political impact of this week's national debate over Christmas songs at school Christmas, ah holiday recitials to the guys at Powerlinehttp://www.powerlineblog.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9034.

jeff Jarvis and Hugh Hewitt open the fray. Of course neither is right. Jeff makes too little of the debate, Hugh too much. We are in a fight ... a cultural war so to speak as to how will we practice the First amendment with regards to religion.

Media "misses" another event

2004-12-15T21:32:00.000-08:00

Taken from Gary Bauer's 12/14/04 Campaign for Working Families - End of Day newsletter

To: Friends and Supporters
From: Gary L. Bauer, Chairman Campaign for Working Families
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2004

Imagine

Imagine that thousands of African Americans held a march urging moral renewal in our country. Imagine that the marchers insisted that marriage in our country must remain the union of one man and one woman. Imagine that the main sponsor of the event was a black church with 25,000 members and that the marchers were led by Reverend Bernice King, daughter of
the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. Imagine that homosexual activists lined the streets of the march calling the African Americans “bigots” simply because they stand for traditional marriage. Sounds like it would be a major story, right?

Well, you don’t have to imagine because it actually happened in Atlanta, Georgia, this past Saturday. And, of course, the “main stream” media found it to be un-noteworthy. Other than some coverage in the Atlanta media, the national press treated it as a non-event.

The media elites would rather give us stories on inner-city crime and despair than show us black Americans who are standing for family and faith. And they certainly don’t want the country to know that the daughter of Martin Luther King, Jr. agrees with me, Dr. James Dobson, and President Bush on the definition of marriage.

Now imagine this, that the march was not an isolated event – that it was a sign that Americans of all races who believe in Judeo-Christian values are beginning to put aside the small things that divide us to embrace the larger things that unite us. Imagine we stood together against the cultural elites and radical secularists who want to turn religious America into a God-free zone. I believe it can and must happen if we are going to preserve this good and decent land as a “shining city upon a hill."

Hewitt Symposium-Objectivity Lost Newsweek/Meacham as an example agenda hidden as reportage.

2004-12-14T18:04:00.000-08:00

TeacherJoeInLA
Objectivity Lost
Newsweek/Meacham as an example agenda hidden as reportage.

At 50, I’m a dinosaur. Why the public schools of Manville, NJ and King’s College of PA were willing and able to teach me the true meaning of, and method to, objectivity between 1968-1976 is a question for a later date. But, they did, and so I know Newsweek’s “Religion: The Birth of Jesus” by John Meachan is not.

This essay is a response to Hugh Hewitt’s 12/14/04 symposium: “What does Newsweek’s story about Christmas tell us about the MSM.” Hugh also assigns us to, “… write on the subject of what these articles tell us about the MSM's abilities and credibility on matters of faith and history, specifically, is the Newsweek article the religion reporting equivalent of Rathergate? What accounts for the appearance in a major news magazine of such a biased piece?

I have agendas, you have agendas, Newsweek has agendas. A Christmas article with pretty pictures especially on the front cover sells magazines. If any of my media-un-savvy aunts were alive today, one of them would’ve dropped the $4 for the magazine thinking they’d be getting a nice article on the birth of Jesus. Certainly with the publicity of the Christian vote in November believers and non-believers have a heightened sensitivity to Christmas that might result in more rack sales. Adding audience and profit is not a motivation you need explaining.

But what does the piece tell us … let me be kinder than Meacham was to Jesus, … imply about him and Newsweek. I doubt Meacham and Newsweek think the piece is biased. I’m sure they would argue that the article lays out the story as told in the Bible then looks into its contentions critically. They have fooled themselves. They believe that it is fair, that it is two sided even, to present the Bible’s story as written – one side of the see-saw – and their examination of the facts, as the other side. But that’s a false premise. The only true two-sided argument has the Bible story as the fulcrum, arguers of the facts on either side, and the reporter in the third dimension reporting objectively about what’s in front of him. Newsweek has Meacham as the arguer of fact against the proposition, and no one defending the proposition. Shame on them.

What does this imply? A) they are too stupid to know the difference in reporting, B) they have an axe to grind or C) they don’t know the difference when they have an axe to grind that they won’t admit (my choice). Mr. Meacham’s assertions go unquestioned. All become reported as truth. His personal doubts in the Bible story become the article's assumptions. His assumptions about the early Christians’ motivations … they have problems to solve in the story so they made this part up … are so weaved into the “reportage” they look like fact.

(I have to digress here from the essay to comment. Isn’t this the ultimate manifestation of Left Logic? They project the worst assumptions on their opposition and then clam them as truth. I have no agenda, but the Bible writers had to justify their beliefs so let me tell you what someone with that agenda must have done … that police checkpoint 3 miles from the polling place in ____, Co FL must have been there to intimidate black voters. I hope I didn’t lose you on that logical jump)

And look at the headings … at least the ones on the Internet, I didn’t buy the magazine. They are far from objective. Rather they are progressively negative; “The Jesus Seminar,” “Little to Work With,” “An Outlandish Message,” “Elegant But Misinterpreted?” “Dubious on Almost Every Score,” “A Religion of Perplexing Contradictions,” My belief is that America does not get her news from, TV, radio, or newspaper, news. If I had the time and money to waste on a study I belief I’d find that America gets her news from TV and radio news promos and newspaper headlines. That’s where the MSM biases get most deeply transferred, which is why this article and the LA Times is so dangerous.

I’ve rambled a bit and won’t have time to edit this tightly to be an “A” symposium paper but I want to get it in today. (I have students’ papers to correct.).
I can’t prove this but Meacham and Newsweek look like secularists in fear. They see the religious in this country rising up to take back some of what’s been lost since 1963. That threatens them. They think the religious are fools to not see Darwin as God. They want to debunk these fools’ ideas. They trust people will see the folly of our ways if only we can read their truth. They go out to write an “objective” article that they don’t realize has no chance of being objective because of their own biases … but it can’t be biased, because they’re not biased, they’re enlightened. They write so immersed in their own point of view, they don’t know they’re in their own weeds. They know nothing about God and his ways and express every doubt and immature question thinking it’s the profound evidence to prove their non-belief as believers shake their heads recognizing places they have been and arguments God has made to them because they were willing to be “fools for Christ.”

Is this an equivalent of “Rathergate.”? Did Newsweek have an agenda like 60 Minutes? Yes. Did it have one as strong and directed as 60 Minutes’s? I don’t think so. Newsweek’s not trying to turn the next immediate election, they’re not on the public airwaves though I believe they are trying to change hearts and minds to eventually change elections. But remember: No documents were forged.

What does this say about the MSM? It says so long as their editors are secular, they never will be fair to God nor the Godly. Can they ever get it right? Unlikely, especially in a time when the Godly are interested in regaining lost ground. The secular are unable to because they don’t have what believers have before they have faith. I should add though that the believers are equally bad at doing the same. The best chance either side will have it to “set up the see-saw” and perhaps that’s the best upon which believers and non-believers can agree. That no argument over anything is valid unless designed as a see-saw with the issue in the middle, the advocates on either side and the disinterested on the z axis.

A Daily Prayer for our Nation

2004-12-14T15:23:00.000-08:00

decorousness
So pray with me.
God, named in our Declaration of Independence,
who entitled us to a separate and equal station among nations, and
who endows to men and women as our Creator,
with certainty the unalienable rights, of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,
on whom we rely for the Blessings of Libery, which we sought and still seek
when we wrote our Constitution,
and under whom Lincoln, at Gettysburg, asked for a new birth of freedom,
we ask now for your continued daily protection for our nation.

Please cover our lands from border to border with your hands
that none may enter who have designs to injure us.
that none may penetrate your covering with missles.
Please teach us the sound of your voice, and
a knowledge of the presence of your angels
that all of us, officially and unofficially
serving the nation in homeland or military defense
would know danger is near, and
when enemies are revealing themselves.

Father, make our President and his civil servants,
our legislators and their staffs
our judges and their clerks
our lobbiests, our media and
ourselves
sensitive to Your words, Your counsel, Your Will, Your Kingdom
that all that we do would encourage peace, freedom, and safety.

And grant us Your Wisdom.

Father, we ask too for your hand in international affairs
in ways only you can do and foresee,
to touch every situation and move it in ways
to bring this war to a just and peaceful end.

As a Christian I ask for this in the name of your Son, Jesus,

But for those of other faiths I leave that open.

A rational analysisof the election from ACT-America Coming Together

2004-12-11T12:50:00.000-08:00

TeacherJoeInLA

Its rather popular on Republican weblogs to post links to foolish liberal rantings about why Bush won and Kerry Lost. I received an excellent analysis today from ACT - America Coming Together, a Democratic organizing group.

I think it exposes SOME myths about the elections that would be good for Republicans to realize if it IS to become a majority. In other words its nice to laugh at them when "they don't get it" but I think this gets it.

The beginning includes a lot of legitimizing of their own work - it was written to volunteers in the organization.

The "meat" is in the second half of the report.

From the Washington Post - Sunday, December 5, 2004. Page B3
http:www.washingtonpost.com

Okay, We Lost Ohio. The Question Is, Why?
By Steve Rosenthal

When it came to getting out the Democratic vote in Ohio during the presidential election, we hit our target numbers. My organization, America Coming Together, along with our 32 America Votes partner organizations, the Democratic National Committee and the Kerry-Edwards campaign not only exceeded our turnout goals for the Buckeye State, but far exceeded anything the Democrats have done in the past.

And we still lost. President Bush won the election by fewer than 130,000 votes out of 5.6 million cast in Ohio, according to the state's latest figures. We added 554,000 votes to our totals, but the Republicans countered with 508,000, enough to keep the state in their column.

Since then my colleagues and I have gone back to answer a nagging question: Who were all those Bush voters? Though much has been made of the Republican grass-roots effort in Ohio and elsewhere, we did not see the sort of Republican organization that seems necessary to produce that many new votes. Where did they come from?

We've done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely held theories about what happened.

The first myth: Many more churchgoing voters flocked to the polls this year, driven by the Bush "moral values" and the gay marriage referendum.

Reality: The 2004 election brought no increase whatsoever in the portion of the voting electorate who attend church on a weekly basis or more often than that, according to exit polls. In Ohio, the share of the electorate represented by frequent churchgoers actually declined from 45 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2004. Nationwide, Bush improved his vote among weekly churchgoers by just one point over 2000, while increasing his support among those who don't go to church by four points.

So how could religious voters have been the basis of Bush's victory, at least in Ohio? Answer: They weren't.

Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas.

Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes -- an increase of 42,497 over Gore's 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) -- a bellwether lost by Gore -- Kerry won by 4,354.

Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried Bush to victory.

Reality: Among Ohio's rural and exurban voters, Bush beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered voters and by a mere two points among infrequent voters (those who did not vote in 2000).

Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior, volunteer-driven mobilization effort.

Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban areas who contacted them during this campaign, we learned that they were just as likely to hear from the Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side. (In contrast, regular voters reported more contact from the GOP.)

Then perhaps it was conservative religious groups or pro-life organizations or the National Rifle Association that reached these new Republican voters?

No, according to our post-election polling; only 20 percent of exurban and rural Ohio voters reported that they had been contacted by someone from their church, and only slightly higher percentages were contacted by conservative organizations. In contrast, these same voters in the least unionized regions of Ohio were more likely to have been contacted by a labor union.

Much has been made of the Republican effort to turn out voters through personal contact. Yet our poll shows that voters in these Republican counties were just as likely to be visited by a Kerry supporter at their homes as by a Bush supporter. Fewer than 2 percent were visited by a Bush supporter whom they knew personally.

Among the voters the Republicans targeted, the Democrats went toe-to-toe, knock-to-knock and phone call-to-phone call with them. And rest assured, in urban areas Republicans could not come close to matching the Democratic ground effort.

Still, Kerry lost in Ohio, if narrowly, and that tipped the Electoral College in Bush's favor. If this wasn't a flood of "moral values" voters or a GOP juggernaut, what was it?

The reason Kerry lost the election had much more to do with the war in Iraq and terrorism than the political ground war in Ohio. Terrorism trumped other issues at the polls -- including moral values -- and anxious voters tended to side with Bush.

o By 54 percent to 41 percent, voters decided that Americans are now safer from terrorist threats than four years ago, national exit polls said.

o By 55 percent to 42 percent, voters accepted Bush's view that Iraq is a part of the war on terrorism. By 51 percent to 45 percent, they still approved of the decision to go to war (though a majority expressed concerns about how the war is going).

o Just 40 percent said they trusted Kerry to do a good job handling the war on terrorism, compared with 58 percent who felt that way about the president.

The Bush campaign was able to persuade some voters who supported Gore in 2000 to turn to Bush in 2004 on the issues of terrorism, strength and leadership. Bush bested Kerry among those who voted in 2000 by five percentage points -- Bush bested Gore in 2000 by three points.

The other major factor was our side's failure to win the economic debate. Despite an economy that was not delivering for many working people in Ohio, the exit poll results show that voters in Ohio did not see Kerry providing a clear alternative. Just 45 percent expressed confidence that Kerry could handle the economy, compared with Bush's 49 percent.

The GOP put on a strong mobilization effort, but that's not what tipped the Ohio election. They did not turn Gore voters into Bush voters by offering a ride to the polls. Instead, it was skillful exploitation of public concern over terrorism by the Bush team -- coupled with Democrats' inability to draw clear, powerful contrasts on the economy and health care -- that pushed Bush over the finish line.

Presidential Election Prediction

2004-10-31T21:58:00.000-08:00

My prediction

I'm hating this.
According to Daly as of 9:14 pm Oct. 31 PST
Solid States for Bush = 222 electoral votes.
Solid staes for Kerry = 186 electorial votes.

BUSH leads in popular vote all evening
eventually wins the popular vote by 2.5%

He looks good winning NH +4 = 226

But KERRY squeezes out margins of victory of .4%-.1%
in PA + 21 votes = 207
in MI + 17 votes = 224
in WI + 10 votes = 234
in MN + 10 votes = 244

All the buzz is in Colorado over Prop 7(?) the one that could make CO's votes proportional.

Things go smoothly in Florida if only because "the whole world is watching." Fox makes an early call for Bush in FL and is right.
in FL +27 = 253

OK not all the buzz. OHIO is a mess. Poll watchers' challenges are backed up by international observers. A dozen Dem laywers (Alan Dershewicz wanna-bes) go before magistrates and lose as Democratic judges nominated by John Glenn in the '70's choose the word of the observers over the Clintonistas. It's 11 pm EST and there's little hope this will be clear soon.

Though late IA goes for Bush + 7 = 260
NV falls in line + 5 = 265
International Observers save NM + 5 = 270

Bush wins? wait! The Prop in Colorado makes a mysterious comeback a la Kennedy in Illinois AND PASSES. Colorado's 10 votes are split 6-4 for BUSH giving him 266.

ALL EYES ARE ON HAWAII.
Who suprises no one by going for Kerry +4 = 252.

Bush 266
Kerry 252

In the Ohio aftermath International Observers privately say that the registration process is below 3rd world standards. The mainstream media does not report this but instead we hear from Julian Bond, Revs Jackson and Sharpton who complain about republicans who systemically disenfanchised minorities though they offer no proof.

And we wait while they litigate Colorado and Ohio.

This is NOT what I want. Its what I'm predicting.
Remember: You read it here Sunday Oct 31 10pm PST

Response to a Kerry Voter - a.k.a. We ARE Better Off

2004-10-28T21:44:00.000-07:00

My friend emailed this response below to my blog:
Why I'm Voting For George Bush

I like my return arguments; I hope you find them useful.

The Friend's letter follows my response. In case youi need it.
I didn't ask for his permission to publish so I left off his name.

(Friend's name)
Thanks for the response, truly. I left your email to me below my
response in case you've forgotten what I'm referring to.

And please don't hear the ALL CAPS as scream. I have no underline or
bold so I have to CAP anything for any emphasis.

The Daily News editorial is too long for me to respond to in detail.
Let me try to deal with it in short ... though I know its too short. I
find their analysis of the events full of hindsight and short of
appreciation of making the decisions at the time. I agree with the
Federal deficit problems and bemoan the fact that the republicans gave
up worrying about the deficit soon after I joined them. One Huge
Specific. It was the Democratice party that kept erecting walls
between the FBI and CIA keeping vital information from the executive
branch. Years later the WTC paid the price and the Dems get away scott
free.

Your #2) - the explosives. I think you missed my point about the amount
of the explosives. Iwasn't saying hte amount missing was
misrepresented. I was saying that the amount missing is small when
compared to the amount found, destroyed and being destroyed. I'm
saying its like "covering all the bases A through Z" and someone
complaining that you missed the left half of the top of the letter 'T'

If these explosives are so terrible to have lost, now WHY WAS IT OK for
them and the hundreds of thousands of other weapons and explosives to
be in Sadaam's, Oday, and Qusay's hands before the war? Yes there was
NO CONNECTION BETWEEN Sadaam & the 9/11 attacks. But the 9/11 clear
states (though the mainstream media won't acknowledge) there were
connections, cooperation, between the former regime and Al Quada.

With regard to the securing of the explosives ... you seem to imply we
didn't secure them properly. They were NEVER under our guard. They
evidence continues to point to them being REMOVED BEFORE the invasion.

RE: Washington Times
The Washington Times has taken it upon itself to do the storys,
pro-Republican, anti-Dem that the Wash. Post won't do. To get the
whole news it require reading both. The Times alone or the Post alone
won't do it.

1) Perhaps the Natzi were not the perfect metaphor. What a terrorist
that's a nusiance? One bombing a ________? Thinking again it IS
perfect. You've made MY point. Natzi's are only a nusiance today
because we faced them head on and destroyed them. When Chamberlain and
Stalin tried to negotiate with them, contain them, they continued to
spread.

2)I tried to infer that I think we too should consider world opinion
... as it relates to our hope to be a "city on a hill." A test, to me,
implies restricting our what may be in our best interests (or simply
because it is right) in some cases because of world opinion. Kerry
seems to argue that we should not have gone into Iraq becuase the world
was against it. (I can't make straight what he thinks about Iraq.
He's been on every side of the issue). In the final analysis I'm not
so concerned about a test so much as would any situation ever meet
Kerry's test. His 1971 testimony, 1990 vote against the 1st Gulf War,
Dem primary position that he'd pull the troops out in 2?, 3? 4? years
(I forget the exact #), tells me he'd never do what was necessary. And
I firmly believe if he wins, we're out of there in 18-24 months in a
way that guarantees Sawqari and the insurgents over throw the new
government and massacre a few hundred thousand more Iraqi's. And Kerry
and the US media will ignore it like they ignored the millions
massacred in Vietnam and Cambodia after we pulled out of there.

I supported that pull-out. I quoted that Lt. Kerry and his Winter
Soldier hearings. I argued his argument and felt glee over "our" help
in getting us out of Vietnam faster. Now I'm ashamed of the results,
now that I know what the results truly were.
I won't let John Kerry fool me again. Being wrong cost millions of
Vietnamese and Cambodian lives. I'm doing all I can to keep him from
saving a few hundred American lives and getting thousand of Iraqi's
killed and tortured.

3) This IS GOOD. I think its naive to think that we would not have
been attacked again if we had just played defense. REMEMBER, the
Democrats ... kerry among them were saying we needed to stay out of
Afghanistan because "No outside force has EVER been vistorious in
Afghanistan." "It was Russa's Vietnam; we don't want to get into that
Quagmire."

Bush had the leadership to direct a war the Al Gore, nor John Kerry
would have fought. If their likes had been in office we would have
shot a thousand cruise missles into their empty training centers and
Osama would have hid in the caves until the thunder was over.

Listen (Friend). Really. WE ARE BETTER OFF. The training camps are no
only destroyed but a new governement, built by the Afghani's are in
control. (Bush should get a Nobel prize for this leadership alone ...
you're rolling your eyes, but I followed this closely. Under our
guidence they have the first reall chance at democracy in their
history.) Instead of having a friendly Taliban government protecting
him, Osama (if he's alive, and I have my doubts) is running and hiding
from cave to cave.

WE ARE BETTER OFF. Instead of having Sadaam rallying young radical
Muslims against us for prohibiting the lifting of sanctions, we have
ralllying young Muslilms against us for killing 3/4 of the leadership
of Al Aquda (I can never spell that!).

WE ARE BETTER OFF. Instead of that Al Quada leadership transforming
those radicals into soldiers of Allah, each leader working on a
different long range plan to bomb, the infidel (US), they are attracted
to Iraq where we are eliminating their danger to us. The radicalized
have no leaders, no Afghanistani trained leaders BECAUSE OF GEORGE
BUSH. More of the trained (Trained to kill you and me) are being
killed in Iraq.

WE ARE BETTER OFF. Because the war is taking place in Iraq not in Los
Angeles, Chicago, and Boca Raton.

WE ARE BETTER OFF. We will lose this war if we only count today's
dead. We must be Trumanesque. He saw that dropping the bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki for all their awfulness wouild cost fewer lives
and injuries given the losses on both sides in the B attle for Iwo
GIma.

Bush has prosecuted this war in good times and bad. Kerry has had
every position in the book. He says he will work to kill every
terroist. I don't believe him. He couldn't hold that position when
under attack from Howard Dean. He'll pull out like he did in Vietnam
and tell us we did the right thing. He'll be wrong again.

I won't.

(FRIEND'S LETTER TO ME)
Joe

I consider the Daily pretty conservative and was surprised by this
article last Sunday.

http://www.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,200~25405~2487608,00.html

I haven't heard any one disagree with the amount of explosives that
were taken. Pointing out how hard it would be to take them just
points out how badly they were secured and how long they were left unguarded.

I dug through about 12 articles in the washingtontimes and found 11
pro-bush/anti-Kerry and one that didn't mention the candidates
although it was anti communism (I'm ok with that by the way). This
new paper seemed pretty one-sided but I might have just missed the pro Kerry
articles.

I also read your blog comments and respectfully disagree with some of
your statements.

"1) Kerry's goal is to reduce terrorist threats until they are merely
a nuisance, but George Bush wants to defeat terrorism so that it will be
a thing of the past like Natzis."

Nazis are a nuisance in some places here and in Germany but nothing
like they were.

2) You said you understood the global test statement then said you
didn't want it required or giving up our sovereignty. Kerry never offered
our sovereignty but he does seem to indicate that we should at least
consider the rest of the world in our actions.

3) I thought the Iraq war was wrong from the start, period. Bushed
rushed to a war on his own and or children are dead and dieing. The
world is not safer and I don't think it is good that all these new (yes it appears
that more are joining the ranks) terrorist recruits (More children) are
going to Iraq to die (and this is good???).

4) Did you really mean this "I see it already in my middle school.
Only if we keep it hard to be homosexual will the truly homesexual
live homosexually." I don't want to push my beliefs on these kids.
I'll leave that up to their parents and TV.

As far as Kerry referring to Mary Chaney I watched the debates
and he responded to a specific question which was discussed
in earlier debates between Chaney and Edwards. Chaney thanked
Edwards for his kind words but was an outraged father for Kerry.
But only for a short time he soon said it was no big deal on a talk
show.

I guess you can tell I'm voting for Kerry.

Why I’m Voting for George W. Bush , and Why I Think You Should, Too.

2004-10-23T19:45:00.000-07:00

I’m voting for George Bush because

1) Kerry’s goal is to reduce terrorist threats until they are merely a nuisance, but George Bush wants to defeat terrorism so that it will be a thing of the past like Natzis.

2) I understand Kerry’s goal of needing a “Global Test” for going to war the way he means it not the way Republican’s understand it. But accepting that we cannot be a “City on a Hill” for the world unless they understand why we are going to war a) Kerry’s vote against the first Gulf War tells me his criteria for “passing the test” is either unrealistic or out of touch with America’s responsibility as the only remaining world power AND b) even giving Kerry all the benefit of the doubt on what he meant by a “global test” it still fundamentally says that the US should not act in its own national interest, without the approval of the company of nations, even if we are right and they are wrong. I’m NOT willing to give up our sovereignty. A global test may be desirable but requiring one is DANGEROUS.

3) Kerry thinks the Iraq War was the wrong war, at the wrong place, at the wrong time. I believe it was and is the right war, at the right place at the right time. I admit, Bush overstated stated our evidence on WMD. I admit, Bush and Cheney overstated the danger to America of a WMD attack on the US in the winter of 2003. I believe, they believed Iraq had WMD. But I have reread Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Address. When I take out of the speech, the “lie” about Iraq having bought weapons grade material from Niger I am still convinced we should have gone to war. I wish they alone had been used.

4) While I’m a shade of gray guy, this is what Kerry says about gay marriage “
"In an interview in the latest issue of The Advocate, Kerry left himself some wiggle room on gay marriage.

'I have my view, and my view is my view,' he said, when asked whether he would ever change his mind on the matter. 'I can't tell you in 20 years or whenever, if someone made a persuasive argument, the world changes . . . So I don't predict the future. What I tell you is that my position is what it is.'"

He sounds like he’s stoned. Please, the only way you can you understand that is if a) you have received a graduate degree or b) have ever been stoned. Both induce logic that suspends common sense!

Allowing gay marriage - by socially codifying homosexuality to be equal with hetrosexual marriage – we indirectly tell adolescents that if they feel more comfortable with someone of their gender, then they are homosexual. I see it already in my middle school. Only if we keep it hard to be homosexual will the truly homesexual live homosexually.

What rumors won’t we spread?

2004-10-23T18:59:00.000-07:00

I've just posted the comment below on: http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2004/10/23/monday-story/
There's talk on the blog about a story coming out Monday that will be detrimental to Kerry.
While I think at present we're doing no harm, I have to ask the question:

A question of ethics
These rumors make me uncomfortable.
To what degree are we, the blogosphere, being used in this instance?
When will we NOT spread a rumor?

The time to discuss the ethics of a situation is BEFORE it occurs,
in the unemotional purity of the hypothetical. This must be especially true of the center-right blogs.
Democrat/Liberals tend to define right and wrong in the after-the-fact.
Its why they can’t accept the fairness of the 2000 FL result.

Again, at the risk of being pulled for going off topic: What rumors won’t we spread?

R: Hewitts 3rd Symposium - How much will Kerry be hurt by exploiting Mary Cheney"

2004-10-15T13:21:00.000-07:00

First let me thank Hugh Hewitt for inspiring, and accellerating the creating of this blog. He is a godfather to many of us bloggers.

I'm a former liberal. I think that gives me some insight into this.

It IS conceivable that this was a calculated attempt at influencing the evangelical vote. Its within the Liberals' biggotted view of evangelicals to conclude that evangelicals would weaken their support for Bush/Chaney because Mary Cheney wasn't "with the program." That's such a callous thing to do it makes my blood boil. Here the strategy will backfire. It WILL energize some of the evangelical vote, but when one considers how well Bush is already doing in evangelical states (I'm a daily visitor to Daly's Electoral College Breakdown; you should be, too.) I don't predict it will result in mcuh of an electoral vote change.

The Liberals I know are in love with pointing out the hypocracies of OTHERS' positions. This, I believe, is the truer reason for inserting this attack on the Cheney's. Most of the Liberal's I know have no Faith or very little faith in the real God, the God of Abraham, Isacc and Jacob. Instead, to be hypocracy-free is ONE of their religions. They think it is hipocritical to be against same-sex marriage and homosexual rights if your child is homosexual. They don't understand God's standards, God's law, God's forgiveness, God's redemption, God's economy of Salvation. In other words they don't know Jesus "in a Biblical way." (pun intended)

So they think it is not only their right, but their DUTY to throw this in the face of the Cheneys and people like the Cheneys.

I'm not justifying their actions. Merely explaining what they're doing ... what I once did as an '70s-early '90's Liberal.

Why?

... because its a key to the lasting effect on the election. If you are a person of Faith you will be appalled. If you are a person with insufficient Faith you Kerry's comments will illustrate to you the mean hipocracy in the Bush and Cheney families.

So, I think the lasting effect on this election can be predicted if we look at the
regular church attendance data
on the undecideds
in the swing/tossup states.

Notice that the debates have provided gains for BOTH candidates. Bush and Bush-leaners hear Bush talk and feel stronger for Bush. Kerry and Kerry-leaners hear Kerry talk and feel stronger for Kerry.

I have no data on Undecideds- Weekly Church Attendance in Tossup States. But I think, I fear, that the Churchgoers have already made up their minds and are already declaring for Bush. I think the undecideds ... hearing the MSM's constant anti-Bush messages will continue to leak toward Kerry. I hope I'm wrong.

Two things:
1) We really need to change the notion that the war is going badly, and was badly planned, without an exit strategy. The truth is the war was so well planned that it was flexible enough to change plans for Day 1, succeeded so quickly in its land objectives that it a) left resistance pockets, and b) gave us the ADDED BENEFIT of attracting world-wide terrorists to be killed there, and leaves us safer without Sadaam, Ouday, and Qusay.

2) Will be forthcoming