Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Lack of Posting II

Well, Ed and I have been ultra busy lately. Ed got himself a nice little contract that he is working long hours on, and I am working my butt off here in Yankeeland. Side note, it is 72 currently, and the projected high for this weekend is 37. That. Ain't. Right.

Monday, November 27, 2006

"We Support Our Troops"

I have a great deal to say about this.

1. Charlie Rangel is senile fool who can fornicate himself with an iron stick.

2. I will be enlisting in the US Army in mid to late January. I like to think I have a choice for a decent career, and I have had several offers for such a career. I am joing the Army for personal reasons, one of which is that I believe this nation is worth fighting for, a feeling this moron apperently doesn't share.

3. I have known many men who have served in all branches, and very few of them are morons. I have met many more outside of the military than have been in it.

4. See response #1.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

Next Time Around

Well kiddies, we lost. Actually we got bent over and had very un-Biblical things done to us, but that is neither here nor there. Rather than cry about it, we can look at why we lost, adapt, and overcome. Here is what your old pal Johnny thinks we ought to do:

1. Cut the compassionate conservative crap. There, I said it. This whole thing has been idiotic from the get go. True conservatism IS compassionate, because it expects people to look out for one another, and not wait for the government to act. We are not helping people by letting the incompetents employed by the state look after them. The state screw up almost every thing they touch, so why entrust them with the care of the indigent and elderly. Take care of people you know, and extend a hand to those you don't. If we all work together as people, without letting the government do it, I believe we can better the world around us.

2. Re-embrace the ideals of Reagan. Small government, low taxes, strong military, aggressive foreign policy, laissez-faire economics. What's not to like?

3. Secure the border! Okay, so we are not in power and cannot do this, but we can agitate for it. If we do not secure our borders, there will be another 9/11, only worse.

4. Stay in Iraq until the job is done. Same situation and reasoning as above. Keep taking the war to the Islamo-fascist scum.

That is all I got for now, but rest assured, Johnny will be back.


Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Robert Gates: Testimony to Democratic Congress in 1992

President Bush intends to replace Donal Rumsfeld with former CIA director Robert Gates. Gates for the past four years has been president of Texas A&M University.

I found this after researching his name. Its testimony that he gave in March of 1992 to the Democratic Controlled Congress. It talks about the results of the end of the Cold War after the fall of Communist Russia.

Of particular interest he talks about the current status of the Communist states. He also talks about Post Gulf War Iraq (such as "what if Saddam went away"), Iran and the Arab States, North Korea's Nuclear Program . A very interesting read. Here it is:

During the last three and a half months some disquieting trends have been evident. Unrest is worse, for example, in parts of the former Soviet Union than when I last stood here before you. Conflict is deepening between Soviet successor states such as Armenia and Azerbaijan. While the CIS has helped cushion the collapse of the Soviet empire, it is facing increasing strains that it may not survive. It is not hard to find other disquieting news:
-- Ukraine has suspended the transfer of tactical nuclear weapons to Russia for dismantling.

-- Ratification and implementation of the CFE treaty appears increasingly complex and problematic.

-- Arms races are heating up in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, among other regions.

-- Despite significant -- and costly -- counternarcotics achievements, narcotics trafficking shows no sign of abating.

-- The disastrous explosion in Buenos Aires shows that international terrorism is still of grave concern.

On the other hand, I can point to some positive developments and trends, as well:

-- White citizens in South Africa voted strongly in favor of continuing political reforms. A cease-fire is in effect in El Salvador, and the prospects that the contending factions can work out their differences peacefully have improved. Democracy has begun to make progress even in Albania and Romania. The unrest in Yugoslavia has abated, if perhaps only temporarily.

-- Transforming centrally planned economies into market economies continues to be wrenching and destabilizing. But the worst predictions -- about massive starvation, hypothermia, and large scale civil unrest in Russia, for example -- have so far failed to materialize. And Yeltsin is still holding firmly to the course of economic reform.

THE MIDDLE EAST AND PERSIAN GULF If in the next few years it again becomes necessary to deploy U.S. combat power abroad, the strategically vital region encompassing the Middle East and Persian Gulf is at the top of the list of likely locales.

IRAQ: WEAKENED BUT STILL FORMIDABLE Operation Desert Storm greatly reduced Iraq's ability to conduct large-scale offensive military operations. The U.N. sanctions have impeded Saddam's efforts to reequip his forces. Preoccupied with defending the regime and putting down local insurgencies, the Iraqi military is currently capable of conducting only small-scale offensive operations with limited objectives.

Nevertheless, the size and equipment of Iraq's military forces remain formidable, especially in comparison with those of most of its neighbors. Let me give you some figures:

-- Iraq's ground forces number about two dozen divisions, though they are on the whole smaller and much less capable than the prewar divisions. The army still has more than 3,000 armored personnel carriers, 2,000 tanks, and 1,000 artillery pieces.

-- We believe Iraq also retains some mobile Scud missile launchers and as many as several hundred missiles.

-- The Iraqi air force probably still has about 300 combat aircraft, though many are not operational. Because the air force has been grounded for over a year, it would need at least a month of intensive training and maintenance to become even minimally combat-ready.

-- Although a large quantity of Iraqi nuclear-related equipment has been identified and destroyed, we suspect Iraq has managed to hide some equipment from the U.N. inspectors. And, of course, Iraq's nuclear scientists and engineers retain their expertise.

-- Baghdad surrendered thousands of chemical munitions, tons of chemical agents, and considerable production equipment, but we believe the regime still has more of everything -- more precursor chemicals, more bulk agent, more munitions, more production equipment.

-- The regime never admitted having a biological weapons program and never surrendered any toxins or weapons. But we know the Iraqis had such a program, and we are convinced they have been able to preserve some biological weapons and the means to make even more.

HOW LONG TO RECOVER? The restoration of Iraq's defense industries is one of Saddam's main postwar goals. Notwithstanding U.N.-imposed inspections and sanctions, Iraq claims to have partly repaired nearly 200 military-industrial buildings and to be in the process of repairing many others. We can confirm independently that significant reconstruction has been taking place at least two dozen military-industrial sites.

Limited production of artillery and ammunition has resumed at some weapon production facilities damaged during the Gulf war. Despite these efforts, total arms production will remain significantly below prewar levels as long as sanctions remain in force and inspections continue.

If the sanctions were removed, we estimate it would take Iraq at least three to five years to restore its prewar conventional military inventories. Long before then, Iraq's forces could be strong enough to threaten its neighbors.

More important, however, is how fast we think Iraq could restore its special weapons capabilities. We believe Baghdad has been able to preserve significant elements of each of its special weapons programs. Once it is free to begin rebuilding them, its scientists and engineers will be able to hit the ground running.

-- The nuclear weapon development program would need the most time to recover, because much of the infrastructure for the production of fissile material would need to be reconstructed. (This judgment would be reinforced if equipment at certain only recently identified nuclear research sites is destroyed, as U.N. inspection teams have demanded.) The time Iraq would need to rebuild its nuclear capability could be shortened dramatically if it could somehow procure fissile material from abroad.

-- Much of the chemical weapons production infrastructure would have to be rebuilt before the Iraqis could reestablish the prewar level of production. However, we believe they could quickly resume limited production of such weapons using covert stocks of precursor chemicals, undeclared chemical process equipment, and unfilled munitions.

-- Because it doesn't take much equipment to make biological warfare agents, we estimate the Iraqis could resume production within weeks. They have retained microbial fermentation equipment and pathogen cultures; we remain convinced they also have a stockpile of biological weapons.

-- Finally, we judge that the Iraqis could soon restore their capability to produce Scud-type missiles, though they might need some help from abroad.

WHAT IF SADDAM WENT AWAY? How might Iraq's internal politics and external behavior change if Saddam Hussein left the scene?

As Saddam's decades of repressive rule demonstrate, he will do whatever it takes to cling to power. No succession mechanism is in place, nor are there any obvious candidates to replace Saddam -- Iraq is one of those countries where being the number-two man is unnerving, not to say life-threatening.

Consequently, we judge that if Saddam left the scene, it would be because of a coup or other violent act. How likely this is to happen, I cannot say, though we have evidence that Saddam's power base is shrinking and that dissatisfaction with his leadership is growing even among his core supporters -- chiefly, among Iraq's Sunni Muslims.

A likely successor to Saddam would be someone from the current, Sunni-Arab-dominated ruling circle -- someone who shares Saddam's perspectives, especially his belief in the political efficacy of ruthless violence. Such a successor might think pretty much like Saddam. Even so, whoever Saddam's successor is, he would lack a broad power base and could face immediate and serious challenges from other contenders. A successor regime might be a little less hardnosed, both toward Iraqi Shiites and Kurds and toward Iraq's external adversaries. While it would continue efforts to restore Iraq's military capability, it might shift some resources from military to civilian reconstruction. The new regime could anticipate a quick end to the U.N. sanctions as well as recognition and support from the international community. In the short run, then, Iraq might present a lower threat to its neighbors. Still, any successor to Saddam is likely to share his regional aspirations, and over the longer term we could expect Iraq to try to regain its position as the dominant Arab military power.

If a successor regime begins to have trouble maintaining Iraq's unity or territorial integrity, its immediate neighbors, particularly Iran, Turkey, and Syria, will be strongly tempted to intervene. They all fear that an unstable Iraq would threaten their own national interests and might lead to an undesirable shift in the regional balance of power. None wishes to see Iraq break apart into independent Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni states.

IRAN'S REARMAMENT PROGRAM While Iraq struggles to recover from the Gulf war, Iran is determined to regain its former stature as the preeminent power in the Persian Gulf. Tehran's reformulated national security policy has three main goals:

-- Guarantee the survival of the regime. -- Project power throughout the region. -- Offset U.S. influence in the Middle East. To achieve these goals, Iran has undertaken diplomatic measures to end its international isolation, is purchasing weapons from a variety of foreign suppliers, and is developing a capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. During the period 1990-94, Iran plans to spend $2,000 million in hard currency each year on foreign weapons.

-- Already, Tehran has purchased significant numbers of advanced warplanes and antiaircraft missiles from Russia and China. It has bought some extended-range Scud missiles from North Korea and is building a factory to manufacture its own.

-- As part of its upgrade of naval forces Iran has also contracted to buy at least two Kilo-class attack submarines from Russia.

-- Even after Operation Desert Storm, Iraq still has three times as many armored vehicles as Iran. To reduce that gap, Tehran is attempting to purchase hundreds of tanks from Russian and East European suppliers.

-- We judge that Tehran is seeking to acquire a nuclear weapon capability. Barring significant technical input from abroad, however, we believe the Iranians are not likely to achieve that goal before the year 2000.

-- Although extensive and improving, Iran's chemical weapon program remains relatively crude. Nevertheless, we expect Iran to develop chemical warheads for its Scud missiles within a few years.

-- We also suspect that Iran is working toward a biological warfare capability.

IRAN AND THE ARAB STATES Tehran is rebuilding its military strength not only to redress the military imbalance with Iraq but also to increase its ability to influence and intimidate its Gulf neighbors -- though in the near term Tehran's desire to reduce U.S. involvement in the region will probably lead it to court the Gulf states rather than bully them.

Tehran is also trying to improve its relations with Arab states outside the Gulf, stressing Muslim solidarity and Islamic principles. In countries with Islamic opposition movements, Iran hopes to increase its influence among local fundamentalists without damaging its relations with these governments. For example, in Algeria, Tehran wants to maintain ties with the new regime but continue its political and financial support for the Front for Islamic Salvation, which the Algerian government is in the process of banning. Trying to have it both ways has been difficult: Algiers recalled its ambassador in Tehran recently to protest Iran's continued support for the Front.

Iran's growing support of radical Palestinian groups may bring it closer to some Arab states, such as Libya. This support reflects Tehran's antipathy toward Israel, which it regards as both a U.S. ally and a strategic threat. We expect Iran to continue to strongly oppose the peace process and probably to promote terrorism and other active measures aimed at undermining progress toward Israeli-Palestinian reconciliation.

Tehran's main surrogate in the Arab world will continue to be the radical Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, which is the leading suspect in the recent bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Argentina. To ensure that its links to Hezbollah are preserved, Tehran will be careful to stay on the good side of the Syrian government, which controls access to the territory occupied by Hezbollah.

IRAN AND THE NEW ISLAMIC REPUBLICS Tehran considers developments in the region to its north to be vital to its national interests. It wants both to fill the void caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and to prevent the United States and regional rivals, such as Turkey, from gaining dominant influence there. Tehran's diplomatic efforts to improve its own influence in the new Islamic states of the region have included sponsoring them for membership in various regional and international organizations.

In addition, Tehran is trying to forge cultural and religious ties to the new republics. It remains to be seen how successful Tehran will be, given that these peoples are mostly Turkic, not Persian, and mostly Sunni Muslims, not Shiites.

We see no evidence of Iranian efforts to subvert the secular governments of the new states or to alienate them from Russia and the other non-Muslim members of the CIS. For now, at least, Iran seems to want to preserve amicable relations with Russia, which has become a major source of its arms. Furthermore, Iran must be cautious about instigating instability along its northern border, lest nationalist sentiment be aroused among its own Azeri and Turkmen minorities. Indeed, with regard to the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, Tehran has tried to exert a moderating influence on the Azerbaijani government.

THE KOREAN PENINSULA Since initialing agreements on Nonaggression/Reconciliation and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula last December, North and South Korea have engaged in a series of negotiations and discussions, some at a very high level, to implement the accords. These discussions have achieved some concrete results, particularly the formation on 19 March of a Joint Nuclear Control Commission with a mandate to set up bilateral inspections of nuclear facilities.

For the most part, however, the two sides have so far produced a framework for but not the substance of reconciliation. They remain far apart on critical issues, such as frequency, thoroughness and basic ground-rules for nuclear inspections. They also have major differences about the people-to-people exchanges and military confidence-building measures called for in the reconciliation agreement.

THE THREAT FROM THE NORTH The North maintains enormous ground forces just north of the Demilitarized Zone. They are in formations optimized for a sudden, massive strike southward toward Seoul. In recent years, these forces have increased their mobility and flexibility, improving their capability to threaten prepared defenses. They considerably outnumber the opposing Southern forces in both men and weapons. Notwithstanding the recently signed Korean nonaggression pact, until these forces go away, the threat they present is real and serious.

It is not a question of fearing an attack from the South. The South Korean forces are deployed to defend Seoul. They present no countervailing threat to North Korea -- and Pyongyang knows it.

I don't want to exaggerate this threat. North Korea's armed forces suffer from many deficiencies. Their training and, consequently, combat readiness are questionable. They have weaknesses in air defense and logistics. They could not count on much if any support from erstwhile allies.

Furthermore, as Operation Desert Storm demonstrated, U.S. airpower is highly effective against massed ground forces. The prospect that South Korea would receive extensive combat air support as well as other support from U.S. forces is a potent deterrent, even to forces as strong as those North Korea has concentrated along the border.

NORTH KOREA'S NUCLEAR WEAPON PROGRAM Pyongyang has been building an infrastructure that, without input from abroad, will be able to produce weapons-grade fissile material from scratch. It has domestic uranium mines. At Yongbyon it has constructed two nuclear reactors whose sole purpose appears to be to make up plutonium. One of these reactors has been operating for four years; the second, much larger reactor, may start up this year. Nearly completed is another facility at Yongbyon that will be able to reprocess reactor fuel to recover the plutonium.

Last December, North and South Korea negotiated an agreement-in-principle for a nuclear-free peninsula. Each side has committed itself not to "test, manufacture, produce, receive, possess, store, deploy or use" nuclear weapons. Both sides also agreed not to have nuclear reprocessing or uranium enrichment facilities. There are grounds for questioning the North's intentions, given that it has not yet even admitted the existence of, much less declared, the plutonium production reactors and reprocessing facility at the Yongbyon nuclear research center.

Moreover, verification procedures remain to be worked out -- agreement was reached only this month that a joint committee should be formed to do that. The validity of the North-South nuclear accord depends on the inspection regime Pyongyang ultimately accepts.

We believe Pyongyang is close, perhaps very close, to having a nuclear weapon capability. Where North Korea is concerned, moreover, we have to worry not only about the consequences for stability in Northeast Asia if it acquires nuclear weapons, but also about the possibility that Pyongyang might put nuclear materials and related technologies on the international market. In the past, the North Koreans have been willing to sell anything that could earn hard currency.

TRENDS UNFAVORABLE TO THE NORTH The straitened economic circumstances in the North, coupled with uncertainties associated with the looming dynastic changes of leadership in Pyongyang have led the North Koreans to modify their confrontational strategy toward the South, as well as toward the United States, Japan and the United Nations. Tensions between North and South have decreased somewhat, though the actual military threat to the South has not changed significantly.

We expect that many of the North's military advantages over the South will erode throughout this decade, largely because of decreasing support from the North's traditional allies, coupled with its continuing economic problems.

Nevertheless, in the near term we could be entering a more dangerous period: -- North Korean strategists could recommend an attack on the South while the North retains its substantial edge in numbers of men and weapons.

-- Difficulties in maintaining and modernizing Pyongyang's conventional forces could reinforce the North's determination to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. - Original Article from

Election 2006: Election Day +1

Ok, I got a few hours of sleep after last night, and then I woke up and saw that it was down to two races (Virginia and Montana).

Virginia is extremely close (less than 1% between Allen and Webb). They will be doing a recount according to state law. Right now Allen is behind, let's hope that the recount puts him ahead (it has happened before).

Montana is still out because they haven't counted all the votes yet. Apparently there was some storm that has cut off alot of districts from the counting location. The good news on that is that the Republican only needs 1700 votes to win and the areas that haven't been counted yet I beleive are rural (withch traditionaly favor Republicans).

The good news over all for the Senate (yes there is some) is that the Democrats absolutely must win both of those seats to take control.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

Election 2006: 10:45 PM CST Update

Final post for the night.

Keep an eye on three key elections:
Allen v. Webb
Steele v. Cardin
Talent v. McCaskill

All three of these are going to wind up in recounts and possible litigation. But to win majority in the Senate, the Democrats must win all three of these.

In my opinion, Talent is going to pull it off, and either Allen or Steele will win their races.

So on that note, goodnight and goodluck!

Election 2006: 10:20 PM CST Update

Ok, here's what we've got now.

The Democrats have taken the house. Unsure what they're margin will be though. Let's hope it'll be low.

The Senate is still not budging from the three seat margin in favor of the Republicans. I just looked at Real Clear Politics and the Dem's must win three of the following:
Missouri (Talent)
Montana (Burns)
Tennessee (Open, leans Republican)
Virginia (Allen)
Washington (Byrd (D))

I do not see the Dems winning three of those. Possibly two, but not three.

Election 2006: 10:10 PM CST Update

Dems are two seats away from winning House acording to FoxNews.

Still nothing new on the following Senate Races
Allen v. Webb
Talent v. McCascil
Steele v. Cardin

Looking at them right now they are leaning towards the Republicans, but there are still too many votes remaining for anyone to call them.

Election 2006: 9:50 PM CST Update

We've got two clenchers now:

Virginia (95.13 reporting) 12,000 difference with Allen ahead. I'm betting on a recount.

Misouri (sorry for bad spelling, 1105 of 3746 reporting) 10 percentage point difference.

We're still stitting with the below tally on house and senate
3 For Dems to gain Senate
6 For Dems to gain House

Anybody else getting a tense feeling in their shoulders?

Election 2006: 9:35 PM CST Update

VA SEN [97.20% IN]
R- ALLEN 1,070,640 49.79%
D- WEBB 1,053,602 49.00%

HOLY S*$@!!!!

Election 2006: 9:30 PM CST Update

Well, I took a short time off and things just started going nuts. Here's what we've got right now:

Allen v. Webb - 91% reporting - Allen ahead by 20,000 votes (less than 1%)
Talent v. McCaskill - ~20% reporting - Talent ahead by 10 percentage points
Santorum - Out
DeWine - Out
Chafee - Out

Lamont looses to Lieberman
Corker beating Ford

3 seats needed by Democrats for Senate
7 seats needed by Democrats for House


Election 2006: 7: PM CST Update

Dem's pick up Rick Santorum's seat. This was expected.

Allen is continuing to hold a margin over Webb (+/- 2%).

Election 2006: 7:30 PM CST Update

Allen is pulling ahead of Webb fast with less than 50% reporting.

2 Democratic Governor pickups.

Election 2006: 7:20 PM CST Update

Allan and Webb are still very much neck and neck with little more than a third reporting.

One independent seat in the House has changed hands to Democrat, and one Republican seat has changed hands to Democrat.

That's a net loss of 1 Republican seat.

Election 2006: 7:05 PM CST Update

US House CD-8 - Democratic Gain according to Fox News now.

14 House seat margin for Republicans.

Election 2006: 7:00 PM CST Update

Quick update here.

Allen and Webb have been going back and forth. Right now they've got 15% of the presincts reporting, with Allen ahead by only a few percentage points.

It's gonna be a long night. Sit back in a comfortable chair with a good cold, adult beverage, and enjoy the show.

Election 2006: 6:40 PM CST Update

Virginia - Allen (R) v. Webb (D)

Allen has a thin hair margin over Webb.

Election 2006: Dems Sweep House and Senate!!!

Been seeing this float around today.

Election 2006: 6:20 PM CST Update

First set of returns are now in:

1 Republican Incumbant
1 Democrat Incumbant

In short, no gains or losses.

Election 2006: 4:50 PM CST Update

Just saw on FoxNews' Studio B that a rulling has come back from the situation in Colorado. The Democrats had been trying to get the judge to order the polls remain open for an extra 2 hours in Denver (a Democratic stronghold). The judge ruled that the polls will close on time.

Election 2006: 4:30 PM CST Update

Nothing really new to report yet, other than I just cast my ballot. And I decided to take a risk and vote on an electronic machine. Everything seemed to go ok. The touchscreen took alot pressure to get it to check my selections. But I got everything I wanted on the ballot, so we'll see what happens.

The polls on the East coast should start closing within the next couple of hours as I understand it. From there we will start seeing the early indicators of how this election will go. Keep an eye on the Virginia and Rhode Island senate races. If there is a Republican victory in both of those then the Republicans keep the majority. If the GOP looses one of those then watch for the Tennessee Senate race which is close but leaning towards the Republican candidate in the most recent polls.

Election 2006: 3:00 PM CST Update

Violence At The Polls

Bomb Threat in Madison, Wisconsin
Assault on a Voter and Attacking an Electronic Voting Machine inKentucky

South Carolina Governor Forgets ID, Turned Away

Democratic sites are reporting phone lines for voter rights protection issues being flooded with calls. Supposedly Laura Ingraham told her listeners today to call in fake calls to the Democratic Voter Protection hotline. ROFL.


Election 2006: 12:30 PM CST Update

More problems at the polls

Kentucky Poll Worker Chokes Voter
Wrong Ballots in Central Voter
Tennessee Dem's in Court to Keep Polls Open Longer

GOP Say Beware of Exit Polls

It's getting almost comedic out there folks.

Election 2006: 10:30 AM CST Update

The moonbat bloggers (DailyKos, Democratic Underground) are setting up something to blame if they don't take the majority in either the House or the Senate. It's the "robo calling". Essentially a robo call is an automated message sent over the phone.

Theire claim is that the Republicans are making these calls illegally. Their charging the following:
1. The calls do not properly identify themselves as a political campaign "early enough" in the call.
2. The Caller ID display that is shown on the phones that receive the call are "not according to caller id requirements".

DailyKos and Democratic Underground are blanketing their pages with these allegations in areas all across the country. The Democractic Party has sent a Cease and Desist order to the Republicans.

There's one problem though. The Democrats are doing robo calling as well (as a report on NBC Nightly News said last night that I watched).

This is going to get very hairy over the next 24 hours as these allegations are developed more and more by the Democrats.


Election 2006: 9:30 AM CST Update

Voting machine trouble.
Indiana and Ohio
Delaware County, Indiana

Allegations of Election Fixing in Salt Lake City, Utah
Hundreds of Election Monitors from the US Justice Department

Election 2006: 8:30 AM CST Update

Ok folks, here's my first update. This isn't going to have too much since there are basically no results in terms of exit polls or anything yet.

What I am going to talk about here are the races to watch early on. The "essentials".

Senate (6 Seats for Democratic Majority)
Virginia - Allen (R) v. Webb (D)
Rhode Island - Chafee (R) v. Menendez (D)
Tennessee - Corker (R) v. Ford (D)

What's In Store

Hey everybody! The big day is here! VOTE! VOTE! VOTE!

I'll be trying to do hourly updates at the bottom of every hour all day long. Everything from exit poll reports, to reports of what's going on around the country. So keep any eye out here as we watch this mess develop.

And no matter what you hear, from this site or any other news source, go out and vote. In 2004 misinformation was spread early on (accidentally or intentionally), but don't let it run you away from the polls. Go and vote no matter what you hear!

Monday, November 06, 2006

My Final Thoughts on Election 2006

I want to offer my thoughts on election 2006, you decide 2006, MSM decides 2006, or whatever you want to call it. I've been watching elections very closely since 1992 when Bill Clinton was elected into office, and I've studied elections from before then as well. And no matter what the results of this election, the coverage and the tension associated with it is absolutely unprecidented for a midterm election. I would even dare to say that this election matches the 2004 election in absolute political stupidity.

Every breath of every candidate is covered. District level elections are being treated as Senatorial or even Presidential elections. Every other day Tim Russert comes on with his scowl to read the latest set of polls and give his opinion on how this affects things.

So no matter what happens with this election it will be historic. The Democrats have such high hopes that they will win a majority in both houses. But what will happen if they don't get either house? Will our country be tied up in law suits from now to the next election? Will the Democracts have a moment absent of political ambition and say "for the good of the country, we conceed"? Or will they sue for recounts until they get a number they're happy with?

I would agree with one thing that my friends on the otherside of the blogosphere have said. And that is that this is among the most important elections in our nation's history. And because that is the case everyone that can vote needs to get out there and vote. If you want your ideas to win the day, or don't want other people's ideas to win the day get to the polls and vote! I am a Conservative, but when it gets right down to it I want everyone to vote (within the bounds of the law of course). So I don't care if you're a Republican, a Democrat, Green Party, Independant, or non-denominational. Get out and vote!!!

Election 2006

Cox and Forkum propose a new ballot design...

Death by Hanging

Unless you live in a hole, you have likely heard that Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death. May God have mercy on his soul, for I doubt anyone else will. On a totally unrelated note, sorry for the lack of pasting in the last month. I moved to Ohio for a few months, and things are still a bit crazy, so please bear with me. Ed and I will have more bloggy goodness this month, I promise.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Prediction: Kerry Losses Dem's Fight For Them

After watching the whole Kerry Debacle for the last 24 hours, I'm going to make a prediction. I think Kerry may have just put a huge hole in the side of the Democratic Party's hopes for taking over either house. Does that mean, Republicans can sit back and do nothing? Of course not, they've still got an uphill fight on their hands to maintain control. But Kerry did just make it a bit easier for the Republicans to pull it off.

Here's why I think this:

  • It is generally agreed in the DNC that Kerry's anti-war platform did not work on the national level. It may work in individual primaries (Lieberman/Lamont), but it doesn't work when you're trying to win the votes of non-Liberals (aka: the moderates of our country).
  • As a result, the DNC has been trying make the moderates forget what it was they voted against in 2004. But Kerry (who isn't even running this year) just stood up and yelled at the top of his lungs "WE ARE THE ANTI-WAR, ANTI-MILITARY PARTY!!!" reminding the moderates (and the conservative base) of what they voted to keep out of the White House in 2004.
  • As a result of that you have the liberal base of Democratic Party (primarily found around places like DailyKos) cheering him on for not only make comments that insult anyone in uniform (past or present) but for refusing to apologize to anyone including the troops that he may have insulted. And remember, these are the folks who say that soldiers are guilty till proven innocent, child molesters, and war criminals. (ht: to Jawa Report for those links).
Many in the Democratic leadership realized this early on, and candidates have started canceling appearances with Kerry as a response (Iowa, Minnesota, and Philadelphia so far).

And you have this quote from an unnamed Democratic congressman in an ABC News Report:
"I guess Kerry wasn't content blowing 2004, now he wants to blow 2006, too." - ABC News Report
Happy Halloween Dems! Frankenstein just played one hell of a trick on you guys.