Christopher Raymond's blog

One Last Thing...

Sun, 22 Oct 2006 15:41:01 -0500

One other thing in the closing of my blog, I want to make a few predictions about the mid-term elections (and the 2008 election too).

There is still time left in a lot of races, and a lot can change over night, but this is how I think it will go down this November.

Senate Competative Races

Democratic pick-ups

Pennsylvania: Casey

Rhode Island: Whitehouse

Republican pick-ups

Maryland: Steele

GOP Keepers

Missouri: Talent

Tennessee: Corker

Virginia: Allen

Montana: Burns

Nevada: Ensign

Arizona: Kyl

Ohio: DeWine

Democratic Keepers

Connecticut: Lieberman (Dem keep unless he becomes true Independent or Republican)

New Jersey: Menendez

The House of Representatives

I think there is surely a "throw the bums out" mentality right now that is fueled by Democratic anger over the Republican management of the government over the past 14 years (and especially since the election of George W. Bush in 2000). Therefore, Democrats will always rate Congress negatively though they will approve of their own Democratic representatives. Therefore, there isn't quite the anti-incumbency mentality out there that one would think.

Furthermore, I think a lot of Republicans are dissapointed that the Congress has not done its job. They have not secured the borders in a meaningul way, cut spending, cleaned out corruption, fix Social Security, and, in a non-partisan issue, made the Medicare druge program able to negotiate prices and therefore keep spending down. A lot of people are upset, but that doesn't mean they are becoming Democrats. Dems are excited about bringing back the goold ole' days when they were the ones abusing their power (and yes, sexually assaulting underage pages as was the case of Gerry Studds who had sex with a 17 year old page and then was re-elected six more times to Congress after being censured). Republicans are being honest that they want Congress to behave better and stick to the principles of the Contract with America, and the reasons why they threw out the Democratic bums in 1994.

But again, that doesn't mean they are going to vote Democratic. It means they might stay home, or it might mean that districts here and there will be lost. Tom DeLay's and Mark Foley's seats will be lost, probably, because a judge forced their names to remain on the ballot. This, despite the fact that Bob Torricelli was allowed to be replaced by Frank Lautenberg illegally by the New Jersey Supreme Court. But Republicans are accepting it.

Seats will be lost by the GOP, but how many? Some argue that it will be a blow-out, and up to 40 seats will be liquidated and handed over to the Democrats. Others argue that somewhere around 12-20, where 15 are needed to give the Democrats the advantage.

I think the Republicans will maintain a 2-4 seat majority in the House because people often say "Congress is corrupt, but not my Congressman". And sometimes, Congress is corrupt, and so is my Congressman, but my Congressman is in my party so I'm sticking with him. Such is the case with scandalized Harry Reid, who made over a million dollars in a seedy land deal, or Bob Menendez, who has been accused of conflicts of interest in renting out property to a tax-exempt organization at lower than market rates while trying to get that organization federal funding which basically gets paid to him via the rent (upwards of $300,000 has been paid to him). The point is that people ignore scandal many times if the politician has a D or an R next to their name, and in these two Democratic cases this is the case. People also re-elect their leaders, like Ray Nagin, even in light of grotesque incompetence.

The GOP will hold on for dear life, and that may not be a good thing for the party. Of course, many say it's better never to lose, while others say you have to take a step back before you can take 2 forward. The GOP needs to learn why people are mad. Some of it has to do with Iraq, but a lot has to do with the tiring partisanship that pervades Washington. The war, the scandals, the spending, topped off by in-fighting, makes people think a change is good even if it means electing Democrats with no plan except to bash the GOP's plan. But they will hold on and limp into the 2008 elections.

2008

The Democratic ticket will look like this:

Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama

Clinton-Obama is the Democratic dream ticket. They've salivated over Hillary bringing a Clinton Restoration since 2000, and they've been brandishing "rising star" "rock star" Barack Obama, the partisan who smothers everyone with how non-partisan he is despite the facts, for a long time. Obama, they'll think, will soften the opposition to the divisive Clinton, who will bring back Clinton glory days.

The Republican ticket will look like this:

McCain-Rice

McCain-Rice is a Republican dream ticket. McCain, Mr. Maverick, who liberals, independents and many Republicans love alike, would crush the Dems in a general election. He is perceived as being the anti-Bush, who libs seem to think is liberal, and has the ability to convince conservatives to come out for him. The guy is a brilliant politician, as the last three years have shown to say the least. With Condi Rice on the ticket, the GOP can appeal to the female and African-American vote, while also uniting the McCain-Bush factions. Bush commands the purse strings of the Republican donors and McCain will need them to fend off Frist, Gingrich, Romney, Giuliani, etc etc etc, and then the Democrats. Rice would then gain experience in campaigning, something she does not have, and been in line to run for President, if she would want to serve so long, after McCain.

In such a match-up, McCain-Rice would win with the GOP taking battleground states like Maryland, Ohio, Iowa, New Mexico, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. The popular vote would go 56%-44%.

So those are my predictions. I start my new job on Monday, and this should be the last posting.

Again, live long and prosper...

The (Basically) Last Posting

Mon, 16 Oct 2006 19:40:19 -0500

On this, the 805th, posting of my blog, I announce that I am (basically) putting an end to my articles. With my new job that I have just accepted, I simply won't have the time to be as up to date with my politics as usual, nor have the time to write these postings. I might update here and there on big events, but very rarely.

So a few thoughts as I close. I leave with this thought, shadowed by the wide partisan divide in this country, that everyone should, in their calm, non-angry moments, accept. That is: "America needs both conservatives and liberals."

Odd, one might think, for me to say. Yes, I am a conservative, a Republican, and still one of those who approves of the Bush administration. I'd vote and work for him again if he were allowed to run for a third term.

But the truth of the matter is that America needs both the Left and the Right, the Right and Left, Republican and Democrat, Liberal and Conservative. And we need both of those sides for very different purposes.

I'll start with the Libs. Without liberals, without the kind of social interests they represent, this country would indeed be a lot more cold-hearted. As much as I find their positions on abortion to be as cold-hearted as it gets, otherwise, liberals are the ones who really look out for the needs of the weakest, the poorest, the most elderly, the ones who don't have the money or connections to help themselves. They are the ones who give their time and attention to the more endangered in our society. Who else will be our social workers? Who else will help drug addicts? Who else will represent poor minorities (not that all minorities are poor, you know I mean minorities who happen to be poor) when they are accused of a crime and can't hire Johnny Cochran or some flashly lawyer like the rich can? We need liberals to give us a social conscience, to make sure that racist and sexist feelings don't lead to people hurting others.

Now conservatives. Without conservatives, who will, basically, spur growth in the economy? Who will wave the flag, volunteer for the overwhelmingly conservative-filled military and man the walls and shoot the guns that protect the liberals' rights in this country to bash Republicans and conservatives alike? Who else wants not to share the economic pie of this country, but to make it grow ever larger? Liberals want the rich to pay their fair share in taxes to redistribute to the poor. Conservatives want to make the pie so big that everyone gets a share without taking from others. With their tax cuts, Republican policies have led to 4.6% unemployment with strong economic growth all while we live under the threat of terror, war, and scandal.

There are dark liberals, and dark conservatives. There are liberals who act as conduits between imprisoned terrorists and their organizations (just look at today's news) out of some twisted sense of neutrality. Dark liberals, and there are many, operate out of a principled hatred of America. They think of this nation as a homophobic, racist and sexist brute country that wants to destroy the world, rob nations of their wealth, and be like the imperial Romans. If they had their way, we'd live in socialist Europe, with 75% tax rates, redirected wealth from those who have worked hard and earned their money, and give it to those who haven't. We'd have abortion on demand right up to the seconds before a child is born; we would not be patriotic, and we'd be atheist or agnostic. Dark liberals are the ones who would abolish the Department of Defense, dismantle our nuclear weapons, and throw up in French flare the white flag to our enemies. They are the ones who preach tolerance while being the most intolerant of others' views.

Dark conservatives are the ones who deserve the liberal ire. They are the ones who actually are racist, sexist and homophobic. They are the ones who would run this country like a French aristocracy where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, and they would say let them eat cake. They are the ones who believe that women belong in the kitchen, that minorities belong in low-paying jobs or in prison. Dark conservatives also are intolerant of others' views, they would punish those, like the Ayatollah's of Iran, who are not of their religion and ideology. They, as much as the dark liberals, do not deserve power in this country.

But then there are the good natured conservatives and liberals. The good conservatives are the ones who want tolerance of everyone including their own views; they are people who want a strong foreign policy to protect our country, and a rational tax policy that promotes growth yet prevents the creation of Paris Hiltons of the world, i.e. people who inherited wealth and have a sense that they have a right to a comfortable life while others are lower than them. Good conservatives want the government to track terrorists with whatever means possible, and of course not to be listening in on my grandmother's phone calls. They want the President to mean what he says and say what he means, and that his threats of serious consequences are meaningful and not empty threats. Sometimes, that means war for the greater good. Other times diplomacy. Good conservatives want a color-blind society, where, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., people are judged by their character and not by their color. We need those kind of people.

Good liberals are the ones who want to make sure the government is policed. That there aren't any Nixon-esque dirty tricks, abuse of power, and immoral wars. Good liberals are the ones who, with the greater good in mind, want wealth redistributed to those who are the most vulerable, the ones who want to make sure there are no more lynchings of minorities, that the poor have a voice and that the needy are helped. They want to make sure that women can choose what happens to their bodies (and many conservatives agree with this up to the point of abortion. The Catholic church frowns on contraceptives which is wrong. So when it comes to rape a woman should be able to choose, at least I believe, but when she engages in sex consensually she's "made that choice that she might become pregnant"). We need those kind of people.

In this bitterly divided nation, politics has become a sport. The team are Republican against Democrat. Democrat against Republican. The team colors are red for the GOP and blue for the Dems. Elections are score-cards, and every win by a candidate is a point in an endless game. The media, internet and talking-heads fuel allegiance to what could otherwise be the Yankees against the Red Sox. People cheer when their side wins and say "we'll get 'em next year" when they lose. And to an extent that is good. It is good that people take an interest in their government. But is their interest for the national interests, or really for their own sense of satisfaction that their team won?

I've found it downright amazing that when George W. Bush does somethinig liberal, like fund medicare prescription drug medication, or increase spending on education, liberals will mangle their own ideology simply to be anti-Bush. They will come out for things that, if Bill Clinton proposed, they'd be all for. Republicans do it too, and liberals point out the "wag the dog" claims during the Kosovo conflict. I don't deny it, but I sense liberals in the last 6 years have been far more guilty because they have been the opposition-minority party. But look at the many quotes from before Bush came to office by Democrats about Saddam Hussein, for example, and what a danger he was with his WMDs, and that he had to be taken out of power, yet when Bush actually did it, they are aghast (I am sounding a bit partisan there, but I am illustrating a point. Yes, Republicans will do that, but they did work with Clinton, and lost credit for, welfare reform, for example).

We all need to take a breath, stop the lying and twisting of history, and come together and ask what needs to be done to protect this country's security, economy and morality. Stop keeping score of members of Congress like a scorecard, and try and fix what is wrong. Why can't we stop the flow of illegal immigrants into this country and at the same time, in a human way, avoid a Holocaust-like scene of deportation as some conservatives want. Why can't we register illegals, throw out the ones who have commited crimes (aside from crossing the border), and let the ones who are good, hard working people stay and at the same time stem the tidal flow of newcomers? Why can't we reform social security to make it last in perpetuity without frightening seniors, but also making a more simple plan rather than giving everyone in this country tons of confusing investment choices they won't know how to manage? Why can't we defend our country from threats after diplomacy has been worn out and once it has been why can't we be united that war was the only option?

I doubt anything will change, it will only get worse. But I pray it can improve. We need conservatives and liberals, just as we need Mom and Dad in a healthy family. We just need Mom and Dad to stop fighting all the time. Because right now, our American house is a little dysfunctional.

Live long and prosper.

Quote of the Day

Thu, 5 Oct 2006 10:04:18 -0500

"I am a conservative Republican. I repeat: I am a conservative Republican"

--Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)

Comment - McCain is going to need to brandish his conservative credentials going into the 2008 election because so many Republicans and conservatives are concerned about him. I admit, sometimes I have questioned McCain's dedication to conservatism, when he does something that appears to be liberal, and yet, at the end of the day, his move has led to the conservative cause winning the day.

Two cases in point, one was his Gang of 14 of centrist Senators that allowed a few judges to be filibustered for the Circuit Court of Appeals. It was a tactical retreat, in the end, because after he took one step back, McCain and the GOP took 10 steps forward. Most of the judges were confirmed, and the Supreme Court vacancies were filled by John Roberts and Sam Alito without a whimper from the Democrats. Second case is the so-called "Torture Bill" where McCain, Graham and John Warner stole the Democrats' thunder against rough treatment of detainees, got the American people on their side, and got a bill through that allows us not to be wimpy interrogators. The GOP won.

So, McCain has a record that shows not only is he quite a brilliant Senate strategist, and he makes the independents and even liberals love him (though that's because they think he's a liberal), McCain is a solid conservative Republican and the best hope for us to hold onto the White House, and perhaps the Congress, in 2008.

What are You Waiting For?

Wed, 4 Oct 2006 11:28:45 -0500

Here the Republican Party kneels, its symbolic head on the block, the axe of the American electorate ready to be swung down hard by the masked Democratic executioner, as the House and Senate, the prizes of the neverending partisan war between the Red and Blue, stand ripe for the plucking. Those are a lot of analogies, but true all.

The GOP has been battered since 2004 by Katrina, the on-going Iraq conflict, media and Democratic bashing that simply never ends, scandals of GOP Congressmen, weak candidates for House and Senate races, increased Democratic fundraising, and a general malaise about the direction of the country. Now add a gay underage page scandal, and we know it's time.

The priest has come in, read our last rites, comforted us in our time of despair, as we await the carrying out of the sentence. Our time is limited as November draws ever closer. In our minds play out scenarios of an emboldened Left, empowered with committee chairmanships, where liberal programs will be pushed through complimented with investigations on everything from energy policy to Iraq. They'll try and find their Watergate, they might even rehash Valerie Plame (pointless as it may be), just for kicks.

It is a dark hour for Republicans. And I don't mean House and Senate Republicans, those elected officials who have failed to maintain the conservative majority. It is a dark hour for the rank-and-file, the grassroots supporters, who feel the GOP did little to nothing to curb spending, to halt illegal immigration, and to argue more forcefully the just nature of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts and to rally American support for the effort. On top of that, it is dark because of the scandals that have ravaged our faith in the GOP as the party of law, order, or morals and justice. Cunningham, Ney, DeLay, Abramoff, and now Foley, the list goes on.

And yet, as we wait here, in the shadow of the Democratic executioner, we wonder, what seems to be the hold up? Of course, the execution is scheduled for November, but the bringer of our demise seems confused, and can't seem to locate his axe. Still, in the polls, though this may indeed fade, slim majorities seem still possible in the House and Senate. The executioner's axe may miss our head and give pardon.

In Virginia, George Allen might avoid usurpation over his Maccaca gaffe. In New Jersey, Tom Kean Jr. might topple ethics-lacking Bob Menendez. In Missouri, Jim Talent might hold on against perennial loser Claire McCaskill. In Tennessee, Bob Corker should be able to win against Harold Ford Jr despite his weakness as a candidate and Ford's energy. In Ohio, Mike DeWine is only slightly behind leftist Sharrod Brown, and Rick Santorum is too good a politician to go gently into that good night against lackluster Bob Casey. The House seems more in danger, but the latest data I have seen indicates a 2-3 seat majority for the GOP despite the messes of late. Most of these races will be decided by the debates.

And so we wait more, as if the New York Mets, concerned that our ever-injured pitchers will be replaced by better, younger faces. Dennis Hastert is up against the ropes, as John Boehner seeks the Speaker's chair. I don't know if John Maine can replace El Duque in the playoffs successfully, and I don't know if the Republicans can replace their scandalized Congressmen with better people, but we can always hope. And the Democrats, who can never seem to get their act together, come up with a real plan for Americans that the people rally behind, will continue to look for that elusive axe as the GOP's head still lays ready for decapitation...we pray for deliverance nevertheless with a glimmer of hope in our foe's idiocy.

Thanks a lot, Pervert!

Mon, 2 Oct 2006 22:05:45 -0500

Just what the Republican party needs right now, a sex scandal. And not just any sex scandal. A gay sex scandal. And not just any gay Jim McGreevey (Democrat, if you don't know) sex-for-homeland security jobs kind of scandal, but a gay for under 18 year old scandal.

Yes, Representative Mark Foley has done what Iraq, terrorism, the economy, Medicare, Social Security, immigration, Bob Ney (R), Randy Duke Cunningham (R), and William Jefferson (D) and so many others could not. He has created a firestorm that could very well tilt many close elections to the Democrats.

Republicans were just beginning to get energized, too. They had renewed faith in their party with the President leading the charge, with our economy not too hot and not too cold but just right for sustainable growth and the Dow Jones hitting an all-time high; they were invigorated by the belief in our party that the GOP is the party that will protect and defend all the people of this nation from harm.

And then Foley did this most disgusting and despicable act. He wrote a series of pornographic and propositioning emails and instant messages to a young boy page (what exactly these pages are for, who they are, and why such a program exists I don't know). The Republican leaders then proceeded to bumble the response to this crisis, and now speculation is rampant about whether or not the House leadership knew of Foley's...activities.

I cannot say right now if they knew or didn't because Hastert and the GOP leaders didn't seem to come out assertively one way or the other, though the Speaker now says he didn't. And if I can't be sure of my party leaders, what do you think the American people will think? According to reports, the Washington Times is going to ask for Hastert (as if he molested someone) to step down.

Thanks a lot, you pervert Foley!! And most predictably, the Representative claims he is a victim of alcoholism (just as Mel Gibson and Patrick Kennedy are, I suppose), and is checking himself into a rehab clinic. It's the best way to divert attention from your sins, that is, to cast yourself as the victim.

Thanks a lot, I should say, because this dirtbag pervert is doing far more damage to the GOP's chances of holding onto the House and Senate than the Democratic distortions on Iraq, the economy, and government programs. This is doing more damage than Jack Abramoff, and his dirty dealings, more than Tom DeLay's actions and more than Conrad Burns' out-of-this-world wackjob racist, and insane, comments.

The Republican Party for many, like me, is symbolic of a few things. It is the grouping of like-minded people who believe, first and foremost, in a strong national defense. Second, we believe in an open-market economy where those who work the hardest and smartest are rewarded. Third, we believe in a government that protects us from enemies, provides a safety net (not easy money) to those who are less fortunate and need help to succeed, and one that is non-intrusive and doesn't spend a lot. The GOP, since coming to power in 1994, and then taking the Presidency in 2000, has done a lot of good. But it is not perfect, and unlike a partisan Democrat, I am not afraid to point out flaws.

Democrats and liberals never give an inch, never admit a mistake (exactly what they accuse President Bush of) when you debate them on their beliefs and party history. They will not admit that welfare states don't work; they will not admit that they are inherently against religion and a strong, bold defense of this nation. They won't admit it when you prove them wrong in debates with fact, and they certainly will not speak against a fellow Democrat and/or liberal.

That is why they defended Bill Clinton so rabidly. That is why William Jefferson isn't an issue, nor Jim McGreevey nor Bob Torricelli (bribery, gay scandal and Mafia-style dealings, respectively) . That is why they won't reproach Ted Kennedy, or Barney Frank, or Joe Biden (manslaughter, gay scandal and plagiarism, respectively), and they wouldn't believe any criticism of John Kerry's war record. That's why Hillary Clinton is clean as a whistle today and free to run for President though her personal dealings were dirty. It is why Sandy Berger wasn't in trouble for hiding classified documents in his underwear, or Jesse Jackson isn't disgraced (he is a Reverend, after all) for his personal sexual affair.

But they certainly jump on phony national guard documents about George W. Bush, or his decades old DUI. They'll lambast un-elected private citizen radio host Rush Limbaugh for his personal battle with pain killers he was prescribed. They'll go nuts about all sorts of GOP scandals, and some, like Foley's, deservedly so, without ever admitting Democratic sins.

But that's politics. And the Dems might just take this one to the bank and the GOP could be out of power. Right now, to me, Washington stinks to high Heaven, and though I still approve of the Bush administration's efforts, they aren't even up to par in my mind. It's pretty depressing.

The Clinton "Meltdown"

Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:53:11 -0500

When former President Bill Clinton "melted down" during his first interview ever on Fox News channel, being questioned by Chris Wallace, it was part of a calculated assault that was to be the spark of the War of 2006 Mid-Terms.

President Clinton had many motives to verbally abuse the shocked Chris Wallace in his interview. First and foremost, as obsessed with his legacy as he is, Clinton wants to bully and intimidate anyone who might ever question his record on terror for the eight years he held the highest executive office in the land. It's too embarrassing for the former President to discuss, so therefore he lies, and intimidates, anyone who would have the gall to question him.

Let's look at just a few of the successful terror attacks of the Clinton years: the 1993 WTC attack; the retreat from Somalia; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing; the 1997 open declaration of war by Osama bin Laden; the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania; the 2000 USS Cole attack. Yet, after each of these events, the Clinton administration treated terrorism as if it were merely a police action and could be solved with lobbing a few cruise missiles into the darkness of the Afghan night (after warning the Pakistanis about the "counter-attack" so they could warn the Taliban and al-Qaeda), and pretty much doing nothing to secure airports or bring al-Qaeda leaders to justice.

To this, Clinton responds that he "tried to kill bin Laden" even though he was offered bin Laden on a silver platter by the Sudanese government but refused because he didn't want to upset anyone. He also said the CIA and FBI wouldn't "certify" that bin Laden was responsible. (I suppose that's erring on the side of caution...to what end?) He argued that he gave a comprehensive strategy to battle terrorism to the incoming Bush administration, yet fails to explain what it was, and he failed to put such a strategy into action for the full eight years of his tenure. Why didn't he implement the comprehensive strategy while in office?

In order to counter Republican (justified) criticisms that Democrats are weak on national defense, he attacked Fox News (the only non-liberal media outlet in the MSM), which rang true to liberals (who feel ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, etc etc etc' leftist biases are the only way to go).

This was no melt down. This wasn't riteous indignation, or heartfelt anger because Clinton had truly done something constructive to protect this nation from terrorism. This was an attempt to discredit Fox News (the top rated cable news network), to intimidate conservatives from questioning liberals, and to light a fire under fellow Democrats to be more acerbic, more nasty, and more aggressive.

George W. Bush came into office in January of 2001, and had eight months to stop 9/11. Clinton had eight years, as Secretary of State Condi Rice argued after the interview. Did Bush fail to stop the attacks? Of course. But at least he has tried to avenge the attack, to protect our country, tighten security at airports, give the government more flexibility to fight terror, and bring the fight to the terrorists. Going Clinton's way (as Bush was more like before 9/11), brought us that attack. Being more strong on defense, as we have been since that terrible day, has put the terrorists on the defense.

And what does this all come down to? It's about the Mid-Term elections. Democrats feel that they are constantly robbed of power (after all, of course they should win elections, they believe, even though they lose them), and they want it back. The truth of the matter is that they oppose the Patriot Act, terrorist surveillance, bank data mining of terror suspects, and even if you seperate Iraq from the War on Terror, they still oppose the Afghanistan action (how, I wonder, could one possily oppose that...but they do). Liberals oppose more security at the borders, where terrorists could gain easy entry to this country. They oppose tough questioning methods for terrorists (we all oppose torture, but terrorist-detainee prison isn't Club Med). They oppose so many of the important tools needed to secure this nation.

How could they possibly win at the polls with positions like that? They'll intimidate. They'll say that we evil Republicans are liars...they'll force the media to avoid asking them tough questions. They'll say they really are tough on defense. But actions speak louder than words. If what Bush and the GOP is doing is wrong, then what is right? What better than the Patriot Act, and other policies?

Liberals, if they believe what they believe is true, then should be proud of their liberalism. They should simply admit that they think we should retreat from Iraq, erase the security measures put in place that have kept us safe for five years, and open the borders. Then we will see who the American people want to govern.

#800

Mon, 25 Sep 2006 13:34:03 -0500

For the 800th posting to this blog since its inception, I offer this. Apparently the image here is what I and my wife Amy would look like if we became South Park characters. Notice she's the angel with the halo and I have a cigar and a beer...

Bravo, Congressman

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 12:06:15 -0500

Bravo to Congressman Charlie Rangel (D-NY) who stood up to Venezualan Dictator Hugo Chavez after the madman's speech before the UN where he called President George W. Bush "the Devil". According to DrudgeReport.com, this is what he said:

"You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, but do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State"

Bravo, sir, I could not have said it better myself. Whether or not you voted for Bush, or agree with him, or even respect his leadership as an American citizen has the right to question, we should all unite behind our President in a time like this. For a man like Chavez, who is a tyrant and human rights violator, to come to our country and attack our commander-in-chief is a dire insult. It says something about our nation that someone can do that here and get away with it, that we are inded the land of the free. Try doing that to Chavez in Caracas and see what happens. Either way, Rangel is right. If someone came here and said such things about Clinton, Carter or even if Al Gore were President, I would say exactly what the Congressman said.

The New York Mets

Tue, 19 Sep 2006 12:57:08 -0500

Congratulations to the New York Mets! For the first time since 1988, they are the National League East Division champions ending the 14 year dominance by the Atlanta Braves!

Led by the surprisingly talented Jose Valentin last night (who had two homeruns in the win against the Florida Marlins), the Mets shut down their opponents with the strong pitching performance of veteran Steve Trachsel (the longest tenured Met right now) as the team exorcized the demons of the 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 seasons. 2005 proved to be the building year that led to this, the fantastic 2006 New York Mets (on the 20th anniversary of the 1986 World Series championship).

I predicted early in the season, as many did, that the Mets with their dynamic combo of young talent and good veterans would win the day. Of course, the real part of the season has only begun. There are still two weeks of the season, then the actual playoffs, but for Mets fans, right now, it is a moment of jubilation.

Still the Yankees are dominant in the American League East, and in New York in general, but now there are legimitately two great New York teams. The Mets don't have the illustrious history of the Yanks either, of course, but what has been put down is a foundation of a team that will have years of success barring disaster.

Even when players went down with injuries, like Cliff Floyd (who is now back) who was replaced by Endy Chavez who had a career year, Duaner Sanchez who was replaced by Aaron Heilman and Mota, Brian Bannister who was replaced by John Maine, and when Pedro was out even he was well replaced by a series of solid performances by, for example, Dave Williams, the Mets won games.

Yes, the NL is weaker this year than the AL. And whoever comes out of the ALCS is going to be a power-house. But the Mets can play with anyone. With Wright, Lo Duca, Reyes, Beltran, Delgado, Valentin, Green, and Floyd starting and with Chavez, Franco, Woodward, and the returning Castro on the bench, they have a lot of batting. With Pedro, Glavine, Trachsel, El Duque, and Maine, as well as Heilman, Mota, Wagner and Hernandez in relief, they have great pitching.

So congrats to the Mets. Enjoy the moment, and let's get ready to rumble in the playoffs!

What Exactly Does it Mean?

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:59:00 -0500

As the mid-term elections draw ever nearer, and amid evidence that the Republicans are resurging with a more inspired and united base, I wonder what exactly do the Democrats mean when, as part of their platform, they say they want a "redeployment" of US troops out of Iraq.

Can anyone explain what that means? Democrats have long lambasted the administration as not having a "plan" to "win the peace" in Iraq. They themselves have been labeled by the media as not having an alternative to the GOP "stay the course" mentality. In lieu of actually explaining how they would fight the War on Terror, the Dems have resorted to arguing for a "redeployment".

Let's get right to the point, shall we? Because Democrats have been labeled, rightfully so, as weak on defense (this was really begun during Vietnam, cemented by Jimmy Carter's weakness, and reinforced by Clinton's lack of fortitude and unwillingness to spend political capital to fight for this country), they cannot realistically proclaim as their platform what is really in their hearts. What is that? What won't they admit? They want to retreat from Iraq.

Democrats were weak in the build up to the war because they did not admit their true feelings about war in general. They do not approve the use of force unless, apparently, enemy troops are standing within our borders (and I even wonder then...). But in light of President Bush's popularity, and that Americans by far supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, they did not oppose it. They voted for it. The only way they could gain political points was to critisize the lack of WMDs, and the on-going violence spread by Jihadists.

However, as soon as the war became unpopular in the polls, they quickly argued they'd been duped by a President whom they had only seconds before called an idiot. They never really wanted to vote for the war (John Kerry I am looking at you), which is probably true, but went with what was more politically expedient.

And so here we are, in 2006, over three years since the beginning of the war, and Democrats still are too afraid to all-out call for retreat, though that's what they want. Very few Democrats are in general keeping with their votes, like Hillary and Joe Lieberman, and most are calling for "redeployment". A handful want immediate retreat.

So what does redeployment mean? I would ask that to, say, Barak Obama who calls for that. Would he, as a "rising rock star" Democrat whom the Left drools over every time they hear his beloved name, take the troops from Iraq and redeploy them to, say, Iran? Would he redeploy them to Syria? What is redeployment?

Redeployment is a thinly coded word for retreat. It's plain and simple. The Democrats want the troops to pack up their tents, put away their guns, get on planes and come home. Republicans want that too, even the most avid pro-war supporter, though the difference is that they want it done when the mission is accomplished. Democrats want us to retreat now, whether or not Iraq is pacified, and leave it to al-Qaeda and Baathist wolves to feast over.

As America defends liberty and democracy around the world, it is amazing to me that the Left in this country, and European leaders, are against this mission. We liberated millions in Europe and Asia from tyranny, and gave these liberal democracies what they have today, through our blood and good intentions. But in Iraq, they want us to allow dictators and tyrants to reign. Those in Europe advocate a nuclear Iran in return for short-term peace. Historically, when the US supported tyrants in order to get peace or cheap oil, we were critisized. When Afghanistan was left to the Taliban after the Soviet defeat, somehow it became our fault that that country was left in ruins and became a terror state. Yet now we want the peoples of the earth to have control over their lives and live in freedom...we are wrong for this?

But call retreat what you want, Democrats. Redeployment is akin to calling "liberalism" "progressive" politics. It's the same thing though it seems to sound nicer. Is there a better explanation?