Friday, March 31, 2006
My question is simple: What does Che have to do with changing immigration laws in the US? (http://www.babalublog.com/archives/003144.html)
Sorry. These demonstrations will fail to generate sympathy from the US public. In fact, these demonstrations will create even more backlash against illegal immigration.
Again, I support a work visa program. I think that we must have a way to accommodate the people who are already here. I think that most of them are decent and hard working people. Yet, the leaders need to have their heads examined.
For the next march, Piolo should have his followers make these placards:
1) Thank you for letting us live here and get free public services!
2) Thank you for the wonderful public schools! (It costs $10,000 in California to educate a public school pupil every year!)
3) Thank you for the opportunity that our own country denies us!
4) We love the US. We are actually glad that you stole California from Mexico. Otherwise, we would be living in third world California, a state of Mexico, rather than "gringo" California, the 4th largest economy in the world.
This is a start. Otherwise, the backlash against illegals will get worse. Frankly, most of us non-Mexican legal immigrants were deeply offended by the demonstrators.
For more, check out "Whose Backlash?" By Victor Davis Hanson (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/whose_backlash.html)
Thursday, March 30, 2006
Reagan nearly died. He was clearly affected by the shooting, physically and emotionally.
Lyn Nofziger died a few days ago. It was Nofziger who reassured a stunned nation that the President was OK and recovering.
Looking back, we remember some great Reagan lines:
"Honey, I forgot to duck'' (The President's words to the First Lady)
''Please tell me you're Republicans.'' (The President greets the surgeons)
Reagan survived and went on to have two very successful terms.
At the same time, I love the US as my adopted country. It opened the door to our family many years ago. It gave us a great opportunity. The US is a wonderful and generous country.
The immigration debate is complicated. However, there is no room for idiots mocking the US flag. Take a look at these photos and check out these students: (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004869.htm)
My message to these idiots: Go back to Mexico. We don't need you.
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
Someone needs to answer a simple question: Who let the students out? What bright school board member let thousands of high school kids out?(http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/local/14205503.htm)
Another question: what does the Mexican flag have to do with any of this? Beyond the flag, I was offended by placards or statements that the US had stolen Texas from Mexico.
Frankly, if you believe that the US stole Texas from Mexico then you should not live here. Go back to Mexico!
As an immigrant, I was offended by some of these demonstrators. They are not representative of legal immigrants, the people who followed the rules and are very proud to live in their adopted country.
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Today, Ed links an article on the Venezuelan situation:
Within 24 hours, we have lost two of Reagan's greatest allies:
Lyn Nofziger, campaign adviser and friend (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060328/pl_nm/nofziger_dc), and
Sec. Caspar Weinberger, one of the finest public servants in recent memory. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,189335,00.html)
Nofziger goes back to California. Weinberger was the loyal and able Secretary of Defense during the tumultuous Reagan years.
Great men, great public servants!
According to my Mexican friends, Lopez-Obrador will be the next president of Mexico. They tell me that he has great public support. Frankly, I don't know. I think that it is very hard to analyze Mexican public opinion.
Yet, my question is this: Does Lopez-Obrador want to be President of Mexico? Does he want to become the most unpopular person in Mexico?
Let me give you a preview of a Lopez-Obrador's presidency.
If elected in July, Mexico will have a summer of huge capital flight. It will remind every one of August '82 or November '94.
By the fall, the peso will be devalued as Mexicans panic and take their money out of the country.
L-O will respond by saying that he is not as bad as his populism indicates. He will assure investors that his "populist words" were just campaign rhetoric intended to get votes rather than a reflection of how he will govern.
Foreign investors won't buy it. Dollars will flow out of rather than into Mexico!
Mexicans won't buy it either. There will be more and more people trying to cross the US-Mexico border.
With a devalued peso and zero confidence from foreign investors, L-O won't have a lot of options to deal with Mexico's problems, such as PEMEX, the inefficient agricultural sector and high youth unemployment.
So my advice to L-O is this. Don't win.
Let PAN govern Mexico.
I'm not suggesting that PAN has all of the answers. No one does.
At least, PAN is a serious player who understands the challenges facing Mexico.
Monday, March 27, 2006
To date, no Democrat has called for the cancellation of NSA wiretapping.
To date, no Democrat has presented any evidence that Pres. Bush was actually wiretapping American citizens, such as Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Pres. Kennedy wiretapping Martin Luther King in 1963.
What's going on?
The Democrat Party has an angry left wing monster walking around its headquarters. The bad news is that the monster needs to be fed with 'anti-Bushisms". The good news is that the monster raises a lot of money from Hollywood and moveon.org.
Once in a while, the party needs to throw a big bone at the monster. That's what this censure is all about.
The good news for Republicans is that the Democrats always overreach with their hatred of Bush. "Hate Bush" is the Democrats' poison pill!
As I wrote before, bring on the censure discussions.
Let' see how many Democrats are really ready to censure a President who ordered the wiretapping of conversations from suspected terrorists.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
Charlie Cook is a weekly columnist for National Journal magazine and the founder and publisher of the Cook Political Report. Today, he published an analysis of the upcoming election "The GOP's Many 'Micro' Advantages" (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/the_gops_many_micro_advantages.html )
Cook looked at the US Senate. At the moment, the US Senate is 55-44-1. In fact, it is 55-45 because the "1" is a liberal and he would vote for a Democrat majority leader. The bottom line is that the Democrats need a net gain of six to make it 51-49.
Can they do it? In theory, or generic polling, the answer is yes. In state by state polls, it is almost impossible. There are 5 vulnerable Republicans and the Democrats must keep Minnesota, Washington, Maryland and Vermont.
My guess is that socialist Bernie Sanders will win Vermont. However, the other three are not a given.
The bottom line is that the Democrats have to go 9-0 by defeating 5 Republicans and keeping the aforementioned 4 seats. In other words, there is no margin of error at all.
Over in the House, the Democrats need a net gain of 15. Unfortunately, there are not many competitive House elections. The 2000 census changed many districts. Gerrymandering has helped the Republicans in Texas and the Democrats in California.
Can the Republican levees hold? My guess is that they will. In fact, I predict no change in leadership this November.
P.S. Straight line projections usually do not hold in US politics. Bush looks vulnerable in March '06. He also did in March '04. By November, Bush may look great, specially if documents keep showing that Saddam and Osama had a working relationship.
There are three great articles about Saddam's documents.
The first one is historical and recalls the chemical attacks on the Kurds: "History speaks" by Mindy Belz (http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11671)
Saddam had chemical weapons. Who killed 12,000 Kurds? Why did they call his assistant Chemical Ali?
Stephen F. Hayes writes for The Weekly Standard. His latest article is "Camp Saddam" (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp)
Who trained at Camp Saddam?":
"Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria."
It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills.
Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war.
As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."
I hope that Tim Russert will ask Rep. Murtha about this!
David Koppel points this out in his article:
"Slated for future release are 700 documents that are discussed in the next issue of Foreign Affairs. The documents state that Uday Hussein ordered "special operations, assassinations, and bombings" against London and other targets.
Moreover, the Iraqi regime, at the time of the March 2003 coalition invasion, had made advanced preparations for "Blessed July" terrorism attacks against the West."
It will take weeks to go over these documents. There are many more coming. Yet, it's getting a lot of harder to make the case that Saddam didn't have ties to terrorism.
Of course, most people suspected these ties all along. Pres. Clinton said so in '98. Have we forgotten Senator Kerry's words from January '03:
"If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
Saturday, March 25, 2006
March Madness is so special. Can anything be more exciting? Maybe game 7 of the World Series.
Thursday night, Texas beat West Virginia. It was a good game and a great finish. The Longhorns are now in the elite 8.
Texas has a wonderful opportunity. They won the baseball and football titles. Can they bring another title to Austin?
It will be tough but we can dream!
Friday, March 24, 2006
To my knowledge, no one ever said that Saddam was directly involved with the 9-11 attack. However, it is now becoming clear that Saddam and Osama shared more than a residence in the Middle East.
According to released documents, Saddam & Osama had contacts and exchanged a few notes.
Check out "Saddam, Al Qaeda Did Collaborate, Documents Show" by Eli Lake (http://www.nysun.com/article/29746):
"In an interview yesterday, the current president of the New School University, Bob Kerrey, was careful to say that new documents translated last night by ABC News did not prove Saddam Hussein played a role in any way in plotting the attacks of September 11, 2001. Nonetheless, the former senator from Nebraska said that the new document shows that "Saddam was a significant enemy of the United States." Mr. Kerrey said he believed America's understanding of the deposed tyrant's relationship with Al Qaeda would become much deeper as more captured Iraqi documents and audiotapes are disclosed."
For years, most people understood that Saddam had used chemical weapons twice (Iran and the Kurds within Iraq) and had threatened to use them against Israel. During the Gulf War, Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel.
How can you lie about someone who has used WMDs twice? Did Saddam have WMDs? Ask any Israeli.
Between 1991-2003. Saddam had played "cat and mouse" with UN weapons inspectors. First, he denied them information. Then he lied to them (and said so on the audiotapes recently released). Then he threw them out in '98, in a total and complete defiance of the UN Security Council. Of course, we learned later that the some members of the UN Security Council were carrying Saddam's water for oil contracts.
Unfortunately, some anti-Bushies are so invested in the "Saddam had no WMDs or relationship with Al Qaeda" story that they will avoid this whole issue or split hairs over the audiotapes and documents.
Yet, the truth is slowly coming out about WMDs and the Osama-Saddam relationship.
The question is "Who is lying now"? Perhaps, a better question is "Who is living in denial now"?
Sen. Clinton was interrupted by antiwar protesters in New York. (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--senclinton-protes0323mar23,0,4648642.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork)
At the same time, Justin Raimondom the editorial director of Antiwar.com, wrote a critical article about Sen. Clinton's Iraq war position. It is "Hillary the Hawk: The Democrats’ Athena only differs from Bush on the details". (http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_03_27/cover.html)
Check out this comment from Mr. Raimondom:
"Hillary would have occupied Iraq a decade earlier, riding into Baghdad at the head of her troops like Pallas Athena descending on the Trojans, striding boldly into what Gen. William E. Odom has described as “the greatest strategic disaster in our history.” Hillary hails the 1998 bombing of Iraq, ordered by her husband, which killed thousands of Iraqi civilians, and recounts the official mythology promulgated by the Bush administration:
“[T]he so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.”
My guess is that Hillary Clinton is delighted to read this.
Sen. Clinton wants to distance herself from the antiwar left. She wants them to show up at her speeches and make a lot of noise.
Hillary Clinton was active in the McGovern campaign. She knows that the US will not elect an antiwar candidate. She knows that the Democrats have lost 7 of the last 10 presidential elections because of the national security deficit.
Hillary wants to win in 2008. This is why she supports the Iraq War. In the meantime, she will happily take lots of criticism from the antiwar left!
Thursday, March 23, 2006
According to press reports, Al Gore is not running for president in 2008. (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/20/politics/p174309S87.DTL)
Frankly, Al Gore has looked at reality and decided to punt. Gore cannot win.
Gore and Nixon are compared often. They lost two of the most controversial elections in US history. In 1960, Kennedy beat Nixon. In 2000, Bush beat Gore.
Most of us remember the controversy about chads in Florida.
Few of us remember 1960. John Fund's "A Minority President--George W. Bush lost the popular vote. So did JFK." was written a few days before the 40th anniversary of JFK's assassination (http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110004320). It is a good place to start regarding the 1960 election problems.
Nixon reacted differently than Gore and that is why he was elected in '68.
He accepted the 1960 results and moved on. Nixon did not put the country through partisan recounts in Texas and Illinois. Yet, Nixon had credible evidence that the Democrats had played fast and loose with ballots in Cook County and South Texas.
To his credit, he did not spend the next three years delegitimizing the Kennedy presidency by accusing the new president of everything under the sun. Nixon understood that the nation needed a legitimate president. He put the nation over his ego. No one was more appreciative of that than Pres. Kennedy himself!
On the other hand. Gore has spent the last five years as a bitter man. He has moved to the left and made some outrageous remarks, such as the most recent speech in the Middle East.
Gore lost in 2000 because he could not win his home state of Tennessee. Bush could have "stolen" all of Florida's 7 million votes and still lost the 2000 election. The election was decided in Tennessee not Florida.
Today, Gore can't even win the party's nomination. No one sees him as a serious candidate or one who can compete nationwide. He is closer to the moveon.org idiots than the mainstream of his own party.
So it's over for Gore. He will never be elected President and that's good for the US!
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Yet, the President needs to do this more press conferences.
I thought that Helen Thomas made a fool of herself yesterday. It is absolutely insane to suggest that Pres. Bush was determined to invade Iraq from day 1.
Well done Pres. Bush.
Pres. Bush reasserted his doctrine of preemption. In simple terms, Bush is saying that we will attack first if we believe that is necessary to protect our homeland. In simpler terms, we will kill them before they blow up one of our cities.
I love this comment from IBD:
"It's ironic that the National Security Strategy update was released just nine days after the 70th anniversary of Adolf Hitler's sending the Wehrmacht to reoccupy the Rhineland in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Then, as now, the world was confronted with a megalomaniac on a messianic mission, determined to build his arsenal and impose his apocalyptic vision on the world. Then it was Hitler, and now it is Iran's Ahmedinejad seeking the final destruction of the Jews." (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060320)
Like Winston Churchill in the 1930s, Pres. Bush understands the threat that we face. It is real. Therefore, I congratulate Pres. Bush for making it clear that we won't sit by and get hit again.
The good news is that Bush gets it. The bad news is that so many of our allies don't.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The table is set. On one side, Pres. Bush has a hand that includes these cards: Saddam had connections to Al Qaeda and Iraq had WMDs. His critics have one card: Bush lied or exaggerated everything.
What hand would you rather have? Pres. Bush is the luckiest guy in the planet. Many Democrats have put themselves in a corner with very little wiggle room.
Christopher Hitchens wrote today:
"It seems amazing to me that so many people have adopted the "Saddam Hussein? No problem!" view before the documents captured from his regime have even been translated, let alone analyzed. I am sure that when this task has been completed, history will make fools of those who believed that he was no threat, had no terror connections, was "in his box," and so forth." (http://www.slate.com/id/2138332/)
Incredibly, most of Pres. Bush's Iraq critics invested their reputation on the idea that Saddam Hussein was telling the truth. The 2000 election traumatized liberals to such an extent that they threw overboard what Pres. Clinton and VP Gore warned us about Iraq. Simply put, the Democrats lost their common sense five years ago because VP Gore could not carry his home state of Tennessee! Since 2000, some Democrats have been willing to believe anything bad about Bush or every silly theory about his motives to invade Iraq.
We are now learning some rather interesting things about Saddam Hussein. Hitchens goes into further detail:
"The first are the findings published in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs, and the second is the steady work of Stephen Hayes, over at the Weekly Standard, aimed at getting some of the captured documents declassified. The long report in the May-June Foreign Affairs gives us a view of the regime that confirms the essential contours of Kanan Makiya's Republic of Fear."
Read the full Hitchens article.
Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney, the co-author with Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely on their book Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror. He is a retired Air Force Fighter Pilot who has been a Fox News Military Analyst for the last four and a half years and continues to appear regularly on Fox. He just returned from his second visit to Iraq in December, 2005.
Read "Saddam’s Tapes, WMDs and the Osama Connection" By Jamie Glazov from FrontPageMagazine.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=21711). Check this out:
"But the most telling to me was the conversation between Tariq Aziz his foreign minister and Saddam in which they discussed having proxies implant nuclear and biological weapons in US cities. They concluded that Iraq would be blamed for an explosion but not biological as they could use deception and blame US facility ( Ft Dietrick) which makes me conclude that Iraq was responsible for the anthrax attack in US less than 30 days after 9/11."
McInerney believes that Saddam's WMDs were moved to Syria prior to the invasion.
As I said before, what hand would you rather have? The President or his critics?
I would rather have a hand based on information from Hitchens and McInerney than one based on Saddam telling the truth.
Of course, too many will read Hitchens or Lt. Gen. Mc Inerney and assume that they are just spokesmen for the right wing.
However, Hitchens is not a right winger. Hitchens is a liberal, who happens to think that the Iraq invasion was the right thing to do!
Lt. Gen. McInerney is a career military man with no political goals or agenda.
Let me say it again. Which hand would rather have for tonight's card game?
Let me close with these words from Patrick Chisholm:
"One hopes there are not as many people with this mentality as the number of believers in "Bush lied!" suggests. Perhaps some of them, such as Democratic leaders in Congress, are jumping onto the "Bush lied!" bandwagon only in order to score political points. If that is the case, they had better jump off, or else risk being seen as crackpot conspiracists." (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0316/p25s01-cogn.html)
Crackpot conspiracists.? Fools? Or just plain angry that VP Gore could not win Tennessee! No matter what, this whole issue of Iraq, WMDs and Al Qaeda is going to get very interesting.
I like the President's hand and so will Republicans in November.
Monday, March 20, 2006
"U.S. college graduates are facing the best job market since 2001, with business, computer, engineering, education and health care grads in highest demand, a report by an employment consulting firm showed on Monday.
"We are approaching full employment and some employers are already dreaming up perks to attract the best talent," said John Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas." (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-03-20T163503Z_01_N20258421_RTRUKOC_0_US-ECONOMY-JOBS.xml&rpc=22)
Like every previous war, Iraq is complicated. However, we need to ask one simple question:
What if Pres. Bush had not invaded Iraq?
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote last May:
"One problem is that we always know what did happen as a result of war, but we never know what didn't happen. What if we had not gone to war in Europe in 1917, Korea in 1950, or even Vietnam in the 1960s?"(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/17/AR2005061701217_pf.html)
What would have happened if Pres. Bush had not invaded Iraq? Let me offer some ideas:
1. Sen. Kerry would have run for President in 2004 saying that the Bush administration had left a madman in power with WMDs. Kerry, and many other Democrats, would have quoted Clinton-era statements about Iraq and the threat it represented to the US.
Sen. Hillary Clinton would have warned us that "(I)f left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed.". (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/terencejeffrey/2005/11/16/175729.html)
Never underestimate Kerry and the Democrats! The Democrats would have turned the 2004 into a referendum on which party was willing to bring down despots with WMDs.
We saw this from the Democrats in the First Gulf War. They voted against the war and then they criticized the first Bush for leaving Saddam in power! (The Democrats jumped on the "get Saddam" bandwagon when Bush's approval ratings hit 91%.)
Again, never underestimate the Democrats. They would have found a way to attack Bush for not invading Iraq.
2. Saddam Hussein would have succeeded in mocking the UN and the Security Council. How many more times can you warn someone that this is your last warning? Is 12 years enough warning?
3. Iraq would have continued shooting at US and UK planes enforcing UN resolutions. How many times do you allow someone to fire missiles at your aircraft without interpreting it as an act of war?
4. What about the cost of doing nothing? Containment wasn't cheap. We did not choose between peace and war with Saddam Hussein. We were in fact at war with Iraq but we did not call it that.
Check out the AEI study: "War in Iraq versus Containment" By Steven J. Davis, Kevin M. Murphy and Robert H. Topel (You can find the full study online at: (http://www.aei.org/publication23916)
Michael Barone analyzed this study as follows:
"• Continuation of the pre-March 2003 conditions would have cost, in dollar terms, between about half and about two thirds of the cost of military operations in Iraq.
• Iraqis would have been much worse off economically had the United States stayed out of Iraq.
• More Iraqis would have been killed under a continuation of the Saddam Hussein regime than have died since March 2003.
As the writers acknowledge, there's room for argument here: There always is in counterfactuals. But the point is that a continuation of the 1991–2003 "containment" policy had high costs both for Americans and for Iraqis.
These should not be ignored when we consider the wisdom of going to war." (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneblog/archives/060317/counterfactual.htm#more)
5. What about Israel? Saddam was not a friend of Israel. What would the Middle East look like with Iraq and Iran threatening Israel?
To be fair, Iraq is complicated. It's not easy to live with the fact that 2300 families have lost a son over there.
Yet, Bush's critics need to answer one simple question: What if Bush had not invaded Iraq?
So far, I have not heard anyone explain to me what they would have done.
Our inability to act against terrorism in the 1990s proved fatal on 9-11. As Clifford May wrote:
"It's easy to say that if we had left Saddam alone, nothing bad would have happened. But how is that different from what was said for years about Osama bin Laden? We knew his intentions. We didn't take pre-emptive action. Don't you wish we had? If Americans have learned anything, it should be this: When people say they intend to kill you, take them seriously."(http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-16-opposing-pre-emptive_x.htm)
Iraq is complicated but it is possible to succeed. As Senator McCain wrote today:
"If we should withdraw from Iraq and simply wash our hands of the situation there, we risk creating a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, a situation that would enable terrorists to train and plan attacks against the United States with impunity. We saw just such a situation develop in Afghanistan after international disengagement from that country, and it resulted in 9/11. We must not make that mistake again." (http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/0319mccain0319.html)
Put me down as someone who believes that taking out Saddam was the right thing to do. Also, Iraq will succeed despite all of the partisan doom and gloom.
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The MLB season is around the corner. Opening Sunday night is literally two weeks away as the Chisox open up against Cleveland. Most teams open the next day.
Looking ahead, everyone is talking about Bonds passing Ruth or reaching Aaron. He needs 6 and 47, respectively. He should pass Ruth by Mother's Day in mid-May! I'm not sure that he can hit 47 and tie Aaron.
Of course, I am not sure that Bonds is even going to play in 2006! Frankly, I hope that he does not play and spare us all the controversy of breaking the most cherished of all sports' records.
Beyond Bonds, and the steroids controversy, there are some interesting goals ahead for Craig Biggio of the Houston Astros. (http://houston.astros.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/team/player.jsp?player_id=110987)
Craig Biggio needs 205 hits to reach 3,000. He won't do it but should set himself up for passing the mark in early '07.
Biggio is a first class act. He deserves everything that comes his way. Hopefully, the 3,000 hits will put him in the Hall of Fame.
Biggio also needs 103 runs scored to reach 1800 and move into the top 15 between Ted Williams and Carl Yaztremski. I think that he has a good chance of scoring 103 runs if he can get 500 at bats.
Biggio needs 36 doubles to tie Honus Wager at 640. This is also possible if he stays healthy.
Last year, Biggio and Bagwell, long time teammates, got a chance to play in their first World Series. It did not work out well for Houston but I was happy to see them in the Series.
Bagwell is at 449 home runs and 1,529 RBIs. Unfortunately, Bagwell has too many injuries and may not get enough bats to increase his numbers. I hope that I'm wrong.
Let's cheer for Biggio & Bagwell, two great guys on and off the field!
"There's just about more policemen here than people," said the Democratic candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District 40, nodding to the squadron of eight motorcycle officers parked alongside 400 South.
"I guess the longer the war goes on, the more people accept it." (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_3618103)
My guess is that everyone stayed home to watch the Road to the Final Four!
There were huge demonstrations in Paris over jobs and Mexico City over water. So everyone forgot to attend the anti-Iraq war demonstrations:
"Thousands of people held antiwar demonstrations Saturday in global protests that marked the third anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq by demanding that coalition troops pull out. But the demonstrations attracted less people than organizers had hoped. In London, police said about 15,000 people joined a march from Parliament and Big Ben to a rally in Trafalgar Square, fewer than the 100,000 organizers had expected to attend." (http://apnews.excite.com/article/20060318/D8GE5OR04.html)
So much for that. Maybe the organizers forgot to promise free pizza and beer!
Check out Power Line and a wonderful picture from the demonstrations! (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013460.php)
Michelle Malkin has some good pictures, too! (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004794.htm)
Christopher Hitchens wrote a wonderful article about the antiwar movement and the real people behind it. They do not hate war or violence. They hate capitalism and the United States. Check out Hitchens from last year. His point is still true today:
"To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing.
But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another.
It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side.
Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not.
Or a single placard saying, "Yes to Kurdish self-determination" or "We support Afghan women's struggle"?
Don't make me laugh.
And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so, under a hail of fire from those who blow up mosques and U.N. buildings, behead aid workers and journalists, proclaim fatwahs against the wrong kind of Muslim, and utter hysterical diatribes against Jews and Hindus." (http://www.slate.com/?id=2126913&nav=tap2/)
I saw a video of some of the anti-Iraq War demonstrations. There were no signs calling for Zarqawi to stop blowing up innocent people. But there was a sign saying that the lesbians of the world love Che Guevarra and stand united against Bush's war!
The lesbians are against Bush and no one condemns Zarqawi's daily murders of innocent Iraqi men, women and children.
How can anyone take these idiots seriously?
Maybe we should have these idiots live under Zarqawi for one year. Maybe they will appreciate the freedoms that they currently have and the economic system that provides them the prosperity to march on Saturdays.
P.S. Speaking of Hitchens, check out "Stop the taunting, and let's have a real debate about the Iraq war" (http://www.slate.com/id/2130883/).
Read "Terrorist attacks aren't caused by any policy except that of the bombers themselves". (http://www.slate.com/id/2127343/).
According to Reuters:
"France braced for mass protests on Saturday against a new employment law as unions said more than 1 million people would march to increase pressure on the government to repeal the measure." (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyid=2006-03-17T230956Z_01_L17342207_RTRUKOC_0_US-FRANCE.xml&rpc=22)
France is entering a period of economic reality. The party is over. The days of long vacations, job guarantees and the 35-hour work week are over. Socialism did not work in France either!
As Professor Thomas Sewell wrote this week:
"Like some other European Union countries, France has laws making it hard to fire anybody. The political left has long believed that such laws are a way of reducing unemployment.
"The right to a job is obviously not the same thing as a job. Otherwise there would not be a 23 percent unemployment rate among young French workers."
French politicians have been postponing the inevitable. They are now faced with angry young people who can't find work because no one is creating jobs in the sick French economy.
I found this article rather interesting:
"Anti-market rhetoric from French elites is partly to blame for the violent protests against reform that are wracking the country, Polish central bank Governor Leszek Balcerowicz said on Saturday.
"I think in France, most of the elite engage in anti-market propaganda for their short-term political purposes," he said at the 61st International Atlantic Economic Conference in Berlin.
"If you bombard the public with this message, which is derived from Marxism...then we should not be surprised" when there is public resistance to change, he added." (http://news.scotsman.com/latest_international.cfm?id=431542006&format=print)
French, as well as European elites, have indeed promoted a socialist theme. They've raised a generation of young people on the idea that they have rights and entitlements rather than duties and responsibilities.
France, Germany and Italy must deregulate labor laws to tackle their economic problems. Otherwise, more young people will be marching in the streets.
Saturday, March 18, 2006
I saw a couple of good articles this weekend.
First, Stephen Hayes continues his review of the Saddam documents: "Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection And other revelations from the Iraqi regime files." (http://weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=11990&R=EB9E1B9D6)
Hayes has been on the WMD story from day one. He is a senior writer at The Weekly Standard. Hayes makes an outstanding point:
"And if the contents of the recently released materials and other documents obtained by The Weekly Standard are any indication, the discussion of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq is about to get more interesting."
Hayes reviews in exquisite detail the relationship between Saddam and terror in the Philippines. Specifically, we are talking about support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s.
Why would Saddam Hussein be involved with this group? I thought that Saddam had nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden!
He also found this note from one of Saddam's sons:
"The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]. Preparations for "Blessed July," a regime-directed wave of "martyrdom" operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion."
Uday is dead and Saddam is in jail. We may never know what "Blessed July" operations were under preparations.
A year ago, I wrote that too many people jumped on the "Saddam was not a threat" and "Bush lied about WMDs" bandwagon. They did so because they were angry with Pres. Bush. In reality, they were angry with VP Gore for failing to carry Tennessee in the 2000 election. Since that election, many Democrats checked their common sense at the door and reversed themselves on Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
In 2000, there was a bipartisan agreement about Saddam and Iraq. VP Gore and Gov. Bush ran centrist campaigns in 2000. They had their differences but Iraq was not one of them.
After the invasion, and specifically after Gov Dean built up a 20 point lead in New Hampshire, many Democrats conveniently began to change their positions to appeal to the party's left wing.
Time will prove that Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin and John Kerry were right about Saddam Hussein and the threat that Iraq represented. More specifically, Hillary Clinton has intelligently kept her distance from the "Bush lied" crowd. Kerry and Gore have invested themselves totally and will regret this in 2008.
The second article is about Hussein's last few months. It is "Saddam's Delusions: The View from the Inside" By Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray From Foreign Affairs, May/June 2006 (http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501faessay85301/kevin-woods-james-lacey-williamson-murray/saddam-s-delusions-the-view-from-the-inside.html)
This article confirms how Saddam was convinced that France and Russia would help him at the UN:
"What was the source of Saddam's confidence? Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam's strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam's confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals:
"France and Russia each secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi. In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq. Moreover, they wanted to prove their importance in the world as members of the Security Council -- that they could use their veto to show they still had power."
How do you say bribes in French? I don't know but it rhymes with Saddam.
The rest of the article details Saddam's relationships with his military officers. In the end, Saddam was a madman with dangerous delusions.
In conclusion, I like IBD's editorial:
"Among the enduring myths of those who oppose the war is that Saddam, though murderous when it came to his own people, had no weapons of mass destruction and no terrorist designs outside his own country. Both claims now lie in tatters." (http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&issue=20060316)
Rush Limbaugh spoke for many of us on Friday:
"The extremism that the far left continues to resort to and turn to surprises even me sometimes as to how whacked out it can get. I think that Feingold and his buddies on the left actually think they are living in a police state. I have come to the conclusion that they think that there may as well be Nazi swastika flags all over Washington. Russ Feingold is now suggesting that the law that Bush cited to 'spy on Americans' could lead to the assassination of Americans. They're going nuts, folks! Bush could nuke the whole state of Wisconsin if Feingold is not careful here!" (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031706/content/quotes.guest.html)
What's going on? Do these people really think that Pres. Bush wants to assassinate US citizens or that we live in a police state?
Silly. They are silly.
Of course, most of these lefties do not really know what a police state is. They use words like "repression" and "police state" but they have never really lived in one.
In a real police state, Bush would have ordered the US armed forces to take over The Washington Post and NYTimes.
In Cuba, there are two kinds of journalists. One journalist works for the state newspaper and plays the party line. The other journalist is in jail for printing a critical opinion. (One of these men is Raul Rivero, a prize-winning journalist and poet who was jailed for political reasons with dozens of other Cuban dissidents in March 2003. He was released from prison on medical grounds in the fall of 2004 and now lives in Madrid.)
In a real police state, our jails would be full of anti-Bushies without habeas corpus, due process or any rights. Again, what happens to critics of the North Korean dictator? Do you see any antigovernment demonstrations in North Korea? You will see them in South Korea but not in North Korea.
So let's get serious. On one side, you have extremists planning to blow up a Western city and kill thousands. On the other side, you have a bunch of angry lefties saying that Bush is creating a police state.
So far, Feingold is not getting a lot of support from other Senate Democrats.
Minnesota's Democrat Senator Mark Dayton said:
'It's an overreaching step by somebody who's grandstanding and running for president at the expense of his own party and his own country....I think it's a very dangerous territory for the democracy that we have in this country to be playing around with those kinds of resolutions without any consultations from his colleagues. I think it was irresponsible.'
Sen. Dayton spoke for a lot of Democrats, specially the ones in the 31 states (or 81% of the counties) carried by Pres. Bush in 2004. I should add that Sen. Dayton is retiring and his seat is up for grabs. The Republicans have a good chance of picking up the Minnesota seat in 2006.
The Democrats need to rein in the angry left or they will continue to turn off the general electorate. I don't care what the polls say today!
P.S. Richard Benedetto of USA TODAY is on target:
"Senate Democrats recognized the Feingold resolution as politically explosive and ran for cover. Polls show Democrats already lag behind Republicans in how each party is viewed on national security issues, even with Bush's problems. Feingold's censure resolution could underscore that deficit — or widen it." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnist/benedetto/2006-03-17-censure_x.htm
The very liberal Eleanor Clift is right on target too:
"The Democrats’ dilemma is how to satisfy a restive and angry base without losing the rest of the country. “If someone proposed stringing up Bush like they did Mussolini, that would have a lot of support in the base of the party, too,” says a Democratic strategist. “But it’s not smart.” Democrats want the November election to be a plebiscite on Bush’s job performance, not a personal vendetta" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11882921/site/newsweek/print/1/displaymode/1098/)
Eleanor, you are right but the liberals are not listening to your sensible remarks!
Jeb Babbin wrote a great book about the UN: "Inside the Asylum: Why the United Nations and Old Europe Are Worse Than You Think" (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260883/qid=1124661965/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-9280254-2657753?n=507846&s=books&v=glance)
The UN is bad. It is horrible. The UN has turned into a gallery of anti-US and anti-Israel rants.
The latest problem is the UN Human Rights Commission. According to UN rules, a seat on the HRC is open to any country, such as human rights violators Cuba, North Korea or Iran.
The US, and other world democracies, should demand more. The HRC should be open to countries with elected leaders and some respect for human rights.
The US has a lot of leverage. Without the US funding, the UN offices would be closed for lack of money to pay rent or utilities.
David B. Rivkin and Lee A. Casey are members of the U.N. Subcommission for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, an expert body advising the HRC. Check out this article: "Uniting nations on human rights" (http://www.washingtontimes.com/functions/print.php?StoryID=20060308-092041-3780r)
Frankly, I'm tired of the UN.
Friday, March 17, 2006
My money is on Michael Steele, the Republican in the Maryland US Senate race. In fact, I just sent him a donation. You can do the same by going to Steele's very attractive web site: (https://service.cmdi.net/steele/donate.aspx)
The Democrats are scared to death of Michael Steele and Lynn Swann in Pennsylvania. They are articulate African-Americans who are running against liberal Democrats. (The latest poll has Swann running even with the incumbent in PA)
By the way, we have learned:
"A former Democratic operative will plead guilty to a federal charge of illegally obtaining Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele's credit report, the woman's attorney said yesterday. Lauren Weiner, who was a researcher for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) last year when she accessed the credit data, will plead guilty to the misdemeanor offense in coming weeks, said her attorney, Whitney C. Ellerman." (http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20060316-103348-8675r.htm)
Go Michael go!
Question. Why is the media so negative about the US economy?
First, they don't like Pres. Bush.
Second, the newspaper business is all doom and gloom.
Take a look at this:
"Moody's Investors Service said Friday it may cut its rating of the New York Times Co.'s debt because of the company's weak cash flow, high financial leverage, and declining margins." (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002198733 )
Dave Ignatius writes in The Washington Post:
"But there are unmistakable signs here this week that Iraq's political leaders are taking the first tentative steps toward forming a broad government of national unity that could reverse the country's downward slide."
Iraq is going to have good days and bad days. We must understand that and stick with the Iraqi people.
Al Qaeda has a clear strategy. Blow up everything and kill as many innocent people as possible.
Why? Because Al Qaeda understands the US news media. It understands that their horrific acts will get more publicity than all of the good things going on in Iraq.
Stick with the Iraqi people. Support them.
Speaking of Iraq, former Sec. of State George Schultz delivered a great speech. Tom Bevan of RCP has a summary:
"Schultz, who traced the war on terror back to the 1970s, divided the struggle into three stages.
The first period, which lasted until Sept. 11, 2001, was marked by U.S. passivity and inaction toward terrorist attacks. Even in the 1990s, the U.S. government was aware of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda but failed to check their growth, much like American inaction during Hitler's rise to power, Shultz said.
"The terrorists had completely free reign," he said.
September 11 set off the second, active military phase of the war against radical Islam, Schultz said. Americans were now aware that terrorist groups could target not just sovereign states, but also world finance, tourism and even air travel.
At present, with the war in its third stage, Schultz said that economic and military sustainability are vital for America to prevail. And in Iraq, he said, Americans must remain dedicated to the cause."(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/03/schultz_at_princeton.html)
Sec. Schultz makes an excellent point. In the 1990s, we did not check the growth of terrorism and were very weak on Iraq. The result was 9-11 and Saddam's perception that we would not fight.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
I am a conservative so I will pick Duke to win it all. However, Texas A&M (a family favorite) and Gonzaga (Catholic school) will be the upset artists.
No matter what, this is a fun time of the year.
For years, I have felt that Republicans are happier than Democrats. My impression was based on conversations and liberal attitudes. Frankly, liberals are an angry bunch.
Today, I'm happy to report that a Pew Survey agrees with me. Check out "Republicans Happier than Democrats" by Robert Roy Britt, Managing Editor of LiveScience.com, (http://www.livescience.com/othernews/060315_happiness_pew.html)
The Pew Study makes these points:
"People who worship frequently are happier than those who don't. Married people are happier than the unmarried."
Here is the big Republican edge:
"Sunbelt residents are happier than everyone else." (Red states have lower taxes and better job growth than blue states.)
About 45 percent of Republicans said they were very happy, compared with 30 percent of Democrats. Republicans have been happier in surveys going back to 1972, which is the year that Nixon carried 49 states and began the Republican era!
The report indicates that money is a big factor in happiness. However:
"But even after adjusting for income, poor Republicans are happier than poor Democrats, and rich Republicans are happier than rich Democrats."
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow and author of "A Devil's Triangle: Terrorism, WMD and Rogue States." Today, he published a very interesting article: "Growing Iran-Syria Ties"
Brookes discusses the relationship and its history. He concludes:
"The possibility of Iran or Syria becoming nuclear states - or of, one coming under the other's nuclear umbrella - is a nightmare for American interests, hamstringing U.S. policy options for dealing with either problem. The burgeoning Syrian-Iranian consortium is sowing an arc of evil and instability across the Middle East, allowing both regimes to resist international pressure on terrorism in Iraq and across the region, as well as on weapons of mass destruction. Vigorously opposing this alliance of evil whenever - and wherever - it raises its dark, tyrannical head, is the right and necessary thing to do."
Syria and Iran have been a nuisance to our efforts in Iraq. Many terrorists, and their bombs, come from Syria and Iran. The region won't be safe until we deal with Syria and Iran.
Manpower (www.manpower.com) CEO Jeff Joerres said this:
"There is a shortage going on....Companies are looking for the exact talent they need, and they may be having a more difficult time doing that."
The report goes on to say that:
"The hiring outlook in the West outpaced the other regions with 35 percent of companies planning to increase staffing and 5 percent planning to decrease. The Midwest and the Northeast were the least positive, with each region planning to increase 27 percent. Five percent of Midwest companies surveyed said they planned to decrease staffing compared to 9 percent in the Northeast." (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/03/14/financial/f045433S69.DTL)
Good news. Good news!
Where did Korea get all of that pitching? What about Japan? Where is the US pitching? What happened to Venezuela?
Last night, I watched an incredibly disciplined and athletic Korean team whip the US. On Sunday, the US got lucky and beat Japan. Frankly, the US looks stiff. They look like the newcomers to the game of baseball. The Koreans and Japanese look like they invented the game!
What's going on? I don't know. My guess is that the US team is not ready to play. I don't know when Dontrelle Willis started throwing but he looks like someone in the second week of spring training.
Are the US hitters late or are the Korean/Japanese pitchers that good? Frankly, I don't know.
The US can still win. They have to beat Mexico. However, I am very impressed with Korea. I hope that the Rangers are scouting some of those players. We could use some of those lefties who keep getting our guys out!
Check this out from Eric Neel of ESPN.com:
"They really focus on the little things," Derek Jeter says. "Moving guys, getting bunts down, executing the hit-and-run. And, you know, those are the ways you win games when you're playing really good teams. You can't just wait on home runs when you're facing this kind of competition."
Team USA pitchers, to a man, talk about Korean and Japanese hitters bringing discipline and patience to the plate. U.S. manager Buck Martinez raves about plate coverage up and down both lineups.
"They work the count, and they put the ball in play," reliever Brad Lidge says of the Japanese hitters he faced Sunday. "Their lefties do a fantastic job of hitting the ball to left field, staying in, going with the ball where it's pitched, all the things you're supposed to do. They make it tough on you, every pitch, with their discipline up there."
Bottom line. The Koreans play baseball the old fashioned way and too many of our MLBers are swinging for the fences but missing the pitch!
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
The NSA story died two months ago because the American people are smarter than the Democrats. Americans understand that you cannot fight a war without listening to your enemies. Americans also understand that it is not illegal to listen to your enemies.
Nevertheless, the NSA story goes on in the left wing blogs.
On Sunday, Senator Feingold decided to make a big move by calling for a censure. He wants the US Senate to go on record about Pres. Bush and the NSA program. This is what he said:
"When the president of the United States breaks the law, he must be held accountable. That is why today I'm introducing a resolution to censure President George W. Bush. The president authorized an illegal program to spy on American citizens on American soil, and then misled the Congress and the public about the existence and the legality of that program".
So introduce your resolution. Don't walk away.
Senator Specter nailed Feingold on the US Senate floor:
"I think all would concede that the president is doing the best job he can, and is diligent. You may not agree with him, may not think his best job is satisfactory, but no one has ever accused him of bad faith. In the absence of any showing of bad faith, who has standing to censure and condemn the president and then not stay in the chamber to debate the issue?"
He was followed by Lieberman, who is one of the few Democrats who hasn't lost his common sense since VP Gore could not carry Tennessee in 2000:
"This is a critically important program to the prevention of terrorist acts here in the United States, and I don't know a person here in the Senate who is against this program."
Lieberman is right. No one in the US Senate has called for the cancellation of the program.
What should Majority Leader Frist do? He should schedule a vote on Sen. Feingold's censure. Force the Democrats to vote "yes or no".
This is a win-win situation for the Republicans. Call Feingold's bluff.
My guess is that most Democrats will avoid this vote like they avoided the Kyoto vote during the Clinton years. The Democrats were all in favor of Kyoto as long as they didn't have to vote "yes or no" on ratifying the treaty.
So go for it. Schedule a vote on the censure.
Ralph Peters has been in Iraq several times. Today, he filed another great report: "Myths of Iraq": (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/myths_of_iraq.html)
The media is always talking about Pres. Bush's problems with the Republican base. Indeed, he has them. Yet, the base will come home and support him when the bell rings in November.
The media overlooks the Democrats' internal problems. Yesterday, Sen. Feingold could not get any Democrats to support his censure resolution. Like Rep. Murtha, Feingold will find that Democrats are better at talking than doing anything.
Jesse Jackson has just written a long article about Pres. Bush's failures. Most of what Jackson claims is wrong but we will leave the details to another post. However, Jackson jumps all over the Democrats:
"But a lot of this is simple cowardice -- the belief that Bush and the Republican Congress have fallen so low and failed so completely, that Democrats can inherit power without ever committing to anything. That is bad politics and bad policy. Democrats who want to run for president are about to learn from core supporters that dancing between raindrops on issues of vital national importance won't get them there." (http://www.suntimes.com/output/jesse/cst-edt-jesse141.html)
The Democrats are "dancing between raindrops" because they are not a national party. FDR's coalition has fallen apart. They don't agree on anything except that they hate Bush!
The Democrats could reclaim some credibility by presenting a policy paper. It could say:
1) We should withdraw immediately from Iraq.
2) We believe in national health insurance.
3) Partial birth abortion is OK.
4) Same sex marriage is a civil right.
5) Americans do not pay enough taxes.
My guess is that most national Democrats agree with those five points. Why won't they say it publicly?
They won't do it because local and state Dem. won't go along with higher taxes and same sex marriage. They are still black and blue from carrying the liberal baggage that cost them election after election.
Love or hate him, Bush will tell you where he stands. However, the Democrats are "dancing between raindrops"!
The Alan Guttmacher Institute has an interesting study of abortions in the US. It points out some interesting data:
"In 2002, 1.29 million abortions took place, down from an estimated 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2002, more than 42 million legal abortions occurred. Each year, 2 out of every 100 women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 48% of them have had at least one previous abortion." (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html)
For years, I have heard pundits say that most Americans support Roe v. Wade, even if they do not believe in abortion. Is that really true? Recent polls make it very confusing.
Rasmussen Reports "found that 55% of Americans believe abortion is morally wrong most of the time. Just 32% disagree. Americans under 50 are a bit more likely than their elders to believe that abortion is morally wrong." (http://rasmussenreports.com/2006/March%20Dailies/Abortion.htm)
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Roe v. Wade!
Rasmussen found that "...47% of Americans believe it is too easy for a woman to get an abortion in the United States. Twenty-one percent (21%) say it is too hard, while 21% say the balance is about right."
Bruce Wilson recently retired as CIO of Universal Studios. He is the author of the book Disarming the Culture War: How the Silent Majority Can Break the Stalemate. His op-ed columns can be found at Commentary from Bruce Wilson. He has just written an article challenging the wording of most abortion polling questions: "Abortion polls and Sen. Feinstein's theory of relativity" (http://renewamerica.us/columns/index.php?columnist=bwilson&date=060305&print=1)
A new AP-Ipsos poll finds "....19 percent of Americans said abortion should be legal in all cases; 16 percent said it should never be legal; 6 percent did not know. That left nearly three-fifths somewhere in between, believing abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances."
What does all mean? It confirms what I have believed for some time. I think that more and more Americans are coming around to believe that abortion is the taking of a human life. This is why Senator Hillary Clinton is talking about "common ground" with anti-abortion Americans. This is why anti-abortion Democrats are winning elections, such as Gov. Kaine in Virginia. This is why the Democrats are looking for anti-abortion candidates, such as Bob Casey who is running against Senator Santorum in Pennsylvania.
The future belongs to those who oppose abortion. It's a shame that 40 million babies had to be aborted before we arrived at this point.