The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Thursday, November 29, 2007

CNN Betting the Farm on DEM Victory in 2008

Can any objective thinking person view the election cycle antics of CNN and not come to the conclusion that they are betting the farm that the Democrats will win the 2008 elections, especially the White House? Last night's GOP debate was yet another example of CNN stacking the deck in favor of the Dems. Michelle Malkin has documented proof that four of the questioners are not only extremely liberal, but have declared their support for a Democrat candidate. Citing You Tube videos, personal blogs and a Union website, Michelle shows how they have clearly put their support behind one of the DEMs. In fact one is pictured wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt.

Comparing these antics to the CNN DEM debate where it was one softball question by Wolf Blitzer after another ending with the pearls or diamonds debacle, if becomes obvious that CNN is barely trying to hide its actions. Hillary Clinton flipped, then flopped, then flipped on the Drivers License for illegals issue. On Hillary's third position in such a short time on the same issue, Wolf simply let it go without follow up.

So the question is what is behind all this? There are only two explanations. One is that the staff and decision makers at CNN are so rabidly liberal that all of this seems normal to them. They simply have no ability to rationally realize the role of objective mediator they claim to represent. They lean so far left their ears touch the ground and they think the visual perspective they see is normal. If they were on the ship the hit the iceberg in Antarctica they would think the view was normal. They also fail to notice the foam on their chins. They have a right to this perspective, of course. All I ask is that they declare their bias. However, they claim no bias because to them leaning 90 degrees to the left is the norm. Somebody standing up straight is a radical right wing fanatic in their eyes.

The second explanation is that CNN is making conscious decisions to stack the deck in favor of the Dems. They know and admit their bias to themselves, while claiming objectivity in front of the camera. Perhaps decision makers have gathered in a smoke filled room and clearly determined they cannot survive another 4-8 years under a GOP administration without the "fairness" doctrine. They have the educational institutions locked up in their corner. They have the lawyers associations locked up. They have the unions locked up. They have the libraries locked up. They have the senior citizens associations locked up. They have the medical associations locked up. They have the UN locked up. They have the scientific community locked up. They have the television, movie and radio entertainment community locked up. They have almost all of the major magazine publications locked up. They have live theater locked up. They have the major newspapers locked up. They have almost all of the television news and commentary locked up. They have just about every aspect of American life locked up in their hip pockets. However, they don't have talk radio locked up and they cannot stand it.

If not for Talk Radio, the US would be more left leaning today than Europe. Before Talk Radio even existed as it does today Ronald Reagan took the country by storm and physically moved it to the right several notches. Talk Radio helped move it to the right a few more notches in 1994. Since then regardless of Talk Radio, the country continues to drift back to the left. Talk Radio only slows down the drift.

Conservatives have two things going for them: Talk Radio and barely a Supreme Court that leans about one degree to the right. These two things are equivalent to the Dutch boys finger in the dike. So the second explanation for CNNs embarrassing behavior this election cycle is they know a Democrat in the White House is the only chance at taking away this finger in the dike. They are pressing ahead with no thought to their credibility or how they are going to salvage any reputation after this. They seem to be betting that if a Dem wins in '08, the spring feeding any ill will for them will dry up and this will all be forgotten in a few years. They are fantasizing over the good old days when they could say what they want without challenge and exposure.

Of course it could be a mixture of both. Like Al Gore and the UN on global warming and the Dems on Iraq, CNN is pressing ahead without any fear of becoming a laughing-stock or worse.
They are investing 100% of their stock into the immediate need. If conservatives hold the line this time, CNN and others just might be setup for a world of hurt. Of course, they can always deny, deny, deny while their friends circle the wagons around them like they always do. It is amazing how public ignorance is their best friend.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Hugo Chavez Questions Patriotism of Those Who Disagree With Him

Hugo Chavez, the darling of the American Left, is questioning the patriotism of any Venezuelans that vote against granting him the ability to be dictator for life. According to AP:
President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.
The usual knee-jerk reaction of American liberals is to cry that their patriotism is being questioned whenever they are criticized for positions that are contrary to those of the current administration. While I have rarely heard claims against their patriotism, the left simply cannot abide any criticism of their beliefs. I have heard several key liberals question the patriotism of some conservatives. Since they will be unwilling to relinquish their love affair with Chavez, look to the left for similar inconsistency in dealing with Hugo's new label for dissenters.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Where in the World is AICS?

Sometimes my life is hit by very busy waves and I find myself at the bottom of the sea looking up at the waterline and pray I can surface in time to breath. Such has been the last few weeks and it looks like it will be that way through next week. Of course one of the reasons I am so busy is that I must get my work done before I take a trip to Hawaii at the end of the month. Looking forward to it, but I don't want things hanging over my head. Of course I will be busy when I return catching up. So while I may add a post or two here and there, don't expect too much until mid-December or the beginning of next year.

Everybody have a Happy Thanksgiving

Saturday, November 10, 2007

Speaking of Waterboarding

I know some may think I am minimizing waterboarding here, but I believe I am intimately familiar with the practice every time I go to the dentist. While when I was a kid, I compare my dentist to Dr. Frankenstein due to his brutal pain inducing ways, he did let me hold the suction and use it when I wanted.

Now that I am an adult, the dentist never offers to allow me to hold the suction. Somehow I never remember to ask to hold it until it is too late. I have always thought the dentist was just busy and forgot until I was at a specialist last week and he had an assistant holding the suction. No, they just are not concerned about the lake of saliva that accumulates in the back of my throat during the work until the level is so high it reaches the tooth they are working on at the moment. If it happens to be a tooth near the front, forget about it. However, even the last tooth way in the back leaves enough liquid to drown you.

It is a tricky job to navigate this situation. The dentist is working on your teeth. You are constantly moving your tongue around to keep from getting a hole drilled in it. It's "Open" then "Close", "Relax", "Open Wider", etc. Then there is the chronic nagging to satisfy the automatic reflex to swallow. Ever try to swallow with your mouth open? Last week the dentist put a jack in my mouth so it was quite a feat to swallow with my mouth open at its widest. When swallowing it is important not to actually swallow anything. First, you don't actually want to swallow that accumulation of liquid, drilled particles and chemicals they have placed in your mouth. Second, you cannot swallow the entire lake in one action. To try to swallow some, opens the gate for the whole mass to shout "Once more unto the breach" and dive for the gap. It is at this point that the waterboarded feeling takes full effect.

You can't really tell the dentist anything because your mouth is wide open. He would only hear, "I xcheed thouexseambn". Since your tongue is blocking the gap for dear life, it cannot assist in producing distinct consonants and diphthongs; so that representation is probably much clearer than the actual words that you say. The dentist will politely act as if he understands every word and keep drilling as more water flows to cool the drill. You try curling your finger like an upside-down 'J', but he thinks you are making some strange attempt to give him the finger. He knows everybody hates him, so he is used to it.

Your thoughts begin to get frantic. "I am going to drown in my own saliva and drill water. How long will it take for the paramedics to get here to revive me? Who will give me mouth to mouth - the dentist or the matronly assistant? If I survive the drowning, will the chemicals get me? Aghh, more chlorine based chemicals. Don't breath. Don't breath. If I swallow, will that force my tongue next to the drill? Will I feel it now or after the Novocaine wears off? When is this going to be over? Oh no, the dentist has to take a phone call and he forgot to suction me before walking away. Maybe when he comes back I can just turn my head and let it all dribble out onto his knee." And so it goes. When the procedure is over and all instruments, liquid and chemicals are out of your mouth, you breath fully and freely; enjoying every moment of stale dentist office air.

Yes, I will be accused of taking a serious subject and minimizing it. However, I truly believe I have a clue as to what this treatment is like and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

Labels: ,

Give Him Something Broken

I continuously resist the urge to break out into a full scale Science Fiction / Fantasy topic. While I have not read much new SF in years, it is something near and dear to my heart - as R2W can attest. I would love to start an SF blog, but I hardly have time for this one so today I will simply drop a reference.

One of my favorite SF series is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. He wrote the first and second chronicles and is now on a slow path to writing the third. As he is no spring chicken, I am biting my nails that he will finish. I also am waiting until he finishes to begin reading it. I had a long haul wait when he was writing the second set. In fact I did not even know it was a second series until I read the last page. I have been in the same camp with some of Terry Brooks books and others, so no thanks - I'll wait.

All that to point out that in the war between the "protagonist" (read it to find why it is in quotes) and the antagonist, it is stated that "The only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken".

While George W. Bush is far from having lost everything, he is a lame duck so it fits in a way. The nomination of Michael Mukasey for AG was a clear attempt on the part of Bush to avoid controversy. Many across the aisle had a favorable opinion of Mukasey including Chucky Schumer. The confirmation should have been a slam dunk. Then, as always, the Dems began playing games. They threw in the red herring of waterboarding demanding that Mukasey declare the treatment to be torture. The choking hypocrisy of the Dems is apparent as we have yet to see any real attempt to outlaw the use of waterboarding by non-Pentagon agencies. As usual the Dems blubber and bluster about this or that, yet do not do anything about it. They do not want to be in the position of waking up to news of a terrorist attack where tactics like waterboarding were not used because they passed a law against it.

In the case of Mukasey, if they really had a problem with waterboarding they would not have confirmed him. Yet Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 53-40. In short, the Dems could have praised Bush for the nomination of a mutually acceptable candidate, instead they threw a fly in the ointment by demanding action of the nominee they are unwilling to do themselves. The goal here as always is to avoid EVER, EVER giving Bush even the slightest word of having done something good. No matter the area, no matter big or small, the Dems and their water carrying media cannot allow the notion that Bush did something good or right to ever pass their lips unless it is well contaminated with offsetting criticism.

The Dems have taken a bipartisan, compromising nomination and returned Bush something broken. Instead of allowing him to begin his AG duties with an excellent reputation and moral authority, they have branded Mukasey with a mark of Cain and primed the public for the slightest criticism of Mukasey's actions if he does not do their full bidding. At the slightest controversy the media will immediately toe their party line and take the side of the Dems in undermining Mukasey's character and reputation.

After looking at the continuous behavior from both sides of the aisle, it never ceases to amaze me how the GOP has alone been the saddled with the reputation of "dirty tricks". The Dems never, ever miss a dirty trick and this is just another one.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Sarkozy a Breath of Fresh Air

After suffering for years under the arrogant Chirac, it is refreshing to see Nicolas Sarkozy embracing the United States and remembering what the US did for France. I think he is probably nice enough he won't mind me having a little fun.

Separated at Birth?

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

John Kerry Chooses Weapon Instead of Truth

There may be times when during a campaign people come to the conclusion they can think of one or two reasons to vote for a candidate. A good true test comes after a few years can you still name even one reason you would have voted for the losing candidate. I would think most former John Kerry supporters would have a hard time naming anything specific.

The media has allowed John Kerry and other liberals to coin the term "swiftboating" in a misleading manner. The newly coined term is now generally accepted by the liberal media as making a strong assault using false accusations against a candidate in order to discredit them. The incorrect coinage of the term centers around the word false. The problem is that neither Kerry nor the media ever did prove that the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false. In fact John Kerry danced around and around when it came to releasing the documents that should support his claims. It took him over a year to finally sign the form 180 to release his full military record. However, even then he could not give a full release, but only allowed friendly media such as AP, LA Times and Boston Globe to have full access to the records.

Now John Kerry instead of using the truth to fight any future battles, has compiled a power dossier on many of the Swift Boat Veterans in order to use against them in the future. The Patriot Ledger states:
Kerry, whose service as a U.S. Navy Swift boat skipper during the Vietnam War came under attack in his race against President Bush, said he has compiled a dossier on his war record critics that he wishes he had as the Democratic presidential nominee.

``We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single ‘t’ crossed and ‘i’ dotted, and I welcome that in a sense,'' Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber fo Commerce. ``It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce all that at the time.''
John Kerry dodged and weaved instead of just releasing his records. Now in the future he has a weapon. Bitter times for a bitter man.

Labels: ,

Thursday, November 01, 2007

Newt Says Hillary Chances Down to 50-50

The National Review provides comments by Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity's radio show:

Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to discuss Hillary Clinton's debate performance. Highlights:

“Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it… This issue of Spitzer trying to give out d l to people at a time when your driver’s licenseallows you to vote – for her to trap herself into saying that creates a big wound…

The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion dollar tax increase – that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money. If she doesn’t turn this around quick, I may have to call back in and take it even lower.”

I'm not so sure the damage is that bad - Yet. I would say she had a 99% chance before and this combined with other recent developments lowered her to 70%. Hillary is on fly paper right now. I don't see how she will be able to release herself from it. She has based her whole campaign on avoiding locking herself into key positions. Until the Philadelphia debate, she has been able to get away with it. Her performance, however, was so bad that the media simply could not cover for it. The genie is out of the bottle now and it will be very difficult for the media to go back to allowing her to get away with such across the board ambiguity. She is sunk in the general election if she continues on this route. However, being forced to take positions that will satisfy the far left enough to get the nomination will slaughter her in the general.

If Hillary does lose the nomination, she will likely lose it to Obama. That move will be a gift to the GOP. Obama has been very clear on his positions, but most are deal-killers. Some have said that unless the GOP can make 2008 about National Security they will lose. An Obama nomination where he has clearly stated he supports giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses can easily make 2008 about immigration. A strong policy that opposes amnesty and drivers licenses is a clear winning position. If Hillary has ceded the nomination to Obama, it may prove that the debate was the first domino that leads to a GOP victory in 2008.

Labels: , , ,

Glass Jaw Clinton Has Vacuous Supporters

An article in The Hill contains some insight into Hillary supporters. They seem to be quite vacuous and not quite in touch with reality. The article provides some response to the debate during a campaign conference call. Even the writer of the article seems way out of touch with reality. It states:
"Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate..."
Give me a break. Withering assault? This is like moving the first pawn in a chess game and portraying that the opponent came under "withering assault". The job of the candidates in these debates is to show why they are different and better than the other candidates. It has always been common for trailing candidates to place most of their focus on the lead candidate. Instead of recognizing this, these vacuous supporters picture it in terms of piling on:
Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,”
As pointed out in the previous post, this is one of the first real attempts by the other candidates to actually score points against Hillary. I have seen the video and heard the clips. In reality it was a very weak attempt by Obama and Edwards. They tapped on her glass jaw with their pinkies and she dropped to the ground. To picture this as ganging up on her unfairly is a continuation of Hillary's supporters to lay down rules that because Hillary is a woman, nobody can challenge her. They want all the pluses of her being a woman, but they want special rules because she is a woman. Isn't this the heart and soul of the modern feminist movement? The supporters are going so far to paint the weakest of challenges by Obama and Edwards as worthy of a "backlash":
He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.
If questioned about this, Obama and Edwards should state "If Hillary Clinton wants special rules protecting her from any challenge whatsoever, she will be setting the women's movement back 50 years if she gets her way". Hillary is going right along with this 'Eek, I'm a woman, you can't challenge me' approach:
The Clinton campaign released a video Wednesday, entitled “The Politics of Pile On,” showing clips of the senator’s rivals going after her by name during the debate.
Wow, she might as well wear a sandwich sign that states she has a glass jaw and can't take it.

The supporters also attacked Tim Russert and Brian Williams for their role in simply asking a question about her position on a current policy trend:
He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual,” Penn said, before adding that it “is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation … I think there will be further clarification.”

“I hope so,” a female caller responded. “To me, it was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.”

Penn turned again to Russert. “The other candidates were asked questions like, ‘Is there life in outer space?’ ”
Russert asks a question that made them uncomfortable so he is a bad guy. As for the space topic, do you think Kucinich supporters were comfortable that he claimed to see a UFO? Did that advance his chances of getting the nomination? This question is also very appropriate for Hillary because aside from the fact she is a carpetbagger, Hillary is Senator from the same state as Governor Spitzer. The policy is going to be enacted in her state. Asking her what she thinks of that is totally appropriate. The fact she was unwilling to clearly state her position is what caused the trouble. One supporter on the call was so angry at Russert for asking the question she declared he "should be shot".

The Obama campaign did follow up the next day to score a few more points. His campaign spokesman Bill Burton underscored the situation:
Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate, Clinton’s position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, “Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen. Clinton’s position … She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards.”
Hillary has an opportunity to clearly state her position. Instead she engages in meaninless rhetoric:
The senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing gloves.

“When it comes to fighting for America’s working families, I’ll go 10 rounds with anybody,” she said.
From her debate performance and follow up afterwards, it appears she wants 10 rounds of swinging wildly in the air and rules that forbid her opponents from making contact with her. Hillary can't take powder punches from the Democrat 'weanie' candidates. How will she take challenges from leaders of other countries if she is elected?

Labels: , ,