When France Polls America...

L'OH ! mon seigneur ! Ce ne peut pas être vrai ! Ce ne peut pas être vrai ! le whoa est est !..................T
Apparently the US media are not the only ones interested in manipulating US public opinion by biased polls. The French are doing it, too! In an article called “When France Polls America…” John Rosenthal reports that the lowest scores for President Bush are consistently found by the “AP-Ipsos” poll. Who is Ipsos? It just happens to be Jacques Chirac’s favorite pollster.

There’s now a mounting pile of evidence for deliberate Anti-US media manipulation by France. This is just another layer of the pile.

The US may not need to try for regime change in Paris. French voters have a say

Call them what they are -- TRAITORS

Traitors they are! When dead Americans serve one's craven political goals!...T
"Senators Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Ted Kennedy have accused President George W. Bush of lying about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, insisting that he 'lied us into war.' Some Demo wing nuts are even floating the idea of impeachment. Their charges have no substance, of course; they're merely contrived to keep Republicans off balance through next year's midterm elections. In other words, Democrat Party leaders are using the gravely serious matter of the Iraq War for trivial political fodder -- and their politicization of our mission there has put our Armed Forces in the region in greater peril.
Let's be clear: There is nothing wrong with honest criticism of an American president; to the contrary, we have written extensively about President Bush's policy failures. The dishonest and politically motivated accusations of Kennedy, Reid, Durbin and their ilk, however, are nothing short of -- and we don't use this term lightly -- treasonous. "

403 to 3. The "Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing" Democrats.

This from Hugh Hewitt yesterday, exposing the hypocrisy of the democrats. Look for the next article for more details!...T

The Murtha proposal for immediate withdrawal from Iraq was defeated 403 to 3 last night. So much for the idea of cut and run.
Many Democrats were emotionally undon by the exercise of having to confront their own rhetoric, and the anti-war left must be stunned this morning: Only three votes? All that work? All those marches? All those posts at the fever swamp bulletin board? For three votes?
The Dems have more excuses than a teenager: It wasn't the real Murtha resolution; it's a terrible political trick; I will not participate in the assault on Congressman Murtha etc, etc, etc.
But the talk around the turkey this week should review that the elections in 2002, 2004 and the vote on Friday night in the House underscore the county is committed to victory in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and everywhere else the GWOT is being waged. That talk should also dwell on the profound hypocrisy of the left and its Congressional representatives, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." They only believe what they believe when the country as a whole isn't watching. Supermen on the web, when Congress assmebled they went into their phonebooths/cloakrooms and came out as Clark Kent.
The Democrats took their walloping last year and instead of resolving to return to D.C. as an opposition party that would work to craft alternatives to domestic policies while remaining supportive of the GWOT and of the troops, have spent a year digging deeper and deeper into anti-war conspiracy theories and committing themselves to Vietnam Syndrome 2.0. The GOP abetted their descent by failing to do what happened yesterday: Call them on their nonsense and debate it, in full view of the public, and not in MSM-mediated soundbytes.
The Chamber was full and the tempers high --as they should be when a great party confronts its opposite over a serious issue. The Democratic Party is committed to retreat, but they hate to be asked to defend that inclination. The Republicans are committed to victory, but seem hesitant because of the high costs of the war, even though the costs of retreat would be much higher still.
If the GOP stays the course of clarity, and keeps its purposes front and center, the elections of 2006 will be another milestone in the Democrats road to Whigdom.

Win the war.

Confirm the judges.

Cut the taxes.

Control the spending.

MSM Missing Headlines!

...A new feature highlighting all the (good) news that's (not) fit to print in the world of the MSM...T

“US jobless claims fall to lowest level in 7 months”

The indigenous "French Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey". Notoriously Xenophobic & Racist, it has long existed only in areas consistently dominated and warred over by other species. Although once numerous, they are widely believed to be in an advanced state of extinction.... 

Deep Thougts, Parte Deux...

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me." —General George S. Patton

"The only time France wants us to go to war is when the German Army is sitting in Paris sipping coffee." —Regis Philbin

An old saying: Raise your right hand if you like the French.... Raise both hands if you are French.

"OH mon Dieu ! Nous nous rendons ! Nous nous rendons!"
Yeah, this is for real. When at google.com, after entering the search phrase, enter "I'm feeling lucky", and this is the result. THEN, click on "defeats"....and open a bottle of cognac. You'll be in for some bed-time reading!......T

Stampede

Is the GOP in disarray or has the party finally gotten its momentum back?
In the same vein as the article posted below...great reason for optimism!..............T
"ALMOST EXACTLY one year ago, President Bush was reelected with more votes than had ever been cast for a presidential candidate, breaking Ronald Reagan's 1984 record. Not only did Bush sweep to victory by a three million vote margin, the Republicans increased their majorities in both the House and the Senate, the first time this trifecta had been accomplished since the Lyndon Johnson landslide of 1964."
...Most important, there are signs that Bush's decline in the polls has bottomed out. Some of the polls showing precipitously declining support are obviously flawed, to such an extent as to suggest that they were designed to produce that result. Polls that are administered consistently over time are starting to show a significant rebound in the president's standing. In the >Rasmussen Poll, Bush's approval rating hit its nadir in October, but has rebounded steadily since. Currently, it stands at a respectable 46 percent. More important than the number, however, is the trend: There can be little doubt that the administration is on the upswing. In order of importance, at least three factors have brought the party's conservative base, and some other voters, back into the president's camp: his nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court; his counter-attack against the Democrats on Iraq; and the dashing of the Democrats' hopes for Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation of the Valerie Plame "leak."

That thundering sound in the distance might be a solid phalanx of elephants, on the move once more.

Politics, Puerto Rico style

Keep an Eye turned for this Barone's analysis. He ALWAYS gets it right, the old fashioned way: he works the numbers, on the ground............T
Politics, Puerto Rico style by Michael Barone Nov 14, 2005:
...The 2005 elections suggest that we have the same kind of Puerto Rican style politics we've had since 1995-96. If so, turnout will decide the outcome in 2006...

"Let them eat cake, mon amie!"

Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys

Time for a little history Lesson (courtesy of "CornetJim")........................T
"The French have been here before, of course. Seven-thirty-two. Not 7:32 Paris time, which is when the nightly Citroen-torching begins, but 732 A.D. -- as in one and a third millennia ago. By then, the Muslims had advanced a thousand miles north of Gibraltar to control Spain and southern France up to the banks of the Loire. In October 732, the Moorish general Abd al-Rahman and his Muslim army were not exactly at the gates of Paris, but they were within 200 miles, just south of the great Frankish shrine of St. Martin of Tours. Somewhere on the road between Poitiers and Tours, they met a Frankish force and, unlike other Christian armies in Europe, this one held its ground ''like a wall . . . a firm glacial mass,'' as the Chronicle of Isidore puts it. A week later, Abd al-Rahman was dead, the Muslims were heading south, and the French general, Charles, had earned himself the surname ''Martel'' -- or ''the Hammer.'' "

Should Bush Fire Rove?

Exactly.......Fight back hard, we have the truth as our strongest ally......T
...No...Between the 2000 election and the 2004 election, Rove became the master of polarization politics. And now, with this year's ill-fated experiment in trying to govern from the middle surely over, polarization along ideological and party lines is a fact of life. Ethics classes won't ameliorate Democratic hostility to Bush. Nor will firing Rove. In fact, throwing Rove overboard--dropping the political adviser who has been with Bush during his past comebacks and greatest triumphs--will increase the sense of a White House in disarray and retreat.

...Keeping Rove; being unapologetic about the war; explaining why Saddam had to be removed, that there were terror ties between Saddam and al Qaeda, and why the war needs to be seen through to victory; fighting for Alito, and other well-qualified conservative judges at the appellate level; advancing pro-growth, pro-family tax reforms--this agenda won't enamor Bush to liberals. But it could lay the groundwork for a Bush comeback. The alternative is three long years of ducking, dodging--and defeat...

Deep Thoughts...

"We went to war because Bill Clinton told the truth. The Dems would now have us believe that we ought to consider everything Mr Clinton said was a lie. If Mr Bush lied, it was because he relied on the lies of Mr Clinton. Presidents rely on each other when it comes to protecting the homeland.
There you go. Said about as succinctly as can be said. Either Bill Clinton told the truth about WMD, and Bush believed him. Or he lied about WMD, and Bush believed him."

Liberal Democrats, So Hypocritical

Print it, frame it, carry it in your pocket, learn it! (And read "Witness" once more...). They are NOT just moronic, they are, in their hearts, traitors...and they have been for 70 years...T
"Conservatives are rolling their eyes watching the political left's outrage over the Valerie Plame identity controversy, wondering when it was exactly that liberals suddenly became the super patriots defending the virtues of the CIA. For a half-century the American political left has done everything in its power to undermine the national security of this country. Now we are to believe, as they wring their hands in agony and outrage - outrage, I say! - over Ms. Plame's outing, that they...care? This goes beyond rank hypocrisy. It is intellectual dishonesty.
Let's visit the left's record on national security matters. History is not kind. Where was the left when the Rosenbergs, communists both, fed our nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union? Both were deep-fried for the treason they'd committed. Liberals tut-tutted then and tut-tut now, and don't tell me there aren't hardened leftists who favored giving nuclear weapons to the Soviets to thwart what they considered America's imperial ambitions. What of Alger Hiss, another Soviet spy who also committed treason against his country? To this day he remains a darling of the political left. Up until the moment he died he was the left's poster child for American national security oppression."
Trackback URL for this post:
http://newsbusters.org/trackback/2633

The Left's Cruelest Month

The recovery has been swift, complete and stunning.............T
"OCTOBER, 2005 will turn out to be the left's cruelest month since . . . well, in a long time. A couple of weeks in, it seemed so promising. October was going to be the month that would mark the meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency. Iraq was failing, gas prices were rising, a weak Supreme Court nominee was under assault, and the White House was under siege from a special prosecutor. What more could a Bush-hater want?
But it was a false dawn for the left."...

Democrats' Desperation

No Fitzmas?!! Bwahh!, Wahh! Bwahhah!!!! ..............T
With Democrats' efforts to criminalize policy differences over Iraq having failed, they have turned in desperation to politics, led by Harry Reid, the Senate's minority leader. First, over the weekend, Reid demanded the resignation of Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff. By this logic, Reid also should resign, since he, like Rove, has not been indicted.
Then yesterday, Reid and Sen. Dick Durbin engineered a partisan publicity stunt. The Associated Press describes it:
Democrats forced the Republican-controlled Senate into an unusual closed session Tuesday, questioning intelligence that President Bush used in the run-up to the war in Iraq and accusing Republicans of ignoring the issue.
"They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why," Democratic leader Harry Reid said. . . .
Democrats sought assurances that Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts of Kansas would complete the second phase of an investigation of the administration's prewar intelligence.
After about two hours, senators returned to open session having appointed a six-member task force--three members from each party--to review the committee's progress and report back to their respective leaders by Nov. 14.
Democratic senators are transparently playing to the party's moonbat base, who've been taunting them for years demanding that they "stand up" to the Bush administration and who were demoralized when they didn't get the indictment for the war that they wanted for "Fitzmas"--the Angry Left nickname for the day indictments were handed up in the Valerie Plame kerfuffle.
The problem with such base-rallying stunts is that they rally the other side's base too. President Clinton, an advocate of free trade, capital punishment and welfare reform, was never popular with the hard left of the Democratic Party, but they were his most fervent defenders once impeachment was on the table.
President Bush has just had a rough month with his political base; the Harriet Miers misstep brought to the surface disagreements over other matters such as spending and immigration. He repaired much of the damage with the excellent appointment of Sam Alito on Monday, and the Democrats now look to be finishing the job for him.
Republicans should welcome anything that rallies the bases of both parties, for two reasons. First, the Republican base is bigger (see election results, 2004). Second, the Democratic base is totally insane. These people are now, according to the Village Voice, touting Cindy Sheehan for president. Democrats love to mock the Republican base for believing the Bible is true. Democratic basemen believe "Fahrenheit 9/11" is true!
Searchlight's Harry Reid, who backed Iraq's liberation, may not be the brightest bulb on the Fitzmas tree, but surely even he is smart enough that he doesn't believe all this nonsense about how BUSH LIED!!!! Indeed, like John Kerry*, who also knows better, Reid is reduced to incoherence in trying to explain his putative position, as quoted by Fox News: "We know that there were no [weapons of mass destruction] now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now that we didn't know at the time that there was no Al Qaeda connection. We know now that we didn't know then that there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. We didn't know that at the time." (Durbin, on the other hand, seems to be a true believer, to judge by his apparently sincere comparison of American soldiers to Nazis.)
Blogger Marshall Wittmann, a McCain Republican turned moderate Democrat, notes that pandering to the tinfoil-hat crowd carries dangers beyond a reinvigorated GOP base:
Will the American people have faith in and trust a party that claims that it was gullibly duped, or as George Romney claimed about another war--that it was "brainwashed"? Moreover, should the objective be re-fighting the reasons to go to war and making the Democrats the official anti-war party or should the goal be achieving reasonable success in Iraq? If you believe in the former than you would encourage more efforts like the one Senate Democrats undertook yesterday. If you believe in the latter, you want the opposition party to present a better plan for winning this war.
While the war is increasingly unpopular, the Democrats should be careful that they are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless and indecisive on national security.
The Angry left is right about one thing, though: Democratic politicians are wimps. After all, they won't even stand up to the Angry Left.
* The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way has not been indicted for war crimes in Vietnam.