37 Comments

1. Final Historian:

“When women like this no longer feel constrained to write anonymously, we will be on the way to victory.”

As long as they are attacking Bush Headquarters, burning swastikas into lawns and vandalizing property, that constraint will continue.

Oct 12, 2004 - 7:50 pm 2. Yehudit:

I don’t think we are a majority in NY, but a sizable silent minority. But we may yet be the majority, it’s happened before (Reagan).

If you think things are bad here, read this.

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:07 pm 3. TmjUtah:

I believe that what you suspect is true, Roger.

Howard in Australia was supposed to squeak by, if at all. The same media that covered that story is telling us that our election is going to be close.

Maybe as close as organized and well-financed fraud can make it…but I don’t think it will be close at all.

The real war against terror begins on November 3d. In the homes of our enemy, and sadly, here.

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:11 pm 4. Yehudit:

Ah, I see you already linked that too. Damn, I can’t read everything!

Roger you typed “New Yok” not “New York.”

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:12 pm 5. Michael B:

Obviously, there are a wide variety threats employed by Left/Dems, social ostracization, or at least intimating as much, is simply one of the milder but presumably more effective forms due to its typically subtle invocation. The black and brown shirted tactics we’re seeing recently (which are simply the physical manifestation of Left/Dem rhetoric and vitriol we see virtually every day) are perpahs less effective since they may well steel peoples’ resolve as much as they intimidate anyone, though that type of anger does have a virulent aspect to it and no doubt does have an effect upon weaker or less informed people, i.e., those more easily susceptible to the climate of fear these black and brown shirts of the Left are attempting to instill.

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:30 pm 6. Rick Ballard:

Tmj,

There may be a bit of street theater after Nov. 2 but you can’t convince me that the moveon morons have the intestinal fortitude for actual confrontations. The hard lefties that pushed the violence in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s (Kerry’s valor thieves) just aren’t around. There’s nothing in it for the union thugs once the election is held and the kids will find a new toy within a month or two.

Oct 12, 2004 - 8:36 pm 7. Barrett:

What the author of this essay realizes is that we are living at a historically significant time – a time that requires action and a chance to set the course of history on the path of peace and freedom for the next millenium.

What is astonishing is the complete lack of vision coming from John Kerry & Co., the DNC, George Soros and friends and the mainstream media. With their pedigree and self-proclaimed intellectual superiority, you would think that they could articulate a grand vision of peace, prosperity and freedom for the world (along with a Powerpoint presentation detailing how we will get there from here). However, the best the liberal elite can muster is appeasement, an America must be the problem or those poor people would not attack us view of the world and a socialistic domestic agenda that has already failed or is in the process of failing in Europe, for example.

Peace, prosperity and freedom have never come cheaply. They never will. Let’s hope that women and others, who fear retribution of some kind for disclosing a vote for Bush, will soon breathe easier should Bush win.

Oct 12, 2004 - 9:21 pm 8. Yehudit:

“The hard lefties that pushed the violence in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s (Kerry’s valor thieves) just aren’t around.”

I hope you are right, but did you see any of the video from various anti-globo demos? Also, the real nutcases will continue to make common cause with the Islamofascists and rightwing nutjobs and Earth Firsters and I would not be surprised if we saw some homegrown suicide bombers, perish the thought. (Did you hear about the new Prince video?)

Oct 12, 2004 - 9:50 pm 9. TmjUtah:

Rick -

The Bush administration published the objectives of this war in 2001. The Doctrine, the Axis of Evil, Patriot/TSA/DHS, subsequent direct action in Afghanistan and Iraq….between 9/11 and the middle of 2002, the pace of our offensive was limited almost exclusively by the physical limitations of the force we could project. It was only when the political season began to crest that the initiative seemed to slip a little bit. Remember, though, that word “objectives”, and who defined them.

During that first phase, Khaddafi rolled over and the Khan Supermarket was exposed and hopefully neutralized. There was talk of unrest in Iran. The United States entered into security/assistance agreements with scores of countries, many in Africa and along the rim of Russia and south Asia. The Six Party talks brought maximum political pressure to bear on North Korea.

This is not a war against Islam…but the groundwork was well and truly laid in a huge way to go after the traditional stomping grounds of Islamic fundamentalists early on. After the media barrage shifted from “can’t win the war” to “won’t win the peace” it seemed to me that, at least publicly, we stopped expanding our physical presence into the bad guys’ neighborhood.

The objectives have been defined and a plan has been implemented. There’s not going to be any nuclear mullahocracy in Iran. There will not be sactuaries for identified terrorists. There will be no market for North Korea’s WMD. There will be representative democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq. And for all that to happen, the election of 2004 needed to be won. There’s just not enough time for all the work to be done in one administration. And the prospect of any meaningful prosecution of the war ends with a Kerry administration. We are in an operational pause. While our ordnance is being replenished and our weapons serviced and our people in uniform and out are analyzing what we have learned so far, the administration has been doing what it has to do to win this election – the minimum, by the way. Bush is running as a war president because that’s where we are. His domestic agenda is just about identical with 2000; he will continue to work that along with the war but he’s just about ignored the media and Kerry on everything else beyond his 2000 platform. It’s worked because he believes that enough Americans support this fight above any conflicts they may have with other issues. If it doesn’t work…who would be president of a country that won’t fight for its own survival? That is the choice we are making as a country. Fight? Or “go back to the way it was before”?

The ANSWER and MoveOn organizations and unions don’t scare me. Like you said, once the election is come and gone the money will dry up and most of them will seethe elsewhere. It’s the people like me that I worry about. I know to what lengths I will go to to protect and defend what I believe in. It so happens that I believe in our constitution’s enumerated responsibilities and limits of government and the rights of individuals therein, and that my political activism should be expressed through free speech, debate, financial and physical support for candidates, and casting my vote. I also believe it is a citizen’s duty to defend the country, and fellow citizens, from crime or tyranny. It’s a matter of life or death for me.

Now look at what other folks believe today. Bushitler? We are the new terrormasters of Iraq? War for Oil? Our minority party presidential candidate consorted with enemy agents during a time of war. Half the moonbats at any media-covered protest are there for PETA, the Communist Party, Anti-Globalization, or name your own disaffected loser group.

Nothing angers a fanatic like being ignored.

Bush doesn’t have to do anything to the Left to be hated. That reality existed even before Florida. I wrote a long post (1247 a.m.) on Roger’s second debate thread on where the Left is headed.

In a perfect world, we’d disagree vehemently amongst ourselves, arrive at a compromise, then try to make it work. If John Kerry should be elected president I won’t be burying guns in the desert or slashing tires on Volvos. I’d keep on doing what I did during the Clinton years – paying attention. Finally. And communicating, and supporting whatever action our national government arrived at to deal with the threats we most surely face. The opposition, as an institution, is no longer loyal. Lines have been crossed this election cycle that set dangerous precedents.

The coordinated campaign of trashing election offices either by burglary or by mobs sends a message: this is how we are going to fight. The rhetoric was off the hook long, long ago. After this election the bosses will retire to consultancies or teaching jobs, just like you say. The foot troops will still be very much on the battlefield.

It takes a lot of discipline to retreat in good order, especially when the battlefield is in your head. The inertia to violence has been established. The foot soldiers of the left have been mobilized and in some cases deployed to battle. They may be leaderless in about three weeks. It will take one hell of a concession speech by John Kerry to put the pins back in the grenades they’ve already thrown, should Bush win. I doubt very seriously he’s the kind of man to make such a speech, even if he were inclined to do so in the first place.

Oct 12, 2004 - 10:32 pm 10. richard mcenroe:

TmjUtah ó How did the hunt with your daughter go, BTW…?

Oct 12, 2004 - 10:35 pm 11. TmjUtah:

richard mcenroe -

No joy. We are going out Thursday if the Eldest Goddess can get her Algebra grade to a B. Day One is here.

Oct 12, 2004 - 10:47 pm 12. David Thomson:

What about conservatives supporting pro-war liberals? Well, the New York Post has come out for Chuck Schumer. The editors explain their decision:

ìBut the fact remains that on the overriding issue of the day ó the threat of global Islamist terrorism ó Chuck Schumer gets it.

And he gets it in a way that few in his party ó Sen. Joe Lieberman perhaps being the honorable exception ó do.

Schumer has been one of Capitol Hill’s most energetic investigators of those who support international terrorism.

He has doggedly probed the interlocking web of financial connections that has allowed groups like al Qaeda to flourish.

And at a time when others in his party try to downplay ideological extremism and instead foolishly depict poverty as the cause of terrorism, Schumer’s is an often-lonely voice declaring that “more that just about anything else, the root cause of terrorism is the Saudi propagation of Wahhabism.”

Yes, Chuck Schumer can be overly partisan at times. But not when it comes to the life-and-death issue of the terrorist threat to America’s security.î

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/30184.htm

Oct 13, 2004 - 2:01 am 13. thedaddy:

This essay is quite revealing.

This past weekend My mother who is 87 years old and sharp as a tack was at my home with a number of other family members.

She is Jewish, and a life long democrat who grew up in Massachusetts but has lived her adult life in NYC and Long Island.

She said that she watched one of the early democrat debates and picked john kerry as the one who would be the candidate. Since then she has come to the conclusion that she can’t vote for kerry and that she will vote for Bush because she feels that Bush understands what is loose in the world and what to do about it. She is definitely holding her nose to do this because she would rather vote for Bush on a line other than republican, as she has never voted for a republican in her life ( except for Jacob Javits– becase he was Jewish).

My Brother who has lived in NYC and Long Island all his life, came of age in 1970 and voted for gore the last time is voting for Bush this time because he says he wants someone who will fight the islamofacists not negotiate with them.

When my mom told me this I was quite happily surprised and adding this together with what annymous wrote gives me the hope that my fellow Jews will come to their senses regarding their self interest and the interests of our country and our world and reject the wizard of oz — Mr. Kerry.

I believe Bush will win, I would like to see him win NY to further continue the repudiation of the phonies in the press and in the democrat party.

BTW I dissagree with the NY Post regarding Chuckeee Cheese Schumer. He is not a visonary but an opportunist, the statement

“ÔøΩBut the fact remains that on the overriding issue of the day ÔøΩ the threat of global Islamist terrorism ÔøΩ Chuck Schumer gets it.” is not quite the way it is. Schumer doesn’t as much “get it” as USE IT because of being the quintessential opportunist he is.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:08 am 14. Rick Ballard:

Judith,

I have seen some video on the anti-globo/anarchist demos. The MSM has not given its cachet to that type of vilolence as they did in the 60/70’s. It was the media cachet as much as anything else that drove those demos. I can remember fairly well the sympathetic reporting and the anti-government spin and I believe that it was that spin coupled with some very good hard left organizers that drove the willing fools who are always available when the cameras are running.

The essay that is the topic of this post reflects what was known in those days as the ’silent majority’. That majority came out in ‘72 and returned Nixon to office with a huge landslide. I’m not at all sure that W can achieve that type of landslide given the unceasing negative media spin today but I am confident of his victory. Kerry is the worst candidate that either party has put forward in the last one hundred years. The MSM is spinning like a dervish to try and hold down Rep turnout but it’s just not going to work.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:40 am 15. richard mcenroe:

TmjUtah ó Hmmm. Maybe if you crawled around on your bellies with a 12-gauge double?

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:43 am 16. Sandy P:

AHHHHHH!

I had just read an article about Jewish turnout w/in the last 4 days and didn’t have anywhere to post it, didn’t want to go OT.

Could be as high as 30% for W. Was 19% in 2000.

Hope it’s enough.

Check out Bill Hobbs for the roundup of voter fraud.

ACORN is prominently featured.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:52 am 17. Sandy P:

And how timely this is from LGF:

An especially ugly outbreak of Bush Derangement Syndrome has turned up at the National Jewish Democratic Council web site, in the form of an animated cartoon loaded with vile stereotypes, heavily influenced by Michael Moore; hereís the ad, which the NJDC says is designed to appeal to ìyounger voters.î (Thanks to all who emailed about this.)

JTA News has more on the controversy over this latest example of the demented tactics of the left.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:54 am 18. John Lynch:

Via Little Green Footballs: there seem to be some strong anti-bush ads popping up.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:56 am 19. Sandy P:

…Ken Goldstein, an academic at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who monitors the Jewish vote, said the ad shocked him.

ìThis ad is disgusting ó and you will never ever see me say that about a campaign,î Goldstein said. Especially offensive, he said, is Cheneyís decapitated head rolling into a bucket marked ìMiami-Dade votesî and pleading, ìI want a deferment.î….

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:57 am 20. John Lynch:

Oops. Sandy P got to it as I was composing my post.

Oct 13, 2004 - 7:57 am 21. TmjUtah:

richard mcenroe -

OT: In all honesty, the pace we moved at was the equivalent of low crawling with a double. We knew the weather would be marginal. What we did accomplish was to find several good spots that provided good sight lines, comfortable rests to shoot from, and excellent places to spend a day reading, talking about anything that comes up, and spend time together, weather being anything less than filthy. If we only fill her tag, we’ll be in meat until Easter. If we don’t fill either one we’ll still have had the time together and that is really what this is all about.

We’ve eaten SpamLamb for Thanksgiving before. It’s no big thing.

Oct 13, 2004 - 8:01 am 22. jedrury:

Another annoying bit of MSM spin today:

Douglas Brinkley, author of the sycophantic Kerry bio, appeared on NBC’s Today, interviewed by Ann Curry. He offers in response to puff ball questions a skewered defensive defense of Kerry, denigrates the Swift Boat Vets’ claims and lauds the War Hero.

These laudatory bios about Democrats come out around election time: remember “First In Class” about Bubba by David Maraniss of the Washington Post.

Then just to get “perspective” the networks and the interview talk shows call on these so called unbiased biographers to give us their views. The most famous of these biographers is Doris Kearns Goodwin who adds her affectionate angle for viewers to love her by writing about her love of the Red Sox. Of course, Doris became persona non grata with a bit of plagerism a few years back. No matter, she is slowing edging her way back into MSM respectability.

Brinkley is not the perfect specimen: he tends to overheat, sweat, rush his words, talk too loud and confuse his soundbites. Apparently, the DNC has not properly tooled his talking points software.

Oct 13, 2004 - 8:14 am 23. Percy Dovetonsils:

My gut feeling is that there are a lot of Bush supporters under the radar in urban areas.

Speaking of the undercounted and silent, I also wonder about the evangelical vote – namely, will they turn out this time?

From my understanding, something like 4 million evangelicals did not vote in the 2000 election. I don’t know if that’s a good number or not; my guess is that the average urban news organ is utterly in the dark as to measuring this demographic cohort. (Goodness knows the media are in the dark on anyone outside of their bobo orbit.)

Thus, I wonder if the possible evangelical effect(s) on this election is/are being woefully miscalculated. Anyone want to take a stab at shedding some light on this issue?

Oct 13, 2004 - 8:35 am 24. Goof®:

This morning…

Unless one candidate wins decisively in a debate whose stakes cannot be overstated (even in a politico-media culture prone to hyper hyperbole), this race is likely going to be settled by just eight states.

In fact, “eight” might be overstating it.

If you don’t have the eight memorized, you should stop reading The Note until you do.

(They are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Nevada, and New Hampshire.)

Eight is overstating it. Barring a surprise (or a big move all in one direction on the final weekend) Bush will carry Florida and Kerry will carry Pennsylvania. Bush may pick up an electoral vote in Maine and Kerry may pick up 4 in Colorado. The count is Bush 245 – Kerry 237 and 56 still in play.

20 days to go.

Oct 13, 2004 - 8:57 am 25. Rick Ballard:

Percy,

Evangelical has become a loaded term carrying a bit too much negative weight. I would say that the mainline churches (UMC,PCUSA, UCC, ELCA and Episcopelians) will divide on roughly the same basis as the general population. The SBC, Assemblies, Four Square, Missouri Synod Lutherans and non-denominational evangelicals will go over 70% to W. Catholics will go for W in the 55-60% range. The four million that Rove referred to won’t be staying home on Nov. 2 and they won’t be voting for Kerry, either.

There are going to be hundreds of thousands of sermons preached over the next three Sundays that will focus on foundational and charactor issues relating to Romans 13. They won’t be misunderstood.

Kerry has precisely zero on offer to anyone whose faith resides in other than UN style fantasy.

Oct 13, 2004 - 9:29 am 26. gb_in_ga:

Rick Ballard:

Romans 13:

By that I assume that you mean Rom 13:1-7, for that is the passage that has to do with the Christian’s relationship with the government. Interesting passage you cite, and it must be taken in historical perspective: 1st Century Rome. Where the Christians were not exactly well liked by the Roman Authorities. Not At All. And would be even less liked in the years to come. Now, what does it say to do? Respect and obey the government, for they (the government, that is) are appointed by God. Pay your taxes. Render them honor. In other words, be law abiding citizens, good examples. It does NOT say anything about trying to influence the government to be more Christian friendly. It does NOT say anything about attempting to persuade the government to adopt Christian morals.

IMHO, people who try to bend government into the ideals of their faith, thereby forcing what is faith to them onto others who do not likewise believe, overstep their authority as given by the book. I don’t believe that you’ll find anywhere in the NT anything about legislating morality. The NT is about the believer’s relationship with God and other believers. And I am quite aware that my opinion on this is a minority one.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:10 am 27. Rick Ballard:

gb_in_ga,

I suppose that my reference back to foundational issues might be misunderstood by some but I would never wish to suggest that morality can be legislated. Each individual is responsible and accountable for choices made. Thanks for elucidating what I meant. I agree with your assessment wholeheartedly.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:20 am 28. Bruce W.:

Back to the anonymous essay for a moment.

Other than being a male, Ms. Anonymous and I share all the same demographics mentioned in her piece.

Just this morning, before visiting Roger’s site and reading the essay, I designed and printed for myself a bumper sticker for the “on the fence” liberals that reads:

“OK, so Vote for Bush,

and DON’T tell your Friends”

(the “DONT” should be underlined)

I reverse commute to NJ from New York City, driving through the infamously liberal Upper West Side twice each working day, so it will certainly get some pinpoint exposure to the target market. Anyone want a copy, let me know…and I’ll gladly take suggestions for tweaks or reformulations of the message.

Bruce

(P.S. This will be my very first political bumper sticker. If New York goes “red” by a handful of votes, what do I win?)

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:35 am 29. gb_in_ga:

Rick Ballard:

Agreed. But there are many — especially in the “Evangelical” camp, who would differ. They typically cite the old Proverb (Pro 13:34): “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people. (NKJV)” as authority to force morality. I say that the nation is only exalted when the people are voluntarily moral, and voluntarily refrain from sin. In other words, this still isn’t a license to legislate morality. Besides, it is OT, and that is supposed to be viewed as a “history lesson” for the Christian — interesting, insightful, but not authoritative. Those aren’t our marching orders.

Sorta like Americans studying British law. It gives great insight to our own. And was once applicable to us. But no longer.

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:41 am 30. holdfast:

Re: 4,000,000 missing Evangelicals. Even if they do come out and vote, will it really make a difference for the electoral colleges? I suppose a thousand Evengelicals in New Mexico or Florida would have been useful last time, but wouldn’t most of these folks live in states that are already solidly red?

Oct 13, 2004 - 10:58 am 31. Rick Ballard:

gb_in_ga,

Now you return to the thrust of my statement concerning evangelicals, there are lots of flavors. One might devoutly hope that some of them would even read Hillel’s commentaries as noted in the essay that Judith posted to the Command Post. Reading Hillel would probably help them a great deal in separating eisegesis from exegesis when making their pronouncements. A very little knowledge can be a very, very dangerous thing in the pulpit.

Bruce W.,

“BC/04 (don’t tell)”

might work too.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:09 am 32. jedrury:

Bruce W.

great post !

better check your car insurance for driving in a danger zone.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:11 am 33. bkw:

Roger you typed “New Yok” not “New York.”

He’s working on his Bronx accent.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:13 am 34. gb_in_ga:

Holdfast:

You have a good point, I’d say that is part of the reason they are so solidly red. From what I’ve seen of them (and that’s a lot), they aren’t hiding, they’ve always been prominent in the polls, they’ve always felt it their duty to vote their faith. So I rather suspect that the 4 mil missing figure may be rather inflated. Or, well, maybe not. That 4 mil figure is what percentage of the total number of Evangelical voters? Not all that much, there’s a lot of Evangelicals here in the Bible Belt. Meaning, that 4 mil figure implies that the percentage of Evangelicals that actually vote is already quite a bit higher than that of the voting populance at large. I wouldn’t expect a much higher percentage to vote this time around, hence I think you’ll still see some 4 or so mil not vote for whatever reason.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:15 am 35. gb_in_ga:

Rick Ballard:

“Reading Hillel would probably help them a great deal in separating eisegesis from exegesis when making their pronouncements.”

Yes, there does need to be a seperation pertaining to eisegesis and exegesis. But that can only come when people are taught how to do critical studies of the scriptures themselves. Only then can they seperate commonly held notions and opinions from what the scriptures actually say and mean.

About the commentary: Well, we have a different way of doing it, but the end result is the same. We’ve always adopted a strict biblical hermeneutic, and ascribe to the principle that the best guide to “The Book” is the book itself, respecting relevant contexts. We don’t usually refer to 3rd party commentaries, and when questions do arise we tend to go back to the original languages (to the best of our abilities) and determine what it originally meant when written. And then we stick to that. Again, the end result is the same, for an honest, unbiased commentator will have done the same thing. By doing it our way, we assure ourselves that we are not unwittingly thrown off by a potentially biased commentator.

Hence, I find that I use the scriptures themselves (literal translations only), Strong’s Concordance, and the Interlinear Bible that is in my copy of PC Study Bible, and that’s about it. Just about everything else is someone’s opinion on it, and I try to avoid that.

“A very little knowledge can be a very, very dangerous thing in the pulpit.”

Roger That!

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:46 am 36. Michael B:

Volokh adds some relevant insight into this subject, emphasizing the comparison with 1930’s Germany and England’s own appeasers and wishful thinkers during that period, referencing William Manchester’s biography of Churchill. The final two graphs from Volokh:

“For decades, I used to hear ‘never again.’ I didn’t know then what I know now: that many meant ‘Never again, unless a Republican is President’ or ‘Never again, unless it would mean crediting a Republican with liberating millions of oppressed Iraqis’ or ‘Never again, unless it cost a couple of thousand lives in the US military.’”

“One of the more incredible stories in Manchester’s 2d Churchill biography is that even after war was declared in 1939, the British government was afraid to make Hitler angry by putting Churchill in the cabinet. Today, some people are more worried that the US is being too aggressive, rather than not aggressive enough.”

The Left and Left/Dems, the hard and the softer Left, continue with their vitriol and militant offensives and defensive strategems, for them it’s an all out political war, nothing less than that. David Horowitz’s latest, Unholy Alliance, Radical Islam and the American Left, is perhaps his magnum opus as it unremittingly and forensically dissects the oft-virulent anti-American and anti-Western allegiances formed, de facto and de jure, between the Left’s and the Islamicist’s initiatives. Ideologically our own contemporary Left represents a willfully self-blinded, head in the sand attitude at best; at worst they represent conscious, premeditated allegiances with fundamental and formidable aspects of the Islamicists’ strategies.

As Ms. Anonymous quotes Hillel, “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” There’s nothing much more basic than that.

Oct 13, 2004 - 11:49 am 37. Terrye:

I thought this was beautifully written.

And people should not be afraid to vote for the candidate they choose to. So far the Democrats seem to be railing at everyone, Bush and Nader voters alike. The fact that the irony is lost upon them shows us just dense they are.

Oct 13, 2004 - 2:01 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: