Jeff Gannon - A Voice of the New Media

« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 30, 2006

Pelosi Declares Iraq Free Of Al Qaeda

Early Tuesday while speaking in Estonia, President Bush said this in response to a reporter's question about Iraq:

"There's a lot of sectarian violence taking place fomented, in my opinion, because of these attacks by uh -- by al Qaeda, causing people to seek reprisal."

Later in the day, House Speaker designate Nancy Pelosi had this exchange with a Capitol Hill reporter:

THOMAS FERRARO, REUTERS: (INAUDIBLE) blame the surging violence in Iraq on al Qaeda deny the country is in the midst of a civil war?

NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), HOUSE SPEAKER-DESIGNATE: My response on the president's representations are well known. But the 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again.

There you go - Nancy says there is no al Qaeda in Iraq, which is all very nice except for the inconvenient truth that the U. S. military reports that not only is there al Qaeda IN IRAQ, 7,000 of them have been killed IN IRAQ over the past two years.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:46 AM

November 29, 2006

Washington Post Senator Classless Act

Washington Post Senator-Elect Jim Webb has proved himself to be the classless act that the newspaper helped him to hide during the "macaca" campaign. Webb took advantage of President Bush's gracious invitation to new members of Congress to visit the White House to insult the Commander-in-Chief.

Their conversation as reported by Webb Press Secretary Washington Post:

BUSH: "How's your boy?" (Webb's son is a U. S. Marine serving in Iraq)

WEBB: "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President."

BUSH: "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?"

WEBB: "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President."

The Hill reported another classless tidbit from Webb (D-WP):

"Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t."

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:32 PM

Liberals Fight Media Consolidation

You can tell the New Media is winning if the liberals are running to court to prevent media consolidation. On Tuesday, a federal judge issued an injunction to prevent The San Francisco Chronicle from consolidating some of its business operations with newspapers owned by MediaNews Group Inc., citing antitrust concerns.

My, how things have changed in the 30 years since the Old Media had a monopoly on the news. Now, it finds itself unable to compete in the 21st Century marketplace of free ideas and wants the courts to protect a dinosaur from extinction.

An interesting facet of the story is an Old Media figure who is actively engaged in the efforts to forestall the inevitable. Peter Scheer, described as a "lawyer and journalist", and head of the California First Amendment Coalition is suggested in an OpEd that, "Newspapers and wire services need to figure out a way, without running afoul of antitrust laws, to agree to embargo their news content from the free Internet for a brief period -- say, 24 hours -- after it is made available to paying customers. The point is not to remove content from the Internet, but to delay its free release in that venue."

Scheer bases his proposal on the premise that Old Media "news" still has value. I think his plan will hasten the demise of the Old Media since part of the equation of success of the New Media is the delivery of news in "real time". Such an embargo would create a vacuum that would be filled by New Media outlets.

Good plan, Pete.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:40 AM

November 28, 2006

Old Media Vietnamization of Iraq War

The Old Media has been against the war in Iraq from the outset. In fact, it is against any war waged by a Republican president. On Monday, NBC declared that the violence in Iraq had become a "civil war." Of course, that is nothing compared to this idiot,

CBS News foreign affairs correspondent Lara Logan
telling General Abizaid that the United States had been defeated.

From the transcript:

Lara Logan: We hear very little about victory in Iraq these days. We hear a lot about how to manage the defeat. And a lot of Americans...

John Abizaid: What defeat?

Lara Logan: How we minimize the defeat.

John Abizaid: That's your word. Defeat is your word, not my word. Can Iraq stabilize? Yes, Iraq could stabilize.

Lara Logan: Is that what we--is that victory now? Is that what victory will look like in Iraq, just stability? That's what we're aiming for?

John Abizaid: Victory in Iraq is a nation at peace with its neighbors, and Iraq hasn't been at peace with its neighbors in a long time. It is a country that respects the rights of its citizens. It's a country that can defend itself. It's a country that's not a safe haven for terrorists.

Lara Logan: Increasingly in this country, people are talking about how to manage defeat in Iraq. There's a loss of support for the war, very clearly showing in the present. Not a loss of support for the military...

John Abizaid: Yeah.

Lara Logan: ...or for the soldiers which still remains strong.

John Abizaid: Well, Lara, again, let me say I don't think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage defeat in Iraq. I think people in the country are trying to figure out how to manage our involvement in Iraq so that Iraq can stabilize. You just can't walk away from these problems of the Middle East and hope that things are going to get better. Look, many people have said we're already at the beginning of World War III.

Lara Logan: Are we?

John Abizaid: No. We're not, and our involvement in the region will prevent it.

The Old Media rooting is against America, just like it did during the Vietnam War.

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:05 AM

November 27, 2006

UPDATE: Hear Newt School Chrissy

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has written about and provided a link to the event I attended last week at Mt. Vernon and wrote about. Newt really takes Chris Matthews to school from the outset, convincing the MSNBC host not to engage him in his trademark "Hardball" style.

The clip is about an hour long, so if you don't have time to hear the entire discussion, at least listen to the first five minutes to hear the professor set the tone for the evening. Another "don't miss" moment is when Matthews expresses surprise about how educated the audience is - as opposed to the simple-minded handful that watches his show. It's around the 33:15 mark, but tune in at 32:30 to hear the set up. A classic!

Posted by jeffgannon at 06:10 PM

November 23, 2006

Thanksgiving Day 2006

I was watching a news interview of a man who lived near the chemical factory that blew up in Boston yesterday. The man escaped without injury even though his house suffered severe damage. The fortunate fellow told the reporter, “Somebody up there must be watching over me.”

I recalled the man’s words this morning and thought that he should have given credit where it was due. That “somebody” has a name – God – and “up there” is Heaven. I’m sure the generic nature of his expression of gratitude was said without intending to slight the One True Savior, but I hope that he later remembered to give God the praise He deserves. There is power in the Name of Jesus and power in His Word. Both should be said aloud.

On this Thanksgiving Day, I’m remembering to thank God for His many blessings and the gift of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Who are you thanking today?

Posted by jeffgannon at 03:00 PM

November 15, 2006

Newt Waiting To Be Called

Now that the 2006 midterm elections have almost all been decided, political observers are turning their attention toward the presidential sweepstakes in 2008. It will be the first race since 1952 that doesn’t have an incumbent president seeking re-election or vice-president looking for a promotion, leaving the field in both parties wide open. Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and John Kerry top the list of about a dozen Democrats considering a White House run and Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani are the names most frequently talked about for the Republican nomination.

With the official end of the 1994 Republican Revolution coming just a week ago, some have been openly wondering if the architect of the Contract With America will return to the political stage to once again lead the conservative movement with a bid for the White House. After attending an event with Newt Gingrich last night, it appears that the former House Speaker is not running for president - he’s waiting to be asked to serve.

Gingrich was interviewed by a restrained Chris Matthews and revealed the depth and breadth of his knowledge of American history. Gingrich, once a college professor, lectured the audience about how leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt might deal with today’s problems and political environment. Woven into his responses to the over-matched talk show host, was an unmistakable affirmation of conservative principles that were abandoned by the Republican Congressional leadership just deposed.

More striking was Gingrich’s outlook for the upcoming presidential campaigns. He suggested that the current lack of effective leadership in both parties is the result of negative campaigns that appeal to the lowest common denominator. Gingrich believes that real leaders will emerge when “things get bad enough” for Americans to stop responding to the politics of personal destruction and seek candidates with a strong, defined, inspirational message. The underlying premise is that those who seek power will be turned aside in favor of someone who seeks to lead a nation.

It is clear that Gingrich believes he is such a man, as do I. He’s not running for anything, but it seems that he is waiting for his country to call.

Winning the Future - More Conservatives, Not Less

Posted by jeffgannon at 10:52 AM

November 11, 2006

Honor America's Heroes

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:38 AM

November 10, 2006

Lessons Terrorists Learned

In the aftermath of the electoral losses by Republicans, and it was just that, not a victory for Democrats and their agenda, much has been written and spoken about the lessons learned. The obvious lesson for the Republicans is that they can’t have some of their members of Congress taking bribes and lusting after teenage boys without losing the support of the family values crowd and honest government types that put them there in the first place. Democrats needed to only stand out of the way while this it was happening and nominate enough conservative-looking candidates to distract voters from their party's true liberal nature.

The enemies of America learned lessons from the election as well. Undoubtedly there was cheering in a cave somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and a celebratory beheading somewhere in Sadr City when the results of the vote tallies were announced. President Bush was correct when he declared in the last weeks before the election that if Democrats win, terrorists do also. His words should be repeated since they will be recalled at some point as painfully prophetic, "However they put it, the Democrat approach in Iraq comes down to this: The terrorists win and America loses."

Terrorists learned that to win, they need only continue to do that which they do best, terrorize. Lopping off a head here and there, a few improvised explosive devices along a convoy route and the daily suicide bombing in a crowded market or a funeral procession will do the trick. Create just enough chaos to convince cowards in America that maybe the way Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq wasn’t so bad after all. Democrats and the Old Media will do the real heavy lifting.

Democrats spent a lot of time over the last year denying that it wanted to “cut and run” from Iraq. Their efforts to redefine their “retreat and defeat” strategy as “strategic withdrawal” or “phased redeployment” was as phony as Bill Clinton trying to change the meaning of “is”. The lesson terrorists learned is that Democrats will not fight them or any enemy of the United States in Iraq or anywhere else. This was evident in the response of the Democratic 527 group, MoveOn.org to the terrorist attacks of September
11, 2001. Even as the ruins of the World Trade Center were smoldering, MoveOn.org political chief Eli Pariser was circulating a petition uging, “moderation and restraint in responding to the terrorist attacks against the United States." Some of the same people are now promoting the absurd conspiracy theory that 9/11 was either caused or allowed to happen by President Bush and Vice President Cheney to justify waging a war for oil and profit.

Democrats see troops in the field not as heroes, but war criminals or
victims of “failed policies.” Senator John Kerry has expressed this during two wars as only the effete Boston Brahmin that he is can. Even after 34 years, hearing Kerry comparing American troops to the army of “Genghis Kahn” is sounds as sickening now as it did the day he first said it. The sad reality is that Democrats find talking about soldiers useful only when they can be accused of wrongdoing or counted as casualties. Every one of them has applauded Cindy Sheehan, but few, if any have ever paid tribute to Sergeant First
Class Paul R. Smith or even know that he was the first Medal of Honor winner in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Even without troops engaged in battle, terrorists know that Democrats will serve their needs by crippling the intelligence and law enforcement capabilities used against them. With Democrats in power, terrorists should not be troubled that anyone might be listening in when they are discussing plans to strike, or that their funding might be intercepted or traced to their location or that they will have to endure discomfort in order to be forced to give up potentially live-saving information if they are captured.

Terrorists also learned that the Old Media is a source of valuable
information about the methods and tactics employed by the United States to prevent their attacks. Before Democrats can destroy a secret tool in the counterterrorism arsenal, it must be made public through a “leak” to the New York Times or the Washington Post. Terrorists know that the U. S. Constitution makes such treason virtually impossible to prevent or punish because of the First Amendment’s sacred principle of freedom of the press.

These enemies of the United States also know that the Old Media will promote their propaganda and downplay information that might remind Americans of their deadly deeds against their fellow citizens. The film footage of office workers hitting the pavement after leaping from the burning towers over five years ago are deemed “too graphic” to ever be viewed, but a videotape of a sniper gunning down an American soldier plays in an endless loop on CNN. The Old Media will also help stage photographs designed to engender sympathy for the terrorists or undermine support for those fighting against them. If the images aren’t graphic enough, the Old Media will alter them to produce the appropriate message, as it did following the bombing of Beirut by the Israeli Air Force. An editor added dense smoke to look as if the damage inflicted was far greater than it actually was.

Terrorists’ best friends in the Old Media will posit that America is
actually creating more terrorists by fighting them. They will also attack patriots who use “insensitive” words to accurately describe bloodthirsty thugs who would murder innocents and their motives for doing it. The Old Media will uncritically air the lunatic rantings of one “grieved” parent of a fallen soldier who opposes the war in Iraq and ignore the thousands of others who suffered the same loss but are proud of their loved one’s sacrifice and the cause for
which it was made.

At some point, terrorists will be conflicted about Democrats and the Old Media. The terrorists will think that because they have been such great allies it will be a shame to kill them all. But alas, c’est la vie, Allah Akbar!

Posted by jeffgannon at 11:16 AM

November 09, 2006

Lucky Lieberman

The Old Media abounds with images of Nancy Pelosi gleefully picking out new drapes for the Speaker’s office with a smile that requires her plastic surgeon to be on call nearby, but ignores the happiest person on Capitol Hill, Joe Lieberman. He was re-elected to the Senate Tuesday night by a wide margin, but this time as an Independent. Lieberman’s win puts him in a powerful position when the Senate reconvenes in January.

It all started when the Angry Left convinced an antiwar candidate to challenge Lieberman a primary for the Democratic nomination. When Ned Lamont won, Democratic leaders abandoned their colleague and the party’s 2000 Vice Presidential nominee. Lieberman ran as an Independent and sensible Democrats and Republicans in the Nutmeg State voted for him in droves.

The new Senate will be made up of 49 Republicans, 49 Democrats and 2 Independents. Vermont’s socialist Bernie Sanders will caucus with the Democrats, since he always did when he was in the House and he owes it to the Democrats for not running a candidate against him for the Senate seat he won on Tuesday. However, for Democrats to control the Senate, Joe Lieberman has to be convinced to sit with them. If Lieberman were so inclined, he could walk across the aisle and give control of the Senate to the Republicans by virtue of Vice President Dick Cheney’s ability to cast the tie-breaking vote in his role as President of the Senate.

I’m sure Lieberman is a forgiving fellow, but he is no fool. I can’t imagine that he will not use his independence as leverage to get a plum committee post. In fact, I’m sure he will. Lieberman communicated that to Harry Reid in his victory speech saying, ““I will go to Washington beholden to no political group, but only to the people of Connecticut and my conscience.”

The Boston Globe and New York Times have rushed to reassure their readers that Lieberman will not go over to the enemy’s camp, which underscores the possibility that he could do so at any time if he was unhappy with the Democrats. Lieberman will be able to hold that over the heads of those who turned their backs on him and who desperately need him now.

I’d say that for the next two years, what Joe wants, Joe gets.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:17 AM

November 08, 2006

Not A Tsunami, But A Bucket Of Cold Water

In my pre-election post, I got some things right and some things wrong. Of course, the most obvious is the number of Republican losses. Yesterday, I hinted that I expected the Democrats to gain enough to take over the House and split the Senate 50-50, but retain control. The numerical result was greater than that, but not by the quantity necessary to qualify as the tsunami or wipeout that many in the punditocracy were predicting. Tuesday’s result was not like 1994, where the Republicans picked up 54 seats and the majority in the House for the first time in 40 years. The shift of 20+ seats is certainly below the gains Democrats should have made according to historical averages and trends.

The Democrats’ are entitled to celebrate their victory; after all, a win is a win. Keeping that in perspective will be essential if they want to remain in the majority beyond 2008. Historically, Democrats should have made gains in the 6th year of a Republican presidency and they did. It might be foolhardy to write much more into it than that.

Democrats need to be cautious about the agenda they pursue in the next two years. It was conservative candidates that put Democrats in the majority, like pro-lifers Heath Shuler and Bob Casey, Jr. who had been specifically recruited for that reason. The defeat of liberal upstart Ned Lamont by moderate Joe Lieberman who ran as an independent after losing the Democratic primary in Connecticut provides an important clue.

Democrats should also be aware that they are the beneficiaries of having been standing in the right place when Republicans floundered. The GOP leadership did nothing to inspire voters to keep them in power; in fact they gave them plenty of reasons to turn it out of office. The growth of government, wasteful spending, corruption, sex scandals and the failure to seriously address illegal immigration eroded the support of the conservative base to such a degree that what remained could no longer sustain Republicans in the majority.

Similarly, religious values voters turned their backs on leaders who failed to live up the expectation of those who supported them in the past. As I correctly suggested, these voters did come out in large numbers to confirm their values on Tuesday. However, large numbers of them withheld their votes from candidates who were perceived as having betrayed them. That was clearly expressed by referendums on marriage passing in 7 of 8 states, while Republican incumbents in those states were unseated. The South Dakota abortion ban was narrowly defeated due largely to well-funded opposition from Planned Parenthood, NARAL, NOW and others and the Missouri initiative to permit human cloning and embryonic stem cell research barely succeeded, aided by a media disinformation campaign.

The ballots cast or withheld by values voters were not an endorsement of the alternative, but the rejection of a leadership that had strayed from shared values. The disenchantment with Republican leadership was so pervasive that the consequences could not compel values voters to “hold their nose” and pull the lever. Democrats will suffer the same fate should they govern in a way that repels these voters. Republicans were taught a lesson yesterday, but it remains to be seen if Democrats will learn from it.

Posted by jeffgannon at 02:38 PM

November 07, 2006

Not Seeing Predicted "Blue Wave"

I am not in the habit of making predictions, since I gave up prognostication sometime following several disastrous seasons of betting football games. However, I will make a few observations about the outcome of the elections ending today. I say it that way because early voting has diminished the importance of Election Day, but it still is the point where the ballots are tallied.

The first observation has to do with the process itself. Sadly, I expect ballots will be counted, recounted and results argued and litigated for weeks to come.

This election cycle has lived up to, or more accurately down to an observation I made nearly two years ago. At the time, the punditocracy was howling about the rancor of the 2004 election just completed. I suggested that 2006 would make what America had just experienced seem like a picnic. I cannot remember an election season that was so bitterly intense and pervasive. Politics seems to have intruded into every area of American life, and not in a good way. Voter disillusion with excessive partisanship will bode well for more centrist candidates in 2008 - but with the Hard Left becoming increasingly radicalized, it will be hard to describe what a moderate will look like in two years.

As for this year's outcome, I must disagree with the Beltway elites who are predicting a tsunami that will sweep Republicans from power in both houses of Congress. I just don't see it.

First of all, there are 468 races being decided, 435 House seats and 33 Senate slots. Generously, only a small percentage of these have the realistic potential to change hands. Still, that could be enough to shift control of one or both chambers to the Democrats.

The chattering class has been talking about a 1994 wipeout of the GOP, but that scenario, if ever more than just wishful thinking on the part of the DNC and the Old Media seems to be increasingly unlikely. The underlying premises to predicting such an outcome are flawed. Two key points:

1. The 1994 Republican takeover of Congress came as a total surprise to Democrats and the Old Media. Even the GOP itself didn’t foresee what happened once the ballots were counted. Democrats have geared their entire operation to taking over one of both houses of Congress and the GOP has prepared to defend its majorities.

2. There is general dissatisfaction with Congress, but that is different according to party affiliation. Democrats are angry about the war, but angrier about being out of power. That overriding factor may gin up the base, but doesn't attract enough votes from independents to assure electoral victory. The Democrats' lack of a clear set of governing principles forces voters to look at the default perception of what they would do if given control of Congress. More taxes, more spending and being soft on terrorism and illegal immigration aren’t a winning hand. No one that goes into a voting believes that Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, et al will be fiscally responsible, not raise taxes and be strong and effective on national security and illegal immigration.

Republican candidates face a different set of disenchanted supporters. Unhappiness with the war on the Right comes from the fact that it hasn't been prosecuted more aggressively. They are also disgusted with the pork-laden budgets and the slow progress on judicial nominees. However, the most important factor for GOP voters is illegal immigration. Republicans in Congress got the message and voted for a border fence in the last days before the election. Normally, such a tepid and politically contrived maneuver would be insufficient to salve the anger over the issue, but these same people know that the Democrats will institute amnesty and prevent the fence from being built if they are in charge.

The bottom line is that Republican disenchantment does not translate to support for Democrats. At most, some reliable GOP voters may sit out the election, but what I am hearing does not lead me to think that number is going to be significant. The reason is the Democrats themselves.

There is no mistake that the leaders of both parties understand this. This is why Nancy Pelosi went into hiding one week before the election and the most liberal members of the caucus have been muzzled. John Kerry might have blown it with the "botched joke", reminding voters of Democrats' true nature.

Much of the Democratic strategy has been based on suppressing the values voters that have strongly supported Republicans in the past few cycles. When Howard Dean's "outreach" to religious leaders crashed and burned, Democrats went into a full-court press to keep Christians away from the polls. They relied on the Old Media to focus on well-timed political hits on Mark Foley and Ted Haggard and a book about Karl Rove mocking religious leaders to somehow demonstrate that the Republicans didn't share the values of the voters they had come to depend on.

That strategy has been a dismal failure. In fact, it has done quite the opposite of what it intended. The Democrats don't understand the mindset of values voters or religious people at all. Pressure against their values strengthens, not diminishes their resolve. Foley wasn't a religious figure, but the scandal focused attention on the issue of homosexuality and young people. Haggard's downfall has caused the Evangelical community to come together - as is its nature - to defend its faith and affirm its values.

Values voters know what is at stake in this election and will turn out. They know that if Democrats rule the Senate there will not be a single conservative judge confirmed for the balance of the Bush presidency and if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs, that a John Roberts or a Samuel Alito would never make it to the bench. This impacts in two key areas, gay marriage and abortion.

The Religious Right has been fighting abortion for over 30 years and isn't going to give up just because Mark Foley thought the congressional page dorm was a stud farm. Nor is it going to sit on the sidelines while unelected, unaccountable judicial activists - like those in New Jersey - radically and irrevocably alter the basic foundation of American society.

My inclination is to suggest that the final outcome of today's election will be close - very close. Whichever party controls the House and Senate will do so by the thinnest of margins. Right now, the handful of races that will determine the course of the next two years is within the margin of fraud.

I truly don't know which party will prevail, but I do believe that the DNC sycophants in the Old Media have gotten it all wrong. Anything less than a wipeout of the GOP will be a major defeat for the "experts." The political landscape may shift a bit in this election, but the effect on the media will be far more significant.

Posted by jeffgannon at 05:00 AM

November 06, 2006

Haggard's Fall No Boost To Liberal Gays

I’ve resisted posting about Rev. Ted Haggard until enough information came out to get an understanding of what happened. It’s clear now that the pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs and the President of the National Association of Evangelicals committed what church leaders call “immoral sexual conduct” and has been removed from both positions.

The facts are the facts and should not be minimized. However, once again, liberal gay activists have launched a politically motivated “outing” and done so at a time where it could have electoral impact. The man who disclosed Haggard’s exploits admitted that politics played a key role in the timing of the revelation.

While gays are cheering at taking down a religious leader who was active in supporting a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, they have unwittingly provided those they hate with an opportunity to confirm their faith. The reaction of Evangelical leaders and congregants all agree that Haggard committed grievous sin, but also agree that because the fallen pastor asked for forgiveness, he should receive it.

This is something the Left doesn’t understand, since liberals apologize for nothing and to no one. Witness the “apologies” of Bill Clinton in 1998 and John Kerry last week. In a letter, Haggard has apologized for his behavior, took full responsibility for it and submitted himself to the appropriate discipline. For this, he will be forgiven. His wife already has, issuing her own letter.

Evangelicals look to Scripture for guidance in such matters:

"Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted."

Galatians 6:1

A member of Haggard’s church expressed the concept well when he told a reporter, “Things like this remind us that we are all one temptation or sin away from falling.”

Democrats, liberal gay activists and the Old Media have been playing up Haggard’s misfortune in order to convince Evangelicals not to support Republican candidates in the November midterms. Newscasts have been filled with stories about how this might depress the Evangelical vote – a deliberate attempt to produce precisely that result, just like the obsessive coverage of the Mark Foley story. That is a completely illogical assumption that reveals a lack of understanding of those with deeply held religious beliefs. Evangelicals aren’t going to turn away from those who support their point of view on issues of great importance to them – like gay marriage and abortion – simply because a man who isn’t on the ballot had a spiritual failing. The result isn’t going to be what gay activists intended, in fact, it might work the other way around, reminding values voters why they need to cast ballots on Tuesday.

Gays won’t like what Haggard said in his letter about homosexuality:

“There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life…”

Still, gay activists will claim victory, but it will be hollow. They will celebrate taking the scalp of another one of their political enemies and continue to hammer away at Haggard long after his name becomes meaningless to most Americans, which will be Wednesday.

More importantly, liberal gay Americans are getting a new hero, an untrustworthy, drug-dealing gay prostitute. Now there’s something to be proud of.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:51 AM

November 05, 2006

Iraqis Cheer Saddam Guilty Verdict, Death Sentence

Saddam Hussein will receive the justice he denied millions. The murderous dictator has been found guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced to death by an Iraqi court. Despite the efforts of former U. S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark (under DEMOCRAT President Lyndon Johnson), a Leftist member of Hussein's defense team, the deposed tyrant will be hanged for the massacre of 148 men, women and children in Dujail in 1982.

The scenes of happy Iraqis is bad news for Democrats and the Old Media who have been fully engaged and cooperating to undermine America's troops in the field and our country's will to prosecute the war on terror in order to win control of Congress.

Which Democrat will be the first to downplay the verdict and how will they do it?

1. "Too little, too late."
2. "But Osama bin Laden is still on the loose."
3. "Iraq was better off under Saddam."
4. "The timing of the verdict has Karl Rove's fingerprints all over it."

My bet is Howard Dean, since Nancy Pelosi is still in hiding and John "Fonda" Kerry is still bound and gagged and held captive in the same basement as Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore.

Posted by jeffgannon at 06:39 AM

Air America "Reporter" Held After Stalking, Assault

Mike Stark, a liberal blogger who was involved in a confrontation with campaign workers at an event for Republican Sen. George Allen and subsequently hired as a "reporter" for the bankrupt Air America, was handcuffed and removed from another Allen appearance on Saturday. Campaign staff was shielding the Senator from the physically threatening stalker when Stark knocked one of them to the floor. When police were leading the University of Virginia law student from the venue, he screamed, "I'll own this town!"

Loser! You get a paycheck from Air America yet?

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:13 AM

November 04, 2006

Gold Star Families Journey To Iraq

A group of Gold Star families took a trip to Iraq this week, sponsored by the pro-troops organization, Move America Forward. One of my personal friends is on the trip and I will be providing details that are released to the press.

The purpose of the trip is to counter the negative reporting about the war in Iraq that has obscured the progress being made there. The Democrats and their Old Media operatives want Americans to believe that the sacrifice isn't worth the cost or that we can't defeat terrorists there or that Iraqis aren't capable of forming a democratic government.

The group's efforts come at a time when Democratic Sen. John Kerry has once again slandered American troops in a time of war.

Hopefully, the Gold Star families will be able to report more reactions from the troops like what we saw a few days ago. I'll post as many here as possible.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:42 AM

November 03, 2006

Iraqi Docs Update: Saddam Year Away From Bomb

The Democratic National Committee may need to withdraw today's talking points about the New York Times story that suggests Republicans bungled when they insisted upon the release of documents capture after the fall of Baghdad. Nestled inside the story is this stunning admission, analyzed by Jim Geraghty at National Review Online:

"Among the dozens of documents in English were Iraqi reports written in the 1990’s and in 2002 for United Nations inspectors in charge of making sure Iraq abandoned its unconventional arms programs after the Persian Gulf war. Experts say that at the time, Mr. Hussein’s scientists were on the verge of building an atom bomb, as little as a year away."

And here all this time I thought Bush lied and Saddam Hussein was no threat.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:31 AM

NYT's Weak Election Ambush

Americans have come to expect an ambush from The New York Times against Republicans in the days before an election. In 2004, it was the regurgitation of an old story about allegedly unsecured weapons caches following the invasion of Iraq. This year, the Old Grey Lady has come up with a particularly lame attack. After ignoring the biggest political story of the week, John Kerry's slander of American troops in Iraq, it leads today with a story about how the Pentagon's posting of documents captured in Iraq on the internet might have aided Iran's development of a nuclear weapon.

The hypocrisy in the story is stunning. According to the newspaper, the documents were released because Republicans wanted to prove that Saddam Hussein had a weapons of mass destruction program. The implication is that their zeal to justify the invasion of Iraq has caused even greater harm to national security.

Let's consider:

1. If Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD capability like the NYT and Democrats claim, what harm could come from the release of the documents?

2. Why hasn't the NYT reviewed any of the other translated documents that show Saddam Hussein's dealing with Al Qaeda and other terrorist leaders and groups?

I think the "newspaper of treason" is unhappy, perhaps jealous that it couldn't expose the recipe for a nuclear bomb to terrorists on its front page.

This election ambush by the NYT is weak. It must be because this was originally scheduled to be Foleygate weekend, but gay activists sprung the story too early.

Democrats and their Old Media operatives has used every weapon and tactic in their arsenal in order to make Nancy Pelosi the next Speaker of the House. Americans and terrorists will know sometime after Tuesday if the United States will prosecute the war on terror or President George W. Bush.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:11 AM

Dems Look To Disqualify Military Votes

Sen. John Kerry's "non-apology" for his comments don't seem to the be end of Democrats' slander of American troops in Iraq. Not only do Democrats believe only dropouts and losers go to fight in Iraq, but they are also too stupid to vote. New Jersey Democratic Rep. Rush Holt is questioning military ballots that are being cast by soldiers in the field. His reason? There might be vote fraud. A Democrat in New Jersey concerned about vote fraud? Democrats consider fraudulent votes a contituency. Ever hear of the "dead vote"?

The Democratic Party and its ally ACORN produced thousands of fraudulent voter registrations this year and in 2004 and the ACLU challenges every law to stop those phony registrations from turning into votes for Democrats.

This is as low as it gets. It's not even the first time military ballots have been challenged. In the 2000 Florida recount, Democrats went to court to keep military votes from being counted. In 2004, Republicans had to go to court in Pennsylvania to force Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell to make sure ballots were sent to soldiers in time for them to be returned and counted.

Posted by jeffgannon at 06:41 AM

November 02, 2006

GOP Uses Feds To Supress Dem Vote

U. S. Marshalls are leading the last-minute push to assure that the GOP retains control of Congress in next week's midterm elections by preventing likely Democratic voters from casting ballots. Federal and local law enforcement officers rounded up 11,000 fugitives in a 24-state sweep. Those nabbed included gang members and others wanted on a variety of charges from kidnapping to weapons offenses as well as 1,659 sex offenders.

The impact on hotly contested House races won't be known until after the polls close next Tuesday.

Posted by jeffgannon at 02:37 PM

Kerry Insult Opens Floodgate Of Troop Slander

Phony war hero John "Fonda" Kerry slandered his fellow soldiers by accusing them of war crimes before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 and tarnished a generation of patriots. While the waffling Massachusetts senator has released a faux apology for his latest assault upon the honor of the men and women who sacrifice so elitists like him don't get their heads chopped off by Islamofascists, his remarks have prompted his ideological soulmates to come out from under their rocks and make similar claims.

Kerry said the same thing in 1972, reported by the Associated Press today:

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown...We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'"

At Wednesday's White House press breifing, Paula Cruickshank, a "reporter" for some obscure financial news service tried to defend Kerry's assertion that only dropouts and losers join the military.

Tony Snow gently slaps her down:

Q Isn't the actual issue here that higher education, access to higher education is really becoming more and more unreachable for the middle- and low-income students, and because of that -- because of that, many of them feel they have no other way of getting an education, job training, access to college, unless the state -- unless they go into the military?

MR. SNOW: No. What you've just said is, if you've got -- if you're poor and you can't get an education, go into the military. The military has always been certainly a ladder of opportunity. But if you take a look at the data, you find out that more of the people who already have college degrees are joining the military. So what you've conflated here is a fact -- the price of -- the cost of higher education, and the President is concerned about it, he's made no bones about that. But, no, it's not the high cost of college that's driving people into the military. You know what it is? It's a sense of calling. They feel that they're -- yes. Believe it or not. They may disagree with you on --

Q Follow up, please.

MR. SNOW: Yes, please.

Q The College Board put out a study last week, and in that study it said that the cost -- the rising cost of tuition is making it virtually impossible for many low- and middle-income students to either start college, or if they're enrolled in college, they either can't go four years, they opt for two years, or they just can't go. Now, this whole issue about -- making an effort to be smart -- isn't this really the issue of, if you're not smart enough to get a merit scholarship, and you can't afford to go to college like your wealthier counterparts, then what other option do you have for education?

MR. SNOW: Paula, number one, you don't want to get yourself into the business of trying to interpret this, because Senator Kerry --

Q You are.

MR. SNOW: No. No, as a matter of fact, I'm saying, here's what Senator Kerry said, he's got to explain it. I don't think he was making a comment about his desire for more Pell grants. So -- I mean, these are important issues. The President has increased Pell grant funding. He believes in this stuff, and he thinks it's important for everybody to have access to education.

That exchange is mild compared to Old Media star Seymour Hersch, who said that “There has never been an American army as violent and murderous as the one in Iraq”

This is how the Left undermined American troops in Vietnam, using the media to portray them as they really see them - as bloodthirsty rapist babykilling morons. It's in their playbook.

Fortunately, the New Media is going to expose the truth and the lies of the political operatives in the Old Media.

Posted by jeffgannon at 07:52 AM

November 01, 2006

White House Press Corps Defending Kerry

If you get a chance, catch a replay of today's White House press briefing when C-SPAN puts it up. If was any doubt that many of my former colleagues are Democratic operatives, that should settle the issue.

Posted by jeffgannon at 12:23 PM

Kerry To "Cut and Run" From Campaign Events

The fallout from Kerry's "stupid troops" remarks is continuing to take its toll on Democratic candidates. The Massachusetts liberal who once again slandered America's fighting men and women won't apologize, but is at the same time admitting that his toxic comments are an enormous liability for Democratic candidates across the country.

So far, Kerry has cancelled or has been uninvited to campaign events for:

Tim Walz (Minn. House)
Bruce Braley (Iowa House)
Bob Casey, Jr. (PA Senate)

Sen. Kerry told Don Imus this morning that he would return to Washington so that he wouldn't "be a distraction." Too late.

Posted by jeffgannon at 09:16 AM

John Kerry – Idiot or Coward

Sen. John Kerry said Monday, "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Kerry said it was a botched joke and refused to apologize for the insult to American troops.

I might give Kerry the benefit of the doubt if the Senator had not wrongfully accused his fellow soldiers of committing war crimes in Vietnam and slandered a generation of American patriots. He might get a pass if he hadn’t told a national audience last year that, "…there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the-of-the historical customs, religious customs."

Democrats are in a quandary. Forcing Kerry to apologize will anger their hard-core antiwar base that agrees with the sentiment the liberal Senator articulated. Witness the remarks made by another comedian, Richard Belzer who said of troops in Iraq on Bill Maher’s HBO show, "You think everyone over there is a college graduate? They're 19 and 20-year-old kids who couldn't get a job.”
On the other hand, Democratic strategists know that a gaffe like this is political dynamite that will doom their plans to take over Congress. The Old Media operatives have been spinning this as an overreaction by the right wing, but every time the Kerry clip is played, the damage gets worse. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was sputtering for two hours last night that Kerry’s remarks were taken out of context. The DNC’s loudest cheerleader sees the election slipping away. CNN’s Jack Cafferty just about popped a blood vessel suggesting that Kerry should essentially “shut up and go away.”

Kerry compounded the severity of his blunder when he said, “I apologize to no one…” Elitism and arrogance is why voters rejected Kerry in 2004 and led the Democratic Party to smaller minorities in both houses of Congress. Now, the Boston Brahmin is back to complete the mission by exposing why Democrats cannot be trusted with national security or waging the war on terror: They despise our troops and think American military might is the greatest threat to world peace.

Posted by jeffgannon at 08:57 AM