Thursday, August 05, 2004


Newsday's Marie Cocco mistakenly thinks Kerry is attracting Republican voters

Marie Cocco appeared on MSNBC's Hardball last night to discuss her story, "Courting the Kerry Republicans," that appeared in both the Washington Post and Newsday on Wednesday.

Cocco's thesis is that disaffected Republicans, especially those in the military, are turned off by President Bush's war on terrorism and are therefore fleeing to the John Kerry camp. Cocco cites anecdotal evidence of Republican military families discouraged by deployments in Iraq and their reluctance to vote for President Bush in the next election.

Cocco says there are Republicans who are "disappointed in their president. At worst, they are downright angry." Instead of interviewing those disappointed and angry Republicans, Cocco can not offer one Republican in her piece who states those feelings. Rather, Cocco quotes two people and both of them are Democrats working to help Kerry get elected. The two people who speak of Republican anger are Doug Wilson, chairman of the John Kerry campaign in Arizona and Marilyn Hyland an Ohio Democratic activist.

Amazingly, Cocco has these Democratic partisans speak for the so-called discouraged Republicans. Therefore she is able to draw a stark conclusion, "the emergence of ill will toward this president among his own partisans shocks." Cocco even offers Kerry advice on how to draw hesitant Republicans by suggesting he run his campaign the way that Hillary Clinton did when she ran for senator in 2000. Cocco concludes her piece by saying, "After four years of disappointment, there may be enough Republicans willing to take it, and rock this campaign."

I can't believe that Cocco's Newsday's editors let this get printed and I can't believe that the Washington Post agreed to run it as well. Cocco is trying to talk about Republicans that are turned off by Bush but she can't even offer one of them in her article. She does not cite any statistics, polls, or concrete evidence of how much trouble President Bush is facing within his own party.

Here are some numbers for Marie Cocco to contemplate;

Among Veterans: Bush 58% Kerry 35%
48% Have Family or Friends in Iraq or Afghanistan

Thursday August 05, 2004--A Rasmussen Reports survey shows that military veterans prefer George W. Bush over John Kerry by a 58% to 35% margin. Those with no military service favor Kerry by ten percentage points, 51% to 41%.

The potential grassroots impact of the war issue is highlighted by the fact that 48% of Americans say they know someone who is currently serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. Among these voters, Bush currently has a ten-point advantage in the poll. Fifty-four percent (54%) of veterans know someone serving in these war zones.

And, according to a CBS News Poll, Kerry and Bush are BOTH enjoying the support of 88% of voters from their own parties.

I could go on but the point has been made. Marie Cocco thought it sufficient to interview two Democrats in order to gauge whether or not Republicans are supporting President Bush. I used cold, concrete facts to show that Republicans are as loyal to President Bush as ever.

I do not know what Marie Cocco was attempting to do, but her column's conclusion is wrong. I wish Ms. Cocco lots of luck in her endeavors for her next column.



The Democrats, as social engineers, see the world and America as an organism they can control on every level

By Albert Greenland, guest blogger for The Galvin Opinion

Foremost, I want to thank One Fine Jay for an incisive commentary. However, it is my duty to respond to the merits of Jay's argument. I wish to address what I consider his most salient statements in order. [I have two previous posts on this matter; 1) more Republicans should be like Ann Coulter and 2) my first defense of that argument].

Jay wrote:
A- "...[B]ut I think that the middle-of-the-curve American still has enough common sense to know that George W. Bush, Republicans, and other conservatives of different strokes are not the enemy, nor are liberals, which brings me to tonight’s matter.*....As a patriot of this nation, if Democrats were truly and factually as evil as some people may write they are, then it is my moral duty to kill one when I see one. It is with this idea that I ask Albert Greenland, writing for The Galvin Opinion: Have you killed a liberal today?"

My Response: Perhaps subconsciously, you are complying with my request to be "Coulterian." Do I think that Democrats are evil? No. Would I ever kill one? Honestly, I would first kill myself before killing another person. Democrats are not evil; they are at most misguided, zealous, self-righteous social engineers. One theme running through the books of the late British novelist Graham Greene is that we have more to fear from the innocent than the wicked. He somewhere called it "depraved innocence." That is the way I see the Democratic Party, at least those Democrats legitimately believing that they can set up a Utopia. I will elaborate further...

Jay wrote:
B- "Indeed, a lot of the social policies the Democrats want, a lot of the foreign policy matters that they choose, may be dangerous in the milieu that our nation is in, but I do not, do not, consider their good-faith beliefs in what they think is sound government policy as "evil" that will lead to the ruination of the nation.... Does Albert Greenland really think that the Democrats will reinstate this century's version of a Red Army? I know that the proof is out there-with the promotion of political correctness as thought policing, for one-but I must ask yet again. Does he really believe that Democrats are a danger to the country that must be dealt with, probably after the war on Jihdaist Islam is taken care of?

My Response: Yes, the Democrats are slowly reinstating this century's version of the Red Army in the form of the culture of death and depravity--the segue into their political domination of a weak nation, one that craves entertainment and that would, i.e., begrudge money to Iraqis because Americans (via social welfare programs) deserve it more. Militarily, Jihadists must be deal with because they want to do away with all of us - Jihadists threaten the body. Politically, Democrats corrupt the soul of the societal organism. The way to do this is not through war or violence. We need to win back people's hearts and minds through prayer, education, and, in a sense, via a Counter-Reformation such as the one backed by the Jesuits during the 16th and 17th Centuries. Democrats must be exposed by people like Ann Coulter. I think you are forgetting that behind her sardonic, caustic commentary is great research and the desire to as I heard her say, "get people to think about things."

Jay wrote:
C- "The reason The Right cannibalizes its own is that it knows the game of power and politics Politics is not about the promotion of an ideology to its purest form. Politics is the science of government, and in a democratic republic like ours, ideological purity means the death of a political career. It does not, will not, allow for any difference of opinion."

My Response: Then why don't the Democrats cannibalize their own? Why do they stand behind the beleaguered members of their own party? Democrats instinctively and reflexively protect their fellow members who are embroiled in scandal, shame, and petty partisan politics. It is under the latter category that I want to see Republicans help their political brothers and sisters. Too many times, Republicans scurry and hide when one Republican has the harsh light of the Democratic Attack Machine thrust upon him or her. There have been too many times when one Republican has had to fend for himself, and fight off the most scurrilous, ridiculous and irrelevant issues that have been created to derail his career. Democrats have been accustomed to hounding Republicans from the public arena knowing all too well that the target in their sights won't be protected by reciprocal slings and arrows. Democrats rise up to defend those on their team who have been indicted, convicted, caught red-handed, destroying lives (Chappaquiddick), stealing, extorting and cheating. The Republicans freak out, slither and shrink from view when one man's unfortunate spelling of the word "potato" takes him from innocent faux pas to massive national security liability.

Jay wrote:
D- "I have my integrity, I have my values, and I have my own morals to know that I will never descend to the level of that of Coulter and Michael Moore. I do not want a Michael Moore anti-clone working for “our side,” nor do I want the face of the Republican party to reflect such a monstrosity, because merely keeping Democrats out of power—and yes, safeguarding our nation’s ideals—is not worth the risk of losing the soul of our movement, and the soul of our nation."

My Response: First of all, you cannot compare Ann Coulter and Michael Moore. Coulter is a legitimate pundit, satirist, and intellectual. Moore, well, we all know what he is. It would take me too long to expose all the out and out lies he tells to promote his socialist agenda. Funny, he stated that we should each pay 70% of our salary in taxes, however, he lives in an Upper West Side Manhattan apartment, near Central Park, worth millions and practices little of what he preaches. Republicans acting like Ann Coulter do not reflect any monstrosity. I am not sure whether or not you are a Republican, but politics means playing offense. Those who sit back kindly and play the rules get stomped (see, i.e., Bob Forrester in NJ when he allowed Frank Lautenberg to belatedly replace Bob Torricelli in the senate race).

My Closing Remarks: My beef with Republicans is that they are not fighting hard or smart. Democrats may be wrong on many issues but they know how to fight. Republicans expect everything will work out for itself instead of aggressively promoting their own agenda and fighting fire with fire. Turning the other cheek is an admirable way to live, but a suicidal way to wage political campaigns. If Republicans stay aggressive, use humor, don't shrink from confrontation then their superior ideas will carry the day. One Fine Jay has salient points but I am not advocating that Republicans throw their values, philosophy and self-respect out the window. Just because you tackle someone on the football field doesn't make you a violent person.

Do I agree with everything the Republican party does? No, of course not. In fact, my views tend to fall more in line with the Roman Catholic Church (i.e., I am anti-death penalty). What is the real problem with the Democrats and why do we have much to fear from them? Very simple. The Republicans do not scare me because they want, for the most part, smaller government, states rights, strong defense, and low taxes. We have nothing to fear from politicians who purposely seek to divest themselves and the government of money and power (like conservative judges who practice judicial restraint). The Democrats, as social engineers, see the world and America as an organism they can control on every level (environment, diet, behavior, speech, spending). They are for "big government" only where the federal government is concerned and wish to divest the states of rights. Why is this so dangerous? First of all, you know the way Utopias go. Secondly, their idea of one big federal bureaucracy is reminiscent of the Soviet Union (don't you wonder why Diane Feinstein has a carrier's permit and she legislates against the NRA so you can't?). Finally, as with all Totalitarian regimes, the hallmark of power is condemnation of religion...for, religion takes away from trust of the state. For Marx, religion was opium to help people forget about how life could be in a true Communist state. Paradoxically the only place true Communism has really worked--small Christian Communities.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?