Results of the National Political Awareness Test from 1996-2006 indicate a dramatic nosedive over the last five election cycles in the willingness of candidates of both major parties to say “yes” to that question, and then prove it by answering a few questions on issues known to be of concern to voters in their state. In the 1996-1998 tests, a high of 72 percent of all federal candidates and 38 percent of all state legislative candidates responded “yes” to the question. Since then, the decline has been steady and dramatic. The 2006 statistics are at an all time low of 48 percent and 26 percent for federal and state legislative candidates respectively. Gubernatorial candidate rates for 2006 are at 43%, also an all time low.
This is not a Republican versus Democrat finding. It’s both parties. Read the full announcement and avail yourself of the links to some of the results of their study which can be found near the top of the page. Pay close attention to the incumbents versus newcomer numbers, too.
lobbyist, nor even an NRA official. The best speaker, hands down, was a young army NCO. Everyone I asked agreed with that assessment. I can’t express in words how amazingly his speech, his story, his utter love for this country moved me. [snip]
This young NCO, a man I won’t identify by name to a wide audience until I get his permission, [editor’s note: our hero’s name is Sgt. 1st Class Greg Stube, and you can read more about him here. Our thanks to Lucianne.com for pointing us to this article.] told of his massive injuries while fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan. Trying to relay his story here seems futile. I can’t match in print the emotion of the man nor the way I felt about him even were I a better writer. I don’t think anyone could. But I will try and tell you a little about what he went through. [snip]
I doubt his message will breach the tin ears of the antiwar left. But his courage, his love of his family, country and freedom pushes me to write. I ask the antiwar left, and I urge others to ask, listen to the soldiers.
Right now, the overwhelming majority of them find value in their mission to fight terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. I agree. If I ever get the sense from them, the genuine belief that they don’t support the mission I will be the first to stand up and say bring them home immediately. Until then can you on the left stop “supporting them” by insisting you know more than they do about the work they are doing?
If they tell us they are fighting al Qaeda can the MSM please stop writing articles about how they are not really fighting al Qaeda? Can Michael Ware please refrain from making hyperventilating statements like “the streets were rivers of blood” as he did a few days ago on CNN? Can you at the New York Times and Time magazine just take a few moments to rethink the de-legitimization of our brave soldiers strategy your are employing when you call them uneducated, unemployable, untrained, too afraid to speak up against the president “cooking the book” stooges of George Bush?
I am not asking you to love the war. I am asking you to listen to a man who watched his guts leak from his body to protect that freedom of the press you use to attempt to dishonor him.
I agree with these sentiments. Follow the links inside the quote and listen, just listen to this young man. Using Media Player was a a little wacky but if you forward all the way to the end of the 6:10 clip it rebuffers and opens with the introduction for Sgt. 1st Class Stube. Read the full article from which the extensive quotes are taken. These are the people that people who support MoveOn.org love to hate.
Also read: Return on Success? Then think about this: Transcript: Ahmadinejad Interview, Part 1 then take a look here. When actions don’t match the words, it’s best to believe the actions rather than the words. Anybody can talk the talk in this day and age but can you walk it, too? Sgt. 1st Class Stube can and has, as have all our troops.
The furor over the MoveOn.org is still going strong. Myself, I believe MoveOn.org is a terrorist operation. Terror doesn’t come just in the form of physical violence or the threat of physical violence. Ask any abused spouse what is worse, the physical abuse or the mental abuse? Just look how many of our own government officials are afraid of them; a full quarter of them. One was so scared he left before casting a vote on the resolution (Obama).
Now the New York Times is claiming a mistake was made and the executive who approved the ad states: “Steph Jespersen, the executive who approved the ad, said that, while it was “rough,” he regarded it as a comment on a public official’s management of his office and therefore acceptable speech for The Times to print.”
Now, being a military spouse for a great number of years doesn’t make me a military expert but: Since when is an Army General a public official? I asked this question on Captain’s Quarters but nobody thought it dignified an answer.
On Amy’s blog, I pointed out that MoveOn’s ad affected each and every person who has loved ones in Iraq. That’s an immeasurable amount of unnecessary pain and anguish thrust upon a group of people who are just ordinary citizens like you and me. I know how I’d feel if my son were still over there when that ad came out in the ‘Times.
The list of those who wouldn’t condemn the MoveOn ad can be found here: Hang Right Politics. All this effort wasted on Primary elections but still useful I suppose. Think about these people and ask yourself which you would choose for the highest office in the country. Indeed, how many of them deserve reelection for their present office?
Further food for thought can be found in these:
The Oath of Enlistment (for enlistees):
“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”
The Oath of Office (for officers):
“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.”
For those who think I might be overly harsh in my assessment of MoveOn.org as a terrorist operation, please read this: George Soros: The Man, The Mind And The Money Behind MoveOn
The Politico made much of an anti-Fred Thompson site yesterday, slamming the hosting company because the owner contributed $500 to the Romney campaign and has its headquarters in Utah. The article hinted that Romney or someone from his campaign was behind the smear site. Not necessarily.
While it pains me to defend a competitor, there are so few ethical hosting companies in the world, I doubt it will damage us overmuch. Bluehost has good prices, they also offer free domain names with one year signups. Much of this signup process is automated and it’s doubtful that anyone checked anything as long as the billing information was correct and the credit card passed a fraud review. The domain name registration is part of this automated process.
A simple whois from any number of sites providing such services would give the hosting company’s name, the IP address of the site plus other IP addresses assigned to the hosting company, abuse and technical contacts at the hosting company, but not necessarily the owner of the site’s name depending on what the site owner purchased and whether the ownership was made under private registration provisions at an extra charge.
When the site went public, The Poltico brought it to the attention of Bluehost, which was listed as the hosting company. Bluehost removed the site which was the ethical thing to do and also in their best interest. However, The Politico made much of Bluehost refusing to give them information of site ownership when to do so would have opened them to a lawsuit. That information is protected under law unless the owner him or her self makes it public. It is not at the discretion of the hosting company to divulge that sort of information without a legal document requesting such. I don’t think a writer at The Politico has that kind of power, regardless of what the writer may think. As a web hoster I can think of only two instances, at the moment, where I would divulge that kind of information, for a federal investigation or at the legal request of a lawyer for defamation proceedings.
For further information I would suggest visiting Ivan Hoffman’s site. He has numerous articles about internet liability, copyright laws, and other internet related matters.
Don’t be fooled by claims from so-called journalists who think they know more than they really do. Of course there was the usual pile-on from the posters to the writer’s blog.
No wonder nobody trusts the media anymore. If they can’t find a story, they make one out of nothing.
Update: This story has a little more meat. However, going after the hosting company is still just plain wrong. We’re just trying to make a living, folks, just like everyone else. Politically going after a hosting company over a $500 campaign contribution? Shades of the Salem Witch Trials from the “Progressive party”. Someone “progressive” said it, so it must be true.
Update number 2: The Boston Globe has more. It seems the site was taken down at the behest of a Thompson spokesman.
Late yesterday afternoon, a spokesman for Thompson called on Romney to fire Tompkins.
“There is no room in our party for this kind of smut. As the top executive of his own campaign, Governor Romney should take full responsibility for this type of high-tech gutter politics and issue an immediate apology,” said Thompson spokesman Todd Harris. “If this is true, Governor Romney should exercise some of his much-touted executive acumen and immediately terminate anyone related to this outrage.”
This is putting the blame where it belongs… the Romney campaign team. Now, Romney has a challenge. How he handles it will determine where his campaign goes from here. Unlike many, I won’t hold him personally responsible for the actions of another supposed adult. However, if he continues on with the political consulting firm of J. Warren Tompkins, that’s another story.
Update 3: While I was putting together the original blog post, I had also contacted The Politico writer arguing that Bluehost had acted ethically. The original post has been updated to reflect the other information in the earlier updates. Good for Mr. Martin. In addition, there has been posted more information about the exchanges between campaign camps about the issue. Captain’s Quarters also has a blog entry about it giving the Romney camp the benefit of the doubt.
To be honest, I’m not quite so sure myself, and not because I’m a Thompson supporter but because of the responses denying knowledge. First, that employee of the consulting firm wouldn’t be able to put up an addon site without someone’s permission and help to do so… unless he’s the webmaster with administrative control of the site. Second, this message indicates a message from the web hosting company rather than something from the site owner to which the questionable domain was attached:
“Domain phoneyfred.org is still attached to your politicalnetroots.com account as Addon,” the site states. “For security reasons, you must remove it BEFORE you can continue. After detaching phoneyfred.org from politicalnetroots.com, you should experience some brief downtime on phoneyfred.org while its DNS propagates to your new account.”
Now, I’m not trying and convicting anyone on the basis of these two things but they do raise questions in my mind. In all honesty, despite the fact that I’m a FredHead I’d be disappointed if Romney continues with that consulting firm. Not everyone else is a FredHead. We may well end up with Romney or Guiliani as our Republican candidate for the general election and something like this could make me very uncomfortable voting for Romney at that point. We’ve had too many elections where the choice has been between the lesser of evils rather than a clear good choice. Bush is okay, I guess, but the immigration issue always bothered me and it seems I was right to be bothered.
New Category added.
Technology is a wonderful thing. Internet technology especially gives us the tools to communicate with other like minded individuals no matter where in the world they are. It can also have devastating effects when used for obfuscating facts, outright lies, or underground politics, such as the recent claim that the DailyKos advocated a violoent overthrow of the government, to gain some advantage over someone or something else.
I looked at the Kos site this morning after hearing that but didn’t find any recent reference to such a thing. Does that mean that Kos never had it up there? No, not really. A google search netted this. Whether there was anything more, who knows? I know the DailyKos has gotten a reputation calling for the deaths of political figures so I suppose one could call that advocating a violent overthrow of the government since any such deaths would likely cause extreme crises within the government.
Google searches can usually provide some clues as to whether something was on the internet at one time or another, even if the link being provided is no longer a viable link. Google also caches pages. My favorite, however, is the screenshot. I use a free program called 20/20 which is quite old by computer standards and may be difficult to find and download now, but still works very well for my purposes. With a screenshot you can save your evidence to a floppy disk (if you still have one on your system), a cd, or a dvd. Thus it becomes a permanent record of activities that you may need to provide factual information about.
I once had a discussion about screenshots versus saved web pages. The other person argued that saved webpages don’t make large files such as full page screenshots make. This is true, however, when you pull the saved files up on your computer they no longer show the original source of the page but show your computer as the source. A screenshot, if done right, has a permanent record of the original source… because you took a picture of it and you don’t have to be a photoshop expert to hit a “Print Screen” button. Another drawback of the saved webpage is that it is editable once saved, so you’ll have to deal with counterarguments and accusations of such.
The advent of internet technology has made it nearly impossible for the media to keep their stranglehold on the American public. It’s quite likely the same kinds of “revolutions” are taking place in practically every country in the world that is “hooked” into the internet. People no longer take everything the media says as gospel, whether it is liberally or conservatively biased. Unless you’re extremely gifted at tracking others through the internet, tracks, posts, webpages, statements, or anything else of that nature can be erased and you are left with such resources as Google’s cached pages, the Wayback Machine, and other such tools for re-finding that specific information and all of which can be extremely time consuming, depending how old the information is and if you have a good idea of the time frame of its appearance on the web.
So the message for today in this new category is: Get screenshots, folks! You’ll always have a permanent record of what was said by whom, when, why, and how. You never know when they might come in handy. In fact, I’d recommend both a saved webpage and screenshots. The saved webpage will give you easy access to any linked references within the page while the screenshots give you the evidence that the page has not been tampered with.