Drudge has this.
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
In honor of C.S. Lewis's birthday (on this date in 1898), here's a good article.
I think I'll also begin yet another reading of "Mere Christianity". Was thinking about that book the other day, wondering if I should send it to a friend, not sure if it will still hold up after so many decades of post-modernist damage to the world. Will a modern reader find it hopelessly out of date? Will his examples from a WWII era hold up during a War on Terror era? Will his 19th century chivalry seem to be just sexism in the 21st? Maybe a re-reading will help me decide.
And to our friend "JAS", who also is a huge C.S. Lewis fan, thanks for your comments on this site the other day, here and here.
That's one reason I enjoy blogging: I love people's comments. Usually it's people I know (thanks, honey! And thanks, brothers!) but every so often there's a complete surprise, which is great.
Of course, some people get comments even when they're not blogging at all. Sigh.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Via Glenn Reynolds, via Pirate's Cove, there's this story about a South Korean woman who is said to be walking again after being paralyzed for 20 years from an accident which injured her back. The cure came from umbilical cord stem cells which were injected directly into the damaged part of her spinal cord.
Key quotes from the article:
So-called "multipotent" stem cells -- those found in cord blood -- are capable of forming a limited number of specialised cell types, unlike the more versatile "undifferentiated" cells that are derived from embroyos.A question here: What else should we regard them as? Dead humans? Living non-humans?
However, these stem cells isolated from umbilical cord blood have emerged as an ethical and safe alternative to embryonic stem cells.
Clinical trials with embryonic stem cells are believed to be years away because of the risks and ethical problems involved in the production of embryos -- regarded as living humans by some people -- for scientific use.
In contrast, there is no ethical dimension when stem cells from umbilical cord blood are obtained, according to researchers.Yes, and I posted about this problem previously.
Additionally, umbilical cord blood stem cells trigger little immune response in the recipient as embryonic stem cells have a tendency to form tumors when injected into animals or human beings.
This is very good news, assuming it's replicated by other studies, and I hope it is. Can't help but think that Christopher Reeve died just a couple of years too soon -- and that he was pushing for the wrong kind of stem cell research.
Here's the comment I posted on the above Pirate's Cove link:
Actually, the research done with fetal stem cells has had pretty dismal results so far, unlike that with umbilical cord cells. Some of the research done with fetal cells (in particular, fetal cells transplanted into Parkinson's patients) had absolutely horrifying results, with some patients developing tumors that contained hair and teeth. There really is no legitimate scientific reason to kill human embryos for their stem cells. Since there are good alternatives that pose no thorny moral issues, I think our research money, federal or otherwise, would be best spent on that. I truly hope the story linked above does pan out, and that it can be replicated many times.
Happened to catch a couple of great ones on TV. (And I mean regular TV, no cable, no satellite, no TiVo. Weird, huh?)
Well, I guess we didn't happen to catch last night's showing of "It's a Wonderful Life". We knew that was coming from the promos on Thanksgiving Day, and so we all got together in the family room at the appointed hour.
I love that movie. I'm not embarrassed to say it's on my Top 10 list. OK, I'm a little embarrassed to say it's probably my all-time favorite movie. I always think that my favorite should be more sophisticated, somehow, or more obscure, or not such a cliched favorite. But -- there it is.
I love everything about that movie. For almost the entire picture, we see George Bailey's dreams being snatched away from him just as they're within his reach. He thinks he's a failure. And then, thanks to the mercy of God, and the kindness of the slightly daffy angel, Clarence, he finds out that he wasn't a failure, but that he was successful beyond his wildest dreams, and that his life had as much meaning, nobilty, and honor as that of any decorated hero or grand adventurer.
And so I cry like a baby every time I see that film. Every. Single. Time. My 14-year-old daughter shoots me a look. "Are you crying, Mom?" Sigh. Yes, I can't help it. It's just so ... beautiful. And the people in that film: they're all just ordinary, regular people -- which makes them all the more heroic. You can tell that Frank Capra loved his characters, with all their quirks and flaws. The spinster at the Savings and Loan who asks for "seventeen dollars and fifty cents, please". Uncle Billy, who just can't help but make a mess of things, bless him. Nowadays we'd want an intervention for him, but Capra just loves him and so do we. And so does George, when he doesn't want to throttle him.
So, we watched, and I cried. A wonderful evening.
Then this morning, I happened to catch some of "Casablanca" and cried some more. Have to quit blogging right now but will try to post about that one later.
(And please click here to donate to the Spirit of America Blogger's Challenge! Remember, as Clarence tells George Bailey, "One man's life touches so many others." Just think how much good you can do with a little donation...)
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Hello to everyone stopping by from The Truth Laid Bear! Here's the post about the Friends of Iraq Blogger Challenge. Please, be generous. While it's kind of fun to get a little extra traffic from the link at the top of N.Z.'s page (O.K., it's VERY much fun and it's a LOT of extra traffic), it would be far, far better to raise a ton of money for the Spirit of America.
So if you don't mind, please click on this link to donate as much as you can. It will do a great deal of good. Thanks! (And please come on back once in awhile. My comments link is always open.)
Friday, November 26, 2004
Spirit of America is a terrific organization that is helping to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. It started as just an idea in the mind of Jim Hake, and it is now testimony to the power of a good idea and an individual brave enough to see it through.
Here's a quote from the SOA webpage:
Spirit of America was founded by Jim Hake, a businessman who The Los Angeles Times says, "draws on a fundamental faith that his country is trying hard to be all that it aspires to." 9/11 made apparent to him, as with many, that America and the freedoms America symbolizes are at risk. Having benefited from those freedoms and being familiar with the sacrifices of those who have served America, Jim sought an opportunity to contribute.I've blogged about SOA previously (here). Just look at this list of projects. The beauty of it is that these projects are not just handouts; they're collaborative efforts to help get a country back on its feet, so that the people can become independent.
Now SOA has started a Blogger Challenge to raise money for their next projects. I considered entering as an individual blog, but realized that my little blog wouldn't be able to raise a whole lot on its own. So, I joined a team: TTLB, or, The Truth Laid Bear. This is the site that does the blog ranking system that I find absolutely fascinating; it tracks down all the inbound links and traffic to a blog, and puts it all together in a clever package. (I'm an Adorable Little Rodent, aspiring to move up the food chain.)
Anyway, I am proud to say I was the first blogger to join the TTLB team. (Full disclosure: I admit I was, er, motivated, by TTLB to sign up. The incentive: My blog will be listed at the top of the rankings page, above such Higher Beings as Instapundit and Daily Kos! I'm not worthy...)
So, if you have a little (or a lot) of money left in your charitable donation fund this year, please consider giving to this good cause. Just click here to donate.
If you're a blogger and you want to join this team (remember, your blog also will be listed right above the top-ranked blogs!) click here.
The challenge ends December 15, so don't procrastinate on this one too long! Thank you, thank you.
UPDATE: (11/28) As they say, "Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit before a fall". (Yes, I know people always just say "Pride goes before a fall", but that's not the whole verse. Do you want the truth or don't you? Well alrighty, then.)
Anyway. I was bragging about how I was an Adorable Little Rodent in the TTLB Eco System of blog ranking. That lasted all of a minute until N.Z. updated the stats. I've fallen to being a mere Flappy Bird. Well, at least I can console myself that I'm not an Insignificant Microbe.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Well, I learned something today. Live-blogging Thanksgiving dinner is a pretty dumb idea. It worked for awhile, but only until everybody arrived and it became, well, Thanksgiving dinner. At that point, obviously, blogging is irrelevant (wait, maybe my blogging is always irrelevant... I better think about that one...) because the guests are there and gravy needs to be made and the turkey carved (thanks, middle brother!) and plates dished up, and then the praying and the eating and the cleaning up afterwards. Oh, and then coffee and pie.
We have a little tradition borrowed from my husband's family, where everybody lights a candle and says what they're thankful for. It's sweet; the kids all say something, and of course it's hard for them to do, sometimes, but they all do it, and are glad of it afterwards. We all have so much to be thankful for. I'm thankful for life itself, for being healthy and able to do my work everyday (and as my little five year old piped up, "And blog!"; she brought down the house with that one) and my family. And more I didn't say, but thought: I'm thankful for our freedom, and for the soldiers who fight to keep us free and safe. I hope they're all home again with their families soon. And I hope that someday, people in Irag, and Darfur, and a hundred other places around the world will be able to sit down to a meal with their families, in freedom and peace.
Husband is up out of the basement; he's ready now. Good thing, because my folks are here, as well as my brother and his family who were the first to arrive.
Doorbell again! It's... my other brother and his family! They're arriving in age-order; first the oldest brother (though they are all younger than me, truth be told), now the "middle one". He's got a lovely wife and four darling kids (one is in the Air Force now).
Yet to arrive is my youngest brother, and my aunt.
Oh, almost forgot the latest Crisis: The turkey is done!!! It tested done at 3:15, which is about 2 hours too early. Drat.
Well, I considered it.
The turkey's been in the oven since 10:15 a.m. The E.T.D. (Estimated Time of Dinner) is 5:00 p.m. However, my entire family knows that it's often later than the E.T.D. before we finally sit down to eat, so who knows.
So I have a few minutes to blog -- we'll see how far this goes!
First crisis of the day: Turkey (a strapping 26# bird) wouldn't fit in the oven! But before major panic could set it, dear husband realized that we could put in the other rack which would rest a little lower in the oven. Crisis averted.
Second crisis: No candles! Plus, no half-and-half (for after dinner coffee and for adding a splash to the mashed potatoes), no waxed paper, no paper dessert plates in a Thanksgiving theme. So, a quick run to the Jewel. Sadness sets in as I realize I'm too late on the paper plates; all they have left in the Thanksgiving motif are giant dinner plates and cocktail napkins. Sigh. However, managed to find all the other things, plus a bottle of Cabernet Sauvignon (hey, spell checker knows how to spell that; cool!), a bottle of Skyy Vodka (would love Grey Goose but geez, it's twice the price). Oh! And silver polish, to shine up the fancy covered serving dish.
Third crisis: Kids are starting to squabble; too much Thanksgiving anticipation. The little ones get busy cutting up construction paper into make-shift snowflakes, sort of boxy and squarish, in shades of orange and yellow and blue, but cute nonetheless. (It snowed real snow for awhile yesterday -- yahoo! -- but not enough to "stick". So the kids are improvising, I guess.) Oldest and second-oldest daughter are big helps with the picking up and cleaning, setting out the chairs, setting the table, etc. Husband? He helped this morning with polishing and filling up multiple sets of salt and pepper shakers, as well as general assistance as needed (see Crisis #1). But now he's in the basement, working on installing the light switch for the little pantry/storage room.
Whoa -- door bell just rang! It's my brother, his wife, and their daughter. More later...!
Thanksgiving dinner is incredibly easy to make. Don't let all the food section articles, the turkey hotlines, the local news stories, and the general hype about the meal fool you. It's a no-brainer.
Stick the turkey in the oven, with some stuffing, make the potatoes and some corn. Ask everyone else who's coming to bring all the other stuff.
Except for the cleanup. Ugh.
(Oh, and if you're reading this and you're one of the people coming tomorrow who's bringing the sweet potatoes, the rolls, the olives, the cranberry chutney, the green bean casserole, or the pies, thanks!)
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
The most frequent question that I get about blogging is, "How do you find the time?"
Well that's easy. I don't bake cookies, I don't knit, I don't even read real books anymore. In other words, blogging has become my only hobby. Now, that's not the same as "the only thing I do", obviously, because I still spend my days homeschooling, and I still teach a college class one evening per week, and I still write our homeschool group newsletter. And I worked on the campaign (though not that much, really.) And of course, I'm a mom, so I cook, clean, shop, take care of my little darlings, etc.
But even after dropping all other hobby-type activities, some important things were slipping. Like Christmas prep (here's me the day after the election: "What?!? It's November 3rd? How'd THAT happen?!"), and washing my kitchen floor, and a few other things like that.
So, as you may have noticed, I slowed down considerably on the blogging.
Not some people. Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds apologized for the light blogging -- becaues he'd only posted ten times! Thirteen, if you count the updates. (Ed.: Definitely, count the updates.) OK, 13 times. And he apologized -- he apologized! -- for the "light" blogging because he'd had to drive to Birmingham to pick up his 90-year old grandmother for Thanksgiving.
How does he do it, really?? How does he blog so much, from so many places, on so many topics? With so many photos? Not to mention he's got a real job, other hobbies, and he has a family.
It's pretty clear I'll never be one of the major league bloggers like Glenn.
< sighing > But just when I start to think I might quit entirely, I find out somebody linked to me! Like this guy, Rich Glasgow. I never met him, I don't know who is he, but he made my day yesterday when I discovered he's got me on his blogroll along with Lileks and Hugh and Vodkapundit.
I'm certainly not pretending to be in their league, of course, but it was indeed a thrill to just be listed in the same category.
Anyway, I won't quit blogging because my dear husband tells me I should keep it up. Isn't he sweet? (And by the way, honey, when are you going to do that guest blogger post you keep promising?)
Monday, November 22, 2004
Oprah's on right now, so I'm watching while I'm picking up and cleaning the family room. Mostly I'm listening to Oprah, and mostly what I hear is screaming, clapping, crying, shrieking, gasping.
Why? Because it's Oprah's "Favorite Things for Christmas" show. The women in the audience - and they're all women, all teachers, in fact - are scaring me a little. They are weeping, shaking, screaming. Some seem about to pass out. Others are jumping up and down wildly. They can't believe their good fortune -- they are gettings lots and lots of really expensive stuff, free! From Oprah!!!
Their reaction seems a little out of proportion, really. I would think that kind of reaction would be saved for something major. You know, a life and death issue. Maybe if I was in that audience, I'd be caught up in all the excitement, too.
But I think the real reason for the hysteria is because they LOVE Oprah. Love loveloveLOVE her. She's an American pop culture goddess. She's beautiful, she's lost weight, she's stylish, she never looks a day older, she gives a bunch of money to deserving causes. She's the great American success story. She overcame a very difficult childhood of abuse and poverty and never claims victimhood. She can switch from standard middle class English to black girlfriend-ese in a flash. She's funny, she's warm, she emotes. She tears up when people say touching things. She likes books. She has a steady boyfriend, but doesn't "need" to marry. She's wildly famous and yet completely down-to-earth. She's the richest woman in America (the world?), but she's not pretentious. She's powerful, but not arrogant.
And that's why the crowd always goes absolutely insane when she walks out at the start of every show, even if it's not a "Favorite Things" edition.
UPDATE: The second comment below asks if Oprah gives the things away out of her own pocket or if it's donated by the companies. Definitely the latter. It's huge publicity and goodwill for them.
Interestingly, here's a story about a local guy, Tim Cuprisin, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel TV/radio critic, who got a phone call from Oprah -- because he wrote an article only slightly critical of her "Favorite Things" show. His take was a little similar to mine, in that the screaming/crying/fainting stuff is a bit much, and he also mentioned that the show ends up being one huge hour-long commercial. Today he was interviewed on local TV; he said that he also objects to the greediness of the whole spectacle. Like I said, if I was there, I'd probably be just as excited to get all that cool stuff. I'd like to think I'd also be considering who I would share it with. I hope.
Friday, November 19, 2004
Lately I've posted on the "Roe Effect" (James Taranto's term), which says that the number of liberal voters is shrinking because of abortion, and the "Roe Effect Corollary" (my term), which says women who've had abortions often have a change of heart and become pro-life.
Attila then commented that people who support abortion have smaller families because they just don't want as many children.
All of these things would, at least theoretically, lead to a smaller number of liberal-leaning voters.
And all of this discussion happened without any meanness or name-calling. Very polite.
Yesterday I was visiting some liberal blogs, trying to learn more about why some liberals think we're headed toward a theocracy headed up by George W. Bush. Will post about that later.
Anyway, I came across this site. The "Texas Taliban"? Puh-leeeeze. Do these people have any idea what the real Taliban was like? Obviously not.
But the killer comment on the post (which was about an effort in Texas to clean up text books filled with left wing propaganda) was this one:
"Of course, part of the reason intellegent (sic) people are becoming uncommon is because it is the people with the reduced capacity for intellegence that multiply since they are the ones ignorant of overpopulation."Nice, isn't it? First, some advice for this guy: It helps your argument about who's intelligent and who isn't if you can spell "intelligent" correctly. Second, the whole argument is just so Margaret Sanger. But there's more from a later commenter:
"Yeah, there’s a point. Non-religious couples, in my experience, generally tend to have one or two children, or even none at all, while professional Catholic/Jewish/Muslim housewives/doormats are quite happy to punch out 6-7 of the little tykes in quick succession."The trifecta: An insult to my intelligence, my religion, and my chosen occupation all in one fell swoop.
The left is ultimately intolerant, and very quickly gets nasty (note some of their pre-election acts of desperation), while those on the right can afford to be tolerant because they know they're on the side of truth. Here's what Dennis Prager, a Jew, says about it:
"I have found over and over that most Christians who preach faith are more tolerant than most leftists who preach tolerance."Here's an interesting thing about the blogger from the site quoted earlier. He proudly says he's an atheist, and then says, while musing about some prehistoric skeletal remains:
"One of the nice things about being an atheist is that I get to reserve all of my awe for the things that warrant it…and the face of one of our distant cousins from 13 million years ago certainly deserves deep reverence."I've heard people say that if you don't worship God, you'll worship something else. Certainly applies in this guy's case.
It's sad though, that he thinks some old bones are more worthy of reverence than the God who made them.
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
On Monday I posted about the "Roe Effect", thanks to an email from my husband's friend. (Thanks, J.!)
I think there might be a corollary to the Roe Effect: That a significant number of women who have abortions become strongly pro-life afterwards. This would be another reason that, ironically, legalized abortion may be contributing to more conservative voting patterns in the U.S.
The most famous example of this "Roe Effect Corollary" would be Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of the 1973 case that made abortion legal. In 1995, Norma converted to Christianity and became a staunch pro-life advocate. In 1998, she was received into the Catholic Church. Today she has a website dedicated to the pro-life cause.
Norma never actually had an abortion herself (the case was decided long after she gave birth to a baby girl, who was given up for adoption), but she feels partly responsible for the millions of abortions since 1973 due to her participation as lead plaintiff in the case.
Another type of post-abortion conversion is sometimes experienced by abortion providers, such as Dr. Bernard Nathanson. He was at the forefront of the abortion "rights" movement until he had a change of heart and realized that he had, as he put it, "presided over the murder of thousands of babies". He went on to make the movie "The Silent Scream". Dr. Nathanson also converted to Catholicism in 1996. Click here for additional testimony from doctors and nurses who changed their minds about abortion.
Click here for results of a survey conducted by a pro-life group. The most interesting statistics: Before the abortion, only 26% of the women said they thought the fetus was human; after the abortion, 97% believed it was human. Also, before the abortion, 33% of the women had a "very negative" view of abortion; afterwards, that figure jumped to 98%.
Part of this could be explained by cognitive dissonance. Before a planned abortion, a woman might find it difficult to admit to herself that the fetus was human, since that would make justifying the abortion much more difficult. (However, note that over 1/4 of the women in this study did, in fact, believe the fetus was human, even before the abortion.)
But in addition to the cognitive dissonance factor, women often suffer post-abortion guilt and pain, which may lead them to rethink their views on abortion. Or perhaps they are simply able to drop their defenses and denial, and finally admit that abortion does indeed stop a beating heart.
There is no joy in these statistics, of course. It's just such a sad situation for all involved.
Here's information on Project Rachel, which provides help to women who are suffering after having an abortion.
Monday, November 15, 2004
About a week ago, I posted on "Why the Far Left Will Become Extinct". It was conjecture based on a comment I read in the Chicago Tribune.
Well, today a good friend of my husband's emailed him a link that buttresses that post. Apparently, James Taranto over at Best of the Web has written about this before, and calls it "The Roe Effect".
Here's a quote from one of his articles on the topic:
Not all women, after all, are equally likely to have abortions. It's almost a truism that women who have abortions are more pro-choice than those who carry their pregnancies to term, and it stands to reason that they generally have more-liberal attitudes about sex and religion. It also seems reasonable to assume that parents have some influence on their children, so that if liberal women are having abortions, the next generation will be more conservative than it otherwise would be.The article linked above supports the argument with data on the abortion rate and ratio in Red vs. Blue States.
Many thanks to my husband's friend for the link. I hadn't read Taranto's work before, and I should have.
Still, this seems like one of those arguments that you almost hate to be right about. It's just so sad to think of the 40 million people who aren't here, because of Roe v. Wade.
Pro-lifers predicted decades ago that if abortion was legalized, euthanasis surely would follow. Read this chilling article to see just where that path leads. Now that the election is over, we should all give a little thought to how we can best spend our energy advancing the pro-life argument. Being informed about euthanasia is a good first step.
Thursday, November 11, 2004
Called a former co-worker today; he's a veteran of the Korean War, a Marine. I try to call him every year on Veteran's Day to thank him for serving our country.
Said a prayer for my uncle, who fought in some horrific battles in WWII. He rarely discussed it with any of us, but he did open up to my husband a few years after we were married. My uncle died three years ago. We had his funeral Mass on the night of September 11, 2001.
Thought of my nephew, who joined the Air Force in March of 2003. His dad drove him to the bus station to leave for basic training about two days before the invasion of Iraq, if I recall correctly. He's now stationed in Dover, but he and his sweet young wife will be leaving for Spain sometime next year.
And then I came across this, on Hugh Hewitt's site, and it made me cry. It's about a heroic young man who was killed in Iraq last spring, giving his life for others. Here's an excerpt:
We are left to wonder why it is so often those that are so great, that live with such nobility, are the ones to die. The answer is that, because of their nobility and greatness, they are the first to volunteer. It is often the better people who end up giving their lives for others.Please, go and read the whole thing, and then say a prayer for our soldiers in Fallujah right now, and if you can, call any veterans you know to thank them.
Time to 'fess up about my election predictions, just to keep myself honest. I know that everyone's pretty much done with talking about the election, but I never had a chance to do this, and since I hate leaving loose ends lying around, here goes:
This was my prediction from the very first post on this blog: I predicted a "landslide win for W."
And here's what I said as the election got closer:
"I'm sticking with my prediction of an Electoral landslide for Bush, with him getting over 310 Electoral College votes. As far as popular vote, I'm going with Bush 52%, Kerry 47%."Off by a couple of states in the E.C., because I was sure Bush would win Wisconsin (10), New Hampshire (4), and one other Midwestern state. But I was pretty close on the popular vote! (Back patting, back patting...)
I was wrong on these two predictions:
"I'm also predicting that Bush will take Wisconsin as part of that landslide, and that Senator Feingold can kiss his Senate seat good-bye."Oops.
I guess this part of that post was right: "This could be entirely wishful thinking on my part."
I also predicted voter turnout:
"My prediction: definitely over 65%, maybe edging toward 70%."Well, I was wrong. CNN says just under 60% of registered voters showed up on election day. I can take comfort in knowing that almost everyone else was wrong, too, including those who predicted massive young voters this time (it was the same as last time).
I was told, however, by a clerk in City Hall, that my city had a 97% turnout. I had to ask her to repeat that, because I could hardly believe that was correct.
I will also do a little back-patting for that, because I was one of the thousands of Waukesha volunteers helping to turn out the vote, going door-to-door with a friend, making phone calls, talking to almost everyone about the election.
Here's something I'll always remember: Those personal contacts helped convince two brand-new voters to get out and vote for Bush. One was a neighbor who said she simply never voted. Another was my hairdresser, who had never registered to vote. This time, she and her husband both voted for Bush.
Let's remember that for the next election: It is possible to persuade people to vote through personal, one-on-one contacts.
I'm glad I was wrong about this prediction:
"The Democrats are going to pull something awful later this week, most likely Friday."I thought they might come up with some big lie, about Bush's personal life, at the last minute. They didn't, to their credit. Besides, MSM had already tried to help them out, with Rathergate, and then the allegations of missing explosives. Not to mention all the free passes for Kerry on his Senate record, his military service, etc.
But I can crow a little bit, because my popular vote prediction was closer than Ray C. Fair's, the Yale Econ professor. He predicted that Bush would get 57.5& of the popular vote. That would have been nice.
And not only can I crow, but I can cheer, whoop, and holler, because I was also closer than Eric Alterman of Slate (hap tip Instapundit), who predicted a Kerry landslide.
Is it too late to do a little more gloating?
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
There's a lot of talk lately about the differences between Red States and Blue States. For example, lefties are saying they're smarter than conservatives, and have even tried to compare average IQ scores between the states.
I think these sorts of comparisons are pretty worthless, because you have no way of knowing who, in a given state, actually voted for Kerry vs. who actually voted for Bush. Even in many Blue States, as much as 45% of the population voted for Bush. So even if you find that Blue States have a higher average IQ than Red States, who's to say it wasn't the upper end of the IQ scale in any given state that voted for Bush?
But if we're going to do broad-brush comparisons, here's a good one.
Guess which states are the most generous in charitable contributions? Come on, guess. Would it be the states where people like John Kerry and Hilary Clinton live, people who are always preaching about "giving back" and "fair share" and all that? Would it be the states where the lefties say all the smart people live?
Nope, it wouldn't. It would be the Red States.
Here's the link to the Chicago Tribune article I happened to read this afternoon.
The most generous state of all: Mississippi. This is really kind of touching, because Mississippi ranks dead last in average per capita income, but is 5th in average per capita charitable donations. The difference between the two ranks (50th and 5th) is 45, which is the biggest gap of any state, and that gets Mississippi ranked first on the Generosity Index.
The rank ordering of states is pretty astonishing, actually, because you have to read all the way down to the 26th state to find even one Blue State, which happens to be New York. New York is ranked 5th in per capita income, and 9th in average giving.
It strikes me as significant that the top half of the Generosity Index is filled with Red States. You wanna know the bottom five? Minnesota, Wisconsin (sad to say, because it's my own state), New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire.
Funny, the Chicago Tribune article never commented on that.
Conspiracy theories abound. The election was stolen! Phantom votes were cast for Bush! Democrats thought they were voting for Kerry but the machines tricked them into voting for Bush instead!
Now, that last one is a little too close to this joke that was circulating around the internet before the election.
But after hanging around over at Daily Kos I never cease to be amazed at the ridiculous things believe will say and believe. What do you expect from people who watched "Fahrenheit 911" and believed it?
I also think this is what you can expect from people who feel powerless. They can't understand how they could have lost so big (and by "big" I don't just mean the margin of the Presidential victory in an election with historic turnout, I mean all the Senate and House seats, too, as well as a majority of governorships and State legislatures). They can't accept the fact that their candidate was awful, and that the campaign was horribly run, as this August timeline shows. Click here for links for the blow-by-blow account of how not to run a campaign, August through October.
Combine all that with the fact that the economy was doing extremely well, we are at war (a war that is actually going pretty well), and the President himself is a pretty likeable guy, and you have more than enough reason to predict a Bush victory. In fact, I have to wonder why it wasn't a complete landslide.
But a lot of the Dems aren't looking at the facts. They have gone beyond rationality into a nutty altered reality, a hall of mirrors where all they see are faces like theirs, dumbfounded at the smacking they got in the polls. They are primed, by Michael Moore's wacky conspiracy theories and outright lies, to believe any crazy theory that comes along. They're also primed by 30 years of listening only to the sound of their own voices in mainstream media and Hollywood to believe that it's impossible for a majority of Americans to actually want to elect George W. Bush. Therefore, anyone who did vote for him must be a) stupid or b) deluded.
Actually, there are two more options: they're c) evil former slaveholders or d) Bible-thumpin' theocrats. I'll write more about those options later.
Here's a link to the ABC story that aired last night, pretty much scoffing at the conspiracy theories.
I just wish that this sort of story, as well as this one, and this one, and this one (hat tip to Instapundit for the links) would make all the nuts and their Tin Foil Hat theories go away, but they won't, of course.
And to think that before the election, Kerry and the lefties were saying that we were the ones not dealing with reality! HA.
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
One of the things that still cracks me up is the idea that Karl Rove is some sort of eeeevil genius, the mastermind, Bush's brain. Well, here's a passage from the Washington Post (hat tip Hugh Hewitt) that seems to call that into serious question:
Rove said that when he and Bush first talked about a reelection strategy in December 2002, the president, anticipating a race that resembled 2000 in its closeness, laid out a series of requests. He wanted a strategy designed to enlarge GOP majorities in the House and Senate, not what he called a "lonely victory." He wanted more emphasis on grass-roots volunteers. And he told Rove he wanted a campaign about big things and big issues, not "mini ball," and finally said he wanted to leave the Republican Party "stronger, broader and better."Hmmm. Sounds like Bush's brain is... Bush's brain. And he sure got what he knew he needed, didn't he? He didn't get a lonely victory, he had the big ideas, he got the grassroots volunteers (I was one of the millions of them).
No question, Karl Rove is perhaps the smartest, winningest political strategist out there. But I happen to think that President Bush is one of the smartest, wisest, most honorable Presidents we've ever had. Articles like this one from the NYT help to make the case that he's smart, and most likely smarter than his vanquished opponent, Kerry. Articles like the one I cited above show that he's not just taking orders from Karl Rove.
Friday, November 05, 2004
Here's what a disappointed/devastated Kerry supporter had to say about her post-election activism:
"I am 33 years old and will postpone a family to ensure my ability to act when necessary. This includes traveling to other cities and volunteering as much as I can locally." [emphasis mine]Well, OK. That's fine with me.
Do you think that they'll ever figure out that between this kind of thinking and abortion, the far left is dooming itself to a smaller and smaller demographic?
UPDATE: On re-reading this, it sounds harsh, and at the same time, flippant. I don't mean it to be either. But it does seem like it could be a matter of fact. I wonder if there are any demographic studies on this issue. (Googling, googling... more googling...)
OK, I'm back. Found a tiny bit of information, from a Netherlands fertility study.
Of the total number of women, 9% expected to remain childless. Broken down for background characteristics, data showed that among the childless women, there was a relatively large group with no religious affiliation, who preferred small leftwing political parties, women with a high level of education, women who themselves come from small families, or women living in a big city....Of the total number of women, 22% will have 3 children. This group is comprised largely of Roman Catholics, women who prefer the Christian Democrat party, and/or women who themselves come from large families.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
It's live on NBC right now. He is doing incredibly well. I think the campaign energized him, and of course the resounding victory has given him great confidence. I hope he has press conferences often this term.
He's comfortable, joking easily with the press corps, giving really good answers, not mangling the English language (though just possibly I heard him say "HIVH" instead of "HIV"... but not sure about that), setting forth his agenda with clarity and confidence.
One reporter just broke the news to him that Arafat was dead; Tom Brokaw immediately interrupted with a voiceover saying the French hospital is saying he's not dead. I'm sure it won't be long, however. Wonder what changes that will bring in the Mideast. Interesting, too, in that the President's first comment on being told that news was "God bless his soul, first of all".
Here are some links. As Peggy Noonan says, there is so much to savor. That's a much better word than "gloat", isn't it? But it's true; we worked very hard for this victory, and we prayed very, very hard, and while we need to be humbly thankful, we can take some time to enjoy this, before getting back to work.
So, enjoy! Hat tip to Real Clear Politics and Drudge for the links.
From Peggy Noonan:
"[T]he biggest loser was the mainstream media, the famous MSM, the initials that became popular in this election cycle. Every time the big networks and big broadsheet national newspapers tried to pull off a bit of pro-liberal mischief--CBS and the fabricated Bush National Guard documents, the New York Times and bombgate, CBS's "60 Minutes" attempting to coordinate the breaking of bombgate on the Sunday before the election--the yeomen of the blogosphere and AM radio and the Internet took them down.From an article on how the early exit polls led to early euphoria, and then later despair, for the Kerry team:
"I can't take this. I have to get a drink," said one shaken Edwards adviser, watching CNN call states for Bush in the increasingly tense lobby bar.From an article by Hugh Hewitt (one of my favorite bloggers!):
THE WORST LEGACY of the '60s was its Vietnam complex. The opposition to the war in Iraq--even after 9/11, even after inspections of the vast munitions dump that was Saddam's wasteland--was as much about legitimizing the huge mistakes of 1974 and 1975 as it was about concern of a new "quagmire."
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Here's a concept: We're not all that divided, we're pretty much united--around Republican ideas and principles. Here's the evidence, as found over at Polipundit.
1. The Republican president just won over 50 percent for the first time in 16 years. He won more raw votes than anyone ever has, including Reagan.Tough to argue with.
2. The GOP has 55 senators.
3. The GOP has over 230 House members.
4. There are at least 28 Republican governors, including those of the 4 largest states.
5. The majority of state legislators and legislatures are Republican.
6. The GOP has just performed miracles, like ousting a Senate caucus leader for the first time since 1952, and getting a Republican senator elected from Louisiana for the first time ever.
Even in the states Kerry won, like California, Bush did very well: 44% to Kerry's 55%. In most of states that Bush won, however, he won them by a landslide, sometimes by 20 to 30 percentage points. States like Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan were very close, that close, to a Bush win.
The thing that the Democrats can't accept is that they are losing the arguments over ideas. They cannot wrap their minds around the fact that majority of the country actually agrees with conservative principles. They can't fathom the notion that perhaps the "Right" is, in fact, "right" on the issues.
For them, it's far easier to indulge in crazy tin-foil hat theories about stolen elections and the evil Karl Rove than to deal with the reality that people don't agree with them. Michele Catalano puts it very well today.
What I truly wish for the Dems is a vibrant party, a true alternative to the Republicans, because that's good for a democracy.
However, my Democratic and liberal friends, to get there, this is what I think you must do:
That's a start.
Thank God, Bush won. Popular vote by a significant margin with over 50% of the vote, and once they finally color in Ohio and Iowa for Bush, as I believe they will, he'll have a decent edge in the electoral vote. No one can claim voter suppression or voter apathy; turnout was huge, and I'm glad of it. So, on all fronts, Bush has a convincing win.
Everyone knows that -- except Kerry.
You know, for months now he's been accusing Bush of being "out of it", and "not dealing with reality". It's time for Kerry to deal with reality. Ann Althouse says it very well; it's time for him to make a gracious concession speech. Absolutely.
More later.... including some thoughts on what the Dems need to do to rebuild their party (I can't imagine the depths of despair they must be in this morning, losing the Presidency, the Senate, and the House), and some thoughts on why Bush won.
First, more coffee; that was the worst night's sleep I've had in about four years...
Drudge had the old flashing light: BUSH WINS!
He's the first to call it, and if he's right, I forgive him for the exit-poll scare this morning.
Vodkapundit also calls it for Bush (and really, I couldn't say who was first, though Drudge was definitive and Vodkapundit just said "It's all over but the lawsuits". Sigh.)
FOX and CBS, who I'm watching on TV and web, respectively, are being very cautious, but Fox is saying that Bush is at 269 so all he needs is one state: New Mexico (which he's winning), or Nevada (winning), or Iowa (dead tie).
Ohio seems to still be in question, though Fox and another network (who, NBC? not sure) have called it for Bush.
Why am I blogging this?!? I'm pretty sure I'm the only one paying attention right now!
But here's this: The Secretary of State in Ohio, a black Republican, is saying, "This election tested our system; we had over a million additional voters in Ohio over last time, and the system worked!" But... he's also saying they want to count every vote and it may take days... or weeks... oh dear. On the bright side, he's saying he wants it OUT of the hands of the courts, and IN the hands of the voters. Indeed!
I'm glad for the huge turnout; it gives legitimacy to the Bush win. The popular vote total will match the electoral this time, which also is cause for a huge sigh of relief.
Shoot, just heard on Fox that Mary Kay Cahill is not accepting the call of Ohio for Bush; she's saying they think that if the votes are all counted, Kerry will win. NOooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Not again, please, not another Florida! And besides, he's behind by over 134,000 votes!
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
I'm frowning, and a little disappointed. Obviously I was wrong in my prediction of an electoral landslide for Bush. That could only have happened with wins in unexpected places like New Jersey (though Kerry only won by 5% there).
The really scary thing: It could end up in a tie. If Bush gets Florida and Ohio, but not WI, MI, MN, or IA, and if New Mexico goes to Kerry, then it's a tie. Sure, then it would probably go to Bush because the House would vote for him, but that's not what one wants.
I'm feeling rather sick right now. Even Wisconsin is trending Kerry right now, which is very depressing. I thought for sure we had a great shot at it this year.
Just heard on local TV that Republicans are challenging absentee ballots in Milwaukee. Good, they're probably fraudulent.
Good night. I hope we know by tomorrow.
... and watching. The whole family is into this tonight; kids are playing with the electoral college site, learning about the states and how this all works; Tom and I are talking and watching and hoping. Looking good right now!
We're watching the Michels/Feingold race; so far, it's very, very close, as I thought, but probably not a Michels win, as I'd hoped. That's a shame. Michels is a good man. But -- we'll see, it's not over yet.
Kathyzap (who commented below), you're right about hoping that we're not out protesting in the December cold as we were last time. That was horrible, and I hope we never have to live through that again. Please, Lord, let this end tonight, and please, if not, give me the patience to wait for it to end!
I'm back, and blogging briefly. Here are the sites I'm watching, besides Fox News:
Vodkapundit (especially appropriate as I sip my first glass of wine in weeks, though I suppose I should really have a gimlet);
Electoral Vote Calculator (fun; you can change the states to see what happens in the EV);
and of course, the site I love to hate today (Drudge, why oh why did you report those early exit polls and freak everybody out?!?): Drudge.
Back to watching. More later. Sit tight, keep praying, don't lose hope, and no matter what happens, life will go on and we'll just keep working to make this country better! Right? Right!
First of all, I am so tickled that so many people are stopping by this blog today! Thank you, and thanks to all of you who left comments yesterday, too!
I have to stop blogging now because I need to get ready for my job teaching (just one night a week) at a local college. So until I get back later tonight, no more posts, but if you want constant updates, go to the Kerry Spot; they seem to be blogging at a breakneck pace. (Edited update: And check Hugh Hewitt, too; he's very sane and always reassuring, as long as there's any reassurance to be had!)
Later tonight, if the news is bad, I may not be able to blog because I won't be able to see the screen for the tears. And if the news is good, I may not be able to blog because I'm breaking my fast on alcoholic beverages tonight and I may not be able to feel the keyboard if that first glass of wine hits me hard and makes my fingers go numb. Well, I suppose if it's either good news or bad, my fingers might be numb.
So, hmmm... I guess I'll only blog if conditions are optimal. Check back later to see!
Lots of blogs having trouble today because traffic is so heavy. Vodkapundit blames... us! For hitting the site so often. Other sites seem really slow, too, as Glenn Reynolds notes in this post.
Lots of bloggers and blogwatchers flitting frantically from one website to another, for more info, more reassurance, someone who KNOWS something gosh darn it!, something to calm the nerves, dang that Drudge for those sickening exit polls that put the stock market in a spin, where the heck is Hugh Hewitt when we need him? Oh, good!, he's got a new post ... and it's good news.
Take a deep breath, relax, think happy thoughts...
But alas, there will be no rest and no truly happy thoughts until it's over, with the right result, and Lord help us, please let that be tonight...
UPDATE: Best advice seen so far, from Mary Matalin: "The bloggers need to do some lamaze, open a bottle of good red, get ready to party."
Hee-hee-hooo, hee-hee-hooo, (where's that corkscrew?) hee-hee-hooo...
Many exciting things - and some appalling things - here in Wisconsin today.
First, I headed out to the GOP office in Waukesha to see if I could help out at all. As I got closer, I saw cops and barricades (not yet set up) at every intersection. Finally found a parking place, and then was told that the Vice President was due to arrive shortly, to make a very quick "thank-you" visit. Unfortunately, I couldn't get into the office because a) my name wasn't on the pre-approved list and b) they were at capacity and couldn't squeeze a single additional volunteer into the place. That's a good sign!
So I went and joined about a dozen people at the corner, waving Bush/Cheney signs to the traffic going by (on a heavily traveled highway, 164/59). The atmosphere was festive and very upbeat; cars were honking, people waving and giving thumbs up. One guy flipped us the bird. Oh well, can't win 'em all. A somewhat dispirited looking bunch of Kerry/Edwards fans was on the opposite side of the road, with their signs. (My bias is surely showing here; I can't vouch for the accuracy of my impressions, but I'm trying to be fair!)
After a few minutes out in the wind and cold, the motorcade arrived. We caught a brief glimpse of Dick Cheney and his lovely wife Lynne in the back seat of the second limo. They waved and smiled as we applauded and cheered.
That was it. I headed back home, and on the way noticed a sheriff stationed underneath an overpass of I-43 (making sure no one planted a bomb? I don't know) and then another stationed on the overpass near our home. All the expressway ramps near our house were blocked off.
Pretty amazing to see all the coordination of security that goes into a visit like that.
Now for the appalling stuff. I heard from a volunteer on the corner, and then from Rush on the radio, that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that tires were slashed on about 30 rental cars that were to be used in the GOP GOTV today. Nice.
Back to my work here at home, and will keep praying... this is white-knuckle time.
... this column by Larry Kudlow may explain part of the reason. I've also wondered why the Bush campaign didn't seem to be making a stronger case on the economy. As I noted earlier, if the media acts as a gatekeeper and refuses to publish good economic news, how will that message get out? It can only happen through the campaign, and I just didn't seem to see enough of that.
I also noted (in that same post) that in general, the anti-Bush ads seemed to be pounding the airwaves here in Wisconsin, and I really didn't see as many pro-Bush ads as I would have liked. (Hard to imagine I would have wanted more ads in this already saturated market, but it's true.)
I've done my part to spread the word; in my Industrial Psychology class, I tell my students about the Labor Department's Household survey, which indicates that far more people are employed than the payroll stats show. I also talk to them about the unemployment rate, and how, historically, a rate this low is considered almost unsustainable, and if it goes much lower (as in Madison right now) economists start to worry about inflation.
So, if people are paying attention to reality, and not just Kerry's false advertising, they should vote for Bush. And that's just on the economy, not even considering all the other reasons such as security, the war, and pro-life issues.
And let me repeat: I still think Bush will win!
Just grabbed this off of Drudge; no permalink yet ("developing..."!)
Before voting even began in Philadelphia -- poll watchers found nearly 2000 votes already planted on machines scattered throughout the city... One incident occurred at the SALVATION ARMY, 2601 N. 11th St., Philadelphia, Pa: Ward 37, division 8... pollwatchers uncovered 4 machines with planted votes; one with over 200 and one with nearly 500... A second location, 1901 W. Girard Ave., Berean Institute, Philadelphia, Pa, had 300+ votes already on 2 machines at start of day... INCIDENT: 292 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 7/7: ADDRESS: 122 W. Erie Ave., Roberto Clemente School, Philadelphia, Pa.; INCIDENT: 456 votes on machine at start of day; WARD/DIVISION: 12/3; ADDRESS: 5657 Chew Ave., storefront, Philadelphia, Pa... A gun was purposely made visible to scare poll watchers at Ward 30, division 11, at 905 S. 20th St., Grand Court. Police were called and surrounded the location... Pennsylvania GOP is going to file suit in the Court of Common Pleas in an effort to have the machines in question impounded and have them replaced 'with machines that did not already have votes on them'... Developing...This is the kind of thing that puts my stomach in knots. I heard some weeks ago (and can't say for sure if this is accurate) that the RNC is figuring there will be over 500,000 fraudulent votes for Kerry. And what if there are more? What is most of that record turnout turns out to be dead people, double-voters, people crossing state lines to vote in a battleground state, etc.?
OK, time for some deep-breathing and NO. MORE. COFFEE.
UPDATE: Here's the permalink.
Went to vote this morning; thought I'd be so smart and get there before 7:00 when the polls opened. Even had the thought that I might be the first voter. HA!
It took me 10 minutes to drive the normal 1.5 minute trip to the local high school. Traffic was backed up for a mile down the road, both directions. Got into the building, and discovered the line stretched from one end of the school to the other, down a very long hallway.
But it moved along quickly, and I was back home in about 45 minutes, total.
Why the party atmosphere? Because everyone realized this was historic. The eye-popping, jaw-dropping looks on people's faces, when they discovered the length of the line, was priceless. I talked to a sweet, little, white-haired old lady in front of me, and when we parted ways for our separate ward lines, we felt as though we were saying good-bye to a friend. (I just hope she votes the right way...!)
While we were waiting in line, the principal came on over the P.A. with various announcements for the students (including one to teachers saying they shouldn't mark first period students late because the traffic was so unbelievable). Then, he announced the results of the mock election yesterday: Bush with 60% of the vote. The guy behind me muttered, "I don't think they should be announcing that right now". Probably an unhappy Kerry voter.
Anyway, if the turnout in this very Republican suburb is any indication, there will in fact be record turnout today. My prediction: definitely over 65%, maybe edging toward 70%. (I actually was going to make an even higher prediction but talked myself out of it, because it just seemed beyond the realm of possibility. But hey, the Red Sox won, so maybe nothing this year is out of the realm of the possible.)
The turnout here also indicates that Bush supporters are taking nothing for granted this time around, and they are out there voting. Let's hope we have enough of these votes to counter all the fraudulent votes that will be cast for Kerry today.
UPDATE: My turnout prediction is based on total adult population, not registered voters. So maybe I should say that I think at least 80% of registered voters will actually vote. You know, maybe I should just stop predicting stuff. I already predicted the election result, and I'm kind of sweating that one out right now.
Monday, November 01, 2004
I missed the huge Bush rally today. We were all in the car (all four kids and me) on the way there, at a stoplight downtown on 6th and Wisconsin, just a couple minutes away from parking and getting in to the arena, when suddenly my 7-year-old son threw up. Unbelievable. I really had no warning; he hadn't complained of not feeling well at all this morning. This was the first time in all my years of being a mom that a kid got sick in the car. So, I pretty much just turned around and came home, with a brief stop as soon as I could pull over to console him and try to clean him up a bit.
A warm bath and a little soup, and he's feeling better now.
But we're all disappointed. At least the ride downtown was kind of exciting, seeing dozens of cars with Bush bumper stickers, as well as some with Kerry stickers. (Kerry was also appearing in downtown Milwaukee today, with Bon Jovi as his big draw.) I talked to the kids about how they were a part of history, and how seeing a President is really a very cool thing. We had a great discussion about politics and government, and why this is important.
So what happened in downtown Milwaukee? Well, a radio news report at noon said that there were over 11,000 people at the Bush rally. Immediately after that report, they went to a reporter at the outdoor rally for Kerry, where Bon Jovi was going to perform before Kerry's appearance. The reporter said, and this is a direct quote, "There are literally hundreds of people here in this two-block area." Now, it's true, it was drizzly, and it was an outdoor rally... but "hundreds" of people is all he could manage, even with Bon Jovi? Wow.
UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! It's an Instalanche! Have to say it's quite the thrill to see those Site Meter stats. Thanks, Ann Althouse, for the link!
UPDATE TWO:, at 4:30 p.m. Rudy from Maine comments below, saying that he heard MSNBC's Carl Quintanilla report there were 10,000 people at the Kerry rally. Rudy asks me if that's true. I don't know, since I wasn't there, but the live report I heard on the radio at noon, just before Kerry was to appear, said "literally hundreds" of people were there. An hour ago I heard a reporter on the radio say there had been thousands. Now, MSNBC says 10,000. The crowd seems to be growing -- and Kerry's not even there anymore.
I never had a chance to complete this essay, as a follow-up to what I wrote for Hugh Hewitt's symposium question.
So here it is:
George W. Bush is the first president to clearly see the danger presented by Islamofascist terrorists, to recognize that they can never be just a "nuisance", and to do something about it. He's doing the right things: taking the fight to the terrorists, destroying their networks, their training camps, their leadership, and the tyrannical governments who support them. We are safer now. The world is safer. Over 50 million people are free now; we haven't been attacked again (and most people, including myself, thought it was almost a certainty that we would be attacked again after 9/11).
He's also right on the issues of taxes and the economy. He knows that tax cuts end up producing more government revenue, not less, because they stimulate the economy. This economy is thriving, after a devastating attack, the end of the dot-com bubble from the 90's, and a recession that turned out to be quite mild due to the tax cuts. Home ownership is at the highest level, ever. The unemployment rate is lower than the average of the past three decades.
Finally, George W. Bush is right on what is perhaps the most crucial issue of all: the right to life. What is more fundamental than this? We have a clear choice between a President who defends life at all stages, and a challenger who is the most ferociously pro-abortion candidate I can recall. President Bush signed the ban on the barbaric (and never medically necessary) procedure of Partial Birth Abortion. He respects the sanctity of all human life, refusing to allow federal funds to be used to additional destruction of human embryos for research purposes. He's signed numerous pro-life laws, and has been the most pro-life president we've ever had.
Finally, there's one last reason, which is hard to put into words. I believe this man's heart is good. I believe he truly loves God, truly loves people, truly loves this country. If he loses this election, it will be because of hatred, the irrational and unquenchable hatred of the "Anyone But Bush" crowd, which is apparently willing to elect a man horribly unsuited to the Presidency just to satisfy their rage.
It will also be due, at least in part, to a mainstream media that is so antagonistic to the President that they will lie (witness the AP story about the crowd "booing", a minor thing, and Rathergate, about Bush's National Guard record, not such a small thing), and will publish dubious stories timed to do the most damage to his campaign (such as the "looted explosives" story).
If Bush loses, it will be a very sad day for America.
But I don't think that will happen. I believe that most Americans have the good sense to see through the lies, and enough love in their hearts to see through the hatred. I also believe in the power of prayer, and I know how many people are praying for our country right now.
So I will keep praying, and I will vote (once), and the rest is in God's hands.