Gonna vote?  It's your choice. 

And, no -- you won't get a sudden "burst" of truth from the liberal media.  You never have.  The talking heads have been too busy telling you how bad things are.  They won't let up until 2008.  And if liberals win in 2008, expect it to continue.

And if you are still buying their crap --  stay home.  You deserve what you get. 

But if you DO stay home tomorrow and let critics continue to pour kool-aid on your cornflakes -- don't expect too many to listen for the next couple of years as you bitch and whine --

when your taxes go up,
when the economy flounders,
when gas prices skyrocket again,
when the job rate plummets,
as illegal immigrants continue to sap local resources,
as new "endowment" programs drain even more resources,
when Islamic extremists continue to threaten,
as nuclear proliferation comes closer to home,
as diplomacy meets reality,
when national security is compromised, 
as our troops continue to "do things" you've never heard about,
when the gun-control issue rears it's invasive head,
when free trade gets railroaded (again) by unions,
as mainstream media flows even more yellow,
as global posturing turns away from Israel,
as the "swing vote" comes from illegal immigrants and deceased registrants,
as partisan vendettas reach new heights and lows --

It's your choice.  Get off your whiny butts and vote.  Stand your ground --- rise above the hype and distractions or stay home and fume for the next two years -- and beyond.   

Me?  I  voted early. Here's one reason why.

So what's it gonna be?

From the gallows he pleads -- not for mercy, but .....

Saddam Hussein urged Iraqis on Sunday to reject the sectarian violence ripping his country apart and to "not take revenge" on US invaders, his chief lawyer said after the ousted leader was sentenced to death.

Awfully nice of him to think of his nation now. 

Hey -- if his plea will lessen the violence, keep the buzzard in a cage until the Iraqi government gets on its feet.

Then hang him.

source:  The JP.

We miss you, Roy.  And Gene.  And Tom.  And Tex.  And Buck.  And Wild Bill.  And Lash.  And Paladin.  And Matt.  And Rowdy.  And Audie.  And even Flash of sci-fi fame ... With Clark and his super-cronies .... .

And if you don't recognize those names, explaining wouldn't help you remember.

It's the birthday of the "King of the Cowboys," Roy Rogers, born Leonard Franklin Slye in Cincinnati, Ohio (1911). When he was 18 he moved with his mother and father to California, where he earned money by harvesting fruit and working as a cowhand. He started playing guitar and singing in small theaters and on the radio in the 1930s. He met Bob Nolan and Tim Spencer, and they started the Sons of the Pioneers. The band made appearances in several motion pictures.

Rogers's first screen name was "Dick Weston." He changed it to Roy Rogers just before he got his first big break, replacing Gene Autry in the movie Under Western Stars (1938). The movie was a hit, and it launched Rogers's steady film career as a singing cowboy.

So much for cowboys of the 20th century and before -- those heroes of yester-year. 

Did you know that Ross Perot is a member of the Cowboy Hall of Fame?  Yep.  He sure is.  That scrawny little guy with the irritating voice is right up there with Roy and Gene and Hoppy and Clayton and all the others. 

NOTE: I didn't vote for him in THAT election, either!

H. Ross Perot, founder of Electronic Data Processing, Presidential candidate, National Cowboy Hall of Fame Inductee, trained horses and did rope tricks as a teenager. When Iranians arrested some of his employees, Perot organized a rescue. He became a billionaire when he sold EDP to General Motors. He made another huge chunk of money when GM paid him to get off the Board of Directors and quit asking embarrassing questions. His independent Presidential campaign in 1992 created panic among Republicans, Democrats, and news media.

And now into the 21st century rides another breed of cowboy ..... Reagan, Luke (Skywalker),Tom Selleck, Rambo, Clint, General (stuck-on-stupid) Honore and of course, this guy ...

Mosey on up to the comment bar, buckaroos, and name your own favorite cowboy (or cowgirl) ....

Yeeeee hawwwww. 

 [Oooops.  Lost my composure there for a second.]

Flashback:  Several years ago, I volunteered to join a  "real" cattle herd in Wyoming.  I have photos somewhere.  Don't make me prove it. 

Been there -- done that, by golly.  Ain't doing it again, either.  The pain (in muscles I never knew I had) in my posterior and legs was so severe, I had to hole up in a desolate motel for two days before I could climb into the jeep and drive home.  

Every time I recall that venture, I limp (similar to Gabby Hayes -- sans the beard) until the memory fades ..... 

Favorite sign at the Army - Air Force football game.

The score?

Military 1 - Kerry 0

What a relief.  The line was short, but each of the 20 or so voting machines were occupied.  A majority of voters carried a GOP sample ballot -- a cheat-sheet listing commissioners and judges ineligible for the "straight" vote. 

First time I've done that.  Usually, I study the summary sheets a day or so before voting. 

Parking lot outside was full of folks distributing fliers.  Lots of anger and head-shaking.  Mostly directed at John Kerry.  He's the reason I voted yesterday. 

Enough is enough.  If the ballot box were a weapon, consider John Kerry's career dead and buried.  Not surprising -- the best his publicist could do was to get him another insult on the Imus "call in" show yesterday.

Even Dems <gasp> chastised their once-touted 2004 Presidential candidate.  Of course, Democrats -- the party of outrage and hype -- are well-known for eating their own (i.e., Lieberman).

And in case you haven't heard what Kerry said OR haven't seen the troops response, here it is:

John Kerry:  "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

I don't think Kerry will be visiting Iraq in the near future ...

Scare-tactics aside -- methinks John sKerry may have given the GOP an early Halloween treat and the Dems an eleventh-hour horror trick.

TRAPPED ONE.

*

*Will be released November 8.

I've been on Mitt Romney watch for several months.  A recent article confirms my speculation ....

After a few false starts, the latest favorite to champion .... [the special interest -- movement conservative] agenda is Mitt Romney, the governor of Massachusetts.

In part, that's because of the unacceptability of the two Republican candidates who are leading in the polls: Rudy Giuliani, the former New York City mayor with a record of supporting gay rights, abortion rights and gun control, and Senator John McCain, who for various reasons, some irrational, is anathema to many social conservatives.

A year ago, there were two possibilities: the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, and Senator George Allen of Virginia. Both have since imploded politically.

Thus, the infatuation on the right with Romney is growing.

This is noteworthy on two grounds. One is religion. A devout Mormon, he comes from a conservative sect that some evangelicals, other Protestants and Catholics have viewed as a cult. The other is ideology. The charismatic 59-year-old Romney once appeared agnostic on abortion - it should be "safe and legal," he said - when he ran unsuccessfully for senator in 1994 and successfully for governor in 2002. He has also taken a much tougher line against gays,

especially on civil unions, in the past several years. Conservatives, looking for an alternative to McCain, seem willing to overlook these transgressions.

"Mitt Romney is a mainstream conservative," says Barbara Comstock, an activist on the Republican right who will work for his nomination. "He governed in a very liberal state with mainstream conservative principles."

The most notable achievement of that record is an initiative that requires all Massachusetts residents to obtain health insurance. That measure was criticized by the right and left, yet generally won plaudits for Romney.

Grover Norquist, an anti-tax crusader who spearheads Republican issue coalitions in Washington, saw "the party's base rallying around Romney" and dismissed any flip- flops as irrelevant. More important, Norquist said, was Romney's speech last month to 1,500 social conservatives at the Family Research Council: "Romney wowed them."

It will take more such performances to overcome the religious issue, which promises to surface for the first time in presidential politics since John F. Kennedy ran in 1960. A national survey by Bloomberg and The Los Angeles Times in July found that 37 percent of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon for president, including one-third of Republicans and independents. That is more than two or three times the number of people who said they would not vote for a Catholic or Jew. "There still is a segment of evangelicals who, even if they agree with Romney on conservative social issues, have significant trouble with the theology his denomination represents," said Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School in Winston-Salem, North Carolina. "They think Mormons have concocted a new revelation that is heretical Christianity at best."

Nevertheless, Leonard added, "Romney's candidacy is an illustration of how far Mormons have come; they now are essentially considered an American denomination by most people, which years ago they were not."

Romney, who's stepping down as governor, has been assiduously courting conservatives. In private meetings, he initiates discussions on how to deal with the religious issue. It may be that all he needs is the proper forum - for Kennedy it was a gathering of Protestant ministers in Houston - to allay concern.

In the Republican primaries, Romney has another weapon: McCain. The Arizona senator has done a good job of courting President George W. Bush and some of his supporters, and the two men came out of their 2000 presidential race with a minimal regard for one another. But much of the Republican right wing despises McCain, although he usually votes the social- conservative line. Privately, they say, he does not mean it.

Norquist, for example, dismissed complaints about Romney's past and even suggested that Giuliani might overcome his drawbacks simply by pledging to name conservatives like Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He hesitated, however, when asked about McCain and then said "perhaps if he takes the lead on pro-growth tax cuts," while making clear he does not think that will happen.

Thus, Romney's greatest asset with the activist right may be that he is the leading ABM - anybody but McCain - candidate. To be sure, McCain would be the most formidable American politician in the 2008 general election. When Democrats say Senator Hillary Clinton cannot win the presidency, they invariably mean in a matchup against the Arizona senator.

And the conventional wisdom is if Republicans take a drubbing on Nov. 7, which is a probability, they will have to swallow their reservations and accept McCain as the only candidate who can save the party from another debacle.

Maybe so. History, however, suggests it is unwise to bet against movement conservatives in the Republican Party.

While McCain has never been one of my favs, I'm not confident Giuliani can muster the base that Romney can .... I can, however, foresee McCain in the VP slot with Rudi in a prominent Cabinet position.

Romney has positive international exposure via the Olympics. Election to and being a productive governor in a state hostile to Republicans has to be a plus.

[Adult] stem cell research will be a relevant issue -- his quasi-activist wife has MS.

He's bright, articulate and photogenic. All pluses. By the time campaign season opens, he'll be surrounded by a team that will know how to "couch" negative vibes about his religion.

And, heck -- I have about as much right to express my druthers as anyone!!!

Reader comments were not recording earlier today.  Too bad.  I received several comments (and email) on the two Lynne Cheney posts.  With the exception of one comment -- all have been positive and in agreement with my premise(s) and observations.

The one exception (whose blog confirms that his screen name indeed is "godlessliberalhomo"), opined:

"You are so brainwashed by the extreme right. CNN, like the rest of the corporate media, has an extreme right-wing, pro-war, pro-GOP bias."

My knee-jerk response might have been:  "--Am not brainwashed!"

And I thought about his comment.  And thought some more.  Then I decided that before finishing the housework I've been avoiding all day, I'd respond as I felt compelled to do.

First and foremost -- I'm neither a scholar nor do I pretend to be one, so cut me some slack if I appear to be glossing over some of the more academic points ....

1)  It would be nigh on to impossible (unless of course, someone tortured me -- at which time I'd probably [at least pretend to] agree with anything he/she wanted) for me to be brainwashed politically or religiously.  Especially by the extreme right.  I just don't gravitate to extreme positions.  Maybe different positions, but not extreme ones.  I'm talking politics AND religion, by the way.  I'm a registered unaffiliated (GDI) former-democrat who now leans to the right of center.  So sue me.

As for right-wing stuff (per your assumed inference that I identify with  fundamentalist religion as a political tenant), let me enlighten you on my alleged right-wing-edness ...

I grew up in the REAL ultra-conservative fundamentalist Appalachian Bible-belt.  Whoaaaaaa, Nelly.  I used to stand on the back pew and watch foot-washings for hours on Sunday -- enthralled by Sister Hattie who walked up and down the aisle thumping a tambourine on her knee as she screeched "We Shall Gather At the River."  The small church I attended as a child was "owned" by neighbors who paid $25 a year to call themselves Baptists.

"Sang [colloquial for sing] that song, Sister Hattie, sang that song."  Amen. 

(The church was located in a pasture ....  Remind me to tell you about the hot Sunday afternoon the cows poked their heads through open windows and  bellowed along with Sister Hattie .....)  Some things a child does not forget.

But I digress.

From that small mountain church, I evolved into the once-or-twice-maybe-three-times-a-year Episcopalian I am today.  My spiritual existence is not godless, by the way, and my exercise of religion has absolutely nothing to do with "filtering" the political bias, the anti-American rhetoric or the Bush Derangement Syndrome I observe in mainstream media.  Whether or not it's relevant -- Bill Clinton was the defining factor in my political evolution.

Possibly you confuse my criticism of MSM and praise of Lynne Cheney with your own frustration with the current socio-political climate .....  

In my assessment, US nationalism (call it patriotism, if you prefer) has been morphing for the last 10-15 years.  I survived the 40's to grow up in the 50's; I volunteered to work as a civilian in Vietnam in the 60's (and am still affected by that experience).... I saw fit to earn 3 more degrees and lived a successful Camelot-life during the 70's and 80's; for reasons I'm still assessing, my life has turned full-cycle since then .... Both because of and for the better, from my perspective.

Politically-speaking, I hold Bill Clinton responsible for the evolution and revolution which my nation (and middle America) have experienced over the last 10-15 years.  He is a despicable human being whom I still have trouble accepting as a person who achieved the highest position in this wonderful nation.

Thanks to Bill Clinton -- I couch two political premises associated with the morphing of US nationalism:  A) war may be necessary for peace, and B) character and integrity are learned.  These two premises have little effect on distinguishing between Republicans and Democrats, in my assessment.  Rather, these premises have to do with political ideology.  For the sake of simplicity,  my "working" reference to a political liberal is power; to a political conservative it's people.  As a GDI (gosh-darned independent), I'm somewhere in the middle -- leaning toward fiscal conservatism with a bias toward social liberalism.  But there I go digressing again ...

2)  CNN is part of corporate America.   It's within a large corporate structure.  It's one of many, many Time-Warner subsidiaries which affect our daily lives.  Yet there is a difference.  IMO, mainstream media (MSM) is a tad worse than corporate America.   CNN is a news agency.  A news agency is usually expected to observe certain professional standards. 

"Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues. Conscientious journalists from all media and specialties strive to serve the public with thoroughness and honesty. Professional integrity is the cornerstone of a journalist's credibility. Members of the Society share a dedication to ethical behavior and adopt this code to declare the Society's principles and standards of practice."

— Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
— Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
— Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.

Make sense?  It sure does to me. 

3.  Without doubt, however, media (plural) tend to be self-serving and seldom if ever represent the objective interests of people.  MSM (mainstream media) is a misnomer, actually.  There is nothing "mainstream" about op eds and editorialized news.  The term MSM is used contemporaneously to indicate "top down" media bias and self-interest.   Let's face it: media corporations (whether "free" or government-controlled) decide what they want us to hear, how they want us to hear it, and subsequently create compelling headlines and slants to support their perspective.

The media as pro-government?  Not always ....  Media DOES attempt to influence public attitude and action.  Whether advocating a particular party or candidate, a social or political policy or a corporate position (for example, on immigration controls such as border walls, amnesty, guestworker and citizenship programs) -- we can no longer accept the media-line as either accurate or unbiased.  Your criticism is on-target regarding corporate interest in immigration reform:  small and large businesses have the most to gain and/or lose.  

Immigration is not the only issue corporates are concerned about, obviously.   If it weren't considered government intervention (cause that's how corporate media would portray it), I'd like to see all media removed from corporate  control ..... 

Corporate control of the Internet?  Now THAT is skeery.  It behooves all of us to keep the information highway FREE from the control of governments, communications conglomerates AND dot-com moguls.  Every net user should support a free Internet!!! 

Maybe if you re-read the previous posts without so much angst (as intimated by your name and your comment),  you might grasp where I'm coming from .... 

To me, life is not all about godlessness or godliness or having a political persuasion or being straight or gay or Jewish or Arabic or European.  It's also (or it's supposed to be, I have prayed) about fairness and respect and unconditional regard for each other.

And, yes.  Sometimes I wonder where those "supposed-to-be's" came from.  Maybe  they evolved from watching those foot-washings when I was a child standing in that church pew.  Those were impressionable times, after all.  Back in those days, $25 was a lot of money to pay for the right to call yourself something. 

Yanno?
 

   Lynne Cheney:  
Woman  against 
Media
Distortion?

The Vice President's wife -- author, TV commentator, grandmother, PhD, spokesperson -- Lynne Cheney, may well be one of Carl Rove's October surprises .... intended or not.

If you didn't see Lynne Cheney blitz the Blitzer on CNN   yesterday, watch and read it HERE (previous post).

She's a formidable, fearless, articulate dynamo who takes no prisoners -- figurative or literal.  America needs her to confront MSM spin.  Now and henceforth. 

Don't expect Wolf Blitzer or CNN to invite her back OR to buy her books anytime soon .....