About Me

Name: Chip Monk
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Spitzer Repudiated, Proving That Conservatives Must Be Conservatives to Win

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1363693520071114?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

It's amazing what happens when "the people" stand up to the wild ideas put forth by extreme leftists such as the honorable NY Governer.  Even in a liberal state like New York, people are against giving illegals ID cards that they can use for nefarious purposes. 
Which brings me to a (seemingly) unrelated point: The media keeps pointing at Bush's low approvals, but what they don't mention is the fact that he's so low in part because of pushing amnesty, the UN-ification of the oceans, and other "liberal" causes that alienate his base.  I strongly believe that if one of the Republican presidential candidates would step up to the plate with a true "neo-protectionist" conservative agenda (ie. protect our nation from terrorism, protect life at all levels, protect US sovereignty, protect our economy from China and outsourcing, etc.) that they would face off with Hillary with a significant advantage.  However, Guiliani seems to be a one-trick pony ("Did you see what I did on 9/11"), Romney seems to be a closet liberal ("But don't you conservatives see that I agree with you on all the conservative 'stuff' now?"), and most of the others seem to be allowing the media to define their chances.  Let's see what happens if one of these people were to step up, articulate a clear vision for continuing what has made America great, and repudiate those in this nation who consider the US to be the cause of all the world's ills.  Reagan did it in 1980, and changed the direction of this nation and the world.  Here's to hoping lightening strikes twice!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Getting Started Early on '08

It's been some time since I wrote on this blog, but as I've been following the leadup to the 2008 Campaign I have become inspired to get involved early. Part of my engagement will be writing to this blog, but most of my focus will be getting involved with local, state and national efforts.  I took part in the 2004 and 2006 efforts in a limited way, but am planning an entirely new level of engagement during this next campaign season.  I have been a political junkie since I listened to the 1984 returns with my dad at the age of eight.  I have seen many of the news stories that have already declared Hillary Rodham Clinton as the next president, but recall similar media campaigns in the past that didn't turn out as expected once the voters spoke.  And although I am surrounded by a sea of blue here in the State of Oregon, I believe that even one person can make a difference. 
So... welcome to 2008!  One year to go...
Chip
Oregon
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

"Mediacracy" and a New Definition of Division in America

Well, I thought I had invented a new word, but a little research has shown me that others have come up with the same idea before me.  The idea is as follows:  America has become a "Mediacracy", a nation governed by the media and politicians responses to what the media says.  More and more, people are getting their news from people like Jon Stewart and Jay Leno, and less and less are actually studying the candidates and the issues to make up their minds for themselves.  We will see if media coverage of the economy and Iraq changes now that their darlings on the Left have increased their share of power, but it is an uphill battle for conservatives to balance their time between campaigning against their opponent AND the biased media.  We can hope that the continued growth of blogging and alternative media sources can serve to offset this advantage, but the next two years will be telling.

Which brings me to another point.  The failure of the big-government Republicans in the past six years and the subsequent loss of their majority has sharpened the distinction, at least in my mind, between the two political choices for this country.  One side is what I would call the "Traditionalists", those who believe in what America has been historically, who believe in individual freedom and government non-interference, and stand for the long-accepted family values that once defined America.  The second group is the "Radical Revisionists".  They want to change moral values, economic and tax structures, and expand the influence of government in all sectors of life.  These are the forces that oppose life (standing for abortion and euthenasia), the advancement of various minority agendas (regardless of the validity of the cause) and seek to tear down the foundations of this country.  These people take their lead from the UN and Europe, and have solid control of the media, Hollywood, and the Democratic Party (as well as major influence over the GOP). 

Thus, the battle we will face in politics over the next two years (and beyond) is not between Republicans and Democrats, or even Liberals and Conservatives.  Instead, it is between those who love this country as it has been and those who want to change it to become something else.  In 2008, Americans will have seen two years of an invigorated Democratic Party with marginal control of both houses and based on the agenda they've pursued, they will be compelled to choose which path they want to take.  We can only trust that Americans will rise to the occasion and throw off the shackles of the "Mediacracy" as they return to electing officials who "love America first" rather than "blame America first". 

Here's to showing the "Mediacracy" their own mediocrity. 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

2006 Election Wrap-up

The networks have all officially called the House for the Dems.  Now watching their coverage all night has shown yet another round of calling all Dem wins quickly and stretching things out before calling GOP victories.  Regardless, if they're correct it is going to signal a major shift for this country.  We may well look back on this day as the first step down the road of the Carter Years Redux.  If the American voters really were war-weary enough and media-bludgeoned enough to let Nancy Pelosi set the agenda for this country, we are in deep doo-doo...

On the brighter side, it looks like the Democratic majority will be pretty thin, and the fact that their hand-picked candidates had to run to the right to get elected could make things interesting.  In addition, I have felt all along that a Pelosi-run House helps the GOP in many ways and will assist in the 2008 Election on levels we can't even dream about now.  Overall, I think it is probably a better result than my prediction of a narrow lead as the Dems will have to take some of the public heat vented towards Congress (that is, if the bias of the media will allow it).

Regardless, it's awesome to live in America where we decide things in a civil manner, rather than how the Saddam-types have done down through history at the point of a gun.  No matter what ultimately plays out this evening, GOD BLESS AMERICA!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ChipMonk's 2006 Election Projection

Okay.  Here it is.  Enough posts about the run-up to the 2006 Election.  Now I am making my own predictions about what will happen.  I've studied this race like no election I've followed before.  I've worked on GOTV efforts, and gotten a pulse on the people in my area.  I've seen genuine anger on both sides, and heard people say they like "their" representative, even if they don't like Congress in general. 

So... here are my prognostications.  If I'm right, I'm brilliant (or at least lucky).  If I'm way off... well, this was such a strange election cycle that there was no way to know... (Okay, that's a cop-out, but oh well...)

SENATE: I project that the Senate will reconvene in January with a total of 52 Republican Senators, 46 Democrats and 2 Independents (both working with the Democrat caucus).  If anything, The Republicans will do better, not worse than this.  As far as specifics, I see Steele pulling an upset in Maryland because of his flawless campaign and general attractiveness to voters.  I believe that Corker will handily defeat the self-destructing "Junior" Ford.  Talent will do fine against McCaskill, making people wonder if it was ever that close in the first place.  Burns will beat Tester, and perhaps only because the bulk of Montana doesn't want the Dems in control of Congress.  I project that DeWine will lose Ohio (thanks Taft) and that Allen will just barely survive Webb (and his own gaffs).  Kyle will easily beat Pederson in Arizona, and I've been channelling that Santorum just may pull out a win in Pennsylvania, but if he does it will be by the smallest of margins (prompting mass allegations of fraud by the Dems).  Lieberman will annihilate Lamont, but will try to stay chummy with his Democratic colleagues and will do little to thank his Republican proponents.  So.. I see the Dems picking up Ohio, Rhode Island (although that will be close as well) and perhaps Pennsylvania, but Steele will win in Maryland by a squeeker. 

HOUSE:  This is the big unknown, but I project the Republicans to hang on by a bare three-vote margin.  In January, they will have 219 votes against 216 for the Dems.  However, Dennis Hassert will not be the Speaker (just a hunch).  I project that Texas 22 will go Republican, as will Florida 16 because voters are a lot smarter than the MainStreamMedia gives them credit for.  Wilson will win in New Mexico and Rainville will win in Vermont.  One or both of the vulnerable Dem seats in Georgia will fall to the Republicans, and some seats that were thought lost will go overwhelmingly for the Republican candidate (against showing that the polls were never spot on). 

FINAL ANALYSIS: The end result of this is to analyze how effective the MSM's and the Dem's "2006 Evangelical and Conservative Voter Suppression Efforts" were.  The "Foleygate" and "Unknown Colorado Pastorgates" would barely have registered as stories if they represented liberals, and the Gay-this and Gay-that cloud has probably set back the Homosexual Agenda when all is said and done.  If the Dems pull through and score a victory (even if only by one seat in the House and lose the Senate) they will surely up the ante in 2008 and we'll see far greater attacks on the sensabilities of Main Street American Values.  Lastly, you almost have to wonder who John Kerry is pulling for.  He seems to be the gift that keeps on giving, and his slight of the troops may end up being the big story when the Republicans survive this storm. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dow Over 12,000

Come on, supposedly unbiased MainStreamMedia...  If this was happening under former President Clinton's watch you would have cannonized him.  Since it's a result of the Bush Tax Cuts, you can't hardly stand to mention it (for a laugh, listen to how NPR is reporting on the economy).
ANALYSIS: In certain parts of the country (ie. Michigan) people are struggling, but on the whole the economy is soaring, and has recovered (and then some) since 9/11.  The media will never give Bush credit, and will continue to report in an almost unbelievably biased fashion until at least the election.  Knowing their track record, they will continue to spin it as bad until one of their own (read Democrat) is safely ensconsed in the Oval Office again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New Jersey Just Keeps On Giving

Today the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a ruling that is cloudy, to say the least, on the issue of what the New Jersey Constitution says about Gay Marriage.  My first thought, of course, is what if any impact will this little news item have on the election?  My guess is that the MainStreamMedia will briefly mention it and then move on to how bad Iraq and the US Economy are, as they do not want to remind their "value voters" category what is at stake if the Democrats take one or both of the chambers of Congress. 
ANALYSIS: This is being trumpeted in conservative blogs, but will probably be underreported in the MSM as a whole.  Still, looking at the 2004 election it may be enough of a reminder to bring an extra 2-3% of "family issue" voters out to the polls.  The MSM's vote suppression efforts are in full swing, but the New Media has a chance to offset their efforts to some extent. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Prez Pelosi?

I haven't posted much lately, because I had said what I felt was most important in my last two posts: That is, I said the media is going to try to do all it can to suppress the conservative vote between now and Nov. 7 and we need to do all we can to encourage those around us to not let themselves be disenfranchised by the former media power brokers.  Then I saw a brief story on how the Dems might try to get their *new* Speaker of the House into the White House via impeachment proceedings.  I think this is a bit of an alarmist story, but it does good to remind us that in the even of the death or incapacitation of the president and vice president she would indeed become the leader of this nation.  Think of this when you vote in Montana, Missouri, Tennessee, etc. for Senate or for representatives in the so-called vulnerable Republican "strongholds".  Any "message" conservatives might want to send will end up being to the muslim radicals oversea who want to kill us and the leftists of this nation who think even a one-seat majority in either forum of Congress is a validation of their idealogy. 
ANALYSIS: After paying close attention to the past three election cycles, I'm pretty sure that the idea of Nancy Pelosi (did I mention she was a grandmother?) being two heartbeats away from the throne is not going to sit well with most voters outside of the greater San Francisco and Berkeley areas. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Call to Action For America in the 2006 Election

We are fighting the Fourth World War.  We have been since 1979, or at least 1993.  We don't have to like everything about this administration (I certainly have reservations), but we do have to be thankful that the Bush team is inhabiting 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and not a family named Gore.  Just imagine what a different situation we would be if Albert "Global Warming" Gore was in office. 

I believe those of us in this country have a duty to support our leaders during this dark time in our nation's history.  We have been blessed, so far at least, that our normal everyday lives have been minimally disrupted in the War on Terror.  The stock market is flirting with 12,000, an all-time high.  The economy is booming, despite receiving little coverage in the Mainstream Press.  And like them or not, the Bush Administration has kept us safe.  Who would have believed after 9/11 that we would go over five years with no subsequent attacks?  If you and I are honest, we never believed that at the time, did we?  For these reasons, I believe we have a duty to ensure the continued safety and prosperity of our country.  I also think we the voters have an important role in rejecting the "Politics of Personal Destruction" that are being used currently by the Democratic Party.  They aren't arguing political viewpoints.  Neither are they offering better solutions than those currently holding the reins of power.  They are single-handedly tearing down the political process and discourse in this great nation by their campaign of destroying people, not policies.  At the same time, they are setting up a situation where they can cry "foul" if they do end up losing their fourth straight election during Bush's presidency.  Take a look at the Democratic alternative, American people, and see if you like what you see... 

I hope that my confidence in the American People proves accurate.  I hope they see the critical juncture we are at in history.  So few have ever learned real history in our public schools, and instead been fed revisionist anti-American propaganda that it's hard to believe that the current generation of voters could overcome the bias presented in the media.  However, as shown in 2000, 2002, and most recently in 2004, the American people are not controlled by the dishonesty of Michael Moore, Moveon.org, and DailyKos, but by the convictions they hold.  I predict that the smear attempts by the Left, and the manufacturing of the Foley "scandal" (once again, there appears to be less "there" there than several of the scandals sparked by these now self-righteous Democrats over the past couple of decades) will indeed backfire on the Left.  Also, the so-called tight races throughout the country will probably not be close at all, if the inaccuracy media predictions in the last three cycles have shown us anything.

Remember America, the Mainstream Press no longer reports the news.  They now attempt to create it.  Look back over the news for the past five months.  Then check out the Washington Post and New York Times for the next few weeks.  You will see a pattern of them trying to tell you what you think, who you're angry at, and that if you're a conservative voter you are going to stay home and not vote.  They aren't trying to encourage participation in the voting process.  They are trying to suppress your vote. 

Don't let them.  Vote your conscience, whether it's for a Republican, Democrat or another party.  But do it because you believe in it.  Not because you've been told what to do.  That will help keep America the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Election 2006 Compared With 2002

http://www.pollingreport.com/2002.htm

Do you recall all the media wrangling four years ago related to the 2002 Election?  The media was trying very hard to produce momentum for the Democratic Party, much like they've been doing all Summer '06 and now into the Fall.  Polls suggested that things looked positive for those on the Left (take a look at the above link for the polling projections), and everyone in the media seemed startled when the Republicans did so well during what was a mid-term election.  The MSM's attempts to manufacture various "October Surprises" is certainly not over, but the Foley issue seems to be blowing up on the Dems, and clearly anyone who cares about morality and decency is not going to think a vote for the party of Gay Marriage, Abortion and Euthenasia is appropriate at this time in our Nation's history.  I read an article in a local paper known for its extreme left-wing viewpoint quoting an equally leftist news agency and they had tracked down some poor numbskull to say "I've had it with all these Republican shananigans, I'm voting Democrat for the first time".  Methinks that the majority of voters are a bit smarter than this, and that the situation in North Korea (Nuke Test 10-8-06), Iran (wannabe nuclear power), and elsewhere is going to make a difference in this election, which marks only the third national election since 9/11. 
ChipMonk's Analysis: The Media will continue to endeavor to create as much momentum as they possibly can over the next few weeks.  However, the Foley situation will backfire, and several apparently vulnerable Republicans will begin to gain insurmountable leads.  The North Korea situation will begin to ratchet up quickly and things will begin coming to a head before the election even happens.  Oh, and perhaps Bill Clinton will attack a cab driver in New York for "Looking at him funny..."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DOW "Suffers" Its Way the Highest Total Ever

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061003/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street;_ylt=AnhvAesRoImtLZADf4SXUQ2gfbcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA3bGI2aDNqBHNlYwM3NDk-

CHIPMONK'S ANALYSIS: That poor American economy.  Full employment...  Gas under $59 a barrel... The Dow at its highest point ever...  It must be those evil Bush tax cuts.  They've destroyed the working man's hope for a better life once again. 
Let's see, the War on Terror is a disadvantage for the Democrats as they clearly have no plan...
The extremists from the "Religion of Peace" have hijacked a plane to protest the Pope, once again reminding us of the threat we face...
And the Foley issue reminds us of many similiar previous indiscretions by those on the Left...  Usually the economy is supposed to be a strength for the Democrats during an election cycle, but it's apparently doing far too well for them to make an issue of it.  Just imagine how much Botox(TM) it's going to take for Ms. Pelosi to iron out all the aging wrinkles brought on by this campaign season.  Poor lady...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Brief Analysis of the Foley "Situation"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20061002/bs_ibd_ibd/2006102issues01

CHIPMONK'S ANALYSIS: I guess you had to see this coming.  Apparently, the Democrats have had this issue in hand for quite some time and have been waiting to exploit it.  Much like they've bungled the questioning of the Bush Admin on Terror and Iraq, they may just have once again drawn attention to one of their own fundamental weaknesses.  Think about it, if Foley was a Democrat, would he have resigned?  If you think yes, then look back on the history of past events like this on their side of the aisle.  (The above link is a good start).  No, they would not have and would have accused the Republicans of a vast, right-wing conspiracy.  This is another attempt at an October surprise, and there are sure to be more to come, but even the MSM is going to have a hard time avoiding commentary that at least includes discussion of a certain former president and members of the opposing party.  What Foley has done is dreadful and inexcusable, but at least he has resigned.  Just watch how pathetic and brutal this gets in the next few days, but again, wait for the inevitable backlash. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hmmm... Any Chance the NYT is Politically Motivated?

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6nyt.htm

Back in 1992 when I was a junior in high school, I watched the media coverage of the Presidential Election.  I kept getting the vibe that the a major reason the sitting president (G.H.W. Bush) was trailing after having had astronomically high approval numbers just a year before was in part a created result of the media coverage.  No doubt the "Read My Lips" gaff didn't help his cause, and his relative lack of personal appeal complicated the re-election efforts, but I felt (and have always felt) that Clinton was elected, at least in part because the media told people how the election was going and what the result would be.  Whether it suppressed the vote of Bush-41 who lost on a plurality when Perot bled off many of his votes is debateable, but there is a segment of society that wants to be on the "winning team" and votes for the projected winner in each election.  Thus, in every election cycle since, I have watched the media attempt to influence the outcome with carefully timed polls and commentary.  What are the odds that while most current trends seem to be benefitting the GOP the New York Times is reporting that things are actually getting better for the Dems and that *GASP* they might just take the Senate too? 
Hmmm... I smell a ploy afoot, but as in 2002 and 2004 I'm starting to think people are smarter than that. 
Any chance this is an attempt at a manufactured October-surprise?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Blabberman "Anthrax" Hoax

http://www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix/powder_puff_spooks_keith_pagesix_.htm

Okay, you don't have to think all that much of Keith Olberman (and I don't) but this is not an appropriate way to vent outrage at the man.  America is about free speech, even if you think the speaker is an idiot.  Olberman has said some caustic and unkind things, and had unpleasant things said about him.  However, whoever did this hoax went much too far and should be condemned.  Also, the NY Post's coverage of the situation was inappropriate as well, and to be fair when liberals are mistreated in the media it needs to be called what it is.  Let's gently poke fun at this uber-goober, and his outmoded way of thinking in the post-9/11 world, but go no further than that. 
*End diatribe of ranting*
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

7-11: No More "Hugo" Big Gulps

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060927/ap_on_bi_ge/7_eleven_citgo

7-11 Drops CITCO gas! 
Okay, so it's just one company, but a very large company.  Let's hope this starts a trend.  The *mild* rebuke from Pelosi and Rangle is evidence that Chavez is simply echoing the words of the Left, but his rant at the UN is looked at very differently by the citizens of our great nation.  (By the way, Pat Robertson's idea is now starting to seem a little less loony, isn't it?)
I'm proud of 7-11 for doing this!  I guess the way to show support is to buy their nachos and hot dogs 24-7, to show my support for their principalled stand (actually, I don't know if there is a 7-11 in my town, but it's worth a look). 
Now, if I could just figure out why they have locks on their doors when they're always open, even on Thanksgiving and Christmas...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »