Packer Victory

Does this look like a happy face? Congratulations to Brett Favre, the all-time winningest QB in the NFL. With 286 yards, 3 TD passes and a solid command of the offense in the 2nd half of yesterday's game, Favre owns it- and keeps his boyish charm with an overtly emotional display of excitement.

I am baffled by post-game critiques of the offensive line and our running game though. Did you people miss the first half? Daryn Colledge left more holes in the left line than in a piece of swiss cheese. I thought every snap would be Favre's last, as someone always managed to blow by Colledge on Favre's blind side, and he was knocked, bumped, slapped, or ran into almost every play. What is a Guard for if not to protect the QB?

Secondly, I'm all for DeShawn Wynn coming out of nowhere and possibly claiming the RB starting spot, but gotta feel bad for Jackson. Given the ball and called to the left every single time got him no more than 2-3 yards per carry, not to mention "loss of 1" more times than I like to hear in a game.

And while the second half looked like a different team, even McCarthy self admits they made half-time adjustments to the offensive line, as they should have. But I don't want to be a second-half team. There is no excuse for Favre to be without protection, especially on his blind side. What sense does it make to run an RB to the left when Colledge can't block for him, and Favre ends up running for his life on the same side? We've got to protect on the left.

Third, #20 as everyone referse to him- Atari Bigby- he seems to have some talent, but I think he's acting as a pretty good trickster lately. He seemed to be on the edge of every play- but not directly involved with the stops? I want to see him on the bottom of a tackle next week, then maybe I'll buy the luck of the dread-locks.

I'd like a round of applause for Bubba Franks- catching and not dropping the ball for his first TD in what, 23 games?? Way to go Bubba- keep it up and you'll get the trust back.

Fourth, I have to extend kudos to the methodical pass-dump offs in the second half- 5 yards and then letting the receivers finish off the first down. I thought we drove with ambition and determination, but played it smart and ran down the Giants' defense with the short passing game.

Finally, I am excited for the Chargers next week- I think if we play one week at a time, we can turn some heads and surprise some skeptics. But we've got to be a first half team- we've got to make the adjustments before kick-off, so we don't end up playing catch-up.

P.S. Crosby, brush up on your wind-directions too, and you'll go far ;-)

Telling quotes

from my main man, Newt~

"The country needs solutions, and we need an ability to come to grips with how much change is involved in getting to those solutions. I'm deeply opposed to launching campaigns on late-night television. I think it just trivializes the whole process."

Fred Thompson's rollout has generally not gotten rave reviews. What do you think of it and of him?

Gingrich: "I think that any Republican has to have a core, direct, compelling message of why they would be different than [President] Bush and why they would be different than Clinton. And they have to be able to say it in 30 seconds. And they have to be able to say it so that people in their living room believe it matters to them and their family. None of our candidates have yet found that rhythm."

"The only circumstance I can imagine under which [my wife] Callista and I would be faced with a choice about running this year would be if there is a vacuum in October so deep and people began to be so afraid of Senator Clinton winning that you could actually see by the end of October a scale of resources that would let you be genuinely competitive. The odds are, that won't happen. I'm very comfortable with projects that take more than a sprint."

Do you want to run?

Gingrich: "Not necessarily. I want to serve my country. I don't want to run as an act of habit. I have no great interest in going out to campaign. I have every interest in finding a generation of solutions. So if you said to me, would I be willing to serve my country, the answer is yes. But it won't bother me to spend all of next year running workshops and developing a new generation of ideas, and trying to be available for every American, not just Republicans."

Man, he's good!

Free Health Care in Wisconsin

enough said

the Democratic response

Why have we come to the point where the title of a Presidential Address is now: "A Message from the President...and the Democratic Response." "Dah dah dah dah, on tonight's special report with Brian Williams."

Before the President spoke last night, I could not believe the media were advertising the Democratic response. It took away the importance and poignancy of the moment and what the President was actually going to say- before he even had the chance to say it!!

Why, you ask? Because when you anticipate a response by the known opposition, you anticipate that whatever the President says should be and will be countered and therefore loses credibility sheerly by the fact that it is opposed.

Instead, I would prefer the subconscious realization of the Democratic response. We already know they are going to do this- they do it after every speech and Republicans do it as well in response to Democratic officials. But for those of us who do not wish to hear it, I would rather enjoy the Presidential address and follow in his unwavering and allegiant optimism for the troops and the mission in Iraq, and believe things are progressing there.

Even today, the headlines read "Bush Cites 'Success' in Iraq, But Benchmarks Tell a Different Story." This alone immediately discredits everything he said, regardless of the actual truth. "Bush attempts to shore up support?" says one headline? Absolutely he does "attempt," or try to shore up support, but by the nature of that simple word choice, we already know the media believes he has failed in that "attempt."

Please don't believe that I am naive enough to eat everything from President Bush's palm, but I do choose the message of hope and victory in Iraq over cowardly troop withdrawal. And yes, I did listen to the Democratic response. My point is simply, it is no wonder we have such a polarized America, refusing to open their ears and wallowing in defeat. Look at what we're watching and reading!

In need of a real surge of hope

John Edwards has seriously confused his priorities:

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards bemoaned the United States' diminished reputation with the rest of the world in a speech Monday night, saying it needs to once again be a source of hope and light.

Edwards spoke for thirty minutes to a crowd of several hundred at Serb Hall in Milwaukee. He emphasized America’s failure as a prosperous nation to provide universal health care and criticized the recent troop surge policy.

”We don’t need a surge in Baghdad, we need a surge in New Orleans,” said Edwards to great applause.

Again we see the Democrats would rather bemoan the plight of the poor in New Orleans than fight a war that will not end when we pull out of Iraq, but rather, allow a terrorist surge to begin.

I do agree we need a surge in New Orleans- a surge of "Get off your ass and get to work" attitudes. We need to support the troops surge in Iraq. We need a surge in America of politicians supporting the troops, supporting a vision of destroying the terrorist opposition, strengthening the US, and upholding the offices of our leaders with integrity. We need a surge on the campaign trail of candidates who no longer placate lazy Americans with dangerous misleading visions about "Universal health care" coverage or mislead the naive with global warming falsities. We are in desperate need of a surge in America of HOPE. John Edwards, you are not the source of that HOPE with comments like this.

President Bush Speaks at Ground Zero - 9/14/01

Lest We Never Forget

Our enemies are now at home

This could be yet another example proving that the New York Times is the most anti-American newspaper published on our soil. More directly, MoveOn.org has far surpassed their Democratic candidates with this act of malicious defamation.

Attacking General Petraeus is the new protocol for liberal left-wing groups that wish to see us pull out of Iraq prematurely and desire the President to fail in his foreign policy. We as a nation must realize not only do we have enemies abroad that wish to do us harm, but enemies at home now that also wish us harm. Should we not face each enemy with equal military fervor?

It is obvious MoveOn.org and those who refuse to denounce their attack on General Petreaus have no interest in seeing America succeed -not only in the war on terror- but in the Promotion of Freedom. Those that wish a war here at home are sewing the seeds of hatred into our soil, that terrorists planted 6 years ago. It is even more apparent they are invested in and would prefer our failure and defeat.

President Bush said that we will hold accountable not only the terrorists themselves but also the groups or countries that harbor or support terrorists. MoveOn is supporting the terrorists - how dare we proceed to hold them responsible?

Additionally, from a political perspective we must call to account the candidates who accept money and support from MoveOn.org: the John Kerry's of the world who refuse to acknowledge their approval of entry into this war and the reasons behind it, and for what? For nothing but political clout in a nation misguided by it's own free press.

I suggest MoveOn.org be looked upon as the actual betrayers of our nation. To slander a highly-decorated 4-star general, unanimously confirmed by the senate, as a liar and having betrayed his country, is one of the lowest acts of a group associated with political debate and democracy that I have ever seen.

The contrast alone between those called betrayers and those who betray is stunning: General Petraeus in his full military uniform, stands strong in honor and sacrifice for his nation, promoting truth about the situation on the ground in Iraq and the hope for the future there. To compare him to the shadowly, elitist scumbags -the cowards on the left who merely point fingers and shuffle money to loud-mouth politicians, is absolutely staggering. I am so proud to be on the side of President and Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, as well as General Petraeus and our troops home and abroad.

I am begging our nation to show themselves on the side of freedom and support for our troops. Join us here at home, against the War on Americans, against the War against Freedom.

Forgo your copy of today's New York Times, and instead -thank a Soldier.

A new thought

What would happen if we didn't release the video tapes of Osama Bin Laden telling America to abandon capitalism and reform to Islam? What if we didn't allow the terrorists to "mark" the anniversary of 9-11?

What if we didn't propagandize that people in the middle east hate our way of life?

What if we didn't publish an American soldier body count each week? Why can't we decide to celebrate the soldiers fighting for freedom and their accomplishments in Iraq rather than critize the President and placate the liberals with empty phrases like "we support the troops." Support the effort too.

Why couldn't we remember the attacks- but in a way that honors those who died for their country, their freedom, for our continuing freedom? By replaying the footage of the buildings collapsing, followed by our President in total resolve, vowing to track the enemy down and bring them to justice. Not Osama bin Laden reminding us we are hated.

What would happen if we just didn't allow the Islamic radicals a voice?

Novel.

LMS Dictionary modification

Hippocrite [hippo-crit] noun
[origin: 2007, Little Miss Sunshine, circa August]

1. A massive thick-skinned person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2. a Hypocrite of gargantuan proportion

3. John Edwards

4. Al Gore

Michael Vick ain't from no Deep South

Whoopi, I am pleased you have succeeded "Ro," on The View, but on your first day you have to go and defend Michael Vick? So much for geographical correctness. Perhaps Miss South Carolina was referring to the new host when she said, "uh, some people, out there in our nation don't have maps."

"It's like cockfighting in Puerto Rico," she said. "There are certain things that are indicative to certain parts of the country."

I'm sorry, but Blacksburg, VA isn't exactly the Deep South. He went to Warwick High in Newport News, VA. That's southeast of Richmond and north of Chesapeake. These people don't have accents! Nor do they dog-fight!

Va Tech in Blacksburg where he played in college brings you a little closer to West Virginia and Kentucky, but that borders more on scary incestuous farms and families in need of a visit to the dental hygienist, again, not the "deep south" and dog fighting.

The deep south is Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina. And even though Virginia was a southern state in the Civil War- it is not considered "deep" and would rather annex itself and join Washington, D.C.

So as to defending Michael Vick- it's not a cultural thing. It's a gang thing.

To excuse him because it's a cultural thing from his part of the country is unacceptable. Maybe if he were from Russia in the mid-1990s!! The felony Vick committed was immature and stupid, and he deserves the punishment for it. Cultural, please!

In the meantime, let's get Whoopi a map!

Great step forward...but...

Something is still missing! Milwaukee Public Schools are now going to require visitors to show an ID and wear a Visitor Badge.

This is a great step in promoting school safety and protecting our kids from intruders, possible offenders and kidnappers.

And yet again, the logic behind this new promotion applies to the long-chanted GOP complaint: Show a Photo ID at the polls!

"We do think it's important that we verify who someone is," said Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent William Andrekopoulos.

Agreed. When picking up a child from school, or casting a vote in an important election - we should verify that someone is who they say they are.

Another applicable quote:

Jennifer Alyousef, a parent at Whittier Elementary School, said she thinks tightening the security procedure is a great idea, but hopes that it's enforced in all buildings. "We have a lot of people going in and out of our small school," she said.

We also have a lot of people going in and out of a polling place on election day. Perhaps visiting more than one polling place as well. With all those people, we need a system to keep them straight.

Finally, a third logical explanation:

"This is just to maintain safety," Castillo said. "It's like when you go into airports, it's not very fun to get your shoes off and take everything out of your pockets . . . but we have to understand that's just the way things are now."

Don't you think we've progressed to the point where it's just "the way things are" that voters should have to show a photo ID? After withstanding years of over-votes, buses from Chicago, students abusing the system, haven't we learned that though it might be irritating to some- it's just the way things are? This is just to maintain integrity.

Seems pretty simple to me.