AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

NFL Super Bowl Should be Patriots-Cowboys

So LSU has won the NCAA Football National Championship and are now 2007 National Champions. Congratulations to them.

However, despite the fact that LSU has been crowned National Champion, the debate across the nation is anything but settled about who is the best team of the 2007 collegiate football season. Many people have stated that the best teams did not play in the National Championship game. Arguments can be made for USC or Georgia being better teams than either Ohio State or LSU or both. And USC and Georgia certainly made their cases for that argument in their whoopings of their opponents in their bowl games.

Because of that, the debate rages on over the current system in college football for crowning a National Champion, the Bowl Championship Series system. There has been a lot of talk about a playoff system in order to have this finally settled on the field by the players, instead of left up to a bunch of pollers’ opinions and computer program polls. I completely agree with those people who want a playoff and have felt this polling system was ridiculous, well before they even thought about the BCS system. I have never understood why college football is the only sport which doesn’t settle its National Champion on the field, but leaves it up to pollsters to determine.

However, on the way home from work this evening, a couple of sports talk radio personalities on the local station here were in favor of keeping the system as it is, not even really in favor of a “Plus One” playoff system (in which the top 4 ranked teams at the end of the season would be put into a playoff system). They seemed to think that the way college football does things is just fantastic.


Well, how about we apply the college football system to the NFL shall we? That would mean that instead of the playoff system we have, we would have the top ranked teams automatically go to the Championship Game, in this case the Super Bowl. So that means that this year, the Super Bowl would already be set as Patriots-Cowboys. While it is arguable that those two teams are the best in the NFL, an argument can also be made that the Colts and Jaguars and maybe even the Chargers are better than the Cowboys. Or maybe Packers fans would argue that the Packers are better than the Cowboys, even though they have one more loss.

The beauty of the playoff system is that it allows all the debate and trash talking leading up to the games and then allows the players to settle the debates on the field.

Also, if the NFL were setup as college football, the Colts would not have been the Super Bowl Champs right now. The Super Bowl would have been the Chargers vs the Bears. And the Steelers would not have had a chance to win the Super Bowl prior to that either, since, at the end of the 2005-2006 season, the Colts and Seahawks were the top two teams who would have been in the Super Bowl.

So I don’t understand why anyone would want to keep the current system in college. My suggestion is for an 8-team playoff. Right now they have the BCS bowls split among 4 days anyway, with the National Championship game a week after New Year’s Day, on Jan 7th. So why not have the 8 teams in 4 bowls a week before Jan 1st, then have the Final 4 on Jan 1st and then the National Championship Game on Jan 7th?

Just think, these were the Top 8 teams in the BCS this year:

Ohio State, LSU, Virgnia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC, Kansas

This would have given us:

1 Ohio State vs 8 Kansas
2 LSU vs 7 USC
3 Virginia Tech vs 6 Missouri
4 Oklahoma vs 5 Georgia

I would definitely look forward to those games and that playoff!

Unfortunately, this is still not perfect as some great teams are still left out, such as 9 West Virginia and 12 Florida.

But, still, this is MUCH better than what we had this year. I would much rather have that playoff and only hear complaints from West Virginia and Florida, than to have arguably the two best teams in the nation at the end of the season, USC and Georgia, left out in the cold.

Hey NCAA, let’s have a playoff, shall we?

January 8, 2008 , 11:15PM Posted by | NCAA, Sports | 2 Comments

Fred Thompson Stands Alone on This Issue

After reading this headline over at HotAir about Mitt Romney talking about how he can defeat Barack Obama, the current national Democrat frontrunner in all the polls, it hit me how different and unique Fred Thompson’s campaign is from every other candidate in the Presidential race.

First, it’s interesting how we have gone from having the GOP candidates puff themselves up as “the only candidate who can beat Hillary!” to now having them proclaim their bonafides by saying they can beat Barack Obama.

But if you watched Fred Thompson’s 17 minute message to Iowa voters last week, there was a part of that message where he talked about bringing back the once great Democrat Party from the clutches of the radical left leadership. He talked about wanting to earn the vote of moderate Democrats who are frustrated with their leadership and want to vote for moderate or conservative values and principles. He talked about how the Democrat Party leadership had left the Conservative Democrat voters without a party. I thought this was a stunning highlight of how unique a campaign Fred Thompson is running from all the rest of the candidates.

Rudy Giuliani runs as an honest liberal. For that I admire him, even if he will not earn my vote, since I am a conservative. But he also has run mostly on being “the only candidate who can defeat Hillary”.

Mitt Romney suffers from flip-flopping on issues. People can’t really trust him, because he seems to be a political opportunist, changing his stance on issues for political gain. Someone called it “ambition without principle”. He is basically a moderate, but is trying to appeal to people as a conservative, even though he used to be liberal on issues. He’s basically running as a faux conservative. And now also is running on a “I can beat the Democrat nominee” campaign.

Mike Huckabee and John McCain are running on populism and trying to redefine conservatism. John McCain also tries to appeal to “independents”.

Duncan Hunter is the only other candidate running on a conservative message.

And now back to Fred Thompson. While the others (save Duncan Hunter) are using one of three campaign tactics:

(1) Redefine Conservatism and run as a populist
(2) Run as a liberal/moderate, but state they can beat the Democrat nominee
(3) Some combination of (1) & (2)

Fred Thompson runs on conservatism and appeals to conservative Democrats. While John McCain tries to redefine conservatism and appeal to “independents”, Fred Thompson stays true to his conservative principles and tries to appeal to Democrats who believe in conservative principles and are tired of their radical left Party leadership.

I just think that is something that is really getting overlooked in this campaign. Fred Thompson is really running a great campaign message. He is appealing to independents and Democrats, but not with populism or redefining conservatism, but with the belief that the base of America is made up of true conservatives who want conservative government. It is just a shame that people focus so much on his style, instead of his substance. Because his message is one of the best, if not the best, ones out there.

January 8, 2008 , 1:57AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Fred Thompson | 2 Comments

Proper Perspective and Analysis on Iranian Aggression Against US Navy

As usual, CNN plays fast and loose with the facts. But that is to be expected because of (1) their political agenda/bias and (2) their complete ignorance of anything to do with the U.S. military.

There are some great posts from U.S. Navy members/bloggers today on this incident.

My friend BULL NAV over at Op-For: IRGCN Trys to Lose Some Small Boats

CDR Salamandar: Pulling the Tiger’s Tail

Galrahn at Information Dissemination: 5th Fleet Focus: Standoff in the Straits

I tend to side with Bull on this, professional to the core in handling a tough situation. Could have turned ugly, didn’t, results speak loud and clear. We have some calls out to get some details, something about that CNN report doesn’t sound right, we’re guessing the guns were manned, locked, and loaded prior to any radio traffic if this indeed happened in the Strait, and this story is some reporter getting loose with the details.

[ … ]

The release confirms our identification of the ships involved.

We would encourage the Navy to release the audio recording of the radio transmissions. The Iranian response has set up a classic case of he said /she said over this incident, and it would do the Navy well, not to mention US policy well to establish US credibility, not only from an international political perspective but also for the domestic political crowd that is stupid enough to believe this could be the next Gulf of Tonkin incident. The release of the radio transmissions would discredit that parade of stupidity in analysis quickly, and highlight how thoughtless partisans must be to believe the officers and crews of our warships are looking for a shooting war 20 miles off the Iranian coast.

The IRGC is a terrorist organization by law in the United States. Law, not because of executive order, but because of Congressional vote. Thank Tom Lantos if you don’t like it, personally I thank him because I do think it was the right thing to do. When dealing with terrorists, understanding the battlefield is in the sphere of public opinion is just as important as understanding it is taking place in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. A recording of the radio transmission from the Iranians would be a bigger blow than what would have been produced filling 5 FACs with bullets from the USS Hopper (DDG 70).

Spook86 at In From the Cold: What Happened in the Strait?

[ … ] As noted in the CNN account, the IRGC has assumed control of Iranian naval operations in the Persian Gulf, following a trend noted throughout Tehran’s military.

Over the past 20 years, the IRGC has gained a greater share of Iran’s defense budget, and receives the newest hardware, while the regular military — often viewed as politically unreliable — still operates 1970s-era western equipment. The IRGC is now in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile force, its more modern air defenses (including SA-6 and SA-15) units, and its latest aircraft.

Given those trends, it’s no surprise that Tehran has given the IRGC control of naval operations in the Strait of Hormuz. And that will increase the chances for similar incidents in the future. While Iran’s “regular” Navy has often been professional in its operations (and even cooperative in resolving maritime issues), the IRGC is a completely different breed. In other words, the zealots and crazies are now in charge of Iran’s naval ops in one of the world’s most important waterways. Not a good sign, to say the least.

[ … ]

The Iranian Navy, or more specifically, IRGC naval forces, have carried out harassment operations in the past. While details of Saturday’s incident remain sketchy, it does not sound like a rehearsal of the “swarm” tactics that IRGC forces would use against western naval forces in an actual conflict.

Utilizing that approach, dozens of small craft — some as small a jet skis — would attempt to engage western combatants at close range — inside the effective range of the vessels’ major weapons systems — using everything from RPGs to mines. The swarm attack could also provide cover for strikes by other weapons, including C-802 anti-ship missiles launched by shore batteries or aircraft. By damaging (or sinking) major naval combatants or support vessels, the Iranians believe they can close the Strait of Hormuz, effectively shutting off much of the world’s oil supply.

Word of the incident in the Strait came only days after a reported decrease in the flow of weapons from Iran, to insurgents in Iraq. But, with release of the recent U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program (and perceptions that an American military strike is less likely), elements of Iran’s defense establishment may feel emboldened, and willing to test the reactions of U.S. forces in the region.

People sometimes ask me why I don’t bother with Leftists when it comes to discussing the war effort or military matters. Michelle Malkin provides an example. The extent of the analysis from the Left is to blame President Bush (as they do with absolutely everything) and shout “Gulf of Tonkin!!!” So don’t anyone try to tell me that the Left and/or Democrats take these types of things seriously. They are immature children and are to be ignored on serious matters of world affairs.

So I suggest you check out some of the blogs above and also read their comments sections as many military members and military veterans usually chime in with a lot of knowledge and great analysis.

I leave you with a trip down memory lane, courtesy of BULL NAV at Op-For, who reminds us of what the United States used to do to its enemies when they attacked: kicked their motherf***ing asses:

January 8, 2008 , 1:20AM Posted by | Iran, Terrorism, The Long War, US Navy | 1 Comment

Rush Limbaugh: Media Supporting Huckabee/McCain to Destroy Conservatism

Rush Limbaugh bluntly tells it as he sees it.

My advice to conservatives is to ignore the mass media and the political pundits who are all hoping to destroy conservatism and usher in the rise of populism and open borders. Ignore them all as they are just trying to depress you. The two conservatives in the race are Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson. Vote for one of them come your primary.

Now, if one of the populists/CINOs wins the GOP nomination, I will not tell you to NOT vote for them. That is your choice to make. Personally, there are a few CINOs for whom I will never vote, because I see them as just as bad, if not worse, as Democrats: John McCain and Mike Huckabee. I am actually willing to give Mitt Romney a serious 2nd look. Rudy Giulini, I’m not so sure. If it came down to him and Hillary, I don’t think I would vote for him. If it comes down to him or Obama, I will vote for him.

But we all have to decide what is important to us this election cycle: winning at all costs or standing up for our ideology of conservatism. I hope all of you are analyzing this in a serious manner and not just voting based on fear of Democrats or just wanting to be loyal to political party over principle.


RUSH: Now, I want to remind all my Republican friends that there are many states after Iowa and New Hampshire where the Republican populations are far more indicative of the conservative base, and to get caught up in what happened in Iowa, to get caught up in what’s going to happen in New Hampshire as though they’re the only two states that matter and that they’re going to determine the fallout on both parties is a little bit over the top.

Iowa is a caucus; it’s a weird setup. New Hampshire allows independents to vote in the Republican primary, which is why McCain is doing as well as he is doing, and it’s why the media want this to be a bellwether against Romney. I mean, Pat Buchanan came in second. He came in a very strong second in New Hampshire in 1992. Now, I’m not saying that these contests are not to be taken seriously here, and that they’re not to be fought and to be won, but we don’t want to get ahead of ourselves. New Hampshire is no longer the conservative barometer it used to be. The state has changed, it is now quite liberal. A lot of people who used to live in Massachusetts have moved into New Hampshire to escape New Hampshire’s high taxation and other problems. New England generally the northern states, states like Iowa, is not where the conservative base resides in large numbers. The Drive-By Media would love to destroy the conservative coalition. They would love to destroy the conservative base to the Republican Party. That’s why they are promoting Huckabee; it is why they are promoting McCain.

The Drive-By Media, ladies and gentlemen, will tell us each and every day who the true conservatives in the Republican primary are, and they will tell us by virtue of who they attack and also by virtue of who they prop up. They are propping up McCain; they are propping up Huckabee. The Drive-By Media hate conservatives. They want to destroy conservatism. It is the bulwark standing in their way of power and monopolistic control of all the apparatus of the country, government, media, and everything else. It’s one of the best indicators I can offer you. If you’re asking who is the genuine conservative out there or who is most conservative, who is most liberal on the Republican side, just take a look at who the Drive-Bys are enamored of and you will be able to answer the question yourself without me having to tell you. Why do you think that Senator McCain is making his big stand in New Hampshire? Because he did well there in 2000 and because he knows he runs really well with independents. He knows that New Hampshire is not a big conservative state.

If McCain were running on a genuine conservative agenda he’d be focusing on South Carolina for example, but he’s not. He’s focusing in New Hampshire because he thinks conservatives can be outnumbered there by this new influx of independents. You know, he’s up there in New Hampshire, if you listen to McCain, touting his left-wing environmental agenda with Joe Lieberman, for crying out loud. Now, recently there has been an endorsement that have people scratching their heads. “Jack Kemp, supply-sider, endorsing McCain? What’s this all about?” I’ll give you two reasons, and I’m just hazarding my own guess here, but I think it’s the old boys club in Washington, the inside the Beltway establishment apparatus, and the dirty little secret: Congressman Kemp is an open borders guy. So is Senator McCain. Have you noticed that in these forums and debates, McCain doesn’t want to talk about immigration; he doesn’t want to talk about campaign finance reform; he doesn’t want to talk about the things that genuinely rile conservatives? He wants to sweep those issues under the rug, and try to redefine what those issues were all about and what his position was on both of them.

Now they’re saying if Romney finishes second, he’s finished. How can that be? How can coming in second in the first two states finish somebody? If he comes in second, it may disappoint some people, but it also means that in these two states he’s the only Republican to win high spots in both. The idea that anybody’s finished after New Hampshire and Iowa is absurd. It’s Drive-By Media spin designed to dispirit and depress people. They’re out there saying, “Where does Romney go after New Hampshire?” Where do any of them go? It’s wide open! They go on to the next primary! South Carolina and Michigan. That’s where they go. For the Beltway crowd — not just the media, but for people that live and work inside the Beltway — to make conclusive statements about who’s going to win and who won’t based on all this — two states — is nuts, at least as far as the Republicans are concerned. There is no one candidate that has any front-runner momentum right now at all on the Republican side.


RUSH: I know it’s easy to get caught up in the spin of the Drive-By Media — and not just the Drive-Bys, but the whole inside-the-Beltway crowd — making conclusive statements about who’s going to win and who won’t based on Iowa and New Hampshire, at least as far as the Republican Party is concerned — no one candidate has any front-runner momentum right now. Listen to this. Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll for yesterday shows McCain and Huckabee tied at 19%, Giuliani at 17%, Romney at 15%, and Fred Thompson at 13%. At some point, we’re going to get past these states that work for Huckabee and McCain. But there’s no clear front-runner on the Republican side. The only thing that you could say that might happen to somebody on the Republican side after two states is that expectations weren’t met. Now, it’s different on the Democrat side. You can see the panic in Hillary’s camp. You can see a big slide in her national polling. Obama has overtaken her nationally. He’s up double digits in two polls, in New Hampshire for tomorrow night. Unlike Romney, Romney has never led in the national polls, even though they talk about him as the front-runner, he never has led in the national polls.

You know who has led in the national polls has been Giuliani. But they speak of Romney as the front-runner; they attack him as the front-runner. Mrs. Clinton has always been the big front-runner in the Democrat Party, and she’s lost that status now in these national polls. And she’s losing to somebody, Barack Obama, who has absolutely no experience or qualifications to be president — and that is astounding, and it goes directly to her lack of likability. Now, I’m not sure she can’t recover someplace. She may be finished. I don’t know. The point is, nobody knows what’s going to happen. Even after tomorrow night, nobody knows, and it’s silly for anybody to start saying that they do. I wouldn’t be completely certain of her being finished. You know, she still has the support of the party machine. Now, that could be threatened. The stories are out there that Mrs. Clinton’s money is drying up. I thought she’d raised a hundred million bucks! I thought she’d raised all this money. Now we’re getting stories, that her donations are drying up; staffers are becoming dispirited. Maybe so. We’ll just have to see how it plays out. There’s no doubt she’s in deep trouble. Make no mistake about that. But to say that she’s finished, at this stage, is a bit premature.

I’ll tell you, there’s so much conventional wisdom out there. I, for one, just want to repeat this: I don’t think McCain’s a lock in New Hampshire tomorrow night. I believe these debates matter. I believe people in New Hampshire watch ’em. In both the Saturday night debate and the Sunday night forum, McCain did not do well. I don’t care what anybody tells you. You can look at the focus groups and see for yourself: He did not do well. He came off as sinister, mean, and strident on Saturday night. Sunday, he came across as tired and out of it, as though somebody had said, “Look, you’re a little too strident last night on Romney. Back off,” which he did — and then for McCain to sit there and whine and moan about attack ads? Come on! This ain’t beanbag! Politics is a blood sport. You know, McCain has run his share of attack ads. But these guys have been in politics all their lives. They’ve had attack ads run against them. They act like big babies, they can’t deal with attack ads. And, by the way, what’s an “attack ad”? You know, McCain is just like the Democrats in this regard. If you run an ad that’s truthful about their record, all of a sudden you’re “attacking” them. There have been some truthful commercials about McCain.

McCain has been the author of the first official intervention in the First Amendment in this nation’s history: McCain-Feingold. He has opposed tax cuts, the Bush tax cuts. So to put that out there in an ad is not an attack ad. It happens to be true. You have all this sensitivity about these attack ads. You don’t see Romney whining and moaning about these things. You don’t see Fred Thompson whining and moaning about these things. You don’t see Rudy whining and moaning. But you do see Huckabee and McCain whining and moaning about this. It’s unbecoming, because this is what it is. Politics is what it is. I’ll tell you what I actually think. This is based on truth, and it is in fact truth: the media are out to break up conservatives. I was instant messaging with F. Lee last night, and to me, there is no question. I spent this weekend in intense study of what’s going on up there. I watched more political TV this weekend than I have watched probably in the last six months. My instincts were confirmed: Media are out to break up conservatives, dispirit us, destroy us, destroy the Republican coalition of the evangelicals; the social and fiscal conservatives; they’re out to destroy that.

They want to destroy that by getting McCain or Huckabee nominated. That’s how they intend to do it, and we have pundits, including some who are conservative, who are falling all over themselves to be the first to announce permanent realignments, permanent trends; the end of this era, the beginning of that era. In truth, all they have to be making such sweeping predictions is the results of the Iowa caucuses, where a couple hundred thousand people voted, 10% of those eligible, in a very odd format. Now New Hampshire is coming where the more liberal or populist candidate in the Republican Party now benefits from the flood of independents who vote in the GOP primary and skews the results, which means that you cannot draw conclusions about the Republican Party based on New Hampshire but they will anyway, and you’ve got to keep this in mind. Whatever happens in New Hampshire tomorrow night, the Drive-Bys are going to try to spin this as the end of conservatism as it’s known. Now, let me be blunt about some things here. Governor Huckabee does evangelicals a disservice when he uses faith to promote what is a liberal, populist agenda — an agenda that includes large tax increases, which were not offset by tax cuts.

I hope you saw the question from Romney last night to Governor Huckabee about taxes. He wouldn’t answer the question. He got very testy, and said, “I’m not talking to you, Mitt! I’m talking to the moderator, Chris Wallace.” So Wallace simply repeated Mitt Romney’s question.

“Well, did you raise taxes, a net increase, after all your cuts and increases?”

He didn’t want to answer the question. When he finally got around to answering, he said, “Well, the courts made me do it.”

Court orders were not responsible for $500 billion of tax increases, folks. I hate to tell you. There’s no governor that can say a court made him raise taxes that many times. It was a bit sad. The Huckabee agenda is large tax increases, not offset by tax cuts; open borders; amnesty for illegals, particularly their kids. He was also nailed on that last night.

“Well, governor, you’ve said that you want the kids of illegals to stay and go to school.”

“Well, federal government hadn’t done its job. Kids have to be educated.”

“Yeah, but you said that you want to give college students in-state tuition, and federal government doesn’t say anything about that.”

And then he said, “Well, what’s really going to happen here is when we deport all these illegals, they’re going to take their kids with them, if they go out of school, have to go back to Mexico, get in line, they come back, they’ll go back and finish school.”

“Uh, but I thought it was great to have ’em here and stay in school?”

It was just all over the ballpark. And then McCain trying to defend his amnesty (laughing) by saying it wasn’t amnesty because there was a $5,000 fine. Yeah, right. Let me say a couple of things about that $5,000 fine. Do you know who’s going to pay the fine, if anybody? Their employers are going to pay the McCain-Kennedy amnesty bill. But besides that, there’s no enforcement in that bill, or there wasn’t. Who’s going to track these people down and collect the money? What if they don’t have it? If the $5,000 is paid, then okay, there’s no amnesty. There’s a big penalty, right? No amnesty? It’s an annuity! If you’re going to get five grand from these people and that puts ’em on the Social Security rolls and on the welfare rolls, it’s an annuity! It is amnesty! He’s going out of his way to say it wasn’t amnesty, but it is — and in New Hampshire, you know, they’re not so concerned about it, the independents that have moved in there from Massachusetts, but this kind of stuff is not going to fly once we get out of New Hampshire. Once we get out of South Carolina, some of the border states, it ain’t going to fly, folks. Amnesty is not amnesty because we’re going to fine them $5,000?

Everybody knows they’re not going to be tracked down to be forced to pay the five grand in the first place! Our memories are not that short, here, Senator McCain. We remember this amnesty bill like it was yesterday. Our memories are not short on campaign finance reform, either. I mean you’re out there complaining. I thought you got the money out of politics! I thought you got all the mean-spirited out of politics. Now you’re out there complaining about “attack ads from Mitt Romney.” I guess we need some more campaign finance reform, don’t we, Senator McCain? (Big sigh) Anyway, back to Huckabee. You start granting amnesty for illegal aliens, that’s going to hurt the incomes and jobs of church-going, middle class Americans. And, by the way, this includes negotiating with Islamic fascists: The Golden Rule, treat them like we’d like to be treated and so forth? These Islamic fascists, they murder American soldiers. They’re set on destroying Israel. They’re threatening to kill President Bush when he touches down Wednesday in Jerusalem.

There just is nothing Christian about dealing with the enemy the way Governor Huckabee has proposed doing it. McCain is running away from his opposition to tax cuts. He did this last night. He never mentions McCain-Feingold, anymore — we do — even though he wouldn’t stop talking about it for years before this election. Senator McCain’s support for more rights for the detainees and the closing of Club Gitmo, to me illustrates a serious weakness in terms of securing this nation. You know, open borders and closing the borders is as much about national security as it is about the illegal immigration issue. Senator McCain has repeatedly joined with Feingold and Kennedy and other liberals to undermine one conservative issue after another, and this will be remembered once we get out of New Hampshire. We’re finished with Iowa. Once we get out of these places and go to places where the Republican conservative base really is, then all these soothsayers and wise men inside the Beltway are going to be in for a huge shock.


January 8, 2008 , 1:18AM Posted by | 2008 Presidential Election, Conservatism, Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson, John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Populism, Rush Limbaugh | Comments Off on Rush Limbaugh: Media Supporting Huckabee/McCain to Destroy Conservatism