August 31, 2004
Defending the Twins
|[Posted by ]|
So, people aplenty are going to be trashing the Bush girls after tonight. Yes, they were a little dizzy. But I don't think that's a problem. Part of tonight's program was about comparing the Kerry family to the Bush family.
Teresa Heinz Kerry is a cosmopolitian heiress. Laura Bush is a wholesome librarian. The Kerry girls hang out at Cannes in see-through dresses. The Bush girls get busted trying to buy margaritas at a bar in Texas. Who do you think remind average Americans more of their own daughters? My bet is that a lot more parents see their own children in Jenna & Barbara.
Outside Madison Square Garden crazy looney lefties are acting like Bush is the anti-Christ. But the scene inside the Garden is of a man and a family that is very much like families all across America. That's a sharp contrast with John Kerry, a man who can't even come up with the correct name for Lambeau Field. The message is that not only can Americans relate to the Bush family, but Bush can relate to them. Meanwhile, John F'ing Kerry has no idea how the other 99 44/100% live.
RNC thoughts, Day 2
|[Posted by james]|
This convention has been great so far. (Edit - great until the Bush daughters spoke... what in the world was that?) Rudy's speech was great, Arnold's speech was great. Must be a sad day to be a Dem, to say the least. I keyed in on this line in Arnie's speech:
If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican!
Whoa there - what is that? That line is remarkably out of place with the rest of the speech, and is certainly out of pace with not only the words but also the actions of the Bush administration - see, despite the CW on this one, GWB's White House has actually been frighteningly cozy with the UN, and they certainly haven't made any opposition to the UN a talking point or a campaign issue.
Is this line by Arnie a signal of a coming change? Or is it just a pandering ploy to get the more "conservative" party members out to vote?
August 30, 2004
Taxes: Bold for Bush?
|[Posted by ]|
First, does anyone get the title reference? Think Jimi Hendrix's "Axis: Bold as Love".
The McCain for Cheney trade rumors are heating up again. Ace cites a quote from Karl Rove that is feeding the rumormill:
One more bit of evidence: Karl Rove is promising that Bush will be "bold" at the convention. Why is he heightening expectations? Especially because, let's face it, there seems to be very definite limits to how bold he can possibly be, policy-wise. His foreign policy is bold, but we already know that; he certainly can't announce he'll be even bolder (i.e., the airstrikes on NK and Iran begin in five minutes). And it's not "bold" to promise "more of the same."
Domestic-policy-wise, Republicans have a limited ability to be "bold," since the very foundation of the Republican party is (generally) against additional spending or government programs. Sure, Bush could be "bold" by cancelling or cutting back programs, but that's not the sort of thing you do to reach out to mushy moderates. There's just no money available in the budget, so what on earth could he be "bold" about? John Forbes Kerry is "boldly" promising to bankrupt the country by pouring $1 billion of money we don't have into insuring the uninsured; surely Bush won't (can't) match him dollar-for-dollar in terms of such boldness.
I can think of one very bold proposal. A couple of weeks ago, James speculated here that Bush may be close to announcing a plan for a flatter tax and elimination of the IRS. That would certainly satisfy the bold requirement. And honestly, dumping Cheney for McCain would most likely guarantee a victory right now, but:
1. Changing VPs is a last resort kind of move. Bush is inching ahead in the polls every day. He doesn't need McCain to win anymore.
2. Bush strikes me as a man with a sense of personal loyalty. Cheney has been a steadfast warrior since 9/11. While Dems don't like him, Republicans do, and many wouldn't look kindly on a man who'd dump his running mate like that.
3. Cheney has had a much higher profile in recent months. His speech at Reagan's state funeral was magnificent and widely quoted. It was the first time he's really been in the spotlight since 9/11.
4. If Bush makes McCain his VP, that sets up McCain as the slam dunk winner of the 2008 primaries. Is that really what the Republican establishment wants? Wouldn't some want to keep the door open for a more socially conservative candidate?
There is, of course, a flip side to #4. The Dems already have their 2008 nominee, Hillary Clinton. The Republicans know this and some may want to counter that by also having their own candidate basically pre-selected. Of course, McCain doesn't need to be Vice President for that. He and Hillary can be in the Senate and start running a very long 2008 race in December 2004.
August 28, 2004
Top Ten Olympic Moments
|[Posted by ]|
I love the Olympics. I love the pageantry. I love the sob stories. I love the drama. I love the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat. And, I love the hottie swimmers (okay, that's really just an excuse to post a picture here for our female readers).
With the Athens Games winding down, it's only natural to be looking back at great moments in the games. These are my personal top ten. A couple of quick notes. First, these are only moments that I actually remember seeing, so no Jesse Owens, no Black Power, etc. And second, of course this list is full of mostly American moments. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm American. Of course I usually root for Americans. And, thanks to NBC's crappy coverage of the last few Olympics that's all I get to see.
10. 1992 Barcelona: Olympic Flame Lighting. Yes, it was cool when Mohammed Ali lit the torch in '96, but it didn't compare to Barcelona's archer sending a flaming arrow into the cauldron. What flair and drama.
9. 1988 Calgary: Eddie the Eagle & the Jamaican bobsledders Some of my favorite Olympic moments aren't about winning at all, they're about just having fun. I'd rather see people like these guys enjoying themselves than a parade of humorless teenage gymnasts.
8. 1984 Sarajevo: Torvill & Dean's Bolero I'd argue that figure skating isn't a sport, but a competition. But, even so, you'd have to made of stone to not appreciate this performance. It's the only time I can recall sports becoming art. While it's heartbreaking to think about what happened to Sarajevo after the games, this moment in time was absolutely perfect.
7. 2004: Athens: Women's Soccer Gold Medal Ceremony I don't care at all about soccer, but this was great. The entire team stands in the middle of the stadium as the national anthem starts to play. Soon they're all belting it out at the top of their lungs. These are incredible athletes, but singers they're not. But no one cares. Once again, this is just about athletes having fun, being happy and appreciating the moment.
6. 1994 Lillehammer: Canada v. Sweden gold medal hockey game When you're a boy in America you dream of either being at bat, bases loaded, 2 outs, bottom of the ninth in game 7 of the World Series or being the quarterback in the Super Bowl, down by 6 on your own 20 with one minute left. I'd imagine that a Swedish & Canadian equivalent would be a shootout in the gold medal hockey game. That's what these guys got. Tommy Salo stopped Paul Kariya and then Peter Forsberg scored the winner against Sean Burke. One of those two combos is on a stamp in Sweden now. Can you imagine being the poor Canadian who has to have one of the worst moments of their life immortalized like that?
5. 1984 Los Angeles: Touch of Class wins showing jumping gold Touch of Class was a tiny bay thoroughbred mare (for those that don't know, most jumpers aren't thoroughbreds). She has a brief racing career and then was turned into a jumper. Her rider, Joe Fargis was quite tall and it was always comical to see this tall, tall man on this little horse. She and Fargis won both individual and team gold medals in '84. In fact, Touch of Class was the first horse to ever jump double clear rounds in the individual final. In LA, she jumped 90 of 91 fences clean, which is just absolutely astounding.
4. 1988 Seoul: Florence Griffith Joyner It's not that she won gold after gold, it's that she was so much better than everyone else. She won by huge margins in such short races. And her times were incredible. Her world record time in 200 meters is nearly three quarters of a second faster than the gold medallist this year. Plus, she cut a very cool figure with her flashy outfits and super long nails. I just loved her. It's sad she passed away so young and I just hope that it wasn't due to any performance-enhancing mischief.
3. 1994 Lillehammer: Dan Jansen finally gets his gold This was the ultimate sob story. Jansen's sister dies hours before his race in 1988. He falls. He comes back 4 years later and falls. Then finally, my fellow Wisconsinite came through with his gold in '94. Then, there was the beautiful moment as Jansen skated around the rink holding his baby daughter. My roommates and I used to watch that tape after bar time that winter and spring. That, and Eddie Vedder on Unplugged. Yes, we were shallow.
2. 1992 Barcelona: Derek Redmond & his father Derek Redmond was one of the favorites for the gold medal in the 400 meters. In the preliminaries he fell and injured himself. He got up to continue to the race and his father ran from the stands to his aid. Together, the two of them walked to the finish line together. For Redmond, I'm sure he saw his Olympic dream turning into a nightmare, but for the rest of us, we saw an incredibly touching moment between a father and son.
1. 1980 Lake Placid: US Hockey Team What else could be number one? Even if you ignore all of the political aspects of the 1980 gold medal team, you're still left with an incredible sports story. 20 college kids, the boys next door, beating what was probably the best hockey team in the world. But it wasn't just that they were underdogs, what made this so memorable was their pure joy at winning. They were brilliant enough to win and generous enough to let the entire country share in their exultation.
My dad and I kept the Sports Illustrated from the game for over 24 years now. I can still probably quote most of the article. In fact, I was a little bitter that the movie Miracle didn't show some of the moments described in SI.
August 27, 2004
The Frozen Tundra of Lambert Field
|[Posted by ]|
I can't believe I didn't hear about this story earlier. On Wednesday, John Kerry was in Green Bay wooing Badger voters. Like most politicians, he varies his stump speech with some local content. This time, he went for the Packer vote by refering to "Lambert Field". I'm stunned. Kerry must be one of the only men in America who hasn't heard of the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field? Can he really be that culturally illiterate? As our regulars know, we proudly hail from Wisconsin. Lambeau Field is one of our holy shrines. People sneak inside to spread the ashes of loved ones in the south endzone. Couples regularly stop to take wedding pictures outside the stadium. Going to a game there is like a pilgrimage to Mecca. I'm not kidding. If you're going to speak in Green Bay this is one thing you don't mess up.
I don't expect any Wisconsinites to vote for Bush just because Kerry doesn't know his Lambeaus from his Lamberts or Lombardis. But that's not really the point.
Much like George H.W. Bush's run in with the cash register branded him as out of touch, this incident again exposes Kerry as a phony. He's not a war hero. He's not an accomplished Senator. He's not even a man of the people. He's a hoity-toity East Coast liberal elitist. That's fine, I just deeply resent him trying to pretend to be something else so people will vote for him.
I Am Jack Kemp, And I Approved This Message
|[Posted by ]|
SondraK links to a fun quiz to help you find your political equivalent. I scored a 32 (a score of 40 would make me 100% conservative). That puts me smack in the middle of Jack Kemp & Bob Dole, but a little bit closer to Kemp. I'm a little disappointed as Bob Dole has been so damn cool lately.
I had to pick the lesser of two evils for some of the questions, but overall I think my score was pretty accurate. However, I wouldn't characterize Ronald Reagan as 100% conservative. He was more in the mold of a Barry Goldwater than a Pat Robertson or Pat Buchanan.
Looking at the Campaign Desk
|[Posted by ]|
The Campaign Desk linked to us yesterday. What's that? Apparently it's "critique and analysis of 2004 campaign coverage from Columbia Journalism Review". Campaign Desk's mission is to:
Using the power of the World Wide Web, The Campaign Desk attempts to get inside the news cycle and enrich campaign journalism in real time. Our goal is to straighten and deepen campaign coverage almost as it is being written and produced.
The Desk is politically nonpartisan; its only biases are toward accuracy, fairness, and thoroughness.
Excuse me for laughing out loud at that last statement. In yesterday's Blog Report, author Liz Cox Barrett gives a crash course in media bias:
F.O.G. cites a rather dated New York Times "informal survey" of journalists which, he notes, showed that more of the 153 journalists polled favor John Kerry for president over George W. Bush. "If Bush wins," F.O.G. concludes, "come November 3 we're going to witness the Mother of All Hissy Fits." (F.O.G. forgets to include the really interesting finding of that survey: the dirty little secret that these self-same journalists would rather cover a Bush administration than be saddled with four years of reporting on a Kerry White House.)
Actually, when I read this I'm not sure if it's an example of bad reporting or bias. First, the "rather dated" survey was taken during the Democratic National Convention. Yeah, just a month ago. Second, she uses this so-called dated survey in her very next point. Third, it's interesting that she rips on Stephen Green at Tech Central for not including the other part of the survey. Perhaps he omitted for the same reasons that she omits any survey other than the so-called "dated" one that study media bias. We at Dummocrats would be happy to point her to a few sources.
On the positive side, Barrett is a good writer and I get the feeling that she's at least trying to be objective, I can't say the same for her colleague Steve Lovelady. Lovelady took an informal survey of reporters at the DNC (the survey that Barret refers to) and found that, indeed, reporters came down in favor of Kerry 4-1. No surprise there. However, Lovelady finds that 77% of his survey would rather cover a Bush administration because they'd have better stories (because liberals like Clinton, for example, never provide good material). Lovelady says:
As anyone who has been a journalist for longer than about six minutes knows, it's the prospect of four years of boredom, not the prospect of a president they would never vote for, that strikes terror into the hearts of news hounds. This is hard for non-journalists to understand. But the Tierney poll calls to mind a long history of politicians for whom reporters would never vote, but for whom they fervently prayed to win -- from Huey Long in Louisiana, to Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia, to Arnold Schwarzenegger in California.
So this is Lovelady's thesis. Yes, the press is overwhelmingly liberal. And, as surveys like Pew Research have shown, far to the left of the American people. But, they're willing to throw all those views to the wayside for the prospect of covering an "interesting" President. Wow. I'm no fan of Big Media, but even I wouldn't accuse them of being that cynical and callous. In any case, the President makes his own news. As if we'll ever have a President that just isn't newsworthy. Give me a break.
But that's not even the most offensive thing in Lovelady's piece. It's the way he says that if you disagree with him it's because you're not a reporter. We just don't understand. Apparently the press is just as nuanced as John F'ing Kerry. You know what? That dog don't hunt.
August 26, 2004
A Rose By Any Other Name...
|[Posted by ]|
Ace had a great post earlier this week about using the passive voice to mask the truth. But using the passive voice isn't the only way people use language to try to gloss over their true meaning. One need only look at "Crawford Wives" group I referenced earlier. The posters are made by an organization called Bush v. Choice. But what's "choice"? It's abortion. Pro-abortion groups always refer to themselves as "pro-choice", when, of course, the only choice they care about is abortion. I guess choice just sounds nicer than abortion.
I was reminded of this last night while watching NBC's Olympic coverage. They had a surprisingly interesting feature on Polish WWII POWs who held a makeshift Olympic Games in their camp in 1942. The piece featured a handful of the survivors and was actually quite moving. However, after the taped feature Bob Costas did a quick follow up and mentioned how the POWs were moved to another camp near the end of the war and were barely saved from approaching Nazi liquidation squads by the Americans.
Hold on. Scroll up and read that last sentence again. Bob Costas referred to Nazi "liquidation squads". What the hell is that? Why did he use a euphemism? These were murder squads. Plain and simple. Now, I can understand the Nazis using that kind of language ("final solution" anyone?) to pretty up their actions, but why are people doing it now? Are we trying to pretend the Nazis weren't a bunch of murderers?
Actually, I may have just answered my own question there. Because, if we can pretend that the Nazis just "liquidated" people rather than murdered them, then maybe we can pretend that the looney lefties that will be screaming "Bush=Hitler" at the RNC next week aren't, well, looney.
|[Posted by ]|
I was reading an article online in the Denver Post last night when I was served a popup ad featuring the "Crawford wives". A quick search led me to the BushvChoice website. Their piece de resistance is this faux movie poster:
While that poster is kinda cute (except for the hideous dress on Laura Bush), the website itself spews the usual liberal bs:
Laura, Karen, Ann, Lynne, Condi, Katherine - they're successful professors, lawyers, librarians and novelists. They have minds of their own. Yet, they unquestioningly support President Bush even as he robs women of the right to make private decisions about their personal lives. Even worse, they're masking Bush's record of restricting women's rights & convincing women across the country to vote for Bush in November.
I can't tell you how much this offends me. But if I break it down I'll make it through it.
1. By using only first names, this "women's" organization is showing a complete lack of respect for these women. It's condescending and they know it. We do the same thing with Hillary and Teresa, but we're also not claiming to be a women's organization.
2. These women "unquestioningly" support Bush. This is a common liberal tactic. When someone disagrees with your viewpoint, you claim that they're just an unthinking partisan sheep. Once again, this "women's" organization is denying women the right to their own opinion. If they disagree with the liberal view, it must just be because men are making them. Ugh.
3. They claim that Bush robs women of "private decisions about their personal lives". The only decision this "women's" organization cares about is abortion. What about my private decision to carry a gun? Or my decision about who and how my tax dollars are spent? Or my decision on where to send my child to school? These issues are just as important to women as abortion. Or, does this "women's" organization think that the scope of decisions women make ends at her womb?
It's just too ironic to me that a group for "choice" is so intent on ridiculing women that choose to disagree with them.
August 25, 2004
Kerry's Real Band of Brothers
|[Posted by james]|
Loyal to the bitter end.
From Jessica's Well.
Dems setting table for next big PR stunt
|[Posted by james]|
The Kerry campaign can't seen to move on; they've been crying foul about the so-called "ties" between the Swift Vets and President Bush's campaign. Now it seems that they've taken the next step in their dizzying spin campaign:
A senior House Democrat, Michigan Rep. John Dingell, sent a letter asking Attorney General John Ashcroft to investigate the possible "illegal coordination" between the two. The Bush campaign and the veterans group have denied any coordination.
Of course, there was no "illegal coordination." When John Ashcroft inevitably reports that these charges have no absolutely no basis in fact, the Dems are already no doubt ready to start screaming "cover up! cover up!" and "Ashcroft should "recuse" himself!!"
These people are traitors. They would destroy the public's faith in the American system just to win a few points in the realm of public opinion. Unfortunately, stunts like this never seem to backfire on the perpetraitors - they only serve to weaken the nation.
FIRE alert - UNC outlaws Christian fraternity
|[Posted by james]|
It seems that those holed up in the Ivory Tower at UNC have once again chosen "political correctness" and "diversity" over basic Constitutional rights.
CHAPEL HILL, N.C., August 25, 2004—A federal lawsuit was filed today against the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) by Alpha Iota Omega (AIO), a Christian fraternity that was denied recognition by UNC because it would not agree to open its membership to students of different faiths. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), which is fighting on behalf of AIO in its conflict with UNC administrators, is now joined by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which brought the suit against the university.
What? You mean a Christian organization wants to only accept Christians as members? Oh, the humanity! How close-minded and outright intolerant and racist of them!
I wonder what UNC would say if I challenged the status of a sorority on campus, charging that they are actively and wrongly discriminating against me on the basis of gender by refusing to allow me to join? I'll bet I could craft a pretty good Constitutional argument based on Equal Protection, to boot.
Actually, I should probably just shut up right now.... I'm only giving the ACLU ideas....
Last Chance to Donate!
|[Posted by ]|
After next week's RNC, you will not legally be able to donate to the Bush campaign. However, you can still volunteer. Personally, I plan to hand out Bush stickers at the Dane County Farmers Market on non-football Saturdays. Wish me luck. The Republican volunteers take a hell of a beating from the Madison liberals at events like this.
At least I know I'm not alone. Hundreds of other great sites out there are spreading the word. Check them out!
August 24, 2004
Would that it were (what?)
|[Posted by james]|
John Kerry recently appeared on The Daily Show. with Jon Stewart. I didn't see it, and I'm not at all broken up by that. Don't get me wrong, I love The Daily Show, but John Stewart is such a disgustingly flagrant liberal that I can hardly stomach it when he has Dems on the show (e.g. like when he had Bill Clinton on to attack President Bush a few weeks ago.)
According to the article, the following exchange took place:
Stewart also sought answers to another hard-hitting question: "Is it true that every time I use ketchup, your wife gets a nickel?" The candidate's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, is heir to the Heinz food fortune.
"Would that it were," Kerry said.
What the hell does that mean? "Would that it were?"
I assume it's a New England thing? Or maybe it's an Kerryish-intellectual thing that is so far beyond my lowly, uneducated, easily confused understanding? Or, perhaps before going on the show, Kerry punched "what kinds of coloquialisms do normal people use?" into google and got back a lemon? I don't know, but, in any event, we certainly don't say things like that in Midwest. And I've never heard anyone use the phrase anywhere else in the country, either, and I've lived in a lot of places.
A google search shed no light on the answer. Maybe someone out there can fill me in on not only what this phrase means, but also where it's used and where it came from?
August 23, 2004
Barnes & Noble Claim They Can't Keep Up With Swiftie Demand
|[Posted by ]|
Barnes & Noble is selling out of "Unfit for Command", but they claim it's not their fault. The chain says they're being bombarded by both the left and the right with "thousands of complaints."
That's interesting. I can understand complaining that they don't have the book in stock. But complaining that they're carrying it? Why, it almost sounds like some lefties are (gasp!) trying to suppress someone's freedom of speech. Well I never.
What's even more interesting is that almost no one is out there trying to actually prove the Swift Boat Veterans wrong. This is in stark contrast to the reaction to F 9/11, which spawned countless webpages devoted to refuting Michael Moore point by point. Perhaps, and now, this is just a guess, it's because what the Swift Veterans claim is true.
And, this is the part of the story that's the most interesting of all. Some Republicans are accusing B&N of purposedly not stocking enough books. B&N counters by claiming that the book's publisher cut their order in half.
Why would Regnery cut the Barnes & Noble order? They had to realize they had a monster hit on their hand. Even if their initial run wasn't that much, you'd think they'd make damn sure that B&N and Amazon were stocked to the gills, even at the expense of other booksellers. Wouldn't they?
The other explanation is that Barnes & Noble really is trying to hide the book. One book means nothing to them (although it means the world to Regnery). B&N's spokesperson says that the chain has no political agenda. Is that true? Well, Wednesday a group of 200 business leaders endorsed Kerry for President. Guess who was on that list? None other than Leonard Riggio, founder and chairman of Barnes & Noble.
Now, take a look at the article linked at the top of this post. Do you think they mention this fact? If you even had to think about it you haven't been paying attention.
Rumor has it....
|[Posted by james]|
Dummocrats.com has learned from a reliable source that singer Norah Jones recently paid a visit to the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland to visit with American soldiers injured while fighting for freedom in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other far flung corners of the world.
Ms. Jones made this visit with absolutely no fanfare at all - her agent didn't draft a press release and she didn't brag about it to the media. While we don't pretend to know her motivations, we can only assume that Ms. Jones made the trip out of genuine admiration and gratitude for the sacrifice that our fine young men made for not only their own nation but for freedom loving people everywhere.
We don't know Ms. Jones' personal politics, but regardless of what they are, this was an admirable, honorable, and applaudable act on her part.
We wanted to relay this story to you because we think that it's a refreshing change of pace from the usual America-hating Squawking Singer antics that the media normally reports. Think that the Dixie Chicks or Barbara Streisand would ever do the same thing? Not a chance.
You might think to yourself, "there should be more singers/people like Norah Jones out there." You're right, there should be. But also keep in mind, there are probably a lot more out there than you think - you just never hear about them.
August 21, 2004
Democrats Question Timing of Olympics
|[Posted by ]|
John Kerry campaign officials strongly questioned the timing of the Olympic Games today, claiming that the Games were an attempt by Republicans to manipulate voters to "root for America".
"Once Americans start rooting for their compatriots to beat athletes from France or Russia or Japan, the next thing you know they'll starting rooting for America to win the War on Terror too," said Kerry campaign spokesman John Hurley. "I find it highly suspicious that the Olympics just happen to fall right before the Republican National Convention."
Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe claimed this was a desperate move by Republicans to draw attention away from Kerry's lifetime of service. "Michael Phelps winning 8 Olympic medals is a great accomplishment, but it's nowhere near as impressive as the medals John Kerry won. He was in Vietnam, by the way," he said.
A Kerry campaign volunteer appeared to confirm a link between the Bush/Cheney campaign and the International Olympic Committee. Bill Shilling, a Kerry volunteer in Florida, faxed the cover (shown above) of a Sports Illustrated magazine featuring US Olympians Michael Phelps and Natalie Coughlin to news organizations Saturday. Shilling says he picked up the Sports Illustrated at Bush/Cheney headquarters in Gainesville. "It was just sitting on a table in the middle of the room," Shilling said. "The Bush volunteers didn't even think it was a big deal. I asked them when the Men's 4x100 Medley Relay was on and some woman told me she thought it was Saturday night. And then, she said, 'go USA!'. I couldn't believe it!"
"This is just another one of Karl Rove's dirty tricks," McAuliffe said. "Republicans want voters to wave the flag, chant 'USA! USA!' and root for our country, but John Kerry won't stand by quietly and let that happen. It's about time that someone stood up for the rest of the world."
McAuliffe stated that the Kerry campaign was considering petitioning the FCC for equal time on NBC, the network airing the Olympics. The campaign plans to show a film of American "lowlights" directed by Michael Moore.
Tale of the Tape-Dumb or Dumber?
|[Posted by ]|
There's been a lot of talk about the intelligence of our Presidential candidates. Is John Kerry a nuanced genius? Is George W. Bush a smirking chimp? Let's take a look and find out, shall we?
|Graduate Education||Boston College Law||Harvard Business School||HBS boasts roughly 20% of the top three officers of Fortune 500 companies. BC Law has, um, John Kerry. Score one for Bush.|
|Vietnam||Swift Boat veteran served in Vietnam||Pilot in Texas Air National Guard||Bush - he got to stay in Texas and got a cool pilot's leather jacket.|
|Marriage||Married an heiress||Married a librarian||Laura is fantastic lady, but Teresa is really, really, really rich. Advantage Kerry.|
|Memory||Testified that Christmas in Cambodia was "seared" into his memory. Except that he wasn't there. Oops!||Doesn't recall the details of some of his National Guard service||Push|
|Names & Faces||Confuses himself with Bob Kerrey||Mispronounces names||Bush - it's one thing to stumble over a name, it's quite another to forget your own.|
In a shocking upset (at least to liberals), Bush wins 3-1. I guess Kerry isn't so much "nuanced" as "confused". So, with apologies to Nick Bakay, this just goes to show that, once again, everything is easier if you just break it down.
Crazy Vegetarians: What are they thinking?
|[Posted by james]|
When I got off the metro at Dupont Circle last night, I was immediately assaulted by an animal "rights" group called "Compassion Over Killing." They had a big video screen set up on which they were showing their proaganda films, and they had their people out en masse, talking to passers-by and handing out flyers. As a general practice, I walk right by these so-called "street-activists" as if they didn't exist; however, it recently occured to me that by always doing so, I am passing up a potentially great source of entertainment! With that in mind, I chose to accept the brochure that was forcefully thrust into my hands.
Entitled "The Vegetarian Guide to Washington, DC and surrounding areas," this booklet provides just what you'd think it would. It does have a few pages with some sensationalist pictures of "animal cruelty," but nothing anywhere near as ridiculous as PETA normally hands out.
However, I do have to say that I'm a bit aghast at the following ad:
Am I the only one that thinks that this ad is just very, very wrong? I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I just don't happen to think that double-entendres hinting at pedophelia are all that funny. And I don't believe for one second that this wasn't intentional.
But anything to get attention for "the cause," right?
August 20, 2004
The GOP's plan of attack
|[Posted by james]|
It's been said that every Presidential campaign needs one strong and solid message - something that people can focus on, something that people can identify with and get behind, something that people can see as the "centerpiece" of the candidate's campaign. This election year will be no different, so President Bush will need to identify an issue and make that issue the centerpiece of his Presidental re-relection campaign.
I realize that I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that President Bush has already chosen his "theme," and I think that he's about to hit a home run with his choice. No, scratch that - he isn't about to hit a home run, he's about to pound a grand slam, clear out of the park.
Two weeks ago, I added a link on the Daily Page to an article about Bush campaigning in Virginia. Knowing that Virginia is traditionally a Republican stronghold, and knowing that recent polls indicate that Virginia is fast becoming a battleground state, I linked to that article with the headline, "Bush campaigning in......... Virginia? (not a good sign, kids)." That article also reports that at that campaign stop, President Bush made the following statement:
He criticized Democrat John Kerry's proposal to eliminate tax cuts for the wealthy, saying that "the rich in America happen to be small business owners" who put people to work.
Bush added that "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway."
"What?" I thought. What an odd thing to say. Of course, I understood that the statement was (probably) made in jest. Sure, I understood that the whole crazy idea that only the rich pay taxes is just that, a crazy, ludicrous idea - but why would Bush say something as potentially damaging as that? After all, he knows, better than anyone, that the media loves a soundbyte. And here he is, serving up what could prove to be one of the most politically damaging soundbytes of his entire career.
While the tradtional media (strangely) largely ignored the comment, the liberal end of the blogosphere surely didn't miss it. There was a lot talk that it was Bush "showing his true colors, in a rare moment of honesty," etc.
I had almost completely forgotten about it until I was reading this article over at RedState last night. I found this to be an excellent point:
My own suggestion is to revive the old Dick Armey tactic ... and adopt a "do your taxes on a postcard" policy - consisting of a flatter tax ... and the elimination of the IRS. I think President Bush would pull off the visual well - holding up a postcard with "1040" printed on it, and forcing the Democrats to respond in two ways: defending the status quo (the IRS - ewww), or returning to even more class warfare rhetoric about the rich folks who would inevitably pay less ...(emphasis added)
I think that this point is dead on.
The Dems have gone all in and made two issues the centerpiece of their campaign : 1. "Bring the troops home," and 2. "Roll back the Bush tax cuts to the wealthy." President Bush has already started taking away their first hot-button-issue by announcing plans for a major troop realignment for US forces in Asia and Europe. Unable to respond in any other way, the Dems (typically) didn't address the move at all, but instead questioned the timing of the announcement. If President Bush were to make the elimination of the IRS his central campaign issue, there is almost no way that the Dems could effectively counter it.
The next time John Kerry charges out and says "let's roll back the tax cuts for the rich!," President Bush could knock the wind out of his Nantucket sails by saying "I couldn't agree more."
He would then go on to explain:
- The rich always seem to find clever ways to avoid paying taxes.
- That's because taxes are too complicated.
- It's not fair that the rich should be able to use clever tax loopholes to get more money to spend on frivolous things, while the working man pays income tax on the money that he puts into the bank for savings, and then pays income tax again on the interest that he earns on that money.
- So lets simplify things. Let's eliminate the income tax, and tax everything except food and clothing.
- If you're working hard and saving $, you have 33% more money, because you pay no taxes.
- If the rich are out there buying high priced fancy cars, they'll pay more taxes.
- Things will get more expensive, but you'll have 33% more money. If you take home $30,000 a year today, You'll take home $40,000 next year. Are you really going to spend $10,000 more a year on cars and jewelery? No, because most American families live paycheck to paycheck. Jewelery makes up maybe 1% of their overall annual budget.
I think the pre-announcement that Dennis Hastert's new book includes a plan to eliminate the IRS is a sort of "testing the waters" for the idea. And I think that President Bush's campaign speech in GOP-friendly Virginia, where he dropped the out-of-character line "the really rich people figure out how to dodge taxes anyway" was another test.
There are many that say that the plan won't work, that a national sales can't completely replace the IRS, and these people may well be right. Indeed, the Bush message will likely be "working towards eliminating the IRS."
In any event, I think that this campaign message would have only a tremendous upside for President Bush, politically speaking. First and foremost, it takes away the Dems' centerpiece issue. Secondly, it gives the impression that the Bush White House is about real solutions, about "radical solutions," not just the same-old-same-old political mumbo-jumbo. People want solutions, people want radical ideas and "progress." What could be more "progressive" than eliminating the most feared and hated government agency? Ever "progressive" California would be all over this one. And finally, the plan has the further strength of bringing the now straying fiscally conservative and libertarian-leaning factions of the party back into the fold as well.
Personally, I think that eliminating income tax is an idea well worth considering. I know that it's hard for many Americans to believe today, but back in 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, the idea of a government taxing the incomes of its citizens was as outrageous an idea as the government trying to tax air or water. Regardless of whether a national sales tax proves a fair and effective replacement for the IRS, one thing is for certain - the American people hate paying taxes, and the American people like to make their own decisions. A proposal to eliminate the current forced income redistribution system in the US and replace it with one that offers more personal autonomy is sure to get a positive reaction.
|[Posted by james]|
Image is from FlashBunny.org.
Today's Flip Flop brought to you by...
|[Posted by james]|
Today's flip flop is brought to you by...... Alan Keyes.
Keyes, the other day:
His voice rising to a yell, Republican U.S. Senate nominee Alan Keyes told a bipartisan civic group Wednesday he "will not budge" from his belief that descendants of slaves should be exempted from income taxes to help heal the wounds of past discrimination and segregation.
Those responsible [for reparations lawsuits] propose to settle the accounts of slavery leaving the Civil War out of the equation — complete and utter nonsense. The price for the sin of slavery has already been paid, in blood. . .
See Volokh for more.
August 18, 2004
|[Posted by james]|
What do you immediately think of when you see an (R) or a (D) following someone's name? My guess is that you naturally assume that the author is trying to communicate the party affilliation of the person just mentioned, i.e. George W. Bush (R).
Take a look at this photo from the latest edition of Time depicting now disgraced NJ Democratic governor Jim McGreevey:
Clearly, they using the (r) to indicate that McGreevey is standing on the right in the picture. But ask yourself, when is the last time that you've ever seen it done that way? The standard way to make that designation is:
Golan Cipel has accused Jim McGreevey, right, of sexual harassment
Indeed, Time magazine itself normally follows this convention:
Now why do you suppose that they chose to use the (r) in this instance?
Protest Warrior rolls out Operation Liberty Rising
|[Posted by james]|
Just announced today at Protest Warrior.com:
Two weeks from now, the freedom haters will descend upon New York to spit at our Statue of Liberty and burn our President in effigy for daring to suggest that liberty is a universal principle.
PW is mobilizing to the Republican National Convention for perimeter defense, to say to these people that while you can protest America, we can protest you. We will not stop or interfere with their right to protest, nor should we. But we will fire a hailstorm of truth on them that is guaranteed to blow up their moral house of cards. We expect to have hundreds of Protest Warriors this time around, and we've got a nice stack of new signs, straight out of R&D. We'd show them to you now but sorry, you're not cleared for that.
We're calling this mission Liberty Rising because we still have hope that humanity will pick truth over lies, will pick right over wrong. The crooked path the world is on may be beyond what we mortals can straighten. Perhaps the die has been cast and we're casting pearls to swine. But if our enemies think we're going to go down like sheep, they made a big miscalculation.
Be sure to click on over to protestwarrior.com and read the whole thing. And, if you're not familiar with Protest Warrior, be sure to watch a few of their videos. It's groups like this that give me hope for the next generation of Americans.
This Race just got corny
|[Posted by james]|
An article at channel3000.com brought this to my attention:
Yep, that's right - it's a corn maze. (no pun intended). For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, that whole scene above is a life-sized maze, cut in to a cornfield. To get an idea of the size, note the two cars on the road along the bottom edge of the large photo.
Only in Wisconsin.
Check them out online at www.fairwynfarms.com
Of course, John Kerry is no stranger to cornfields.
Remember how at home he looked amongst the ears in Iowa?
I can just hear him now.....
I remember Christmas of 1968, sitting in a cornfield in Wisconsin, I remember what it was like to do shots wit' da Cheeseheads and da Upers , and the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there, that hoity-toity holier-than-thou East coast Liberals were not in Wisconsin. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me."
A Real Band of Brothers
|[Posted by ]|
Note 1: If you haven't read or watched "Band of Brothers", this probably won't make much sense to you.
Note 2: If you haven't read or watched "Band of Brothers", stop what you're doing and go out and buy the book or the DVDs.
By now, everyone knows that strikingly few of John Kerry's "band of brothers" support him in his run for President. I was thinking about this and comparing Kerry to various officers from Easy Company.
Two officers were hated. Herbert Sobel and Norman Dike. Kerry was no Sobel, who was despised but also respected for shaping the company. He was no Dike either, as, say what you will about him, but John Kerry didn't cause the deaths of his soldiers through gross inaction.
Kerry reminds me more of Lt. Peacock or Lt. Jones. Both men were decent people, but unproven officers. And that's fine. We don't necessarily need a war hero President. And if that was all there was to it, Kerry's fellow Swift Boat Veterans wouldn't be involved at all.
But, imagine if you will, that you served with a mediocre officer, a Peacock, Jones or Kerry. After the war, this officer comes back to America and testifies before Congress about the atrocities he (and you) supposedly committed. After he leaves the battlefield, this officer meets privately with the enemy. After the war, he runs for the Senate and you do nothing. Then, this officer runs for President. But he doesn't run on his record as a Senator. He runs on his service in the war. And, he presents a picture of you and your fellow veterans and implies that you stand behind him supporting him all the way. Think about how sick that would make you feel. What would you? If you loved your country, could you do anything other than what the Swift Boat Veterans are?
I think about what would have happened if an officer like Richard Winters of Easy Company would have decided to run for office after WWII. Every officer in his chain of command, up to and including Eisenhower, would have been behind him. Virtually all of his men would have done whatever they could to help him get elected. He had proven his qualities to them.
Kerry has also proven his qualities to his men and fellow officers. That's why virtually none of them support him. That's why they're doing all they can to keep him out of the White House.
Join with the Swift Boat Veterans and other sites like the ones below and help elect George W. Bush to another term.
August 17, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
The Princeton Review has released its list of the top 10 party schools in America.
Guess who tops the list? SUNY-Albany. That's right. Because, when I think party, I think Albany, New York!
This is a horrible joke. Clearly, the UW-Madison has been robbed. 3rd place? Are they kidding? These schools can't even tap Wisconsin's keg. They can't go for four quarters, much less five. I blame the judging criteria:
The "party school" category is based on questions focusing on the amount of alcohol and drug consumption, the amount of time students spend studying, and the popularity of fraternities and sororities.
So, according to this, Wisconsin is being punished because we party hard and study hard. That makes no sense. We should be rewarded for being a fantastic school and yet still finding time to paint the town (badger) red. We have a degree of difficulty our competition cannot match.
Dummocrats.com strongly condemns this list. It's just another example of the hoity-toity, east-coast bias of the media and academia.
August 16, 2004
Dos and Don'ts of Online Campaign Marketing
|[Posted by ]|
I'm a shadowy member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy by night, but, by day I shed my secret identity and work as an e-commerce specialist for a major national retailer. As such, I'd like to offer some advice to political candidates trying to effectively campaign online.
1. Don't spam. Ever. This is the cardinal rule. If you spam, be prepared for a huge backlash that will dwarf any positive gains from your unwanted emails. Yes, it's legal for political campaigns to spam, but that doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it good marketing. When you go online, you play by the online rules. And, in this case, the rules say that a spammer is no better than a "racist eugenics supporter".
2. Do, however, consider emailing bloggers individually. A caveat here, by "individually" I really mean individually, not by putting a different name in the "to" field. Target bloggers who share your geography or specific ideology. For example, I wouldn't be offended if someone from the staff of the Republican candidate in my congressional district emailed me individually. I'd be flattered.
3. Don't email bloggers asking for money, even if they're in your district and even if they share your opinion on everything. Ask for their involvement both on their site and on yours as guest writers. Save your online fundraising for those who have already given you their permission to email them.
4. Do realize that content is king. Talk about your goals and policy positions. Save the sound bites for TV. The internet is the place for your candidate to expand, in detail, on their positions. Your web presence should reflect that. Post policy papers. Share statistics. Highlight your candidate's accomplishments in.
5. Don't think that you can put up misleading information on your website and then simply erase it if you get caught. A record of your mischief will still exist and your opponents will have as much proof as if you placed a traditonal ad.
6. Do understand that people who read about politics online are interested in politics, not just issues. If your campaign has a blog, don't just post old press releases, write about some of the inside details of the campaign. If you do, people will come back time and time again and you'll gain an audience for the rest of your candidate's pitch.
7. Don't think putting your website's URL on brochures is effective online marketing. Read and comment on other blogs. Reference interesting articles that other people are writing on your blog. Bloggers always read their referral logs and if you link to them, they will come back to you. And, they'll spread the word to their audience as well.
8. Do constantly update your website. At the very least, keep an up-to-the-minute schedule of campaign stops online. Neither the Kerry or Bush campaigns do a good job of this. If they did, I'd visit their sites all the time to get local coverage from their latest destination.
9. Don't make your online communications a one-way street. Encourage supporters to participate through moderated email lists, forums and the like. Of course, everything the public says won't be positive, but it may be instructive. Think of it this way: if you give the public a voice, campaign staff can be partly released from the nasty job of telling a candidate things they don't want to hear - staff can simply point the candidate to the nearest computer.
10. Do speak online in a slightly different voice. For whatever reason, a little more irreverance is allowed online. Ironically enough, your candidate may be able to best showcase their personality and humanity through a computer.
Never vote for a spammer
|[Posted by james]|
Anyone else getting SPAM email from Tom Cross, Republican from Illinois?
I am. I'm getting spammed by him, and so are the other users of this blog that have their email addresses listed over there on the left of the page. He wants me to look at his blog, wants me to help him develop "grass roots" support, etc.
First, I don't even vote in his state, and I'm sure that 99% of the people that he's spammed don't live in IL. He must be out for campaign contributions.
I'm certainly not going to give him any money. Just as you should never buy anything being hawked by a spammer, you should never VOTE for anyone who spams. So, everyone from IL, if you see Tom Cross on your ballot, don't vote for him. He is an inconsiderate spammer. You can just imagine the justifications that he has for it - maybe he thinks that it isn't a big deal, or maybe he'll claim it was all a mistake. The truth is, he knows that he can send out a million spam emails for free, and if that nets him a few bucks, well, to hell with whoever he annoyed in the process.
In this article about Cross, an Illinois newspaper says:
With help from an energetic team of 20-something staffers, House Minority Leader Tom Cross of Oswego has taken his political efforts into the Internet Age with a new focus on cutting-edge campaigning that replaces palm cards and yard signs with e-mail and a slickly produced Web site that now averages an impressive 10,000 hits a week.
Yeah, Guess how he's getting those hits? His "hip 20-somethings" are spamming everyone on the internet! Certainly, the newspaper must have known this. If not, I'm going to make sure that they find out.
The Cross camp now has a database of more than 100,000 e-mail addresses it uses for campaign-related messages. Reaching that many people by snail-mail, Dring points out, would cost thousands of dollars, whereas e-mail is free.
"I think a lot of people, frankly, are a little envious of that," Cross says. "To be able to reach that many voters or potential voters at the push of a button, I think, is something to be proud of."
So he's PROUD that his web staff compiled a list of email addressess that belong to people who never asked to get email from him? He's thinks that people are envious of his 100,000-strong spammer list? Hey Tom, after you're done with government, maybe you can get into selling "ch3ap medz online," or maybe penis enlargement pills.
As much as I'd hate to see the Dems gain a seat in any legislative body, you have to ask yourself, is this really the man that you want representing you in government?
UPDATE 1: I just got my THIRD spam email from Cross! email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org>. What a jackass.
UPDATE 2: This article, "Political spam as national pastime," is about another candidate who isn't above sending out SPAM email. (I found it by searching google for "Tom Cross spam," btw, though the article isn't about his spamming, he just happens to be mentioned on the right-hand side.) The article points out that the politicians have written themsleves a nice little loophole in CAN-SPAM:
Since Jan. 1, a federal law has regulated spam. But if you look at the law's fine print, you'll find a telling exemption: Our elected representatives made sure the restrictions don't apply to them. As a result, the Can-Spam Act covers only e-mail promoting "a commercial product or service," which lets political spammers off the hook.
Oh, isn't that nice. Let's imagine that every politician in the US decided to follow Cross' lead and send out spam email. We'd all be sorting through thousands of these messages a day.
UPDATE 3: As you can see by the comments below, the Cross campaign is maintaining that the emails were sent out errantly. They say that they "accidentally" checked a box that caused them to be sent out. But the question remains, why were THREE of my email addresses spammed, when I never in fact signed up for anything on Tom Cross' website? Why were three of my email addresses even entered into their spam program? Clearly, you dont take the time to collect email addresses and load them into your spamming program unless you intend to spam them. The Cross campaign explains that the lists were compiled by an overzealous intern, acting on his own initiative, and that this intern was the one who loaded their email "marketing" program up with the list.
Of course, that could have actually happened, but I'm not buying it for one second. This is plain and simple political spin, nothing more.
August 15, 2004
McGreevy not as honorable as many think
|[Posted by james]|
Paul Jacob at Townhall asks, "Is retiring NJ Governor McGreevy telling us the whole truth?" Jacob notes that McGreevy's governorship has been plagued with allegations of corruption and fraud, and he gives multiple examples.
Whether these allegations are true or not, I can't say, and I wouldn't want to leap to judgment. I found this passage much more interesting :
McGreevey's rope-a-dope resignation allows Senate President Richard Codey, a fellow Democrat and a 30-year legislator, to lead the state without any democratic check or balance from the voters. Resigning immediately upon his announcement would have been the normal, decent thing to do. But it would also trigger a special election this November. A special election would see more voters than usual, and thus be harder for the Garden State's political powers to control.
When McGreevy said, in his speech, that he would continue on as Governor until November 15th in order to ensure a "smooth transition," I thought that his enabling a transition period was the right thing to do, though it strike me that Nov 15 was an odd day to choose. I thought to myself, jokingly, "Hmmm, I wonder if his paychecks are issued on the 1st and the 15th, and if he's just trying to simplify things for payroll."
Turns out that McGreevy isn't as concerned with a "transition period" as much as he is in simply trying to "hand over" power to whomever he choses, effectively silencing the will of the people of New Jersey. To use a democrat term, he isworking to "disenfranchise" millions of people of their right to vote, of their right to choose who governs them. Where is the media outcry? Where is the NAACP? Where is the ACLU on this one? My god, if a tractor-trailer were to drive too slowly in front a democrat "trying to get to the polls" on election day, these groups would be screaming from the hilltops that the Republicans were behind a sinister plot to deprive people of their right to vote.
Whether the specific allegations of corruption are true or not, unfortunately, McGreevy is probably going to come out of this whole thing relatively unscathed.
August 14, 2004
U.S. Olympians Need Emergency Etiquette Advice
|[Posted by ]|
Michael Phelps, who is trying to win 8 gold medals in swimming, has been hyped nonstop by the NBC promo department. For many people, that hype and marketing is enough to turn them against Phelps and hope that he doesn't live up to it.
I was one of those people, but today's events have turned me into a fan. Phelps, as expected, won his first gold medal today. During the medal ceremony, he showed perhaps a little too much respect for our country:
Phelps hugged Vendt again before he mounted the podium to receive his silver medal and the wreath of olive leaves. As Phelps mounted the podium next, he looked deceivingly calm, smiling only a little, as if reserving himself for grander celebrations later.
When ``The Star-Spangled Banner'' was played, the two Americans, thinking the wreaths were like wearing a cap at a baseball game, removed them and held them to their hearts.
So, is an olive wreath like any other hat? And, even if it's not, maybe our athletes should adopt this practice anyway!
A Moment Like This
|[Posted by ]|
Patriots for Bush posted this awesome picture of American and Iraqi athletes embrace during the opening ceremonies. Since they marched in so close together, I was wondering if there was any interaction between the athletes. NBC, of course, didn't see fit to show this (surprise surprise) as they, along with much of the rest of our liberal media, were too busy hoping the rest of the world would shower our athletes with boos and jeers.
I know it's probably too much to hope for, but how great would it be it an Iraqi or Afghani athlete medaled?
August 13, 2004
NBC goes to commercial
|[Posted by james]|
Another Olympics note:
While watching the parade of nations, I'm noticing that NBC goes to commercial, then, when they return, they show a quick catch-up of "here are the teams that you missed."
Here's my problem: this isnt LIVE COVERAGE. This is an NBC tape, it all happened roughly 8 hours ago.
So tell me, NBC, how did I "miss" anything in your coverage? If you go to commercial, pause the 8-hour old tape and start it up again when you're done.
If you think that some nations just aren't important enough to be shown on NBC tv, then admit to it. Don't blame it on a commercial break while "pretending" to be airing the event "live." Or is NBC only at its best when it misleads viewers?
And, while I'm complaining about the Olympics, let me also say that Matt Lauer, in explaining the origin of the Marathon, got it wrong. Pheidippides didn't run "roughly 26 miles" a couple thousand years ago. He ran "roughly 24 miles," and the distance was extended at various times in the 20th century. You'd think that NBC would use something other than the first hit on "Google" for their fact checking.
Matt Lauer is a Tool
|[Posted by james]|
I'm watching the Olympic opening ceremonies now. I have a disdain for both Matt Lauer and Katie Couric, and it's unfortunate that I'm unable to mute the TV volume and instead tune a radio to a station that features better announcers, like I'm able to do for Packers football games. (For those of you that don't know, I'd say that probably 1/3 of Wisconsin does that).
During the parade of atheletes, Lauer and Couric built up to the announcement of the United States athletes, keeping us advised when they were 10 away, when they were 5 away, when they were two away.
When the United States was about to be announced, Lauer said "and here comes the reaction to the US team....."
I thought, "hey, this should be great." And it was. The US had, by FAR, the most positive response. I was proud of my country, and I was proud to see that the world community viewed them so favorably.
But that audio feed that made me so happy and proud immediately started to piss me off, as Matt Lauer started babbling something about how the Greeks really hate the US, and that they draw a distinction between the US government and the US people, and something about the US supporting a dictatorship there in Greece years ago, I don't know what he was saying. I didn't know why he was saying it. It made no sense, wasn't in context. He was rambling and babbling.
Then it struck me - he wasn't "building up" to the announcement of the US team because he thought it'd be a great moment - he was building up because he thought that the announcement of USA would be met with boos and catcalls. That dipshit was excited for what he thought would be a hugely negative reaction. He had this canned response all ready - when the arena wildly booed the US, he was going to say "there is the world reaction to iraq..., (insinuate that people should vote against bush)...." then add "the greek people also dont like the US because of a 40 year old policy...." as an attempt to look impartial! As an attempt to look like he was searching for all possible solutions!
BUT IT WASN'T a negative reaction. It was the most positive reaction that you could imagine. And Matt Lauer didn't know what to do or what to say. He launched into panic mode, and started babbling so much that no one knew what the hell he was talking about. He managed to fumble, fumble, fumble, then get in his pre-planned part about the 40-year old history. He was talking louder and faster the whole time, he completely lost his composure. I was only thinking, "WHEN WILL HE STOP TALKING?!?" I was left wondering, "WHERE are Jim Irwin and Max McGee?"
How about rooting for us?
|[Posted by james]|
Be sure to check out more photo humor from Sacred Cow Burgers.
Latest Caption Contest Winner
|[Posted by ]|
Dummocrats.com reader Walt is the winner of our latest . We've added Walt's contribution to the picture below. Walt cleverly captured Kerry's clumsy attempts to pretend he knows anything about middle America and country music.
As promised, we will be sending Walt a dummocrats.com jersey (we suggest he be careful while wearing it in liberal areas, however, unless he wants the shirt ripped off his back). That is, if he responds to our email asking for his mailing address. Stay tuned for more fun contests. Who knows what we have up our sleeves (actually we don't know either, but have faith that we'll come up with something cool ;-)
Thanks again to everyone who entered. Rest assured that John Kerry will provide us all with many, many opportunities for caption mischief.
August 12, 2004
Dems Question Timing of Florida Storms
|[Posted by ]|
In a statement released today, DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe questioned the timing of Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane Charley, saying that this is just another one of the Republican Party's dirty tricks.
"At a time when our nation's seniors should be worried about the skyrocketing cost of health care, Bush and Cheney would like to distract them with a hurricane and a tropical storm that are supposedly more dangerous than another four years of the current administration."
Liberal muckraker Michael Moore went further, claiming that not only were Bush and Cheney attempting to take advantage of the storms for political gain, but that they "chose to unleash this storm now to draw attention away from the fact that Bush LIED about the WMDs in Iraq."
Moore went on to suggest that the storm was simply a "dry run" for an Election Day plan to hit predominently Democrat-leaning precincts with a crippling plague of locusts.
DNC Chair-person McAuliffe has similar fears. "Bush has taken partisan politics to a new low," said McAulliffe. "I wouldn't be surprised if Bush is planning to unleash a few tornadoes on the midwest as well. It just shows how desperate the GOP really is."
For other original humor stories from Dummocrats, see also:
Frenchman Interrogation Tools Uncovered
Top 10 additional ways American Olympic athletes can avoid bringing on the ire and contempt of the entire world
Top Ten Initiatives to Expect in Senator Ditka's First 100 Days
August 11, 2004
They Hate My Car (It's Just A Machine)
|[Posted by ]|
A few weeks ago, I picked up a Bush/Cheney bumper sticker at the Madison Farmer's Market. I was proud to show my support for the candidate of my choice.
Update: This morning when I went to my car my Dummocrats.com sticker was missing (you can see it on the left side of the picture above). I'm seething with white hot anger. Anyone have any ideas of good ways to respond to this (keeping in mind that I have no idea who is doing it).
Because I live in a "People's Republik", I'm apparently not allowed to show that support without having other people comment on it. I've even had drivers rush to pass me just so they can get my attention so they could give me a big 'ole thumbs down as they drove away.
And finally, this weekend someone decided to rip the sticker off my bumper completely. Once again, the Left shows that it believes in free speech only for those people that will tow the party line.
I've managed to live the two years with "support regime change at home" and "no war in my name" stickers and yard signs all over my neighborhood without resorting to theft or vandalism. Would that my liberal neighbors afford me that same respect.
Educated people need examples
|[Posted by james]|
I was taking an online poll when I came across this question:
Why would a person with a "Postgraduate degree" need a parenthetical that lists examples of postgraduate degrees?
Wouldn't you think that people with postgraduate degrees would be well aware that their particular degree falls under that category?
Schwarzenegger-Bush riff? I doubt it.
|[Posted by james]|
Schwarzenegger Won't Use Muscle for Bush
President Bush didn't help Arnold Schwarzenegger during California's recall mess. Now the governor is repaying the non-favor.
Schwarzenegger will not use his political muscle for President Bush by campaigning for him outside California, USA Today reported in a page-one story Wednesday.
As NewsMax reported in May, the popular former movie star has refused to campaign for the president in battleground states.
The governor’s staff is putting the best spin it can on his decision.
But Maria Shriver’s husband, who turns to the likes of Teddy Kennedy for advice, wants to retain his bipartisan fan base in the Golden State.
Schwarzenegger is scheduled to appear at a fund-raiser Thursday in Santa Monica … Bush’s first trip to California since March.
OK, Newsmax, you're gonna have to help me out with this one: You say that Arnold refuses to campaign for Bush (outside of California) because he wants to "retain his bi-partisan fan base," but you also report that not only does he not have a problem campaigning for Bush within California, but he's appearing at a Bush fundraiser this Thursday in Santa Monica. Which is in California.
Think about it.
Could the reason that he will only campaign within the boundaries of California instead be that under the California Constitution, if the governor should physically leave the State of California, the lieutenant governor immediately becomes acting governor? Maybe Arnold just doesn't want Cruz Bustamonte appointing judges and signing all kinds of crazy laws, especially in the middle of this great budget fight that was mentioned in your article.
Photos from Iraq
|[Posted by james]|
Bill Hobbs has a bunch of links to photos from Iraq. (hattip: instapundit)
Lucky Thirteen Wictory Wednesday
|[Posted by ]|
From Right Wing News:
Is that poster taking it a bit too far? Maybe, but sometimes we need to remember that we live in serious times and that this election could have serious consequences for our future.
I don't trust John Kerry with my future. On domestic issues, he's a throwback to the pre-Reagan era of high tax rates and big government. On international issues, he's a throwback to the Clinton administration. He'll bring the same group of do-nothings or do-worses (like Warren Christopher, for example) back into the administration.
August 10, 2004
Annoy a Liberal
|[Posted by james]|
Remembering the Speaker, but Forgetting the Message
|[Posted by ]|
Who said this:
"It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget, just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits. Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records."
Was it Barry Goldwater? Ronald Reagan? Jack Kemp? Um....no, it's John F. Kennedy. For all the worship the Dems give the Kennedys, they sure seem to easily forget what JFK's policies and beliefs actually were.
In fact, today the Democrats would call Kennedy a dangerous far right wing radical. That's just another good piece of evidence to prove just how far to the left the party has moved since the days of Camelot.
Monday Night TV thoughts
|[Posted by james]|
Did anyone catch Bill Clinton on The Daily Show last night? Make no mistake about it, he was on only to campaign for Kerry, or, more accurately, to campaign against Bush. In the first segment, all he talked about was the so-called "controversial" Swift Vets ad, charging that Bush was somehow dishonorable in not "immediately denouncing" the ad in a way that he thought was appropriate.
The interesting thing was that he did it in such a way that he didn't have to make the charge himself. Instead, he invoked the image of John McCain, using him as a pawn for his cause, saying "well, John McCain is against it, John McCain said that Bush should denounce it." Clinton even went as far as to slander Bush by making vague charges such as "I told John McCain that he shouldn't have let Bush pull all those dirty tricks on him back in the 2000 primary."
The democrat strategy here of course is the same as it was back in May, to make people think that the Republican party is split, and that half of it is close to "going Democrat." While it is almost certainly true that the GOP is split between warring factions over issues like spending, it is not even close to being the case that anyone in either one of those factions is thinking of "going Democrat." In fact, the exact opposite has been the case, with more and more democrats joining the GOP. In fact, the only Republican that I can think of that recently left the party is Jim Jeffords, when two years ago he switched from the GOP to an Independent. The Democrat party simply has nothing to offer principled people.
Anyway, it was disturbing to hear the overwhelming volume of the cheers in response to Clinton and Stewart's anti-Bush jabs. I think that 90% of that audience must be Democrat.
Later, I watched a Chris Rock special on HBO. I was similarly disturbed that his comments poking fun at the President were met with raucous applause and catcalls, but the response to his oft-repeated "but don't get me wrong, I love this country, I love America, this is the best country in the world" was met with a weak response, with maybe 10-20% of the crowd cheering.
It makes me sick to my stomach to know that most people only get excited and cheer when they are tearing something down.
|[Posted by ]|
Take a look at what is listed as an "editorial" review of Unfit for Command (the Swift Boat Veterans book) an Amazon. Just in case they remove it, here's a screen capture:
I suspect some rogue employee is behind this mischief. Hopefully, they'll be punished for grossly misrepresenting McCain's remarks as a "review" and so prominently placing those remarks. If I was part of Regnery Publishing, I'd be pissed and pondering what kind of action I could take against Amazon for this.
If this review isn't removed soon, then I'll have to assume it means that Amazon.com supports a left wing agenda, just like its "partner" CBS News, and will color its reviews and product selection accordingly. In that case, I'll be looking for a new online bookseller. Too bad it looks like Barnes & Noble may already be out of the running.
Does anyone else see the irony and hypocrisy in these businesses, who've made millions because they live in a country that nurtures, supports and rewards an entrepreneurial spirit, attacking the people and party who consistently stand up for that spirit?
Update: Check it out! Amazon did remove the McCain "review" and now the book is presented in the same manner as controversial items from left are. Way to go.
Ignorant Band Members Sitting On A Bus Quoting Noam Chomsky
|[Posted by ]|
I knew the members of Pearl Jam were dirty hippies, but it still hurts. Even worse is the news that they go so far as to quote Noam Chomsky, the granddaddy of all leftists it would seem, at concerts.
In the political arena, we couldn't disagree more. But here is my question, do I let an artist's political leanings color how I value their art? And, going further, do I let an artist's political leanings determine whether I support the artist financially?
The answer to the first question depends on how you evaluate art. If your main criteria is how the work expresses universal truths, then maybe the answer is yes. If, however, you evaluate art more as expression of beauty, then the answer might be no. I tend more towards the latter view.
A good question to ponder is how much art is political in the first place. I maintain that at least 60% of art is based on unrequited love, 20% on requited (is that a word?) love and the other 20% on the rest of the human condition, politics included. In other words, most of the time guys like Bruce Springsteen are too busy trying to get in Rosalita's pants to worry about the "evils" of supply side economics.
Of course, it's one thing to enjoy the work of artists whose politics you despise, but should you actually pay for them? I've read a lot lately from people who claim that they'll flip the station every time the Dixie Chicks come on, or they won't go see R.E.M. play or won't buy a new Springsteen CD. And that's their right. These artists have a right to express their opinions and we have a right to express our opinion of those opinions. But should we make martyrs of them?
Isn't there a delicious irony in having these far left radicals supported by the very system so many of them despise? Isn't there a delicious irony in these far left radicals providing so much entertainment to the types of people so many of them despise? How fantastic is it that they can stand on stage and pontificate away and yet you and I can leave and then vote for candidates that stand for everything they don't believe in. They have the amps, but we have the power.
In the end, what's more satisfying, staying at home and bemoaning the politics of Eddie Vedder or going to the concert, having a great time and then shouting "shut up and play!" when he starts quoting Noam?
August 09, 2004
New Caption Contest!
|[Posted by ]|
|It's time for a new Dummocrats.com !
Below is a picture with a "working title." Submit a better caption in the comment section of this post and win a free dummocrats.com baseball jersey!"
Submit entries to the comment section; on Thursday, Aug. 12 we'll pick a winner and will announce the winner here. If the winner has provided contact info, we'll contact the winner via email, get their size & color info and mailing address and send their jersey on its way.
If you win and don't provide contact info, you'll have to get in touch with us when we announce that you've won. Keep in mind that you may have a hard time proving that you're actually the one who posted the submitted entry, so if we get multiple people claiming to be the winning poster, we'll just have to pick one. So, the moral of the story is, make sure you provide an email address when you submit your entry!
p.s. despite the fact that james entered, he cant win, so dont worry
p.p.s. multiple entries are allowed, in fact, we encourage it because practice makes perfect!
August 08, 2004
Turn Back the Clock (to September 10)
|[Posted by ]|
In reveiewing the Democratic Convention last week, Mark Steyn figured out what Kerry and Co. are really offering:
...the real distinction is not between pro- and anti-war, but between September 11 Americans and September 10 Americans. The latter group is a coalition embracing not just the hardcore Bush haters - for whom, as the opening of Fahrenheit 9/11 makes plain, it all goes back to chads in Florida - but the larger group of voters who've been a little stressed out by the epic nature of politics these last three years and would like a quieter life. That's what John Kerry's offering them: a return to September 10.
James posted last week on this same idea. It's as if the Democrats childishly want a national naptime on the War on Terror. All the better to dream that it's September 10, 2001 (or, even better November 6, 2000) again.
Why do they want this? I believe it's not so much because they want to save 3,000 lives but rather because the events of September 11th make so many of their pet causes so utterly irrelevant.
It's striking that the Dems are really going to run on their "Two Americas" idea of class warfare. It's irresponsible in a time when we are waging an actual war. A war in which our enemies make no distinction over what kind of Americans will suffer and die. On 9/11, terrorists killed corporate VPs pulling in six figures, blue collar cops and firefighters and waiters at Windows on the World among many, many others. And yet our President, who has made defeating these terrorists his number one goal, is accused of "dividing the nation".
And yet John Kerry stands in Boston and talks about Vietnam and the importance of making sure every American has adequate health care. Well, let me tell you something: health care doesn't matter if you're dead. I don't need my federal government to guarantee me a right to health care. I do, however, need my federal government to continue to guarantee my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I get so frustrated with people that don't understand that we're in a life and death struggle with islamofascists. I hate that some people in this country won't get behind the War on Terror until we're struck again (and maybe not even then, since they'll be too busy pointing fingers at Bush). I don't agree with everything President Bush does. But at long as he continues to abide by these words he said on September 20, 2001, he'll have my vote.
It is my hope that in the months and years ahead, life will return almost to normal. We'll go back to our lives and routines, and that is good. Even grief recedes with time and grace. But our resolve must not pass. Each of us will remember what happened that day, and to whom it happened. We'll remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. Some will remember an image of a fire, or a story of rescue. Some will carry memories of a face and a voice gone forever.
And I will carry this: It is the police shield of a man named George Howard, who died at the World Trade Center trying to save others. It was given to me by his mom, Arlene, as a proud memorial to her son. This is my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end.
I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people.
Caption Contest Winner
|[Posted by ]|
Dummocrats.com reader Bob is the winner of our first ever . We've added Bob's clever contribution to the picture below.
As promised, we will be sending Bob a dummocrats.com sticker. That is, if he responds to our email asking for his mailing address. We have more fun contests planned, so be sure to check back.
Thanks again to everyone who entered. It's great to have such clever readers.
"Hey, that looks like Bush up there on the Capitol steps...Hi, George!"
|[Posted by james]|
I found a pretty cool military entertainment site called "Buster's Battery."
Check them out at http://www.bustersbattery.com.
August 06, 2004
The Four Faces of Dummocrats.com
|[Posted by ]|
So, apparently I'm a sinner, a saint, and a dwarf. And only one of those is even close to being true.
So he's a charmer and a thug and a lawyer. And, once again, only one of those is even close to being true.
Your first class stamp
|[Posted by james]|
You people would not believe the amount of democrat material that I get sent to my house. I just got a ridiculous fake-survey mailing from Nancy Pelosi; in it, she manages to not only flat out say that George Bush is the worst president ever, but also to preemptively insult anyone who would grade him higher than a "C" on any of their "survey" questions by calling them - gasp - a Republican!
I tell you, she must think that the people reading it are a bunch of dolts. (she might well be right. :-)
I have half a mind to scan the whole mailing and put it online, because something as ridiculous as this letter can only serve to help the President in his reelection bid by showing America how kooky this party is.
For now, though, I'm only scanning the return-envelope:
I just want to remind everyone that the reverse is also true - you can help to DEFEAT democrats by mailing their postage paid envelopes BACK to them empty.
If you haven't done so already, join our campaign to Waste Kerry (supplies) by clicking on this banner and ordering a free John Kerry bumper sticker of your own. Also, be sure to send back the envelope that is included, sans check, perhaps with a short note explaining why you are voting to re-elect the President.
Swift Boat Veterans Face Surprising Opposition
|[Posted by ]|
In the wake of the Swift Boat veterans devasting anti-Kerry ad and upcoming book, pundits aplenty are calling on Bush to make this his "Sista Souljah" moment. Over at the Lapsed Randian, they say that Bush must:
The President should call a press conference, with Senator McCain at his side, and disassociate his campaign from the current commercials and related hype associated with Swift Boats. He should remind the public that both he and Kerry were honorably discharged. He should express empathy for Senator Kerry, given that he has repeatedly been accused of being AWOL by the Chairman of the DNC. He should then conclude by stating that he is willing to be judged by his record as a public official and President, just as he is sure that Kerry is willing to be judged by his actions as a public official and Senator.
In short, the President should offer a gracious, conciliatory gesture--something that seems to come natural to him--and offer Kerry the chance to do the same. I have no idea whether this would be politically astute, but it would seem to be the right thing to do, and it would emphasize that he, at least, is connected to the current reality.
But should he? Did John Kerry distance himself from Michael Moore? And, unlike the Moore case, can anyone prove these vets are lying and distorting facts? At least, unlike Moore, they present themselves as expressing their own opinions.
Last night, Bill O'Reilly questioned the morality of running this ad. I'm left shaking my head. If you served with a man and you and every one of that man's commanding officers felt he was unfit to be President isn't it your moral duty to get that word out to the people? Or, is a moral duty only important when it's not messy or nasty?
Kerry on Iraq
|[Posted by james]|
From the latest edition of The Federalist:
"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war," claims John Kerry, with a none-too-subtle implication that President George W. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
On that note, we decided to take a look at the historical record. Indeed, we wanted to know precisely what the senator from Massachusetts had been saying all along about the Butcher of Baghdad. Lo and behold, we found that Kerry makes a compelling argument in support of President's Bush's actions to free the Iraqi people -- and the world -- from Saddam's terror.
Back in 1991, Kerry voted against the use of force in removing Iraq from neighboring Kuwait (S. J. Res. 2), later explaining that he only "voted against the timing of it. I said very clearly in my statement on the Senate floor that I was committed to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait...and that I was prepared to go to war if it took that...."
Regarding Bill Clinton's attacks on Iraqi targets, Kerry said in 1997, "So clearly the allies may not like it...where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?"
A year later, after additional bombing, Kerry said, "We have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt [Saddam's] regime and to encourage the forces of democracy. ... [H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack. ... I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical."
Three months after the 9/11 attack on our countrymen by state-supported Jihadi terrorists, Kerry argued, "Saddam is one who is and has acted like a terrorist. ... For instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. ... He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable."
Reiterating his position on Saddam prior to 9/11, Kerry said, "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections...." He then added, "I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."
Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry said, "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [to combat terrorism], for instance, Saddam Hussein."
Regarding diplomatic solutions and the Bush administration's efforts to get the UN to enforce the Security Council's unanimous mandates on Iraqi arms, Kerry said, in May of 2002, "[Saddam is] buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today."
In July of 2002, Kerry told the Democrat Leadership Council, "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq.... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."
That's "completely," fellow Patriots.
A month later in a New York Times op-ed, Kerry asserted, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."
That's even if it's "mostly at the hands of the United States."
In September of 2002, a year after 9/11, Kerry said: "It is imperative that we issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and that would require immediate and full compliance, and if Hussein doesn't comply, the United States must be prepared to go in and...if need be, largely alone remove Saddam Hussein from power. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. ...[Saddam] may even miscalculate and slide these [WMD] off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."
A few days later, he told MSNBC, "The president...always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country." On 11 October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res. 114).
In May of 2003, Kerry defended that vote, saying, "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." But when Howard Dean turned up the heat with his anti-war message, Kerry began to waffle. Announcing his candidacy, Kerry's support for regime change morphed into, "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."
Notice the head of the pin on which Kerry is now attempting to dance. He's claiming that he only "voted to threaten the use of force." In other words, he's now insisting that he only voted to deliver a hollow threat. Not exactly a profile in courage, eh?
As the Demo-primary season approached, Kerry began to hone his newfound opposition to the removal of Saddam: "They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war."
When it came time to provide supplemental appropriations for our troops in Iraq, Kerry (who planned to run his campaign on his veteran status) claimed, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."
But on 17 October 2003, Kerry abandoned our troops, voting against S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction. Thus, he put pure political expedience ahead of his obligation to arm and equip our fighting forces -- specifically those fighting forces currently standing in harm's way.
In January of this year, when asked if he was "one of the anti-war candidates," Kerry answered firmly, "I am -- yeah." After announcing his running mate in March, he said of John Edwards, "I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion...."
Got that? He's actually "proud" of having stiffed our troops.
Last month, when asked by CBS if his vote for the removal of Saddam was a mistake (which, politically, it clearly was), Kerry fumbled his answer: "What -- what -- what I voted for, you -- you -- you see, you're playing here. What -- what I voted for was a -- an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war." When pressed for a direct answer to the question, Kerry responded curtly, "I think I answered your question."
When asked why he "voted for the war, but didn't vote for the money to finance the war," Kerry responded, "That's not a flip-flop. That's not a flip-flop."
And this week, Kerry claims, "I believe this administration is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America." (Here we suppose "others" is in reference to the same yet-to-be-identified foreign leaders who Kerry claims support his candidacy.)
The reality is, of course, that it's our very existence, and not our actions, that the Jihadis really object to. Kerry's failure to acknowledge this fact is indicative of just how deeply he has delved into the fevered swamp.
Last week, greeting Demo-conventioneers with a limp Clintonesque salute, Kerry intoned that he was "reporting for duty." To which we say, it's about time -- because he has been AWOL from Iraq since he voted to invade.
(To see and hear Kerry's comments on Iraq, link to -- http://kerry-04.org/iraq.php )
Messenger losing the Message
|[Posted by james]|
Yeah, like I'm gonna taky my foreign policy advice from THIS guy:
August 05, 2004
DNC Lawyers trying to intimidate stations into not showing anti-Kerry ad
|[Posted by james]|
From Human Events:
DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad
HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.
This is my favorite part:
"In this group's advertisement, 12 men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam(emphasis added)
What? They appear to make statements? "Oh, we think that it kind of looks like maybe they just might be making statements..... Hmm, we can't quite tell if they really are making statements... let's just say that it appears that they are making statements....."
Hmmm, maybe it all depends on what the definition of "is," is.
Weapons of Mass Consumption
|[Posted by ]|
This 9/11-esque image has been used as a tray liner in Subway restaurants in Germany. And apparently that's just the tip of the iceberg. Apparently the road to a Germans' heart and stomach is through blatant anti-Americanism.
While I have no problem with Subways in Germany making fun of Americans for being fat (hey, we make fun of the French for smelling), I do have some serious problems with them using a terrorist attack that caused the deaths of 3,000 people just 3 years ago to mock the United States. Can you imagine, for example, American Subways having images of Hiroshima being "nuked" by spring rolls or how about cartoon matzo balls helping round up Jews to the concentration camps? That's how sickening this is.
But, as Americans, we don't have to take this sitting down. We are weapons of mass consumption. This is one of those times that we can use our fat asses and our fat wallets to make our voices heard. Remember this the next time you're jonesing for a sub. Skip Subway and consider one of these sandwich options instead:
And those are just some of the big chains. I know every city has dozens of great sandwich places that clearly deserve your business more than Subway.
What's in a (Big) name?
|[Posted by ]|
All the "stars" are aligning for Kerry. And, they're going on the road to provide concerts to support the campaign. Professor Alan Schroeder thinks this is a problem for Bush.
But why? Is it a brand new revelation that most celebrities are Democrats, leftists, commies and worse? Of course not. Americans already know who Bruce Springsteen or John Cougar Mellencamp is going to vote for. And we already don't want to listen to them talk about it.
Why fear that this wave of celebrity endorsements and action is suddenly going to turn the tide of the election? The common model isn't celebrities speak-nation follows. It's celebrities speak-nation rolls its eyes. At best, we really don't care about how celebrities feel about politics. At worst, these celebrities will get a very negative reaction to their words. Do the names Linda Ronstadt, Whoopi Goldeberg and the Dixie Chicks ring a bell?
Americans, for all of our faults, aren't complete idiots. We know the Sean Penn isn't a statesman. We know Bruce Springsteen isn't an economist. We know that Dave Mathews isn't a teacher. For the most part, all these celebrities have is a high school education, a burning need for attention and too much time on their hands.
People will point to the 1992 election and Clinton's saxophone playing and appearance on MTV as proof that politicians can successfully reach younger voters through popular culture. But I think that case is completely different. Clinton succeeded because he personally could engage those voters. Kerry can't engage anyone other than wealthy women. That's why he's looking to Hollywood to do his dirty work for him.
August 04, 2004
First Ever Caption Contest
|[Posted by james]|
|Welcome to the first ever Dummocrats.com !
Below is a picture with a "working title." Submit a better caption in the comment section of this post and win a free dummocrats.com sticker!"
Submit entries to the comment section; in a few days, we'll pick a winner and will announce the winner here. If the winner has provided contact info, we'll contact the winner via email and ask where the sticker should be sent.
If you win and don't provide contact info, you'll have to get in touch with us when we announce that you've won. Keep in mind that you may have a hard time proving that you're actually the one who posted the submitted entry, so if we get multiple people claiming to be the winning poster, we'll just have to pick one.
Update: Thank you all for entering! We're thrilled that our first was a success and we had such good entries. But, we had to choose a single winner and that winner is Bob, who wrote: "(Inaugural, 2005)
Hey, that looks like Bush up there on the Capitol steps...Hi, George!" You gotta love Bob's positive outlook! Stay tuned for more s from Dummocrats.com.
Kerry is so very...a Wictory Wednesday list
|[Posted by ]|
As I've revealed several times before, Election Day is my birthday, so I expect to wake up on November 3rd with a hangover. But, dear readers, don't let me wake up to the spector of a John Kerry presidency. I beg of you to save me. Save us all, because Kerry is so very...
1. Hypocritical: Can you believe he has the gall to ask Congress to come back to work in August? It's like the time I heard a Madison bum tell someone who wouldn't give him money to "get a job".
2. Hoity-Toity: If a man can't stomach a single Wendy's lunch, how is he going to handle the other tough tasks of the Presidency. And, I mean actual tough tasks, not eating at Wendys. And don't forget, John Kerry is not like you and me. Our lives are completely foreign to him. And vice versa (oh, but if you do happen to live the good life like Senator Kerry, feel free to give send me a line).
3. French looking: Senator Kerry seems awfully eager make sure that France agrees with American foreign policy decisions. Perhaps a little too eager, if you know what I mean. And I think you do, haw haw haw.
4. Foolish: A man who marries one of the richiest widows in America probably can't accurately be called a fool. However, to let said wife run off at the mouth repeatedly and then claim that America will love her for it is more than a little foolish. Americans are afraid of extremists on either end of the political spectrum and THK is starting to represent the far left of the Kerry/Edwards ticket, which is a flank that they'd rather not expose.
5. Ignorant: While Senator Kerry is probably a smart man (although the fact that he voted against pretty much everything Reagan did makes me question that), he is ignorant of this, and the other fabulous sites that participate in Wictory Wednesday. C'mon John, visit us. Make some comments. The more the merrier!
August 03, 2004
Clinton on Letterman
|[Posted by ]|
Our first black President (and apparently, also the first Native American president as he now claims Cherokee Indian ancestors), Bill Clinton, appeared on David Letterman tonight. While sans saxophone, Clinton was still hip in a fashionable pink tie.
These are tricky times for Clinton. In any speech and/or interview, he has to accomplish the following:
1. Bash Bush
2. Yet remain Presidential
3. Build up Hillary
4. Praise Kerry
5. But don't praise Kerry so much that it might actually help him win
With those goals in mind, Clinton did a pretty good job. He questioned some Republican policies, but was overall fairly respectful of the administration.
As for Kerry, Clinton kept praising Kerry for all the specific details he's provided on how he's going to solve all the alleged problems in our country. That's hilarious, as Kerry has provided no details of anything. Clinton knows this. And, he also knows that the second Kerry does provide any detail, he'll be exposed as the traditional dovish, tax and spend liberal that he is. It's almost as if Clinton is shaming or daring Kerry to provide details. Or, planting the seeds for others to start asking for them.
But, here's the most amazing thing about this interview. Clinton said he has "always" thought bin Laden was more of a threat than Saddam. Interesting, isn't it, that Clinton bombed Iraq but did not take bin Laden when he had chance after chance. I think this was an embarassing slip up. Hopefully I'm not the only person who caught it.
Along those lines, he cracked me when he said that he thinks the 9/11 commission's decision to focus on the future was the right one. No shit. I wonder why that is?
I thought Clinton seemed more subdued than normal. He was far less charming than he normally is and even Letterman's NYC audience wasn't as enamored of him as I would have expected.
|[Posted by james]|
This will come as no surprise to regular Michael Savage listeners, or those who've thoroughly read the internet site Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but Drudge is starting to report on the upcoming release of the book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."
The book is being released by a group of Swift Vets that charge that Kerry is fabricating many of his "war hero" claims.
Some of the charges, according to Drudge:
Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.
All three of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for minor injuries, not requiring a single hour of hospitalization.
A "fanny wound" was the highlight of Kerry's much touted "no man left behind" Bronze Star.
Kerry turned the tragic death of a father and small child in a Vietnamese fishing boat into an act of "heroism" by filing a false report on the incident.
Kerry entered an abandoned Vietnamese village and slaughtered the domestic animals owned by the civilians and burned down their homes with his Zippo lighter.
Kerry's reckless behavior convinced his colleagues that he had to go -- becoming the only Swift Boat veteran to serve only four months.
And that's not all - last week, a swift boat gunner (whose name escapes me now) who served under John Kerry was on Savage, and he had plenty more to say, from specific charges like "John Kerry always immediately retreated at the first sign of a skirmish" to general CW like "Real soldiers don't talk about their medals." He shook his head when he heard that Kerry rode into Boston Harbor on swift boat with his so called "veteran supporters." He chuckled as he said, "If I had to ride into Boston Harbor with all the guys that support me, I'd need a Destroyer."
It struck me at that time that this inexplicable desire to campaign on his 4 months of war experience is going to be Mr. Kerry's great downfall. He is going to lose the veterans, and soon after, the unions. That alone is enough for him to lose Ohio, MI, PA, and WI, and thus, the election. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if he loses the Democrat stronghold of Illinois as well after this gets fully flushed out. As you may recall, the head of the AFL-CIO is already on record as saying that unions might be better of if Kerry loses, so Kerry's losing the unions isn't really that far off.
Really, why did Kerry choose the make his 4 months of war experience the centerpiece of his campaign? Why not campaign on much longer career a war protestor? Why not campaign on his 20 year Senate career? Someone must have advised him to take this path. Also, Kerry is the "last of his Senate class" to "finally" run for president. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, but you have to wonder, is someone behind the scenes pulling the strings?
You WILL embrace my wife! (or) She's a liability to me, so she might as well be one to the whole nation, too!
|[Posted by james]|
John Kerry thinks that America loves his dumbass wife. Rather, he has declared that America will love her, whether they like it or not.
First, Teresa Heinz-hyphen-Kerry caused a huge stir when she gave a speech, called certain people "unAmerican," then just minutes later claimed that she had never uttered the words "unAmerican." She went as far as to accuse the reporter of "putting words in her mouth," touching off the now infamous "shove-it gate."
Teresa just shot her mouth off again, this time at a Kerry rally in Milwaukee:
And, once again, she received a glowing compliment for doing so from John Kerry:
"She speaks her mind and she speaks the truth and she's pretty quick on her feet too," the Massachusetts senator said when he took the microphone in Milwaukee.
"That's why America is going to embrace her and she'll make a spectacular first lady of the United States of America."
What do you think, America, are you going to embrace this loud-mouthed know-it-all? Is this "lady," and I do use that term lightly, that you want representing you on the world stage? Personally, I find it offensive that John Kerry just flat out declares what America will do. He doesn't say "She is a great lady and I hope America sees that and embraces her," he says, "America will embrace her."
I'm somewhat disturbed that many in the voting public don't know that she was actually wrong in the whole shove-it gate episide; in fact, I just had a story related to me about one Wisconsin voter, we'll call her "Carol," who thinks that Teresa is feisty and outspoken, and that she gave that reporter "what he deserved." When told that THK was actually wrong in the whole shove-it gate episiode, that there is tape clearly proving that she uttered the term "unAmerican" just moments before, Carol had no idea. Carol said "Really? well, I didn't hear that part."
It's very frightenting that the selective reporting by today's media could lead to us getting this buffoon as a first lady.
The fact is, Teresa Heinz-hyphen-Kerry is always spouting off, insisting that she is right, even when she is dead wrong. And John Kerry stands by her side, like a fool, and says that he admires that she "speaks her mind."
Ask yourself, if the gender roles were reversed, what would the media call a man that was just as outspoken and planly idiotic and wrong 100% of the time? People would call him a "loudmouthed know-it-all idiot." Yet somehow John Kerry wants people to admire his wife for being the same.
Kerry's Sista Souljah moment
|[Posted by james]|
"I DON'T CARE WHAT HE SAID:" KERRY REPUDIATES HOWARD DEAN:
Kerry dismissed former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's comment that raising the terror level might be politically motivated.
"I don't care what he said. I haven't suggested that and I won't suggest that," Kerry said. "I do not hold that opinion. I don't believe that.''
Good for him.
Good for him? What do you mean, good for him, oh insta-one?
To me, this looks like a political campaign trick, plain and simple. I think that I read something last week in which someone said they were surprised that Kerry wasn't using it yet. Actually, I think I may have heard Savage talking about it on his radio show.
Here, I think that Kerry is "trying to appear to be a stabilizing force in the party." The trick goes like this: The leading candidate goes out and reprimands the so-called "maverick" of the party, making himself look like a take-charge kind of guy, making himself look like the guy who's gonna bring the party together.
This is an orchestrated policital stunt. Clinton did it, Reagan did it. I know that Savage gave explicit examples, though they're not coming to mind at this early hour. Can anyone out there help me out?
August 02, 2004
Campaigning on the wrong message
|[Posted by james]|
I believe that this originally ran in the Boston Herald about 2 months ago.
FOX NEWS Misleads with security story
|[Posted by james]|
Check out this FOX NEWS story entitled "Financial Sites on Guard in D.C., N.Y. Area." See those pictures there in the little box labeled "photos?" It contains a photo of the IMF building in Washington, DC.:
Clicking on the image to zoom in reveals a full size photo, along with a caption:
After viewing this picture and its caption, you might think to yourself, "That's great, I'm glad that the police are securing the IMF in the wake of this heightened security level. In fact, I'm glad that they're securing that big open lot, too, because big, open lots are top targets of terrorists."
Let me let you in on a little secret, though: FOX news is misleading you. That picture is, like they state in the caption, a photo of Police securing the IMF building. (or, more accurately, the once barren lot in front of it.) But guess what? That picture wasnt taken any time within the past year. See that big open lot? There is a big fat BUILDING there now. They've been building it for the last 3 years!
I suspected that the picture was taken during one of the many IMF "protests" in Washington, DC, because that's the only time that I've ever seen police standing around that open lot, and it turns out I was right - I went to google image search and did a search for "IMF building," and, wouldn't you know it, that picture popped up on CNN, in a story about some IMF protests from years past.
Same Photo, on CNN, for an IMF protest story. Found at ttp://www.cnn.com/interactive/us/0209/gallery.imf.protest/0.imf.protestap.jpg
As far as I've seen, there has been absolutely no increase in police presence around the IMF.
So, was FOX NEWS just too lazy to send a photographer from their studio roughly 10 blocks away to take a picture? Or did they do that, but decide not to run the pictures from today because they weren't sensationalist enough?
Top Referrers for July
|[Posted by james]|
It's the beginning of another month, and once again, we've compiled a list of the top referrers for the previous month, this time the month of July 2004. We decided to share the top 30 referrers this time, instead of the just the top 15 like last time. Thanks to everyone who linked to us last month, even if you're not on the top 30 list. We appreciate it and are anxious to return the favor.
1. Right Wing News
2. Blogs for Bush
3. California Yankee
4. Cheese and Bacon
5. Michelle Malkin
6. Ace o’ Spades HQ
7. Dales’ Electoral College Breakdown 2004
8. Right Thinking Girl
9. The Crease
10. Neophyte Pundit
11. Slant Point
12. Jen Martinez
13. Pardon My English
14. Outside the Beltway
15. Avoca Pundit
17. The Galvin Opinion
18. Countertop Chronicles
21. The American Mind
22. Longhorn Mafia
23. Raincross Conservative
25. Poisoning Pigeons
27. Pauilie World
28. LaShawn Barber’s Corner
29. Rambling’s Journal
August 01, 2004
|[Posted by ]|
President Bush has talked about the "soft bigotry of low expectations" in education throughout the campaign. Other pundits see soft bigotry in racial preferences in higher education. The idea is that the liberal's notion that blacks and other minorities can't compete with whites on a level playing field, without affirmative action, is bigotry, plain and simple.
Today, the LA Times writes that Teresa Heinz Kerry may be a detriment to her husband's campaign simply because she is an outspoken woman:
At a suburban St. Louis shopping mall, lawyer Kim Coffman, 33, said she admired Heinz Kerry, but thought her candor could turn off some voters.
"I think there's a fear, particularly among men, that she's going to run the show," Coffman said as she pushed her 18-month-old son in a stroller. "So I think she's a potential liability for Kerry, if men — or even women — view her as threatening."
The article tries to frame opposition to, and dislike of, Heinz Kerry to the fact that she's an "outspoken woman" and not because of her specific stances on the issues or the rather extremist organizations she supports.
Ruth Mandel, an expert on politics and gender at Rutgers University in New Jersey, thought many women reacted positively. To what she called Heinz Kerry's, "I am woman, hear me roar" passage.
Sabato thought that some men saw it as "feminist state of the world comment, and they were threatened by it."
To me, this is just like the soft bigotry Bush describes. This is soft chauvinism. Love her or hate her, Heinz Kerry deserves to be evaluated by her words and actions, not by how close to or how far away she is to feminist archetypes. By treating her as a woman, rather than Teresa Heinz Kerry, liberals are ignoring the substance of her "outspoken opinions" and instead only focusing on the fact that she's a woman saying them.
Wasn't the goal of the feminist movement for women to be awarded the same rights and respect as men? Don't articles and comments like this undermine that goal?
Press Conference at 2
|[Posted by james]|
A press conference scheduled for 2pm today is expected to be "significant." In it, Tom Ridge is expected to detail specific threats to financial institutions in NY and DC. CNN is reporting that the threat level in these cities has already been raised, while FOX is reporting that it will be raised. There is also going to be a follow-up press conference with NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg at 4pm.
Living in DC, I've grown rather immune to these "terror alert levels," and my personal opinion is that they aren't a very effective system for dealing with the ongoing terrorist threat. Just consider the fact that NYC has had their terror alert at "orange," or "High" since September 11th. Come on, even the biggest supporter of the terror alert system would have to admit that after almost 3 years at the second highest level, the "High" alert status has lost its intended significance.
The fact that this press conference is on a Sunday may indicate that the presumed threat is significant. (or it could be a strategic attempt to get the alert into a proper slot in the weekly media newscycle.) Nevertheless, whichever it is, I'll be watching.
OK, so Ridge says that the terror alert level has been raised for only the financial districts in NY, NJ, and DC. So, now, not only do we have separate city-by-city terror alert levels, but now we have STREET BY STREET terror alert levels. Just how are we supposed to digest information? Maybe we can get little signs on each street corner indicating what the terrorist alert level is for that particular street. Or maybe even building-by-building indicators.
Ooooh, I know, here's a great idea for Mapquest to implement:
What A Fool Believes
|[Posted by ]|
I was at a local restaurant yesterday when I noticed a pamphlet entitled "What Republicans Believe". Now, seeing as I live in Madison, Wisconsin, I didn't expect this to be a serious treatise on smaller government and supply side economics. Just for fun, I grabbed the pamphlet and brought it home. It turns out it was produced by Dems for Peace, which looks to be affiliated with A.N.S.W.E.R. and the like. The "beliefs" of Republicans are just as distorted as you would imagine.
At first I wanted to refute their points, but I'm preaching to the choir here, so it'll be more fun to put a dummocratic spin on their "republican beliefs". Let's roll.
|1. That being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime...unless you are a millionaire reactionary radio shock jock, which therefore makes it an illness and worthy of absolution.
||1. That being a drug addict means you're suffering from a disease and should be entitled to taxpayer-funded needles and health care.|
|2. That those privileged from birth achieve success all on their own.||2. That those privileged from birth only achieve success because of their birth, unless they are Kennedys.|
|3. That the US should get out of the UN, but that our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.
||3. That the US should get out of Iraq, but that our highest national priority is defending the nation against terrorists and the states that harbor them.|
|4. That government should stay out of peoples' lives, but that it should have the right to punish anyone caught having sex with the "wrong" person, irrespective of gender.
||4. That government should stay out of peoples' bedrooms, but that it should have the right to decide what public school parents must send their children to.|
|5. That pollution is OK--so long as it makes a profit
||5. The corporate profit is OK--so long as the corporation makes hefty donations to the party.|
|6. That prayer in public schools is great-but only so long as people don't pray to Allah or Buddha
||6. That celebrating holidays in public schools is great, but only so long as people don't celebrate Christmas or Easter.|
|7. That "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
||7. That "Believing in America" means blaming ourselves for terrorist attacks against us.|
|8. That a woman cannot be trusted with decisions concerning her own body, but that large multinational corporations can be trusted with decisions affecting all mankind with no regulations whatsoever.
||8. That a woman should be trusted to do whatever she pleases with her own body, but that Americans cannot be trusted to make decisions concerning their hard earned dollars.|
|9. That they love Jesus and Jesus loves them, and that Jesus shares their hatred of everyone else.
||9. That they are more tolerant and value all religions and creeds, except for traditional Christianity.|
|10. That people should hate the ACLU for representing convicted felons, but that the ACLU owed it to the country to bail out Oliver North.
||10. That people should love the ACLU for representing convicted felons and turning a blind eye to hiring potential terrorists and ignore the fact that they will not speak out against campus speech codes.|
|11. That the best way to encourage military morale is to praise our troops overseas, all while cutting their VA benefits here at home.
||11. That the best way to encourage military morale is to call our troops overseas "baby killers" and vote against funding them.|
|12. That group sex and drug use are degenerate sins that can only be purged by running as a Republican for governor of California.
||12. That adulterous sex, academic fraud and murder are degenerate sins that can only be purged by running as a Democrat for senator from Massachusetts.|
|13. That we need to keep condoms out of our schools because everyone knows that if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.
||13. That we need to keep standardized testing out of our schools, because everyone knows that if students are tested, they won't learn anything.|
|14. That the best way to fight terrorism is to alienate our allies and to then demand their cooperation and money once we're deep in a hole that we dug ourselves.
||14. That the best way to fight terrorism is to pursue the exact same course of action that resulted in horrendous terrorist attacks.|
|15. That all socialized medicine is wrong...and that HMOs and insurance companies only have consumers' best interests at heart...and that European countries have had absolutely no success with universal health care.
||15. That all socialized medicine is right...and that countries like Canada have had absolutely no problems with universal health care and that Canadians never travel to the US for better health care.|
|16. That providing health care to all Iraqis is sound government policy, but that providing health care to all Americans is socialism personified.
||16. That women's rights, gay rights and more are all crucial to America, but that it's not important or good that we freed millions of Afghanis from an extraordinarily intolerant regime.|
|17. That tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are "junk science", but that "Creationism" ought to be taught in our public schools.
||17. That ACT and SAT scores' link to success in college is "junk science", but that John Kerry's self-defined "misery index" is a valid measure of the strength of the economy.|
|18. That waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam, but right on target in Iraq.
||18. That unilaterally waging war in Kosovo was right, but that a multilateral action with dozens of other nations in Iraq is wrong.|
|19. That Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him, and a bad guy when Bush need a "we can't find bin Laden" diversion.
||19. That Saddam was a bad guy when Democratic congressmen voted to go to war against him (both times), a good guy when spouting the party line against Bush in court, and a bad guy when Clinton needed a "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" diversion.|
|20. That government should restrict itself to just the powers named in the Constitution--with, of course, the exceptions of banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
||20. That government should not restrict itself to just powers named in the Constitution as the Constitution implies a right to marry (gay and straight) and a right to health care. But, the Constitution does not name a right to bear arms.|
|21. That the public has a right to know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while those of Republicans are a "private matter".
||21. That the public has a right to know about Bush and Cheney's stock holdings, while the tax returns of Teresa Heinz Kerry are a "private matter".|
|22. That the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because Americans just can't handle the truth
||22. That the public has a right to know every detail of Bush's National Guard service, but it's not important that Sandy Berger stole top secret documents and notes from the National Archives rather than turn them over to the 9/11 Commission.|
|23. That people should support states' rights, which means Ashcroft telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he will allow them to have.
||23. That people should support multilateralism, which means France telling the United States how it should conduct its foreign policy.|
|24. That what Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but that the far worse things that George W. Bush did just a few years later is "stale news" and "irrelevant" and "youthful mistakes".
||24. That Dick Cheney's relationship with Halliburton is of vital national interest, but that large donations to the Democrats from organized crime figures are irrelevant.|
|25. That trade with Cuba is wrong because it is a Communist nation, but that trading with China and Vietnam is just plain dandy.
||25. That the death penalty is wrong because it is killing another person, but that aborting a baby is just plain dandy.|