Notable Quotables of '04'

Here's a roundup of some great quotes from 2004, courtesy John Leo, writing for townhall.com

Cameron Diaz: said that if you think rape should be legal, you should not vote in November.

John Leguizamo (comededian): said that hispanics who voted for Bush would be like roaches voting for Raid.

John Edwards: “I’d say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you’ve lost your mind.”

Ter-ray-sa Heinz: more qoutes than space will permit.

Walter Cronkite: said that Karl Rove "probably set up bin laden" to deliver his latest tape.

Julian Bond, head of the NAACP: said that Republicans’ “idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.”

Natalie Maines (Dixie Chick): in reference to the fan outrage to her previous anit-Bush statements said “I realize that I’m just supposed to sing and look cute so our fans won’t have anything to upset them while they’re cheating on their wives or driving around in their pickup trucks shooting small animals.”

Michael Moore: compared Iraqi insurgents to the Minutemen of the Revolutionary War.

More on the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal: Careful Kofi, Kojo bites

Get this from Rueters on the latest regarding the Oil-for-food scandal.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Monday he was "disappointed" his son did not tell him the full story of his ties to a firm involved in the U.N. oil-for-food program, now under investigation.

Annan's son, Kojo, received payments from the Geneva-based Cotecna firm until last February after the United Nations said he severed ties with the company in February 1999. Part of the payments involved an agreement not to compete with Cotecna in West Africa after he left the firm.

"Naturally I was very disappointed and surprised," Annan told reporters, saying the discrepancy had not been brought to his attention.

Woman Sues GOP for Psychological Trauma?

Those familiar with my earlier posts on Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) realize that it is the "comedy gift that keeps on giving."

Front Page Magazine reports that Barbi Weiner, a third grade teacher is suing the Republican Party for their role in getting President Bush reelected. She apparenlty suffered a nervous collapse after Kerry made his concession speach.

The day after the election Ms. Weiner was unable to go to work, believing that any minute the election would be called for Mr. Kerry. But once he conceded she went into a deep depression. "He just gave up. Just like that. No fight, no lawsuits, no dimpled chads, no recounts, nothing. It was the lowest moment of my life."

Ms. Weiner says her life has become very circumscribed since the election. "Before my breakdown I used to enjoy walking around my neighborhood. This is a very diverse area and it used to be such a pleasure to know that everyone you passed on the street thought about life exactly the same way you did. But since the election I have become very distrustful of strangers. Now I can’t be sure that the person walking next to me isn’t one of that 17 percent who voted for the war-mongering liar. I never know who they are, and I could be put in a position of having to speak to one of them. I can’t bear to go out any more. It’s so distressing."

BBC Report: UN Knew of Saddam's Oil-For-Food Theft

Here's a report summarizing a BBC investigation, showing that UN officials were completely aware of Saddam's role in the Oil-for-Food scandal, the biggest rip off in world history. Read my earlier related post about the topic here . Below are a few key segments from the BBC report.

The United Nations knew that Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was
stealing from the oil-for-food program - and, by extension, starving his own
people - but did little to stop it, according to a special report by the BBC at
the weekend.
After a six-month investigation, the BBC said it had evidence
that Saddam took billions from the oil-for-food program, and that "these abuses
were widely known about at the time". The BBC said there was evidence that
Saddam demanded a kickback from companies that wanted to do business with Iraq
under the oil-for-food program.

Since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, evidence has emerged that Saddam
found many ways to skim billions from the program. Some of that money allegedly
went to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. It is also alleged that
Saddam paid foreign journalists and sympathetic foreign officials, as a way of
getting them to campaign to get the sanctions lifted. Around 270 people are
alleged to have received vouchers to sell oil for millions of dollars in
profit.
Among the people accused of taking these bribes are the former
president of Indonesia, Megawati Soekarnoputri, and, most explosively, the head
of the UN's oil-for-food program Benon Sevan.

Deadly Insurgents Feign Death in Fallujah

A press release from U.S. Central Command reports that marines killed insurgents in fallujah who were faking dead and then opened fire on the marines:

November 22, 2004
Release Number: 04-11-77
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
INSURGENTS FAKING DEAD FIRES ON MARINES
FALLUJAH, Iraq – Marines from the 1st Marine Division shot and killed an insurgent, who while faking dead, opened fire on the Marines that were conducting a security and clearing patrol through the streets here at approximately 3:45 p.m. on 21 November.

We've all heard about the marine who is being investigated for shooting an injured insurgent. Marines argued that he was faking death, and the report above demonstrates that insurgents feigning death are still a great threat to American forces. The insurgents are there for a reason, and unless they are surrending, and can demonstrate that they aren't carrying any explosives, they still pose huge threats to our soldiers. I don't know what exactly happened, but clearly the marine should not be punished for acting to protect himself. That the marines didn't shoot the other injured insurgents shows that the notion that marines acted with malice is farfethched.

AHRNOLD!! For President???

The Governator

So I've tried to ignore the few supporters of the Governator who are talking about a constitutional amendment that would allow immigrants to run for president. However, after hearing that Madeline Albright also supports the idea, I thought it might be worth a discussion.

I actually am not in favor of the idea. The main reason, is that I don't think it is worth the effort to actually amend the constitution. I do recognize that there are probably many immigrants who would make great presidents, but that doesn't necessarilly mean that we should amend the constitution to allow them to run.

I think that the more you tamper with it and amend it, the more it becomes less sacred in a sense. I know, I know "it is a living breathing document" but that doesn't mean we should amend it everytime it fits our political fancy. Truly, there must be a hugely compelling interest at stake that would require an amendment before I would support the idea. In this case, I don't think allowing immigrants to run for president is one of those situations.

Bush Applauds Arafat's 'New Attitude'

Scrappleface.com, a satirical news page, has a witty article filled with enough puns to keep the baby boomer generation happy.

(2004-11-12) -- U.S. President George Bush today praised Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat for "assuming a new attitude," according to a White House spokesman.

"The president believes that Chairman Arafat's new attitude is one that bodes well for peace in the Middle East," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "Arafat's rhetoric has cooled in recent days."

U.S. negotiators reportedly expect the Palestinian leader to put up less resistance to reasonable proposals, thanks to "a new posture that is more grounded, stable, consistent."

"Chairman Arafat seems to be taking an in-depth look at the land he has fought to defend," Mr. McClellan said, "and yet he's looking up to a promising future, where the grass is greener. President Bush has long believed that it's your attitude that determines your altitude, and Mr. Arafat has become a great illustration of that."


All these puns have put me in a mood, so I'll give it a try:

Mr. Arafat's spokesman said that Arafat "isn't prone to taking things lying down and hopes that the news media doesn't bury the positive results he has obtained for his people." Opposition leaders realize that Mr. Arafat is stiff competition and that they will have to try extra hard to beat such a down-to-earth public figure.

Not to shabby, it must be in my genes.

ACLU v. Religion

California Seal

Posted above is the California Seal. Perhaps its most prominent feature is the image of Minerva, the Roman Goddess of wisdom.

Recently however, the ACLU sued the County of Los Angeles to force them to remove a tiny cross from the top corner of the Los Angeles seal. The county gave in, removed the cross and also changed the Goddess Pomona to a Native American. I'm left wondering what can possibly remain. It's only a matter of time before the California Seal above is challenged because of its "violation" of the separation of church and state.

We might as well file off the words "In God We Trust" from our coinage, remove "under God" from the pledge (which has already been tried). Chaplins serving in and paid by the armed forces should retire and Congress should refrain from its customary invocations.

The main problem I think is the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the first amendment, and the adoption of the separation principle. Because of the court precedent, there is no reason the items mentioned above should remain.

Matt Comments:

The American Civil Liberties Union announces that it has intimidatedthe Pentagon into agreeing "to end direct sponsorship of hundreds ofBoy Scout units, which require members to swear religious oaths, onmilitary facilities across the United States and overseas."The ACLU press release quotes the group's Adam Schwartz: "If ourConstitution's promise of religious liberty is to be a reality, thegovernment should not be administering religious oaths ordiscriminating based upon religious beliefs." But of course, thegovernment was doing no such thing; the Boy Scouts are a privategroup. If you don't like what they stand for, don't join them.The ACLU used to be so committed to free expression that it would evenrepresent Nazis and Klansmen seeking to express their views. Butapparently they draw the line at the Boy Scouts.

Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST)

I am not making this stuff up folks.

After the election, some Dems were so distraught that they actually had to seek therapy from psychologists.

Since then, the American Health Association (AHA) has diagnosed the condition as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST). Apparently, Rush Limbaugh caught wind of the free therapy sessions being offered to treat Dems suffering from PEST and mockinly offered to give therapy himself. This caused psychologists in Florida to respond in hilarious fasion.

Boca Raton News Reports:
http://www.bocaratonnews.com/index.php?src=news&category
=Local%20News&prid=10210

Mental health officials in South Florida blasted Rush Limbaugh on Monday, saying the conservative talk show host’s offer of “free therapy” for traumatized John Kerry voters has made a mockery of a valid psychological problem.

“Rush Limbaugh has a way of back-handedly slamming people,” said Sheila Cooperman, a licensed clinician with the American Health Association (AHA) who listened Friday as Limbaugh offered to personally treat her patients. “He’s trying to ridicule the emotional state this presidential election produced in many of us here in Palm Beach County. Who is he to offer therapy?”
The Boca Raton News reported last week that more than 30 distraught Kerry supporters in South Florida contacted the non-profit AHA following their candidate’s Nov. 3 concession to President Bush. AHA officials have diagnosed the disorder as Post Election Selection Trauma (PEST) and have scheduled the first of several free group therapy sessions for just after Thanksgiving.

Cooperman, whose professional practice is based in Delray Beach, said the election-related symptoms she sees in the Kerry supporters more than quality PEST as “a legitimate syndrome or disorder within the trauma spectrum,” according to the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

“Rush Limbaugh has no clinical qualifications to counsel anyone,” Cooperman said. “He’s not only minimizing PEST, but he’s bastardizing the entire psychological field and our clinical expertise.”

Courtesy littlegreenfootballs.

A Tale of Two Campaigns

I know this is old, but it really is a must read.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6420967/site/newsweek/

Two weeks ago, Newsweek came out with its election issue, and has great articles on both Bush and Kerry from reporters that followed both parties throughout the election.

Here's one hilarious highlight, I like to call "the hairbrush story":

The morning after the Feb. 3 primaries, which vaulted Kerry into a virtually insurmountable lead, the candidate was fuming over his missing hairbrush. He and his aides were riding in a van on the way to a Time magazine cover-photo shoot. Nicholson had left the hairbrush behind. "Sir, I don't have it," he said, after rummaging in the bags. "Marvin, f---!" Kerry said. The press secretary, David Wade, offered his brush. "I'm not using Wade's brush," the long-faced senator pouted. "Marvin, f---, it's my Time photo shoot."

Nicholson was having a bad day. Breakfast had been late and rushed and not quite right for the senator. In the van, Kerry was working his cell phone and heard the beep signaling that the phone was running out of juice. "Marvin, charger," he said without turning around. "Sorry, I don't have it," said Nicholson, who was sitting in the rear of the van. Now Kerry turned around. "I'm running this campaign myself," he said, looking at Nicholson and the other aides. "I get myself breakfast. I get myself hairbrushes. I get myself my cell-phone charger. It's pretty amazing." In silent frustration, Nicholson helplessly punched the car seat.

Here's another regarding the Swift Vets attack and Kerry's response:

But as early as Aug. 5, when the Swifties were just getting traction, Edwards wanted to push back, hard. McCain had just told the Associated Press that the Swift Boat ads were "dishonest and dishonorable... the same kind of deal that was pulled on me." Edwards wanted to begin a speech, "I join with Senator McCain in calling on the president to condemn this dishonest and dishonorable ad." But Kerry headquarters said no. Stephanie Cutter, the boss of the Kerry communications shop, explained that the campaign didn't need to give the Swift Boat vets any more attention than they were already getting.

Edwards played along, but his aides were indignant. They warned the veep candidate that the story was already out of control and about to get worse. Historian Douglas Brinkley, author of a wartime biography of Kerry, cautioned that Kerry's diary included mention of a meeting with some North Vietnamese terrorists in Paris. Edwards was flabbergasted. "Let me get this straight," the senator said. "He met with terrorists? Oh, that's good."

The Politics of the Palestinian Authority

Posted by Matt aka Bear

Opinionjournal.com writes:

The Post...reports that "Fatah gunmen on Sunday evening stormed a mourning tent in Gaza City and opened fire to protest against the presence of the PLO's Mahmoud Abbas and former security ministerMuhammed Dahlan." Two Palestinian "policemen" were killed. Meanwhile, Agence France-Presse reports that European Union presidency "said it is 'very satisfied' with steps being taken by the Palestinian Authority for a smooth succession of power."

Congratulations Kofi! A new world record!!!

Roger L. Simon blogs:

Previous reports estimating skimming by Saddam and his United Nations Oil-for-Food cohorts at 10 billion dollars were off by a measly 11.3 billion bucks, according to a probe by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. It's now 21.3 billion (more than double the original estimate) and could go higher, making the Oil-for-Food Scandal the greatest heist in world history by far. Kofi & his cronies should be proud. They've earned a place in the Guinness Book of Records.

How Arafat's Obituary Should Read

The Boston Globe has a great column on the real Arafat, and how he is the modern father of terrorism.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped
/articles/2004/11/11/arafat_the_monster/

[How can the World praise a man ] who sent his agents to slaughter athletes at the Olympics, blow airliners out of the sky, bomb schools and pizzerias, machine-gun passengers in airline terminals? Who lied, cheated, and stole without compunction? Who inculcated the vilest culture of Jew-hatred since the Third Reich? Human beings might stoop to bless a creature so evil -- as indeed Arafat was blessed, with money, deference, even a Nobel Prize -- but God, I am quite sure, will damn him for eternity....

And what about those victims? Why were they scarcely remembered in this Arafat death watch?

How is it possible to reflect on Arafat's most enduring legacy -- the rise of modern terrorism -- without recalling the legions of men, women, and children whose lives he and his followers destroyed? If Osama bin Laden were on his deathbed, would we neglect to mention all those he murdered on 9/11?

It would take an encyclopedia to catalog all of the evil Arafat committed. But that is no excuse for not trying to recall at least some of it.

Perhaps his signal contribution to the practice of political terror was the introduction of warfare against children. On one black date in May 1974, three PLO terrorists slipped from Lebanon into the northern Israeli town of Ma'alot. They murdered two parents and a child whom they found at home, then seized a local school, taking more than 100 boys and girls hostage and threatening to kill them unless a number of imprisoned terrorists were released. When Israeli troops attempted a rescue, the terrorists exploded hand grenades and opened fire on the students. By the time the horror ended, 25 people were dead; 21 of them were children.

Thirty years later, no one speaks of Ma'alot anymore. The dead children have been forgotten. Everyone knows Arafat's name, but who ever recalls the names of his victims?

Here's a short, one-minute video on Arafat.
http://www.honestreporting.com/m/legacy.asp

Kofi Covers Up "Oil for Food" Scandal

Courtesy Instupundit.com, the New York Times reports that U.S. Senators are accusing Kofi Annan of blocking their fraud probe into the oil for food scandel.

Leaders of a United States Senate subcommittee investigating allegations of fraud in the oil-for-food program in Iraq have accused Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, of obstructing their inquiry.
In a letter sent to Mr. Annan yesterday, the Republican chairman and ranking Democrat on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations charged that the secretary general and a panel he appointed to conduct an independent investigation into the charges of abuses appeared to be "affirmatively preventing" the Senate from getting documents from a former United Nations contractor that inspected goods bought by Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/10/politics/10oil.html?oref=login&oref=login&oref=login

Keep in mind that the nations that most vehemently opposed the war were those who apparently were receiving the biggest kick backs from the corrupt program.

I am forced to recall the words of Robert Bork who said "there is no such thing as international law, only international politics."

In my view the UN is a morally bankrupt organization. Just look at who sits and has sat on its Human Rights Commission and Nuclear Watch Commission.

Media Takes Parting Shots at Ashcroft

Posted by Matt aka Bear

The liberal press is taking their parting shots at John Ashcroft. The
substance of their attacks shows the disconnect existing between the
media and religious America.

From the NYTimes: "The gospel-singing son of a minister, Ashcroft is a
fierce conservative who doesn't drink, smoke or dance. His detractors
said he gave religion too prominent a role at the Justice Department
-- including optional prayer meetings with staff before each work
day."

From John "gracious loser" Kerry:
Ashcroft is "one of the most divisive faces in this administration.
"With the end of the era of John Ashcroft, the president now has an
opportunity to heal those divisions and make good on his promise of
renewed bipartisan cooperation."(NYTimes.com)

Ashcroft was vilified as an opponent of civil rights, but his real
crime was religous conservatism:
In his four years at the helm of the Justice Department, Mr.
Ashcroft left his mark by promoting a variety of conservative causes.
He overruled prosecutors to push for more aggressive use of the death
penalty, expanded prosecutions for Internet pornography, advocated a
broader interpretation of gun ownership rights and subpoenaed the
medical records of abortion providers.(NYTimes.com)

But from foxnews.com:
According to a senior Justice Department official, though Ashcroft
was frequently "attacked and vilified" for allegedly ignoring civil
liberties, he was actually the voice of restraint and reason in
high-level meetings about the War on Terror, repeatedly insisting the
country would be best served by sticking to constitutional principles
in its treatment of U.S. citizens captured as enemy combatants.
Ashcroft also repeatedly disagreed with the Pentagon on how it was
treating the prisoners at Guantanamo, who also did not get lawyers or
due process, according to the official.
Ashcroft, however, was repeatedly overruled by senior White House
officials who chose to side with the Pentagon. Even though he
disagreed and had been overruled, Ashcroft "took the heat" for those
cases.

To America's liberals (esp. media), being proudly Christian, and
proudly conservative are a combination that can't be ignored or
forgiven.

Moore is Less

Did Michael Moore actually lose the election for the Dems? An editorial writer for UK's Daily Telegraph thinks so.

He writes:

Not since Moby Dick has a great white whale been so bloodily harpooned. It took a shocked Michael Moore, director of Fahrenheit 9/11, until yesterday to comment on the US election result. When he did, he made a lame joke, offering "reasons not to slit your own throat". But if John Kerry's strategists feel like slitting anyone's throat right now, it is Mr Moore's.

This was supposed to be the victory that the podgy sage of Flint, Michigan, delivered for the Democrats by winding up students into paroxysms of anti-Bush rage and propelling them into the polling booths. In the event, he achieved the first but not the second objective. The proportion of young voters did not increase on Tuesday. In the gleeful words of one anti-Moore website, "pot-smoking slackers are still pot-smoking slackers": they meant to vote Kerry but, like, couldn't get out of bed in time.

In 2000, Mr Moore's support for Ralph Nader helped lose Florida for Al Gore. This time, he boosted President Bush by outraging Middle America. Take a bow, Mike: you've done it again.

It's interesting to think that Moore might have cost Kerry the election in his zealous rage to get Bush out of the White House by any means. I'm not sure if that's what really happened but it is interesting nonetheless.

HILLARY!!! In 2008?

Already there are rumblings in the Democratic party that Hillary is the natural choice for 2008. While I do see some benefits to this to the Dems, I question whether they outweigh the negatives. Two liberal co-workers of mine thought Hillary running in 2008 wouldn't be a good idea, whereas another liberal co-worker argued that Hillary would be the one that could win over the "security moms" that voted for Bush this election.

So what more does Hillary bring to the table than Kerry?
The real question is whether Hillary will be able to win over the states that Kerry couldn't. From a democratic perspective, here are some of the Pros and Cons of having Hillary in 2008.

PROS:
1) she is already nationally known
2) she has a large chunk of the population that loves her
3) she is Senator of a large state
4) her husband practiced conservative lite and got the moderate vote

CONS:
1) she is a Senator
2) A large chunk of the population can't stand her
3) She is a northeasterner

Obviously this list is not exhaustive so feel free to post your own.

America, It's YOUR fault Bush Won!!! so says the Left

Posted by Matt aka Bear
Here's the problem with big-city liberals. They think everyone who disagrees with them is stupid. According to some viewers, during the election coverage, Chris Mathews tried to explain the south to his viewers: "Katie the south part of the country is different. People that don't live there don't understand. They believe there is WMD in Iraq. They are simple people. They are not analytical......."

Some more qoutes from the NYTimes:"I'm saddened by what I feel is the obtuseness and shortsightedness of a good part of the country--the heartland," Dr. Joseph said. "This kind of redneck, shoot-from-the-hip mentality and a very concrete interpretation of religion is prevalent in Bush country--in theheartland."New Yorkers are more sophisticated and at a level of consciousness where we realize we have to think of globalization, of one mankind,that what's going to injure masses of people is not good for us," he said.

From blogger Eric Alterman: Let's face it. It's not Kerry's fault. It's not Nader's fault (this time). It's not the media's fault (though they do bear a heavy responsibility for much of what ails our political system). It's not"our" fault either. The problem is just this: Slightly more than half of the citizens of this country simply do not care about what those of us in the "reality-based community" say or believe about anything.

And then the Euro's started: http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/http://www
.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/stevebell/
0,7371,1343074,00.html

Do they think that by insulting those Americans who voted Republican,they'll convince us to vote Democrat next time?
Also, a county by county view of "Divided America."http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/
vote2004/countymap.htm

So Much For Appeasement

courtesy LGF
Apparently, Spain voting in the Socialist government hasn't bought them security from terrorism.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/14444292?source=Daily%20Mail

A terrorist plot to bomb Real Madrid’s soccer ground, where David Beckham and Michael Owen play, has been smashed. Islamic extremists were planning the outrage at the Santiago Bernabeu stadium in a campaign against high-profile targets.
The plot was revealed by a Spanish judge yesterday after hearing evidence from the suspects. A police source said: ‘Thousands pack into Real Madrid’s ground every other weekend. It would have been a massacre.’
Two railway stations in Madrid and the city’s 516ft Picasso Tower were also on the terror list. Thirteen people were arrested last week around Spain after a gang of suicide bombers planning to blow up the Spanish parliament were held earlier.
Both groups are thought to be loosely linked to the train bombers who struck in Madrid on March 11.

A Warning to Repubs, Dems May Make a Goldwater Return

here's an insight from a liberal blog
http://www.dailykos.com/

In 1964, the Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater by 23 points. Goldwater managed to carry just 6 states and Johnson won the electoral college 486-52. But the conservatives didn't give up. They didn't spend a lot of time wringing their hands. They regrouped and fought back. By 1968, Nixon crushed Humphrey in the electoral college 301-191 and won the popular vote by a million votes. If you oppose Bush, now isn't the time to feel sorry for yourself. Now is the time to get to work.

I think the key difference though, that will prevent a Goldwater type movement from forming for the Dems is that in my opinion the republicans had a "silent majority." A majority of the population that mirrored the republicans ideology that essentially coelesced under Nixon, and gelled, under Reagan. To be successful, the Dems must have core beliefes shared by a majority of Americans, not just a few elites, intellectuals, or Hollywood.

Real Difference Between Dems and Repubs

Posted by Matt aka Bear

Kristof in the NYTimes opines:
"...the Democratic Party's first priority should be to reconnect withthe American heartland."I'm writing this... without knowing the election results. But whetherJohn Kerry's supporters are now celebrating or seeking asylum abroad,they should be feeling wretched about the millions of farmers, factoryworkers and waitresses who ended up voting - utterly against their own interests - for Republican candidates."One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last fewdecades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for taxbreaks for billionaires. Democrats are still effective onbread-and-butter issues like health care, but they come across in muchof America as arrogant and out of touch the moment the discussion shifts to values."

Here's a real difference between Dems and Repubs. The Dems don't care if you get a tax break, they just don't want one for the rich. Repubs don't care if the rich get a tax break, as long as they get one too. While the Repubs could be classified as anti-tax, the Dems are anti-rich. And thats just not a view that most of America shares.

Democrats. Time to Take a Long Hard Look in the Mirror

With nearly all the election results finally in, it is clear what side America is on. George Bush won with a decent margin, Tom Daschle lost his seat, and republicans picked up another three more in the Senate and maintained the House.

I thought Back in 2000, after Gore lost an "unlosable election" that the Dems would wise up and realize that to win, they needed to be more mainstream. Unfortunately for them, they saw otherwise and flew further out into the stratosphere of the "angry left." Picking Nancy Pelosi as the house minority leader, nominating John "left of Ted" Kerry, and supporting a wide variety of nutcases essentially sealed the deal against them.

After having suffered another crushing defeat, the Dems must go back to the drawing board. Thy can either pretend that they weren't left enough, and nominate a "Howard Dean type" or pursue a more moderate orthodoxy. One thing is for sure, the politics of hate can only take you so far.

I wish the Dems well in their search for a position that resonates with the American people.

Bin Laden's Remarks, a la Michael Moore

Posted by Matt aka Bear
From an open letter from Michael Moore, on his own website.
To George W.:

I know it's gotta be rough for you right now. Hey, we've all
been there. "You're fired" are two horrible words when put together in
that order. Bin Laden surfacing this weekend to remind the American
people of your total and complete failure to capture him was a cruel
trick or treat. But there he was. 3,000 people were killed and he's
laughing in your face. Why did you stop our Special Forces from going
after him? Why did you forget about bin Laden on the DAY AFTER 9/11
and tell your terrorism czar to concentrate on Iraq instead?
There he was, OBL, all tan and rested and on videotape (hey,
did you get the feeling that he had a bootleg of my movie? Are there
DVD players in those caves in Afghanistan?)
Speaking of my movie – can I ask you a personal question
before we part ways for good on Tuesday? Why did you and your friends
fund SIX "documentaries" trashing me -- but only ONE film against
Kerry? C'mon, he was the candidate, not me. What a waste of your time
and resources! Sure, I know what your pollsters told you, that the
film had convinced some people to vote you out. I just want you to
know that that was not my original intent. Funny things happen at the
movies. Hope you get to see a few at the multiplex in Waco. It's a
great way to relax.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?messageDate=2004-11-01

Yesterday I was talking with my wife about something that really
surprises me. The way those in the Anybody But Bush crowd will side
with anybody who hates Bush. A gay brother-in-law emailed recommending
an anti-Bush emminen video. This was the start of the surprise, since
emminem is almost as famous for his misogynist raps as he is for his
gay-bashing. Apparently necessity does makes strange bed fellows when
homosexuals will side with the homophobe.

Over the weekend, Ossama bin Laden came out with a video of his own,
that seemed to come straight from the democratic party talking points.
"Bush is a failure...the war is for oil...he stole the election from
Gore..." I wondered how the angry left felt about having Americas #1
enemy taking their side. Spoke with my wife about those thoughts...then
this morning I saw Moore's snide remarks.
Today, after seeing Moore's response, I am amazed, and sickened.
Just to remind people, Moore had a prime seat at the Dem convention,
right next to former President Carter. He is a left-wing
America-hating conspiracy-nut, but has been embraced by the party
since he turned in his "crock-umentary".
It seems that those against Bush will sink to whatever depth they
need to to defeat Bush. Many were sad at the capture of Sadam, because
it was a political advantage for Bush:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110004430
(scroll down about half way)

There is something very wrong with prefering American defeat to a
Bush victory. (Yes...all you war protesters are right...it is possible to
want an American victory and a Bush defeat...you're not unpatriotic.) But for those who
side with Americas enemies, there is no excuse. Here's a question...If bin Laden had been captured yesterday (ignoring the cries of conspiracy), would you have been happy? I have
a feeling that Moore wouldn't have been.

Sue Your Way to the White House Part IV

The RNC has issued a press-release, giving their predictions on the tactics that the Dems will employ to gain advantage in the election. You should read the whole thing, but here are excerpts.
http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5045

The Democrats’ Election Day litigation strategy has three primary objectives:
Securing special rules and extensions for the benefit of Democrats in predominately Democrat precincts.
Eliminating traditional safeguards against voter fraud, including I.D. requirements and voting in precinct.
Creating a sense of chaos, with the hope of casting a shadow of doubt over Election Day.

• As the polls open Democrats will prepare to file action to keep GOP poll monitors out of polls.
• As soon as the courts open, Democrats will file suits alleging irregularities in the voting process.
• By noon, we expect to see litigation challenging state I.D. and voting requirements.
• In the early afternoon, Democrats will begin filing to keep the polls open.
• Before the day is out, Democrats will begin to argue that every provisional ballot should be counted.

In each case, Democrats will seek out a last minute order from a friendly judge. These 11th hour challenges to longstanding state laws and statutes of bipartisan election legislation are attempts to change the rules in ways that would make it easier to engage in systematic vote fraud on Election Day.
If they are successful in keeping the polls open in Democrat precincts and eliminating traditional safeguards against voter fraud, Democrat lawyers will effectively and illegally give John Kerry the advantage.

It remains to be seen how accurate this prediction is, but here is something from south Dakota already. Apparently, Daschle has sued to stop voter "intimidation". Of course the judge was appointed by Daschle. http://www.argusleader.com/news/Tuesdayarticle1.shtml

Bush Has a Higher IQ than Kerry?

Check this out from the Brokaw Kerry Interview.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6363856/

Brokaw: "Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do."
Kerry: "That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it."

I also remember that Bush got higher grades than Al Gore did. Of course the dems will still believe Bush is a twit, but that's ok, I'd rather have them underestimate Bush, that way it hurts that much more when they lose.

courtesy Littlegreenfootballs.