Wednesday, June 30, 2004

Where's Kerry? 

Has anyone noticed that John Kerry has mysteriously vanished? I honestly have not heard a word about him since before Reagan's death.

Perhaps the Democrats should put Michael Moore and Bill Clinton on a ticket together, since they seem to be a lot more interested in the limelight than Kerry is.

Kerry seems to be following a rather cynical strategy that no press is good press. He hopes that Bush hatred will increase while there is no one to compare to the current president. He has taken a lot of stock in the media's harping that elections against incumbants are more about the incumbant than the challenger, and that Hatred-for-Bush will gaurantee any Democratic challenger victory.

This isn't overly realistic. Republicans made this assumption in 1996 when they chose Bob Dole to run against the widely disliked Bill Clinton (Few people remember that the Clinton Love-Fest was more of a 2nd term phenomenom. Hillary was the hero of the first term). Dole, however, at least gave the American public the courtesy of trying to campaign. Kerry seems to think that if he shuts up and stays out of sight, allows Moore and Gore and Teddy Kennedy to stir up Bush Hatred, then people will go out on Super Tuesday to simply vote Bush out of office.

Personally, I think the Green Party is wasting a golden opportunity. Since the Democrats are simply assuming that they will get 100% of the anti-Bush vote, now would be the golden opportunity for another Liberal/Progressive/Socialist party to reign in more support. Since most blame Nader for causing the Bush victory in 2000, the Greens seem to have shamed themselves away from participating in this election at all, which raises an interesting question. If the Greens aren't going to run for office if it means they might cost Democrats votes, why bother to exist at all?

(0) comments

Monday, June 28, 2004

Iraqi Sovereignty, and The Rebel Without A Slim-Fast  

I cannot help but wonder what the appeal Michael Moore seems to have. His latest smear job seems to be making a killing at the box office, even though from what I hear, all his contentions have already been debunked.

I suppose that watching a Michael Moore movie is probably a lot like watching a gory train wreck, or a porno flick with old, ugly women. You don't really want to watch, but dagnabbit if your curiousity doesn't get the better of you.

I think that Moore also appeals to people who consider themselves rebels, who are brave enough to speak out against the evil American government. However, it is pretty ignorant to believe that you are going against any popular current to be anti-Bush, or even anti-American. Most of the world is anti-American. By supporting an anti-American like Michael Moore, you feed the distrust the world has in the United States. The anti-American world feeds on the types of propoganda Moore loves to feed them.
In other news, President Bush totally threw a wrench in the terrorist plans today by handing sovereignty over to Iraq two days early. Now Al-Sadr will have to cancel his plans to disrupt the hand-over, and any additional attacks in Iraq will be against a Muslim people, not Americans.

Of course, I can't help thinking of the Fall of Saigon.

(0) comments

Tuesday, June 22, 2004

XXXXIV. The Chapter In Which Bubba Humps a Heffalump, and Almost Loses The Presidency 

I don't know about any of you, but I cannot wait to read Bill Clinton's autobiography. When I was little, the big fad in children's literature was fairy tales told from the villain's point of view. The Giant justified his attack on Jack, the Big Bad Wolf proclaimed his innocence in the Three Little Pigs, and the Witch discussed how she was framed in Hansel and Gretel. I see this as The Starr Report, as told by Bill Clinton. Sure, the original piece was probably mostly fictitious, but this version will be just as fictitious, and even more absurd. The fact that it is getting awful reviews only heightens my interest.
Simple Observations of the Week:

Iraqi Al Qaedans are still beheading people. The American media still beats on Abu Ghraib. At this point, I wish Bush would give a presidential pardon to everyone involved.

Michael Moore and Bill Clinton are uniting to bring out the Conservative vote this November. Kudos to them both.

After 9/11, no one knew when it was appropriate to bring down the flag. After Reagan's death, no one seems to know when to put it back up.

(0) comments

Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Conservatives Don't Think Liberals are Evil 

It seems to me that the biggest misconception that Liberals have is that Conservatives are intolerant Bible-thumpers who believe all who disagree to be on a one-way trip to Hell, do not pass Limbo, do not collect $200. I blame Jerry Falwell for this misconception.

The truth is, Conservatives usually find liberals mind-bogglingly stupid and often hypocritical, but not evil. From the Conservative point of view, Liberals intentionally blind themselves from the breathtakingly obvious.

Let us take the issue of Saddam Hussein. Throughout the Clinton presidency, we all agreed that besides China, Saddam's Iraq was the biggest standing threat to the Union. As he squelched the Kurdish rebellions, both political parties wondered why Bush '41 didn't rush to the aid of the Kurds. When Clinton bombed Iraq, everyone accepted that Saddam had WMDs.

But, when the WMDs disappeared before the US troops marched on Baghdad, Liberals suddenly decided that they never existed at all. Did the Kurds fake dying a horrid death?

Conservatives, on the other hand, wonder where exactly the WMDs went. Did Saddam sell them to another Arab nation? To terrorists? Even if he destroyed the weapons, what did he do with the debris? Anthrax spores and Serin Gases don't just vanish when you remove them from warheads.

Now, opposition to "Bush's War" is not the only time the Democrats and Liberals opt for stupidity over common sense. Take, for instance, their hatred of a missile shield to protect the US and its allies from ICBMs. They simply say "It cannot be done." If evidence shows anything to the contrary, they call it a dangerous lie.

Yet in a world where Liberals believe there is no possible defense against nuclear attacks, they don't seem to think its worth the trouble to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The UN's IAEA has been warning of this development for months, and yet no one has proposed doing anything to stop them. The same could be said for North Korea, whom Clinton allowed to build nuclear weapons theoretically capable of hitting California. Not that Bush is much better, but if Bush tried to stop North Korea or Iran, Liberals would be down his throat, saying that the only reason for the war was to lay a pipeline, or some such garbage (Lack of oil in a nation-state is not sufficient reason for Liberals to bypass the idea of wars being about oil. Afghanistan is oil-free, and in many leftist minds, that war was an oil war).

Now, how does this preference for ignorance manifest itself in Liberals? Through the complete lack of will to debate. Liberals resort to name-calling. They call Republicans and Conservatives "bigots" if they question the merits of Affirmative Action, gay marriages, abortion, or any other social engineering project they design to enforce an unreachable goal of total equality.

In turn, they falsely accuse Republicans of questioning their patriotism on a regular basis. John Kerry is notorious for this. Whenever anyone brings up his record on defense spending, he takes it as a jab against his patriotism. Now, I doubt even Rush Limbaugh would equate a vote against Missile Defense as being motivated by some secret hope that America gets nuked (although, I can't say I'd put it past Ann Coulter).

So, my advice to Liberals is that they need to stop projecting an image of stupidity. Don't run from debate, and when you do debate, do so with facts instead of opinions. And certainly stay away from name-calling. Only with honest intellectual debate will anyone learn anything. And that includes Conservatives. Heaven knows our ranks are filled with morons too.

(0) comments

Friday, June 11, 2004

One last comment on Reagan 

I have to give the Republicans credit, they didn't turn the Reagan funeral into a political rally, like the Democrats did when Paul Wellstone died. Very wise, since it would certainly have cost Bush the election, and very appropriate, because Reagan was very effective at reaching across party lines, even if he was a hard-core conservative.

Hopefully, we will see Reagan's dream for America come true in our lifetime.

(0) comments

Monday, June 07, 2004


President Reagan is only the second president to die during my lifetime, and boy, people are taking it a lot more seriously than Nixon's death. The interesting thing is, everyone seems to love him now, but ten years ago, he was considered an evil Conservative, a Hitleresque warmonger who delighted in tormenting the poor. Much like someone else.

(0) comments

Friday, June 04, 2004

Single Terms 

I think we have reached a point where we need to go to extreme measures to end the partisanship in this country. That is why I think it is time that we consider amending the Constitution to limit presidents to a single six year term.

George W. Bush has been compared to Hitler constantly since he took office. There are a couple reasons for this. First of all, the Democrats are simply trying to get revenge for the way the Republicans attacked Clinton. Of course, everything the Republicans said of Clinton proved to be true, whereas the things said about Bush are usually pure fantasy.

The other reason Bush has been demonized, however, is for political expediency. The Democrats knew there was no way they could win a fair election against an incumbant with a 91% approval rating. Therefore, they decided the only way to regain power was to villainize Bush through any means. Since Hillary held that infamous New York Post with the headline "BUSH KNEW", the Democrats have waged a non-stop assault on the president, questioning his motives from all his proposals, from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to the mission to Mars.

By limiting a president to a single term, there would be less of this partisan bickering. The opposition party would simply accept that they can just wait the incumbant out, and then push a better candidate of their own. If the Democrats had not felt a need to demonize Bush after 9/11, the country would be in a much better position today.

This will also create other benefits. Presidents will not need to spend time campaigning for re-election and therefore will be less susceptible to influence by lobbyist money. Also, the incumbant's party would be able to rotate some fresh blood into the executive seat. After all, even us Bush fans wonder if how Giuliani or McCain would do in Bush's spot

(0) comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?