Friday, October 29, 2004
Alabama: Bush easily. Hillbillies love their Hillbilly president. 9 votes
Arkansas: Bush easily. Clinton won't be enough to save Kerry. 6 votes
Arizona: Bush easily. Ever since McCain finally told Kerry to buzz off, Bush had this won. 10 votes.
California: Kerry easily. Kerry's ace in the hole, an easy 55 votes from a state totally disengaged from reality. 55 votes
Colorado: Bush slightly. Also removed from reality, these guys won't take kindly to the idea that Kerry might take their guns. When they see Michael Moore stumping for Kerry, the don't think of Farenheight 911, they think about Bowling for Columbine. 9 votes
Connecticut: Kerry easily. Kerry is a stereotypical New Englander, so New Englanders don't understand any of the criticism of their guy. 7 votes
District of Columbia: Kerry easily. Just remember, these morons keep voting in Marion Barry, and are using the funds for schools to build a baseball stadium. 3 votes
Delaware: Kerry slightly. The displaced Marylanders will outvote the displaced Virginians. 3 votes
Florida: Bush slightly, but enough to avoid that crap. You know what I mean! 27 votes.
Georgia: Bush easily. Newt Gingrich's influence FAR trumps Max Cleland's, who became a giant crybaby when he was voted out. Zell Miller's appeals to Reagan Democrats only solidifies the deal. 15 votes
Hawaii: Bush? The fact that he even stands a chance here makes me think he somehow energized a hidden base. 4 votes
Iowa: Bush slightly. Since Kerry keeps having to reassure his base in states that should be easily his, Bush has had more time to campaign here. 7 votes
Idaho: Bush easily. These are the potato-popping northerner version of Alabamans. 4 votes.
Illinois: Kerry easily. As Richard Nixon found out, even when the Republican wins in Illinois, he loses. The Illinois Democratic motto: Vote Early, Vote Often!, is what gave us the fabled presidency of John F. Kennedy. 21 votes
Indiana: Bush easily. Those NasCar dads you keep hearing about? This is their Mecca. 12 votes
Kansas: Bush easily. Bob Dole says Kerry is full of shit! Bob Dole's state agrees! 6 votes
Kentucky: Bush easily. See Alabama. 8 votes
Louisiana: Bush slightly. The French influence on their culture may make some people support Kerry, but that same Frenchness will make them fear the repurcussions of neighboring Texas if they dare. 9 votes
Massachussets: Kerry easily. Unless the Boston Red Sox endorse Bush. Come to think of it, their pitcher has. 12 votes
Maryland: Kerry easily. The People's Republic of Maryland would sooner vote for Saddam Hussein than Bush. The likelihood of this state going to Bush is even less than that of a Maryland driver being able to stay in his lane on a straight road, or the Terrapins not choking in the 4th Quarter. 10 votes
Maine: Kerry easily. In the case of these Massachusetts Hillbillies, the Massachusetts influence trumps the Hillbilly influence. 4 votes
Michigan: Kerry slightly. The unions won't stand for a Bush victory. 17 votes
Minnesota: Kerry slightly. They may still remember the Wellstone Funeral, but Ventura's endorsement of Kerry, as ringing as it was, will probably be enough to swing the state for him. 10 votes.
Missouri: Bush easily. Dunno why anyone ever thought this would be a competative state. 11 votes.
Mississippi: Bush easily. Haley Barbour controls all the politics in this state. 6 votes
Montana: Bush easily. The epitome of flyover country, Kerry's not given them any particular reason to vote for him. Probably decided it wasn't worth the trouble for their electoral value. 3 votes
North Carolina: Bush easily. These people love Bush and hate John Edwards, their homegrown VP candidate. 15 votes
North Dakota: Bush easily. See Montana. 3 votes
Nebraska: Bush easily. The only thing that keeps Democrats alive in Nebraska is the fear that Republicans will hurt their farm subsidies, and Bush shoved enough pork into their farm legislation to alleviate all fears. 5 votes.
Nevada: Kerry slightly. Yeah, polls say Bush is winning, but at the end of the day, his administration is trying to dump nuclear waste there. 4 votes.
New Hampshire: Kerry slightly. This used to be the safe haven for Conservatives in New England, but now its where New Englanders move to escape the insane taxes their liberalism creates, thus destroying the Utopia they hoped to flee to. Umm, yeah. 4 votes
New Jersey: Bush slightly. Corrupt Democrat Governor puts homosexual poet lover in top homeland security post in state. 9/11 memories still linger. As much as New Jerseyians love the corruption in politics (and there is no sarcasm there, they really do) this might have been far enough over the edge to push the Republicans into favor. 15 votes
New Mexico: Bush slightly. The ghost of Miguel Estrada's political career will haunt the Democrats. Latinos didn't take kindly to the idea of an anti-Latino litmus test for judgeships, which the Democrats almost blatantly leaked during that whole disgrace. 5 votes
New York: BUSH?????!!!! ARE YOU MAD?! No, I simply think that Ground Zero will remember Bush's performance on 9/11, even if it isn't trendy for the New Yorkers to speak of it. In addition, Giuliani and Pataki hold strong influence in New York, and Bloomburg hasn't done anything especially embarrassing recently. Of course, not all of New York is the city, and the upstate part tends to automatically reject what the city endorses, which at least vocally, is John Kerry. 31 votes.
Ohio: Kerry easily. Yeah, its traditionally Republican. But I think the Republicans put so much stock in believing Ohio was their key to victory that Kerry used extraordinary amounts of political capital to lock this one up. Perhaps too much. 20 votes
Oklahoma: Bush easily. Also known as Texas, Jr. 7 votes
Oregon: Kerry easily. The Hillbillies in this state don't vote. They hide in their shacks waiting for the day the government dares steal their proper-tai. As a result, the displaced Californians will give this to Kerry. 7 votes
Pennsylvania: Kerry slightly. Union thugs as bad as in Michigan, combined with voters in Philly and Pittsburg almost as stupid as those in DC. 23 votes
Rhode Island: Kerry easily. See Connecticut. 4 votes
South Carolina: Bush easily. Just like North Carolina. 8 votes
South Dakota: Bush easily. Possibly, he'll take Daschle out in the process. Remember him? 3 votes.
Tennessee: Bush easily. He beat Gore in Tennessee, and Gore was FROM Tennessee! Kerry is a dirty Yankee. Do the math. 11 votes.
Texas: Bush easily. Don't Mess with Texas! 34 votes
Utah: Bush easily. A wise man once said that it's easier to find a Black Republican than a Liberal Mormon. 5 votes.
Virginia: Bush easily. Democrats blew their chance here. If Kerry picked Mark Warner as his running mate, the egotistical Virginians would have definitely voted him in. Instead, he sends his Carolinian running mate here a couple times, and seems surprised when Virginia sleeps through it. With the gun-lovers dominating the Southern part of the state and the military influence in the North and the coast, not even the trial lawyers can overcome the Republican influence.... at least, not through their votes. 13 votes.
Vermont: Kerry easily. The land of Howard Dean will scream bloody murder if Bush wins. 3 votes
Washington: Kerry easily. Democrat Patty Murray praised Osama bin Laden and will still win reelection. Jim McDermott actively defended Saddam Hussein before the Iraqi War. The Republicans in the state are engaged in the same activities as the Republicans in Oregon. 11 votes
Wisconsin: Bush slightly. This will be this year's Florida. If so, I say we give them to Canada and be done with them! 10 votes
West Virginia: Bush easily. Gore lost this for the Democrats forever, although I don't know what he did to piss them off so much. I think FoxNews' constant harping on Sen. Bob Byrd's KKK allegiance may have smacked down a lot of the Black support for the Democratic Party in general, and the Union thugs have weakened their influence in this state. 3 votes.
Wyoming: Bush easily. The dirty secret here is that no one but Dick Cheney actually lives in Wyoming, so he controls all three electoral votes. 3 votes.
OVERALL: Bush 306, Kerry 232
OVERALL, w/ Kerry getting NY and HI: Bush 271, Kerry 267.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
For the last four years, in absence of a coherent vision of their own on how to govern the country, the Democrats have resorted to shouting endless slander toward the current administration. With all the hatred toward Bush and his supporters, I think it is well past time that someone puts together a defense of his policies. Simplistic, with as little partisan spin as possible, to justify why 50% of Americans support the reelection of the man who has been unjustly demonized by his domestic opponents.
9/11 and Afghanistan
On that tragic day, George Bush showed us what true leadership is. The new 9/11 world was defined for me while Bush gave a pep speech to the rescue workers. One of the workers shouted, “We can’t hear you!” Bush responded, “Well I can hear you! And soon, the people who did this will hear you! And the whole world will hear you!” Bush made sure that our allies and our enemies heard and understood our mission, and proved that he would not let America be deterred by either enemies, or even shaky allies.
The supposedly unilateral Bush united the UN, at least temporarily, to combat terrorism in all its forms. NATO came to our aid, China allowed us use of its airspace, and Russia promised not to oppose any action we chose to take. No other president in history arranged such international cooperation. Even Arafat knew he had to tread softly, and gave blood in New York.
Bill Maher famously said “All Bush had to do to win the War in Afghanistan was point at a map and say ‘bomb that!’” How disrespectful to the troops and their commanders, who came up with brilliant tactics to take out the Taliban with minimum American and civilian Afghan casualties! The fact is, the Afghanistan mission was probably one of the most brilliant campaigns in the history of warfare! Kabul was taken in less than three weeks. And for all three of those weeks, remember, the press told us we were losing the war.
Despite the Western press, the Afghan campaign has been a resounding success, with their first ever election held successfully this October. Warlords may still hold some control, but they have not interfered in the least with the fledgling government in Kabul, and you can bet they know what fate belies them if they dare harbor al Qaeda.
When Bush said that you were either for us or for the terrorists, he sent a clear message to all our enemies abroad. And very few of them actively chose the terrorists. One of these few was Saddam Hussein.
The initial war was an unimaginable success. We took Baghdad quickly, with the war starting on March 21 and Baghdad coming under Allied control on April 6. This is despite our own press destroying morale on both the battlefield and at home by claiming we were losing the war. No Iraqis were willing to fight and die for Saddam’s regime, not even his so-called elite Republican Guard. The resistance the Allies did receive was largely from foreign fighters bent on either maintaining a status quo (Syria) or hoping to be able to take over the country absent of Saddam (al Qaeda, Iran). However, against the American troops, they melted like butter in the desert sun.
Did Saddam have weapons of mass destruction? He did at some point. He murdered hundreds of thousands of Kurds with them. Saddam Hussein launched about 40 gas attacks against Kurdish targets in 1987-88, using a mixture of Mustard gas and nerve gases like sarin gas, tabun gas, and VX gas. Mustard gas blisters the skin, throat membranes, and lungs. Nerve gas agents destroy the brain’s ability to control the body, causing slow, painful death by asphyxiation. In addition, if not for Israel’s intervention, Saddam would have developed nuclear weapons in the mid 1980s.
After 9/11, Saddam began to openly fund terrorists, most notably the suicide bombers in Israel. Saddam praised the attacks upon America, and encouraged more. Worst of all, he would not allow the United Nations to send weapons inspectors back into Iraq, so we had nothing but his word that he lacked WMDs.
Bush believed that we could not afford to trust Saddam on such an important matter, so he tried to create a coalition in the UN. The UN baited Bush along for 14 months, acting as if they’d get tough with Saddam, and then backed down whenever deadlines approached. With American troops on the border, Saddam did allow inspectors back into his country, in a desperate attempt to save his regime. However, since he had a better part of a year to hide his weaponry, it was a charade to believe anyone would ever find them.
Iraq is still a sore spot, but the fact is, Saddam was one of the worst dictators in the post-Hitler world. Not only that, he was an expansionist dictator. He tried to expand his borders to envelop Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia, so that he would dominate all of the Mid-East oil. There was only one power standing in his way, the United States. And eventually, Saddam would have tried to neutralize that threat.
Moreover, while Saddam had no ties to 9/11, he had solid ties to the al Qaeda network, to Islamic Jihad, to Hamas, and to the PLO. All are noted terrorist organizations, which in the past have targeted American interests. While Saddam himself was secularist, he had no troubles allying with religious extremists in order to advance his aims.
If Bush backed down from the War, and the inspectors found no WMDs (and they wouldn’t have, since we can’t even find them now), Iraqi sanctions would have been lifted. Without any international oversight, Saddam would have quickly resumed his quest for weapons. Or if he did not, then one of his demented sons would have.
By taking out Saddam, we destroyed the notion of Arab unity, since there was no other nationalistic leader they’d rally behind against us. Other dictators in the region received an important message from the Iraq War, too. If you mess with the United States, we will take you out, and it doesn’t matter what France, Germany, or Russia say about the matter.
Iraq is poised to hold elections in January, which will help legitimize the government in the eyes of the world. Prime Minister Allawi was not the man America backed to lead Iraq, but he understands what America sacrificed for his nation. For this, John Kerry called him a puppet leader on national television, where no doubt al Jazeera picked it up and translated back to the Iraqis.
Our press keeps telling us that we are losing horribly in Iraq, but our military tells us differently. Personally, I trust my friends who have returned from Iraq over Dan Rather.
Dictators and Terrorists
George Bush has toppled no less than four dictators in his four years in office.
1.) Mullah Omar and the Taliban
2.) Saddam Hussein, as well as his heirs, Uday and Qusay.
3.) Charlie Taylor of Liberia
4.) Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti, whom Kerry believed should have received American protection.
In addition, the Philippines branch of al Qaeda was eliminated to the man, a military operation carried out while we were also engaged in Afghanistan
Al-Sadr, the Iranian puppet in Iraq, has been forced to lay down his arms. As I write this, American and Iraqi troops are closing in on al Qaeda loyalist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Fallujah, one of the most solid links between Saddam’s regime and Osama bin Laden.
Muammar Gaddafi, who after 9/11 became an outspoken critic of the United States, fell in line after Saddam’s capture, and relinquished his WMD program. Some rumors claim that Gaddafi’s WMD program may actually be Saddam’s relocated weapons.
Osama bin Laden
He is dead, and we’ll never find the body. Think about it, when was the last time we heard anything from him? After 9/11, he was producing daily messages to give us the finger, essentially. The last time we heard from bin Laden was in Tora Bora. We heard his communications over the radio. Then, we dropped a bunker buster bomb on where we thought he was hiding, and all we heard from the radio was static as an entire mountain fell upon the former terror mastermind. We never heard from Osama bin Laden again. Ever.
So, the logical assumption the American Media made was... he escaped. The End
Arafat endorsed Kerry. Enough said.
Due to the uncertainty of the 2000 Election and the bursting of the dotcom bubble, Bush came to office during the greatest stock market crash since the 1920s. Things only got worse after 9/11, when the financial capital of the world was attacked head-on. Due to the decisive leadership of George Bush, George Pataki, and Rudy Giuliani, the economic damage was very well contained.
George Bush, who received an MBA from Harvard, follows the Chicago School of Economics. This means he believes in the power of the free market, but is willing to use government funds to encourage the market when it is in danger. This is exactly what he did after 9/11.
When the value of stocks plummeted after 9/11, Bush quickly introduced a plan to accelerate depreciation of value on real estate. What does this mean? In easy terms, it means that owners of property could write off the loss of value of their property more quickly. This led directly to the current real estate boom that still sustains our economy.
Of course, our economy does not thrive on real estate alone. Right now, our economy is growing faster than it has in over 20 years, faster than even under Ronald Reagan, due to the Bush tax cuts. Unemployment is around 5.4%, which is what it was under most of the Clinton years. Unlike the Clinton years, however, this is a sustainable rate, because it is not artificially inflated by crooked Enron-like companies using magic accounting, or shady dotcoms destined to crash.
Most importantly of all, Bush is the only candidate who we can seriously trust to protect us from foreign enemies
It is important to note that since 9/11, America has not been directly attacked on its soil. Not once. Remember, after the attacks, we assumed that we’d have to endure years of terrorism, on a scale of that of Israel. We assumed life would change forever. But it hasn’t. Why?
Decisive action. The Patriot Act, for example. Since we’ve given our law enforcement the means to detect terrorist activities before they ready to pull off the attacks. Our enemies have seemingly decided that its not worth trying to attack us here, so instead, they target our allies, who refuse to take actions to defend against the true threat. Spain, Australia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, all fall victim. Yet we, the number one target, have been spared. The simple answer is they know they cannot touch us, so they don’t even try anymore. However, since some polls don’t like the Patriot Act, Kerry would repeal it, leaving us vulnerable to our enemies.
In addition, by punishing our enemies abroad, in Afghanistan and Iraq, the terrorists are having trouble finding state sponsors for their acts. Osama may have been rich, but he couldn’t have possibly financed al Qaeda on his own. The wealth it takes to finance a global terror network cannot be raised by a single individual, but by the cooperation of many nation-states and businesses. In Iraq, we showed there is a high cost in supporting terror. This difficulty may lift quickly if the dovish Kerry takes office.
There are obviously many more reasons why we should trust George W. Bush over John Kerry, both domestically and internationally, and probably even a couple areas where Kerry is more qualified than Bush. However, all of these pale in comparison to issues such as defense, the economy, and the War on Terror. On issues where it matters, George Bush is so far ahead, that voting for Kerry would be a betrayal of conscience and common sense.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
Essentially, back around 1918, the Boston Red Sox were the unquestioned greatest team in baseball. One of their star players was the legendary Babe Ruth, whom in 1918 was traded away so that the Red Sox owner, Harry Frazee, would have some extra cash to spend on outside projects. Since then, the Red Sox have never won a single world series, whereas the team who acquired Ruth, the New York Yankees, have gone from zero World Series victories to a whopping 26 (Oh, and so I don't get sued, all this information was directly plagiarized from http://www.bambinoscurse.com/whatis/). Of course, the BoSox still need to win their next series to defeat the curse entirely.
I've had my own theory on a local sports curse. Essentially, here in DC, we are jynxed because we tampered with tradition in the name of political correctness. About 12 years ago, some dipshits in the DC City Council decided the Washington Bullets was too violent a name for a DC sports team, and that DC would greatly be improved by changing that name (keep in mind that DC had recently re-elected a mayor who was caught smoking crack with a whore on national television). Thus was born the Washington Wizards. And since then, every damn Washington sports team has sucked!* The Redskins, the Wizards, the Capitals, all pure crap, all a disgrace to their respective sports. Jordan himself tried and failed to save the Wizards, and Joe Gibbs is failing to revive the Redskins. I say, let's change the "Wizards" back to the "Bullets" and see if things improve. And for the love of God, let's NOT put a political message in the name of our baseball team!
Speaking of the Redskins (kinda), there is an interesting legend concerning them. Essentially, if they win their last home game before the election, then the incumbant will win. Four years ago, they lost in overtime, much like the election itself. This year, the unimpressive but misunderestimated Redskins will be facing off against the equally unimpressive Green Bay Packers. Both teams have been having a horrible year. The plus side is, the Redskins have a by this week, whereas the Packers have to play the Dallas Cowboys, Bush's hometown team. Hopefully, Dallas will support their boy by causing as many injuries to Green Bay as possible, while the Redskins get to heal all the wounds they've accumulated this season. If not, our nation may be in deep trouble. Kerry may win the presidency, all because some jackass didn't like the name "Bullets."
*editors note: The DC United had a few decent seasons in there, but to make this argument, you need to make the illogical assumption that soccer is a sport.
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Friday, October 15, 2004
In politics, all things are fair save two: parents and children.
Connie Chung's career never recovered after she tricked Newt Gingrich's mother into calling Hillary Clinton a bitch on the air. Chung assured Ms. Gingrich into thinking that the remark was off the record. However, she intentionally left the camera rolling. The little old lady assuredly told the world that her son repeatedly referred to Hillary as a bitch.
No one, not even Hillary, cared about the real story. They did care that a little old lady was abused in the name of politics.
Early in the Clinton Administration, Saturday Night Live had Chris Farley play the role of Chelsea. According to Phil Hartman, Bill Clinton himself aggressively put an end to that. And he was right to do it.
Now, Edwards and Kerry have insisted on making Mary Cheney's sexuality an issue. When Edwards first brought it up, most people probably thought it a faux-pas, and gave him a pass. However, when Kerry brought it up a second time, it was obvious that this was an obvious political move. The gaffe turned the debate from a dead tie to a firm victory for Bush.
Kerry has been losing support from mothers, the infamous Soccer Moms. Mocking children and the parenting skills of the second family is certainly the worst possible way to regain that vote.
Christopher Reeves. A hero? Not really. Heroes tend to work for selfless goals. Reeves worked for one thing: his own cure. Did he give a damn about parapalegics before he became one? Not that I remember.
Reeves was kind of a whiny bitch. He thought that if we, the taxpayers, didn't give billions toward stem cell research, which private investment has largely rejected due to the unlikeliness of success, that we were all fascists who conspired to keep him from walking. I didn't tell him to get on that horse when he clearly wasn't able to handle it, so why should I waste my tax money, on an ethically questionable procedure, which most legitimate experts believe is a dead end?
Sunday, October 10, 2004
First of all, what did the anti-war people say about the sanctions before Gulf War II? As I recall, they were not all that supportive of them. The people in Iraq were suffering under sanctions! Why, America was committing genocide, via the sanctions! Evil Americans were allowing Saddam to use Oil-For-Food funds to build palaces, while the people were unable to survive under the harsh conditions of sanctions.
Due to the anti-warist views of the time, the sanction system was breaking down. The United Nations used the Oil-For-Food to allow Saddam to offer bribes to business and political leaders of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and even Kofi Annan himself. As John McCain pointed out at the Republican Convention, sanctions were well on their way of breaking down.
And even if the sanctions in Iraq were healthy, that means jack shit. We've had sanctions on Cuba since the 50s, but in the 70s, Cuba invaded sovereign South American and African nations.
So, worst case scenerio, we took Saddam out early. Would ANYONE have rather waited until he had mustard gas to use on our troops, or small pox to use on our civilian populace? Yes. France and Germany, who believe they would benefit from a weaker America, and the Terrorists, who want to spread Talibanism worldwide.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Honestly, there is only one logical, effective response. We need to tell the world, on Arab television, that for every westerner or coalition partner beheaded in Iraq, we will execute someone at Guantanemo. And we need to air it on al Jazeera.
Now, for all you moralists out there, I contend that we don't even really have to go through with it. With our Hollywood special effects, we can fake the whole damn thing. Essentially, we make fake snuff films, we have fake interviews with actors portraying the family (who will blame the entire mess on the terrorists, rather than the US government).
The reason the beheadings continue is because the terrorists think there are no adverse consequences to their actions. They may not get what they want, but neither do they lose anything. My plan would end that.
Sure, the international press would suck, but I think the Koreans and Japanese and Poles and Italians would appreciate revenge carried out for all their lost citizens, don't you think?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Turns out that Saddam didn't make any weapons in Iraq since 1991. Since the war was wrong, perhaps we should free Saddam? After all, wouldn't want to unjustly imprison this man. In another 20 years, he may be as popular as Mendela.
If Bush loses reelection, will he just fade into obscurity, like his father did? Or will he become an annoying loudmouth like Carter and Clinton? Bush may return to the business world, or try to unseat Bud Selig as commissioner of baseball. However, I seem to think that the pro-Bush crowd is a bullheaded as the Bush-haters, and may not allow him to fade away. When Barry Goldwater was defeated, he toned himself down and was practically a liberal by the time he left the Senate. I don't think that will happen to Bush.
My hypothesis is that Bush may try to pull off a Grover Cleveland. If America-Under-Kerry suffers from multiple terror attacks, we may see people demanding Bush run again, whether he wants to or not. Now, lets get this straight, the first 9/11 type attack that happens under Kerry will be blamed on Bush. No question on that. However, if multiple attacks occur, and Kerry is unwilling to address the problem (pacifist that he is), then we may honestly see some demand for a return to a successful war leader.
Of course, it is also very possible that we may demand someone more hawkish than Bush. Let's face it, Bush is obsessed with trying to get the world to approve of what we're doing in Iraq, and he isn't doing what needs to be done to win a decisive victory, like we did in Afghanistan.
I've noticed during the VP Debate that John Edwards used the term Nuke-U-Lar several times. Since that obviously disqualifies someone from being president in the eyes of the elitist Left, I suppose Kerry will have to pick a new running mate. Better not be Jimmy Carville, though. He says it the same way.
Jon Bennett, signing off