| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kneecapping Barack Obama at every opportunity. | ||
Many conservatives, myself included, would probably be accused of anti-intellectualism because we, like William F. Buckley, "would rather be governed by the first 300 names in the Boston telephone book than by the faculty of Harvard University".
However, I believe the term "anti-intellectualism" is a misnomer. Conservatives aren't hostile to intellectuals per se, many of us simply don't place them on a pedestal like many other people do. In other words, we're of the belief that an Ivy League professor isn't necessarily any more qualified than a garbage man or waitress to comment on issues that are outside of their area of expertise.
Now, why do I say that?
Because we live in an age of very specialized knowledge.
Take an über-genius who may be the world's foremost expert on chemistry. That same person may very well be unable to fix his own car, answer basic questions about politics, or even program his own VCR.
Put another way, if you had to pick a manager for your Burger King Franchise that you just bought, who do you think would be the better choice: a Harvard business professor with a 180 IQ & 20 years of teaching experience or a guy who dropped out of high school in the 8th grade, but who also ran the most successful WalMart in his state for 3 years? See, I'd take the drop out in a heartbeat because he has proven himself in the real world, whereas the professor hasn't.
You may think that's an insult to college professors, but it's not. It's just an acknowledgement that teaching a bunch of 18 year old students and debating with other college professors isn't the same thing as actually applying your knowledge in a real world situation, with employees, real customers, and money on the line every day. Some professors and/or intellectuals can make that transition from the world of theory and some can't. That's just how human beings are.
This is where the so-called "anti-intellectualism" comes in, not only in business, but in politics. Dropping a bunch of 25 cent words into every conversation, spending your afternoons reading Sartre, or having a couple of PhDs doesn't necessarily mean you're a great leader, worthy of someone's vote, or even someone who's necessarily worth paying much attention to on most matters.
Heck, being an "intellectual" can even be a big disadvantage if you start believing your own hype, hole up in an "ivy tower", and think that because you know more than everyone else in your own specialized field, that you're just as competent on every other subject. That sort of intellectual arrogance, which isn't the least bit unusual by the way, can lead to people who are geniuses buying into ridiculous theories that any average person could figure out won't work -- like Communism for example =D.
So accuse conservatives of "anti-intellectualism" if you like, but I'd argue that if that word fits, it's only because we've had an opportunity to weigh the merits of comments made by many "intellectuals" on a variety of issues and have found them to be wanting...
Players Chug Beer at References to Military Service
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry’s acceptance speech at the Democratic national convention last night inspired Democrats nationwide and a popular drinking game, with revelers taking pulls from their beers every time Mr. Kerry referred to his military service.
Donny Timlin, a frequent patron at the T.G.I. Friday’s in downtown Tulsa, Oklahoma, was one of many drinkers across the country who participated in the chugging contest based on Mr. Kerry’s nationally televised address.
According to the rules of the game, participants were to take one pull from their beer every time Mr. Kerry said the word “veteran,” two when he said “Vietnam,” and three when he said “band of brothers.”
Watching Mr. Kerry on the bar’s widescreen TV, Mr. Timlin acknowledged that the drinking game was far more challenging than he originally thought it would be: “Dude’s just ten minutes into his speech and I’m already wasted.”
In other convention news, actor Ben Affleck was ejected from the Fleet Center in Boston after Democratic Party officials feared that his long-running losing streak at the box office might spread to the Kerry-Edwards ticket in the fall.
While party officials downplayed talk of an “Affleck curse,” insiders acknowledged that the actor’s presence at the convention had become an unwelcome distraction.
“Maybe it’s the lingering effects of ‘Gigli,’ but every time Ben walked into the building the bomb-sniffing dogs went crazy,” one insider said.
Finally, Sen. John Edwards retracted his statement about there being two Americas, saying that he had gotten that information from Mapquest.
If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at The Borowitz Report.
A running theme that a lot of liberals love to hit on is how stupid most of the American people are compared to left-wingers. Yes, many of the same intellectual powerhouses who believe we invaded Afghanistan for oil, went to Iraq so "Bush could git revenge fur his daddy", and think Communism could work if it was "done right", are of the opinion that everyone in America who disagrees with them is an ignoramus.
You've heard this sort of thing before from the archetype of a liberal Democrat, Michael Moore, but here are some more similar sentiments from run-of-the mill lefties at the Democratic Underground.
PS:This comments from this thread will tell you a lot more about what liberals really think than that phony Democratic convention...
mopaul: Original message -- are MOST Americans as stupid as bush?
for all of our history, presidents have been the most intelligent men we could find generally speaking. a good speaker, a good command of the language, a good understanding of the world. but bush is at about the 4th grade level emotionally and intellectually.
some think that this is deliberate. put in a stupid man for the stupid people, what difference does it make? they are so stupid, they'll see it as a positive thing, a stupid man for us stupid @sses.
we need a man who is at least as intelligent as we who are smart enough to go vote. but we were given, and we accepted, an idiot.
this administration will long be remembered as the ones who deliberately put the world's stupidest man in charge, so they could rape us all."
depakote_kid: "Wasn't it Eisenhower who was "shocked" to hear that 1/2 of all Americans had below average intelligence?
Of course, it depends on who you include in the population... if we're talking all of Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, it could be considerably more than 1/2."
Bowline: "I believe a great majority of Americans believe the last thing they hear. The ones that do bother to vote will simply check the name of the candidate whom they last saw a commercial for.
It doesn't matter anyway. With the new electronic voting systems coming on line the election will be so rigged it'll look like Chicago in the 1960s. Dead people voting, precincts showing 120% turnout, and since there is no paper trail to audit we're gonna get the candidate THEY chose for us, regardless of who we actually vote for."
dennis4868 "IT WORRIES ME....when the president is not as smart as I am....yikes!"
kodi: "most americans are dumber than bush & if that don't scare ya' nothing will lets face it, the traditional american antagonism towards living a life of the mind is constantly butressed by a propaganda of the right that makes "intellectualism" seem foreign....read "french" in kerry's case. the dumber the people, the easier it is to sway them towards one's will."
As I turned off Adam Sandler's "50 First Dates" and turned to John Kerry blabbing about "trees being cathedrals", his dad, and his "pride in freedom"....I pondered the reported 55 minute length of Kerry's speech and was tempted to go back to the movie. But, I plodded on and did my duty as a blogger and listened to the whole speech. In retrospect, I wouldn't have missed much by finishing the movie.
Sadly, this whole convention, the speech included, has been as dull and amorphous as Kerry's campaign. Listening to Democrats talk about their "optimism", how much they love middle-class tax cuts, playing "Amazing Grace", and talking about how tough they're going to be on terrorism is...I'm tempted to say hilarious or odd, but actually the best word would be "representative" of how the Kerry campaign has been run so far.
After Howard Dean imploded, Democrats turned to John Kerry not because they loved him, but because they viewed him as "electable". Perhaps unsurprisingly given how he got the nomination, John Kerry's campaign up until this point has almost entirely consisted of talking about his time in Vietnam & claiming that he'd do the same things that Bush would -- except better!
Kerry's pick for VP, John Edwards, was selected primarily because he's pretty and slick, JFK's unimpressive 20 year record in the Senator is hardly mentioned, time after time we've been treated to Kerry & his surrogates complaining about non-existent attacks on their patriotism, & John Edwards keeps carping about imaginary little girls who're going all winter without a coat they can buy at Goodwill for $5.
Meanwhile, outside of the fog bank that is the Kerry campaign, Al Gore is raving about "digital brownshirts", Michael Moore who sat beside of Jimmy Carter at the convention is accusing the President of invading Afghanistan for oil, Kerry's supporters at MoveOn are posting ads accusing the President of being a Nazi on the front page of their website, Whoopi Goldberg is making Bush jokes while pointing at her crotch during Kerry fund raisers, and 93% of the delegates at the DNC are against the war in Iraq.
In other words, John Kerry's campaign thus far -- the "Republican-lite" convention included -- has had very little to do with his voting record, with the Democratic Party he leads, or how even his own supporters believe he's going to govern if he's elected. And anyone with even a cursory knowledge of politics isn't going to have much trouble figuring that out once they start paying attention.
That's why I believe that when it gets right down to it, the American people, in a time of war, are not going to pull the lever for a cypher who's willing to portray himself as anything they want him to be to get their votes, especially when there's a strong, politically savvy, candidate on the other side and the economy's good. We'll find out in November if I'm right...
*** Update #1 ***: More from Dick Morris on the Kerry speech...
"He opened up his talk with a lengthy and evocative description of his childhood and what it was like growing up in divided Berlin. He told us of the "goose bumps" he remembers getting when the band struck up "Stars and Stripes Forever."
Then, after this long rendition of his childhood, he tells us at length what it was like to serve in Vietnam for the four months that he was there. So far, so good.
But then he spent only about one minute talking about what he has done since.
Beyond a brief allusion to his efforts for crime victims and to prosecute crimes against women as an assistant district attorney, his support for Clinton's plan for extra cops and a balanced budget and a reference to his work with John McCain on the POW and MIA issue in Vietnam, that's it.
What did this man do as an adult? What happened during his service as Michael Dukakis' lieutenant-governor in Massachusetts and in his 20 years in the United States Senate?
What bills did he introduce? What initiatives did he sponsor? Which investigations did he lead? What amendments bear his name? What great debates did he participate in?
What did he do for his constituents in Massachusetts? What businesses did he persuade to come to the Bay State? Which elderly did he help get their Social Security benefits? What injustices did he correct?
Kerry's biography ends at 24.
America does not want to elect a lieutenant to the presidency. The voters want a commander-in-chief, but there is precious little in the autobiography of John Kerry, as we heard it last night, to commend him to us.
...John Kerry? Oh yeah, he's the guy who fought in Vietnam and then he ran for president. That's not enough. Where did his 20 years in the Senate go?
Oddly, his absence of biography confirms the impression I formed of him during my White House years: He's a back-bencher. I never can recall a single time that his name came up in any discussion of White House strategy on anything. He was the man who wasn't there. We were always figuring out how to deal with Ted Kennedy or Pat Moynihan or Tom Daschle or Phil Gramm, or Al D'Amato or Bob Dole or Jesse Helms or Orin Hatch or Joe Biden. But nobody every asked about John Kerry.
He wasn't much there then, and he's not much there now. Only now he wants us to trust him to be president."
*** Update #2***: More on this topic from Debra J. Saunders...
"Bottom line: The Democratic Party did not have to nominate a candidate who supported the war, but Democratic voters for some reason chose to do so.
Item: According to a New York Times/CBS News poll, three-quarters of Democratic voters opposed the war.
Item: The same poll found that 86 percent of convention delegates opposed the war.
Item: 100 percent of the Democratic ticket voted with GOP President Bush on Iraq.
Nonetheless, this convention is packed with politicians who are boasting about the tremendous party unity they see everywhere. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco said that the party is more united than she has seen it in 40 years. Three in 4 Democrats disagree with the nominee on the biggest issue out there -- and that's unity?
"It's not just a toning down of rhetoric, but a turning inside-out of reality," said Massachusetts GOP politico Todd Domke.
...Veteran Kerry observer Domke told me months ago the Democrats should have picked Dean.
I now see how right Domke was.
I see it as I watch a group of well-meaning delegates gush about how excited they are, how united they are, because they chose a man with whom nearly 9 out of 10 of them disagree on the most fundamental issue -- the war.
It must hurt. The delegates can't argue their most deeply held belief -- that the war was wrong -- because they nominated a man who voted to authorize it.
Think: America is in the middle of a war, and speakers at the Democratic National Convention can't really address this war in an honest manner. Many can't say what they really believe.
They have to pretend they will go along with positions they detest.
For a campaign to succeed, Domke noted, its energy has to come from both the message and the candidate. "It turns out that with Howard Dean, (the Democrats) would have had not just a messenger they could believe, but a message that they obviously do believe in."
Here's an excerpt from a column in Esquire, "The Case for George W. Bush," which was written by Tom Junod who comes across at least as someone who leans to the left & doesn't like W very much, but just can't help asking the obvious question, "What if he's right and we're wrong"...
"Still, I have to admit to feeling a little uncertain of my disdain for this president when forced to contemplate the principle that might animate his determination to stay the course in a war that very well may be the end of him politically. I have to admit that when I listen to him speak, with his unbending certainty, I sometimes hear an echo of the same nagging question I ask myself after I hear a preacher declaim the agonies of hellfire or an insurance agent enumerate the cold odds of the actuarial tables. Namely: What if he's right?
As easy as it is to say that we can't abide the president because of the gulf between what he espouses and what he actually does, what haunts me is the possibility that we can't abide him because of us—because of the gulf between his will and our willingness. What haunts me is the possibility that we have become so accustomed to ambiguity and inaction in the face of evil that we find his call for decisive action an insult to our sense of nuance and proportion.
The people who dislike George W. Bush have convinced themselves that opposition to his presidency is the most compelling moral issue of the day. Well, it's not. The most compelling moral issue of the day is exactly what he says it is, when he's not saying it's gay marriage. The reason he will be difficult to unseat in November—no matter what his approval ratings are in the summer—is that his opponents operate out of the moral certainty that he is the bad guy and needs to be replaced, while he operates out of the moral certainty that terrorists are the bad guys and need to be defeated. The first will always sound merely convenient when compared with the second. Worse, the gulf between the two kinds of certainty lends credence to the conservative notion that liberals have settled for the conviction that Bush is distasteful as a substitute for conviction—because it's easier than conviction."
Bingo! In a time of war, the right believes we should be going after terrorists who want to repeat 9/11 over and over while liberals give a little lip service to fighting terrorism when they're trying to appeal to independents, but overwhelmingly echo Ted Kennedy's position on the subject. In other words, they believe that, "the only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush."
For instance, just look at the results of a New York Times/CBS News poll of the delegates at the Democratic National Convention,
More than nine out of 10 delegates — 93 percent — said the war to topple Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime "was not worth the loss of life and other costs," according to the New York Times/CBS News poll.
...About 77 percent of the delegates said they were more worried that counterterrorism laws would restrict civil liberties. But a much smaller 53 percent of Democrats hold that view and 43 percent of all voters agree.
...Notably, few delegates here — barely one in six — see the Iraq war and terrorism as one of the most important issues in this election. Instead, more than half see the economy and jobs as the chief issues, compared with one-third of all voters who hold this view."
Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Michael Moore, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, & the overwhelming majority of the DNC delegates are not people who are serious about stopping another 9/11.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and the rest of the Bush administration on the other hand, have shown by their actions since 9/11 that they're determined to "bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies". That's why anybody who believes it's vital to do whatever it takes to go after the terrorists who have literally said they want to kill 4 million Americans is going to be voting Republican this year...
Hat tip to Stephen Green for finding this column.
Hat tip to the king of all blogging photoshoppers, Allah from Allah Is In The House for creating this one.
President George Bush today threatened to destroy the Democrat party with "endless waves of exploding Republican martyrs in order to cleanse the earth of the poisonous evil of liberalism."
The statement from the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign confirmed what Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, told delegates last night at the Democrat convention in Boston: "The only thing we have to fear is four more years of George Bush."
"There is no greater terrorist in this world," said Mr. Kennedy, "than the fundamentalist religious zealot who has hijacked the White House and would welcome even death if it resulted in the obliteration of our Democrat way of life."
The senior senator from Massachusetts said the Bush threat should make Democrats ponder the question, "Why do they hate us?"
"If we retaliate against George Bush, we'll only help his recruiting," said Mr. Kennedy. "But if we, with the United Nations, begin to give the GOP everything it wants, its members will stop being angry at us and the threat will cease."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
Since John Kerry -- or as I think of him, Senator Flip-Flop, is going to be introducing himself to the American people at the Democratic National Convention this week, I thought it would be a great time to let people know what John Kerry is really like....And he sure isn't the centrist, tax cutting, hawk that he's trying to convince people that is. After you read John Kerry in quotes version 4.0, that will be quite apparent...
Flip-Flopping
"Mr. Kerry voted for the USA Patriot Act, Mr. Bush's No Child Left Behind education bill and the Congressional resolution authorizing the president to use force in Iraq, only to sharply criticize all three once he became a presidential candidate. Mr. Kerry counters that his quarrel is with Mr. Bush's execution of the policies, but he struggled for months to explain his shifting stance on the Iraq war." -- Todd S. Purdum, Jan 25, 2004 in the New York Times
"For those of us who are fortunate to share an Irish ancestry, we take great pride in the contributions that Irish-Americans" — Senate floor statement by John Kerry, 3/18/86
"(John Kerry) has never indicated to anyone that he was Irish and corrected people over the years who assumed he was" -- Kerry spokeswoman Kelly Benander said in Feb, 2003
"I don't believe in litmus tests, but I believe very strongly that the right to choose and the right to privacy are fundamental constitutional rights and I can't imagine supporting a Supreme Court nominee who doesn't share my view of the Constitution." -- John Kerry explains his Roe Vs. Wade litmus test after explaining that he doesn't believe in litmus tests
"When it was popular to be a Massachusetts liberal, his voting record was that. When it was popular to be for the Iraq war, he was for it. Now it's popular to be against it, and he's against it." -- Jay Carson, a Dean campaign spokesman
"If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" -- The LA Times Doyle Mcmanus, 9/14/03
"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. What is responsible is for the administration to do this properly now. And I am laying out the way in which the administration could unite the American people, could bring other countries to the table, and I think could give the American people a sense that they're on the right track. There's a way to do this properly. But 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." -- John Kerry, 9/14/03
"I'm proud to say that John (Edwards) joined me in voting against that $87 billion ..." -- John Kerry, 7/12/04
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry
(continued...)Here are a few more details on the History's Biggest Impact Players article that was released earlier today...
My Selections
Alexander
Augustus
Buddha
Winston Churchill
Chistopher Columbus
Eve
Johann Gutenberg
Hammurabi
Genghis Khahn
Hitler
Jesus
Abe Lincoln
James Madison
Moses
Muhammad
Napoleon
Saladin
Stalin
George Washington
Kaiser Wilhelm
The Also-Rans Who Almost Made The List (Votes Received In Parentheses)
Jonas Salk (4)
Louis Pasteur (4)
Michaelangelo (4)
Hammurabbi (4)
Bill Gates (4)
Benjamin Franklin (4)
Charlemagne (4)
Osama bin Laden (4)
Augustus(4)
Orville and Wilbur Wright (5)
Plato (5)
James Madison (5)
Martin Luther King (5)
Charles Darwin (5)
Alexander Graham Bell (5)
Socrates (6)
Vladimir Lenin (6)
Henry Ford (6)
Leonardo da Vinci (6)
Confucius (6)
Julius Ceasar (6)
"Is Sullivan pulling a slow-motion David Brock move?" -- Michelle Malkin reader Sky King on July 26th
Today on July 28th, here's Andrew Sullivan's new masthead via Spoons...
Gee, either the fundraising drive is going really, really, badly or Sully took a look at what conservatives around the blogosphere have been saying about him since Sunday (Stephen Green, Moi, & Laurence Simon for example) and he decided it was time for a little rebranding.
PS: At some point, when Sully writes the inevitable whiny column about conservatives being mean to him because he supported Kerry, let the record show that I torqued Sullivan for his demagoguery, dishonesty, & demonization of Republicans and devout Christians BEFORE he came out for Kerry...
Michael Moore and Bill O'Reilly had a conversation/interview/confrontation, whatever you want to call it, and Moore kept pounding away at O'Reilly with a question he really seemed unable to answer effectively. Here's a snippet of the conversation that'll allow you to get the gist of it...
"Michael Moore: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.
Bill O'Reilly: I would sacrifice myself—
Michael Moore: Your child—Its Bush sending the children there.
Bill O'Reilly: I would sacrifice myself.
Michael Moore: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old—
Bill O'Reilly: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.
Michael Moore: Say ‘I Bill O’Reilly would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah’
Bill O'Reilly: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous
Michael Moore: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?"
That is of course an intellectually dishonest question because very few people are going to be willing to send their child off to die for any reason at all. If every parent of an American soldier was guaranteed to lose their child in a war, the United States would never go, or have gone, to war for any reason.
Some people, Michael Moore included, may think the world would be a better place had that happened. But, as Jonah Goldberg once said,
"This shouldn't be news to anybody by now, but just to clarify: If you go into every situation saying there's absolutely nothing worth fighting over, you will inevitably end up on a cot sleeping next to a guy named Tiny, bringing him breakfast in his cell every morning, and spending your afternoons ironing his boxers. Or, in the case of the French, you might spend your afternoon rounding up Jews to send to Germany, but you get the point."
In other words, if Americans never went to war, we might be taking orders from the Brits, from the Nazis, or maybe the Soviet Union, but make no mistake about it -- we wouldn't be free people.
That being said, let me get to the $24,000 question: Is Iraq worth the blood and treasure we've sacrificed?
If you believe we need to stop future terrorist attacks against the United States that could make 9/11 look like a Bar Mitzvah, yes, it's unquestionably worth it.
I say that -- and pay attention for once, you liberals -- because we cannot effectively stop terrorist organizations with global reach if they're being supported, supplied, protected, & trained by rogue nations like Iraq, Iran, & Syria. Yes, we can fire off a few Tomahawk missiles or send Special Forces into a rogue nation for a raid or two, but we cannot seriously disrupt and destroy terrorist groups that have armies, intelligence services, & the entire government apparatus of a nation backing them up.
On 9/11, it was Al-Qaeda, a threat we had seen coming for years, that hit the Pentagon, took down the WTC, and most importantly took almost 3000 lives. We knew they were dangerous, we knew they wanted to hurt us, but we were unable to effectively deal with them because they were shielded by the Taliban and we paid a terrible price for our reluctance to act.
To make the exact same mistake we made before 9/11, to stand back and allow rogue states to continue to aid terrorist groups of global reach, would have been foolish beyond comprehension -- especially in a world where WMD are continuing to proliferate.
So was it worth it to take out Saddam? You bet it was, just like it would have been worth it to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda before 9/11. September 11th was a wake-up call for our country. We had a choice between continuing to tolerate attacks on a scale of 9/11, if not worse, or we could go after terrorist groups of global reach and rogue states that support them. George W. Bush chose option #2 and he was right to do so...
In an effort to halt his decline in the polls, presumptive Democrat presidential nominee John Forbes Kerry has been dropped from the speaker list at the Democrat National Convention.
"We can't afford to let 30 million Americans actually see and hear John Kerry speak on primetime television," said an unnamed DNC official. "His recent increase in public appearances has dragged his polling numbers down far enough. We're dropping him to stop the bleeding."
The polls show that Americans have doubts about John Forbes Kerry's positions on the issues and don't realize that he has served in the U.S. Senate for 16 years, as an actual senator.
"Most people think that he's still overseas, fighting in Vietnam," the anonymous DNC source said. "The goal of the Democrat Convention is to tell the John Kerry story in the third-person. People love the Clintons, Jimmy Carter, Al Gore and Michael Moore. We're putting them front-and-center to talk about Kerry so that their mojo will migrate to the nominee."
If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.
Right Wing News emailed more than a 175 right-of-center bloggers and asked them to send us a list of who they considered to be "History's Biggest Impact Players". Representatives from 37 blogs responded...
All bloggers were allowed to make anywhere from 1-20 selections. Rank was determined simply by the number of votes received. Furthermore, the bloggers were told to choose the the people who had the biggest impact, positive or negative, on the history of mankind
Here are their selections...(Cont)
The nation’s sleepless, in dire need of rest, are converging upon Boston for the Democratic National Convention, according to the Beantown Travel & Tourism Agency.
“We’ve heard rumors about how John Kerry speeches are popular among insomniacs,” said the BTTA spokesman Marty Rossi.
Rossi observed that people “wearing ratty bathrobes” and “shuffling about the streets in slippers” are seen on most city corners.
An insomniac who requested anonymity said he “hasn’t slept like a baby since ’88,” when Michael Dukakis rendered thousands groggy during that year’s DNC.
Another bloodshot-eyed DNC attendant, Joe Hotolski, listed the various methods he’s used over the years to get some sleep, but to no avail: “Warm milk doesn’t work. Nor does soft music, love-making, yoga, or watching ‘Mad About You’ reruns.” Clearly frustrated, Hotolski said, “I’m banking on Al Gore at the podium for about three minutes. If that doesn’t work, I don’t know what will.”
Hotolski’s buddy, Mac Santelli, is returning for a DNC for the first time since ’84. “Mondale did the trick for me,” said Santelli. “However, there was a negative side-effect. Don’t get me wrong, Mondale was boring as hell...I was cured of insomnia even before he promised to raise my taxes. But once I slept on it, I realized Mondale could be possibly be running the country very soon. he mere thought of a Mondale presidency threw me into spasms of fear and paranoia...and I didn’t sleep ‘til Reagan landslided Mondale in November.”
Thanks to Greyhawk from the The Mudville Gazette for alerting me that Kim Komando gave RWN a nice Blogads related plug today.
Man, I wish I could have heard what she said about me...
Here we are, almost 4 years out from Al Gore's defeat at the hands of George Bush in the 2000 election, and the Democrats are still claiming W. stole the election.
Listening to Gore ramble on about it last night was almost pathetic in a way -- sort of like watching White Snake or Poison, ya know one of those washed up eighties hair bands that hasn't had a hit in years, trying to get their career going after a decade without a hit.
After the Gorebot's speech, they even tried recreating the "magic" of the Tipper/Al kiss. And while it obviously...ahem...got Tipper VERY excited =D, it still felt tired and stale just like Al Gore's cutesy, yet still pouty rhetoric about the 2000 election.
In any case, I thought it might be a good time to post a large excerpt from my July of 2002 column "The Two Year Old's Tantrum That Never Ends" which covers this very subject....
---
"Here's a question that the Democrats never really answer; how many times do the exact same ballots have to be recounted before the Democrats will concede that Bush won? Let's recap shall we?
- Bush won the first machine recount.
- Bush won the 2nd machine recount.
- Bush won when the absentee votes were added in. Incidentally, this should have been the end of it according to Florida law written before the election.
- Bush won the recount mandated by the Florida State Supreme Court that was ruled unconstitutional by the USSC 9-0. The USSC then ruled another FSSC recount unconstitutional 7-2 and stopped any further recounts via a 5-4 vote.
- Bush won the recount after the election done by the Miami Herald. Here's a headline and the first paragraph...
"REVIEW SHOWS BALLOTS SAY BUSH
Republican George W. Bush's victory in Florida, which gave him the White House, almost certainly would have endured even if a recount stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court had been allowed to go forward."
- Bush also won a 2nd recount done after the election by eight media groups. Here's what the New York Times, certainly not a Bush supporting paper, had to say about that. I am quoting the headline and the first paragraph...
"Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote
A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward"
Now again I'll ask the question; how many times do the exact same ballots have to be recounted before the Democrats will concede that Bush won?"
---
It may have been close, but without question, Bush won & Gore lost. It's just that simple for people who aren't blind partisans or sore losers...
Above the Democratic National Convention floated the Halliburton Dirigible of Evil.
"Don't you think 'Zeppelin of Evil' would sound eviler?" Bush queried.
"I didn't name it," Cheney responded.
Rumsfeld glared down at Boston. "All our enemies in one place - seems like the time for a tactical strike to wipe them out once and for all!"
"No murder!" Bush said, "or Laura will make me sleep on the couch again."
Chomps jumped up to look out the window, and then wouldn't stop snarling and barking.
"We could infiltrate them," Condi said, "find out what they're up to."
"Can't we just watch one of the news stations for that?" Scott McClellan suggested.
"Someone hit Scott," Bush commanded.
Rumsfeld stared at Scott menacingly until Scott finally punched himself, knocking himself to the ground.
"We'll get in there and sow seeds of discontent," Bush chuckled, "or, at least, get some free snacks if they have any. Let's go."
* * * *
"Why does it have to be us two doing the infiltrating?" Scott asked Bush as he made sure his fake goatee was on right.
"Because everyone else has too much important stuff to do," Bush answered as he brushed his porn star mustache.
"I also have important things to do," Scott complained, "I do the press conferences!"
"I got you a good replacement."
* * * *
"What does Bush think of his Democrat challengers?"
"Awk! No comment!"
"How much longer are troops expected to be in Iraq?"
"Awk! No comment!"
"What's Bush's reaction to the 9/11 report?"
"Awk! Polly want a cracker!"
"Ha! Now we're getting somewhere!"
* * * *
"Bush is Hitler! How are you guys doing?" Bush said as he inserted himself amongst a group of Democrats.
"We're handing out fact sheets on Kerry and Edwards so people get to know them better," said one as he gave some pamphlets to Bush and Scott.
"Facts about John Kerry," Scott read aloud, "He served in Vietnam." Scott turned the pamphlet over, but couldn't find anymore text.
"Facts about John Edwards," Bush said, "He's purty looking. P.S. Bush is evil... Hey! No I'm not... I mean, right on!"
"So what's the plan?" Scott whispered to Bush.
"We'll get back stage and change the speaker prompts to embarrass the Democrats," Bush answered, "Follow me."
They snuck through the convention until they got to the backroom. "Now we just need to find where the prompt is programmed," Bush said, "Then we can..." Bush froze. "Don't look up, Scott."
Scott stopped moving too. "Why?" he whimpered.
"There are ninjas up in the rafters," Bush uttered, "I just knew the Democrats were conspiring with the evil ninja conglomerate!"
"So what do we do?!"
"We'll have to fight them to the death using items we can find in this room." Bush saw a mop and bucket nearby. "I'll use the mop as a bo, and you can use the bucket as a... well, just try not to die too quickly."
A throwing star then struck the wall near Bush's head. He shrieked and ran for the nearest exit. Catching his breath, he looked around to see he was on stage.
"It's the next speaker!" called out one of the crowd.
"Uh, hey everybody," Bush said as he walked to the microphone. He then uttered to himself, "Think like a Democrat. Think like a Democrat." Bush cleared his throat. "Who here hates Bush more than they love America?"
Everyone cheered.
"Republicans are evil!" Bush continued, "They eat babies... who all should have been aborted!"
More cheers.
"Man, I'm on a roll," Bush said to himself while smiling. "Well, when we're in power, we'll change many things. We'll set taxes to make sure no one is ever rich again!"
The crowd erupted with more clapping and yelling.
"And we'll make sure poor kids stay in their poor schools where they belong! And all marriages will be gay marriages!"
The crowd was frenzied in cheering now.
"And we'll never exert force against our enemies again... and make the national language French!" Bush shouted, making his mustache fall off.
The cheering stopped.
"That's not a porn star! That's President George W. Bush!" one yelled.
"Let's kill him!"
Everyone started to climb on to the stage, but Scott then ran out. "Everyone, calm down! We can't let partisanship rot our minds! We all need to have some understanding and sanity!"
"That guy with the goatee is promoting understanding and sanity!" one of the crowd shouted, "Let's kill him too!"
As the crowd closed in on Bush and Scott, ninjas crept towards them from behind, ninja swords ready in hand. A new speaker then walked on stage, wearing a suit and glasses.
"Let's see what the real speaker has to say about this," one said, and the crowd stopped for a moment.
The speaker trotted to the podium, jumped up, and bit off the microphone. He then chewed it up and spat it out.
"Hey," one person said, "That speaker looks an angry rottweiler."
"Not just angry rottweiler," said one of the ninjas, his sword shaking in his hand, "Very angry rottweiler."
* * * *
Chomps made a hacking sound. Finally, he coughed up a Birkenstock.
"I told you not to murder Democrats!" Laura yelled at Bush.
"I didn't, honey!" Bush protested, "I just stood back and laughed as Chomps did."
Laura pointed to the couch which already had a pillow and blanket on it.
"But, honey, Lincoln haunts this room at night and he's mean!"
"That's between you and Lincoln," Laura said angrily and then marched up stairs.
"Aww," Bush groaned to himself as he sat on the couch.
"You're not going to get to sleep for four score and seven years!" a voice echoed throughout the room, "Muh ha ha ha!"
"Can't you go haunt a log cabin somewhere?"
A book flew through the air and hit Bush in the head.
"Ow!" Bush rubbed his head as he got under the blanket. "Stupid, rail-splitting poltergeist."
If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.
Tomorrow, I'll be releasing a new blogger poll on "History's Biggest Impact Players".
The plan was to put it out yesterday, then today, but I am slammed with work related duties that will probably keep me behind the 8-ball all week.
Again, if you're a blogger who participated...sorry, but you'll have to wait another day to see the results. I'm not pleased with that, but that's the breaks sometimes when you have a day job...
I really, honestly, truly, did not want to tear into Andrew Sullivan. He was nice enough to do an interview with me, he has linked me 2 or 3 times (I've linked him many times as well), and truth be told, I don't like the idea of slamming other conservative bloggers. Not that I won't lay into another warblogger if I really think it's merited (examples here & here), but there are enough liberals & bigger name conservatives who deserve a kick in the behind (like Pat Buchanan, John McCain, & Jerry Falwell) to keep me busy.
That being said, Andrew Sullivan has spent so much time demonizing Republicans and Christians who don't agree with him that over the last few months that I'm not giving him a free pass anymore...although, after ripping into Sullivan on Friday for his staggering hypocrisy on gay marriage, I wasn't planning to target him again so soon.
However, after Sullivan finally came out with what amounts to an endorsement of John Kerry, I felt compelled to speak up again.
That's not because Andrew is supporting Kerry...I think every conservative who has at least semi-consistently read "The Daily Dish" for the last 6 months has seen that coming...but because of the incredibly dishonest argument Sullivan makes for Kerry.
Sullivan's "endorsement" piece is called, "The Conservative Party - Kerry's Democrats" and yes, unbelievably, Sullivan actually goes beyond carping about where Bush has deviated from conservative principles to trying to make a case that Kerry is actually the "conservative choice". Here's the money paragraph at the end of the column...
"Domestically, moreover, Bush has done a huge amount to destroy the coherence of a conservative philosophy of American government; and he has been almost criminally reckless in his hubris in the conduct of the war. He and America will never live down the intelligence debacle of the missing Iraqi WMDs; and he and America will be hard put to regain the moral highground in world affairs after Abu Ghraib. The argument Kerry must make is that he can continue the substance of the war, but without Bush's polarizing recklessness. And at home, he must reassure Americans that he is the centrist candidate - controlled neither by the foaming Michael Moore left nor the vitreolic religious right. Put all that together, and I may not find myself the only conservative moving slowly and reluctantly toward the notion that Kerry may be the right man - and the conservative choice - for a difficult and perilous time."
First of all, set aside the fact that if you went a hundred well known "conservative" pundits deep, Sullivan would likely be regarded as the least conservative among them, which means he really lacks the credibility needed to write a column like this in the first place.
More importantly, if you read this article, you will notice that bizarrely, Andrew Sullivan, a man who is absolutely obsessed with gay marriage, barely mentions it in the piece. I find that to be quite ironic since at one point, Sullivan admitted that his lack of support for Bush was all about Bush's support forthe Federal Marriage Amendment.
Here's what Andrew Sullivan, who had been playing coy on his blog about whether he was going to support Bush or not up until Jonah Goldberg quite civilly called him on it in June, told "The Advocate" back in May of this year...
"But it’s time to say something very clearly: Bush’s endorsement of antigay discrimination in the U.S. Constitution itself is a deal-breaker. I can’t endorse him this fall. Like many other gay men and women who have supported him, despite serious disagreements, I feel betrayed, abused, attacked.
And...
I will be excoriated by the same people who always denounce anyone who doesn’t toe the Democratic Party line. “What took you so long?” they sneer. Hope, engagement, principle are my answers. I do not regret trying to make conservatism safe for gays. It’s still possible to be in favor of small government, low taxes, a tough foreign policy, and to be a proud gay man. My principles haven’t changed. Nor will they anytime soon. But when a president allies himself with forces that really do want to keep gay people in jail, therapy, or the closet, it’s time to break off. The deal is broken. And no amount of rationalization can make it whole again."
I would note that Sullivan even said something similar to me when I interviewed him back in October of 2003...
John Hawkins: I know it's early, but how do you see the 2004 election shaping up and which candidate are you leaning towards right now?
Andrew Sullivan: It's probably Dean vs. Bush, and I'm leaning towards Bush if Dean doesn't get serious about national security. But if Bush endorses a constitutional amendment against equal marriage rights, I couldn't support him and would urge anyone else who cares about civil rights to follow suit.
Sullivan can write about Kerry's "conservatism" all he wants, but I strongly suspect his support of Kerry is largely based on the fact that Kerry is a stealth supporter of gay marriage who opposed DOMA, who opposes a Constitutional Amendment to protect marriage, and who will do everything he can to make it possible for activist judges to impose gay marriage on an unwilling country, even if JFK won't admit it.
If Sullivan wants to endorse Kerry (although he denies that's what he's doing), fine, but he shouldn't serve up an intellectually dishonest piece of drivel like his latest column and expect anyone to buy into it.
PS: One last thing. It's time for Sully's yearly pledge drive and I couldn't believe that even he had the audacity to include this line in his fund raising pitch...
"The good news is that our traffic keeps going up. The bad news is that our bandwidth costs have also risen, and although I was hoping to go a full year without asking for more support, the site needs some extra cash to keep going at least until the election.
From Andrew Sullivan's statistics tracker, here are his unique visitors over the last few months (Jan appeared to be an incomplete starting month)...
Feb: 1410869
Mar: 1250342
Apr: 1205536
May: 1233008
Jun: 1103882
Jul: 833502
Traffic is down 300,000 sets of eyeballs from Feb to Jun and it looks like July is on pace to be a new low unless Sully gets a flurry of last minute readers.
Also, I'm going to estimate Sullivan uses...oh...let's say 125 GB of bandwidth a month. Given his traffic and the low amount of graphics that his page has, that's probably a high guess. Just to give you an idea of how little it costs to handle that much traffic, I pay $20 a month for hosting currently and do you how much bandwidth my account comes with? 64 GB. Let's just say that I sincerely doubt that bandwidth costs are going to put Andrew out of business...
Looking for the perfect gift for your pregnant liberal friend who's planning to use abortion as belated birth control? Just give this shirt to your friend and then you can drive her to the abortion clinic in style!
Sure, your friend may be about to have her own baby's brains sucked out, but, at least no one will be able to accuse her of not being honest...
Hat tip to than Allah Is In The House for coming up with this shirt.
Blackfive tells me that he saw RWN's banner mentioned in a story about blogs on CNN Saturday. Did anyone else catch that? If so, can you fill me in the details for me?
I love how every security measure that comes down the pike reminds hysterical left-wingers of the 3rd Reich or Orwell's "1984"...well, if Republicans are suggesting it. On the other hand, here's "an area designated for organized protests" at the Democratic National Convention...
I guess the people who want to exercise their First Amendment Rights at the convention will have to do it from the inside of a Democratic "freedom cage", huh fellas? I suppose it's "ya can't be too careful" when Democratic elites might be imperiled, but when it comes to protecting the American people from terrorism it's "The task we must set for ourselves is not to feel secure, but to be able to tolerate insecurity". -- Erich Fromm
Hi, I'm John Edwards, the presumptive Democratic nominee for vice president. There has been a lot of talk from the other side recently about my lack of experience. Well, it's time to counter that with some hard facts. Below are just some of the amazing things I have managed to accomplish. This'll show 'em.
- 12th highest batting average, Abbeville County Little League, 1964.
- best-dressed hall monitor, Jefferson Junior High, Charleston, South Carolina, 1968.
- held breath for 87 straight seconds, February 7, 1970.
- listened to “Dark Side of the Moon” in its entirety without touching alcohol or drugs, May 22, 1976.
- sang all the words to “The Star Spangled Banner” by heart while watching a Clemson vs. University of North Carolina football game, November 2, 1983.
- ate three Bigs Macs in one sitting, July 16, 1988.
- collected 15,000 air miles between 1993-6.
- purchased first razor, 1997 (age 44).
- lifelong career of managing not to be Dick Cheney, 1953 - present.
If you enjoyed this satire by The Chortler, you can read more of their work here.
If there was such a thing as a "Warblogger Magazine," this is what it would look like this month...
Much thanks to Chris Muir from Day By Day for putting out this month's cover.
|
|||||
|
|
| |||
