THE WEST WING

Last night I was surfing the channels when I happened across a re-run of The West Wing. This episode dealt with President Bartlet and a downed Air Force jet. Syria shot down a jet with many people on board and the Joint Chief’s were offering the President some “proportionate” responses to the downing. Bartlet went off on why we needed a “proportionate” response when it would accomplish nothing, he wanted a disproportionate response. The Joint Chiefs and Chief of Staff talked him out of it and Bartlet learned the responsibilities of being the only super power left and how disproportionate violence doesn’t stop anything, just like the death penalty doesn’t and blah blah blah. It was your typical liberal clap-trap, even down to the response strike’s name – Pericles 1. (Pericles is blamed for bringing Greece into the war with Sparta because of Pride).

Aside from the fact that Martin Sheen played a hawk (oh my, my sides still hurt from the laughing!!), is that as of October 1999, when this episode first aired, this was typical American reaction to attacks from overseas. Remember blowing up an aspirin factory? Proportionate responses. Bartlet, the genius, gave a soliloquy on how Roman citizens used to be able to walk the known world in safety because they had the might of the legions to back them up. Yet, it is the sign of a great super power that doesn’t act disproportionately.

Ah, isn’t that nice?

Then came George Bush. You fly a few planes into our buildings, we invade your freekin’ country!! You threaten the world with WMD’s and don’t give them up, your gone! These are the “disproportionate” responses Bartlet wanted to give. And it’s these disproportionate responses that caused Libya to say, “Um, we were, like, building some nukes and stuff…but we’ll stop now, ok?” and Iran to say, “Yeah, like, us too and please, don’t go into Iraq and take a right, ok?”.

The Democrats – cruise missiles up camel’s butts.

The Republicans – disproportionate responses and results.

CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION

The big news today was, of course, President George Bush coming right out and calling for a Federal Constitutional Amendment to protect the institution of marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The liberals will cry about the “immediate” call for an amendment and how we shouldn’t be so quick to mess with the Constitution.

Well, bull tookey!! It’s been eight years since Congress felt the need to pass the Defense of Marriage of Act. If Congress felt the need to pass an act (with amendment-passing numbers, BTW), the gay marriage issue had been kicking around for a while. So, we are looking at dealing with this issue for at least fifteen years, probably more. This is hardly rushing into a constitutional amendment.

Also, we get quotes like this:

“Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who hopes to run against Bush in this year's presidential election, said: "I believe President Bush is wrong."

"All Americans should be concerned when a president who is in political trouble tries to tamper with the Constitution of the United States at the start of his re-election campaign," said Kerry, who opposes gay marriage but will oppose the amendment if it reaches the Senate floor. Bush is "looking for a wedge issue to divide the American people," Kerry said.”

This is an argument we hear a lot from people, the whole, “We shouldn’t be changing the Constitution…” Again, bull tookey!!! I got this from a state representative from Vermont during the whole “civil-unions” thing. When I asked him why they didn’t amend the Constitution and tie the courts hands, he said you shouldn’t just “change the Constitution”.

My answer to him and to Jane Kerry is:

“Well, blacks and women who enjoy their right to vote are sure glad the Congressmen didn’t think like you!” And to that, I include all press-types who like their First Amendment rights (get it, “First Amendment”?), eighteen year olds who like to vote, all of us who like to vote for our Senators instead of leaving it up to the State legislators, those who like Martinis… and twenty-something other groups of people who think changing the Constitution isn’t the worst thing we could do.

"YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE"

You have to love small town newspapers. I call the Union Leader, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire, a small town paper because New Hampshire isn’t that big. Anyway, I say you have to love them because of stuff like this. An article appeared about a town reviving a curfew, yet never is the town named. I know it’s a North Country community of 2,600 with a broken fire whistle, but that’s it. I’ll link to it here and copy the whole thing in case they figure it out and go fix it.

Whistle repaired, curfew pushed

By LORNA COLQUHOUN, Union Leader Correspondent
The Union Leader
Updated: 11:17 p.m. ET Feb. 22, 2004

“Feb. 23 - There are those of a certain age in this town who well remember when their nights of teenage fun abruptly came to a halt when the fire whistle sounded at 9 p.m.

"I remember, growing up, that when the whistle would blow, if you were under 16, you could not be on the street," said Lorna Aldrich, who is now the acting town manager in this North Country community of about 2,600. "That was it - you had to be in."

At some point, the fire whistle broke down and the curfew fell by the wayside.

Today, however, that whistle has long been fixed and when talk turned to reviving the curfew, officials discovered that the ordinance had never been voted upon by residents.
So when voters go to town meeting in a couple of weeks, they will decide whether to put the ordinance officially on the books.

If adopted, the proposed curfew would require youngsters under the age of 16 to be off the street and out of public places after 9 p.m., unless accompanied by an adult or taking part in athletic, social, educational or religious events.

The second part of the curfew charges parents with the responsibility of knowing where their minor children are and not allowing them to be out unsupervised after 9 p.m. and before 6 a.m.

The penalty, under the proposed ordinance, would have police take a child home and the parents notified of the first offense.

"Upon any subsequent violation . . . parents or guardians shall be guilty of a misdemeanor," the proposed ordinance reads.

The revival of the ordinance, Aldrich said, would be to counter some increasing loitering in town, as well as vandalism. "Times have changed," she said. "Back then, both parents weren't working, but we are a mill town and we now have families doing shift work."
Aldrich couldn't predict whether the curfew would be revived with a vote of town meeting on March 9.

She did note, however, that when a public hearing was held on the proposed ordinance a couple of weeks ago, "only a couple of people" came out for it.

"STOP PICKING ON ME!!"

Ok, where to start? I read the most (well, it’s certainly not the MOST outrageous story I have ever read, not even close. It’s just a figure of speech – get off my back!)

In a preemptive strike trying to portray the Republican’s as evil (not hard to the liberal press), John Kerry wrote a letter to President Bush accusing him of using smear tactics against him. This letter magically appeared just a few hours after Rep. Chambliss (R-Ga) mentioned Kerry’s thirty-two voting record on defense.

Now, two things are very obvious. First of all, Kerry had this letter just waiting for an excuse to send it on. Writing open letters to the President takes quite a bit of time – you need a couple of writers to formulate it, edit it, get it vetted by the leaders of the party (That being the NEA and Planned Parenthood), etc. You just fire one off the hip. And first of all again, the thing that threw Jane Fonda Kerry into such a tizzy is something we like to call the truth, not something Hanoi John deals in much. His voting record DOES stink on defense.

The sidebar story on this whole thing is the Saxby Chambliss/Max Cleland connection. Chambliss beat Cleland in 2002 for a seat in the House of Representatives and we all know how he did it, he questioned Cleland’s patriotism, even Kerry mentioned it in the letter:

"Saxby Chambliss, on the part of the president and his henchmen, decided today to question my commitment to the defense of our nation," Kerry said in Georgia, one of 10 states choosing electoral delegates on March 2.

Kerry said Bush used the same strategy to beat John McCain in the 2000 race for the Republican presidential nomination, and during the Chambliss-Cleland race.

In his letter to Bush, Kerry called Chambliss' run against Cleland "one of the most despicable campaigns ever conducted."

Of curse, like most things that Kerry says, it’s all a lie. For a great rundown on what the race was REALLY like, check out Rich Lowry’s ditty here. Cleland lost because he was voting like a liberal Democrat, fine if you’re from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, but bad if you’re from Georgia. And maybe because he’s nuts – look at this quote and see if you can make any sense of it:

"For Saxby Chambliss, who got out of going to Vietnam because of a trick knee, to attack John Kerry as weak on the defense of our nation is like a mackerel in the moonlight that both shines and stinks," he said.

Another quick Kerry, this from Sunday’s “This Week”

"I don't know what it is that all these Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam are fighting a war against those of us who did," the Massachusetts senator said.”

Oh, so you are saying that no one who didn’t serve in Vietnam can point out the obvious failings of those who did? You might want to check with your draft-dodging buddies in the Party before enforcing that, dipstick.

"WE SUPPORT CHOICE!!! WELL, USUALLY"

It was four years ago or so that I wrote in defense of Ralph Nader(?) At that point, he was being shunned by the Democrat Party because they blamed him for throwing the election to George W. Bush.

Now, your gut reaction is that’s true. Nader took valuable votes (100,000 of them in Florida) away from Al Gore and cost him the election. You come to that conclusion only if you are using your gut and not your brain. Your brain tells you something very different. Your brain tells you that all those Nader voters didn’t WANT to vote for Gore; if they did, they would have punched the hole next to “Gore” (or in the case of Palm Beach, Buchanan).

And now, four years later, the Democrats are doing the same thing. DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe came right out and said it:

"We can't afford to have Ralph Nader in the race.”

And why is that, Terry? Is it because John Kerry is so boring and such a weak candidate that you need to deny people a choice of candidates? This coming from the party that believes in “choice”?

Look, Al Gore lost all of those votes to Nader because they didn’t want to vote for Gore – it was Gore’s failings, not Nader’s fault that Gore lost to Bush. And the same thing again in 2004. It isn’t fair to deny the Nader voters a chance to vote for their man just because your man can’t cut it. Yet, that’s what the Dimocrats want to do it again.

The “People’s Party”? Yeah, right.

FREE SPEACH=FREE ELECTIONS

The New York Times has an editorial to day and they are shocked! shocked! to find that people are spending money on elections. The Times brings up the specter of “soft money” and how the government needs to do something, anything to regulate the free speech of regular citizens, I mean

“…those large, unregulated and politically destructive donations…”

The Times went as far as to call “soft money” a:

“…loophole that scandalized the nation.”

“Scandalized the nation”? What are they talking about? Look, free speech is free speech and that includes donating money to groups that are getting your message out - it’s not a scandal. Perhaps, instead of trying to throw law after law at campaign donations and free speech, maybe we should be trying to repeal all of the dumb campaign finance laws. Let the people give candidates however much money they want to and let them buy advertising to tell their side of issues and views on candidates. No more soft money problems to keep the New York Times editors awake at night.

The Times, like all media outlets, want to have a monopoly on what regular people can hear about candidates and their positions, past comments, etc. and the best way to do that is get terrible laws like the McCain-Feingold bill passed and have the FEC regulate everything. They want nothing to do with logic because they really don’t want to have to share the spotlight with anyone who might not agree with their liberal views.

GAY MARRIAGE

Back on the very first day I opened Mel’s Diner, I talked about gay marriage. I said that was going to be the “next big thing” and it looks like I was right, (not that spotting that was rocket surgery).

Since then, we’ve had the Massachusetts Supreme Court mandate gay marriage in the People’s Republic and the leftist mayor of San Francisco (as if there would be any other kind of mayor) performing thousands of gay marriages, flagrantly ignoring the State law that defines marriage as a union of a man and a woman. This issue will divide this country and pit friend against friend before it is all over with.

“Next big thing”? Pit friend against friend”? What are you talking about, fat-boy?
What’s the big deal? Why shouldn’t gay people get married? They’re people, too…right?

Well, it’s a lot more complicated than that. The law says no discrimination between like groups and that makes good sense. Gays are people and strictly as matter of law, not receiving the benefits mandated by state law to heterosexuals (other people, even though that might be news to big media) is discrimination, in a strictly legal sense. But that’s not the problem here. The problems goes much deeper than statutes and codes and it doesn’t have all that much to do with religion, either.

The problem is marriage. Well, marriage isn’t a problem, per se, but that’s the crook of the whole question. What is marriage? More specifically, what is marriage FOR? That’s a question asked by a lot of the freewheeling, crazy kids today, but they aren’t even coming close to an answer. What marriage is for is to offer a stable base in which to raise children. That’s what marriage is for. It’s not for your own personal growth, it’s not so you don’t have to go looking for it every night, it’s not for someone to mow the lawn. It’s all about the kids.

What? People get married everyday and don’t have kids; how can it be all about the kids?

Well, kids are what makes the world go ‘round – literally. Without kids, there’s no tomorrow. Surprisingly, even before atomic bombs, before nuclear winter, global warming, petroleum products, baby-seal killing, etc. lack of children was the original “no tomorrow”. Just ask the Neanderthals.

And that’s what marriage is all about. It’s not about creating kids - any idiot with half a brain can do that, but it’s about raising children. Before the age of Aquarius and welfare, raising children was really difficult and two people, working to raise their own kids was the best way to make good adults. Sure, two people could raise children that weren’t their own, but the attachment and long term commitment wasn’t there and raising your own kid alone had the commitment, but not the means to do it WELL. So, the optimum arrangement was two parents raising their own kids. If they obviously couldn’t have children (same-sex marriage), then society wanted nothing to do with getting these two married.

But, you said before the welfare state? Now that we have that, shouldn’t we step back from the one man-one woman thing? Well, no. One man-one woman, two parent household is STILL the best way to raise kids. Study after study has shown this. Sure, gay/lesbian “parents” can raise their children well and give them a good life, but the odds are against it. GLAAD will now be boycotting Mel’s Diner because I said that, but that’s too bad – I don’t really care what women in short hair and plaid and well dressed men with moisturized skin have to say about me.

So, to summarize. Gay marriage is all about marriage and marriage is all about the kids – and gay marriage isn’t it that.

"ME JUST STUPID CONSERVATIVE, PART II"

Hey kids, sorry about the delay again. I would have sworn I posted on Friday, blah blah blah, the reality of the situation is I haven’t posted in a long time. Whatever, here we go….

Last time we were here, I spoke about Robert Brandon, chair of the Philosophy Department at Duke University saying Conservatives are stupid. Well, I guess the furniture of Duke got a lot of flack over this comment and decided that it needed to respond. So, we got a article from The Chronicle where we get quotes like this:

"In my response to The Chronicle reporter I gave a quote from John Stuart Mill that I thought was quite funny. I now see that the humor is not much appreciated in this context”

Oh, it was funny!!! I’m just a conservative, so I’m so dumb I didn’t get the humor in the “Conservatives are stupid” comment. I guess I just proved your point, professor.

“Finally, let me go over what I did and did not say. The DCU seems to believe that the difference in the politics of the faculty vs. the population as a whole is due to hiring bias. The claim is that we liberals only want to hire other liberals. The process for hiring faculty in our university is largely decentralized. The hiring units in universities are departments, not the administration. I did not presume to speak for other departments, but I did categorically deny that there was any such bias in the hiring practices of Duke's philosophy department. None of us would want such a bias to be there, and in virtually all cases there is no mechanism for it to be there. “

So, what you are saying is that a preponderance of one type of person (like white males) in a situation ISN’T proof of bias. If that’s what you are saying, then you need to talk to a lot of your liberal friends, because they are quite sure that anything like that is in fact PROOF of bias. I bring to your attention racial profiling, the “glass ceiling”, the number of blacks (I mean African-American) or women in charge of Fortune 500 companies, etc. Oh, you mean you weren’t talking about that? Go figure.

“If we rule out the hiring bias hypothesis, what's left? The phenomenon could be due to the political indoctrination of new hires. But given the independent nature of most academics this is not at all credible. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that the only viable hypothesis left is something like the following: There is a statistical association between the qualities that make for good academics and those that lead to left-leaning political views. Said another way, a larger proportion of academics are likely to be liberal, but certainly not all, and this may also vary by field and subfield because of the nature of knowledge, learning and the advancement of knowledge in that field.”

Two huge problems here, the second being that Brandon called conservatives stupid again. “There is a statistical association between the qualities that make for good academics and those that lead to left-leaning political views.” Oh, only GOOD academics are “left-leaning”, I forgot.

You jerk.

And on the first point, you said,” we rule out the hiring bias hypothesis, what's left?” Maybe we shouldn’t rule out hiring bias. That is just an attempt to take the most likely reason of the table because you don't want to have to deal with it.. It’s like saying, “Now, concerning Jane Kerry, ruling out he hates the military…” or “Bill Clinton, ignoring he stuck a cigar in the nether world, he isn’t really a pervert.”

This is why we hate the liberal press.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We see that President Bush called to the racers at the Daytona 500, “Gentlemen… Start your engines!!” At the same time, the RNC was at the race signing up fans to vote and while they’re at it, vote Republican.

Look for the Dimocr…uh, Democrats, to make hay at this. “Hey, those rednecks are so dumb, they’ll vote for Bush!!”

I say GOOD FOR THE RNC!!!! These racers and the fans are real Americans and therefore, more Republican than most people on the East coast. NASCAR is not something the Dems understand or could ever understand, so the average fan is destined to be a Republican. The average NASCAR racer and fan believe in family, country and God – not necessarily in that order. They do NOT believe in, “I’m OK, your OK, there’s no right and wrong, no black and white, there is no God, etc…” which, of course, the Democrats DO believe in.

"ME JUST STUPID CONSERVATIVE"

There’s nothing quite like a liberal who, in a moment of weakness, actually says what he thinks instead of keeping to himself until he gets to one of those tony cocktail parties in Manhattan where everyone thinks just like him. Just one of these happy moments occurred at Duke University this week.

It seems the Duke Conservative Union published an open letter to the University president claiming a lack of diversity at Duke:

“In the advertisement, formatted as an open letter to President Nan Keohane, DCU alleged that a number of humanities departments "have become increasingly politicized over the past few decades" and, furthermore, that this politicization has had "a significant impact on the daily workings of their faculty members."
The advertisement listed the break-down of faculty members' political affiliations--Democrats, Republicans and unaffiliated--for each of eight humanities departments, based on a cross-reference of Duke's departmental faculty lists with North Carolina voter registration records. According to DCU, 142 of the faculty members and deans included in the survey are registered Democrats, 28 are unaffiliated and 8 are registered Republicans.”

Of course, the liberal professors jumped all over this with every obfuscation they could come up with. But one Robert Brandon, chair of the philosophy department, got all excited and accidentally said what he believed:

“We try to hire the best, smartest people available," Brandon said of his philosophy hires. "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire.

"Mill's analysis may go some way towards explaining the power of the Republican party in our society and the relative scarcity of Republicans in academia. Players in the NBA tend to be taller than average. There is a good reason for this. Members of academia tend to be a bit smarter than average. There is a good reason for this too."

Oh, conservatives are stupid!! Being one myself, I didn’t have the intelligence to realize that!!

Thanks for the heads up, Professor!!

You S.O.B.

'I NEED TO EXPRESS MYSELF, NOT LEARN"

It’s not often that I agree with a notoriously liberal columnist in the New York Times editorial page, but I have today. Nicholas Kristoff has a whole editorial on the weak education American children get. Not only did he decry the sub-par education that our country regularly gives it’s children and the uselessness of a current high school diploma, Kristoff didn’t blame it all on George Bush!

More surprisingly, Kristoff stated a position on education that I have long held – that sciences are routinely ignored in deference to humanities.

“The broader problem is not just in schools but society as a whole: There's a tendency in U.S. intellectual circles to value the humanities but not the sciences. Anyone who doesn't nod sagely at the mention of Plato's cave is dismissed as barely civilized, while it's no blemish to be ignorant of statistics, probability and genetics. If we're going to revere Plato, as we should, we should also remember that his academy supposedly had a sign at the entrance: "Let no one ignorant of geometry enter here."

Did Kristoff just say it’s a problem of society as a whole? He must have received his copy of National Review in the mail today.

Anyway, Kristoff is absolutely right (did I just say that?). When I was high school I only needed to take two years of sciences but was required to take four years of English/literature. Now, I do wish I had paid more attention to the rules of grammar (and all of you reading this probably agree with me), but I would definitely be more useful and valuable in our technological age if I had skipped some Shakespeare and taken some chemistry.

This whole arts/science thing has been on my mind lately because of the annoying ads we see on TV from the group “Americans for the Arts”. They have these commercials where kids would rather read technical literature than dance around like fools. Every time I see on of these (available here for your viewing displeasure), my blood boils.

Look, we live in a technical age and it’s only getting more so. If we as a country want to keep up in the world, we need to stress the sciences more in school and let the trombone playing be an extra-curricular activity.

SHACKING UP

The other day at work someone mentioned to me that one of our co-workers had moved in with her boyfriend this past weekend. Now, these days, this is the most normal thing in the world to do and the person telling me thought it was great. I knew this when I asked the question that just isn’t asked in these enlightened times:

“Why don’t they just get married?”

What?!? Why in the world would you get married if all you want to do is shack up together? My friend seemed shocked over question, she said,

“Married? She’s only like, what, 21? I wouldn’t want to get married that young.”

I let it drop. My “You shouldn’t live together before you’re married” views are so anachronistic that people look at me like I just said the sun revolves around the earth and leaches cure AIDS. So, I just decided not to fight that battle again.

But, I’ve been thinking about it occasionally since then and I wonder about something. In “the old days” people got married young (18-20) and stayed married through thick and thin. Now, according to current thinking, that must have been a nightmare. I mean, they got married before they could “live a little” and if the person they so obviously didn’t know wasn’t the soul mate they always wanted, then their lives were going to be a nightmare of biblical proportions. Thank God for our advanced lifestyles and we now have no problem shacking up, waiting until we’re “ready” to get married and not sacrificing our careers, Thank God we can divorce our spouse with no recriminations and not be stuck in unhealthy relationships – we’re obviously MUCH happier now.

Are we?

I’ve been wondering if people today are happier in their relationships than say, 75 years ago. Of course, I didn’t live 75 years ago, so I can’t say for sure if we are happier or not, but my gut reaction is we are not happier with our freewheeling lifestyle. We have a 50% divorce rate in this country, single parent households, therapy, counseling, Jerry Springer, etc. We’ve got 3,200 abortions a day at the same time we have fertility clinics popping up on every corner to give families to people who needed to wait. We have relationship neurosis in this country!!

So, maybe a little less “enlightenment” would be a good thing. And maybe for once, the “good ole’ days” really were better.

I'M NOT FONDA HANOI JOHN

John Kerry is a pig.

In the latest issue of National Review (which you can subscribe to either the paper or digital edition here), the main story is all about John Kerry’s OUTRAGEOUS comments about the American soldier made in 1971. Testifying in front of Congress, Kerry, then fresh out of the Navy, belched forth all kinds of Jane Fonda, pinko, commie propaganda. Here is the most sickening quote:

“over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. . . . They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.”

Can you believe that? Kerry said is was normal for troops to commit war crimes. If there is any justice in this world, Kerry will be dragged across hot coals for saying this stuff. Any real American will expect Kerry to explain his comments before they ever think about voting for him.

Now, there’s a much bigger problem then Jane Fonda Kerry. When I showed his quote to my co-workers, half of them believed what he said!! Seriously, I got comments like, “I had a cousin who was there and he said this happened…” and “The Viet-Cong did a lot worse…” What the Hell? Why is the world would anyone with an IQ over 75 believe the average soldier in Vietnam shot children for target practice?

Because the liberal press has spent the last forty years besmirching the war in Vietnam to the point reality has been lost. I tell you, the scene today was incredibly disinheriting and I was stunned into silence (believe it or not). I guess that’s why conservatives like us need to shout out even more; bringing the light of truth to what the liberal have wrought.

"BIAS? WE HAVE NO BIAS"

Just for grins, check out how two different wire services reported the same story:

This from the Associated Press:

Unemployment Rates Drop

WASHINGTON -- Civilian unemployment dropped to 5.6 percent in January to the lowest level in more than two years as companies added 112,000 new jobs, fewer than expected but still providing fresh signs the prolonged hiring slump may be ending

Now, the same story from our friends at Reuterville:

Job Growth in January Disappoints

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy created just 112,000 new jobs in January, far fewer than expected, government data showed on Friday in a disappointing report that will likely weigh on President Bush's re-election campaign.

The issue of bias has been beaten to death, so I won’t do it again, but it’s not often we get such proof.

ATTACKS ON AMERICA

Sorry for the long delay – that whole job thing keeps getting in the way along with a van that needed a transmission rebuilt. Oh, and I was lazy, too.

Is it me or is the most under-reported story this week the ricin attack on Bill Frist? Hello? Is this not a big deal? Or is it a throw-away story because instead of anthrax being sent to Democrats, this time the chemical weapon was directed at a Republican? Or could it have anything to do with it occurred hours after David Kay told Congress Saddam as cooking up ricin right up until the attack on Iraq?

I know, I often sound a lot like some kind of right-wing nut, but that’s only because I am one. But, come on, where is the outrage? Our government was attacked by some sort of terrorist group and all we hear about is John Kerry’s boring ideas?

Speaking of John Kerry, check out this quote:

“I’ve never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector, going into the National Guard.”

Kerry just compared everyone who was/is in the National Guard to draft dodgers. Perhaps someone should remind Mr. Personality that Guardsmen put their lives on the line every day for liberal whack-o’s like himself and he should issue a heart-felt apology to the men and women of the National Guard.

I don’t give a flip about his valuable service in Vietnam; comments like this negate all good that he ever did and stick him in the same category as every other America-hating Democrat.

JOE-MENTUM

Funky Joe Lieberman has picked up a lot of endorsements lately. He received the endorsement of The Union Leader, the largest newspaper in New Hampshire. Now, this can be overlooked because the Union-Leader is conservative newspaper, so why in the world should Democrats pay attention to it? In fact, the Democratic leader in New Hampshire urged Joe to repudiate it because of that. But, just this weekend, Joe has received endorsements from The Greenville News, The South Carolina State, The Arizona Republic and The Seattle Times. Hello, what is going on here? Why are all these major newspapers endorsing Joe? After all, he’s in single digits everywhere. I mean, please, he’s a loser in every state. And he gets endorsed?

He gets endorsed because he’s a normal human being He gets endorsed because he’s a centrist. He gets endorsed because he’s the face of what the Democrat party was supposed to look like after Bill Clinton. Clinton was a true “New” Democrat, we wasn’t some liberal throwback to an older time, at least, that’s what he was supposed to be. If you let him be the man he really was, he was a centrist Democrat with a good head on his shoulders – who happened to be a morally bankrupt rapist. If he didn’t have to deal with that last part, he would have been a force to contend with, but because he was so morally bankrupt, he had to pander to the far left and act like a liberal.

Joe Lieberman doesn’t have that problem.

Joe E. Joe is a straight laced kind of guy who only forfeits his integrity when he has to, like to run for President. So, he is best prepared to pick up the tattered mantle of Clinton and carry on the centrist Democratic party.

But he has no supporters. But, why is that? I thought all Democrats loved Clinton? They do, but only because he won, not because of what he was, or at least tried to be.

So, Lieberman’s poor showing has a lot more to say about the Democrats than what it has to say about Joe. The Democrat’s are not the party about the center, the little guy, that average worker. The Democrat’s are more about hate than anything else.

Yes, I said hate.

They hate George Bush. Not because of his positions on subjects like national defense, Medicare, immigration, etc. but because they hate HIM. They hate Republicans. They hate Republicans more than they love America.

There, I said it. Now prove me wrong, Democrats.

You won’t.