Do you think the wives of John Kerry and John Edwards are a little jealous at the affectionate touching the candidate and his choice for veep are showing each other? Al and Tipper were discreet by comparison.
Speaking of John Edwards, I wonder how the looney pacifist left is reacting to the selection of Edwards as the vice presidential candidate of the Socialist Appeasing Democrat party? Edwards has repeatedly stated his unwavering support for the war in Iraq, with statements similar to this one. "I believe our cause is just in Iraq. I believe we are doing the right thing. I have supported it from the beginning. And I stand behind it unequivocally." The right thing? Stand behind it unequivocally? Michael Moore won't be pleased.
Speaking of the Oscar and Palmes winning symbol of the super sized Democrat party, I wonder if the Democrats, which now embrace him, have forgiven him for his letter in 1999 calling Madeline Albright and Bill Clinton "war criminals" for the bombing of Kosovo? By the way, General Wesley Clark, who Moore endorsed for President, was the General in charge of that bombing operation. Oh well, at least Moore is consistent when he opposes the American military.
If you doubt who the Orson Welles of kookdom supports in Iraq, read this quote: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." That should be plain enough for even the voters in Palm Beach County.
In all honesty, though, positions on issues and beliefs are irrelevant to the Democrat base this year. They simply oppose George W. Bush. The hatred these people feel toward President Bush is almost primal in nature. Though few (some would) would admit it openly, these nuts believe George W. Bush is worse than Saddam Hussein. They believe he is worse than Osama Bin Laden. They really believe he is more evil than Hitler. Of course Hitler had a somewhat socialist domestic policy, so that improves his standing with Democrats.
Do you recall that in 2001 and 2002 the Bush haters were screaming that Enron's Ken Lay would NEVER EVER be indicted because he was Bush's buddy? Now that Kenny Boy has done the perp walk, look for the same Bush hating kooks to claim that Bush just had him indicted to protect himself in an election year.
Speaking of Enron, it always has bugged me that the Democrats have made political hay, without being challenged, that Ken Lay and Enron was part of Vice President Cheney's task force on energy. The Democrats and the news media used this fact to blame Bush for the energy crisis in California, even though said crisis began in the spring of 2000 and ended in June of 2001, when Bush's FERC imposed price caps. By the end of 2001, Enron was in the tank. In other words, after Bush got elected nothing went right for Enron. But the Democrats still want to accuse Bush of some misdeed where Lay is concerned. Idiocy thy name is Democrat.
I leave you with this thought. If Democrats didn't do so many unpatriotic things, they wouldn't have to worry about people questioning their patriotism.
2 comments:
Glad to see you mention that Enron happened under Clinton and stopped under Bush. Actually it was Clinton who sent his Trade Secretary and his Secretary of Commerce calling on foreign diplomats and heads of government with the Enron salespeople and letting those governments know that a contract with Enron was going to be good for the relations of that government with the US. Don't expect the democrats to admit that now, though. Also positive that Clinton doesn't put that high in the "autobiography" - quotes are because calling that an autobiography requires a total disconnect with reality to accept.
let's not forget that TarAYza Heinz-Kerry hired Lay to be on a board of something-or-other. Said Lay was innocent, too.
Post a Comment