The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20040203122604/http://badattitudes.com:80/MT/archives/001007.html
January 10, 2004
Oh, And The Jobless Recovery Sort Of Blows, Too

Reading between the lines of this article yields an unmistakable message: Shifty George is shitting bricks at the prospect of facing Big Howard.

Why do I say this? I’m from the poor-cousin branch of the same ridiculous Social Register WASP tribe as Big Howard and Shifty George. And I can tell you that Shifty George is amazed, confused, and intimidated that someone from an equally fancy background actually went to medical school and became a regular family doctor, instead of into the buttered, easy slip-on family business (politics for the Bushes, Wall Street for the Deans). Another closely related matter is that Shifty George the Brewmaster/Cheerleader remembers just how tough some of those wrestlers were.

These are not pleasant days for Shifty George, and he can’t wait for them to be over. Not a real good space for the kind of man who travels with his own pillow.

He’ll almost certainly crumble under the pressure at some point, and when he does, odds are he’ll crumble completely and quickly. I hope it happens right in the middle of one of the very few debates Shifty will be forced to endure.

Webding3.jpg

Posted by Lead Balloons at January 10, 2004 11:22 PM | TrackBack
Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):


Comments

Bush has 525 things to worry about...but who's counting?
See:
http://525reasons.com/

Posted by: Buck on January 11, 2004 07:28 AM

"These are not pleasant days for Shifty George, and he can't wait for them to be over. Not a real good space for the kind of man who travels with his own pillow.

He'll almost certainly crumble under the pressure at some point, and when he does, odds are he'll crumble completely and quickly. I hope it happens right in the middle of one of the very few debates Shifty will be forced to endure."


Well, I guess that's ONE way to look at it. Maybe another way is to see Mad How as a certified gaffe-a-day candidate who can't seem to remember that there are things like video and tape recorders that can replay all his nutty sound bites. And boy does he hate it when someone shows him a tape exposing his lies. Admit it: Mad How is a nutjob....and the media BELIEVE that. It's the story, the meme (if you will). Just like Gore is a fibber.

And didn't W kick the crap out of Algore who, we were told repeatedly, was a genuinely brilliant debater? There is um, a bit of a stature gap between Mad How and W. Mad How was a country doctor and Bush has won two wars...hmmmmn.

I highly doubt that W is feeling anything other than relief that the Almighty has blessed him with angry pygmies as competitors.


Posted by: Jack M on January 11, 2004 09:10 AM

Its time for another folk song, this post by Lead Ballons hits home with some of us. Thanks to Ralph McTell for the song. (and please, don't miss the link above www.525reasons.com
Sorry Jack, you're speaking to ears that don't believe your message.

A Stranger to the Season
by Ralph McTell

A man without a job is a stranger to the seasons
The April rain will soak you like the worst November brings
And we're tired of the excuses and the carefully worded reasons
Without Winter there's no Summer
Without Autumn there's no Spring.

When the factories close down the life bleeds from the town.
Some politicians tells us, 'move and build another home',
But weren't they voted in to lead us?
No one said they had to feed us.
If they'd get us back our jobs
Then we would take care of our own.

Chorus
For a man without a job
Is a stranger to the seasons
No music to the cycle of the changes will he hear.
Like a band without a drummer
There's no Winter, Spring, or Summer
There's no rhythm to the passing of the
Months that make the year.

Everyone is poorer for the millions
Who keep growing
Whose season stays at Autumn
And whose only colour's grey
Though we get by on the dole
It feeds the body, starves the soul
And stirs the bitterness that's growing
In the ones who've been betrayed.

Chorus


Posted by: Buck on January 11, 2004 11:09 AM

All together now!!!

"I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night... alive as you or me!!!"

No more Hoovervilles!!!! Brother, can you spare a dime?

Guys, it's 2004, for gosh sakes! And we are at war. Do you not see this?

Look, I want Dean to win the primary because he clearly cannot win the presidency in the United States. He is a nut job. He has a paper trail. He is angry angry angry. And you may have noticed that Bush is pretty strong these days. But I think you may have to begin blowing Clark. And he has, um, truth issues.

I have been telling you guys for a year to get real and understand your desperate plight. Let's look into the future, say January 20, 2005:

Colin Powell resigns, no replacement because State is subsumed into the Pentagon. Rummy stays, having vanquished that trimmer, Powell.

Repubs gain 240 House seats: Tom DeLay entrenched for years and years, Hastert pushed aside for being to liberal and fair to Democrats.

John Ashcroft re-ups for Atty General, mass hangings in Gitmo.

Repubs lose Illinois senate seat; gain LA, FL, NC, SC, GA and Ark.

Jeb cranks it up for 2008

All those judges come rolling onto the courts and Bush names three new CSOTUS justices. The judges are Ashcroft, Scalia's son and Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch declines and Bush nominates his brother Neil.

The Seante Dems have given up obstructing, because they are cowed by the Bush Mandate.


I have a job idea for someone, they can sell tinfoil hats at the Democrat convention.

Posted by: Jack M on January 11, 2004 12:28 PM

Maybe so, Jack, but for some strange reasons a lot of the politicians have gotten musical groups to endorse them this time (yes, its 2004 but some things don't change).

Taking into consideration all you've said, I'm going back to read a little Woody:

http://aztec.lib.utk.edu/~pelton/youre_on.htm


History has a habit of repeating itself for some strange reason and I enjoy the lessons of the past.

Someone is on their "last go round", we just disagree about who it is.

Posted by: Buck on January 11, 2004 12:45 PM

Quote of the day:

"This is an administration committed to fiscal responsibility,"[John] Snow told ABC's "This Week." (today Jan. 11, 2004)

Anyway, I don't know which lie is first or which one is last, but its chicken and egg, it doesn't really matter, its still lying.


http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/040111/economy_snow_3.html

Posted by: on January 11, 2004 01:43 PM

Jack M fronted: "Look, I want Dean to win the primary because he clearly cannot win the presidency in the United States. He is a nut job. He has a paper trail. He is angry angry angry. And you may have noticed that Bush is pretty strong these days. But I think you may have to begin blowing Clark. And he has, um, truth issues."

ROTFLMAO! George, is that you? Every single accusation about Dean's so-called "gaffes" or moments of insanity is gossamer. His paper trail stands up to the light of day much better than W's. Bush apologists can stick to their fantasy of invincibility, formed as it is from years of their guy tap-dancing for hand-selected audiences ordered to applaud on cue.

The protective bubble isn't going to hold. The Ashcroft-enforced "free speech zones" hiding protesters from the press are about to break loose, and Mumbles is going to have to face media beyond the half-dozen Rove pals willing to read from his script. There's blood in the water, it's W's, and the smell is unmistakable. It might have been a breeze governing by 9-11 guilt and photo-op (heavily assisted by dissent-crushing tactics that would make Saddam envious) but Dub doesn't have a prayer of surviving months of unscripted, unchoreographed press conferences and opposition from lean and hungry Dems. In my office pool for predicting the Fall of the Rovian Empire, I picked mid-June. C'monnnnnnnn, June ... baby needs a new pair of shoes!

Posted by: on January 11, 2004 04:48 PM

That last post was mine.

Posted by: Peanut on January 11, 2004 04:50 PM

I don't know if you were referring to my post as George, but anyway, the "quote of the day" was my post, forgot to put my name on it.

Posted by: Buck on January 11, 2004 05:12 PM

"In my office pool for predicting the Fall of the Rovian Empire, I picked mid-June." Any day now, Peanut! Really. Soon, just around the corner. Hell to pay for old Bush, huh? Can't fool all the people all the time, eh? his lies are SURE to catch up with him, right? Get real.

"(heavily assisted by dissent-crushing tactics that would make Saddam envious)" Helllll-ooooohhhh!!! You are as crazy as most other Mad How supporters.

"Dub doesn't have a prayer of surviving months of unscripted, unchoreographed press conferences and opposition from lean and hungry Dems" Stop it! You're KILLING me!!! Mercy!!

Hey Peanut, how come you left out all the Bush=Hitler stuff? You guys must know deep down that the voters will not give the keys to any candidate that appeals to you.

And now Dean is self-destructing before our very eyes. Do you guys still think he is the nominee? That is a real question.

Posted by: on January 11, 2004 06:29 PM

Actually, on Bush = Hitler, I was just talking to a woman whose in-laws lived through Hitler's rise in Germany. She told me that the couple recently volunteered that they indeed saw some similarities between the early Hitler days and what is happening now. Myself, I can't say, since I wasn't there.

On the testing of Howard Dean, yes it is underway in spades. Every Democratic nominee endures this searing, unfair, ad hominem attack from the supposedly liberal media. The media almost brought down Clinton, and unfair coverage hurt Gore badly enough in 2000 to keep Gore from scoring a clean win. Yes, he won, but the margin was slender enough to get him within range of the GOP House/SCOTUS machine.

No Republican president, or even presidential candidate, has ever been subjected to this level of scrutiny. Even now, the media for whatever reason refuses to use its trusy and unlubed proctoscope on Shifty George.

I'm not crying about this. I'm dealing with it. And you won't see Big Howard whining, either.

Even if Dean is fatally wounded, which I doubt, he still has showed the eventual nominee what it means to win.

--LB

Posted by: Lead Balloons on January 11, 2004 08:54 PM

Someone wrote: "Hell to pay for old Bush, huh? Can't fool all the people all the time, eh? his lies are SURE to catch up with him, right? Get real."

As several investigations into BushCo wrongdoing are bear fruit and begin see the light of day, it's going to be harder for Bush apologists to blow smoke or whistle by the graveyard.

It's also idiotic to assume any Dean support or Bush=Hitler stance on my part -- a big tactical mistake on the part of Bush apologists. (As it happens, I'm undecided on which Dem candidate I like best, or which ticket I'd consider ideal.)

The problems for Bush that I pointed out were based on issues that are unfolding independently of partisan interpretation or media coverage. The majority of the public is already concerned about, eg, the shoddy case for war in Iraq and the subsequent (expensive) quagmire. HAHA STOOPID DEANIE isn't really going to cut it as a defense from any pro-Bush quarter, and he will have to explain -- on the campaign trail -- whether he was lying, stupid or out of the loop of his own administration in a mounting pile of scandal and fuckups.

Posted by: Peanut on January 11, 2004 09:43 PM

"Actually, on Bush = Hitler, I was just talking to a woman whose in-laws lived through Hitler's rise in Germany. She told me that the couple recently volunteered that they indeed saw some similarities between the early Hitler days and what is happening now. Myself, I can't say, since I wasn't there."

Nice, LB, your friend's in-laws are contemptable idiots and you should really think before actually repeating these "thoughts". I assume you went to college and have a vague idea about Germany in the 20's and 30's.... oh well, forget it, you guys have completly lost it.

This is a real question: do you and your friends really say things like this to each other? Do you really believe Bush is a Fascist? In America? In 2004?

Okay next. "No Republican president, or even presidential candidate, has ever been subjected to this level of scrutiny." Good God!!! Do you really believe this? Crazy.

Hmmmn, Let's see: ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NYT, WaPo, LAT, Ford Foundation, Harvard, Yale, Boston Globe, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Dan rather, Peter Jennings, Christine Amanpour, Paul Krugman, NYT Ed Board, Oprah.

I think they are all explicitly left wing, you probably disagree, right? Well, whatever they are, this is as left wing as the media is going to get. From here, the trend will be further and further to the right (or back to the center, I think). This is as good as it gets for the left, the media is moving away from the doctrinaire center-left.

Many on the right would say the media deck has always been stacked against it and they fought a two-front war: pointing out bias and creating new outlets. The right EXPECTED its message to be misrepresented by the media.

Now we find the left howling about the media, but there is no real recourse for you. All the outlets above have carried the left's water and now they apparently don't do as good a job. Where will the left go to gets its message out? You relied upon the "mainstream media" and did not develop an alternative strategy.

It is downhill from here, guys. Four more years of Bush, a Rep House, Senate, SCOTUS and finally, a fair-minded media.

Say goodnight.


Posted by: on January 12, 2004 12:56 PM

That was me.

And Peanut: "and he will have to explain -- on the campaign trail -- whether he was lying, stupid or out of the loop of his own administration in a mounting pile of scandal and fuckups."

I doubt it.

Posted by: Jack M on January 12, 2004 01:03 PM

Jack, to an extent I give you Krugman. Because he actually is exposing Bush; none of the other sources you mentioned qualifies.

However, Krugman does not count in the sense that I mention, because his critique is exclusively on policy grounds. I.E., Krugman's critique is what I consider legitimate political discourse.

The attacks on the Democrats -- Dean, Clinton and Gore as exhibits A, B, and C -- were not legitimate. Just stylistic B.S. allowing the media to hurt a candidate, and thus feel like they were Woodward and Bernstein. Adultery, what type of wardrobe, whether you are brusque, angry, whatever.

Mickey Mouse crap.

Nothing like that on Shifty George, ever. I mean the guy is a millionaire by virtue of Arlington, Texas city tax welfare, other shady deals, an Andover preppy masquerading as a person from Texas. Targets are overwhelming, but the media allows him to skate. Crazy world.

--LB

Posted by: Lead Balloons on January 12, 2004 02:09 PM

The point here is that President Bush has never been subjected to the same scrutiny as Clinton or Gore. Now Dean, as front runner, is put through the wringer. In the 2000 campaign there was a great deal about Bush that could have been exhaustively examined-- environmental policy, educational reform. By and large these items were not fully explored. The issues became whether Gore really said he invented the internet, etc.

If Bush been vetted with the same money and time and ruthlessness that Clinton was subjected too, he wouldn't have beaten Gore. There were too many suspect financial deals, especially the details of the new stadium deal for the Texas Rangers baseball team. It was possible to learn about these, but you had to read deep into stories in the Wall Street Journal to find them out.

That's the point LB is making. Clinton had folks hiring private eyes to dig around even before he moved onto the national stage. With Bush the media was more interested in whether or not he misspoke.

Posted by: Mike on January 12, 2004 02:45 PM

Well, at least there is one folk singer giving Bush a real wallop, I posted this link on LB's post "Parts protected", but seriously, take a break, get a laugh and listen to some real discourse (in song) that might cheer you up a little:
(and as a sidenote to Jack, Joe Hill isn't mentioned.)

http://www.folkmusic.com/t_mp3.htm

Posted by: Buck on January 12, 2004 03:04 PM


LB & Mike: a few points. I am not crazy about the media.

1) I strongly disagree that somehow Bush has escaped scrutiny and that Repubs in general escape scrutiny. It would be futile to make a series of tit-for-tat examples where repubs are held to much higher standards in the media(like: Newt gets eviscerated for his book deal and the 501(C) foundation while Hillery gets an $8M book deal and Katie Couric goes orgasmic) (or when Cruz Bustemante goes to an African-American political dinner and accidentally calls them "niggers" but Trent Lott is hounded for vague praise of Strom T.) We can each come up with counter examples for days.

Ask yourself what if Dan Quale had said _______? Say, what if Dan Quale said Ghandi ran a gas station in St. Louis?

I wholeheartedly agree that Bill Clinton came in for MUCH more than his fair share of scrutiny. And lots of it was drummed up by malicious, goofy righties. Period.

The media DID turn on Clinton, but some of that was due to losing Congress (when Hillary screwed him in 1994 with her health scare plan) AND he insanely extended the Independent Council Law. By 1994, everything was in place for his destruction.

Today, Bush controls Congress so, really, who the fuck cares about Henry Waxman or Paul Sarbanes or Barney Frank (how long since we have seen them??), right? They can't call for hearings and dominate the evening news. Like Iran-Contra. I think Congress has more to do with this than the media.

2) "The attacks on the Democrats -- Dean, Clinton and Gore as exhibits A, B, and C -- were not legitimate. Just stylistic B.S. allowing the media to hurt a candidate, and thus feel like they were Woodward and Bernstein. Adultery, what type of wardrobe, whether you are brusque, angry, whatever."

I feel very strongly that Clinton and Gore and Dean have created some of this by proclaiming stridently that they are far superior human beings than those corrupt, nasty Repubs. Bill and Hillary especially emitted an emetic moral superiority (we CARE more, Our motives are PURE) that raised the bar on them. It's hard to say that you are a better human being while hiring private detectives to silence women you have fucked. Or stuck cigars into.

Ckinton basically lied to the media during the 1992 campaign about Whitewater and infidelity (it's not the act, it's the COVER-UP) so they didn't really trust him anyway.

Also, and especially, they disapointed "progressives" in the media with their relatively centrist agenda (forced on them because they lost Congress). I think the Left may have turned on Clinton a little.

I'm afraid that Al Gore is just a loser and deserved everything he got. "No Controlling Legal Authority" "Buddist Temple" What a windbag. The clothes were a metaphor.

Remember, Newt and Ken Starr were facing daily vilification in the media.

3) "If Bush been vetted with the same money and time and ruthlessness that Clinton was subjected too, he wouldn't have beaten Gore. "

I find it extremely unbelievable that Bush's supposed weaknesses are not being exploited because of a passive media. If there was anything to the National Guard accusations or business deals, than we would know all about it.

Heck, all we see today is that bitter loser, Paul O'neill. I thought Leslie Stahl was going to suck his dick on 60 Minutes. Katie Couric may have already. There is no bigger scalp than W's. And the media would kill to get Bush.

4) Bill Clinton has so lowered the bar on personal behavior that Bush is the true beneficiary. Whitewater = Harken. And W doesn't sleep around.

5) My point from above is that this is a lefty as the media is going to get, and if you are dissatisfied (I guess you are, huh?) then life is going to get worse. I don't really listen to the media and most repubs don't either. We have been turned off for years, and it seems unlikely that the media would change minds on the right, and probably not much in the middle.

I loved it when Bush said he didn't really read papers anymore at a Press Conference!!! The elites went nuts, but most Americans don't read papers anymore, either.

One last point, Bush is much smarter than you think and Bush is much more disciplined than Clinton. He is very tough.

Posted by: Jack M on January 12, 2004 03:43 PM

Jack,

A world where the President doesn't have to stand up to at least some press scrutiny, left or right, is something that I'm not very comfortable with. Now Presidents don't have to reveal anything about how they frame important national policy. Maybe Repubs are happy to let Bush hide the activities of the energy meeting. But then when there's a Democratic President, Repubs will howl about being shut out of the process.

If anything, I believe that the worst part of the Bush legacy is going to be the renewed power and secrecy of the executive branch. You can say it's sour grapes now coming from a lefty, but your turn on the outside will come again.

Posted by: Mike on January 12, 2004 05:03 PM


Mike, I understand what you are saying, but disagree that there is no scrutiny. The Left has pissed away any credibility with all the mindless, vicious invective. No rational person would listen to a lefty criticize Bush. Look at the presidential candidates, they are crazy. I have posted on this site many times that the left is killing itself. 9/11 changed things.

As for the media, there is a war on, and they are already a little jumpy about their image.

From the Right, there are open pockets of discontent over the budget, the Medicare giveaway and Immigration. Just listen to talk radio. Rush, Laura Ing and Hugh Hewitt are furious about the Immigration thing. Furious. BUT BUT BUT Bush has so much credit on the Right that he can run to the center on these issues. He won universal credit (on the right) for tax cuts, the war and because he deomlished the Democratic Party in Nov 2002. Really. The right LOVES that Bush has completely clobbered the Left. He is the strong horse, as Osama says. He also speaks to evangelicals. Currently, the Right is prepared to give up a little bit of their personal agenda for the greater good. This will change in the second term.

It looks like each of the individual constituancies of the Left DEMAND that democrats support their aganda completely. For instance, what good is to teachers if a dem goes to the mat for say, abortion rights, but allows voucher trials. The dems MUST support each single-interest group 100%. No compromise. Repubs see the bigger picture, and Bush is masterful at playing them.

"Maybe Repubs are happy to let Bush hide the activities of the energy meeting. But then when there's a Democratic President, Repubs will howl about being shut out of the process." As I recall, Hillary violated Sunshine Laws, Cheney has been upheld in court.

"If anything, I believe that the worst part of the Bush legacy is going to be the renewed power and secrecy of the executive branch. You can say it's sour grapes now coming from a lefty, but your turn on the outside will come again."

There is a philosophical discussion about the power of the Executive Branch vis a vis the Courts or Congress. Some presidents have more power than others. Clinton, unfortunately, lost control of Congress and paid the price. Reagan was hounded by the Dem over Iran-Contra. Nixon ws hounded by the media. It happens. Bush will fuck up somehow, or his second term will bring out rebellious Repubs no longer fearful of a lame duck. Who knows. The system is self-correcting.

You are correct, I will howl at the next democrat president over..well..anything and everything.


Posted by: on January 12, 2004 06:01 PM

NYT TUESDAY: DEAN CAMPAIGN HITS TURBULENCE
Mon Jan 12 2004 16:41:35 ET

Democratic Party officials now say that Howard Dean has slipped into turbulent territory, the NY TIMES is planning to report in Tuesday editions, beset by challenges and problems in both Iowa and New Hampshire, the two states where he was looking to nail down the nomination with early decisive wins.

Newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT how NYT's Nagourney is polishing a story about the Dean troubles.

"Dean's supporters expressed distress Monday at what many described as his faltering performance in a televised debate over the weekend, the latest in a series of difficulties he has encountered," Nagourney claims.

"With the rest of the field working in Iowa, Gen. Wesley Clark has taken advantage in New Hampshire to move up in the polls behind Dean, drawing crowds that are beginning to rival Dean's and threatening his once dominant position in the state."

Posted by: on January 12, 2004 06:02 PM

Anonymous poster wrote:

"Look at the presidential candidates, they are crazy"

Hmmmm

Thats a pretty large group of people.

I'll refrain from making a personal attack.

Could you explain why you feel this way?

Posted by: Buck on January 12, 2004 06:58 PM

Posted by Jack M at January 12, 2004 03:43 PM:
"I loved it when Bush said he didn't really read papers anymore at a Press Conference!!! The elites went nuts, but most Americans don't read papers anymore, either.

"One last point, Bush is much smarter than you think and Bush is much more disciplined than Clinton. He is very tough."

In response, here's Naomi Klein in The Nation:

"When Bush came to office, many believed his ignorance would be his downfall. Eventually Americans would realize that a President who referred to Africa as "a nation" was unfit to lead. Now we tell ourselves that if only Americans knew that they were being lied to, they would surely revolt. But with the greatest of respect for the liar books (Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Big Lies, The Lies of George W. Bush, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq et al.), I'm no longer convinced that America can be set free by the truth alone.

"In many cases, fake versions of events have prevailed even when the truth was readily available. The real Jessica Lynch--who told Diane Sawyer that "no one beat me, no one slapped me, no one, nothing"--has proven no match for her media-military created doppelgänger, shown being slapped around by her cruel captors in NBC's movie Saving Jessica Lynch.

"Rather than being toppled for his adversarial relationship to both the most important truths and the most basic facts, Bush is actively remaking America in the image of his own ignorance and duplicity. Not only is it OK to be misinformed, but as the almanac warning shows, knowing stuff is fast becoming a crime."

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040126&s;=klein

We get the government we deserve, people.

Posted by: Rock of the Westies on January 13, 2004 01:18 AM

Oh, c'mon, Rock. Don't be so serious. Certianly not so serious that you would cite a beyond-angry, waaay-lefty like Klein.

The point I was making is that Bush must have a nice sense of irony to tell the media, (which since day one has been after him for being an uninformed, unread, practically-illiterate moron) that he doesn't bother to read their work anymore. The unstated inference would be that most Americans don't read the biased national media, either.

And I doubt most Americans would have a clue who Klein is, rightly so. BTW, I am always amused at Katrina's bulging veins and untethered rhetoric on Hardball.

I still don't understand what kind of lunatic mania allows the left to say that Bush is an idiot - Andover - Yale - Havrvard Business - Gov of Texas and POTUS.


Buck: ""Look at the presidential candidates, they are crazy""

I have sat through the agony of several Dem pres debates and can say with certainty that their collective hatred of Bush has driven them crazy as a group and as individuals. Several points, in no particular order:

1) Al Sharpton gets a pass (or even treated as an equal!!) from all despite being a race-baiting demogogue (I could go on and on about Sharpton). It is truly shameful for democrats that he is considered a peer by Dean. Did you see him shove minority hiring up Dean's ass in the Black and Brown debate?

1A) Black and Brown debate?? Sheesh!

2) Dennis Kucinich

3) John Kerry cannot keep his story straight about the war and even democrats can only take so much idiocy. Maybe he should get his heavily-accented wife Teh-RAY-suh out there on the trail to say what he meant.

4) Wes Clark thinks HE can be president??? Insane. He actually said he would end terrorist attacks!! And that he supports abortion until the head starts to come out. Insane. Guys, remember what I said about leftist interest groups demanding 100% support for their peculiar issues.

5) Mad How is falling apart and his only schtick about the war has become "I hate Bush more than you do - watch me howl"

6) Carol Mosely Braun

7) All of them keep referring to mystical, non-existent UN Troops. They don't exist, there aren't any!!

8) Everyone wants to raise taxes, and proudly loudly proclaims this. Used to be that smart dems would just lie about rasing taxes, like Clinton. But it is not really smart to demand tax increases. Really. People don't like high taxes. They teach that in Poly Sci 101. What kind of collective lunacy has caused all dem candidates to compete over who can raise taxes higher.

9) In terror of losing the unnatural 92% support among Blacks, the candidates talked seriously about Reparations. Reparations!!! Are you kidding me? In a national election?? Insane and truly crazy.


10) Dick Gephardt, (who kept losing the House and was forced to leave as House MINORITY-for-the-next-20-years leader) keeps calling Bush a miserable failure! It's called "projection".

11) The Breck Girl

Posted by: Jack M on January 13, 2004 09:22 AM

Clark lied; People died.

As I said...Crazy

Tape Shows General Clark Linking Iraq and Al Qaeda
By EDWARD WYATT

Published: January 12, 2004

MANCHESTER, N.H., Jan. 11 — Less than a year before he entered the race for the Democratic nomination for president, Gen. Wesley K. Clark said that he believed there was a connection between the Iraqi government and Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Jack M on January 13, 2004 12:20 PM

Jack, I almost laughed out loud at your apparent assertion that somebody who went to Andover, Yale and Harvard business school must not be an idiot.

Jack, these are my people. And that's one reason why I have such contempt for the Bush family. I don't know the Bushes personally, but let me be the first in line to burst your bubble, Little Virginia: idiots abound at Andover, Yale, and especially Harvard Business School.

That's not to say that all members of Eastern elite families are idiots; some are great people. But many are idiots; and, from what I've seen and read, the Bush family is an archetype of the insular, self-congratulatory, peon-hating, xenophobic, and greed-focussed wing of the tribe.

--LB

Posted by: Lead Balloons on January 13, 2004 12:24 PM

Well great, I come from that group too. Grew up in LA and all the idiots went to USC. Saw them all at the Rose Bowl. Fine.

Except it the Left that uses credentials to identify those who are important. Republicans tend to mistrust pointy-headed types. The "meritocrats" area lefty creation. I saw all the Clinton people described as "brilliant" because they went to Ivy League schools and law schools. They worked at prestigious foundations and taught at prestigious schools. Their "credentialing" was non-stop. Hillary is BRILLIANT!! She went to Wellseley AND Yale Law...with all those other BRILLIANT Yale Law grads. And Ak Gore went to St. Albans Harvard and um flunked out of Vanderbilt twice...but he was BRILLIANT!!!! Wes Clark is a RHODES SCHOLAR!! And yet he says such stupid things.

And, of course, the intellectual heft of the left comes from academics and professors.

So Bush got his ticket punched at the best places. Which is all they care about in acadamia anyway.

Posted by: jack m on January 13, 2004 01:32 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?