Adeimantus RSS Feed
Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your My Yahoo Page
Add Adeimantus RSS Feed to Your MSN Page Subscribe to Adeimantus RSS Feed in NewsGator Online


Conservative Political Commentary

Quote of the Day

Lady Liberty

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

Friday, October 29, 2004

You Heard it Here First
posted by lostingotham

At the beginning of the 1981 NFL season, I made the inspired prediction that the San Francisco Forty-niners and the Cincinatti Bengals would play in the Superbowl. Alas, I failed to put even a single dollar down on my picks (who had both gone 6-10 the previous year), and nobody, and I do mean nobody, believes me now when I recount my amazing prescience.

To think: had I documented my picks I could be making a comfortable living even now pounding out Jeanne Dixon-esque predictions of rising ocean levels and world-wide plagues for the National Enquirer. I'll never miss that chance again. So, prepare yourself, folks, for Lostingotham's clairvoyant vision of the 2004 election:

Prediction # 1
George W. Bush will carry every single state he carried in 2000. Yes, that means Florida and that means New Hampshire. It also means Kerry will lose.

Prediction # 2
Bush will carry Pennsylvania by enough of a margin that the networks will call it by 11pm Eastern time. That will be the official signal for the barking moonbats to start whining about stolen elections.

Prediction # 3
Bush will carry both Iowa and Wisconsin.

Prediction #4
Bush will carry at least one of Michigan, Minnesota and New Jersey. I'm feeling very good psychic vibes for both the Garden State and the K-Car State.

Prediction #5
Bush will carry New Mexico by a hair.

Prediction #6
Bush will carry Hawaii

Prediction #7
Tom Daschle will be making Viagra ads when the Senate convenes next Spring.

Adeimantus's electoral tie scenarios are fascinating, but you won't need 'em this year. And on Wednesday when everyone at the water cooler is scratching their heads saying "whooda thunkit?" Remember: you heard it here first.

p.s. if anyone knows an editor of the National Enquirer, I'm available to predict floods, droughts, and other weather catastropes on a per diem basis. I also do birthday parties, bar-mitzvahs and corporate events.

posted by lostingotham | 10/29/2004 11:56:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post a Comment |

Thursday, October 28, 2004

Electoral Vote Scenarios
posted by Bathus

If the current poll numbers are to be believed, the following result is perhaps the most likely election scenario:
Bush wins all the states he won in 2000 except Ohio and New Hampshire, which Kerry wins.

Kerry wins all the states Gore won in 2000 except Wisconsin and New Mexico, which Bush wins.

The electoral vote is tied at 269 apiece.
You also end up with a 269 - 269 electoral vote tie if:
Instead of taking Ohio and New Hampshire out of the Bush column, Kerry wins Florida and New Hampshire plus all the Gore states except Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico.
A curious variation on the 269 - 269 tie scenarios:
Bush wins the popular tally in the 2nd Congressional District in Maine (which splits its electoral votes among its congressional districts), so he gets one electoral vote from Maine and wins 270 - 268.
To sum up and keep it simple:

(NOTE--Except as otherwise indicated, the following scenarios are based on Bush winning all the states he won in 2000 and Kerry winning all the states Gore won in 2000.)
1) If Kerry loses Pennsylvania, which seems unlikely, we can start the party early . . . unless Bush loses both Florida and Ohio, in which case see scenario #5.
2) If Kerry hangs on to Pennsylvania and flips New Hampshire and Ohio, it will be a nail-biter, because we'll need to flip Wisconsin and Iowa to win at 271 - 269 or flip Wisconsin and New Mexico to tie at 269.
3) If Bush loses Florida and New Hampshire, start praying really hard, because then we'll have to hang on to all the rest of the red states plus flip all three of Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Mexico just to tie at 269.
4) If Bush wins both Ohio and Florida, we can relax a little: Kerry can flip New Hampshire, keep Iowa, keep New Mexico, and keep Wisconsin, and Bush would still win 274 - 264 just by hanging on to the remainder of 2000 red states.
5) But if Bush loses both Ohio and Florida, you can put down your calculators and turn out the lights because the party will be over . . . . unless Bush flips Pennsylvania, in which case, if Bush also flips Iowa and Wisconsin and hangs on to New Hampshire, it's another 269 -269 tie.
My own bet is:
Bush wins all his 2000 states except New Hampshire, and he adds New Mexico, Iowa, and Wisconsin to his column to win the electoral vote 296 - 242.
Here's a link to a handy electoral vote calculator you can use to double-check my math or to refine and indulge your own speculations, which I invite you to share with us in the comments section of this post.

[On a personal note, I want to thank Tom once again for keeping the blog alive during my virtual absence this last month. I haven't quite fallen off the edge of the earth yet, but I was teetering right there on the brink for a while. Sorry to say that the way things look right now, it will be after election day before I can find time to post again. We've moved all our junk into the new house, but we're still living out of boxes, sleeping on mattresses on the floor because we haven't gotten the bed put together, and dining in the car on the way home from McDonalds. (Just like college, but without all the romance!) Both the wife and I have been super busy in our working lives, which means I can't do the usual trick of sloughing household duties onto her to give me time for blogging. Anyway, no matter how this election goes, I'll have plenty more to say about it when it's over. In the meantime, check back often for Tom's delicious satire.

And just for the record, if Bush loses, I am not moving to France!--Adeimantus]

posted by Bathus | 10/28/2004 08:48:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment |
What Boston Lost in the Series
posted by lostingotham

Amid all the celebrating that's surely going on in Boston today I wonder if a more poignant note hasn't gone unnoticed.

For me the Sox, and especially the Sox fans, have always been symbols of some of the finest of human qualities: perseverance, optimism and loyalty in the face of adversity. More than two dozen Series pennants hang in the Bronx yet the fans there regularly boo the home team. The Fenway fans endured an eighty-six year dry spell yet remained the most loyal fans in baseball. Whenever the Sox and Yankees met a little morality play unfolded before our eyes. Even die-hard Yankees fans had to secretly admit that if there were any justice in the cosmos Boston, and surely their fans, really deserved to win more. But somehow that didn't measure up to the sheer beauty of seeing the Sox, against all odds, maintain their faith after losing yet again.

I think all this is somehow a metaphor for the human condition. All of us are mortal. There can be no doubt, at the end of our personal Series, who will be the victor. We may make some great plays in Game 3, and we may even stretch things to extra innings in Game 7, but when the final strike is called death will walk away with the pennant. Nonetheless we struggle up to bat, we take our place on the mound (even with blood soaking our ankles) and we continue to play. There is nothing so noble as man defiant in defeat, hopeless yet unbowed. This is the stuff of high tragedy, of history, and of legend. And until last night it was the Boston Red Sox.

Did they deserve to win? No doubt. They've deserved to win yea these many years. They deserved it and I'm happy for them. But I cannot help thinking that something important has passed away; that the Red Sox, baseball, and all of us have somehow lost a real connection to the thing that is best about humanity: that quality that makes us go out and try again, and try our hardest, and believe that this is finally the year...even when we've already tried and failed eighty-six times.

Do I have something against the Sox? Some of my Sox-loving friends seem to think so. I suppose I have something against Charlie Brown, too, because I think he just wouldn't have been the same if he'd ever managed to kick that football. I have something against Sisyphus because I think his story is far more profound than those of the millions of nobodies who managed to get their boulders to the top of their hills. Victory is thin stuff, as the Yankees fans have amply demonstrated; its joys last only until the next inevitable defeat. The Sox had something finer--they had unfounded faith, irrational courage, and unreasonable loyalty. I don't doubt that the virtues are still there, but the game last night dispelled the adjectives that made them truly rare and glorious. That, my friends, is a heavy loss.

[Lostingotham is a die-hard Astros fan. He'd never admit it, but in his heart of hearts he's pleased to still be rooting for a loser. - Ed.]

posted by lostingotham | 10/28/2004 01:48:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post a Comment |
Damage Control
posted by Tom

Female Auto-Response Voice: Good morning and welcome to your Confidential DNC Conference Bridge. Please enter your conference code ... Thank you. Your conference call is already in progress. You are joining as a participant. If you would like your call to be translated into one of the following languages, press 4, then the following:

For Spanish, press 7
For Hip Hop, press 3, motherfucker.

For English, simply stay on the line. Thank you. If you need help during your conference, press zero for an operator.

Unidentified Voice #1: Hold on, Dan, I think the Senator just signed on?

Unidentified Voice #2: H-hello?

Unidentified Voice #1: Senator Kerry?

Kerry: Pinch?

Pinch: It’s about time.

Kerry: I apologize. Teresa simply would not write the check for the additional two million if I didn’t give her a foot massage. You know how it is.

Dan: Good morning, Senator.

Kerry: Hello, Dan.

Pinch: Senator, I told you we could only get that commercial shot on such short notice if we paid within 24 hours. Does that bimbo know how important this is?

Kerry: It was the last minute, Pinch, I mean, really …

Pinch: All right, never mind. It’s a moot point.

Kerry: Why?

Pinch: Well …

Kerry:: Yes?

Pinch: Look, there might be a problem with the story.

Kerry: Problem? Problem? What problem? We shot the commercial. It’s “in the can”, as they say in Hollywood. It’s going to be aired, for gosh Almighty’s sake. I thought the 60 Minutes piece was all set to go this Sunday. THE ELECTION IS NEXT TUESDAY! WHAT ARE YOU TELLING ME?!

Pinch: Senator, calm down. Dan?

Dan: You see, Senator, other news organizations, not to mention the rabid right wingers on talk radio and the web, have discovered all the flaws in the story that – and I mean no disrespect to you or Pinch – both of you said wouldn’t make a difference when we discussed running it in The Times the week before the election. They’ve uncovered the discrepancy in the timeline that we simply cannot rectify. They’ve identified our tainted UN source. And to make matters worse, reporters from rival networks that were imbedded with the 101st and the 3rd ID are more than suggesting the explosives were gone before any coalition troops reached the site.


Dan: Senator?

Kerry: So? What’s the problem?

Pinch: What’s the problem?! Senator, have you gone goofy or what?

Kerry: Well, Jeez Louise, guys, I thought you were going to tell me they had conclusive proof that the explosives were removed before those morons got there.

Dan: Senator, if I may. Since there is a doubt, and based on your accusations of administration incompetence in your stump speeches, the burden is on us to show that the explosives were there when those units arrived.


Pinch: Senator?

Kerry: It is? Why?

Pinch: What do you mean, why? You were a goddamned prosecutor …

Kerry: Briefly. Anyway, most of the defendants pled out …

Dan: It’s just the way things are done, Senator.

Kerry: Well, pardon me all to hell, but it’s not the way I do things. I’ve never done things that way. Why, no one in the Senate or the press demanded I do that in 1971 …


Kerry: Well, I must say, Pinch, you’ve got your nerve shouting after telling me to calm down. Do you know who I am?


Pinch: Who the hell is that on the line?

Unidentified Voice: Hi!

Kerry: John?!

Dan: Senator Edwards?

Edwards: Hi!

Pinch: Who invited you?

Edwards: Hi!

Pinch: Who invited you?!

Edwards: Ah think it’s “whom” invited me, ain’t it?

Pinch: Don’t give me that down home cracker barrel bullshit.

Edwards: Well, kiss my ass and tell me how it tastes, Pinch, Ah am the vice-president in waitin', after all.

Pinch: You’re lucky the eastern establishment even gives you the time of day. If you weren’t a trial lawyer … What do you want?

Edwards: Well, heck ‘n tarnation there, Pinch, you Hebraic New Yorker, you. Ah was jus’ checkin’ in to see if Ah could help out with this missin’ explosives story.

Kerry: And you’re just in time, John, to hear about the problems with the explosives story our two brilliant advisers have just discovered.

Edwards: Problems? Nothin’ serious, Ah hope, John. I mean, hell and horse feathers, you done shot the commercial accusin’ Bush of havin’ lost ‘em.

John: Paid for it, too.

Edwards: Woo, doggie. I wouldn’t want to be the one to tell your wife a couple mill jus’ went out the winda. Good thing you don’t have to worry about sex anymore …

Pinch: Uh, excuse me, guys, but I’ve got a newspaper to run, so I’d like to clear this up as soon as possible.

Kerry: What is there to clear up? You ran the story. The commercial will air tonight.

Dan: If I may, Senator …

Edwards: Which one?

Pinch: The smart one.

Edwards: Oh, that's right. Ah'm the good lookin' one.

Pinch: Oh, shut up. And what’s with this “Senator, if I may” toe sucking obsequiousness, Dan?

Dan: Well, I was simply …

Pinch: Next we’ll be hearing your pious, “It’s important to recognize what is rumor and what is fact.” If you’ve got something to say, say it.

Kerry: And speaking of rumor and fact, why don’t we just provide a document that places the explosives at the site?

Edwards: Al Ca-ca. Heh, heh, heh.

Pinch: Oh, grow up.

Edwards: Daddy, Uday and Qusay went al Ca-Ca --

Kerry: John, knock it off.

Edwards [snickering]: Sorry.

Kerry: Well, Dan?

Dan: Well, what, Senator?

Kerry: Why don’t we just provide a document that places the explosives at the site at the right time?

Dan: We don’t possess any such document, Senator.

Kerry: Ahem, ahem.

Pinch: Senator, you know as well as I do that we played that card already.

Dan: Yes, Senator, if I -- I mean, we got away with it once. We’ll never get away with it twice.

Edwards: Well, hell, I mean, hush my puppies, guys.

Pinch: What is it?

Edwards: You got your IAEAUdayQusayEBayixnayontheourcesay, right? Can't be hard for 'im to gin somethin’ up. I mean, it ain’t like we’re talkin’ about discrepancies in fonts and all that other stuff that tripped up the last one. They got that there MS Word over there in that UN, don’t they? Those coloreds are advanced.

Kerry: Yes, Dan. Couldn’t we get some Negro administrative assistant, preferably a female, over at the UN to put something together for us? The Republicans wouldn’t dare challenge a Negro source for fear of offending the three our four Blacks who will vote for them on Tuesday.

Pinch: There’s still those blogger pricks to worry about.

Edwards: Well, cut my britches and call me shorty, Pinch, by the time their de-bunks make the rounds, the election’ll be over.


Dan: Pinch?

Pinch: I just think that really puts our credibility on the line, Dan.

Edwards [snorts, coughs]: Sorry there, boys, my cappo-chino just went down the wrong pipe.

Kerry: I'll expect a decision by this afternoon, gentlemen. Call me in Florida --

Dan: Er, Senator Kerry?

Kerry: Yes?

Dan: The other problem is you've told supporters those explosives have been used against American troops.

Kerry [sighs]: What of it?

Dan: We've got no evidence of that, either. And there's no way the IAEA would know that, so we couldn't include that in any of our documentary evidence.

Pinch: Didn't think about that one, did you?


Edwards: How 'bout a videotape.

Pinch: Of what?

Edwards: We got some a them there camel jockeys on the payroll, don't we, John? I mean, who we got workin' those mosques and - whatchamacallits - madsomethin' or others --

Kerry: Madrassas.

Edwards: Yeah, like in Illinois, registerin' those illegals.

Kerry: And?

Edwards: Get one a those guys, slap a hood on 'im, put an AK 47 in his hands and have 'im start talkin' on camera 'bout all those stolen munitions they're usin' against our boys.

Pinch: And girls.

Edwards: Yeah, right. Then that there Al Jazeeria gets the tape in the mail and --

Dan: QED.

Pich: Senator Edwards, my apologies. You're a genius.

Edwards: Aw, shucks, Pinch.

Kerry: Brilliant, John.

Edwards: Heh-heh-heh, shit and shinola, guys. Never underestimate the re-wards of a legal education.

Pinch: We'll get on this ASAP. Later.

Kerry: Keep me informed. Bye.

Edwards: Adios.

Dan: Courage.


posted by Tom | 10/28/2004 09:37:00 AM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment |

Thursday, October 21, 2004

The Fall of Castro
posted by Tom

ABC World News Tonight Theme Music

Announcer [under video feed of Fidel Castro lying face down on a floor, surrounded by bodyguards]: This is an ABC News Special Report: The Fall of Fidel Castro. From Washington, Peter Jennings ...

Peter Jennings: Good evening. We begin tonight with a story that will surely have an impact on the American media as well as the Kerry campaign, if not the entire Democratic Party. Cuban President Fidel Castro was injured in a fall while leaving the stage after a televised speech Wednesday night, injuring his knee and arm. The President's devastating accident followed a speech at a graduation ceremony for arts instructors. Cuba, as is well known to frequent viewers of ABC News, takes higher education and the arts far more seriously than does the US, and it's not unusual to see the adored President Castro - his job approval rating is close to 100% compared to Mr. Bush's sorry 49% here in the US - delivering commencement addresses. Quite unlike Mr. Bush, El Presidente de Cooba deems no ceremony too small when it comes to connecting to the great unwashed of that tiny island. And compare Cuba's 99% literacy rate to our abysmal ...

Pressing earphone deeper into his ear.

Ladies and gentlemen, because the video we have doesn't capture the whole story, we go to the telephone, where from the city of Santa Clara, site of this terrible event, Associated Press photographer Jiminez Jiminez Jiminez ... (listens) ... I'm sorry, Jiminez Juan Jiminez ... (listens) ... What? Jiminez Gonzales Rodriguez? Rodriguez Gonzalez? Associated Press photographer Rodriguez Gonzalez, who was an eyewitness to the ... (listens)

I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. I've just been informed that AP photographer Jiminez Rodriguez Gonzalez Rodriguez, er, Jiminez, is being detained by Cuban authorities. Apparently, they have asked for his camera, so he is not able at present to give us the details of the President's near fatal fall from that stage after delivering what we here at ABC News are certain was a stirring commencement address. For those of you who are curious about Mr. Jiminez-Rodriguez's detention, I should remind you that Cuba is not the United States. For one thing, it's smaller. But for another, they are much more protective of their President. I mention this for no other reason than Americans are often shocked at how President Castro is so adored by Cubans that they are willing to forego certain rights and privileges we take for granted to ensure their leader is safe. Americans, after all, loathe Mr. Bush for failing to provide the universal health care to all Americans that Cubans have enjoyed ever since President Castro liberated that country from corporate America and organized crime.

At any rate, President Castro was in Santa Clara, which, our research department has informed me, is approximately a three-hour drive east of Havana.

Cut to computer animated flyover of Cuba from Havana to the city of Santa Clara.

Jennings [off camera]: You can see on the map the route the much loved President of Cuba likely would have taken to Santa Clara over Cuba's superior highway system thanks to El Presidente's concern for his country's infrastructure, which is in stark contrast to Mr. Bush's preference for tax cuts.

Cut back to Jennings staring thoughtfully at map on his laptop. Long pause.

Jennings: To help put this unbelievable turn of events in perspective, we turn to my fellow Castrophile, Diane Sawyer, here in the studio.

Cut to two shot of Jennings and Sawyer.

Jennings: Diane.

Sawyer: Peter.

Jennings: Diane.

Sawyer: Peter.

Jennings: Diane.

Sawyer: Diane.

Jennings: Peter.

Sawyer: Peter ...

Jennings: Diane, at times like this, it's tempting to ask why, isn't it?

Sawyer: Why isn't it what, Peter?

Jennings: Why Castro chose this moment in history to fall on his posterior region. He's outlasted, oh, how many American Presidents is it now?

Sawyer: It's been at least ...

Jennings: I was going to say at least a dozen, not counting Mr. Bush, who as we know holds the office under a cloud of suspicion.

Sawyer: Yes, a cloud of suspicion. That's how I would have put it, Peter, had I thought of it. That's a metaphor, isn't it?

Jennings: Yes, for want of a better term.

Sawyer: I thought so.

Jennings: And President Castro fell so close to our election. What do your sources on Capitol Hill tell you? Suspected CIA involvement?

Sawyer: I've heard some rumors to that effect, Peter. After all, the Bush Administration is verrrry nervous about Kerry's post-debate surge and the daily horror show known as Iraq. The time was right for a distraction.

Jennings: Sort of a trip-Castro-and-get-the-American-people-to-forget-about-the-quagmire strategy?

Sawyer: Yes.

Jennings: Interesting.

Sawyer: And keep in mind, Peter, this is the second time Castro has fallen this year. What could advance the Bush campaign further among those kidnappers of Elian Gonzalez in Miami than portraying Castro as the clumsy commie?

Jennings: The pieces all seem to fit, do they not, Diane?

Sawyer: Indeed they do, Peter.

Jennings: Although President Castro has a long way to go before he looks as oafish as Gerald Ford, who was a much younger man when he stumbled his way through what was - mercifully - one term in office.

Sawyer: And speaking of Ford, I talked to the man who defeated him, former President Carter , before going on the air.

Jennings: His reaction?

Sawyer: When he heard his dear, dear friend Fidel wiped out in Santa Clara, he was quote, shattered by the news, unquote.

Jennings: Any word from the Kerry campaign?

Sawyer: Not yet, though a spokesperson said off the record the candidate and Mrs. Kerry were lighting candles for Fidel in the cathedral here in Washington and would make a statement when they have both, quote, recovered.

Jennings: And Mr. Bush?

Sawyer: In what Democrats are saying is another example of this president's total disengagement from the global community, the President and his advisors have been huddling in the White House preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, where as you know a disastrous election took place last weekend that further set back the administration's goals in the region.

Jennings: In other words, it seems as though Mr. Bush has little time for an ailing peer in the international community?

Sawyer: So it would seem, Peter.

Jennings: Thank you, Diane.

Sawyer: Thank you, Peter.

Jennings: When we come back, a look back on how Castro changed the western hemisphere forever ...

posted by Tom | 10/21/2004 06:16:00 AM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post a Comment |

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Zsa Zsa has one too many before an interview
posted by Tom

Anyone who can read what follows with a straight face is either:

a. Dead
b. A feminist
c. John Kerry

WASHINGTON - Teresa Heinz Kerry says she doesn't know if first lady Laura Bush has ever had "a real job" and suggests their different experiences help make them different people.

Laura Bush taught in public schools in Texas from 1968 to 1977, the year she married George W. Bush.

In an interview published Wednesday in USA Today, the newspaper asked the wife of Democratic candidate John Kerry if she would be different from Laura Bush as a first lady.

"Well, you know, I don't know Laura Bush. But she seems to be calm, and she has a sparkle in her eye, which is good," Heinz Kerry said. "But I don't know that she's ever had a real job — I mean, since she's been grown up. So her experience and her validation comes from important things, but different things."

Heinz Kerry said she sees her age as a benefit — she is 66 and Bush 57. "I'm older, and my validation of what I do is a little bit bigger — because I'm older, and I've had different experiences. And it's not a criticism of her. It's just, you know, what life is about," she said.

Karen Hughes, an adviser to President Bush, criticized Heinz Kerry's remarks as "indicative of an unfortunate mind-set that seeks to divide women based on who works at home and who works outside the home."
Then she sobered up:

Statement of Teresa Heinz Kerry

To: National Desk, Political Reporter
Contact: Sarah Gegenheimer of Kerry Edwards 2004, 202-464-2800

PITTSBURGH, Oct. 20 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Teresa Heinz Kerry released the following statement today:

"I had forgotten that Mrs. Bush had worked as a school teacher and librarian, and there couldn't be a more important job than teaching our children. As someone who has been both a full time mom and full time in workforce, I know we all have valuable experiences that shape who we are. I appreciate and honor Mrs. Bush's service to the country as First Lady, and am sincerely sorry I had not remembered her important work in the past."

Note the similarities in language and tone (forget syntax) between this classless slob's intial asinine insults directed at Laura Bush and her - ahem - 'apology'.

For the sake of consistency, Ms. Heinz Kerry's lackey could have at least written:

"I'm sorry, dah-links. I forgot it was so close to the election, and any stupid thing I say might keep us out of the Vite House. And vinning is very important to John because he has has never held a real job and needs bigger validation. Ve all have valuable experiences that shape who ve are. John's Viet Nam service shaped who he is. Mary Cheney's lesbianism shaped who she is. Michael Moore's eating habits shaped who he is. I know how hard it is to vork and raise a family. Some nights I was so tired from calculating my tax loopholes, I hardly had strength to tell the au pair vhat to tell the maid to tell the cook vhat he should make for dinner. I apologize to Mrs. Bush for forgetting that she once taught little Negro children in the public schools. Okay? I said it. Happy?"

posted by Tom | 10/20/2004 03:10:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment |

Monday, October 18, 2004

And in other news ...
posted by Tom

In the "Well, duh!" department:

You have to attend a top tier law school to reach the conclusion that the votes of incompetent morons for the most powerful job in the world shouldn’t count.

And speaking of Florida:

Problems Crop Up in Fla. Early Voting

Several hundred votes were disqualified when elderly Jewish and African-American voters mistakenly wrote in Pat Buchanan’s name on the ballot. Jesse Jackson called it the worst case of voter disenfranchisement since the names of dead Chicagoans were stricken from the rolls in 1988.

The New York Times Endorses Kerry

In other shocking news:

Jews Call Hitler’s Mein Kampf Anti-Semitic

Andrew Sullivan Comes Out In Favor Of Gay Marriage

Muslims Suspected Of Perpetrating September 11th Attacks

Michael Moore Wheezes After Climbing One Flight Of Stairs

And speaking of Moore:

Michael Moore Removes C-SPAN Cameras During Speech

… sources say Moore presented exclusive footage (from Fahrenheit 9-11) during the session, footage that never made it into the theatrical version of his 2004 film. Footage that was to be aired exclusively during a high-profile pay-for-view election special. Not a "low-profile" C-SPAN cycle.
Included was a secret audio tape of a conference call between George Bush, Dick Cheney, Usama Bin Laden, and Haliburton shortly after 9-11, secret footage of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sexually harassing Ruth Bader Ginsberg in her chambers immediately after oral arguments in Bush v. Gore, and secret footage of Katherine Harris burning ballots in her office wastebasket in November, 2000.

Heinz Kerry Paid Lower Tax Rate Than Most Taxpayers

John Edwards immediately launched an attack on the Bush administration, claiming this is further proof that the Republican’s tax policy unfairly favors Democrats whose spouses run for President. “There are two Americas!" Edwards screamed at a rally at New York’s Bellevue Hospital, in response to which heavily sedated Kerry/Edwards supporters drooled their approval. “One for John Kerry’s wife and one for the rest of us!” When reporters reminded him that he was Senator Kerry’s running mate, the stammering vice-presidential candidate was rescued by his wife, who said, “Yes, and I’m disappointed in his reaction to this news. He’s obviously ashamed of his relationship with John Kerry.”

posted by Tom | 10/18/2004 01:06:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment |

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Kerry: "I meant no disrespect to Ms. Cheney"
posted by Tom

Below is a partial transcript of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry's speech to supporters last night in which he responded to Republican charges that he exploited the Cheneys gay daughter to score cheap political points in Wednesday night's debate.

KERRY: ... and, friends, don’t let the Republicans turn my comment last night about Dick Cheney’s daughter being a lesbian into anything other than what it was: My deep understanding of her lesbianism, her erotic attraction to other women, her rejection of males in favor of members of her own sex. There was no dark, ulterior motive to mentioning Ms. Cheney’s lesbian lifestyle.

To tell you the truth, I was caught a little off guard by Bob Schieffer when he turned the question over to me. You see, as I listened to the President’s response, I remembered an afternoon on the Mekong Delta when one of my crew on the Swift Boat complimented the way I wore a uniform and handled the M-60. I remembered how flattered I was, and though I told him in no uncertain terms that he should not mistake my feeling flattered for anything other than that, I knew then and there that there is a duality to individual existence that cannot be denied. We, all of us, carry around within us two competing essences, if you will, one straight and the other …

Well, you know, the other who, if he weren’t straight, would probably fantasize about Brad Pitt or Keanu Reeves - both ardent supporters of mine, by the way, but for no other reason than they agree with my policies. I want to make that clear.

For some of us, the straight essence dominates. For others, the gay essence finds its way to the surface. As it did with Ms. Cheney, who evidently discovered that her lesbianism is who she is. She could have been straight, if God had ordained it, but, nooooo … He had to make her a lesbian. And there’s nothing wrong with being a lesbian. And there’s certainly nothing wrong with being a lesbian in a conservative Republican family. I’d be the first one to say that. Just because I have two daughters who are straight as arrows, and not lesbians, who by the grace of God comport with conservative Republican values, in contrast to the Cheneys, whose daughter is a lesbian, don’t think for one moment that I would exploit that for political gain. How could I? Could I in good conscience solicit the support of other lesbians like Ms. Cheney were I to try to exploit her lesbianism?

As I said last night, the president and I share the belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. Now, Ms. Cheney, of course, who is a lesbian, will never experience the institution of traditional marriage, but again, as I said last night, I believe that because we are the United States of America, we're a country with a great, unbelievable Constitution, with rights that we afford lesbians like Ms. Cheney. She should have a right to visit her lesbian partner in a hospital, to transfer property to other lesbians like herself, which is why I'm for partnership rights and so forth.

So, my friends, don't let them use my sympathetic reference to Ms Cheney's lesbianism as a wedge issue. They are angry over my third victory in the debates. Their's is the party of exploitation. Their's is the party of divisiveness. It's time to move forward, from this discussion of the gay lifestyle of the daughter of a conservative, who stands in stark contrast to my straight daughters, and onto the more important issue of voter intimidation ....

posted by Tom | 10/14/2004 02:08:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post a Comment |

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Which gave the Kerry Campaign an idea ....
posted by Tom

N.Y. Times Deceived by Students' Letters

By Associated Press October 13, 2004, 5:59 AM EDTDURHAM, N.C. -- A group of high school students in a summer program at Duke University managed to get several letters published in The New York Times -- some under false pretenses -- at the urging of a professor, an editor for the newspaper said.The Times generally does not publish letters written for class assignments, but used 17 letters to the editor in a month from students in Mark Duckenfield's international relations course.Thomas Feyer, letter editor for the newspaper, said students, at the instruction of Duckenfield, wrote the letters about subjects ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to American consumption as if they were submitted from their hometowns instead of Durham."They are clearly smart and good writers -- they wrote very nice letters -- but I want people to be up front," Feyer said. "The professor was urging them to deceive us, and it undermines the credibility of the paper if it's discovered as it was in this case."

July 10

Dear Mr. Editor sir:

I think that Rather guy on CBS is being persacuted by all those right wing Republicans just because he's a fare and balanced journalist and they don't like him for that. That Fox News Channel isn't fare and balanced no matter how many times they say they are and I think they say it a lot. And their liers. Rather's been around a long time. My father told me if it wasn't for him Nixon would a gotten away with all the bad stuff he did and Rather was only trying to save us from Bush the way he saved us from Nixon. It wasn't Robert Redferd and Dusty Hoffman who got Nixon [I saw that movie] it was Dan Rather and he didn't do anything more to George Bush then he did to Reagan, Ford and Nixon, so he's not unfare, so there.


Michael S. Watkins

Levittown, NY


Sept 1

To the editor, in the name of Allah, the merciful and the compassionate:

My lord Mohammed, blessings and peace be upon him, has commanded me to write this letter to your distinguished paper in the hope that all of the infidels who read these inspired words will elect John Kerry and John Edwards, who are annointed by my Lord Mohammed, blessings and peace be upon him, even though they are not true believers, but because they understand the suffering of the true believers more than the Spawn of Satan Bush, who is forcing the servants of my Lord Mohammed, blessings and peace be upon him, to wreak havoc upon your decadent society. Come November 2, elect Kerry/Edwards, and Allah, the merciful and compassionate, shall smile upon you.

Yours in Islam,

John Smith

Bangor, ME


Oct 5

To the editor:

Like this war in Iraq, what's up with that shit? We be bombin' and shit and those Moslems they all fucked up. Like I hear they eat goat balls and shit. Like what do they do? Boil em? They fry 'em? They better shake n' bake that shit real good before I eat it. And why we over there anyway? They didn't have nothin' to do with September 11. They didn't have no weapons like that Tom Colin Powell said. And that other Oreo, Condoleeeza Rice (she white rice, she ain't no brown rice), she lied, too. And that Bush, he's dumb. Sittin' there reading that story to those little kids after finding out we was attacked. What's up with that shit? And you know what the story was about, don't you? A goat. That's what you call symbolical. And we got all kinds a problems over here and he be fuckin around over there in the middle east just to help the Jews. That's why Kerry the man.

Alphonso Johnson

Georgetown University, Washington DC


Aug 12

To the editor

I just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy reading your editorials. Your insights into the evil machinations of the Bush Administration and its disastrous overseas adventures serve as a shining light to all of us who weep nightly over the fascist state our once proud country has become under this fascist dictator who stole the election of 2000 under the most fascistic circumstances imaginable. Not since fascists like Hitler and Mousolini turned their respective nations into fascist states have we encountered a fascist like George W. Bush. He is such a fascist that I'm not even sure the term "fascist" really conveys the essence of his fascism. But until they come up with a better word, "fascism" (sadly) must suffice at least for the few months left in this fascist's term. I'm assuming, of course, John Kerry will win the election and roll back the fascist policies of the fascist Bush.

Lana Curlips

Los Angels, CA


Sept 2

To the editor:

I am writing to express not just my own displeasure, but that of my entire family as well as our friends and neighbors here in the state of North Carolina with the Times' post-vice presidential debate story in which your reporter called the confrontation between the younger, more upbeat and charming John Edwards and the dour, mean and nasty Dick Cheney a draw.

A draw?! What debate was your reporter watching?

Cheney was obviously on the mat (metaphorically speaking) from the first mention of Haliburton and never recovered. Throughout the entire debate, Senator Edwards maintained the poise, charm and wit that served him so well in front of juries when he was a successful trial lawyer defending the weak against powerful corporate interests. Every mean spirited attempt on the part of Mr. Cheney (yes, Mister - I refuse to refer to him as Vice President since he did not attain that office legally) to question the impeccable credentials and reputation of the obviously more virile Senator Edwards was deflected with the younger stud's debonair smile. You could just hear those little coeds in the audience (and of course the gay male students as Senator Edwards' charm is all inclusive) swoon each time he flashed that boyish grin. If that debate was a draw, what would you call the Second World War?

Bubba Reeves

Wilmington, NC


Oct 15

To the editor (if not the editor, then to whomever is available):

First let me assure you that I always read the New York Times and consider it the nation's best newspaper. Except when I'm in my hometown of Boston. Then I always read the Boston Globe and consider that the nation's best newspaper. Of course, when I'm in Los Angeles, I am never without the best newspaper in the country, The Los Angeles Times. But this is not why I'm writing a letter to the editor of The New York Times. Well, it is part of the reason why I'm writing this letter. It has to be, because I just wrote it. But it's not the entire reason for writing.

No, I am writing this letter because I am concerned about the upcoming election, which I believe with my whole heart and soul is the most important election, not only in our lifetime, but in the history of this great nation.

Not counting, of course, the election of 1992, the last time before this that the American economy was the worst since the Great Depression (and it's no coincidence that a Bush was president back then, too).

Oh, and the election of 1980, when the choice was between one of our greatest and peace loving presidents (not counting Bill Clinton and of course John Kerry when he's elected), Jimmy Carter, and that fool Ronald Reagan.

Wait, then there was the election of 1972, between George McGovern and the corrupt Richard Nixon. McGovern was going to end the Viet Nam war, the cutting off of ears, chopping off of heads, the blowing up of bodies, the taping of wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turning up the power, having discovered that taping them to animal genitals and turning up the power would yield no information since animals can't talk. Well, I don't want to offend animal rights' activists, so let me say that animals do in fact possess a language, but we humans are too specie-centric to learn or understand it.

Where was I?

Oh, yes ... McGovern was going to end the war in Viet Nam, but the corrupt Richard Nixon fully intended to prolong the war, to take it into Cambodia, where John Kerry predicted Nixon would take it even before Nixon was elected.

Anyway, that was a really, really important election, too. But not as important as this one coming up between John Kerry and George Bush. I believe Senator Kerry, who handily won the first debate, would say, if I may speak in his place, that George Bush has involved this country in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, just like Viet Nam. And that's Senator Kerry's final position on Iraq, if I again may be so bold as to speak for him. No, I do not know the Senator, though like him I, too, served on Swift Boats in Viet Nam, well after the Senator was sent home because of the grievous wounds he sustained in battle, but his heroic exploits were legendary and I heard about them the whole time I was there, which, like the Senator, was only for three and a half months, but this was very common, contrary to what you may have heard from the now totally discredited (thanks to your fine paper) Swift Boat Veterans For Truth.

If you could inform your readers through this, the greatest newspaper in the country, not counting the others I mentioned, of course, of the Senator's final, ultimate, this-is-my-seat-and-I'm-not-moving-to-the-back-of-the-bus position on the disaster of Iraq, I'm sure he would greatly appreciate it.

Miles T. Mayflower

Boston, MA

posted by Tom | 10/13/2004 10:32:00 AM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post a Comment |

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

As if the voice isn't grating enough, there are opinions that go with it
posted by Tom

My vision of hell is a variation on Sartre's: Instead of being locked in a drawing room with obnoxious people and unable to close my eyes, I'm locked in an otherwise empty classroom with Susan Estrich, listening to her read aloud and verbatim every opinion handed down by the Supreme Court (or every issue of Ms. magazine from cover to cover, or everything Maureen Dowd has ever written) and unable to cover my ears.

Sue is a uniquely qualified political analyst/commentator. How so? Well, take a gander at these credentials:

After serving as a law clerk for Judge J. Skelly Wright on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Justice John Paul Stevens on the Supreme Court, Estrich had her first taste of politics as Deputy National Issues Director with the Kennedy for President campaign in 1979.
Flush with success from that endeavor ("Don't worry, Senator Kennedy, no one will remember Chappaquiddick"), in 1981 Estrich:

began teaching at Harvard Law School, and by 1986, she had received tenure. Her professorial duties did not limit her involvement in political campaigning, however, as she was named executive director for the Democratic National Platform Committee in 1984 and worked as a senior policy adviser to the Mondale-Ferraro presidential campaign.
After advising Mondale to 1.) choose Ferraro as a running mate without first checking her husband's tax returns and past business associations; and 2.) proudly admit he would raise taxes in his debate with Reagan, the sky was the limit for the politically astute Ms. Estrich, who then

... performed some private legal practice, serving as a counsel for the firm of Tuttle & Taylor in Los Angeles from 1986 to 1987. The call of national politics was too strong for her to stay out of the fray for long, however, leading her to accept the job with the Dukakis campaign in October of 1987.

The rest, as Ms. Estrich would say, is history. Or perhaps a joke is more accurate. Except in the case of history, if you believe all of the moral philosophers, there's a punchline. But, seriously, ladies and germs, have you ever encountered such stellar political accomplishments in one individual that would compel not only a presidential campaign to take her on as an advisor, but publishers and broadcast executives to pay for her political commentary.

Imagine, if you will, an analogous resume for the following position:

Chief of Operations, Military Intelligence
Developed the early warning system used at Pear Harbor, 1941
Prepared Flight plan for Gary Francis Powers' U-2 flight, 1960
Author, white paper to Joints Chiefs of Staff, "Why Vietnamese Military Does Not Attack on Holidays", 1967
Sometimes, though, you have to wonder if the current MI powers that be don't in fact possess similar qualifications.

Be that as it may, Estrich's most recent column, A Picture is Worth a Thousand Lies, is another shining example of why the three strikes and you're out rule should extend beyond baseball and criminal law into the realm of political commentary.

She, like most of her fellow travelers in triteness, was so upset over the shellacking John Edwards underwent at the hands of Dick Cheney last Tuesday night, particularly when Cheney reminded Edwards, voters, and Estrich that the ambulance chasing Senator's attendance record in only one term is worse than that of a fourteen year old freshman in a Detroit public school, she latched onto Cheney's throwaway line at the end of the scathing indictment

that he had never met John Edwards before he came on the stage to debate him. Unfortunately for him, there was that pesky picture of the two of them at a prayer breakfast, of all things, not to mention all those tie-breaking votes Cheney cast on tax cuts for the wealthy, prescription drugs and aid to workers hurt by trade, where Edwards voted one way and Cheney the other.
Unfortunatlely for Estrich and her list of kneejerk liberal talking points, those are obviously the only three votes Edwards was present for, since it's this pesky reality she can't refute:

And Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You've missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee, almost 70 percent of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee.

You've missed a lot of key votes: on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform.

Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you "Senator Gone." You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate.

But Estrich then makes the brilliant observation the "attack on Edwards' Senate attendance record was clearly planned." Wow! It's insights like those that landed her choice spots on all of those Democratic campaigns, I'm sure. I wonder what tipped her off to the fact Cheney's lines were "rehearsed" (as if "rehearsed" truth is any less truthful). Was it the fact it came on the heels of a planned Edwards attack on Cheney's past association with Halliburton? Or perhaps it was Cheney postponing an answer to a subsequent question on Israel in order to respond to Edwards' planned attack on his past association with Halliburton and not let the attempted smear go unchallenged?

If you knew nothing of Susan Estrich apart from that voice that makes nails scraping a blackboard sound like a Beethoven sonata, the obsession with Cheney's "lie" about never having met Edwards before the debate in order to deflect from the Senator's chronic absenteeism would immediately tip you off that she was a lawyer. Recall for a moment the defense mounted on OJ Simpson's behalf when everyone with an IQ above room temperature realized from all of the evidence he was guilty: It was discovered that Mark Furman had used the word "nigger" in an interview after he told the court he had never used the word.

Back in '94 when the non-brain dead watched that joke of a trial on Court TV, we were smart enough not to give ourselves a headache and accepted the fact one had to go to law school (or be a Black juror in California) to develop the causal connection between Furman's "lie" and OJ's innocence. Likewise with Estrich's silly attempt to defy common sense. Only a lawyer does that. And a five year old holding the crayon when confronted with the accusation that he marked up the walls: "No, I didn't. Suzie did it then put the crayon in my hand and ran away."

Estrich is mortified that no one verified Cheney's statement before airtime, something she did on the successful campaigns she was associated with:

Didn't anyone say to Cheney in rehearsal, are you sure you didn't meet him? Didn't anyone look it up? I remember asking Lloyd Bentsen in rehearsal if he really was a friend of Jack Kennedy's, and how I could prove it if anyone asked. "B.A. (his wife) and I went to their wedding," he responded. "Is that good enough?" It was certainly good enough for me. "Then I'm going to say something if he brings up Jack Kennedy," he said. The rest is history.
Indeed it is, Susan. Senator Polident managed to get a laugh out of a partisan crowd and praise the next day from partisan media. Bush/Quayle won in a landslide, which is a testimony to your utter incompetence as a Dukakis/Bentsen campaign lackey. You fretted over such inconsequential and irrelevant minutae as to whether Bentsen could "back up" such a silly throwaway line while totally ignoring the fact the ticket's moronic liberal ideology was taking it down the tubes.

And again, only a lawyer would think two politicians were bosom buddies based on the fact one was merely invited to the other's wedding.

But evidence that the Democratic party's most faithful dingbat has gone off the deep end is when she says

Some lies ... are bigger than others. Was there a connection between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein? The true answer, from the CIA, the secretary of state and the 9-11 Commission, is a clear and unequivocal NO. On Tuesday night, Dick Cheney said that he had never suggested otherwise. Come again? How dumb does he think we are? Within the same debate, he contradicted himself.

Note there is no pre-debate quote where Cheney allegedly stated a connection, direct or otherwise, between Saddam and September 11th, and that the absence of such explains why she cannot provide a quote from the debate where he contradicts himself on his denial.

Now, the lawyer trick Estrich pulls here is to change the liberal charge from Cheney said there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9/11, which is unprovable, as we shall see momentarily, to Cheney "suggested" there was a connection. Any mention of terrorism and Hussein, al Quaeda and Hussien, or even 9/11 and Hussein, not in the same sentence, but over the course of an entire interview, can and will be interpreted by liberals as a "suggestion" that Hussien was connected to 9/11.

But to paraphrase Estrich, how dumb does she think we are? We all know there is only one statement of Cheney's the liberal media wanks have latched onto as his contention such a link existed:

If we're successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it's not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it's not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.
The problem libs have when they attempt to use this against Cheney is that terrorists have in fact had us under assault for many years, culminating with the 9-11 attacks, and the Middle East/Persian Gulf region has been the geographic base of the terrorists (with names like Mohammed, Mohammar, and Malik, the geographic base sure as shit ain't Sweden). What Cheney is saying here is that he considered Saddam Hussein's Iraq "the heart" of that Middle Eastern base. So, one could argue with the Vice President whether Iraq as opposed to Iran or Syria is the "heart" of the terrorists' geographic base, but there's no connection drawn in that statement between Saddam and 9/11. Something Estrich knows full well, as reflected in her total reluctance to repeat the quote in her column.

Estrich's clown act continues:

Remember how the Republicans used to make fun of Bill Clinton's parsing of the word "is"? That was just about sex and a blue dress. This is about war, about manipulating the CIA and destroying its credibility.
Up until now, it's been amusing that liberals have not only nominated for President a Viet Nam veteran who is proud of his service in that "immoral conflict", but defend that service when it's attacked. With this latest statement, conservatives will probably laugh so hard that they will soil their skivvies. A liberal Democrat fretting over the CIA's credibility? The same CIA they believe brought us the Viet Nam War, waged "dirty" campaigns in El Salvador and Nicaragua, that has been the bogeyman of their paranoid nightmares for going on 40 years, is - Oh, my God! - being abused by a Republican administration?

But it gets better. Estrich isn't only losing sleep over the damage to the agency's creditbility:

Reporter friends of mine tell me they are hearing from classmates whom they haven't talked to in 10, 20, even 30 years. It's not about electing John Kerry or defeating George Bush. It's about protecting the integrity of an agency that has been manipulated and scapegoated by this administration.
Yes, friends, you did just see the words "integrity" and "CIA" linked in a sentence written by an anti-war, liberal democratic political hack who has campaigned for and/or supported like minded left wing candidates and presidents devoted to gutting the CIA's budget and emasculating its intelligence gathering capabilities. Henceforth you cannot be blamed when upon hearing the name Susan Estrich, the phrase "unprincipled political whore" immediately pops into your mind.

A picture of Cheney at a prayer breakfast attended by John Edwards isn't worth a tenth as many lies as a Susan Estrich column.

posted by Tom | 10/12/2004 07:46:00 AM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post a Comment |

Monday, October 11, 2004

Meet the Hard Pressed for Credible Answers
posted by Tom

Below is a transcript of Tim Russert's interview with Vice-presidential nominee John Edwards on the October 10th edition of Meet The Press.

MR. RUSSERT: The race for the White House, 23 days to go. Our guest, the Democratic nominee for vice president, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina. Good morning, Senator.

SEN. EDWARDS: Good morning, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, this morning millions of Afghans are lining up for the first time ever to vote for president of their country. Should that be considered a major foreign policy success for President Bush?

SEN. EDWARDS: Well, first of all, Tim, let me say that while it's a good thing that the election is taking place, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there are two Afghanistans: one for have nots, and one for the really have nots. And frankly, I don’t know how they can hold any type of an election over there without our DNC lawyers, or some Central Asian equivalent thereof, ready to file suit if and when a pro-American government headed by someone friendly with this failure of a President wins.

And … And … Just a minute, Tim, but I’m … I feel woozy, like I did when I was making closing arguments in malpractice cases ... I ... I ....

[His eyes roll back in his head. He begins rocking back and forth in his chair.]

“Wooooooo … Wooooooo … I am Islami Mufti al Rushda, an oppressed female in Afghanistan … Woooooo … Woooooo … There is no freedom here … Woooo … Wooooo… Bush lies … Karzi will be selected, not elected … Woooo ... Woooo … The narcotics … We grow 75% of the world’s opium, which accounts for 50% of our economy, not counting the markup … Woooooo … We were better off under the Taliban … Bush lies …"

MR. RUSSERT: Senator? Senator?

SEN. EDWARDS [awakens from trance]: I’m sorry, Tim. It just comes over me. You were saying?

MR. RUSSERT: Should there be more economic and military aid being directed towards Afghanistan?

SEN. EDWARDS: We should be doing more than we're doing. I mean, for example, in terms of counternarcotics, we ought to be joining with the British.

MR. RUSSERT: To do what?


[His eyes roll back in his head. He rocks back and forth in his chair.]

“Wooooooo … Wooooooo … There is no freedom here … Woooo … Wooooo… Bush lies … Afghan president will be selected, not elected … Woooo …"

MR. RUSSERT: More American troops if necessary?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … Quagmire … Woooo … [Awakens from trance] I’m sorry, Tim, you were saying?

MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to Tuesday night when you were talking about the war in Iraq, as compared with the war against Osama bin Laden. And let's listen:

(Videotape, October 5, 2004):

SEN. EDWARDS: Our point in this is not complicated. We were attacked by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We went into Afghanistan and very quickly the administration made a decision to divert attention from that and instead to begin to plan for the invasion of Iraq.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: Your point being that the war in Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror against Osama bin Laden?

SEN. EDWARDS: Correct.

MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to October of 2002 to something you said then.

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: "Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can." So you were urging the president in October of 2002 to fight the war against terror in Afghanistan and...

SEN. EDWARDS: Yes, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: ...embark on the war in Iraq.

SEN. EDWARDS: No, sir.

MR. RUSSERT: Now, you're saying it's a diversion.

SEN. EDWARDS [eyes roll back in his head; rocks back and forth in chair]: “Woooo ... Wooooo … I am Lance Corporal Steven Marshall with the First Marines in Iraq … Quagmire … No light at the end of the tunnel … Diversion from the War on Terror … Osama attacked us on 9/11, not Saddam …Woooo …”

[Awakens from trance.]

Sorry, Tim. Next question.

MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry has said about Iraq, "It's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time." Do you agree with that?

SEN. EDWARDS [eyes roll back in his head; rocks back and forth in chair]: “Woooo … Woooo … I’m John Kerry, speaking through my running mate … Woooo ... Woooo … Quagmire … Like Viet Nam … I know what it’s like in combat … Woooo … Reminiscent of Genghis Khan, or however the hell you pronounce it … Cut off heads … Burned villages … Woooo …

[Awakens from trance.]

Does that answer your question, Tim?

MR. RUSSERT: But you urged the president to go to war, saying you could do both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq.

SEN. EDWARDS [eyes roll back in his head; rocks back and forth in chair]: “Woooo … Wooo … I am Saddam Hussein … No WMD … No ties to terrorists … Not responsible for 9/11 … Quagmire … John Kerry knows … Listen to him …”

MR. RUSSERT: If you knew today--and you do know there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … Wooo … No WMD … No ties to terrorists … Not responsible for 9/11 …”

MR. RUSSERT: ...would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … Woooo … This is John Edwards of 2002 … Woooo … Wooo … Would have voted for the resolution knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein. Did not authorize to make the mess in Iraq. Woooo … Quagmire … Elect John Kerry … He served in combat … He knows ... Woooo …”

MR. RUSSERT: I think what confuses people, Senator, is that there seems to be a difference in rhetoric and emphasis. Back in October of 2002, you voted to authorize the country to go to war. In fact, you said this about Saddam: "I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country." "The most serious and imminent threat to our country."

And you underscored it by saying this:

(Videotape, CNN "Late Edition," February 24, 2002):

SEN. EDWARDS: And I think Iraq and Saddam Hussein present the most serious and most imminent threat.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Most serious and imminent threat." Were you just dead wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … Woooo … Saddam Hussein serious threat. But didn’t vote for quagmire … Didn’t vote for another Viet Nam … Ask John Kerry …. He served in Viet Nam … He knows … Woooo …"

MR. RUSSERT: But you will acknowledge that Saddam was not "the most imminent threat to America" when you said that?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Wooo … This is John Kerry again … Acknowledge nothing … Millions are without health care … Worst economy since Great Depression … Tax cuts for the rich …"

MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask you to clear something else up. In--back in September, you were in the presidential debate; you were asked about voting money to support our troops, and this is what you had to say:

(Videotape, Democratic Presidential Primary Debate, September 25, 2003):

SEN. EDWARDS: We have young men and women in a shooting gallery over there right now. It would be enormously irresponsible for any of us not to do what's necessary to support them. I will vote for what's necessary to support the troops.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: About three weeks later, there was a chance to vote for $87 billion to support the troops and you voted no. Why the inconsistency?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is Lance Corporal Steven Marshall again … No body armor because of Bush … Elect Kerry … He’s served in combat … He knows … Woooo …"

MR. RUSSERT: Do you regret not having voted for that?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is Teresa Heinz Kerry … Regret nothing … You say things I did not say, so shove it … Woooo ..."

MR. RUSSERT: They will counter, Senator, and this is the memorandum they sent along with support of that $87 billion, that the money in that bill that you voted against, $300 million was earmarked for life- saving body armor and $140 million to deliver the heavy armored Humvees to protect U.S. forces, and you voted against it.

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is Lance Corporal Steven Marshall again … Woooo … Blood for oil ... Blood for Halliburton … Bush lied, kids died … Woooo …”

MR. RUSSERT: If John Kerry and John Edwards are elected, do you believe that the Germans and the French would increase military assistance to Iraq?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo …. This is Jacques Chirac … Mon dieu, do not re-elect Bush … He has, how you say, alienated allies with his go it alone cowboy strategy … Woooo …France loves messy sewers Kerry and Edwards … Elect them ... Elect them … Iraq is, how you say, le quagmire … Woooo ..."

MR. RUSSERT: But as recently as last week, as you know, Senator, the French and the Germans said they're not in a giving mood. Here is what they told The Financial Times. "French and German government officials say they will not significantly increase military assistance in Iraq even if John elected. `I cannot imagine that there will be any change in our decision not to send troops, whoever becomes president.'" And the French foreign minister went on to say that "which has tense relations with" Prime Minister Allawi of Iraq, that the French "had no plans to send troops `either now or later.'"

So what would be the difference if--having a Kerry as president as opposed to a Bush in terms of the French or the Germans?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is John Kerry again … Because I will give France and Germany a vote in our Congress … Woooo ….”

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, in terms of economic policy, The Concord Coalition has issued a report, a detailed analysis of the Kerry-Edwards economic plan and the Bush-Cheney economic plan, and they say very bluntly neither plan is credible. Your plan would add over a trillion in debt over the next 10 years. The Bush plan would add a trillion dollars of debt. Everyone's talking about tax cuts for the middle class. Everyone's talking about more spending for education, more spending for the environment. But no one is talking about the deficit. And The Concord Coalition says your plan and the Bush plan simply don't add up.

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … this is still John Kerry … Tax the rich … Tax the rich … Millions without health care … Tax the rich …”

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, before you go, do you think this race will stay nip and tuck right to the very end or that one candidate will begin to pull away?

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is Chris Matthews ... If Rather, Jennings, Brokaw and I have anything to do with it, Kerry/Edwards will win in a walk … Woooo …"

MR. RUSSERT: Senator, we thank you for your views, and for the views of those whose spirits you commune with. And I hope you and your family are safe on the campaign trail.

SEN. EDWARDS: “Woooo … This is John Edwards’ family … We feel very unsafe … Bush has made us less secure … Woooo … Woooo …"

posted by Tom | 10/11/2004 01:19:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post a Comment |

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

When you have a war to win, trust Amana
posted by Tom

AP - The Air Force expects planes will be able to fire non-lethal microwave rays at enemy ground troops with the help of a new superconducting generator system developed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base after about 25 years of research. Heavy, inefficient generators have been a hurdle to the development of airborne microwave weapons, which create a disabling burning sensation...

United States Air Force Microwave Weapon Sample Keypad

Select Function:

Auto Defrost - 1
Attitude Adjustment - 2
Stun - 3
Incapacitate - 4
Maim - 5

Select Enemy Group

Islamic Fundamentalist Protestors - 1
Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Protestors Burning American Flag or American President in Effigy - 2
Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist - 3
Horde of Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists - 4
Cannes Film Festival Attendees - 5

Select Target Area:

City Block - 1
Desert Terrain - 2
Ammo Dump Masquerading as Mosque - 3
Urban Area Controlled by Enemy - 4
Hollywood, CA - 5

Note: Extremely large, concentrated enemy targets (e.g., Sadr Militia holed up in above mentioned mosques, Michael Moore, Dan Rather's ego, etc) require longer microwave times at the highest settings.

posted by Tom | 10/05/2004 01:29:00 PM
Email this link to a friend
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post a Comment |