Wednesday, July 07, 2004

Don't believe anything I say...I don't...
Here are some more reasons not to vote for Kerry, as if the man himself wasn't reason enough not to:

John Kerry on abortion:
"I oppose abortion, personally. I don't like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception. But I can't take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist . . . who doesn't share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America."--- Telegraph Herald, Dubuqe, Iowa interview

As I said 18 years ago in my maiden speech in the U.S. Senate: "the right to choose is a fundamental right . . . neither the Government nor any person has the right to infringe on that freedom." If I get to share a stage with this President and debate him . . . one of the first things I'll tell him is: "There's a defining issue between us. I trust women to make their own decisions. You don't. And that's the difference." So it's time we said to this President: "we're not going to let you turn back the clock." --- Speech to NARAL, Jan. 2003.

A blogger, Edwin Morrissey, responds:
If life begins at conception, why then does . . . Kerry not only agree to allow abortion, but campaigns on its behalf? Does he care so little for human life and the souls of the unborn that he cheerfully sells them out for political gain? . . .

Unlike those who define life differently, and who therefore have a consistent philosophical argument to support abortion, Kerry's actions do not equate with these professed beliefs. Either Kerry has trotted out a new lie in order to shore up his Catholic support, or he has opened the window into his heartless, calculating political soul.

Kerry on the vote to go to War in Iraq:
The vote is the vote. I voted to authorize. It was the right vote, and the reason I mentioned the threat is that we gave the--we had to give life to the threat. If there wasn't a legitimate threat, Saddam Hussein was not going to allow inspectors in. Now, let me make two points if I may. Ed [Gordon] questioned my answer. The reason I can't tell you to a certainty whether the president misled us is because I don't have any clue what he really knew about it, or whether he was just reading what was put in front of him. And I have no knowledge whether or not this president was in depth--I just don't know that. And that's an honest answer, and there are serious suspicions about the level to which this president really was involved in asking the questions that he should've.

With respect to the question of, you know, the vote--let's remember where we were. If there hadn't been a vote, we would never have had inspectors. And if we hadn't voted the way we voted, we would not have been able to have a chance of going to the United Nations and stopping the president, in effect, who already had the votes, and who was obviously asking serious questions about whether or not the Congress was going to be there to enforce the effort to create a threat. So I think we did the right thing. I'm convinced we did.

There you have it --- Orwell's doublethink in action. The man can hold contradictory, mutually exclusive positions on everything and then pick the one he needs, depending on who he's talking to. I was searching for John Edward's positions and quotable tidbits on these issues, but I would feel terrible if I filled my blog with "ummmm....duhhhh....I don't know".

Kerry calls it "nuance". Democrats call it "flexibility", I call it opportunistic bullshyte. I don't want nuance ina President; I want him to tell me exactly what he intends to do. I don't require flexibility in policy because retaining the ability to chane horses in mid-stream is not exactly conducive to good government. Nor is it a sign of someone who has an open mind: it's a sign of someone that can't make up his mind. What's even worse is someone who makes up his mind 12 times day on the same subject.

(Thank you to the Wall Street Journal for the quotes).

The Second String...
So, John Kerry has finally decided to choose someone to share the pain of defeat with him in the the person of John Edwards.
This would be laughable if the demotwits weren't actually serious about this ticket.

We can yack all day long about what the pointy heads on TV have to say about it, but none of it really matters to anybody except the political junkies. What should matter to PEOPLE is what this sort of alliance actually represents.

John Kerry is the quintessential child of the 1960's in that he fought "the establishment" until he became "the establishment" himself, but continues to pretend otherwise. That's okay as far as most folks of his generation are concerned because their morals, ethics and ideas, are all situational. What is right today can be wrong tomorrow, depending on how you feel or what your priorities are. As an example, this kind of mindset will cry incessantly about the plight of the homeless, but will cringe when you decide to build a homeless shelter in their backyard. The crowd that marched for civil rights is perfectly content to move to the suburbs so that they don't have to bother with blacks, until there's some real cheap ghetto neighborhoods that need gentrifying, causing the Diversity to seek residence anyplace else except gated communities. Those that will tell you that America has a load of collective sins to atone for with welfare, affrimative action, et. al, will be the first to miss the irony of their argument: a hand out is every bit as insulting as second-class status. Kerry encompasses all of these contradictions in one, bite-sized morsel.

As for Edwards, he's as fake as a Wal-Mart Faberge egg. You can forget the aw-shucks, Southern farmboy charm and the rakish good looks. He's an empty suit. He's the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle. This is a man that made a living as a parasite -- trial attorneys are just about all parasites -- yet can claim with a straight face that he fought for "the people". If you believe that, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you. No lawyer ever does anything for altruistic reasons (and the one's who do have their idealism pounded out of them right quick)-- they exist in the same way and for the same reason catfish do: there's a good living to be made in shit.
In fact, in order to be a good lawyer, must be able to juggle a routine that is part acting, part mental gymnastics, part dishonest manipulation of the rules to achieved a desired end, and the ability to fling horseshit at light speed. I dated a lawyer and she even told me: the vast majority are anal-retentive simpletons that just happen to have a talent for semantics.

This sums up the ticket nicely: a self-centered, immoral patrician with more positions at his disposal than a $1,000 a night call girl, and with the ability to pick and choose which one he will believe today, as he needs it. The second part is a dimwit with an accent that reminds folks of Andy Griffith, but who has somehow managed to suck enough life force from the host body-politic and legal system to keep himself in $2,000 suits. He couldn't muster up enough intellectual firepower to pull a greasy piece of string from a whore's ass, but his job is to just sit there and look good.

This synergy of mediocrity is supposed to make people excited about voting democrat this November. The platform runs something like this:

1. We're NOT Bush
2. America can only be strong when we surrender to France.
3. Did we tell you we're not Bush?
4. Tax cuts are evil things -- we belive in progressive taxation which means shifting the tax burden onto anyone but ourselves.
5. Jesse Jackson and his sycophantic legions are still somehow relevant.
6. Dammit, we're NOT BUSH!
7. I served in Vietnam and then became a traitor to my country, accusing my fellow veterans of war crimes and insisting there be trials for them, except, of course, the war crimes which I myself committed.
8. Vote for Kerry before he gets uglier.
9. The two of them will simultaneously claim to be "just like JFK" which will cause all democrats to have aneurysms due to the multiple orgasms they'll all have. Nostalgia for bad presidents runs rampant in demo-knucklehead circles.
10. Just as an aside, we're not Bush, okay?

We're witnessing something unheralded in American politics: human sacrifice. This is the best cannon fodder the democrats can come up with because it is a party devoid of anything to say, or anyone to say it. I rest easy tonight contemplating 4 more years of Bush to be followed by 8 years of Condoleeza Rice.