One more time. This is

One more time. This is the voice of the intelligent left?

Michael Kelly’s scathing critique of

Michael Kelly’s scathing critique of Gore’s speech was fun. I guess it is just too bad he wrote it before Daschle’s meltdown on the Senate floor today.

I don’t know why people don’t understand, but what Gore said, although reprehensible and stupid, was smart politically (even though Josh Chafetz disagrees with me). He is pandering to the base, and one thing we know about Democrats like Gore and their accomplices in the press, he will not be accountable for what he has said, despite Andrew Sullivan’s best efforts. Was Clinton ever held accountable? Count Tom Daschle’s lies from this year alone. Why he has said it, as I noted yesterday, is what is important. He knows he can not win the primary as a DLC frontrunner, so he has to run to the left.

R.I.P., Mike Webster The greatest

R.I.P., Mike Webster

The greatest center in the history of football (my histroy, at least) is dead.

If you are bored tonight

If you are bored tonight at around 12:45 EST, turn on MSNBC and watch Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation, come completely unhinged while debating Laura Ingraham. Katrina started her babble about Bush not being a democratic president, but na Imperial President. He wants to build an empire. Katrina, also managed to re-mention that Gore won the popular vote, and thus, despite the Clinton/Gore dismal record in foreign affairs and fighting terrorism, Gore is credible.

Katrina, btw, is the woman on Hardball who could not name her U.S. Representative.

My Analysis of the Gore

My Analysis of the Gore Speech (This is SUPER long, but I think relevant)

Much has been made about the idiotic and intellectually vacant Gore speech, although the criticisms at this point seem to be limited to the blogosphere. Certainly, the NY Times had a fawning newsitorial yesterday, but I have not seen any op-ed pieces yet today discussing the speech. Maybe he is as irrelevant as the White House has concluded, but I think that is not the case. As I stated yesterday, the reason for the speech is clear: Gore is running in 2004.

Stephen Green (aka Vodkapundit) fired a salvo yesterday, in an open letter to Mr. Gore. This opening shot across the bow was far from a clear point by point refutation of Gore’s oration, but it served as a nice primer. Today, Herr Vodkapundit attacks Gore’s speech again- but methinks he misses the real reason for the Gore speech. But I will get to that later.

Susanna Cornett blogged almost immediately after Gore finished speaking, and did a fine job of a point by point refutation of Mr. Gore’s speeech. Again, Susanna, like Stephen, is missing the forest for the trees.

Andrew Sullivan also has wasted no time and spared no bandwidth criticizing Gore on the merits of the speech and, and Sullivan, like Green and Cornett, notes the flip-flops and inconsistencies. However, where Sullivan nails it on the head is recognizing the naked ambition and the soon to appear historical revisionism. Gore’s, not Saddam’s. This quote from Sully is so prescient that it is absolutely astounding that more people did not immediately recognize it (and to their credit, perhaps Stephen and Susanna did, but felt it was so obvious that they need not state it):

They just show that he is a pure opportunist, with no consistency in his political views on foreign or domestic policy.

The other member of the blogosphere to grasp the realpolitik of the Gore speech is William Quick, the Daily Pundit. Check out this quote from Quick, referencing the demise of the Democrat opposition as penned by David Broder:

Well, what’s going on is Broder is helping to set up the re-launch of Big Honest Al’s endless campaign for the Presidency. It’s also a nice bit of political theater. The Donk pols who are actually in office at the moment can continue to dodge the main question as they pursue their real goals in the fall; and Big Honest Al, who holds no office and never will, is earmarked to fall on his sword as he makes the Donk “attack dog” case against an attack on Iraq.

Quick is right, in that this is the beginning of the Gore 2004 campaign. I am not sure how complicit Broder is in this timetable (although he is oft called the ‘Dean of the Washington Press Corps, I have long felt he was merely a nuanced hatchet man for the left- check out this self-serving attack of Jesse Helms), but it is clear that this is the opening salvo of his campaign. Where I differ from Bill Quick is when he states that Gore ” simply has a wooden ear (to match his manner and his skull) about politics.” I think this speech yesterday was a master stroke (from Gore’s perspective), and it includes all the craven, overly-ambitious, delusional, dishonest, disgusting, and self-serving aspects of Gore and his ambitions that Gore-haters like me have been watching for years. Let me explain how.

The political reality of the landscape in the Democrat party is that there is a leadership and a rank-in-file that are politically at odds with each other. However, like a poor married couple, fight as they might, neither can exist without each other. The grass roots is composed of numerous disparate groups of self-serving fringe issue constituencies, ranging from the Naderite greens, the African-American caucus, womens groups, radical peace activitists, the WTO anarchists, to anti-free-market labor leadership and the gay rights-at-all-costs movement. Lets not forget the mishmash of old school leftists that are made up of academics who embrace the Marxist/post-modernist ideology that runs rampant on many campuses. These people like Gore. They liked his populist re-invention, they liked the fact that he did not run on Clinton’s record, because for many of them, Clinton was a centrist. As much as Republicans hated Clinton, and hate him they did, these people (with the puzzling exception of the African-American caucus) hated him more. He betrayed them, repeatedly, and he made them look like fools because they had to spend eight years expending all amounts of political capital to keep him in power. Indeed, Nader’s entire campaign was simply stating over and over again, ad nauseum, that there really is no distinction between the Republican and Democrat party. That break was the biggest sign of the schism between the old left and the Clinton coalition.

Having said that, these groups, by themselves, although appearing to be a large group, are de facto a minority incapable of themselves winning elections. Thus, they swallow their pride and vote for the Democrat candidate, which is always better than the Republican option. Regardless, it is important to remember the immense support that Gore received from these groups during the 2000 election. Remember, Gore received more votes than Clinton ever did (50,996,116 in 2000 as opposed to Clintons 47,401,185 in 1996 and 44,908,233 in 1992), and Gore was the benefit of more shrill and nakedly partisan support than Clinton ever received. Have we forgotten the NAACP Byrd commercials or the shrill proclamations from womens groups claiming Bush was going to overturn Roe v. Wade?

The problem for Gore, then, is not with the base. They can easily be fooled again and energized to work for his cause, their cause. The problem is that Gore does not have the sympathy nor the support of the current leaders of the party, either politically or financially. Lets go through Clintons success again. Clinton was a product the DLC that he helped to form. He was a new Democrat, and we all remember what that is- an old Democrat who lies about his real positions on issues, but who is astute enough to recognize how unpalatable most of those views are to the mainstream. Thus, the goal is election, so it is imperative that you run to the middle during the election (thank you, Dick Nixon). Remember Clintons Sister Souljah moment?

Why am I re-hashing all of this? Because the political reality is that Gore is not a moron. He understands that he has a base, and that is all he has. The DLC hates him with a passion I can barely muster. Gore took a thoroughly winnable campaign in 2000 and refused to run on the economic success of the Clinton era (remember- Clinton himself is a former chairman of the DLC). At times, it almost appeared that Gore was opposed to many of the successes of the Clinton era- an era he was a part of, but seemed to conveniently forget.

So where does that leave Gore? Politically irrelevant to the White House, a loser in the eyes of the DLC, and now, with this speech, someone who is finally speaking the voice of the frustrated and until now unrepresented base constituencies of the Democrat party. While it may seem politically suicidal to go against what 67% of the public thinks about Iraq (79% with U.N. approval), Gore knows that it is the only chance he has to get elected in 2004, and here is why- Gore will never get the early support of the money men and the DLC. Although Bush could not spit this out the other day, the DLC can- Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. The DLC, like the Who, are not gonna get fooled again. The 33% of the people who currently oppose the war are who Gore is talking to- trying to woo them into his doomsday scenario for the Democrat primary in 2004.

If you look at who the frontrunners are for the Democrats, several names keep coming up: Sen. Lieberman (CT.), Sen. Kerry (MA), Sen. Edwards (NC), and Sen. Bayh (IN). Do not also forget Rep. Gephardt (MO), who although not a frontrunner, he is certainly someone who lusts for the Presidency. Now, go look at the Democrat Leadership Council. The frontrunners are a Whos Who of the DLC. They are also, with the squeamish part time exception of Sen. Kerry, the so-called Democrat hawks on the current Iraq debate. Add to it the fact that Clintons money man Terry McAuliffe is the Chair of the DNC, and Gore has a mess. And this does not even include Clintons personal animosity, and the fact that Hillary has her own presidential ambitions.

Gore recognizes that the only way he is going to win the 2004 primary season is to re-invent himself with the help of a forgetful (at best) and sycophantic (at worst and what I expect) press. He needs to speak to the 33% (and dwindling- indeed, the number of Democrats is much less than 33%- I am sure that number includes a number of isolationist Republicans and a few anti-war libertarians, as well as a mish-mash of other independents) of the population who he believes will support him. Although this is not a large enough population to win a general election, this is precisely who he needs to show up at the primaries, so that he can squeak through with the nomination. His calculus at the moment is to just stay in the primary race until he can catch his big momentum near the end. He does not care if he comes in second a good bit- he can afford to. If he can corral this large a part of the base, he will win- albeit the win will be shallow, as it will fracture the Democrat party. Only then will he get the grudging support of the DLC and the money men, who with their hatred of Bush, will do a prompt about face and become the good party men they purport to be.

The way to see if I am right in this analysis (and I think I am) is to watch the press. Look for the fawning and congratulatory articles that will appear in the weeklies, claiming that Gore is re-asserting himself and has re-invented himself. I saw the beginning of this last night on Hardball, when Howard Fineman started with the bilge (and I am paraphrasing)- This is Al Gore unchained- the AL Gore who said he was going to fire all his advisors and just be who he is. Look for pieces like that, and you can see the writing on the wall.

It is also imperative to remember how Gore sold his first Iraq vote to the highest bidder. Do not expect Gore to be against the war in the long run- even his speech gave him numerous outs. Once he has the base in hand and the primary won, he will update his opinion and be in favor of whatever the polls say the American people are in favor of. Remember, he is a populist.

That is what the speech was about yesterday. Sorry for the length.

Time to go to bed

Time to go to bed so I can wake up tomorrow, go earn a living, and pay my taxes so we can build more bombs and bullets to use on Islamofascists and other enemies of the state. I just wish I could etch my name in a couple of the rounds.

Is John Madden George Bush’s

Is John Madden George Bush’s Speech-writer?

At the end of tonight’s MNF game, John Madden stated:

“When you win, you know, everyone is around, and when you lose, you can’t find anyone.”

Using my Bush to English dictionary, that would be this quote:

“Victory has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan.”- John F. Kennedy

Is Scrappleface the funniest man

Is Scrappleface the funniest man in the Blogosphere?

NY Times Publisher Buys NFL Jets, Changes Strategy
(2002-09-22) — New York Times publisher Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr., today announced he has purchased the New York Jets NFL franchise, and will immediately make strategic changes consistent with the Times editorial board’s beliefs.

“Many NFL teams act as if they’re better than others and they must always win,” Mr. Sulzberger said. “But we realize that we’re just like everyone else. We want to have peace. We have no right to impose our will upon the competition. If you do that, someone is always the loser.”

Consequently, he said, the Jet’s offensive strategy will be to negotiate a reduction in touchdown attempts by both teams. In addition, strength-training coaches have been fired, and the weight room locked because “big, muscular fellows are intimidating to other players.”

Sulzberger said he will hire a coach who realizes there’s no need to take the ball away from the other team until the moment they actually try to put it in your end zone.

“Just because they’re driving down the field, doesn’t mean they have the desire or capability to score against you,” the new Jets owner said. “Why act as if every little offensive play is such a big threat?”


Condi Rice for Veep? Attn:

Condi Rice for Veep?

Attn: Patrick Ruffini

Chris Matthews tonight stated he thinks Condi Rice might be the Republican Veep candidate in 2004.

I will post the transcript later if I can find it.

Al Gore gave a speech

Al Gore gave a speech today and hjiwalop45 -2]9dfmlsa;vf,,ja

Sorry. I dozed off at the thought of Al Gore speaking. Who gives a shit what he said? I will tell you what he said:

“I am running in 2004 and every one of Bush’s policies is wrong.”

Now shut up, you pompous blowhard, and go back to your home in Tennessee.

Why I Read Blogs, Part

Why I Read Blogs, Part 9,000,726

Because the members of ‘mainstream media’ are blithering idiots (no offense to William Sulik). I get home from work, turn the television on, and it is on MSNBC. I pay attention for thirty seconds, and my blood begins to boil.

The debate du jour is between anti-spanking and pro-spanking advocates, and the debate has been sparked by the Madelyne Toogood case.

Earth to the media and to anti-spanking advocates. Madelyne Toogood was not spanking her child, she was assaulting her. She was beating her. It was BATTERY. For anti-spanking advocates to even draw parallels to this is obscene. This dumber than the morons at handgun Control, Inc. using the war on terror to push for more gun legislation.

And as for the media. Oh, who cares. The fact that they even thought to invite these guests in relation to the Toogood beating shows you how stupid they are. Grrr.

A Big HELLO! to everyone


to everyone out there doing google searches for ‘indian actresses going nude.’

I am no longer scared by my referrer statistics.

Survivor: Thailand has started (and

Survivor: Thailand has started (and should be named Breasts vs. Wrinkles- watch and you will see why), and it appears that once again my prayers have not been answered. There are no poisonous berry bushes near either camp, thus ensuring their survival.


If you are wondering why

If you are wondering why the French are still pandering to Saddam and the PLO, you will find this illuminating.

The French, oh so tough on war crime.

Don’t you dare try to sell them some GM food, though.

Our President’s Renowned Rhetorical Excellence:

Our President’s Renowned Rhetorical Excellence:

This was the most painful Bush mangling of a popular phrase that I have ever heard. Every time I hear this clip, it pains me deeply. Here is the text, which does not do the sound bite justice. It was worse on tape.

”There’s an old saying in Tennessee I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says, fool me once, shame on shame on you.”

He paused and settled on, ”Fool me you can’t get fooled again.”

Aiiiiieee! Ay, Carumba!

It was so bad the first time it made my hair hurt when I heard it.