so much politics, so little time...
we've got the boots on the ground and the funds in the coffers--but we're pulling the hell out of carolina, we're docking your pay for two weeks, and, oh by the way, meet our new campaign manager!
yep, it's official: dean is desperate, ah, i mean "leaner and meaner." his strategy is a bold one: concentrate on delegate states rather than calendar dates. basically he's writing off the upcoming tuesday primaries, praying that kerry does well while clark and edwards spend themselves into oblivion, and hoping to come roaring back in places like michigan. it's the political equivalent of the old hook'n'lateral play: keep dropping back pitches until you find a place where you can break free.
will it work? of course not. the problem with dean's strategy is obvious: by the time states he's competing in hold their primaries, he'll be a distant memory. sure his campaign commercials will be running round the clock, but who's going to vote for a guy that hasn't won a single primary when by that time john kerry will have emerged as the clear front-runner? dean has a better shot to succeed by staying the course. it may be he runs out of money on small states in a bid to build momentum, but is that any worse than squandering his remaining funds on big states where he's assured of having none at all? seems to me that dean has a better shot of picking up a few wins in southern/heartland states where one yankee is as good as the next than he does going up against kerry in michigan with nothing to show for his side but a few slick campaign ads. maybe he's counting on the unions to bail him out? look what that did for gephardt.
get the wins now, howard, and the funds will follow.
dyke sexed down
i mean, dyke steps down.
wow, not a good week for you pinkos out there. bush exonerated by david kay and now blair completely vindicated of the BBC's scurrilous charges. and all of it points back to the same thing: any responsible thinker would have believed that saddam had WMDs based on the intel available at the time. that won't stop the kennedys and deans of the world from trying to turn what appears at face value to be one of the worst intelligence failures of all time into a political witch hunt, but so what. if the democrats still want to go around charging that bush sexed up saddam's weapons programs, well, it's their length of rope.
but david kay or no, i wouldn't go losing faith in the intelligence community just yet. remember folks: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. WMDs will be found.
locdog is just thankful they won't be turning up in crowded mall or subway station
bores, boors, and the boar-headed in today's roundup.
there's something about kerry
what is it about john kerry?
i could see why a person might vote for dean, or edwards, or even kucinich. but kerry? he's got the personality of a hunk of boiled chicken. he hasn't got anything even approaching an original thought, or, failing that, an original way of presenting the same old thoughts (see sharpton, al), he's not youthful or energetic (i personally think he's guzzling nyquil when the cameras aren't looking), and saying that he's not exactly calvin kline material is putting it about as kindly as humanly possible...and yet the kerry juggernaut rolls on. what to make of this?
About six in 10 voters who said experience was important voted for Kerry, and six in 10 who said the ability to beat Bush was important went for Kerry. More than half of his supporters said they made up their mind in the last week.
experience? kucinich has experience. gephardt had experience. they are/were legislators of some sort. dean isn't, but has as much experience as the last four presidents by virtue of his governorship. so experience is pretty much a non-factor, even if the voters themselves don't realize it.
what's left but "electability." and what is "electability" if not the sum total of ideas, energy, and charisma, hmmmmmm?
what makes kerry electable is everything but john kerry: he's the only candidate who's not too young, too old, too angry, too crazy, too fringy, too sleazy, too...in a word, kerry wins by default.
howard the lame duck
for pete's sake, howard, if you're going to go down, you might as well go down swinging. why not lose as howard dean--not the somnambulant stumper who snoozed his way through last night's "no, really, we've got the momentum!" speech. what's he going to do, out-kerry kerry? in God's name, why would he want to? "electable" just isn't howard's shade.
say it with me, america: we want our howard back!
closely related to dean's recent brush with the prosaic is the question of what prompted his downfall and subsequent "comeback" in the first place.
No matter how often [Dean staffers] replayed the scene in their minds, they couldn't quite believe that Dean had tumbled so far, all because of an intemperate growl during his concession speech after the Iowa caucuses last week.
well that's because the white-hot shriek, er, i mean, "intemperate growl," had nothing to do with dean's tumble. think real hard, folks: dean's "i have a scream" speech occurred after his dismal finish in iowa. what's been so great for dean is that, thanks to relentless media harping, everyone now believes that the scream was the cause of dean's problems, rather than their effect. as local conservative talker jim quinn pointed out, this is quite a break for dean, whose real problem has to do with being one smug, supercilious SOB with a mcgovernick war record that would spell certain doom for a presidential hopeful in any era, let alone this one. but dean doesn't need to worry about all that any more. no, a few lethargic, scream-related quips and suddenly he's the second coming of ronald reagan. he can't be that crazy if he can poke fun at himself, right? humor shows perspective, doesn't it? bingo. just like that, he's "the comeback kid." (i'm pretending for the sheer hell of it that a double-digit thrashing is a "comeback." come along with me, why don't you. it's more fun this way.) and as an attendant benefit, the scream damage control also makes him a more likeable person in general, that is, it's sort of an accidental cure for doctor dean's non-imaginary diseases.
it doesn't matter anyway. if dean can't win new hampshire, where can he win? question for you deaniacs out there: assuming for the moment that dean's done, where will you go next?
may i suggest al sharpton.
how much you wanna bet
anyone care to take the following wager, that within the next year, iraqi weapons of mass destruction will be found.
david kay does not impress me. the fact that he hasn't found weapons doesn't mean they don't exist and that regardless of however thoroughly he searched. of course, it's now in his best interests to make the case that they don't exist since, as i'm sure he'll strive to do in the coming weeks.
what really bugs me about the whole WMD thing isn't the fact that they haven't yet been found--that's just details. what bothers me is the vicious slander being spread by unpatriotic democrats who are more interested in smearing the president than in winning the war on terror and ensuring the safety of the american people.
let's suppose for a second that saddam never had any weapons of mass destruction. how does that weaken bush's case for iraq--even granting WMDs comprised the heart of it. whether or not saddam had WMDs is moot. we believed that he had them, along with the brits, the aussies, the french, the germans, the u.n., and pretty much everyone else, and, what's more, he acted like he had them. bush's decision was based on the best information he had available at the time as is every decision made by every president, so if it were proven that saddam never had WMDs (and that will never be proven) wouldn't it demonstrate a major problem in our intelligence community rather than our executive branch? if you democrats out there truly believe that saddam never had any banned weapons, and i take it you do, then why aren't you beating down the door of your representative demanding to know how in the hell the CIA could have got it so wrong? doesn't that matter to you? don't you realize that the only chance we've got in the war on terror is to know what the bad guys do before they do it?
ah, who cares. bush "cooked the books," as howard dean put it.
here's the deal, folks. if saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction then why didn't he say so? harassing, intimidating, and deporting weapons inspectors isn't the best approach to establishing credibility--and are why i have always believed and still believe that saddam is guilty as sin. there's simply no other plausible explanation for his behavior. laying that aside, he also ignored, what, seventeen u.n. resolutions? that didn't help either. in fact, saddam's recalcitrance in the face of the united nations in and of itself justified the resumption of war since the first gulf war never ended, but was merely suspended on condition of saddam's full compliance with international law. i mean, you democrats care so much about the legitimacy bestowed by the "international community" that you could give two figs when someone like saddam hussein brazenly flouts it for the better part of a decade? WMDs or not, if you have any respect for the united nations, you have to believe that taking saddam out was the right thing to do. but you don't. once again, you just want to smear bush. so add the sanctity of international law to patriotism and national security as further innocent victims in your war on bush. war on bush. i like that. everyone else is fighting a war on terror and you guys are fighting a war on bush. thanks a bunch.
finally, how can you democrats challenge the legitimacy of the war to remove saddam hussein, WMDs or not, after seeing the horrors of his regime? we've dug up scores of mass graves filled with hundreds of thousands of iraqis, but until we dig up a bottle of anthrax, you democrats won't be satisfied. there are no more rape rooms. no more secret police. no more purgings. but you democrats have your minds so warped by your hatred of george w. bush that you, like dean, actually think the iraqi people are worse off now than they were under saddam, and that we are no better. that's madness. i can't even begin to imagine how distorted your view of reality would have to be to believe such a thing. there's no scale of suffering any reasonable human being could construe under which the iraqi people are not better off now than they were under the most brutal dictator since pol pot, and there's no way you can tell me that we as american citizens are no better off for having our one of our arch enemies--a man who's already tried to assassinate one of our presidents and was planning Lord knows what for an encore--removed from power.
as always, locdog brings you all the news he sees fit to print
he's orange and white, and we found him. we shall call him nemo. and he will be our nemo.
locdog has a catty side