blogs4God - a Semi-Definitive List of Christian Blogs Rate this blog

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



three thoughts on the speech

i went to bed early last night and missed the speech, but i did read the transcript this morning and have seen and heard some clips. the clips were actually very impressive. if kerry's delivery was as forceful and confident throughout, then he did a fine job.

commenting a bit on the content of the speech, i thought that overall it was very strong. from what i've seen the delegates really loved it, but the text makes it pretty clear he wasn't talking to them. did he connect with those precious moderate voters looking for a reason to not vote george w. bush in november? the polls will tell, but i certainly don't think this speech did him any harm. my gut tells me that kerry reassured the few remaining undecideds a great deal.

now some specifics: i for one could care less about his first toy airplane, his time in the cub scouts, or his den mother mom. that rot came across as exactly what it was, a clumsy, ham-fisted attempt to drum up some clintonian emotional resonance. i thought it was a too long part of a too long speech and could have easily been trimmed--not completely, but definitely scaled back. i find it hard to believe that what few undecideds remain are hung up on the burning question of whether or not john kerry got his basket-weaving merit badge.

...which brings me to my second point: this speech was for the undecideds. it had that schizophrenic feel to it, not centrist (although it was trying to be) but right and left in nearly equal measure. very yin and yang, and, like a good sweet and sour sauce, the result was pungent but not unpleasant. in that sense, the sense of dueling opposites, i thought it was a wonderful if unintentional summary of kerry's career. unfortunately for him, life is not a convention speech. his reputation for getting around to the other side of an issue post haste has left a bitter aftertaste in the mouths of most voters. next to the perception that he may be weak on defense, it's kerry's biggest problem and this speech did little to address it. a throw-away line on "seeing complexities" aside, there was zippo. americans don't want complexities, they want clear. even clearly bad (within limits) is usually better than cloudy, especially in time of war. people have an increasingly negative impression of the economy and iraq for instance, yet bush is not the worse off for it.

the third thing that struck me was how conservative the speech was. saluting the delegates and reporting for duty, building up the military, cutting taxes and spending...have conservatives won the culture war? yes, building up the military was balanced with building up respect in the world, and yes, "middle class tax cuts" (read "you ain't gettin it!") was balanced with the end of "corporate welfare" but what was the load and what was the counter-balance? this was conservatism with compassion, not liberalism with common sense.

that bodes well for bush. in general, we've got about forty-five percent democrats, forty-five percent republicans, and ten percent who could go either way. for this election, most of that ten has already divvied itself up in roughly equal measure. if kerry's speech is any indication, then the holdouts think a lot more like me than they do...well, john kerry.

not that locdog would mind more pro-tax cut, pro-military democrats, of course, he just wants real ones



kerry is exploiting a national tragedy

i just don't get this.  since the sixties, you libs have been telling us that vietnam (with the possible exception of watergate) was our greatest national tragedy.  those of you who were alive and politically active back then, i.e. the boomers, defined your whole identities in relation to the imperialist obscenity that was the vietnam war.  hell no we won't go.  give me an f.  all that. 

we'll forget for a moment that the real children of wealth and privilege were burning their draft cards at their ivy league schools while the less fortunate were sent off to die on their behalf--and thanked with slanderous hate speech on their return--and try to see things from the liberal's point of view. 

vietnam was bad, man. 

and what's john f. kerry doing while all of this badness is going on?  he's running around the jungle with a super 8 camera giving his skirmish the cecile b. demille for posterity's sake--most vets i know don't even like to talk about combat.  i know guys who fought in korea, which was, what, fifty years ago?  they still can't talk about what they did.  yet here's akira kerry showing us all how a battle is supposed to be filmed.

ok.  fine.  whatever.  now flash forward 35 years or so to the present.  we've got george w. bush incorporating about fifteen seconds of footage from ground zero in a campaign commercial.  we've got the republicans holding their national convention in new york.  and, of course, we've got every democrat in america screaming their fool heads off about the exploitation of a national tragedy.  never mind that 9/11 was the defining event of the bush presidency and that new york was the defining location.  we're supposed to forget all that and so, apparently, is he.

come forward a bit further to yesterday and you've got one-time swiftboat captain john f. kerry showing up at the convention on a ferry--a slow ferry the AP writer carefully points out--manned by his former crew.

why not put him in a flight suit and land him on the deck of a carrier, you democrats?  if we're going to exploit a national tragedy, what the hell, let's go all the way, right?

and a few seconds of footage in a campaign commercial?  pshaw.  we've got speilberg producing an 11 minute tribute film directed by an academy award winning documentarian and starring kerry's own real live re-enacted combat footage.  and i bet the delegates sop it up like gravy.

it seems that vietnam is no longer a national tragedy at all.  it's become our proudest moment, and while it's heart-warming to see the democrats eschew the anarchic self-hatred of their youth, i must admit i'm somewhat dubious of their motives.  the other possibility, of course, is that vietnam still is a national tragedy, but that it's only "exploitation" if a republican mentions it in conjunction with his campaign.

you democrats teach locdog something new every day



MICHAEL MOORE (and ben affleck) on o'reilly

electra and i tuned in to o'reilly last night to catch the much-ballyhooed michael moore interview.  turns out that the pumpkin-headed liberal blowhard wasn't the only guest bill had lined up that night: ben affleck, of all people, bravely overflew the no-spin zone.

i mean, my God, how hot is michael moore right now?  o'reilly has one of the hottest young stars in hollywood (gigli aside) on his show, and he isn't even a penny cracker next to moore's supernova.  fox didn't even bother to mention affleck in any of the promos--which were running wall-to-wall in an effort to hype the moore segment.  i missed the opening minute or so of the affleck interview where, had he dropped by unexpectedly, this would have been explained.  but still, go check out now and do a moore vs. affleck tally on their homepage.  it seems moore outweighs affleck in more ways than one.

one more word on affleck: it will be a pleasure to kick in the ticket price for his next flick.  his disagreements with bush were principled but polite, his demeanor calm and rational, his optimism and goodwill palpable.  affleck's cool gen-ex realism smelled minty fresh next to the brackish boomer melodrama of a robbins, redford, sarandon, streisand, baldwin,...

...or a michael moore, which brings us to the heart of the matter.  according to fox's morning crew, the interview was something of a serendipitous convention miracle.  o'reilly is cozied away in his cranny when who should walk by but michael moore.  moore had previously agreed to put in an appearance, but only on condition that o'reilly see fahrenheit 9/11, that the interview be aired unedited and in its entirety, and that moore have a chance to ask questions of o'reilly as well.  the terms fulfilled, o'reilly hollers out to a moore-in-passing "why not do it now," or some such, and, whata guy, michael moore agrees. 

i've had naught but bad to say about michael moore, turd that he is, but i must admit that facing o'reilly without an ounce of preparation is a damn cool thing for anyone to do.  the men agreed to stick to the issues, and o'reilly launches his opening salvo.

BILL O'REILLY: [O]ne of the issues is you because you’ve been calling Bush a liar on weapons of mass destruction, the Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler’s investigation in Britain, and now the 9/11 Commission have all come out and said there was no lying on the part of President Bush.  Plus, Vladimir Putin has said his intelligence told Bush there were weapons of mass destruction.  Wanna apologize to the president now or later?

MOORE: He didn’t tell the truth, he said there were weapons of mass destruction...actually it’s president Bush that needs to apologize to the nation for telling an entire country that there were weapons of mass destruction, that they had evidence of this, and that there was some sort of connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11th.

this was the foundation of moore's entire argument.  bush lied.  he said there were WMDs and there weren't, ergo, he is a liar.  why was the war bad?  because bush is a liar.  why is osama bin laden still on the loose?  because bush is a liar.  why have 900+ american soldiers died?  because bush is a liar.  and why is bush a liar?  because there are no WMDs.

o'reilly anticipates moore's approach (not that his views are much of a secret) and exposes the middle step moore skips: it's not a lie if you believe it to be true, and bush had absolutely every reason to believe that saddam had WMDs.

now you would think that having the unanimous backing of the world's three most respected intelligence agencies would count for something, and with michael moore it does.  it counts as proof of bush's compulsive mendacity.

MOORE: Well, that’s almost pathological – I mean, many criminals believe what they say is true, they could pass a lie detector test –

O'REILLY: Alright, now you’re dancing around a question –

MOORE: No I’m not, there’s no dancing

O'REILLY: He didn’t lie

MOORE: He said something that wasn’t true

let the filthiest sinner of the lot cast the first stone?  fahrenheit 9/11 rests (so i'm told--i won't pay to see it) on the connection between bush and the bin ladens.  in establishing this point, moore has the bush administration smuggling a gaggle of saudis out of the country just hours after the 9/11 attacks.  the 9/11 commission reviewed this account and dismissed it as the baseless rumor it was: the FBI, not the bush administration, cleared those saudis and only after vetting them.  contrary to moore's film, cheney had nothing to do with it.

now let's assume moore had no way of knowing this during filming.  after all, the 9/11 commission report had yet to be released, and even though the story was preposterous on its face, we'll grant that moore may have had grounds for sincerely believing it was true.  ok.  he believed it to be true.  he then reported it as true to millions of people.  we now know that it's flat-out false.  ergo, by his own juvenile logic, michael moore is a liar.

the WMD questioning proceeds along lines of like inanity until o'reilly has sufficiently demonstrated that moore is willing to plumb the depths of madness so long as he gets to hold on to "bush is a liar"--and why shouldn't he when it's this willingness--eagerness, in fact--to dispense with the petty scruples of integrity that's made him a star?  at any rate, moore gets his first question.

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead.   What do you say to their parents?

now we get to moore's A-game, the shamelessly exploitative emotional mugging of his rivals.

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents?  I say what every patriotic American would say. We are proud of your sons and daughters.  They answered the call that their country gave them.  We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.


MOORE: And, but what were they killed for?

O'REILLY: They were removing a brutal dictator who himself killed hundreds of thousands of people

MOORE: Um, but that was not the reason that was given to them to go to war, to remove a brutal dictator

O'REILLY: Well we’re back to the weapons of mass destruction

indeed we are.  funny how that works.  note that moore doesn't bother to deny saddam was a genocidal monster, he simply doesn't care.  one wonders if saddam had killed, say, six million jews if it would have made any difference so long as the reason given had been WMD.

O'REILLY: [saddam's WMD threat] was a mistake

MOORE: Oh, just a mistake, and that’s what you tell all the parents with a deceased child, “We’re sorry.”  I don’t think that is good enough.

you've got to marvel at the audacity of a man who has sacrificed nothing, suffered nothing, lost nothing and yet who has assumed the authority to speak for those who've sacrificed, suffered, and lost more than any of us--and not only that, but to tell them that all their suffering and loss was for a lie.  er, i mean, a "mistake."  moore is nothing if not adaptable.

MOORE: Bill, if I made a mistake and I said something or did something as a result of my mistake but it resulted in the death of your child, how would you feel towards me?

O'REILLY: It depends on whether the mistake was unintentional

o'reilly is playing moore's game by this point and doesn't even think to ask the obvious "which is it: a mistake or a lie," though i doubt it would matter any more to moore than the hundreds of thousands saddam killed.  he is comfortable wielding either club, and he's either too stupid to realize that acknowledging "mistake" chops the legs out from under his entire argument, or he thinks you are.

o'reilly is doing his best.  he goes on to explain that a person who is guilty of an "unintentional" mistake cannot be held morally responsible.  as long as there was no element of criminal negligence or recklessness involved, the fault lies with no one.  the logic is clear and obvious, but he may as well try explaining plato to a cow (and it often seemed he was.)  moore doesn't care whether or not bush behaved unjustly, he wants people to feel injustice in their gut, and he wants that feeling imputed to bush, and he wants those who would defend bush squirming when they do it.

moore moves on to guerilla question b, which he restates in a few different forms but none more effective than this:

MOORE: So you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah?

o'reilly responds with variations of "depends on the circumstances," and "i would sacrifice myself," and so forth and comes off looking like a fool for doing it, which is precisely what moore wants.  there is no good answer to a question like "would you sacrifice your child to secure fallujah?"  that's why moore asked it.  it's the only kind of question he can ask.  for an academy award winning documentarian, moore has precious little interest in substance.

at this point, electra observes that michael moore is evidently unaware that we have an all-volunteer military, which is exactly what o'reilly should have said.  he might have worded his response along these lines:

HYPOTHETICAL O'REILLY RESPONSE: well, michael, maybe you weren't aware of this but no parent sent their sons and daughters off to die for fallujah, their sons and daughters sent themselves.  furthermore, at the time they went, it wasn't a question of dying for fallujah, it was a question of dying for freedom.  ours.  and i personally think it still is.  and what's more, even if we didn't have an all-volunteer military, it still wouldn't be a question of do-and-die versus stay home.  even in the america you live in, the one where parents send their children off to face the muzzle of a gun at the muzzle of a gun, not a single one of them would face the dilemma you frame.  there is no certainty of anyone dying, and given that we have 140,000 troops over there, the odds are actually against it.  would you send your son to die for a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk?  because there will be a lot more americans killed in traffic fatalities this year than there will be in fallujah, and in sending him to the grocery store, you might be doing just that.

yes, o'reilly might have said that, but would it have mattered?  no amount reason could produce the same visceral response as waving around 900 bloodied corpses.  the damage was done with the question, not the response, and by attempting to answer the question, o'reilly only added collateral.

if there's anything good about michael moore, it's his ability to remind most of us, liberals and conservatives alike, why it is we refuse to stoop to certain tactics.  a man who has risked nothing more than the exceedingly slim chance of poor reviews from movie critics who are just as liberal as he has appointed himself spokesman for those who've sacrificed more than most of us could even imagine, worse, he's held their grief hostage for a king's ransom in box office revenues (100M+ and counting.)  upon considering the source, the back-alley tactics should come as little surprise.  on balance, i'd have to call the interview a victory for moore.  o'reilly won the first half, the WMD half, but not nearly as big as moore won the second.

locdog thinks that most people are smart enough to realize that these sorts of victories are precisely what make moore the biggest loser on the american political landscape today


no comment necessary


space cadets

hands off that transporter, scotty, you'll want to stick around for this.

first, from heinz kerry's shirley maclaine speech last night:

Today, the better angels of our nature are just waiting to be summoned. We only require a leader who is willing to call on them, a leader willing to draw again on the mystic chords of our national memory and remind us of all that we, as a people, everyday leaders, can do.

wow, like, my crystal just started glowing, man.  pass the peyote.

on behalf of everyone in america--including the baffled delegates on the convention floor--what the hell are you talking about, thk?  maybe i'm just not bright enough to keep up with self-proclaimed "smart," "well-informed," women, or maybe this is just a bunch of sappy deepak chopra guru-babble.  you be the judge.

backing up the dali lama, we have none other than the little husband, the one who's supposed to be opinionated but has never met conviction he didn't like--and hate--dukakis reloaded, well-he's-told-you-bout-livin-in-the-USofA-and-you-know-that-he's-the-gangster-of-love, captain john f. kirk.

now ralphy, you come down here and show us that nice present your aunt made you!

locdog wishes they would hold these democratic conventions more often



convention suggestion box

like most of america, i didn't bother watching the democratic national convention.  the coverage of the three networks combined barely outdrew a csi miami rerun.  i may or may not tune in for kerry's, uh, finale, which, let's face it, promises to be the most boring speech of the convention.

admit it, democrats, your guy is a boston blue-blood snob with a face like an old baseball glove, hair like a koosh ball, the spine of a dead jelly fish, and the raw heat of my high school librarian's corpse in a snow storm.  he's a stiff.  a square.  a long, gaunt, walking undead who looks like a vampire that hasn't fed since the last time a liberal new england senator got elected president and who talks like he's shooting up with horse tranquilizers.

the only time he seems to have any life at all is when he's contradicting himself, or contradicting the contradictions, or offering clarifications on the contradictions that he previously contradicted.  do you know that people still don't know what the hell this guy believes?  i defy anyone to come up with a one-sentence summary of his iraq position.  should we stay or should we go?  should we fund or should we not?  is his position any different than bush's?  is it intended to be?  does he think it should be?  you've got a vietnam vet/hippy war protestor dove/hawk old-guard massachusettes liberal/clinton third-way moderate on your hands and, oddly enough, no one knows quite what to make of him.

must have been truly bittersweet for you libs to see bill up there on stage again...

anyway, i've come up with a few ideas for making the convention a bit more bearable for all of us.

first off all, party conventions are nothing more than infomercials and have been since the sixties--and even then their importance was becoming increasingly symbolic.  if we're going to have an infomercial, we might as well do it right.  the unruly mob of delegates should be replaced with a more polite live studio audience.  contributions should be solicited but only in denominations of $19.95 and each should donor should be given a tub of oxyclean.  if they act now, two tubs.  the whole thing should be pre-recorded and aired on the pottery channel at three a.m.--and looking over the ratings from last night, believe me, this would be an improvement.  also, why not have it hosted by george foreman, or, if possible, madam cleo?  george could work in a few low-fat recipes if the pace starts flagging and cleo may or may not be able to divine the location of osama bin laden or perhaps even kerry's cojones.  george could fry them up and serve them to teresa on a silver platter.

secondly, we need some lasers and pyrotechnics.  this would open up the intriguing possibility of a kerry hair fire which would be pretty damned good watching in its own right, but which would also give the candidate the opportunity he's been looking for to show his warm, vulnerable side to the soccer moms.  speaking of hair fires, i also think a half-time show with michael jackson leading a star-studded tribute to kerry's education program would be a real treat.  i'm thinking emmanuel lewis, gary coleman, and that little blonde kid from jerry mcguire could back michael up.  so to speak.  if his highness can't tear himself away from the courts, then we've got another michael ready to stand in, the king of crap michael moore.  i'm thinking he could do a strip-tease while singing "happy birthday, mr. president" in his sultriest voice, maybe even give kerry a lap dance.  this would be especially amenable to the NBC executives, as we could work in a fear factor spin-off where the delegate who manages to watch the longest would be given a couple of cyanide capsules and a glass of water--the rest would simply have to live with the horror.

finally, my wife suggests a DNC drinking game for our viewers at home.  i can dig it.  any time a speaker mentions the 2000 election, do a shot.  if it's al gore, drink two.  if he uses the word "stole," drain the bottle.  if bill clinton is caught on tape petting a groupie, do a shot.  if it's teresa, do two shots.  if it's hillary, drain the bottle.  if dean screams, do a shot.  of draino.  if anyone says anything positive about bush, do a shot.  if it's kerry, then make it botox. 

feel free to add rules as you like.  additional comments/suggestions welcome.

locdog would also like to see monkeys, britney spears, and a giant samurai fight incorporated somehow, preferably with the three being combined



this is priceless

usa today spikes ann coulter's column written from floor of the democratic national convention.  link.

the editor's comments ("I DON'T GET IT...I DON'T GET IT...I DON'T GET IT") pretty much say it all.  it's been said already and it will probably be said a million times between now and the republican national convention, but michael moore, who they're sending to cover the republicans, will probably be much more to usa today's tastes.

coulter suits locdog's just fine


take this quote and shove it

teresa heinz kerry is supposed to be an asset to her husband's campaign.  she's the strong, smart, independent type, not the sort to sit in the corner making googly eyes as her husband stumps for votes and profit.  she's as seasoned a political wife as they come, with decades of experience, social contacts out the yin-yang, and long-standing affiliations with both parties.  and oh, did i mention the billion-dollar net worth?

but after hearing this, you've got to wonder if she's not a liability.

mrs. heinz kerry was giving a pep talk to pennsylvanian delegates up in boston, sort of a positive, here's my hubby's vision for american kind of thing.  in the context of these remarks, she made a plea for civility and upping the standards in political discourse and so forth. 

We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.

after finishing up, she made her way on line, pressing flesh and working towards the exit.  naturally a few reporters found their way down, and naturally harried aids were scrambling about trying to whisk mrs. heinz kerry away before she did something to embarrass herself.

too late.

a reporter had asked mrs. heinz kerry what she meant by the "unamerican activities" remark in her speech.  "no, i didn't say that," mrs. heinz kerry replied, sounding immediately defensive.

"what did you mean--"

"i didn't say that."

"well what did you say," the reporter asked, apparently hoping to move things in a more productive direction than yes-you-did-no-i-didn't.

"i don't say that," was her answer, delivered with a stabbing, angry finger to go with.

"i'm just asking what you said."

"well why do you put those words in my mouth?"

"you said something about 'unamerican'..."

"no, i didn't say that."


"i did not say 'activities' or 'unamerican.'  those are your words.  you can record them and listen to [unintelligible.]"

now at this point she turns to join up with a handful of democrats led by PA democrat governor ed rendell.  she has a few words with rendell, then leaves the group, stalks back across the throng, and finds the reporter who had been questioning her.

"are you with the tribune review," she asks knowingly.

"yes i am."

"of course," she says with a smirk and turns her head to go.  the reporter asks her to come back for a second, wanting to explain himself, but mrs. civility preempts him a full broadside.

"you said something i didn't say.  now shove it," she spat, then she turned and stormed away with a gaggle of stunned reporters left slack-jawed in her wake.

the trib is a pittsburgh paper known for a conservative editorial page, and the man questioning her was the op-ed editor, which partly explains mrs. heinz kerry's reaction.  but i suggest you watch the video linked to the drudge story to see for yourself if this guy was out of bounds.  as far as i'm concerned, it was a perfectly valid question asked in a friendly, non-confrontational manner--if this is out of bounds, then nothing's in.

the astute liberal's first reaction will be to dismiss this as a non-story.  so what if she told some reporter off after saying everyone needed to be nice to each other?  she's not running for president. 

no, that's true.  but her husband is and she's supposed to be helping out.  she's mrs. women's liberation after all, the ready-for-primetime player whose brains and guts could help make her husband president even without her millions.  at the very least she shouldn't be out there hurting him, which is precisely what "shove it," and the preceding lunacy did. 

what's fun for me about this story is how multi-faceted the stupidity is.  there's a richness to it, a depth of idiocy that sticks to your ribs when most other political snafus leave you wanting.  let us savor the moment:

1. mrs heinz kerry should have never said "unamerican."  when conservatives use this term in regards to, say, a howard dean meltdown or an al gore eruption, it's the heinz kerry's of the world--along with her billionaire buddies like george soros--who are the first to accuse us of trying to reconvene HUAC.  if you don't want us using it then don't use it yourself, especially not as part of a level-of-discourse-raising speech.

2. having said it anyway, she should have owned up to it.  there are really only two possibilities here.  she either forgot she said "unamerican," or she was trying to lie her way out of it.  to be fair, the former possibility seems far more plausible.  mrs heinz kerry is not so great a fool as to think that she could get a way with so brazen a lie not five minutes after her speech (close, but not quite) and what's more, her speech had an off-the-cuff feel to it.  my impression from the video was that she had some talking points she was using as guidelines, but wasn't reading from prepared remarks.  that's not easy, and one can readily imagine how a few things might slip out without registering fully on her conscious mind.  we will not, therefore, attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.  still, not paying attention to one's own remarks is a poor excuse at best.  and can you just imagine how her husband would have jumped at a similar opportunity to wipe up a bit of verbal diarrhea?  he'd have had it spun around 180 degrees by the time he was done with that reporter.  she should have been grateful for the chance to smooth things over, but...

3. when you're in a hole, quit digging  she had walked away from the reporter to link up with rendell a bit stung, perhaps, but relatively unscathed.  the story would never have left the room.  but then she actually tracks this guy down across a crowded room and, in front of nine thousand little microphones and tape recorders, tells a journalist to "shove it." 

what in the hell was she thinking?

she wasn't.  no thinking person would do something like that.  not only has she made a fool out of herself and, albeit indirectly, her husband, she's also taken the focus off of the fact that it's the first day of the most important event of his (and hers) political career. 

if this was an isolated incident then it would blow over without too much fuss, but mrs. heinz kerry has won herself a bit of a reputation for opening her mouth without fully engaging her brain.  she's got her own personal damage-control team to follow her around issuing apologies and clarifications, like ed rendell who said that by "unamerican" she was referring to the really nasty stuff.

"shove it," ain't exactly barney material, ed.  but maybe he had something a bit more like the heinz kerry spokeswoman's take in mind:

This was sheer frustration aimed at a right-wing rag, that has consistently and purposely misrepresented the facts in reporting on Mrs Kerry and her family.

in other words, let's pile unpennsylvanian, unamerican rhetoric on top of unpennsylvanian, unamerican rhetoric in the hopes that it will make the hapless trib reporter look so bad that mrs. heinz kerry's flagrantly hypocritical outburst was actually a badge of honor.


in point of fact, the tribune review is the washington times to the better-known post gazette's washington post.  yeah it's got a conservative editorial page, but it's hardly the national review.

i'm wondering how long it will be before some liberal resorts to the inevitable:

"you conservatives just can't handle strong women!  dick cheney tells someone to go f--- himself and you could care less, but a woman stands up for herself and you're outraged!"

the cheney thing happened at a totally non-political photo-op event (literally, it was picture day) where he was being attacked out of the blue on halliburton.  furthermore, what cheney was responding to really was a personal misrepresentation, and even if it wasn't, it wasn't like dick had just finished his lecture on how everyone ought to play nice.  i bring the veep up not because i care, but because i know you, dear liberal, do.

the other thing that gets me about the "strong woman" defense is that it's so self-defeating.  if we conservatives dismiss mrs. heinz kerry as unelected and inexperienced then we're sexist.  if we listen to what she says and hold her accountable for some truly bizarre behavior then we're sexist.  well make up your minds: either we're going to ignore her (happily) or we're going to listen to her and hold her accountable, but what we're not going to do is sit and smile politely and pretend she isn't acting like a mad person when she clearly is.

mrs. heinz kerry has let her emotions get the better of her yet again.  that's not because she's a woman, it's because she's dumb.  she's had her hand in this game for far, far long to be making mistakes i wouldn't expect of a rank amateur.  she can't or won't shut up, and either way it's just as damaging to her husband.

were locdog that reporter, he would have followed up with a request for clarification on what, exactly, was to be shoved and where, exactly, it was to go