Saturday, September 04, 2004

How about it, Nuance Boy?

Drove into town early this morning. The machine outside the lumberyard has the "big city" paper with a front page photo of a naked and bloody Russian child like these. Talked with the locals while waiting for my order. No interest in helping the terrorists get in touch with their "inner feelings" other than with the rifles they keep on hand for feral, rabid dogs. Me too.

Which presents a problem for Nuance Boy - Still whining Kerry running out of time:
It's time John Kerry chooses between being a whiner and being a leader. His midnight performance Thursday and remarks at events Friday showed he's yet to get the difference in this campaign.

Americans do not want to hear Kerry's whining about being ``attacked'' and ``insulted'' at the Republican National Convention. Americans do not want to hear his childish claims that he was attacked first and therefore he now must attack back.

Americans do not want to hear the Democratic nominee call the commander in chief during a war where American lives are on the line ``unfit for office and unfit for duty.''

They want to hear that he is as committed as President Bush to stopping fanatics from taking over American schools and slaughtering children. And if he has better ideas about how to go about doing it than Bush does, Americans want to hear those, too.
C'mon Lurch, we're waiting. And sensitivity just isn't going to cut it.

President Bush could and should be a whole lot tougher in order to prevent terrorist attacks inside the USA and disable foreign terrorist regimes. But he's got to contend with the corps of perpetual whiners in the press and the Democrat portion of Congress. And as disgusting as Kerry's waffling on combatting terrorism is, don't forget he's the Democrat's "pro war" candidate:
A New York Times/CBS News poll in July found that three-quarters of Democratic voters and 86 percent of Boston delegates opposed the war in Iraq. Yet both John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the resolution authorizing force in Iraq in 2002.
That's the central difference between the GOP and the Democrats: The Democrats were willing to -- no, they chose to, by nominating Kerry -- sell out their core issue in order to beat George W. Bush.

That's how fanatical their hatred is.
Let me be clear: I am not arguing that Bush is not political -- he is political. He's president. I am arguing that the Democratic Party has become so political that it stands for absolutely nothing. Dems know it, so they nominate men who also stand for nothing -- but raw ambition.

Kerry won the nomination because many Democrats believed they had to pick a pro-war candidate in order to beat Bush. They were able to look at Kerry's vote against the Persian Gulf War and determine that he did not believe his 2002 Iraq vote and does not mean the pro-war statements he has made during the campaign.

Some of the very folks who bellow, "Bush lied," are crossing their fingers in the hope that Kerry lied.

"I don't think the Democrats have confidence in the American people," Republican National Committee Chairman Marc Racicot noted. That's why the Democrats are "angry."

And many Democrats think that they're going to lose. A famous wartime poster had Winston Churchill's face looming over the words, "Deserve victory." You deserve victory when you believe in a cause so much that you are willing to take risks for it.

This year, the Democrats abandoned their principles, implying either that they don't trust the America people to appreciate their message, or that they don't trust their message. Democrats aren't willing to take risks, but they are willing to choose someone whom they want to mislead the public. For that alone, they deserve to lose, and I think they know it.
Can you imagine Lurch backed by a Greek chorus of left wing howlers doing anything to combat terrorism other than wringing his hands, tut-tutting, and having cheese tastings with Chirac? Heck, what did Bubba ever do?