:: Sic Transit Gloria ::

A sort of general malaise that only the genius possess and the insane lament...
:: welcome to Sic Transit Gloria :: contact ::
:: NRO's The Corner [>]
:: Instapundit[>]
:: IAMO-FrankJ[>]
:: Kausfiles[>]
:: Hoosier Review[>]
:: DC Metro Blogmap[>]
:: USS Clueless[>]
:: Iraq the Model[>]
:: Moxie, Baby![>]
:: Michael Moore Watch [>]
:: James Lileks' "The Bleat" [>]
:: THAT Liberal Media [>]
:: ScrappleFace[>]
:: The Truth Laid Bear[>]
[::..My Favorite Links..::]
:: IMdB[>]
:: Television Without Pity[>]
:: Fametracker[>]
:: National Review Online[>]
:: The Onion[>]
:: FARK[>]
:: Something Awful[>]
:: Day by Day[>]
:: Slate[>]
Listed on Blogwise
[::..My Info..::]
:: Who Am I?[>]
:: My DVD Collection/Wish List

:: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 ::

NYC Convention Report

Well, I got into the convention last night, even got down to the floor for McCain's speech, and the place went electric when he hit out at Michael Moore. Some morons in the media think McCain made Moore the story by doing that, but I disagree-Moore was in the crowd(he's writing a daily piece for USA Today), and McCain wanted to be able to tell him to his face that he think's he's a lying piece of shit...I mean "disingenuous". Anyway, Kieth Olbermann seemed to think that the the comment would drive up F:9/11's Bof Office receipts. And? That was all Olbermann had, since McCain and then Gulianni tore Kerry's war position to shreds, and trashed his idea of class warfare. Dems at Salon whined about a lack of Deomestic Issues being mentioned, but first of all, the GOP realizes that The War on Terror is the number one issue, and second, there are three more nights, and unlike the Dems, the GOP won't focus on just one thing the entire time(Kerry was a war hero!)

I saw and met some cool people. Jack Kemp, Jim Kelly, saw Tim Russert and a scowling Al Hunt. Apparently Robert Novak has groupies which is...creepy. Coolest meet was Robert Schmigel, who I ran into on my way off the floor he was setting up for a "Triumph the Insult Comic Dog" thing, and I introduced myself as a fan. He said thanks, and then switched to Triumph. I actually had a little back and forth with the puppet, which was hysterical and a kick. He was a real nice guy, and I later found him trying to get Jack Kemp to talk to Triumph. Kemp ran. Oh well. Over at the NR party at Turtle Bay, I had good coversations with Rich Lowry on Al Franken, Jonah Goldberg on drinking, John Derbyshire on immigration, and Jim Gerehegty of the Kerry Spot on how poor Kerry's campaign has handled it's bad August. Also, the Swifties were discussed. A cool random meet was Evan Coyne Mahoney who does video blogging at Brain Terminal. He's actually not videotaping the convention because he's finishing editing on 50 minute film about liberal indoctrination on College Campuses. He was a real nice guy, and I chatted him up about blogging, getting interviews with people who hate you, and the guys from Protest Warrior, who are protesting the protesters here in NYC. I haven't seen too many, but I've heard some nasty stories, but also ones that seem to have a more peaceful outlook. That may change today, as unified groups of more violent protesters are expected to cause mayhem from 4pm to 7 or so, depending on how bad they get. New Yorkers, though, have been very nice. I had a conversation with the barkeep at Manhattan Chili Company in Time's Square yesterday, that started with fantasy football and moved to politics. He was a Dem, but said he didn't mind the GOP being there, of course he knew I was GOP, but he was sincere, we joked about the shortcomings of both our candidates(Kerry and Bush), and I recommend the place to anyone for some of the best Chili anywhere. Also, friendly people. I think it's mostly the lower East Side liberals who hate the GOP. I was down there Saturday, and told NOT to declare my party allegiance by my liberal friend. Still, I think politics may have ended at the Returant door, an italian place called Max's, because we had a good discussion about politics outside that the others heard, and no one got ugly. I haven't had a bad experience yet, and now that I've been to NYC twice in 10 months, I want to come back even more. Just no more time in Time's Square, except for the chili place. Massive tourist trap.

Oh, one sightingthis morning at breakfast. My friend Rob and I volunteered to shepherd delegates from a hotel to their buses for activities in the morning. There was concern there would be protesters. Nary a one could be seen, so Rob and I went to the upper West side for Breakfast. Sat down in a French Cafe , and John Podheretz, author of "Bush Country" and a conservative NY Post columnist sat down right next to us. After he finished I introduced myself, and he seemed little surpirsed to find a Republican on the upper West side, which is probably why he lives around that area. Anyway, we chatted about McCain and Gulianni, and about the President and Podheretz's Daily Show experience(The crowd booed him, Jon Stewart got angry with them). He was a very pleasant guy, and very politically savvy. Anyway, tonight I won't get into see Arnie, sadly, but I will be downtown to drink and see who I can see. It's been a great experience, one I recommend for either party. Go to a Convention at least once in your life, it's worth it. I'll be back blogging Thursday, and back in DC.
:: C.M. Burns 8/31/2004 03:20:00 PM [+] :: ::
:: Friday, August 27, 2004 ::
Off to NYC

I'm heading to the Convention up in NY City today. I can't wait. I want to watch the protesters screw up, and see Ah-nold make a bid for National office. It'll be great. If I meet any people of interest, I'll blog about it. This is also my first convention, so I'm excited. Good weekend, all.
:: C.M. Burns 8/27/2004 02:40:00 PM [+] :: ::
Who Does McCain Dislike More?

It's taken as pure fact by lefties who like John McCain that the Senator from Arizona hates President George W. Bush. They hang on to it like a security blanket, even when McCain is out stumping with Bush. Apparently oblivious to the fact that a picture is worth 1000 words, left-leaning commentators who consider McCain teaming up with Bush odd don't realize that despite his much-ballyhooed "friendship" with Sen. Kerry, McCain is nothing like the man, and has no reason to wish him to be President. Lets go to the board:

1) Outside of Campaign Finance Reform and service in Vietnam, McCain and Kerry have almost nothing in common, personally or politically. McCain is stridently anti-abortion, which is why the Dems would never let him on the ticket even if Kerry wanted him.

2) McCain is a fan of Bush's pre-emptive strategy, Kerry isn't. This was supposed to be the big issue until Kerry flip-flopped all over the place on it. But reading his speeches going back years and his campaigns, Kerry is at heart an America-firster when it comes to Defense, ie, he's not going to be very aggressive. McCain like the aggressive Bush approach. He most definitly has problems with the way it's been implemented, but based on his voting record and history, McCain would almost certainly back Bush based on this issue alone.

3) McCain and Kerry may be colleagues, and all Senators call the other Seantors "thier friends"(Dole did it right before blasting Kerry this week), but McCain made a pair of interesting comments regarding Kerry's Vietnam record this week, to USA Today and the Chicago Tribune. McCain hates the Swftboat Ads for two reasons, neither are that he thinks they are lies. He hates them because they violate the spirit of his Campaign Finance bill, and they question a Vet's service. McCain, who spent many years being tortured by the Vietnamese, doesn't like reliving the war. So he sides with Kerry on this issue. But he is also a modest man. He NEVER talks about what he went through in Vietnam, didn't talk about it in 2000, ran on his record. Kerry runs on nothing BUT Vietnam. This chafes McCain. He said he told Kerry he was overdoing the Vietnam thing, as Dole did, and McCain admitted that Kerry opened himslef up to these attacks. Very few Vets like those who brag about their exploits. Those who have seen combat don't discuss it much. The Swiftvets didn't talk about it until Kerry made it his campaign theme. McCain has to resent Kerry for wearing his rather weak Purple Hearts on his sleave. Bush, obviously, would like to talk about anything but his Vietnam-era years. Why would McCain back Medals McBragsalot Kerry?

4) Finally, Bush may have done something that pleased McCain a great deal-calling for an end to 527 ads, ads McCain has been beating up on since the first MoveOn ads began running. He gets attention for it now, but McCain knows that these groups make his hard work a joke. He hates them, and I think he hates how much they've helped Kerry, a "proponent" of Campaign Finance Reform". Kerry has refused to condemn the 527's. Bush has drafted McCain to wipe them all out. Who's McCain gonna support? Bush, obviously, especially considering how much cash is flowing to Democratic 527's. So when Bush and McCain embrace on stage, I don't think it's all an act. McCain probably has presidential aspirations, still. He also knows how popular he is with swing voters. I think McCain is angling for a cabinet position in Bush's second term(Defense, perhaps? He'd fit) and if he does well, he's set himself up as the perfect candidate for 2008: a hawkish Senator who is above reproach who also was brought up in the Reagan Revolution. Make no mistake, McCain probably is not best buds with Dubya, but just having been in the Senate and worked on a couple of comittees with Kerry doesn't make them BFFE, either. Especially if McCain sees Kerry's use of 527's as a betrayal. Dems like Wonkette can scoff and make fun of how they think Bush is "using" McCain, but McCain never does anything he doesn't want to do. He is firmly behind the President. I just wish Kerry had actually asked him to be his Veep, so I could hear McCain look uncle Kerry straight in the monicle and say "Nein!"
:: C.M. Burns 8/27/2004 02:38:00 PM [+] :: ::

:: C.M. Burns 8/27/2004 11:29:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 ::
French Owe Us Big, On This Day...

On this day in 1944, August 25th, the Allies liberated Paris. While Free French troops were the first to march down the street, the real work was done by American, British, and Canadian troops who suffered through D-Day and two and a half months of intense fighting to free the capitol city of an ungrateful nation. Paris may be celebrating today, but if it wasn't for the majesty of the Lourve, sometimes I might wish the Germans blew the damn place to bits before they fled from the might of the Allies. You still owe us, France. Never forget that.
:: C.M. Burns 8/25/2004 09:35:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Monday, August 23, 2004 ::
Kerry Gaffe Timeline

As far as the stage being set for the final two months of the campaign, the Kerry team has had a very bad August. Chris at Large-Regular chronicles what might be the most inept campaign since, well, Al Gore's.
:: C.M. Burns 8/23/2004 11:44:00 AM [+] :: ::
How Campaign Finance "Reform" Failed

John Fund writes in today's Opinion Journal about how McCain-Feingold, the Campaign Finance Reform bill foolishly adopted by the Congress and even more foolishly signed by the President, who didn't believe in it, is responsible for the current refighting of the Vietnam war that is happening in the political arena right now. He notices, as I and others have, that by limiting contributions to the major parties and opening up the 527 loophole, the money spent on political ads is actually LESS acountable today. The logic is that the President or the RNC could NEVER run an ad questioning John Kerrt's Vietnam service, and that the DNC and Sen. Kerry could never run ads saying the President's policies poisioned pregnant women(MoveOn ran one, thought it's patently false). Also, since it's impossible to PROVE real collaboration between political parties and the groups, complaints like the one about the Swift Vets have no chance. He also wonders why no one cares about the vastly greater amount of money given by Dems to 527's compared to the paltry sum given to the Swifties. Either way, he concludes that we all lose in this one, and that reporters and Democrats, so comitted to "Reform" are committed to the name "reform" not the actual practice. This sideshow is going to continue, and get uglier. Blame McCain. Personally. I like the guy, but he created this mess.
:: C.M. Burns 8/23/2004 09:01:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Friday, August 20, 2004 ::
Why Trial Lawyers(and especially John Edwards)Suck

The most well-known case that John Edwards won, the case that made him the champion of the little guy, is the one where he sued the company that made a defectice pool filter that graphically injured a small girl in a way I won't repeat because it's disgusting. Anyway, they deserved to lose, and Edwards and his supporters always point to this case anytime someone says he's a shady lawyer who got rich on crappy lawsuits. The problem is, the case where he made his REAL money was indeed a crappy lawsuit that not only helped increase the amount of malpractice insurance doctors must have, but also affects every single American in a negative way to this day.

Edwards successfully sued several OB-GYN's who's only mistake was that sometime, not all lives can be saved. Edwards time and again sued well respected doctors who's patient's had not had flawless deliveries of babies by convincing juries with that charm of his that the doctor was negligent. He made a fortune, and doctors across America had their insurence raised, and that was passed on to the average patient. So when John Edwards, Kerry's Veep choice, talks about making health care affordable, ask him why he helped make it so damn expensive in the first place.
:: C.M. Burns 8/20/2004 03:17:00 PM [+] :: ::
NY Times Shills for Kerry

Official Washington woke up this morning to an aparently damning article in the NY Times regarding the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. The Times, sounding awfully like Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, basically has decided that the Swift Boat vets are frauds and liars because some Republicans with ties to the President and others who don't like Kerry gave money to the group. Shocking, I know, Republicans giving money to an anti-Kerry group. The article is full of bizzare, byzantine plots that all somehow involve Karl Rove, and are clearly the work of the Republican party. It's not like the Left has a group funded by Democrats who don't like Bush. Oh wait, MoveOn.org has recieved a lot of money from people like George Soros, who openly despise Bush, but they are paragons of virtue!

Anyway, the idiocy, and outright plain bias of this article are amply put away, and hard, by Patterico a blogger who is much better than I. He wonders, as I do, why the Kerry campaign has to have the NY Times do it's dirty work. The "Paper of Record" running cover for a candidate, and doing so in a willfully misleading manner, is certainly worse than a group of 250-plus vets throwing their own money together with the help of Republicans who don't like Kerry.

Check out Kaus as well, a Democrat who long had worries about Kerry's credibility, as he takes the Times to task and has this facinating nugget: "Respectable big-time journalist friends who met with the anti-Kerry vets recently found them a lot more credible than expected. " He also has a bunch of stuff on the equally shady front page story in the Times a few days ago about the "Failure" of charter schools. Turns out, the Times only source was the American Federation of Teachers, an organization that's not exactly PRO-Charter Schools, he himself debunks their fauly data, and provides helpful links to people in the education field who know more about it than he or I.

PS: Kaus also wonders why nobody in the media is talking much about Kerry's Apocalypse Now like claims that he spent time up river in Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, a claim he made many times, and cited as a reason to not trust President Reagan, when he was Senator. The claim, unlike a lot of this swiftboat stuff, which is he-said, hesaid, has been proved false, and Kerry still has no answer as to why something that was "seared" into his memory is untrue. He's claimed that he may have "forgotten" over the years, but he said "Christmas 1968" so many times that he sure was certain right up until someone proved otherwise. Hmmmm. Anyway, the DNC, unable to actually counter the claims, has now decided to go nuclear. Should be fun.
:: C.M. Burns 8/20/2004 01:42:00 PM [+] :: ::
Olympic Spirit Renewed

Well, we're a week into a very good set of games, I think, despite the poor ticket sales. Great stories(Iraqi Soccer, The guy who won the individual Gymnastics medal, the ultimate coolness of the Shot Put at Olympia) and some great shots of athletes in action. Like
this tribute to women's beach volleyball. It's cool, AND work-safe!
:: C.M. Burns 8/20/2004 10:26:00 AM [+] :: ::
Ted Kennedy Detained, But Not Because He is a Murderer

When I read yesterday that uncovicted murderer and US Senator Ted Kennedy was stopped at the airport because his name was on the governemnts no-fly list, I first rejoiced because I thought, finally, this killer(the victim, Mary Jo Copinskey) is being brought to justice. But, it turns out it was just that his name was used as an alias by a terrorist. At least he had to wait around, and luckily for the guards, no body cavity search was required.
:: C.M. Burns 8/20/2004 08:32:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Thursday, August 19, 2004 ::
Kerry Doesn't Like to Talk About Vietnam...

..yeah, and I'm a Chinese Fighter Pilot.

Check out the quote in GQ. Does Kerry follow his own campaign?
:: C.M. Burns 8/19/2004 11:15:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 ::
Walter Cronkite is a Senile Old Bastard

Walter Cronkite was, for years, the most trusted journalist in America. If he said it, it was the truth, in most people's eyes. He is remebered as Uncle Walter, the kind, smart, reliabel source of truth on CBS. Hell, Cronkite gets credit for turning popular opinion against the War in Vietnam when he totally misreported events, including the Tet Offensive(Quick History quiz-Who won the Tet Offensive? If you said the Communists, you're only right if you mean public relations-wise. The Viet Cong were almost destroyed during Tet.). Anyway, that Crokite is a liberal is beyond dispute. He gets trotted out at the Emmys or whenever to talk about how great and important journalism is. Well, that's great Uncle Walter. Now go take your meds.

I write this because it seems that Uncle Walter may need to be committed. Sad, buy senality hits even the strongest mind. His his final years, Einstein himself only remembered a formula for a good manhattan, not his famous Theory of Relativity(ed. Note-this is not true). Now, Cronkite is
claiming that BLOGGERS(!) are the biggest threat to democracy. In his final column(Thank God), Cronkite decries the fact that web based stories are too scandal based, and that he is surpirsed that "there hasn't been a crackdown with the libel and slander laws on some of these would-be writers and reporters on the Internet". Well, there you are, America's must trusted journalist calling for a "crackdown" on independent internet news reporters and those who offer online analysis. Obviously, credentialled bloggers at both National Conventions give the old man nightmares, at least when he's not being scared by the ghost of Edward R. Murrow for bringing bias into the newsroom. I can't believe that any SANE journalist would call for a "crackdown" on any kind of journalism, web based or otherwise, without proof that said writers are actually being untruthful. But, he's now our CRAZY Uncle Walter, so somebody get him his pills and put him to bed. His time is, thankfully, over.
:: C.M. Burns 8/17/2004 02:48:00 PM [+] :: ::
Kerry AWOL on National Security?

One of many stories circulating out there in cyberspace right now is that John Kerry, the man who fought Charlie in Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968(or January of 1969, or someplace NEAR Cambodia), at least in his own mind, missed a whopping 76% of all open-door Senate Intelligence Committee hearings from 1994-2000. He wasn't running for President, and Kerry often cites his spot on the Committee as proof he has the Intellegence background to be a good President, so what, exactly, was he doing? Perhaps he was on secret CIA missions to Afghanistan. Anyway, all this comes from the Kerry Spot at National Review Online, who has also been beating up on Kerry's lame defenders in the Media and National Circles. After reading potential Kerry SecState or NSA Richard Holbrooke's response to various security issues, I'm once again convinced Kerry can't be President. Bush may not be great, but Kerry would be worse. MUCH worse.

Finally, Kerry has also trupeted the "fact"(a malleable thing for Kerry) that he was Vice Chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 6 years. Turns out that's not true. Can Kerry keep a story straight when it comes to his record? He's yet too. Why is a good choice again? Please, someone explain!
:: C.M. Burns 8/17/2004 02:32:00 PM [+] :: ::
:: Monday, August 16, 2004 ::
Calling Kerry on Yucca Mountain Pandering

Over at NRO today, Jonah Goldberg lays bare Kerry's desperate pandering in Nevada as he questions Kerry's claim that the President's approval of Yucca mountain as the nation's totally secure nucelar waste storage facility was a "betrayal". Kerry said the President promised to wait until the science backed up that conclusion, and that in 2002, when Dubya approved the move of all that nuclear material sitting around to a more guarded single location, he ignored that promise. The only problem is that Kerry seems to be unaware that the only science being questioned is how long the stuff will remain radioactive-10,000 or 30,000 years. Kerry, campaiging against "fear" brings it right to Nevada in a shameless, scientifically inept way to win votes. Kerry, I guess, would rather we keep our nuclear material at less secure locations, rather than putting it in between several military bases. Also, note that Goldberg slams the junk science that says the containers carrying the waste aren't safe. They'd need to be hit by a nuke itself to rupture, and, little did you know, 1000's of tons of the stuff have been moved over the years and there's never been a single reported leak. But, Kerry wants to wave his arms and scare people. Yeah, he'd be a great President. If I don't hate Bush, why should I vote for Kerry, again? Oh, that's right, he has no reason.
:: C.M. Burns 8/16/2004 02:52:00 PM [+] :: ::
Thank the Gods! The Olympics are Here!

I love the Olympics. Unconditionally. They're terrific. As a friend of mine said, they're the one sporting event who's genuine pureness manages to overcome the corporate crap surrounding it. The greed of the International Olympic Committee cannot beat the heart of the competitors. Also, the Olympics give us a chance to focus on something positive and non-Election related. I root for the US in virtually every event, save one. That would be Men's Basketball, and I want to hand it to Puerto Rico for kicking the asses of our preening, overpaid "Dream Team". The sucked and I laughed and laughed as the guys who play because they love it beat the guys who play because they get paid millions for it. This should prove once and for all that the highest level of play is not necessarily the NBA. Good. Anyway, I got a good chuckle out of that. Also-women's weightlifting? Kinda freaky. So, anyway, as long as the Chi-coms don't beat the US in medals, I'll be happy. Also, seeing hot Australian beach volleyball girls is fun, too. Huzzah!
:: C.M. Burns 8/16/2004 12:20:00 PM [+] :: ::
:: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 ::
Special Military Group Exhonerated

After years on the run, the A-Team has been cleared of all charges for a crimes they didn't commit. It's about time, too. Sadly, the plan didn't come together fast enough for Col. Hannibal Smith, the teams leader. He was gunned down in fron of a Vegas casino back in '94. But I'm glad that BA Baracus is finally getting his Medal of Honor. If only they can get him on the plane...
:: C.M. Burns 8/11/2004 11:34:00 AM [+] :: ::
Newspeak Is All Around You

1984 is a great book. Chilling, compelling, an ending so sad and hopeless, an uncomprimising vision of a truly perfect(and perfectly awful) totalitarian state. Quite often, the Bush administration, or Republicans, or just the government are reffered to in Orwellian terms. Most of this is nonsense. However, in a facinating article on the evolution of political language Deroy Murdock points out that phrases like "Compassionate Conservative" and "Bridge to the 21st Century" are so meaningless that they destroy the concepts they embody. As Murdock points out, "Compassionate Conservative"(A phrase I've lond disliked", implies that Conservatives were NEVER compassionate. Would the 21st Century not have occured if Clinton & Gore didn't build a bridge to it? Most Orwellian, though, are some of the phrases the government uses. The IRS calls paying taxes "voluntary compliance", as if we were all eager to volunteer our cash to government. Anyway, Murdoch makes these points and then some. Political speech, starting with the PC movement, has been coopted by both liberals and conservatives to mean what they want it to mean. It's the NEW Newspeak, and it is a little bit dangerous. After all, Orwell never says HOW the world of 1984 arrives. In his world, it just is. Vigilance over our language is the first barrier to that world ever occuring.
:: C.M. Burns 8/11/2004 10:41:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 ::
Lucas Comes Out Against Colorizing "Stooges" Films. In Other News, Up is Down and Left is Right

Coming as a shock to "Star Wars" fans everyone, George Lucas actually opposes some form of "improving" films-colorizing them,
specifically the "Three Stooges" films that Columbia is releasing in B&W and colorized versions. Lucas, of course, has raped the childhoods of countless Star Wars fans by inserting hysterically stupid "improvements" into the classic trilogy, such as Greedo shooting first, that wierd song number in ROTJ, and Ewoks. (Yes, Ewoks. Lucas was originally gonna have it be wookies, but he realized that Ewoks were "kid-friendly", which is why the best part of Return of the Jedi is when an Ewok, any Ewok, is horribly killed. It's the only part of the series in which I root for the Empire.)
:: C.M. Burns 8/10/2004 04:08:00 PM [+] :: ::
:: Monday, August 09, 2004 ::
What Will the Dems do if Bush Wins

In general, I don't trust polls taken three months before an election, and I certainly don't trust them when only one party has had it's convention. So I can tell you that I honestly don't know who will win in November. This race is also different in that the electorate is so evenly divided. A rerun in the closeness of the vote of 2000 is a real possibility. Also, though I hope that President Bush wins, I have allowed myself to realize that it will not be the end of the world if Kerry wins, his lack of a coherent foreign policy nonwithstanding. If Kerry wins and the GOP keeps the Congress, things might not be so bad. The reason is, even though I don't much care for Kerry, I don't think he's gonna drive the country off a cliff. Most Republucans I know feel similarly.

There are few Democrats, however, who have allowed themselves to contemplate a Bush victory in November, which is a very real, even likely possibility. To read left-wing sites like Salon or blogs like Atrios, Kos, and others, you'd think Kerry had already won and all Bush can do is steal the election. Which is where things become problematic. If Kerry loses, by say 3 or 4% and at least two states, what will the effect be on Democrats and leftists? Devestating and frightening, I would think. Take a look at this Michael Novak column on the Democrats and George Bush on National Review Online. As he puts it, "for Democrats, losing is much worse than for Republicans." And he's right. Republicans, despite the Clinton-hate that only took up the extremes of the party, don't really hate Kerry that much. Yes, they want him to lose, but I have yet to meet a Republican who actively dislikes Kerry even a tenth of the way that ALL Democrats seem to hate Dubya. When I talk to Democratic friends, the degree of hate is different, and some don't hate him personally, but the hate is there.

Anyway, if Bush wins in a convincing fashion, ie, it's hard to claim he "stole" it, though the leftist fringe will always believe that happened if Bush wins, what does that do to a Party that spent millions of dollars, though the main party organs, through 527's, through books, to unseat Bush? Kerry has offered very little in the way of alternatives to Bush policies. Some of his suggestions are essentially Bush without Bush's attitude. Just look at Kerry's increasingly convoluted Iraq plan, or lack thereof. And he's the standard bearer. Michael Novak wrote a second column, dealing with responses to the first. As he says, America NEEDS two parties, with DIFFERENT ideas. This year, the Democrats don't HAVE any ideas other than "Kerry isn't Bush". This is not a good way to run a campaign, and the unserious nature of their attacks on Bush and their attitude towards terrorism would seem to show a pary that has one thing holding it together-hating Bush. So, Bush wins, not comfortably but convincingly, and what happens then? Does the party implode? Do people on the left get up and leave? What happens to vigarous debate in this country? Novak also makes the point that Republicans tend to do better while in the minority, as he decrys the party's spending sprees. If the Democrats shatter, which is entirely possible, who will keep the drunken sailors in Congress from spending like mad? Well, it would require infighting amongst the GOP, but since the Democrats, under the woefull "leadership" of first Gephardt and now Pelosi, have articulated no alternative to the GOP or a reason to vote Democratic, the GOP doesn't HAVE to have an internal battle. They might, but if Dubya wins and the Democrats fall to pieces over it, why bother?

The larger point is that the Democrats have become greater enemies to teh future of Democracy in America than they accuse the Republicans of being. This is not by design. They are not bad people. They have simply let their emotions get the better of them, and it's no way to govern or to run a campaign. Yes, fire up the base, but the Democratic party used to do it with ideas and real thinkers. Now it's just "Bush is Evil"! Vote Against him! Oh yeah, our candidate was in Vietnam! That's about it. And if Bush wins, it is likely that a good number of "mainstream" Democrats will insist he stole the election, which will end the Democratic party forever. It will split. The rational Dems, the Bob Kerrey's, the John Kerry's, the Lieberman's and even old labor Stalwarts like Gephardt, will be overwhelmed by the hatred fermented by the Deans and Gores. Hillary Clinton will become the leader of a party that is almost dead should Kerry lose. The Deaniacs and the hard-core leftists will leave the party. The Greens may gain power, as they have ideas(bad ones, but ideas nonetheless), but the old Dems won't go there, and they won't go to the GOP. So there will be two "minority" parties, perhaps, and one big majority party, the Republicans, who desperately need serious opposition to keep their spending habits in line. With a Kerry loss, the anger amongst Dems towards Bush will turn inward and become rage. If John Kerry really wants to help his party and his country, he will not only distance himself from the Dean wing of his party, he will actively denounce it. He and President Bush should both denounce the third party spending from 527's, be they MoveOn.org or Swift Boat Veterens for Truth. While the Swifties are more honest than MoveOn, both groups are motivated by anger. President Bush is who he is. he cannot nor should he change, nor should he apologize for who he is. John Kerry, I believe, is a patriotic American and a faithful Democrat. While he should not focus on what should happen if he loses(what candidate would?), he should temper his remarks to tap into the spirit of the Democratic Party, not the anger and hate of the Dean's and MoveOn's. If he does, if Kerry loses in November, the Democrats can rethink their issues or their message and adapt, instead of staying on this path of destruction that awaits them should Kerry lose. America needs a strong oppostion party. Can Kerry provide one?
:: C.M. Burns 8/09/2004 12:10:00 PM [+] :: ::
Jay Nordlinger on Idiocy among the Dems

In his column on NRO today Jay Nordlinger is simply on fire, from demonstrating the complete lack of seriousness among the Dems to mocking the fact that while hating Bush is OK, suggesting assasination is "just too much". As he says, glad to know there are limits. Anyway, read it and ask a Democratic friend how Dubya is the one dividing the country. I'm still not sure how he's doing it, but it probably has something to do with how evil he is.
:: C.M. Burns 8/09/2004 10:14:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Friday, August 06, 2004 ::
RIP, Supahfreak

Rick James has passed on, and the world is poorer for it. Concaine IS a hell of a drug. RIP, Bitch
:: C.M. Burns 8/06/2004 03:52:00 PM [+] :: ::
:: Thursday, August 05, 2004 ::
Big Media Myths

Today in Slate, I find myself in agreement with Jack Schafer, who I usually DON'T agree with, proving that even in a "Red/Blue Divided America", thinking people can argue with each other, disagree, and even find some common ground. Unlike the writers at Salon, who think that if you ever disagree with them you are the minion of Hitler(AKA Dubya to Them).

Anyway, Shafer devotes a whole column to proving that "Big Media" is hardly a threat to the free market, Democracy, or the future of the Nation in "The Media Monotony - Who's afraid of Time Warner, Viacom, Disney, Bertelsmann, and News Corp.? Not Me." He shows that the big mergers that get activists like the Salon people and FAIR so worked up have actually not been too good for the companies. Going back twenty years, Shafer rightly points out that rather than cable news setting the tone for debate, it is the Newspapers, The NY Times, the Washington Post, the WSJ and the LA Times, who set a daily debate. As he points out, without the real investigative journalism that goes on at Newspapers, TV would have nothing. A continued debate can be had about media bias, but I think this might at least shut Eric Alterman up if he was bright enough to think instead of react. I doubt it though. He only reads Salon, and since Slate occasionally says bad things about Democrats and not-awful things about the President, they are the enemy to him. Anyway, it's a great piece, well written and actually researched, so go and read and shut some moonbat up when he or she says Fox is coming to get you. Shafer is right-Rupert Murdoch IS going to run News Corp off a cliff.
:: C.M. Burns 8/05/2004 12:16:00 PM [+] :: ::
Talent Really IS For Ugly People!

Taking a brief political break to wonder how many really good yet unpublished writers are now contemplating suicide since Pamela Anderson is a published novelist. Her book, Star, is pretty much a ghostwritten "fictional" account of her life. Meanwhile, the great American Novel continues to languish in your word processor. This is just sad. It's just her life, in book form? Are there pictures? I hear not, though apparently she's naked on the cover. What's the point? If it's not a tell all, why read it? Just search the archives of any entertainment website and you could probably write a better "fictional" account.
:: C.M. Burns 8/05/2004 11:37:00 AM [+] :: ::
:: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 ::
The Dean Response to Terror

OK, I had typed up this long-winded, link-heavy article about how bizzare it is that the Dems(save Kerry) are willing to put out crap like the shit Dean was shoveling about the "timing" of terror alerts, but over at The Belgravia Dispatch Greg Djerejian has beaten me too it, and since way more people read him than me, I figure I'd just link to him, with a little bit from my rant.

The fact is that attitudes like Dean's are not just dangerous to his party, though they are VERY dangerous to the Democrats, they're dangerous in that they give credence to some of the tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists who usually get shunted aside. On "The Daily Show" the other night, Jon Stewart basically implied that the raised alert was a politically motivated move. Because it comes three days after the Democratic Convention. While not being as foolish as Dean and saying it outright, the is the second time that Stewart has done this in a couple of weeks. When the terror alert level was almost raised a few weeks ago, and it coincided with the selection of John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, Stewart also intimated that the move was designed to take attention of the Democrats. Sadly, his studio audience laughed and applauded Stewart as if he was being brave or smart. However, he's just helping add to the false impression created by Dean and "documentary" film maker Michael Moore when they say things like there is no real threat. While the Bush administration and the DHS has only asked Americans to be vigilant but not let these threats affect their norma lives, the left has seen them as the White House using "scare tactics". With this dangerous attitude, some Americans may well forget that we are at war with Terror. Bush cannot win. If he says "we may be attacked" and we aren't, he's a fearmonger. If he says nothing and we are attacked, he's a negligant incompetent. And if he says "We may be attacked" and we ARE attacked, the same people who say there is no threat will say he should have done more. What I find most troubling is that "The Daily Show" and Jon Stewart never used to be this...irresponsible about terror. Even more annoying in the media was the incredibly stupid "well, most of the info is three years old" line, which was only partly true anyway. A poster to the message board for "The Daily Show" at Television Without Pity was upset that Stewart didn't make fun of the age of the info last night. As much as Stewart might deny it, just read the rest of those posts on that message board and you'll see that these are people who get their news from a fake news show, and mistake Stewarts politics and go-getum attitude(which is admirable), with serious news critique. While reading the Belgravia Dispatch piece about how the NY Times and the Post are backtracking on their hysterically stupid analysis of the info yesterday, I have to wonder if TDS will, in fact, DO something about the ago of the intel. And if they do, it will make those posters, who represent mainstream liberal thought, even more certain that the media is being manipulated and that there is no threat from terror. It's maddening. In his interview with Ted Koppel, Koppel himself lamented the fact that people get their news from TDS. Koppel is right to be worried, as satire of news stories does not equal good news. Jon Stewart is smart enough to know this, but seems unwilling to come out and say it. Anyway, the point is, if people are getting news from alternative areas like TDS, than the TDS either has to shut them down in that thinking, or be a REAL news show that makes fun of people. It's straddeling, and if the issues weren't so damn important, I wouldn't mind. But they are important. If Jon Stewart plays to his audience tonight and jokes about the age of the intel in a way that makes the intel look useless, I will probably stop watching. He's better than Howard Dean, and his show should not become a TV version of DemocraticUnderground.com.
:: C.M. Burns 8/03/2004 11:52:00 AM [+] :: ::

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