Saturday, February 28, 2004

Kerry's new nickname

Hanoi John.

Wednesday, February 25, 2004


Bush came out the other day and supported amending the US Constitution to codify marriage as a contract between one man and one woman. I support the goal of this Amendment. But I oppose the actual Amendment, for these reasons:

- It won't pass

There is almost no chance of this Amendment being passed by 67% of BOTH Houses of Congress. The House of Representatives may give it the OK, but the Senate will almost certainly refuse it (more time between elections for Senators). And even if the Senate supports it, it will take a long time to get the needed 38 states to sign on (well after the 2004 election is held). In the meanwhile, the press will paint Bush as an intolerant bigot who is pandering to his base in a desperate attempt to win the re-election his father could not gain.

- Bush Loses Gay Votes

Gays probably make up about 5% of the voting population. I cannot imagine too many of them voting for him after he supports something they oppose so strongly. While most of them would not have voted for him in the first place, some would have. They won't now. In a close election (like 2004 is shaping up to be), losing the support of "swing" voters (pardon the pun) is nothing to sneeze at...

- The Religious Right

These folks will almost certainly commit numerous gaffes over the next 8 months or so, forcing Bush to either support their comments or distance himself from them. It's a no win for the Prez. If he distances himself from their comments, he will lose support from his base. If he supports their statements, he will lose support from needed independents. Kerry can continue to oppose the Amendment while saying he "personally" thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. Bush will end up on the firing line, not Kerry.

Things are looking rough for Bush in November. Kerry has plenty of weaknesses, but the media seem to ignore many of them. Bush's main hope rests with Nader. If Nader stays in the race until Election Day, Bush will probably win. But I suspect a last minute pull-out by Nader (late October?), in which he endorses Kerry. This will do nothing but harm Bush.

Right now, I put the race at 50-50. If Edwards or Dean were the nominee, I might not be so concerned. But Kerry completely sickens me. Physicially. He must be stopped before he becomes President. We must support Bush, warts and all. If not, we risk horrors over the next 4 years that are unspeakable (namely, seeing that phony New England bastard on the television every single day).

Saturday, February 07, 2004

This guy is insane

But funny!

Friday, February 06, 2004

Filthy Mexicans

We let millions of these people into our country, we pay them wages they could never hope to earn in their own cesspool of a nation, and this is how these scum repay us.

If I was President, I would build a wall on the Rio Grande. Seriously.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

I'm not so bad!

My predictions weren't too far off for last Tuesday! Now let's see how I do on upcoming primaries...

MI - Kerry looks likely to humiliate Dean in a state the Doctor needs to do well in.

Washington State - Dean simply must score a victory out here on the Left Coast. But he won't. Kerry wins.

Maine - Dean loses a close one to Kerry, but decides it's close enough to remain in the race.

TN - Edwards in first, Clark second, Kerry third. This result could seriously damage Kerry's campaign, since if he can't even come in first or second in a Democrat Primary in a Southern state, how will he do in the South against Bush in November?

Virginia - Edwards in a blow-out. Suddenly Kerry looks beatable. Dean bays for blood in Wisconsin. Fun!

Monday, February 02, 2004


I've been pretty awful at this so far this election year, but I'll give it another try...

SC - Edwards wins, Kerry second, Clark third
ND - Kerry wins big
NM - Kerry first, Dean second
AZ - Kerry first, Dean a surprise second, Clark third
OK - Clark wins, Kerry second
MO - Kerry all the way
DE - Kerry wins, Lieberman crushed and drops out
Why I Hate The NYT...

Link here.

Here's the money paragraph:

"The study also found that future adversaries could draw several lessons from the war: that American forces' reliance on high-tech surveillance satellites and aircraft could be countered by decoys and the imaginative disguise of weaponry; that more powerful warheads for rocket-propelled grenades, already effective against helicopters and light vehicles like Humvees, could offset American armor; that American forces could be drawn into a protracted, costly urban war, more effectively than they were by the Iraqis; and that American forces are vulnerable to classic weapons of insurgency, like car bombs."

Don't these fucking idiots realize that our sworn enemies probably read the NYT? This was, after all, an "internal Army history of the war ." That means it wasn't meant for public consumption. But the NYT doesn't care. If future soldiers, marines, sailors, and airmen die because of this security leak, they won't lose a minute of sleep. They'll just blame it on rich, white, male, Republicans.

God, I fucking hate the New York Times...