Is the Democrat '04 race over already?
by JohnHuang2
Gosh, there's so much news, I hardly know where to begin. But, you know something? We're not only going to go into New Hampshire election news, dear reader; we're going to go into the Mars landing, and the Cheney trip, and the stock market and the economy and David Kay. We're going into Kobe Bryant, and Martha Stewart, and Michael Jackson, and Golden Globes, and American Idol, and Iraq -- and then we're going to Washington D.C. politics, where I'm going to take ... back ... control ... of THIS ESSAY! YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
As I write this, you may have noticed that my writing is a little hoarse, but it's not because I was whooping and hollering at Dean's poor, second-place finish in New Hampshire tonight (another terrible loss for Dean under George W. Bush). It's because I have a cold. Honest! Okay, it's because I was whooping and hollering.
Election observers observe that with John F. Kerry's back-to-back victories, making him the odds-on-favorite to win the nomination, the White House now confronts its worse possible nightmare scenario: Having to face A Massachusetts Liberal! Can a Bush beat a Massachusetts liberal? Is Bush even a viable candidate after Kerry's smashing, earthshaking, incredible, breathtaking, stunning first-place showing--39 percent!!!--in New Hampshire, Kerry's neighboring state? The winnowing has begun! Can Bush bounce back? Can he even continue campaigning? Or will Bush fade in the primaries that follow, forcing him to drop out of the Presidency? As you recall, Bush (41) barely crushed Michael Dukakis in '88, winning 40 states but losing 10 and the District of Columbia.
 |
Kidding aside, what's the lowdown on tonight's election results? New Hampshire voters were told by expert TV election observers to vote for John F. Kerry, a Northeastern liberal with the best shot at beating Bush despite being a Northeastern liberal -- to give Ketchup Boy a landslide win over Howard Dean, a Northeastern liberal with no shot at beating Bush because he's a Northeastern liberal. At first, it was Anybody-But-Bush. Then it was Anybody-But-Bush, but Anybody-But-Lieberman, too. Then it was Anybody-But-Lieberman, but Anybody-But-Dean, too. Then it was Anybody-But-Dean, but Anybody-But-Clark, too. Ideal candidate? Someone fresh, someone new: John F. Kerry! A real fresh face, Kerry's only been in the Senate 19 years. (Don't underestimate Kerry, though. Check out Bush's demeanor, then compare it with Kerry's. Notice Kerry evinces that same warm, magnetic personality and passion of Michael Dukakis).
The new Watchword is "Electability," with little regard for the ongoing War on Terror. Okay, that wasn't fair. With America at war, Democrats, as much as they hate Bush, are searching for a candidate with all the credentials for accomplishing America's Main Mission: Beating Bush in November!
After his poor showing in Iowa, Dean quickly lost favor, his polls in New Hampshire dropping like Michael Jackson's pants at the sight of a crib. Especially damaging was that dull, subdued Iowa concession speech he gave.
 |
To be frank, regarding his now-infamous 'I have a Scream' speech, I don't understand what all the brouhaha is about. Coming off a very disappointing third-place finish, it was a very emotional moment for Dean, his people appeared despondent, and he was so low on meds. State Of The Union speeches get interrupted by applause from the audience. Howard Dean speeches get interrupted by manic attacks ... from Howard Dean -- so what's the big deal, here? Yet, in a debate last week, Dean told Peter Jennings that he was only having "a little fun in Iowa. I thought I owed it to the 3,500 (young kids) that came out and worked for us." He tells ABC's Diane Sawyer that he "was trying to pump up 3,500 (young kids) who gave me three weeks of their lives, and I'm not a perfect person." So, lemme get this straight: Dean says he's no New Democrat -- nothing at all like Clinton, right? Give me a break. This guy is worse than Clinton. At least Clinton, for all his warts, ministered to only one troubled young person -- Dean ministered to 3,500 troubled young persons! That one night alone. Dean Does Iowa. Small wonder he's still a viable Democrat candidate. "I'm not a perfect person," eh, Dean? I'd say. (Yet, to put Scream-gate behind him, all Dean needs to say is: Indeed, I did have a screaming relationship with those kids which was not appropriate).
As I said earlier, Democrats are focusing their energies on "electability," all the polls show this. Frankly, I don't know what they're worried about. Polls show the '04 hopefuls doing remarkably well on 'electability' -- the ability to elect Republicans. (Outrageously, Bush's insistence on winning elections has endangered Democrat plans to transfer power to Democrats and end GOP rule next January).
 |
Coming in 4th at 12 percent, Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina campaigns on a positive, tremendously upbeat, uplifting message that America sucks, business sucks, wages suck, rich people suck, rainy days suck. Building on this contagious sunny optimism, the Breck Girl sees two Americas: One horribly oppressive. The other even worse. But despair not, you can end this grim picture by punching a hole in a ballot next to the name John Edwards, says John Edwards. (Or, in this 'Touch-Screen' age, press the John Edwards button, and watch all problems magically disappear; now you see it, now you don't -- like a Britney Spears marriage.)
Asked on CNN's Late Edition Sunday if Sen. Fritz Hollings' endorsement of rival John Kerry came as a disappointment, Edwards, who was born in South Carolina, noted that endorsements don't really matter anymore. They "just don't have a lot of impact," he said. Asked if the Des Moines Register endorsement contributed to his strong second-place showing in Iowa, Edwards noted how endorsements really matter. "It did help. No question," he said.
 |
Flushed with victory after trouncing Edwards by a landslide .000000000001 percent margin, tired former Army Gen. Wesley Clark, coming in 3rd, says he's "not running to bash George Bush," just running to blast George Bush as a liar and a tyrant and a warmonger and a threat to democracy who did little to prevent 9/11. (Eager to show he ain't just bashing Bush, Clark proposes a concrete, constructive solution: Replacing Bush with Clark in November). Clark, who denies ever saying we are not going to have one of these terrorist incidents if he's president, poignantly told the Concord Monitor recently that, "If I'm president of the United States," we "are not going to have one of these (terrorist) incidents." (By the way, don't tell me Clark isn't serious about combating terror. This guy is really serious. So serious, he's even landed a key endorsement: Top security expert Michael Moore).
While al-Qaeda considers the U.S.-led War on Terror in Iraq a terrible diversion from al-Qaeda's War OF Terror in the U.S., Clark, who calls the War on Terror in Iraq a diversion from the War on Terror, accuses Bush of not being aggressive enough here at home in the War on Terror. Security needs to be tightened at all levels to protect the U.S. from further attack. Clark maintains that Bush is being lax about enforcing laws against terrorism. Bush is being too passive. Using scathing rhetoric, Clark also accuses Bush of being too aggressive here at home in the War on Terror. Security is way too tight at all levels and civil liberties should not be sacrificed at the alter of security. Clark maintains that Bush is going overboard enforcing laws against terrorism, like the U.S.A. Patriot Act, erecting a police state and a terrible tyranny in America. Bush is not being passive enough! (Clark's solution to terrorism is to repeal the Patriot Act, hire more nurses and fire-fighters, and put Michael Moore on television).
No, you just can't make this stuff up, folks.
Yet, we can't be complacent either. Democrats note the nation is evenly split; America is a 50/50 nation. (I feel so evenly split, don't you?) Indeed, America is so evenly split, voters have evenly split Republicans into controlling the House, Senate, White House and most governorships. Republicans now control California, and South Carolina, and New York, and South Dakota, and Florida; we also control Georgia, and Ohio, and Missouri, and Alabama, and Mississippi, and Kentucky!
Meanwhile, in a stunning revelation that has Washington reeling in shock, the man who headed the U.S.-led search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq now says he doesn't think WMD existed in Iraq before the war. Or that Saddam shipped them to Syria. Funny, I could have sworn I saw one of these weapons on live TV recently. I even distinctly remember the terrible sound it made when detonated.
Something like this, "Yeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrhhhhhhhh!!!!" Remember that? That guy in Iowa Massively Destructed all over the place. How sad. Incredible meltdown afterwards. Worse than Ben and J. Lo. Forget Syria -- Saddam had the weapons shipped to Iowa.
The burning question now, says the outgoing U.S. weapons chief, is "why the U.S. thought Iraq had WMD?" This notion that Saddam had WMD -- where on earth would anyone get that crazy idea? Sure, Saddam gassed tens of thousands of people, but would he go as low as to disobey the U.N.? Would he have kept secret weapons stockpiles after Kofi Annan told him not to? Sure, Saddam never allowed unfettered inspections, nor U2 spy planes for surveillance; and, sure, Iraqi officials kept moving a whole bunch of stuff from location to location to evade U.N. inspectors during the 90s (all this moving of stuff was completely innocent, I'm sure -- probably exercise by physical fitness buffs? Nothing like anthrax-packed weights to tone and shape those muscles), but would Saddam disappoint the French? No, says David Kay. No way!
 |
"I don't think (these weapons) exist," Mr. Kay told NPR Sunday. "The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist -- we've got to deal with that difference and understand why." Mr. Kay says the fact that no banned weapons have been found proves Saddam had no such weapons. Don't laugh, Mr. Kay is right. Remember those 30 Iraqi fighter jets found buried beneath the sands? None of those planes existed until we found them. Saddam didn't exist until we found him. Things just don't exist in Iraq until we find them. It's the weirdest thing.
"I don't think (these weapons) existed," Mr. Kay told Reuters. Twelve tiny years (including a two-year U.S. build-up for war) was hardly enough time for Saddam to hide these weapons. (Bush's war on Saddam was a sneak attack! -- see Democrats.) And 8 months is more than enough time to find them. And weapons inspectors had budget and manpower adequate to the task. Case closed, says Mr. Kay. My work is done. Verdict: Saddam cleared of all banned weapons charges. Mr. Kay also complains that his team increasingly saw its budget and manpower diverted to battling the "insurgency," hindering its work. Weapons inspectors lacked budget and manpower adequate to the task, keeping Mr. Kay from completing his search and that's why he quit. So, case not closed, Saddam's not cleared.
Mr. Kay says Saddam, poor fella, was duped by top advisers, receiving marching orders from Halliburton, into thinking he had illicit weapons stocks when he didn't. Democrats say BUSH LIED because Bush should've known what Saddam didn't know even if he had no way of knowing anymore than Saddam did. Democrats also say Bush is very, very dumb.
Hope that clears everything up ;-)
Anyway, that's
My two cents...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
