Replies

Mr. Bush, we have a country. You're not going to destroy it. Our Fathers did not shed blood, did not bequeath us a nation bought and paid for with life, limb, and sacrifice for the foul likes of you to harm but for us to love, keep, and carefully pass down to our grandchildren and theirs, and theirs, and theirs, as our forbears cherished, saved, and handed it down to us more precious than ever inheritance was or could be. It's our legacy, our dearer-than-gold-and-silver, ours to hold not yours to squander, stupid excuse for a man. Now take your soiled Tranzi hands off that which was clean and pure. Pollute it no longer by touching it. Because of you and Karl Rove a line has now been drawn. We are on one side and you, and your brother, and your nephew, and your backstabbing, lying disgrace of a father are on the other forever. Go. Go away. Go to Mexico. Leave. We don't want you here, sad incompetent failure, outrageous destroyer of what was your own country. You are as bad, and as much a traitor, as Bill Clinton. (That's why you never prosecuted him -- you could see absolutely nothing wrong with a single thing he did.)

It's clear tonight, with the latest primary poll results in and the scattered voter commentary being reported, that 1) Kerry will be the nominee, and 2) he'll take Bush in a walk, beating him easily by at least ten points without even breaking a sweat -- a landslide. Were Bush not so utterly pathetic he'd be tragic -- but someone who is a complete joke, an absolutely incompetent, clueless buffoon, is never the stuff of tragedy. I hope all Bush's and Rove's enablers, the ones who forbade criticism when there was still perhaps time to bring this now-doomed Administration to its senses, are happy with what they've wrought on the nation: a GOP presidency stopped dead in its tracks and replaced with the Dems. No, the enablers simply couldn't understand why the "lesser of two evils" strategy doesn't apply once a certain point has been reached, the point beyond which *both* sides are become intolerable. Intolerable is a word the enablers can't quite grasp the meaning of. Rather than go to the GOP and try to get the word back to Bush that he'd really and truly better cut this crap, they squelched all criticism of the jackass. The enablers just couldn't grasp what we were so unhappy about; why we simply would not be able to vote for Bush no matter who opposed him unless things changed -- hey, when someone has the equivalent of a choice between Joseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung he runs right out and enthusiastically supports one over the other, right? Of COURSE! He never grumps about a choice like that! The lesser of two evils -- don't you get it? YEAH -- what more could we want than the equivalent of a choice between Lavrenti Beria and Joseph Mengele to get us all excited about picking one over the other on Election Day? Or let's say, a choice between Fidel Castro and Ché Guévara. Wouldn't that make you proud of democracy and get your juices flowing? Wouldn't that particular choice get you in a hot-to-trot voting mood, everyone, raring to take part instead of staying home and just sitting on your hands? I mean, why were we so hard to please, always complaining about the choice we were going to be given, when the choice was the equivalent of one between Adolf Hitler and Adolph Eichmann? Couldn't we wax enthusiastic about "the lesser of two evils" strategy and go happily to the polls on Election Day knowing we were about to keep the greater of two evils -- Hitler or Eichmann -- out of office by putting the other one -- Hitler or Eichmann -- IN office? I mean, SURELY I ought to be able to scrounge up enthusiasm for my favorite if given the equivalent of a choice between Pol Pot and Khieu Sampan! Gee, I can't BELIEVE we actually had the equivalent of a choice between Joseph Goebbels and Alfred Rosenberg AND STILL DIDN'T APPRECIATE IT, SAYING WE COULDN'T VOTE FOR EITHER ONE! What MORE could we want in the way of a choice than that? What was WRONG with us?