Posted on 03/20/2004 6:59:03 AM PST by Lando Lincoln
There is something strange and very scary going on within the Democratic Party. It’s sinister, it’s diabolical, it’s maleficent, and it’s totally in keeping with what we have learned to expect with ''politics as usual ... Democrat style.'' There’s a dark moon rising on the political horizon and it is threatening to wreak havoc with this summer’s political process.
I’m afraid the leading Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, is unknowingly and unwittingly trapped in a classic real-life horror story. He will inevitably re-enact the horror story in due time as we move closer and closer to the Democratic convention.
There exists an incongruity to the sequences of action within the Democrat operation. Series of events and rationales don’t add up to their logical and expected conclusions, yet they never seem to come under media scrutiny.
It’s as if the Democrats have reinvented truth. Two plus two no longer equals four, it equals whatever the Democrats tell the media to parrot back to the public. The Democrats have perfected the art of the “shuck and jive with a straight-faced delivery” and the media seem to be captivated and in love with the hypnotic farce.
Case in point: The Democrats still contend that Al Gore won the 2000 election. Yet, strangely enough, no substantial party donors, no Democratic power brokers and no significant number of delegates got behind Gore in the early weeks of the campaign. Doesn’t that seem a little odd?
If Gore really did win in 2000, wouldn’t Democrats be itching for the opportunity to prove to the world what they claimed was true? If the number of votes for victory were still there, why didn’t the Democrats provide the arena for the proof?
I mean, come on. If Gore and the Democratic machine had succeeded in stealing the election from President Bush, Republican voters would have counted down the dwindling days on the calendar till the next election and marked them with their own blood. They would have walked through brick walls to carry President Bush, and only President George W. Bush, on their shoulders to the next election campaign to rub their honest victory in the face of the lying liars who lied to them.
The fact that no Democrat insider backed Gore is proof positive that they KNOW Gore lost the election. Even with illegal aliens and Democrat felons voting, Milwaukee derelicts bribed with cigarettes by New York limousine liberals, Philadelphia inner city precincts producing an unbelievable 100 percent turnout, a St. Louis Democrat judge keeping inner city districts open and voting until midnight, and the dead voting in almost every Democrat district--they still lost.
They didn’t run Gore again, because they couldn’t run Gore. He lost in 2000, they knew it, and he would lose again in 2004 and we know it. As Dick Cheney might say, he would lose again ''Big Time.''
Yet even more amazing is the fact that no media personality asked the Democrat kingmakers why, if Gore had already won, wasn’t he again their nominee. There were no cries of ''Where’s Al?'' Seems like a simple, straightforward and obvious question to me.
Now, again, the Democrats stretch credulity with their candidate, Sen. John Kerry. The Democrats have a white-hot hatred of President Bush, yet we are expected to believe that the candidate they have chosen to send Bush back to Texas is Kerry?
Kerry is an arrogant Massachusetts elitist, educated beyond his intelligence, with a more liberal voting record than Ted Kennedy. He is a pathologically indecisive, opportunistic, United Nations bureaucrat-loving, Jane Fonda war veteran surrender monkey who sells his Renoir paintings for campaign cash.
This is ''their guy''? The guy who is going to relate to the common man and make the nation feel all warm and cozy and safe? This is the guy who is going to beat Bush in the South and Midwest?
I don’t think so! Gore didn’t even win his own state of Tennessee or Clinton’s Arkansas in 2000, but the Democrats think Kerry will? Please!
We, the public, are expected to believe this? And once again the good-for-nothing media don't find this strange at all. In fact, they are pumping the hype. Is he the real candidate or is he just another stalking horse until the Democratic convention? Don’t expect the media to shed any light on that subject.
The Democrats seem to have found the perfect dupe in Kerry, as they did in Gore and Torricelli. Even when Gen. Wesley Clark slipped and prematurely told the media that ''Kerry will implode over an intern issue,'' who did Kerry blame for spreading lies? Why, President Bush, of course. Two hours later, Clark’s campaign rushed to say that Clark would endorse Kerry for president.
Just a little hint of what Kerry can expect from his party.
The horror story that Kerry will unwittingly be re-enacting in a replay is the 1979 cult classic ''When a Stranger Calls.'' What a babysitter at first thinks is a joke turns scary when the caller asks about the children and seems to know a lot more than a stranger would know.
After the babysitter makes several calls to the police, they call back with the classic warning, '''We’ve traced the calls ... they’re coming from inside the house!'' So, Sen. Kerry, when the intern issue that Gen. Clark first mentioned starts to get some more press just before the Democratic convention, and when the Vietnam veterans who hate your guts for your infamous war-bashing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee start to get some valuable prime-time air on the national network news shows around the same time, remember: ''The calls, Sen. Kerry, the calls ... they’re coming from inside your [political] house.''
Joan Marie Nagy is political writer, humorist, and dental technician in Pennsylvania. She receives e-mail at JoanMarieNagy@aol.com
If FNC has an anti Kerry spokesman on, they immediately give equal credibility to a Kerry defender.
President Bush will win in spite of the media.
Yep
Your condescending response shows an absolute lack of respect. If you are representing the Republican Party, as you claim to do so on your profile, you are not doing them any favors by disrespecting total strangers. If you take these foul manners and this childish, pedantic air of self-importance out on the campaign trail you are merely hurting the GOP. Perhaps you should read the other responses to my post to get a notion of how decent and civilized people should respond.
I have half a mind to inform the RNC about your rude shenanigans.
And she leaves out the best evidence of all, and well proven evidence:
John Lott's study of the disqualified (double-punched) Florida ballots showed that, in inner-city districts, the republican ballots (there are between 5-10% registered repubs in the inner cities, i.e., black republicans) were fifty to sixty times more likely to be double-punched than were the democratic ballots!!
To put that in perspective, if you assume that 95% of black voters are democrats and 5% republicans, then for every democrat ballot that was double-voted, there were TWO republican ballots that were double-voted, even though the dems outnumbered repubs by a 19-to-1 ratio.
Seems to me that this is the ultimate smoking gun of voter fraud, but the press has IGNORED his findings.
And Lott's research USED, as its raw data, the information collected by none other than the "USA Today" consortium of press organizations. Yes, this is the very press group that investigated the Florida ballots in a failed attempt to 'prove' that Gore would have won if the votes were recounted -- and their OWN DATA reveals the fraud.
Lott's investigation ties the high repub invalidated ballots to voting precincts controlled by democrat voting officials. The clear inference is that the ballots are collected and segregated by-party, and that someone took the republican pile and spoiled the ballots by "double-voting" them, i.e., punching something through the pile.
The notion that black republicans are fifty times more incompetent at basic voting skills than democratic voters (even though mean incomes, education level, etc, are much higher) is too ludicrous to contemplate.
That is a classic.
The question to me is not whether they're capable of doing it, but whether they want to.
Hmmmmm. Bush has a big war chest, and is now spending it to go after Kerry. Hillary has a big war chest, control of the DNC and will accomplices in the media. After Kerry gets beat up so badly, that the media realizes that Kery is toast, he'll get the Toricelli phone call. You know, "hey Johnboy, you're gonna get slaughtered. So instead, throw all your delagates to Hillary. There's only a few months left to go til November, thats not enough time for the Republican attack machine to do anything affectively. Hillary will dodge all unscripted controlled debates. We'll make you ambassador to France so you can stay in your mansion over there....
How does she get past running against Guilianni for NY Senate in '06 if she doesn't run in '04?
If the early polls make it clear she will lose the senate seat, she'll go on a listening tour where the people of New York tell her they want her as president. Since it would be unfair to them to run for president while serving as their senator, she'll just have to step aside for someone else so she can devote full time to a presidential campaign.
Now isn't that noble of her.
Tour Of Duty is # 930 on Amazon.
Brinkley's book glosses over or omits the negative about Kerry in order to puff him up, isn't selling, and you have to hope the book is a two-fer....destroys the credibility of both Kerry and Brinkley.
Beautiful.
Giuliani hasn't said he's running in '06. I don't think he wants to. He's having the time of his life now. Why does he want a bruising, ugly campaign against Hillary, just to win a boring Senate seat in DC? If he runs for any office it'll be for Governor of NY when Pataki retires.
And once again the good-for-nothing media don't find this strange at all. In fact, they are pumping the hype. Is he the real candidate or is he just another stalking horse until the Democratic convention? Don’t expect the media to shed any light on that subject.After Kerry's defeat, Noam Chomsky et al will claim it was all part of the evil right wing controlled media to make Kerry look viable when he clearly wasn't. ;') And we'll all go, "awwwww!"
The Democrats seem to have found the perfect dupe in Kerry, as they did in Gore and Torricelli. Even when Gen. Wesley Clark slipped and prematurely told the media that "Kerry will implode over an intern issue," who did Kerry blame for spreading lies? Why, President Bush, of course.That's odd, considering that Kerry was the one who, behind the scenes, spread (mostly) the truth about his same-party opponents during his well-orchestrated come from behind trouncing of every one of his rivals. (':
The only rational explanation for that is voter fraud. Assume a democrat operative took a stack of ballots, and ran a skewer through them in the Al Gore hole. Since the vast majority of these inner-city voters were voting for Gore anyway, they would have merely pushed the entire hanging chad out of the hole. The degree of chad "hanging-ness" would depend upon whether the specific ballot had been at the top, middle, or bottom of the stack when the skewer went through.
Now, let's look at the 5% or so of minorities who wanted to vote for Bush. Perhaps the skewer hole was created so as to be small enough to escape detection, but large enough to "spoil" the ballot of a Bush voter, particularly if it is subsequently "analyzed" by a democrat operative election official. So, a prospective Bush voter might not pay attention to the small hole in the Gore chad, particularly if he is concentrating on punching out the hole in the Bush chad. Voila! This results in a large number of double punched Republican ballots, and very few Democrat ones. Double punching in the same hole doesn't show up as a voter error. It shows up as a Gore vote, which, in fact, it was intended to be.
Of course, the double-punching could have been done even more easily after the voters made their choices, since there would be no chance of a voter noticing a pre-punched hole. It would seem to be more difficult, security-wise, to mess with ballots that had already been cast, but, the democrats are capable of anything, except honesty and integrity.
How does she get past running against Guilianni for NY Senate in '06 if she doesn't run in '04?
Hillary doesn't run for the Senate in 06. She then can start her presidential run in early 2007.
You heard it here first.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.