WHY JEWS MUST VOTE FOR BUSH

Thursday, Oct. 28, 2004 American Jews are overwhelmingly Democrats and liberals, as their voting record over the past 60-plus years demonstrates. The simple explanation is that upon arriving in the land of the brave and the free after their near annihilation in the Holocaust, the values they held dearest, the values that Moses handed the first monotheists in human history through God – of life, family, education, social responsibility, equality in the eyes of the law, and peace – finally seemed realizable.

So it is no wonder that their arrival at Ellis Island and the sight of the Statue of Liberty shining her beacon of welcoming light on them inspired these straggling remnants of post-WWII to rejoice. And it is no wonder that they embraced the political policies of Democrats, who promised to protect the underdogs and victims of society.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt – Jews learned decades after World War II, to their everlasting heartbreak – knew for years about the Nazi extermination of the Jews but obdurately refused to bomb the railroads in Germany that were taking 6 million by-then-cadaverous innocents to their ghastly deaths. And, in spite of Churchill’s impassioned pleas, FDR ordered the Saint Louis, with 909 Jewish passengers, away from our shores and back to Hitler's crematoria. Harry Truman, who declared Israel a state in 1948, subsequently went a long way in nearly sabotaging the fledgling Jewish state, which is no surprise given recently revealed correspondence showing he held views that were virulently anti-Semitic stereotypes.

Jimmy Carter’s animus toward Israel – which he considers an apartheid state – is widely known, both during his tenure and since he left office. He never failed to pressure and criticize Israel and, according to Prof. Douglas Brinkley in his book “The Unfinished Presidency,” was “buoyed by the Intifada” and passed his congratulations on to Arafat.

Clinton afforded honored-guest status to Arafat, the architect of Middle East terrorism, dozens of times in the White House and pressured Israel at the Camp David Accords to give up territory with no guarantees of safety, security or acceptance by the 22 surrounding Arab states that had sworn their enmity to the nine-mile-wide Jewish homeland since its inception. The result of this appeasement, of course, was the deadly Intifada.

But to many Jews – a good number from that bleak era still alive – whose relatives perished in the Nazi ovens, and to subsequent generations whose parents and grandparents have kept their memories as well as the historical persecution of the Jews alive, the few Jews who were saved from total annihilation were to Roosevelt’s credit and the state of Israel to Truman’s.

They believed that subsequent Democrat presidents would protect Israel not only because it so closely embodied our own democratic values but also because it was – and remains – an important strategic ally among surrounding Arab states, most of which we now know spawn, support and even applaud the terrorists bent on our destruction.

Those surrounding states include 300 million Arabs. But that is not the only imbalance between Jews and those who wish them dead. The global Islamic population is approximately 1 billion 200 million people, equaling 20 percent of the world’s population. In stark contrast, there are only 14 million Jews in the entire world: 5 million in the U.S. (or 0.02 percent of the population), 5 million in Israel and 4 million scattered throughout the globe. For a little perspective, in our own country, African-Americans number 35 million, or 12 percent of the population, while Hispanics number 13 percent.

So it stands to reason that for decades, Jews everywhere (with few but notable exceptions) have felt protective toward Israel, considering the tiny state the last haven in a world that has historically rejected them. Democrats used to be in the forefront of that support, but as Israel has grown stronger economically and militarily over the decades, many on their leftist flank (the anti-corporate, anti-military, pro-Socialist, love-is-all-you-need types) have joined the worldwide pandemic of anti-Semitism that, in America, now flourishes on college campuses and in the burgeoning left wing of the Democratic Party.

As Italian author Fiamma Nirenstein explains in her book “The Liberal Anti-Semites: The New Face of Ancient Anti-Semitism,” Israel was embraced as long as it was “a small, weak country evincing sympathy and support among the Left as a socialist nation, with a strong labor union and workers' rights. This dynamic, however, came to an abrupt end with Israel's victory in the Six Day War. The new Jew, who defends himself and even dares to win, loses all his charm in the eyes of the intellectuals of the Left.”

Bob Just of WorldNetDaily.com has an equally bleak picture: “Make no mistake, anti-Semitism is alive and well as a political force – and so is appeasement. The two will combine, and my Democratic Party will soon betray Israel. It may not be an overt betrayal. It may come in a thousand cuts rather than with a single blow. But it will come.”

Today, with the presidential election but days away, moderate Jewish Democrats are faced with a dilemma: Vote for John Kerry, who has an inordinate fondness for anti-Semitic organizations like the United Nations and the World Court, embraces countries like France that have been historically antagonistic to Israel, and wholeheartedly accepts political and financial backing (and endorsement) from Israel-loathing Jews like George Soros, Arab billionaires and dictators worldwide. Or vote for George W. Bush, whose record of marginalizing all of these entities and supporting the safety and security of Israel is second to none among American presidents in the last 65 years.

Moderate Jewish Democrats should be aware of the following FACTS about John Kerry:

In April, when Kofi Annan said that Israel, the only democratic state in the Middle East, was “the great poison in the region,'' Kerry said nothing.

When Rep. Jim Moran, D-Va., claimed that a Jewish cabal stood behind the Iraq war, Kerry said nothing.

When former Vermont Democrat Governor Howard Dean labeled Hamas members “soldiers,” Kerry said nothing.

When Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., former Grand Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan, and former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga. (who took money from anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorist supporters during her campaign for Congress), slammed Israel as the root of all evil, Kerry said nothing.

When Democrats Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) as well as members of the Congressional Black Caucus John Dingell and John Conyers, both of Michigan – along with the likes of Jesse “Hymietown” Jackson and Al Sharpton (of the Harlem anti-Semitic boycott and Crown Heights incitement fame) – repeatedly slammed Israel, Kerry said nothing.

When MoveOn.org. – the 527 organization that has given multimillions to Kerry’s campaign – compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler, Kerry said nothing.

Kerry, in front of Arab groups, condemned Israel's security fence (which has resulted in a staggering reduction in innocent Israeli casualties) as “a barrier to peace,” but of course reversed his position in front of Jewish groups. Even liberal New York Democrat Senator Charles Schumer said that he was in “more or less complete agreement with President Bush” about the fence and that the “barrier to peace” is Yasser Arafat. As journalist Suzanne Fields noted, “John Kerry tells Jewish audiences what they want to hear, and when he imagines he's safely out of their sight, flip-flops.”

Kerry announced that he’d send as his envoys to the Middle East longtime antagonists to Israel Jimmy Carter and James Baker, but of course reversed this position when it proved unpopular with those whose support he has always taken for granted, i.e., Jewish Democrats.

Kerry fully supported and still supports Clinton’s plans for Israel, which include: land swaps involving Israeli territory, which Bush rejects; the notion that Palestinian refugees find homes in other states including Israel; “security guarantees” rather than the “defensible borders” Bush insists on; that a peace treaty should produce security for the Israelis and not, as Bush insists, that security must be a prerequisite for peace.

Kerry continues to adhere to the “honest broker” position (between Jews and Palestinians), ignoring the potentially disastrous consequences of “final status” peace negotiations adhering to the contrived 1967 borders, while Bush has made it clear that those negotiations will only involve a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949. Last June, when Congress voted overwhelmingly to affirm the new Bush policy, it passed in the House by a 407-9 vote. In the Senate, the vote was 95-3, with Senator Kerry being one of the dissenters.

Kerry has never challenged the Palestinians’ claim to the “right of return,” while Bush became the first U.S. president to formally reject it.

Kerry has said the U.S. never should have gone into Iraq, while Bush succeeded in eliminating the source of the $25,000 that Saddam Hussein paid to each family of Palestinian homicide bombers and the firing of Scud missiles into Israel.

Kerry’s candidacy has been endorsed by every America-hating, Israel-hating dictator and terrorist in the world, including Yasser Arafat, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad, Korean president Kim Jong il, Hamas, Hezbollah … the list goes on.

Kerry voted against the Patriot missile, which saved Israeli lives when Saddam Hussein fired Scud missiles into Israel during the Gulf War.

Kerry, in his 20-year Senate career, has consistently voted against every major intelligence, defense and military budget and now opposes the U.S. developing bunker-busting weapons that will deter nuclear attacks on our troops and on Israel. Significantly, he was rated by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy “among the worst” legislators on national security and defense, with a score of 5 out of a possible 100. More recently, they rated him zero!

Kerry, reports blogger Rick Richman, is definitely not “second to none” in his support for Israel. After consulting the Jewish Virtual Library, he found that Kerry opposed the FY 2000 Foreign Aid Conference Report’s pro-Israel position; in 2000, he failed to support the “Middle East Peace Process Support Act” that called on the president not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, and he refused to co-sponsor the pro-Israel “Peace Through Negotiations Act.” And in 1993, he failed to join 55 senators demanding that the State Department include Hamas as a terrorist group in its annual report on terrorism.

Kerry, in his 20-year Senate career, has authored only a few pieces of legislation, including World Population Awareness Week, the designation of the Frederick C. Murphy Federal Center, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, a Small Business Act, the award of the Congressional Gold Medal to Jackie Robinson and the like. None to defend either our country or Israel.

Kerry delivered a 5,400-word acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in August, never once mentioning the word Israel (or terrorism!).

Most chilling, Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser, Richard Holbrooke, stated just last week on "The O'Reilly Factor" that Kerry would improve the situation in the Middle East by starting "intense talks with the allies ... and he would reach out to the moderate Arab states. He'd put more pressure on Israel, Syria, Saudi Arabia above all." Kerry’s Scary Record Continues

In addition, according to WorldNetDaily.com, Kerry, during his first debate with Bush, said that as president he would provide Tehran with nuclear fuel for a “promise” to use it for peaceful purposes only. This when he knows that Iran is only months away from developing nuclear weapons!

But he failed to mention that among his top fund-raisers are three Iranian-Americans with questionable ties to their native country: Hassan Nemazee, also a major Clinton donor; Faraj Aalaei, the chief executive officer of a publicly traded company, and his wife Susan Akbarpour, who recently started a trade association whose goal is to get sanctions lifted and promote U.S. business and investment in Iran. WND cites an article by Kenneth Timmerman in this month's issue of the American Spectator, saying Kerry has embraced the entire political agenda of Akbarpour et al., including ending the fingerprinting of Iranian visitors to the U.S.; helping Iran join the World Trade Organization; and offering a “dialogue” with the hard-line, terrorist-supporting clerics in Tehran – the same regime that the State Department, in 2002, called “the most active state sponsor of terrorism,” the same regime that held Americans hostage for 444 days under President Carter, that has openly funded Hamas and Hezbollah, and that has sworn death to Israel!

Kerry knows all this but purposefully ignores the fact that Iran test-fired a medium-range ballistic missile (that can reportedly carry nuclear warheads) capable of reaching Israel on September 18 and also in August, and that Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has stated, “We must have two bombs ready to go in January” and that his goal is to “destroy the Zionist regime.”

In addition, Kerry, according to WND’s Andy Wilcoxson’s explosive article last week, has accepted money from the terrorist organization Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), an organization with ties to Osama bin Laden, Islamic terror organizations and the Iranian government. Its leader, Hashim Thaci, a Brooklyn resident, attended the Democratic Party’s convention in Boston this summer as well as a Kerry fund-raiser in New York at which a video was made (http://www.vpro.nl/programma/tegenlicht/afleveringen/18793157) showing KLA members writing checks to the Kerry campaign. According to Wilcoxson, “The KLA is directly threatening the safety of American personnel stationed in Kosovo. … John Kerry, who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 until 2000, must know who the KLA is, but he clearly doesn’t care.”

No wonder Kerry told the New York Times a few weeks ago: “We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance.”

And no wonder the English journalist Paul Johnson, in nationalreviewonline, has said: “All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit – politically, financially, and emotionally – from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.”

Morrie Amitay, the former executive director of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and founder of the pro-Israel Washington PAC, is fearful as well. A Kerry administration, he says, will be “retreads from the Clinton administration and its failed ‘peace process team’ … [and] based on the track records of these readily identifiable individuals and their worldviews, we can expect they will look to Israel for more concessions … they will invariably eschew the use or the threat of force in dealing with terrorist harboring regimes, preferring diplomacy and a multilateral approach.”

In less than four years, President Bush has revolutionized American foreign policy and instead of engaging in the terrorist-appeasing policies of his predecessor – which resulted in September 11, 2001, and the unmasking of the vast Islamo-facist network and its supporters, who wish only death to America – “brought the fight to our enemy.” In so doing, he put the world on notice that he fully understood and would aggressively fight the terrorist threat to our nation – as well as to Israel.

“The clarity of the president’s understanding of the nature of militant Islam is illustrated by his strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself against Arab terror and xenophobia,” said Kenneth J. Bialkin, former chairman of the Anti-Defamation League and now chairman of the America-Israel Friendship League. “He also understands the essential goodness of the people of Israel, their fierce adherence to the same principles of freedom and justice that define America, and the struggles they have endured to maintain their existence in the face of an implacable, atavistic hatred that burns in most parts of the Arab world and is abetted by the indifference of much of the world. As Yogi Berra said, ‘When you come to a fork in the road, take it.’ I choose the Bush fork.”

Bialkin’s admiration of Bush is echoed by many major Jewish organizations, such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, B'nai B'rith, the Orthodox Union, and the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism.

And it explains why the president is up in polls of Jewish voters. For instance, exit polls conducted by Voter News Service for the Associated Press and television networks show that Jews voting Republican increased to 35 percent from the previous 21 to 26 percent, escalating as much as 60 percent between 2000 and 2002.

And a nationwide survey by the American Jewish Committee in August showed Bush's Jewish support up to 24 percent, with 60 percent among Orthodox Jews. While Jews make up only 4 percent of the electorate, their typically large turnouts can be decisive since so many live, in large numbers, in many of the battleground states.

Unlike Kerry, who failed to even lip-sync the word Israel during his convention speech in Boston, Bush, at the Republican convention, demonstrated in both words and gestures his unflinching support for Israel. The convention, in fact, featured numerous examples of the philosophical and strategic affinity the U.S. and Israel share.

Former NYC Mayor Rudolph Giuliani cited the 1985 Palestinian Liberation Front’s murder of the wheelchair-bound American Leon Klinghoffer, murdered “solely because he was Jewish,” the murder by Palestinian terrorists of 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, and the preposterous awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat in 1994.

In addition, Vice President Dick Cheney, who lauded Israel's “remarkable success” in fighting terrorists, was joined on the podium by Israel's ambassador. And Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis was the first Jewish woman (of either party) to deliver the closing prayer.

Indeed, recognition of Jewish concerns has become a hallmark of the Bush presidency and of a president who has repeatedly echoed what he said at the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in May: “The United States is strongly committed, and I am strongly committed, to the security of Israel as a vibrant Jewish state. Israel is a democracy and a friend, and has every right to defend itself from terror.”

Further, Bush’s unprecedented and visionary efforts to democratize the Middle East and to rid it of the terrorist vermin that threaten all peace-loving people, and certainly the people of Israel, are breathtaking in scope.

Moderate Jewish Democrats should be aware of the following FACTS about President Bush:

Captured or killed two-thirds of al-Qaida’s leadership, dismantled the Taliban, and liberated 25 million people in Afghanistan, where the first free elections were recently held.

Achieved a key ally in Pakistan, which is now fighting with us against nuclear weapons but formerly was one of only a few countries to recognize the Taliban regime, active in the proliferation of WMD and heading for possible nuclear conflict with its neighbor India.

Achieved unprecedented cooperation with Saudi Arabia, which formerly was a prime donor of weapons and logistical support to terrorists.

Destroyed the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which is now a sovereign government in alliance with the U.S. in the fight against terrorism but formerly harbored Abu Nidal and provided material assistance to Palestinian terrorist groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Palestine Liberation Front.

Defanged the regime of Moammar Gadhafi in Libya, which has now rid itself of its nuclear equipment.

Frozen the funds of charities that supported Hamas and inspired the European Union to do the same.

Since February 2001, the United States has been the sole veto of six Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for defending itself against terror.

For the first time in decades, helped secure Israel's membership in the Western European Group in the United Nations.

Instructed U.S. diplomats in 2001 to walk out of the Durban conference when it became a forum for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic agitation.

Called on Arab nations in 2003 to end their state medias' incitement of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiments.

Led efforts to encourage Europe's Organization for Security and Cooperation to hold two major conferences on anti-Semitism.

Personally confronted and condemned Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad in 2003 for making anti-Semitic comments that were “wrong and divisive.”

Called for new Palestinian leadership, making clear that Palestinians’ first responsibility is renouncing and fighting terror.

In 2002, ruled out negotiations with Yasser Arafat, who was the most common visiting foreign leader under the previous administration but since Bush’s election has never stepped foot in the White House.

Has held personal meetings with over 200 rabbis and Jewish community leaders to discuss issues related to the Jewish community.

In 2003, hosted the first kosher dinner at the White House to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the U.S. Holocaust museum.

n 2004, spoke before the U.N. General Assembly, telling the leaders from all Arab and Muslim states directly that “Arab states should end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, and establish normal relations with Israel.” For Martin Peretz, editor-in-chief of the New Republic, Bush’s decisiveness in dealing with the U.N. is clearly preferable to the “global test” that Kerry embraces. “Save for the U.S. veto in the Security Council, Israel loses every struggle at the U.N. against lopsided majorities. In the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, Muslim states trade their votes to protect aggressors and tyrannies from censure in exchange for libels against the Jewish state. I've searched to find one time when Kerry – even candidate Kerry – criticized a U.N. action or statement against Israel. I've come up empty. Nor has he defended Israel against the European Union's continuous hectoring.”

Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, has the same misgivings. “The message,” he says, “is we don’t know where John Kerry really stands. Right now, given how important things are and how many lives are at stake, John Kerry is a risk the Jewish community cannot afford.”

When faced with the clear disparity in the statements, intentions and, most important, actions of Bush and Kerry, Democrats get that eyes-glazed-over look in their eyes and inevitably cite the president’s close ties to Christian fundamentalists and the “threat” that “what they really want is our conversion.”

While they may overlook the fact that Nazism and Communism were both based on secularism, they would do well to heed the words of journalist Mona Charen: “After all, would you prefer to have someone on your side because they like you (which can change) or because they believe it is part of God's plan for the world to have a Jewish homeland? As for the end times, maybe they're right, and maybe they're wrong. We can leave that part to God. For now, Jews should know who their friends are.”

Charen’s view is in line with journalist Don Feder’s: “Israel’s most eloquent champions today are Christians, among them William Bennett, Pat Robertson, Cal Thomas, George Will and House Speaker Tom DeLay. In 2004, support for Israel is far more philosophic than genetic.”

Even the other issues that that consume Jewish liberal Democrats – the Supreme Court, abortion, the environment et al. – should not dissuade them from voting for the incumbent president, whose consistent defense of Israel and “hard work” to bring democracy to a region that wants nothing more than to destroy the tiny state has proven unshakeable.

“American Jews should consider emulating the eagle, rather than the ostrich,” Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder wrote recently in the Jewishworldreport.com. “The life and well-being of any Jew, anywhere in the world is connected to the fate of Israel.”

Perhaps a man who goes by the whimsical name of Rabbi Nightingale, who heads the Jewish outreach organization Aish HaTorah, gives the best advice. “In the Talmud we have a principal that when we are faced with a vadai (certainty) versus a safek (doubt), we always go with the vadai. Bush is the vadai Kerry is a safek.

Joan Swirsky is a New York-based journalist and author who can be reached at joansharon@aol.com

I guess it's just the 'merican in me that resents anyone's telling me I "must" vote for anyone.

Particularly when it's some dumb broad like Ann Coulter who quips: "You MUST vote for George Bush NO MATTER what he does."

Truth will out, regardless. I'm sure if we all follow our consciences and educate ourselves to the hilt, none of us will have any regrets whatsoever.

Cheers, Made in USA.

[ dumb broad like Ann Coulter ]

Detractors of Ann Coulter always "puff up" and hiss... to look bigger than they are..

Coul·ter: A cutting tool (as a knife or sharp disc) that is attached to the beam of a plow, makes a vertical cut in the surface, and permits clean separation and effective covering of the soil and materials being turned under.

[ She's an infotainer. Period. ]

Soooo, I take it you "feel" Coulter is not 100 percent correct, 100 percent of the time.. Could be prescient hyperbole and the genius of clear concise metaphor are wasted on you.. and you may fail to understand the power of metaphorical simile.. through humor.. Ann usually makes simple very complex subjects.. Dr. Suess for liberals, the "Cat in the Arm and Hammer", being why they hate her so completely.. THEY get it even if you do not. Consider her latest book.. and to boot although not beautiful shes pretty easy on the eyes too.

Well looks are SO important when scoring cogent political points in a fray Dumbed Down such that the average leftist or FReeper gets the Joke.

She stoops to conquer, at best.

=== Ann usually makes simple very complex subjects..

Yeah, that's part of the problem. If you've ever read any of her books, you realize she's not as good at this as she appears in her Flaming Queen columns which amuse you all so.

I find it particularly repugnant that she pretends the likes of Pbyllis Schlafley is her heroine. She hasn't even a fraction of Schlafley's integrity, depth, loyalty or native intelligence. Wouldn't have to lean so heavily on Appearances, hyperbole and Grandstanding among idiot liberals -- all hail the Queen of the Snap -- were that the case.

She's but a cut above the Dog Collar girls of Fox News.

[ Well looks are SO important when scoring cogent political points in a fray Dumbed Down such that the average leftist or FReeper gets the Joke. ]

Looks are important to democrats especially women democrats.. Theres room for Shaffly, Ingraham, Coulter, even Liz Cheney.. and more.. America has a severe female "ditz" factor.. America needs more visible women that are not ditz's as role models or least showing a contrast.. Coulter being a Constitutional lawyer is no dummy..

What makes you think you have a better attitude to approach political discourse in this country, than her ?

=== Looks are important to democrats especially women democrats..

Yeah ... Bella Abzug's quite the looker.

I've no doubt Ann appeals very strongly to those who are attracted to women or who have a preponderance of cross-dresssing or gay male friends.

And I'll thank you not to single out "women democrats" as the only utterly shallow villians of this political piece until such time as the ooohing and coooing over the Manly Men of the Republican Party, male raves for the scrawny Ann Coulter and her fondling her guns for the camera as well as the Daily Dose injection of Mainstream Media propaganda pics CEASES.

I loathe hypocrisy.

What you've done is just point out another reason why emotin' wimmen folks like Ann shouldn't even be voting, much less posing as Deep Thinkers and framers of what hyperbole passes for "political debate" during the ongoing dismantling of the Constitution and trading in of our Republican for a "democracy" where the volonte generale can not only vote on who's the Cutest but truth itself.

=== What makes you think you have a better attitude to approach political discourse in this country, than her ?

For starters, I'd remove the utterly false "chase your tail" bs model that is "Right v. Left."

But I'm not so much interested in "political discourse for dummies" as you know. I'm a moralist harpy shrew more concerned with Issues and Unsettling Facts.

I couldn't care less about prevailing political opinion among pragmatists who pat themselves on the back for voting always for "the lesser evil."

[ I'm a moralist harpy shrew more concerned with Issues and Unsettling Facts. ]

Actually I value that attitude.. Thats why I like Ann Coulter.. Laura Ingraham is a little wimpy for me, extremely valuable and effective, but wimpy. When faced with a deplorable situation humor is better than hand wringing in my book.. especially acerbic humor.. Since probably anything short of a revolution or civil war will only prolong the political sickness America has, I want to enjoy the trip to the future.. What I get from you is depression in a depressing situation; Real true; but the sky is not falling, cause its already fallen... The political fog I see; once were clouds on the high ground.. now merely fog.

Both partys are so far to the left, conservative now means leftist. Conservatives now today are occupying the democrats OLD ground. Left, center, right are skewed in meaning to mean versions of socialism. I don't like that.. But crying about it is a mental condition and dysfuntion.. Humor seems to be the ONLY way the situation can be properly expressed.. The king has no clothes and I just love his metaphorical new empty suits offered by Ann Coulter and Mark Steyn for him to wear. Saying the King has no clothes and is naked can get you stampeded over by the sheeple.. Me, being a good sheep dog am here to help not to get trampled by woolly quadrupeds. Ann seems to be after the wolves by exposeing them pissing them off and causing them to throw off their disquises. Shes not after the sheep. Whats a sheep goin to do anyways ?..

What are you after ?..

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.