[pogo101]

Bush ended all that, suing to stop a ballot count that subsequent newspaper recounts proved he had lost

Uhh, Ted???? Earth to Ted??? EVERY ONE of the NUMEROUS newspaper and academia recounts that I've seen -- NYTimes, WPost, Miami Herald, USA Today, U.of Miami ... all say that the Supremes' decision didn't matter because BUSH WOULD HAVE WON ANYWAY, even if the recount had gone on, and even if Gore's methods were used for chad-counting.

Ted. Put down the glass pipe.

[SwinneySwitch]

"Bush stole the presidency."

Ted, Algore lost Tennessee!

[Snuffington]

True, Democrats loathe Dubya with greater intensity than any Republican standard-bearer in modern political history.

What short memories these guys have. Recent Democrat history is chock-full of similar hatred. Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan were easily as loathed by Democrats. George H. W. Bush was only moderately less so.

I don't bother to ask why Democrats hate a particular Republican president. The hatred comes with the job. The reasons are manufactured as needed.

[concerned about politics]

In other words - to make this very simple - they hate Bush because he's very, very good at his job.
Demons always shriek while being cast out. Their squeals have been getting much louder lately.
It's hard to hold anything against a rightous man, and it's killing them.
Well done, Mr. President.

[Yardstick]

Fear breeds hatred...

U.S. citizens disappear into the night...

A concentration camp rises at Guantánamo...

American troops die to enrich a company that buys off the Vice President...

Bush is guilty of a single irredeemable act so heinous and anti-American...Bush stole the presidency.

It appears that Rall writes cartoons as well as draws them. This piece is overheated, over-the-top BS. Maybe seeing the world in caracatured form is helpful for his cartooning, but it sure makes Rall's writing hard to take anything like seriously.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

ummmm Ted, if Bush is so stupid, how did he manage to steal the election from you, oh brilliant one?

Have you happened to take any IQ tests lately Ted? If you just got bamboozled out of your most important prize by someone you think is a dufus, what does that make you?

[Arrowhead1952]

"If we keep being put in the position of having to respond to recount after recount after recount of the same ballots, then we just can't sit on our hands, and we will be forced to do what might be in our best personal interest--but not--it would not be in the best interest of our wonderful country."

After the military votes were thrown out, all the voter fraud that happened, the recount that was so ridiculous the supreme court had to stop it, I am surprised anyone could write such a hateful article. This writer needs to take a few days of R&R.

If the RAT party is so upset that they still insist Algore won the popular vote, why are they so intent on denying the Republicans a majority of representation in DC as they are in Texas? Texans have voted for Republicans 60+ over RATs. We still have less Republicans in DC than the RATs have.

Interesting observation that the left will never answer.

[andy58-in-nh]

Putting aside the many untruths, inanities, and reality-inversions in Mr. Ralls' article, one truth shines clearly through the fog:

Modern liberalism is at the end of its history. American Leftists have now reached the precipice that always lay ahead at the logical end of their ideology. Unable to govern effectively, incapable of remaking human nature to fit their ideals, impotent in the face of violent forces arrayed against us, Liberal True Believers are doing the one thing left to them: crying, shreiking and moaning like unweened babies about the awful unfairness of Life. Poor dears, all they want and wanted was taken from them (stolen!), and how awful, mean, cruel, and evil are their political adversaries! It's all quite amusing, really. I imagine the DNC confab in Boston next year will be like an enormous Day Nursery; the sound of a thousand pacifiers sucking simultaneously. In the meantime, Mommy and Daddy and the rest of the grownups will be at work taking care of business and protecting the household from the real dangers of our world.

[RJL]

Big talk coming from a guy whose cartoons looks suspiciously like a Rorschach test.

[CaptRon]

The left has finally found something to replace their fixation on Watergate.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>"Have the Democrats totally flipped their lids?"

Ted Rall never had his secured very tightly to his blow hole.

[Prospero]

Fw:

 

 

 

THINKING THINGS OVERAngry Democrats: Lost Birthright
Why they hate Bush as much as Republicans once hated FDR.

BY ROBERT L. BARTLEY
Monday, September 22, 2003 12:01 a.m.

To protect democracy, three judges of the far-left Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have just canceled elections in California. The last horselaugh, I'd hope, for the Democratic charge that Republicans are subverting democracy. As we saw in this space last week, the charge was already a pretty silly explanation of the patent anger surging through the Democratic primaries.

The anger must have deeper, perhaps subconscious roots. So let me put the Democratic base on the couch and offer my own speculation. The party's most ardent adherents are angry because they feel they've lost their birthright.

That is to say, base Democrats think of themselves as the best people: the most intelligent and informed, the most public spirited, the most morally pure. This self-image has become more than a little shopworn over the years, and now George Bush's conservative Republicans threaten to strip it away. Inevitably such Democrats are angry.

Consider the purely political side: The Democratic Party held the House of Representatives for 40 years and the Senate and White House for most of an era reaching back to World War II. Today the Democrats' last toehold on political power is the ability to muster 40 votes to sustain a filibuster in the Senate--a not-so-democratic tactic it is using in unprecedented ways to sustain the judicial imperialism on display with the Democratic appointees on the Ninth Circuit.

The party's future bids further decline, despite the narrowness of the 2000 presidential election, and despite the Republican president's momentarily fading poll numbers. In the 2004 elections, the Senate races include 19 seats now held by Democrats and 15 held by Republicans. All but maybe two of the Republicans seem safe, while three Democratic incumbents have already announced their resignations. Of the 19 Democratic seats at stake, 10 are in "red" states carried by President Bush in 2000.

The midterm 2002 elections have been largely overlooked, further, but were a historical Republican success. Almost always an incumbent president's party suffers congressional losses in its first midterm elections, but the Republicans regained Senate control and added to their House majority. The nationwide House vote was 51% Republican and 46% Democratic. In state legislatures, Republicans gained 141 seats, winning a nationwide majority for the first time since 1952.

Looking at these results, Michael Barone speculates in the new edition of the Almanac of American Politics, "It may be that history will record the years 1995-2001, when there was parity between the two parties and when Clinton was re-elected and Al Gore came so close to being elected, as a Clinton detour within a longer period of Republican majority, something like the Eisenhower detour in majority-Democratic America." This is no sure thing, as Mr. Barone quickly notes. National security was a big Republican plus in 2002, and conceivably it could become a liability in 2004. But still, the specter of a generation in the wilderness haunts the Democratic primaries.

 

  Beyond mere politics, the fading birthright becomes a matter of self-identity. It's possible, we've witnessed, to assert moral superiority while defending the Clinton perjury, sexual escapades, vanishing billing records and last-minute pardons. But politicians, pundits and intellectuals with this record shouldn't expect much moral deference from the rest of us. Indeed, inner doubts about their own moral position is one obvious path to anger.

Even without the Clinton problems, the Democratic Party has descended into a collection of interest groups not bound together by any ideals. So we see scions of inherited wealth berating the "rich," meaning those successful at earning their own money. We see supposed champions of civil rights standing in the schoolhouse door to prevent vouchers that might give a break to black children in the District of Columbia.

We see a highly qualified potential judge filibustered into withdrawal precisely because he's Hispanic, and therefore a threat in ethnic politics. We see that once a martyred president urged us to "share any burden," his brother now belittles the war that toppled Saddam Hussein throwing around reckless and irresponsible charges of "bribing" foreign leaders--his own personal past, by the way, having produced remarkably little reticence.

Yes, above all the war; the self-identity of the Democratic base is still wrapped up in Vietnam. In fact Vietnam started as a liberal, Democratic war, so turning against it had to be justified by assertions of a higher morality, especially among those with student deferments from the draft. The notion that military force was immoral, even that American power was immoral, was deeply imbedded in the psyche of Democratic activists everywhere.

Now comes George Bush asserting that American power will be used pre-emptively to avert terrorist attacks on America, to establish American values as universal values. This so profoundly challenges the activists' self-image that they can only lash out in anger. Not many of them actively hope the U.S. fails in Iraq, of course, but they are in a constant state of denial that it might succeed.

What's more, this challenge is brought to them by a born-again MBA from Midland, Texas. This is a further challenge to their image of the best people, secular Ivy-league intellectuals. And to twist the knife, President Bush actually comes from an aristocratic family and went to prep school, Yale and Harvard. He has rejected these values for those of Texas.

 

  Current Democratic anger will likely in the fullness of time prove to be the rantings of an establishment in the process of being displaced. Come to think of it, they sound like nothing so much as the onetime ire of staid Republicans at Franklin D. Roosevelt as "a traitor to his class."
Mr. Bartley is editor emeritus of The Wall Street Journal. His column appears Mondays in the Journal and on OpinionJournal.com.

Copyright © 2003 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[Sergio]

Too good a read not to save.

[Lost Highway]

I feel sorry for the dude; he looks so pathetic, so out of his depth, out there under the klieg lights, squinting, searching for nouns and verbs, looking like he's been snatched from his bed and beamed in, and is still half asleep, not sure where he is.

And yet he's assembled a team that is consistently kicking the dims collective rears. He must be really frustrating to know that he is out witted by an alleged half wit.

[Uncle Hal]

I have been around for nearly 70 years and I have never seen the country so polarized as it is today. It is scary. I do not know how it is going to end. We hated Clinton when he was in and now the Dems hate Bush even more than we detested Clinton. I thought perhaps after 9/11 we could all come together but you see how long that lasted.

[weegee]

The left hated Nixon since the days that he was spotting Communists in the Fedeal government.

The youth of the 1960s disliked LBJ and Vietnam but when a Republican took office, they were able to vent without having political reservations.

The left got sick of defending Bill Clinton but they could not admit that he was a crook; to do so would be to validate some conservative arguments.

Now that Bill Clinton is no longer in office, the Rats can vent again.

There was no theft. I would think that even Ted Rall knows this. Ted is not a Democrat; he is a self-confessed Anarchist. Ted did support the impeachment of Bill Clinton on the perjury charge but then he thought that Bill Clinton harmed the Democrats and that he didn't get through enough liberal policies (I think he just wanted to see Al Gore Jr. president).

Hey, Ted. Don't be such a (red diaper) baby.

[F.J. Mitchell]

THose losers made one fatal mistake in planning the 2000 election: They underestimated the number of dead people, illegal aliens, wino's, dogs, cats and ferrets, they needed to overwhelm the live, human, legally registered citizen voters, favoring the eventual winner.

That is one error they will make sure not to repeat in 2004.

[appalachian_dweller]

he's willfully ignorant – liberal projection (they are the ones willfully ignorant)

Fear breeds hatred, and Bush's policies create a lot of both – we were hated LONG before GWB was elected:

AMERICA's war on terrorism did not begin in September 2001. It began in November 1979.
That was shortly after Ayatollah Khomeini had seized power in Iran, riding the slogan "Death to America" - and sure enough, the attacks on Americans soon began. In November 1979, a militant Islamic mob took over the U.S. embassy in Tehran, the Iranian capital, and held 52 Americans hostage for the next 444 days.
The rescue team sent to free those hostages in April 1980 suffered eight fatalities, making them the first of militant Islam's many American casualties. Others included:
April 1983: 17 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut.
October 1983: 241 dead at the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut.
December 1983: five dead at the U.S. embassy in Kuwait.
January 1984: the president of the American University of Beirut killed.
April 1984: 18 dead near a U.S. airbase in Spain.
September 1984: 16 dead at the U.S. embassy in Beirut (again).
December 1984: Two dead on a plane hijacked to Tehran.
June 1985: One dead on a plane hijacked to Beirut.
After a let-up, the attacks then restarted: Five and 19 dead in Saudi Arabia in 1995 and 1996, 224 dead at the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998 and 17 dead on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.
Simultaneously, the murderous assault of militant Islam also took place on U.S. soil:
July 1980: an Iranian dissident killed in the Washington, D.C. area.
August 1983: a leader of the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam killed in Canton, Mich.
August 1984: three Indians killed in a suburb of Tacoma, Wash.
September 1986: a doctor killed in Augusta, Ga.
January 1990: an Egyptian freethinker killed in Tucson, Ariz.
November 1990: a Jewish leader killed in New York.
February 1991: an Egyptian Islamist killed in New York.
January 1993: two CIA staff killed outside agency headquarters in Langley, Va.
February 1993: Six people killed at the World Trade Center.
March 1994: an Orthodox Jewish boy killed on the Brooklyn Bridge.
February 1997: a Danish tourist killed on the Empire State building.
October 1999: 217 passengers killed on an EgyptAir flight near New York City.


concentration camp rises at Guantánamo – with 3 meals of PC correct food, free medical care, prayer time, etc

draft-dodger – clinton is no longer in office (or is that orifice)

philandering cocaine addict – again, slick is no long in orifice

[DAPFE8900]

Where is the NOT THIS SHIT AGAIN PIC!

[reagan_fanatic]