|
|
The Weblog at The View from the Core - Monday, December 08, 2003
|
|
Eight Hundred and Twenty-Two Spams so far since last Tuesday. Down from last week's Eight Hundred and Sixty-One. Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 08:45:23 PM |
|
President Bush Gets an Early Christmas Gift — From Al Gore Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XXXI My friend Paul — saying President Bush gets an early Christmas gift from "Algore" — calls my attention to this FNC article today: Former Vice President Al Gore plans to back Democratic presidential front-runner Howard Dean, Fox News has confirmed Monday. Gore, the Democratic candidate defeated by President Bush in 2000, will make an announcement with Dean on Tuesday in the Harlem section of New York City. The two then plan to head to Iowa, site of the first-in-the-nation Jan. 19 caucuses, a Democratic source close to Gore said. The source, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Dean will return from Iowa in time for the Tuesday night Democratic debate in New Hampshire. Dean's campaign declined to comment. The move is a further blow to the campaign of Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was Gore's vice presidential running mate when the two won the popular vote.... Harlem. Harlem? Harlem! Could you find two whiter white guys than Gore and Dean? One must wonder what on earth Al Sharpton is going to think of this. And one figures that one probably won't have to wonder for long........ P.S. I know, I know: Bill Clinton has Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 07:27:41 PM |
|
John "F" Kerry Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XXX If you recall, John F. On a Friday in November, at the end of a tough week, John Kerry projects an aura of friendly confidence that suggests he is either out of touch with reality or has the serenity of a Zen master.... Neither a bleeding heart, an insurgent, a new face nor a technocrat, Kerry is selling himself to voters as the guy who knows how the game is played in Washington. His challenge will be to show them that's not all he knows.... It seems that the fact that you voted in support of the president's war resolution has caused you a lot of trouble in your campaign. Do you regret supporting the president? What I regret most of all is the way the administration dealt with it — the extraordinary failure of the administration to keep its promises, to be mature and thoughtful about how you take a nation to war. They misled us; they presented false intelligence to us. The president made a series of promises to us — number one, that he was gonna make every effort possible to build a legitimate coalition. He did not — he built a fraudulent coalition. Second, he was gonna exhaust the remedies of the United Nations and the inspection process. He did not. And third, that he would go to war as a last resort. He did not. I voted to protect the security of our country, based on the notion that the only way to get inspectors back in was to have a legitimate threat of force and the potential of using it. They took that legitimacy and bastardized it. If I were president, we would not be in Iraq today — we would not be at war. This president abused the process.... When the other Democratic candidates talk about Bush, they pretty much just bash his policies. You not only do that, but you also question his basic fitness to serve — you just said he was incompetent. My question is: When Republicans ran against Clinton, they made a huge issue out of Clinton's character. Why isn't the character issue being taken to George Bush? If you're running for the presidency, there are other things you have to focus on. I want to paint an optimistic, hopeful vision for the country and open people's eyes to the things that we could be doing with respect to, say, energy independence. In the 1930s, we thought it was critical to get electricity out into rural America, right? I think it's critical to get clean energy out to every part of America. Let's help create the framework to do it. Did you feel you were blindsided by Dean's success? Well, not blindsided. I mean, when I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, "I'm against everything"? Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f**k it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did. Do you see Dean as the next George McGovern? It's being said that the Republicans are foaming at the mouth to go against Dean. Republicans have been contributing to Dean's campaign on the Internet. Look, Bush stood up in the White House Rose Garden a week ago and said, "I'm gonna run for re-election on the basis of my pre-emption doctrine and our ability to make the world safer." He has declared his strategy. And unless we have a nominee who can go right at him on that strategy, we're gonna be in trouble.... I think the most interesting thing here is that Kerry is agreeing with Republicans who think Dean is, quite precisely, the man to beat next Fall. Which, alas for Interesting opinions in the New York Post, Dec. 6 (brackets & embedded ellipsis in original): .... Brookings Institution presidential scholar Stephen Hess said he can't recall another candidate attacking a president with X-rated language in a public interview. "It's so unnecessary," Hess said. "In a way it's a kind of pandering [by Kerry] to a group he sees as hip . . . I think John Kerry is going to regret saying this." Kerry was accurately quoted in Rolling Stone, said spokesman David Wade, adding the X-rated language reflects the fact that Bush's Iraq policy "makes John Kerry's blood boil." .... Sure. But Dean beating him 3-to-1 in the polls gets him pretty hot, too. Hmmm. Is Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 02:58:42 PM |
|
Another Battle in the War Against Christianity Reported in The Record-Journal in Connecticut: Mary Morley is no Rembrandt. So while the Dutch master's "Christ Healing the Sick" appears in books in the children's section of the Meriden Public Library, library officials will not allow the local artist's paintings of Jesus in its gallery.... The show could go on as scheduled, library administrators told her, just without the images of Jesus. The accepted paintings included a tribute to victims of 9-11, portraits of Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Mother Theresa and even Pope John Paul II. The library would also allow images from the Old Testament including David and Goliath, Moses with the Ten Commandments and the prophet Elijah, as well as a painting of two figures in prayer and an abstract called "Angels in the Tunnel." When library officials told her the work was not acceptable, Morley tried to convince them to at least include either the Nativity or the Resurrection paintings. Still, Library Director Marcia Trotta said no. "It kind of tears the whole thing apart," said Morley, who decided to cancel her show, which was meant to start Dec. 1. Morley said library officials told her the painting of the crucifixion and one of Christ carrying the cross might be disturbing to children. As for the Nativity scene, the painting of the resurrection, or the portrait of Jesus with a halo and an inscription from the New Testament, Morley said she got no clear explanation about what made them inappropriate.... That's because nobody had the nerve to come right out and say We can't have Jesus Christ prominent in a public library. See also The War Against Christianity II and The War Against Christianity. (Thanks, Kathy.) Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 08:09:40 AM |
|
Deanisms Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode XXIX Matthew Hoy looks at Deanisms: .... The more troubling exchange regarded what should be done if Osama bin Laden were captured by our troops. (Note to troops: Don't capture him. Kill him.) MATTHEWS: Who should try Osama bin Laden if we catch him? We or the World Court?DEAN: I don’t think it makes a lot of difference. I'm happy...MATTHEWS: But who would you like to, if you were president of the United States, would you insist on us trying him, since he was involved in blowing up the World Trade Center, or would you let The Hague do it?DEAN: You know, the truth is it doesn't make a lot of difference to me as long as he is brought to justice. I think that’s the critical part of that. It doesn't make any difference? This is not the answer given by someone who aspires to be President of the United States. Dean would rather have this group of judges decide the fate of a terrorist who is responsible for nearly 3,000 American deaths. Bin Laden would receive a show trial before judges from Jordan, Egypt and France — who would be more than sympathetic to his claims that the Jews were to blame for the terrorist attacks. What was Dean thinking? How could an individual who wants to lead the United States be so nonchalant about about the final disposition of the man responsible for the deaths of more American civilians than any other?... Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 07:54:05 AM |
|
Hillary and 2004 A reader writes: What we think of as extremist and contradictory and just plain lies by Hillary are absorbed by a large portion of the body politic with agreement. They see pictures of her smiling and looking pretty and think she is caring, smart and a woman to admire. Since she gets continual play by the media and no hard analysis of her past, her political philosophy (Marxism), or the contradictory nature of her ideas on foreign policy, she is very likely to be the candidate in 2004 — a candidate by acclimation at the convention where she will have skirted debate and hard questioning. I think that only indictment on one of her many past illegal activities will act to deter her thrust into the presidency. Though her supporters in the media will cry, "politics," she deserves indictment for many past activities, and it would deflect her energies into self defense. Why not include Bill in the indictments? That would keep both of them busy, broke, and off the world stage. Oh, I forgot that George Soros would be happy to pay her legal bills, so forget "broke." Like David Frum (in a "diary" entry I can't find now) the other day, I think Hillary has no intention whatever of running for president next year: she wants the Democratic candidate to get clobbered, and the Democrats to lose even more seats in the Congress, so she can "save" the party in 2008. (If they actually let her try to do that, they'll be conveniently forgetting or ignoring that the party's race towards oblivion accelerated dramatically with the introduction of the Clintons to the White House.) Hillary does not want to run against a sitting president whom she'll actually have to give a good fight. P.S. Thanks to Lead and Gold and Dust in the Light. Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Mon. 12/08/03 07:45:20 AM |
| The Blog from the Core © 2002-2008 E. L. Core. All rights reserved. |
| Previous | Week | Next |