[Industrialblog,
April 2, 2004]
The Fools of April, the Pulitzer Analysis, and the Buttocks of Justice
Fooled no one with the last two posts. Pleased I got a dean-o-lanche. Nearly 150 visitors yesterday. Nice little traffic day. Y'all come back now ...
Now, to the real politics: Shocking as it may sound, I haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November. Most likely Bush, but possibly Kerry. I'll give Kerry a fair hearing in September. If Kerry has half a brain, he'll do exactly what Clinton did to Bush the elder — moved to the right of him.
In the meantime, when analyzing the campaign as it is now, I'll stick to the analysis Hunter S. Thompson used while covering the Pulitzer divorce trial (the whole trumpet thing, if you've forgotten) back in the mid-1980s. Paraphrasing the good doctor here: I believe every accusation made by each side is true. They should split the money and sell the children to the Arabs.
Or something like that. Anyone who has the exact quote is welcome to e-mail it to me.
Now, to the real politics: Shocking as it may sound, I haven't decided for whom I'll vote in November. Most likely Bush, but possibly Kerry. I'll give Kerry a fair hearing in September. If Kerry has half a brain, he'll do exactly what Clinton did to Bush the elder — moved to the right of him.
In the meantime, when analyzing the campaign as it is now, I'll stick to the analysis Hunter S. Thompson used while covering the Pulitzer divorce trial (the whole trumpet thing, if you've forgotten) back in the mid-1980s. Paraphrasing the good doctor here: I believe every accusation made by each side is true. They should split the money and sell the children to the Arabs.
Or something like that. Anyone who has the exact quote is welcome to e-mail it to me.
I mean, granted, there's always a bit of flexing of the truth that goes on politics as in every situation where a person must talk with other people. But as many people point out, John Kerry's taken nearly every major side of every major issue there is.
With the possible exception that he's not much in favor of restraining government spending.
Not to mention, he's so ugly! He's practically a frankenstinian monster. Could you really bear looking at him for four years?
:-)
Ugliness ... well, then let's elect a young woman who's so incredibly hot that the French just give us everything we want because they're like, "Le ga ga ga, le ga ga ga."
[Oh man, was I just thinking that or did I actually type that! This is bad enough for a trip to the confessional, if I still did that kind of thing (not that that's a bad thing).]
I think living so close to New England has softened your political pate. Do you really want Lord Qerry (arabic spelling) to lead (or stop) the War on Terrorism as your Commander in Chief? Do you want to see Qerry give up American sovereignty to the UN/Euros? He is another Democrat sticking moistened finger in air and going with the flow, not having sound proposals but just trying to denigrate what the President is doing. Imperious Rex!
Well, Kerry's been on ever side of nearly every major issue in the last 20 years or so. At least that's my understanding.
Plus, if you read his website, his ideas on economics are somewhere between absurd and stupid. A two-faced idiot is not exactly my idea of a great president.
As someone's said, the only issue he's ever stayed on one side of is how many terms GWB should have.
My thinking on the flip-flopping is this: He's a legislator. They tend to have records that are all over the place, which is one reason why senators don't usually campaign well enough to win the presidency. They tend to be vulnerable. Remember Bob Dole's failed runs at the GOP nomination in 1980 and 88? Bush tied him in knots over his record. Just what I'm thinking as a general principle.