Laugh at Liberals Archive for March, 2004
DISECTING THE LEFT
I want you to read one quote, just one from Janeane Garafalo, so you can understand the liberal mindset. This is great! It was given during an interview about the new liberal talk radio network, Air America Radio.
“It’s not like we’re here to say we’re going to be as nasty as right-wingers….”On the left, traditionally, you’ve got a nicer type of person. You’ve got a person who is more willing to engage in conversations that have context and nuance, who tend to have more educable minds.”
Let’s look for deeper meaning, shall we?
Her first sentence. “It’s not like we’re here to say we’re going to be as nasty as right-wingers. ” This sentence employs to important Liberal Rules.
Liberal Rule #12: Deliver statements that sound simple, but leave some room to wiggle. Notice that she says, “It’s not like we’re her to say…” That doesn’t deny that they will be as nasty or even nastier than right-wingers, it just says, we’re not here to tell you that. That way when her show ends up being an hour Bush bash, she can say, “Well I never said we would’nt be nasty….” Liberal Rule #3 All conservatives are nasty and you should say so at every opportunity. This statement establishes that Mz. Garafalo thinks of all right-wingers as nasty. She didn’t say …”as Rush Limbaugh” or …”as Bill O’Reilly”, she said right wingers.
Her next sentence. “On the left, traditionally, you’ve got a nicer type of person.”
Liberal Rule #2. Us, good. Them, bad! I didn’t know there was a long standing tradition of anything with liberals, but here we’ve found one. Yes, whenever I hear Bush referred to as an idot, Hitler or a murder I just can’t help but think, how sweet of them to say that. They are so nice, traditionally. Let’s dig deeper.
She continues. “You’ve got a person(a liberal) who is more willing to engage in conversations that have context and nuance, who tend to have more educable minds.” Oh, this is a good one. First, this statement goes to the heart of the first rule of liberalism. Liberal Rule #1: Conservatives are stupid. They don’t get it and they never will. She is certainly employing that liberal tradition of niceness by saying that conservatives aren’t willing to engage in context and nuance. I guess that’s nicer than saying you’re stupid. But wait, we have encountered some true, liberal, high-minded thinking. You’ve got to watch closely or you might miss it. Liberals tend to have more educable minds? This is meant as a slam against conservatives(see rule #1), but I actually agree with the statement. Liberals do tend to be more educable. You can tell them anything, state it as fact, and they’ll say it’s gospel. This also goes to Liberal Rule #7: We are smarter than them and they need to be taught the truth. This one was ripped right out of the Communist Manifesto, but we pesky conservatives just won’t play ball and submit to re-education. Yes, conservatives tend to be more independent thinkers, traditionally.
You can’t attack liberals any more effectively than they do with their own words.
LAL
ANOTHER HI-TECH LYNCHING
Condoleezza Rice has refused to testify under oath before the 9/11 commission on the grounds that it would violate the “seperate powers” called for in the constitution. That’s fine. If that’s your argument, and I don’t agree that it’s a very good one, then stick with it. There are reports, now, that a deal may be in the works for Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the 9/11 commission. That’s a political move and another example of the Bush/Cheney team reacting to the agenda instead of setting it.
Personally, I want her to testify for political and patriotic reasons.
First for patriotism. I am not afraid of learning what my government, under Clinton or Bush, could or should have done before 9/11. I want to know what mistakes were made, not so someone can be punished, but so we’ll know not to make those same mistakes again. We all learned something new on 9/11 and none of us, not even the victims and their families, have the right to “blame” anyone except al Qaeda for causing our loss.
I am not afraid of what Condoleeza Rice will say or how she will say it. Whenever I see her on one of the Sunday morning shows she is unflapable, on message and unbeatable in debate. Condi gets it and at this moment, she is the the single most important leader in the war against terror. She is the best spokesperson we have in support of the war on terror. So let her speak, she’ll do well.
Now for the political reasons.
You know the Democrats on the commission are just salivating at the opportunity to question Rice. If she does testify, the Democrats will offer a series a twenty minute speeches posing as questions. She’ll be attacked and the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and the entire membership of the congressional black caucus will not say a word in her defense. Her competence and judgement, already called into question by Richard Clark, will be called suspect by Democrats hoping to paint an unfavorable picture of the Bush team. But Condoleezza Rice will appear competent, focused and engaged, which is exactly what she is. What conclusions will conservative black voters reach when watching this drama unfold? I think they’ll see a smart, successful black woman standing up for what she believes. I think they’ll start to wonder why they “supposed” to vote Democrat, when the Republican party, represented by someone they can respect and connect with, is speaking to their issues and saying things they beleive.
So go ahead. Let her testify, and for the record, I home the ticket becomes Bush/Rice by the time the convention gets here.
THE SMARM FACTOR
Okay, I have tried to accept Richard Clark thesis on the Bush administrations “failings” in the war on terror, but I just get it! I don’t see how any rational person can listen to the substance and media spin of what Clark says now, compare it with cold hard facts, and not see that he is just wrong!
I don’t know if he’s lying, if he’s a planned partisan election bomb or if he’s just covering his ass and I don’t care. When you listen to what he says, it just doesnt’ add up. But that’s not what really bothers me. What I just cannot seem to get over is Clark’s….smarmy-ness. (Did I just make up a word?)
Is it just me or does he seem like a bureaucrat? There is no doubt that he is intelligent and capable and he defends himself with passion, but he just comes off like the lady at the DMV who looks at you like your a moron because you forgot your tax asessment receipt and everyone know you can’t get your car tags renewed if you don’t have your tax asessment receipt. (Oh, don’t worry. I’ll have it next time.)
When there is a movie about all of this, and trust me, there will be a movie, Larry Miller would be the perfect actor to play Richard Clark. (Remember the character he played in Necessary Roughness? Dean So-and-so, the guy who didn’t like jocks or sports so he set about trying to sabatouge their play-off efforts?) Larry has that smarmy character down. You just love to hate some of the characters he portrays…and that’s the way I feel about Clark. At first I thought I was just having a knee-jerk reaction to a guy who seemed to be unfairly attacking my president, but it is more than that. I realized it when I watch Clark being interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet the Press. At the end of every provocative answer, Clark glared at Russert as if to say, “See how foolish your question sounds, now that you’ve heard the truth spring forth from my lips?”
Blech!
Every news story about him, his book, his testimony and everything the guy says should be tagged with Yul Brenner from the King and I saying, “So let it be written, so let it be done.” Just listen to what he’s trying to sell. His current celebrity is based on the theory, his the0ry, that Bill Clinton was effective and focused on the war on terror, specifically al Qaeda and bin Laden, but if Clinton would have only listened to him, it would have been better. His theory is that George Bush was not focused or effective in fighting terrorism, at least not until September 11th….and if they would have only listened to him, especially the shallow dimwit Condaleeza Rice, things would have been better. He also says that the focus of the Bush administration after September 11th turned towards how to use this as an excuse for invading Iraq, which they never would have done, if they had only listened to him.
Okay genius. What should we do next? You see, that’s the question Clark can’t answer, because next hasn’t happened yet. He’ll be able to tell you after the fact what you should have done and he’ll use that tone of voice that the computer guy at your office uses when you call to tell him that your printer won’t work.
In closing, here are some contextual references, so you can get my view of Richard Clark.
RICHARD CLARK IN THE LOCKER ROOM AFTER A FOOTBALL GAME
COACH: Men, we made some mistakes today and we got beat.
CLARK: Oh, I could have told you that you were going to lose.
COACH: Wait, aren’t you the guy that drys the balls on the sidelines?
CLARK: Yes, but before that I was the junior assistant to the assistant coach for defense when the previous owners had the team?
COACH: Didn’t they lose every game?
CLARK: Yes, but winning was our number one priority…and they never would have let the other team score that big touchdown in the first quarter.
COACH: How do you know that?
CLARK: Because I was working on a plan to prevent first quarter touchdowns.
COACH: But the old team gave up more first quarter touchdowns than any previous team!
CLARK: Yes, but after each touchdown we really came back and hit them hard.
COACH: How?
CLARK: We tumped over their waterbucket and told them to behave.
COACH: Okay genius, how did you know WE were going to lose?
CLARK: Well it was obvious….because you did not take my advice.
COACH: Well what was your advice and why didn’t tell us sooner?
CLARK: Well, I really wouldn’t have told you to do anything differently than what you did and I would have spoke up sooner, but my publisher thought I wait. Oh, and by the way when I leave, I’m going to write a book about how terrible you were as a coach and about all the crazy things you said in team meetings.
COACH: But you havent’ been in any team meetings.
CLARK: Yes, but I can just tell from your attitude that your a bad coach.
COACH: Get out of here you jerk!
CLARK: Oh I don’t mean anything by it, I just want the fans to see a good game.
Smarmy, huh?
2004 Palm Beach County Election Ballot
Thanks to “Chad" for sending in this proposed 2004 Palm Beach County presidential election ballot! It looks like things should go a little smoother this year.
ROCK THE VOTE
ANOTHER KERRY SUPPORTER WAKES UP FROM LA LA LAND AND REALIZES THAT ROCK THE VOTE IS JUST A PROMOTION…THEY DIDN’T REALLY WANT HIM TO VOTE!
JUST IN FROM PARIS
Paris(AP). The French Government has announced that, in light of the Madrid bombings, France has raised the level of its terror alert from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels under the French system are “Surrender” and “Collaborate.”
