« August 2004 | Main | October 2004 »

September 30, 2004

The libertarian case for war, part I

As stated in an earlier post and in my profile, I'm a libertarian... with a small L, if you please. In general libertarianism is a model of consistency and principle, a natural consequence of which is that there is little disagreement among libertarians. "Little disagreement," however, is not the same thing as "no disagreement," and there are a few issues that provoke controversy among libertarians, and even among the generally noncontroversial issues there are a few dissidents. One area on which I dissent from the majority of my libertarian comrades is the "rightness" of the war.

For a war to be a proper use of the state's authority, three conditions must be met.

  • The use of force must be moral.
  • The use of force must be legal.
  • The use of force must be in the state's best interests.

As it happens, these exactly parallel the justifications for the use of force by an individual, and this is not a coincidence. One of the tenets of libertarianism is that individuals do not receive additional powers or rights simply because they band together to form a government.

In this post, I'll tackle the moral rightness of the war. I'll address the additional criteria in the future.

For a use of force to be moral, it must be justified against the target. The libertarian ethos holds that force is justified only to prevent the unjust exercise of force or fraud by another. Suppose I witness a mugging in process. I am justified in using force against the aggressor to the extent necessary to end his violent attack.

I am not obligated to do this, of course. If the mugger is a big, burly, heavily armed man while I am unarmed, there is no ethical stain if I choose to cross the street. (It is to be hoped that at the very least I will summon assistance, but I am not obliged to do so.) But if I choose to enter the fray in defense of the victim, this is perfectly permissible.

The equivalent of unjustified force for individuals is tyranny for states. An oppressive state that violates the rights of its citizens is engaged in constant unjustified initiation of force against its subjects. And just as an individual has the moral right to intervene using force against an aggressor, so does a nation-state have the moral right to intervene using force against a tyrant.

Fellow libertarians, take note, and write this down: A tyrannical state has no right to exist, and any interested party may use force to end that tyranny. Saddam Hussein forfeited his sacred right to be left alone a million times over. And war to remove him was fully justified from an ethical standpoint.

I'll get to the legal argument in favor of war shortly.

September 30, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (15) | TrackBack

September 29, 2004

The dumbest idea in the campaign

Well, maybe not the dumbest, but certainly in the top ten. I refer to Drug Reimportation.

Yes, drugs are less expensive in Canada. Why is that? Is it because drugs are cheaper to produce in Canada? Is it because manufacturing drugs in the United States and then shipping them to Canada is somehow less expensive than manufacturing drugs in the United States and selling them here? Is it because some weird quirk of market forces makes drugs cost less north of the 49th Parallel?

No, no, and no. It's because drugs are price controlled in Canada.

Drugs, like software (a field with which I am quite familiar) have high costs to develop but low marginal costs of production. It didn't cost anywhere near $50 to press the CD containing that copy of Quicken you shelled out good money for. Instead, you're paying for the very high expense Intuit invested to develop the first copy of Quicken... the thousands of dollars paid to engineers, testers, program managers, and executives in salaries, as well as the equipment they used to do their jobs, the office space in which they did them, and other capital expenses. Once that multimillion-dollar first copy is produced, additional copies are cheap.

Suppose the town of East Bumblefudge passed an ordinance decreeing that no software could be sold within the city limits for more than $20. Could Intuit continue to sell software there? Yes, because the revenue realized from each copy would still exceed the marginal costs of production. The sale of Quicken would still be profitable, albeit less so, and prices would have to rise slightly elsewhere to compensate. In a very real economic sense, East Bumblefudge would be freeloading off the rest of the country, a subsidy enforced by their price controls.

That's pretty much how the rest of the world gets cheap prescription drugs, by shoveling the cost onto American consumers. And it's a good thing, too, because without price controls their socialized health care systems would be in even direr straits than they are already. We pay higher prices for prescription drugs so the Canadians can have "free" health care.

Reimporting drugs from Canada wouldn't solve the problem of expensive prescription drugs. It would merely impose Canadian price controls on the United States, with the addition of some entirely gratuitous extra costs for shipping and bookkeeping. Everybody gets to buy drugs at below-market prices except for us. If the last remaining free market in prescription drugs in the world were to vanish, the result would be (again speaking in economic terms) a shortage. The risk of investing to develop a new drug would remain the same, while the reward would plummet. The supply of new drugs would be drastically reduced, if not altogether eliminated.

This is basic, basic economics, and the consequences of reimporting price controlled drugs should be perfectly obvious to someone with an even rudimentary grasp of how markets work. I cannot believe that John Kerry, for whom reimportation forms a major campaign plank, is ignorant of these consequences. The alternative is not flattering to him: he's perfectly aware of the destruction he would wreak on the development of new, potentially life-saving medications, and he doesn't care.

Even worse, it's possible he'd view such destruction as beneficial. The worse the health care system in this country becomes, the easier it is for him and his ilk to declare that the free market has failed, and impose even stricter government controls, or bring health care completely under government control.

This is why I am worried, and will continue to worry until John Kerry is safely defeated. His election would be a disaster.

September 29, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 28, 2004

Does anyone recognize this song?

MP3 link here. (3.3 MB)

I got this song, I don't remember where, about a year and a half ago. It's got a very catchy tune. The amazing thing is that Google seems to know nothing at all about it... searching for the filename or the lyrics comes back with zilch. I'd like to find the guys who made it, to see if they have anything else available. Anyone know?

President Bush, we got your back,
If you attack,
Iraq.
If it takes eight years,
Or just two days,
We got your back, Bush, either way.

I got a French battle flag, it's solid white,
They whip that sucker out every time that they fight.
My boy's kindergarten class would stomp the ass,
Of the French unless the French surrendered too fast.
It's not like without France we're underdogs,
But without us, they'd be goose-stepping Frogs,
So forget about France, and the UN too,
My money's on Bush, what about you?

(Chorus)

That Dixie Chick, then,
Made me sick when,
She said she was ashamed G.W. was a Texan.
I would have loved to have seen the look on her face,
When she heard all of her former fans were disgraced
By her actions, and disturbed by her stance.
I heard there's wide open spaces in southern France,
Her apology, well whoop-dee-do.
She may not have your back, Bush, but we do.

(Chorus)

September 28, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Advising Kerry

Seems like every pundit, columnist, and blogger is chiming in with advice for the Kerry campaign these days, and honestly, it seems a little ridiculous. These people, after all, are amateurs, while the campaign is run by professionals. Would you tell Shaq how to play basketball? Would you instruct Garry Kasparov how to play chess? Would you dare to give lessons on being an insufferable git to Michael Moore?

No, the fact is that all of these amateur politicos deciding that they know best how to run a national campaign is a little absurd. And I want in on it.

John, you and your surrogates have got to knock it off with the claim that George W. Bush "has no record to run on." This particular line obviously made your campaign's list of top talking points, getting spewed by every elected Democrat from dogcatcher on up.

These kinds of shenanigans by the Republican Party only prove the point that George Bush has no record to run on, so his party will employ games to distract our attention away from the real issues facing Minnesotans.

--Mike Erlandson, chairman, Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party



What's plainly obvious is that the Republican Party must attack John Kerry because it has no record to run on.

--Steny Hoyer, House Democratic Whip, September 2, 2004



The sad fact is that Dick Cheney spends his time on the campaign trail launching vitriolic attacks because this White House has no record to run on.

--Phil Singer, Kerry spokesman, August 12, 2004



While Bush has no record to run on, John Kerry has a vision for improving people's lives.

--John V. Wertheim, Chairman, Democratic Party of New Mexico, August 7, 2004

And of course, from The Man himself:


What you’re seeing is the last gasp of air from the failed Bush Administration that has no record to run on and nothing but more of the same failed policies to offer the American people

--Kerry press release, March 11, 2004



In the latest sign that Bush has no record to run on, Bush released his latest misleading attack ad.

--Kerry press release, March 16, 2004



George Bush has no record to run on.

--John Kerry, Meet the Press, April 18, 2004



They want to scare you about terrorists, scare you about the war, scare you about health care, scare you about everything else. You know why? Because he has no record to run on.

--John "Misleadisments" Kerry, September 27, 2004

There are three really good reasons for you to knock it off, John.

1. It's a really dumb charge. "He has no record to run on" is a charge you hurl at a do-nothing President. You use it to assert that your opponent has wasted opportunities and ignored problems, that he's been nothing but a caretaker seat-warmer for the last four years. Whatever his faults, nobody can credibly accuse George W. Bush of inaction. On Bush's watch, taxes have been slashed, Medicare has been expanded, federal involvement in education has taken a big jump, and the governments of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein have been toppled. You can argue against any of these accomplishments (Lord knows I'm not happy about some of them), but accomplishments they are. George W. Bush certainly does have a record, and your job as his opponent is not to deny its existence but to argue against it.

2. It's not working. Ever hear the metaphor "to throw something at a wall and see if it sticks?" It's not sticking, John. Because Point #1 above is so patently obvious, nobody listens when you say that George W. Bush "has no record." They see right through it. As I said earlier, I give your campaign staffers credit for being professionals, so I can only assume that they've used focus groups. There's no way in hell that any reliable focus group would've told you that "George W. Bush has no record" is an effective charge. I conjecture that either people in your campaign are contriving to hide bad news from you, or you're ignoring good advice you're getting. Next time you're commissioning a poll, ask the pollster to slip in the question, "Good or bad, do you believe that George W. Bush has a record?" You might be surprised at the answer you get.

3. It can backfire. Do you remember your 20 years in the United States Senate? No, that's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know, because you never seem to talk about it. If you take my advice and add some questions to your internal polls, toss in this open-ender, too: "During his tenure in the United States Senate, John Kerry took the lead in fighting for _________." See if any respondents give you anything but a blank look and an "Uhhhh..." You have no record in the Senate, John, and that is a charge that can stick. But the Bush campaign rarely has to make that charge, because every time you open your mouth and accuse Bush of having no record, you remind people of the real seatwarmer in this race.

Ordinarily, I wouldn't give advice to the enemy. But this is a special case, because I'm sure that you won't take the advice, and I'm also pretty sure that it's too late to make a difference.

September 28, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 23, 2004

The insanity in Colorado

Any Coloradans reading this? If so, for God's sake you owe it to your state to do all you can to oppose the incredibly ill-conceived ballot initiative to divide electoral votes proportionally.

Two states -- Maine and Nebraska -- currently have other than a winner-takes-all system of apportioning electors. But they do it right. The at-large winner gets the two electoral votes corresponding to the state's senators, with an additional elector pledged to the winner in each congressional district. Colorado's initiative, by contrast, simply divvies up the electors in proportion to the percentage of the popular vote each candidate receives.

So what? So, unless a candidate gets more than 61% of the vote, Colorado's nine electors will be divided 5-4. Given that it's highly unlikely that a major party candidate would fail to capture a bare 39% of the vote, it can be assumed that this will always be the case.

Each candidate is guaranteed 4 of Colorado's electoral votes, with a scant one additional vote going to the winner. Colorado's initiative, if it passes, would be exactly equivalent to the following changes in the law:

  • To win the presidency requires 266 electoral votes rather than 270
  • Colorado's electoral vote total is reduced from 9 to 1

The move would have the effect of completely disenfranchising Colorado's voters, giving them per capita by far the least influence in the selection of the President. Either through ignorance or malice, the proponents of this horrible measure are promoting it using the slogan "Make Your Vote Count," when it would do the exact opposite.

If you care about Colorado, if you want the state to exist in the eyes of Presidential candidates, if you want the slightest opportunity to help pick the President, for crying out loud vote NO and urge everyone you know to do the same.

Update: Right Wing News mentions the Colorado travesty.

September 23, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 22, 2004

Stop lying, MSNBC!

MSNBC.com has a new feature called Horserace, featuring tons of information about the latest news from the campaign trail. It's not a bad site.

But in the "ads" section, they have a link labeled "Bush ad: Any Questions?" This turns out to be the first (and, IMHO, most devastating) ad produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Effective though the ad may be, it is not a "Bush ad." It was neither created nor paid for by the Bush campaign. It does not endorse Bush. It's an anti-Kerry ad by an independent 527 organization.

MSNBC needs to either pull the ad from its site or clearly identify it as not being a Bush ad. I emailed them about this on September 18, and heard no response. The link remains. Please email MSNBC and tell them to fix the inaccuracy on their site.

September 22, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack

September 21, 2004

And now, a poem

You may talk o' good reporters,
Who aren't partisan supporters,
To whom bias would provoke a mass chagrin, it's
'Bout responsible free press,
Which was once on CBS,
And its weekly magazine called Sixty Minutes.
But today they find it scary
That their candidate John Kerry
Self-destructs about as quickly as he can,
So they hurried forth assistance,
And the man to go the distance,
Was their frothing lefty anchor, Gunga Dan.

It was "Dan! Dan! Dan!
You quickly must devise a sneaky plan!"
For none could make attacks,
Irrespective of the facts,
Better than that Texan newsie Gunga Dan.

Now his duty, he'll not shirk it,
So he telephoned Bill Burkett,
Who did his best to smear our leader George.
He booted his preferred
Secret weapon, MS Word,
Sat down and then proceeded with the forge.
With fonts of perfect center,
And a long-retired mentor,
And letters with a variable span.
All done in Times New Roman,
Then this psychopathic showman,
Faxed out the smelly lot to Gunga Dan.

Dan! Dan! Dan!
You think that Bush is worse than Ku Klux Klan.
While George may be no scholar,
I would bet my bottom dollar,
He's a better man than you are, Gunga Dan!

(With sincere apologies and appreciation to Rudyard Kipling)

September 21, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

U.S. NOT to abandon Iraq

In a previous post, I wrote:

If before election day the President doesn't reaffirm his commitment to fulfill our obligations in Iraq, he won't get my vote.

Today, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush said:

And today, I assure every friend of Afghanistan and Iraq, and every enemy of liberty: We will stand with the people of Afghanistan and Iraq until their hopes of freedom and security are fulfilled.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Update: I just watched the speech, courtesy of TiVo, and I was very impressed. It was forceful, eloquent, and well-delivered. The President has matured into a world-class public speaker.

September 21, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Fisking Moore

Stephen Green of VodkaPundit isn't sure it's worth the effort to fisk Michael Moore's latest. He's probably right, but being bored, I figured I'd give it a go.

First, a question on fisking etiquette: must a proper fisk include and respond to every line of the victim? Just in case, I'll make this one complete, but someone let me know so next time I can cut out the boring bits.

And on with the show!

Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies.
Don't flatter yourself, Mike... you can whine and bellyache and shake all you want, or refrain from whining and bellyaching and shaking entirely, and it won't matter a bit to Bush's changes in the election. Me personally, I'd rather you chose the latter course... that's an awful lot of belly to ache, and the mental image of it shaking makes me want to lie down.
Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us.

The Republicans have been laughing at you and yours for far longer than Bush has been leading in the polls... and if liberals had any shame, the mere fact that you're on their side would be more embarrassing than the continuous laughter of every Republican on the planet.

Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Perhaps that's because it's not all over, we're not finished, and Bush can win. Yay!

Now, don't get me wrong, it isn't all over. You're right to scoff at the increasing number of liberals who are convinced that Kerry is toast. He's still got a good shot; a lot can happen in six weeks and three debates. But contrary to your earlier statement, Bush is not a goner, he's the favorite.

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

Michael, I don't want to get nasty here. Don't force me to call the Metaphor Police. When the hell was the last time you saw a shark kick?

They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them

September 20, 2004. Michael Moore admits that he secretly admires Republicans. Note the date.

-- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.

No, genius, it's because Democrats are also a minority. A solid third of the electorate does not identify with either party. But of that third, more of them vote for Republicans than Democrats.

You got the "wreaking havoc on the planet" part right, though. Why, just today I spilled a bunch of oil I got from drilling in pristine Arctic wilderness on a spotted owl in an old growth forest. Felt good.

Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming!

Mike, Bush's convention was over three weeks ago. If Bush's bounce were temporary, it'd be gone by now.

Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing.

Even if Kerry had been wide awake, there would have been precious little he could've done about "the Swift Boat thing." He can't undo what he did. He can't go back in time and visit Cambodia, nor can he undo his repeated false statements regarding that trip. He can't magically transform his self-inflicted pinprick into an injury worthy of a Purple Heart. He can't reclaim his someone else's who the hell knows medals ribbons who the hell knows from over that fence. He can't undo his testimony about Jenjis Khan, whoever that may be.

The Swiftees damaged Kerry, not because he wasn't paying attention, but because their allegations are both credible and damaging.

Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it.

Let's see. A raving Democratic nutter supplies laughably crude forgeries to CBS, which uses them as the basis for a story along with the testimony of one of Kerry's top fundraisers, ignores concerns about credibility and authenticity, airs none of the copious contrary evidence, and this is the fault of the Republicans? Damn, that Karl Rove is more clever than I'd thought.

Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

Mike, Mike, really, it's better to get it out of the way now. The sooner the left resigns itself to Four More Years, the sooner the healing can begin.

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake!

If there is a God, the above will show up in a campaign advertisement for Bush.

That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win!

Curse that Fox News and its sinister ability to change the outcome of elections!

What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

I am terribly saddened that you will not run. Oh, the comedy potential. Please, Michael, think about it. Seriously.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down.

Because you would by gosh have gone to Cambodia!

But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.

Of course it only lasted a year. It was built by stupid Americans. You know, the Americans who you despise so much, the Americans whose smartest resident is stupider than the dumbest Briton and Canuck. Yeah, Mike, we get it, you hate America. You don't need to keep repeating it; it's becoming boring.

My friends, it is time for a reality check.

I'm sorry, sir, but your reality check has bounced. Overdrawn.

1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea.

Jesus Christ. It's not bad enough that you gave me the mental image of your belly shaking, now I have to picture you spraying diarrhea all over a map?

On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied.

I'd advise you to get a good book on statistics and read up on sampling, but you're just a stupid American so I doubt you'd understand it.

There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters."

Actually, Mike, most polls report results for registered voters and likely voters. Bush is kicking butt in both categories.

"Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election.

Unfortunately, Mike, last I checked Bush was outpolling Kerry among voters aged 18-24. So if you're right, the polls are actually underrepresenting Bush's lead.

Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people.

This is false. It's illegal to make marketing calls to cell phones, but not polling calls. And even if this were true, see above.

Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week.

Did I mention that Zogby has Bush ahead, too?

You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

You in the mood for a wager, Mike? Let's say a thousand smackers, all winnings to a nonprofit organization. You can pick whichever you want if you win. If I win, the money goes to PNAC.

2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.

Been reading the news much? Kerry's brought in so many advisors, Clintonites, Kennedyites, and other-ites that his campaign is seriously foundering under Too-Many-Cooks Syndrome.

3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there.

See above about doing some fancy book-learnin' about statistics. See if the text has a chapter on the uselessness of anecdotal evidence. And I realize this might be hard for you to believe, but people who show up to see you speak at one of your high-priced gigs just maybe might be disproportionately disinclined to vote Republican.

Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you.

Ah, Mike, Mike, someday I am hopeful that you'll come to your senses and stop being such a racist.

Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).

Hmmm... "sugar-coated?" Where have I seen that turn of phrase recently? Hey, Mike, do you by any chance own a copy of Microsoft Word?

4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher.
They are the MINUTEMEN... and they will win!

I will admit the parallels to Vietnam. For example, the enemy in both wars was emboldened by a bunch of shrieking American hysterics who convinced them that they need only hold on and America would lose its political will to fight. America's failure in the earlier war led to catastrophic consequences for South Vietnam. I am hopeful that this time the men in charge will have the good sense to ignore the frothing left and demonstrate the resolve that will win.

Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it.

But Mr. and Mrs. Middle America has no idea whether he would have sent those kids to their deaths. He's been flippin' and floppin' all over the map on this one. Mr. and Mrs. Middle America don't like people who don't say what they mean, and they like political opportunists even less.

Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won."

And you know that Bush didn't show up because, uh, you've got memos! Right, Mike?

By the way, why the scare quotes around "service?" Another thing that ticks Mr. and Mrs. Middle America off is when people like you and Kerry disrespect the brave men and women who serve the country in the National Guard.

All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving.

For someone who never stops badgering the President for alleged "lies", Mike, you sure know how to traffic in the falsehoods yourself.

It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.

Oh, I don't know about that. After all, anybody who doubts that Iraq and the world are better off without Saddam Hussein or believes that we are not safer with his capture lacks the judgment to be president. Somebody said that once, I can't remember who.

So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it.

Correct. But boy, it doesn't look good for your side.

The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush.

Actually, the Bush people probably don't give a damn about you. Slump in your chair, dance in the streets, strip naked and smear peanut butter all over, and it doesn't matter one bit to them.

They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf

Trust me, windsurfing is the least of Kerry's problems.

and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11.

Mike, if you can find me a quote where Bush said that Saddam planned 9/11, I'll send a crisp C-Note to John Kerry. No foolin'.

If you can't... well, then, it's you who's the liar, isn't it?

It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."

Yes...Yes...Yesssss....He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...

No, no, didn't you get the memo? Kerry didn't vote for the war. He just voted for the authorization for war, because it was authority the President needed to have. He never expected it to actually be used.

WAKE UP! The majority are with us!

He's right! He's got anecdotal evidence! ANECDOTAL, damn you!

More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street

That "pro-choice" statistic depends on whom you ask, and how you phrase the question. "Stronger environmental laws" is awfully vague. And I will concede that you and your ilk have successfully managed to deceive a majority of Americans as to the definition of "assault weapon." Congratulations, you should be proud.

-- and 54% now believe the war is wrong.

Believe it wrong or not, they want to win it. And they know it can be won. They also know that John Kerry isn't the man to win it.

YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?

Ouch! Stop shouting! YEEEEEEEAAAAARGHHH!!!

Just for me, please?

Oh, well, for you, Mike, okay.

Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd!

Come November 3rd, are you going to pull this post from your site like you did the post in 2002 that confidently predicted that the Democrats were poised for huge gains?

Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him.

Religious faith is such a touching thing. Mike, Kerry is the same man he was in 1968. He was a shameless opportunist then, and he's a shameless opportunist now.

Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face.

Remember, kids: North Korea is not evil. Republicans are.

Do we have any other choice?

Make whatever choice you want, Mike, it still won't matter for squat.

Yours, Michael Moore

Oh, if only you were mine. The fun we'd have together...

Kisses,
VoR

September 21, 2004 in Election '04 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 20, 2004

US to abandon Iraq?

Bob Novak got me in a bad mood this morning with this column:

Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year. This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go. ... Without U.S. troops, the civil war cited as the worst-case outcome by the recently leaked National Intelligence Estimate would be a reality.

With all due respect...

IS THIS SOME SORT OF SICK JOKE???

For crying out loud! I've been arguing vehemently against John Kerry on the grounds that this is exactly the fate that would befall Iraq were he elected. Now unnamed officials are telling Bob Novak that Bush will abandon Iraq to civil war?

NO!!!! The plan, lest we have forgotten, is to set up a thriving democratic Arab Muslim country to serve as a beacon, as a seed to inspire freedom to blossom elsewhere in that sadly unfree region. This is the greatness to which the President has called us, and nothing less should be our goal. Nothing less should satisfy us. If for no other reason, we owe it to the Iraqis.

If before election day the President doesn't reaffirm his commitment to fulfill our obligations in Iraq, he won't get my vote. He has vastly increased government spending. He has imposed tariffs. He has blithely brought education ever more under federal control. He has added yet another entitlement to the Medicare program. All of these things have caused me to wince, hold my nose... and avert my eyes. I have tolerated them all, because the President had a bold, sweeping plan to reshape the Middle East and bring freedom to a region that has seen all too little. If he throws that by the wayside, if he abandons the Iraqis to the misery of a bloody civil war and the yoke of tyranny, he can go to hell.

I hope Bob Novak is wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

September 20, 2004 in Current Affairs | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack