The Strange Case of Senator Craig and the Boundary of Morality.

Nobody that draws breath or pays taxes, willingly or otherwise, who is unaware of corruption and acts of immorality in our society and in politics. The list of disgusting performances ‘public servants’ goes back way before the Roman Times. So, we are not surprised that a few flotsamic tidbits float up for view from time to time.

Here, we have a case of self-imposed ‘rules’ applied to a group [The Party of Republicans] that includes strict inhibitions about acting in some manner other than that which would be deemed moral or which would be directly in the center of ‘ family values.’ To say that this is a latent form of political suicide is an understatement. Here, we have folks like Henry Hyde, whose career was ruined when Salon.com [“We were right to take his pants down….] found out about a three-decade old tryst and spread the news around in glee and Ol Henry had to step down from his high office and take a lesser seat in the back of the bus.

Since the Party of Democrats does not subscribe to any moral code, as shown by the antics of Representative William ‘Cold Cash’ Jefferson [1], Slick Willie, Billie Sol Estes, Burt Lance, Barney Frank [2], Gerry Studds[3] and other degenerates there is no penalty except ‘censure’ and praise and, of course, reelection.[4] When James Carville was asked about Clinton lying to him he said he would ‘get over it.’ Republicans of this Holy Moral Order cannot do so.

Much of the outrage from Craig’s actions is derived from the public education about morality given by Saul Alinsky[5], the prophet and mentor of Hillary Clinton. Here the 4^th Rule is to make the opposition live up to their promises “…for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.” Presto and touché!! The interesting aspect of this invective is that those who ‘force’ the opposition to hold to their codes offer nothing in return! How neat! This neat self-inflicted hole of incarceration allows Patrick Kennedy [6], the offspring of a known  murderer, bar brawler, liar, flunky, cheat, drunk, drug addict to mumble about his ‘addiction’  and ‘seek help’ and avoid any penalty. This is because the Party of Democrats not only tolerates drug addicts and violent criminals—they enable and advocate such behavior. No wonder Patrick’s father is proud of his conduct—it is a little cleaner than that of the Senator.

This mess is a self-inflicted mud pit for the Republicans. We hear from the audio transcript of the police interrogation of Senator Craig that the officer was being ‘disrespected’ by the denials and comments of the perp. Apparently it is a affront to law officials when a suspect does not confess by slobbering and groveling on the floor. Note that the officer also promised this would be ‘quiet.’ We can wonder how any cop who has to masquerade as what was known in the 50s as  ‘q---r bait’ in some public restroom could earn respect as he squats on a public toilet ready to flash his badge and ‘enforce the law.’ Apparently, it must be so. Such people must be paid some form of respect. He deserves respect. The Democrats, as we see, have no condemnation of Craig for being a closet gay—only that he was a hypocrite about it and voted on such federal laws in an anti-gay manner.  Watch out for strange persons in the toilets.

So, the Republicans get a hot and a cold one here: The cold one is that Senator Craig has ‘given the public the impression’ that he is immoral and must go and the hot one is that with a Republican Governor of Idaho, he will be replaced by somebody  squeakily cleaner and more in tune with Moral Republicans. That much is a win for the moment.

The Democrats win this one as nobody could ever accuse them of being decent or moral. They never said they were not criminals, drug addicts or hypocrites or supported our enemies in time of war or praised Communism.  We cannot hold them to any of that.

Vote accordingly.

More New York Times Propaganda and Stale Revisionism

The New York Times, famous for encouraging our enemies, subsidizing immorality and hosting artful innovations in the showground of political revisionism has closed the historical and intellectual doors for Viet Nam and announced  the reasons for the failure. [1]

So often we hear about our reasons for failure from the far left. More often, we hear silence or some stilted account of leftist failures, such as Bolshevism, Maoism, the mess in Cambodia and Somalia. It seems the Times can only spot a few wrinkles in the space-time continuum and only those on the right side of the aisle. They seem to be silent on the 100,000,000 dead from Communism in the last century.

We learn that Prime Minister Maliki will fail because, like Viet Nam, we read:

Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has been catastrophic for Iraq ever since he took over from the equally disastrous Ibrahim al-Jaafari more than a year ago. America helped engineer Mr. Jaafari’s removal, only to get Mr. Maliki. That tells you something important about whether this is more than a matter of personalities. Mr. Jaafari, as it happens, was Iraq’s first democratically chosen leader under the American-sponsored constitution.

Many of us labor under the false notion that Maliki was elected by popular vote. Isn’t the government a coalition of some sort?

The real lesson of Vietnam for Iraq is clear enough. America lost that war because a succession of changes in South Vietnamese leadership, many of them inspired by Washington, never produced an effective government in Saigon. None of those changes, beginning with the American-sponsored coup that led to the murder of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in 1963, changed the underlying reality of a South Vietnamese government and army that never won the loyalty and support of large sections of the Vietnamese population.

According to the NYT, we read the following about Jaffari:

DISPLAYING ABSTRACT - Ibrahim al-Jaafari, leader of one of Iraq's major Shiite religious parties, is appointed prime minister, crystallizing leadership of first elected government in decades and ending more than two months of divisive negotiations; Ayad Allawi resigns as interim prime minister but will remain head of caretaker government until full cabinet is chosen; Jaafari, whose Shiite coalition was formed under auspices of Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has made clear that he favors strong voice for Islam in Iraq's new constitution; he has been vague about specifics; he has expressed support of strong political role for women and opposition to any law forcing women to wear head scarves in public; his appointment underscores anxieties of some Arab leaders about Iran's influence in region; he lived in Iran for part of his 20 years of exile from Iraq, and he forged close ties with Iranian leaders, as did many members of his party [2]

On April 22, 2006, more than four months after elections were held, a prime minister-designate was named. Shia politician and Dawa Party member, Jawad al-Maliki was nominated. [3]

Here, we wonder just how the Americans placed Maliki and other potential leaders on  pedestals, affixed strings and deftly pulled them so as the make them Dance the Dunciad to whatever tune President Bush wanted to hear. The core of good propaganda, something the NYT excels at, is to proffer some analysis based on partial truths and to noisily funnel that analysis toward supporting some political objective, in this case the usual anti-American war conduct. Chum chuckers in muddy fishing ponds and sausage machines work in a parallel manner. How would the NYT times know who would provide “effective government” in Iraq [or Saigon for that matter]? What is an effective government?? Does Cuba have an “effective government?”

More:

The problem is not Mr. Maliki’s narrow-mindedness or incompetence. He is the logical product of the system the United States created, one that deliberately empowered the long-persecuted Shiite majority and deliberately marginalized the long-dominant Sunni Arab minority.

We should not empower the Shia majority in the country?? Can we use this twisted reasoning to disenfranchise the former minority-now- majority Democrat Party in the US? The NYT has somehow misplaced the notion of majority rule with minority rule, an authoritarian stance espoused by Bolshevism and other leftist ideal governments.

So, what would we do in Iraq? Were we supposed to  just ask the Sunnis who they would want to be in charge and ignore the Hussein Ba’ath Party’s rise to more power if they were selected? Was it some kind or religious bigotry that the Nazis were deposed?  Was General Douglas McArthur in error when he looked at the first democratic election in post-war Japan, noted that the Communists won too much power and promptly cancelled the result and forced another election?

Diem of Viet Nam was the personal choice of JFK and Mike Mansfield, and Diem’s brother was a Roman Catholic Cardinal in the North East and a friend of Mansfield. Who did the NYT support then for Viet Nam? Ho? Che?

We can wonder how Jim Wright, Speaker of the House, supported Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua against Ronald Reagan’s Contras, knowing that he was a Marxist and  a person who did not have wide support in that nation as he lost promptly in the next election. His recent win was the result of a plethora of candidates. He did not win a majority. Jim Wright was not exactly in charge of the Executive Branch of our government.

We can wonder how the NYT continues to support and defend Fidel Castro in Cuba, a person who murdered thousands, many more than his predecessor. Cuba is an economic basket case and food, electricity, paper and other essentials are strictly rationed.

Apparently, the tack here is to just blame non-liberals for any and all reasons while being silent on the solution to the problem. A full power pull-out in Iraq might be considered the best solution by the NYT although they would support putting US troops in Sudan to fight genocide. Who in Darfur might be the proper leader in Sudan?? Does the NYT have a recommendation?? The ‘leader’ in the Sudan is President Umar Hassan Ahmad al-BASHIR[4] Bashir is considered: ”… Part blowhard, part thug, al-Bashir is a graduate of the 'Idi Amin School of Dictators'.” [5]

The art of propaganda is to make sweeping conclusions from limited and truncated data that is first massaged so as to appeal to certain special interest groups. What the New York Times needs to do to be convincing is to tell us what form of government is appropriate for Sudan, Iraq, Iran, and other gardens spots and propose singular leaders who can solve social problems according to NYT standards, if any such notions exist.

Harping on the Iraqi problem is a mundane and pedestrian political exercise and mumbling about choices is called ancient history and rarely opens new doors for solutions. Leftists, following Machiavelli, tend to think backward toward successful political ideas and processes.

Digging around in the fetid wreckage of Viet Nam just prompts us to consider what really happened in Cuba, South Africa, Mozambique, Waco, The Crusades and wondering where the NYT’s preferences lie. They used to be for ‘land reform’ whenever some slimy Marxist despot promised this phony sop to the ignorant masses.

The New York Times is posturing in this article and avoiding essential definitions of what good government might look like and who would be suitable candidates for leadership in such systems. The New York Times is merely chattering away at the issues having probably read <i>Plato’s Republic</i> and noted that government, justice and democracy are but illusions.

The opinions of the NYT, known as Pinch’s Tautologicals  by the hacks that work the word processor levers, are worthless  unless supported by theory and applications in politics and governments. Perhaps they still think the October Revolution was still the best idea for world wide leadership. Is the dialectical opposite of orange merely purple or is it really pink?? Would we now have justice if George McGovern had been elected?

Drop your subscription to the NYT and buy a fish. The NYT has no clue as to what effective government might be unless it would legalize drugs and sex with children.

ryckki

Degenerated Societies, Newark, New Jersey and Liberalism

There are several known degenerated societies noted from history and some other degenerated subcultures among other societies. Primitive societies practiced rite-of-passage murder, torture for religions benefits, human sacrifice and other repulsive practices that prevented social progress for thousands of years. For several disgusting actions of a few tribes, all American Indian tribes were placed on reservations where the practices were minimized outside the containment facilities. Several African tribes today practice tribalism, genocide, racism, Marxism, slavery, murder for prestige or revenge and other forms of primitive behavior and are beyond the reach of decency. The most popular form of government in Africa is the leftist Marxist dictatorship. Their societies reflect this and are shunned by the civilized world. Nobody wants to invest in most parts of Africa. Rwanda is such a case. Iraq under Saddam Hussein is another. Some of our largest cities emulate this far-left form of government.

While the United States has tried to discourage such elements that would maintain degenerated subcultures among its citizens, there are certain pockets of degenerative resistance that seek to foster and encourage criminal practices. Recently, we see Islamo-Fascist enclaves that define neighborhoods and will substitute Sharia Law for local laws. Newark, New Jersey and its ‘leader’ Cory A. Booker is one of several places where crime is not only tolerated but celebrated. Certain cities such as San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley and Newark, New Jersey have become  sites of ‘refuge’ that welcome illegal aliens and other criminals and refuse to cooperate with federal authorities to curtail crimes such as drug peddling, prostitution, kiddy porn, sexual abuse of children and other practices that, as an aggregate, form the basis of a well-defined degenerated society or subculture.

From the New York Times, our strongest advocate of degeneracy, drug abuse, sodomy and crime we read about the recent triple murder in Newark New Jersey by an illegal alien:

The mayor of Newark, Cory A. Booker, has tried to keep the public discussion focused on his main goal: reducing the crime rate. Mr. Booker said he was frustrated that Mr. Carranza had been freed, but, responding to the debate surrounding the suspect’s illegal status, has come out firmly against involving city police in immigration matters.[1]

 

We are to believe this??

“My Police Department does not play an I.N.S. function,” Mr. Booker said. “We are not to be running around doing interrogations about whether someone is documented or not.” [2]-- Cory A. Booker

What does your officers do with violent criminals?? Let them go anyway?

The difficulty with this phony political statement is that it takes frantic flight from the central issue of criminal conduct in his city, contradicts the mayor’s own stated goal and subsidizes a fruitless place to live and heartens a swamp of liberal activism that celebrates drug addiction, sloth, sodomy, crime and corruption. The mayor ignores the fact that this guy was released although he was a major criminal in his city. One wonders if the mayor believes he fights crime by releasing violent criminals and drug addicts. Fewer full jail cells seem to promote a false confidence in social crime prevention programs in this city and offer the illusion that criminal activity is decreasing. NYC’s crime stats dropped after strong measures were incorporated to get criminals off the streets, a right-wing tactic. Newark offers the reverse plan with the usual promise of failure by liberals.

The governor, who bought his seat outright with Wall Street profits, chimes in with the chorus to support criminals for political reasons:

The debate, the governor added, is whether the Newark police should “be having people out enforcing the immigration laws and jamming the jails even more than what we have now, versus the issue of when someone has committed a felony and you have them in custody checking out their documentation.” [3]

We must presume it is too time-consuming for city cops to call ICE or other federal authorities. Whether this guy was illegal or not is not the issue: he should have been in jail anyway. But, we deal with liberalism here. Failure is predicted in these cases.

Here, we see an emotional left-liberal defense of their coveted voter base, flush with criminals who routinely vote the liberal Democrat line. There is no reason to believe that either Mr. Corzine or Mayor Booker would ever be elected [or reelected] in a state or city where convicted criminals lost their ability to vote. New Jersey is jammed right to the edge of the Parkway with criminals and  other NJ cities, such as Bridgeton, with illegal aliens who are allowed to pursue criminal acts. We must presume that these illegal aliens vote in New Jersey as well. La Raza, a racist Hispanic supremacy group, lists states where voter identification is checked and advises the illegal aliens accordingly.

Here are some crime statistics from Newark: [4]

Newark is a city of 278,551 people with 81 murders, 85 faceable rapes, 1304 robberies, 1261 aggravated assaults, 2281 burglaries, 5562 thefts, 6018 stolen cars and 238 cases of arson. This, to date, sums to 2731 violent crimes and 13,861 property crimes. Quite a place and 3.8 times the national average for murder and 3.6 times the national average for car theft.  For comparison, Philadelphia had 406 murders for 2006. Philadelphia’s population from the 2000 census is 1517550 so the normalized murder rate for Newark, compared to Philly is 18% of that city’s population and runs an astonishing 75% of the Murder Capital of the United States to date.

We can inspect the crime statistics for Baltimore City [5.48 times the national murder rate!], Oakland [3.5 times the national murder rate] , Houston [1.78 times] , Detroit [5.16 times!!] and other places and see similar corresponding trends and numbers. These are all liberal Democratic enclaves with high welfare demands. What fact is suppressed  here is that many offenses are simply  ignored by the police or offenders let go by city authorities and such national rates are actually  underestimated. . Many crimes are committed by city or county police officers as we saw in NYC by reading the Knapp Commission Reports from the 70s, suppressed when ever possible,  and  from undercover reporter stories in local newspapers. The purpose of Internal Affairs in these cities is to suppress the crimes of the police, a political necessity of the highest order for elected liberal political operatives that pretend to ‘govern’ in these places. These cities only report the most violent incidents to federal authorities in fear that their cities will be singled out as the worst places to visit or live in the US as New Orleans was before Katrina changed the political landscape and the Chocolate City was under water for a time. Crime now is back to normal with only half the original population. The liberals accept this as a victory.

What is more than obvious in these cases is the salient fact that these cities are run, owned and operated by liberal Democrats whose income, future, fun and recreation and happiness depends on the ghoulish exploitation and support of criminal activity. The harboring of illegal aliens with their abnormal crime rate is part of the frantic social planning of cities like Newark, Oakland, Detroit, Philly and Baltimore. Simply put, these places make fast and easy money from violent crime, drugs, car theft and worse. Who can argue that drug sales do not benefit the city in numerous financial ways? All these criminals need lawyers, schools, flop houses, drug rehab facilities, health benefits, ‘education’, and more, mostly derived from federal funds and over-taxed honest citizens in the city. These liberal cities are social swamps that burn and waste tax monies to the delight of leftists who churlishly want to ‘soak the rich’ for ‘justice.’ Without these acts of degenerated societies, these politicians would not be elected. The flow of illegal aliens to these places means fat profits for the city elected officials and they must foster this practice to survive. Any clean-up of any major city means a loss of jobs and power for liberal Democrats.

We all have to be aware of the dangers of encounters with criminals, illegal aliens and even the police of such cities of refuge and other crime-ridden jungles. We should be more aware that things will not change soon and the liberal Democrats in charge in these places see crime as their major source of income. We must accept the fact that elected officials in our major cities not only contribute to local degenerated societies but participate in custom designing them for their personal financial benefit. Their future depends on more crime and a larger illegal alien community with the underground economies that they bring along ensures the economic success of liberals who hold power there.

Do not visit or live in these places. Liberal Democrats have created these areas as their own pools of votes and financial sources. Their degeneracy is the product of decades of leftist social programs and the system works for their criminality.

They will continue to consume larger and even larger sums of tax monies so they can proliferate and give comfort to more and more criminals, some in high offices in city government.

We must enforce the local laws and national immigration rules or this problem will get worse. We can have our society degenerated back into compliance with third world standards. They liberals look forward to this emotional adventure.

 ryckki

Congress Sinks to a New Low.

Congress, using the synonym dildolarium with its superior definition, has stood for terrorism, illegal immigrants, sloth, sodomy and worse and now the American People are fed up with the parasites.

According to Gallup News Service, just 18% of Americans approve of the job Congress is doing, while 76% disapprove, according to the August 13-16, 2007 Gallup Poll. [1]

 

Nancy Pelosi, who would ‘drain the swamp’ has created a major swamp of her own given her penchants for Marxism, Tax Whoring and sleazy, leftist politics.

And what do they offer as a change in 08??

Edwards, some twit who constantly combs his hair and channels dead babies for fun and profit? He failed to carry his own state as VP for Vinegar John .

Clinton, a known psychotic liar who lied under oath, creates all sorts of phony lies about herself and will hike taxes?

O’Bama, some newbie who does not know what nuclear deterrent ever meant, does not know what to ‘leave on the table’ in terrorist policy and will play the giveaway game with welfare, education, healthcare and more.

This is what these parasites offer us??

Sure.

Big Money Dumps Hilary??

It seems that the moneyed set of the Democratic Party, not directly associated with democracy as they fervently support Marxist dictators on four continents, has chose some person other than Hilary Clinton. [1] The best-known investor in the US has left Hilary to support Obama, e.g.:

An invitation for the August 15 reception at the Ironwood Country Club in Omaha, Nebraska asks those who wish to be listed as hosts for the event to raise $5,000, according to a Bloomberg report.

We can wonder about Buffet’s investment strategeries in terms of hedge betting here. Buffet has a great record for increasing wealth, but we wonder how he views high taxes and tax cuts in terms of spurring the economy. This chart http://investing.reuters.co.uk/stocks/ChartsUK.aspx?symbol=BRKa.N&WTmodLoc=InvArt-R4-FactBox-5

Shows the monotonic rise of BH stock since 2002. We can wonder how this would have looked during the Jimmy Carter Era. Bush tax cuts have an effect here??

We can wonder if Buffet joins the boo-birds who hoot at Hilary: Hear the sharp, shrill political sounds from this person at this link.
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QlLi2Jp1UA

More here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysUeNlTfBMM&mode=related&search=

Given the mandatory tax increases, business regulation red tape, punative taxes for corporations and attacks on Wal-Mart for selling pharmaceuticals at a low cost, we wonder if Warren is changing his investment strategeries to include more social ‘investments,’ such as insurance, healthcare bureaucracy and subsidizing of illegal aliens.

Any of these would boost the Buffet portfolio. So would investing in Terrorism, run running and smuggling of explosives from Iran to elsewhere in the world where there are American targets.

Warren is clever and perhaps operates from inside information.

Vote Obama to hedge your bets.

rycK

The Clinton/Obama Race and the New York Times.

8.07.07

We marvel at the antics of politicos as they grope for power. [1] This process, a few thousand years old at least, gives us a false premise: that we can learn about what candidates actually believe, can predict their actions and can learn what their plans for the future might be, and, also, detect from these scanty polls who will surely win. All this is so much torrid fluff. This is the soggy stuff that politics is composted from.

Politics is the disgusting process of decision-making in groups and is not based on truth. It is based on the quest for power, and most neophytes in this arena, such as Obama, will fail at least once. The game here, following the descriptive and sometimes predictive elements of game theory, can be invoked by noting that when any player makes a move, the attributes of that maneuver can strongly influence the responsive (and usually reflexive) subsequent moves by the other players. As such, we experience some hot potato dances where public attention temporarily rises from some kind of misstatement or political blunder and the candidates blame each other and raise new ‘issues.’

Such is in the expert purview of the spin doctors. The NYT, a crude, low-level propaganda machine [2] of immense anti-American proportions recently make light of the fact that the two leading Democratic runners do not speak to each other. [3] They seem to believe that they can publish a counterfeit explanation of circumstances that need to be artfully altered to support their mindless liberal political views, publish the prize-winning article in their ruined rag and await the applause from the Gods, the good citizens on Jupiter or elsewhere in the Universe, all liberal Democrats and, even from their enemies. Such are the fevered images of Pinch Sulzberger, the Prince of Poltroonery, and his testosterone-free minions. Such is not the case. The NYT and other rags have merely denigrated their own image in the views of those who can rise above simple sophistry, yellow-dog liberalism and drug addiction. The NYT essentially says that there is nothing alarming in the cool relationships between the two uninteresting liberal candidates for the Democratic Party in a year or two. Sure, we all understand that. The political effect of Edwards, down to 12% and clearly finished as a contender, is not covered in detail here as, strangely so, he is considered a loser and potential loose cannon for the left if his mouth again spews more nonsense than his feeble neurons can assimilate and compile into rational speech.

The NYT does not, as usual, address the political facts unless they appear in the news as lightning bolts. The notions of: electing a woman or, electing a black candidate seem to be conveniently ignored by the New York Times and their tattered allies. Even the mention of such a clash would raise questions where the media artists who reside somewhat below the average might not recognize the danger and initiate some offensive dialogs between the candidates thus fomenting a war to the advantage of the Republicans. We seem to be missing a critical poll that points out preferences in voting that address gender and race. Not here yet. And more, given the history of Clintoonery that talks about being ‘black’ or a ‘black president’ and then not supporting leading black candidates and keeping their numbers to a minimum in the administration we might wonder when the clash will come. We have only to look at the last gubernatorial race in New York State with a black candidate where he was defunded and offered no support from the white left. They NYT and others knew he couldn’t win. So, they ignored him. Obama will insult Hillary and get a gracious offer to run with her?? Sure.

Now, with Mz. Clinton at 48% in this current and imprecise poll, the grand topic missing in the NYT analysis is the question: Why only 48%?? What is wrong with Hillary?? Were the leftist pundits right [or read left for right if you prefer here] when they said that Hillary is not electible? Can a woman win?? Can a black win?? Can a white/black pair win??? These are the topics of editorials the NYT dare not broach.

We are late in the game now given the very early start of this election process and to not have a wide majority lead at this times signals troubles with leading candidates. After eight years of Bush and more from Gingrich they have nothing to offer? The NYT supplies us with donkyisms in defense of the political wreckage from Kerry, algore and other sub-luminary species who fell from grace into disgrace. To think that Senator Obama can lose the nomination with, say, 45%, or more, of the delegates and then just fall out of sight in a whiff of smoke is not reasonable. [Have we forgotten the meteoric rise of Howard Dean and his sudden and ignominious fall the last round?] Senator Obama will want something more than a close second chance to a proven loser. He could run as an independent and secure a Republican victory for, say, Newt Gingrich or even Rush Limbaugh. Also, barking away at the Tree of Reason, the notion that a woman with a crusty past littered with crime, influence and dances with Marxism, can win the Oval Office with a black VP running mate is too absurd to even think about, although certain Republicans [Rudy Giuliani Says He’ll Beat a Clinton/Obama Dream Ticket] are suggesting that is a possible outcome of the race. [4] Such are the thorny tribulations of the NYT, who hailed most of the leftist losers in the last century as saviors of the Democratic or Socialist parties.

It appears as if the Democrats have, again, effectively gagged on the toxicity of the pulp of their own political correctness and other questionable political precepts known only to their leaders and have, as a summary: been persuaded to participate in the loss in 2008, as usual. We wonder if they reviewed the McGovern or Dukakis races for comparison. It is interesting that leftist seem to have no history of their own actions. A review of Presidential voting since 1900 [5] gives us a clue about Americans and the rabid left and persons from the North East, but no Democrat born after 1960 seems to recall any of this.

But, what options does the New York Times have other than to puddle and piddle as their party leaders dig themselves into another sticky quagmire. The NYT urged most of their puppets to invest in a bad economy and a lost War on Terrorism that they could blame on President Bush and they might lose both of these, ingloriously. Any one loss from the pair will probably lose for them the Presidency once again. A double loss means they were just nasty, self-glorified obstructionists groping for reasons to defile America and grunt and grab for votes for the sake of power.

We must again thank the New York Times for their Herculean incompetence.

rycK ryckki@gmail.com