September 29, 2004 by s.z.

Hmmm . . . Commenter Webster Hubble Telescope points us to Bush "windsurfing" ad: Forgery or Fraud? You decide! It looks like a fraud to me, but what do I know about windsurfing, imagery, or kerning?  So, I'll just say "indeed."  And "read the whole thing." 7:35:36 AM

Townhall Review    This week the Townhall regulars met all our wingnuttery needs, so there was no need to draft ringers from the seedy conservative opinion sites to round out the mix.  See if you don't agree that they did an extra loony job this week.  (I think that it was possibly because they knew there was a fundraising drive going on, and they wanted to give us their best work. ) 1.  Dennis Prager Dennis's column is entitled "Why I was evicted from a Miami hotel."  I'll wait while you guess why he was bounced  . . . No, actually, it wasn't for being a male prostitute (good guess, though) -- it was because of Hurricane Jeanne.  This makes Dennis mad, because he offered to not sue the hotel if he got crushed to death or something, and they still wouldn't let him stay.  (Can you blame them?) Of course, I knew they would refuse my offer. Threats of lawsuits now determine much of how Americans and their institutions behave. It is close to impossible to overstate the damage trial lawyers and litigious Americans have done to this country -- not only in terms of the money lost, but even worse, in terms of the moral character lost.  See, in a country of good moral character, they would have gotten Dennis's waiver, bludgeoned him to death, and then blamed it on the hurricane.  The perfect crime! There is an added unfortunate note to this story. I was in Miami Beach to serve as scholar in residence at a prominent local synagogue for Yom Kippur. That is indeed unfortunate.  I feel sorry for any synagogue so down on its luck that Dennis Prager is the only "scholar" they could attract. Anyway, the synagogue was also closed, due to concerns about public safety.  (Or fear of litigation, in Dennis's version of the story; or, just to keep Dennis from speaking, in my version).  This is why you shouldn't vote for John Kerry. The trial lawyers and government, along with the individuals frightened by them, shut down synagogues on the holiest day of the Jewish year.  One small step backward for America, another giant step forward for the profession of the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States. Just imagine what the profession and its allies will be able to achieve if he wins.  Yes, they'll probably shut down synagogues during other major natural disasters (and atomic wars), proof positive of their anti-Semitism and lack of moral character.  However, if Bush is reelected, Trump can build more crummy hotels, some of which will collapse during the first storm, resulting in the deaths of thousands -- and nobody will be able to sue.  A victory for character! 2.  Michelle Malkin Bush is a moron, and so he is going to lose the debates with Kerry.  But that doesn't matter, because only character counts -- and Bush has the better character, as shown by the fact that he's a bad debater. Much has been said about Kerry's superior argumentative skills. He was a champion debater at Yale; his former Republican opponents in Massachusetts have effusively praised his quick recall and rhetorical agility. This will no doubt impress the like-minded lefties in America's newsrooms and Hollywood salons.  But in America's living rooms, a man's unvarnished character -- how he carries himself, how he treats others, how he responds to adversity -- speaks volumes over the stilted platitudes and smoothly memorized factoids that come out of his mouth. Bush, who is known for carrying himself with an arrogant strut and for the way he bullies his staff, and whose only adversity has been self-created, will impress America's living rooms with how he can't pronounce "nuclear." Oh, and since when are Kerry's former Republican opponents "lefties," and when were news people and Hollywood residents officially made part of some other country? This isn't a race for prom king or "Jeopardy!" champion. It's a race for leader of the free world.  So we don't care if our choice is stupid and unpopular. 3.  Linda Chavez Bush is going to lose the debates, but that doesn't matter, since he has character and sees visions. These debates won't be scored on debaters' points; they will be one or lost by the man who best demonstrates steadfastness, trustworthiness, character and vision. Bush's objective should not be to best Kerry in an argument. In fact, the less the president engages in arguing with or directly attacking his opponent, the better off he'll be.  Yes, the less Bush actually debates with Kerry, the better off he will be, since he can't talk and think at the same time.  And actually, his objective should be to get a note from his mother excusing him from actually debating, and then go around telling everybody he won the debates, because character matters more than does having a plan for Iraq, or a way to deal with the deficit that doesn't rely on magic beans.   4.  Brent Bozell The liberal media said, or implied or something, that Allawi is Bush's puppet, and that his speech just consisted of happy thoughts designed to help Bush's reelection campaign (and to keep America from wishing Allawi into the cornfield).  But it's the MEDIA who are the puppets.  And they're big poopiehead terrorists too! The media should consider that it is they who sound like puppets -- puppets of Moqtada el-Sadr and Abu Musab Zarqawi, who want America to think that Iraq is a hopeless sinkhole and America would be wise to say uncle and withdraw. So, ask yourself: come November, do you want to vote for a media who committed lese majesty in time of war, or so you want to die in a dirty bomb explosion? When November comes, the voters who saw this parade of horrors and gloom will have asked themselves: Do we want a steady hand on the ship of state, or do we want someone who will let a cowardly cabal of suicide bombers and a panel of panicked anchormen decide the direction of the world? The press might well discover the American people are not their puppets. Yes, a vote for the New York Times is a vote against freedom and puppies, while a vote for Bush is a vote for not-terrorism. [Oh, and there's nothing wrong with heading a puppet regime.  Remember when Ann Coulter said, "We need an Arab Israel over there.  We can‘t keep pimping for Israel.  We need a puppet government.  We need to be on the ground.  We need a friendly government."  So, if Allawi is good enough for Ann, he should be good enough for the liberal media.   5.  Doug Giles Doug also writes about Allawi's speech, and how it must have driven John Kerry crazy that people applauded it.  Think of the anguish JFK, too, must have gone through seeing his liberal colleagues indirectly congratulate George Bush. So, Doug admits that Allawi is Bush's puppet.  Interesting. Oh, and Doug thinks Allawi's speech was a big rebuke to the liberal media. These three nutworks, TV’s Axis of Drivel, run negative reports on Abu Ghraib prison cruelty, on American soldiers’ death tolls, on terrorist beheadings of relief workers and on the insurgents in just three of Iraq’s 18 provinces.  What, Doug, you think that they should run POSITIVE reports on those things? Well, actually, he thinks they should run positive reports about other things, like the elections, and not mention all that bad stuff. Think about it, skeptics: Iraq will have free elections for the first time in its history.  For more than 80 years there was been no such thing as a free vote.  80 years, their entire history -- whichever is longer. And think about it, skeptics: citizens in several areas of Iraq won't get to participate in that election, possibly furthering the country's slide into a civil war.  Isn't that cool? It was refreshing to get Allawi’s take on the insurgencies in Iraq.  He views the terrorists’ flurry of activity not as a sign of strength, but of desperation.  [...] That is why we should solidly step up our military attacks -- not back down an inch -- and stomp the bathetic Ba’athist bong resin and the imported Iranian  irregulars into snail slime, so freedom can truly ring in the long-oppressed, messed-up Middle East. Just look at that assonance, those analogies, that drug reference!  That, my friends, is why Doug gets the big bucks. We must show the rag headed rabble we won’t be intimidated and that we are willing to pay the cost and go the distance, By "we" Doug means "young Americans who joined the National Guard because they needed the money."  And by "rag headed rabble" he means "the Iraqis whom we don't like."  ... and that we are willing to pay the cost and go the distance, because freedom for Iraq shows long suffering citizens in other terror-tantalizing lands they can break out of the devastating, dictatorial, declining state of their societies.   "Terror-tantalizing lands"???  Sometimes the heady thrill of alliteration leads men to do stupid, degrading things. We need to demonstrate to the terrorists – and to the backsliders in France and Germany -- that we believe in fighting and dying for a noble cause like liberty.  Doug believes that "we" should fight and die for a noble cause, in that "we" should send other people to do it, and then not count how many of them actually die.   My ClashPoint is this: call me naïf, but I believe Allawi’s report that Iraq is better off, and I believe the world is better off with the offing of Saddam and company. Doug, I'd never call you naïf.  I think the mot juste is imbecile. This is not taking too long, morons….  It’s a war, Spanky, and wars are not a fluff and fold situation.  Just forget you ever saw that "Mission Accomplished" banner.  Sometimes we have to show love by laying our lives down for our friends.  By "we," Doug means "people who are not him."  6.  Neal Boortz Neal, alarmed that Wo'C was giving so much business to the low-rent wingnut competition, comes up with plans to restrict voting to those who will do it right: rich people.  He first suggests disenfranchising welfare recipients.  Those who depend on government forced income redistribution should stay at home on election day and enjoy the fruits of plunder.  With all the opportunity that America offers, if you haven’t managed to obtain some level of self-sufficiency by the time you’re a young adult then you should leave important decisions, like who’s going to lead this country, to more qualified citizens. Because being temporarily down on your luck, especially if you have children whom you want to feed, is a moral failing that should render you ineligible to vote. But Neal has an even better plan: For those of you who do believe strongly that everyone should be able to vote, I have an alternate proposal.  President Calvin Coolidge once said that “The business of America is business.”  Let’s put that concept to work at the voting booth.  Let’s treat America like a business and make every American a shareholder.  Shareholders get to vote their shares at the shareholder’s meeting every two years. Did I say shares?  Plural?  Yup.  Just as with any business corporation, not everyone has the same number of shares.  Just how do you acquire shares in America, Inc.?  Well, you have one share issued to you just by virtue of your being a citizen.  You buy additional shares by paying income taxes.  Sounds intriguing, doesn’t it?  No, it sounds rather evil.  But do go on. We can work on the numbers when we get closer to implementing the plan, but for now let’s just say that you get one additional share in America, Inc. for each $25,000 in income taxes you pay during the tax year preceding the election.  If you paid $24,999.00 or less in income taxes in 2003, you get one vote in the 2004.  Taxpayers forking over between $25,000 and $49,999 get two votes, and so on.  A taxpayer who pays $200,000 in income taxes will be casting eight votes on election day.  To keep Hillary from controlling an election the next time she gets a huge bonus to write a book we’ll go ahead and make eight the maximum number of votes any individual can cast. Yeah, because otherwise that damned Hillary would ruin it for everybody else by not voting Republican, the party that helps AmeriCo run smoothly by doing away with the policies and legislation which might negatively impact on big business  Don’t you just love it?  The people who actually fuel our economy with their hard work and attention to decisions will get a greater voice in the direction our country takes!  What a concept!   It is indeed a great concept, Neal.  And a worthy effort at taking the title of America's hottest young conservative away from Yosef. 7.   Paul Kengor But guest columnist Paul Kengor is pretty nutty too.  His column is about how George Bush should have just let Saddam nuke the blue states, because they don't appreciate all that Bush has done for them. Nonetheless, Kennedy’s declaration [about the war in Iraq making "a mushroom cloud more likely"] rekindled a thought that has nagged at me for some time. Namely, it is quite ironic than in removing Saddam Hussein—a man who was widely perceived as a nuclear threat—George W. Bush in effect sought to protect the blue states that did not vote for him in 2000 and will not support him in 2004. Those blue states contain the largest swell of pure hatred of Bush, of thousands who turn blue with rage at mere mention of the man. Paul goes on to explain that while Saddam didn't actually pose a nuclear threat, he was PERCEIVED by many people (including Paul, who used to be an expert on perceived threats), as being one.  So, those hateful blue states should be a little more grateful at their perceived deliverance from a fiery death. How does this relate to the blue states? We understood that the primary targets on Saddam’s nuke list, if and when he developed the capability, would be big cities like New York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, and Chicago, all filled overwhelmingly with Democratic voters.  Washington, DC votes 80-90% for the Democratic presidential candidate. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago reside in blue states with huge numbers of Electoral College votes that will go against Bush. When George W. Bush risked his presidency to go to war in Iraq, he essentially did so to remove a perceived nuclear threat to these cities, to these blue states. Indeed, a nuclear-armed Saddam would have targeted LA or New York City, not Omaha or Wichita (i.e., cities in pro-Bush red states).  And when my schizophrenic neighbor tackled a police officer because he perceived the cop as being a threat (Brad thought that the cop was one of the demons who were trying to kill the righteous), nobody thanked him either.  And not only didn't they thank him, they sent him to jail.  It's sad how nobody is grateful enough for being rescued from perceived threats. This is the height of irony: President Bush is most rejected by the blue-state cities that he sought to protect from a nuclear attack. Yes, he's just like Jesus, who was crucified by those He came to save.  And yes, that the blues would reject Bush after he risked his presidency for them is indeed the height of irony -- like rain on your wedding day.  Bush should just stop being President of the nasty states who don't appreciate his protection from imaginary nuclear attacks.  That will teach them!  Paul Kengor is author of God and George W. Bush. He is also a professor of political science at Grove City College  Of course he is.  8.  Jeff Jacoby Not only are the blue states failing to be grateful to Bush for saving them from perceived nuclear annihilation, but the Jews won't vote for him, even after all he does for them -- like helping to bring about the apocalypse. Bush got only 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000; he has known all along that most Jews would vote Democratic in 2004. Yet there is nothing anomalous about his ardent support for Israel or his firm stance against anti-semitism. Unlike the Europe of Jewish memory, in the United States today it is the left that has increasingly set its face against Jewish interests. As poll after poll confirms, conservative Republicans are much more likely to self-identify as pro-Israel than liberal Democrats. The Jews just aren't voting right!  And that's why God has renounced them as His chosen people, and has given that title to conservative Republicans.  9.  Star Parker Star's column is called "An amendment to stop moral decay."  It's about how banning marriage will stop moral decay.  It's an interesting idea, and I think we should experiment with it and see it works.  Maybe start by banning marriage in Texas, and see if the inhabitants become any more moral. Oh, wait, Star believes that banning same-sex marriage would stop moral decay, presumably by forcing homosexuals to only have extramarital sex.  That makes much more sense! No, I'm wrong again.  It seems that Star thinks that amending the Constitution would eliminate homosexuality.  Anyway, here are a few words from her column. Several weeks ago, black pastors from around the nation, under the sponsorship of my organization, CURE, gathered for a press conference at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington to express support for President Bush's proposal for a constitutional marriage amendment. The amendment would define marriage as between a man and a woman. The date and place for the event were selected to mark the 41st anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.   Because we all remember Dr. King's famous words, "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character, and their sexual orientation." Our society and our institutions are already under daily siege by the liberal elites at the helm of our entertainment industry who get rich producing an endless flow of television and movies that appeal to the very worst instincts of our young people. In a way, the federal marriage amendment would act as a counterbalance to our First Amendment, which essentially guarantees that popular culture will be seized by irresponsible and exploitive entertainment industry power brokers. An amendment to limit the freedoms given to us in the Bill of Rights!  Outlawing same-sex marriage to counterbalance freedom of speech.  What a great idea!  I think that we should next amend the Constitution to disallow the freedom of association to people with unresolved impotency issues, as a way of counterbalancing the second amendment.  And I'm sure John Ashcroft has a bunch of other ideas of how we can get rid of all that pesky freedom by making new laws. We should keep in mind that legalization of gay marriage would be a significant formal gesture of our society to reject a basic tenet of Christianity and Judaism. To reject one basic tenet is to reject the legitimacy of the whole package. The Judeo-Christian tradition would become a "lifestyle" rather than a central cultural pillar of our society. And religion shouldn't be a personal choice, it should be a societal mandate, enforced by our nation's laws -- like the Founding Fathers intended.  Thanks, Star, for clearing that up for us. So, Townhall.  Aren't they a wacky bunch, every bit as wingnutty as the folks at Renew America and GOPUSA?  Well, they're working on it. 3:32:28 AM