« Construction Dust II | Main | What's Missing From Kerry's Vocabulary? »
What Do Winners Act Like?
Now, A few people have written me asking if I'm still confident in a Bush Victory as I was back when I wrote the now famous "Farewell John Kerry" Post.
Oh, you could say that. You could also say that any doubt I may have had, as been erased, not by Bush but by the Democrats themselves.
Allow me to illustrate:
This week Union thugs and Democrat Party Muscle have begun a campaign of terror against Republican voters in several states.
Milwaukee,Wi
Huntington, W.Va.
Orlando, Fla.
Tampa, Fla.
Seattle, Wa.
Now, Why would you do this? Frustration? Anger? Righteous Indignation?
Nahhh. There's a better answer if you think about it, and its obvious if you send anytime looking at polls in detail.
These attacks are designed to do one thing, and one thing only, and it's the one thing that Kerry has never managed to do, and that is suppress the Republican vote. Kerry, a candidate who was picked by the Democrats as their second choice, based purely on their belief that as a former military man, he would be found acceptible by the Republican faithful. Talk about your "Stalingrad" sized miscalculations, this one goes in the books.
All they had to do was ask us, we would have told them, give us a Tony Blair, a Joe Lieberman Democrat, and yeah maybe. But this guy. Are you serious? While we may disagree with those other men, we know that both Tony and Joe are on "our side". In the test of his life, Kerry switched sides, and sided with the murdering thugs that took over Vietnam, and no, we havent forgiven him for that, and no, it wasn't heroic, it was opportunistic and dishonest.
Now The question of the day would be this:
"If the Democrats were winning, why would they need to suppress the Republican voters by threats of violence?"
They arent. They aren't even close, and they know it. What used to be a clear Democrat majority in this country has changed to a Republican majority. Since 1994, there has been a "Sea Change" underway. There are still a good number of people who would never announce publically that they have voted Republican, but they do. Since 1994, in Election after Election, we see polls that say " too close to call", but very often after its all said and done its the Republican who shows up the victor. Lori Byrd of Polipundit, makes this clear with her data in this Post
Theres more going in the this election that most of us realize. Whats happening below are very feet is that the political power in this country is about to change places. This election is the last chance by the Democrats to remain relevant as a political power. Their only hope now is to suppress the vote of a party that used to be weak and incapable of winning offices most anywhere. That does not describe the Republican party of today, but its is increasingly a good way to describe the Democrat party.
If you remember the O.J. Simpson Murder Case Verdict, just remember the faces of the white audiences. That is exactly what the faces of the Democrats will look like on November 3rd.
Yeah, I'm confident. I have one other reason why:
Kerry Then:
"we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now. "
Kerry Now:
On Sudan:
While on BET, Kerry said:
"the United States would have to be in a position in Iraq and Afghanistan to allow that to happen". He also said his options as president would be limited because President Bush has overextended U.S. forces.
"Our flexibility is less than it was," he said. "Our moral leadership is not what it ought to be."
"I don't want to be a country that allows a second genocide in a decade to take place," Kerry said.
But on September 9th, Kerry said:
"The United States should ensure the immediate deployment of an effective international force to disarm militia, protect civilians and facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance in Darfur," he told the meeting of black Protestant churches here.
"If I were president, I would act now. As I've said for months, I would not sit idly by," Kerry told the group.
On Iraq:
"Kerry said he still believes Saddam was a threat, but that dozens of other countries are capable of producing nuclear weapons or are home to al-Qaida operatives. "Did we invade Russia? Did we invade China?" he said. "
Kerry has decided that Terrorism and Genocide are just too hard to fight, just as Communism was too hard to fight.
To Kerry, There's no enemy of America worth fighting and no virtue in America worth defending.
Posted @ October 07, 2004 07:35 PM | Election 2004
Like the new site.
Little aside for ya re how losers act...
I have had a friend for several years online
and he has a site that has been SOMETIMES a
bit political and I chided him daily. BUT as
the clock got closer he went R A B I D, foam
and all. A cursory glance at ... this is NOT
whoring, just evidentiary .....
www.quantumphilosophy.net will show a liberal
approaching critical mass. I don't bother trying
to talk to him and won't until 11/3 when he will
owe me a c-note. That is ... if his head don't
get blowed up.
Posted by: Steel Turman at October 9, 2004 06:19 PM
"Kerry has decided that Terrorism and Genocide are just too hard to fight, just as Communism was too hard to fight. "
How could you possibly come to this conclusion? First, did our decades in Vietnam destroy communism? Certainly not. Second, the point Kerry has made is that the characteristics that convinced the President that war in Iraq was a necessity can be applied to any number of countries. Of his axis of evil -- Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- Iraq has proved to be the least dangerous by far: no WMDs and ever-weakening power. Think our military is stretched thin now? By Bush's rationale, we should be deposing the leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia--the list goes on. So no, Kerry is not saying the war on terrorism is too hard to fight, and you know this. He is saying it must be fought smartly; not with (wrong) instinct, but with deliberation and the support of the world.
Posted by: Jon Kew at October 9, 2004 08:59 PM
John Kew writes: "By Bush's rationale, we should be deposing the leaders of Iran, N. Korea, Saudi Arabia--the list goes on."
I'm tired of the logic that says because we can't depose all tyrants that mean us harm, then we must not depose any of them. If you lived your personal life like this you'd never get out of bed in the morning. By the way, we can't depose the N. Korean cross-dresser like we did Saddam because the cross-dresser developed a bomb under Madam Albright's watch. Saddam would have eventually arrived at the same place if action hadn't been taken. Read the latest report.
Posted by: Richard Ames at October 10, 2004 08:52 PM






![Validate my RSS feed [Valid RSS]](http://varifrank.com/images/valid-rss.png)