Friday, January 26, 2007


The Democrats lost the 2000 election. Therefore it must have been "stolen".
The Democrats lost the 2004 election. Therefore it must have been "stolen".
The Democrats won back some seats in the 2006 midterm elections to claim a majority in Congress. Obviously, it was a completely fair election process overall (except for the individual races they lost).

Notice any sort of a pattern here?

Notice that the Republicans have not responded with a similar incoherent and never-ending rage at their loss; or claimed that the election was stolen from them. They haven't set up an angry website, organized mass protests, or even threatened violence to "take back the country" from the lying, thieving Democrats. In fact, there are no articles in the MSM describing how the election was "stolen" from them.

Are we to assume, to paraphrase the immortal words of Kate from Small Dead Animals, that, since the George W. Bush Republicans clearly stole the Presidential elections of 2000 and 2004, they threw the 2006 one?

I suppose that using the logic of the infantile Democrats, it is possible. We already know from the lofty rhetoric of the Democrats that Republicans hate blacks, hate the poor, hate working people, hate gays, women and muslims, hate peace, blah blah blah. Maybe they hated having all the horrible, burdensome responsibility for the insanity of domestic and international politics and actually wanted to lose.

Maybe the Republicans losing Congress was all part of a dirty Rovian conspiracy to trick Democrats into taking some responsibility for their behavior for a change?

If it was, it didn't work, did it?

Check this out:

ON TUESDAY nearly every member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee warmly endorsed Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, and a number wished him success or “Godspeed” in his mission. Yesterday some of the same senators voted for a resolution that opposes the increase of troops for Gen. Petraeus’s command — even though the general testified that he could not accomplish his mission without the additional forces and hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy.

Petraeus hinted that such a resolution could encourage the enemy? Could? Could!? You would have to be completely oblivious to reality and immersed in self-delusion not to appreciate the inevitable consequences of such irresponsible, childish and immature behavior. Our brave warriors in Iraq have had to deal with the consequences of unbelievably narcissistic rhetoric and groveling appeasement of the enemy since 9/11.

Perhaps Petraeus was simply being kind to the many whiny childrenmorons in Congress. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

Or, consider this:

The logic here seems to be that if the Americans leave, Iraqis will miraculously conclude that they have must settle their differences. A kind of reverse field of dreams: If we don't come, they will build it.

The irony is that this is not all that far from the "light footprint" strategy that the Bush Administration was following last year and which these same Senators called a failure. It is precisely the inability to provide security in Baghdad that has led to greater sectarian violence, especially among Shiites victimized by Sunni car bombs. The purpose of the new Bush counterinsurgency strategy is to provide more security to the population in the hopes of making a political settlement easier.

But then such analysis probably takes this resolution more seriously than most of the Senators do. If they were serious and had the courage of their convictions, they'd attempt to cut off funds for the Iraq effort. But that would mean they would have to take responsibility for what happens next. By passing "non-binding resolutions," they can assail Mr. Bush and put all of the burden of success or failure on his shoulders.

No wonder the Democrats are so suddenly obsessed with children, surrounding themselves with the little ones in the same way the cowardly enemy we fight uses them as human shields. Yes, the Democrats care intensely about children--but not enough to reconsider their inflexibility on abortion; or to do what is necessary now so that they have less of a burden in the future.

This childish obsession is probably directly connected to why they seem incapable of treating our completely voluntary military personnel as adult men and women capable of making choices that their Democrat mommies don't approve of. But at least they are consistent. They treat all of the American public as infants in need of their guidance and supervision.

Chief Democrat Squirrel Pelosi has made sure we know that she and her fellow Dems are doing what they do "for the children."

I'm not at all surprised. Their logic of their self-serving behavior suggests that they, themselves, are the "children" they care about most.

No comments: