Insanity's Poster Boy

Congress may have returned to work for an abbreviated session but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Lobotomy) made sure he brought his long-term stupidity with him.

The increasingly irrelevant Reid appears to be indefatigable in his pursuit of disaster in Iraq. Reid has decided there is no news coming out of Iraq other than what's written in his obviously unstable head. Reid held a press conference when he got back and flatly stated that "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals..."

One has to wonder, just how close is Reid's Nevada home to Area 51? He has now become the prominent Democrat the party faithful look to when they want to feel that Howard Dean is marginally sane. If he stays in power instead of getting the help he desperately needs he'll probably start flying the Union Jack at his HQ because he thinks we lost the Revolutionary War.

"I don't care what you've heard, the rebellion didn't go very well for the colonists. History and the president are lying to you. I'm off for a spot of tea. Cheers."

I'm very curious about the inner machinations of the Democratic party and its criteria for leadership. Lately it seems that they cast their gazes about to find who among them is exhibiting the strangest behavior.

"Chairman Dean, I found a congressman sticking a letter opener in his temple during roll call, we've got to fast-track him up the ladder! What's that? Too sane? OK, I'll keep looking."

I'm a real American and I firmly believe in every American's right to an opinion on what the country does, especially regarding wars. I've never automatically said that anti-war people are unpatriotic. I do, however, believe that Reid's constant ignoring of any good news out of Iraq makes him unfit to be influential in any political decisions about the war.

Harry needs to put his talents to better use and become a full time clown.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell and Real Clear Politics (Vote for it!)

Pelosi's Not-So-T.G.I.F.

Hot on the heels of a Gallup poll that says Republicans enjoy better mental health than Democrats comes the news that Rep. John Murtha (D-Occasionally Seditious) has said something remarkably sensible. Add in the rain here in southern California (more proof of global warming, no doubt) and we've got quite a wacky start to the weekend.  

I don't know whether Speaker Pelosi (D-Low Approval) is still in Washington or home for the holidays already. I do know, however, that there's a good chance she began drinking heavily as soon as her screams subsided upon hearing Murtha say "I think the surge is working." 

Face it, the one thing that Democrats don't want under their "Holiday Trees" this year is news from Iraq that victory and peace are possible. Look for various nutroot groups to start pressuring Nancy Pants to censure Murtha for his remarks. 

Within hours, Murtha moved to offset his honesty and candor with a statement of carefully prepared backtracking so loaded with b.s. head cold sufferers across America could smell it. 

Murtha contorts himself so much through various quotes that you almost forget he's fat. 

"...the surge is working for a couple of different reasons. And one reason is the increase in troops." 

So...sending more troops in is working because we sent more troops in, right?

"One of the reasons Alex Rodriguez's home run totals are so high is that he hits a lot of home runs."

Yes, these are the people that you're letting spend your money. If your neighbor said something that stupid you wouldn't let him borrow your weed whacker.

Murtha goes on to say that the war "can't be won militarily." So, John, it works better when there's more military there but we can't win it with the military? The alternative to winning a war militarily is..."Rock, Paper, Scissors"? "Tag"? "Gin Rummy"? Help me, Congressman.

Full disclosure: I am not one of the Republicans who enjoys greater mental health than the average Democrat (ask my mom) and I still wouldn't vote for a blithering basket case like Murtha.  

Those of you who keep doing so should probably read up on the harmful side effects of sniffing glue.

Dancing With The Idiots

It's time to vote House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Hot Flash) off this show. The hysterical Madame Speaker's tenure in office has been marked mostly by her feverish determination to keep congressional approval ratings lower than those of President Bush's anemic numbers. Brava, Nancy Pants, you've succeeded at something during your historic speakership!

Now she wants to get her Viet Nam on and start playing politics with the war. OK, she's always wanted to play politics with it but was too busy brainstorming with Harry Reid (D-Pyongyang) on different ways to say "We hate George W. Bush," which is the only item on the Democratic platform for 2008. Having summarily blamed President Bush for keeping all doctors away from the children (S-CHIP), the California wildfires and the cellulite on Britney Spears constantly displayed bare butt, Fancy Nancy finally has time to lose a war.

"This war is the biggest ethical issue we're facing in our country. ... This is not working. There is no light at the end of the tunnel. We must reverse it," quoth Madame Speaker. Actually, the biggest ethical issue we face in our country is what do with Democratic leaders who can't open their mouths without lying to the American people about the war and global warming.

We're back to the problem about whose assessment we believe about the progress. Grandma Nancy says it's not working. General Petraeus says it is. To him, it's a war; to her, it's a game she has to look good playing when visiting her Bay Area homegirls.

Rather than approve the $196 billion that President Bush asked for to fund the war, Nanny Boo-Boo has threatened to only give about a quarter of that, which would only last about four months. This is true to form. One thing Ms. Pelosi has proven is that she is completely incapable of long-term vision. Poll driven people can't be like that as it requires thoughtful consideration rather than maniacal overreaction.

I really don't have any problem with the fact that Nancy's a woman. I have a problem with John Edwards being a woman, not Nancy Pelosi. What bothers me is that she's a shrill, grandstanding pure politician who is more interested in a photo op than a realistic approach to dealing with a rapidly changing world. She's Harry Reid in a skirt. Or he's Nancy Pelosi with a prostate. Or they're both shape-shifters from the planet Soros.

All I know is that they've had their run on Dancing with the Idiots and it's time to vote them off the show and away from the sharp objects (i.e. the budget pens). Let's do it now.

For the children.

Cross posted at Grizzly Groundswell

Mahmoud '08-The Democrats' New Star!

As I sit here listening to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prattle on at the United Nations a couple of thoughts come to mind immediately.

First: if the the UN is sitting around listening to their dictator du jour, they can't be busy trying to enact a new global communism to curb greenhouse gases. There is a small measure of comfort to be taken in that.

Second: I've always been under the impression that Ahmadinejad is a fascist Islamic dictator. Now that I've spent a few minutes listening to his talking points I fear that I may have to admit that I was wrong. He talks about not finding WMD in Iraq, a gap between the rich and poor, the need for the U.S. to immediately withdraw its troops from Iraq. Throw in a discourse about an "arms race", the U.S. being "occupiers" and flexing its muscle too much around the world and it becomes obvious that he's a Democrat!

Also, I swear I've seen that same outfit on Hillary Clinton.

He's even talking about God, which has become all the rage with the Democratic front runners in recent months.

Ahmadinejad's hostility towards Israel and sympathy for the Palestinians puts him in sync with one of the Democrats' most revered elder statesmen, Jimmy Carter.

As soon as the speech is done, find a copy of it online. Read it and you'll have a heads up on the finished platform that will be hammered out at the Democratic convention next year.

I absolutely shudder to think of the amount of drool over at the Democratic National Committee while they're listening to Ahmadinejad calling for a "Coalition for Peace." They've finally found a world leader who understands them. This, ladies and gentlemen, is the message they wished John Kerry could have gotten out in 2004. It certainly sounds like a coalescing of all the Dems hold dear, anyway (Maybe they should have sent a translator on the road with Kerry). The guy is one Al Gore hug and Sean Penn lunch away from marginalizing Barack Obama.

Gosh, free speech is a hoot when it brings such clarity, isn't it?

The DNC-Democratic Nut Cases

I was sitting around today trying to figure out just how many head injuries one has to sustain to vote for someone like Harry Reid (D-Mars). Whenever he, Nancy Pelosi or any of the other Democratic brain trust speak, one thought runs through my mind: "They really need to start drug testing on Capitol Hill."

Reid flatly disputed the military assessment of Gen. David Petraeus with the political opinion that the "situation on the ground in Iraq has not changed at all." It would seem sensible to believe the man in the flak jacket over the man in the suit jacket when trying to get a grip on the war. The "Vietnamization" of the modern Democratic party is so thorough, however, that they actually believe wars are best fought by politicians. There's a lesson there in understanding the Democrats. You see, they think that the Vietnam War turned out well. Once you wrap your head around that you'll be able to see just how impossible it will be to get any support for the troops from them. Leaving early and watching a bunch of people get slaughtered is what's known as a "solution" over at the DNC.

Barack Obama flashed his lightweight credentials around after the Petraeus report as well. B.O. (his wife calls him "Stinky") says that the troop draw down isn't good enough and, if elected, he would bring all the troops home by the end of 2008. After all, when you're a Democrat nothing says "Commander-in-Chief" like telling the enemy exactly when it can begin killing without any interference. I swear I'm sober as I write this: every time Barack Obama opens his mouth Dennis Kucinich makes more sense to me.

Another little lesson that will help you understand the Dems: the only time they favor a reduction in government interference is when the government has a gun and is fighting for the United States. If they could tax al Qaeda to death they would be more than happy but fighting a lethal enemy with lethal force seems kind of goofy to the Democrats. If someone bombs you don't shoot at him, create an after school program for the guy already!

The easiest way to ignore any reports of progress is to get back to arguing about whether we should have gone in at all. If this group was fighting a forest fire they'd stand around debating the origin of the fire while it raged on. We're there and we need to deal with it. FYI-running away from a problem and hoping it will get better isn't dealing with it.

The flaw in what Gen. Petraeus reported was its optimism. Democrats hate optimism. If the message doesn't scare the crap out of the public they want no part of it. ("The Republicans want to take your Social Security!" "You're going to die because you can't get access to a doctor!" "The North Pole just melted-Santa's dead!" "Michael Moore is in your refrigerator!") Seriously, is Harry Reid's face one that even looks like it wants to smile? But if you show up to a congressional hearing wearing a t-shirt that says "America Sucks and It's All Our Fault" the Dems will be more thrilled than a school girl who grows boobs the night before prom.

It's up to the Republicans now to do everything we can to make Harry Reid's dream of permanent misery come true.

Just for him though.

The Toast Whisperers

Here's an easy way to know exactly when Gen. David Petraeus is giving his report: you'll see the Democratic leadership running around with their hands over their ears and saying "Blah, blah, blah," over and over again. You see kids, in the modern Democratic party the last thing anyone wants to hear is news of American military success, large or small.

When they were confident that Gen. Petraeus wouldn't have anything good to say about the surge, Democratic leaders were just fine with waiting until his report came out to make decisions about funding. Now that the news will probably be much better than expected they are falling all over themselves to discredit the whatever he says. Dick Durbin, Harry Reid and Madame Speaker have all referred to Petraeus' pending testimony as "The Bush Report" in an effort to discredit it. Clever, isn't it? "We'll just tell everyone that he's only going to say what the president wants him to say." I'm sure there was a lot of "tee-heeing" around the room after this genius approach was thought up. It's the political equivalent of saying "I know you are but what am I?" in a playground fight.

I'm not sure what it is that drives this pathological fear of American success amongst so many people sworn to uphold the Constitution. Maybe mere proximity to Teddy Kennedy has gotten them all too drunk to function. Maybe they think they're supposed to uphold the Cuban constitution. I don't get it.

The Nancy & Harry Circus of American Failure possesses the inability to understand that military personnel don't conduct themselves the same way politicians do. In fact, none of us conduct ourselves that way but they keep projecting their motives onto us. It's inconceivable to Granny Nancy the the General would be more worried about the lives of his troops than his reputation with the public because that's how she rolls.

There's also the chance that having a Speaker of the House from the Bay Area may have introduced psychedelic drugs into the legislative process. That's about the only thing I've come up with so far that explains Harry Reid's comments or Chuck Schumer's popularity with anyone who is awake. I'm not going to reveal any firsthand experience here but let's just say that there are drugs out there that can make you think you're saving the world when all you are really doing is forgetting to go to the bathroom.

Let them whisper and spin, it's about all they have going for them. Besides, the American people are now doing the one thing this group of Dems most fears: paying attention.

Gray Lady Gas Pains

The official publication of the Democratic National Committee, more commonly known as The New York Times, is feeling a little dyspeptic this week. In just the span of a few days, the paper was forced to report on good news about the war and Rupert Murdoch's successful acquisition of The Wall Street Journal. Nothing short of the Yankees moving to a suburb of Boston could have been more painful for the Times to report than either of these stories.

I've always viewed the Times as being like the old Soviet Pravda without the government funding. So stunned was I to see two almost positive pieces about Iraq in the paper that it took me a few days to even address it. I was convinced that someone had laced the wine I had the other night and that I was in a state of perpetual hallucination.

Political blog readers know all about the two stories but I've been asked on occasion to add background for those who don't regularly peruse political news. The first story had to do with a poll the Times conducted that showed an increase in support for the war. The editorial brain trust at the paper didn't want to believe this. They arrogantly called the findings, "counterintuitive" and decided to conduct another poll, getting the same results. The results were finally reported, accompanied by an article that said they "...didn't make sense." Translation: "Here's what we've found but it can't possibly be right."

The second, more stunning piece, showed up on the Op-Ed page of the Times, which I usually can't touch without breaking out in hives. It's what Hugo Chavez reads when he wants to feel like a moderate communist. The article was by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack and it was titled, "A War We Might Just Win." Maureen Dowd and the rest of the Op-Ed Politburo at the Times must have been on suicide watch as soon as this went to press.

A few days of pondering have led me to only one possible explanation for the Times publishing this article. Kenneth Pollack, a former Clinton staffer, laid out what may have been the most detailed, rational reasons for invading Iraq in his book, The Threatening Storm. He has since spent most of his time showing up on cable news shows and telling everyone within earshot that he was wrong. Times publisher Punch Sulzberger probably has a "Ken Pollack Retraction" hotline on his desk that he feverishly prays will ring at any moment. Meanwhile, Ms. Dowd has been talked in off the ledge and is sitting at her keyboard ready to write a piece entitled "See, I Told You So" as soon as Pollack calls.

The above reporting must have been painful enough for the Times folk but Rupert Murdoch's success surely must have them all avoiding sharp objects now. Murdoch is everything the Times hates: wealthy, conservative, American and happy. Add to that the fact that he emigrated from Australia legally and you can see why he's a problem for them. Murdoch's most cardinal sin to those on the Left, however, is that he made the First Amendment functional in American media. Liberals had a stranglehold on television news (ever met Ted Turner?) until Rupert came along. Prior to his ascension, most on-air news outlets were little more than televised parrots of the New York Times (Bernard Goldberg explains this a bit in his book "Arrogance"). The dastardly Murdoch used a free press to reintroduce free speech into the national dialog.

Few things terrify American liberals more than a First Amendment that gets used by everyone. Murdoch is the bogeyman in the Times' closet who just keeps growing more nightmarish every day in this regard.

To those of us on the Right,however, Rupert Murdoch is the light in that closet which, when allowed to shine, makes everything slightly less scary.