Colbert on Kerry

“Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn’t be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has given our troops an opportunity to fight without end. That’s creating jobs. In fact, the president’s policies helped create 104 more job openings last month. Now who’s stupid, Senator?”

It came from 1987

I don’t think anyone’s asked the question in quite some time, but whatever happened to David and David?

The Four Stooges

Did anyone catch “Meet the Press” this morning? The chairman of each party’s campaign committees (from the House and Senate) appeared together and reminded all who were watching that a third party is sorely needed. Elizabeth Stepford Dole refused to budge from her poorly prepared script, and Rahm Emanuel demonstrated again that he may be even more weasely than Paul Begala, quite an achievement.

How can anyone get excited about either party? Seriously, I’d guess two-thirds (at least) of voters Tuesday will be casting a ballot against someone, not for.   

Noted and quoted, the military speaks

“Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go.”

–The Military Times. Not The New York Times, but a joint editorial from the Air Force, Army and the Marine Corps, referring to the man Bush says is doing a “fantastic job.”

In defense of hypocrisy

Illogic has never been so tortured, but what should we expect from someone who wrote speeches (including the famous “Axis of Evil” address) for George W. Bush?:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue – or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

Never mind the first one cheated on his wife and humiliated his five children.

Count on me as yet another independent against the GOP (not so much “for” Democrats, but “against” Republicans). Their homophobia can no longer be ignored. 

Meanwhile, Haggard’s church has completed its investigation, concluding “without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

In defense of hypocrisy

Illogic has never been so tortured, but what should we expect from someone who wrote speeches (including the famous “Axis of Evil” address) for George W. Bush?:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue – or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

Never mind the first one cheated on his wife and humiliated his five children.

Count on me as yet another independent against the GOP (not so much “for” Democrats, but “against” Republicans). Their homophobia can no longer be ignored. 

Meanwhile, Haggard’s church has completed its investigation, concluding “without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”

Colbert on Kerry

"Senator Kerry does not support our troops. If he had won the election, there wouldn’t be any troops left in Iraq. President Bush, on the other hand, has given our troops an opportunity to fight without end. That’s creating jobs. In fact, the president’s policies helped create 104 more job openings last month. Now who’s stupid, Senator?"

It came from 1987

I don’t think anyone’s asked the question in quite some time, but whatever happened to David and David?

The Four Stooges

Did anyone catch "Meet the Press" this morning? The chairman of each party’s campaign committees (from the House and Senate) appeared together and reminded all who were watching that a third party is sorely needed. Elizabeth Stepford Dole refused to budge from her poorly prepared script, and Rahm Emanuel demonstrated again that he may be even more weasely than Paul Begala, quite an achievement.

How can anyone get excited about either party? Seriously, I’d guess two-thirds (at least) of voters Tuesday will be casting a ballot against someone, not for.   

Noted and quoted, the military speaks

"Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go."

–The Military Times. Not The New York Times, but a joint editorial from the Air Force, Army and the Marine Corps, referring to the man Bush says is doing a "fantastic job."

In defense of hypocrisy

Illogic has never been so tortured, but what should we expect from someone who wrote speeches (including the famous "Axis of Evil" address) for George W. Bush?:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue – or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

Never mind the first one cheated on his wife and humiliated his five children.

Count on me as yet another independent against the GOP (not so much "for" Democrats, but "against" Republicans). Their homophobia can no longer be ignored. 

Meanwhile, Haggard’s church has completed its investigation, concluding "without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."

In defense of hypocrisy

Illogic has never been so tortured, but what should we expect from someone who wrote speeches (including the famous "Axis of Evil" address) for George W. Bush?:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue – or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

Never mind the first one cheated on his wife and humiliated his five children.

Count on me as yet another independent against the GOP (not so much "for" Democrats, but "against" Republicans). Their homophobia can no longer be ignored. 

Meanwhile, Haggard’s church has completed its investigation, concluding "without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct."