politics, wrestling... same thing
politics is a lot like professional wrestling. don't believe me? come find out.
by todd w bush
I’ve tried in a previous column to make the case that politics is a lot like professional wrestling, and vice versa. Whether that attempt was successful or went over like the “Dukes of Hazzard” reunion show where Daisy had passed hot by about 15 years is up to the reader. But, I think it’s time to dust off that column gimmick and see how it fits.
Remember back in the late 1990’s when Stone Cold vs. Vince McMahon had reached its peak and there really wasn’t anyway to make it better, and The Rock was becoming the greatest thing since, well, since Stone Cold? You just knew the two biggest names in the WWF (I refuse to call it the WWE, wildlife fund or not) were headed for a collision course of mammoth proportions. Or as mammoth as a scripted show watched by men to give them something to do during “Ally McBeal” can be, that is. That showdown came at one of the bigger WWF Pay-Per-Views in a one on one match. What transpired that night is a lot like what I think the 2004 presidential election is going to turn out like. So, using this Austin – Rock match as a backdrop, let’s look at what’s gonna happen when Kerry and Bush meet in the most diabolical, most heinous, most horrific display of testicular fortitude known to ma… sorry, couldn’t resist.
As we’ve established, Austin and Rock were on a collision course, much like Kerry and Bush. Both sets of guys are the top dogs in their fields, and both have to meet to determine who’s number one. It’s just the way things work. You can’t have two presidents, same as you can’t have two WWF Heavyweight Champions, just can’t happen. Austin and Rock set the match, and everything was hunky-dory. But then McMahon stepped in. He decided that no huge match like was going to go off without him getting personally involved, so he made himself the special guest referee. In the biggest match, with the highest stakes, the wild card just had to rear his head.
Austin had been the most popular fan favorite in the WWF for years. A beer drinking, foul-mouthed redneck, Stone Cold was the pride of the everyman. Far from the chiseled bodies of most premier guys, he sported a definite gut, two bad knees and a hair line so bad he just decided to shave the whole damn thing off. Austin was the anti-hero, the kind of pop culture icon that baffles academia and flusters the elite. He just didn’t belong in the upper echelon of American celebrity with the likes of Cruise, Hanks, Madonna, and their ilk. Having not been invited to join the ranks of the most popular figures in American culture, Austin simply kicked in the door, sat on the finest chaise lounge, then belched in the hostess’s face.
The Rock, on the other hand, was more… refined. Blessed with a model’s good looks, his character still had the “don’t give a fuck” attitude, but did it with more panache. He wore the better clothes, had aspirations of being in movies, and even used correct grammar, something that hadn’t been done in wrestling since, well… never. He was everything Austin was not, and someone that while still a wrestler and certainly not on the A-list, someone the A-list wouldn’t mind inviting over as a conversation piece.
Bush and Kerry fit the Austin and Rock roles almost too perfectly. Bush wasn’t invited to be apart of the Washington elite, but basically kicked in the door with the 2000 election. Democrats and liberals were forced to endure his “country” ways after the Florida debacle until their “Rock” came along in the person of John Kerry. Kerry is a part of the establishment, a Massachusetts man who even had the right initials. It was a God-send. Of course, while he isn’t ideal (not literally of money, he really just married into it. Twice.) he would at least be someone you’d be safe inviting to a cocktail party.
Of course, that only leaves McMahon, the wild card in the pay-per-view match. Vince McMahon was the business man, the backer, the man who “made” people in the WWF. He was also the main enemy for previous four years of one Stone Cold Steve Austin. Much in the same way that Bill Clinton was the antithesis of George W. Bush. And just like in that wrestling match over five years ago, the “wild car” will make himself a part of the outcome of the 2004 election. In what way, you ask? Pull out the old VCR, dust off the VHS and let’s roll that footage.
The match begins with each man staring the other down, Austin and Rock finally in the ring together about to decide once and for all who was best. And McMahon was watching from a few feet away, encouraging both to “fight a fair fight.” Back and forth, blow after blow, body slam after back breaker, they went at it. Both men had the advantage at some point in the match, and McMahon was calling it in much the way that the crowd thought, that being down the middle for the most part but giving a slight advantage to The Rock. Of course he would, Austin was his nemesis, the only man who’d ever really gotten the best of him. Rock was the up-and-comer, the poster-boy for his company, the one who’d lead it into the new century.
The end of the match arrives and the crowd jumps to it’s feet, anticipating The Rock’s finishing move, aptly named “The Rock Bottom,” and the pin count by McMahon. Austin goes for a big punch and misses, Rock grabs his arm and sets him up, and there it is! The Rock Bottom! Slowly, Rock crawls through the pain, almost an hour’s worth of energy spent for this moment, his coronation as the undisputed champion, and places his arm on Austin’s chest. McMahon starts the count, and Rock needs only a 3-count to win. The crowd shouts as McMahon’s hand hits the canvas, “One… Two…” And then it happens. McMahon stops and looks at Rock. Their eyes lock, and McMahon flips him off as Rock painfully gets to his feet, incensed. He’s just been screwed. Austin gets up behind him and when Rock turns around, Austin delivers his finishing move, the “Stone Cold Stunner.” As he makes the pin, McMahon slams out a count of “1-2-3” and calls for the bell. To the stunned surprise and dismay of the crowd, the wild card, the man they had thought would almost assuredly guarantee The Rock a win, hands over the belt to Stone Cold and shakes his head. Jim Ross, the WWF’s lead television commentator, calls it “a deal with the devil.” To the fans in the arena, that is the best description. It’s unfathomable.
It’s going to happen folks. Around August or September, John Kerry, his campaign, and his Democratic supports who have been cheering, screaming, living, and breathing “anybody but Bush” since 2000 will be just as dismayed, shocked, and speechless as those wrestling fans were with Austin and McMahon joined forces. A mere two months or so before the election, if it looks like John Kerry might win, the man the Democrats have idolized and revered as their champion, Bill Clinton, will submarine Kerry’s chances and screw him out of the White House. All because it hurts Hillary’s chances to become the first female in the Oval Office, at least the first one not on her hands and knees. The Clintons have had this plan in place ever since Bill won his second term, the chance to not only have the first female as president, but to be the first husband-wife duo to “do the double,” and to do that she needs to run in 2008 against a wide-open Republican field. Why not support Kerry now and then run in 2012? Because, Hillary will be well over 60 by that time and too old to really mount a charge.
It’s going to happen. And, like Rock after getting a Stone Cold Stunner and finding out he’d gotten screwed, John Kerry and the rest of the Democrats will be left laying on the mat wondering what the hell happened. Maybe after it happens, and we see the dejected faces of those at Kerry campaign headquarters on the night November 2nd, we can hire Jim Ross to scream as the scene plays out on the TV, “Oh my God! Oh my God! I can’t believe it!”
Todd's background includes military service, a stint at a movie theater, and getting turned down for a date by Sandra Bullock. All things that make him totally unqualified to be a writer. However, now that he's getting married in November, that might just do it.
ABOUT TODD W BUSH
more about todd w bush
6.12.04 @ 5:51p
I just hope you're wrong becuase, by 2008, Bush (the current president, not you) will have screwed this country up so much that it'll take the next two decades to undo the damage he will cause.
6.12.04 @ 6:43p
What will have done to cause this damage? What's your proof?
6.12.04 @ 8:39p
I'm judging Bush by his past actions, most of which I disagree with. I'm expecting consistency in his ability to monger war, skirt issues of real importance by kissing up to Nascar Dads, and to roll over like a puppy expecting his tummy scratched when the religious right demands he outlaw homosexuality and poverty making the only legal people in the country rich and possibly all Baptist.
6.12.04 @ 8:47p
How has he "outlawed" poverty? How has he skirted real issues? Has the fact that the recession stopped and in fact turned around so much that unemployment is lower than it's been in 8 years, since the first two years of the Clinton administration, the fact that the economy is rebounding better and faster than anyone had thought escaped your research?
6.13.04 @ 1:48a
Unemployment is down because a good majority of people ran their cycle and not because they got jobs.
The economy is not rebounding from where I sit. In fact, I see prices going up and people struggling to make ends meet, some making decisions as to fill their tank or buy a happy meal. I'm not seeing this wonderful economy Bushies speak of. I'm seeing people who have given up on trying to get a job, given up on life, and just given up period.
Clinton is the past, and the past won't help us now. I don't care what he did, because it's the here and now that counts, and I'm not seeing the wonders of Bush.
He hasn't officially outlawed poverty, he just ignores it, like he ignores the children who've fallen through the cracks in his "no child left behind" program. His focus is on either Iraq or amending the constitution to prevent homosexuals from making more of a mockery of marriage than heterosexuals have already done, depending on the way the DC winds are blowing at the moment.
Frankly, I go with gut feelings. He gave me the creeps the first time I saw him on TV before he was even running for President, and he still gives me the willies, and I vote gut emotions.
As for Clinton, I just want to know how many pages of his 1000 page book will have the name Monica on them? I'm guessing maybe one, cause he knows everybody expects him to at least acknowledge the whole incident.
The thing is, I don't feel Kerry is this knight in shining armor who will magically make everything right again either. We need a hero on the scale of JFK, and there isn't one potential candidate on the horizon for this or the next election who has that charisma.
6.14.04 @ 2:36p
Unemployment is not lower than it's been in 8 years. Where'd you get that? Bush is still the only post-WWII president to have LOST jobs during his administration.
I can't get into this again. If you want to see what Bush has fucked up, read my Bush column from a few months back.
6.14.04 @ 2:51p
read my Bush column from a few months back.
You should definitely read it. And then attack it vigorously in the discussion. ;-) At least until Matt finally admits what Clinton and co. did to contribute to the economic conditions Bush inherited.
6.14.04 @ 4:29p
Also, while I do think that Hillary wants to run for president, I don't see her doing it in four years. I think she's politically savvy enough to wait until she's actually made a name for herself backing liberal causes as a Senator. She'll only run when she thinks she can win.
On the other hand, if the argument is that Kerry's going to be too good a president in the next four years that Clinton won't be able to run in 2008, that sounds pretty good to me, too.
The was talk this weekend of Bush continuing Reagan's legacy. And it occurred to me that it's not Reagan's legacy so much as it's the legacy of the town leaders in 1600s Salem.
6.14.04 @ 4:39p
How is George Bush not part of the establishment?
Bush was born into one of the wealthiest and most politically connected families in the history of the U.S. He went to Yale. He got preferential treatment in the National Guard. He was governor of Texas.
Kerry didn't grow up insanely rich (he married into it). He actually fought in a war. And the only reason he got into politics upon his return was that he wanted to fight against the hypocracy that was Vietnam.
Bush plays the 'Aw, shucks, I'm just a good old Texas boy" role really well. But you don't get more "establishment" than Dubya.
6.14.04 @ 5:15p
Oh, no, actually this is "true."
But not in a good way. I was reading a NY Times article today about the difference between Reagan and Bush and it turns out that the Bushes really do eschew the D.C. elite in favor of their rich Texas friends. Not that that's a good thing: The third difference is their style in the capital. Both men ran against Washington, but once elected, Mr. Reagan was determined to be different from Jimmy Carter, who had ignored the city's power elite. "When you come to town, there's a tendency as an officeholder to act as if you're a detached servant," Mr. Reagan said at a party he gave at the F Street Club in Washington when he was president-elect in 1980. He invited the capital's political, business and social leaders, many of them Democrats. "Well, I decided it was time to serve notice that we're residents."
The Bushes, in contrast, have gone to bed early and kept largely to themselves, socializing mostly with old friends from Texas and some of the president's Yale classmates. On the campaign trail, Mr. Bush takes frequent swipes at Washington, drawing big applause, but Democrats say his approach has helped polarize the mood in the capital.
6.14.04 @ 6:02p
Yeah, but "old Texas friends" are people like Jim Baker.
6.14.04 @ 6:31p
I'm on your side, Matt. I was just saying that he might actually not be part of the DC elite, but that's not necessarily a positive thing.
6.14.04 @ 8:00p
Obviously it's irrelevant how good a president Kerry is, because if he gets in this fall, the only way Hillary can run in 2008 is Indy. She won't do that, because Marxists need camrades. They love the party.
More interestingly, Clinton brought in a posse of Arkansas cronies but no one seems to have a problem with that. I guess Nascar fans from Texas are so much lower than those from Arkansas?
Meanwhile, Bush-haters are so excited to have some alternative to his hyped-up evil, that they'll take a bottom-feeding, waffling would-be socialist.
See this article for a look at the demise of this country's oldest Socialist institution, and the Democrats pathetic denial of the crisis, their continued refusal to advance beyond the 60's and accept the grand flaw in their party's core agenda.
Hillary is more dangerous socialistically. Therefore is better for leftists to have Bush win and to have her run in '08. Kerry is too weak to get anything really leftist done. It is better for Indy's to not have democrats in, but in this case it might be worth it to postpone the damage that Hillary is likely to inflict on our constitution. And that will be much larger then that marriage amendment, make no mistake.
6.14.04 @ 8:56p
Dan, if Bush thinks SS is such a big problem, why is he spending SS surpluses to make the Federal deficit seem smaller.
"In the 2000 campaign, Vice President Al Gore said we should sequester the Social Security surpluses in a "lockbox" to prevent appropriators from spending them. Bush agreed in principle. But that commitment went out the window soon after the inauguration. In his first three budgets, Bush and Congress used $480 billion in excess Social Security payroll taxes to fund basic government operations—about $160 billion per year."
And his idea of letting people play the stock market with their SS money? That's the worst idea I've ever heard. SS is security. What's grandma going to do when she loses everything in the next market crash? A year or two like 2000-2001 and you'd have millions of seniors with absolutely zero income. With your anti-socialist America, who's going to support them?
6.14.04 @ 9:00p
I would love to see actual people who are thrilled with the economy, as opposed to numbers. Today I overheard a woman at the deli talking about living from paycheck to paycheck, and she's not the first. Salaries may have increased, but so has the cost of living. Things technically didn't change, only the numbers have increased, so if you were poor at 100K a year, now you're still poor, but bringing in 200K.
Part of this cannot be blamed on any politician, but on personal spending habits. No one NEEDS the Mercedes SUV, and kids don't always NEED horseback riding lessons, and people don't NEED family vacations. Needs and wants have to be examined before we really blame anyone other than ourselves for our economic problems.
6.14.04 @ 9:37p
if Bush thinks SS is such a big problem
The budget is between the pres and Congress. I've acknowledge d Hastert's role in Clinton's horribly deceiving budget, and Bush didn't come up with his on his own, but say what you will. Your boy didn't count any differently, but you give him credit for it.
And his idea of letting people play the stock market with their SS money?
At least you acknowledged whose money it really is. What is baffling is how you can possibly defend denying individuals the freedom to invest their own money and to choose their own retirement age. I guess we ignorant chumps aren't capable of making the most crucial choices in self-government.
SS is security.
The 7% that a blind, illiterate dog can earn in the stock market is more growth than SS can ever get, particularly since it is due to begin its implosion in 15 years, when the first of 80 million boomers commences mandatorily retiring. The dying program the dems are futilely attempting to resuscitate is too symbolic for them, and in their quest to migrate democracy from our hands and into the Feds, they'd prefer to make the choice for us and go ahead and sacrifice the future for the next generation.
If you think you can argue that SS can survive without significant raising of taxes, or you think it can produce, as is, better than privatising, prove it now. Otherwise, try to explain to me why I should vote for somebody who's going to raise taxes to fix that mess when I can happily invest that same money as I see fit with much greater return.
6.14.04 @ 9:51p
Another problem with the job market is that employers and business owners have discovered that hiring part-timers is cheaper than providing full-time positions. Part-time jobs don't normally offer benefits like health care, overtime, and so on. More and more people are working multiple part-time jobs, paying for health and life insurance out of pocket, taking home very little but still not qualifying for public assistance because their taxable income is above the poverty line. I met a lot of people who have this problem during a job I held recently
For example, Jane Q. New Hampshire has two kids, a husband and a dog. She works two part-time jobs to make ends meet. She lost her full-time manufacturing job that she held for many years. Jane hardly gets to see her children but she has to hold down both jobs because her husband, John Q. New Hampshire, is stuck in a very low-paying job with no advancement. John must keep his job because it's full-time government work and his family depends on the benefits, and also he works 9-5 so he's home when the kids get done with school. Jane often works 60-hour weeks because 30 hours is considered part-time by both her employers. She does not qualify for overtime, a pension, or life insurance. Jane doesn't trust that social security benefits will be available when she's 65 and she says that if John didn't have a pension from his low-paying government job, she doesn't know what they'd do when they retire.
I've heard talk about a sizeable health insurance tax credit, which I think is a wonderful idea. Also perhaps there could be tax incentives for employers to create full-time jobs, or reforms made to unemployment insurance.
6.14.04 @ 10:18p
Rachel, a lot of companies are reducing benefits for full-time workers, too. Child care, 401k matching - it's all going by the wayside and being replaced by huge copays and deductibles.
So Dan, when you were out of work for 6 months, did you take unemployment insurance? If unemployment wasn't automatically taken out of your check, would you have saved enough to live on? Probably not.
It's the same with social security. most people don't adequately plan for retirement. That's why SS is there - to save them from being homeless or starving to death. It's something to fall back on when necessary.
Think about how many people lost their shirts when this last bubble burst. You think the next time will be any different? You never answered my question: What do you do with thousands of zero-income seniors if they've blown their SS on a stock market crash?
You want to save SS? Repeal Bush's rich-people-only tax cuts (which is not a tax increase by the way), and don't get into anymore $250 billion (and growing) wars and use that money for SS instead.
6.14.04 @ 10:40p
It's the same with social security
You're mistaken. Unemployment insurance is paid for by companies, and then mis-managed by the inept, wasteful gov't. SS is paid for by mandatory personal income and payroll taxes, and then mismanaged by the inept, wasteful government. It trounces all over individual choice for no good reason. You are suggesting, as you have before, that this okay because we are idiots that are incapable of self-governing.
But in any case, nothing will save SS as is. The numbers of implicit, mandatory retirees is too great. Taxes will have to be raised. This is an unacceptable further involuntary encroachment into our personal capital. What's worse, one can barely retire on those benefits and live decently. They are insufficient.
The Fed needs to incent willing persons to opt out of it and privatise, thus reducing the colossal numbers of payees. I'm not saying that it can't exist on some smaller scale for those truly incompetant enough to need it. As well, I wouldn't expect you to say that the whole of us should be forced to participate, or that being forced to participate is somehow better than what the low-risk national average can get us.
6.14.04 @ 10:46p
Matt, I hate to tell you but SS will not even pay for the rent for most seniors even if they are living in so-called senior developments or senior apartments. At least it doesn't in New Jersey. The average senior does not get top benefits, but earns an SS check somewhere between $400 and $800 a month. The average rent for a one bedroom apartment takes more than that, and senior designated housing takes about $450 in NJ. So then they are relying on the pensions from work. As long as they are healthy and do not have large medical perscription bills each month (large being around $800 a month) they are not totally screwed. Meals On Wheels costs $2 a day. One hot meal at lunch and a sandwich for dinner. No delivery on Sundays, the Saturday dinner is enough to last two days.
I deal with a lot of senior issues lately due to my mother, and it isn't pretty. Seniors are getting screwed as much as everyone else in this country.
Unfortunately, telling them they should've planned ahead, like so many agencies are telling seniors now, doesn't do much for the 70 or 80 year-old who is hard of hearing and a medical disaster waiting to happen.
SS is not the safety net it was supposed to be, and corporate America is bailing on its employees left and right in the name of profit. Greed is King, as always.
I recently started small investing in the market, not big amounts, just a couple hundred here or there, and hope to parley that into something bigger. I am forced to gamble with my future because the economy is bouncing all over the place. There are many options, but the drawbacks are just as many. Allowing seniors to invest in the market is a way for the government to release itself from responsibility for the citizens and force personal responsibility on them.
Unfortunately, that is not a good thing to do to people who can't remember where they left their keys.
6.14.04 @ 11:46p
I don't know about you Dan, but 1% of every check I get goes to California Unemployment Insurance.
Yes, SS is barely enough to get by on. But that's the point. It's supposed to be a saftey net. A supplement to retirement. If you're so rich you don't need SS, go donate it to someone who does.
Robert, you can't force personal responsibility on anyone. That fact is, people DON'T self-govern. That's why we have laws. That's why we have government.
And as I've said before: If you enjoy the fruits of living in America - infrastructure, state-funded education, (mostly) clean water and air, protection via police/firemen/911/military, etc., etc., etc - then you are obligated to repay a small percentage of those benefits to help other people who haven't benefitted from America quite as much.
6.15.04 @ 12:00a
Matt, you're right about people not self-governing. I see it daily. It's a nice idea for everyone to actually take responsibility for themselves, but it isn't possible in our society. It isn't human nature to be responsible. I know some will disagree with that, but if you look at a majority of the problems in our society and the world in general, you will see that it is because people refuse to take responsibility for themselves.
6.15.04 @ 12:10a
If you're so rich you don't need SS, go donate it to someone who does. Come on, anyone can do that voluntarily. I'm not rich, I want my SS cash to invest how I see fit! Then I'll give some back.
Robert, you can't force personal responsibility on anyone.
This is true, except when responsibility is 'forced' on those of us who are required to pay the consequences for any of us who don't take responsibility for themselves. The more you relieve them of the consequences, the more they will eschew responsibility. Hence the welfare state that was created by FDR back during the dust bowl, and which you seem to agree has become totally stagnant when you admitted we've created a group of people who "DON't self-govern". But this ain't the dust bowl, and we need something different.
Obligated to repay a small percentage of those benefits to help other people who haven't benefitted from America quite as much. That's fine, I'll pay a small amount. But 27% is not small. And it's going up, which is my problem. How can we keep it from going up and get people to do their job in a democracy and govern themselves? That's my question, and the reason I'm anti-socialist is because socialism is clearly not the answer.
Bill Clinton said a funny thing at his portrait unveiling. "America is a great system, majority rule with minority rights, that's why we lasted this long." He opened the liberal kimono: Why didn't he say individual rights? And who is this mysterious majority that no minorities belong to?
The true Left has a severe problem, Matt, and we're finally getting at it. ;-)
6.15.04 @ 12:16a
I don't know about you Dan, but 1% of every check
I'll give ya that. I'm not sure, but I know the vast majority of it was paid for by payroll tax in my case, and 1% is much less than 15%. Also, I'd have gone bankrupt if that pittance was all I had to survive on.
6.15.04 @ 1:21a
Dan, say you make $75k a year. That means you're paying $20,250 a year in taxes (at 27%).
How much do you think it would cost to send your daughter to a private school instead of a publicly-funded one? How much do you think it'd cost to drive to work every day on a private road or to create your own water system? How much would it cost you to make sure all the meat you ate was safe? How much would you really save if your house was on fire and you had to put it out yourself?
I just mentioned 5 things there. I don't know about you, but for me, just those 5 things alone would be worth paying $20k. And you know as well as I do, I didn't mention about 95% of the other benefits you and I get from our government.
Yes, there is a point of diminishing returns. Yes, our government could be waaaaay more efficient in how they use our money. But the bottom line is, we each get an exponentially greater benefit than the dollar amount we put in.
And I didn't even get into the secondary benefits of programs that don't help us directly, but help others, thereby directly making the country as a whole better, and you and I as individuals better indirectly.
6.15.04 @ 9:45a
I never argued taxes in general. I'll argue the quantification that the benefits we receive are "exponentially" greater than what we pay. Part of the problem is that both parties would rather not have us know what it really costs to provide those benefits.
Worse, the basic fact is that local and state taxes provide us the most direct benefit: The schools and roads you mentioned are funded by property tax, non-federal income taxes, sales-tax, etc. And we are constitutionally provided democracy at these levels to ensure this. But FICA far outweighs the funds that we can control. Why? We all spend about 101/365 days working to pay taxes. Federal taxes are about 65 days of it. State and Local combined are 36. (In comparison, we work about 64 days to pay housing costs.)
The fact that such a disproportionate amount of money is going to the branch of government which is the farthest from individuals, who actually have no direct power to govern them, that represents the subversion of true democracy. (One small example of this is when the Fed threatened to withhold State of Ohio highway subsidies should we vote to keep the drinking age at 19. We were bribed with our own money by a totalitarian movement sponsored by a federal lobby group. But if the money had gone directly to the state, we could have had those highway funds and our basic democratic rights.)
Federal democracy does not exist. It is not provided for in the Constitution in any form, and in fact most of the framers agree it can only fail in the long term. That is why things like the separation of powers, checks and balances, and individual rights were included. And that is why your rights are being trampled on everyday by the totalitarian jackals who fight over YOUR money.
6.15.04 @ 4:39p
O.k., there are about five of these I'm buying.
6.15.04 @ 5:05p
Heh, some of those are pretty good. I want a Vote for Kerry to Stall Hillary one. That John Kerry: Uniter one is priceless, though, nothing could scream "My IQ is no more than 80" any louder.
It's interesting whenever the "I'll-take-any vague-liberal with-a-pulse-over-Bush" crew attempts to be clever.
And it's hilarious how hard they're pretending to love Kerry now, considering how they didn't even knew he existed until after Dean blew his gasket.
6.15.04 @ 5:46p
I love "God told me not to vote for Bush."
That is pure gold.
6.15.04 @ 6:42p
I have a photograph of my college roommate in an elevator with John Kerry's parents.
That is all.