Thursday, November 2, 2006
 THE POODLE'S EMPTY APOLOGY
Just as predicted, John Kerry strode to a microphone yesterday and attempted to apologize for saying those who didn't study hard and get an education would wind up in Iraq. Here is how he said it: "I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended. As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
Now...to properly understand Kerry's apology, you will need an interpretation. Here is what he really means:
- He regrets that his words were misinterpreted. What he really means here is that if anyone thought he was insulting our troops abroad, that means they're an idiot. Remember, no one is as smart as John Kerry...and if you don't know what John Kerry meant, then that means you're just not qualified to pass judgment on The Poodle. Only if and when you become as intelligent as The Kept Man will you ever know what he truly meant. Translation: it's all your fault.
- As a combat veteran...his comment was never intended to refer to any troop. Translation: hey...John Kerry served in combat for a few months, milking it for several purple hearts and medals...ribbons? Ok, medals. By saying only dumb people wind up in Iraq, he didn't mean the troops. He meant....well, he's not sure. But it wasn't troops...because, hey...he's been there. Oh .. and his words must have also been "misinterpreted" last year when he talked about our troops "terrorizing women and children" and several years ago when he compared them to the rampaging hoards of Genghis Kahn.
At the end of the day, the basic thrust of Kerry's "apology" is that anyone who thinks he meant what he meant is not as smart as he is. Typical elitist, leftist condescension....and part of the reason he was blown out in the 2004 election. 
OF COURSE THIS IS NO INDICATION OF ANY MEDIA BIAS AT ALL ... RIGHT? Now what has been the top political story for the last two days. Easy, right? John Kerry and his insult directed at our men and women in uniform. So, how have the nation's dominant liberal newspapers covered the story? Four major liberal newspapers would be The New York Times, The Washington Post, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal.* So how did these four newspapers cover the Kerry story? Barely, that's how. The story didn't appear on the front page of any of those newspapers. The New York Times presented the story couched in terms of the president attacking John Kerry. You had to read until the 15th paragraph of the Times story, on page 18, to see what Kerry actually said. The Washington Post put the story on page 8. It's back to the template, folks. These newspapers cover the political news with that template constantly in mind. If the story would hurt George Bush or the Republicans, it gets prominent mention. If it could hurt the Democrats it gets buried ... if they can do so without looking completely absurd. There's more about the left wing bias of the media to report this morning. If you watched Special Report with Brit Hume on the Fox News Channel last night you, or if you read Monday's USA Today, you will have also heard this story. There's a non-partisan outfit in Washington called The Center for Media and Public Affairs. The CMPA has now released its study of network news coverage for the midterm election. The study indicates that on ABC, CBS and NBC three out of four evaluations of Democrat candidates in the midterm election have been positive, while only one out of eight stories about Republicans have been positive. But ... remember. There's no bias, folks. You just know there isn't! Shame on you for even thinking along those lines! * I know, you're going to say that the Wall Street Journal is a conservative newspaper. Wrong. It's editorial page is conservative. It's news pages are constantly rated among the most liberal. So there. WHAT THE DEMOCRATS HAVE IN STORE FOR YOU. EPISODE THREE!  Let's talk Social Security here.
Those of you who follow national elections know that Democrats just love to demagogue the Social Security issue. In almost every federal election I can remember since I've been on talk radio ... .and there's been about 18 of them .... the Democrats have tried to frighten the Depends off our senior citizens with charges that the Republicans had a "secret plan" to end Social Security at worst, or were going to "slash" Social Security benefits at best. Just why do you think the Democrats had to work so hard to trash President Bush's plan for a partial privatization of Social Security? Come on now ... this one is easy! If people own their own Social Security accounts, how in the wide wide world of politics will the Democrats frighten the wizened citizens with outrageous charges that the Republicans are going to take all or part of their Social Security benefits away? Tell that to a senior citizen who owns his own Social Security retirement account and he's going to laugh in your face! It's true, though, The Republicans have had a plan for Social Security, and the plan was simply to allow people to own their own accounts. When you own your own account it can't be taken away from you. When you die you can leave it to your kids --- or to anyone you wish! Not only does the account belong to you, but you can actually invest the account so that it will earn you more than the average 1.5% earned on that phony paper account you have with the Social Security Administration. The Democrats have a plan too. Really ... it's quite brilliant. Trust me, the Democrats plan is a sure-fire cinch to broaden the loyalty of the Democrat voter base, and to continue broadening it until Social Security finally collapses under its own weight. Here's the plan, as presented by none other than N.Y. Democrat congressman Charlie Rangel. He wants to exempt the first $15,000 of wages from Social Security taxes! Not bad, huh? As I said, it's just brilliant! A wage earner making $30,000 a year is going to have his Social Security payroll tax bill cut in half! And remember, Charlie Rangel is going to be the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. That's where the tax bills are written. But hold on. This is going to cost Social Security big time, isn't it? How will Social Security get by without all of the taxes on that first $15,000 of income? Won't that hasten the demise of Social Security? Oh come on. I know you were born at night, but was it last night? Of course this isn't going to cost Social Security anything. Come on ... THINK! All they have to do is raise the earnings limit on the evil, hideous, stanky rich to cover the cost! Now at first blush you might think that they would just take that 15,000 off the bottom and add it to the top. That would being the Social Security earnings cap up to around $110,000. But hold on here. There are many many more people who earn that first $15,000 than there are people who earn $110,000. The truth, then, is that they'll actually have to raise the earnings limit by much more than $15,000. $20,000 or $25,000 might be a better bet. The end result, of course, is that those in the lower income ranks will get a free ride for a good portion of their future Social Security benefits ... a free ride paid for by the wicked rich. Wait. We're not through here. I want you to consider what the Democrats would do every single time a federal election rolls around once they have managed to create this $15,000 exemption. Can't you just hear Joe Democrat's campaign ad right now? "Cast your vote for me, Joe Democrat, and I'll work to raise your exemption on Social Security payroll taxes to your first $18,000 in wages!"
Well what myrmidon isn't going to go for that? Vote for Joe and get a tax cut! What a deal? Trust me ... for many voters who earn less than the Social Security earnings limit this will be the defining issue of the election. They will not give one second worth of thought to the high achievers in the upper income levels who will see their taxes increased, nor will they care that the tax increases on those evil rich bastards will exceed the tax cut they're getting from Joe Democrat. Joe and his fellow Democrats have already wiped out any federal income tax liability they might have had with a laundry list of exceptions, deductions and tax credits .. now they see the Democrats working working hard to get rid of their payroll taxes! Keep voting for Joe Democrat and soon they'll have a completely free ride! It's a classic case of taking away from the upper income earners to give to the lower income earners, and since there are more lower income earners than higher ... it's an automatic vote getter! Charles Rangel knows the opportunities that await here ... and as soon as the Democrats are in power he's prepared to move. As the lawyers like to say when they write you blue-steam letters .... be governed accordingly. IS THERE REALLY A DIFFERENCE
Newsweek is running a piece right now that asks the question: is there really a difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? On a lot of the issues, the answer is no. Illegal immigration? No difference. Spending your tax dollars? No difference. The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans is how they get the money. The Democrats tax you now and the Republicans borrow the money, then tax you later.
On the growth of government? Republicans actually have the Democrats beaten there. The growth of the federal government under the second Bush Administration makes Bill Clinton's spending habits look miserly. The facts are what they are: the Reagan revolution is dead. So what is the point anymore? Is it time to punish Republicans by putting Democrats in power?
Were it not for the current war on terror, maybe. Maybe it wouldn't matter. But as much as things aren't exactly the best right now, they could be a whole lot worse. The fact is the hardcore Left has taken over the Democratic Party. People like Nancy Pelosi, Charlie Rangel and Harry Reid would be in charge of a Democratic Party. Through their subpoena power, they would haul the entire Bush Administration in and try and force them to surrender to Islamic terrorists in Iraq. They would have the ability to cut the funding for the war, forcing the troops to come home. They simply cannot be trusted with this power.
Not to mention, Democrats will be trying to "pay for" all of the spending that's taken place over the last 6 years. This means the confiscation of more wealth. So yes, there really is a difference.
NO-TALENT ARTISTS SOAK THE PEOPLE  This has long been a pet peeve of mine; so-called "artists" using the police power of government to seize money from private individuals as compensation for their hideous and unmarketable works of "art." Now these welfare-artists have scored a major victory in my second home of Naples, Florida.
First .. here's the general scam. Someone somehow decides that he or she an artist. They start producing empty canvasses with a dot in one corner, or and piles of scrap metal -- call it art -- and then get their feelings hurt when nobody comes along who will buy it. They then convince themselves that the community lacks a sense of culture because the people there won't buy their art, and that something really needs to be done to save the community from its uncultured ways. Well ... what better way than to use the police power of government? These "artists" can't figure out how to create a work of art that someone will buy in the free market, but they have managed to figure out that there is one entity out there that can use force to accomplish its goals. That entity would be government. So, if government can use force to accomplish its goals --- why not put government to work for them selling their art? Well .. that is just what the artists have managed to do in Naples. Yesterday the Naples City Council voted 5-2 to require developers in Naples to incorporate art -- art approved by the government -- in their public and private buildings. If they fail to do so then they will have to pay $1 per square foot in to a government-controlled arts fund. So far as I know the law won't apply to private homes. Condos and apartments? Not sure. Private commercial buildings? You bet. In fact, you won't even be able to get a certificate of occupancy until you until you've placed the proper amount of government-approved art in full public view. Look ... I spend a lot of time in Naples. Love the place. But not once have I ever driven through Pelican Bay, down The Trail, up 5th Avenue and over to 3rd Street bemoaning the lack of ugly sculptures by the roadside. Enter Sharon Kenny. Sharon is the chairwoman of the Public Art Advisory Committee. Sharon says: "I am so proud of this council and grateful to them for having a vision to go forward with this program, which will ensure an increase in the quality of life in the city of Naples and for future citizens." Hog wash. I've seen plenty of this this government-approved, taxpayer-funded art in my travels and not once -- not one single time -- have I looked at this art sand sighed "Oh man ... has my quality of life ever been enhanced by this experience." Make no mistake .. this is a tax on developers. The government is using its police power (on behalf of marginal artists) to extract funds for the purchase of something the government wants. Whether the money is channeled through the government or is spent directly by the taxpayer ... it's still a tax. Government-approved, taxpayer-funded art is traditionally hideous. Just look at the stuff and you can see why the artist is having such a tough time making it in the free marketplace. In Atlanta when you're giving people directions to find a government building -- like the North Fulton government annex on Roswell Road --- you just tell people to drive until you see an ugly sculpture on the right. You're there. Hey! I'm an artist! I'm a performance artist! I speak for a living. Maybe some business in Naples could satisfy this requirement by simply playing tapes of my show over a PA system 24/7. Do you think we could get that one by Sharon Kenney and her arts mavens? Oh yeah! She gets to approve this stuff. I think I'll get my application ready. REDNECK SCRAP BOOK Wait, ain't that what these here thangs is fer? More in the Redneck Scrap Book. READING ASSIGNMENTS Victor Davis Hanson is one of my favorite writers. Read this article on Kerryism and you'll see why. Lordy, does he nail that pompous windbag. We have two new studies out there on the (tired) subject of global warming. Only one study got any real mention in the press. Would any of you Nuze readers care to guess which one? Read the article ... it's not what you may think. A woman duct-tapes her two children together ... then heads off to work. By the way ... the woman was -- get this -- an officer in the U.S. Navy! It's another "Bring Yourself to Work Day!" Here's Wednesday's "Cyber Alert" from the Media Research Center. Really ... you ought to be looking at these things every week without me having to remind you. Herman Cain weighs in on the "armchair presidents" in the Democratic Party, that is people who believe they know better than President Bush how we should fight the war on terror and what we should do in Iraq. It seems their plan does not hold up to scrutiny very well.
Dick Morris says it's still possible for Republicans to win control of Congress again....but it's all up to the base. A new Zogby poll says the GOP is on the ropes, but Morris says you have to dig deeper in the numbers to find out what's really going on.
Ann Coulter now officially has something in common with Rush Limbaugh. Officials in Palm Beach County, Florida are considering having her prosecuted for knowingly voting in the wrong precinct. She could face up to five years in prison. It's nice to know they're going after the real criminals down there.
Democrats were sure one of the easiest seats to win next Tuesday was going to be the one Mark Foley left behind when he resigned from Congress. The person running in his place couldn't even get Foley off the ballot. But now it's turning out to not be such a slam dunk.
Hillary Clinton is not sticking up for John Kerry this time...she called his comments about troops in Iraq inappropriate. Looks like The Hildabeast is already sizing up her competition for 2008. Knowing he might challenge her, she isn't giving The Poodle any breaks.
Republican Senator Conrad Burns has been written off for some time, but Robert Novak says the Montana Senator suddenly seems like he might hold on. The reason: voters are worried about whether or not his Democratic challenger will raise taxes.
Cal Thomas' column today is directed toward conservative Republicans who are upset with the party and might be considering staying home and not voting. He gives the reasons why turning things over to the Democrats would be a disaster.
Jack Kelly reports on the Senate race in Virginia, which has turned about as nasty as it possibly can. He defends the challenger James Webb..whose racy novels are causing quite a stir, mainly because he knows the man. But he says when it comes to dirty politics, what comes around goes around.
Victor Davis Hanson calls John Kerry "one of the saddest Democratic liabilities around." Hanson says some of the brightest and most educated people he knows are veterans of Iraq. Also, he asks how Kerry could say he was thinking of George W. Bush, when the president went to Harvard and Yale?
Thomas Sowell, who never hesitates to criticize Republicans when they go astray, asks the question: are we really prepared to turn over the reins of power to the Democratic Party...a group of people who refuse to address their own agenda? When Mark Foley gets out of rehab, we figure around 7pm Pacific Time election day, maybe he can pick back up his acting career. | 
Search Boortz.com
