I think Ted Rall best sums up the thinking of those on the far left of the political spectrum when he said this in his column entitled [url=http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/]NYC TO GOP: DROP DEAD[/url]:

The Republican delegates here to coronate George W. Bush are unwelcome members of a hostile invading army… Rumor has it that prostitutes suffering from sexually transmitted diseases will discourage the use of condoms with Republican customers.

First of all, Republicans prefer abstinence to condoms anyway, so thats fine.

Secondly, I think this column would be more aptly titled NYC TO DEMOCRACY: DROP DEAD. Not that all New Yorkers are as radical as Rall, but, unfortunately for them, as well as for mainstream Democrats and Republicans living in the great divide between LA and NYC commonly known as “America,” the voice of the radical left has increasingly become mainstream for the DNC.

Perhaps someone should explain to Rall that 228 years ago almost to the day of the [url=http://www.gopconvention.com]GOP Convention’s[/url] start, New Yorkers hoisted the soldiers of the invading British and Hessian armies on their shoulders and lauded them as heroes after they decisively routed George Washington and HIS army from Long Island. Perhaps Rall and his friends will hoist terrorists on their soldiers, or radical peace groups, should they manage to route the GOP as the British once routed our other famous George.

The sober fact of the matter is this; radical left groups, such as [url=http://www.internationalanswer.org/]International A.N.S.W.E.R[/url]., the National Council of Arab Americans, [url=http://www.notinourname.net/rnc/]Not In Our Name[/url], and many other such organizations have stated plainly their intent to break the law and, ultimately, to disrupt the political process in this country. I wonder, can any group willing to use violence as a protest tactic call itself a “peace” organization?

Ironically, this is more Kerry’s problem than it is the President’s. Imagine how it will look on television if radicals do succeed in disrupting the convention. Imagine the chaos as protesters overrun the police, burst through the doors of Madison Square Garden, knock conventioneers down, run them over, destroy property both inside and outside the convention. What would Americans think watching these “peace” protesters burn and destroy property in New York City?

They’ll think back to the carnage and chaos of 9/11 certainly. But, they might also think back far enough to remember that John Kerry’s political career was born of just such a movement. They might just look upon this radical crowd and see none other than the face and influence of John Kerry himself; the man who accused every American soldier, and the military establishment itself, of war crimes.

Win or lose in November, this is Kerry’s enduring legacy. Having himself served honorably in Viet Nam, Kerry came home to help found a movement whose goal it was to dishonor and defame every soldier who ever served there.

From that radical group, and from his own military service, Kerry built his political career. Believe it or not, [url=http://www.vvaw.org/]Viet Nam Veterans Against the War[/url], lives on, and I think it is appropriate to say that groups like Not In our Name and International A.N.S.W.E.R. owe their existence to them.

VVAW paved the way for radical groups such as the ones we’ll see in New York City this coming week. And they have one other thing in common, they are all pulling for one of their founding fathers, John F. Kerry.

You reap what you sow. Having sown hate and dissension, Kerry may well reap exactly that this coming week.

Lets call this a developing travesty…

David Flanagan
Viewpointjournal.com

RIDDLE ME THIS:
Other than the olympic action as highlighted by NBC, what is the SECOND most noticeable aspect of the olympics to date?

ANSWER (as if you haven’t already guessed):
The incredibly, unthinkably empty stands!

Yes, I know there were similar issues in Sydney a few years ago, but it was a much smaller problem for Australia, and no problem at all for the US for both the games in Salt Lake and in Atlanta. But, just to offer [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&u=/afp/20040815/ts_afp/oly_2004_gre_greece_040815143723&printer=1]a bit of perspective[/url], 9.5 million tickets were sold in Sydney while, so far, in Greece, only 2.9 million tickets have been sold.

And to think that tickets for the olympics in Atlanta and Salt Lake were being scalped for thousands of dollars here in the US!

Not that I expect every event to be packed, but, really, it’s the opportunity to see the best talent in the world… And where are all the international visitors?

On Saturday night, Bob Costas came on after NBC had finished televising events for the day to comment that, because of a major religious holiday, many citizens of Greece were not at the events. Apparently, NBC decided to give this Public Service Announcement on behalf of the Greek Olympic Committee to help combat the impression that the olympics were not popular there.

In contrast to Costas’ comments, [url=http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1503&u=/afp/20040815/ts_afp/oly_2004_gre_greece_040815143723&printer=1]Yahoo News[/url] quotes Greek Olympic officials as saying that light attendance was expected for some events. Why? Because of their “lack of popularity” with Greek citizens.

Okay, so some events, like Fencing, are not as popular as, say, Basketball, or Swimming, or even one of the signature events of the summer olympics, Men’s and Woman’s gymnastics. Makes sense to me.

But last night my wife and I noticed there were TONS of empty seats for Woman’s Gymnastics. Not having a packed stadium at an event like this is an insult to the competitors and, in my opinion, a terrible insult to other nations who vied for the honor of hosting these events.

My wife looked at me at one point and said, “would you like to fly to Greece?” No doubt we could get seats to any event we wanted to see.

From the blogging community, I could only find a couple of sites with any information or commentary on this issue:

[url=http://olympics2004.blogspot.com/]The Olympics 2004 Blog[/url] notes that olympic organizers are planning to give 500,000 tickets away to help bolster attendence at events. This site is reporting that exhorbitant prices charged by hotels and other establishments in Greece, mixed with terrorism fears, have kept people away. I would note that there were even greater fears of terrorism at the Sydney Olympics and similar comments related to price gouging as well, and they still sold 9.5 million tickets!

A post for the [url=http://www.athens2004blog.com/]Athens 2004 Blog [/url]posted that they were able to find empty seats for the Dream Team nightmare game at center court near the floor that looked as if they were reserved for officials but which they used for the entire game.

In other words, not an impressive amount of commentary on this issue. I guess we’ll have to label this a “developing story.” Please leave a comment or send me any information that you might have regarding this issue. I can be reached via email at this address: david@viewpointjournal.com

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]

ACRONYMS ACRONYMS EVERYWHERE…
[url=http://www.mob.org]MOB[/url]
[url=http://members.aol.com/juliet067/index.html]CAB[/url]
[url=http://www.impeach-bush-now.org/]IBN[/url]
[url=http://www.VoteBushOut.biz]VBO[/url]
[url=http://www.beatbackbush.org]BBB[/url]
[url=http://www.anybodybutbush.org/]ABB[/url]
[url=http://www.granniesagainstgeorge.org]GAG[/url]
[url=http://www.plaidder.com/yad.htm]YAD[/url]

What do all of these acronyms have in common? You probably guessed already.

They’re all either anti-Bush slogans, websites, or organizations. In the order they are presented, the acronyms stand for “Mothers Opposing Bush,” “Citizens Against Bush,” “Impeach Bush Now,” “Vote Bush Out,” “Beat Back Bush,” “Anybody But Bush,” “Grannies Against George,” and “Yalies against Dubya’s Ascension.”

Phew! Thats a spicey meat-a-ball!

Which is my way of saying, “someone please hand me the Pepto Bismal!”

Really, there is a serious amount of negativity eminating from the left these days. No big surprise. I’ve been [url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com/pm/index.php?sx=&m=weblog&p=view&id=23&s=1]blogging on that topic [/url]for over a year now.

What I’ve listed above just scratches the surface. The [url=http://www.linkcrusader.com/anti-bush.htm]site where I found all of the acronyms in the first place[/url] has hundreds of additional anti-Bush sites, blogs, slogans, bumper stickers, etc., listed there.

How many pro-Kerry sites are there at the same site? ZERO!

Again, no big surprise. The fact is, “Anybody But Bush” is much more the slogan I hear when debating with liberals than “Kerry 2004.” It’s their mantra, their shield against any argument which liberals cannot answer.

I wonder how Senator Kerry feels about all of this. He is, after all, the Democratic candidate who was nominated, not because of his outstanding traits, but because he seemed the most electable and the least objectionable of the ten original candidates who ran.

I think a very telling statistic is the fact that just 42% of Kerry’s supporters say their vote is “for” Kerry, while 51% say that it is “against” President Bush. Conversely, 76% of President Bush’s supporters say that their vote is “for” him, while 18% say that it “against” Kerry. John Kerry’s support continues to be the most negative of any presidential candidate since Pew began asking the question in 1988.

Really, if Democrats wanted to do anything more than oust Bush from office, they would have gone with Howard Dean. Dean was the guy they really loved. Unfortunately, Dean was dissed, by his party during the primaries because he was considered “unelectable.”

It all boils down to this; liberals want payback from the 2000 election.

They don’t care about the facts of the election, they only care that they lost. And Democrats, the party of big inclusive government, have no identity without power. Therefore, they need to get some semblance of power back, no matter the cost.

Say what you want about that whole situation — and it was stressful and discouraging for everyone, not just for Gore supporters — President Bush did win legally and legitimately. I can say that with confidence because, shortly after the election was over, a swarm of the nation’s largest media companies — few, if any, friendly to the President — invaded Florida and [url=http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/04/florida.recount.01/]recounted every single vote[/url] in about five different ways.

Their conclusion?

Their count showed that Bush’s razor-thin margin of 537 votes — certified in December by the Florida Secretary of State’s office — would have tripled to 1,665 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival, former Vice President Al Gore.

Yes, every media organization that sponsored or ran a recount arrived at the same conclusion. All this, of course, [url=http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml]despite accusations made by Michael Moore made in his movie[/url].

As a matter of fact, the Pantagraph, which is the paper that Moore misquotes in his movie [url=http://www.pantagraph.com/stories/073004/new_20040730034.shtml]had this to say[/url] of the whole incident:

“While we are highly flattered to be included in the movie,” said Pantagraph President and Publisher Henry Bird, “we are a bit disturbed that our pages were misrepresented…” But a check of that day’s newspaper revealed the large headline prominently flashed in the movie — “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election” — never appeared in that edition.

Instead, the headline appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition — but not as a news headline. It was in much smaller type above a letter to the editor. Those headlines reflect only the opinions of the letter writer and are not considered “factual” news stories.

But, of course, many still believe that President Bush “stole” the election. And people like Michael Moore have made a mint from on the anti-Bush craze. Is this what is meant by “Anger Management?” Managing voter anger to the tune of millions of dollars in the bank? It sure seems to be that way for Democrats these days.

Perhaps it would be more appropriate to say that people like Moore and McAuliffe are “harvesting” the anger of the left. Moore’s motive, of course, is based in good old fashioned Capitalism, but McAuliffe is hoping to stoke and then tap into voter anger to get a Democrat back into the White House.

McAuliffe well understands that if he doesn’t succeed in generating a major victory in this next election he can kiss his job as DNC Chairman goodbye. The fact that the DNC has not already ousted McAuliffe is, to me, an indication of just how broken their party really is.

But I guess some of you believe at this point that I’m just a hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. I think the greatness of the Democratic party is embodied by people like Franklin Roosevelt, John F Kennedy, Joseph Leiberman, and Zell Miller.

But instead of following great leaders like these, they follow people like Howard Dean, who once advanced the idea that the President knew about 9/11 before it happened, and Terry McAuliffe, who embraces people like Michael Moore while calling the President illegitimate and dangerous.

Their hatred for the President is so great, I think they should formally change their party name from “The Democratic National Committee,” to, “The Party Opposing Bush.”

Don’t you think this is appropriate? Really, from the time that Bush took office, this became both the strategy and the definition of the DNC. If the President favors the privatization of Social Security, then Democrats don’t. If the President pushes for school vouchers, then Democrats adamantly oppose them. If the President wants to get tough on Iraq, then the Democrats call him a bully, a warmonger, and a chicken hawk.

In the first year of Bush’s presidency, every time he proposed some kind of reform or initiative, even if it was originally an initiative supported by Democrats, Senator Daschle would unfailingly appear on TV calling such a proposal a “bad idea.”

In other words, they are “The Party Opposing Bush.”

What do they stand FOR? I have no idea.

David Flanagan
[url=http://www.viewpointjournal.com]Viewpointjournal.com[/url]