Just to mix it up, and to clarify that my dislike of Bush does not mean I like Democrats, I will today lay out exactly why, when all is said and done, the Democrats are about 99% unelectable. Today I present to you:


The Democratic Party: Why We Could Do Without Them

Followed by some links to interesting, non-partisan news stories.


Let me open with a quote that expresses what I dislike very much about many Democratic "activists." (taken from "BartCop")

"I would like to say that I will support anyone who garners the democratic nomination with my vote in november.
If by some bizarro world conniption fit Lieberman, or Howard Hughes' Famous urine collection or a stack of two by fours
get the nomination, i'm with Lieb-urine-or 2x4's. Any would be an improvement and bring more integrity to the office than the present occupant-though I might root for the latter 2 over the former if we had to wait for the third ballot."

This kind of whining, blindly partisan excrement should be forever banned from political discussion and participation. The Democratic party has become nothing but a badly organized, reactionary and extremist organization without principle or a solid stance on most issues. Many Democrats have maximized on "hot" issues such as the war in Iraq and Bush's tax cuts in order to win moderates to their side. Numerous organizations ("Move On" is one example) hide behind a front of reasonable non-partisan activism, but are in fact only concerned with the well-being of the Democratic party. Most of the Democratic candidates supported the war in Iraq until it became a potentially vote-winning issue, and then defined their position only so that it opposed that of President Bush. Let me lay out the Democratic platform:

Abortion is good.
War is bad, except for when it gets us votes to like war.
Let's fight terrorism by doing things differently from Bush. You know...differently. That other way. You know what we mean.
Bush is hurting the common man by taxing too much and spending too much. Like a Democrat.
Let's socialize healthcare, so we can be like Canada. But lets not call it socializing healthcare, and lets not talk too loudly about doing it.
RAH RAH RAH. WE HATE BUSH. LETS KICK BUSH OUT. HE'S A NAZI.

So there we have it. The Democrats have a solid standing on 2 issues. One is abortion. The other is that Bush shouldn't be President. If you think a political party should be defined by 1 issue and their hatred of the President, you should vote for Howard Dean, or for John Kerry.

So Odhav, does that mean we should vote for President Bush? I honestly wish there was a Republican to vote for. Not to stray too long from the objective of denouncing the clown-like Democratic party, but do consider the following:

In August 2002, Cheney insisted: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

In a March 2003 address to the nation, Bush said: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

In April 2003, Ari Fleischer claimed: "But make no mistake--as I said earlier--we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about."

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Colin Powell flatly told the Security Council that Iraq was making prohibited arms with a ''conservative estimate'' of 100 to 500 tons of chemical weapons on hand.

Saturday, Colin Powell said to reporters: ''What was it? One hundred tons, 500 tons or zero tons?''
Colin Powell also said: "What is the open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go. And if they didn't have any, then why wasn't that known beforehand?"
Friday, regarding WMD's in Iraq, U.S. Chief Weapons Hunter David Kay stated: "The weapons do not exist. What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s. I don't think they existed."

This HUGE discrepancy between the reasoning for the war in Iraq and what is turning out to be the truth must be accounted for. These developments pose questions that the President must answer. President Clinton lied to the American people regarding his sexual life, and had to answer to the American people. Should George Bush not have to answer for this? It's a simple question of democratic government and accountability.

So, if the informed and moderate voter is unhappy with the Iraqi war/WMD liar antics of President Bush, where can they turn? Nowhere! I seriously doubt the Democrats would even be able to run the country. What's the solution? Bush should gracefully not run in the '04 election, and a moderate, intelligent, honest candidate like, oh, let's say Wesley Clark should join a real party, like the Republicans. In a perfect world, that would happen. In our world, we'll just have to see the Democrats get stupider, things get messier, lies get bigger, and wait for a new political party to emerge.

Some Links:
Conservatism vs. George W. Bush
David Kay Interview
Why Democrats are Worthless
Clark Did Not Change Stance On War

Today I will lay out the reasons NOT to keep President Bush in office by voting for him in the upcoming election. This will be a straightforward presentation of facts. Obviously these facts are meant to prove a point, and come together to make an argument. The argument is an opinion, the facts are not. Take them or leave them, they're still facts. This argument is that George Bush, for the most part, is not an electable candidate for President.



Why not to vote for George W. Bush -- Facts

The War in Iraq -

George Bush went to war in Iraq (and Afghanistan) without a Declaration of War by Congress, violating Article 1, Section 8 of our Constitution, which grants the Congress and Congress alone the power to declare war.

Weapons of Mass Destruction have not been found in Iraq. George Bush repeatedly emphasized that these WMD's were among the primary reasons for invasion of Iraq. George Bush also repeatedly assured the American people of their existence. Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and George Bush, on many occasions went so far as to say that they knew specific locations of WMD sites in Iraq. All these allegations have turned out to be untrue and/or remain to be substantiated.

After failing to prove that Iraq posed a threat to the American people in any real or direct way (by failing to find WMD's), George Bush proceeded to spend over $97 billion on the war in Iraq alone, not counting other anti-terror costs or the war in Afghanistan.

The war in Iraq has cost more than 500 American soldiers' lives. This number has increased steadily since the war began, and American soldiers have seen no break in action, even after the glorious proclamation of "Mission Accomplished" and the apprehension of Saddam Hussein.

Estimates of the number of Iraqi civilians confirmed killed during the American invasion and occupation of Iraq range from 8,000 to 10,000 deaths.

Tuesday night [in his State of the Union Address], Bush actually talked about "building a nation" in Afghanistan (and later, "building a new Iraq"), using the exact words—"nation" and "building"—he used in the 2000 campaign to define what he thought America should not be doing in the world. (from "The State of Compassion")

The War in Afghanistan -

Although the war in Afghanistan itself was justified by the direct attack on America on 9/11, continued failure to apprehend Osama bin Laden, the man behind the actual attack, paired with the complete failure to weaken al Qaeda, has done little to protect the United States, and has only inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.

Domestic Incompetence -

George Bush has drawn criticism from the left and right alike regarding his out of control military spending, and for running the largest deficit in the history of the nation (even when adjusted for inflation). This kind of spending from a "conservative" candidate? While cutting taxes (primarily for the upper and middle-upper classes), Bush is running a projected $480 billion deficit, spending at twice the rate of former President Bill Clinton. This spending is the most in American history, even more than during the great depression's social programs -- and the American people are seeing social programs being cut. In addition, President Bush and his Republican congress have passed an appropriations bill with seemingly endless pork-barrel legislation, increasing spending an additional 4%.

Bush's tax cuts gave back only an average of $304 to the bottom 60% of Americans, while the direct effects of this cut made property taxes skyrocket, and accelerated the increase in state college tuition to $579/year nationwide. Bush's tax cut gave a phantom gift (~$300) to the people, and in reality only further shifted the tax burden onto the shoulders of the working American. The indirect effects of the cut cost the average American more than if there had been no cut in the first place. (link)

The Patriot Act and Total Information Awareness Act take major and threatening steps toward the constant surveillance and profiling of American citizens -- treating every citizen as a terrorist. These acts, which have been passed into law (pushed through by President Bush) allow surveillance of e-mails between American citizens and allow the government to access library records and credit card records of any American citizen. Other measures allow roving wiretaps without a warrant and other blatant violations of the privacy of American citizens. (Link)

I'm sure there are other gross violations of Constitutional provision, civil liberties, and common sense that have been perpetrated by President Bush that either have not come to my attention, or that I am forgetting.

But honestly, isn't this enough?