January 2004: The Evil Empire

It's 2004, and we have a chance to evict George W. from the White House that he stole in the last election, helped by his equally big-dumb-cracker brother, Jeb. A chance to exile the greedy, morally-bankrupt liar whose Presidential agenda has been to make his rich friends richer while forcing his so-called "Christian" beliefs on the entire country. There's one snag in the eviction proceedings, though: Howard Dean. The Democratic high holy men are putting their money behind someone who has absolutely no chance of sending Bush to the cornfield in 2004. But you know what? That might not be such a bad thing.

Okay, you're asking yourselves if I really just said that. Yeah, I did, and I'll explain what I mean in a little while. First, here's how I see the various Democratic contenders' chances:

Carol Moseley Braun
Carol was on my list of worthy causes in the Christmas rant. Anyone who's seen any of the Democratic debates knows that Moseley Braun one of the best candidates. But, as I also said last month, right now a woman has about as much chance of getting elected President as monkeys coming out of my butt, and a Black woman has about as much chance as FLYING monkeys coming out of my butt. That's sad, and it makes me angry, but it's just the way it is.

John Kerry
Okay, I'll admit he does seem smart, but I think he's TOO smart. One thing we learned from Al Gore is that there's a very fine line between smart and pedantic & annoying. That aside, Kerry doesn't stand a chance due to his two other major defects: he looks like Herman Munster and has the personality of cheese. No chance, and PS to the DNC: please don't make me vote for Herman Munster.

John Edwards
He seems smart enough and he's pretty good looking for a politician. But he doesn't strike me as strong enough or charismatic enough to be President. Vice President, yes, President, no. Sorry John, it's not gonna happen.

Richard Gephardt
I've always admired the work Gephardt's done in Congress, but when it comes to being President. . .hmm, I just can't see it. I don't think anyone else will either.

Kucinich, Lieberman
I'm not even going to bother, and don't know why they are, either. Boys, do a reality check. It's over, go home. A special PS to Joe Lieberman, possibly the most heinous Democrat ever, SHUT UP.

Al Sharpton
What's so annoying about Al, and I'm sure why he bothers running when he doesn't have a chance in hell of winning anything, is that he could totally screw up the New York Democratic primary. You know he's going to give his support to whichever leading candidate kisses his ass more, and if that turns out to be Dean, we're really screwed. (Al Sharpton's hair should not be anywhere near the White House. . .)

Howard Dean
He looks like a high-school principal and he's too short to be President, the end. I don't like him, and I don't trust him. I don't know why the Democratic high muckety mucks have decided to back him; the only reason I can think of is that he has pictures of Al Gore having sex with Bill Bradley. Not the right man to beat Bush; he's simply not "presidential" enough.

Wes Clark
There's only one Democratic candidate that even has a chance of winning against Bush, and that's Wesley Clark. He's smart, honest, knows the score, is hugely charismatic, and he's served in the military, which I personally think is vital to a President. Military service is something our current idiot in office managed to avoid due to his famous daddy. (No, the Texas Air National Guard or whatever ridiculouss entity he was part of does NOT count as "military service." Who's going to attack Texas by air, anyway--Mexico? Canada? Arizona?)

Clark is the only candidate who has the integrity necessary to swing people away from Bush. He has concrete plans for the country and isn't afraid to talk about the issues. Also--and this is a HUGE plus in my book-- he's not a career politician, although he has served his country for 38 years. He wants to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation, and he's pro-choice. (Read my lips: it's not pro life, it's anti choice, period.) He HAS to get the nomination away from Dean, and he's the one you should vote for in your state's Democratic primary, if you have one.

Now, back to the teaser I started with, about the Democrats losing not being such a bad thing. Think about the state the country's in right now, thanks to the present administration: We're stuck in Iraq after an uncalled for and unjustified "war," and there's no real way to leave gracefully. The Iraqis don't want a western-style democracy, and just because they didn't like Saddam so much, that doesn't mean they like us. They don't. No matter how much we yammer on about elections and democracy, blah blah blah. Some of them will buy it, but most of them simply do not.

The economy still basically stinks. While the markets may be going up, it's slow going. And although unemployment numbers have gone down slightly, those numbers don't reflect the people whose claims have ended but who still don't have jobs, plus payroll growth and job creation have been much less than economists have projected. Translation: much slower job-market recovery than anyone expected.

Bush has spent four years looking out for his rich friends and not giving a rat's ass about the public at large. So what if America does wise up and see that? The new President inherits Bush's huge mess. Is there a way to get out of Iraq at this point? Is there a way to jumpstart the economy and jobs and help the people who really need help? Not if the Congress retains a Republican majority.

What I fear might happen is that we'll have a Democratic President who will have his hands tied, so everything will not improve as quickly as most people will expect it to. The Republicans will capitalize on this in 2008, and they will actually win that election (as opposed to stealing it as they did in 2000). And then we're stuck with them for God knows how long.

The only reason people started to take Bush seriously and stopped talking about how he really didn't win the election was because of the September 11 disaster here in NYC--one of the worst things ever for the country, but the best thing ever for Bush's presidency. Because of that, I don't think enough people see him for the bozo he is just yet. After another four years, especially another four years of increased national debt, war, and death, they will.

In that time more information will become public: about how Iraq was a sham, about corporate greed run rampant, and about Bush and his whole corrupt administration. Then people will finally wake up and be ready to give the Republicans the heave ho, and the Democrats can win by a CLEAR margin in 2008 --and I don't think it will matter who they nominate. (Yes, I do think it could be a woman senator from New York. . .)

That's my theory. I'd like it not to be true, but I'm afraid if the Democrats do manage to win this election, it all might come to pass. That's not to say that I'm not going to vote in the primary and vote in the presidential election. I will, and you need to as well, and just hope for the best. Instant Karma will get Bush, it's just a question of when.