Clinton "Outperformed" Bush?

So says a new CNN poll.

Respondents favored Clinton by greater than 2-to-1 margins when asked who did a better job at handling the economy (63 percent Clinton, 26 percent Bush) and solving the problems of ordinary Americans (62 percent Clinton, 25 percent Bush).

On foreign affairs, the margin was 56 percent to 32 percent in Clinton's favor; on taxes, it was 51 percent to 35 percent for Clinton; and on handling natural disasters, it was 51 percent to 30 percent, also favoring Clinton.

Moreover, 59 percent said Bush has done more to divide the country, while only 27 percent said Clinton had.

When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error. The same was true for a question on handling national security: 46 percent said Clinton performed better; 42 percent picked Bush.

Now I have plenty of bones to pick with Bush (signing the anti-First Amendment "Incumbent Protection Act" aka Campaign Finance Reform, not prosecuting the war in Iraq aggressively enough, and this cockamamie illegal alien amnesty predilection of his, to mention a few). But you gotta be kidding me???

The man that the whole world knows is a chronic liar (a fellow Dem even said on national TV that Clinton was an unusually good liar) is more honest than Bush??? Bush may have a lot of failings, but honesty isn't one of them.

The man whose idea of sound foreign policy is a good photo op rates better than Bush? The same man who sat on his hands (or was that dropped his pants) when terrorists repeatedly killed Americans throughout the '90s?

The man who raised people's taxes--and would have blown them sky-high if his wife's wacky socialized medicine plan had passed--rates better than Bush who has made tax relief (relief that average Americans--not just "the rich" have felt over and over again from the beginning)? Uh huh.

It wouldn't be too surprising to see Clinton's numbers better than they actually deserve; after all, with a propaganda arm comprised of ABC, NBC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, NPR, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News and World Reports, and a host of others, it's not surprising that the message would get across to average Americans that this is what they're supposed to say when questioned.

But given the above propaganda master's propensity to "shape" and "create" the news they want, I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that when they conducted this poll, they called 1000 Democrats, 200 "independents" and 13 Republicans...

"Do Nothing" Congress, or "Do No Harm" Congress?

I don't think I could go so far as to seriously say this Congress is doing no harm, because they're still spending our money like it's not theirs.

But if there's anything to be taken from this ABC story "'Do-Nothing Congress' Raises Critics' Ire" then I defer to the old saying that the government which governs best is the one which governs least. And if that's the case, then there's got to be something good to the story.

We'd be a lot better off if local governments and citizens were doing more for themselves, than allowing a bunch of out-of-touch money-spending socialists mess everything up.

Taxes Fair to Whom?

South Dakota Politics has a link to a piece about our wonderfully Marxist progressive tax system here in the good ole U.S. of A.

It's worth repeating here, because the class envy of the Left is so pervasive that many people won't be happy until the "rich" are paying 150% of all taxes.

Some people have a lot of gall, bellyaching about "the rich" getting a bigger tax cut when it's the rich who are paying most of the taxes.


Why not a fair tax where every American is treated the same, where each American pays the same percentage of his income, whether rich or poor. Then we'd all have a stake in our country and our government.

Dean Misstates Party Platform to Evangelicals

From Fox News...

With Republicans embracing the traditional definition of marriage in 2004, Democrats sought to appeal to such traditionalists without giving up their support for gay rights.

The result: a platform plank that left the central question about what defines marriage to the states, and specifically rejected President Bush's support for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

It asserted: "We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families."

After the gay rights group went public with its complaints about his remarks, Dean acknowledged: "I misstated the Democratic Party's platform, which does not say marriage should be limited to a man and a woman," and reasserted the party's commitment to equal protection for all.

I should have known I was giving them too much credit to assume they had such a bold, racist, bigoted homophobe statement in their platform. There I go again: trying to assume something nice about the Democrat Party.

Sex Education and the Need for Moral Education

Rebecca Haglin wrote about a great book called "Christian Ethics in Plain Language."

One of the things she covered was sex ed, with an excerpt from the book:

“I was sitting at a table with half a dozen 16-year-old girls, listening with some amazement as they showed off their knowledge of human sexuality. They knew how long sperm lived inside the body and how many women out of 100 using a diaphragm were statistically likely to get pregnant. One girl recited the steps of the ovulation cycle from day one to day twenty-eight. There was just one problem with this performance. Every one of the girls was pregnant.”

Speaks well of sex ed, doesn't it? Oh, I know: we just didn't give them enough of it, or didn't throw enough money at it. Uh huh.

Howard Dean: Gettin' That Ole-Time Religion

After I picked myself up off the floor from laughing so hard at this, I thought I'd examine this article's claims a bit more closely. After all, Mr. Dean could be onto something.

Dean said that "one of the misconceptions about the Democratic Party is that we're godless and that we don't have any values."

Just because you're Godless and don't have any values? Nah, I'd never think you were Godless and didn't have any values, just because you're Godless and don't have any values.

"The truth is, we have an enormous amount in common with the Christian community, and particularly with the evangelical Christian community,” Dean said. “And one of the biggest things that Democrats worry about is the materialism of our country, what's on television that our kids are seeing, and the lack of spirituality. And that's something we have in common."

And you plan to fix that by fostering, at every turn, greed and envy over what the "rich" have that others who didn't work for it don't; fix the cesspool of television by denouncing any attempt to rein in the filth in media as "imposing your morals on others;" and counter the lack of spirituality by telling people that their faith is so irrelevant that it should only be practiced on Sunday, never intrude in government/public circles in any way, and you should never tell anyone about your faith lest you be labeled a proselytizer. Good plan.

“Well, let's discuss abortion first,” Dean said. “I think what we have in common with the evangelical community is that we ought to have a lot fewer abortions than we do."

And your plan to reduce abortions is to fight any restriction on abortion whatsoever. Ah, another smart plan.

“The Democratic Party platform from 2004 says that marriage is between a man and a woman. That's what it says."

That's why the Democrat Party as a whole believes Joe and Steve should be able to sodomize each other on a regular basis and call it "marriage." Yep, another good idea.

There were lots of other good points in this piece, but I don't have time to examine them right now. I have to attend a meeting of the American Taliban to figure out how we can institute a theocracy and keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen before returning home to beat my servile wife and indoctrinate my children in the myth of creation. After that, though, I'm going to go register as a Democrat right now! I've been in the wrong party all these years!

Why We Homeschool

A dozen schoolboys aged 6 to 8 years old will be charged for allegedly sexually assaulting a female classmate during recess and a teacher who was supposed to be supervising them has been fired, authorities said on Wednesday.

In the Friday incident, the boys surrounded the 8-year-old girl on the school playground and poked at her with their fingers while she fought to keep on her underwear, local media reports said.

And some Leftists claim to wonder why I won't send my children to public school. My daughter, and my son for that matter, are far too precious to risk having them savaged by the children of people who won't bother to teach their offspring right from wrong.

South Dakota Campaign for "Healthy Families" Petition

In case you haven't seen one, here's what the pro-abortion petition looks like:

South Dakota Campaign for "Healthy Families" Letter

A friend received this letter and petition yesterday. It makes some dubious claims:

- "No exceptions they say. A ban on abortion - no matter what the circumstances." Actually, there is a provision for saving the life of the mother, and a provision for emergency contraceptives which could be used in the case of a rape.

- "..fully admitted that this new law will cost South Dakota taxpayers millions of dollars to defend..." For this pro-abortion group to make a statement like that is like you going outside, scraping half the paint off your own car, smashing in the windshield, bashing out the headlines and then complaining about how much it's going to cost to get it fixed! For you libs who are usually logic-impaired, that means these pro-aborts are bellyaching about a cost they will cause.

- "...it takes away individual rights." It takes a way the right of a woman to kill her own child? I guess I don't have a problem with that.

- "It puts the government in charge of making decisions that should be left to the privacy of a family." Maybe incest, child abuse and child neglect should be left to the "privacy of a family," too.

- "...bans abortion when the health of women is in danger." This sought-after clause has been shown to be an exception you could drive a truck through ("oh, my back hurts, we must abort it; oh, I'm depressed, we must kill my child.") Such an exception would make the law meaningless.

- "...the government believes your only option is to have your perpetrators baby." And this group believes your best option is to kill your own child. Remember, that baby is the woman's baby, too. Should we kill a child for the sins of it's father?

- "...offered no solutions to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies." No true; there were bills promoting abstinence--the one sure method of preventing pregnancy.

- "We share the same goal - to reduce the number of abortions." And General Motors has a goal of reducing the number of automobiles sold in America, too. Uh huh.

- "Their legislation will also cost South Dakota taxpayers millions to defend and will very likely be found unconstitutional." Again, you've got the foxes whining about threats to the hen house. And as for "constitutional:" the Supreme Court is in a better position than it ever has been, with information on medical research not available in 1973, to overturn the decision--like Dred Scott--that has resulted in the suffering and deaths of millions.

Speaking of that, the Civil War was very expensive and very bloody--was that too costly to gain the freedoms black Americans deserved? Then certainly this battle, which is only going to cost some money, is certainly worth it to save millions more lives--of suffering mothers and dead children.