Gore now gave another tirade on the economy, and you can almost hear all the top Democrats cringing. The guy is such dead weight and completely unelectable now, but he’ll probably win the primary in 2004 because the Democrats’ base is total firck’n idiots. Hey, the Democrats dug their own grave when they decided that was the kind of people they were going to court. Sure drooling morons are great for mobilizing in the general election (even thought a good number of them disenfranchise themselves by going at a punch ballot like a hyperactive monkey), but the Democrats could really use open primaries so that Republicans can save them from themselves like they did with McKinney. The other option is the Torricelli bait and switch, but you have to get the candidate to take himself off the ballot, and Gore is so much a loon that he could be 80 percentage point behind and he’ll still be convinced he’ll win. So what options are left for the Democrats? Simple, discredit Gore in a way even the stupid can understand. Next time Gore gives a speech, one of the other Democratic hopefuls should walk up to him right in the middle of it and bitch slap him. Who’s going to vote for Gore after he’s been bitch slapped in front of everyone? And the Democrat who does it will look like a real leader. Hell, I’ll switch party registration myself and vote for him. Yeah, you heard me right, and I’ll honor that even if it’s Daschle who does the deed. Not Hillary, though; I assume she’s already done it before, anyway.

So, if Democrats succeed in replacing Torricelli with Lautenberg on the New Jersey ballot, will this totally destroy our political system leading to complete chaos, the forests burning, the oceans boiling, and the end of life as we know it? Yes, but here’s what will happen before then. Immediately, primaries will be shelved since now political parties can switch candidates at will. There will be no reason to do positive ad campaigns, since the candidate being built up could suddenly be swapped at any moment; thus, all ads will be negative. Of course, as soon as a negative ad comes out, the subject of it will be immediately swapped with someone else thus nullifying the ad. Instead, ads will just attack random members of the other party, just in case anyone of them may end up as the actual candidate. Parties will then start switching the candidates to random people registered to their party, and then you shouldn’t be surprised if you see a negative ad against yourself. “Bob Johnson doesn’t mow his lawn often enough and looks funny, so don’t vote Republican or you might be voting for Bob Johnson.” As the election nears, candidates will be switched at even faster rates so as to really throw off the other party. Probably some advanced computer algorithm will be used such that candidates will be changed at a rate of one billion times a second. The actual ballot will just say “Unnamed Republican” and “Unnamed Democrat”, and it will be near random chance who will actually be the candidate when the election ends. Of course, we’ll probably never reach the election end, as neighbor will turn against neighbor, brother against brother, son against father, dog against cat, as, at any moment, they could be candidates running against each other. Violence will erupt, families will collapse, and soon American society itself will be destroyed. And, when America is gone, you know it will only be hours before the rest of the world destroys itself from lack of America’s kind guidance. The damn, dirty apes will then take their chance to conquer the humans and make us their slaves, forcing us to toil day and night in their underground banana mines, with the only thing for any human to look forward being their sweet, sweet death. And all of this so New Jersey voters can have a “choice” this election. God, I’m beginning to hate that word.

The president has reached an agreement with the House on an Iraq attack, though Senate Democrats are still opposed since the current wording shows interest in the security of the American people, something of which they are vehemently against. Right now, all it says is that before starting a war Bush has to certify that he had no other option than force (like anyone really cares), and then every couple months he has to give a report to Congress saying something like, “Still kill’n Iraqis.”

In the dog and pony show that some people call the U.N., France and Russia still need some convincing. China says they’ll abstain from the vote since they’re evil and there government is illegitimate. Good for them. Of course, the vote doesn’t matter since we’re going to go attack Iraq anyway, but, if they don’t want to come along, more cheap oil for us (this war is all about oil, if you didn’t know; don’t let anyone outside of the right-wing conspiracy find that out, though).

There were some protestors outside the front gate of the White House, and, giving further evidence that protestors of the war with Iraq have thought processes similar to monkeys, one climbed to the top of the gate. She was arrested, but, because she came back down on the outside of the fence, she avoided a felony charge. Good to know. Next time I’m in D.C., if I see a protestor climbing the fence, I’ll have to remember to throw a rock at him to knock him down on the other side. I’ll just tell the police, “I thought a monkey was going to attack the president.” We’ll all have a good laugh and then the guy will be sent to prison for a long long time, which is also funny.

Yeah, that’s what I’m talking about. Ari Fleischer mentioned in a press conference how things would be cheaper and easier if Saddam were just assassinated. Now that’s good policy to me: We don’t like someone, we kill the mo’fo’. Why go into some full scale war when its just one bastard we don’t like? It’s so simple, of course the Euro-weenies will throw a hissy-fit if we do it; I’m almost convinced they like things complicated with lots of people dying. You’re probably now saying, “Well, then let’s assassinate the whole lot of them. That will teach them to be European.” Yes, but, when you assassinate lots of people, it kinda loses its charm. The more compassionate idea is to just freak the hell out of them. When we want to assassinate some evil dictator, we wait until inevitably a European leader goes to appease him, and blow the dictators brains out just as they’re shaking hands. That will put the fear of God in them, and, more to the point, the fear of America.

Anyway, when the U.S. government gets serious on this assassinate Saddam thing, they have my e-mail. My rates for heads of state are a bit higher, but I will give a patriotic discount. Frank’s gots to eat, though, and he likes the prime rib.

Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski has threatened to boycott Guinness if Ireland doesn’t join the EU (thanks to Amish Tech Support for the Link). This seems like a hollow threat, because I can’t imagine a EUnik drinking Guinness on account of it being a man’s beer. That dark, black liquid would be too scary for the average whiny European; a Frenchman would probably surrender if a pint were placed in front of him. And what does Ireland need from the EU anyway when they already have Guinness? Just ask yourself what would you rather have…

…close association with all European countries or a pint of Guinness?
…a stable, widely accepted currency or a pint of Guinness?
…national security or a pint of Guinness?
…the respect and admiration of France or a half ounce of Guinness?

I think the answer to each of those is pretty obvious, and it’s not alcoholism – it’s national pride!