I certainly don’t expect to be preaching to anything but a wall when it comes to discussing the 2004 election to liberals/Democrats. I can give the most objective perspective on the election and still be talking to deaf ears because my opinion will be immediately deemed irrelevant because I am a conservative.

Nevertheless, I feel that my position has been supported by the words of not another conservative, but of one of the Democratic Presidential Candidates, Joe Lieberman.

Generally speaking, I think Joe Lieberman is a phony – at least, he certainly was in 2000. I think he compromised many aspects of his own belief system by going on Al Gore’s ticket for the last election. I think, beneficial to him, he’s showing more of his true side for his own bid for the presidency now – however, that doesn’t generally make him overall appealing to me – but it may help him get the nomination.

Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman warned Monday that his Democratic rivals threaten to send the party “into the political wilderness” with a return to big-government programs and less-than-strong stands on national security.

Determined to persuade Democrats that he is the only candidate capable of defeating President Bush, the Connecticut senator said the party must focus on strengthening America’s security and economy and will, in turn, win over moderate voters.

That’s what it comes down to, the moderate voters. Candidates like Kucinich and Dean don’t appeal to moderates. Joe Lieberman, a moderate Democrat, does have the potential to appeal to moderate voters.

“Some Democrats, on the contrary, still prefer the old, big government solutions to our problems,” Lieberman said in a speech to the National Press Club. “But, my friends, with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can’t afford that.”

Translation: Howard Dean’s or Dick Gephardt’s socialized health care plans suck – neither will work. But, thinking people knew that already. Joe Lieberman is right.

He criticized Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt’s plan to provide health care for nearly all Americans and his opposition to trade treaties such as the North American Free Trade Agreement.

He assailed those who opposed the U.S.-led war against Iraq — former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, Sen. Bob Graham of Florida, Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun and Al Sharpton.

This is another issue that puts Lieberman in a better position the previously mentioned candidates. The war in Iraq is still supported by the majority of Americans.

Lieberman is positioning himself as the foil to Dean, whose campaign has taken off on his criticism of Bush’s tax cuts and the conflict in Iraq. Lieberman said those positions “could really be a ticket to nowhere.”

You heard it - right from the Democratic presidential candidate’s mouth. Those are not my words (although I do agree with them) they are Lieberman’s. So if the liberals who visit my site don’t want to take my word for it, maybe they’ll take Lieberman’s.

“If George Bush and his bankrupt ideology are the problem, believe me, old Democratic policies like higher taxes and weakness on defense are not the solution,” Lieberman said. “We need to reclaim the vital center of American politics for the Democrats.”

While Lieberman goes after the center to take votes from Bush, Dean says Democrats must take a stand against Bush’s policies to win.

What Dean really means is that Democrats shouldn’t run on the issues. That’s really what it is. Pick a target, and everybody aim. That’s what Dean wants – he wants the focus of the election to be Bush, not the issues, not his own record. Dean would much rather run an antagonist’s campaign.

“Unlike some Democrats in Washington, Governor Dean believes that the way to beat George Bush is to stand up to him and to give people a reason to vote,” said Dean spokeswoman Tricia Enright.

The issues… what about the issues? Does Dean have anything else to say beside “Nationalized Health Care,” and “Bush is bad.”? Dean has nothing on his plate to offer the American people. Joe Lieberman is at least smart enough to realize there are issues to address when you’re running for president.

As long as Joe Lieberman maintains a platform that appeals to moderates, he will be more useful to the Democratic Party in 2004.

There’s a decent amount of time left before the next presidential election… However, things occurring today and in the months ahead of us are going to have a profound impact on not just the election itself, but even before that, who is going to run against George W. Bush. With information such as what was reported in this article, the staunch anti-war liberals vying for the Democratic nomination are going to have an extraordinarily difficult time maintaining support for their campaigns.

New evidence of Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction was provided last June by a top weapons expert, now dead, and it could have an enormous impact on the 2004 presidential election.

Ooooh, I like this already.

The stunning revelation by the British scientist, who committed suicide last month over the issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could have anti-war Democrats running for cover.

In my estimation, they’ve been running for cover for a long time. Honestly, I question just how much they believe anything they are saying, and really just say things because they hate the fact that George W. Bush is President, and care more about discrediting him, rather than proving themselves worthy of the job.

According to Britain’s Sunday Times, Dr. David Kelly had amassed convincing evidence that Saddam Hussein had built and tested a dirty nuclear bomb as long ago as 1987, and was perfectly capable of building the deadly weapons right up to the final months of his regime. Moreover the radiological weapons could have been used by terrorists to create panic and widespread contamination in a crowded city.

I hope those desperate liberals will shut up now. Are we that lucky?

Dr. Kelly presented evidence of the bomb to the British government back in 1995 and recommended to Foreign Office officials that it be highlighted in the government’s intelligence dossier on Iraq, which spelled out the reasons justifying an attack on Saddam’s regime. However, the Times reports, despite secret Iraqi documents being produced to prove its existence, for unexplained reasons it was not included.

For “unexplained reasons”… That’s pretty interesting…

In a June interview with the newspaper, Kelly revealed that Saddam originally built the dread weapon capable of causing cancer and birth defects for use against Iranian troops during the Iran-Iraq war as a tactical weapon and an instrument of terror.

Saddam Hussein, really? The warm and compassionate man – as described by his daughters? Never!

Moreover Kelly insisted that said Iraq still “possessed the know-how and the materials to build a radiological weapon, “adding that the threat posed by such weapons was potentially more serious than some other weapons of mass destruction because Iraq still retained the main ingredients to build dirty bombs such as nuclear material and high explosives.

Well this isn’t good for the Democrats…. Is it? They’ve invested so much of their campaigns on the stupid notion that America has been mislead into war… that there were no WMDs… They’ve consistently avoided real issues and resorted to gutless attacks on George W. Bush, that the moment they clearly will have nothing to run on when all the evidence comes outs.

When the Times asked why this shocking information was not featured in the British government’s case for going to war against Iraq, Kelly said he did not know, but added that there were people in government who were skeptical about the potency of such a weapon.

Sounds similar to Democrats doubting the justification to go to war just because a Republican is in the oval office.

In private, Kelly is said to have believed the evidence should have been included in the dossier because of the possibility that Iraq could reactivate the program even after it had been stripped of other non-conventional weapons.

This is very big stuff. It all comes down to what kind of risk are we willing to take. Liberals can bitch and moan about 16 words in a State of The Union speech all they want – it doesn’t change the fact that by mentioning it, the chance that it might be true has been addressed, and when/or if it is found to be true, everyone will be glad it was put out there, and when/or if it is determined to be inaccurate, we can be assured that George W. Bush has at least looked at all possible sources of intelligence in an effort to protect us. I don’t care what any little-brained liberal says, I’d rather Bush follow all questionable leads and find them all false, than not follow some questionable leads that may prove true and we don’t find out until more Americans die.

Later, in July, during his testimony to a Parliamentary foreign affairs select committee in remarks which the Times says have been largely overlooked, Kelly told John Maples, a former Conservative spokesman on defense and foreign affairs:

I hope this bothers people. Why would such information be “overlooked”? What is our goal here - to fight the War on Terror, or to win political battles?

“On one inspection that I led…the acknowledgment was made by General Fahi Shaheen, together with Brigadier Hassan (two senior Iraqi weapons specialists), that they had undertaken experiments with radiological weapons in 1987.”

And the Times added that when Maples asked: “Do you think that is true?” Kelly replied: “Undoubtedly it is true.” Maples pressed Kelly for details as to why the matter of the dirty bombs had not been included in the government’s dossier, saying, “A dirty nuclear bomb, I would have thought, was pretty significant.” Kelly explained only, “You cannot include everything.”

I always though that “inspections work.” I guess not.

The revelation that Saddam had the capability of building dirty bombs and had once done so and tested the lethal weapons that could have been supplied to terrorists groups could provide convincing proof that Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction - a fact being discounted by Democrat presidential candidates and many in their party.

It’s amazing the things that Democrats will say to try to become President.

As the Times noted, one of the main reasons for invading Iraq cited by both the British and American governments was the danger that Saddam could pass weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida terrorists. Kelly’s revelations bolster that claim.

Unfortunately this information does not help the Democrats’ agenda; therefore it must be false, according to the self-proclaimed superior knowledge of liberals both young and old.

I can’t wait for this election. The Democrats have been digging their own graves. More stuff is going to be reveal in due time. We probably don’t even know the half of it.

And you thought she couldn’t get any dumber.

WASHINGTON –– Sen. Hillary Clinton said Friday that Supreme Court victories this year for gay couples, minorities and women do not erase the distrust created by other “legally dubious” rulings, including the Bush v. Gore presidential election case.

What she means to say is that a court that has generally leaned leftward in their rulings recently is not to be “forgiven” for making one good call back in 2000.

The court ruled this summer that colleges may continue to use race as a factor in picking students, that gay men and women cannot be prosecuted for having sex and that state government workers are protected under a federal law intended to ease work and family conflicts.

Sounds like Hillary’s Dream Court to me.

“These favorable decisions in recent months should not obscure the torrent of aggressively activist and legally dubious decisions of times past,” Clinton, D-N.Y., told the American Constitution Society.

Okay, so allowing discrimination based on race isn’t legally dubious? What is she trying to prove here? I’ll tell you, what she is saying is she doesn’t want to tolerate any court that makes a “conservative” ruling. Now, I’m not saying Bush v. Gore was a conservative/liberal issue – however, the Democrats have let themselves continually be emasculated over the election in 2000. Get over it already? What can you do? Change the ruling now? The country is clearly better off today because of Bush than we ever would have been with Gore, and regardless of that fact – just because dimwits like Hillary didn’t like the decision made by the court, doesn’t mean it was wrong.

That’s the key difference. Hillary lauds any decision by the court that concurs with her own ideology; however, she’ll consider the entire court fundamentally flawed for a ruling which ultimately put a Republican in the White House.

She said this is “the same court that gave us Bush v. Gore, which made a mockery of one of our most cherished constitutional rights, the right to vote,” a reference to the 2000 ruling that ended Democrat Al Gore’s chances of winning the White House.

Have you ever heard of anything more stupid? Shall I go into the fraudulent methods used by the Democrats to try and ensure Al Gore’s victory in 2000? Like granting citizenship to immigrants and registering them as Democrats for the election? Like allowing illegal immigrants to vote, (The so-called “Clinton Voting Card”)? Like the various methods taken to disenfranchise oversees military personnel including delayed mailing of ballots, delayed returning of ballots, and thousands of unaccounted for ballots?

And Hillary expects us to believe she cares about the rights of voters? The only voters she gives her fat ass about are the ones who vote Democrat, or the ones her Husband-In-Name-Only™ (HINO) sold for pardons.

“In addition to installing an American president, the current Supreme Court has invalidated federal laws at the most astounding rate in our nation’s history,” she said then.

First off, if Bush v. Gore went the other way, wouldn’t they have “installed an American president” too? I guess to liberal idiots like Hillary, that would be a no, but I digress.

She is partially right, though. The Supreme Court did recently invalidate federal laws by saying that discrimination was okay.

On Friday, Clinton defended Senate Democrats’ filibuster of three of President Bush’s most conservative federal appeals court nominees: Texas judge Priscilla Owen, District of Columbia lawyer Miguel Estrada and Alabama Attorney General William Pryor.

Clinton said the White House was playing politics with the choices.

That’s funny. Isn’t she playing politics with her stupid mindless drivel? Isn’t it abominable – George W. Bush, a Republican, has nominated conservatives to the courts! Dear God, how dare he! Let’s not get into the fact that the same courts Bush has been making judicial nominations for are flooded with Democrat-appointed judges… Please… I thought they wanted balance… The only balance liberals want is the balance that tips solely in their favor.

Not even Bill Clinton can pardon his Wife-In-Name-Only™ (WINO) from the MattMargolis.com Liberal Idiots List.