Slash and burn political consultant Bob Shrum has written a tell all book where he builds up John Kerry and lambastes John Edwards. Given that Bob Shrum is the politics of personal destruction, in addition to being an 0-8 loser in presidential races, it is no surprising that he would do what anyone who has repeatedly failed on a spectacular level would do…write a tell all book. Having said that, he does indirectly give clear insight into John Kerry and John Edwards, although not necessarily as he intended.

He paints John Edwards as a snake oil salesman. This is like implying that Peyton Manning is a good quarterback. It is on the verge of being a given. Of course John Edwards is a snake oil salesman. He made his money suing hospitals. He is a medical malpractice attorney. He once claimed that a dead girl was speaking to him in the courtrooom. Perhaps that is why people confuse him with the other John Edwards (the psychic, who some also believe is a snake oil salesman).

According to Edwards, he ordered his staff in 2004 to never mention his late son Wade during the campaign, for fear of exploiting a tragedy for political gain. The suffering the Edwards family went through was I am sure as genuine as it was nightmarish, but Edwards claimed that when he spoke to Kerry, he talked about Wade for the first time. Yet Kerry claimed that Edwards spoke to him about Wade two years earlier, also claiming that he had never spoken about it before. Now this is only if one believes Shrum, who has every reason to tell the truth and every reason to lie. Knowing this bunch, somehow if it possible, they are all lying.

Yet John Edwards was who we thought he was. The son of a millworker was actually the son of the man who was the boss of the mill. The man who complains about poverty is a filthy rich man who may or may not have ever known it. The bottom line is, Edwards is Clinton minus the fancy degrees and the bimbo eruptions.

John Kerry, although coming across positive in Shrum’s book, is the worst of the lot. Shrum claims  that Kerry did not want Edwards, but that Shrum forced him into choosing him. What does this say about Kerry that he is not man enough to choose his own running mate? John Kerry did not like John Edwards. Yet John Kerry was so unpricipled that he would choose a man that he did not like or trust out of a cynical need to fool the voters. Kerry is a liberal, and he needed a good old boy Southern moderate. This is a dishonest attempt at “ticket balancing” that insults the voters. It did not work when George HW Bush picked Dan Quayle. They were too different. It was ok when Reagan picked Bush the Elder because Reagan was so likable that he could have picked Stalin as his VP and still won. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush both picked people that meshed well with them. John Kerry did not.

John Kerry first decided to go for John McCain. The ludicrousness of this decision is beyond debate. McCain was wise to reject the offer. Dick Gephardt would have been a good choice because he was experienced, cerebral, and respected.

John Kerry simply was unprincipled. His campaign was about naked political calculations, and John Edwards was just another caluclation. Now Edwards has veere far to the left, showing that John Kerry did not vet him out properly. The bottom line is John Kerry wanted to win at all costs, which meant placing the fate of the world in the hands of somebody he himself had no belief or confidence in.

So John Edwards supposedly hates Shrum because Shrum chose Kerry, and now Shrum writes a book bashing Edwards through Kerry. Is there no honor among leftist thieves?

The scum created a scam that ended up in a big scrum of egos. So sayeth the Shrum. The Shrum may be the biggest ego of them all, and the least politically accomplished (which says alot compared to John Edwards), but that does not mean he is absolutely lying. Edwards may be the least scummy of the three, because by acting as the most blatant of the three, he is so obvious as to be honest about his phoniness. Kerry and Shrum are worse in a  perverse sense by being ever so slightly less transparent.

May they all devour each other. If they do not, they will quickly fade to public irrelevance, since anybody not named Clinton in the democratic party is irrelevant anyway. 

eric   

Well Folks, it was bound to happen. I have been banned from the blogosphere. Well, a portion of it anyway. When I started blogging a couple months ago, I made sure to be very careful not to say or do anything that could be considered hate speech. I did write about sensitive topics in a provocative manner, but certainly not with any malice. Apparently I was not banned for anything resembling hate speech, but for violating a rule known as “spamming.” Now to me, spamming is when one floods the internet with the same thing over and over for the purpose of disruption. Apparently, my lack of knowledge about the process was seen as an act of war.  While normally I would spare the name of the offended entity,  in this case I feel comfortable mentioning that is the Jewish Journal only because a couple of the articles I posted dealt with intolerance in the Jewish community towards fellow Jews.

The process started amicably enough. I posted four unrelated articles. One dealt with the French election, another about kosher food, and another one about rapper Snoop Doggy Dogg. A few minutes later I noticed that the article dealing with Snoop Doggy Dogg had been deleted. I then received the following email from the “webmaster”:

“Hey Eric! Shalom! I killed your Snoop post ’cause it was way off topic, and moved your Sarkozy post to the French elections thread. Otherwise, rock on!”

He seemed friendly enough. In my mind my Snoop Doggy Dogg  article was topical because it dealt with the whole Al Sharpton Gangsta Rap crusade that emanated in the wake of the Don Imus scandal. Also, I did not know that two completely different articles about the French election had to be under the same heading. No matter. I sent an email to the webmaster asking for clarification.

“I was wondering why the Snoop Doggy Dogg post was deleted. It was about Al Sharpton suddenly waging war on Gangsta rap. Anyway, I am new to the blogosphere, so please answer some questions for me when you have time. 1) Is four the maximum number of allowable posts? There were other things I wanted to post tonight. 2) How do I know what is off limits in terms of topics? I have written several columns about the various Presidential Candidates, as well as some columns dealing with the Virginia Tech Massacre. Is that considered “old news” already (it was just mentioned on the news 5 minutes ago)?
3) My dad just had open heart surgery 2 weeks ago (he is fine) and I wrote a tribute to him. Is that something acceptable to post even though it’s not a political or cultural issue?”

He replied “There is no numerical limit or anything like that. It is always advisable to add one’s comments to an already existing thread, i.e., the French elections thread, than start a new topic. I’d advise you to read a bit more before you jump in make a lot of noise –
that we’ll you’ll get a better feel for what goes on here. Snoop, and rev Sharpton, etc., old news, unless we have an Imus thread — add it there. By the way, our message boards are not “the blogosphere” — we’ve been around much longer than blogs, and I remember message board wars between the Armenians and Turks when I first got online, circa 1993. The idea here is conversation.  I hope you’ll join in! And please, call me (name withheld).”

I read the various topics, and noticed that nobody was writing about the 2008 Presidential campaign or the War on Terror. What could be more relevant than that? Just because the Jewish Journal skews politically to the left (It is Jewish after all), surely some posts about the defining issues of our time would be appropriate. I posted several posts, each one dealing with a different Presidential candidate. I wrote about Romney, McCain, Thompson (Fred), Gingrich, Guliani, etc. I also wrote about Dick Cheney from a Jewish perspective. I was surprised to read another email from the Jewish Journal webmaster, this time in a hostile tone.

“You have abused our hospitality and disregarded my advice. As far as I am concerned you are a spammer, filling up our message boards with the same message, repeated over and over. Did you not read that OFF TOPIC posts will be deleted? I have removed all your posts and deleted your user ID. Go back to your blog — maybe someone will read your stuff there. Our forum is not your playground.”

I did out of pure graciousness send the webmaster an email explaining that in my mind, I absolutely was following his instructions, unclear as they were. He then sent me a link to “message board nettiquette.”

Now I read the Jewish Journal. Politically, it is a liberal disaster, but a plurality of the columnists are quite thoughtful and thought provoking. I have met people from the magazine and found them friendly and courteous. Occasionally the Journal wades into territory that would fall under the  “mind your own d@mn business” category (Jews taking sides in the Armenian vs Turkey dispute makes as much sense as Portugal analyzing the Arab-Israeli Conflict. We should be happy two nations do not hate us, and try to increase the number, not decrease it).

However, this experience does not cast the Jewish Journal in a positive light. I am a believer that intelligent questions should be answered in an intelligent manner. Hostility should be reserved for those who engage in hate speech. I find it ironic that the Huffington Post can allow people to compare President Bush to Hitler, but a Jewish message board will not let me post about Republican presidential candidates in a positive light. Ironically enough, the very last post I wrote about was “ideological bigotry.”

Luther Campbell of and 2 Live Crew only increased in popularity after being banned. They put out “Banned in the USA,” and were rewarded, deservedly so.

I have alot to learn about this www.comgovorgtypestuff.huh. What I do know is that even though message boards are not democracies, they are there to promote dialogue. They should be run by people who believe in discussion, not ranting and raving at honest mistakes. Once again, a member of my own community chooses to have problems with writing that no other site has objected to…not once.

I shall continue to educate liberal Jews on how to become normal, tolerant people.

“Listen up y’all, to what I say…I won’t be banned in the USA.”

Ok Blogosphere. Time to try this again. Hello!

eric

Presidents come and go, but America’s lord and savior Sir Alan of Greenspan is forever. For the sake of full disclosure, the photo above comes courtesy of respected money manager Bill Fleckenstein, who does not worship at Greenspan’s altar the way I do. I have to give Mr. Fleckenstein credit. His slogan based on his years of experience predicting stock market movements is “Often wrong, but never in doubt.” For Alan Greenspan, it should be “Often right, but always doubted.” I have never seen a  man face so much criticism from people who were not as smart as him, and admitted they had no idea what he was saying.

Alan Greenspan spoke in such cryptic language that it became known as “Greenspeak.” Senators would grill him, tell him he was wrong, and he would politely address their concerns. The one irony is that for all the senatorial bluster, they could not do anything about it. Greenspan would politely respond to their idiotic questions all the while thinking that the imbeciles questioning him had most likely flunked economics 101.

His successor Ben Bernanke got off to a rough start by answering questions in a clear manner that was easy to understand. If the answer was deemed unsatisfactory, the markets would be roiled. Greenspan was ambiguously confusing enough to not cause too much damage. 

One of his famous phrases “irrational exuberance” was meant to warn that the buying frenzy of the 1990s was spinning out of control. Now had he just said that the buying frenzy was spinning out of control, people would infer a coming collapse, and there would be panic selling. Instead, traders and brokers worldwide turned to each other and asked “Did this guy just say irrational exuberance?”

Never has a guy with such a perceived lack of charisma been treated like such a rock star. When I worked on a trading floor, and Bill Clinton would speak, the traders would laugh, knowing that some meaningless proclamation would be announced. It would be said in a serious voice to convey gravity, as if the fate of the free world depended on school uniforms. When Alan Greenspan spoke, the Earth shook. The traders would stand quietly, hang on every word, and then run around in confusion. They did not understand exactly what he said, but they knew he said something of consequence. 

What most people do not know is that Alan Greenspan saved America. In 1987, after the stock market crash, the entire United States financial system was dangerously close to a nervous breakdown. To prevent 1987 from becoming 1929, he took decisive steps, including triggering stock market circuit breakers. When the market had another violent down day in 1989, the system was much stronger. Even after 9/11, the economy and the financial markets responded and rebounded. Yes, it took time, but it did happen. 

While I do not agree with Greenspan on every issue, and still disagree with him over his arguments against “dynamic scoring, (supply side economics),” one cannot deny that for 20 years, the American economic engine was in full party mode. Our economic expansions are getting longer and our recessions are getting milder and shorter. No, we have not defeated the business cycle, but the Phillips curve myth has been shattered (the idea that the economy cannot have low inflation and low unemployment).

As hard as this may be for some to believe, Alan Greenspan even had a wry sense of humor. Before one critical senate committee meeting, a senator found Greenspan in the hallway and asked him how he was doing. Mr Greenspan responded “I can’t tell you.” 

For those of you who think that a monkey could do his job (and I do concede that the monkey above does look ready to give a serious lecture on monetary policy), the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, aka the Central Banker (in case you wondered what his titel was) is always one mistake away from destroying the world economy. In 20 years, through stock market crashes, the Asian Flu of 1997 and 1998, the internet bubble and subsequent collapse, and of course 9/11, his steady hand guided the world to a better global financial well being.

As we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the year he was hired by Ronald Reagan (yet another fabulous decision by the Gipper), it is important to recognize him for the wealth he has helped bring to this nation…not just in real dollars, but in economic knowledge.

If a monkey can do this job, then I want that simian to be blindfolded and given darts to throw at the Wall Street Journal so that I know what stocks to trade. Yes, this experiment did beat most S & P 500 mutual fund money managers, but they were not Sir Alan of Greenspan. 

The next time you get that first home with an affordable mortgage, or your stock portfolio provides you with dividend income, or you get a higher paying job because the rising tide does lift all boats, thank Alan Greenspan.

He may not be that charismatic, and he may not be a rock star, but this guy sure knows how to throw a great 20 year party. 

Good luck Mr. Bernanke. You have gigantic shoes to fill. 

As for Mr. Greenspan, the day something happens to him, the financial markets will be fine for only one reason. He will be kept alive like the character in “Weekend at Bernies” that was not allowed to ever die…he pumped up the health of the US economy, so the least we can do is return the favor. 

Mr. Greenspan may be retired, but make no mistake about it. Every respected economist and politician (perhaps an oxymoron) had him on speed dial.  

Thank you Mr. Greenspan. Thank you very much indeed. One day it would be an honor to know what you actually “did.” I could even pretend to understand, which would make me qualified to be a US senator. Then again, I might be bored to tears with the explanation. I don’t have to understand it. Just know I am appreciative.

eric

From the Easter Bunny to Santa Claus to the adorable Tiger in the Calvin and Hobbes comic strip, the line between reality and fantasy is often the difference between an imagination and a lack of one. On South Park, Stan Brovlovsky is committed to a mental institution when noone else is able to see his friend “Mr. Hankey.” Decades earlier, a man discovers a talking frog named Michigan J. Frog. The frog sings “Hello my Ragtime Gal,” only in front of the man, but nobody else. Again, the room with white walls is his destination. On Sesame Street, Big Bird saw Mr. Snuffalupagus, but noone believed him. This always surprised me, because they believed Big Bird existed. If a ginormous yellow creature could exist, why not a ginormous orange one that was equally ungraceful? Unicorns are also a myth, except to those who have seen them. According to Al Gore, republicans and their friends in big business destroyed the environment, killing off the Unicorns (No, not really…but then again, perhaps the last Unicorn mated with several animals and became the elusive “ManBearPig” that Al Gore hunts for on “South Park.”). The Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot should be mentioned only to overstate the point. There. Done.

This brings me to the elusive Holy Grail. No, not the one that Sir Lancelot failed to get, and Sir Gallahad succeeded in finding (I say Lancelot got the better of the deal. That Guinevere was a hot piece of fictional tail. Drinking from her Holy Grail beats drinking wine out of a goblet or a chalice any day).

The Holy Grail I refer to is the nectar that is tasted from that rarest of creatures…Republican Jewish Women. I have seen them. They do exist. My search was a long and exhausting one, but I have traversed this land of the red, white and blue, and I found some. It was not easy.

This quest became important because my initial option of pursuing every woman on the planet was limited upon my entering the world. As a member of the Hebrew faith, over 99% of the women were off limits. Although I figured all Jews were united under a common cause (trying to avoid getting killed by about 2-3 billion enemies), apparently the majority of Jews in the 1960s became hippies, took alot of drugs, and produced a generation of liberals (It is a subject of debate as to whether the drugs caused liberalism, or whether being politically liberal caused them to take the drugs). Jewish republicans were to be viewed with suspicion, as an enemy within.

For awhile I would hide my political affiliation on dates in the same manner as a guy would not disclose drug use or felony convictions. Somewhere along the line I figured if homosexuals could come out of the closet, I could as well. I began traveling America, determined to find republican Jewish women. Every once in awhile, I would run into one, and it was a nightmarish occurrence that kept repeating itself. These women were Jewish…republican…and boring.

No God. Anything but boring. Ugly people can get plastic surgery. People can gain or lose weight. Yet being boring is forever. Sure these women could talk politics, but that is all they could talk about. They were humorless. Could it be that as the children of hippies, liberal women were more…dare I say it…fun? Every girl I had ever dated was a democrat, and alot of them were fun to be around when politics was not being discussed. They appreciated things such as jacuzzi-romps, tantric massages (the Japanese call it “Reiki,”) and other interesting actions/positions that only non-uptight women could appreciate.

It was then that I realized that even though I am a conservative, I believed in a liberal dose of sex and carousing (ok, I realized it when I was 11, but my allowance could not foster that lifestyle). It was not just about sex though. It was about stimulating conversation. It was about fun. One Jewish republican woman was concerned on the telephone when I referred to her as “straitlaced.” She said that while she was a serious person, she was not stuffy. When a person has to announce that they are not stuffy, just call them Stovetop and serve them on Thanksgiving with giblet gravy.

So what is a Jewish Republican male who detests hippies but likes their spirit and immorality supposed to do? Finding a Christian Coalition woman was not the answer. Alot of them are even more straitlaced. Finding a Jewish leftist and sparring every day…too stressful. Then I saw an advertisement for the Republican Jewish Coalition. I knew republican Jewish women existed, but alot of them were scared of being attacked (Go on Jdate and read the profiles where under politics it says “unspecified.” They are most likely republicans). The Republican Jewish Coalition was a place where people could proudly express who they are (Some people want to form a Democratic Jewish Coalition, but that is as necessary as going to Libya and forming a Muslim club).

The RJC has allowed me to meet top political leaders. It has allowed me to make business contacts. Most importantly, I have had the pleasure of meeting republican Jewish women that are smart, fun, and totally drop dead gorgeous. One of these women resides in New York. She is taken, but I am sure she has friends. One woman from Florida actually liked football. Not just the stereotype about tight pants, but understood the game itself and watched it weekly. Another woman from Pennsylvania was so stunningly blindingly beautiful that I briefly forgot my own name. Luckily her name was similar to mine, so by staring at her nametag I was able to refresh my memory. None of these women were vegetarians. They were not into yoga. They did not wear tie-dyed t-shirts. They were funny. They were intelligent.

In addition, other people there had daughters, nieces and other republican Jewish women that I should meet. Like Norm Peterson on Cheers asked to watch the bar, I allowed my arm to be twisted repeatedly.

I left the RJC Conference with my faith revitalized. My religious and political faiths were always strong. My faith in my quest to pursue the Holy Grail is now stronger than ever.

Upon asking one republican Jewish woman in Los Angeles to join me for a jacuzzi soak, she replied that it sounded overwhelmingly tempting. My response to any woman thinking this is “well then get tempted for crying out loud!”

I soon leave for New York on a business and pleasure trip, where a smart, corporate, funny and gorgeous woman (who is a flaming liberal) wants to have dinner with me. I have crossed over to the dark side before, but it is a relief knowing that this is now a pleasant option and not a necessity for survival.

As Steven Tyler of Aerosmith in the song “Full Circle” sings, “If I could change the world…like a fairy tale…I would drink the love…from your Holy Grail,” I realize that the Holy Grail is within reach. So to all the republican Jewish women of the world, I say this…asking you to rip off your clothes right away may be premature, but at least rip off your masks. Be as proud to be republican as you are proud to be Jewish. Let the world know you are politically brilliant and fun.

I am interested in one of you…and only one. I know how to cook, and am trained as a masseur. The jacuzzi water is perfect tonight. I am alcohol, smoke, drug and liberalism free.

Hineni. Here I am. Hineni (Rock You Like a Hurricane). Hineni. You are Jewish, republican, and ready to be kissed like the chalice that Sir Lancelot died for and Sir Gallahad found.

eric

When the late Gangsta Rapper Ol’ Dirty Bast@rd was accused of violently beating up his girlfriend (as opposed to the non-violent method), David Letterman poked fun at those who were surprised by this act by posing the question “Isn’t that what Ol’ Dirty Bast@rds do?”

Some things, like the truths our forefathers spoke of, are self evident. It is what it is. A = A. You are what you are. This brings us to those who wonder why Iran would kidnap 15 British soldiers. For those who do need to be hit upside the head with a bar towel to know they are in a bar, the answer is simple. Iran did this because they are Iran. That is what they do. Do we really need to interview Ahmeninajad and look at his resume to see that he went to Mullah University where he studied kidnapping 101?

There are times in life for negotiation. Even as a teenager in the 1980s, I believed that peace between the USA and the Russians could be achieved through diplomacy. This is because the people who gave us such beauty and culture, from ice skating, to chess grand masters, to poetry, did not want to blow up the world. Once they found out we did not want to blow up the world, we were able to talk to them. Ronald Reagan was tough, but he was also the Great Communicator. He was liked and trusted, and the world benefitted.

North Korea requires negotiations. The North Korean people do not want to die. Heck, all they want to do is eat. It is going to require patience and discipline, but the North Korean leaders know we have no desire to destroy them. If they would just tell us what the heck they want, be it cable tv or complimentary call girls when you supersize your meal, we can work with them. America will defend itself, but at some point they will realize we have no desire to fight them. They have nothing we want.

Having said that, when dealing with Iran and Syria, there is no diplomatic solution. There has never been a time in history where negotiating with either of these two pimples on the world’s rumpus has ever worked. The only thing that works is force. Arab Muslim governments discover the beauty of negotiation when they are getting destroyed on the battlefield.

For those people misguided enough to believe that Khadafi Duck in Libya dropped his weapons program due to 20 years of negotiations, let me be clear. For all his bluster, Khadafi was a pragmatist. He enjoyed being among the living. He saw what happened to Saddam Hussein, and like a man being hassled by his wife after a long day of work, declared “I just want to put my feet on the coffee table. Who needs this aggravation?” In 1986, it is safe to say that when Reagan bombed his home, it took out Khadafi’s coffee table, and probably his comfortable air mattress.

President Bush declared that anyone who helps or harbors terrorists is a terrorist. Iran and Syria foment terrorism. To list the examples would be tedious. Just go purchase an Iranian thesaurus and see if it contains anything besides “Jihad,” “Infidel,” “Allah Akbar,” and “Zionist Donkey Agressor.” To these people I say “I get it. You dislike us. Too d@mn bad.”

So given that negotiation with these nations has never worked, and that force is the only solution, it is time we put Iran and Syria on notice that they can be wiped off the map as well. By turning those nations into 50,000 golf course with plenty of sand traps, we can also perform a public service in America. Given how colossally boring golf is, sending golfers overseas means less golf on American soil. That is a side benefit. Iran and Syria by 2010 could be Cuba in the 1950s.

Yes, I am advocating imperialism. They think we are imperialists anyway, so we might as well act like it, at least for a few weeks. We should set up Coca Cola, McDonalds, and brothels, and make sure they are inundated with Baywatch episodes and Anna Nicole Smith news reports.

As someone who hates killing, and hates war, I hate being murdered more. While it is possible that somewhere in the backlog of history, somebody in charge of Iran or Syria might have accidentally contributed something to the world that could loosely be considered positive, more than likely this did not occur. Waiting for another such aberration of humanity from these miscreants is not an option. Every day Iran and Syria exist in their current form is a day the world comes closer to extinction. We have to strike while we can. Iran’s army reminds me of Marvin the Martian trying to blow up the Earth with the Uranium 238 space modulator. Syria’s army consists of an Ali Baba character in a Bugs Bunny cartoon yelling “Hassan, Chop!” when Bugs and Daffy try to steal his treasure.

So rather than light scented candles and sing Kumbaya as soldiers get kidnapped, we might want to do what we did in Iraq…find the bad guys, and b*tchslap them.

Iran and Syria want to kill us because that is what killers do. We need to defend ourselves and the world, because that is what the world, despite it’s fake and irrelevant criticism, needs us to do…defend free people everywhere from evil.

So let the bidding begin from contractors all over the world. It is time to start leveling their infrastructure and building that 50,000 hole golf course. If we don’t, we will continue to be attacked by Ol’ Dirty B@stards, because like water being wet, that is what Iran and Syria do.

eric

Well folks, it was bound to happen. I engaged in behavior that Zell Miller would describe as a “deficit of decency.” I crossed the line. Time to make things right.

John Edwards has a supporter named Jane Fleming that is frequently a guest on Fox News. She runs a group called Young Democrats for America, or something to that effect. While I disagree with her views, and am not an Edwards supporter, her undeniable physical beauty caught my attention. Perhaps I could have expressed myself in a more tactful manner. I do not remember the exact words, but I think I mentioned something about having her on top of a pool table until we were both scuffed.

It was pointed out to me today that Jane Fleming just got married. I was not aware of this at the time. Had I known, I would have either not mentioned her, or toned it down ever so slightly. A man does not sexualize another man’s woman. The code of honor among men renders married women off limits. The fact that, as Ted Koppel points out, that the ten commandments are not the ten suggestions also plays a vital role.

Some may say that if she was single, my comments would still be inappropriate. Nonsense. Feminism did not get invented so that women could be reduced to delicate, fragile little flowers. It was not meant to destroy the laws of nature, or for those of you believers, God. Boys like girls (Yes, there are gay people in society, but the overwhelming majority of people, for better or worse, are heterosexual). Boys want to sleep with girls. Provided that they are not married and are over the legal age of consent, this is natural, biological and highly appropriate.

People will try to limit me, so I will never in life limit myself. If I want to sleep with someone, I will simply tell them, and let the chips fall where they may, or the fists fly where they may if I am not careful about how I phrase it. The key is to be closer on the tact scale to Marvin Gaye (Sexual Healing, Let’s Get it On) than 2 Live Crew (Me so horny, Pop that coochie), even though both types of songs have the same message.

I did not know Jane Fleming was married. I do not regret objectifying her sexually for any other reason than that.

This is not a namby pamby non-apology “statement of regret” that Bill Clinton made famous. This was not an “if I offended anyone” copout. I expressed lustful sentiments in an X-rated manner towards a married woman. I have to do a better job of researching these things.

I will survive. I have an MTV style attention span (although sadly enough the 80s rock bands I like are now on VH 1, a humbling life development). By tomorrow I am sure I will be able to find several hot women that are single, and therefore fair game for X-rated commentary.

Ms. Fleming, I regret not being able to act out with you the things I vividly described. However, I regret more that you were not single when these sentiments were expressed. Your fella is a lucky man. I still disagree with you on virtually every political issue.

I wonder if she has a republican Jewish twin sister with incredibly loose morals. Perhaps it is too soon to think such thoughts. Actually, if they are triplets and trapeze specialists…

Wait a second, the whole point of this was to apologize. Can an apology be sincere without an improvement in behavior? Well what actually defines an apology? Maybe I was too harsh on Bill Clinton. I mean this lust stuff is kind of powerful.

Ok, back to surfing republicanjewishcybersluts.com (no, it’s not a real site, although if anyone creates it tomorrow, I better get royalties). I am such a disgrace to the republican party sometimes. The family values crowd and social conservatives are not pleased. As I have said before, it is my God given right to be unprincipled up to a certain point.

Ms. Fleming, every word I said about biting through your trousers was said with the idea that you were single. It will not be discussed from this day forward.

Lust has gone bust, so consider this my attraction retraction, from a conservative who desired a liberal taste of Jane Fleming up until…but not after…her last name changed.

Ok, off to engage in self congratulatory behavior for having the ability to admit I was wrong. Perhaps I can cry on cue for the television cameras. Bill Clinton’s lower lip quiver and gentle tear from the eye would be helpful.

What was my point again…oh yeah…girls…yummy…bouncy…delicious…tasty…but only if they are single and available…oh, and brunette would be helpful.

To all the hot married women on Earth…sorry! Didn’t mean it!

Ok, my Orinoco is flowing…or perhaps just my sincerity.

Oh, and liberals, do not blame all conservatives for these thoughts. They are as embarrassed that I would use such inappropriate language as they are that I would be attracted to a liberal, married or otherwise.

I blame Clinton…Not Bill Clinton…George Clinton…it’s just the dog in me. Come to think of it, that covers Bill as well.

Ok, Western Civilization survived by deficit of decency. As for getting over Jane, I will survive like Gloria Gaynor.

Wow, that was quick. Off to watch sports highlights and eat junk food.

eric

No, Rosie did not mastermind the 9/11 attacks. No, she is not as evil as Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Now that the politically correct disclaimers are out of the way, the bottom line is a bad person got what they deserved. Now do not feel bad for Rosie Queen of Morona. She will get a multi-million dollar deal from some Hollywood (redundant I know) bottom feeder.

The irony is that she did so much harm to people and causes that she supported, much less opposed. By calling herself “Big Fat Lesbian Loud Rosie,” she reinforced negative images about people that did nothing to deserve them. There are plenty of moderates in this country who want to support gay rights, and then she comes along, and gives the opponents of the gay rights movement plenty of ammuition. She is Howard Dean minus any policy prescriptions. No wait, she is Howard Dean with breasts. He did not have policy prescriptions either.

Americans like civility. They do not like meanness. Kids are tought this in kindergarten. Rosie attacked people randomly, indiscrimately, and viciously. When listening to her, it was not just “What the heck is she babbling about,” but “Why is she babbling about it?” She became a freak show, and like all freak shows (Are you listening Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton?), the ending is not pretty.

I could care less that Rosie has girth. Nor do I care that she is a lesbian. What I care about is that she is a nasty shrewish woman. That is not name calling. That is definitional.

I would not expect the View to be a better program now that she left because there is only so much one can do with garbage. It will remain an idiotic program with insignificant people babbling about nonsense (with all respect to Elizabeth Hasselbeck, who belongs on a quality program worthy of her grace and class).

Don’t worry Rosie. Now you can spend more time with your family. Perhaps you and Cindy Sheehan can have dinner parties and draw Hitler mustaches on the President’s face in the name of intelligent discussion and civilized discourse. Come to think of it, with Cindy Sheehan retiring (a term I always thought wass reserved for useful employed people), you can always be the Grateful Dead version of the protest circuit. You could call it Rosiepaloser. Either way, time for you to exit, stage (extreme insane angry) left.

Again, cheer up Rosie. After your nervous breakdown you will write a tell all book and make even more money. Society rewards screwups who stop screwing up, rather than acknowledge the everyday people who wiork hard every day and pay your salary.

Rosie, you started out as the Queen of Nice. I will take every bad word I said about you back if you go back to being this person. You were nice once, so you have that capability. Then you became a hardcore leftist, which apparently just does not seem to mesh well with rational thought or civility or kindness or decency or anything else that good people possess.

May your child grow up to be a good citizen who treats people with kindness. This can happen if you spend more time with her, and less time being an attention seeker. Stay away from the cameras for awhile. Go heal. Go get better. Most importantly…just go.   

eric

Winston Churchhill, when speaking about the Royal Air Force, said “Never…in the history…have so many…owed so much…to so few.” With respect to perhaps the greatest orator ever, my reaction towards Cindy Sheehan is that never has one who owed so much to so many given so little. As expected, President Bush and the US military soldier on, and Cindy exits Snagglepuss (or is that sourpuss) style, stage (far) left.

When Yassir Arafat died, a columnist remarked that if one cannot say somethnig good, say nothing at all. So he wrote “Yassir Arafat is dead. Good.”

No, Cindy Sheehan did not murder anyone, but the only reason she did not murder the morale of the troops in the most consequentual and proper struggle of our lifetime is that that our soldiers are made of steel, and she is not. She tried to cause infinite pain and she failed, and I say good riddance.  

Cindy Sheehan started out as a sympathetic figure. She lost her child. No parent should see their child predecease them. It is the ultimate nightmare for any parent, and sympathy towards her was entirely appropriate. She then met with President Bush, ho met with her and offered sincere condolences, which is to be expected from a man who has had personal tragedies in his life (His sister died when she was a young child).

For some reason, Cindy Sheehan was not satisfied with his condolences. She waged a personal jihad against him. She stalked him for crying out loud. What else would you call someone that camps outside your personal residence and starts loudly yelling for days on end? She then aligned herself with the far left in this country, who when not hating everything conservatives and republicans stand for, find time to attack Israel and Jews. This makes perfect sense, given that Jews are as leftist as Cindy Sheehan is.

Cindy Sheehan stopped being sympathetic and started being seen as what she had become…a zealot. She was an activist, smiling before the cameras as she would get arrested, enjoying every moment of her newfound celebrity status. How do I know this? Again, she was smiling and laughing for the cameras.

She started her crusade over the tragedy of losing her son. What she still fails to acknowledge is that her son supported what he was doing, believed in what he was doing, and died a hero for a cause he voluntarily signed up for. There is no military draft in this country. Her son became a soldier, and died in a war. This is tragic, but he believed in the very thigns that Cindy Sheehan is fighting against. Like most activists, Cindy Sheehan neglected everything else in her life to go on her celebrity tour. Like college students in the 1960s sleeping outside and following the Grateful Dead around the country, she failed to see that while the Grateful Dead earned millions, many of their fans did not meet a happy financial ending.

Cindy Sheehan did not get a crisis of conscience, or a lobotomy. SHe is quitting because she is broke. I wonder if her celebrity friends such as Jane Fonda or Susan Sarandon will lift a finger to help her, or if they will discard her the way they lose interest in African nations once the glow of the newspaper wears off. They worry about Darfur now, and in the 1980s it was “We are the World” and Ethiopia (they did a great job improving that situation). The cause continues, as easily impressionable get sucked into a cause and then get thrown away.

“In the meantime, she said her antiwar activism had cost her her marriage, that she had put the survivor’s benefits paid for her son’s death and all her speaking and book fees into the cause and that she now owed extensive medical bills.”

Her husband asked her to come home for a long time. She started out angry over losing her son, and she ended up neglecting the rest of her family. That is what happens to activists. It is one thing to have causes, but they should not be a replacement for an entire existence. Her cause was her life, and it hurt the lives of those she claimed to care about the most. Even by Hollywood standards, this is selfish. Her son’s death was not a waste, but her losing all of her finances was a prime example of waste.

Cindy Sheehan did this to herself, and she has no one to blame but herself. I genuinely felt bad for Cindy Sheehan the mother, but I have utter contempt for Cindy Sheehan the activist. She says that she failed her son as his mother. For the last couple years she has failed her other children and her husband, who are very much alive.

The good news is Cindy Sheehan can make things right with her family. It will take time, but I genuinely hope those bonds are restored. There is something heroic in being a good spouse and parent, and as long as anyone is alive, they can be redeemed.

Plus, the more time she will spend with her family, assuming she cares more about them than her celebrity friends who care nothing about her, the less she will be on my television screen. This is a win-win for everybody. Perhaps one day Cindy Sheehan will be remembered best for the one very big positive thing she did…bring a fine young man into this world who gave his life for his country in a cause that he rightly believed in.

Or perhaps she will be remembered as another uninformed, nasty, venom spewing activist screwball who briefly made things worse and then disappeared. Come to think of it, there is a position open on “The View.”

God no. Like Bill Murray in “What about Bob,” she needs to leave. Her 15 minutes are up. Begone Ms. Sheehan. Exit, stage (ultra extreme) left.

eric

One of the qualities that God blessed me with was a cavalier attitude. I take things seriously, provided I feel like it and it will directly benefit me. Like many men, my favorite type of women were dumb, hot ones. They did not ask questions, they did not prattle on endlessly, and they made for great arm candy. Yet despite my best attempts to avoid growing as a person, I started gravitaing towards women of substance. This was not a happy decision.

I remember being 18 and attending a Jewish university. Some of us would go to Mount Saint Mary’s in the pickup truck, trolling for what we called a “taste of catholicism.” We would arrive before their classes started and ask the girls “How many of you are Catholic?” They would look at us like it was a trick question, at which point I became delighted, knowing they were even dumber than we initially suspected. We would ask the question again, and all of the girls would raise their hands. We then asked how many of them were disgusted by this fact. Three or four women would have their hands up, and we would tell them “get in the truck. It’s conversion time.” How I miss those days.

Upon reading an article by some feminist writer who criticized the Spice Girls (Anyone who criticizes Posh Spice for any reason should be shot. David Beckham is proof of why getting rich is vital in a capitalist society). This writer explained that girls should use their brains to attract boys. While initially dismissed this as nonsense, her point about men was valid. “Of course boys get excited about what is up a girl’s skirt between her legs. Who cares? They also get excited over jelly donuts.”

I realized that this woman was 100% correct. Then I forgot what the article was about as I thought “You know, I could use a jelly donut.” However, the advice she offered did not resonate for too long, because thankfully I was given a short attention span (MTV rocked!). The problem was not that the smart women were doing anything right. It was that the dumb women could not stop doing things wrong. The smart women were winning by default.

When I was dating an arm candy moppet several years back, everything came to a head when a group of 12 of us were sitting around the table discussing Middle Eastern politics. She wanted to talk about Britney Spears’s Pepsi commercial. I broke up with her the next day. The problem with dumb girls is they do not know when to be dumb and quiet. The sex was fine, but every once in awhile an intelligent conversation would be necessary.

Things got worse when I tried to relax by my building’s jacuzzi one night. A woman, drunk, giggling, and popping out of her top (normally a trifecta of delight) asked me if I lived in the building. When I replied that I did, she told me that she found that very hard to believe. She said “I have a friend who looks just like you, and he does not live here.” I did not have a shotgun within reach, and I was hoping she would simply let her chest do the talking for her. I explained that I was a different person. She pointed out that I had a different name than her friend, a different career, and had a different accent. After I repeatedly pointed out she had the wrong guy, she looked at me intensely, close enough for me to go “motorboarding” between her, and asked me “Tell me the truth. Who are you?” In a desperate attempt to end the conversation, in my worst tv superhero impersonation I replied “I’m Batman.” At this point she scolded me and said “No you are not. You are not Batman. You lied to me. Everything you have said to me is a lie. You don’t even live here.”

While pounding my fist in frustration at the realization that I had to listen to her and she would not be getting naked (the worst of all combinations), I thought “Maybe she is right. Maybe I don’t live here.”

I once fell for a woman who had laryngitis, but then she got her voice back. I wondered what it would be like to date one of those women who had their tongues cut out during the war. It must cut down on backtalk.

Somewhere along the line I began running into women who, despite being intelligent, were not insufferable. I met women who were smart and assertive, but not lesbians. Conversations took place that actually had value. Some of these women even had morals as loose as their dumber counterparts (although still not as loose as mine, unfortunately).

I guess people need to give eachother a chance. If blacks and whites can sing “we shall overcome,” and the Catholics and Protestants can reach peace in Northern Ireland, and James Carville can marry Mary Matalin (boy did he luck out), then I owe it to myself to date smart women…besides, if they nag me, I can always find a dumb one that is too dumb to argue.

eric

Nancy Pelosi, you’ve just won the House of Representatives and become House Speaker. What are you going to do next?

(In incredibly over the top voice that would make the Spice Girls seem like rocket scientists) I’m going to Damascus!

At this point the fellow shooting the commercial yells “cut” and explains to her that the line is Disneyland. Like explaining to Betty White’s character on the Golden Girls the difference between a Lebanese and a Lesbian, Ms. Pelosi seems to confuse a pleasure trip for the entire family with a nation that sponsors worldwide terrorism.

One of the reasons that I was not intially concerned about Nancy Pelosi becoming speaker was that I was under the illusion that since democrats at this point in history stand for nothing, they would not disrupt society by actually doing anything. Sure, they could make bombastic speeches. They could conduct endless investigations on republican non-scandals. They could even claim that their supporters that have nothing to do but attend protest rallies do not represent them. However, the one thing democrats were not supposed to do was actually govern. They were not to try and enact actual policies. When they do this…they lose elections.

Nancy Pelosi is going to find out what Newt Gingrich found out over a decade ago…there is only one President. Oh, and Nancy…you are no Newt Gingrich. Newt had ideas. He had core beliefs that the American people were comfortable with. When he rolled up his sleeves and got to work, he dragged Bill Clinton kicking and screaming into a balanced budget. When he tried to become a de facto Prime Minister, Bill Clinton clobbered him in the court of public opinion. The reason for this is simple. The President is the Commander in Chief. There is no other.

When the President tells America, rightfully so, that Syria is a terrorist nation, and that it is illegal…yes illegal…to do business with them…what gives anyone the audacity to take a trip there. I would expect this type of behavior from Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, because they do not actually work for a living or have any responsibilities. Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House. She has work to do. 

So Nancy now understands what her fate is. Unlike Presidents, who get to ride on Air Force One and meet foreign dignitaries and make world history, Nancy is simply the tallest member of 435 legislative grunts who have to sit in subcommittee hearings and read multi-thousand page documents that noone seems to care about. This can be tedious when there is a complex legislative agenda such the 1994 Contract With America, but it is even more boring when there is no agenda at all. Having meetings to determine what to actually believe, say and think is not for people who want more out of life than keeping C-Span employed.

Ms. Pelosi, as much as you enjoyed your visit to Syria, the cold hard reality is that nothing you did on that trip was consequential. George W. Bush is President. You are not. Once you leave the shores of the USA, you are a Paean. You are a nobody. This is not to demean you, but to remind you that an overblown sense of self-importance does not go over well with voters. You are a congresswoman from San Francisco. Period. That is it. Taking junkets to Syria for the sole purpose of undermining the President is bordering on sedition. When Jimmy Carter does it, it is not as bad, because noone took Jimmy Carter seriously when he was President, so his proclamations mean even less now. You however are seen by some as being relevant. Therefore, keep yopur disagreementswith the President within the confines of the USA.

Some people are focusing on the fact that the trip was a failure. She made promises to Syria regarding Israel. Israel rapidly contradicted those promises. This made Ms. Pelosi look foolish. The real issue is that if the President bans people from doing business with Syria, that is an executive order. If General Motors or IBM or Coca Cola had been caught doing business with Syria, the CEOs could have gone to jail. Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria was plain and simple…again…a crime. What makes it even worse than that is that the 3rd most powerful person in the USA actually believes that dialogue with Syria works. Has she ignored their history? Did she not notice that by putting on that head scarf that she was submitting to Sharia law? Did Bashar Assad promise to stop funding Hezbollah? Did he turn over the murderers who killed the former Lebanese Prime Minister (of course not, he would be turning in himself).

What Nancy Pelosi fails to grasp is that it is easy to be a revolutionary. Governing is harder. She led the democrats to victory in 2006 (although it can be argued that if they had lost, she would have been the reason why. She is a liability). Now comes the time to govern. 2008 is a long way away. If George W. Bush is the enemy, than Nancy Pelosi should stay the course. If she believes, as most clear thinking Americans do, that having tea and crumpets with Islamofascists is a bad idea for America, she should do what liberals do best when they want to be popular…go on vacation and hope the republicans self-destruct.

Disneyland awaits you Ms. Pelosi. It is the friendliest place on Earth. They employ Rosie O’Donnell. You could have tea and crumpets with her and discuss the Iranian President Armageddonajad. What you cannot do is give aid and comfort to America’s enemies. Ms. Pelosi, despite your title as Speaker, you need to do what is right for America and politically smart for democrats. You need to stop speaking. You are a good misguided kid Ms. Pelosi, but it is time for the adults to handle the business of governing. So take a time out and go play with Mickey and his friends. The President has a nation to lead.

eric