Wednesday, November 08, 2006

My Election Night wIth Satan...

It was 9:00PM on election night and I was waiting for Satan at the same New York City bar I met him at the first time when we made our agreement to show up again tonight.
When Satan showed up at the bar, he was wearing a parka.
“Things getting a little chilly down there?” I asked
“It does happen, occasionally. If your blog ever becomes popular, I expect to be climbing glaciers and fighting polar bears for the last scraps of seal meat.”
“Very funny. Clearly you get a little testy when you don't think things are going to go your way.”
“I'm not omniscient, but I did a little of my own exit polling. It's not a random sampling, but I look at everyone who dies on Election Day from stress related disorders and see what party affiliation they have. I have to send my minions out to various emergency rooms for this information, because if I just relied on who gets sent down to hell, then every election would look like it's skewed against the Conservatives.” Satan started to laugh a little.
“I'm glad you always get a kick out of our little get-togethers.” I said
“I always laugh when the topic is politics. It was one of the few creations of mine that got to stick around.”
“Why doesn't that surprise me?” I asked rhetorically. Then, as I looked up at the flat screen I said, “Shhh, here come the first results.”
We sat there for hours, in a haze of cigar smoke, and the smell of various single malt scotches intermingling. It was one of the few bars in all the city where you can still smoke a cigar with your drinks. Although I'd given cigars up, I decided to have one with Satan. I figured, when Satan offers you a “light” I just as soon take him up on it and make sure it's just my cigar.
The Congress went to the Democrats. The Senate was still too close to call. “Hey!” I said. “Did you have anything to do with that?”
“Just trying to keep things interesting.” He smiled. Besides, I'm enjoying the Scotch. What's our rush?”
“All well and good.” I said. “But don't start playing around with hanging chads and the Supreme Court again!”
“No, I won't be doing that this time. I got away with it in 2000, but then after what I did in Ohio in 2004, I have been restricted from the United States national election process...for a little while....” Satan responded. Then he started to laugh, “I guess the thinking was... better late than never!” He said through the laughter.
Then they announced that Lieberman had won reelection. "Hey, what about that?" I asked.
"Every single thing wrong in the world is not always my doing." Satan responded.
"Okay. But what about that one?" I asked.
He didn't answer. He had a smirk on his face, and I wondered, but there were those restrictions he said he was under--temporarily. Then again, he was the one who told me about those restrictions. Could he be lying? He taught Karl Rove how to Push-Poll, he taught George W. that war as a last resort meant anytime you want to, he taught Ann Coulter that shamelessness, stupidity and lying are virtues, so why not be lying now?
To be continued as the results come in....

9 comments:

Bruce said...

In his moving acceptance speech, Joe Lieberman stated that he was not beholden to any political organization...what a novel idea.

Now that Congress is split, Joe has, strangely enought, become a decisive swing vote, making him one of the most powerful in the Senate.

Joe quoted Psalms and thanked G*d, saying that he hopes his actions sanctify G*d's holy name.

The Satan has no opening with Joe...he'll have to look elsewhere...perhaps the Satan has made a pact with Jimmy Carter, the peanut brain with a vendetta against little Israel.

Larry said...

Actually, as we all know, Joe is beholden...to the Republicans, who voted for one of their own (Joe) that they thought could also get enough Democrat and Independent votes to win, thereby not supporting the other Republican (who actually had the guts to run as a Republican--what's his name) that only got 9% of the vote. If Joe, or anybody, believes that G*d sanctions the killing and torturing of innocent Iraqi citizens because our leaders Cheney, Rumsfeld (not anymore thank G*d) and their waterboy George W. could not understand the 9/11 commission's report that said Iraq had nothing to do with it, could not understand that all Muslims aren't the same, and could not understand that there were far more complex forces at play in Iraq then they might have guessed. But of course, not since George W. said "Mission Accomplished" was there anyone else besides Joe that said "things are really progressing there (in Iraq)" If he meant that insurgents, and terrorists were multiplying, and our soldiers and innocent citizens would continue dying, then I guess he was correct. But if that is what he meant I wish he would have clarified it before the election, because even Republicans probably would not have voted for that. Jimmy Carter, the ex-president doing humanitarian acts all over the world, who tried to broker a peace for Israel, may be misguided in some of his notions, which is why he was an ineefective one term President. Nevertheless, since 1976, the world has never been more dangerous for Israel. George W. with the help of people like Joe, has created a world where terrorists recruit with posters of our torture prisons in Iraq, where rogue nations are developing nuclear weapons, and where our military resources are stretched so thin, and our credibility in the world is so damaged, that we can barely get a consensus together to protect the world from the most obvious threats. When Iran is nuclear, and North Korea is selling missles and nuclear weapons to terrorists organizations, you can bet that Israel will be a much more desirable target than the U.S.. Blow up one of our cities and we will nuke everyone involved back to the stone age. A couple of direct hits on Israel...and there may not be anyone left to retaliate. This is George W. and Joe's America. This was their vision. They voted for it, supported it, and even kept telling us it was going their way! Worry about Jimmy Carter and worry about the Democrats rolling back those beloved tax cuts. Worry about the Democrats not having a plan to win the war in Iraq (as opposed to the brilliant job done by the triad of superlative thinking--NOT--Bush-Cheney and Rumsfeld (let's thrown in Condi too!) But Israel, and innocent American citizens really have to worry about the reality shaped by the vision of people like George W. and Joe, that we now have upon us. Yes, there are people that sleep better at night, knowing the world is a safer place these days, those people are George W., Cheney, Rumsfeld and Joe. Ask the average American or Israeli and see what they tell you. Or the Average African. Or the average..whatever....

EME said...

Being unbeholden and independent is no virtue when you're wrong.

Bruce said...

But wait, we were talking about Joe, not Bush. Lumping them together is convenient, but incorrect.

You can do the right thing, but do it the wrong way. That is what Joe Lieberman has been saying. Bush has, thus far, failed as a warrior president. He can redeem himself by taking out Iran's nukes, but that's off the topic [Joe].

Joe is not a one issue candidate. And he represents a good chunk of the center of the Dem party. The Dems should not get too drunk off of this election. A lot can happen in two years. Without a solid center, the Democrats will fail to regain the White House. Right now it looks like the Dems are playing from left field only. All the Republicans have to do is put up Rudy or McCain and they'll retain the White House for another 8 years.

Carter does provide evidence of the shift toward left lunacy in the Dem party. Let's see if the Dems allow Jimmy to invite "there is no threat" Michael Moore to sit next to him at the next Dem convention. That would be political suicide.

Americans know there is a threat. And they'll only vote for a presidential candidate with a plan. Unfortunately, the Dem approach can be summarized as "not Bush." That's not a plan. The only winning strategy for the Dems is to attack Bush from the right, not the left: ie. you've not been a good enough warrior.

Larry said...

Yes, we are talking about Joe. He has irrepairably joined Bush with his agreeing to the war, supporting the war, perception that the war was going well, etc. And such candidates are one issue candidates, because that is the issue that is killing young Americans and has only made the world a more dangerous place, and has made Iraq a more unstable target to be utilized by terrorists. The fact that enough Republicans believed he was the better Republican candidate, at a time when a stated Republican candidate couldn't get a meal, or a winning vote, in this country, only shows Lieberman for what he has become. In a country that has finally seen the truth, got mad as hell, and couldn't take it anymore, he was a refuge for the conservatives who could not get their own elected. Giuliani or McCain? Giuliani's time has passed. The country now sees the Republicans are looking for a fight, but are unwilling or unable to take it to the actual terrorists. McCain, sold his "soul" when he stumped for Bush when he first hit the skids in opinion polls to curry favor with the conservatives. He may get the conservative vote, but he lost the moderate, and the good feelings people had for him. He stumped for a man that supported torture and subsequently "unintentional" murder of prisoners, which was anaethma to everything he has held to since his own POW status. Michael Moore was the first to expose the unhappy truths of the Bush administrations failings from avoiding 9/11 to failing to catch those responsible. The 9/11 commissions own report helped to seal that deal since they found no cause for tying Iraq to 9/11, which until very recently was a mantra of Cheney and Bush. Political suicide was engineered by the same charmers that brought you push-polling, lies, distortions and less than half-truths. Lieberman simply gave the disheartened conservatives someone they could vote for, who would still pick up enough Democrat and Independent votes to carry the day. But those were fairweather voters. Give them a credible Republican and they will ditch the Joe. He has sealed a contract for Limbo. If he votes against the democrats, he won't get anything his way for CT. If he votes for them, he will disenfranchise his new base. We will see, as time goes by, where this goes. Sadly, Iraq has gone, actually, worse than I feared. But certainly, in that, I am joined by many people, Republican and Democrat alike.

Bruce said...

Don't forget that we're in Iraq because of bipartisan support for going in. An inconvenient fact, but a fact nonetheless.

I still have a Lieberman bumper sticker on my car from his primary Presidential run.

You paint broad, black and white strokes, with Iraq as the litmus test for everything. The issue of our times is not Iraq, but rather the war on Islamic terror.

Larry said...

I disagree. First of all, the bipartisan support was not to go to war, but to authorize war as a last resort to send a message to Iraq, and the world. As you may recall, we did not use it as a last resort. Right before our invasion, when it was clear our intent, Hussein said he would let the inspectors in, and we said---snag---Too Late! Now this is the way kids work, but not adults whoa re truly looking for a certain outcome, and not to avoid war, and death, and displacement at all costs. Iraq is no more the only issue, then the Holocaust was to the Nazis. It is simply a defining issue. The war on terrorism should be the issue, but we have not really fought it very well here in America. We did not finish the job in Afghanistan because we were sidetracked in Iraq. No one can point to any actual evidence that Iraq was a threat of terrorism after a decade of sanctions, except those in our government who no longer seem interested in these things (we don't need no stinkin' evidence or due process---we're from Texas, yee-ha!)
I welcome the opportunity, since the country seems more interested now in fighting terrorism, then picking fights we thought we could easily win, in getting to the real issues of this country and the world!

Bruce said...

Ok, but remember, Saddam succeeded in convincing virtually everyone that he had weapons of mass destruction. Much of the Muslim and European leadership thought so too.

Much debate has occurred on Iraq's place in the war on Islamic extremist terror. You would probably argue that it's a distraction to that war.

While the initial rationale for going in seems to have been evaporated, there may still be strategic value in being there. Elliot Chodoff, a military analyst, likens our troops in Iraq to being a giant magnet, attracting jihadists. He says that our being in Iraq doesn't create terrorist, but merely attracts them to Iraq. Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Better to fight them with the 3rd battalion than on 3rd Avenue!

Best,
Bruce

Larry said...

I wasn't convinced, but that's a seperate issue. We know the former Soviet Union has many nuclear weapons yet Bush has cut the funding for helping secure and dispose of them. They have a better chance of reaching terrorists then weapons that might not actually exist, no? We knew what they were up to in Iran and North Korea even when their leaders tried to convince us otherwise because of, among other things, satellite telemetry. Maybe all that work to convince everyone Saddam was doing should have tipped us off that a decade of sanctions and enforcing a no fly zone kind of made it difficult for him to really get much done. As for Iraq drawing the terrorists away from America, at best that is a specious argument. First off, Israel would accomplish that if that was all it took. Iraq has become a recruitment tool, and a training ground. Where else do you so easily get to shoot at Americans. Even if it was such a target, I am not sure our soldiers would see it as so beneficial. But it isn't. It's just an additional source of trouble that stretches our resources and intelligence services. Because Elliot Chodoff, a sociology major at SUNY, decided this, is not really a convincing thesis. How many terrorists did he interview in Iraq? Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before, because Hussein was scared of them and kept them out. Recent studies indicate that the world is not a safer place and Iraq is used for recruitment of terrorists so I do in fact assert that they are new terrorists. And yes, I do believe Iraq is just a distraction from the war on terror, but that is because there has never been any evidence that I am aware of, that it presented any kind of a threat in the last 15 years. Yes, in 1990 it lobbed missles at Israel for no other reason but to engender favor from other Arabs, which it really didn't do because it had just invaded one of them (ok. Syria probably appreciated it.) I can understand why Israel, and supporters of Israel might support the war for those reasons, and could say, "well he was a threat to Israel...." but ofcourse the American people, especially all those good, moral, right wing conservative Christians (and their adulterous mistresses and gay prostitutes) might not have supported that so fast. I cannot understand how intelligent and educated people can blindly still fall in line behind Bush when the 9/11 commission found no connection, there were no WMD, and we see what a quagmire Iraq has become. Supporters of the war don't even have 20/20 hindsight! They need glasses for their hindsight! (Where would you wear those, anyway?) We invaded Afghanistan because of what they did and who they harbored. Then we invaded Iraq with no such reasons or evidence. We deposed a terrible leader who had perpetrated heinous acts. What will we say when someone calls for a world court hearing for the terrible human suffering brought on by W Bush, for nothing other than a personal grudge and a grab for oil? Will we be so quick to offer him up for hanging? Okay. Bad question, but I am sure some Americans won't like the idea of some other nations deciding our President should be hanged, even if it is W. It is easy to say someone is evil and deserved to be deposed, tried, and convicted, but disingenuous when you do not, and cannot, hold yourselves up to the same standards.