In Their Own Words: Liberals on Karl Rove

I read a National Journal election article on why Rove might be so optimistic. I thought it would be interesting to share every liberal comment below the article. It leaves one wondering: what the hell has happened to liberalism in America?

You overlooked the most important reason: He's delusional.

Billy | 10.26.06 05:22 PM

Rove is famous for playing mind games dating back to his high school debating days. He lugged huge bags supposedly stuffed with "back-up" arguments etc. which actually had blank paper. Rove is a con artist. Democrats would do well to be chirpy and optimistic and watch the voting machines - all of them.

M. Stratas | 10.26.06 05:30 PM

Rove and crew will probably come up with another phoney terrorist alert like they did after John Kerry's acceptance speach to scare the silly american sheep.

lloyd xkey | 10.26.06 05:44 PM

One word: DIEBOLD

jane | 10.26.06 05:46 PM

Mr. Rove is concerned only of keeping "W"'s party in office. Rove is the one of the most evil people in this country. Right along with the others of the "axis of evil", they being Mr. Evil himself, Dick Cheney, and our old buddy Rummy. What a disgusting bunch of worthless frauds. Rove is very much like his grandfather who was a war criminal of the Nazi era.

disgruntled | 10.26.06 05:48 PM

Rove's a Nazi. He spin-doctors and manipulates until much of the American public is confused beyond all reason.
Rovie's pushing a deadly game. 3,000 American soldiers killed and Rovie comfortably tucks himself in at night. 600,000 Iraqis killed and Rovie and the gang keep manipulating. The beat goes on...

Dan | 10.26.06 05:55 PM

How about the fact that Mr. Rove and his pals at Diebold have confident that the election will go there way.

-Matt | 10.26.06 05:58 PM

the first thing rove must do is to take gannons c*** from his mouth

BillyC | 10.26.06 06:00 PM

And then there's Diebold. They can always just steal the election again.

Paul | 10.26.06 06:01 PM

rove should stop drinking the kool-aid. Republican's are going to lose the house.

noway | 10.26.06 06:11 PM

Tha last comment was the only reasonable one! Conspiracies and nazi name-calling are usually signs of a party that is not serious or competitive. Yet most of the base of a formerly great American politcal party has become obsessed with them.

Don't Hire an Alcoholic to Replace a Social Drinker

And Don't Elect Liberals to Spite Republicans

I know the Republicans have spent far too much money the past 6 years, especially during Bush's 1st term, but I'm getting really tired of this idea that they are identical when there are such massive differences. Just because neither party mimmicks your ideas does not make them identical.

Republicans passed big tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Democrats would probably have passed one tax cut half the size of the 2001 tax cut, if that (after all Clinton promised tax cuts and then raised taxes). Most Republicans tried to start privatizing Social Security, a hugely important issue that Democrats will never be as libertarian on.

Republicans are in favor of health savings or universal savings accounts, which are far more libertarian than the Democrat's universal national healthcare plans. Republicans did pass a huge Perscription Drug Benefit, but it was half the size of the one Democrats favored.

Republicans passed a border security only bill that the Democrats never would have passed. Republicans passed bills allowing somewhat tough interrogations of Al Qaeda terrorists, the NSA warrantless wiretapping of terrorists, and a tweaked but still largely in tact Patriot Act. The Democrats would have shredded all 3 security measures, which have been very effective thus far. Democratic positions on counterterrorism measures read like a bill of rights for terrorists.

So while you can be dissapointed at Republicans not being conservative "enough", handing the government to a party that is LESS conservative and in favor of more spending in all aspects is nonsensical.

What is a South Park Conservative?

As far as this site is concerned, a South Park Conservative is someone who believes:

1. That the government doesn’t know what’s best for us


2. That social spending should be left to state and local governments because Utah and New York City don’t have the same problems


3. That capitalism is just a word for economic freedom and high taxes take away that freedom


4. That unequal prosperity is far better than equal poverty


5. That just because you’re a Democrat out of power doesn’t mean the Republican stole the election


6. That local control over social issues is more democratic and national control over social issues builds resentment


7. That smoking pot doesn’t make you a criminal


8. That people should have enough personal responsibility to simply use birth control until they’re married because every child deserves to be born into a loving family


9. That early abortion is a personal decision because its morality is debatable, but partial birth abortion is murder


10. That immigrants are good people, but importing the world’s poor is an insane public policy


11. That just because you’re a professor doesn’t give you the right to indoctrinate your students and stifle dissent in your classroom


12. That terrorism is the greatest threat to the world, not global warming


13. That terrorists in uncomfortable interrogations are better than innocent Americans in caskets


14. That you can’t appease Jihadists, who say things like, "The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy."


15. And that just because you’re famous doesn’t mean you know shit about the government.

South Park Conservative will be packed with small government, tough on terrorism, socially moderate blogging. Does that describe you? You just might be a South Park Conservative. Add SPC to your Favorites

The Bottom Line: Iraqi Sunnis are Reaping What They Have Sown

Sunni insurgents claimed that they were fighting the American “occupation”. Yet throughout the American presence in Iraq we were setting up an Iraqi democratic government and anxious to withdraw more soldiers. Today, elected Iraqis control all of Iraq’s government. But thanks to the Sunni's stubborn pro-Saddam, anti-democratic attitude, they killed thousands of American soldiers and harbored Al Qaeda terrorists that mass murdered both American soldiers and innocent Shiite civilians.

Now they are crying that they don’t want the country to break up. Their AK-47s and IEDs are all rusty with tears no doubt. They couldn’t give up their dominance over the Kurds and Shiites of Iraq, so now they are facing the prospect of being isolated, poor, and landlocked. They don’t want Iraq to split up because they won’t get much oil revenue, but Iraq wouldn’t be on the verge of splitting up if it weren’t for the Sunni insurgency and alliance with Al Qaeda!

Although liberals blame President Bush for violence in Iraq, just as most now blame him for 9/11, Saddam Hussein and now Iraq's Sunnis have always been the catalysts of violence. Saddam Hussein refused to admit inspectors in order to trick neighbors like Iran into believing he had WMDs, which lead to sanctions and the unecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. This is also why U.S. troops were based in Saudi Arabia and patrolled no-fly zones in Iraq. Osama bin Laden then used the deaths of Iraqis under sanctions and the troops in Saudi Arabia as his two main justifications for the mass murder of 9/11. Saddam Hussein's success convincing the world he had WMDs through noncompliance with inspections and his connections to Al Qaeda left America no choice but war under the Bush Doctrine, which had 90% public support when it was unveiled on September 20th, 2001.

"But but but Saddam Hussein had no ties to 9/11!!!" Who said anything about ties to 9/11? I sure as hell didn't. However, there is abundant evidence of connections between Saddam Hussein and Jihadist terrorists, including Al Qaeda.

After the fall of Saddam, the Sunnis have been the only group that has consistently opposed peace and democracy. The Sunnis are the only group that has killed and caused chaos since the invasion ended. The Sunnis are the only group who could have made Iraq peaceful by stopping their attacks.

The Shiites were pulling off their best Ghandi impression, resisting any serious retaliation for nearly 3 years. Blaming 20 year-old American boys from Nebraska or Pennsylvania who are trying to keep that country in one piece for the sectarian violence is simply nonesensical. So the Sunnis will now have to deal with the consequences of their savage slaughter of Iraqi civilians and noble, self-sacrificing American troops. Forgive me if I have no sympathy for these terrorist-loving Baathists. The Iraqi Sunnis do not deserve my sympathy or yours.

Article of the Week

Liberal Paranoia

This article by Jonah Goldberd describes how "Intellectuals look at the world through literary prisms of theory. They come up with a vision of the world — one that usually magnifies their importance — and then select facts accordingly." It's a very entertaining must read.

Taxes and Terror

Republicans Need to Talk about Democrat’s Policies to Win



We hear about the faults of the Republican Party, of which there are many, every day in dozens upon dozens of mainstream media reports. Still, few Americans even know what Democrats are for. Republicans need to talk about the Democratic Party agenda, which South Park Conservative graciously has compiled for your convenience.

First, Democrats are in favor raising taxes. Representative Charlie Rangel, who would take over the Ways and Means Committee has said, “I cannot think of one' of President George W. Bush's first-term tax cuts that merit renewal”. They opposed Bush’s tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Democrats would certainly increase taxes both the upper and middle class, using the explanation that the nation needs “shared sacrifice” in wartime. Democrats would bring back the death tax, raise the capital gains tax, and raise the dividend tax. Unfortunately, liberal economics is the art of explaining why your predictions haven't come true. I'm looking at you Paul Krugman. The Democratic Party's liberal policies would devestate the economy.

Second, Democrats are in favor of increasing government spending. Universal health care alone would cost hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Everyone knows that Democrats increasing spending is as old and reliable a tradition as Ted Kennedy getting drunk on the Senate floor every Christmas, so I’ll move on.

Third, Democrats are in favor of giving terrorist suspects more legal protection. The NSA would lose the ability to listen to international terrorist conversations if the U.S. is on one side of the conversation without first obtaining a warrant. High level Al Qaeda terrorists would be banned from “humiliating” treatment or any other treatment not fitting of an honorable POW, making it impossible to obtain any information from the most murderous and knowledgeable terrorist leaders. Al Qaeda’s interrogation policy will remain torture followed by decapitation. Furthermore, sensitive evidence that proves terrorists guilt will not be admissible unless we agree to give terrorists who have not yet been convicted access to top secret American intelligence. Liberals must love the Bill of Rights so much that they are creating one for terrorists.

Fourth, Democrats are in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Ask a liberal what policy they think is most likely to lead to victory in Iraq and they will be speechless at the concept that we should even address the question. The only question in liberal Democrats' minds is, “How do we get out?” As in all liberal philosophy, the consequences of their actions are not as important as doing what feels good.

News Alert: Harry Reid Hides Real Estate Deal, Hangs Up on AP

A deal with a man involved in several organized crime investigations, Jay Brown, was covered up by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid. He sold the property in 2001, to a limited liability corporation created by Jay Brown, but never reported the deal to congress. He specifically reported to congress that he still owned the land. In 2004, Harry Reid made $1.1 million from the sale of the property. When asked about the deal by the AP, Harry Reid abrubtly hung up. Looks like the Democrats have a brand new scandal of their own...

Associated Press Report

News Alert: Nuclear Failure

The explosion was not atomic according to the National Review and Washington Times. It seems that North Korean nuclear program may be as incompetant as the management of the rest of that communist prison. I imagine "Lil' Kim" Jong Il had quite the temper tantrum after officials pulled him away from his massive porn library to tell him the news.

Under the Microscope: Ted Turner Ponders Which Side to Take

Ted Turner at the National Press Club

Turner: You know this-this, there are a lot of things about this war that disturbed me and one of 'em is, uh... uh, one of 'em is that you know that was well expressed by our President, and he said it very clearly. He said, "Either you're with us or you're against us." And I had a problem with that because I really hadn't made my mind up yet. You know, what if you haven't made your mind up? You know, what if you're thinkin' about it, doin' some studyin', doin' some readin', because it's (an) important decision whether to go to war or not. I mean you're either with us or against us, that's pretty black and white.

Yet again we see this attitude of moral equivalence between cold-blooded terrorists and the United States. It's been so deeply ingrained in elite and hollywood liberals in this country that the United States is an oppressor that they are incapable of coming to the conclusion that the United States could ever be a victim. You know, Ted Turner, sometimes things just are pretty black and white.

Let's humor his difficulty choosing sides. Are Osama bin Laden's greivances sufficient to warrant the mass murder of civilians? Does the basing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, at their request, justify the mass murder of 9/11? Let's compare the two...

U.S. Troops Standing Around in Saudi Arabia


The Retaliation for this Aggression


People Calling for Help Just Before the Tower Collapsed


Some Jump

(I found a picture of a man with his legs splattered in pieces and his intestines hanging out of his body after hitting the ground, but decided not to post it)

The Towers Collapse


Where is the moral equivalence?

In Their Own Words: Fun Quotes on Global Warming from Environmentalists

"I think if we don't overthrow capitalism, we don't have a chance of saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have an ecologically sound society under socialism. I don't think it's possible under capitalism."
--Judi Bari, Earth First! member

"The environmentalist's dream is an egalitarian society, based on rejection of economic growth, a smaller population, eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally."
--Aaron Wildavsky, political scientist and professor

"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits... [C]limate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
--Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister

"We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists, and their projects... We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers, and return to wilderness millions of tens of millions of acres of presently settled land."
--David Foreman, EarthFirst! member

"We've got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy"
--Timothy Wirth, Clinton Administration U.S. Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, and one of a number of politicians (including Barbara Boxer, Barney Frank, Al Gore, John Kerry, Christopher Shays, and others) who were designated as "Green Leadership for the '90s."

"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have... Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."
--Stephen Schneider, Stanford University environmentalist

"We routinely wrote scare stories about the hazards of chemicals, employing words like "cancer," and "birth defects" to splash a little cold water in reporters' faces... Our press reports were more or less true... Few handouts, however, can be completely honest, and ours were no exception... We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
--Jim Sibbison, former EPA press officer

"Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming, they have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say."
--Ross Gelbspan, former editor of The Boston Globe

"I would freely admit that on [global warming] we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy."
--Charles Alexander, Time magazine science editor

Visual Timeline: The Korean Nuke

Hello.


So, you’ve promised not to build nukes?


Hooray!


Shit!


Kim Jong Il: Now you see, the changing of the worrd is inevitabre!
Lisa: I'm sorry, it's what?
Kim Jong Il: Inevit, inevitabre.
Lisa: One more time.
Kim Jong Il: Inevitabre! Things are inevitabrey going to change! Goddamnit, open your fucking ears!


Oops.


You bastards!

Foley Media Obession

I know it's a juicy sex scandal. Even better, it's about Republicans. As perverted and wrong as this was, never forget that more than anything else this is a vehicle for the Democrats and media to hurt Republicans. Mark Foley has resigned and there is an investigation, so all of this media obsession is just hype at this point. There is a reason why this thing came out in late September. We all know what it is.

Welcome!

Well, I suppose I should introduce myself. I'm a Government and Politics major at the University of Maryland. While I'm not writing papers on how right-wing Fox News is to placate my liberal professors (true story, it did a lot better than my paper on how Clinton didn't do enough to combat terrorism) I enjoy sports, video games, politics, and of course watching South Park. I'd like to give a 'shout out' to my beautiful girlfriend Heather, who I now have not forgotten to include in my first blog entry.

I'd describe myself as a conservative libertarian, or neolibertarian if you will. Look it up on wikipedia. I'm for a small government, a strong military, and I'm socially moderate.

Now that I've got that out of the way I'd just like to say one thing. If you like politics and humor, then hopefully you'll like the South Park Conservative blog. Put it on your favorites or you'll forget it, dumbass. Did I mention I used to like That 70s Show until they tried to make Fez the main character? If you don't like humor, then what the fuck? Lighten up!