07/24/2002 Archived Entry: "BushRepin: On 2004 vs Bush"

Mostly I see the Republican's on the net getting the shakes over Edwards, and rightfully so, but Dean has been creeping into their craw of late too.

Now, I wrote a real smartass MB reply to the brain splat that was called HOWARD DEAN ANALYZED. I want to reply with more substance here, and will shortly. I was lead to the post from this guy, a real trooper for the Bushites, working in the Eisenhower building, Ben Domenech, you can view the depth of his breadth about Dean here. A babble-blogger, can you imagine this going around in your head? I can't but then again, I don't work for Bush Inc, and get to ask Condi loopy-dupe questions like who's going to win the Super Bowl. Dear Condi, the neocons hopeful loveletter to the wingers for the VP slot, like, kick Dick over!

Let's get to the post-n-point. Ben says, Patrick gives Howard Dean more credit than I do, but ultimately we agree that the brand of politics Dean represents is ludicrous [at] its best and vile at its worst. Look, when the wingers are reduced to talking that way, it's a sure sign. A real scared-to-shit impulse of their fear toward Dean. There's more of that where we are going. Onward now, here's the post, HOWARD DEAN ANALYZED.

First off, I give up, Ruffini out supports me for Israel. Damn, and he's a Republican, no wonder the Jewish vote has been swinging to the right. But still, there will be no flag that is going to fly atop the U.S. Capitol other than Old Glory. On second thought, I take that back, this one belongs there right now. And third, Ruffini's free-flow post is choke-full of wrong-headed assumptions and misfired comments concerning Dean. Sure, his readers probably don't know Howard from James anyway... so it's a wrong-headed rant, how so? That's what I'm here to point out... and I'll do that tomorrow, then off to Chicago till next week.