December 8, 2004 - What is a communist Senator from Massachusetts to do now?

Today's Commentary: December 8th, 2004

Hello Thinkers!

"Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." -- Ronald Reagan

I am leery of including myself in this collective pool of Thinkers as the addition of a newborn has certainly dropped my IQ by at least 40 points. The other day I made myself a sandwich and as I was bundling up a stack of cheese in Saran Wrap, I "shushed" it reflexively. I suppose I should consider myself lucky that I did not stick a pacifier between the slices. But while my intelligence has dropped, my wisdom has grown. I now know that there is nothing - nothing more disgusting than the bowel movements of a newborn. Nothing.

Well, strike that. There may be something more disgusting. Of course I speak (again) of Senator Chivas from the People's Republic of Massachusetts. Yes, the same senator I have previously referred to as the gelatinous fat on the SPAM of liberal politics. Fatcat Teddy clearly shot his political load in the presidential election season of 2004. He pulled out all the stops from the Democratic primaries through the final spanking, promoting the election of... um... what's-his-name... the French guy who looks like Herman Munster... well, never mind. And Senator Chivas did it the best he possibly could. During the primaries, when he knew he would be well received by the liberal base, he led the charge. After the Democratic convention in Boston, he held back knowing that his presence on stage would shift the opaque centrist veneer of the platform to the left (assuming he was standing on the left). From supplying senior staff members, to getting out on the campaign trail himself, Teddy gave it his all - only to realize that the golden age of bloated, communist, tax and spend liberalism has left him behind. We can now only imagine the bygone world in which his breed, the Myassissaurus, once roamed, feeding freely on the lush green of steadily increasing tax revenues. Sadly, His Liberalness took part in driving the 2004 presidential campaign off the bridge and into the water.

In the end, only so many tears can fall into a tumbler that is already filled with scotch. But what is an aging, overweight relic with little more than a used maxipad for a liver to do with himself when the voters of America denied him what could be his final shot at a back door 'casting couch' in the Oval Office? Why he becomes hopelessly self absorbed - that's what. Since there is little chance of his promoting large scale meaningful legislation in this post (leaking) Big Dig era, Senator Chivas must turn inward for glory. Yes, the University of Virginia is going to "record an oral history of the life and career of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a six-year, multimillion-dollar project that is the center's first effort to chronicle the history of a sitting senator."

http://www. boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/12/06/oral_history_planned_for_sen_kennedy?pg=full

Selflessly, Kennedy suggested the idea himself. Previously, U of V's oral history collection has only been of past presidents. The oral history of Bill Clinton however, remains behind the check-out counter and wrapped in plastic. Expect a truly hard-hitting and objective analysis from academia.

Teddy is not the only elitist undergoing severe self reflection in order to avoid the possibility that their principles of wealth redistribution, government control and reverse discrimination have been rejected by the majority of voting Americans. Michael Moore is now thoroughly convinced that Democrat politicians need to embrace Hollywood elitists even tighter if they wish to regain 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Moore is confident that he did not alienate voters, but he kept what's-his-name from losing by an even wider margin.

Moore says to critics of his activism, "It's actually the opposite. Democrats need to embrace Hollywood because this is where they need to come to learn how to tell a story." He believes that the Democrats did not have as compelling a story to tell, and that is why they lost.

http:// story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&ncid=584&e=11&u=/nm/20041207/pl_nm/people_moore_dc

Like most of the liberal elite, Moore believes that all they need to do is 'repackage' their communist, deconstructionist policies and the people will buy it. He believes that most voters like the nomenclature of "Stupid White Men" and agree that crime, poverty and the low expectations of minorities are the exclusive culpability of capitalism. If you ever watched "Bowling for Columbine", Moore tries to blame the murder of six year old Kayla Rolland on Dick Clark. Why? Because the mother of the shooter (another six year old) worked at Clark's restaurant and had to leave her son with his uncle while she worked. Nevermind that the uncle lived in a crack house where loaded firearms were readily available.

Undeterred, Moore believes Hollywood is the yellow brick road leading to political Oz. He continues, "And I think we need to turn to Hollywood, because who wouldn't vote for Tom Hanks or Paul Newman or Robert Redford or Oprah?"

Well Mike, that would probably be me - and about 59 million of my friends.