Lindaland
  Global Unity
  Support the War, Get Reelected!

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Support the War, Get Reelected!
jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted March 29, 2006 08:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh wait, that's opposite to the manure the NY Times is fond of spreading.

Their motto is support the war get defeated for reelection. Gee, I wonder how that bit of advice from the NY Times worked out in the "real world"?

N.Y. TIMES, BROKEN CLOCK: BOTH OCCASIONALLY CORRECT
March 29, 2006
Ann Coulter


The New York Times has been urgently warning Congressional Republicans to abandon the Iraq War or face ruination in the November elections. Of course, for three years now, the Times has predicted that all world leaders who supported the war would be thrown out of office on their ears.

However embattled they are, I don't think Republicans are at the point of taking advice from the mainstream media, but let's look at the facts.

Four major world leaders who sent troops to Iraq have faced elections since the war's inception — Jose Maria Aznar in Spain, John Howard in Australia, Tony Blair in Britain and Junichiro Koizumi in Japan. Three of them won re-elections in campaigns that centered on their support for the Iraq war.

Only in Spain did voters capitulate to savagery and vote in an al-Qaida-friendly government in response to their trains being bombed the week before the election. Unaware that there is NO CONNECTION between al-Qaida and Iraq, al-Qaida's European spokesman explained that the terrorist attack was intended to punish Spain for supporting the Iraq war. Spanish voters duly complied, making terrorist attacks in the rest of the world more likely. Muchas gracias, Spano-weenies.

But in the three other elections, Iraq war-supporting prime ministers won historic victories. During the run-up to each of these elections, The New York Times described them as referendums on the war and predicted defeat for any leader who had supported war in Iraq. Only when the war-supporting leaders won did the Times change its mind and decide these elections were really about the economy, privatizing the post office, Tony Blair's tie, "The Sopranos" — anything but the war.

In the run-up to Australian Prime Minister Howard's re-election, the Times noted that he had "made the alliance with Washington a key element of his tenure." The Times was hopeful that Australia would be as pathetic as Spain, noting that "with al-Qaida threatening reprisals for the country's support of the United States in Iraq — a war that most Australians opposed — is Australia poised to become the next Spain? Will it become the next country to abandon President Bush?"

On the eve of Howard's re-election bid in October 2004, the Times ran an article titled: "War in Iraq Plays a Role in Elections in Australia," saying Howard's opponents promised to "have the troops home by Christmas."

When Howard walloped the opposition in the election a few days later, becoming only the third prime minister of Australia ever to be elected to a fourth term, the Times headline was: "Australians Re-Elect Howard As Economy Trumps the War."

As Blair approached British elections in April 2005, the Times ran an article titled: "With 10 Days to British Vote, War Emerges as Top Issue." As the Times cheerfully reminded its readers: "The prospect of war drew huge street protests here in early 2003, and in the aftermath Mr. Blair was — and is still is — accused by many people of misleading Britons about the legality and the rationale for the invasion." The war had "damaged Mr. Blair's credibility and left many Britons mistrustful of him."

The Times cited "many Britons" who said "their vote will be swayed by the fact that, while Mr. Blair spoke so forcefully of a threat from Iraqi unconventional weapons, none were ever found."

And then Blair went on to win the election, becoming the first Labor Party candidate to win a third term in the party's 100-year history. It was almost as if "many other Britons" believed in the cause the British military was fighting for in Iraq! The Times took solace in the fact that his margin was lower than in previous elections — "reflecting his unpopularity over the war in Iraq."

One year before elections in Japan, the Times was predicting defeat for Koizumi, a loyal friend to President Bush and an implacable supporter of the war in Iraq.

Reporting on the unpopularity of the Iraq War in Japan, the Times said "polls indicate that the population is against an extension" of Japanese troops serving in Iraq and that the opposition vowed to withdraw troops. Indeed, "some members of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's own party have been calling for the troops' withdrawal."

And then in September 2005, Koizumi's party won a landslide. The Times described this as mainly a victory for the prime minister's idea to privatize the post office, explaining that Koizumi had won "by making postal privatization — an arcane issue little understood by most voters — a litmus test for reform," thus confirming the age-old political truism, "Most elections hinge on arcane, obscure issues voters don't know or care about."

As congressional Republicans decide whether to take the Times' advice and back away from the war this election year, they might reflect on a fourth world leader who won re-election while supporting the Iraq war. Just about four months before Bush was re-elected in 2004, the Times put this on its front page: "President Bush's job approval rating has fallen to the lowest level of his presidency, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. The poll found Americans stiffening their opposition to the Iraq war, worried that the invasion could invite domestic terrorist attacks."

Maybe it was his support for the post office.
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

IP: Logged

TINK
unregistered
posted March 29, 2006 08:47 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Who released that picture? Her publicist needs to be fired.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 29, 2006 10:20 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yuk! Yuk! Yuk!

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted March 30, 2006 10:35 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Ann Coulter Given 30 Days to Explain Vote Fraud Felony Allegation!

Palm Beach, FL Election Supervisor May Refer Charges to State Attorney if GOP Pundit/Propagandist Fails to Prove She Didn't Lie About Residency...

UPDATED: Property Records Show an 'Ann H Coulter' Owns a $1.8 Million House on Seabreeze Ave. in Palm Beach
You'll recall that in February the Palm Beach Post reported that "conservative" extremist Ann Coulter may have committed a vote fraud felony by signing someone else's address to her registration form in Florida and then voting in the wrong precinct -- a crime which, if convicted, could earn her three years behind bars.

(It's been pointed out to us that such bars would have to be very close together to keep her from simply slithering through them to escape...Though even at that, we're not sure there is steel strong enough to keep her from being able to chew her way to freedom. But we digress.)

A few days after the story originally broke, Coulter claimed publicly she didn't even live in Palm Beach where she reportedly committed the crime. The Post reporter who broke the story, Jose Lambiet, quickly replied that he had hard evidence that she does, in fact, live in Palm Beach (next door to town councilman Bill Brooks on Seabreeze Ave.) and he characterized Coulter's denial as "absolutely a bold-faced lie."

Yesterday the Palm Beach Post offered still more "skinny" on the latest in the Ann Coulter Voter Fraud Felony Scandal. Her denials about being a Palm Beach resident is about to be tested -- first by the Palm Beach County Election Supervisor Arthur Anderson, and then perhaps by the Florida State Attorney to whom the entire matter may be referred.

Coulter's now got 30 days to 'splain herself, according to Lambiet in the Post. Please read on...

This time, claiming she doesn't even live here — as GOP pundit Ann Coulter has been doing, on this spring's college speaking tour when she's questioned about her February election meltdown on Palm Beach — isn't going to cut it.

Palm Beach County's elections supervisor has given the right wing's unofficial mouthpiece 30 days to explain why she voted in the wrong precinct.

In a registered letter scheduled to be sent to her this week, Coulter is asked to "clarify certain information as to her legal residence," elections boss Arthur Anderson said.

"We want to give her a chance," Anderson said. "She needs to tell us where she really lives."

Or else? He could refer the case to State Attorney Barry Krischer for criminal charges, Anderson said.

The letter, however, may be headed to the wrong house.

The bestselling author, whose The New Ann Coulter comes out in June, owns a homestead on Seabreeze Avenue, near Worth Ave. Yet, the missive is being sent to the Indian Road home of Realtor Suzanne Frisbie. Coulter claimed in official elections documents to be living there, which Frisbie denied last month.

"We have to send the registered letter to her address in our records," explained Charmaine Kelly, elections chief deputy. "If it comes back unsigned, we'll deal with that."

In his official incident report released last week, poll worker Jim Whited wrote that Coulter tried to vote in the Feb. 7 town council election at Bethesda-by-the-Sea, the right place for a Seabreeze resident. Coulter left in a hurry when, Whited said, he asked her to correct the record. Later she cast her ballot at the St. Edward's precinct, where real Indian Road residents go.

Coulter, a constitutional lawyer who relentlessly made fun of Palm Beach County voters after the botched 2000 presidential election, couldn't be reached for comment.

It's also been mentioned to us that Coulter could well be registered (illegally) to vote in New York and/or Connecticut as well as Florida. Anyone looking into that? We don't have time for the moment, but we're always happy to hear from erstwhile citizen investigators and/or tipsters who may have additional information on that.

With all of the despicably cynical GOP operatives out there trying to trick Americans into believing this country has an epidemic of Voter Fraud (it doesn't...but Election Fraud is an entirely different matter) it would certainly be impressive to see one of those snake-oil men (yes, I'm talking to you, aggressively pursue the truth about their heroine hate-monger Coulter and her alleged Voting Fraud.

We fear, however, she may be neither dark enough nor "Democrat" enough for such creeps to spend their well-funded time on.

UPDATE: A DU commenter points us towards the Palm Beach Property Appraisers Public Access system which shows an "Ann H Coulter" who purchased a $1.8 million dollar property on Seabreeze Ave. in Palm Beach in March of 2005. Complete public info here


http://tinyurl.com/ecxh9.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted April 02, 2006 01:15 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

Oh jwhop....did you see this??? (post above?)

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted April 02, 2006 04:00 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted April 02, 2006 11:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes Rainbow

I saw that so let me say the election was in November, 2004. It's April, 2006. Coulter was given 30 days to clear up any perception of voter fraud.

So Rainbow, where's the indictment charging Coulter with voter fraud? In fact Rainbow, where is any story about this in the mainstream media?

Let's see Rainbow, Coulter continues to rip, shred, fold, spindle and mutilate the NY Times for being the @sses they are. What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would be all over this so called story if there was even the smallest element of truth to it?

Show me the indictment.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a