Does anyone mention her incompetence?

Not that I've noticed. I notice the GOP is trotting out the old "party of Lincoln" line, as if we've forgotten they're also the party of Lott and Thurmond.

And Limbaugh. I rooted for the Donovan McNabb and the Eagles all last season just to spite Limbaugh.

I don't get it. I thought we were all supposed to be color blind and not look at this as some sort of racial thing. On that score, Rice stinks and is incompetent and ignored, as NSA chief, a warning that bin Laden was determined to strike in the US. Now we're all supposed to get all excited because Bush is going to appoint the most incompetent black woman in America as Secretary of State?

Color me confused.

i wouldn't exactly call condo sleazy a sister, for crissakes.

Andrew doesn't get it because he believed the right-wing caricature of the left. In fact we seek diversity along with character and competence.

Well now, this is slightly off topic, but I can't resist. It seems that Sullivan may have to find another locale from which to suck up to his neocon heroes next summer.
According a brief article in the weekly Provincetown Banner dated Nov 18,2004 (page 23), the town of Provincetown has foreclosed on his condominium for failure to pay property taxes.

Andy is a victim of 'erototoxins' gone barking mad.

Come to think of it now, so are the rest of the fundie whackjobs.

Gives a whole new meaning to that meme, doesn't it?

Fundie whackjob. I won't have to turn off my sarcasm, because there isn't any.

I'm going to quote Malcolm X:

----Begin Quote
There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
----End Quote

I think Malcolm X would consider Condi Rice to be a house negro.

I'm going to quote Malcolm X:

----Begin Quote
There was two kinds of slaves. There was the house Negro and the field Negro. The house Negroes - they lived in the house with master, they dressed pretty good, they ate good 'cause they ate his food -- what he left. They lived in the attic or the basement, but still they lived near the master; and they loved their master more than the master loved himself. They would give their life to save the master's house quicker than the master would. The house Negro, if the master said, "We got a good house here," the house Negro would say, "Yeah, we got a good house here." Whenever the master said "we," he said "we." That's how you can tell a house Negro.

If the master's house caught on fire, the house Negro would fight harder to put the blaze out than the master would. If the master got sick, the house Negro would say, "What's the matter, boss, we sick?" We sick! He identified himself with his master more than his master identified with himself. And if you came to the house Negro and said, "Let's run away, let's escape, let's separate," the house Negro would look at you and say, "Man, you crazy. What you mean, separate? Where is there a better house than this? Where can I wear better clothes than this? Where can I eat better food than this?" That was that house Negro. In those days he was called a "house nigger." And that's what we call him today, because we've still got some house niggers running around here.
----End Quote

I think Malcolm X would consider Condi Rice to be a house negro.

Talk about some bitter people here. Let me tell you the real reasons why Democrats lost the election:

1. Democrats are weak on national security. Democrats have consistently voted to downsize our military and intelligence agencies. Democrats worry more about what the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia thinks about us than what is best for OUR security. (This despite the well-known fact all these entities were receiving huge kickbacks from Saddam and violating the sanctions they had voted for.) Democrats want to talk and feel and discover the root "social problem" of terrorism - which they usually determine to be the fault of the United States. Conservatives would rather just kill them before they kill us. And kill them over there so they can't kill us on our own soil. If you haven't figured it out yet, we're at war against an enemy who would kill you for not believing in Allah. Democrats always complain about the religious right, but then embrace a culture that treats women as slaves and kills non-believers. Even the far-left Dutch are beginning to figure out the disastrous implications of the Muslim invasion into Western society. Democrats say they want security, but then do whatever they can to undermine it. Why is it that Jimmy Carter has never met a dictator he didn't like?

2. Americans are finally beginning to realize the big liberal social programs of the past 40 years have been a colossal failure and a huge burden on the taxpayers. They are tired of Democrats telling them they are greedy for wanting to keep more of their own money - especially when people earning much less the Senator Kerry (myself under $50k per year) give more than he does to charity on a regular basis. Democrats say they are compassionate - but it's easy to be compassionate with other people's money. Democrats don't seem to mind that these social programs rarely do what they claim they will do. As long as their intentions were good it doesn't matter if the programs even work. In the end, social programs are just a scam to buy votes from the truly greedy people in our society. Imagine that - working hard and taking personal responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof). We need smaller government, not bigger government to make more people dependent on it. Oh, by the way, when have tax increases ever stimulated the economy?

3. Democrats are devisive. They are always trying to play one group off on another. Rich against poor - white against black. It's Democrats who called Secretaries Powell and Rice Uncle Toms. It's Democrats who said Miguel Estrada wasn't "Hispanic" enough. It's Democrats backed by trail lawyers who want to sue businesses out of existence. In an effort to appease every left wing fringe group, the Democrats have become a party of excluders, not includers - the party of despair instead of hope.

4. Liberals tend to be kind of snobbish and elitist. They always seem to know what's best for us little people and if we don't agree it's because we're dumb, not enlightened, and/or Christians. Liberals don't allow for dissenting opinions and when confronted with logic and facts will retort with emotions and name-calling. Just look at all the hate on this blog. This directly relates to the double-standard in the liberal media. The liberal media demanded President Bush release his military records. He did just that by signing the Standard Form 180. Kerry, on the other hand, has not signed the SF 180 releasing ALL of his records. The big liberal media, though, didn't say a peep about it. The liberal media on at least two occasoins broke stories based on very poor and later discredited sources in an attempt to hurt President Bush's re-election campaign. Yet the liberal media virtually ignored the numerous Swiftboat Vets for Truth and the FACTS they brought to the discussion. Hmmm...let's see. People attack Bush's service with lies and he releases all of his military records. People attack Kerry's service with facts and he doesn't release all of his military records. Sounds like Kerry has something to hide, but you'd never think that from the press accounts.

Anyway, there are plenty more reasons, but I'm sure this is enough for now to cause plenty of discussion - if this even gets posted.

Talk about some bitter people here. Let me tell you the real reasons why Democrats lost the election:

1. Democrats are weak on national security. Democrats have consistently voted to downsize our military and intelligence agencies. Democrats worry more about what the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia thinks about us than what is best for OUR security. (This despite the well-known fact all these entities were receiving huge kickbacks from Saddam and violating the sanctions they had voted for.) Democrats want to talk and feel and discover the root "social problem" of terrorism - which they usually determine to be the fault of the United States. Conservatives would rather just kill them before they kill us. And kill them over there so they can't kill us on our own soil. If you haven't figured it out yet, we're at war against an enemy who would kill you for not believing in Allah. Democrats always complain about the religious right, but then embrace a culture that treats women as slaves and kills non-believers. Even the far-left Dutch are beginning to figure out the disastrous implications of the Muslim invasion into Western society. Democrats say they want security, but then do whatever they can to undermine it. Why is it that Jimmy Carter has never met a dictator he didn't like?

2. Americans are finally beginning to realize the big liberal social programs of the past 40 years have been a colossal failure and a huge burden on the taxpayers. They are tired of Democrats telling them they are greedy for wanting to keep more of their own money - especially when people earning much less the Senator Kerry (myself under $50k per year) give more than he does to charity on a regular basis. Democrats say they are compassionate - but it's easy to be compassionate with other people's money. Democrats don't seem to mind that these social programs rarely do what they claim they will do. As long as their intentions were good it doesn't matter if the programs even work. In the end, social programs are just a scam to buy votes from the truly greedy people in our society. Imagine that - working hard and taking personal responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof). We need smaller government, not bigger government to make more people dependent on it. Oh, by the way, when have tax increases ever stimulated the economy?

3. Democrats are devisive. They are always trying to play one group off on another. Rich against poor - white against black. It's Democrats who called Secretaries Powell and Rice Uncle Toms. It's Democrats who said Miguel Estrada wasn't "Hispanic" enough. It's Democrats backed by trail lawyers who want to sue businesses out of existence. In an effort to appease every left wing fringe group, the Democrats have become a party of excluders, not includers - the party of despair instead of hope.

4. Liberals tend to be kind of snobbish and elitist. They always seem to know what's best for us little people and if we don't agree it's because we're dumb, not enlightened, and/or Christians. Liberals don't allow for dissenting opinions and when confronted with logic and facts will retort with emotions and name-calling. Just look at all the hate on this blog. This directly relates to the double-standard in the liberal media. The liberal media demanded President Bush release his military records. He did just that by signing the Standard Form 180. Kerry, on the other hand, has not signed the SF 180 releasing ALL of his records. The big liberal media, though, didn't say a peep about it. The liberal media on at least two occasoins broke stories based on very poor and later discredited sources in an attempt to hurt President Bush's re-election campaign. Yet the liberal media virtually ignored the numerous Swiftboat Vets for Truth and the FACTS they brought to the discussion. Hmmm...let's see. People attack Bush's service with lies and he releases all of his military records. People attack Kerry's service with facts and he doesn't release all of his military records. Sounds like Kerry has something to hide, but you'd never think that from the press accounts.

Anyway, there are plenty more reasons, but I'm sure this is enough for now to cause plenty of discussion - if this even gets posted.

Iraq vet forgot to mention Cheney violating sanctions against Iran, Iraq and Libya. And you just know he probably couldn't find Iraq on a map let alone be an Iraqi veteran.

You also forgot that a lot of the weapons cuts you knock Kerry for were initiated by Dick Cheney. His official bio on the Defense Department Web site touts his prowess as a budget-cutter.

You're also wrong about Bush releasing all of his records. If he'd served in Alabama, someone there would remember him. And that SBVT stuff was lies from start to finish -- almost everyone who was there agreed with Kerry.

Social programs are expensive, and some of them can be trimmed back. But my faith teaches me we should help the poor and heal the sick. So that's what we're doing.

Democrats never "embraced" Muslim extremism. We believe in not making enemies faster than you can kill them.

Don't you wish you could say Iraq was a success, rather than just stating the principles behind it?

Got Osama? Shouldn't you be looking for him, Mr. Iraq Vet? I know my Iraqi Vet would love the chance to go back to Afghanstan but instead he's in Iraq on his second tour. He felt he had a genuine mission in Afghanistan not so with Iraq, it was a farce from the beginning. "Daddy's vengance" is what he calls it. A diversion because Bush doesn't want to catch his old family friend. Supporting Bush also means you are helping him to loot the national treasury. Now when can we expect that money back?

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams