Men Behaving Manly

I cannot get enough of the bear hug, because it is so manly, in a heterosexual way, that is. Those who would doubt Our Leader can speculate whether McCain's motives are pure (especially after he attacked Our Leader in 2000). The French-owned journal of Blue York City (where we expect the rabble to parade with pitchforks, so we can justify locking the whole city up) notes both manly men engaged in heterosexual but deeply satisfying body contact.

There is irresponsible speculation that McCain is planning to overthrow Our Leader in 2008, supposedly due to some technicality about a constitutional amendment. Our advice: don't even go there. Bamboo Cage Veterans for Truth will be on him faster than Scott McClellan can disavow any connection.

In the meantime, the FBI should be dispatched to interrogate Andrew Ferguson for his disloyalty:

Yet in 2004, Republicans find themselves supporting a candidate, George W. Bush, with a slender and ambiguous military record against a man whose combat heroism has never (until now) been disputed. Further--and here we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that relatively few of them find personally or politically appealing. This is not the choice Republicans are supposed to be faced with. The 1990s were far better. In those days the Democrats did the proper thing, nominating a draft-dodger to run against George H.W. Bush, who was the youngest combat pilot in the Pacific theater in World War II, and then later, in 1996, against Bob Dole, who left a portion of his body on the beach at Anzio.

Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse. But the calculations are transparently desperate. Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.