I was reading Right Nation's English language blog this morning and came across an old September 20th post about Bush's speech at the United Nations.
Here is the quote that RightNation included. I am putting in emphasis of my own, for reasons that are pretty clear:
Freedom, by its nature, cannot be imposed -- it must be chosen. From Beirut to Baghdad, people are making the choice for freedom. And the nations gathered in this chamber must make a choice, as well: Will we support the moderates and reformers who are working for change across the Middle East -- or will we yield the future to the terrorists and extremists? America has made its choice.Now this morning we awake in a cold sweat to realize that America has again made a choice, this time figuring maybe they should just give up and yield to the terrorists now in the hopes of saving a few more years of juicy homo marriage court victories.
In other news, every conservative pundit who has weighed in has argued rather convincingly that Bush's top secretaries and advisors can't pick now to leave: with the House and Senate firmly in the hands of the filibuster-until-they-die Democrats, this is no time to, say, have to find a decent nominee to replace Donald Rumsfeld. Republicans are doing what they were so good at doing in the years before Gingrich brought them out from the cold in 1994: cutting off their entire head to spite their nose.
Another interesting National Post article today is about how a Democrat victory, while satisfying the idiots I work with who are convinced Bush is the devil (as opposed to the real Satan, Islamic prophet Mohammed, etc. etc.) and secretly arranged for 9/11. Again, I will quote a relevent section and emphasize where needed:
n Canada, the concern that the Democrats could introduce a protectionist bent to the trade relationship between the two countries was top of mind among former Canadian envoys to Washington, given that the two countries are the world's largest trading partners and Canada sends 84% of its exports south of the border.
Their job was to sell Canada, as well as to promote Canadian business and products for trade in the U.S.
That could now prove to be a problem for Michael Wilson, Canada's current ambassador, because the Democratic party's stronghold is in the northeastern part of the country, including several states along the Canada-U.S. border that are involved in resource production, said Allan Gotlieb, Canada's ambassador for most of the 1980s, when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed.
"What I'd call Gotlieb's law when I was down there is that the closer your constituency is to Canada the more anti-Canadian you're likely to be," he said from his Toronto law offices. "It's counterintuitive, isn't it?"
Of particular concern for Burney is the expiration of Bush's "fast-track authority" - permission from Congress to negotiate the fine print of international trade agreements - next January.
"If you get in that tile of more protectionists than free-trade types, then the prospects of the president getting his authority reinstated are going to be a lot more difficult than they otherwise would be," he said. "That's not a good scenario."
Counter-intuitive might be a little strong of a term. After all, Quebec and Ontario residents generally get more direct American exposure than anybody else in the country than perhaps southern Maritimers: both in their ability to travel directly into populous northeastern states [Democratic strongholds too, one is keen to note -ed] and have those large populations vacation in their cities and towns on a regular basis. Yet who is the most anti-American of any Canadians? Quebecers. Followed by Ontarians. Followed by southern Maritimers. Any wonder why I argue against Quebec nationhood on the sole basis that I believe these anti-Yank putzes deserve each other?Update, 9:24pm: The Western Standard "Shotgun" blog weighs in on the election and the National Post article. Well, until it degenerates into a flame war and warnings about Zionists, as has been known to happen before.
