Democrats Nominate Hitler
By Ran Prieur
3-2-4
BOSTON. After switching their allegiance from anarcho-communist Howard
Dean to ultra-liberal John Kerry, and then to liberal John Edwards, on
the final day of their convention Democrats switched one last time to
extreme moderate Adolf Hitler, convinced that he's the man who has the
best chance of beating Bush.
"This election has never been about issues," said Democratic Party
spokesman Heinrich Himmler. "It's not about whether we go to war,
about military spending, or taxes, or the federal budget, or the
environment, or civil liberties, or even abortion. That's the kind of
starry-eyed idealism that killed us in '72. This election is about one
thing -- getting that ***** Bush out of there, that lying,
draft-dodging, coke-snorting, beady-eyed, stupid, bad, bad person.
Hate him! Hate him! Hate him!"
General Hermann Goering, an early supporter of Hitler's campaign,
agreed. "Clearly, for the Democratic Party to be relevant, they have
to capture the presidency, and the way to do it is by moving farther
and farther to the center. John Kerry is a war veteran, and voted for
the Iraq war, but he's haunted by his anti-war background. After
September 11, that's just not going to play in the heartland, or in
the South.
Hitler, on the other hand, has always been pro-war. He's called for
the liberation of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Canada, even Europe. On
national defense and the war on terror, he's even more moderate than
Bush!" Moderation, says columnist Joseph Goebbels, is the key. "On so
many issues, such as his proposals to clear-cut the national forests,
to put all dissidents into detention facilities, to double defense
spending, to abolish all corporate taxes, to prohibit labor unions,
and to conquer the world in a thousand year American homeland, Hitler
makes the other Democrats, and even Bush, look like raving Green Party
radicals, tree-hugging, granola-eating, flower-sniffing
hippie-anarchists. If moderate means making your opponents look
liberal in comparison, and clearly that's exactly what it means, then
Hitler is as moderate as they come."
Senator Joseph Lieberman has enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's
campaign. "At last," Lieberman said, "we have a candidate who will do
something about degenerate culture, about all the filth coming out of
Hollywood, someone who will clean up those stinking subhumans who have
defiled the purity of American culture. I think this will be a final
solution."
When asked about Hitler's repeated statements that he wants to kill
all Jews, Lieberman laughed. "We know he's not really going to do
that. That would be absurd. I mean, some of his best friends are Jews.
No, he's just a tough talker. Americans like that -- it's
presidential."
Although Democrats rank Hitler consistently low (roughly 0%) in terms
of personal agreement with his policies, most of them are happily
falling behind him. Says Cedar Rapids activist Wendy Pipkin, "I mean,
if I could pick anyone I wanted, it would be Dennis Kucinich, but the
people can't just pick anyone they want. This is a democracy, which
means you have to pick someone who people believe other people will
vote for, and nobody will vote for Kucinich because, you know, nobody
will vote for him.
Hitler gives us a real chance to get a Democrat back in the White
House." But not everyone agrees. Some Democrats are nervous about
Hitler's candidacy, like Seattle precinct committee officer Richard
Shodley. "Hitler's a vegetarian," he says, wringing his hands, "and
he's made statements that could be construed as sympathetic to animal
rights activists. If the Republicans get their hands on that, they can
nail him to the wall in November. I'm just afraid it gives them too
much ammunition. What I really fear is, Bush could still win."
http://ranprieur.pitas.com/
.
|
