This is just too rich.

Here's something from the Minneapolis Star Tribune, as quoted on NRO's Kerry Spot:

Defeated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry likely is going to get one less electoral vote nationally than he should have — 251 instead of 252 — because of an apparent mistake Monday by one of Minnesota's 10 DFL electors.

One of the 10 handwritten ballots cast for president carried the name of vice presidential candidate John Edwards (actually spelled "Ewards" on the ballot) rather than Kerry.

"I was shocked ... this will go in the history books," said Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer, who presided over a ceremony that normally is uneventful.

Kiffmeyer said she was unaware of any other such apparent mistake in Minnesota, although there have been cases in other states of "faithless electors" casting ballots for candidates other than those to which they were committed.

There was stunned silence after the announcement that Edwards had gotten a vote for president, but none of the 10 electors volunteered that they voted for Edwards as a protest, nor did anyone step forward to admit an error.

"It was perhaps a senior moment," said elector Michael Meuers, 60, a Bemidji marketing consultant for a health care firm, the second-youngest member of the Minnesota delegation to the Electoral College.

Meuers said he was certain that the Edwards ballot wasn't his, but he noted that "both the candidates were named John, and the ballots looked pretty much alike."

This year's DFL Party electors were typical — senior party activists typically chosen for their long years of service. They ranged in age from 52 to 83.

I bet the moron who submitted the "Ewards" ballot had seen too many bumper stickers (you know how much liberals love bumper stickers) and had become convinced in his little brain that the candidate's name was simply, Kerry Edwards.

Geraghty's zinger: "Remember this the next time someone calls the red states 'dumb'."

Oh, but the best part of the article are the words "defeated Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry". Music to my ears.

Support

From the New York Daily News:

> "She's going to be my wife for as long we live. I support her 100%,"
> said Pinero's husband, who asked that his name be withheld.

Does anyone else find anything wrong with the above statement? "I support her 100%, but don't use my name." What does it mean to really support something? Liberals always say "we support our troops, but..." or, famously, "we support our president, BUT..."

No they don't. If they supported the troops, they wouldn't be so foamy at the mouth over Abu Ghraib. They wouldn't be so ready to crucify the Marine who shot and killed a wounded terrorist at Fallujah. Support means you support them. You try to understand why they're there and what they're doing. I'm no apologist for the images taken at Abu Ghraib, but I won't use the photos taken there to vilify and despise our entire fighting force in the Middle East.

Yo, liberals .. WORDS MEAN THINGS .. when you say things that aren't true, you're lying. I know that's a hard concept for you to understand, since Bill and Hillary Clinton were such adept liars and most of you revere them (to say nothing of Dan Rather and his contemporaries).

Most of you will cry, "BUSH LIED, PEOPLE DIED! but-I-support-the-president-don't-you dare-impune-my-patriotism." I'll say this with little words for you. In order to lie, you must know that what you're saying isn't true. (I'm typing slowly, so you can understand me.) Bush told the truth, to the best of his knowledge. He knew there were WMDs in Iraq. Britain knew that. The French knew that. Members of Congress knew that. Our intelligence agencies knew that. Special forces knew that. Now consider this: if Bush was a liar, we'd have "found" WMDs in Iraq already. Meaning, if Bush were Clinton, he'd be more concerned with his own "legacy" and his own reputation than the truth, and he would have planted fake WMDs there to take credit for their discovery. You'll notice Bush did not do this. Why? Because Bush is honest.

I support my president, even when he looks bad. Even when the United Nations bog down the process of justice to give Saddam 14 months to remove and hide his WMDs. Even when liberals, the liberal media and the foreign countries they support spew rancor and hatred against the United States. I voted for George W. Bush and I am proud to have him as my president. That is what I consider support.