Jewish World Review March 19, 2004/ 26 Adar, 5764

Greg Crosby

Greg Crosby
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

The real difference between the two political parties | Within America's two-party system, the battle lines are plainly drawn over the war on terror - the Democrats, in keeping with the European mentality, are generally in favor of appeasement and treating each terrorist eruption as an isolated criminal act to be dealt with in a court of law or through the U.N., while the Republicans see Islamist terrorism as a war against democracy, freedom, and all of western civilization, a view I happen to agree with given what the Islamists themselves continue to say and do. The point is, in this regard we have a clear distinction between the two political parties.

However, when it comes to issues closer to home, it's becoming increasingly more difficult to tell the Democrats from the Republicans. Bush spends money like a drunken liberal from Massachusetts (with all due respect to Ted Kennedy), and neither party will even discuss our illegal immigration problem, let alone correct it because special interests continue to control the actions of both sides. Democratic special interests want global open boarders, increased social programs and the voting block of poor immigrants; while the Republican special interests want the cheap labor.

But hold on! I have finally figured out the major difference between the Democrats and Republicans - the Democratic presidents are referred to by their informal first names while the Republican presidents are not! That's it.

Think about it - it was always President Ronald Reagan, not Ronnie or Ron (except in Nancy's case). On the other hand President Carter was Jimmy Carter to all, never James Carter. Clinton was never referred to as William, he was always just good ol' Bill, while both George Bushes are always referred to as George H. Bush and George W. Bush respectively (besides, how does one shorten the name, George?). Gerald Ford was never addressed as Jerry Ford and Richard Nixon was seldom called Dick except disparagingly by Democratic wise guys.

Donate to JWR

Now before you start to hammer out that nasty "gotcha" letter to me, I will acknowledge that there are some historic exceptions to my rule. Yes, it is true that no one ever publicly referred to Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Frank. And Lyndon Johnson was never called Lyn or Lennie. Conversely, Dwight David Eisenhower was affectionately called Ike and Lincoln was "Honest Abe" not "Honest Abraham." But those were different times way back then. And besides, don't forget the rule that anything that happened before Vietnam doesn't count. I just made that rule up.

But come to think of it, there's another major difference between Democrat and Republican presidents. It's their hair. Dems, for some reason, have really big hair. It started with Kennedy, continued with Carter and reached it's zenith with Clinton. The big hair thing skipped Johnson, but don't forget he became president because of a tragedy not an election. Hubert Humphrey could never have been president - he didn't have the hair. Mondale failed the hair test, too. Gore didn't have quite enough hair to make the cut, but John Kerry does. Kerry has hair to spare so Bush better beware. By this logic, of course, it's a damn good thing Linc from "The Mod Squad" didn't become the Democratic candidate for president because he definitely would have won!

Another discrepancy between the parties is that it seems to be okay for Democrats to be adulterers, but not Republicans - why is that? The Kennedy and Clinton sexcapades didn't do a thing to tarnish their images; as a matter of fact it made them superstars in the eyes of their followers. At the same time, a loving, monogamous marriage like Nancy and Ronald Reagan's is ridiculed by the liberal elitists and made a mockery of in a recent Hollywood TV movie. I don't know why the left picks on Reagan, after all Ronald Reagan had big hair, too, didn't he?

FLASH! We interrupt this column for some breaking news!

John Kerry has said that many foreign leaders have told him in private that they support his bid for president, but when asked who these leaders are, Kerry has refused to name them. He says if he identified them he would be betraying a trust. Kerry has gone on to say that many world leaders have also told the same thing to some of Kerry's top staffers, but he won't give out the names of those staffers, either.

Now, at last, the list of world leaders that support John Kerry for president has been made known. They are the following:

1. The heads of state for Syria, Libya, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, North Korea, and France. Oh, and that new guy in Spain.

2. Usama bin Laden

3. Saddam Hussein

4. Queen Latifa and Prince

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Greg Crosby, former creative head for Walt Disney publications, has written thousands of comics, hundreds of children's books, dozens of essays, and a letter to his congressman. A freelance writer in Southern California, you may contact him by clicking here.

Greg Crosby Archives

© 2004 Greg Crosby