Democrats & Liberals Archives

Republicans Begin Smear Campaign

I swear to God, the current crop of Republican leaders are the most vile, dishonest, and despicable characters I’ve ever seen. Less than a week after President Bush pledged to adopt “a civil tone” and “act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another,” the leader of the Republican Party viciously defamed Senator Clinton.

I'd like to believe President Bush has no part in this smear campaign and that he'll have the decency and integrity to denounce the man who dishonored his vow to put partisan malice aside and unite the country. If President Bush is serious about keeping his promise to the American people, he'll call for Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman's apology and resignation.

Ken Mehlman basically pissed all over President Bush's promise, and if he's the man I think he is, President Bush won't let this hockey puck get away with it.

Posted by American Pundit at February 6, 2006 9:12 AM
Comments
Comment #121348

Also there’s the article today about the administration threatening NASA’s top scientists, telling them they would face dire consequences if they did not alter their findings. They say this has gone on for some time. No shame, even after being accused of altering evidence already for 9/11. There’s no bottom for this party.

Posted by: Max at February 6, 2006 9:31 AM
Comment #121350

AP, it will never happen. This president does not not have the “guts” to take a stand, that is what he has his lap dogs for. Once again the Pres will say one thing to “sound nice” all the while having Rove and company attack. There is no honor in this crowd.

Posted by: Michael at February 6, 2006 9:34 AM
Comment #121352

While reading the Washington Times this morning I noticed an advertisement for “conservative T-shirts” that say “Defeat Hillary” and have the hammer and sickle pictured between the words. Now what do you suppose that means? Taken together with generic attacks from Republicans like Mehlman, it just makes me wonder.

Posted by: RMD at February 6, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #121353

from your link:
“…describing her as a Democrat brimming with anger and a representative of the far-left wing of her party.”

Truth hurts?
Why isn’t she, and why aren’t you, proud of her far left stance?
She does say hateful things.

Much worse has been said about Bush and Republicans and you are upset about this?
Give me a break.

Sticks and stones…

BTW … why is it that Bush is supposed to apologize for things everyone else says?

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 9:58 AM
Comment #121355

Dawn, maybe honor is a “guy thing”. If I made a promise and someone in my clique broke it, I’d be pissed.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #121358

Dawn,

If it’s true that Hillary is so left and doesn’t work with Republicans, can you provide some evidence of that? I would be particularly interested, because everything I’ve read suggests she may work with them too much if anything.

Posted by: Max at February 6, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #121359
If President Bush is serious about keeping his promise to the American people, he’ll call for Republican Chairman Ken Mehlman’s apology and resignation.

Uh… don’t count on it.

First, Rove and Mehlman write the talking points together, and Rove has GWB’s blanket permission to do/say anything Rove deems “appropriate.”

Second, as even many GOP members would tell you, the ratio of Bush’s Promises Made to Promises Kept is very, very small.

Posted by: David Szetela at February 6, 2006 10:06 AM
Comment #121361

Big deal. More partisan spin which both sides perpetuate. Hillary using the “plantation” remark borders on using the race-card. I hate to fuel this petty partisan bickering more, but I hate to remind you that it was Democrats that fought to keep slavery. Democrats filabustered against civil rights. Democrats passed the Fugative Slave Act, Black Codes, Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, and supported the formation of the KKK. Then, in their great wisdom, they created welfare programs that created a cycle of dependency.

Still, I agree that many Republicans are corrupt (most to some degree). But guess what? So are Democrats. They are both irresponsible.

Hillary as the poster child of integrity and honesty is a big laugh (Hummmm, let me see? Where did I put those billing files (which were missing until early 1996, when they turned up in a White House room next to Hillary’s office???)). I wonder if Hillary will get the military vote?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:08 AM
Comment #121363
If it’s true that Hillary is so left and doesn’t work with Republicans, can you provide some evidence of that?

She’ll do anything for self-gain.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #121365

So d.a.n, you don’t believe that our politicians need to be held accountable? That’s a big switch, isn’t it?

President Bush promised to make a new start. Less than a week later, his party broke that promise.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 10:12 AM
Comment #121366
If it’s true that Hillary is so left and doesn’t work with Republicans, can you provide some evidence of that? I would be particularly interested, because everything I’ve read suggests she may work with them too much if anything.

Max,

In the Republican Party view of the world, there are only two wings: The “moderate” wing, Represented by Joe Lieberman and generally supportive of Bush’s policies, and the “Far Left” wing, which is anyone who opposes Bush. There are no “Liberals” anymore, no plain old-fashioned “Left” wing, and certainly no “moderate liberals”.

I’d be happy to hear some Republicans place the names of some elected officials to those missing wings, but I bet they will either be people long gone from public office or are completely obscure.

OTOH, I read many political statements from well-known Democrats who fit those views.

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at February 6, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #121367

And where is there ‘honor’ in letting someone say anything they want, against your side, just because there is a call for partisanship.

Partisanship is not a one way street.
The Dems have to want it too or it won’t ever happen.
There isn’t much compromise on either side.

We need to hear more from the moderates from both sides and get the fringes to shut up for awhile.

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:14 AM
Comment #121369

Not to mention Hillary’s $8 million and Bill’s $10 million dollar book deals.

Congress is no longer anything but a ticket to self-gain.

They will never voluntarily pass any badly-needed, common-sense, no-brainer reforms.

That whole bunch (98%) of them are a joke, and that’s the real truth of the matter. That’s the real thing voters should focus on, rather than bashing each others’ politicians, which is all too easy since they are all too corrupt.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:18 AM
Comment #121371

AP,
You bet they should be held accountable.
ALL irresponsible incumbents need to go.
That is most of them.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:19 AM
Comment #121372
Not to mention Hillary’s $8 million and Bill’s $10 million dollar book deals.

What’s that got to do with anything?

Posted by: Steve K at February 6, 2006 10:20 AM
Comment #121373

Self-gain.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #121376

max,

She has been a politician long enough to know exactly what to say and how to say it.
She manipulates people with her words. She fires up her base while trying to play to the other side.
It’s typical of most politicians.

You seem to want to let her have a pass on whatever she says.
Many people do.

None of us should give any of them a pass just because they have the letter we want after their name.
How do you think we got in the mess we are in to begin with?
I can just imagine what our leaders say about us when the cameras are off.

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:21 AM
Comment #121377

That’s how Bush has done it everytime. He gets someone else to do the attacks, swift boat ads from USA Next were directed by Ben Ginsberge(sp) One of Bush laywers, then he said we honor Senator Kerry’s service to this nation, He never suggested Ann Richards was a gay, He let someone else do it. He never directly linked 9-11 and Saddam, He just spoke the code his legion of idiots could understand.

Posted by: Chuck Johnson at February 6, 2006 10:23 AM
Comment #121378

Politicians say: Voters get what they deserve for being so stupid to tolerate us; even empower us to keep it up; tricked into a circular pattern of thought and behavior that secures their cu$hy, coveted seats of power indefinitely.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #121379
And where is there ‘honor’ in letting someone say anything they want, against your side, just because there is a call for partisanship.

Dawn, ever since President Bush made his pledge, Democrats kept the peace. RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman broke it.

As I said, Mehlman basically pissed all over President Bush’s vow. If he’s the honorable and decent man we all think he is, Bush’ll denounce Mehlman.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #121380

Chuck,

Please don’t pretend that the Republicans are the only ones who know how to do that.

That is where part of our problem is.

We can only see the hate when it comes from the other side.

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #121381

It works like a charm.
Pretty soon, when you hear the name Hillary Clinton, you will hear a neighbor or co-worker comment on how angry she seems to be.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 6, 2006 10:30 AM
Comment #121382

AP,

And we know what will happen.

The Dems will use it for an excuse to continue the divide.

‘They did it first….’

Maybe Bush hasn’t gotten around to it yet. He does have other things to do … chop wood for the fire, walk around the ranch, ride his mountain bike…

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:31 AM
Comment #121383

The real problem is irresponsible incumbents, who always outnumber newcomers, and voters that allow it.

None of this is going to ever change (not the easy way), until voters finally take off their partisan blinders, that incumbents use so effectively to distract voters from real problems.

Like Dawn said. It’s always the same old childish “They did it first…” crap. I used to do it too. But, it’s all too clear that both sides are behaving extremely bad.

Voter education is the only hope we have to get back on the right track.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:39 AM
Comment #121385

Maybe you should fire Howard Dean before you worry about Ken Mehlman.

This article doesn’t indicate defamation. Her plantation comment was more defamatory than anything Mehlman has said. And think of all the silly things Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy say about the president and/or leading Republicans. Or just read the transcripts of their disgraceful performance during the Alito hearing.

I know you expect us to be better than that, but you have to be reasonable in your political expectations.

And even during the SOTU the Dems were not particularly gracious. When they cheered that they had managed to defeat SS reform, I only wish Bush had been quick enough to say, “there they go again.” We will be using footage of that cheer in campaign ads and we do thank you for it.


Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #121387

“When they cheered that they had managed to defeat SS reform, I only wish Bush had been quick enough to say, “there they go again.”

Since the Republicans are the majority party, and since the majority party failed even to bring a Social Security bill to the floor, kindly explain to me how “the Democrats killed social security.”

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 6, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #121388

Good question !
They both killed it.
It’s all of them.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #121390

Unless parties are always on the same page, what good are they ?

Perhaps, we shouldn’t put so much importance on parties ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 11:02 AM
Comment #121392

AP,

I don’t see anything “defaming” in the article you linked to. The only thing I can see is his reference to Clinton being an angry person. You have to admit, she does come across that way in some of her speeches. I think it’s a valid conclusion to make, although I don’t agree with it.

Please explain what you think was defaming.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 6, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #121393
against your side Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:14 AM

And that is the problem. So much for concilliation, the next civil war will be center+left against the right. Just like in the 1770’s, let’s just hope the center+left wins again.

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 11:08 AM
Comment #121394

Oh yeah, and on the issue at hand - who cares?

My biggest beef with the Democratic party is their utter failure to hit back. It seems like they have learned nothing from the Republican playbook. When Mehlman made his predictable comments, the sane thing to do is ignore them and hit back.

The way I see it, the only way the Dems will start winning again is to learn a few lessons from the GOP, lessons they must have learned from fencing saber: never defend, attack attack attack, never apologize.

Mehlman called Sen. Clinton far left. Big deal. The post I would have written in reply would have been about how difficult it must be to be a closeted homosexual spokesperson in an anti-gay party, not about how “unfair” his comments were.

And hey, the sooner her not-yet-announced nomination bid is over, the better.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 6, 2006 11:15 AM
Comment #121396
I hate to remind you that it was Democrats that fought to keep slavery. Democrats filabustered against civil rights. Democrats passed the Fugative Slave Act, Black Codes, Missouri Compromise, the Kansas Nebraska Act, and supported the formation of the KKK. Then, in their great wisdom, they created welfare programs that created a cycle of dependency.

Citing legislation from a century and a half ago supported by a vastly different Democratic Party is specious reasoning and makes for an empty argument.

Be careful about walking down the path of “Democrats filabustered (sic) against civil rights,” my friend. It was a Democratic President (Lyndon Johnson) who proposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and fought for it, and a Democratic Senator (Mike Mansfield) who introduced it and guided it to passage. The filibuster was led by Southern conservatives, most of whom were ideologically more at home with the Republican party. One of them actually switched parties and became an important Republican spokesman, the long-serving hypocrite J. Strom Thurmond.

Please close your copy of the Republican talking points book when discussing civil rights. The national Democratic Party has been the consistent initiator and supporter of legislation to facilitate civil rights; the Republicans have been equally consistent serving as roadblocks to their enactment.

Posted by: Iconoclast at February 6, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #121399
The Dems will use it for an excuse to continue the divide.

How is it the Dems fault that less than a week after President Bush called for unity and civility the Republicans launch a vile smear campaign?

I’d like to believe that President Bush is a decent and honorable President who’ll disavow the Republican Party Chairman’s despicable slander and call for his resignation.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 11:30 AM
Comment #121402

AP,

Where did I say it was the Dems fault?

I said it will be used as an excuse.
Nobody ever seems to be able to just blow anything off.

read this:
Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 10:39 AM

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #121405

AP

You are right.

Being called a liberal is an insult.

I would be pissed too.

That is hitting below the belt.

Terrible.

Unbelievable,actually.

Have they no do depths that they will not sink?

:)

Posted by: sicilianeagle at February 6, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #121407
Nobody ever seems to be able to just blow anything off.

I thought Senator Clinton handled it like an adult:

A spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, dismissed the attacks. “The R.N.C. and the White House are attacking because she has effectively pointed out their failures and offered ways to address them, and they don’t like that.”

Unfortunately, the wackos in the Republican Party leadership will mistake civility for weakness. You can bet these vile one-sided attacks on Mrs. Clinton will continue. In fact, these Republican smear tactics are almost certainly intended to goad the Democratic Party into a harsh response.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 6, 2006 11:42 AM
Comment #121409

AP:

Below are Mehlman’s “vicious smears”, from the site you linked:

Referring to Mrs. Clinton’s assertion that Republicans were running Congress like a plantation, he said, “Whether it’s the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger.”

“There’s a lot of talk about a new Hillary Clinton, but if you look at the record, it’s a very left-wing record,” Mr. Mehlman said. “It’s a record where most Americans, I don’t think, think reflects their values.”

I’m not sure how saying that Hillary is “angry” and has a “left-wing record” qualifies as a vicious smear. Its an attempt to characterize Hillary with the Democrats who seem to be negative about many things—this will be a Republican mantra in the next couple of years. And there is, of course, a measure of truth to this.

It seems like the left side of the Dem party is kinda beating up a bit on Hillary for her stance on the Iraq war, so I’d think that being called leftwing would actually be a compliment of sorts.

Regardless, this is just regular political commentary. If this is what qualifies as vicious, then we’ll have to cut out most political comments from both parties.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 6, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #121411

AP,
Saying someone is angry and to the left of the current Republican leadership should not be viewed as an attack. Instead, it’s an opportunity.
In fact, this is one of the biggest problems the Democrats have had for quite a few years now — allowing the GOP to constantly frame the debate. And why act surprised by their attacks? Why act surprised that the president would come out and say one thing while ordering his attack dogs to do the opposite? Full frontal attacks and contradictory comments and behavior and are nothing but the Neocon-Straussian way — and have been for many years. This is nothing new.
Now, I don’t even like Hillary Clinton, but if I was her, I’d come out today and say:
re: Anger:
“Angry? Of course I’m angry! I love my country, and I care about our citizens so its very frustrating — not to mention painful — to stand by and watch the level of incompetence, corruption and confusion being displayed by the current leadership of the GOP. Their actions are hurting not just our immediate future, but the future of our children.”
re: Being far-Left:
“Well, since the people currently running the GOP are such far-right extremists, no doubt everybody seems far-left in their estimation. They even came up with a label for people within their own party who aren’t as irrational as they are — they call them RINO’s — Republican In Name Only. Anyone who doesn’t share their extremist views is always being bullied and attacked, so to be perfectly honest, I feel like I’m in rather good company.”

You see? Either accept their label, speak the plain truth, and use it against them, or, if the charge is outrageous and spurious, use sarcasm instead — and where possible, try to make people laugh with the reply. Works like a charm almost every time.
Acting overly defensive, embarrassed, or offended doesn’t get anybody anywhere — and I think the Dem’s really should have learned how to play this game by now.
Just my opinion.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 6, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #121412

I get the sense that some folks on this page are quick to the philosophy “They both do it. Perpetual incumbancy is the problem and increasing voter education will be the fix.”

Super. When will voter education get started? I would be willing to bet that 99% of voters don’t know who represents them on their school boards, and yet everyone seems to be beside themselves with frustration over public education. Isn’t school where we begin to understand civics and how public offices work for us? And yet our kids don’t know the difference between executive, legislative, and judicial. They can’t name the vice-president. What’s a speaker-of-the-house?

I’ve polled my neighbors. They can’t name their federal representative. They can’t name their state rep or senator. They know their governor because he’s been around awhile, but they have no idea when he runs again or who he’s running against.

I would also be willing to bet that 99% of all eligible voters have never volunteered for a candidate or have never worked for a public official at the federal, state, local, even a neighborhood association level.

I had a conversation with the parents of my daughter’s best friend last week and I was astonished that they don’t vote at all. Ever. They send three daughters to a private school at enormous personal expense and sacrifice. Yet they still pay school taxes, get little personal gain for it, and drive past the local public elementary school everyday on their way to private school. Ugh. If that’s the way America Turns these days, no wonder we have the leadership we have.

Name calling is wrong. At the first sign of name calling, write the public official who did it, regardless of your party affiliation, and call him or her on it, just as you would your child. And don’t say you don’t have the time. With all the time we spend blogging about it, I know we have the time to put a form letter in Word and have it at the ready to fill in the name of the offender and the specific gaff that was done.

If the name calling continues, support an independent in your next election. You probably can’t throw your kid out of the house, but you can sure throw your name calling public official out to the private sector where they will have to earn a living—as a lobbyist, of course.

Posted by: JW at February 6, 2006 11:47 AM
Comment #121414

AP,

you said:

‘I thought Senator Clinton handled it like an adult:’

Then I am guessing the whole discussion here is unnecessary.

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #121415

Iconoclast,
OK, it’s old stuff, but those are facts. It happened. And some of it not all that long ago.

But, no need to get too upset, because I don’t have it in for, or support either party.
I used to be Republican, but no more.
It is all too easy to dig up such facts about either party. That’s why it is futile, IMO, to get all twisted and contorted trying to explain and rationalize such embarrassing facts.

Not that parties are the problem. People join parties because they believe they fight for them, and people believe there is power in large numbers (which is true). But, when the parties don’t really fight for them (because they are distracted by activities for self-gain), there is not power in large numbers; there is a larger problem.

Hence, the real point is that neither party has the answers, since incumbents of both are too entrenched in petty, partisan warfare, too beholding to their big-money-donors, too busy trolling for campaign money for their campaign war chests, always outnumber newcomers that want to pass badly-needed, common-sense reforms, and will never allow reforms that reduce the power of their cu$hy coveted seats, or reduce their opportunities for self-gain.

And, getting upset about someone calling Hillary angry is petty. Big deal. I think Hillary using the “plantation” phrase borders on playing the race card. That is more offensive.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #121417

Not only does Bush not have the guts to hold anyone in his cabal responsible for their words or deeds (e.g. Karl Rove), he doesn’t have the authority. For that, he’d have to ask his Uncle Dick Cheney.

Posted by: jjcFL at February 6, 2006 12:07 PM
Comment #121419

Arr

Indeed, if the Republican stood together in a perfectly partisan way, they could push most things through. But the Dems took credit for killing SS reform and the Patriot Act. I am willing to give it to them. If nearly 100% of the Dems oppose something and they manage to peel off enough Republicans to defeat the proposal, I think we can give them credit. And all that cheering just gave visual confirmation to what we know.

As for Dems hitting back, surely you jest. Have you been listening to Dean, Gore, Kennedy et al? Historically, the most agressive attackers have always seen themselves as victims.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #121420

Dawn,

She has been a politician long enough to know exactly what to say and how to say it. She manipulates people with her words.

Like what?

You seem to want to let her have a pass on whatever she says.

What did she say?

How do you think we got in the mess we are in to begin with?

Um. Bush, but I think it’s hilarious, though not surprising you would try and blame Bush and Hillary. Is Bush not responsible for anything he’s done?

I can just imagine what our leaders say about us when the cameras are off.

I don’t really have to imagine with Bush. I’ve seen a clip of him preparing for a campaing commercial where he was giving everyone the finger and swearing. There was no question in my mind that there was no one else in any office who was so stupid or crass to behave like that.

Posted by: Max at February 6, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #121421

Sure he will. Just like he hasn’t been involved in every other slime campaign farmed out to his minions. Get real!

Posted by: Sharon Metcalf at February 6, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #121423

describing her as a Democrat brimming with anger and a representative of the far-left wing of her party is not attacking her - thats what she is!

Talk about attacks - Can you say Howard Dean?

Posted by: Reporter for Doody at February 6, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #121425

Yes Dan, you are right. It was Democrats that fought to keep slavery. Democrats filibustered against civil rights. Democrats passed the FSA, BC’s, MC, the KNA, and supported the formation of the KKK. But, then along came this Democrat named Lyndon (Bane of bigots) Johnson who forced the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through Congress. Almost overnight, all those bigot Democrats in the South disappeared. Where did they go? Did they move to Bigotania? Of course not, they became Republicans; and the South changed colors from blue to red. And here you have to give the Republican politians a great deal of credit. They have been very successful at playing both sides of the fence. On the one hand, they are all for civil rights and anti-discrimination. On the other hand, they have resisted all atempts to equal the playing field.

Posted by: JLW at February 6, 2006 12:19 PM
Comment #121426

max,

You continue to do the same things that are causing most of the political problems and I’m not sure you even realize it.

Selective hearing is a handicap.

Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #121427

JW,
That’s why the solution must be simple.
Since most incumbents are irresponsible,
most of them need to go.

Newcomers can’t pass badly-needed, common-sense reforms, because they are always out-numbered by incumbents, who will not allow any reforms that may reduce their power or opportunities for self-gain.

Congress can vote itself a raise and cu$hy perk$ in a heart beat, but can’t eliminate the marraige penalty tax.

All sorts of reforms are discussed endlessly here, but all ignore the fact that no reforms are possible until the voters get fed up, and vote out the irrespnonsible incumbents (which is most, if not all of them).

The problem is that the voters are a large group, and they don’t (or won’t) take time to study and research politicians.

You are correct though. Voters are caught up in this silly name calling (i.e. “angry”) and totally missing the points you make.

Education is the key. Petty partisan warfare a distraction. Some here seem to like to fuel it, stir it up, make it stink. It serves as a very effective way to keep the voters distracted.

But, calling someone “angry” seems to be an extremely mild form of it. Personally, Hillary ought to turn it around, and say, “you bet I’m angry…” and give reasons. But, I don’t see the smear campaign, since there’s just not enough about calling someone “angry” to get too upset about.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #121429

Believe for a moment that the Republican and Democratic parties both consist of your children.

They bicker and fuss endlessly.

Neither side is always right or wrong.

What should do you do ?

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 12:26 PM
Comment #121434

LMAO! Hillary has been ‘angry’ for years. So what? And the fact that a Republican said it? So what? Good Lord, you Dems are something else. If that was a ‘vicious attack’ then the local elementary school kids deal with it better than you guys. This isn’t even the opening salvo of what will, I’m sure, be one of the most vicious, nasty, tasteless political seasons ever - AND IT ISN”T EVEN A PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION YEAR!!!! AAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGG! Left/Center/Right - doesn’t matter you’re all acting like bullies on the playground.

AP,
I’ve read your stuff before and IMO you are a very angry person yourself. So, there. Deal with it.

Posted by: Ilsa at February 6, 2006 12:46 PM
Comment #121435

D.A.N.

Before citing history, you might want to know a little about it. Most of those “Democrats” you mention as being racists abandoned the Democratic Party and are now stout Republicans. There is a reason the “Democratic” South is red. Furthermore, your assertion that it was the Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Act is simply ludicrous and self-serving.

If we are going to get things right let’s get it right. If Lincoln were alive today he would be a Democrat. Today’s Republicans are Hoover-Nixonites. Your conception of the parties is antebellum and preposterous.

Posted by: Chris at February 6, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #121439
I can just imagine what our leaders say about us when the cameras are off. Posted by: dawn at February 6, 2006 10:21 AM

Or when they think the cameras are off.

Victory Salute

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #121440

History and math

The civil rights movement was 40+ years ago. People in those days couldn’t vote until they were 21. The youngest possible person who could have switched to Republican is 61+. Most are older; many are dead.

Most current voters grew came to maturity after the civil rights movement. I heard Martin Luther King say that we should judge a man by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. I still believe that. Many in the civil rights establishment do not.

Very few people actually changed sides in the 1960s. It took the South a generation to become “red”. Most local officials in the South were Dems until just recently and most southern states have been on both sides of elections since 1964.

I don’t know why people harp on this. Nobody is responsible for things they didn’t do and you certainly are not responsible for things that happened before you were born. It was more than forty years ago. The average age in the U.S. is just a little more than 32.

The Dems feel guilty about their past, so they have constructed a form of redemption where they believe all the bad guys turned Republican. Republicans sometimes harken back to Lincoln when all slaveholders were Democrats. The good news is that the current generation or Dems bears no guilt for the past. But you certainly can’t pass it on to Republicans either.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #121443

The Democratic response I heard this morning was (approximatly):
“If Bush spent as much time worrying about the spiriling deficit and out of control Medicare costs as he does about Hillary we would be in much better shape than we are today.”

I would add terrorism, Iraq, N Korea, etc… but that wouldn’t fit into a sound bite.

Posted by: Dave at February 6, 2006 1:07 PM
Comment #121451

Chris,

I was just stating facts.
Even if the parties flip-flopped later, it doesn’t change the facts of that time.

Besides, I really don’t care.
I knew it was a mistake to get caught up in this petty partisan bickering between Democrats and Republicans.

But, as I said above, there’s no need to get so upset, because I don’t have it in for, or support either party.

I don’t care which party did it, or if they flip-flopped later. That’s not what is important. What is important is that most incumbents in both parties are using and abusing the voters.

While we bicker about Dems this, and Reps that, they are gettin’ theirs, and sayin’ voters get what they deserve, because they allow it, and even empower it.

It is all too easy to dig up such facts about either party (back then and now too). That’s why it is futile, IMO, to get all twisted out of shape trying to explain, defend, and rationalize such embarrassing facts.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #121459
The post I would have written in reply would have been about how difficult it must be to be a closeted homosexual spokesperson in an anti-gay party, not about how “unfair” his comments were.

Arr-squared,

This is not hitting back at Mehlman, it’s hitting at homosexuals.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 1:25 PM
Comment #121464

Adrienne,

Bravo, right on! Hillary should be angry, we should all be angry. I’m angry that more people are not angry. Calling some one angry that should be angry is not defamation, and being called a liberal is a compliment.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 1:42 PM
Comment #121471

am I mistaken? but doesn’t a smear campaign have to end before it can begin again? I don’t remember it ending.

Posted by: chantico at February 6, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #121477

Frankly, I don’t like Hillary, either. She smells too much of WalMart (was on board of directors) and of “Walmart internationalism:” Capturing growing markets while ignoring the wage and healthcare impications, potentially important issues for the Democrats, except for WalMart people getting incredibly rich.

And her husband smells of the “Invade Iraq” plot. If an “impeach Bush” movement vitalizes the Democratic troops, Bill and Hillary might make better witnesses than candidates. I think we could learn a lot about what eaves-dropping we listen to, and what we don’t from Bill. “Bill, you knew the Bush evidence on Weapons of mass destruction were juiced. Your CIA juiced them. What was the political intent of juicing them? Why didn’t you say anything when George W. was lying to the public? On the eve of your impeachment, who were you trying to signal by attacking Iraq and suddenly becoming a wartime president?” “Was it the intent of your administration to allow a terrorist incident which would justify US military action? What about the Cole, sir? Could you tell us about the Cole?” “And NSA lawyers telling the FBI to get off the trail of terroists because they were clean and legal? Did you know about that, Bill?” Come on, Bill, what is going on here? Could you blow the whistle on these guys or you just too dirty?”

Bill set up George W. on Iraq, and is partially to blame for Democratic incompetence in opposing the war. They are co-conspirators. I’m really up-set about this.

Until Bill stands up and tells the truth, I’d stay away from the Clintons. I think they’re dirty.

Posted by: JimG at February 6, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #121482

Jim,

The Democrats have been incompetent in opposing this whole government mess we are in, not just the war in Iraq. Hillary, Kerry, Reid and many more Democrats in Congress are political hacks who do not represent the true Democratic voter. This is their biggest downfall. They will never have support from the right and they have lost support from the left because of their positions. They may have appeased some centrists, but when you lose support of your base then you really don’t have a chance. Look at Republicans, they can piss off the majority of America, but as long as they pander to their base they win elections and can get out of almost anything, because that base has a huge voice. The Left base as well has a huge voice if it has an appropriate place to channel it. Unfortunately, Hillary and Kerry do not facilitate this and that is the best reason I can think of to bypass them in 2008. In 2008 we need to put up a true Democrat like Senator Russ Feingold and dispense with all the hacks.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #121484

JJ
Do you consider hillary and kerry to be liberals or Dems?
How about Feingold?

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 2:58 PM
Comment #121490

kctim,

Good question. I think Hillary and Kerry are whatever flavor suits their interests at the time. I see Feingold as a Democrat that can unify the far left and the left of center liberals.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #121491

But liberals aren’t the votes you need, are they? Doesn’t the left need to get the votes of those moderates who voted for the Reps the last few times?
To get their votes, doesn’t the left need someone who is more moderate?
Or do you think Feingold is moderate enough?

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #121495

kctim,

Look, the current crop of Republicans in power are anything but moderate, but they get the moderate vote because they have the support of their base. Democrats need to win back support of their base, before they can hope to attract moderates.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #121497

Vicously defamed? Did they call her stupid? or a terrost or the minion of the oil companies? I think Mehlman called her angry in response to her claim that this was one of the worst administrations in history…take it easy…don’t react like hey made a cartoon of her……

Posted by: Phil at February 6, 2006 3:15 PM
Comment #121498

kctim,

You are right, the liberal vote is not what the Dems need, they will get that anyway, (most far left liberals would rather die then vote for a Republican) but they do need their support. Without a base, they have no foundation to build upon and the whole thing crumbles down. The last couple of elections are proof of that.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #121507

We need to expand the interpretation of 1st amendment right to iclude when you make a pledge to do or say something it has to be observed by everyone you represent. This of course would violate 1st amendment rights of the person who does say something but, at least we will be able to label the entire group as lying, vicious and defamous.

Hillary is an incumbent anyway and hopefully will have to yield her seat to a challenger.

Posted by: steve smith at February 6, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #121518

Hillary should be angry. So should we all. We have been lied to by this admin. They have taken us into the Iraq mess and destablized the mideast because of it. Whenever someone points out what is wrong, there is an attack on them instead of a debate of the issues. Our economy sucks, the rich get richer and the divide between the rich and poor gets wider. The fed govt failed to respond adequately in domestic natural disasters. Fuel prices are higher than ever. Bush’s words in the SOTU address are retracted the very next day by his administration. Health care is at its worst but there is no reform on the plate. Our majority members of congress take all the time they want investigating steroids in baseball and trying to save a brain-dead woman, yet spend no time investigating the crimes of their own.
The list goes on.
“I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.” (Howard Beale; Network)
We should all be extremely angry. Good for Hillary.

Posted by: Cole at February 6, 2006 4:03 PM
Comment #121520

Hilary is a conservative, like her husband William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of the United States. She was a Goldwater girl and turned her back on the Rplcn party in the Nixon days. Their tactics prove that they think she is a threat, and hope to prevent her nomination.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 6, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #121521

JJ
So you believe the lefts base is larger than the rights base?

“Democrats need to win back support of their base, before they can hope to attract moderates”

Isn’t it possible that the Democrats “base” is not liberal? Could it not be that the left has moved to far left and has lost much of its true “base?”

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #121527

When Strom Thurmond changed parties, Wayne Morse of Oregon also changed in the other direction. All of the other new deal southern senators stayed in the democratic party and were eventually replaced by rpblcns years after the civil rights bill passed. GHWBush was the architect of the strategy of going to the right of the old democrats instead of putting up more traditional Rpblcns in the south. Gurney replace Holland in Florida, but he was not an ideologue, but a traditional business oriented Rpblcn

Posted by: ray ohrelay at February 6, 2006 4:29 PM
Comment #121530

In anticipation of the primary elections for President with Hillary Clinton seeming to be leading the Democrat pack I have dusted off my copy of UNLIMITED ACCESS, the extremely interesting account by FBI agent Gary Aldrich who, as one of two agents responsible for investigations of personnel for security purposes, spent a number of years inside the White House during the early Clinton years. If you would really like to get a first-hand account of Hillary’s deameanor, anger, lust for power and ruthless ambition, I suggest you read this book.

Posted by: Jim Martin at February 6, 2006 4:30 PM
Comment #121532

kctim,

There is not evidence of that. There are extremes on both sides of the spectrum, it is just that the extreme right is better represented by the Republican party than the extreme left is represented by Democrats.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 4:33 PM
Comment #121534

The extreme left is not represented at all. That is something fictional that is claimed by the McCarthyite Rpblcns.

In my previous post I made an error, saying that Gurney replaced Holland when he actually replaced Smathers in 1969 before Bush became chairman of the Rpblcn party. Holland and Smathers were both sponsors of the 24th amendment. I also forgot that Harry Flood Byrd changed from Democrat to Independent Whacko party.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 6, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #121535

Cole,

How do you suggest we focus the extremne anger that we and Hillary all feel?

I think the politicians should stop throwing sticks and stones at each other. We should recognize once and for all that our government is in the toilet due to the ineffectiveness of the very politicians that are engaging in the sticks and stones game (while still piling up their money), go to the voting booth and cast votes for non-incumbent challengers.

Here’s a list of names of mid-term Senator election incumbents we can start with.

REPUBLICANS

Arizona – John Kyl Indiana – Richard Lugar Maine – Olympia Snowe Mississippi – Trent Lott Missouri – Jim Talent – Montana – Conrad Burns – Nevada – John Ensign
Ohio – Mike Dewine – Pennsylvania – Rick Santorum – Rhode Island – Lincoln Chafee
Tennessee – Bill Frist – Texas – Kay Baily Hutchinson – Utah – Orrin Hatch – Virginia-George Allen

DEMOCRATS

California – Dianne Feinstein – Connecticut – Joe Lieberman – Delaware – Thomas Carper – Florida – Bill Nelson – Hawaii – Daniel Akaka – Maryland – Paul Sarbanes – Massachusetts – Ted Kennedy – Michigan – Debbie Stabenow – Minnesota – Mark Dayton – Nebraska – Ben Nelson – New Jersey – Ben Corzine – New Mexico – Jeff Bingaman – New York – Hillary Clinton – North Dakota – Kent Conrad – Vermont – Jim Jeffords (I) – Washington – Maria Cantwell – West Virginia – Robert Byrd – Wisconsin – Herbert Kohl

Posted by: steve smith at February 6, 2006 4:49 PM
Comment #121538

I would think the results of the last few elections are evidence that the left has moved to far left.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #121541

>> But, then along came this Democrat named Lyndon (Bane of bigots) Johnson who forced the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act through Congress.

JLW,

Don’t leave out HST…he was first to integrate the armed forces. I’m pretty sure he was a Democrat. The Rebubs own all the plantations, all the oil wells and Wal-Mart…no wonder we dems are having to play catch-up.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 6, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #121542


“Bravo, right on! Hillary should be angry, we should all be angry. I’m angry that more people are not angry. Calling some one angry that should be angry is not defamation, and being called a liberal is a compliment.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 01:42 PM”

How true JayJay! Beyond that though, why does everyone seem to have already put Hillary in the lead as the Democratic Presidential Candidate for ‘08? She would certainly not be my choice.

AP,
We’re talking Mehlman here, eh? On a scale of 1 to 10, the most inflammatory of his statements being a 10, this was at worst a 3. Hillary’s “plantation” statement was downright “stupid” albeit arguably true. In this political climate choice of words is of the utmost importance.

Did you see the Daily Show the day after the SOTU? Even Jon Stewart couldn’t leave Hillary alone. He had me busting a gut with his, “that’s where boners go to die” comment over Hillary’s expression after he mentioned himself and Bill being two of his dad’s favorite people.

Bill Clinton’s indiscretions did great harm to our party. There’s just no getting around that. IMO, now we must find a “new” and strong voice, new being the key word. If this were a game I’d trade 20 Howard Dean’s and 5 Hillary Clinton’s for 2 Ken Mehlman’s and a Karl Rove.

Keyword comparisons:
“Flip-flop” scored an A+.
“Plantation” scored an F.

A lot of the voting public is at best poorly informed. Quite often between work and home responsibilities people have time to hear only the small “snip-its” and they will vote based on that. Bush can say, “the Democrat’s voted against saving Social Security” and people will believe it. Someone like my man Biden will respond with a 5 minute long explanation. I can almost guarantee you that Biden’s explanation is 99.9% more accurate but Bush’s “crapuendo”, but it sticks never the less.

Get where I’m going here? Some would call it “corner bar politics”.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #121546

Ah yes. The people are too stupid to know whats best for them, thats why they should let the Dems think for them, right?
So they don’t have to think for themselves.
Its not the Dems message is it? Its just that us “dummies” aren’t smart enought to know whats best for us.
Liberal elite indeed.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 5:06 PM
Comment #121555

kctim,

I don’t think the last few elections mean what you are implying. Bush did not even win the popular vote in 2000. I think what you need to remember is that after the 2000 election but before the 2001 election the U.S. was hit by the biggest attack in it’s history. 9/11 changed the political landscape. America united in a common cause and no matter which party would have been in power they would have acted militarily towards the terrorists and would have been seen as strong on terrorism, and more than likely would have retained power.

However, this next election will be telling, because it follows the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, and this time the party in power didn’t come off as strong, but rather, incompetent. Hurricane Katrina has the potential to change the political landscape again, this time not in the favor of the party in power.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #121556

Both parties have moved too far into the toilet.

But, the politicians on both sides absolutely live for the petty bickering. They love it. They fuel it. It’s the perfect distraction while they fleece the tax-payers. And some people love to wallow in it. Folks, it’s both of them. We should start catching on to this eventually. And, prioritize. What about our pressing problems that have the real potential for a serious meltdown ?

Forget who called who what.
Getting all bent out of shape about calling some one angry is crazy.
They love this stuff.
And, A.P. is fueling it, as usual.
Ignore that, and look at the root cause of many of our problems. We created the problem. We can fix it, or we can suffer the consequences (again).

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #121557

kctim,
“The people are too stupid to know whats best for them, thats why they should let the Dems think for them, right?”

Where do you get this from? If you’re referring to my comments then you’re confusing “time limitations based on responsibilty” with “stupidity” which actually serves as a perfect example of what I was trying to say. Simply “downsize” and twist the truth and you’ve created an effective spin.

Sicilian Eagle does it quite often and quite effectively and I see you’re learning fast. Maybe FOX news would offer you an internship.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 5:31 PM
Comment #121561

JJ
I was implying that people don’t agree with the liberals anti-gun, anti-religion, anti-personal freedoms, anti-military etc… agenda and that if the left was to go back to being Democrats again, they would probably win in a landslide in todays political climate.
Eh, what do I know. I guess only time will tell.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #121562
Beyond that though, why does everyone seem to have already put Hillary in the lead as the Democratic Presidential Candidate for ‘08? She would certainly not be my choice.

KansasDem,

That is a question I ask myself every time I see a poll that puts here at the top of the list. It is particularly puzzling considering that I don’t know of any Democrats who endorse her for president, other than the polls. Of course a Hillary nomination would only be music to the Republican’s ears.

The people are too stupid to know whats best for them, thats why they should let the Dems think for them, right? So they don’t have to think for themselves.

kctim,

I hope this is a joke. It is the Republican party that thinks people are too stupid to know what is best for them. Republicans will do the thinking for you if you are homosexual or pregnant. They will tell the poor that cutting assistance, to give tax breaks to the wealthy, is what is best for them. They don’t even think that their own supporters can think for themselves, so they spoon feed them talking points.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 5:33 PM
Comment #121563

JayJay Snowman,

I believe you are right. It wouldn’t surprise me if the republicans lose the majority in both houses and the executive branch too.

The sad part is, it won’t change much of anything, because it will still fail to get to the root of the problem.

Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 5:34 PM
Comment #121566

“corner bar politics”

You are speaking of the average man. If he doesnt have the time to get all the facts, don’t you think you should accomodate him in order to get his vote?
Which is the average man going to listen to?
One, quick sentence: “The Dems voted against Bush’s plan to save SS”
OR
A 5 minute speech by your man Biden.

“Simply “downsize” and twist the truth and you’ve created an effective spin”

Droning on and on about something in order to confuse, is also “effective spin.”

“Sicilian Eagle does it quite often and quite effectively and I see you’re learning fast”

Think of me as a liberal all you want, my feelings aren’t hurt.

“Maybe FOX news would offer you an internship”

Why?
Oh yeah, I don’t agree with you and choose to think for myself so I MUST be a neo-con, right.
Ok.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #121568
liberals anti-gun, anti-religion, anti-personal freedoms, anti-military

Anti-gun? This is kind of an old issue. This has all but been dropped by the current crop of Democrats and if you look at the views of the new Democrats out their (the Fighting Dems, Band of Brothers) you will find that they are very much for protecting the 2nd amendment.

Anti-religion? No, Dems are anti-mandated religion. The Dems do a much better job of protecting freedom of religion than the Republicans could ever dream. If it were left up to the Republicans we would all be “psudeo Christians” and there would be a cross planted every 2 feet.

anti-personal freedoms? Why don’t you ask a few gays and lesbians about that, I think you’ll get an ear full. The Republican idea of personal freedom: anti-marriage equality and anti-family legistation.

anti-military? Hardly. We all supported military action in the war on terror. What we don’t support are wars based on lies and twisting of the facts. Liberals want an aggressive war on terrorists, not wars that divert us from that mission.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 5:48 PM
Comment #121584

jayjay & kc,

Now we have both sides accusing the other of saying voters are stupid.
Any chance both parties agree on this one?
Especially the lifers?

They both know all they need is a good sound bite to turn an election.

Posted by: bugcrazy at February 6, 2006 6:23 PM
Comment #121588

bugcrazy,

The difference is that I backed up my comments with specific examples, kctim just made random statements without offering anything to back them up.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 6:45 PM
Comment #121591

Dear Pundit-

Your post implies that the “smear campaign” has just begun. Have you been asleep for the past few decades? You also imply that the Republicans ae the only ones “smearing”. Did you happen to watch the Senate Judiciary hearings on Judge Alito? Now there was a smear job if there ever was one. Get over it! Whether we like it or not, and I don’t, smearing has been a fact of political life since day one. Both sides have engaged in the basest form of denigration and vilification. The nice part about smearing is that you don’t have to have any facts, just smears. We have smeared practically every politician that has risen to any semblance of power or influence. It is to the point now where the best and brightest who might consider public service are staying home rather than be the target of lies, distortions, and mud. And, we of this site are as guilty as any of the others.

Posted by: John Back at February 6, 2006 7:00 PM
Comment #121597

“It wouldn’t surprise me if the republicans lose the majority in both houses and the executive branch too.

The sad part is, it won’t change much of anything, because it will still fail to get to the root of the problem.
Posted by: d.a.n at February 6, 2006 05:34 PM”

d.a.n.
Unfortunitely you may be right. I’ve found myself voting for the “lesser of two evils” many times throughout the past 35+ years. That’s why I call for a “new” voice from the Democrats. As things are I’ll remain a Democrat.

George Clooney recently said in some interview that he preferred being labeled a liberal as opposed to being a conservative that required the label of “compassionate” in front of it to show that he cared about other people. Maybe one of my “libby” friends can help me out with an actual quote.

I’m listening though. If you have a better solution I’m certainly open to suggestions. I did read your links regarding the dire straits of “our” economy and I realize how many generations this can effect. But, before we get started give me the same “snap-shot” of the American economy in 1999 & 2000.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #121605
I’ve read your stuff before and IMO you are a very angry person yourself. So, there. Deal with it.

You must be kidding. How can anyone living in this country or fighting overseas not be angry with the crooks in this Administration raping the treasury and frustrated with all the Right-Wing media spin.

If I were Hillary I’d be particularly pissed off after what a great country this had become during the Clinton Administration and how quickly it was destroyed during the Bush Administration.

In my opinion we need another Clinton in the White House but I’d settle for a Gore or a Kerry, or even a Boxer.

Posted by: Pat at February 6, 2006 7:44 PM
Comment #121610

I hate to admit to anyone that I had more trust in the Nixon White House than I now have in this present White House. The current occupant of the White House has successfully brought together a bunch of yes people who are there to feed his ego and make it official policy to be truth optional. When the President talks, within 24 hours someone in His administration does something totally opposite of what had been said. And I thought the Nixon White House was parnoid.
Nixon had the FBI, et al, spying on citizens who were political enemys under the guise of National Security. Thirty years later we again have a president who spys on citizens who “MAY be linked to terriosm”, under the guise of National Secuitey.
See the movie “Good Night and Good Luck” and when Sen Joe McCarthy uses the work “communism” put in the word of either terriorist or evil doers or evil ones. Now we know who is the ghost writer for the Presidnt is, the ghost of Joe McCarthy

Posted by: C.T. Rich at February 6, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #121614

I don’t understand why Democrats expect the Republicans to be sincere about anything. They have the morals of advertising agencies. They have the belief patterns of mercenaries. For them it is all about power and money. They use religion and patriotism as items to achieve these goals. When Melman or Matlin are on TV, I change channels. Carville and Begala aren’t much better. I am now 71 and I am ready to leave this country. The U.S. is an empire in rapid decline and there is little evidence of improvement in the offing. My friends and family are the only things that keeps me here.

Posted by: Dick Schladen at February 6, 2006 8:04 PM
Comment #121630

Dick

With all due respect, many say such things, few actually leave. I am still waiting for all those celebrities to decamp as they promised if Bush was elected.

Pat

But most of the guys actually fighting overseas are not. Funny thing.

JayJay

We will see what happens in the next election. Dems are good at the predictions game. Happy Fitzmas, BTW.

Anger is an interesting emotion. Sometimes anger is what people really enjoy and they don’t actually intend to do anything more.

Posted by: Jack at February 6, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #121635

There is no comparison to the Democratic and Republican parties today. After the Dixiecrats moved over to the Republican party, they brought their tactics with them. They could not stay in a party that sent so many blacks and liberals to congress.

The democratics are for the most part wimpish (what they called George H W) and until Murtha stood up about this second attack on Iraq, they did not really even complain. They just laid down and took whatever the republicans shoveled out.

Whereas the republicans are a different crew, altogether. They stand behind W (I can’t and won’t make myself call him a president)on anything. Just listen to their actions recently:
1. Condoned and supported the administration
in the use of torture of Iraqi prisoners.
That in itself is enough for the impeach-
ment of W and any congressman or senator
who condoned or supported that
barbaric practice. Tell me what is the
difference with what Germany did to
homosexuals,the mentally ill and retarded.
Those were war crimes and W and the rest
of the lot should have to answer for them
in a forum similar to Nuremberg.

2. Cheney appears rotten to the core, where
W is just elated that a neer-do-well,
unsuccessful “businessman” could reside
in the White House for two terms. It
doesn’t matter how he got there, he’s
just happy to be there. All of the
money spent to put this incompetent in
the White House had a definite purpose.

His backers failed with Dan Quayle, he
didn’t have the gall to stand insolently
in front of his betters and act as if
he’d gotten there on his own.

But, back to Cheney. For most of my
jobs, I as a computer programmer had to
sign Conflict of Interest Agreements and
any connection that I had that just may
appeared to form a conflict, that
connection was not made. Does anyone
see the conflict with Haliburton and
Cheney with this war that this
administration was determined to start.

3. And now they are spying on ordinary
citizens. W won’t address groups that
may have people who oppose him in the
audience.

As I said, there is no comparison between the
two parties and the current outlaw administration should be impeached and prosecuted for war crimes and lying to the entire electorate to start a war with Iraq.

The government of this country is so rotten that we’d be better off them all. They are not beholden to

Posted by: Carolyn Williams at February 6, 2006 9:17 PM
Comment #121644

CURRENT Liberal American democrat GOALS

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.allowing UN to control world policy.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.and allowing rogue nations such as north korea /Iran to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.Thus allowing world domination by the UN.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.Including nuclear facialities enabling all who want them to aquire nuclear weopons.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Palistinian authority as well as north korea and Iran.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of whethor they obey international law or directly sponser terrorism.

7. with recognition of Red China. and Admission of Red China to the U.N.we now have a powerful new ally.

8. Set up East and West Germany as Unified states by free elections under supervision of the U.N.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Nations individual representation in the U.N.making world domination / control possible

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Liberal leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the middle east.

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.including in god we trust.

14. Continue giving Russia china and as many middle eastern nations as possible access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture the democratic political party in the United States.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Liberal propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Liberal attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Liberal was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.” including any thing with the name of god or the 10 commanndments on them.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.” and use these forms to eliminate faith in god while continously degrading and showing how foolish belief in god really is.

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”Including promoting gay marriage,Sodomy and eventually marriage to animals and any other combanation a person can imagine.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.nominate judges who will create legislation and further liberal goals.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to world history while showing the holocost never really occured and america is really the same or worse than nazi germany was,using the invasion / liberation of iraq as a way to unite arab nations and people to want the liberals back in power in america.

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of any of the Gay or liberal causes currently underway in america today.

34. Create as many new investigations of any kind of wrong doing possible by republican politicians as a way to create the sense that they are corrupt and only Liberals can save america.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.including the abilty to try past presidents for war crimes that they determine regardless of us oppistion.

Looks like these are truly admirable goals for most liberals throughout america…..funny thing is though this was originally written in 1963 as the goals of the communist party …..And you all democrats wonder why you cant win elections any longer……this year once soundly defeated again perhaps a few democrats will find some decency and morales and again rebuild the democratic party with a set of goals that can be valued by all americans ,However until this is done the rabid hollywood /gay agenda / big money will control and send your party into disarray and less and less control throughout government.the lies used to win previous elections will no longer work ,,,so maybe you should attempt to retake your party and find at least a few moral principles.Good Luck ,,,past democrat….15 year Republican…..

Posted by: Rylee at February 6, 2006 9:36 PM
Comment #121656

Rylee,

How many times are you going to bring up this ridiculous comparison in posts here? Give it a rest already.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 10:22 PM
Comment #121662

”-“Maybe FOX news would offer you an internship”

Why?
Oh yeah, I don’t agree with you and choose to think for myself so I MUST be a neo-con, right.
Ok.

Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 05:46 PM “

kctim,
Do you, or do you not lean to the right. Your recent post’s would indicate that you do. If you can show one time that I misunderstood or “mislabeled” you I’ll be glad to apologize and “sing your praises”. I also tend to think for myself and sometimes I think wrong. Show me where I’m wrong!

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 10:37 PM
Comment #121666

Thank’s JayJay, I’d not seen our esteemed Commodeer of all Chefs in that great display of beervado:

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fanon.salon.speedera.net%2Fanon.salon%2Fmedia%2F2004%2F10%2FBushUncensored.mov

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 10:45 PM
Comment #121671

Rylee,

Your list is meaningless, some of the things you mention were done by conservatives. Here’s another list, your beloved Republican administration seems to fit into all 14 quite comfortably.

Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt

Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of “need.” The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government’s policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 10:47 PM
Comment #121678

Rylee,

Facts my friend! I gave up reading your foolish diatribe somewhere around #15. Google NAFTA. Who pushed NAFTA thru? Twas’ the “newt” and his buddy’s. Clinton wanted changes but conceded. IMO he conceded on far too many things.

I’d ask two simple questions:
#1. How many years since Nixon resigned have we “libby’s” had the nearly unlimited control that Bush & Co. have now?
#2. How many years (or decades)do you think Bush & Co. need to “correct” everything us “libby’s” messed up?

Maybe we should just stop having elections altogether. Then there would be no need to express our opinions.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 6, 2006 11:14 PM
Comment #121679
Happy Fitzmas, BTW

Jack,

A little help here? I have seen you write this before, what does it mean? And what is this Kool-Aid I keep hearing about that conservatives are drinking?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #121684

JayJay
you truly do amuse me as you atempt to potray the Bush adminastration as a facist regime is truly amazzing to me that you’ll democrats have any following at all with the exception of radiacals like micheal moore and your self….as i would speak to a child please allow me to slowly explain so perhaps you will comprehend /understand…..first and formost we have been in a war now since it was declared on us in 1996—-unfortunatly for 3000 americans the leadership of this country at the time was more concerned with bombing bosnia and recieving self gratifacation rather than actually governing and protecting america from these rabid thugs….you seem to feel that there is no threat and its all an illusion ,,,,perhaps if you were to ask mrs pearl or perhaps mrs armstrong or thousands of other american familys youd discover that out side your labratory there are evil people willing to be cruel and inhuman to prove there backward religion is true…..however you liberals would rather teach your immoral behavior to our children and shove your immoral corrupt views down all of our throuts ,,however its no longer like it was 15 or 20 years ago when you could simply tell a lie to the american people and for the most part they would believe your lies ,,,the attempts by dan rather is a good example ….you seem to imply that the election was rigged another foolish dream not only was the supreme courts decision validated by multipe news organizations the state of florida did also …again we go back to the basic premise of the democratic party now adays ….tell a lie ,,,hen continue to repeat it and eveantually you ‘ll convince many to believe the lie…..unfortunatly for the dems there are some of us out here that think anf research for our selfs and are not convinced by typical liberal lies ……why is it all you can do is critisize the war in araq yet have no plan kinda hard to critisize the econimy as the jobless rate is lower than its been in 25 years so does not leave an awful lot for you all to say ,,,oh lets see we should impeach bush for defending america and listening in to calls coming from over seas to americans here …..yikes you all are in for a big surprize come november ,,,,you”ll be crying in your beer again ,,,perhaps we’ll see another mass migration of you’ll to canada as we did after 2004 s election ….oh thats right it was all proaganda stated repeatly by many dems and not acted upon…..Too bad ,,,canada could use some additional liberals for they just got thrown out of affice as well…..perhaps well get lucky and convert a few decent minded americans to join the party of caring americans ….VOTE REPUBLICAN…..and with one final note ….GO STEELERS NO 1 IN “2005”

Posted by: Rylee at February 6, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #121685
And even during the SOTU the Dems were not particularly gracious. When they cheered that they had managed to defeat SS reform, I only wish Bush had been quick enough to say, “there they go again.” We will be using footage of that cheer in campaign ads and we do thank you for it.

Jack,

Please do. Over 60% of those polled disapproved of the Presidents plan. 80% believe that it is the government’s responsibility to provide a decent standard of living for the elderly. 63% believe that income over $90,000 should be taxed for SS. (I wasn’t even aware that income over $90,000 wasn’t taxed for SS now.) 48% trust Democrats with SS, compared to 31% who trust the Republican party with it. Social Security

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 11:34 PM
Comment #121691

yes the same democrat party who cheered during the state of the union address showing they stooped any action to fix social security and that will be seen again you can bet that ,,,,with no plan from the dems ather than raise your taxes till we have to give 95% to the government allowing the dems to spend and control our lives as they dream to do …..foolish very foolish ,,,,,but we’ll see in november again with massive defeats of dems hopefully some one will emerge as a moderate who actually cares about america ,,,,hasnt been one of those since john f kennidy and actually that was last dem i voted for …..too bad none of the dems now care about defending america…..

Posted by: Rylee at February 6, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #121742

Rylee,

You seem as angry as Hillary Clinton at the plantation.

you truly do amuse me as you atempt to potray the Bush adminastration as a facist regime is truly amazzing to me that you’ll democrats have any following at all with the exception of radiacals like micheal moore and your self

No more amusing than you trying to compare the Democratic Party to communists. Anyone who disagrees with the Republican Party is a radical according to you guys.

you seem to feel that there is no threat and its all an illusion ,,,,perhaps if you were to ask mrs pearl or perhaps mrs armstrong or thousands of other american familys youd discover that out side your labratory there are evil people willing to be cruel and inhuman to prove there backward religion is true

When did I say anything like this? In fact I believe liberals (me included) want to aggressively go after the real terrorists, but we know that won’t happen as long as we continue to drag our feet in Iraq. Why are we still there? What is the latest excuse, I lost track? We need to either go in with both barrels blazing or end this thing, or get out of Iraq and fight the real terrorists. OBL is not a stupid guy, the release of his recent tape did have a purpose and it wasn’t to offer a truce. He knows that there is pressure to end the Iraq war and he doesn’t want that to happen. He knows that once that happens then the real war on terror might start. So he releases a tape knowing that the American people will play right into his hands. He did the same thing just before the 2004 Presidential election, he didn’t want the guy that took his eye off the target voted out. I believe its called reverse psychology.

however you liberals would rather teach your immoral behavior to our children and shove your immoral corrupt views down all of our throuts ,,however its no longer like it was 15 or 20 years ago when you could simply tell a lie to the american people and for the most part they would believe your lies

I would hardly call the lying and corruption the Republicans in Washington have been up to- moral. Not even close. If your talking about abortion, the reality is that it is not going anywhere, even if it were made illegal, we should be concentrating on lowering the rate instead of all this stupid bickering that just wastes time and lives. The regions with the most restrictive abortion laws also have some of the highest rates of abortion. Asia accounts for 58% of abortions, Africa 11%, and Latin America 9%. The U.S. has one of the lowest abortion rates. Europe accounts for 17% of abortions and the rest of the world together, including the U.S. account for the other 5%. It is also interesting to note that the abortion rate has been highest during Republican presidencies. The number of abortions performed each year during the Reagan and Bush Sr. years never fell below 1,200,000 and peaked in 1990 at 1,429,247 abortions. The Clinton years saw a steady decline each year of his presidency. In 2000, there were 857,475 abortions, the lowest level in 25 years. Why waste so much life fighting about whose side is right, instead we should be finding ways to make it rare and a last resort.

the attempts by dan rather is a good example

Ever heard of swift boating?

you seem to imply that the election was rigged another foolish dream not only was the supreme courts decision validated by multipe news organizations the state of florida did also

I don’t imply that, there is much evidence of voter irregularities and many states have de-certified their Diebold voting machines because of the ease to manipulate the results without leaving a trail. I don’t agree with every decision the Supreme Court makes. I thought you Cons called them activist judges. I guess that label doesn’t apply when they favor your side.


why is it all you can do is critisize the war in araq yet have no plan kinda hard to critisize the econimy as the jobless rate is lower than its been in 25 years so does not leave an awful lot for you all to say

You haven’t been paying attention

again we go back to the basic premise of the democratic party now adays ….tell a lie ,,,hen continue to repeat it and eveantually you ‘ll convince many to believe the lie…..unfortunatly for the dems there are some of us out here that think anf research for our selfs and are not convinced by typical liberal lies

Say what? This is the trademark of the Republican Party. They have it down to an artform. I have done a lot of research on a large number of issues and I am a Democrat because I think for myself.

As for the rest, if they have any validity they will stand on their own. (Tiiiiiimberrrrr!)

perhaps well get lucky and convert a few decent minded americans to join the party of caring americans

Sure! Come on over to the Democrat side, all the people are welcome.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #121775

A little help here? I have seen you write this before, what does it mean? And what is this Kool-Aid I keep hearing about that conservatives are drinking?

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 6, 2006 11:15 PM


It’s obviously working otherwise you would know what it is and who is pouring it.

Posted by: expatUSA_Indonesia at February 7, 2006 5:06 AM
Comment #121841

Your outrage is sorely misplaced. Bush always needs to look like the good guy while the others behind the scenes are the ones who get their fingers dirty. It’s all from the Lee Atwater playbook. The guy in charge is the good guy, while the surrogates spread the smear and accusations.

Posted by: Good Cop, Bad Cop, same story at February 7, 2006 8:54 AM
Comment #121851

JJ
“kctim just made random statements without offering anything to back them up”

Sorry, I got tied up with work.
JayJay, we were talking about what we thought the Dems needed to do in order to win. Not what the Reps needed to do.
I gave you specific issues that many people still believe is representitive of the left. Right or wrong in your opinion does not matter. What matters is how is the left going to inform these people that they are NOT anti-gun, religion or whatever.
I was not going for the left vs right debate. I really was curious about what you thought the left could do better.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 9:13 AM
Comment #121856

KansasDem
“Do you, or do you not lean to the right”

Depends on the issue and how it falls in accordance with the Constitution.

“Your recent post’s would indicate that you do”

Simply asking for facts or disagreeing with the lefts position does not mean I am a Conservative.

“If you can show one time that I misunderstood or “mislabeled” you I’ll be glad to apologize and “sing your praises”.”

—-Do you, or do you not lean to the right—-

No need to sing my praises, I’m just an average redneck.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 9:23 AM
Comment #121865

Bush Sr. was a jerk, Quayle an idiot, Clinton was disgusting, most of those who persecuted him were hypocritical, Gore is shallow and weak, Bradley is an idealist, Bush Jr. a fool, and all of the independent candidates act like they’re on drugs.

David Borenstein

Posted by: Dave at February 7, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #121866

‘Bush Sr. was a jerk, Quayle an idiot, Clinton was disgusting, most of those who persecuted him were hypocritical, Gore is shallow and weak, Bradley is an idealist, Bush Jr. a fool, and all of the independent candidates act like they’re on drugs.

David Borenstein


THAT pretty much sums it up!!

Posted by: dawn at February 7, 2006 9:42 AM
Comment #121873

Kansas Dem,

kc does NOT lean to the right…he fell all the way over a long time ago, he even wears a Karl Rove Merit Badge.

>>Over the last few weeks, Mr. Rove has been calling in virtually every Republican on the Senate committee as well as the leadership in Congress. The sources said Mr. Rove’s message has been that a vote against Mr. Bush would destroy GOP prospects in congressional elections.

The subject was the hearing on warrantless wire-tapping. If a Republican even THINKS about honestly investigating whether Cheney/Bush broke the law, he will be blacklisted from help on his next campaign. What administration was it that was going to bring back integrity to Washington? Oh yeah, it was the one that invited Abramoff to the party, and paid the Swiftboaters to spray their vitriol, and lied their way into Iraq, and…and…and…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 7, 2006 9:59 AM
Comment #121910

President Bush called a truce. He said he’d do his part and adopt “a civil tone” and “act in a spirit of good will and respect for one another.”

RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman pissed all over President Bush’s promise.

It sounds like conservatives believe President Bush is a weak-willed partisan butt boy, but I’m sure he’s mad as hell that Mehlman backstabbed him and spit on his vow.

I believe President Bush is a strong, honorable, and courageous man, and he’ll force Mehlman to apologise and resign. It hasn’t happened yet, but I’m sure it will happen soon.

I’m sure President Bush isn’t one of those horrible, despicable, Republican hate mongers who would condone breaking his own word of honor. He’d never let anyone sully his honor, would he?

Posted by: American Pundit at February 7, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #121923

expatUSA_Indonesia,

That wasn’t helpful and didn’t answer my question.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #121929
I gave you specific issues that many people still believe is representitive of the left. Right or wrong in your opinion does not matter. What matters is how is the left going to inform these people that they are NOT anti-gun, religion or whatever.

kctim, Some of the words I live by:

“I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. And because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do the something that I can do. What I can do, I should do. And what I should do, by the grace of God, I will do.” -Edward Everett Hale

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:03 PM
Comment #121948

JJ
Exactly. That is why I was curious about YOUR opinion on what the left needed to do to get those much needed votes.
I wasn’t being partisan or anything of the sort. I was just curious in hearing YOUR opinions.
I will try to keep the debate partisan from now on I guess.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 12:41 PM
Comment #121961

kctim,

Ok. Can you please explain to me how this comment is not partisan:

Ah yes. The people are too stupid to know whats best for them, thats why they should let the Dems think for them, right? So they don’t have to think for themselves. Its not the Dems message is it? Its just that us “dummies” aren’t smart enought to know whats best for us. Liberal elite indeed. Posted by: kctim at February 6, 2006 05:06 PM
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #121968

Rylee and the other Cons who like to compare Libs to communists,

Can you explain to me how the Medicare Drug Benefit instituted by Republicans is not a socialist program?

In her April 8, 2004, testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, former Medicare Administrator Gail Wilensky said that “The Medicare Prescription Drug Bill, known as the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), represents the largest, most expensive and most complicated set of changes to the Medicare program since its inception.”
Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 1:03 PM
Comment #121975

JJ
Sure, it was in response to KansasDem, not you.
You and I were discussing what we believed the left could do in order to get enough moderate votes to win or if they even needed to do anything.
You are on here alot and you post some interesting things. I was interested in your take of the current Democrats and how they relate to the voters.

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #121982

kctim,

I apologize, I thought your comment was directed at our conversation.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #122004

AP,

Mehlman simply said, in more words than he had to, that Hillary leans left of even the liberal mainstream. From my perspective that is a horrible accusation, but it shouldn’t be horrible from your perspective.

If you wanna define that as “vicious” I need to show you a cartoon that’s gonna make you burn down embassies.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 7, 2006 1:59 PM
Comment #122011
You and I were discussing what we believed the left could do in order to get enough moderate votes to win or if they even needed to do anything. I was interested in your take of the current Democrats and how they relate to the voters.

kctim,

What the Dems simply need to do is follow the Edward Everett Hale quote above. The dems are between a rock and a hard place. They have no power in Washington, the only thing they can hope to do is kill bad legislation, unfortunately, that has only caused image problems. It is not necessary to convince the entire American population, it just won’t happen. For instance, I have no control over whether Tom Delay will win reelection that is in the hands of the voters in his district. What the Dems can do, however, is convince the people who have the power to put them in office. The best way to do that, I think, is through local town hall meetings. Some Dems have already done them, and I was quite impressed. Facing the people who are going to vote for or against you and having to answer tough questions on the spot to your constituents, I think is the best way to keep them honest and put forth your side. Jack Murtha took a beating at the hands of the Republicans for his plan for redeployment, but if you watch his town hall meeting, where he explains his plan and honestly answers tough questions from the public, you forget the rhetoric and realize this guy really knows what he is talking about.

Nancy Pelosi also conducted a local town hall meeting and she made a lot of sense, and not the caricature the rhetoric portray her as.

The worst thing the Dems can do is try to win elections in a national debate with Repubs, save that for 2008 after they win the Congress in 2006 and prove themselves worthy to lead the nation. The best thing that Democrats can do to win elections and put forth common sense is to go to the people with the power to elect you and conduct more of these open, uncensored local town hall meetings across the country. If they do that, they are practically guaranteed to win back the congress in November. That is just my opinion.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 7, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #122033

>>The best thing that Democrats can do to win elections and put forth common sense is to go to the people with the power to elect you and conduct more of these open, uncensored local town hall meetings across the country. If they do that, they are practically guaranteed to win back the congress in November.

JJ,

Right on! With the last power shift, we ended up with all three branches in Republican hands. No matter how corrupt or incompetant they are, they have possession of the government, and possession is nine points…

Them darned elephants circled around and came through the back door, via righteous nutsville, and we’ll have to uproot them the same way…your way…if we don’t talk straight to the little guy, whom we are supposed to represent anyway, we’ll suck the scum off the bottom for a long time to come.

Posted by: Marysdude at February 7, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #122046

JJ
Townhall meetings sound like a good start for the Dems.
So what should the left do to convince people that they are NOT any of those anti things I mentioned earlier?
Stay the course and hope the people come around to that agenda? Or would a more common sense approach and listening to what the public wants also work here?

Posted by: kctim at February 7, 2006 5:41 PM
Comment #122112

Mr Bo Jangles Bush leads smear campaign at the Correta King funeral - he slyly spoke of her good deeds and avoided mentioning the unauthorised spying by the Kennedy’s on her husband.

Posted by: Reporter for Doody at February 7, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #122193

Everyone needs to stand up to this president, I got this in my e-mail yesterday. Yes it does seem extreme but stop and think what the so called legal spying can do.http://www.adcritic.com/interactive/view.php?id=5927
It takes a few mins to load.

Posted by: Sherri at February 8, 2006 3:33 AM
Comment #122217

It’s a simple act of desperation on the Republicans part. Thankfully most Americans have wised up to their methods. With the Republican Party so mired in the latest corruption scandal, slinging mud is about the only option left to them. They certainly can’t boast of any accomplishments in the upcoming elections. The best way to defeat the Republican Party is to let them keep talking; it will fall on deaf ears. Now all that needs to be done, is unite the Democrats on some solid issues, there certainly is a wide choice to pick from. Then lead the pigs to the slaughter in the 2006 and 2008 elections. We should all send Dubba a thank-you note, his arrogance and incompetence has destroyed the Republicans almost to the extent they won’t recover.

Posted by: earjoy at February 8, 2006 6:44 AM
Comment #122227
So what should the left do to convince people that they are NOT any of those anti things I mentioned earlier?

Hey, kctim. How about next time you’re out with your buddies and one of ‘em starts making cracks like that, you just tell ‘em it’s not true.

Mehlman simply said, in more words than he had to, that Hillary…

Ken, this has nothing to do with Senator Clinton. This is all about President Bush making a promise, then getting stabbed in the back by that snake-in-the-grass, Mehlman.

Ken, I don’t know why you think a noble and decent guy like George Bush would let Mehlman piss all over his vow, but I don’t believe it for a second. I’m sure that any minute now, we’ll hear that President Bush defended his honor and called for Mehlman to apologize to him and resign as Chairman of the Republican Party.

That’s what an honorable man would do, and President Bush is an honorable man — no matter what you think.

Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 7:55 AM
Comment #122250

AP
I have before. I have told them to look at a real Dem like Ike Skelton and any of the many liberals and see if they can see the difference.
Hopefully, once they do that, they will be more willing to vote for the person instead of the party.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2006 9:05 AM
Comment #122289

Are you trying to make everyone sick?

Posted by: earjoy at February 8, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #122307

“I don’t really have to imagine with Bush. I’ve seen a clip of him preparing for a campaing commercial where he was giving everyone the finger and swearing. There was no question in my mind that there was no one else in any office who was so stupid or crass to behave like that.”

Posted by: Max at February 6, 2006 12:08 PM

I don’t have to imagine either. “Come on baby, Come to your Commander and Chief and ride the cigar case. Good girl Monica!”

Posted by: goodkingned at February 8, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #122309
Hopefully, once they do that, they will be more willing to vote for the person instead of the party.

kctim,

Thank you for answering your question to me before I could, and you are right. Only when people stop and turn off the rhetoric and look beyond the propaganda and find out for themselves what each candidate is about and where they stand on each issue that is important to them, then you can not break those stereotypes. For years Democrats were seen as fiscally irresponsible, Clinton changed that image for a great number of people, same thing with welfare reform that was pushed under his administration. (All though you will always have those who will uphold the stereotypes no matter what.)

It is interesting to me that the Republican party has always been seen as the fiscally responsible party, who believed in smaller government, states rights, and freedom from government intervention in our personal lives and matters. President Bush and other neocons are creating a whole new image for the party. We now have “borrow and spend Republicans”, a power hungry central government that intrudes more on the state’s rights and wants control over what happens in your bedroom and family life, right down to dictating religious values and morals. I believe in the near future the Republican Party will eventually wind up with the same problems that the Democrats suffer from today, trying to dispel old stereotypes.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 11:27 AM
Comment #122310

Oh, and don’t forget social programs, always the stereotype of the Democrats. The Republicans just instituted the largest expansion of a social program since the creation of Medicare.

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 8, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #122313

JJ
Ok, we agree that the people need to be better informed in order to get pass the stereotypes.
Now we get back to the “soundbite” tactic that KansasDem was talking about (which I may have read to far into, my apologies KansasDem) and how the Dems can try to capitalize on it.
Do you have any particular issues that you think the Dems should work on? Maybe to show that they are NOT as liberal about them as many think.

Posted by: kctim at February 8, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #122331

I don’t know. Maybe Mehlman is right. Hillary does seem angry and tired and this is a bad combination. A reference to “plantations” remains unexamined and I am not sure what she means nor do you. I know that if it was a Republican making a remark like that, we’d be hearing about for days, ad nauseum. But remarks like that are going to get her in trouble eventually and you more liberal folks will have no one to blame except Hillary. She’s her own worst enemy.

Posted by: Bill at February 8, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #122380

I agree with d.a.n.

That whole bunch (98%) of them are a joke, and that’s the real truth of the matter. That’s the real thing voters should focus on, rather than bashing each others’ politicians, which is all too easy since they are all too corrupt.

We’ve had Democrats and Republicans lead us into wars, put increased tax burdens upon us, etc. I have things I like about our Presidents from the past up to and including this one now, but there are things that they’ve all done that none of them would get an “A” on from me nor should they from others.

Posted by: Martin at February 8, 2006 2:51 PM
Comment #122382

And I just read the article of what Mehlman said and I don’t agree with him completely. She is a liberal though not far-left; she’s no moderate, however, either.

Posted by: Martin at February 8, 2006 2:55 PM
Comment #122459

If you want to know who is REALLY a threat to them look at who they are smearing the most.

The Republicans started in on smearing Hillary before the last election when they were afraid she would run. Whether it stopped her or not the tactic they are using is one they started before she made it clear she wasn’t running in the last election. Just because they say she is angry it doesn’t make it a smear.

I think a LOT of politicians in the country are angry. I know for a fact a lot of the electorate are really angry at the cut backs on domestic spending while the skies the limit on spending for killing in Iraq. It’s time to send the troops home to stop the hemmorraghing Federal Budget. We are in debt to forign countries over all of this.

Posted by: garlicbeth at February 8, 2006 7:22 PM
Comment #122493

“Republican smear campaign” is redundant.

Posted by: ElliottBay at February 8, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #122546

Oh crap, I just told my shrink I’d be OK for a month and you said this:

“That’s what an honorable man would do, and President Bush is an honorable man — no matter what you think.
Posted by: American Pundit at February 8, 2006 07:55 AM”

Now I need to call for a new appointment you di**h**d!

Sheesh, just when ya’ think ya’ have a friend. Can you imagine how Scooter Libby feels?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 9, 2006 12:55 AM
Comment #122803

Wait a minute…who smeared who at King’s funeral? It’s shameful when someone’s funeral becomes a political event for the left-wing liberals.

Posted by: Chris at February 9, 2006 3:44 PM
Comment #123389
garlicbeth wrote: We are in debt to foreign countries over all of this.

Yes, the debt is growing fast.
$8.2 trillion for the National Debt , and $32 trillion in private, household, bank, corporate, and local government debt.
The percentage of National Debt to GDP has doubled from 33% of GDP in 1980 to 66% in 2005.
The interest alone on the National Debt is $1 billion per day !
The debt is growing by $2.14 billion per day !
The government is printing too much money.
That is a major cause of inflation.
We’re painting ourselves into a corner.
Politicians and voters are both culpable,
but only the voters can change it now.
And they’d better do it soon.
The longer they wait, the worse it will be for voters.
Not the politicians. They all have golden parachutes. They’ll all come out smellin’ like a rose.
Voters will suffer the most.
So, voters must change it, or suffer the consequences of their own failure to do the one simple thing they were supposed to be doing all along: simply vote out (or recall), always, all irresponsible incumbents, every election, and peacefully force government to be responsible too!

Posted by: d.a.n at February 10, 2006 6:11 PM
Comment #124263

BEGIN….what can you mean. They BEGAN while bill was still in office! And usually it is the same old pratings and propaganda….like we all know the neocons are brain-dead and incapable of thinking for themselves anyway! They are incapable of an independent thought.

Posted by: qitqat at February 13, 2006 10:45 AM
Post a comment