Democrats & Liberals Archives

Madness And Some Sanity

Condoleezza Rice’s State Department really laid the smackdown on Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo. The idiot told a group of Iowans that as President he would “threaten to bomb the Saudi cities of Mecca and Medina, Islam’s two holiest sites, to deter attacks on the United States.” Madness. I can’t think of a better way to lose the war on terror.

Our fight against Islamic extremists has been called a "global insurgency." That's not a bad analogy. There are 1.4 billion Muslims in the world and only a very, very, very small number of them are pissed off enough at the United States to stage terrorist attacks on America. That's a problem typical to any insurgency -- lack of active support from the populace. The problem is solved by provoking America into disproportionate reprisals on Muslims, thereby increasing the number of people who will join the fight against us.

The US invasion and occupation of Iraq did much galvanize Muslim support for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but it pales in significance to what would happen if the President of the United States threatened to nuke Mecca and Medina. 1.4 billion Muslims would take up arms against the United States -- and that's exactly what bin Laden wants.

By making idiotic threats like that, Republican presidential candidate Tom Tancredo plays right into al-Qaeda's hands in a bigger way than President Bush ever did. There's no doubt in my mind that we'll soon see al-Qaeda endorse Tom Tancredo for President the same way al-Qaeda endorsed President Bush in 2004.

Luckily, Republicans don't like any of their candidates this time around. In fact, Rupert Murdoch, Ken Starr and other traditionally Republican-leaning institutions are funneling campaign contributions to Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama instead.

I've always considered true conservatives to be level-headed and sensible people, and I guess supporting moderate, common-sense Democrats instead of wacked-out, idiotic Republicans proves it.

But it does seem as if the world is turned upside down, doesn't it? Heck, I was cruising the AM dial in my car today and I heard Michael Weiner-Savage -- the "Islamo-fascist" guy -- playing Eisenhower's 'beware the military-industrial complex' speech and saying we need to get out of Iraq now because the only thing we're doing there is enriching Halliburton. !!!!! Who the hell is this guy now? Dennis Kucinich?

The world is indeed turning upside down. But in a good way, I think. Is it 2009 yet?

Posted by American Pundit at August 5, 2007 1:35 AM
Comments
Comment #228394

AP:
“Luckily, Republicans don’t like any of their candidates this time around. In fact, Rupert Murdoch, Ken Starr and other traditionally Republican-leaning institutions are funneling campaign contributions to Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama instead.”

Like I said in the center column, this is really just a heads up for all the Democrats and Independents who don’t want to simply elect another total slimeball to be the President of the United States.
And here again are the pertinent links:
Dirty Money.
Hillary at Yearly Kos: Yes I Will” Continue to Accept Lobbyists’ Money

“But it does seem as if the world is turned upside down, doesn’t it?”

Indeed, it does, AP. But that’s kind of ironic.
Have you ever heard a song that goes by the title “World Turned Upside Down’? It rings a few bells in my mind, seeing the way that things are headed — you know, with Democratic candidates getting to be practically interchangeable with Republicans.

Here’s the lyrics to it:

In 1649
To St George’s Hill
A ragged band they called the Diggers
Came to show the people’s will
They defied the landlords
They defied the law
They were the dispossessed
Reclaiming what was theirs

‘We come in peace’ they said
‘To dig and sow
We come to work the land in common
And to make the waste land grow
This earth divided
We will make whole
So it can be
A common treasury for all

The sin of property
We do disdain
No one has any right to buy and sell
The earth for private gain
By theft and murder
They took the land
Now everywhere the walls
Rise up at their command

They make the laws
To chain us well
The clergy dazzle us with heaven
Or they damn us into hell
We will not worship
The God they serve
The God of greed who feeds the rich
While poor men starve

We work, we eat together
We need no swords
We will not bow to masters
Or pay rent to the lords
We are free men
Though we are poor
You Diggers all stand up for glory
Stand up now’

From the men of property
The orders came
They sent the hired men and troopers
To wipe out the Diggers claim
Tear down their cottages
Destroy their corn
They were dispersed
But still the vision lingers on

You poor take courage
You rich take care
This earth was made a common treasury
For everyone to share
All things in common
Al people one
We come in peace -
The order came to cut them down.

Yes I know, clearly it’s a socialist song — yet there are elements in it that seem to directly apply to the current situation you’re describing at the moment as well.
If you’re wondering, the song was written by British folk songwriter Leon Rosselson, but once upon a time it was made popular amongst punk rockers of our generation through the incomparable and thrashy Cockney stylings of a one man band by the name of Billy Bragg. You can listen to a bit of the song at that link if you’ve never heard it before.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 3:43 AM
Comment #228395

American Pundit- Upside down would not even be close.
In that the wimp ass Dem’s. decided
to play the middle of the road, with their siding
with the Republicans again. Their lack of courage
has just discussed me for the last time. I will
vote for all third party candidates in 08.’

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 5, 2007 4:28 AM
Comment #228403
We need no swords … They sent the hired men and troopers

Hmm… No wonder they got their butts kicked. Maybe they should have invested in some swords after all. :)

What can I say. Call me the most conservative Democrat on WatchBlog, but I’m really excited about our presidential frontrunners and I thank God that it looks like we’ll se a competent Democratc President instead of some wacked out Republican Jack Bauer wannabe in the White House.

Hell, even Jack Bauer doesn’t want to be Jack Bauer anymore (defeating global warming in 24 hours!? Can’t wait to see that. Is he going to torture an SUV?).

After the last 6-7 years, it’s clear to me that only a Democratic President can win the war on terror, rebuild our military, economy and infrastructure, and restore America’s moral strength throughout the world.

And I thank God that most independents and many Republicans and can see that, even if a few internet liberals can’t.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 5, 2007 11:32 AM
Comment #228405

AP,

More sanity……..maybe? Quoting Newt Gingrich:

“None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war.”

“I believe we need to find leaders who are prepared to tell the truth … about the failures of the performance of Republicans … failed bureaucracies … about how dangerous the world is.”

I almost soiled myself when I read the headline:
***Gingrich says war on terror ‘phony’***
http://tinyurl.com/25bm4q

Odd, eh?

Posted by: KansasDem at August 5, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #228406

David,

Yeah, I’m almost with you there, buddy. There ain’t much difference between mainstream Democrats and the Republicans. As Americans, we should refuse to support any candidate who doesn’t sign on with either the American Freedom Campaign (on the Left) or the American Freedom Agenda (on the Right).

Posted by: Gerrold at August 5, 2007 11:54 AM
Comment #228409

That’s a good example of what I’m talking about, KansasDem. Thanks for that. I’m looking forward to some good, common sense foreign policy after a Democrat wins in 2008.

Gerrold, I’m not much on internet petitions (I prefer to write my represntatives directly), but those are some good goals that I personally pledge work towards.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 5, 2007 12:07 PM
Comment #228416

AP said: “After the last 6-7 years, it’s clear to me that only a Democratic President can win the war on terror,”

AP, this is pure political BS directed toward ignorant voters. Why do you promulgate such falsehoods? Terror as a component of war and politics has existed since the dawn of civilization. There will never be a victory in this war on terror. At best, what can be achieved is checks and constraints on those persons who would organize around terrorism as a strategy and tactic. But, to say Democrats will win the war on terror, implies they will eliminate terrorists and terrorism. That of course is not possible.

We can’t eliminate terrorism in our country, from Henry Ford’s hired thugs to beat and kill striking workers to Sen. McCarthy’s Red Scare tactics to the bombing of planned parenthood clinics and the Ok. Federal Bldg, to the sending of white powdery substances to members of Congress, we have a history of terrorism in our country that has not, and never will be, removed from our future.

So, dispense with the co-opting of the Bush administration’s lies about victory in the war on terrorism. Democrats cannot be victorious over terrorism as a methodology anymore than Republicans can. We can fight terrorism, check it, and constrain its growth. We can never win a war on terrorism; for to do that, would require subjugating the thoughts, emotions, and passions of every unhappy, disgruntled, and angry person on earth, and that is not in the realm of possibility.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 5, 2007 1:13 PM
Comment #228418

David R. Remer- Within short times of Pearl, you
always manage to find some words of wisdom and character, of which I found neither in either bodies
of Congress over their inability to stand up to the
Republican obstructionism’s, over this weekends votes.
My above post was less than professional, although I still believe we must all give a great
deal of thought to all the candidates we elect in
the near future.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 5, 2007 1:59 PM
Comment #228420

AP,

Well, you must be confident if you want to marginalize the Left before the Democrats win the White House.

I was glad to see Democratic presidential candidates vote against the atrocious wiretap bill, but was disgusted to see how many Democrats caved in to the White House. (I don’t expect any better from the Republicans). And I’m not glad to see the Dem candidates attempt to out war-hawk the administration. Not that I’m a pacifist, by any means, but that I believe many Americans still have not placed the struggle against terrorism in a realistic context. Your talking about a Dem “winning the war on terror” is an example.

I’m not crazy about internet petitions either, but I think it would be a good step for candidates to pledge to uphold Fourth Amendment liberties and curb the executive branch’s power grab.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 5, 2007 2:19 PM
Comment #228425

I watched the Rpblcn “debate” on Stephanopolous this morning. Tancredo is a schizoid lunatic who claims that Jesus Christ is his personal savior, but wants to reserve the right to bomb Mecca. He should be excluded from membership of whatever church he attends, but only people that are in favor of a woman’s right to control her own body get that treatment.

Radical Islam or Militant Islam is now the Rpblcn party’s best friend, and has been since the Ayatollah got Reagan elected POTUS.

Posted by: ohrealy at August 5, 2007 3:23 PM
Comment #228436

AP:
“Hmm… No wonder they got their butts kicked. Maybe they should have invested in some swords after all. :)”

Yeah, that’s the whole point of the song. “The men of property” are never peaceful, and will always cut the people down.
The Democratic Party used to act like a nice sharp sword to “show the peoples will” but now, the Democratic frontrunner is a slimeball wallowing in dirty lobbyist money and taking hefty donations from evil scumbag “men of property” like Rupert Murdoch. So, with every passing year the sword grows more and more blunted at the hands of “our own” leaders — who are no longer interested in showing the people’s will, but instead are doing the bidding of the “men of property.”

“What can I say. Call me the most conservative Democrat on WatchBlog,”

Yes, you and few others. Blunting the populist sword.

“but I’m really excited about our presidential frontrunners”

I’m dismayed.

“and I thank God that it looks like we’ll se a competent Democratc President”

Invoking God’s divine favor on your wishes now are you? :^/ Sounding more like a Republican all the time, AP…

“instead of some wacked out Republican Jack Bauer wannabe in the White House.”

What’s the difference between Republican and Republican Lite? I can’t see it, and I won’t vote for it.

“After the last 6-7 years,”

The dictatorship. Yes, it’s been awful, and so destructive to our Constitution.

“it’s clear to me that only a Democratic President can win the war on terror,”

People are either with you, or against you, eh?

“rebuild our military, economy and infrastructure, and restore America’s moral strength throughout the world.”

All that needs to be done, I agree. But I’m very choosy about WHO should get the job. I’m not interested in voting for Hillary — a Republican Lite Democrat who has collected a ton of dirty money and who is only running on her husband’s coattails.

“And I thank God that most independents and many Republicans and can see that,”

More God talk. Next thing you’ll be arranging for Hillary to have a direct hotline to the good Reverend Dobson.

“even if a few internet liberals can’t.”

A few, huh? We’re an army of engaged liberals AP, and we’re not motivated to cast votes for slimeball Republican Lite. If Hillary wins the nomination, it’ll be really interesting to see if you can put her in the White House without a great many of our votes…

Posted by: Adrienne at August 5, 2007 4:13 PM
Comment #228442

Tancredo is not a serious candidate. One of your leading candidates, Obama, threated to bomb Pakistan, so be careful about pushing these things too far.

I have no hesitation in saying that even I would vote for Hilary before Tancredo. But then, you guys got Kucinich. Is Sharpton is the race?

You Dems do understand that you will soon have to apply some selective herbicide to those crazy netroots if you plan to win the general election.

Republicans have lots of weirdos, but we have the “advantage” the few people are paying much attention to us right now. As the spotlight fixes on the big Dems and their scabbles, we can only watch (and maybe laugh).

Posted by: Jack at August 5, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #228480

Your post is funny Jack, even your scabies’s, which you cure with Quill liquid. Now that’s funny. An
don’t scratch. Even Dems. have a sense of humor.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 6, 2007 6:10 AM
Comment #228492
One of your leading candidates, Obama, threated to bomb Pakistan

Really? Maybe you could provide a link to that, Jack. All I heard him say was ” If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will.” Sounds like the right thing to do.

So, dispense with the co-opting of the Bush administration’s lies about victory in the war on terrorism.

David, like it or not the term “War on Terror” is in the common vernacular now. Everybody knows what it means.

You Dems do understand that you will soon have to apply some selective herbicide to those crazy netroots if you plan to win the general election.

Adrienne, are you going to let Jack get away with that? :)

Posted by: American Pundit at August 6, 2007 11:45 AM
Comment #228493
Is Sharpton is the race?

Not that I know of, Jack. Are Republicans going to run David Duke again? He’d make a heckuva running mate for Tancredo.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 6, 2007 12:10 PM
Comment #228506

Seems the predictions of many of us about the Reps dumping Bushcos Iraq policy for the election are starting to come true. Wierd to hear that from Savage.He is on the payroll so it must be from whoever the Reps have sitting in for Goebals.
Inspite of some minor cuts and shifting more money to increase military pay slightly and holding out war funding I am disapointed that the congress passed the defense budget without cutting exotic weapons system developement more. What. another 8 billion for star wars etc. The budget is bigger than any cold war budget,understandable for a country at war but much of the money is set to go for expenses unrelated to the conflict we are in.It should be interesting that funding for permanent bases in Iraq was prohibited.

Again my reminder. There are more than two Dem presidential candidates in the race and we have a long way to go.

Posted by: BillS at August 6, 2007 1:20 PM
Comment #228511

Gerrold
To the contrary. There is a world of difference between the Dem and Rep candidates. The Dems are ALL pro-choice. The Reps ALL want politicians to decide what goes on in your wifes uterus. The minimum wage increase is supported by All the Dem candidates,with most calling for a greater increase. It is opposed by ALL Rep candidates.Any Dem candidate will stop putting union busting shills on the NLRB and replace them with either pro-union or neutral administrators.Any Dem will put a pro-consumer administrator in charge of the Dept. of Consumer Affairs instead of a an industry lobbiest. Any Dem will appoint an enviormentally knowlegeable advocate to run the EPA instead of a basically pro-pollution shill determined to fight in court any advances. FERC will be staffed by pro-consumer advocates etc etc.The FDA will once again make decisions based on science instead of ideaology.The gag order will be removed from international family planning efforts. The DOL will once again issue repetitive motion prevention guidlines to stop crippling American workers. has a healthcare There is a tremendious number of differences between parties and candidates that effect Amercans real lives.EVERY leap forward in modern history,Every civil rights act,SS,Medicare,unemployment insurance,even womans suffrage came from the Dem Party and Dem presidents with rare exceptions like Bushes give away to big Pharma. It will take a Dem to fix that mess BTW. The constant litany that there is no difference betwixt the candidates or parties is a blantant falsehood and it is a hindrance to some much needed progress.

Posted by: BillS at August 6, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #228596

Jack:
“You Dems do understand that you will soon have to apply some selective herbicide to those crazy netroots if you plan to win the general election.”

AP:
“Adrienne, are you going to let Jack get away with that? :)”

I guess I’m just totally used to Jack’s perpetual snotty comments to bat an eye. Besides, I’m fully aware that both of you know damn well that the Democratic Party isn’t very likely to win the election without the help and cooperation of energized Liberals.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #228600

Fair enough, Adrienne. Likewise, I know you’re aware that if you don’t vote for the Democrat, you get Ghoulie Giuliani. Like it or not.

Seriously, I have fun tweaking your tail and you seem to enjoy being outraged, but… Well, I don’t know what I’m trying to say here. Keep fightin’ the good fight.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 7, 2007 3:35 AM
Comment #228606

BillS,

For many of the reasons you cited, I generally vote for Democrats. But I am frustrated that so many Dems voted for the atrocious FISA amendment (I wonder if they even read it; reports say very few in Congress read the Patriot Act). Some Democrats, such as Russ Feingold, have a long history of trying to wake up their brethern, but many just don’t seem to get it. None of the Democratic Reps or Senators from my home state voted against.

Posted by: Gerrold at August 7, 2007 9:38 AM
Comment #228615

AP:
“Likewise, I know you’re aware that if you don’t vote for the Democrat, you get Ghoulie Giuliani.”

Yeah, that would be worse. But only a little.

“Like it or not.”

Not.

“Seriously, I have fun tweaking your tail”

That’s because you’re Republican Lite and they’re the ones guiding and controlling the Democratic Party. If the shoe ever manages to work it’s way over to the Liberal foot, I’ll probably have loads of fun tweaking yours, too.

“and you seem to enjoy being outraged, but… Well, I don’t know what I’m trying to say here.”

I’m sure it appears that way sometimes, but it’s not really the way I am most of the time. I just read the news and the blogs, and then I come over here to yak about it with you all. Because there is always so much bad news, and new Bushco outrages to yak about, I’m sure I often come off cranky. But what am I supposed to do? Not read the news and become ignorant?
Case in point: Pleased with his victory over the whipped Blue Dog Dems, Bush is already talking about expanding his unlawful and Unconstitutional spying authority some more. He also wants to protect the communications companies from all liability for helping him with all that illegal spying.

“Keep fightin’ the good fight.”

Of course. I have no choice.

Posted by: Adrienne at August 7, 2007 11:47 AM
Comment #228621

AP said: “David, like it or not the term “War on Terror” is in the common vernacular now. Everybody knows what it means.”

No, AP, they don’t. That is absurd. Victory in the war on terrorism? What does that mean. Very different things to many different people. It is common parlance, it does not come with common understanding. It means something quite different to Democrats than to Republicans, for example. To Democrats it means more domestic security at our ports, and airlines. To Republicans it means more wars in more conflict and war in foreign lands.

Sorry, you are just plain wrong about this.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 7, 2007 12:23 PM
Comment #229032

AP- My crystal ball tells me, our framers of the
Constitution are standing in the halls of congress
with tears in their eyes, because both houses an the
President have all shamed what the intent of our
freedoms were really fought for. A pox on all of them, and those defending their wrongs.

Posted by: -DAVID- at August 11, 2007 5:58 PM
Comment #380591

If toms shoes you soccer jerseys are a very careful person, you do coach purses not longchamp outlet need a protective HTC marc jacobs EVO coach outlet 3d Cases is oakley sunglasses that chi hair straighteners bad, burberry choosing a stylish case bottega veneta can also be a great reebok shoes option. Thin valentino shoes rubberized louboutin cases ghd hair can provide a juicy couture outlet fun splash of longchamp color, or eye-catching design to ralph lauren your device. These coach factory outlet items will allow you nfl jerseys to louis vuitton outlet online express your longchamp personality converse shoes through karen millen your michael kors outlet phone and asics running also can be used soccer shoes in keeping your phone louis vuitton handbags clean and free from mulberry cosmetic defects. mcm handbags Furthermore, ray ban outlet in chanel handbags such cases, true religion jeans an additional amount true religion is north face outlet added prada handbags to the device.



This phone hollister is one supra shoes of polo ralph the most versatile options louboutin when it new balance shoes comes to modern mont blanc Smartphone. birkin bag However, louboutin this device can be coach outlet improved by herve leger adding appropriate salvatore ferragamo accessories. insanity workout Choosing coach outlet store the right accessories is the perfect way to get the lululemon outlet best experience true religion outlet with any tory burch outlet Smartphone.

Posted by: korsu001 at July 6, 2014 10:18 PM
Post a comment