Karl Rove Is Right about You and Me

Karl Rove is a smart guy. Even his enemies agree. Rove tells us that the Internet has been better for conservatives than liberals. For us, it is a way to get our message past the MSM and spread our messages. For liberals it is a way to mobilize hate and anger, not only against our president but, also against those in their own party they consider to be less than completely on board their narrow, far Left ideology.

Rove feels secure tipping off the opposition and I feel secure writing it because we all know that it is true and the moveon.org/Michael Moore folks just cannot help themselves. I wish they could. Leftist activists are pushing their party out of the mainstream. They have managed to trash Republicans, but have been unable to make themselves appealing because they espouse a hateful ideology that is too far left for the tastes of most Americans.

Consider how leftists Dems attack a reasonable man like Joe Lieberman or even Hillary Clinton. Bill Clinton is popular only in retrospect. He would be much too far to the right (with his pro business, death penalty, free trade, welfare reform tendencies) for most of the blog lefties.

I lament the Dem shift to the left, just as they would dislike too much of a Republican right turn. To me there are two threats. One is that Dems will win and the other is that they won’t. It is not a good thing for the Dems to continue to lose elections. It makes them crazy and feeds their conspiracy paranoia. We need two strong parties. On the other hand, if the Dems win in their leftist incarnation it will be bad for our country.

As regular Watchblog readers know, I liked Clinton. Of course I didn’t like everything he did, but he was okay by me (my Republican colleagues can be scandalized). Lieberman is okay too, so are Vilsack, Mark Warner and even Bill Richardson. Let me be clear and honest, I would work against any of them in an election, but if they won I would not be thrown into a deep depression. But as Dems have to bow before the left wing of their party, it is becoming unhealthy for everybody involved.

Despite all the sound & fury, there is a good chance that Dems will not win either the House or the Senate this November. They will blame Karl Rove’s ferocious intelligence and dirty tricks. But ask yourself how appealing leftist hate, fear and loathing is to those who don’t share it (and most people don’t) If/when they fail again in November, I hope they take the proper lesson. They drew the wrong conclusions in 2004.

Posted by Jack at June 23, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #161145

I’m curious what you think of John Edwards, Jack.

I never particularly liked Clinton. I thought he was anti Union. He waffled on healthcare reform. I’m not a fan of the corrupt Unions but Unions are the only equalizing power for workers. It is my opinon the weakened state of unions have tweaked our economy into a working class and “owner” class. The middle class is now being squeezed out, much to the detriment of the U.S.

Karl is a great Goebbels.

Posted by: gergle at June 23, 2006 10:11 PM
Comment #161150

The Party the persecutes Gays, Latinos and Colors is accusing Dems of Hate?


I also find it funny that I don’t remember any pro-GOPs posting any good things when Clinton was President. Could you link YOUR comments during that time?

Posted by: Aldous at June 23, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #161155


I didn’t know there was such a thing as blogs when Clinton was president. In fact, I am not sure there were outside techno-nerd circles.


I met John Edwards twice when I lived in NH during the primary season. I liked him a lot at first. He is very smart and not too liberal. But I think he took a wrong turn when he started that class struggle rhetoric.

I think Edwards made a big mistake signing on with a loser like Kerry. Had he not gone down with that ship, he would have had a good chance in 2008. Now I don’t think he has a real chance.

Posted by: Jack at June 23, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #161157

Interesting, I think the class struggle thing has resonance.

I know many people think he has a poor chance in 2008. I personaly like him, too. I think the personal injury law thing could be a potential liability. I agree his candidacy with Kerry hurt him.

Posted by: gergle at June 23, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #161158

you fail to understand.the internet was founded by academics and anarchist computer programmers who held a non-heirachical belief system, the power structure has been in a catch-up mode ever since.


Posted by: hankchapot at June 23, 2006 10:39 PM
Comment #161163


The class struggle thing resonates with those already apt to be Dems. In fact, in that way it is a lot like the Internet Rove is talking about. It feeds red meat to the base, while alienating others.

When I was poor, my goal was to be not poor and I thought I had a good chance of achieving it. I did not want to redistribute income, I was just waiting in line for my chance. This is a common American idea.

You have some resentment of very rich CEOs. But Republicans can easily jump on that bandwagon if it starts to roll down the hill. After all, too high compensation is a sign of poor corporate governance - something Republicans care about

Posted by: Jack at June 23, 2006 10:48 PM
Comment #161169

The mere mention of Karl (War is Good, Except if I Have to Enlist) Rove, boils me blood - thus my first post to such a thing as a conservative blog. Would Meister Rove be in favor of a system of trackable voting record, i.e., a trackable record ensuring the vote was counted and counted correctly? I don’t think so. Repubs might lose an election here and there that way.


Posted by: Dave at June 23, 2006 11:12 PM
Comment #161171

I am sure he would and he would be even happier to make sure that no fraudulent votes were cast.

Posted by: Jack at June 23, 2006 11:15 PM
Comment #161172

Insults and degrading remarks seem to be the ticket for both sides of the aisle, if this blog and talk radio are any indication,
The war against the middle class should be the issue that is shouted from the roof tops by all concerned especially those in the middle of the political spectrum.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 23, 2006 11:17 PM
Comment #161178

Jack, we have seen Republican commenters to your very own articles spew absolute vile hatred toward Democrats and those on the left. I have seen the same in the Left column. Given that middle America sees both sides of this hate, do you really think middle America is going to make voting decisions based on whether the left or right spews the greater hatred? I don’t think so.

There are 2 major concerns for Karl Rove: Iraq and turning out the base vote as well as moving the fence sitters in the Right’s back yard. Iraq, Rove has no control over. Can he prevent some of the base from staying home in response to the huge disappointments in their party over these last 6 years? And given the poll numbers, can Rove move the fence sitters back over the fence?

That is a very much tougher call. When voters have no one to vote for, but intend to vote, they will vote against the incumbents and party in power. Which side spews more malevolent hatred is really a non-issue, because in that race, it is a dead heat.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2006 11:38 PM
Comment #161180

Jack said: “The class struggle thing resonates with those already apt to be Dems.”

Careful Jack, in 1988 a lot of Republicans in 2004 were class conscious Democrats. Given the lack of movement by Republicans on the immigration thing and the downward pressure on real wages especially in the South, many of these folks may just cross back over the fence. They did it once. What is to stop them from doing it again? Especially if they believe they have already seen the best the Republicans have to offer having achieved control of the White House, both houses of Congress and the Courts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 23, 2006 11:44 PM
Comment #161181

Those of us opposed to illegal immigration have no where to turn. Both parties by and large give a little lip service and then ignore the problem.
Doesn’t that make it a toss up?
We will probable have to contend with the God Guns and Gays issues, as well as the wars in Afganistan and Iraq. We are still in Afganistan aren’t we? I haven’y heard much about it lately.
So why not the war on the middle class as the issue for this year?

Posted by: j2t2 at June 23, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #161182

Karl Rove is right about you and me
With current MSM tidbits of long range North Korean missiles, Miami and Canadian terror groups, we have yet to see the homeland security terror indicator light up another bar. November is too far away.

Posted by: europheus at June 23, 2006 11:59 PM
Comment #161187

j2t2, a toss up? Perhaps, my view is as I quoted above: “When voters have no one to vote for, but intend to vote, they will vote against the incumbents and party in power.”

If the immigration issue is what motivates them to vote, they will vote against the party or incumbents in power who disappointed them on that issue. There are of course other issues, and the majority of voters don’t vote on a single issue. But, Democrats haven’t disappointed voters on policy issues in a very long time, since, Democrats have not authored any in a very long time. The fence sitters have been slammed far harder from Republicans on the lower real wages, the illegal immigration, the unsecured borders 5 years still after 9/11, the debt and spiralling taxes Republicans are levying on today’s voter’s children when they enter the work force, and the no end in sight Iraq war.

Yep, there is a lot to motivate fence sitters. And there is a lot to motivate party crossovers from 1988 to cross back again in the hopes of solving some of these Republican sponsored problems weighing heavy on them and their children’s future.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 12:21 AM
Comment #161193


Would it be possible for you to show us real examples of conservatives persecuting Gays, Latinos and I belive you said Colors

Posted by: Keith at June 24, 2006 12:56 AM
Comment #161196


You wrote:

There are 2 major concerns for Karl Rove: Iraq and turning out the base vote as well as moving the fence sitters in the Right’s back yard. Iraq, Rove has no control over. Can he prevent some of the base from staying home in response to the huge disappointments in their party over these last 6 years? And given the poll numbers, can Rove move the fence sitters back over the fence?

I think Rove and the Bush Regime are in a much stronger position. You said it in your own article. Rove can and is painting the Dems as weak on defense. Reality on the ground in Iraq will eventually assert itself, but in meantime the Bush Regime has an endless ability to spin and this cynical political ploy may work. Mid-term elections are low turn out. Iraq and hate / disdain for the Bush Regime may bring out the Dems - maybe not. Gay marriage will bring out Bush’s base - so who wins. Best guess, the Dems gain a little ground, the Repubs hold power and continue to run the country into the ground and subvert our constitutional democratic republic. Who knows? The fate of the world turns on a couple of gay guys that just want to play house.

Posted by: Ray Guest at June 24, 2006 1:00 AM
Comment #161198

Rove is wrong. While it makes it easy to distribute talking points to willing readers, it makes it much tougher to keep them credible. The internet allows Liberals to create an immune response, quickly using search engines and wikipedias to gain information to refute and contradict the lies and deceptions.

You can’t rely on emotional appeals forever. Sooner or later people burn out on that. Rove may be able to manipulate people’s reactions in the short term, but he’s failing to turn around the mood.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 1:07 AM
Comment #161199

Ray, I agree, the stronger position between Dems and Reps is with the Republicans. No question. But, that does not necessarily translate into 1) a low voter turnout, nor 2) a close voter split.

There is a backlash that has been building since April of 2005, and it is largely centered in the swing and independent voters, (their numbers now growing by leaps and bounds btw). Republicans have gerrymandering working heavily in their favor as well as many uncontested races, as well as weak democratic challengers.

But, Democrats are raising more money, and Corporations too are beginning to give a larger share to Democrats as a hedge bet on the election outcome. And there is a growing anti-incumbent sentiment, which when all is said and done will hurt the party with the most incumbents, which is Republicans, at least in terms of national numbers, not necessarily in district races.

Republicans have a huge load of garbage on their on backs, and the media has done a very adequate job of covering the growing pile of garbage anchored to their legacy. So, it is still a very difficult thing to predict these mid term elections.

A lot will depend on what is in the view of media watchers the 8 weeks before the elections. That is because by and large, American voters don’t tune into the political news until 6 to 8 weeks before the election. If Democrats can focus on the Republican garbage, it will have a dramatic effect on voters. If Rove et. al. can spin as they have never spun before in the media, they may be able to move their base. But it is doubtful anything Rove et. al. can do at this point which would deter the Democratic base from showing up and voting. They are in payback mode and no amount of spin is going to change that.

That leaves the previous non-voters and swing voters as the big question mark, and only in a select number of races. It may well be that Democrats don’t take either side of Congress back. I pity them if they don’t though. Because that will mean they will take control in 2008, and by then, they will indeed inherit a mess too large and too far gone to make much progress in restoring future economic balance or world respect and confidence.

By 2008, the Republican plan to bankrupt the nation’s future in order to end entitlement programs will have been successful to a great degree. And that will leave Democrats beaing the political cost of failure in trying to correct it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 1:20 AM
Comment #161200

What we Democrats need to do is make it a practice of not taking the latest Republican talking points for granted. Nowadays, they are prepared by people who have very little source awareness. Often a game of telephone has ensued, during the course of which, the meaning of the fact involved may have been altered significantly from its more accurate presentation.

Following up on a Mona Charen column on hard money donations, (the one with 90% of Dem’s money coming from millionaires and 60% percent of the Republicans from working class folk), and found that she badly misinterpreted the original columnist, Ron Brownstein. He got the original document right: Those numbers were shares in different brackets of hard money donation. The sixty percent wasn’t a percentage of Republican money, but instead of money given to both parties at that level.

Here the error becomes obvious. You can’t get 90% of your money from one place, and then forty percent from another. In truth, both parties finance the bulk of their spending from mid range donations, especially the $10,000/plate or $1000 a plate level. The Republicans raised most of their money from such donations.

A person on this site Claimed Sarin was fairly stable. A quick trip to wikipedia and I had the evidence to contradict the claim.

This is one of the most powerful motivating factors in the Liberal resurgence. We can speak with more authority than our Right Wing peers about matters.

So long as we do the research, that is.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 1:22 AM
Comment #161201

Stephen, your side needs to hire a spin and phrase artist and get their work out to your party members within 24 hours.

My god what a missed opportunity when Republicans said Democrats were “cut and run”. Within 5 minutes of hearing that I had a retort. “Yes, cut the losses to our GI’s and run for a responsible exit plan for Iraq”.

Where the hell was the Democrats turn of the phrase people? And if they have any, why weren’t their tunred phrases being spit back at Republicans on every news show within 24 hours?

Your party is politically pathetic, no matter how noble or lofty your principles and goals. It was obvious in 1992 when I began searching for another party to align with, and to this day, I don’t see the Democratic Party as having the right stuff to lead. Clinton carried the Democratic Party almost entirely on his own personal abilities, and then dropped the ball with Monica. Without Clinton, the true disorganization and lack of unity of the Democratic Party really shown through.

And I still don’t see any evidence that Democrats have their act together even to this day. You have Pelosi and Dean and Reid all moving in different directions and failing to agree with each on a single game plan or strategy or, believe it not, even a common communication infrastructure among them. This is unbelievable to me, that your party is still so disorganized. The Democrat Party to this day still justifies my decision to leave it so many years ago.

And that is why you are still out of power. That is also why even if you regain it on a backlash aimed at Republicans, you won’t be able to keep it. My god! The lesson is simple. Organize and run on majority issues and back burner the divisive minority issues. It really is that simple. But, no, the Democratic Party leadership still sees itself as the BIG TENT party. Well let me clue your party in on something. Only a ruling party can afford to be a Big Tent Party and even then its damn hard as Republicans are finding out big time.

God, the Democratic leadership is a monstrous catastrophe in idle motion and wasted effort.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 1:41 AM
Comment #161223


I think you only have it part right. The Democratic Party is no more fractured than the Republican Party, as demonstrated by President Bush’s failed appointment of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. The rifts in the Republican Party over immigration/border security and or Social Security are other examples of their inability to come to a consensus and formulate any legislation. Then we can discuss how disenfranchised the Christian Right feel over this administration, who they may rightly say got this President elected.

The Democratic Party has an array of opinions much like the Republican Party. The only difference is, the Republican Party has pointed out the various opinions of the Democratic Party as if that was a negative, or any different than them. They will pound this view, if only to distract from their own inability to address and come to a consensus over core issues. And if a potential Democratic candidate speaks out, his/her opinion will automatically be labeled a far left position on any issue. The Republican Party does rule in the area of sound bites.

I doubt that the Republican controlled congress will be able to address one major issue before it by November. Except perhaps border security, and they will only be able to address that issue, by divorcing it from the problem of immigration. Will the Democratic Party be able to take advantage of this, depends on Iraq. The Republican Party will live and die on that issue over the next few elections.

Posted by: Cube at June 24, 2006 4:00 AM
Comment #161225

I have to say that when one of the arguements made against Rove (not on this blog just yet) is that he’s a Sith Lord, it loses some of its credibility. Here’s the truth about Rove. HE’S A POLITICIAN!!! His entire life, the same as that of any other politician, revolves around manipulation of facts and the media to his own advantage. The reason that Democrats hate him is very simple: HE’S BETTER AT IT THAN THE DEMOCRATS!! He took a man who, according to the Democrats, is a complete moron, and made him President then got him re-elected and got him an addition to the Republican majority.

It probably helps that the Democrat Party is such a monumental cluster-f@#k when it comes to organization and selection of candidates. One need look no further than the “Charisma Free” John Kerry selection to see that. Rove has done little more than be a competent politician oppossed by complete incompetents who can’t find their way out of a wet paper bag.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 24, 2006 4:06 AM
Comment #161229

Karl Rove for President
Ann Coulter for VP

They (both) tell it like it is. Since Dems (actually) think any Republican leader of the free world is simply a “stand-in for the man behind the curtain”, Rove must be that man. Obviously… they have seen too many movies - and believe them.

My Bush hating friend admitted he hasn’t ever listened to a presentation by “Dubya” - a fine way to judge his worth. Doesn’t matter though… because my Bush Hating Friend doesn’t vote anyway. Talk about a moron…

Posted by: Christopher Jewell at June 24, 2006 6:36 AM
Comment #161231

The repubilican are head toward defeat with backing the Pras stay the course policy and leave it up to the next pres to clean up. Also their screw the american working class giving huge tax breaks to the top 2% and giving their spoild kids a break on the inhearance tax while they dont do any thing for the country.

Posted by: Earl at June 24, 2006 7:18 AM
Comment #161232

David R. Remer
The problem with the spin and phrase artists, as a writer like me knows, is that it’s possible to be both convincing and wrong, persuasive and an utter liar.

Look around you. Where is the consensus of this country? With the Republicans? Two thirds of the country now arrays against them. On most issues, Americans take our positions.

Truth is, we don’t need another dominant party trying to tell everybody how to live their lives. That’s not how Democracy works. We need a party that responds to the needs of the people, that represents the people.

Since the people of this country are diverse, the ideal majority is a coalition of those diverse people. It won’t look like the Republican’s lockstep majority. It won’t be ideologically forceful. It will just be. You don’t get to be a big tent party by taking every opportunity to exclude people like the GOP has. That’s how you end up with One-Third of the numbers when people start caring about politics. You keep on defending your base until you’ve alienated everybody else.

1LT B-
Rove is an excellent political consultant, if you want to win, time and again. Unfortunately, he has a tendency to over-reach himself, to play God with policy. The Policy of the Bush administration has cancelled out most of his political gains. That’s where Rove’s specialized talent turns to folly. Also, now that he’s become a political lightning rod himself, people have become use to seeing his fingerprints on things, and have identified his candidate with those negative signs. Rove has become a political liability, especially in a time where people doubt the president’s ability and authority to lead.

As for Kerry? Give me a nerd that can do his job, and I’ll gladly give over the charisma. Charismatic leaders have done quite enough damage to this country as it is. We don’t need another pied piper.

Christopher Jewell-
I’ve seen Bush talk time and again. Guess what? He speaks, in my opinion, like somebody talking to a Kindergarten class. He feels he has to explain all these wonderful values of pride, faith, and patriotism, morality, policy, and war to us as if we would be utterly ignorant without his guidance. Good heavens. I already got this drill in Elementary and Junior high. The difference is, I was just a kid then, and I needed such obvious things stated to me.

The country’s full of grown folks who do not need a father, a teacher or anything like that to function. What they need is a leader who can get done for the country what the people can’t get done for themselves. Unfortunately, this President and his advisor has matched his ambition in politics with his incompetence in putting together a decent policy. They’re too busy trying too run everything on short term political expedience to give America a government that works.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 7:57 AM
Comment #161240

Stephen, David et al

The point that I saw Rove making was that Internet Dems are farther left than normal Dema and they spend their time telling themselves why Republicans are bad, why the president is a fool and how Republicans cheated, tricked (or both) them out of the last three elections. This process causes them to do three things.

1. Waste their time lamenting the past (We shudda won. We was robbed)
2. Convince themselves that more people support their side than really do
3. Avoid addressing their own real problems.

Lamenting the Past
It is useful to study processes of the past to figure out future strategy. It is not useful to wallow in self pity or become enraged by things you can no longer change. The question is not “how was I cheated then?”. It is “what do I do now?” Learn from your defeats in 2000, 2002 and 2004. No matter how it happened, Republicans beat you. What can you do differently now?

False Support
Polls show the President and Republicans are unpopular. Those same polls usually show that the same is true of Dems. You rarely can win on the opposite of an idea. You should have learned that in 2004.

Not Addressing Problems
Dems have a lot of negatives. That is why Karl Rove can consistently kick them in the kiester. Sometimes it is almost too easy. All you have to do is write down what Boxer or Pelosi say and then repeat it. But most lefty Dems don’t even see that. They actually think of Conyers or Waxman as assets. As long as you don’t think you have a problem, you don’t address it.

How did Bill Clinton win? He figured out that Dems had drifted too far to the left and embraced too many weirdoes. When he castigated Sister Solja or carried out the death penalty against a guy who some said was retarded, he showed he was not PC. When he supported free trade, NAFTA, welfare reform and NATO expansion, he showed he was practical. You don’t need to copy Republicans. Just look to your own MODERATES and dump the moveon.org wing. That bird won’t fly.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 9:29 AM
Comment #161243

Karl Rove is a great American in the tradition of great Americans like Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams. Future history will prove me right. This entire Administration is comprised of great Americans - Dick Cheney, Condaleeza Rice, Alberto Gonzalez, Donald Rumsfeld … Future history will smile on such uncompromising champions of truth, justice, and liberty.

The more the loony left rails at the Bush Administration, the more feeble, impotent, and whiny they appear to the American people.

It is laughable to describe Bush and Rove as nazis, especially when it is the loony left that uses thought control (i.e., political correctness) to undermine our President, his administration, and the War on Terror.

Posted by: crowan at June 24, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #161246

Your post is definitely Republican-buzzword-compliant. Democrats are angry and hateful, and angry, and hateful, anger anger anger, hate hate hate. Can you guys think of any more original putdowns? How about “Bill Clinton is so fat, when he sits around Harlem, he sits AROUND Harlem” or “Hillary so ugly her mom had to be drunk to breast feed her.” That wouldn’t be very enlightening either, but at least it would be mildly amusing.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 24, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #161248

Thank you very much for your advice Jack. Now apply it to your own party. You ever wonder how Clinton managed to keep two terms and weather the impeachment while staying on top in terms of popularity? Because Clinton had the far right as his foil. You folks have only stayed on top by strenuous effort, redistricting, and a constant, persistent campaign of propaganda. Sooner or later, it won’t be enough, and people will reject the Far Right’s domination of the country.

Karl Rove? He’ll be remembered right alongside Boss Tweed and Richard Nixon

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 11:10 AM
Comment #161250

In this day and time, with liberal judges awarding large settlements to people who burn themselves with hot coffee, or use blow driers in the shower. I find that it is’nt any wonder that the President feels he has to talk down to a majority of the public. Most of whom are would be candidates for a “Darwin” award, but since I don’t beleive in evolution, I like to call them liberals.

Posted by: Richard at June 24, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #161251

Well, I guess I lost that bet to myself.

You see, I know that the far left LOVES to compare all Reps and Red Staters to the Nazis and when I read this post, I bet myself that it would take 3 replies before someone (I figured it would be Aldous) compared Rove to the Nazis.

It happened on the VERY FIRST reply.

Aldous, you’re falling down on your job!

Posted by: Jim T at June 24, 2006 11:43 AM
Comment #161252

Future history…

HA!!! The Right depends so much on “Future History” cause the present is such crap. All thanks to their incompetent Leadership.

Posted by: Aldous at June 24, 2006 11:46 AM
Comment #161253

Jim T:

Walks like a Duck… Quacks like a Duck… It is a Duck.

Posted by: Aldous at June 24, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #161254

You are being illogical. Okay, Clinton was able to spin around Repubicans. I agree. But your following statement that Republicans didn’t learn is disproven by every election since (actually every election since 1996). Whether or not you like Republicans, you have to admit that whatever or however they do it, they have been doing well.

I really do think Republicans are making many mistakes (and acting like Dems). If there was a decent alternative, I would like to have it. Unfortunately, the Dems are not offering one. Elections are about choice not about a hypothetical satisfaction. Dems have convinced lots of people that Republicans are bad, but they have not convinced them that Dems are better.


Your definition of a duck is probalby correct, since I assume you know what a duck is. Your definition of Republican is wrong because you don’t.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 12:12 PM
Comment #161257


BTW Boss Tweed was a Democrat. In fact I cannot think of ANY big political machine that was NOT run by Dems. Daley, Pendergast etc were all Dem. And you will recall that the Clinton Administration still holds the record for indictments and convictions.

These are the best figures I can find. Anyone with other figures will please write in. 40 government officials were indicted or convicted after Watergate. 31 Reagan era convictions included 14 because of Iran-Contra and 16 in the Department of Housing & Urban Development scandal. 47 individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine were convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes. There were in addition 61 indictments or misdemeanor charges. 14 persons were imprisoned.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 12:23 PM
Comment #161259

“For us, it is a way to get our message past the MSM and spread our messages. For liberals it is a way to mobilize hate and anger, not only against our president but, also against those in their own party they consider to be less than completely on board their narrow, far Left ideology.

Rove feels secure tipping off the opposition and I feel secure writing it because we all know that it is true and the moveon.org/Michael Moore folks just cannot help themselves. I wish they could. Leftist activists are pushing their party out of the mainstream. They have managed to trash Republicans, but have been unable to make themselves appealing because they espouse a hateful ideology that is too far left for the tastes of most Americans.”

The main problem today is that both sides end up bashing on the extremists of the other side and consider them the average member of either party. Most of the country is much more centrist than the media and public opinion believes them to be. Michael Moore is simply one example of the radicals who do tend to bring up good points, but often hurt their case by being too intense and too extreme. As far as I can tell, no on has seen fit to mention people like Anne Coulter and Bill O’Reilly, who are the Michael Moore’s of the reactionaries. I have had trouble understanding why there is so much reaction against Mr. Moore while Ms. Coulter and Mr. O’Reilly seem to have escaped major criticism…

That is a double edged sword you yeild Jack, and I advise you be careful how freely you swing it, because it is apt to catch you on the backswing eventually.

Posted by: alefnought at June 24, 2006 12:35 PM
Comment #161263
All you have to do is write down what Boxer or Pelosi say and then repeat it.


OK, prove it. Show me something outrageous that these gals said in the last couple of months.

I have heard a lot of people claiming recently that Pelosi is hurting the Dems with her supposedly outrageous comments, but I would wager that less than 10% of swing voters could pick her out in a lineup.

Here is an admittedly old poll (2/05) that pretty much backs up my impression. As you can see, half adults don’t even know how the heck she is, and the rest are divided right down the middle about whether they like her or not.

If she really is alienating a lot of people, I have yet to see the evidence.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 24, 2006 1:02 PM
Comment #161268

I would say more than 10% of swing voters Know Nancy Pelosi. She has a very powerful position, her district is close to 90% Democrats. She has never been contested in A election, and she is very Wealthy,And incredibly Shrewd,Yea Just like most of the senate, and two thirds of the house.and they are all almost untouchable. something we all should be very proud about.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 24, 2006 2:03 PM
Comment #161273


You got it backwards. The MSM parrots the Republican propaganda and the Internet consists of ordinary people who for the first time have a voice.

When ordinary people speak they tell the politicians that it is time for a change, a time to concentrate on issues they are concerned with, like stopping our boys from getting killed in Iraq, healthcare, education and civil rights protection.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 24, 2006 2:25 PM
Comment #161280

Stephen Daugherty -
What has Karl Rove done to deserve being placed in the same company as (Democrat) Boss Tweed? As far as I can tell, the only thing he’s done is outsmart the loony left at every turn. I guess if you identify yourself as a member of the loony left, you’d consider Rove’s actions “criminal” because it makes your beloved Democrat party seem criminally stupid.

You know, it seems to me that some bloggers are infatuated with their own web scribblings to the point where they will write anything to get a rise out of people. I think it’s symptomatic of a struggle for relevancy in a world where individual recongition and achievement is increasingly rare. Whatever the cause, I just don’t buy it anymore.

However much you WANT to believe in a lie doesn’t make the lie a reality. It doesn’t matter how much you want to believe that “Bush lied, people died.” It isn’t true. It doesn’t matter how much you want to believe Rove is a criminal. It isn’t true. It doesn’t matter how much you want to believe that we invaded Iraq for oil. It isn’t true. And so on. I think, at some level, even the looniest of the loony left knows this. But it’s like the violin players that went down with the Titanic. Once they started playing the music, they found it impossible to stop. And like the Titanic, the loony left is sinking a once-great Democrat party.

Posted by: crowan at June 24, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #161284

Stephen D., your big tent party is irrelevant if it cannot attain power to enact policy. That is why I said, only a party in power can afford to be a Big Tent Party embracing the many minority issues of the day. And even in power, care and caution about Big Tent inclusion is a responsibility which can lose elections if not tended to appropriately. This is SO true, that it ought to be a cliche’ by now. But, it isn’t even a lesson learned by the DNC leadership.

That is how pathetic the DNC leadership is in their political accumen. Dean is to the right of Bush on border security. Pelosi is way far left of half of her constituents on the amensty aspect. Your leadership does not have its act together. Pure and simple.

All democrats have to do is learn to shut their dissenting mouth near election time and follow unified DNC message. The majority of Americans are liberal on social issues, and Democrats have the Pay as You Go to make them far more fiscally responsible than Republicans. Except for your party’s undisciplined big dissenting mouths who refuse to shut up and follow a Dem. leader during election time, the elections would be your wins.

But, no, your party has no party discipline. You can continue to tout diversity of mouthiness as a strength, but, in politics, strength comes from winning elections, not mouthing off in 50 directions in the same election.

Posted by: David R. Remer at June 24, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #161293

Hey Dave!
Did YOU enlist? It would be interesting to see how many Demis enlisted during times of war compared to the # of Repubs… I love it when the left refers to members of the present administration as “chicken-hawks”. Come to think of it, I’d rather they be “chicken-hawks” than “chickens”…

Posted by: Rickled at June 24, 2006 3:25 PM
Comment #161307


I looked into enlisting while in college in the late ‘70’s. Due to an injury leaving one leg significantly shorter than the other I was told I wouldn’t be accepted. My brother served 2 terms in the Navy. My father was career army. So, whatever…. I’ve voted Dem and Repub and would place myself as an Independent.

I agree with a comment above about the whole conservative agenda basically constituting a war on the middle class. We are in the midst of an orchestrated attempt to place corporate interests above all else. The rest of the conservative agenda concerning reproductivity, marriage, etc. is smoke and mirrors designed to suck in the struggling middle class eventhough voting Republican is against their day-to-day interests. This is repugnant, warranting a name change of the Republican Party to Repugnikan Party.


Posted by: dave at June 24, 2006 3:57 PM
Comment #161358

My dearest liberal bloggers. Unless and until you all lose the playbook from 1974, you and your party will continue to languish in minority limbo. Tax cuts for the rich don’t do it anymore, big business over middle class don’t do it anymore, race baiting don’t do it anymore, scaring grandparents about medicare don’t do it anymore. In this age of technology and alternative media outlets, the old stuff isn’t getting it done. Pandering to a base that is wandering farther and farther to the left is isolating your party - you know from “flyover country”. As hard as it is for you all to understand, America really isn’t as “stupid” as you all believe they are, they don’t want tax increases, they don’t want another ‘Nam where the troops fought bravely and the Government let them down, they don’t believe your constant harping about a poor economy when all but 4% are working. And gas pricing really has become less intense an issue once people were informed the why’s and wherefores of the market. Talk to the people like you know what they needfrom you, not what your parties leftist base and leadership want for them. Any seats change hands, it will most likey be a push - no gains for the Dems in’06. SORRY!

Posted by: JR at June 24, 2006 6:17 PM
Comment #161359

The libs can keep their TV monopoly and the press. We have the internet and radio. Because of this we can finally share our views with America tell the people what being a conservative is all about.

Not wanting gay rights

Being pro-life

Secure borders

Having the military ready to defend

Wanting the govt to endorse NOTHING (not even
athiesm) in terms of religion

Letting the people display their religion freely

tax cuts

Letting everyone pay low, equal taxes no matter what class (making the rich pay more than the poor is communism)

No welfare

Making prison prison, not paradise (no weightrooms, TVs, Free college, internet, etc.)

Being patriotic

Always wanting to keep America the strongest on the earth

Wanting the UN orders to be more like guidelines than mandatory

Rugged individualism is the American Dream

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 24, 2006 6:19 PM
Comment #161362


Oddly I agree, see what the “far left” has done here, and the “far right” did this too with Clinton during the 90’s, is that it narrows itself and takes camps with all the hostility to any second thinking of a rabid pit bull. Anything that differs from the meme should be shoved off the plate and labelled. It’s like an extortive policy that their own party has to live up to again to be worthy of their vote, same on the left as it is on the right. The Christian right does this to a tee every election year I can recall going back to the days of “the Moral Majority”. So this is not a left side sport only—think about it.


Exactly he’s good at it—nail on the head. The problem on the left is that the spin doctors on this side of the fence go by polls and what the numbers supposedly ferret out. Now the left in congress is going to the bloggers as it is made known “via polling” costing potentially tens of thousands of dollars, that people get news and information there—I’ll put that in a no-shit sherlock file somewhere. Karl Rove knows his constituency in every sector and seasons how he treats every sector from Christian-righties to the corporate heads—the dems on the other hand couldn’t find us dems out here in reallity-land if there was a map on their asses and the moronic polling won’t get ‘em here any faster. So I agree and say adding, it’s a “cluster-f%#k by way of giving valuable election moneys to companies who conduct these assanine polls that don’t mean squat and have nothing to do with concensus or sectarian democrats who are only dems because they hate the right side more”. It’s pseudo-science and it costs the DNC millions to have them conducted. If it weren’t so tepid I’d say it were practically a fairly good monty python sketch.

Posted by: Novenge at June 24, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #161368

And as for whoever started the thing about Kerry..

Did you see the line-up we had to choose from? If Carol Mosely Braun was the smartest one there—whoa that is a bad line up of candidates. Oh and then Kerry with the jingoisms because otherwise he couldn’t form a genuine sentence of his own apparently. We had nothing to choose from. And as for the oddity going on between him and his runningmate there, what was up with their hugging and grabbing? That was almost too gay for gays. The dems desperately need to get out of the gay thing, as I don’t think dems are all that much into it as a platform item really. Civil Unions and then get off the topic please. The gay vote is miniscule in comparison to the massive numbers of people it turns off.

Before that Gore—holy crap! If all goes well we’ll have Biden running—okay he freaks me out too but he can atleast translate a coherent thought. And ofcourse he will be running against lil brother Jeb—that’s my bet.

Posted by: Novenge at June 24, 2006 6:43 PM
Comment #161421

What got her the money was the fact these people were told that keeping the coffee at the very high temperatures was dangerous to people, conducive to inflicting third degree burns on people. If they had kept the coffee at the recommended temperature, it would have never inflicted such injuries.

As for people who use blow driers in the shower, they are doing the species a favor by removing their genes from play.

It’s sad you don’t “believe” in evolution. If you can believe in breeding (essentially encouraging the creation of new varieties of animals and plants by selective reproduction), that environmental conditions can favor some creatures over others according to their traits and not others, and that competition both within and between different creatures can do the same, then you can believe in evolution.

Evolution isn’t a bad theory, actually, so long as you are willing to entertain the notion of deep time. Some Religious conservatives are not, fixed on the notion of a world only six thousand years old.

Elections are things of margins, and what those margins are can have many causes.

I think the most important component is Vietnam. The Democrats ran smack into the lies and deceptions that surrounded that war and were basically split in two. The Republicans use the war as a means to further that split, using it to emphasize a notion of Democrats as poor defenders of that country. The further shock of the end of Democrat majority in the Legislature has left Democrats in kind of a lull the last fifteen years.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, they have taken the wrong lessons from history, and the means by which power was so quickly gain and consolidated included many that separated image from reality and emphasized the first rather than the latter in policy.

The Wrong lessons from history was that the problem with what the Nixon administration did was that they got caught. That inspired a generation of people like Karl Rove to take up the effective but double-edged sword of rhetoric and image-based politics. The wrong lesson from Vietnam was that it took will and and persistence to win difficult wars.

These two wrong lessons are having a devestating effect on the party. By emphasizing image and abstract doctrine over practical results, the Republicans have put themselves in a position where right choices are apparent but are unacceptable for political reasons. You can’t raise taxes, you can’t alter course in Iraq, you can’t compromise on candidates or this or that. While that pleases the base, it erodes everything on top of it like flesh off a skull.

The overvaluing of will and moral support int he war, the politicization of support has made it very difficult for others to compromise with the people running the war, since they will not alter course. Given such stubborn opposition, and a lack of cooperation from those who control the course of things, they have registered that their only viable options are complete opposition. The alternative is indefinite, eternal war with little progress.

The Democrats, I think, are recovering with Bush’s help. We may not be able to agre on much, but we agree that much of what the Bush majority imperiously imposes on us is not to our liking. By dint of the incompetence of administration policy, many moderates and normally politically univolved people have come to agree. Properly viewed, the Presidential election in in 2004 may not be proof of enduring support for the Republicans’ majority, but rather, evidence of the beginnings of its end.

If indeed 2006 marks a changing of the guard, that does not mean permanent Democrat Majority by any means. I think Democrat cohesion will be more important in the wake of the election than before it. I also think that many of the temptations that have ensnared the Republicans will ensnare the Democrats, too. That’s what’s going to make the role of Democratic bloggers real interesting in the years to come, if things work out that way.

In coming back to power, the Democratic model will not have been a unified, disciplined political force, but rather a hodgepodge of different groups. The Republican’s culture often emphasized protecting others in the party. The new Democratic majority might be considerably more self critical. That might sometimes be a weakness, but there’s a potential strength there: It’s easier to clean house if you don’t feel it necessary to circle the wagons to protect people in the party.

Which is why I chose Boss Tweed as an example. There were plenty of machines on both sides of the aisle in those times. It’s my belief that corruption is endemic to government. It’s inevitable that it will develop.

The question is how much it’s coddled and protected. It can get worse if one tolerates it, if one operates with an ethical tin ear.

I want us correcting the error that is corruption, even at the expense of my own party. Particularly at our expense, actually, because I believe one pays more down the line when corruption is allowed its free rein. The Republicans are paying for the corruption they’ve allowed. I’d just as soon we avoid paying that price, too.

The MSM is not your enemy. That attitude has cost your party much, as it has not confronted problems plain to the average American. It traps people in their own world, planet conservative, where the party does nothing wrong, but only gets a bad rap from its political opponents and the media they supposedly control

Sometimes one’s enemies are correct. I fought for years defending Clinton on the Lewinsky matter, claiming he didn’t have the affair. For my troubles, for being such a blind apologist, I had to face up to the falliblity of such support.

What you see is the Left waking up across the spectrum. The more noticeable among them may be the far left, but the more influential tend towards the center, especially as legislative territories stand to swing to us. I can’t predict, nor can anybody, just how a new Democratic party will operate as a majority, but spurred by the historic events of 9/11 and the strident and often vicious opposition of the Bush administration, we’ve been provoked to become true challengers against the Republicans. Thanks to their incompetence and misdeeds, the turning poing may be at hand. Where it goes from there, I don’t know.

Plain and simple: he used the War on Terrorism as a bludgeon to knock the president’s critics down, used fear as a means of perpetuating the adminstration of a president that may very well be seen as one of our worst, when everything is said and done.

The Republicans nowadays are wrapped up in a culture that hides the far-right slant of the party in language that alleges the left has an equal slant. Reality is, most Democrats are not as far from Moderation as most Republicans in Government.

This is what’s bleeding strength from the Republicans here: they have long depended on the suffrance of moderates of their agenda to keep them in power despite their radicalism. It’s only now, as the policies have come under real test have they seen the excessive devotion of the right to their doctrines, and they don’t like it. Time and time again, the Republicans have failed to match the consensus of Americans on issues, and that failure has done real damage to their political fortunes.

I think the transition with our party will be more at the grassroots than at the top, and that the leaders will emerge from the more confident post Bush Democrats, rather than the more cautious Democrats of the Wilderness era of the 90s. What we need are leaders whose defining experience was not the Decline of the Democratic party, but its new rise.

Stubborn Conservative-
Give me a break. You’ve never had a shortage of screen time or inches of copy to push your views. In fact, that’s part of how your party rose in power. What bothers you conservatives about the MSM is that it’s guided by the moderate consensus, rather than being under your exclusive control, advocating your causes.

As for what you think is your exclusive province?

Well, sorry. Many Democrats are pro-life (even your darling Murtha, and myself!). Many want secure borders, and a military ready to defend. We are by and large as patriotic as you, though many of you malign that pride. Many want government to leave religion alone.

We don’t mind people having religious beliefs, but a Judicial bench, executive office, or Legislative chamber are meant to represent all people, rather than the personal religion of the office holder. These are places of truce, where no one religion is allowed primacy over another.

As for Tax cuts? Let’s try balancing the books first. It’s a worthy conservative principle to pay for things, whatever you think of them, with money you got, instead of debt you don’t.

As for flat taxes, if you want to claim that such taxes are equal, then let me see you claim that paying for a plasma television or a new car, or any other expense across socioeconomic lines is a cost of equal consequence. It’s only common sense that those who are richer can afford greater expense. We call upon them in their fortunate wealth to take on a heavier burden than the rest of us. In return, those whose burden is lifted are often free to spend more to put money back in their pockets. You see taxes as a dead end, economically, when in truth they are just another part of the economic cycles that define the flow of money in America.

The question that you have to ask is whether you want a country where conservatisms is defined by political convenience to special interests or to principles.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 24, 2006 9:02 PM
Comment #161428


Many of us came into the party because of Ronald Reagan. You could say many things about Reagan, but not that he compromised his ideas Dems always said that he didn’t change his values since the 1950s and they may have had a point.

Re Tweed, there are NOT plenty of machines on both sides of the aisle. Machines are almost exclusively Democratic. I cannot think of any significant Republican machines. Can you?

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 9:18 PM
Comment #161467

Jack, perhaps the Republicans can jump on the bandwagon, but the proletariat might turn the wagon toward the guillotine.

The Republicans use undertones of racism, in the form of blacks and mexicans riding on the backs of the middle class and they use a knuckle dragging form of Patriotism/xenophbia along with religious zealotry to reach the underclasses.

I don’t mind rich CEO’s, I just don’t think bubba and his buddy from the country club are worth that much to the US economy. In Fact, I think they hurt it. Wall Street, sadly, isn’t mostly about hard work. It’s only efficient once the theives get shaken out every so often.

The uninsured are pretty pissed off at the insurance moguls and the rich docs and nurses as well. The pension defaulters are also not real popular. The poor being killed in the war are not real happy with the liar in chief. Corruption makes them look like chrlatans, which many are. Spreading of the income gap, is becoming more and more apparent to the mass of the population. It ain’t them there rich folk who generate the GDP. Even Joe six pack gets mad when he wakes up to someone stealing his wallet and screwing his wife.

The Dems will be able to tap into this, I think. Be prepared for a bad election season.

Posted by: gergle at June 24, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #161483


Actually, it is the rich folks who generate much of the GDP. People earning above median income work more hours than those below and pay almost all the taxes. The idea that an idle rich class are exploiting a poor working class is as outdated as the French Revolution you reference.

Posted by: Jack at June 24, 2006 10:41 PM
Comment #161522

The original post is correct. The internet has allowed conservatives to bypass the Old Media. “News” that originally was supressed, spun or ignored can now be countered.

Can libs says “Memogate”? How about “Swifties”?

The internet is another channel for political communication. But it is not a panacea.

Otherwise, Dr. Demento Dean would be President today.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 24, 2006 11:57 PM
Comment #161642


if you ever read The Onion, look up the article about how the Dems promised to stick to the course of hopelessness. Its almost not even funny as it could probably be mistaken for a legitimate news story. You probably make a point about the Dems incompetence with polls. Gore goes to the first debate and comes off looking like a rude jerk, then comes out to the next one looking like a child that was just slapped for mouthing off. I don’t even know how to describe his third debate. I also liked where he walked up to Bush in the first debate to emphasize that he’s taller. This clown brought the legacy of one of the most well liked presidents at the end of his term, an economy that no one knew was in a recession, and managed to lose his own home state and Clinton’s Talk about dumb.

The real reason he lost, and whoever said that most Americans are socially liberal should listen to this part, is because he was socially liberal. Most Americans don’t like the idea of abortion on demand, they don’t like the idea of gun confiscation, they don’t like the idea of amnesty for illegals, (not a point in the 2000 election, but a big one in 2006) they don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and they don’t like most of the rest of the Democratic party’s plank. If Americans were more liberal, people like Kerry wouldn’t talk about how they’re opposed to abortion and gay marriage on a personal level, and they wouldn’t mind calling themselves liberal. How many liberals self-apply the term? None, because they no Americans like the word liberal like they like root canals or prostate checks.

The best part is that the Democrats have no party discipline. One might expect this from the majority party, after all, they’ll by definition have more people to deal with and more divergent views. The Democrats, on the other hand, can’t get their act together to save thier lives. They’ll manage to choke on this election in ways that will have Jenna Jameson taking notes. They have no message except “We aren’t Republicans” and they will once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, then complain about how the election was stolen.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 25, 2006 12:55 PM
Comment #161650

The real reason he lost, and whoever said that most Americans are socially liberal should listen to this part, is because he was socially liberal. Most Americans don’t like the idea of abortion on demand, they don’t like the idea of gun confiscation, they don’t like the idea of amnesty for illegals, (not a point in the 2000 election, but a big one in 2006) they don’t like the idea of gay marriage, and they don’t like most of the rest of the Democratic party’s plank.

But actually most people are against repealing Roe vs. Wade. And most people are for stricter gun control. As far as gay marriage goes, how did that amendment to ban gay marriage fair in the Republican controlled congress? Seems to me if I recall right, there was even resistance with that within your own party.

Perhaps you should not spin the Democrats position on issues? Oh my mistake, common Republican ploy. As far as amnesty for illegal immigrants, both Bush and McCann had suggested that idea. Or were they both expelled from the Republican Party that day! Great, a Republican President and one of the leading Republican contenders for President in the next presidential election and neither maintain the party line on a key issue. Talk about party discipline, do you have any more jokes?

Posted by: Cube at June 25, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #161661

You liked Bill Clinton??? and you have no problem with Hillary Clinton??? Are you an idiot or just ignorant?? Maybe your blog is an effort to defend the extreme left wing of the Democratic Party.

Posted by: HP at June 25, 2006 3:48 PM
Comment #161700


“…for Liberals to mobilize hate and anger…”
“…narrow far left ideology.”
“…leftist dems attack reasonable men like Joe Lieberman…”

For the record, Joe was a co-sponsor of the Patriot Act. There is much reason to attack him. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin and Washington would agree if they were here.

“…lament the Dem shift to the left…”

…What about the GOP shift to tactics and policies last seen under Hitler and Goerbles.
There is even an article on this blog entitled Islam against the west. If that doesn’t bother every reasonable American, we’re all in trouble.

The hipocrisy and hate you and your side are hurling are absolutely INCREDIBLE. Yet you accuse the left of your sins. Jack, it’s a MORAL issue now. If we don’t get the GOP OUT OUT OUT…
I fear America is dead.

Posted by: RGF at June 25, 2006 6:03 PM
Comment #161711


Thanks for the good example of what Rove meant.

Re founding fathers, do you recall how Washington uncovered Benidict Arnold’s plot or Randolph’s problem? (hint is was not by waiting until they told him)

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #161738

Stephen Daugherty:

You said the only thing worth reading. Humpty dumpty Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their boy McClellan (there’s got to be some familial relationship there), will go down in history as devout followers of the Boss Tweed genre.

Tweed robbed NY City blind, deprived the citizens of most anything equating civil rights, fixed election outcome by stuffing the box, buying votes, and naturalizing thousands of aliens just in time to vote his way. And if you didn’t like him having the ballot boxes stuffed, well tell his armed thugs standing at the voting polls. Even when the NY Times produced copies of the Tweed Mafia’s financial statements showing the corruption, bribery, and near bankruptcy of the city, Boss Tweed’s sheeples screamed he was innocent. Just like Bushie’s flocks, the blindfold was on good and tight.

In the very telling e-mail to the RNC by that illustrious Diebold CEO: The Ohio elections are in the bag for the Republicans. Hmmm. What could any semi-intelligent, even a Republican, make out of that statement, except a little undercover election fixing via electronic mechanisms? Grin, grin, wink, wink. You can’t prosecute us because we run the world. Cunningham was just the sacrificial pig they couldn’t quite pull all the way out of the wet, mushy feces he fell into.

Thank you, Daugherty for a little breath of common sense in this, otherwise, back-patting, self-promoting cirque de neo-Republican leaning non-thinkers.

The very epitome of hatred and un-Christian activity rests in the Republican party. What is that great Christian teaching: Hate the sin, but love the sinner. How can wasting congressional time on such ludicrous subjects as flag burning, gay marriage, and the banning of sex with animals serve any public good, and instead promotes rampant hatred? (The banning sex with animals mandate was almost the first law passed in January by our hard-working, deep-thinking Republican-controlled congress). And let’s don’t forget dear Annie and her hate-mongering words which she erroneously calls a book. She and Tweed and yellow journalism would have made good buddies.

Republicans had no problem approving themselves a payraise, around $30,000 worth since the ’90s. Yet they could see no way to approve raising the minimum wage. Not good for America, you see. As if a $3,300 per inefficient, loot-collecting congressperson is a meritorious move serving the American public. Speaking of those self-back-patting types.

Posted by: KDTEXAS at June 25, 2006 8:53 PM
Comment #161744


Nope. Your wrong. History is a strong point of mine. You are completely wrong. Washington found out about Arnold only after he was in the process of trying to turn Westpoint over to the British. He almost pulled it off, too.

Rove is a traitor who has admitted to his treason and STILL managed to get away with it. Which only proves where the REAL information managers are - HINT: NOT a supposedly ‘liberally’ biased media!

Posted by: RGF at June 25, 2006 9:07 PM
Comment #161761

washington Said ,that was the two biggest Mistakes he ever made NO1. giving the english to much time to leave boston. and NO 2 . trusting Arnold.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2006 10:23 PM
Comment #161766

one soldier said, we will bury arnolds fake leg (which he lost in the battle of quebec 1775) with full honors, then will hang the rest of Arnold.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 25, 2006 10:51 PM
Comment #161775


I was talking about Major Andre’s letters. If history is your strong point, you should have remembered that. How did you recall the plot was uncovered? You would have returned the letters to Andre unread. After all, he had a right to privacy.

Posted by: Jack at June 25, 2006 11:24 PM
Comment #161797


Would you mind explaining to me how I spun the Democrat’s position on the issues? The Democrats support gun confiscation, they support abortion on demand and funded by our tax dollars, they support gay marriage. Yes, the constitutional amendment failed, but how many states have amended thier constitutions?

Furthermore, I stated that as a majority party, it would be harder for the Republicans to maintain party discipline. What’s the Democrats’ excuse. The radical left burns effigies of Joe Lieberman with Bush. Cindy Sheehan, for what little its worth, condemns your probable front runner for President in 2008. The only discipline I’ve ever seen out of the Democratic Party since Clinton and MacAulife left is how they go lockstep with Republicans in voting to support the war in Iraq after having thier bluff called and slinging darts at any judicial nominee Bush sends them.

Posted by: 1LT B at June 26, 2006 1:28 AM
Comment #161802

Jack, you already know this! washington made a surprise visit to west point. on the same day the british were to have taken over west point, no troops, no Arnold, hand writing on the wall. Arnold went to england and had a miserable few years, the english hated him also. Major Andre was hanged at Noon on 10/2/1780 in tappan new york.I don’t think Arnold collected the Dirty traitor Money!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 26, 2006 2:01 AM
Comment #161869


Why is revisionism and misuderstanding of facts so common among republicans? If all you can do is get it wrong and then be catty about it…


Posted by: RGF at June 26, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #161966

We can’t RGF… it’s the only chance you libs have of winning an election.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 26, 2006 5:49 PM
Comment #161976

Elections don’t mean anythign anymore.

I am now in a state that went red by less than 3,000 votes and 34,000 votes were never counted at all. It is also a state that generally doesn’t go red. After the BS in Ohio and Florida, the admissions of Clinton Curtis the programmer who wrote the program that hacked the elections, the statements of the CEO of Diebold, etc., etc.

It is clear that American elections are no longer meaningful at all.

Perhaps when Iraq gets stabilized, they can bring democracy back to us.

Posted by: RGF at June 26, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #162064

Jack, Where in the “h” have you been man? FINALLY a voice of reason.I left (oops-not at all) the Democrat Party way back when: Mr. McGovern couldn’t remember what the heck he had said, from “block to block”. We passed out pamphlets around the OSU campus neighborhoods. Now , there are too many “Phreakozoid groups” in my Fathers’ party. Yeah, a humble Union Fire-Fighter. I will NOT be this type of “repunant-can”. IF (the longest definition of any word in the American language) the Republicans can come back to the center, I MIGHT re-up. Oh yeah, “Buckeye State, k ? And “Airborne”.

Posted by: jon at June 26, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #162566

Rove has proven that it is indeed possible to hype an incompetent all the way into the White House.

Beyond that, Rove is a dismal failure - what accomplishments in the past 6 years can republicans point to with pride? Iraq? Capturing Osama? Balancing the budget? Bush’s great mistake was empowering Rove to supervise every decision this administration has made. The results speak to Rove’s so-called genius.

Posted by: pianofan at June 27, 2006 11:37 PM
Comment #162731

“they don’t believe your constant harping about a poor economy when all but 4% are working.”

what you are missing there is the numbers on actual wealth over the past forty years or so. yes, the percentage of people who are incredibly wealthy has gone up. but, the number of people who are slightly above, on, or below the poverty line has increased disturbingly while the percentage in the ‘middle class’ area has actually declined.

“The libs can keep their TV monopoly and the press. We have the internet and radio. Because of this we can finally share our views with America tell the people what being a conservative is all about.
Not wanting gay rights
Being pro-life… etc…”

what is wrong with being gay? what are your arguments against abortion? how is a graduated income tax communism? why are we better than the UN, since it is a worldwide political force? define patriotic, and don’t i have the right to not be? what’s wrong with welfare (the idea, not how it has been put into practice)? what, should people in prison sit around all day staring at the wall and wasting away? what exactly is the ‘american dream’ and how has the republican party been enhancing, promoting, and assisting it? please, answer as many of these as you can and actually give me strong, well-based arguments.

Posted by: alefnaught at June 28, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #162732

oh yeah, and what liberally controlled media? i see an underhanded but increasingly unsubtle dictatorship by the conservatives over much of the media…

Posted by: alefnaught at June 28, 2006 1:02 PM
Post a comment