Anybody knows...

Time has an interesting take on the liberal proto-dictator Nancy Pelosi. "Anybody knows not to mess with me."

In the coming congressional elections either Republicans will be allowed to continue serving the people for the greater good of the country or Nancy Pelosi will finally get hold of real power. Long term, Republicans win either way.

Nancy Pelosi leads the Democrats with a fiery style that could make her the first woman Speaker of the House.
What might a congress led by Nancy-Pelosi-with-real-power look like? Likely it will look just like her 'leadership' over the House Democrats now. Iron-fisted and, dare I say, nasty.
...Would your grandmother ever say, "If people are ripping your face off, you have to rip their face off" (Pelosi's approach to handling attacks from Republicans)? How about "If you take the knife off the table, it's not very frightening anymore" (her explanation for why she won't let voters forget George W. Bush's unpopular Social Security proposal from last year)?

The 66-year-old San Francisco lawmaker is an aggressive, hyperpartisan liberal pol who is the Democrats' version of Tom DeLay,...
To say that she is a divider and not a uniter would be vastly understating the obvious. Nancy Pelosi is the kind of mean-spirited limousine liberal Rush Limbaugh has warned you about, lo, all these many years. (She knows what's good for you better than you do yourself.) And in the House, it's been her way or the highway. Apparently dividing America is a good thing if Democrats are doing it, (but of course Bush should get the blame for the division thus created).

"Anybody knows not to mess with me."

Just to give you an idea of how scary she might be as an 'iron-fisted' leader, inputing the terms "Pelosi," and "iron fist," returns a press release with the title, "Pelosi Would Make a Good House Speaker," on the website. Interesting.

So am I scared? Actually, I'm the definition of ambivalence. I can't decide if her ascendance to the speakership would be more delicious than her inevitable defeat. But I doubt that the Democratic party will be able to take the required seats in congress to seize power anyway. The looming spectre of the partisan witchhunt and impeachment of Bush doesn't help either.
That's not the only issue with Pelosi. Even her supporters acknowledge she's not the ideal spokeswoman for the Democrats in public. When she's not making clumsy remarks, like bragging earlier this year that one of the biggest benefits of a Democratic takeover of Congress would be "subpoena power," she's mind-numbingly repeating whatever talking points the party has agreed on that week or indulging her love of alliteration: "People, politics, policy" and "Money, message, mobilization." The charitable view of her often disjointed speaking style is that she's someone who thinks faster than she talks. The uncharitable view is that "she's Teresa Heinz without the accent," as one Democratic activist said.
It's too bad that the Democratic party has taken such a left-turn for the worst-- further to the left than ever before. Nancy Pelosi is evidence of this fact as is Howard Dean and a host of other voices on the left now predominant.

But what makes this truly sad is that, in the end, this leftward shift hurts America by creating greater division and making it harder to repeal the leftist policies already in place. Because even though Republicans have been in power for several years the leftist policies of the last forty years have still to be repealed in any substantial way.

There's a saying in latin, "Aegrescit medendo," the disease worsens with the treatment (the remedy is worse than the disease) and so it is with the panoply of liberal solutions peddled by the Democratic Party.

"Anybody knows not to mess with me." Posted by Eric Simonson at August 28, 2006 10:49 PM
Comment #177991

Oh, so now the Republicans don’t like mean-spirited politicians? Give me a break. Is this blind partisanship or just blindness?

Posted by: Trent at August 28, 2006 11:02 PM
Comment #178006

You have insulted my glorious leader. Of course, you know this means war…muahahahhaha.

Posted by: Rene at August 29, 2006 12:46 AM
Comment #178013

I wonder if anybody doing the political writing has ever referred to San Fran Nan as “a well respected member of the House”. She is ruthless in her dealing in Congress. She propably learned that from the Hotel industry which she is a part of. Someone should ask her why she pays such paltry wages if she is truly for the working man. Her answer is a joke.

Posted by: tomh at August 29, 2006 1:31 AM
Comment #178015

Pelosi’s “I know what’s good for you better than you do yourself” approach reminds me of the old Stalinist slogan: “With an Iron Fist We Will Drive Mankind to Happiness!”

Posted by: Holopupenko at August 29, 2006 2:31 AM
Comment #178036


It’s always fun to see you guys try to come up with quotes proving that Democrats are crazy and dangerous.

“Anybody knows not to mess with me” is the best you can do??? That wouldn’t get you in trouble in kindergarten.

Posted by: Woody Mena at August 29, 2006 7:01 AM
Comment #178039

My Name Is Roger:


Thank you for your comments, I agree you cannot legislate morality, it has been tried and it does not work.

You also said that the teaching of morality “should work by RATIONAL ARGUMENT and PERSUASIVE RHETORIC to convience others to them”.

What you did not say was morality “should work by rational argument and persuasive retotic [AS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE] to convience others to them.

I am seeing and hearing from conservative Republicans that if morality is coming from a religious influence it should be rejected. So that is the reason I asked the question ” WHAT IF THE RELIGIOUS VIEW IS CORRECT”, should we reject it because it come from a religious inflience.

I think that most of the laws that govern America are based upon the teachings of the Bible { from Moses to Jesus }, so should we set aside these laws because they are based upon the teachings of Moses and Jesus as taught in the Bible?

I also agree with you concerning HYPOCRISY, it is wrong to point out the faults of others, that you yourself are doing. That is the reason why I believe that those who are representing us should live up to a higher standard. And it may be the reason why are representive to not suport moriality, because if they did it would be HYPOCRISY.



Posted by: ROGER at August 29, 2006 7:27 AM
Comment #178044

As a conservative, I don’t care if the Democrats take the House and/or the Senate this year. The Republicans need a good shake-up.

For the Libs, unless Pelosi and the Democratic leadership could work with President Bush in 2007-08, and demonstrate that they can work to improve the country, then a Democrat winning the Presidency seems unlikely.

It may be best for the Democrats if Republicans keep control of the House and Senate. Two more years of Republican waffling may mean a Democrat in the White house in 2008.

Posted by: mac6115cd at August 29, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #178047

A party is more than its politicians, Eric. The Republicans act like the politicians and the groups are changing the party, when the reality is the party, meaning the rank and file, is changing them. Howard Dean, one of your favorite punching bags, is a great example of this. Dean isn’t especially liberal, but he was savvy enough to recognize that your average Democrat was moving away from cooperation with your side.

Pelosi may not represent every Democrat politically, but she does a good job of getting what we want: results. If you’re under the impression that the Majority of this country, much less the average Democrat mourn the lack of cooperation with Bush by Pelosi, and her strong leftward influence, please let me disillusion you of that. Folks want opposition to Bush. Folks what somebody to stand up to him. Folks want the Republicans to have to take responsiblity for their party’s positions. We’re no longer going to help them tear this country apart piece by piece to remake it in their image.

I’m afraid you’re in the wrong topic, but I’ll respond here anyways.

You’re confusing the rejection of the admixture of religion and politics with the the rejection of the principles involved. Our religious outlooks affect our decisions, and so even if we do not force religion on the government, we do not necessarily lose its beneficial influence. I believe that’s the better way. When politics and religion are melded for the purpose of each giving power to the other, it’s usually an evil thing.

Religion, if a politician can gain power over it, can become a bludgeon to be used by the unrighteous against the righteous, the strong against the weak, the powerful against the powerless. It can be twisted to amoral and even demonic purposes; religion in the hands of politics can become a means by which the powerful make false idols of themselves.

Politics, if a religious figure takes hold of it, can become a false idol in and of itself, a substitute for God, and perhaps a means of trying to become him to one’s followers. The means required to gain that power can twist one’s soul and blind one to the consequences of the alliances one takes, to the point where one is eventually supporting politicians whose actions have little to do with religious values.

When we speculate about whether the religious view is correct, we must also ask: which religious view? There is a reason the Founding Fathers decided that the government would neither interfere in religion to the negative, or to the positive. They believed that if that was allowed, there would be infighting as each group fought for dominance, or worse, survival. So many radical religious groups in other countries, groups that kill and maim in the name of religion, do so because they were persecuted minorities, or because their governments tried to surpress religion.

I believe some of the teachings of the bible are reflected in the law, but I do not think of America as anything but a nation of this world, one where the guarantees of freedom for those who reject the religious viewpoint are necessary to maintain the same guarantees for those who embrace it. We are not meant to be Gods over our fellow human beings, or substitute enforcers for the Lord’s law. What relationships we have with those outside our religion, we must have as equals, not as dominators.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2006 8:45 AM
Comment #178048

Eric - As much as I would dread a Pelosi/ Dean/ Hillary cabal running the country, you may be right - it could be a long term win for our side, not unlike our good fortune when Billary was elected.

It is a great thought, but I wonder whether the country could hold together and survive under the pc blitz and wealth redistribution which would follow that new socialist ascendancy? I know Republicans have wasted whatever mandate came with 00 and 04 - aside from the GWOT - but Democrats would be an order of magnitude worse. Would the left relinquish power once regained? Would there be any pieces to pick up post Pelosi? It is hard to read the tea leaves on that one.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at August 29, 2006 8:55 AM
Comment #178053


I don’t think either the left or the right is out to “ruin the country”. Both have the best intentions at heart.

The right has had complete and total control of the legislative and executive for some time now. What have they shown the American people? I won’t be 100% negative. Some things that have been done were, in my opinion, the right thing to do. Cutting taxes to get the economy going was a good thing. Keeping them forever at this level, in my opinion, is another matter.

But, I digress….

What has the right done with total control in Washington? Our boarders are still wide open, our port security is a joke, PORC spending is rampant, the budget deficit and federal deficit have ballooned, and we’ve ignored federal laws in the name of expedience and secrecy. I could go on but with a track record like that do I need to? If the American voter gives the reins back to this same party it will speak volumes of our ignorance or apathy toward what is going on.

Don’t get me wrong, if the left had the same track record they, too, would deserve to be thrown out. I’m beginning to think Washington works better when there is a little grid-lock and some checks and balances.

Posted by: Tom L at August 29, 2006 9:55 AM
Comment #178054
For the Libs, unless Pelosi and the Democratic leadership could work with President Bush in 2007-08, and demonstrate that they can work to improve the country…

And just how would that work? Democrats have been shut out by the Republicans holding Congress, Executive, and Judicial branches…Bush won’t “work” with anyone…he puts out “mandates” and his “sheep” in Congress pass things…they don’t work with Democrats, they meet on their own and decide things…it’s been documented and well known.

How would you propose Democrats “work with” Bush, when he won’t “work” with them???

Had a situation like this…3 people on a condo board…two of them chat regularly and “decide” things, then present it to the third person…already “decided” by the majority, a fait “acompli”…not in keeping with the spirit of the condo documents. How is the third person to “work with” people who refuse to meet as a board, but decide things on the side???

Same thing with the Republicans and Bush…”take it or leave it” is not bipartisanship!

Posted by: Lynne at August 29, 2006 9:56 AM
Comment #178067

Tom L - I agree that most would not intentionally ruin the country, the economy, or the society. Most are well meaning, if misguided. Unfortunately, the right has not exercised total control of the government. The squishy middle, the RINOS, gang of 14, compassionate conservatism, etc., has seen to that.

Nevertheless, you are right in many respects. Even if the right had exercised total control, they may not have controlled spending, controlled our borders, acted as the conservatives we were led to believe they were, or ignored the pc war crowd. For that Republicans may well be (deservedly) thrown out by the voters.

How would the Democrats have differed? They would have spent at least as much on the same useless programs and agencies, they would not have pursued terrorists and their facilitators after 9/11, and they would have increased, not lowered, taxes.

With Democrat control since 2000 the country would be just like it is now, except we would be in deep recession, we would be defending ourselves from terrorists here, and we would be walking because those who hate us would have cut off the oil long ago as they need not fear the consequences..

Posted by: Seminole 6 at August 29, 2006 10:50 AM
Comment #178074

I dislike Pelosi. I have to admit that. She is exactly the kind of rich liberal you describe. BUT that is her positive side for me. She is the face I want to Democratic Party to show.

Right now, Dems have a sweet deal. They can block Republican plans and then complain that nothing is their fault. If they take the House, Pelosi will always be on the hot seat and I do not think she can take the heat.

Dems will find that it is a lot easier to find fault than to find solutions. They can still blame Bush, but in 2008 Bush will be gone, while they will still be there.

Posted by: Jack at August 29, 2006 11:13 AM
Comment #178082


Where did you purchase your crystal ball?? I’d so like to get one for myself!

Posted by: Lynne at August 29, 2006 11:36 AM
Comment #178083

Seminole 6-
Squishy middle? That’s kind of ungrateful of you. The middle is what’s been keeping you folks in power. It’s not our fault you’re not openly admitting that. Your partisans, all too often, act like Americas taken a hard turn to the right. Fact is though, the turn was much gentler, and maybe even largely an illusion.

Many among your party recognized two things: a)Most of the voters out there supporting the Republican majority are not doctrinaire conservatives and b)Most voters don’t want things taken too far right anyways. So, during the 90s, they got use to a certain degree of “compassionate conservatism” I mean, the fact that Bush could not win by being simply one or the other is indicative of the softness of support in America for right-wing politics.

The growing authoritarian movement within the Right wants obedience to doctrine, and its getting it as the Left puts conservatives on the defensive. Unfortunately, it’s running up against the more centrist sensibilities of mainstream America, and the left is triangulating on other issues important to the GOP, issues that Bill Clinton’s administration has helped make winnable for liberal politicians.

As for taxes, terrorism, and other issues, I think you buy your own propaganda too much. This has also been a part of the decline over time, as the Democrats consistently send out a message at odds with the Republican stereotypes, and Republicans send out messages by their actions that both contradict the principles they say the believe, and scare others about what they show they really believe.

The Republicans need to wake up and realize that they’ve been building up a lot of resentment in people who both honestly call themselves patriots, and honestly call themselves Democrats at the same time. By attacking those who do not adhere perfectly to doctrine, they have steadily carved away the loyalties of those the Republican party took for granted.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 29, 2006 11:38 AM
Comment #178094

I read that article and what i found amazing about it was her attitude in regards to solving problems. take social security for instance. she knew that the republicans would win on policy so she took an obstructionist stance on the issue. and when asked when the democrats would put out their plan on the issue her answer was “never”. and she made it a democratic strategy that democrats was not to talk to their republican counterparts too.

and as i have said before in these forums if democrats do win this year they are going to need republican support because they won’t get enough seats to do it by themselves. now, given this knowlege of what she advocated does anyone really believe the democrats are going to change anything if they win and she becomes leader of the house?

Posted by: The Griper at August 29, 2006 12:08 PM
Comment #178107

Two sayings occur to me at this moment:

Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.


The whippings will continue until morale improves.

Posted by: Martian at August 29, 2006 12:43 PM
Comment #178119


Posted by: PETER IN CA at August 29, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #178121

It’s always good for a laugh to read a simonson thread. Lots of flame and bait. Not surprising given the dearth of substance in the seed.

Posted by: Dave1 at August 29, 2006 2:35 PM
Comment #178144

“Right now, Dems have a sweet deal. They can block Republican plans and then complain that nothing is their fault. If they take the House, Pelosi will always be on the hot seat and I do not think she can take the heat.”

Digging the bunker in already, eh Jack?

Posted by: BeijingRob at August 29, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #178153

You can say one thing about the Dems.

If they win in November, they’ll jump up and down and shout.

However, if they lose…they’ve already got their excuses in place. Consider the following emails I got from the Dems…

For Immediate Release August 3, 2006 Contact: Damien LaVera - 202-863-8148 DNC Announces Expanded National Voter Protection Effort National 1-888-DEM-VOTE Voter Protection Hotline To Help Voters Across the Country Participate in our Democracy Washington, DC - Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean today announced the DNC’s expanded national voter protection efforts. In addition to the establishment of a national voter protection hotline and the placement of election protection staff in 15 key states, the DNC is implementing a comprehensive series of efforts aimed at helping Americans register to vote, learn how and where to cast their ballot, and provide assistance in overcoming Republican-led efforts to suppress voter turnout for the November elections. (emphasis mine)

So if the Dems lose in November…it’s all the fault of those nasty ol’ Republicans!!!

Let’s try another excuse that has already been tried (Cynthia McKinney and it flopped)…

For Immediate Release August 7, 2006 Contact: Amaya Smith- 202-863-8148 DNC Marks the 41st Anniversary of the Voting Rights Act Washington, DC—Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean issued the following statement on the 41st anniversary of the historic Voting Rights Act: “This weekend, our nation marked the 41st Anniversary of the landmark Voting Rights Act, which was recently reauthorized as the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act. Forty-one years after its original passage, this historic legislation has been preserved to protect the next generation of American voters from discrimination at the voting booth. “Unfortunately the threat to equal voting rights remains. From partisan redistricting to restrictive voter ID regulations, to the vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines, to attempts by Congressional Republicans to water down the VRA with amendments only a few weeks ago, the assault on voting rights continues today. (emphasis mine)

Can’t you hear the already made up excuses for losses in November?

“It was the I.D. regulations that kept OUR voters away from the polls.”

“It was the crooked voting machines that made us lose.”

“It was the Republicans keeping blacks away from the polls.”

“We didn’t LOSE!!! The Republicans CHEATED!!!”

Gee, didn’t we hear THAT ONE in 2000? AND 2004?

So the bottom line is…Dems win it’s party time. Dems lose, excuses are in place and will be parroted until we get really, really sick of it. Again.

Posted by: Jim T at August 29, 2006 4:45 PM
Comment #178154

Lynne - Do you disagree with my conclusions? Do you believe any Democrat would have responded in any meaningful way to 9/11, or have cut taxes or spending, or put actual doubt into some rogue that threatens this country. Jack Kennedy is no longer around, so I say your answer must be no.

Posted by: izzy rommes at August 29, 2006 4:50 PM
Comment #178156

“It’s always good for a laugh to read a simonson thread. Lots of flame and bait. Not surprising given the dearth of substance in the seed.”

I’ll second that, Dave. Pelosi upsetting Eric this way makes me wish “they all (Dems) could be California girls!” ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at August 29, 2006 4:59 PM
Comment #178160

izzy rommes:

I totally and absolutely disagree with you…why would you think any Democrat would not be able to react (or be proactive!) in any meaningful way…give some facts, not opinions.

Posted by: Lynne at August 29, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #178164

izzy rommes,

You assume too much.
The belief that the Dems would have just caved is a fallicy spouted by hack, far right pundits to sell more erectile dysfunction medication.
While a Democrat may not have responded in quite the same way, who wouldn’t have?
The writing was on the wall and anybody could have done a better job.

Posted by: Rocky at August 29, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #178169

My Name Is Roger:


Thank you for responding… even thought I did resond on the wrong [ web sight ]. By the time I found out…it was to late, and did not want to go back and do it all over again.

Your responce was very good.

I would not want to live in a country where the religious views of the leaders of that country would be forced upon me.

I would not want to exchange the United States for any other country in the world.

I may disagree with someones religions views, but I feel that they have as much right to their views as I have to mine.

Again [ THANK YOU ], even though I may not agree with everything you said, I do suport your right to say them, and I think you have made some realy good points. {THAT IS WHAT AMERICA IS ALL ABOUT }


Posted by: ROGER at August 29, 2006 6:04 PM
Comment #178172

Eric, man it sounds like you and other republicans are worried. Now if Delay was still doing the same thing, you would probably say he was doing it to keep the house in order. Whats good for the goose, is not good for the gander, or is it do as I say, not as I do. Wait Delay did that and got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Deserves him right.

I would like to know what leftist power from the last 40years are still the problem. Let see since the 50’s we have had Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford(by default),Regan,Bush the First, and Bush the worse. Seem like a lot of Republican Presidents in the last 40-50years. So how many of the leftist problems did the rightest Presidents sign off on?

Posted by: KT at August 29, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #178175
“Anybody knows not to mess with me.”

Yeah that’s really bad, especially compared to “Go f!!k yourself” or “You’re doing a heckuva job, Brownie” or “Macaca” or “little Guatemalan”. The whole problem with this country is that for some insane reason, voters all too often decide for whom to vote based on what the candidate does in office rather than on sound bites. Thanks for setting us straight, Eric S.

Posted by: Crazy_joe_divola at August 29, 2006 6:41 PM
Comment #178180

The farther left the Dems go the more the people will vote Republican. It is time for the Dems to move right two steps.

Posted by: Don at August 29, 2006 7:10 PM
Comment #178189

“Dems will find that it is a lot easier to find fault than to find solutions. They can still blame Bush, but in 2008 Bush will be gone, while they will still be there. “

I think this is an important point. How long will a Democratic House & Senate be able to blame Bush past 2008? The kind of hate that we see played accross some of these blogs would not see to be the kind of hate that dries up after a succesful election.

I agree that if Dems win, that a 2007 and 2008 with colaboration might be the best thing for this country. Rather than some of the comments above that seem to want either the Republicans or Democrats “to get a clue” through failure.

Perhaps we could hope for bipartisan successes in the near future? Moving us forward rather than waiting for one party to fall?

Posted by: Edge at August 29, 2006 7:52 PM
Comment #178195


Right now, Dems have a sweet deal. They can block Republican plans and then complain that nothing is their fault.
You mean just like how the Republicans blocked Clinton’s anti-terrorism plans and now blame him for 9/11?


How long will a Democratic House & Senate be able to blame Bush past 2008?
It’s worked for the Bush Administration for 6 years.

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 29, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #178205


If they were all California girls, they would all have that plastic smile surgically imbedded into their faces. Not good.

Posted by: Duane-o at August 29, 2006 9:50 PM
Comment #178207

Elliott, pray tell us what plan regarding anti-terrorism our illustrious President Bill ever came up with. I never heard tell of such a thing in his stupendous eight years. But I’m sure “the Mrs.” hopes to try her hand at fixing things right up for us. Anti-terrorism ‘plan’? No such thing has existed in the past with Carter or Clinton and still doesn’t in the appeasment party today or, sadly, in the forseeable future.

Posted by: linda at August 29, 2006 10:08 PM
Comment #178208

Elliott, pray tell us what plan regarding anti-terrorism our illustrious President Bill ever came up with. I never heard tell of such a thing in his stupendous eight years. But I’m sure “the Mrs.” hopes to try her hand at fixing things right up for us. Anti-terrorism ‘plan’? No such thing has existed in the past with Carter or Clinton and still doesn’t in the appeasment party today or, sadly, in the forseeable future.

Posted by: linda at August 29, 2006 10:12 PM
Comment #178209

Nancy Pelosi is not supposed to represent the entire country. She is supposed to represent the voters in her district. If a majority of the voters there support her she should continue to spout partisan bullcrap, since that would apparently the intention of her constituents. People in other parts of the country can complain all they want, but I’m sure San Franciscans complain about their representatives, too.

Yes, Bush gets blamed for a lot of stuff that isn’t his fault. He still deserves a lot of blame. Any other republicans disillusioned with your party? I say we secede. (Or you do, I can’t vote for another year:( I for one have had enough of incompetence and corruption. I don’t care if Dems do it too. If they do, they can go, to. A true American does not excuse their party’s wrongs just because the other guys do it to. We will never have a perfect government. That does not mean we should not try, and strive continually for the best possible government.

Posted by: Silima at August 29, 2006 10:16 PM
Comment #178219


Rhetoric questions are so blase buddy.

What evidence to you offer up relative to the number of times this administration runs to the country and blames Clinton?

I’ll give you that the Republicans on the extreme hated Clinton. However, they seem just a tad bit more organized in their opposition.

* NOTE: Please see results of 2000 & 2004 campaigns.

We need more dialog between parties and less exchanges of simplicity.

Posted by: Edge at August 29, 2006 11:58 PM
Comment #178248


You can start here:

Posted by: 037 at August 30, 2006 8:29 AM
Comment #178281


Here’s some more on how Republicans made the U.S. less safe because of political reaons…they do need to take some responsibility for 9/11!

Clinton’s attempts to pass anti-terror legislation sabotaged by Republicans

Posted by: Lynne at August 30, 2006 11:26 AM
Comment #178283

Republicans quite clearly stalled legislation that would’ve made the U.S. safer

Not quite the party responsible for “security” now, are they.

Posted by: Lynne at August 30, 2006 11:29 AM
Comment #178295

Rocky - Lynne

I am like everyone else, I have biases and make assumptions. My assumption that a Democrat would not respond as Bush did in this war on terror is grounded mostly in the inaction of President Clinton when we were attacked on his watch. Knowing the aversion Gore and Kerry have for this war, I also believe they would have done nothing had they been elected.

Democrats are not the only suspect parties. I will also say that past Republican presidents have not responded to terrorist provocation when they should have.

All of this past inaction has led us to the present where we must respond and do so forcefully - we were the paper tiger to the Jihad Joe. If you think that we should not be pursuing this war, I disagree. We must pursue the war there to avoid doing it here, as we see again and again.

Posted by: Seminole 6 at August 30, 2006 12:54 PM
Comment #178313

I would LOVE to see Polosi become speaker of the house.

It is clear to me that you are mis-understanding the meanign of many of her quotes. I wonder to what extent that idioms are always going to be lost on you.

I like the idea of a STRONG leader and a STRONG Democrat in office to hold the mirror up to the republicans in a way that the rest of country can see and understand. What is best for the country long term: That republicans should never again hold so much sway in this country as they do now.

…at least not until they figure out how to pull their heads out of their butts and serve the WHOLE country!

Posted by: RGF at August 30, 2006 2:42 PM
Comment #178397


I would love to see Bella Pelosi become House Speaker as well, because two years of that old crow would effectively demolish the chances of Dems ever gaining power again and would probably lead to the complete abolition of the Democratic party(my lifelong goal). Then we could have serious debate between the Republican and my new party, the Constitution Party, about real ideas and solutions to move this great nation forward.

Posted by: Duane-o at August 30, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #178404

Rather than a liberal pundit like Hersch, I’d rather listen to a WH insider and top Clinton advisor Dick Morris when he speaks of “..President Clinton’s sorry record of weakness in the face of the three-part terrorist threat of al Qaeda, Iraq, and North Korea.Why was Clinton, so aggresive in domestic policy, so reluctant to move to stop terrorism?”
As Hersch noted in April 1996 Congress sent a watered-down bill notably deleting expanded wiretap authority and use of taggants to identify bombs. Congress failed on both sides of the aisle as noted in Lally Weymouth’s Washington Post article 1996 that the legislation was torn apart by “a bizarre coalition dominated by the far left and the extreme right…watered down law enforcement authorities tools needed effectively to combat the growing terrorism menace.”
However, this doesn’t excuse the inaction by the administration in taking the lead and staying on it. According to Morris, “Clinton’s twin allergies were foreign policy in general, military action in particular.” Due to his inexperience and limited knowledge of foreign policy,most of the power was delegated to Sec. of State Warren Christopher and Nat. Security Advisor Tony Lake.
“Clinton saw foreign affairs as a subset of economic policy..” states Morris. “..President Clinton must have been told (after the FBI arrest of Sheikh Rahman and nine of his followers) that terrorist groups in and around NYC were actively plotting massive destruction of high-profile targets. The WTC had already been bombed, the UN and bridges and tunnels had been targeted. What else did the president need to grasp the gravity of the situation? Yet he never ordered any major shakeup of the antiterror apparatus. No extra tools were given to the FBI. No massive mobilization was declared. The government simply shrugged its shoulders…”
In fact The CIA was so out of touch with these issues early on that the director of the CIA R. James Woolsey would later recall that he he had “not had a single private meeting” with Pres. Clinton at any time in 1993 or 1994.
The apparent lack of vision and inability to process the facts and act upon them became apparent again in 1996 after the Olympic bombing. His talk became tougher and was given a mandate by the people but weakness and timidity prevailed.
As Commander-in-Chief he was out-to-lunch, however, we have a Commander-in-Chief now that is fully engaged and has been from day 1. He hasn’t allowed the polls to dictate his next step or put his finger to the wind. He’s been and continues to be a strong, courageous leader. I for one want a President who is NOT AFRAID TO LEAD, to take the flack and stand on principle.
Tony Blair is the same strong principled leader whom I admire greatly. And though personalities are unalike, the two are cut from the same cloth inside. They understand, as sadly neither Nancy Pelosi or most of the House Dems do not, what’s at stake.
My hope is to some day see Representative Jean Schmidt as Speaker of the House. Look out Nancy -she’s comin up behind you.

Posted by: Linda at August 30, 2006 8:39 PM
Comment #178405

The Constitution Party huh? Sounds interesting.

Posted by: Linda at August 30, 2006 8:48 PM
Comment #178432


we have a Commander-in-Chief now that is fully engaged and has been from day 1
Oh really? Please tell me how many times Bush II used the word “terror”, “terrorism”, or “terrorist” in either his Inaugural or first State of the Union addresses. Don’t know? He used the terms once in both speeches - combined. And that one mention was a push for an expanded ABM program.


Rhetoric[al] questions are so blase buddy.
Oh, you mean like the one you used?

Posted by: ElliottBay at August 30, 2006 10:46 PM
Comment #178455

Gosh! I didn’t know that God’s Own Party, the Banana Republic Party of the United States had a lock on nastiness.
Can’t Democratic leaders be positive and forthright? Can’t Democratic leaders be objective when this idiotic administration comes up with ideas that will destroy proven social security programs that have worked for years?

Posted by: john at August 31, 2006 6:20 AM
Comment #178481

Seminole 6:

Inaction? Clinton? Why are all the first WTC bombing suspects in jail having had a fair trial and been sentenced??? You call that inaction?

And then, consider this:

Republican Congress Sabotages Clinton’s Anti-Terror Legislation

And someone mentioned that they preferred to listen to Dick Morris on Clinton’s “weakness” on terrorism…was there anything Dick Morris liked about Clinton? No…he wrote at least one book that was totally anti-Clinton…he’s not a real reliable source. Kind of like reading a book by Cheney about lesbianism. I’d rather listen to Richard Clarke…

Posted by: Lynne at August 31, 2006 10:28 AM
Comment #178535


“Why are all the first WTC bombing suspects in jail having had a fair trial and been sentenced???”

That statement shows the general problem I have with clinton specifcally and liberals in general on the GWOT. You see it as a law enforcement problem, not a war. Those guys did not deserve a fair trial any more than the average German soldier during WWII. Put ‘em in a POW camp and leave them there until the conflict is over. If it takes 400 years, so be it.

We’re in a war people. Get used to it. If it were against a nation-state we would be victorious already. Since it isn’t, it will take more time, a lot more.

The bad guys currently believe they have more will to win than we do. They may be right, but I hope not. I for one will never convert to Islam at the point of a gun nor tolerate mosques blaring calls to prayers 5 times a day! I will not allow them to put you into a burqa or take away your driving privledges either.

You should consider what will happen if we lose this war. I personally don’t care if a republican or a democrat wins it. I just don’t see many (any) dem candidates I believe have the right stuff.

Posted by: Martian at August 31, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #178577
You see it as a law enforcement problem, not a war.Posted by: Martian at August 31, 2006 01:18 PM
That is exactly why the conservatives are losing this confrontation! It is not a WAR. Terrorism is a political TOOL; not an entity or even a philosophy.

Since the military is only good at killing and destroying and not policing, and this is not a war, we can see one of many reasons why we are losing in Iraq.

You can’t fight a tool, you can only fight the people who act outside the norms of acceptable behavior. I.e. CRIMINALS.

Making sure that the entire world sees terrorism as “outside the norms of acceptable behavior” is the only way to defeat the users of that tool. Terrorism is not an enemy, the enemies are countries like Saudi and N Korea. Maybe even Iran.

(sorry for the mishmash structure, but I hope the idea is clear)

Posted by: Dave1 at August 31, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #178672

“The bad guys currently believe they have more will to win than we do”

It’s really just a matter of survival. Look at Hezbollah. They simply had to survive, and fire a few rockets to show they were not backing down. It is not unreasonable to believe you have more will to win when your enemy must fight a war of attrition blindly and anihilate every last remnent of your organization (of which it knows hardly anything about). Meanwhile, you must simply stay alive and you know all the good hiding places. Seems lik the deck is stacked, and that would make me cocky too.

As Dave1 said, terrorism is not an enemy, it is a strategy. How do you defeat a strategy? Even with all the time and money in America, you’ll never do away with the option of using terror.

Who are these mystical “bad guys”? It seems to me if you cannot even identify your enemy, you really don’t have enough info to make a judgement call. After all, we were terrorists during the revolution, and that didn’t turn out so bad. I’m not advocating terror, but I can understand its use as a tactic. Defeating it is impossible, no matter how many tanks and planes one has. It is clearly a law enforcement problem, and some nations clearly have a problem enforcing laws.

Posted by: Kevin23 at August 31, 2006 10:09 PM
Comment #178917


The fight we are waging against extremists is not a war by its conventional definition, but a struggle that requires police action to capture our criminal extremist enemies and court action to lock them up until they either rot away or are rehabilitated (It’s very unlikely that any of these criminals can be rehabilitated due to the large amount of brainwashing they have grown up with, but I can never say never).

I for one will never convert to Islam at the point of a gun nor tolerate mosques blaring calls to prayers 5 times a day! I will not allow them to put you into a burqa or take away your driving privledges either.

Your vision of a “loss” in the war is completely unrealistic. If we were to stop all actions against extremists, there is no way the extremists could force their twisted view of Islam in the United States. The only thing that could happen is a terrorist attack every 8-9 years in the United States (like the WTC attacks) and probably attacks overseas every 3-4 years (like the E. Africa Embassy bombings). There is no way the extremists could build their numbers and rescources to the extent that they could launch a successful invasion of the United States.

The results are similar to what would happen if we stopped pursuing serial murderers and other criminals. They would just continue commiting crimes and the murderers would continue to murder, but neither would end up taking over the country through military means.

Posted by: Warren P at September 2, 2006 11:52 AM
Post a comment