Never mind what we said

I was going to vote for Democrats this election, but then they said that they would absolutely positively NOT be attempting to impeach Bush for his crimes against humanity. Hell, if I wanted someone not to impeach Bush, Republicans would do fine.

Next I suppose they’ll tell me they WON’T be raising my taxes either.

Actually, if Democrats sieze control of congress in their MSM aided coups d'état, you can be sure that Nancy Pelosi's promises will not be worth the paper they're not printed on.

WASHINGTON — The Democratic leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is promising that her party has no plans to pursue impeachment of President Bush if it wins a majority in next month's elections. But she intends to allow the House Judiciary Committee to be headed by a lawmaker who has been preparing the grounds for impeachment for two years.  ~nysun.com
Never mind what we said before

Democrats are having to play down their extreme liberal ideology in order to even be competitive in this election. They have to say that they won't be impeaching President Bush, even though they've been preparing for the last two years to do so. They have to say that they won't be raising your taxes, even though that's precisely what they said they would do. And they say they won't cut and run from Iraq even though that's what they've been saying we should do all along.

If Democrats do take back any part of congress it certainly won't be a victory for Liberalism. Most Democrats aren't running as Liberals, nor are they advocating their Liberal ideals. In fact, in some races they are pretending to be Republicans.
Democrats defend themselves against accusations that they are rubber stamps for their party’s leadership. Democrats are defending the war in Iraq. And Democrats — yes, Democrats — strive to align themselves with the president.

“I agree with George Bush on this one,” Representative John Barrow ends his new advertisement in favor of abolishing the estate tax.

...And these contests are producing some of the fiercest fights — not to mention the most contrarian campaign strategies — of the midterm elections, as Democrats try to boast of their conservative credentials and their opponents try to sequester them on the opposite extreme. ~nytimes.com
And yet how can Democrats think to erase the history of their words? Doesn't the Democratic Party have principles? Doesn't it have an ideology? A platform?

Instead we get classic marxist double speak. A perfect example of this is Nancy Pelosi explaining why tax increases are necessary:

"We believe in the marketplace," Pelosi said of Democrats, then drew a contrast with Republicans. "They have only rewarded wealth, not work."

"We must share the benefits of our wealth" beyond the privileged few, she added.  ~democraticleader.house.gov

Contrast this with the explanation of feminist Megan Cornish about why socialism is, "a real, workable and desirable alternative."

You see, socialism is by definition shared wealth. The revolutions that took place in Russia and other economically backward countries could only go so far, because they were held back by poverty. Whenever there is scarcity, a scramble for the good things that are in short supply is inevitable, and a consequent division into the haves and have-nots occurs. And that’s not to mention the military might brought to bear against every revolution by the imperialist countries, the US more than any other.  ~socialism.com

Shared wealth; a real, workable and desirable alternative to the Bush tax cuts.

Posted by Eric Simonson at October 25, 2006 6:00 AM
Comments
Comment #190110


What the Right Wing GOP Republic Party wants Americans to believe is that American values that include caring for others is called socialism. Reducing taxes for the wealthy few is a social program to enhance the wealth of corporate entities and of course is Socialism planned and put in place by the George W. Bush Administration and sanctioned by Right Wing Republic Party.
John

Posted by: John at October 25, 2006 6:43 AM
Comment #190116

So your rational for (keep?) voting for republicans is to protect Bush from impeachment, taxes cut from US diving debt and wealthier americans from scarier pinkos?

Good one. As always.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 25, 2006 7:16 AM
Comment #190117

As usual, Eric, your articles can be summed up succinctly:

Republicans = Good, Democrats = Bad.

If you had a more nuanced view, your articles would be more sophisticated. Actually, I wish they were because then good debate would be possible. As it is, you make it so easy for your ideological opponents that it’s hardly worth the bother.

Posted by: Trent at October 25, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #190120

… if Democrats sieze control of congress in their MSM aided coups d’état …

I like that one, Eric. If the Democrats win it will be catalogued as a coups d’état. And you guys claim the Democrats are the ones out of step with the country!

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 8:08 AM
Comment #190121

John,

Voluntarily caring for others is called charity, and is an American value. Being forced by an elitist-led government to pay for demonstrably failed public “assistance” programs that keep poor people trapped in poverty is called socialism, and has failed every where it’s been tried.

Posted by: Michael Chance at October 25, 2006 8:12 AM
Comment #190124

socialism … has failed every where it’s been tried.

Care to comment about Western Europe’s experience?

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #190126

Steve, my understanding about socialism in western Europe is limited at best. That said, I know a few people from the region(a few friends of my friend, and a couple via the internet.)
As I do understand it, these nations are socialist democracies, not to be confused with pure socialism. I believe it is the injection of democracy that keeps the economical, individuality, and freedom killing elements of socialism at bay. More of a Fabian socialism than Marxist, if you will.

Posted by: Bob at October 25, 2006 8:41 AM
Comment #190129

What I find most interesting in this debate about the upcoming midterm elections is the fear-mongering people like Eric and the GOP are trying to shove into people’s heads before they go to vote. Everyone on the right is telling us what they THINK will happen if Dems regain control of Congress - and we as citizens are expected to believe their presumptions as fact.

I’ve got a better idea. Look at the facts of this current administration: Iraq, no border security, an economy that works only for the rich while the 250+ million in the middle class continue to get pinched, no real energy policy, no apparent desire to contain spiraling health care costs, reckless spending, out of control deficits, etc. - yet Eric and his GOP brethren want us to believe that what the Dems MIGHT do is far worse than what the right CONTINUES to do with appaling regularity.

Trent is riight in his summation of Eric’s posts. And the fact that Eric can’t see it, just like his Dear Leader, is but one of many arrogant hallmarks of his failed and corrupt party.

“Stay the course” isn’t working in Iraq, and it will no longer work here.

Posted by: Darth Independent at October 25, 2006 8:53 AM
Comment #190131

Bob,

Well, no one is advocating so-called “pure socialism.” But Michael’s post doesn’t make that distinction.

I will remind you that many of the examples of “pure capitalism” that we came close to, such as Victorian Britain, created a great deal of horrible poverty. Since then Western societies have wisely pursued mixed economy courses that help mitigate the failures inherent in both pure systems. The debate has been — and should be — what that mix should be, not to pick one or the other.

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 9:00 AM
Comment #190135

Eric, thank you for the humorous article. It is nice to see some humor on WatchBlog.

You vote Democrat? Funny stuff, that.

But this is hilarious: “Actually, if Democrats sieze control of congress in their MSM aided coups d’état, you can be sure that Nancy Pelosi’s promises will not be worth the paper they’re not printed on.”

“Seize control” creating the image of armed insurrection, very funny!

MSM aided coups d’etat? Absolutely hilarious considering Republicans will be spending far more money on the MSM this election than Democrats.

But, you really give Democrats too much credit. Democrats aren’t going to win, Republicans are just going to lose. The public’s response to failure by a Republican government to live up to its campaign promises and propaganda is what will cause Republicans to lose seats.

It really is no more complicated than that. I mean with so many Republicans out there now critiquing this government in even harsher tones than some Democrats like Lieberman, you really do give to much credit to Democrats for the upcoming Republican losses.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 9:30 AM
Comment #190143

David,
The GOP has no choice but to spend more money for commercials. It’s the only way they can get their ideas and responses out. The MSM, anchors and opinion editors give the left so much free advertising that the right must pay for to keep the air time close to equal.

Posted by: Rich at October 25, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #190150

Rich and Eric
If the GOP is so abused by the MSM why is this regime so regularly let off the hook?
Cheny and Rumsfeld routinely deny remarks that are shown to them ON VIDEO and yet they are allowed to keep doing that without being totally discredited by their interviewers — can you say “puffball”
anywho the good old “liberal MSM’ is just another desperate strawman by the GOP
the GOP has obtained full control of all three branches of government — and yet you still play the victim card?????
BS
ERIC
coup d’etat??? and yet the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were “above board”??? get a grip
You are just annoyed that dispite the GOP’s underhanded, corrupt and illegal voting manipulations — they might STILL get run out of office.
and then — HORRORS they MIGHT be (finally) held ACCOUNTABLE!!! (strange, unfamiliar word for you, I know, get used to it)
HOWEVER — Dr. Rove still seems to be adamently optimistic about retaining control of both houses — he claims to have access to “polls” — but I believe he has access to something else.
I would LOVE for him to try and pull that stunt off — and then have it all come out — everything from 2000 and on (or even before with the Gov. of Texas fiascos for Bush) Then this whole house of cards will come crashing down and these slimly characters will finally be behind bars where they belong.

Posted by: Russ at October 25, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #190152

coup d’etat??? and yet the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections were “above board”??? get a grip

The Supreme Court’s intervention in Florida election law — denying the right of the state court to enforce the law and recount its own ballots — is as close is this country ever came to a coup d’etat.

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 11:28 AM
Comment #190154

The GOP spend(s) money for commercials [because it is]the only way they can get their ideas … out.

What ideas?

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #190158

HA…Its so funny to me how many angry leftist read and post messages in a Republican forum. It reminds me of those atheist who spend their entire life energy on fighting something that “doesn’t exist”. If you want to inflame your anger to feel better about yourself….well that’s just sad

Posted by: kevin at October 25, 2006 11:39 AM
Comment #190159

If its a coups d’etat, do we get to hang (or better, guillotine) the bastards we overthrow, and all of their supporters? If so, count me in!

Posted by: David S at October 25, 2006 11:40 AM
Comment #190162
Its so funny to me how many angry leftist read and post messages in a Republican forum.

This isn’t a specifically Republican forum. The reason a lot of liberals comment on this blog is that it’s just one part of WatchBlog. There’s also a Liberal/Democrat section here and a Third Party/Independent section. Because of the unique nature of the site, you get people from all sides of the spectrum debating issues and posts. You as a conservative are welcome on the Liberals threads. It’s not like most political blogs in which only one side is presented and debated.

If you go over to one of the other parts of the site, you’ll see just as many angry conservatives. This site is about debate, not about being an echo chamber.

Posted by: LawnBoy at October 25, 2006 11:57 AM
Comment #190164

Rich, I don’t see it. I watch MSM and I see them giving far more coverage to Republicans and their message than to any of the Democrats and theirs.

The President is on TV news at least a couple times per week, Hastert is being covered with his comments and remarks, and the Newspapers are covering their remarks and comments and press conferences as well.

I just don’t see the validity of your comments. The only Democrat I have seen recently on the news is Senator Biden making comments about Iraq.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 12:02 PM
Comment #190172

Eric-
Coup d’etat? I think a great number of American voters would love to hear that their election of Democrats, based on the constant stream of screw-ups and outrages coming from Washington represented a theft of power. But then, If you’re that far right, any election victory left of you is a theft of power- power you believe belongs to you.

The MSM is not assisting in any takeover. That’s just the excuse for all the negative things your party’s given them to cover. It can’t be that Republicans are making mistakes. It can be that their policies are failures. They’re great men. Somebody has to be cutting them off at the knees. It must be those ruthless bastards in the Democratic Party, working through their catspaws, the Mainstream Media.

No, it can’t possibly be that you folks would be the ones screwing it up, because that would justify your loss of power. Then you would have to change your minds, moderate your approaches, or do any number of humiliating things to get back into the good graces of the voters.

Here’s the truth: the Republicans are in trouble now because they are elitists who believe themselves to be entitled to power, and they can’t face the truth that voters are acting as free agents, rather than dupes of the evil liberals.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 25, 2006 12:27 PM
Comment #190174

Rich,

I was reading along minding my own bussiness when you had the unmitigated gall to write:

David,
The GOP has no choice but to spend more money for commercials. It’s the only way they can get their ideas and responses out. The MSM, anchors and opinion editors give the left so much free advertising that the right must pay for to keep the air time close to equal.

“So much free advertising” - you mean like: ABCs “Path to 911” - that kind of free advertising??? - is that what you are talking about??? - or were you talking about Faux News???

Michael Chance,

You wrote:

Voluntarily caring for others is called charity, and is an American value. Being forced by an elitist-led government to pay for demonstrably failed public “assistance” programs that keep poor people trapped in poverty is called socialism, and has failed every where it’s been tried.

You may want to read the the following link :Scientific American ” The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology
Are higher taxes and strong social “safety nets” antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in.”
I have written an article based on that, (titled: “The Scientific Evidence Is In, The Democrats Are Correct”) which will be posted on Friday night - but I think that you need “a little help” now.

Everybody expects the Democrats to win big, but I think that the Republicans and the main stream media (including MSM), are setting the Democrats up. first, they are setting the bar so high that even if we win they can call it a loss. That is what Eric ir doing in this article as well. Second, they are telling us that we have it in the bag, so we can relax and stay home. And their strategy is working. I think that Repubs will win big even if they lose. For one thing they are creating a political climate to prevent and subvert serious investigations of their treason for the last 6 years. What is wrong with impeaching Bush? Cheney would become President. You get the government that you deserve. The American people voted for Vlad the Impaler - let them have him for President.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 25, 2006 12:31 PM
Comment #190180

Ok. So you would rather we spent the last 2 weeks before the election debating the merits of impeachment? Not me, personally I am more concerned about say, the war, the economy etc

Posted by: Debbie at October 25, 2006 12:49 PM
Comment #190181

Socialism and its effect on the poor can be argued from both sides of the issue.
What can’t be though, is how it takes away individual rights.

Really looking forward to your take on that article Ray. Sounds like a VERY interesting one.

Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #190182

You may want to read the the following link :Scientific American ’ The Social Welfare State, beyond Ideology Are higher taxes and strong social “safety nets” antagonistic to a prosperous market economy? The evidence is now in.’ I have written an article based on that, (titled: “The Scientific Evidence Is In, The Democrats Are Correct”) which will be posted on Friday night - but I think that you need “a little help” now.

This is a good little article, but I have to add a few comments:

1. Every rightwinger in this group will lump UK, Canada, etc. with the rest of the world because they do not follow the US model 100 percent.

2. Income per working age population. I had not seen data that had the Nordic nations average out ahead. My only concern is: perhaps these numbers are inflated because Norway’s oil revenues skew the results? I don’t know how Norway handles its oil money re: workers income.

3. Unemployment (at least in the US) is arguably higher because it does not account for prison population. I don’t think OECD includes prison populations among the unemployed.

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #190186

Socialism is an economic doctrine. How does that relate to human rights?

Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 25, 2006 1:01 PM
Comment #190191

Socialism is an economic doctrine. How does that relate to human rights?

Another non-starter of a debate question. The issue is not socialism v. capitalism. It is what is the appropriate mix of the two in modern industrialized economy? Even the most staunch conservatives I know support socialism in the form of public roads, police and fire protection, any of which can be run by private industry without a bit of government involvement.

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 1:08 PM
Comment #190193


Ray: “Vlad the Impaler”- you must have read the Vice Presidents autobiography. The name fits him to a tee.

Eric: Here is one you will love- in Virginia, some of the electronic ballots have the last name of the democratic canditate Jim Webb sliced off of the ballot and the R after Senator Allens name is sliced off the ballot. The mistake cannot be corrected before the election and the voters will have to use the defective ballots according to the maker of the voting machines.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #190198

Steve K,

Thanks for the critic of the SciAm article.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 25, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #190202


KCTM: Individual rights can be argued from both sides of the issue as well.

ex.) the individual right of an employer to maximise his profits at the expense of his workers vs. the individual rights of the workers to earn a fair/living wage for their labor.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #190205

jlw,

His full name is on the front page where they vote. It is cut off on the summary page at the end.
But we all know how disoriented Libs become once they enter a voting booth. I wonder if Dems have some sort of condition along the lines of ADD, another condition they made up.

Posted by: andy at October 25, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #190209

“STAY THE COURSE”

Who is saying never mind what we said?

I can’t believe a word out of this Administrations mouth, because it constantly differs from the truth. I’m not saying the Dems are 100% honest, but stop calling the pot black.

Posted by: grattan at October 25, 2006 2:02 PM
Comment #190212

Eric:

You are comparing facts with surmises. It’s a fact that the Republicans are imploding. Everything you say about Pelosi is what you believe.

Vote according to what you know, not what you suspect.

In any event, could any candidate be worse than the Republican legislators we now have?

Posted by: Paul Siegel at October 25, 2006 2:27 PM
Comment #190214

Right, Eric, uh huh, sure.

You were going to vote Democrat, and the Democrats are really Commies.

Did you and Rush take your Lithium today?

Posted by: gergle at October 25, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #190218

jlw
It cannot be argued from either side IF individual rights are respected. Employers should be allowed to run thier business as they want and employees should be allowed to work for who and how they want.
Neither would exist without the other.

I was talking more how socialism forces its own type of morals and values onto others though.
Which why I can’t wait for Ray’s Friday post:)

Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #190223

Eric’s posts have been a joke for a while now. I knew who wrote it before I saw the name. How sad.

I’m loving the backlash against these new ads being put out by the RNC. To try and save face, they are now trying to criticize DNC commercials. This latest quote from Rush shows just how low they are willing to sink. Just the smallest amount of research would have shown his tactic of calling Michael J. Fox a “faker” in regards to his Parkinson’s disease to be a complete blunder, but that never stops a guy like Rush from spouting off ignorant and irresponsible crap.

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/michael-j-fox/rush-limbaugh-almost-positive-michael-j-fox-will-drop-the-whole-parkinsons-act-if-somebody-yells-fire-209903.php

It is eerily similar to Eric baselessly claiming that democrats are full of lies and deception and will break all promises? Keep demonizing Pelosi all you like, but without facts, you’re just frantically taking wild stabs in the dark in a spastic attempt to say “I know you are but what am I?”

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again: desperation is a stinky cologne. The nauseating smell emanating from Eric’s post is evidence of that. But hey, keep bashing those democrats for being “socialists”. It is playing right into the hands of your adversaries by making you look utterly ridiculous.

Reading a Simonson post is an exercise in humility. It is one of the few things I can count on to cause me to feel embarrassed simply for having the same party affiliation with someone so obviously off their rocker.

The republican party does stand for a lot of great ideals. It is damn unfortunate that it has been hijacked by these neo-con, short-cutters as of late, but anyone who takes off the partisan blinders can see vast amounts of republican dissention in the ranks. This is good for America because it is all based on hard reality.

The republican party will eventually come to its senses and start trying to appeal to a majority again (see any recent poll to see how far they’ve diverged) and they will then leave people like Eric in the extremist margins where they belong. Hate and paranoia are just not long term solutions to anything. But they are a great way to turn people to the other side. So, keep it up Eric!

I wish someone would keep a counter on how many times Eric uses the words “socialist”, “communist”, or “appeasement” when talking about democrats.

Here’s some words for Eric that I think are much more pertinent: Sad. Pathetic. Insulting. Revolting. Divisive. Assumptive. Desperate.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 3:03 PM
Comment #190228
“Rich, I don’t see it. I watch MSM and I see them giving far more coverage to Republicans and their message than to any of the Democrats and theirs.”

David:

I don’t think Rich is referring to ad time, I think he’s talking more about bias. The upper brass doesn’t care who takes up their ad space, and the personalities don’t control that. It’s the so called journalists whose ethics are in question.

Correct me if I’m wrong, Rich, but it seems like you think the MSM’s reporting is biased to the left, not how they divide their ad time.

Posted by: Alex Fitzsimmons at October 25, 2006 3:33 PM
Comment #190229

Employers should be allowed to run thier business as they want

kctim,
By this logic, there should be no labor unions, no wage/hour laws, no environmental protection laws, no health/safety regulations of products. In short, a lot like capitalism in Victorian England, when millions lived in horrible poverty. Is that the capitalism you are advocating, or do you accept there are some restrictions on what businesses can do?

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #190231

Hmmmmm? Good question Steve.
I can honestly say that I think SOME regulations are fine, but not like the govt mandates we have now.

We have gone from a country whose Constitution limited what govt could do to a country whose govt now limits what its people can do.
Not the way it was designed and socialism is to blame.

Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #190232

Alex said: “It’s the so called journalists whose ethics are in question.”

Ah, you mean like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh? I would agree there are journalists and writers biased in the MSM both left and right. Ann Coulter, John Podhoretz, Thomas Freidman and a host of others on the right are mirrored with counterparts on the left. The fact that the media is full of biased journalists does not mean the MSM is tilted one way or the other on balance.

The White House just invited a bevy of journalists, talk show hosts, and other media persons to a propaganda, make that right wing talking points session just yesterday.

So, forgive me, if I don’t buy into the conspiracy of a left wing media coup. Americans have more than ample access to any bias they seek. Not that seeking biased information makes for informed consent in the ballot box. But, hey, this is America where rational, objective journalism doesn’t sell, and investigative journalism is going the way of dinosaurs due to its high cost low return ratio experienced by media moguls.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #190233

kctim, what a crock. It was the Republicans who barricaded access to our seats of government in D.C. from public access. It was Bush who ordered segregation of crowds at airports where he lands into supporters who may be in camera shot, and protesters who must remain out of sight and camera shot. It was Republicans who denied Americans unfettered access to public transportation. It was Republicans who removed the Constitutional protections of habeas corpus guranteed in our Constitution from Americans who the President thinks are scary.

You really expect the American public to swallow misinformation like that found in your comment above? Wow! No wonder your party is going to lose.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #190235

I can honestly say that I think SOME [government] regulations are fine

kctim,
Are you willing to list them?

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 4:06 PM
Comment #190237

kctim,
That’s my last post for the day. I have to go man the barracades now.

Steve K

Posted by: Steve K at October 25, 2006 4:09 PM
Comment #190241

A crock David?
It is only a “crock” if you think I agree with such actions and if you believe there is a difference between the two parties.
Republicans and Democrats, liberals and Conservatives, ALL promote and aid in our country’s transition to socialism.

And, while I firmly believe in our Constitution, I am not naive enough to believe we will ever get it back. The people have become dependent on their govt and in turn have given govt the control they once had.

Steve K
I understand the work thing and I will happily list some for you when you get back. Either here or on Ray’s Friday post on the topic.

Posted by: kctim at October 25, 2006 4:37 PM
Comment #190255

remember when the dims won one state and babwa wawers was crying on tv what happened, what happened. well film at 11/7.

what a bunch of DA’s.

if they win we can fight the war in iraq at a mall near you, and by the way you can fight it with rocks as that sucking sound is our 2nd amendment rights going out the window. after all we will have nancy pulosi and crew to take care of us.


“We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans …”
Bill Clinton (USA TODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

coming soon in 2008 under new management.

what a future we have with this bunch in charge of our safety.

vote your future not what the news says is happening now. go talk to a veteran who can tell you what is really happening in iraq.

will anderson “coup”er show snipers killing our children from rooftops when we bring the war home.

I wish we could all come home and stop the war but they want all of us dead and will not stop this war until we are dead. electing the dims will get that done asap.

Posted by: lm at October 25, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #190269

Trent,


As usual, Eric, your articles can be summed up succinctly:

Republicans = Good, Democrats = Bad.

Just speaking truth to power, Trent. Speaking truth to power.

Posted by: esimonson at October 25, 2006 6:22 PM
Comment #190270

John,


What the Right Wing GOP Republic Party wants Americans to believe is that American values that include caring for others is called socialism.

No, John. You’ve got that backwards. But I can understand how you could be confused. Socialists attempt to portray socialism as being purely, “caring for others,” and portray all those against socialism as against, “caring for others.”

Notice how closely this chimes with how Democrats portray themselves and their policies. Those who disagree, for example by cutting the rate of growth in the federal budget, are actually accused of trying to starve seniors and school children.

Posted by: esimonson at October 25, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #190271
If its a coups d’etat, do we get to hang (or better, guillotine) the bastards we overthrow, and all of their supporters? If so, count me in!Posted by: David S at October 25, 2006 11:40 AM

Watchblog Managing Editor,
Why is this kind of hate speech allowed to take place only when directed against conservatives?


Posted by: Duane-o at October 25, 2006 6:33 PM
Comment #190272

David,


But, you really give Democrats too much credit.

You’re so right with this statement, David. I mean when you’re right, you’re right.

Posted by: esimonson at October 25, 2006 6:34 PM
Comment #190274


Another great one from Rush: The Foley scandal is not the molesters fault. It’s the kids who are at fault. Druge says so to.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 6:37 PM
Comment #190279

Kevin23 -
“This latest quote from Rush shows just how low they are willing to sink. Just the smallest amount of research…”

I watched the political ad and listened to the Rush show that you referenced in your blog… I don’t see what the problem is. I’ve seen Michael J Fox on TV shows this last year. He did not have the extreme bodily movements I saw on the political commercial. He was very CONTROLLED on the TV show (Boston Legal), but very exaggerated in his movements on the political ad.

Second, in an interview a while back Fox admitted that he purposely DID NOT take his medication when he testified before congress.

So, Rush’s statements seem totally plausible.

Then, too, Fox did respond to Rush’s comments, but did not confirm nor deny what Rush said. Rush said he would apologize if Fox denied the charge.

I don’t know what your point is, especially since you didn’t even research your own link.

Posted by: Don at October 25, 2006 6:56 PM
Comment #190287

Paul S-
“In any event, could any candidate be worse than the Republican legislators we now have?”

Duh!

You haven’t lived very long, or you would know how stupid that comment was. Many of the contenders ARE worse. Further, there have been many legislators who were worse than the ones we have now. (In fact, there’s a long list of Dem legislators who were worse.)

Don’t vote for someone because of the party to which they belong. Vote for the candidate of your choice AFTER you research all of the candidates on your ballot. It takes hard work to be a good voter. Anyone who votes straight party line without the research is a fool.

Posted by: Don at October 25, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #190291


Don: from what I have read about his disease, Fox does not shake when he is not taking his medication, he can barely move and barely speak. When he takes his medication he can move and he can talk but he gets the herkey jerkey movements as a side effect of the medication.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #190292

Don-

“I don’t know what your point is, especially since you didn’t even research your own link.”

Then try reading my post, the point is in black and white. I did research that link and I did not make one false claim in regards to it. What exactly are you so desperate to accuse me of?

You obviously didn’t read the link, or you’d know that Rush offered to apologize only after being told by numerous hollywood sources of his that Fox had been seen many times in recent weeks looking exactly like he did in the commercial.

And you claim to have read it…I’ll believe that when you can show you understood it.

And what are you saying about Fox not denying it meaning he is guilty of something? What the hell kind of argument is that? Maybe he is above all that stupid crap and has more important things to worry about….like staying alive. I wouldn’t sink to the level of dignifying Rush’s stupidity with a response. Not worth the effort.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #190299

I agree with your basic point, that democrats are telling the public they will not do, exactly what they plan to do if they take control.

But hyper-partisan ship runs on both sides of the isles.

My suggestion would be this. And considering the fact that a democratic congress has as far as I know, NEVER created a balanced budget…lets see if they can fix any of the big problems.

1) Balanced Budget, something no democratic congress has ever done as far as I’m aware…unless you go back maybe 80 years or so.

2) Fix Social security.

3) Fix Medicare.

4) Stop ear-marks on bills which I believe is the main source of easy corruption in Washington.

5) Raise income of 80% of America! A promise out on their web page at the democratic party headquarters.

6) Stop Globalism. Another boogie-man of the left, they have a plan to stop all the bad effects of globalism. A plan they aren’t sharing. Lets see how that goes.

7) Keep America safe and fight terrorism. I wonder how the anti military, anti war, appeasement party does that? We shall see.

8) Stop Nuclear Proliferation. They claim they can, and Republicans can’t. Even though the Clinton’s now admit that N. Korea was working on nukes even while Clinton paid them essentially what amounted to black-mail money.

They’ve made big promises and we have big problems. Both parties should be held to this standard really. These problems are HUGE no matter who is in power they need to address them. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the democratic party…with no plans….is up to any one of these issues.

Posted by: Stephen at October 25, 2006 8:02 PM
Comment #190300

Stephen-

“My suggestion would be this.”

OK…where is it? All I see is left-bashing. And a poor job of representing the left makes it an easy victory. And you get a gold star for your use of the word “appeasement”. I’m sure everyone is now very impressed with your kicking of imaginary ass.

Now about that suggestion…

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 25, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #190304

Don: I am 56 years old and I have seen form time to time an elected official get convicted and go to jail. Never in my lifetime, have I seen so many congressmen under investigation, indicted or convicted. And nearly all of them are republicans. Just this week, two more rep’s are being investigated. One for hiring an illegal alien as a nanny/housekeeper for $800 a month cash ( no payroll taxes, no S.S. tax etc.) They hid her in the basement when important people or reporters came to the house. The other one has been acused of making campaign contribution phone calls from his government office, a federal offence. And the Beat Goes on.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 8:23 PM
Comment #190306

Don,
You missed my suggestion? Perhaps reading comprehension skills of democrats needs to be added to my list of national problems?

And I quote my suggestion just to help you out here with your special comprehension problem.

“….My suggestion would be this.

……..lets see if they can fix any of the big problems.
1) Balanced Budget, something no democratic congress has ever done as far as I’m aware…unless you go back maybe 80 years or so.

2) Fix Social security.

3) Fix Medicare.

4) Stop ear-marks on bills which I believe is the main source of easy corruption in Washington.

5) Raise income of 80% of America! A promise out on their web page at the democratic party headquarters.

6) Stop Globalism. Another boogie-man of the left, they have a plan to stop all the bad effects of globalism. A plan they aren’t sharing. Lets see how that goes.

7) Keep America safe and fight terrorism. I wonder how the anti military, anti war, appeasement party does that? We shall see.

8) Stop Nuclear Proliferation. They claim they can, and Republicans can’t. Even though the Clinton’s now admit that N. Korea was working on nukes even while Clinton paid them essentially what amounted to black-mail money.”

Posted by: Stephen at October 25, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #190310

Another Hilarious list of liberal drivel in the responses. Here’s a recap:
Republican Candidates spending more money because they are desperate, not because they have more money to spend. What!? the Dems would still spend the same amount if they had been given more?
Democrat win is in the Bag? What are the tomorrow’s lottery numbers? Furthermore if the libs writing here don’t think the democrats are socialist why all the examples of how good socialism is? And the examples were laid on thick, including the article from Scientific America. That means it is unimpeachable? Bah! All it takes is a little bit of common sense to see that the whole premise of the article is ridiculous. What percentage of the Socialist world are the Nordic countries? What is the source of the Nordic countries’ GDP (psst! it is Big Oil)? Who is the largest customer? (USA). You expect me to believe that the average income per capita is higher in the nordic countries because more people can get welfare? How many people would choose welfare when their income is higher than the average American? Something does not add up. The reality is that the nordic countries have oil, snow and cell phones. Once the local libs here have their way, how much oil will we buy to fuel for our Prius-es. You socialist should send me every cent you make more than me to even things out! Vote Republican!

Posted by: frankxcid at October 25, 2006 8:35 PM
Comment #190311

Kevin23 -
First, “Maybe he is above all that stupid crap and has more important things to worry about….”

He wasn’t above it enough, since he called Rush a drug addict. So, he wasn’t above a response (you didn’t check, did you).

Truth is, what Rush said about Fox (not counting the remarks about his disease) was close to the mark. Fact checkers have found three false claims made by Fox in that political ad. Disease does not allow a person to make false claims.

Further, you willingly ignore that Rush (not a buddy of mine, by the way) did offer to make a grand apology if he was wrong. Fox did not take him up on his offer…that fact allows the possibility that “Rush was right.” So, who are you to say otherwise? Until Fox speaks to the issue we won’t know the truth and must allow the possibility.

Second, “And what are you saying about Fox not denying it meaning he is guilty of something?”

I didn’t say that, did I?

BTW- I didn’t READ the link (that would merely be reading the transcript and the opinions). I told you what I did (watched the ad + listened to the radio snip). Did you see Fox on TV this past year? On “Boston Legal” they did a lot of editing and careful camera angles, but Fox clearly was not nearly as OUT OF CONTROL as he was on the Democrat political ad.

Posted by: Don at October 25, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #190313


Stephen: A republican congress and a democrat president worked together and gave us a balanced budget. How long did it take a republican president and a republican congress to crap all over it.

Posted by: jlw at October 25, 2006 8:37 PM
Comment #190317

Eric -

In line with your article…

Did you hear what the DNC chairman recently said about Iraq? He said we should pull out immediately. Sounds just like “cut and run” to me. But then, maybe he doesn’t represent the mindset of the Dem leadership???

Posted by: Don at October 25, 2006 8:46 PM
Comment #190319

jlw ,

So I take it that you acknowledge that a demcratic party controlled congress has NEVER given us a balanced budget? Or at least not in our living memory? Apparently good enough reason not to believe they when they say they will balance the budget?

Bill Clinton submitted a DEFICIT budget. Newt Gingrich and the REPUBLICANS took control of congress promising to deliver a balanced budget and they did. Clinton was outraged, he declared that Newt wanted to balance the budget “just to keep him from meeting his campaign spending promises”. It took him 6 months to agree to sign the Newt Gingrich bill, and no doubt he did so because his veto of the balanced budget would be overridden.

And the rest is history, how the democrats and Clinton now teach our school children that Bill Clinton balanced the budget, an out and out lie stealing the credit from Newt G and the Republican congress. Remember, it’s the congress that balances the budget,and it’s the REPUBLICAN congress that did it!

But if you can set aside your hyper Partisanship long enough, you will see that I’m saying BOTH parties should be held accountable to that last of major issues our nation faces. Both parties. And in my opinion, neither party will deliver the goods.

The democrats are merely more transparent on the budget issue since they had power for decades and NEVER delivered a balanced budget.

The republicans have the advantage here of having delivered a balanced budget in the 90’s.

Posted by: Stephen at October 25, 2006 8:49 PM
Comment #190320

Again with the deficit, for close to 50 years there has been a deficit. How does the size of the deficit affect you or anyone. No one says this. What is so objectionable to keeping more of the money you earn? Look at your pay stub, If your net pay was $10 less next payday how upset would you be? I checked mypay stub, and I get an extra $1200 a year. I am not rich!, I like that money, You want a balance budget, line 74 of form 1040 allows you to contribute. Send that extra money to me and I promise to give it to paydown the deficit ;). (by the way, the lower taxes have increased the tax revenue, Oh-No!)

Posted by: frankxcid at October 25, 2006 8:51 PM
Comment #190323

jlw, you have to go back to Watergate to find that many investigated, indicted, and convicted. Guess what? That was another Republican administration.

Just a coincidence, however. Seriously, the corruption of government has been going on and growing for decades, and on both sides of the aisle.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 25, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #190324

Of course, You don’t have to go that far to find democrats. Harry Reid and William Jefferson come to mind. Oh, wait, they got away with it, they don’t count. Ted? nope wrong again, the other Kennedy, Oh yeah, he has a drinking problem. So, we have a conspirator, a bribe recipient, a negligent manslaughterer, and a commiter or DUI vs. one gay guy that wrote an email, wait, he’s not there anymore. Ok vs. a guy that received money from a lobbyist, no he’s gone. A person falsely accused, wait, he left too. If only the democrats would disappear too.

Posted by: frankxcid at October 25, 2006 9:08 PM
Comment #190332

Stephen,
Your antidemocratic rhetoric deserves a response. Here’s one:

1) Balanced Budget, something no democratic congress has ever done as far as I’m aware…unless you go back maybe 80 years or so.
Guess what? The largest deficit budgets ever introduced to Congress were introduced by REPUBLICAN Presidents. The current President and his Republican cronies in Congress have been spending OUR money like a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave. There’s no way Democrats could do HALF as bad.
2) Fix Social security.
Why? It isn’t broken
3) Fix Medicare.
The Republicans have had complete control of the White House and both houses of Congress for six years. What have they managed to accomplish? Nothing.
4) Stop ear-marks on bills which I believe is the main source of easy corruption in Washington.
Two words: Jack Abramoff.
5) Raise income of 80% of America! A promise out on their web page at the Democratic Party headquarters.
An admirable goal. So?
6) Stop Globalism. Another boogie-man of the left, they have a plan to stop all the bad effects of globalism. A plan they aren’t sharing. Lets see how that goes.
And this would differ from that wonderful plan that the Bush League had for the occupation of Iraq because … ?
7) Keep America safe and fight terrorism. I wonder how the anti military, anti war, appeasement party does that? We shall see.
You mean appeasement like when Reagan pulled the Marines out of Lebanon? Or do you mean appeasement like when Donald Rumsfeld’s company built nuclear plants in North Korea? Or do you mean appeasement like when Reagan sold arms to Middle East terrorists to support his own pet Central American terrorists? And you DO know that the most famous appeaser of all time (Neville Chamberlain) was a CONSERVATIVE, don’t you?
8) Stop Nuclear Proliferation. They claim they can, and Republicans can’t. Even though the Clinton’s now admit that N. Korea was working on nukes even while Clinton paid them essentially what amounted to black-mail money.
And you DO know who was on the board of directors of the company that built those nuclear facilities, don’t you? It was Donald Rumsfield.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 25, 2006 9:49 PM
Comment #190369

ElliottBay,

A few points. First off, I said that my list of major problems that need fixing would be a good list to hold up against BOTH parties to. In my opinion, after ten years or so in power, the Republican party has become almost as bad as the democratic party was after 40 or 50 years in power. You appear to have missed that point, that I felt this list was a good measure of either party. Why does that not surprise me. In your hyper politicized state I suspect you can only see things in black and white. Us vs Them.

Here’s the quote from my post where I indicate this is for Republicans or Democrats: “These problems are HUGE no matter who is in power they need to address them. ”

Social security is NOT a problem? What planet do you live on? When we started social security it had something like 34 or more payers for each recepient. It’s approaching two! It’s promised far more than it can deliver in the future. Between it AND Medicare the US government is going to go bankrupt. It’s costing us more and more, socials services is rapidly gobbling up more and more of the budgets. Wait long enough and there will be no money at all for national health care because all the money in the budget will have to go to social security and Medicare. They simply must be fixed and people such as Allen Greenspan and Bill Clinton have acknowledged what I’ve said.

Come to think of it, Bill Clinton thought PRIVATE ACCOUNTS should be part of the fix for social security fix and he and the democratic party attempted to fix that which you seem to think is not broken. but failed to get a fix through congress.

Raising the income of 80% is not some lame pie in the sky goal, they claim they can do it. And they have no plan to accomplish that. I think they should be held responsible promises made. But both parties really should deliver an economy that brings the bulk of it’s citizens along.

Your linkage of globalism to the war in Iraq is bogus. “globalism” is the Democratic parties term for the the ill affects of the ‘global economy’. It’s an economic issue. I in fact feel that the global economy is GOOD. That the global economy brings nation to the table as customers and as providers of goods and services to each other. It turns China’s into suppliers rather than mortal enemies. It makes a larger pie for everyone and is not to be feared. Just as we needed not fear the rebuilding of Europe after WWII and bringing them into a global economy.

Isolationism and protectionism that the democratic party tries to wave in front of anyone who may happen to be unemployed is defeatist and wrong. Just as economic acts of isolationism during the great depression helped to EXTEND the depression and make it worse. The democratic party has no way to “combat globalism” because any such approach would cause more damage to more jobs than it cures. During the 2004 John Kerrys big “globalization” plan was acknowledged by nearly all as not being a plan that would work. We have heard little of it since the defeat of Kerry. We are now dependent on the global economy and it is dependent on us and that’s a good thing. We need to bring dark hole states such as N. Korea into the global economy because that’s what will change them from enemies to customers and suppliers. Globalism does far more good for far more people in and outside of the US than any politician anywhere.

If you don’t understand appeasement then you need to look harder at what you support. I mean specifically the philosophy of the democratic party left wing and of left wing socialists around the globe that declare that the US is the greatest threat to the globe. That US actions in fighting terrorists, fighting nuclear proliferation, fighting genocide, supporting democracy, or even in supporting it’s own economy are wrong and not to be done. I refer to the belief system of thost that feel the US is the source of evil and that support of any nation or organization that opposes the US is a valid political tool for the left to win in the cultural war which they are waging. The cultural war being the taking down of Christian, Capitalist America and replacing it with left wing, amoral, appeasement, socialist state.

I do not see this self-loathing, anti military, anti US, pro-socialist agenda as being good for our nation or our security.

Posted by: Stephen at October 26, 2006 12:05 AM
Comment #190452

Stephen-
I believe in America, I believe in God, and I believe that the American military can beat just about any enemy if those leading it bother to plan for the important necessities of the war, and train them for the right situations.

The problem here is that the Republican leadership has become on whose strength is in demagoguery, and not action. They can talk tough, but out in the real world, they fail to do whats necessary to get the job done.

The Republicans are not all around bad people. But they got to understand that the leaders they elect can’t simply be the best flatterers, the strong ideologues, or the biggest bulls in the liberal china shop. All this focus on ivory-tower political theory and imaged based politics has sapped the party of good policy makers and statesmen. The time has come to stop cursing the Democrats for not being loyal to those who bash and denigrate them relentlessly, and start focusing on getting people who know what they’re doing in charge of your party. Working policy wins more elections over the long run than puffed up rhetoric and P.R.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 26, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #190459

Stephen-

“I do not see this self-loathing, anti military, anti US, pro-socialist agenda as being good for our nation or our security.”

Neither does any liberal I know. Maybe you should stop inventing or using imaginary “liberals” to respond to and go out and actually talk to a real person. You seem to think that you are coming across as making a reasonable point. But you are simply beating up on an extremist position that no one, save a few Cubans, believe in.

This crap is getting really annoying, and it serves no unselfish purpose.

Posted by: Kevin23 at October 26, 2006 12:27 PM
Post a comment