Third Party & Independents Archives

Shall We Dance and Fiddle Why the Republican Party Burns?

Is it right to gloat? Is it right to sing and dance a jig over the news of another’s misfortune, or in this case the misfortune of an entire political party? When it’s the Republican Party I think the answer should be an unqualified YES!

I can hardly conceal my glee at the unhappy and unenviable position the conservatives find themselves in scant a year from the mid-term election cycle. The Bush Administration continues to implode as the sheer weight of its stupefying, mind boggling incompetence makes itself felt throughout the Executive Branch and to the American people. The Vice President’s Chief of Staff Mr. Libby may have, and probably did, break the law by revealing the identity of a CIA operative, and the seemingly untouchable Mr. Rove may be ripe for indictment for the same offense (yes Virginia there is a Santa Clause and he is delivering my presents early this year)! But what can we expect, we have a less then laudable personage in the White House, who arrogance, stupidity, and general lack of ability, should have disqualified him from the job, but incredibly enough did not.

To add to the Party’s woes, Tom Delay, The Hammer has finally gotten nailed not once, but twice, and the Senate Majority Leader Bill Frisk is operating under a cloud of suspicion ala Martha Steward. The Party is in mounting disarray over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, and their deep ties to the Religious Conservatives is now more of a nasty hindrance then a help as the apples of morality fall in discourse from the tree of self-righteous unity. And now it seems that the Republican Party is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit people willing to run against Democrats in the upcoming mid-term elections. Even they can see the damage Bush and his insular cronies have done to the nation and Party and want no part of it.

A recent Washington Post article started out by stating:

Republican politicians in multiple states have recently decided not to run for Senate next year, stirring anxiety among Washington operatives about the effectiveness of the party's recruiting efforts and whether this signals a broader decline in GOP congressional prospects.

Prominent Republicans have passed up races in North Dakota and West Virginia, both GOP-leaning states with potentially vulnerable Democratic incumbents. Earlier, Republican recruiters on Capitol Hill and at the White House failed to lure their first choices to run in Florida, Michigan and Vermont.


Oh how can I not gloat, how can I not sing a song of mirth and dance the jig of joy? Is this the beginning of the end of the Republican Party as we know it, a fracturing of the Party that could lead to the Democrats winning back the house and Senate and eventually the White House?

Posted by V. Edward Martin at October 10, 2005 1:10 PM
Comments
Comment #84661

Ed,

There’s and old saying out there…. Don’t count your chickens before the eggs hatch. The Republicans, while having some serious difficulties in the actual process of governing are superb at campaigning as evidenced by the last two elections. That, coupled with the Democrats “ready, fire, aim!” approach to opposition government do not bode well for significant changes. Indeed, the administrations tribulations may have peaked too soon. I think there will be some fall-out in the mid-terms, but also see a rise in the stature of McCain, Hagel and other Republicans who may grasp the leadership of the party. If this is the case, both gentlemen are formidable challenges for the democrats. I see no viable alternative on the democratic side of the aisle to be a credible leader that is seriously threatening to the Republicans… Let’s wait and see….

Posted by: Dennis at October 10, 2005 1:27 PM
Comment #84667

I agree with Dennis. Just like the Palestinians, the Democrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Posted by: bobo at October 10, 2005 1:43 PM
Comment #84670

“Mr. Libby may have, and probably did”
“Mr. Rove may be ripe for indictment”
“Tom Delay, The Hammer has finally gotten nailed not once, but twice”
“Bill Frisk is operating under a cloud of suspicion”

Alot of “may have, may be and suspicion” quotes in there VEM.
I may have a chance getting a date with Beyonce and she may be willing to spend the night, but Im not going to dance a “jig” just yet.
Im with Dennis and bobo, just because something sounds great doesnt mean it will end up that way.

Posted by: kctim at October 10, 2005 2:05 PM
Comment #84673

The polls tell the tale.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2005 2:27 PM
Comment #84679

Ed, you wrote: Democrats winning back the house and Senate and eventually the White House?

I was kind of with you before that, because I understand the desire to gloat but for me the happy feet moment would be if it were Independents or Third Party Candidates that seized this moment. I can’t get very thrilled about Democrats taking control, we’ve been there before and given most of the problems we are experiencing right now have been supported by the current Democrats in office?

Unless you are a Democrat I can’t see that as something to be looking forward to. To me this is the moment to encourage and support people who are not Republicans or Democrats to run. Letting the Democrats take control is not going to restore a balance of power and end this majority stranglehold the two parties have.


Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 10, 2005 3:06 PM
Comment #84680

Right now it’s looking bad for both Repubs and Dems, especially when you consider that the only group in Washington with lower poll numbers than Bush is the Congress.

Still, polls are little more than snapshots in time, especially this early in Bush’s second round. I wouldn’t build too much hope, or despair, on them at this point.

Posted by: Owl Creek Observer at October 10, 2005 3:16 PM
Comment #84684

Yes, this is truly the end of the Republican party as we know it. They themselves are so convinced that they are likely not even to have a candidate for the next election.

With so many Liberal thinking folks moving out of the country however, the Republicans might want to nominate a “token” candidate.

The Iraq war, all wars for that matter will end because they are Republican wars and there will be no non-Republicans enlisting. For the US to defend itself under Democratic control there will have to either be a draft or we can just lay back and settle all our differences with diplomatic talks.

We can look forward to the “no illegal immigrant left behind act” where all will be fed, educated and, have health benefits and jobs.

There will be fifty FEMA trailers fully loaded with supplies at every coastal city from Maine to Florida and all along the Gulf Coast. The Corps of Engineers will be constructing a 50 foot wall between the ocean and each of those cities.

Posted by: steve smith at October 10, 2005 3:22 PM
Comment #84694

v edward martin

it looks bad for the republicans at this momment but the election is not for another 13 months. i think it’s too soon to be making preictions for who will be up in the polls in november of next year. also the same washington post article you quoted also says that there is no national pattern emmerging for who will win the house of repersenitives. dont forget that the dems have 17 seats to defend and the republicans only have to defend 15 in the senate

Posted by: voice of reason at October 10, 2005 4:38 PM
Comment #84698

Steve, that was totally depressing.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 10, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #84702

Lisa Renee,

In what sense was it depressing. I just used examples of the types of things that would have to be done to make the government more acceptable to many of our liberal thinking friends.

Each of my examples have been expressed before as criticisms of the present administration (I am using extreme descriptions for point making purposes only).

Posted by: steve smith at October 10, 2005 5:04 PM
Comment #84705

Steve, that is exactly why it was depressing as to provide that level of support would mean we would not be a republic or a democracy.

I’d like to believe most of our liberal friends would not want to go to that extreme.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 10, 2005 5:11 PM
Comment #84708

Lisa Renee,

I see your point, very good one.

Posted by: steve smith at October 10, 2005 5:20 PM
Comment #84709

I’d like to believe most of our liberal friends would not want to go to that extreme.

Sorry Lisa, they DO want to go tho that extreme and beyound.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 10, 2005 5:23 PM
Comment #84714

The Republicans are in a meltdown, a free fall in the polls, and it has nothing to do with the Democrats.

Indeed, the big question is whether the Democrats can offer a viable alternative, in particular, the liberals.

Iraq is an ongoing disaster, and it’s trending worse, not better. Liberals like Feingold are calling it- time to make plans to go- but the cental Dems are too afraid of appearing weak on defense, and of appearing to not support the troops. The tragic result is, only the liberal left will speak up. Most Democrats are centered in silence. And only the Republicans can take the blame for the debacle.

The War on Terror is becoming a bad joke. Poor Republicans are practically peeing in their pants everytime Bush says ‘Boo!’ But the Republicans are tired of washing diapers. It’s hard not to notice the way illegal immigrants enter the country at will. So, uh, so… what happened to all those terrorists?

Bush is well on the way to becoming a two-recession president. Quite an achievement. And the Republicans have no one, absoutely no one to blame but themselves. Five years into a presidency, and one million jobs created to date. Sheesh. Even Carter managed to create 10 million jobs in four years, and those were not exactly halcyon days. The stock markets are still underwater from when Bush took office. Unbelievable.

But the crowning, self-inflicted wounds come with the corruption and cronyism.

It’s time for the liberals to step up, and the required messages are obvious; bring the budget back into line, create jobs, cut overall military spending drastically, concentrate increases within the defense establishment upon Special Ops & Intel, and reform campaign finance.

Posted by: phx8 at October 10, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #84715

A year ago today, the Democrats were also licking their chops at the Republicans’ difficulites, Bush’s bad press, a new scandal or allegation every week.

People were speculating about who John Kerry was going to name to his cabinet. People were wondering if the Democrats might just achieve Senate and House majorities.

But what happened then? The Democrats lost the presidential election, lost even MORE ground in the House and Senate, and even lost ground in state governorships and legislatures.

The idea of dancing for joy at another’s party’s difficulties is odd to the say the least when your own party has lot three elections in a row and is totally out of power.

Will it be different next time? Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe the Republicans will gain even more ground. There’s over a year to go before the next elections. And anything, absolutely anything could happen.

Posted by: sanger at October 10, 2005 5:53 PM
Comment #84718

The Democrats lost the last two Presidential elections for one reason and one reason only - because of the Republican slime machine, aided and abetted by the mainstream media. It’s unfortunate, but maybe the only way for the Dems to take back the White House and Congress will be for them to get down in the mud with the Republican slimers.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 10, 2005 6:22 PM
Comment #84723

Elliot, giving the GOP slime machine ammunition by crawling in the slime with them, is guaranteed to backfire. It will turn off more voters than it attracts.

The Democrats have only 3 things to do. Enunciate a clear fiscal discipline policy, enunciate a clear homeland security policy, and provide candidates with clean pasts who can enunciate these two policies. It really is that simple, well, perhaps except for coming up with clean pasts.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 10, 2005 7:15 PM
Comment #84733

It really doesn’t matter what the polls say (I don’t believe in polls anyway). It doesn’t matter what sort of “feeling” you have about whether the reps will go up or down…or whether the dems will go up or down.

It simply doesn’t matter.

As long as Whoopi Goldberg, Martin Sheen, Al Franken, Michael Moore, Howard Dean and Natalie Mains are Democrats…the Republican voter base will be sufficiently energized.

You know…when you Google “Democratic Leader”, do you know what you find? Nothing but negative comments. Zero positive statements. Is this tactic working? Or are people getting sick and tired of nothing from the Dems except bitching and grousing? Are you willing to bank the future of your party on nothing but negativity?

Posted by: Jim T at October 10, 2005 8:24 PM
Comment #84735

“bitching and grousing”? This from the Party who accused McCain of fathering a Black Baby and having a lesbian wife? I can list an endless stream of attack slime that are pure lies and distortions.

Posted by: Aldous at October 10, 2005 9:17 PM
Comment #84740
I can list an endless stream of attack slime that are pure lies and distortions.

Well, at least you admit it.

Posted by: sanger at October 10, 2005 9:36 PM
Comment #84745
The Democrats lost the last two Presidential elections for one reason and one reason only - because of the Republican slime machine, aided and abetted by the mainstream media.

Absolutely priceless.

You’d almost think that the Republicans were making movies that insinuated Kerry was responsible for 9-11 and airing them in theaters around the country. You’d almost think that the media was airing anti-Democratic stories using forged documents and that Republican candidates were openly questioning the patriotism of their opponents.

As long as Democrats can convince themselves that the only reason any of them ever lose elections is that Republicans say mean things about them, they’ll never have to seriously examine why their ideas get rejected again and again by the American public at the polls.

It’s a classic case the self-defensive mechanism of shifting blame—exactly like the wife-beater who blames his wife, his boss or the neighbors for his own disfunctional behavior in order to never have to subject himself to any self-criticism.

The idea that some imaginary “slime machine” caused Democrats to lose the presidential race, the Senate, the House and governorships and state legistlatures across the country staggers belief.
That must be some slime machine!

It requires one to believe that the Democrats don’t need to change a thing—that their ideas are all perfectly sound and that the American public is just too stupid to see it.

Democrats can keep fooling themselves—so far they’re not fooling anybody else.

Posted by: sanger at October 10, 2005 9:56 PM
Comment #84752

Sanger,

Your irrational hatred of all things liberal has caused you to be unable to objectively parse a simple declarative sentence. I didn’t say that the Dems lost all those elections because of the Republican slime machine. I said that they lost the last two PRESIDENTIAL elections. Nice spin, though.

You said “Republican candidates were openly questioning the patriotism of their opponents.” Hey, at least you admit it. Just ask Max Cleland or John Kerry.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 10, 2005 11:05 PM
Comment #84757

ElliotBay, I read and responded to exactly what your post said.

And I don’t hate liberals in the least—in fact, by most measures I AM a liberal, which means that I have no use whatsoever for the reactionary and regressive modern Democratic party OR the extreme religious fringe of the Republican party.

I mentioned the other elections that Democrats lost while they were also losing presidentail elections in order to point out that Democrats lost EVERYWHERE, not just in the presidential elections.

This suggests that Democratic ideas and inferior Democratic candidates—not some Republican slime machine—are responsible for the Democrat’s incredible accross the board string of electoral defeats.

If by “Republican Slime Machine” you mean that negative campainging contributed to Al Gore and John Kerry’s defeat, then you’re absolutely right.

But let’s not pretend that there wasn’t a very large, very well-funded and very active “Democratic Slime Machine” as well. Ever heard of Michael Moore, Howard Dean, George Soros, or Moveon.org? How about forged TANG documents?

Everybody in politics gets mud thrown at them, and playing innocent while also playing the victim gets you nothing. When the mud sticks, sometimes it’s for good reason. When it fails to stick, sometimes that’s for good reason too.

In the final analysis, some might vote out of negative feelings about candidates instead of believing in the ideas of their opponents, but it’s just ridiculous to suggest that the incredible and massive decline of the Democratic party across the board over the last decade is due to negative Republican campaigning instead of Democratic ineptitude and ideological bankruptcy.

Posted by: sanger at October 10, 2005 11:57 PM
Comment #84758

Right now intrade.com has percentage chance that Republicans retain control over Congress over 80%. It looks way too early for any gloating.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 11, 2005 12:05 AM
Comment #84763

Craig,
Too early? Not really. It’s just anticipation. Lots of maybes and what ifs, ‘tis true. But there is a fell voice in the air, and a veritable avalanche of bad news coming the Republican’s way.

It would be extremely difficult for Dems to take control of the House & Senate in one election. But factor in another recession and it just might happen. In the previous midterm elections the Bush administration distracted the electorate from the economy by pounding the war drums over Iraq. Ginning up another splendid little war won’t be an option in 2006.

Negative campaigning is almost impossible to stop, for a simple reason; it works. Furthermore, it creates disgust among voters, and discourages turnout.

Concerns over turnout are less important these days, because it is so easy to fix the vote. Until basic network & program security steps are taken, the vote will remain simple to manipulate.

Not to mention any names… but look into Representative Feeney. He’s about as corrupt as they come.

Best move at this point will be for the Dems and libs to maintain relative silence. Let the Repubs & conservatives drive themselves into the ground. At that point the issues and the political solutions will be obvious, and the left & center can fill in the blanks with the appropriate agenda; fiscal responsibility, a sensible foreign policy, and so on.

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2005 12:43 AM
Comment #84764

phx8:

Statistically, wagering is more a more reliable predictor of outcomes than polling data. Intrade has a democrat win in either the Senate or Congress at about the same chance as the Iraqi constitution being over turned. The odds of Annan resigning from the UN are greater than Democrats taking control of either house.

I am just saying with Democratic control being such a long shot, it is too early to swagger. (Dream maybe)

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at October 11, 2005 12:57 AM
Comment #84765

Well, I guess the Democrats can always hope for that recession.

Posted by: sanger at October 11, 2005 1:05 AM
Comment #84767

Sanger,
Recession? It is what it is. Just a question of when. Within the past month 7/7 members of the Fed stated their concern about inflation. A rising Fed Funds rate to 4.25% by January is a lock. The new Chairman will be extremely cautious about changing course (unless we have another ridiculous Bush crony appointed). The 10 year Treasury Note is @ 4.35%. By spring we’ll either have an inverted yield curve, or, less likely, a rapid rise in long term rates.

The long term rates remain low because there will be no inflation and there will be no significant growth. That’s a reasonable, non-partisan interpretation of the bond market’s prediction.

The economy is an integral part of the political landscape, of course, and most likely the economy will make it difficult for Republicans this coming midterm.

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2005 1:40 AM
Comment #84845

At this point, I would classify the GOP as “Singed”. Based on current conditions, it seems likely that the GOP’s majority in each house of Congress will shrink substantially. With a lame duck president, the GOP will not have the commanding majority needed to usher through any controversial legislation. The interesting part will additional SCOTUS vacancies. If the Dems can narrow the GOP majority down to 2 seats or so, then it will be difficult for Bush to add more arch-conservatives.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 11, 2005 8:37 AM
Comment #84850
The Iraq war, all wars for that matter will end because they are Republican wars and there will be no non-Republicans enlisting. For the US to defend itself under Democratic control there will have to either be a draft or we can just lay back and settle all our differences with diplomatic talks.

Pretty ironic considering that the last two Democratic candidates were VIETNAM VETERANS WHO VOLUNTEERED. But it isn’t the actual service that counts, it’s the swaggering attitude, right?

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 11, 2005 8:57 AM
Comment #84884

Woody,

No, not ironic. Surely you are familiar with the Aldous concept. I am just illustrating continuity. Aldous can begin recruiting efforts for Democrats at that point. I will even volunteer to help him.

Posted by: steve smith at October 11, 2005 10:33 AM
Comment #84888

Its typical, isnt it, for the party in control of the White House to lose seats in Congress? Seems to be this was the pattern until the last couple of midterm elections.

If so, then historically it isn’t much of a big deal, unless of course the control of the House or Senate changes, as it did in 1992. That was a historical moment, and 2006 would be the same if the control changes.

The numbers typically favor Republicans to maintain control, though they may lose some seats. Its not a period of mourning for either party—I think the status quo will reign.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at October 11, 2005 10:38 AM
Comment #84891

This President has been allowed to mis use his Presidential Power and get us into a war based on lies. I continue to hear not advertisement but propaganda which reinforces the lie that we are fighting the 9-11 terrorist in Iraq rather than those coming into the country because we are there. What we need to do now is to look for candidates on both sides of the isle who will work to bring the troops home. We have a two party system hopefully based on the spectrum of ideas out there. Party ideology is not that different but the focal point of the parties differ. We need to put people in the Congress who will work together to solve problems. We cannot hate the other party just because they are the other party. This is why I am an independent voter. Anytime those in power think themselves above the law they should be brought to justice no matter what their party affiliation is.

I would like to call attention to the fact that the Bush administration had violated laws during their education campaign. At the time I considered these ads propaganda and to read in our local free paper yesterday that the Government Accountability Office agreed with me was wonderful. They issued a report saying that the administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” inside the United Sates, in violation of a long standing explicit statutory ban. This is the type of operation that should be picked up on so that voters can be educated as to how they have been manipulated by this administration. I hear people today equating the war in Iraq with the war on terrorism and this simple is not the case. The public was brainwashed. This type of manipulation is what we should be trying to stamp out. Our checks and balances work and parties will slip in and out of power this is what is suppose to happen with a well informed electorite. The parties are not suppose to be fighting to get into power for the spoils they will glean once in there—this says something is very wrong with our country.

Posted by: fiddle faddle at October 11, 2005 10:47 AM
Comment #84894

Jim T, and as long as Bush is president, the Democrats and swing voters will be super energized to get out to the polls. There is a sea change coming. Swing voters are realizing one party gov’t. is the worst thing to happen to America.

As 2006 gets closer, the voters will be paying attention to which of the Senate or House is in greatest jeopardy for Republicans and they will vote accordingly in any races that have upset potential.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 11, 2005 10:54 AM
Comment #84896

David:

Seems to me that there is actually more gridlock when one party has partial control. The result of the checks and balances appears to have been a stalemating of progress, in which either side can block the other side, but neither can make real progress.

I know that you don’t want gridlock, nor do you want the country to proceed in a direction you disagree with. How do you suppose the strengthening of the weaker of two parties will do anything but lead to gridlock?

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 11, 2005 11:00 AM
Comment #84899

Steve,

“We can look forward to the “no illegal immigrant left behind act” where all will be fed, educated and, have health benefits and jobs.”

G.W. is doing his very best to make sure the illegal aliens are well taken care of and have easy access to the U.S. and the rebuilding of New Orleans.
I love when Republicans pretend that they are fiscal conservatives while G.W. spends like no other president in history. You pretend that you’re for sealing the borders while big business, the driving force behind the republican party keeps the doors open to illegal aliens to raise profit margains. You pretend to be the moral party while your party is rocked by scandal after scandal.
This may be the time to promote third party candidates. We should set out to destroy both parties so that we can reclaim our government.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at October 11, 2005 11:11 AM
Comment #84913

V. Edward Martin,

Gloating is the last thing we should do, because it does nothing to elevate the Democratic party. This is an American tragedy, not purely a Republican one, and if the Dems are smart, they will use the arrogance and impropriety of the Republican party to illustrate how a consistent abuse of power has torn this country (not just one political party) apart.

“We the people” have been forgotten. If the Dems can rally around the people rather than against the Repubs, this country can start healing.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 11, 2005 11:57 AM
Comment #84920

More bad news for the Bush administration, this time from the War on Terror front.

Turns out the NYC Subway threat was a hoax. Gee. Ya’ think? Turns out some guy in Iraq made it up.

That’s ok, terrorists, the stupid fear-mongering speech Bush gave was a hoax too, so nyah!

Posted by: phx8 at October 11, 2005 12:29 PM
Comment #84921

Andre,

You may be correct about promoting 3rd party candidates, I would not disagree. It is no secret that I support Republicans, the more conservative and right wing the better-generally speaking.

Surely you saw the facetiousness in my post.

In any case, it is also possible for people to have their own opinions/positions within the framework of the broader party afficliation.

My own personal opinion which has been well expressed for quite some time is that every single illegal immigrant (all 13 million of them) should be deported immediately. They are criminals.

My opinion on this has always been met with replies from the left that “they are entitled to the same rights as citizens”, etc.
“They are entitled to health care, jobs, welfare, education and so on”.

I say none of that, ship them out of here.

As far as the spending and scandals I think they are unfortunate occurances and point us in the wrong direction. I believe that the answer is to work to solve the problem. Not necessarilly by changing political parties (although that is certainly a consideration) but, most assuredly NOT BY FLEEING THE COUNTRY

Posted by: steve smith at October 11, 2005 12:32 PM
Comment #84924

Dennis—

I understand where you are coming from an even agree to an extent…but I also believe there will be some fallout from the Republican’s tomfoolery these past six years. Time will tell…

Lisa—

Nothing would thrill me more then to see a viable Third Party step into the political fray and capture the American electorates’ hearts, minds and votes. But this has been tried before and had fails miserably; Independent candidates and or Party’s can’t seem to get enough traction to really make a difference, there just isn’t enough grassroots organizing going on.

Until then we have only the increasingly disharmonious Democratic Party to buttress us against the theologically inclined Republicans whose platform is now full of holes. What do they stand for again?

Mr. Magoo—

I agree with you “We The People” have been forgotten not only by the political Party’s but by ourselves as well. Americans have by-and-large forgotten what it like to be a citizen of a representative democracy, we tune out and don’t vote, rather then hold the bums accountable. And clearly half of the voting age population is more concerned with keeping their fellow Gay citizens from forming legal families than they are about their own family members dying in an unjust war. We The People have clear lost perspective!

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at October 11, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #84937

V. Edward Matrin

Terrific piece of science fiction.

Truth is that come ‘08 a Republician admininstation will still be in the White House,and most probably will still control the Senate and the House despite what the polls say presently.

Only the Democratic party reacts in a knee-jerk reaction to polls..which pretty much offer merely a snap shot of opinion at any one time…and can be massaged and manipulated at that.

Think for one nano-second that the President thinks what you and the left think?

Last I looked , he got a four yeare mandate last year(Gee,has it been a year already that he kicked Joh’s butt?)that neither you,nor the lefties can do anything about except re-watch Mike Moore movies for the next 11 years.

Eleven years.Three to go with Bush and then 8 more with McCain or Guiliani……maybe you could meditate,practice your deep breathing,do yoga or just continue to cry in your soup because you just have to get over it.Really.
You guys lost.Sorry.

Posted by: Sicilian Eagle at October 11, 2005 2:16 PM
Comment #84948

Actually, the polls don’t look great for Bush, but Bush is never going to run for office again. A CNN poll last week showed Guilani OR McCain beating Hillary Clinton by more than 10 points, and Condi Rice in a dead heat with her.

Unless something totally unforseen happens (such as the Republicans nominating Rick Santorum or McCain switching parties) the Republicans should win the White House again quite easily in 2008.

I haven’t studied the situation in the House, by I think the Republicans are going to have a net pick up of one or two seats in the Senate. Overall, 06 is a much easier year for Senate Republicans than Senate Democrats.

Santorum of PA will be the only Republican who will almost definitely lose his seat (with Jim Talent of Missouri an outside possibility to lose as well).

But a far greater number of sitting Democrats are facing competitive races, some of them from soldidly Red States. Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Kent Conrad in North Dakota for instance have serious uphill battles to fight. And Robert Byrd of West Virgina, whose seat has been safe for ages, is now polling within a few points of his Republican opponent.

Posted by: sanger at October 11, 2005 2:48 PM
Comment #84950

I for one am a fan of one party holds the White house and another holds the majority in congress. While gridlock is certainly a possibility, as evidenced by the 1995 shutdown, there is also some pretty good compromises that result (i.e. The Welfare Reform Act).

Gingrich, Dole and Clinton for all their carping about each other got along pretty well in Clinton’s last term and got some work done. Similarly, Reagan, Tip O’Neill and Howard Baker first then Bob Dole got along pretty well. Having a divided government is one of the few “fail-safes” for the American people. I think this is much better than the current situation or as in the case of FDR’s early administration that resulted in the “court packing” incident.

Posted by: Dennis at October 11, 2005 2:53 PM
Comment #84951

First, I would like very much to accept V. Edward’s invitation to dance! Now that I’ve mentally taken a turn around the room with Mr Martin (thank you, sir! :^), allow me to suggest to the Democrats that they quit passing up a golden opportunity — come out strongly against the war for heavens sake!

I don’t know what the hell they’re all so afraid of — everyone knows this war has been a total disaster in every sense since “shock and awe”. Everyone knows that it’s cost us way too much - has in fact, bankrupted our economy. And everyone knows that by acting as occupiers only in a military sense and allowing them to draft a constitution using Sharia law rather than the concepts of true democracy, there will be no real freedom in Iraq. Indeed, they are already fighting their civil war, and regressing into an Islamic fundamentalist society, therefore, it’s long past time to bring the troops home rather than force them to remain fighting on the side of extremism and intolerance.

Jim T:
“You know…when you Google “Democratic Leader”, do you know what you find? Nothing but negative comments.”

Pure BS — I got Nancy Pelosi’s and Harry Reid’s websites at the top of my search page.

“Or are people getting sick and tired of nothing from the Dems except bitching and grousing?”

No, people are now beginning to get tired of the fact that Republican’s are so bloody corrupt, incompetent and ineffective, that they’ve given the entire country far too much to bitch and grouse about.

sanger:
“It requires one to believe that the Democrats don’t need to change a thing—that their ideas are all perfectly sound and that the American public is just too stupid to see it.”

Perhaps up until the present (with the poll numbers in free fall indicating a real change in public opinion), the average American had become rather stupid. Stupid and illogical and fearful — because up until now, they’ve actually been duped by all of the Rovian/Foxnews-style Republican spin. When what those people have actually been doing is voting against their own best interests, allowing the GOP to take the country in all the wrong directions, and having to suspend all critical thinking when it comes to how the Neocon’s have been “protecting” them from terrorists (W can’t even say the word, he says: “Terr-ists”).

“Democrats can keep fooling themselves—so far they’re not fooling anybody else.”

The GOP definitely has had the monopoly on fooling the public for a long time now, but I’m hoping that will change. And happily, all signs seem to indicating that this is the case.

IMO: 1. Dem’s need to stop fooling themselves if they think it would appear unpatriotic of them to come out against the Iraq war. 2. By not getting on the same page with each other when they vote in the House and Senate — they need to be a cohesive block. 3. And by continuing to entertain the thought that being Republican Lite will somehow win them elections.

Andre:
“This may be the time to promote third party candidates. We should set out to destroy both parties so that we can reclaim our government.”

IMO, not yet. Third party choices on the left haven’t yet built enough grassroots power at the local and state level to garner enough votes for seats in the House, the Senate, or for Presidential elections. What we need to do is keep putting unrelenting pressure on those who are in the major parties, while at the same time, building viable third parties from the bottom up so that our government can one day be reclaimed.

Magoo:
“If the Dems can rally around the people rather than against the Repubs, this country can start healing.”

Damn right! Magoo for president! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at October 11, 2005 2:56 PM
Comment #84954

Adrienne,

And when you clicked through to Pelosi and Reid’s websites…how much negative versus positive did you see?

Pissing and moaning…bitching and grousing will never…never win the House, Senate or the Presidency. Never.

I don’t know what the positive message would be, but the Dems better find one…and quick…and hammer it home with every nail you got…or you can write off 2006 and 2008.

Positive messages. Americans like to feel good. Americans want and need to feel good.

Negative messages. Americans do not like to feel bad. Americans do not want and need to feel bad.

Find a positive message.

Actually, you ought to thank Bush and the Republicans from the bottom of your heart.

If they were doing a lot better than they are, the Democratic Party would be facing relegation to an insignificant 2nd or 3rd tier party.

Posted by: Jim T at October 11, 2005 3:20 PM
Comment #84955

Tit for tat, eh Adrienne?

Will you be my running mate? Or I, yours? :-)

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 11, 2005 3:25 PM
Comment #84959

An example of two quotes from Pelosi’s front page:

“ The people of the Gulf Coast region were struck by two disasters - first the Hurricane, and then the failure of the federal government in their time of great need. This is not just a natural disaster; this is a failure to prepare. It’s a natural disaster, but man-made mistakes have made matters much worse, having lost many more lives. ”

And:

House Democrats believe that the victims and survivors of Hurricane Katrina deserve the truth, which will only be provided by an independent commission, based on the rigorous and effective example of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. An independent commission is critical to restoring Americans’ confidence that the federal government will adequately respond to disasters, and keep them safer.

So, we need an independant commission to prove that the federal government failed.

Not to find out what went wrong. Since she is already blaming the federal government she already knows who and how. So why the need for the independant commission?

Yup, to make POLITICAL POINTS. To get the evil republicans, to further the democratic party and to regain power for her and her party.

Then act as if she is somehow ‘above the fray’.

*sigh*

Keep it up, Nancy, people aren’t stupid…

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 11, 2005 3:59 PM
Comment #84965

Magoo:
“Tit for tat, eh Adrienne?
Will you be my running mate? Or I, yours? :-)”

I’ll be your VP, Magoo. I have a feeling that America isn’t ready for a woman president, yet. :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at October 11, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #84970

“If the Dems can rally around the people rather than against the Repubs, this country can start healing”

Just one question Mr. Magoo and Ms. Adrienne:
How can the Dems rally around the people when at least half of them lean right and will not fall for the lefts “our way or no way” train of thought?
The moderates, whose support the left needs to win, are not all going to support a party who does not listen to them, especially when it comes to the hot button issues like abortion, gun rights, taxes, personal freedoms and their form of patriotism.

What is the left going to do to get the votes of these people?

Posted by: kctim at October 11, 2005 5:36 PM
Comment #84973

I think the democrats have to focus on pocketbook issues and deliver a full throated objection to the war/occupation of Iraq. They will never get anywhere trying to finesse the occupation of Iraq. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards and even Clark (whom I admire)have sided with the Bush Administration on the policy in Iraq. Whether you agree on the policy’s correctness or not, it does an opposition party no good to simply say “they aren’t doing it right, we would do it better”. There needs to be more of a contrast between the parties to get traction. The other way is to get someone with charisma (i.e. Reagan, Clinton, Kennedy) at the right time (recession, war deaths escalating, etc.) and just be “different”. If the economy goes south (unlikely at this point but who knows over three years), the occupation of Iraq continues to degrade, and we see more and more evidence of the shenanigans from Rove, Delay and Frist, then a Clintonesque (Bill, not Hillary) figure may do the trick. It also doesn’t hurt to have a viable plan for making things better for the country. So far, the dems haven’t presented one. Simply criticizing the other guy is not what I would consider a viable election platform.

Posted by: Dennis at October 11, 2005 5:48 PM
Comment #84978

kctim:
“How can the Dems rally around the people when at least half of them lean right and will not fall for the lefts “our way or no way” train of thought?”

That’s the way you characterize us, Tim — falsely, I might add.

“The moderates, whose support the left needs to win, are not all going to support a party who does not listen to them, especially when it comes to the hot button issues like”:

“abortion,”

We’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. That means we think people should be able to make up their own minds about whether they wish to have an abortion or not.

“gun rights,”

I think the left has basically put this issue to rest, realizing that guns will never be outlawed in America. So this one is moot, IMO.

“taxes,”

The left wants to see fair taxation — no more free ride for the rich. They should pay their fair share just like the rest of us. And no free ride for the corporations either.

“personal freedoms”

This one actually makes me laugh!
Who rushed the Patriot Act through Congress? Who wants to tell a woman and her doctor what she can and cannot do with her own body? Who wants to decide whether a person must remain on life support, even if it is against their express wishes? Who is keeping birth control methods out of doctors hands, or off of pharmacy shelves? Who insists that the word God must remain in the pledge of allegiance? Who wants to keep gay people from getting married and having fair and equal protections in the eyes of the law? Who wants to tear down the wall of separation between church and state? (so that the church can dictate to government, and I suppose, so that the government might one day begin dictating to churches?)
No. When it comes to believing in personal freedoms, people would do very well to come over and stand with us on the Left.

“and their form of patriotism.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The only people I see questioning anyones form of patriotism, are those on the Right.

“What is the left going to do to get the votes of these people?”

Appeal to their sense of reason, fairness, decency and respect for freedom, while believing strongly in the rights that were given to every American by our Constitution, just like we always have.
Maybe after 6-8 years of Republican’s controling everything and doing a piss-poor job at it, people will be ready to embrace reason, fairness, decency, freedom, and our Constitutional rights once again?
Personally, I hope so…

Posted by: Adrienne at October 11, 2005 7:14 PM
Comment #84979

Rhinehold,
You’re forgetting that the first people to complain about the federal response to Katrina WERE THE VICTIMS. And no amount of finger-pointing and spin from the right can change that. So Pelosi’s statement is actually evidence that the Dems are listening. And it’s ALSO evidence that the Republicans are increasingly seen as failing the most fundamental of government’s tasks - namely, protecting American citizens.

kctim,
First, I dispute your “our way or no way” characterization of the Dems. I think the compromise on the Supreme filibusters shows that the Dems are perfectly willing to compromise if a reasonable compromise is offered. The issue is that it has been the Republicans who have refused to offer any reasonable compromises.

Second, if you think “our way or no way” is bad, I’d like to point out that it’s MUCH more reasonable than the right’s mantra: “our way or you’re a traitor”.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 11, 2005 7:17 PM
Comment #84989
You’re forgetting that the first people to complain about the federal response to Katrina WERE THE VICTIMS. And no amount of finger-pointing and spin from the right can change that.

So, because the victims blamed Bush that makes them right? Hmmm I think I’m seeing a flaw in the logic here (meaning a lack of it).

The simple fact is we need to find out where the failures (plural) happened and who was responsible and why. We are trying to do that. Unfortunately, the democrats, instead of being involved in the process as their constituants expect them to be, they are ‘boycotting’ the hearings because they want another commission set up.

Now, here’s my problem. If we are going to set up a freaking commission for every issue that comes before us, why do we have a congress? Just do your job instead of trying to engage in a politically charged battle and get to the bottom. IF during the discovery it is determined that the republicans are blocking, evading or manipulating, call them out on it and THEN call for an independant investigation.

So Pelosi’s statement is actually evidence that the Dems are listening. And it’s ALSO evidence that the Republicans are increasingly seen as failing the most fundamental of government’s tasks - namely, protecting American citizens.

Lol, no Elliott, it’s evidence that Pelosi, being a tried and true politician, is more interested in making political points than in finding out what really happened so that we can prevent it from occurring again. Because that’s what the goal here should be, not taking cheap shots at the republican administration before we have found out where ALL of the failures were.

(as I have pointed out in several articles in the *MIDDLE* column)

Posted by: Rhinehold at October 11, 2005 8:38 PM
Comment #84995

Jim T,

I wish you were right about negative campaigning, but the overwhelming evidence is that it works. The Bush 2004 campaign is a great example. Republicans who think he won by keeping it “positive” probably also think he balanced the budget. See this article from the Washington Post for example:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate…” There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you’ve historically had in the general-election period against either candidate,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication.

Again, I am with you in spirit. It’s just that we are stuck with this pesky old thing called reality.

In case the link doesn’t work, here it is again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3222-2004May30.html

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 11, 2005 9:50 PM
Comment #85174

Adrienne
Thanks for taking the time, I really appreciate it.

“That’s the way you characterize us, Tim — falsely, I might add”

- It doesnt matter if its me or the media doing it, it is how many of those in the middle see the left as being.

We’re pro-choice, not pro-abortion. That means we think people should be able to make up their own minds about whether they wish to have an abortion or not.

- So am I. But many in the middle see the left as favoring abortion as birth control. You have to be able to show you do support common sense agreements on when and how it is wrong.

I think the left has basically put this issue to rest, realizing that guns will never be outlawed in America. So this one is moot, IMO.

- Thats too bad for the left then. If the Reps start falling to far behind, the gun issue will be at the forefront again and it will cost you guys votes, again.
Ten plus million votes are an awful lot to just throw away like that, IMHO.

The left wants to see fair taxation — no more free ride for the rich. They should pay their fair share just like the rest of us. And no free ride for the corporations either.

- The average person does not care what the rich pay, they care about what comes out of their paychecks. A tax hike is a pay-cut.

Who rushed the Patriot Act through Congress?

- And who signed it?

Who wants to tell a woman and her doctor what she can and cannot do with her own body?

- Who doesnt believe in protecting the most vulnerable and innocent among us?

Who wants to decide whether a person must remain on life support, even if it is against their express wishes?

- Who is anxious to kill somebody in an unsure situation in order to prove a political point? Who is so willing to strip away the rights of parents?

Who is keeping birth control methods out of doctors hands, or off of pharmacy shelves?

- The same people who believe they are saving a life.

“Who insists that the word God must remain in the pledge of allegiance?”

- The majority. Proud Americans who dont see a big deal with it.

Who wants to keep gay people from getting married and having fair and equal protections in the eyes of the law?

- Nosy people from the left and right side of isle.

Who wants to tear down the wall of separation between church and state?

I dont know.

No. When it comes to believing in personal freedoms, people would do very well to come over and stand with us on the Left.

- Then convince the middle that you wont make laws telling them how to live their life.

I have no idea what you’re talking about here. The only people I see questioning anyones form of patriotism, are those on the Right.

- Believing in the war and putting America before all others is not a bad thing.
The left alienates many people by belittling these people.

Appeal to their sense of reason, fairness, decency and respect for freedom, while believing strongly in the rights that were given to every American by our Constitution, just like we always have.

- Just like you always have? Then why do you not control anything? That right there should tell you there is something wrong with your platform.

Maybe after 6-8 years of Republican’s controling everything and doing a piss-poor job at it, people will be ready to embrace reason, fairness, decency, freedom, and our Constitutional rights once again?
Personally, I hope so…

- I wouldnt be so sure about that. After 8 years of clinton, people still choose not to see.


Its tit for tat. Both sides can come up with questions and answers.

How do you think the left can change what the majority of Americans think of them?
If your pro-choice and not for abortion
If your NOT anti-gun
If your not for higher taxes
If you dont favor govt control for everything
If you dont care how people live their own lives
Then how can you prove this to the American people and get their vote?
What should your party do to prove that to me and get me to vote for your guy?
What you have been doing isnt working, how can you fix the peoples negative perception of left?

While we may disagree on the issues themselves, I do not think you should feel as if you have hit a brick wall on this one.
I really want to know if the left has ideas on how to get the middle to vote for them or if you think your platform should stay as it is and that the people should just accept that its the lefts way or no way.
Thank you.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 9:44 AM
Comment #85177

- if you think “our way or no way” is bad, I’d like to point out that it’s MUCH more reasonable than the right’s mantra: “our way or you’re a traitor”

Really?
So saying the 2nd Amendment is wrong and you must live by the lefts belief of that, is more reasonable than saying that if you dont believe in the rights given to Americans by its Constitution then your a traitor?
Sorry, but I dont determine who I support from just one issue. I look at the bigger picture and the lefts “our way or no way” applies to alot more.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 9:54 AM
Comment #85194
Who is anxious to kill somebody in an unsure situation in order to prove a political point?

That is the biggest load of bull I’ve seen in a long time. It was the Republicans who wanted the federal government involved. It was Bill Frist diagnosed Schiavo (incorrectly, as it turned out) from a videotape. The reason the GOP ended up with egg on their face is that the public knew darn well that they were the ones playing politics. It was supposed to be a winning issue for them, and they were wrong.

Posted by: Woody Mena at October 12, 2005 10:42 AM
Comment #85211

Woody
It was not the Republicans who started it, it was her parents. Having been keeping up with this story for about 4 years and not just going by recent msm coverage as most, there is alot that was not reported. From the very beginning, her parents were saying her husband would not be responsible for anything, they just wanted to take care of her.
But that is besides the point. I was just answering Adrienne’s negative points about the right, with negative points about the left.
Its tit for tat.
I am curious to know what those on the left think they need to do in order to get the votes of those in the middle who believe these negatives or if even matters to them what the people think.
If the votes the left needs believe the left is pro-abortion, anti 2nd Amendment, pro higher taxes etc…, what can the left do to dispel these myths?

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #85228

Tim,
What am I supposed to say? I think that you have demonized the Left and in your mind that means they are trying to take away everyones Constitutional rights. But there is no legislation you can point to that actually backs this assertion up. Meanwhile, the Right has already passed plenty of legislation that abridges those rights, and they are not shy of showing the public that they plan on furthering altering them whenever it suits their purposes (whether to please their religious followers, to gain further power for their party, to supposedly fight the “war on terror” etc,) — and you are refusing to see any of this.

You wrote:
“Then how can you prove this to the American people and get their vote?”

I’m not sure the Democrats can convince people who feel as strongly as you seem to about their motives. You are seeing an agenda coming from the Left that simply doesn’t exist — but one I think you may have picked up from propaganda generated by the Right.

“What should your party do to prove that to me and get me to vote for your guy?”

Tim, as I’ve told you before, I’m not even a member of the Democratic Party these days because they aren’t standing together and concentrating with all their might on making sure that all our future elections will be fair and accountable. And that really pisses me off, because we’ve had two elections that were so close, and had so many problems and so many suspicious circumstances surrounding them that it seems like madness to me that they aren’t. It also strikes me as being very disrespectful toward the people who’ve worked so hard to get them elected and those who vote for them.
But just because I left the Dem’s over that particular failure of theirs doesn’t mean I’ll start demonizing them for an anti-constitutional agenda that simply doesn’t exist. I still feel that most of their goals are far better for this country than those of the Republicans — in every single way I could name.
Whether it is growing the economy, balancing the budget, protecting the environment, supporting a social safety net for all who need one, engaging in diplomatic relations with our allies and other countries, protecting the poor and middle class from the potential or existing tyranny of the rich and their corporations, supporting the interests of minorities, etc. etc. they do a much better job at representing the needs of all Americans.
They always have. And truthfully, I think that if someone is of the middle class or poor they’re really not thinking clearly or logically if they vote for the Republican’s. They may however, be buying the propaganda of the GOP who has always represented one particular segment of America only — namely the Rich, or as Bush once termed it “the haves and the have mores” which he quite correctly considers to be his base.

“What you have been doing isnt working, how can you fix the peoples negative perception of left?”

I think it’s hard to change the current perception because our citizens don’t read as much these days, so they tend to get most of their information from the TV Media — which of course is owned by corporations who know which party represents them best. Still, the Republican’s despite their enormous propaganda machine have been doing such a sh*tty job of governing, that people are finally getting wise, which has made all of their poll numbers continue to fall. Hopefully this is a signal that a balance of power will soon be restored.

“While we may disagree on the issues themselves, I do not think you should feel as if you have hit a brick wall on this one.”

I think you need to question and examine exactly where you are getting the idea that the Democrats want to take away everyones Constitutional rights, or disrespect peoples religions, or their manner of demonstrating their patriotism. I am able see your point as far as the issue of gun control goes, but like I said, it is clear that the left has been moving away from that idea for some time, so I really don’t think its of major relevance at this point.

“I really want to know if the left has ideas on how to get the middle to vote for them or if you think your platform should stay as it is”

I think the platform of the Democrats is and has been good — they are offering solutions and ideas to problems the country is facing. Its getting that platform out there that I feel has been the real obstacle, especially while the Republican disinformation and slime machine is going full bore.

You know, the GOP likes to say that they’re the Party of Lincoln, and they have a right to be proud of him, because he was a truly great man. In a similar vein, I think the Democrats should think of themselves as the Party of Roosevelt, because he’s an example of all that was and is best about their goals, and what can be achieved by them.
FDR was a man who was rich, but took the trouble to understand and truly care about the needs of the poor. He was handicapped man who rolled over (literally!) that obstacle to become our president. A man who presided and triumphed over the worst sort of crisis’s the country had faced by innovating the New Deal and the WPA during the Depression, and when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, by telling us that “the only thing we had to fear was fear itself”. He also said several things that I think sum up the core principles of the Left, and they are as relevant today as when he said them. For instance:

“Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.”
And:
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.”

Whether it is searching for solutions to the problems of the poor, to condemning the torture of Iraqi prisoners we hold captive, the people who stand on the Left have always understood that decency is never a weakness, but rather a strength.

“In our seeking for economic and political progress, we all go up - or else we all go down.”

As opposed to the lopsided philosophy of the Right, who believes that taking care of the wealthy automatically means that the needs of the many will somehow be taken care of, and that the wealth will trickle down — even though it never has, and never will.

“It isn’t sufficient just to want - you’ve got to ask yourself what you are going to do to get the things you want.”
And:
“One thing is sure. We have to do something. We have to do the best we know how at the moment… If it doesn’t turn out right, we can modify it as we go along.”

Yes, creative, well thought out solutions to problems so that real progress can be made. That is what the left has always admired, and we are not fearful of changing whatever doesn’t work in order to bring those positive results about.

“The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.”

This speaks for itself. It also speaks to what is so dismally wrong with the Republican (most especially the Neocon Republican) philosophy.

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.”
And:
“The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the goverment.”

I believe that the people who stand on the Left in America take informing themselves about exactly what the leaders within our government are doing much more seriously. We’ve had to really, because for the most part we’re made up of people who are of the middle class or the poor — and our experiences have shown us how the wealthy have a way of controlling and taking advantage of everyone else to get ahead.

“Confidence… thrives on honesty, on honor, on the sacredness of obligations, on faithful protection and on unselfish performance. Without them it cannot live.”

This I feel more than anything else FDR said truly sums up what us Lefties are all about and what we want and expect from our leaders in government.

Tim:
“and that the people should just accept that its the lefts way or no way.”

Again I would say to you that this is a false belief. But if you are fully convinced of that, I don’t think there is anything that I could say that will change your mind.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2005 1:44 PM
Comment #85237

kctim,

The left’s problem is that a cacaphony led by Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Karl Rove, Ann Coulter, Dick Cheney, Michelle Malkin, Britt Hume, Oliver North, Bill Bennett, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Tucker Carlson, Jerry Falwell, Joe Scarbrough, newsmax.com, Gordon Liddy, Robert Novak, and hundreds of other broadcast, print, and/or internet right-wing hatemongers keep on repeating the same lies about the left over and over and over and over again. We all know that the accusation, whether it’s true or not, gets the most publicity. And we all know that the same lie, if repeated often enough, will come to be believed.

“The left wants to take away your guns”
“The left wants higher taxes”
“The left wants to destroy marriage”
“The left wants to destroy Christianity”
“The left hates America”

These are all lies and the people who say them are are either misinformed, or liars.

Posted by: ElliottBay at October 12, 2005 2:37 PM
Comment #85243

“I have a feeling that America isn’t ready for a woman president, yet.” — Adrienne

Baloney. Considering how badly our current half-man has screwed things up, I’d vote for the right woman in a heartbeat! As the father of 2 myself, I think we’re way overdue for a woman president.

Posted by: Mister Magoo at October 12, 2005 3:19 PM
Comment #85244

Adrienne

If I were fully convinced of that, then I would have no reason to participate on WatchBlog.

As I did earlier, I could counter everything negative you supplied about the right with a negative about the left but that gets us nowhere.
Lets forget about how far left you are and how far “right” I am for a minute, please.

The recent election results have made it obvious that the left needs the votes of the middle in order to make it over the hump.
Do you believe the left should just sit back and wait for the people to think like them? or would it be best for them to learn what the middle wants and then redo their platform to match what the people want? If so, which issues could the Dems compromise with the people on in order to get their vote?

The issues I gave you are genuine concerns of millions of people, millions of people whose votes the left needs.
Is it really for the best to just disregard what they believe in or to sidestep the answer by blaming the right wing media(lol, imo) or by just saying they are wrong and we are right?
Is the 50/50 split of the nation making you think that the tide will turn your way sooner or later?
Whatever it is, its not working and the left loses millions of votes each election for not acknowledging it.

I ask this for one reason, I used to vote for Dems alot more than Reps, but that has now changed. Why do you think that is?

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 3:21 PM
Comment #85255

EB
“The left wants to take away your guns”
“The left wants higher taxes”
“The left wants to destroy marriage”
“The left wants to destroy Christianity”
“The left hates America”

“These are all lies and the people who say them are are either misinformed, or liars”

Those are flashy talking points, but do represent the views of many.

“The left wants to take away the gun rights of the average person: guilty until proven innocent”
“The left wants higher taxes in order to pay for their social programs that many do not agree with”
“The left wants to change the traditional meaning of marriage”
“The left has taken the words, freedom of religion and made them freedom from religion”
“The left disagrees that America should come first in all international matters, no matter what”

Now, if that isnt what the left believes on those issues, shouldnt you try to convince the voters, instead of using the laughable right winger lies excuse.

Magoo
I agree, America could be ready for a chick to be President.
Are there any female DEMOCRATS who could contend?
Just wondering, thx.

Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 3:45 PM
Comment #85286

kctim:
“The recent election results have made it obvious that the left needs the votes of the middle in order to make it over the hump.”

But the more recent polls are telling us that the majority of Americans don’t like the kind of leadership they’ve been getting. This probably means that a change is coming.

“Do you believe the left should just sit back and wait for the people to think like them?”

No, I believe that the left should move back to what THEY think. If they would simply stand by their core principles and stop trying to be Republican lite, I believe they just might win future elections, rather than having the Reform Party or the Green Party take their votes away from them.

“or would it be best for them to learn what the middle wants and then redo their platform to match what the people want?”

In my opinion that’s what they have been doing. Pandering to the fence sitters. And it clearly it isn’t getting them anywhere.

“If so, which issues could the Dems compromise with the people on in order to get their vote?”

I think the Dem’s would do well to keep moving away from the gun issue. There are many other ways to reduce violent crime, and they should shape that part of their platform to focus on those things, while letting people know they understand that it’s a problem they’ll be ready to deal with — and without altering the 2nd Amendment.

“Is it really for the best to just disregard what they believe in or to sidestep the answer by blaming the right wing media(lol, imo) or by just saying they are wrong and we are right?”

I do blame the rightwing media and the RNC slime machine for somehow convincing people that the Democrat’s want to do away with peoples constitutional rights, even though they can’t name a single piece of legislation that would warrant that assertion. Because the real truth is, it is the Republican’s who have been doing everything they can to abridge those rights, while they’re followers claim them great defenders of that document.

“Is the 50/50 split of the nation making you think that the tide will turn your way sooner or later?”

Well it seems that the fence sitters are pretty fed up with Republican leadership. Now, if the Democrats would find a backbone and start acting like Democrats once more, they might even get a whole lot of people like myself back on board with them.

“I ask this for one reason, I used to vote for Dems alot more than Reps, but that has now changed. Why do you think that is?”

I have no idea. Perhaps YOU have changed. Perhaps you have moved much farther to the right over the years, because the sad truth is that the Dem’s have moved much farther to the middle (much to my chagrin) and yet you seem to see nothing about them that could make you vote for them.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2005 5:30 PM
Comment #85287

kctim,

Congratulations! You’ve captured the right wing philosophy about the left in four words:

guilty until proven innocent
So much for the AMERICAN standard of “innocent until proven guilty”. I also note that you didn’t deny the charge that what the right is spewing IS a bunch of lies.

And then you repeated some of them. I’m calling you on that, dude. You need to back up your accusations with FACTS:

  • You said “the left wants to take away the gun rights of the average person.” PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. Prove that the left IN GENERAL wants this. Otherwise your accusation yet another right wing falsehood.

  • You said “the left wants higher taxes in order to pay for their social programs that many do not agree with”. PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. In order to prove your accusation, you will have to (1) name the social program, (2) show FACTS that “many” Americans don’t want it, (3) show FACTS that “the left” is proposing to RAISE TAXES to pay for that program instead of paying for it any other way. And since you said “social programs” - plural - you’ll need to do this for more than one program. Otherwise, this is yet another meaningless right wing falsehood.

  • You said “the left has taken the words, freedom of religion and made them freedom from religion” PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. In order to prove it, you’ll need to show FACTUAL EVIDENCE that “the left” in general is actually preventing people from practicing their religion.
  • You made these accusations, kctim. There’s no get out of jail free card here. So you need to either back them up WITH FACTS, retract them, or have them shown to be falsehoods. I look forward to seeing a reply based on credible, provable FACTS, not on wild unfounded accusations.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at October 12, 2005 5:32 PM
    Comment #85293

    Adrienne
    Thank you very much for taking the time to give me an answer.
    Of course you know we disagree on the issues and all, but it is nice to know that you think the Dem party is trying.
    I agree the 2nd Amendment has been a thorn in the lefts side and that if they get away from it and quit trying to alter it, many votes await.
    Your also right in saying maybe I have changed, we all change. But for me personally, I believe the Dems have drifted too far away from the center and that is why myself and many others do not vote for them at this time.

    Again, thank you for all the time you have given me, it has given me more to think about and a better understanding of where many on the left sit.

    Posted by: kctim at October 12, 2005 5:47 PM
    Comment #85309

    “Adrienne
    Thank you very much for taking the time to give me an answer.”

    No problem, Tim and right back at you. Still, I do think Elliot’s got a point though — you should start examining some of the facts, because it may just change the way you feel about the Democrats.

    Posted by: Adrienne at October 12, 2005 6:25 PM
    Comment #85331

    Elliot,

    You forgetting that the war in Iraq and tax cuts for the rich represent something like $500000000000 over the next few years. How many social programs would that cover?

    The reality is that when Republicans are in control they spend sh*tloads of money on themselves. When the Democrats are in charge, they spend not quite as big a sh*tload of money on our problems.

    Posted by: Dave at October 12, 2005 8:19 PM
    Comment #85623

    Ive examined them Adrienne.
    Thanks though. :)

    Posted by: kctim at October 13, 2005 1:35 PM
    Comment #85625

    ElliotBay,

    I asked for Adrienne and Mister Magoo, whose opinions I greatly respect, what they thought the left should do in order to convince those in the middle to vote for them so the left could win elections. I gave a few issues that, IMO, have contributed to lefts loses in the recent elections. Whether they are true or not, millions of voters believe these to be facts.

    You flying off the handle , getting your panties all bunched up and claiming they are nothing but right wing lies totally misses the point of my question.
    IF they are nothing but lies, then it should be easy for the left to dispel them as such and be able to get more votes.
    That is why I asked Adrienne if we could forget about how far left or right we were. I was not attacking the lefts views, in these posts, but instead was curious to know if the left was willing to acknowledge that some of their stances do not agree with some of those millions of votes they desperately need.

    You need to cut back on the caffeine “dude.” I did not say this is what the lefts agenda is, I said many believe this to be the lefts agenda and asked how people thought the left could overcome it.

    Sadly, I was not the least bit surprised to see that you totally ignored my question:
    —-Now, if that isn’t what the left believes on those issues, shouldn’t you try to convince the voters, instead of using the laughable right winger lies excuse?

    Rather than giving facts and proving these are not the lefts views on these issues and convincing the voters of such, as I asked, you immediately go on the defensive and start demanding me to prove my points when you cannot prove yours. A typical but tiresome tactic used all to often in politics.

    I however, will not ignore your requests.
    Below are some facts as to why I believe MANY people believe such things about the left.

    Congratulations! You’ve captured the right wing philosophy about the left in four words: guilty until proven innocent. So much for the AMERICAN standard of “innocent until proven guilty”.

    - Actually, I was referring to what I believe is the unconstitutional practice of firearm registration and banning. Assuming everyone who owns a gun is a criminal and should have to register with the govt is, IMO, the same as assuming they are guilty until they prove their innocent.

    I also note that you didn’t deny the charge that what the right is spewing IS a bunch of lies.

    - Why should I when I never claimed it was the truth? I was staying away from the political bickering and was only wanting opinions on how to get people who believe such things to change their minds and vote for the left.

    And then you repeated some of them. I’m calling you on that, dude.

    - Yes I did. I repeated some of the things MANY people believe about the left and therefore did not vote for them. I also asked if anything should or could be done to make voters believe otherwise. But you chose to ignore that part.

    You said “the left wants to take away the gun rights of the average person.” PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. Prove that the left IN GENERAL wants this. Otherwise your accusation yet another right wing falsehood.

    - Does the left support gun control? Why yes they do, don’t they. That right there is taking away part of our 2nd Amendment rights. But I will go a step further for you:

    This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers.
    Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, New York (August 12, 1992

    If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns.
    Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998

    I don’t care if you think it’s your right. I say: Sorry, it’s 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison.
    Rosie O’Donnell, talk-show host and former Kmart spokesperson

    “We can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles…that we are unable to think about reality.”
    President William J. Clinton

    “…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.”
    Sarah Brady

    “The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.”
    Janet Reno

    “If it were up to me, We’d ban them all.”
    Rep. Mel Reynolds

    “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out-right ban, picking up every one of them… ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren’t here.”
    Senator Dianne Feinstein

    You said “the left wants higher taxes in order to pay for their social programs that many do not agree with”. PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. In order to prove your accusation, you will have to (1) name the social program,
    (2) show FACTS that “many” Americans don’t want it,
    (3) show FACTS that “the left” is proposing to RAISE TAXES to pay for that program instead of paying for it any other way. And since you said “social programs” - plural - you’ll need to do this for more than one program. Otherwise, this is yet another meaningless right wing falsehood.

    “The public continues to support the government guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans, even if it means raising taxes. By more than two-to-one (64%-30%), Americans favor a government guarantee of health insurance for all. Democrats and independents overwhelmingly favor the government guaranteeing health insurance for all Americans, while Republicans are deeply divided. Two-thirds of moderate and liberal Republicans (66%) support this idea, compared with just 41% of conservative Republicans.”
    “There also is strong public sentiment in favor of increased government aid to the poor. Currently, 69% favor providing more generous government assistance to the poor; that is consistent with surveys dating to 2001 (73% in March 2001). There is considerable agreement among members of major religious traditions and seculars in favor of greater aid for the poor.”
    - http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=115

    30% of Americans disagree with Universal healthcare, a liberal idea. 30% is not all but it is MANY.

    “Who do you trust more on the issue of Social Security: President Bush or Democrats in Congress?”

    President Bush- 33%
    Democrats in Congress- 44%
    - http://www.pollingreport.com/social.htm

    33% is not all, but it is MANY

    You said “the left has taken the words, freedom of religion and made them freedom from religion” PROVE THIS WITH FACTS OR RETRACT IT. In order to prove it, you’ll need to show FACTUAL EVIDENCE that “the left” in general is actually preventing people from practicing their religion.

    - Where did I say many people view the lefts position as being “preventing people from PRACTICING their religion? I didn’t, I said many view it as being freedom FROM religion. As in, many people disagree that people should not be able to exhibit their religion where they want.

    The few examples below are of people wanting to exhibit their thanks to God or their religious heritage, not practice or force others to believe as they do. These are not isolated cases, google them.

    http://www.kmsp.com/news/national/story.asp?1645579

    The ACLU recently sued the Los Angeles County Supervisors to have a small cross removed from its seal, LA County caved rather than fight, purportedly to avoid legal costs.

    “Aside from their influence on the Democratic Party, there is an even more widespread perception held by two-in-three Americans that liberals are going too far in trying to keep religion out of schools and the government.”
    - http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=115

    There are some interesting studies with charts and graphs on this page.

    I don’t believe the government does or should endorse religion, but forcing the government to not even recognize that religion played an important part in our countries creation and still contributes to our society, is just being closed-minded and unfair. Politics as usual.

    You made these accusations, kctim. There’s no get out of jail free card here.

    - One more time, I did not make these accusations, on this thread. I said MANY believe these to be true and asked how people on the left side thought they could fix that and maybe win an election.

    So you need to either back them up WITH FACTS, retract them, or have them shown to be falsehoods. I look forward to seeing a reply based on credible, provable FACTS, not on wild unfounded accusations.

    http://www.issues2000.org/default.htm

    That website has your facts. It clearly states where each Democrat and Liberal said they stand on each issue.
    The voters determined that they wanted the Republicans to control all branches of government.
    Is it an “unfounded accusation” to say that MANY people in the middle did not buy into their platform?
    Is it unfair to say that MANY, not all, of the people in the middle do not agree with lefts platform and that maybe the left should start listening to those people if they want their vote?
    I dont think so.

    So drop the evil right wing bit. Its grown old. Try to realize that everybody does not and should not agree with everything the left says and does.
    If those in the middle are wrong in their beliefs of the lefts platform, convince them and get their vote.

    Posted by: kctim at October 13, 2005 1:41 PM
    Comment #85715

    kctim

    From my perspective, I think the progressive voices in American need to stay away from the tactics of the right: to hide their agenda with words that sound to the middle of the road like the things they desire, but in practice turn out to be things they don’t want. Or to give rationales that are phony and propped up with spin and propaganda. This is part of the reason Bush’s and many other conservative Republican politicians’ numbers are sinking right now.

    The US voter is at heart progressive, as this is a liberal, progressive democracy. The voter wants to accomplish the good things that we can do collectively (i.e., through government action), including fostering individual achievement, helping those who need help, and providing for an equal playing field for all. Otherwise, the voter wants to be left alone and not hassled about their religion, their recreation, or their lifestyle.

    The US voter also wants a moral atmosphere; not the phony morality of the religious right, based on dogma and fear, but the enlightened morality of the US, roughly based on the golden rule and the imperative to be truthful, fair, generous and kind. They want security equally from economic, health, and external threats and they want the government to provide that security. They can easily be fooled into adventurism if they are led to believe it will provide that security, but they can only be fooled for a short while.

    At the same time, however, the voter wants respectful behavior from government officials, whether elected or appointed, and wants the business of government conducted in a cost-conscious and efficient manner. Sometimes this means using the private sector, other times it means utilizing the might and majesty of the government to get efficient uniformity. But the right mix is essential and a transparent process for making the decision goes a long way toward gaining the trust and confidence of the body politic.

    The voter wants men and women who are smart enought to know when to do what and how. They also want officials who care about doing good and doing it at a reasonable cost. As long as the progressives focus on the horse race and “my team against your team,” the voters will be put off and disenchanted. The race will be to those who are most cynical and organized about manipulating opinion. If, instead, the progressives focus on these things that most people want, they will be successful in spite of Karl Rove’s brilliant maneuvering and manipulation.

    My two cents.

    Posted by: Mental Wimp at October 13, 2005 8:30 PM
    Comment #85786

    Thanks Mental.
    Of course you know I disagree with what you think the voters want and are like, no surprise for you there Im sure.

    Aside from that though, do you think there is anything in the liberal platform that the people do not want?

    Posted by: kctim at October 14, 2005 9:17 AM
    Comment #85802

    kctim,
    Thanks for your long and thoughtful reply. I stand by what I said. With all due respect, I have a couple of points:

    You didn’t say (in any of the statements that I quoted) that “many Americans think X” or anything like that, so I assumed you were saying that you believed those things. And NONE of the accusations that I quoted are true.

    Regarding the 2nd amendment issue, I will concede that there are a lot of quotes from the left, although I would have excluded the Sarah Brady quote because (1) she’s a Republican and (2) her husband was the victim of gun violence. I think if you check the dates on the remaining quotes, you’ll find that most of them are at least 8-10 years old or older. I think the left in general has realized that guns are such a sacred cow to the right that the issue won’t come up again until a majority of Americans realize that the police are consistently out-gunned by the criminals. And by then it may be too late. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a robber pull up to a bank someday in the near future, driving a tank. And I’ll bet you that the NRA will defend his right to have it.

    Furthermore, it’s arguable that the first four words of the second amendment (“a well-regulated militia”) mean that only members of the army and the national guard can keep weapons at home. Although I personally disagree with that interpretation, I do think it would be a reasonable one. But, like Roe v Wade, it’s “settled law” (to quote John Roberts). However, firearm registration is also settled law. It isn’t an infrigement on gun ownership any more than vehicle registration is an infringement on vehicle ownership.

    Regarding social programs: You failed to show any evidence that the left wants to raise taxes to pay for the social programs that you yourself admit that a vast majority of Americans support. So this accusation stands as false. And are you seriously suggesting that a small minority of Americans should be able to prevent the majority from getting what it wants? 30% is a small minority, especially if you think that the 2004 election result was a “mandate” for the Republicans.

    One of the reasons I used to vote Republican occasionally was that, like me, they were fiscal conservatives. But ever rince Reagan, the Republican party has become the party of fiscal irresponsibility. Bush I got it right when he called Republican financial policies “voodoo economics.”

    Regarding religion. The left does NOT prevent anyone from practicing their religion. But there’s a HUGE difference between practicing one’s religion and expecting the taxpayers to subsidize one’s religion. If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that Christians have the right to collect taxes from Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and others, to put up Christian monuments. I’m sure most Christians would object to their tax dollars going to a large statue of Muhammed. And THAT’s the point that the left has been making - it’s FINE to practice you faith however you want to. But it ISN’T fine to tax the believers of OTHER faiths to promote your own.

    Finally, I want to say this about the extreme right, so you may want to skip the next three paragraphs, tim. I think extreme right has one and ONLY one objective: to stamp out all vestiges of liberalism in this country - by ANY MEANS NECESSARY. They’re fueled by their overwhelming, irrational HATRED for all things liberal, and believe that their cause is so noble that it justifies ANY means. And they have a dedicated cadre of hatemongers who’ve come to dominate the media, spreading lies, distortions, and propaganda.

    The extreme right isn’t particularly interested in actually governing, and it shows. They aren’t very good at it and have messed up a lot (the economy, Iraq, Katrina, etc.). So when things go wrong (as they often do), they fall back on their tried and true methodology - attack the left.

    The extreme right knows very well that the accusation gets more publicity than its denial and disproof. And they also konw that a lie repeated often enough will start to be mistaken for the truth. The left’s primary problem is when they try to speak up, they are continuously shouted down by this cadre of extreme right wing hate-mongers.

    And for far too long, most liberals have been too nice about it. They turn the other cheek, which the extreme Right sees as weakness. In the 2004 Presidential election, John Kerry’s ads were about 25% negative - George Bush’s ads were over 75% negative. Kerry didn’t respond at all to the vitriolic lies being spread by the Swift Boat Bozos until it was too late. He let himself be defined by the negative images coming from the right and as a result spent the vast majority of the campaign on the defensive.

    I love my country more than you can possibly know, tim. I still get teary-eyed occasionally when they play the Star Spangled Banner. I’ve donated blood, time, and money to support our troops. I’ve sent care packages to soldiers I don’t know, alomg with notes of support.

    And I grieve for my country because I’m afraid that the exteme right wing cadre that runs it is actually running it into the ground.

    Posted by: ElliottBay at October 14, 2005 12:27 PM
    Comment #85810

    “I think the left in general has realized that guns are such a sacred cow to the right”

    It is a known fact that gun owners believe the left is against the 2nd Amendment and I was just wondering if the left thought they could do anything to prove that belief wrong and get necessary votes.

    “You failed to show any evidence that the left wants to raise taxes to pay for the social programs that you yourself admit that a vast majority of Americans support”

    Then HOW does the left plan to pay for them? How can the left prove to the people that Universal healthcare wont raise taxes?
    IF this accusation is false, then prove it to the middle and get the votes you need.

    “And are you seriously suggesting that a small minority of Americans should be able to prevent the majority from getting what it wants?”

    Right now, the majority you speak of, doesnt want to give homosexuals the same rights as married people and that burning the flag is wrong.
    Why does the majority matter in some cases but not others?
    Majority rules in a democracy, we are a Constitutional Republic, everybody’s rights are sacred.

    “If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that Christians have the right to collect taxes from Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, and others, to put up Christian monuments”

    That is what you want me to be saying.
    Acknowledging God in public or wanting to keep historic symbols and monuments in place has nothing to do with forcing people to accept Christianity.

    “it’s FINE to practice you faith however you want to. But it ISN’T fine to tax the believers of OTHER faiths to promote your own”

    How does mentioning God in a song or commencement speech tax other faiths to promote ones own?
    How does keeping history in place, tax other faiths?
    How does saying the word God in the pledge, tax other faiths?
    They dont.
    If the belief that the left is not trying to make if freedom FROM religion is false, what can the left do to change the publics preception?

    “Finally, I want to say this about the extreme right, so you may want to skip the next three paragraphs, tim.”

    No way. You took the time to write it and I will read it.

    “I think extreme right has one and ONLY one objective: to stamp out all vestiges of liberalism in this country - by ANY MEANS NECESSARY.”

    I agree, but I believe you cloud the difference between the right, the extreme right and the conservatives.

    “And they have a dedicated cadre of hatemongers who’ve come to dominate the media, spreading lies, distortions, and propaganda.”

    Funny how I view the very same things to be true of liberals.

    “The extreme right isn’t particularly interested in actually governing, and it shows. They aren’t very good at it and have messed up a lot (the economy, Iraq, Katrina, etc.). So when things go wrong (as they often do), they fall back on their tried and true methodology - attack the left.”

    Sorry, just your partisan opinion.

    “The extreme right knows very well that the accusation gets more publicity than its denial and disproof. And they also konw that a lie repeated often enough will start to be mistaken for the truth. The left’s primary problem is when they try to speak up, they are continuously shouted down by this cadre of extreme right wing hate-mongers.”

    Again, this is how I see liberals.

    “I love my country more than you can possibly know, tim. I still get teary-eyed occasionally when they play the Star Spangled Banner. I’ve donated blood, time, and money to support our troops. I’ve sent care packages to soldiers I don’t know, alomg with notes of support.”

    So do I and I have done the same things and have some very close friends currently over in Iraq.

    “And I grieve for my country because I’m afraid that the exteme right wing cadre that runs it is actually running it into the ground.”

    I said the exact same thing throughout the 90’s about the liberals, the extreme left wing cadre that ran the country then.

    Posted by: kctim at October 14, 2005 1:09 PM
    Comment #85839

    “If it isn’t true, why do they keep on saying it?”

    They keep saying it because the left has given them no reason or explanation to not.
    The left has to face facts, millions of voters believe registration and banning is anti 2nd Amendment.
    If the left cares about their vote, they should listen to them.

    “The reason taxes don’t have to be raised to pay for social programs is because of a Democratic budget philosophy called “pay as you go”. It involves cuts in other areas and reducing the deficit. Since “pay as you go” has been the policy of Democrats for twenty years, it’s a reasonable conclusion that when the Right says that Dems want to raise taxes, they’re lying.”

    I know of pay as you go and its a nice soundbite.
    If it were really pay as you go, then why do we get tax increases?
    Cost of living? Not with a true pay as you go. Govt should cut programs instead of paychecks. Pay as you go does not mean you can discount so-called new programs either.
    Did clinton raise taxes?

    “You wanna talk about flag burning?”

    Not really. You asked if I was suggesting that the minority should be able to prevent the majority from getting what it wants.
    I gave two examples of what the majority of Americans also want.
    Now, if you think the majority rules in all cases, fine. Its your right to think so.
    But, if you pick and choose where and when the majority rules, you are wrong.

    BTW: I support a persons right to burn the flag.

    “Religious freedom has a LOT to do with taxes. A tax-supported institution (a public school or university, a county, state, or federal courthouse, etc.) is supported by taxes collected from EVERYONE, regardless of their religious beliefs. So that institution shouldn’t be using taxpayer money from people of ALL faiths to promote one single faith.”
    If they do so (by including a prayer at a public school function, or by posting the ten commandments in a courthouse, for example), they are in effect taxing EVERYONE in order to promote the values of one particular faith.”

    You didnt answer my question.
    How does a kid using her 1st Amend. right, by singing a religious song or thanking a God for her good fortune, equate to the govt promoting or sponsoring a particular religion?

    “If you think it’s a good use of taxpayer dollars to post the ten commandments in a courthouse, you shouldn’t have any objection to using taxpayer dollars to post the five pillars of Islam in that same courthouse and with the same prominence.”

    It has very little to do with taxpayer dollars. Didnt Moore or one of them guys say they would use their own money?
    Im an atheist and I really dont care whats posted in a public building. I respect the fact that this country was founded by Christian influences.
    That lack of respect from the left costs them millions of votes.

    “A commencement prayer at a private school is fine - a commencement prayer at a public school function is not.”

    A student is a citizen of the US, not a govt official. They are NOT representives of the govt.
    They are entitled to freedom of speech and freedom of religion and can thank whoever in the hell they want when given the forum to do so.
    Not allowing them is extreme and is considered freedom FROM religion to many.

    “Look - I am a centrist. I used to vote Republican a fair amount of the time.”

    Funny, I used to vote Dem more often.

    “But their lock-step march to the far right over the last 25 years has left me out in the cold.”

    Also funny. The Dems marxist march to the extreme left, far away from the Constitution, over the last 15 years has pissed me off.

    Its actually pretty disappointing to see that the lefts answer to losing elections is to move even further left.


    Posted by: kctim at October 14, 2005 4:33 PM
    Comment #376811

    Well to each their own and people are definitely entitled to their own opinions. It all really depends upon your morals and the people that have failed as well. Some people set themselves up to fail and some need to fail. When it comes to them doing wrong and the things that they are doing they should not be succeeding at, then yes they need to fail and you should be happy about it.
    Jak Manson | http://www.yourgiftfind.com/default.asp?dept_id=81000

    Posted by: Jak Manson at February 25, 2014 10:32 AM
    Post a comment