The fact that the administration's ads are based upon the defense against investigations should tell us something. There wouldn't be any fear of "embarrassing and potentially painful investigations into pre-war intelligence, WMDs, domestic wiretapping, and other as yet unseen nooks and/or crannies of the kitchen sink" if the administration had approached the war ethically and above board.

The fact is that the administration has decided to finally draw a few lines in the sand and take ethical stands on certain issues, like the war on terror and immigration. The positions they've taken are moderate and principled and not popular with segments of their own party. It's a gutsy thing to do, and will likely be paid back with a great deal of short-term resentment and grousing, but that may not hold true at the polls when as usual voters are faced with choosing between two unappealing alternatives and bite the bullet and take the less repulsive one.

Dave

Yes the Dems are going to swoop in and sweep the 06 elections and save us all.

There will be world peace and prosperity for all once the Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge. Oh happy day!

"A consistent criticism of the Bush administration is that it is long on politics and short on governing."

They epitomize the current flock of corporate characters who know how to GET the job but don't know how to DO it.

Dave, if the Dems nominate a moderate like Wes Clark or Mark Warner, I can't see the public putting trust back in the GOP. At least I hope not.

There's nothing more peaceful than a well-managed police state, AC. When we have Pelosi and Reid in charge to tell us what we're aloud to do and think our lives will all be much simpler

Dave

Hold on, I'm getting a call from the NSA.

The NSA: "Suspending your rights for the duration of the endless war"

Dave: I think maybe it would be prudent if you actually like woke up now and paid attention.

Hold on scott I'm getting a call fromt he UN.

UN: When the Dems are in charge here's how we plan on running America..........

Pelosi: Iran is threatening to Nuke us.

Reid: Hmmm we better ask Kofi Annnan what to do

Pelosi: Of course.

Dave says:

The fact is that the administration has decided to finally draw a few lines in the sand and take ethical stands on certain issues, like the war on terror and immigration.

What "ethical stand" has it taken on the war on terror? I think everyone agrees that "terror" is bad.

I actually applaud Bush's attempt at "rational" immigration policy. I absolutely love Clift's (I believe) piece talking about how this is the right message, wrong messenger.

EB, you're great people but I think this all amounts to well-written wishful thinking.

I have heard this for six years. Bush was "not legitimate" because of the controversy in 2000. Surely he would get boxed in and destroyed in 2002. Surely the people will hold Bush responsible in 2002 for the lapses that allowed 9/11 to happen. Surely Bush will be defeated in 2004 with such low approval numbers stemming from the unpopular war in Iraq. Surely the Anti-Bush/Anti-Republican masses will flock to the polls to hand Bush a stinging defeat and begin the impeachment hearings. Democrats and their allies in the press (and yes, Republicans have allies in the press as well, granted) have been repeating this since Bush's inauguration. I'm just not buying what's being sold. This is a distillation of the storylines that have been floated during this presidency.

Hell, we heard President Clinton might not last the week when the Lewinsky scandal first broke and he finished his term. It's not even just a GOP/Dem thing. I think the "Beltway" mentality that serious watchers of Washington have is very disconnected from the rank and file voters. I think there is a lot of Bush fatigue but I don't think it is a massive push for immediate change.

I've been wrong before and might be again: I continue to believe 2006 is going to play to a virtual draw with the big showdown coming in 2008.

Dave goes on to say...

There's nothing more peaceful than a well-managed police state, AC. When we have Pelosi and Reid in charge to tell us what we're aloud to do and think our lives will all be much simpler

Say what? From abortion rights to gay rights to privacy rights, the religious conservative agenda -- who, like it or not, holds sway in the GOP, is far more likely to enforce what Americans should "do and think" as compared to even the most fringy, hippie-dripping liberal counterparts.

My man DJR says:

EB, you're great people but I think this all amounts to well-written wishful thinking.

This piece is basically an anlysis of the current conventional wisdom.

I'd be the last person to underestimate Rove and co., and as the top of the article suggests, the "storyline" is poised to show GOP gains from now until November.

For example, if Bush bumps up even a point or two in polls, you're going to see pols falling all over themselves, talking about how they've turned the corner.

Conversations from a Democrat majority part II......

Reid: Kofi says we better sit tight and wait to see what happens.

Pelosi: Ok I have an appointment with my plastic surgeon this afternoon to get my weekly 100,000 cc botox injection in my face.

Reid: And I have to attend banquet for Bill Clinton. He's getting the man of the year award from Hooters.

Pelosi: Again?

T. Kennedy: Er ...um er.. um .....is it happy hour yet?

Like you and I (and many others) have said over and over... six months is an eternity in politics. The storylines will change 2 or three times between now and then- all the more reason I expect a virtual draw (likely in the form of a couple-seat pickup by Dems without either chamber switching control).

Dave says; "There's nothing more peaceful than a well-managed police state, AC. When we have Pelosi and Reid in charge to tell us what we're aloud to do and think our lives will all be much simpler"

Now this makes a monday morning worthwhile, a bit of light comedic fantasy to start the week off right. I can only wonder what version of alternate reality Dave occupies that allows him to even type this drivel after we have had all the stink and dust up over all the crap that has come out of this administration.

From the Plame leak, to the now Attorney General saying the old Inquisition tradition of waterboarding is ok, to GITMO and abu Grahib, bypassing FISA and the 1934 Telecom act and who knows what other fun breaches of our rights.

Yeah, defend Bush , but call the opposition a "police state", good old Dave wins today's "Orwellian Award" presented by Karl Rove. The award is a nice depleted uranium bust of Machiavelli kissing Geobbels, suitable for the mantle piece.

Keep up the good work!

Can we ever have a political discussion without both sides leaping to the extremes lobbing water balloons at each other? Jesus, talk about political drivel.

The fact is the American public--based on every poll taken by every pollster--is growing more concerned and frightened by the administration's approach. I've talked to key Republican operatives in D.C. who are scared to death. I've also talked to Dem. operatives who admit the Dems aren't really prepared to take advantage of the situation.

Pelosi & Reid are weak, will always be weak, and will have nothing to say about 2008 and very little effect on 2006. Bringing them up is just creating a straw man and knocking him down. It shows no political savvy or understanding of how the process works.

Eric has written a thoughtful, well-research piece that was long on ideas and short on polemics. The posters on this thread would do well to emulate his approach.

In Decaf Veritas

But Mark, Ted Kennedy killed someone!

(Runs away)

Era...era..I did not...era...kill that women! She...era...should have known better than to...era...get in a car with a drunk like me!

era...waitress..can I have another Chivas?

Teddy!

Suss Ted Kennedy was cleared of all charges over 40 years ago.
Repeatedly bringing it back up is not going to change that fact.

Era...my son is..era...making his father proud...era...I am sure he will...era by successfull in killing someone...era while on a bender!

teddy

If the retort to the question, "Is the GOP in trouble?" is things like Ted Kennedy "jokes" and Pelosi botox allusions (bad taste on the first, who the hell cares on the latter, says I), I don't think that speaks very well for Republican chances this November!

Circling back to DJR's thoughtful remarks: you may well be right. However, I'd say that the Dems have the best chance since '94 to take back a house of Congress, with the House looking like the best bet. Indeed, the number of competitive House seats current held by Republicans has dramatically increased over the last six months.

That said, the Dems have a long road ahead -- if they don't understand that very stark fact, they will once again be disappointed.

"When we have Pelosi and Reid in charge to tell us what we're aloud to do and think our lives will all be much simpler"

Glad to see others point out NSAlle's foolishness and/or dishonesty. It always baffles me that people find him so smart when he completely lacks any wisdom. Apparently, he's easily bought off with tax cuts and people are impressed by links that work. Not a personal attack, but an opinion derived from his writings.

EB - #11 - amen!

McShannon - The GOP wants to equate Democrats with Pelosi because they *don't* want Democrats equated to Mark Warner. At least they have a little brains, b/c that's not a battle they're ready for. Especially now.

And Heckler, yes--the police state is what we're getting glimpses of now. While I, like every American, am ethically opposed to terrorism, the proper stand was not to incompletely "declare war" on it. There's a brilliant essay out today suggesting "Only Cowards think we're at war." Methinks Americans are finally waking up to that fact.

The question is not whether or not the DEMS take the house, senate or Whitehouse...the question is what will they do once they win?

Me thinks the win will be just one battle in the war...there is no platform and there are no leaders in the Dem party...at least not yet..and please dont mention "Osama Boomrocka" Ted kennedy

These are just the facts!

Hmm. From Princeton. I guess there's nothing left to say if those are just the facts.

I concede. I'm going off right now to change my allegiance to the GOP. I'm now a neocon.

Goddamn liberal pinko weak-kneed mommy-boys in the Democrap party gonna turn this country into fag-town if we real men don't stand up fer America and what she really means to real Americans. They don't know nothing', they don't do nothing', they don't stand fer nothin' except taking from the rich and givin' to the poor. Damn communists if you ask me. And Nancy Pelosi is about as cute as a cotton ball soaked in garlic. So there.

How'm I doin?

In Decaf Veritas

You don't like the Botox allusions? Why not? I mean, it's something only Democrats apparently because Republicans have no vanity.

And Kennedy causing the death of a woman and lying about it is hilarious. Of course, they don't want to deal with the number of deaths Bush's lies have caused.

Who knew a simple topic like politics would turn ugly?

Knock me over with a feather.

Hey wait a minute... The Great Stain Maker - Bill Cliton has already set precedent -- remember its ok to lie!

Roger ...once again Bush didn't lie but I know that you think repeating it over and over makes it true.....

Yes the GOP is faltering....their leadership and handling of the nation have been less than satisfactory.......

HOWEVER.....

Being that the Democrats have nothing to offer but criticism of the GOP.. I mean let's face it the Dems don't have any to offer int he way of solving any of America's problems, I think that you guys are jumping the gun on the 06 elections

In the fall of 2004 I kept hearing about how Kerry was going to win because the war was so unpopular and messy... Bush's poll numbers were low......the economy was in the tank..........yet Kerry still lost and the Democrats obviously haven't learned anything form this loss as thier main appeal to voters is "we're not republicans"

If that's the best they can do between now and november they're not going to take control of anything.

Speaking about liars Princeton and who invented them let's just overlook Nixon... Right?

Repuke, go back a little farther.

"Read my lips, 'No New Taxes.'"

Obviously you're in the city and not the college.

Arch with Republicans kissing up to Jerry Falwell and acting as puppets for the moral majority, and Bush outsourcing and dismanteling NASA so he can have a moonbase named after him, the Dems may have a better chance than you think...

Solus mei sententia
Jet

"I know that you think repeating it over and over makes it true"

Actaully, I'm mocking your continual foolish and lame responses. When you make a serious arguement, which will be the first time, than you'll get a serious response. Anthony Grande thinks you are immature and that your comments look like bad parodies of conservatives.

I've said this enough times before that it shouldn't need to be said again, but here it is for all of those who thought I was confused or lying or whatever other silly shit they said about my comment on our rights being in danger if Democrats took office.

Here's the difference between the two political parties in a nutshell. Republicans are willing to abuse very specific and limited rights of a few individuals on a short term or extra-legal basis to achieve their goals. Democrats are willing to permanently legislate away basic rights from the entire population with no hope of redress.

In short, the Republicans are willing to run a pragmatic and high-handed state which respects the rights of the people as a whole and generally leaves them alone. The Democrats believe in a state which literally controls and determines the day to day nature of the lives of the people.

Yes, there are a few nutcases in the GOP who want to limit the rights of select groups to engage in 'immoral' behavior, but that's a far cry from seeing the lifestyle of most Americans as inherently immoral and wanting to socially restructure the entire country, which many Democrats believe in.

Dave

And again, Dave states emphatically: "Republicans are willing to abuse very specific and limited rights of a few individuals on a short term or extra-legal basis to achieve their goals. Democrats are willing to permanently legislate away basic rights from the entire population with no hope of redress."

Yet offers not one shred of any kind of evidence nor proof to back up the bullshit talking point allegations.

Just doing his job to stir up as much shit against his opposition as possible. Stick to talking about actual facts, Dave. You're much better at that.

Well isn't that basically what you do Roger? Repeat tired leftists catchphrases over and over?

"Bush lied, soldiers died."

mmmmOK where's your proof?

I mean it's not as if the CIA, British Intel, high ranking members of the Iraqi govt/military, Russian Intel, and Slick Willie himself said there were WMD's in Iraq right?

But Bush is the only one who lied right?


I think you have it right Nalle.

With regard to who you think the GOP is beholden to Jet.........

Don't you think American voters are disgusted by whom the Dem party is beholden to? ACLU, Illegal aliens, abortion mills, homosexual interest groups, anti-christian atheists, terrorist appeasers and apologizers, race baiting meglomaniacs...etc....

While the American public is neither far left or far left I fail that is fair to say that based on the elections within the past ten years they are slightly right of center as a whole.

Sorry Heckler, I thought the examples to back up my general points were pretty damned obvious.

It's the difference between the Plame affair and the Kelo case in Connecticut. The difference between outing a CIA agent for political reasons and destroying the lives of hundreds and placing the property rights of every citizen in limbo.

It's the difference between 'abusing' the rights of a few terrorists by monitoring their phonecalls and banning SUVs and taking away the rights of a whole nation to drive safe and capacious vehicles if they're willing to pay the fuel cost.

Sorry, thought these things were pretty damned obvious.

Dave

Nalle they're only interested in examples that advance the idea that conservatives want to take away our rights and freedoms while Democrats want to preserve them.


Shame on you for not providing examples that do such .

Arch is right, as a whole the nation is fairly centrist. Whoever sells that centrism better tends to win. The GOP has gotten awfully good at doing this while scaring the bejeezus out of people in the process.

Dave - I find your argument baffling, but we usually tend to differ on most things political. (It seems to boil down: it's okay if our side breaks the law because we are Good and do it for the Right Reasons. The other side is Bad because they will legally do things that are Bad.)

Overall: the stupid jokes are really nothing more than stupid, and the "jabs" are mind-searingly tired.

Obvious perhaps, but still with no basis in objective reality.

Could you please cite or link to this Bill to take away your SUV that you appear to be afraid of?

I tend to agree with you about Kelo, but fail to see how that is part of the democratic agenda, could you point out where in the party platform the removal of personal property rights is? I must have missed it when they shifted from democrats to outright socialists, decent straw man though.

And outing a CIA operative knowingly is a felony, and could be considered treason in times of war, especially by UCMJ standards if applicable.

I do love how you are trying to compare torture and violation of federal laws (FISA and 1943 communications act), whcih is being done by this administration, and legally "justified" by the sitting Attorney General, with some ficticious paranoid raving about the evil dems trying to take away your HumVee.

Time to stop sniffing glue, Dave, seriously. We are beginning to get worried about you, and will need to hold an intervention if this keeps up.

I'll just add another blatant example from our campuses and universities.

Liberals claim to be for free speech and they consider the displaying of a picture of the virgin mary covered in dung as art, they consider speeches railing against all things conservative, republican or christian as shining examples of free speech.

Yet the liberals who run these idoctrination camps called colleges often say not to conservative guest speakers, try to silence any right of center expression by students, and encourage students to harass conservative speakers when they actually do come to speak.


In anutshell most liberals only believe in free speech for like minded people. everyone else must be silenced.

And again Arch, show me any example of someone trying to stifle the First Amendment, and I'll be right there next to you fucking them up.

But a lot of people keep citing this kind of shit with no back-up, just vague generalities.

Yet the headlines every day show clear examples of what the current Republicans are doing. And that is the kind of shit everyone shoudl be pissed about.

I find it hard to believe that people like Eric and Heckler are so blinded by loyalty that they don't see the platform of massive rights abuses lurking under the surface in the Demcoratic party just waiting to surface. Do you not listen to Air America? Do you not read DailyKos? Are you not familiar with Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, MoveOn.org and the other forces driving your party towards a socialist agenda which will destroy all of the values which even you, as Americans hold dear?

As someone in the GOP I am fully aware of how a party can get subverted by extremists offering votes in exchange for policy changes which seem acceptable but lead to excesses. From the outside I can see the same thing happening to the Democrats who are incredibly vulnerable to the subversion of the extremists who offer to bring them back into power at the cost of just a few policy changes...and then a few more...and then a few more...it's incremental and the end result is a transformed state, a kinder, better and less free nation.

Dave

And again Arch, show me any example of someone trying to stifle the First Amendment, and I'll be right there next to you fucking them up.

Let me help you out here. In response to the activities of campus conservatives and christian groups, almost every university in the nation has implemented rules restricting any form of protest or political activity to 'free speech zones', and banning those activities anywhere else on campus, despite the fact that no real disruption was going on.

Dave

Dave, again you mistake me for a democrat. I'm not, never been registered to any party, but have been a registered voter for 28 years now.

So no, I don't listen to that, or go to those websites.

To flip the script, do they really represent their constituents? Careful with your answer, or you will have to stipulate that Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Duke, Liddy, Falwell, Dobson, et al accurately represent the GOP.

So spare me the weak attempts and bring your "A" game, you know , the one with facts to be discussed or interperted. This kind of ad hominem straw man bullshit is beneath you. You make assertations of the worst kind with nothing to back it up, and then make excuses for today's headlines. How long have you been converted to the Dark Side by Darth Rove?

And lay off the Ibogaine, remember what it did to Eagleton.

Our culture is rife with examples and usually acknowledged by anyone who is not part of that liberal thuggery going on but I will humor you anyway Heckler.

Condaleeza Rice was recently invited to speak at Boston College. Several faculty objected to her speaking there and tried to have the invitation rescinded. There reason was that she did not represent the jesuit values of BC. I guess all the pro-choice guest speakers they had did though huh. Anyhow a number of faculty members tried to stop her from speaking there. When they couldn't they encouraged students to go to the protest and cause a ruckus so as not to allow Ms. Rice to be heard. One professor, Steve Almond, even resigned over it. He was one of the professors who encouraged students to harass Ms. Rice while she was speaking.

There are countless other examples Heckler.

And those students and faculty were excercising their own Free Speech rights, as well as their right to organize and demonstrate, were they not?

It seems to me the Professor who resigned over it can be called nothing less than a man of principle, willing to put his tenure where his mouth is.

Ever hear of Tom Paine?

Bad example, Arch. I get what you are trying to say, and can agree that there are definately kooks on both sides of the aisle.

But my point here is that Dave was trying to compare what HAS been done by a morally bankrupt party, selling out to the Religious Right for some votes, auctioning off the Nation to the K street project, legalising waterboarding (which even the Maelificia of the Inquisition calls torture, and if anyone does you would think the INquisition knew what torture was), violating the 4th amendment and holding citizens without due process for years (Padillo).

There's more, but this kind of shit was being compared to nebulous assertions of what MIGHT happen if the democrats take ONE branch of government?

Please fucking spare me the scare mongering bullshit, and give me back checks and balances?

Then I can heckle both sides again.

New topic: who thinks the GOP will lose the House -- why or why not?

So no, I don't listen to that, or go to those websites.

Perhaps you ought to. Seriously. If you are defending the dems to the point that I mistook you for one here, you really, really need to get up to speed on their agenda.

To flip the script, do they really represent their constituents?

They represent a large and influential constituency within the party and one which the more typical members listen to and take seriously. That's all it takes.

Careful with your answer, or you will have to stipulate that Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Duke, Liddy, Falwell, Dobson, et al accurately represent the GOP.

Bringing up these examples demonstrates some of your ignorance. I'm not sure that Savage and Duke even ARE republicans. In fact, I'm positive Savage isn't, and I know Duke used to be a Democrat. And others like Limbaugh and Liddy basically support a pretty hands-off and rights-preserving view of government.

Dave

Eric, with only 15 seats to take instead of the 40 the republicans needed in '94, and with the same kind of poll numbers (but reversed) and with an even less popular president...

Yes, I do think the democrats take the House in november, the Senate is too close ot call yet.

Yes, Heckler, I'm using the problems in the GOP as a point of reference. The point being that what happened in the GOP and which it is still struggling to recover from, is set to happen to the Democrats if they get into power and I don't think they have the strength in their more traditional elements to recover from it.

Dave

Wasn't the Kelo case decided by a rightist Supreme Court? If that, and P.C. excess at colleges, are the only examples that Dave and Arch can come up with to support their position that a Democratic-controlled government would somehow "take away our rights," then it's a pretty poor position. What are some other examples? Also... colleges have been havens of P.C. excess for at least a couple of decades. It hasn't seemed to have had much effect on who voters decide to put in Washington.

wait, so she spoke?

jesus, this is going fast. 53 was to 46.

Well Dave, after the republicans get their own shit back in order, and are NOT running the entire government in single party unaccountable mode, then we can talk about how bad the dems are.

Until then, it appears that you are just pre-emptively flinging mud, which is of course the Rove strategy as outlined in the last two weeks talking points from the WH.

So, pardon me for mistaking you for one of the drones, it's just because you are making the same noises.

seek professional help, we'll get you off the model glue yet.

Heckler, the GOP's failures have created this opportunity for the radical left to advance their agenda, that's true. But opposing the nightmare before it comes is essential, because after we're under the boot of the new order it's going to be a lot harder to get our rights back.

Dave

after we're under the boot of the new order it's going to be a lot harder to get our rights back.

Them's fightin' words... why won't you fight? What are the rights that are going to be taken away?

The GOP has only itself to blame for the current mess, having gotten it wrong on nearly every front. I am a life long Republican whose never ever voted for a single Dem. But for those of us who find the ultra left wing radical socialists of the Dem party (Pelosi, Boxer, Schumer, Clinton, Conyers, Rangel) repulsive, we are left with no where to turn. The list of GOP follies is endless: (1) lied us into war (when such lies were unnecessary to justify toppling Sadam ); (2) showed utter hypocrisy as to federalism with the Terry Schiavo debacle: (3) squandered a surplus and set up deficits for at least another decade by giving tax breaks to the wealthiest folks and entities, showing once and for all that (a) the GOP hates the poor and middle class and (b) cares not iota about fiscal restraint if such restraint impedes their reverse Robin Hood mentality: (4) despite massive deficits and NO worthwhile trade,industrial or jobs policy, the GOP fervently supports the repeal of the anti-dynasty tax (Estate Tax) which will be a multi TRILLION dollar gift to the super rich over time and further exacerbate deficits; (5) most recently, they refuse to get serious and tough on criminal aliens because American business beleives its entitled to dirt cheap labor (6,000 new border agents is pathetic) - if Bush were SERIOUS the number wuld be at least 200,000 and the policy for those crossing illegally would be shoot to kill; and (6) taking an ostrich approach to environmental problems, denying the patently obvious like global warming and ozone depletion while providing tax breaks to the oil oligarchy the GOP created.

Dems are worse and represent every nutty fringe group in the country by supporting indefensible things like gay marriage and affirmative action while insisting 14 year olds be able to obtain abortions without even parental notice. Theyre even against mandating English as the national language yet want 75% of us to fully support and subsidize the bottom 20% (1/2 of whom are illegal), except they leave the top 5% of elites alone (since Dems are hypocrites just like the GOP). De,s would allow every illitarte immigrant in because the Dem party REQUIRES a permamnet helpless underclass to stay relevant. The GOP, on the other hand, cares about the wealthy, the wealhty and the wealthy and survies by pacifiying sex hating, wacko religious fundamentalist bible thumpers by throwing them a bone every now and then (Terry Schiavo).

Both parties cater to the extremes and anyone remotely centrist (McCain in the GOP or Leiberman for the Dems gets excoriated by their own for daring to deviate from party dogma).

We need strict term limits or better yet a third party that cares about common sense, is liberal on some social issues and conservative on others, is TRULY consevrative in terms of conserving the environment and is truly conservative fiscally, meaning CHEAP with other people money and not dying to help the wealthy.

Of course Al Gore thinks he would have been a better President than Bush. With good reason: The bar has been set SO SO SO low by the liars, con artists and snake oil salesman that continually emerge as the leaders of the GOP and the American Socialist Workers Party (Dems) that it would not be difficult for ANYONE with true principles, an egalitarian ethos and genuine preference for American Democracy over unrestrained Capitalism to be a great President. I think any one of my neighbors could be a better Presient than Bush and I KNOW I would be would bet my life on it. Okay, enough ranting.

Well isn't that basically what you do Roger? Repeat tired leftists catchphrases over and over?

"Bush lied, soldiers died."

I have never previously used that catchphrase because I don't think he lied. I'm sure the material by those agencies were what they had. The reason they had that information is another story, like Scooter leaking info to Judy Miller and then Chaney claiming what the NY Times reports, while failing to mention that the info originated from his office. There's the fact that there was other information that contradicted Bush's facts, but not mentioning that isn't technically a lie.

I used "Bush Lied' this time as a reflection of your own nonsense. You are so deep in delusion that you didn't realize that I was mocking your lame attempt at discourse.

I love when people try to claim Kelo is leftist. I don't recall the renovations to include abortion clinics and gay youth hostels. They were for new businesses not communist farm collectives, so please try and look at the bigger picture.

The reason you come off looking foolish, Dave, is because your so worried about the rights you think you will lose under the Dems, yet you don't care about the rights you do lose under the Repubs. Either your too dumb to know what is really going on in the world or your integrity is easily bought off with tax cuts.

Dave re: comment 34: That is the most egregious case of exaggerated hyperbole I've heard in ages. Do you really believe you can characterize two diverse parties with such obvious over-simplifcations and distortions? Your claims don't even deserve a detailed response because they've got no basis in reality.

This entire thread has degenerated to the point where you've all leapt to the other side of Alice's Looking Glass. I'm unsubscribing. Ain't nothing interesting being said here.

In Decaf Veritas.

Two quotes from Roger...........

"I have never previously used that catchphrase because I don't think he lied."

"And Kennedy causing the death of a woman and lying about it is hilarious. Of course, they don't want to deal with the number of deaths Bush's lies have caused."

I'm confused. Do you think Bush lied or not?

Kelo was "leftist"

It was the liberal left leaning judges that decided that it would be ok to seize private property in that case while the right leaning conservative justices disagreed and dissented.

Pretty straightforward Roger.

"I'm confused."

Of course, you are, but there was no need to state it because your ravings illustrate your mindset. I already stated I was mocking your knee-jerk, emphasis on the latter, commentary.

If you are asking if Bush believed the things he said when he said them, I think he did. Was he telling the American people the entire truth of the matter? Absolutely not. He lied by omission.

He should have been a real leader, present all the available information and then state his reasons to the American people why he is making his decisions. Instead, he took the coward's route rather than standing up for his convictions. He only presented what made his case. Could it be that he knew he wouldn't have the support required if he had presented the entire case?

He forgets that he works for the American people. You, Arch, have obviously never been in management because I want the people working for me telling me the entire story. I'm a grown-up and can make my own decisions. You and your rabble are coddled like children, which is why you have to be scared into listening to someone else who'll take care of you from the President to the preacher.

Eric #21...I love it when the Repubs bring up the Ted Kennedy incident over and over for it just shows how desperately they are grasping at straws. For God's sake....Repugs...get over it!
Everyone knows it was a terrible tragedy. The Dems don't harp constantly over the Nixon fiasco, and that was a pre-meditated crime. Ted and Clinton just couldn't control their raging hormones...and haven't we all been there????

Dave #56 from where I sit it looks more the the republipriests are trying to take everyone's rights away, especially privacy to mention one.

"The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the sky is falling", Chicken Little AKA Al Gore

Hey Jet you had better say 10 Hail Marys for that one...

Dave #56 from where I sit it looks more the the republipriests are trying to take everyone's rights away, especially privacy to mention one.

I submit that that's because of where you're sitting. The group who the religious right want to screw over isn't the general population, just a small minority who they think they can get away with victimizing. From your perspective that does, indeed, suck, but for most of us it's just something we observe and look on with distaste while not being personally impacted.

Dave

There's an old military adage, that the enemy is always either 4 feet tall or 10 feet tall. When Eric says that the Bush administration is "long on politics and short on governing", I think he's misperceiving an opponent.

The current team barely beat the two least charismatic presidential candidates in history. Yes, Bush did beat them, but does that make him "long on politics"? There have been dozens of missteps in politics, such as the Miers nomination, the ports, Rove's scandal, and the endorsement of Specter. Errors in politics, not governance.

They failed to defend Ashcroft during the first term, Cheney during the second. They've been massacred on leaks (sorry, "whistle-blowers"). They've consistently stood by their enemies in Congress, and opposed their friends. Even in international matters, like trusting the French on the Security Council, their mistakes have been in politics rather than policy. The most frequent criticism of the war, that it's made the US hated around the world, is a criticism about perception.

I smell a commenter going under multiple names. I'm no comment editor, but I'd knock it off if it t'was me.

Baronius -- Bush is a flat-out shrewd politician (under the guidance of Rove). By any measure, the Bush Years of 1999-2004 are remarkable political work. We're only now seeing its unraveling.

But politics and policy and governing are all different things. I think many people are experiencing buyer's remorse these days. It all stems from the war, but the seeds of discontent have been sown for a number of years now.

Dave - I haven't checked in on your takes in a while, but you're s bit wacky throughout here. If we believe you, we would therefore agree that we're all still recovering from the fascist dictatorship leftist/communistic Cultural Revolution/Little Red Book era-of-bloodpain known as the Clinton Years.

So: not so much.

So what are all you GOP bashing know it alls going to say when you wake up one morning this Nov and find out the Dems still don't have a majority?

"There's nothing more peaceful than a well-managed police state, AC. When we have Pelosi and Reid in charge to tell us what we're aloud to do and think our lives will all be much simpler"

"Aloud"!? Really. Dave is the last person I would have thought of to make this elementary mistake. The hapless victim of lax liberal education standards. Perhaps that victimization explains the constant harping against liberals, to the point of embracing some ideology, any ideology, that is contrary to the liberal precepts of his oppressors in academe. Even to the contrived and spurious variation known as Neocon. How revealing. How sad.

The only thing more amazing is the slavish copying of that linguistic mistake by his auditors.

Depends. Is suicide legal?

Seriously, this Independent has no hope under GOPs or DINOs, so, whatever.

Oddly enough, I think the socialist MSM unwittingly helped Bush keep his conservative base longer than he had any right to. The SMSM's insistence that Bush was a far-right wacko made him look good in the eyes of the base, and gave them a reason to be loyal to him. Had the SMSM been able to look past their own dogmas and loyalty to the Democratic Party, they would have realized that Bush is an evangelical neoconservative. And had they portrayed him as such, enough conservative voters might have stayed home to cost him the '04 election.

I'm back, and notice that Dave said; "The group who the religious right want to screw over isn't the general population, just a small minority who they think they can get away with victimizing. From your perspective that does, indeed, suck, but for most of us it's just something we observe and look on with distaste while not being personally impacted."

Now, take a look at this one closely people. Notice how it appears that Dave and his ilk are going by the NIMBY standard of "promote the general welfare"

It appears that it is OK for the "Liberty Wing" of the republican party to stand idly by and allow a segment of the population to be persecuted by their political brethren, for the sake of expediency.

Where is the outrage that an american miority's rights are being systematically violated, or that bigotry against these citizens is not only condoned, but part and parcel of a political agenda.

For all the bullshit talk of "changing from within" that some like to harp on, let me remind you that THE most marginalized segment of the population has a faction within the GOP.

They are called "Log Cabin Republicans".

The next most marginalized appear to be the "Liberty wing"

Wake up, stop being used, and stand up for your principles. Until then you are part of the problem while you look the other way and actively support the bastards who are fucking up our nation.

Vote gridlock, vote checks and balances. Come November, toss out the single party rule.

"It appears that it is OK for the "Liberty Wing" of the republican party to stand idly by and allow a segment of the population to be persecuted by their political brethren, for the sake of expediency."

Yes! I've been screaming this from the rooftops for years. Problem is, this is the mindset not only of the so-called Liberty Wing of the GOP, but also the mainstream of the Democrat Party. Many libs - including 99.9999999 percent of Dem pols - say they believe in equality and they feel bad that gays are unequal under law, but precious few are willing to voice their outrage in any meaningful way or to take any tangible action to end this gross injustice. And then they have the audacity to get mad when people like me remain true to ourselves and our principles and give our support to third-party candidates. Hello? Why is a party that doesn't fight for my equality going to get my support? If your support of equality is so pathetic, so weak, so lacking that you will only stand up if YOU PERSONALLY are affected, you are a bad, selfish person who only believes in equality for yourself. Equality isn't equality until ALL CITIZENS - including GLBT PEOPLE and conservative Christians and Muslims and atheists and Jews are treated EXACTLY THE SAME and receive THE SAME PROTECTIONS AND RESPONSIBILITIES WITHOUT PREFERENCE AND WITHOUT RESPECT TO RELIGION, MELANIN, ORIENTATION, etc. under civil law.

Arch, the average is just to the right of center, I'd have to agree there totally. That's why the far left has no chance, but a more centrist progressive does.

"homosexual interest groups, anti-christian atheists, terrorist appeasers and apologizers..." I agree that the left pushes atheism too far, but as you may have noted recent articles discuss the strategy of the religious left--I'm an advocate of the idea that progressive ideas and faith can coexist. (I'm usually not received all that well on DailyKos for that reason!)

On the other hand, I think the right uses a broad brush to overstate the painting of anyone who expresses dissent as a "terrorist appeaser/apologizer," and further I think it's counterproductive to label someone who tries to recognize what it really is they're upset about (support of Israel). By failing to recognize, we can't fix the problem.

I don't think it's so much that Democrats are appeasers, but rather that the Right's media machine (Hannity) has succeeded in convincing America that they are.

Trust me, the DINOs *are* appeasers who castigate those with integrity. Many of them are also crooks and liars and terrorists and bloody-handed killers by virtue of their appeasement of the Bushites and status quo types and centrists and such.

Dave,

Your Dems vs. Repubs comparison deserves attention. You state "It's the difference between the Plame affair and the Kelo case in Connecticut. The difference between outing a CIA agent for political reasons and destroying the lives of hundreds and placing the property rights of every citizen in limbo."

Agreed that the Kelo case is overbearing and that the wrong decision was made in it. But I believe you are suggesting that Plame represents "Republicans are willing to abuse very specific and limited rights of a few individuals on a short term or extra-legal basis to achieve their goals."

The Plame case in one sense damaged a specific person, BUT.. I must observe that outing a CIA agent damages other operatives in the field and those agents' mission and cover. Further, by mounting a deceptive case and suppressing contrary evidence, the Republicans have gotten the entire country into a misguided war.

Therefore, at best (granting you the Kelo example) I would suggest both parties are equally adept at infringing upon the rights of every citizen. Just in a different manner.

Bush is an evangelical neoconservative. And had they portrayed him as such, enough conservative voters might have stayed home to cost him the '04 election.

An interesting idea, Nicholas, but bear in mind that the evangelical vote was at massive levels in 2004. Those were the people that were mobilized and moved to vote in record numbers. Portraying him as an evangelical neoconservative may have only boosted those numbers.

I agree, JP, when you say that the left pushes atheism too far. But the right certainly pushes Christianity too far, as well. Where's the moderating force between these two?

Not saying that I necessarily disagree (still considering the matter), but how do lefties push atheism too much? Heterosexual Christians are top dog: They've got the law, the money, the oaths, etc. on their side ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY.

Nonbelievers have to put up with a lot of shit in this culture, including being ignored and rebuked and having their concerns belittled and reviled by the rest of the electorate. Someone has to stand up for the disenfranchised, and goddess knows the GOP won't, so it's left to the Left. Don't damn them for doing ONE thing right.

Not everyone can go along with "under God." As a very spiritual Christian (and student of Judaism and Buddhism), I am offended by the notion of organized prayer in school (but tell me there isn't praying going on prior to exams or sporting events; there IS prayer in the school for individuals and no one I know is not OK with that). Intelligent Design amuses me (if you're going to address the religious theory in a publicly funded academic setting, the compromise is to teach it as part of comparative religions, not in science). And the sight of a 10 Commandments monument before a government building... whoa: If I saw that in front of the municipal courthouse here, it would convince me that justice is not to be found within the edifice's walls - and I'm Christian. Imagine how an atheist would feel - he or she is supposed to be part of the picture, but no, nonbelievers are excluded, for all the flowery lies spread about this being a nation where all citiens are equal. If anything is anti-American, it's the way in which the majority deals with minority groups. It's unforgivable.

If nonbelievers are part of a country with no established religion and that claims to keep church and state separate (but doesn't, the mendacious, filthy, supremacist bastards), why do the nation's symbols and currency, its recite-by-rote pledge and vile traditions, its leaders who insist that everyone is "under God" focus on believers to the detriment of atheists and agnostics and those who don't fall under the (convenient for certain Christians) Judeo-Christian banner? I don't need the government to support my faith. Too many others, for whatever reason, do, and sdly, those people are in charge and doing damage to their fellow citizen-humans every day.

So: I stand for atheists, agnostics,freethinkers, and non-Christians because it is the American thing to do. Of course, I'm arrogant enough to believe that often (certainly not always), people OUTSIDE the mainstream are more truly American in values and in the way in which they live their lives than those who cleave to the policies and such imposed by the dangerous majority society, which claims one thing yet does another and insists everyone be and believe what everyone else is and does - or else.

Bush is an evangelical neoconservative

Except for the part about being evangelical or neoconservative you're right on the mark here. "Bush is" - quite correct. Now if you can just find something accurate to finish up that sentence you'll be kicking some rhetorical ass.

Dave

Oh Dave, you are aware that Bush refers to himself as a "born again christian" yes? As for him being a "neocon", he himself has not signed up on pnac.org, but his brother Jeb, Checney, Wolfowitz, Perle and so many others in his administration did sign up.

Now, if you hire and listen to a bunch of ideologues, does this not, ipso facto, mean that you are a diciple of said ideology?

A case can be made either way, but if he is not both , then he has been played as a pawn to both.

So, which is it? Is he a raving ideologue out of touch with America or is he a pliable pawn being played by his advisors and completely incompetent to do his job as his own man?

It seems some of my fellow poster may be suffering from an acute persecution complex! Under the current administration - like it or not - more minorities own homes and businesses, more minorities are in real positions of power and MORE NON CHRISTIANS are in positions of power!

IMO the issue is a very few ACLU followers - it has become a religion of its own in its attempt to socialize the country and rewrite history (diminish the role and significance of European founders)

Just one mans option!

Persecution? Talk to me about persecution after you've spent a life unequal under law. Until then, you can tell me nothing that I would take seriously, including your "option[s]".

Unequal under the law???LOL...

The diagnosis is accurate! A severe persecution complex!

I rest my case!

no you don't rest your case. maybe more minorities own houses and businesses, but tell that to the people who live on my street. i don't mean down the block... i mean on the fucking street. 85% of them are black. something unequal is going on when you see that.

maybe more non-christians are in positions of power, but there are more christians mixing religion and politics than ever before as well. before, it didn't matter--christian or non-christian... now, i'm not so sure. since when does the united states go to war after consulting god and ignoring international law?

aclu... a religion? i bow down to protecting my rights (and yours).

zingzing, remember one thing here. There are more minorities numerically than there were before as well.

Simple demographics, if there were a million before and 10% owned homes/businesses, that woudl be 100,000.

If there are 2 million now and 9% own homes and businesses that woudl be 180,000. So it woudl mean there were more that owned such, but a lower percentage of the overall population in question.

See how easy it is for them to spin shit when they think people are too stupid to figure it out?

And folks wonder why I heckle.

damn right. i wasn't going to go look up the numbers. numbers is bunk.

Now zing, numbers is kool, numbers are our friends, and allow us to do so much stuff!!

Dishonest manipulation of numbers are bad, mmmm'kay?

International Law....oh yes the Russians, French and Germans on Sadams payroll...

Gee 85% of the homeless in your neighborhood are black! Hmmm oh thats right thats Bush and Cheneys fault! Here are some stats that are the "black man and womens" problem...

The highest rate was non-Hispanic Blacks, among whom 69.4 percent of births were out-of-wedlock. American Indians have the second highest rate at 58.7 percent, followed by Hispanics at 40.92 percent. Among non-Hispanic whites, 21.54 percent of births are out of wedlock, and Asians/Pacific islanders have the 1owest rate with 15.64 percent of births being out-of-wedlock.

How come whenever I go on one of these discussions and ask the rightwingers for specific examples of their positions, they completely ignore the question? (See # 52 and # 57) Man, is that frustrating.

Actually, come to think of it, NR Davis is on to something:

If your support of equality is so pathetic, so weak, so lacking that you will only stand up if YOU PERSONALLY are affected, you are a bad, selfish person who only believes in equality for yourself

It's true that the vast majority of politicians from both parties are guilty of this. The problem is, those who might have their hearts in the right place know that if they come out strongly in favor of certain things, they will be voted out by their narrowminded, often bigoted constituents.

And this goes some way towards answering my question about why there's a lack of specific examples of rights that would be "taken away" under a left-leaning government. See, it's not that the right wingers are afraid of specific rights being explicity taken away, it's that they're afraid of expansion of existing rights to cover people who are "the other" - who are "not us" - such as LGBT people, atheists, and now illegal immigrants.

Observe the pattern. Right wingers scream bloody murder about the prospect of gay marriage. Or of removing "under God" from the Pledge. And now they turn against their own Dubya when he suggests a guest worker program. It's all the same thing: fear of the other. We all tend to be guilty of it. The difference is that liberals tend to be more willing to admit it and talk about it.

hey heckler, whose side do you think i am on? i am a bit confused by your responses.

NR, just some thoughts here for discussion--I am certainly in favor of rights for all believers and nonbelievers, as well as those with alternative belief systems such as Gnostics, pagans, etc. It's not anyone's business what someone else's belief system is.

But in a country where an overwhelming majority are believers, and Christian at that, it's unrealistic to expect every government entity and every ritual to avoid altogether any reference to a supreme being. Reference doesn't mean endorsement. Atheists (particularly vocal ones) are sometimes guilty of lumping all theists together, such that "all Christians" are Republicans, which also isn't true.

That said, I respect a position against the commandments posted in church, "under God" in the Pledge, even the Bible used for the Oath. But of those 3 examples, only one involves forced behavioral compliance--the Oath. One can simply remain silent during the questionable words in the Pledge, and no behavior with regard to the Commandments is required that I'm aware of.

An agnostic or atheist's position as a minority is hard not to remember--religious symbolism is everywhere. However, if it were removed, would not a believer notice its absence? I don't know how to make both sides happy. Some believers assert that belief affects every facet of life, including public service; for them, denying the right to use symbols or language is a form of oppression.

justoneman--

did i mention bush? no. you painted a rosey picture. i don't think it's so rosey. your statistic is nice... but, like i said, numbers are bunk.

i dunno. maybe i just live in a strange place, but i can't help but figure that being born out of wedlock isn't the only element at play here. actually, the last place i saw the same amount of homelessness was in london. lots of white folk peddling "real change" or whatever they call it there. obviously, it's not just a racial issue. it's also social issue. we can't change race from the outside. but we can change society, so let's start there. what's the problem with that? are you saying, "hey, it's their own damn fault, let them rot..."

zing...

Not at all...that is "in my opinion" the liberal position...get the underclass addicted to social programs and welfare...so they can be manipulated and controlled. In order for people to get up off the ground and rise above their personal misfortunes they must - as a people - abandon the victim mentality and be take responsibility for their actions and fate...

so what do you suggest? what do YOU do about it? obviously, the problem is deeply entrenched. do we let them go, "cold turkey?" somehow, i think that will only worsen the problem. welfare needs reforming, that's obvious. but that reform should be for the benefit of those who need it, not to lessen the load on society.

poverty affects us all. any one of us could be in that boat tomorrow. poverty increases crime and disease, which makes those who aren't impoverished victims by association.

it's a complex problem that can't be summed up in some set of numbers. a multicultural society has good and bad points. it enrichens us with diversity and color. it also breeds misunderstanding and racism. we need to remember our common humanity and our common goals.

Zing...

One-day - one life - one issue at a time! Look what liberal society has done the black race in America...I was embarrassed when Three 6 Mafia wins an Oscar for "It's Hard Out Here For A Pimp"...can you agree that its nothing but a "Minstrel Show" that denigrates a whole race...

Gee pimpin and crack whore are something to celebrate!

It may seem insignificant to some but it is just one more brick in the wall of poverty, racism and despair...

Talk about one man's bogus opinion. As the population grows, so does housing. Also more and more people are getting interest-only loans at a variable rate, and they won't be able to afford them forever. Then get back to me about home ownership

You have to love people who defend Bush with incorrect facts.

"for most of us it's just something we observe and look on with distaste while not being personally impacted."

Talk about elistist. All his positions make sense now. NSAlle doesn't care about the rights of Americans, only his own rights. When they come for you, don't be surprised if there is no one left to speak out as Pastor Martin Niemöller would say.

Oh Dave, you are aware that Bush refers to himself as a "born again christian" yes? As for him being a "neocon", he himself has not signed up on pnac.org, but his brother Jeb, Checney, Wolfowitz, Perle and so many others in his administration did sign up.

Actually, Cheney and Jeb didn't 'sign up'. They signed letters originating with PNAC but are not actual members of the organization.

Now, if you hire and listen to a bunch of ideologues, does this not, ipso facto, mean that you are a diciple of said ideology?

Apparently not, since Bush's foreign policy bears zero resemblance to the PNAC agenda and he's been publicly and loudly condemned by PNAC officials and leaders including Uberneocon William Kristol who is positively rabid in his dislike of Bush and his policies.

Dave

You have to love people who defend Bush with incorrect facts.

"for most of us it's just something we observe and look on with distaste while not being personally impacted."

Talk about elistist. All his positions make sense now. NSAlle doesn't care about the rights of Americans, only his own rights. When they come for you, don't be surprised if there is no one left to speak out as Pastor Martin Niemöller would say.

Roger, I was explaining why the GOP approach is more acceptable to the general public than the more pervasive rights violations of the left, not expressing my personal opinion.

As has been clearly demonstrated here on BC I fully support gay rights and other personal liberty issues regardless of their political acceptability.

Dave

RogerMDildo

Gee low interest rates are the only reason that minorities own businesses and homes...gee give them aliitle more credit...anoth example of the liberal view of victimization and ignorance...those rates are a time bomb...the sky is falling the sky is falling

You hit the nail on the head JUSTONEMAN.

Liberals and democrats view minorities as nothing but pawns in the quest for political power. It is impossible for a minority to better his or herself without voting democrat, without the benefit of some liberal social welfare program, without towing the leftists line and believeing it.


If you're black and a conservative republican the democrats and liberals have no use from you because you're just a deluded race traitor, uncle tom.


No single group in this nation has done more to keep minorities down than the Democratic party. When you tell someone that they are victims and that is all they can ever be without your help and control and then do everything in your power to make sure that this someone gains no independence then you are doing them a great disservice and this is exactly what the Dem party does to minorities.

I hate those rare occasions when AC says something so true, so clearly, that you have to take him seriously.

Dave

#106 and #107 clearly show the Big Lie principle that has lured many decent people into towing the GOP party line. Note how they trot this one out when they are backed into a corner by their own action.

The next best distractions they can come up with are evoking Kennedy, Clinton (either),god, gays, guns and abortion.

Watch for all of the above from a rabid spin doctor drone of the Party near you!

No single group in this nation has done more to keep minorities down than the Democratic party.

What disgusting ignorance. If the Republicans had had full control of the government for the past 50-60 years, minorities wouldn't even be able to vote. We'd be back in the days of poll taxes and "oops, this isn't your polling place, you have to go across town. And hey, where's your ID? What, there's no bus? Oh, well, try again next time."

Jon, not to absolove the Republicans of all their wrongdoings but it was southern, white Democrats who oversaw much of the segregation and civil rights abuses during the Civil Rights movement.

I guess what I am saying (and I have not looked through all 109 of the comments) is that both major parties have plenty of warts and embarassing moments.

True, DJR, but Republicans have been the worst at exploiting race-based fears over the last several decades. It's rather fascinating that Bush is getting crushed by his own conservative base -- which he has tended and fed and watered for the whole of his presidency -- over immigration.

Yes - very true about the southern white Democrats. But I'm really referring to the post-Nixon Republican Party. Too often we talk about Republicans and Democrats as if they are constant forces. When I rail against the Republicans I am referring to the Party of the last few decades, as Eric B. points out.

Another example of what I am talking about is the knee-jerk opposition of today's Republicans to equal rights for gays. Talk about keeping minorities down.

Heckler and sobel....couple of lefties accusing all republicans of being racist while denying thier own parties politics of victimization and dependency.......

NOthing new there.

Arch - do you even actually read the comments you're responding to?

I don't think it is settled fact that Republicans have been more egregious in using the "race" card or fear mongering tactics.

I just don't think the world breaks down neatly between Good Guys and Republicans (or vice versa) which, unfortunately, is what too many of our nation's political debates degenerate into. Reality is messier than that.

Sobel....

The gay issue is not a Republican issue!

Latest polss show that less than 40% approve of gay marraige and 60% disapprove...hmmm based upon your logic Bush would have won by a landslide...but it doesnt matter a win is a win...

The gay issue is not a Republican issue!

Perhaps not directly, but it is a moral issue, and the Left has the morally superior position on it and many others. Just watch - in another 10 years that 40-60 split will be reversed, because the populace is gradually waking up. Most people used to think "separate but equal" was OK too.

"Perhaps not directly, but it is a moral issue, and the Left has the morally superior position on it and many others."


Righhhhhht

Liberals are so morally superior.......that's why they advocate infanticide with a smile. That's why they stick up for the civil rights of NAMBLA but attack Catholic charities.

[Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

Jon -- I largely agree but that thinking leads to dangerous territory. For a long time now Dems think they *should* win but for a variety of reasons they don't.

DJR -- Republicans have been better -- flat out -- at using wedge issues to rile up their base while splintering the opposition.

zingzing asks me ;"i am a bit confused by your responses." Good, then I'm doing my job right.

Dave states; "Actually, Cheney and Jeb didn't 'sign up'. They signed letters originating with PNAC but are not actual members of the organization."

Wrong-o there buddy, check the pnac.org website, go to the mission statement page, find Dick and Jeb there. If you dig around there, you will find part of the neocon public policy for the mid-east as of 1997 or so was a burning wish for some kind of "pearl harbor" type incident (Kristol's words , not mine) so they could invade a mid-east arab country and set up permanent military bases and expand influence in an imperial fashion.

Kind of like what Bush is trying in Iraq? I think the evidence bears out such a proposition, expecially since the policy was drafted by Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld. All of whom are signatories to that mission statement.

And finally, Arch claims; "Heckler and sobel....couple of lefties accusing all republicans of being racist while denying thier own parties politics of victimization and dependency......."

First off Arch old bean, I fucking defy you to find anywhere that I have ever called anyone "racist". Also, check all my comments, I have said often I am no democrat or republican, but a registered independant.

Now, live up to your state motto, "Live Free or die"

heckler... what side do you think i am on?

i am not sure if you understand what i am saying with your responses...

what do i have to say?

zing, you don't have ta say anything. Say what you want to say, I'm fine with that.

If you are made to think by a bit of confusion induced by what I say, then I am doing my job correctly.

A simple example just this once for you. You made a statement about hating numbers, and I responded that numbers our great, it's bad manipulation of numbers that is bad.

Make more sense now?

Infanticide with a smile... yeah, that's reasonable talk. I'm guessing you're talking about abortion. I respect a person's right to believe that abortion is morally wrong, but I don't understand this business of wanting to extend rights to fetuses and embryos while refusing them to fully grown, functional citizens who happen to be gay.

Unlike Heckler, I have called people racist on occasion when I believe it to be accurate. Of course Republicans aren't all racists, far from it. But today's right-wing policies tend towards discriminatory results. (I am happy to provide examples other than gay issues, if asked.) This is a moral failing and hence, according to my own moral sense and beliefs - of course YRMV - the Left has the moral high ground on issues like this.

heckler... don't be condescending. it's kinda ugly. maybe the reason i don't like numbers is because they are so open to manipulation... does that make some sense? i trust it does. i didn't think that it needed to be said. maybe i was wrong.

i have nothing against anything you have said so far as i remember. i'm just here to combat people like justoneman, who, while entitled to his opinion, has a rather simplistic view of things. i think he is wrong.

do you really think confusion adds to a political debate? i'm not so sure that it does. maybe you are making a point. if so... you missed me. but whatever.

i don't think welfare is working to its full potential. but i do believe that it is not something we can abandon, as that would just worsen an already horrible problem.

it would seem to me that you would be on the same side of the fence as me, or at least not closed to the idea.

but your first little south park reference made it seem like you think i just don't like numbers for some nebulous reason. something random. i'm not sure. maybe you were throwing that one at me, trying to make a point to someone else. i get it... it was the point i was making in the first place.

zing, no being condescending on my part, truly. Yes, I am ugly in many ways. Your next sentance is spot on, and the very point I was making in my "south park" comment.

As to what "side" I am onk, the answer is no side. I don't pick arbitrary sides, I deal with issues, and I heckle sloppy thinking no matter where it comes from.

Purely for my own amusement and edification.

As for sowing confusion. Confusion is good, it shakes the mental cobwebs loose and forces people to think about something that they had taken for granted. If I cause that for anybody, then I have done my job title as well as amused myself.

Selfish and greedy bastard that I am.

okay. i agree with most things that you have to say here, although i believe politics confuses itself enough through deliberate confusion. i mean, how the hell does honestly wanting to help the poor turn into manipulative racism? can't people see the difference?

the whole thing is stupid.

#106 and #107 clearly show the Big Lie principle that has lured many decent people into towing the GOP party line. Note how they trot this one out when they are backed into a corner by their own action.

And here's the classic technique of the left, to compare everything to Hitler so that they don't have to deal with truths they can't disprove and are uncomfortable with.

The fact is that the powerbase of the Democratic party is maintained by encouraging class envy and racial hatred and by keeping a large portion of the population ignorant and dependent through public education indoctrination and a system of social welfare programs which make them clients of the state and inclined to vote for those who promote a nanny state.

What disgusting ignorance. If the Republicans had had full control of the government for the past 50-60 years, minorities wouldn't even be able to vote. We'd be back in the days of poll taxes and "oops, this isn't your polling place, you have to go across town. And hey, where's your ID? What, there's no bus? Oh, well, try again next time."

Pure ignorance and bullshit. A majority of the Republicans in congress have voted in support of EVERY piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed and Republicans spearheaded a lot of the early civil rights reforms.

True, DJR, but Republicans have been the worst at exploiting race-based fears over the last several decades.

How about this. Give me ONE example of the GOP promoting any kind of race based program or using race as a campaign issue or a method of 'scaring' voters. You can't do it. The GOP has always had a racially blind policy.

Yes - very true about the southern white Democrats. But I'm really referring to the post-Nixon Republican Party.

No major civil rights reforms have been proposed or passed by either party since Nixon. They were all passed before his presidency.

Too often we talk about Republicans and Democrats as if they are constant forces. When I rail against the Republicans I am referring to the Party of the last few decades, as Eric B. points out.

Again, how have they been racist in those decades? Not supporting affirmative action is not racist. It's the exact opposite. Affirmative action and similar programs help keep minorities in a status as second class citizens. Opposing them promotes real racial equality.

Dave

Here's a prediction: if/when the Democrats take back Congress, we can forget the NSA hearings, Gitmo hearings, Iraq hearings, and the like. All Democratic efforts will be centered on blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and gathering up grassroots support for Hillary. This will be the Dems plan.

Actually, the way things are going now, it looks like scandal hearings would be more likely under this malleable GOP majority than with a focused Democratic.

Dave claims; "And here's the classic technique of the left, to compare everything to Hitler ..."

Actually
Dave, read carefully. I did not compare anyone or anything to Adolf, I cited the "big lie" principle, written about by Goebbels and utilized by all modern politicians as well as Madison Avenue.

So once again, your vapid attempt at disputing a valid point is tossed aside because you can't seem to keep your details straight due to having to twist your logic into so many unsalted pretzels just to keep up your rationalizations.

Listen to your inner Franklin.

Sammy James...you are on target...the Dems could care less about national security or human rights...its all about winning elections...

Good points!

Heckler, me think thou should be eating a watercress sandwich with madonna and sadam!

justoneman: "the Dems could care less about national security or human rights...its all about winning elections..."

dude, with that last part, you're just describing politics. that's not a democratic or republican position.

but how can you think that national security and human rights aren't on the democratic agenda. sure, you could take it as such, but really, dems are just opposed to the republicans' METHODS. dems would surely take a different approach, and i'm also sure it would be a big part of whatever efforts they make on the domestic and international front.

zing..heres the problem...the Dem approach is simple...what ever Bush wants they are against it...if them assume power they will have to present tactical plans and ideas and LEADERSHIP...something "in my opinion" they are incapable of...

remember "I was for it before I was against it"

oh god... how can madonna anger you anymore? so easily manipulated... pathetic.

zing dont get your last comment???

you know that anti-bush is not the whole extent of democratic thinking.

i don't know what the dems would do if in power, but i would hope it would not include torture, premptive war, spying on us citizens, holding prisoners without charge or trial, etc.

bush's leadership has proven destructive to america on several levels. so...

maybe i didn't get yours then...

A majority of the Republicans in congress have voted in support of EVERY piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed and Republicans spearheaded a lot of the early civil rights reforms.

This may be true, but it doesn't refute my point that current right-wing policies are bad for minorities.

Again, how have they been racist in those decades? Not supporting affirmative action is not racist. It's the exact opposite. Affirmative action and similar programs help keep minorities in a status as second class citizens. Opposing them promotes real racial equality.

I'm not talking about affirmative action. It has many valid arguments on both sides. I'm talking about things like: opposing gay rights; opposing women's rights to control their own bodies; and ABOVE ALL, reinforcing the split between the haves and the have-nots by keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of the very rich and corporations beholden only to their shareholders, while gutting the power of government to advocate for the common good. This has the effect of keeping the poor poor and the gheottoized ghettoized while making the middle class work harder and harder just to get by. (As a member of the latter class I speak from experience.)

what about nixon's southern strategy? is that what it was called? that was pretty racist.

JoM feebly attempts insult with; "Heckler, me think thou should be eating a watercress sandwich with madonna and sadam!"

Varlet! Verily I say unto thee, thou art indeed a churlish knave that shouldst know far better than to tempt the wrath and ire of those who art thine own superior at verbose bantering.

Now, hie thee to a nunnery and receive thy lashings in good manner as befits one who dost call himself a "man". Scourging is the least required of thee in order to enter the realm of learned debate.

Forsooth, indeed a special seat at the Inferno awaits the likes of thee, nestled twixt Torquemada and Stalin.

Heck...my comments were to out you and they did...your posts seemed to be hmmmmmmmmmm a little incoherent...and inane at times...and please in the future please give credit to sources when you plagiarism their writings.

zing...was Clinton's "first black president" strategy racist?

JoM, as to your requests, where have I plaigerised without giving credit? Now , I do indulge in postmodernistic sub-reference at times.

As for "outing" me. Any editor that can check IP's, or even regular readers of the commentary should have spotted who I "am" by now. For those that haven't, then they aren't paying attention, and it's not like I am doing this for anyone but myself.

Now, to bring this whole mess back to topic.

The elephants are in trouble and are circling the metaphorical wagons around Rove as he barks orders to the legions of Gannonites. The donkeys are running around like headless chickens hoping that the "we are better than those scumbags" defense works.

I would guess that the next Carville/Rove will emerge for the dems sometime this summer, even if I have to go and do it my own damn self.

At least that way we will get some peace and quiet from gridlock, as well as a much hgher quality of reality TV as the investigations begin.

Good times, IMO.

Heckler...as a "regular reader", I noticed...

quite a pleasantry, indeed :)

Jane, you ignorant slut!

Oops, wandered into the wrong ad hominem argument. I'll leave this one to the guys here, and head back to my retro corner...