Today on Blogcritics
Home » Election 2006: Dems Move Left, Risk Alienating Moderates and Splitting Party

Election 2006: Dems Move Left, Risk Alienating Moderates and Splitting Party

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Emboldened by the victory of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut primary, some relatively mainstream Democrat leaders have begun to talk a lot more 'progressive' than they had been up until this point in the campaign. Seeing the growing strength of the more radical wing of the socialist 'New Left' as spearheaded by groups like MoveOn.org which drove the Lamont victory, previously moderate figures like Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid have become more outspoken on the issues which are most important to the far left.

In moving to the left these prominent Democrats are gambling that this is the position the party and the nation want to go in. The problem is that while those on the far left have great enthusiasm and will turn out to vote in large numbers in a party primary, their views are demonstrably not shared by moderates and independents whose support is essential if you want to win in a general election.

The moderates and the independents are generally issues voters, and despite the President's weak popularity ratings, the issues which continue to overwhelmingly dominate the minds of voters from both parties and independents are the war on terror and the economy, both issues where the Republicans score better than the Democrats, especially when the GOP leadership is compared the more left wing elements of the Democrat party.

People don't like the war and they don't like terrorism. This gives both parties something to work with, because the Democrats can complain about the wastefulness and needlessness of the war and the Republicans can offer people security through strength. How this issue plays depends on the audience, and it will play well for the Democrats in the northeast and well for the Republicans in the south and west. The problem is that the Republicans offer a positive message and promise to keep us safer, while the Democrats offer nothing but negatives, criticism, and giving in to fear. Like anyone, voters would rather appear strong than weak and defy fear than give in to it.

In search of a message that can counter the GOP strength on the issues, many Democrats are looking to the left for answers, because even if their left wing is a bit extreme, they do have a coherent philosophy (socialism) and a whole set of alternative issues to promote. The problem with this strategy is that as they move to the left they move away from the majority of voters who seem to be moving towards the middle and even away from the political parties altogether.

In the last decade the number of people who consider themselves members of a third party rather than Republican or Democrat has more than doubled, and the number who consider themselves neither Democrat or Republican has risen to 37%, 6% more than the number of adherents claimed by either mainstream party nationwide. These voters are a force which neither major party can afford to alienate. In certain key states the gap is even larger. Independents dominate many of the western states where no party registration is required, and even some of the old northeastern states which require registration by party have more than 50% who register as independents. Even the number of people who vote 'straight ticket' in elections where it is allowed is declining as loyalist blue hairs become too old to vote. People like choice, but they don't like the choices the major parties are offering them, especially the Democrats. Over a 20 year period polls on poilitical identity have shown a 15% decline in those who identify themselves as Democrats with Republican numbers staying roughly even.

With membership declining and out of power in all of the branches of government, you would think that it would be time for unity among Democrats, but instead they've gone into a frenzy of divisiveness and recriminations. The moderate Democratic Leadership Council which brought them their successes of the Clinton era has become a target for attacks as "right-wing collaborationists" by those who feel that it betrayed the leftist traditions of the party and cooperated too much with the Republicans. The problem is that the DLC achieved its successes by appealing to moderates, and their far-left counterparts within the party like the Progressive Democrats of America have nothing to offer the voters who left the party or any of the other independent voters who are uncomfortable with the politics of either extreme. The success of this attack is demonstrated in the Lamont victory and the increasingly hostile rhetoric directed at other prominent DLC members like Hillary Clinton.

The far left feels that moderates have betrayed their party and that it's time for them to take over and reform the party on more of a socialist model. They have a good point. The voters who've slipped away over the years got tired of a party which seemed to have no convictions and no direction. They New Left has been extraordinarily effective in imitating the techniques of the religious right, revitalizing and subverting the party at the same time. They pursue their agenda remorselessly, targeting candidates within their own party for destruction and organizing grassroots movements through the Internet. They are determined to dominate the party, even if their destructive purges leave them with a much smaller, politically marginalized party to control. They may be winning the war for ideological purity at the expense of ever being a meaningful national party again.

After years of voters driven away by frustration, this move to the left with a deliberate effort to intimidate or expel the ideologically impure – even moderate office holders like Senator Joe Lieberman – is a high risk strategy. It risks splitting the party, driving away even more voters, and losing a lot of elections that faltering Republican incumbents are almost handing to the Democrats and ought to lose. They're gambling that those lost voters will come back if they see the party with a purpose again, but what if the new direction they've chosen for the party isn't the one these dissafected, mostly moderate voters want?

With the latest polls showing Lieberman's independent run crushing Lamont by 10 to 12 points in Connecticut, the writing may be on the wall already. While the far left celebrates and declares the party to be theirs, what power the Democrats have left may be slipping away altogether.

When faced with the demands of extremists in a fractured party, Henry Clay declared "I'd rather be right than be president," and that's the same choice Democrat leaders may be making when they rush to accept this new vision for their party. They may get a better, more righteous party, but like Henry Clay they may never get their hands on real power again.

Powered by

About Dave Nalle

  • G. Chell

    “With the latest polls showing Lieberman’s independent run crushing Lamont by 10 to 12 points in Connecticut, the writing may be on the wall already.”

    Oh?

    americanresearchgroup.com
    rasmussenreports.com

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Chell, in the article I linked to two polls which were taken at about the same time as your two. Your polls are no more likely to be accurate and they STILL show Lieberman leading Lamont. They just have larger numbers of undecided voters. Which way do you think the undecideds are likely to go once they get to the polls?

    Dave

  • Clavos

    The leadership of the Republican party should pay close attention to what’s happening in the Democratic party and put the brakes on their ongoing pandering to the religious right.

    Instead, it seems as if both party leaderships have some sort of bizarre death wish.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Dead on, Clavos. The problem the GOP has been facing for years is quite similar. The difference seems to be that the GOP is willing to work with the crazies and the crazies don’t quite have control yet.

    But there is a very clear parallel in the way that the extreme religious right is targeting Chafee for defeat in Rhode Island. He represents his people extremely well, but he also represents the most moderate element in the GOP, and he’s being targeted just the way that Lieberman does. If he survives that’s going to be a sign that the GOP is not going to go down the same destructive path that the Democrats are on.

    Dave

  • Lumpy

    What bothers me is that all this fragmentation doesn’t seem to be leading to any real effort to create a moderate third party.

  • Seabiscuit

    Dumnest title and dumnest article I’ve ever read.
    Any Democrat who doesn’t kiss Bush’s arse is to this author “far left” as in pinko/commie/hippie/scum. Those who think like this got lost in the right-wing mucky-muck language of the 60’s.

    There are no pinkos, commies, hippies, etc. any more. Forget it. This “far left” crap is just that: crap.

  • Dean

    Left and right are relative terms. They represent the political extremes.

    What extremists represent varies with time.

  • Bliffle

    The dems may have concluded that the moderate path they’ve pursued the last 10 years was fruitless. they were scorned by the right and no matter how much they conceded they got nothing in return. And there didn’t seem to be any broad middle they could join, so they’re trying radicalism, as the reps did 12 years ago. Worked for them.

  • Mohjho

    What country are you writing about?
    We moved to the right so that we could feel secure and strengthen our economy.
    Turns out, it was all hot air. Incompetence and corruption of core value is what we ended up voting for.
    We are now moving back to the center and the right is howling.
    Conservative republicans have dug their own hole, its left to the rest of us to replace the divot.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Seab, you might want to get out more. Pay a visit to the Buzzflash link in the article, or go visit Democratic Underground. Believe me. The pinko, commie, ultraleft is alive and well and campaigning to take over the democratic party.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    What country are you writing about?

    Always a relevant question. I guess we’ll know after November.

    We moved to the right so that we could feel secure and strengthen our economy.
    Turns out, it was all hot air. Incompetence and corruption of core value is what we ended up voting for.

    Yes, we got those, but we also got fewer terrorist attacks and a stronger economy, though they weren’t free.

    We are now moving back to the center and the right is howling.
    Conservative republicans have dug their own hole, its left to the rest of us to replace the divot.

    If you’re a democrat you’re practicing dangrous self deception. You should join Seabiscuit and read up on the forces that are taking over your party.

    Dave

  • Dean

    The Democrats have an edge on Republicans not because they have something better or different to offer the country, but because the people have tired of those in power.

    People vote against incumbents to punish them, not because they expect something better.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Dave:

    Here’s the thing – The GOP is presently hated by most voters. We are now likely to see a “tidal wave” in the 2006 elections…not because the voters are in love with the Democrats, but because of their outright hostility to Republicans. The Dems are pretty likely to retake the House, and have a decent shot at regaining the Senate.

    Once in power, the Dems will likely support a lot of leftist policies that mainstream voters will dislike. But, it will be too late, because they will ALREADY BE IN POWER! And incumbency offers huge advantages come re-election time (except for those rare “tidal wave” election years like this).

    So. Even though the Dems are becoming more kooky and fringe than ever, they could still win despite (not because of) it, and then use the power of incumbency to maintain that control, whether the average voter likes it or not…

    “Tidal waves” come only rarely (1974, 1994, 2006?). If the GOP loses control of the House in November, it could be another decade or two before they win it back, regardless of the relative merits of the ideas the two parties support…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dean, people don’t vote against incumbents. Where on earth did you get that idea? This election will be revolutionary if it gets the incumbent reelection rate down as low as 90%.

    RJ, I don’t actually think the GOP is hated by most voters. I think it’s hated by the most outspoken and obnoxious people on the internet and in high-exposure left-wing groups. Like Nixon I’m confident that these people don’t really speak for the general public.

    The growing unaligned majority may be irritated with the GOP, but when they get in the voting booth they vote for whatever’s in their best interest, and despite the endless prattling that Americans are stupid we get from the left and the media, they’re smart enough to see through a lot of the lies the left is promoting, especially about key issues like the economy.

    Someone earlier mentioned third parties. I’d like to see it happen, of course. If a party developed around Lieberman and some other moderates it sure would be cool if they had the balls to call it the Whig party like they should.

    Dave

  • G. Chell

    “Which way do you think the undecideds are likely to go once they get to the polls?”

    As a rule of thumb against incumbents but that was not the case in only two elections: 2002 and 2004. In 2000 from Delaware to Washington State they all went against incumbents. Let us see whether trend from the last two elections continue. But, it is a big jump from tons of undecideds to your conclusion.

  • G. Chell

    “Any Democrat who doesn’t kiss Bush’s arse is to this author “far left” as in pinko/commie/hippie/scum.”

    Plenty of pinko/commie scums in the GOP House masquerading as conservatives if one wants to go that route. Duncan Hunter wanted to nationalize the ports to keep it from foreign hands. Steve King openly talked about the American proletariat (plagarized from Karl Marx) while discussing illegal aliens. Dana Rohrbacher wanted to establish Gulag for prisoners to pick fruits and vegetables instead of guestworkers. Don Goldwater the Arizona candidate for governor wants to build a wall and electric fence similar to the Berlin Wall…and there is a long list of Marxist-Leninist comments made by the GOP congressmen from other places such as Georgia and Alabama.

  • G. Chell

    “Dean, people don’t vote against incumbents. Where on earth did you get that idea? This election will be revolutionary if it gets the incumbent reelection rate down as low as 90%.”

    Comment: Except for 2002 and 2004, in most senate races, incumbents loose when they are under 50. Please go back and see what happened to Roth, Gorton, Rod Gramms and others in 2000..they were all under 50.

  • G. Chell

    “Believe me. The pinko, commie, ultraleft is alive and well and campaigning to take over the democratic party.”

    As I told you there are plenty of them in the GOP as well.

  • Clavos

    Chell,

    Did you get all that from Robert Welch?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Yes, I agree that there are neocoms in the GOP. They’re a bit different from the ones the Democrats are stuck with, though. They’re the hardcore neo-stalinist hawk types. They do love their pork, though.

    Chell, even in 2000 incumbents got reelected at 92%.

    Dave

  • Webster

    There *are* national third parties out there, and they just need a breakthrough to get some attention. The biggies (relatively speaking) are the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. All three have the support to consistently get a presidential candidate on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance to win.

    What those candidates need is credibility, which can only come from winning positions like Governor or Senator. But those positions are high enough in profile, especially in big states, that they have the same problem. So, for long term success, the “third” parties need to either recruit current & former officeholders, or start winning the VERY lowest level offices, and build from there.

  • Webster

    Chell —

    The Berlin Wall was built to keep people IN, b/c the East German government was so bad, ppl wanted to leave. It was wrong b/c the right to emigrate is a basic human right.

    A wall on our southern border would be to keep ppl OUT who do not follow our laws on how to enter, legally. They have the right to leave Mexico, if anyone will have them, but we don’t have to take them in.

  • G. Chell

    “Chell, even in 2000 incumbents got reelected at 92%.”

    Agreed. But, in the Senate races, with the exception of Conrad “I like Burning and hate the firefighters and give me federal pork” Burns, everyone who was under 50 with large undecided lost. The unfortunate part was the true conservative Spencer Abraham. He was ahead of Stabenow by 48-33, but in the end lost 50.5-49.5. The morons who voted against him gave us the main reason his push to import engineers from abroad. However, the many of the morons who voted against him, employed by Ford and GM lost their jobs anyway…instead of importing engineers Ford and GM moved jobs abroad and the rest is history..and the unemployment among engineers in Michigan is now higher even with fewer foreign engineers. Design jobs have moved to Singapore and the production has moved to Malaysia and China..and what does commie Pinkos like Duncan Hunter say, let us restrict foreign investment..so that American corporations move abroad and foreign corporations dont creat employment. Commie Pinkos all!!

  • G. Chell

    “A wall on our southern border would be to keep ppl OUT who do not follow our laws on how to enter, legally. They have the right to leave Mexico, if anyone will have them, but we don’t have to take them in.”

    Agreed. But, do you really believe that if someone from the west wanted to go and settle in Soviet Russia, they would have been allowed to? I worked in the Former Soviet Union. Along the southern border with Afghanistan they had a big fence..to keep Afghan refugees as a result of Soviet intervention out…not very different from the wall commies such as Don Goldwater are suggesting..they had guard towers every few meters and electric fences as well. Of course, Goldwater is not the biggest commie. That award goes to Pat Buchanan, who combines some racialism with a lot of socialism and communism in his new book, “the state of Emergency.”

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    There *are* national third parties out there, and they just need a breakthrough to get some attention. The biggies (relatively speaking) are the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Green Party. All three have the support to consistently get a presidential candidate on the ballot in enough states to have a theoretical chance to win.

    Webster, the problem with all three of these parties is that they are ideologically rigid and unable to come up with a realistic platform which will attract more than a handful of voters. They are to a large extent one issue parties (christianity, freedom and the environment), even if they’ve attracted some positive attention and their one issue is a good issue. None of them have had nearly the success they need at winning local offices to support a nationwide effort.

    Realisitically if we get a third party it’s going to have to come into existence with members already in office the way the Democrats and Republicans both did back in the 1820s and 1850s respectively.

    Dave

  • Dean

    Dave, you missed the point.

    “Chell, even in 2000 incumbents got reelected at 92%.”

    The percent should be 100.

    An incumbent who is perceived to be doing a “good job” can get re-elected indefinitely.

    An incumbent who loses is being punished for something.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Dave Nalle, you must be reading polls the rest of us don’t have access to. Independents main issue like most of the rest of the public is NOT the war on terror, but, the CIVIL WAR in Iraq which we have placed ourselves squarely in the middle of.

    The independents of Connecticut will by majority vote with Lamont, because they want, like the majority of the rest of Americans, to see an end to our GI losses for another people’s civil war.

    Man, face it, Republicans are going to get trounced. Now the real question is, why did these Republican politicians in the White House and the Congress abandon the conservative principles that swept them into the majority party in the first place? Truth be told, conservatives don’t run the GOP, the neocons do. Look what it has got them.

  • Dean

    “Look what it has got them.”

    You see it, I see it.

    The ones who don’t get it are the neocons and Dave Nalle.

  • Arch Conservative

    It’s true that many in the public, even those who call themselves Republicans have grown angry with our curretnn GOP leadership. I am one of them.

    However………….this does not mean that we are suddenly going to start voting for the Hillary Clintons and Ted Kennedys on the lunatic left.

    I’d sooner cut my hand off than use it to vote for a far left liberal such as being offered as “mainstream” by today’s democratic party.

    Ain’t gonna happen with me or a majority of GOP voters. Sorry to break it to you dean and rj and whoever else thinks so…….

    Both parties have thier die hard supporters and then there small percentage of independents or people who actually cross party lines. It is winning this small percentage of people that will lead to success in november and in 2008. The Dems have shown nothing to prove they are capable of doing this.

    I offer that the Dems are much further to the left than the GOP is to the right. The Dems have become beholden to the most vile anti-American, anti-capitlaist, socialist, communist, one world government nutbags out there. Look at what they did to Lieberman. “You think the war in Iraq was the right thing to do? Fuck you get out of our party.” Yeah liberals love that dissent all right.

    And yes those in power right now are not the GOP party of Ronald Reagan…..far from it……you moonbats call them neocons…….but you know what? I’ll take a neocon any fucking day over a sociliast with a hardon for appeasing terrorists, murdering baby’s and forgoing American soverignty for UN rhetoric. Are you fucking kidding me? It was people like you Mr. Remer, Dean and RJ that told us all how badly Bush was going to get beaten in 2004. So excuse me if I take the diareah coming out of your mouths with a grain of salt.

  • Dean

    It’s always fascinating to observe someone froth at the mouth.

    As a rule, the more froth, the less understanding.

    I never said I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

    But regardless of how I vote, the neocons have damaged the Republican Party to the point where I would not be surprised to see a lot of the Independent vote swing toward the Democrats.

    Lieberman joined the neocons. A true conservative would understand why his party rejected him. Only a moonbat conservative would not.

    BTW, I never told you “how badly Bush was going to get beaten in 2004.”

    So excuse me if I ask you to avoid unsupported remarks before you rant again.

    I hate to see a conservative make a fool of himself.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    David Remer: In the article I provided a link to a comprehensive collection of the latest issue polls. In almost all of them three issues rate at the top, roughly evenly weighted by the public – terrorism, the war in Iraq and the Economy.

    These polls don’t assess pulling out of Iraq vs. ‘staying the course’ in Iraq, but they do make it clear that the war is a priority for people.

    Your mistaken assumption is that the public favors the rapid pullout advocated by candidates like Lamont. This is not what these polls demonstrate. By having terrorism up there in the top 3 as well, it’s clear that the priority is fighting terror be it in Iraq or at home, not abandonning the war effort.

    And of course, having the economy as one of the big 3 is going to cut in favor of the GOP because the economy is doing well.

    Dave

  • Dean

    “By having terrorism up there in the top 3 as well, it’s clear that the priority is fighting terror… in Iraq…”

    Dave, you’re still spouting the neocon line.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    Dean is the mere mention of anything you dont like being a neocon?

    Dave pointed out fighting terrorism, in Iraq or anywhere, is in the top 3 voting issues this election. That’s a true statement. How the hell does that make him a neocon? If stating poll results makes him a neocon then neocon must be some kind of word for truth sayer.

  • Dean

    I thought I saw Iraq in the equation. Only a neocon still believes that is why we are in that swamp.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    Well technically speaking, we are fighting terrorists in Iraq. But considering they are of our own creation, it’s probably not the best way to fight terrorists.

    Although I do agree, Dave comes dangerously close to implying we went to Iraq because it will somehow reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S. – which, I think you agree, couldnt be farther from the truth.

  • Dean

    ” Dave comes dangerously close to implying we went to Iraq because it will somehow reduce the threat of terrorist attacks on the U.S. ”

    Dangerously close?

    Hell, no.

    It’s his mantra.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Actually, Dean, the Neocons didn’t want to go into Iraq to fight terrorism, they wanted to go in there to rebuild the country and create a US client state for their idea of a modern economic empire. They don’t really give a rat’s ass about terrorism except when it disrupts their empire building.

    As for why we actually went into Iraq, I’ve written extensively on the subject before. We went into Iraq because Iran was too tough to invade so the best way to pressure them was to put troops in the two weaker countries on either side of them.

    Dave

  • Dean

    You should tell George Bush and the other neocons.

    It can be added to the ever growing list of reasons and excuses.

    One more excuse won’t be noticed but it could make you and other neocons feel better.

  • Dean

    Is this another reason we went into Iraq?

    “Israel can shape its strategic environment… by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right.”

    — A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Dean, you’d need to take up that last one with Ruvy.

    As for #38, I have no idea what makes Neocons feel good these days. From what I can tell they’re none too happy with Bush.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    Arch – I predicted Bush would win in 2004, and I was full of praise for him back then. But times have changed. I am disappointed in Bush and the GOP, but I still prefer them to the Dems. Unfortunately, I am a minority in holding that opinion.

    The Dems will probably retake the House, and could possibly retake the Senate. This is a sad fact. Deal with it.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ Elliott

    “having the economy as one of the big 3 is going to cut in favor of the GOP because the economy is doing well.”

    For the most part, the economy IS doing well…but for the most part, the voters seem to think it is doing poorly…which will NOT help the GOP on Election Day…

  • JP
  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    RJ, I’m not convinced that the public is as dumb and imperceptive as the Democrats are banking on.

    The obvious dissonance between what the left says and what’s really going on ought to be apparent to them.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    RJ #41:

    I am disappointed in Bush and the GOP, but I still prefer them to the Dems. Unfortunately, I am a minority in holding that opinion.

    Count me and millions (yes, I said millions) in that “minority” as well.

    For that reason, I don’t agree with this:

    The Dems will probably retake the House, and could possibly retake the Senate. This is a sad fact. Deal with it.

    Although you do have a good point here:

    For the most part, the economy IS doing well…but for the most part, the voters seem to think it is doing poorly

    It’s going to be interesting to see how it plays out in November.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    “Chell, in the article I linked to two polls which were taken at about the same time as your two. Your polls are no more likely to be accurate and they STILL show Lieberman leading Lamont. They just have larger numbers of undecided voters. Which way do you think the undecideds are likely to go once they get to the polls”

    Dave, your two polls have a caveat. The Quinnipiac poll was taken before the primary and the zogby poll the article talks about is an online poll that (I believe) has had some reliability problems in the past. Just looking at the other Zogby poll results…many of them seem skewed. The rasmussen and ARG polls were done after the primary election and since they have larger numbers of undecideds, that seems to me to indicate that undecideds are moving away from Joe. Food for thought.

  • Nancy

    I’m curious, Clavos, Dave, and others likely to vote Republican in November: why? In the face of all the evidence of lies & smears by the administration, and the blatant corruption of the congressional leaders who happen to currently be GOP, why would you continue to vote for such scum?

    I’ll head you off by admitting that, given the chance, I’m sure the Dems will be just as low, but they’re not the ones who’ve perpetrated all the offenses against the public that the GOP & BushCo have. So why do you continue to support them? Do the social issues outweight the seriousness of the corruption/mismanagement/war issues?

    I’m sincerely curious, as I waffle with my own choice of candidates.

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Oops…that quinnipiac poll was after the primary. My bad.

  • Arch Conservative

    I thought we made it clear Nancy……

    Yes our GOP leadership hasn’t exactly turned out to be what we had hoped for but it’s still light years better than anything being offered up by the Dems who have become beholden to extreme left wing interest groups.

    So while I cannot conjer up some Weekend at Bernie’s voodoo magic and make Ronald Reagan rise from his grave and run for president again I will still vote GOP because I believe it is those on the left who are the scummiest of the scummy Nancy and I don’t know what proof of lies you are talking about.

    Does that answer your question?

  • Nancy

    By inference, yes; altho I’d still like to have Dave or the others weigh in as well. Thanks.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    for Nancy in #47…

    whether they outright say it or not, for the vast majority of Informed voters ni the GOP… time and time again, no matter what is said, or which Principles are held dear… it usually comes down to one thing for the vast Majority within the GOP

    either the mantra of “god, gays, guns and abortions” for some…

    or pure and simple… tax cuts

    from all i have read and gathered over the last 6 years, no matter the Reality of the situation, one of those two Things are what is clung to at the expense of all else

    so, while you may think the Argument is over Principles, or Philosophy… or even what is Right, or holding elected Representatives accountable… or what is best for our Nation…

    tax cuts

    pure and simple…

    your mileage may vary

    Excelsior?

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    Clavos #45, you dont think the Dems will take back the house because you, personally, dont like them?

    And why all this talk of the GOP being the lesser of two evils? Republicans have held Congress and the Presidency for 6 years now. They have failed miserably to conduct anything that could reasonbly be called sensible foreign policy. It’s simple: it’s time for change. They have pandered to big business, religious zealots, and the rich. They have alienated every government in the world except perhaps Britain and Australia and their governments are in peril of being ousted by popular outcry and accusations of being buddy buddy with Bush. And they have conjured up this image of dems being left wing radicals, which is quite simply, a load of bull. Being a left wing radical myself, I find the policy of the Dems decidedly moderate.

  • Clavos

    gonzo,

    With all due respect, you forgot cutting spending and reducing the size of government.

    Wait, don’t start typing yet!!

    I KNOW the present admin. has done neither, but the key there is the “present admin”, IMO. They don’t get to come back in ’08.

    If you’re interested, I’ll tell you where Dubya lost me (in no particular order):

    1. The above issues of spending and Gov. size.

    2. Pandering to the religious right, especially the stem cell issue.

    3. FEMA and its response to Katrina during and since, though I think more blame lies with Nagin and Blanco.

    4. Conduct of the Iraq war since the fall of Sadaam.

    5. Lack of leadership in the Israel-Lebanon conflict.

    Those are some of the biggies–I’ve got others, but don’t want to make this too long.

    I don’t always vote Republican; I DO vote conservative fiscally, but NOT on social issues. I often vote for Dems as well. And I DO believe tax cuts, when coupled with spending cuts, help the economy; even if the rich get the bulk of them; though in the interests of fairness, I think they should be spread around better.

    My tuppence-“Your mileage may vary”. :>)

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Clavos…
    i fully nderstand where yer coming from, since in many instances, i come from the same place…

    my Point is that you cannot find a post WW2 GOP government that has done it…

    the closest was the GOP congress and Clinton WH in the 90’s… the two constantly fighting each other tooth and nail

    without the checks and balances of a divided government, our system can be abused completely… such as it has been in the last few years by a completely GOP controlled government on the federal level

    so… i don’t give a shit what they say, they have a track record to follow as to what they did

    and that record proved the Party to be lying sacks of shit, imo.. and thus in dire need of proving themselves before any Trust can be given…

    the ONLY things they appear to be consistent on are the desire to destroy the New Deal and Great Society measures….

    and tax cuts

    compare the number for how much government shrank between 92-00 and how much it has grown between 01-06

    it’s fucking scary when you consider it’s republicans that have done it…

    Excelsior?

  • http://counter-point.blogspot.com Scott

    Overall, this article is one of conjecture, fabrication and wishful thinking. Way to be, Dave.

  • Clavos

    PETI 52:

    No, The reason I don’t think so is because I think the polls are putting too much emphasis on disatisfaction with the administration and interpolating it to a general disaffection on the part of Republican voters with their senators and congresspeople as well.

    Just a WAG on my part, based on conversations with friends and clients, and reading BC and other internet sources; nothing scientific.

  • Nancy

    Ever since I took a class in how to manipulate statistics for fun & profit, I’ve distrusted polls; they can be read too many ways, and the “experts” have proven over & over how wrong they are in their interpretations, even when I was wishing my hardest that they might be right.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    Nancy #57, the real determining factor is can both sides manipulate polls to their advantage? Since it’s advantageous for both parties to portray themself as “winning,” (it’s not coincidence dems and republicans can look at the same situation and dems think they will win and republicans think they will win, people want to be on the winning side) the question is are there also polls showing the GOP as winning?

  • Dean

    What I hear George Bush saying today is exactly what he was saying in early 2003 — if the word Iran is used instead of Iraq.

    Is this going to work again for the Republicans?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I’m curious, Clavos, Dave, and others likely to vote Republican in November: why? In the face of all the evidence of lies & smears by the administration, and the blatant corruption of the congressional leaders who happen to currently be GOP, why would you continue to vote for such scum?

    Because we don’t care about that stuff compared to real issues that make a difference. We’re voting the percentages. With the Dems in power there’s zero chance of anything we want getting done. With the GOP in power there’s at least some chance and a few people who will speak up for and propose the policies we support.

    Here’s an example. There’s no chance at all that the Democrats will try to privatize social security. The GOP might at least discuss the subject and make some sort of proposal. Very unlikely they’ll pass it, but it will at least get some exposure so that some day down the road it will be taken more seriously. Same thing applies to comprehensive tax reform, cutting pork, school vouchers and other issues which those of us who are fiscal conservatives care about.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    either the mantra of “god, gays, guns and abortions” for some…

    I’m for three of those and generally against the first.

    or pure and simple… tax cuts

    In the end most everyone votes their pocket books, even democrats. The question is how many people can the left fool into thinking the economy is in bad shape and how many people will have common sense and vote in their own self-interest.

    Dave

  • Clavos

    What he said…

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t always vote Republican; I DO vote conservative fiscally, but NOT on social issues. I often vote for Dems as well. And I DO believe tax cuts, when coupled with spending cuts, help the economy; even if the rich get the bulk of them; though in the interests of fairness, I think they should be spread around better.

    Dead on, Clavos. I’m in the same boat. And the key thing that seems to confuse those on the left is that despite being socially liberal we have to keep voting for Republicans because when it gets right down to it, how deep the government’s hand is in your pocket matters more in day to day life than anything else.

    Dave

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Nancy and PETI – sure, polls can be manipulated – hell even the people polled lie fairly frequently to the pollsters. But polls don’t win elections in the end, the voters do.

    Dave

  • Arch Conservative

    You’re socially liberal Nalle?

    What does that mean exactly?

    When I think of someone who is socially liberal I think of left wing liberals who bend over backwards for illegal immigrants, leftist judges who hand down slaps on the wrists to pedophiles and violent criminals, lefties who want to eliminate all expressions of christianity in the public sphere, and people who generally want to obscure all lines of moral certainty within our society. They don’t believe in right or wrong.

    That’s why when I vote for GOp I’m not just voting for tax cuts. I’m voting for the party that doesn’t want to murder babies, doesn’t want to try to understand pedophiles rather than punish them by removing them from the public, and doesn’t want to rationailze and excuse every immoral harmful behavior with some emotional sob story about a crappy childhood or societal pressures and influence.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    Well, Bing, you keep forgetting that Dave considers himself something of a libertarian. so, for the most part, he wants the government out of his pocket, which used to be standard Republicanism, and he wants the government out of his private life and bedroom – a Democratic party concept.

    The parties in America seem to have shifted into being parodies of themselves. The party that used to believe in fiscal responisibility is spending your country down the toilet and the party that used to believe in spending yourself down the toilet preaches fiscal responsibility. But none of them seem to have solutions for anything anymore…

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    You’re socially liberal Nalle?

    What does that mean exactly?

    It means that I think people should be allowed to exercise near total freedom in their personal lives without the interference of government so long as it does no harm to others.

    When I think of someone who is socially liberal I think of left wing liberals who bend over backwards for illegal immigrants, leftist judges who hand down slaps on the wrists to pedophiles and violent criminals, lefties who want to eliminate all expressions of christianity in the public sphere, and people who generally want to obscure all lines of moral certainty within our society. They don’t believe in right or wrong.

    Well, I don’t agree with most of those things, but then neither do most Democrats or most sane people in general, except the illegal immigrants. I think we need a peon class to exploit to the general benefit of the native working population.

    That’s why when I vote for GOp I’m not just voting for tax cuts. I’m voting for the party that doesn’t want to murder babies, doesn’t want to try to understand pedophiles rather than punish them by removing them from the public, and doesn’t want to rationailze and excuse every immoral harmful behavior with some emotional sob story about a crappy childhood or societal pressures and influence.

    I think morality in politics is way overrated. That said, I haven’t got anything against it, except when you try to impose your morality on someone else’s private life when they’re not hurting anyone by their activities. But I do disagree on the ‘murder babies’ issue. Abortion’s benefits to society are so great that the cost in potential lives is worth accomodating, so long as we stick to humane early term abortions.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    Dave in #67 sez…
    *I think we need a peon class to exploit to the general benefit of the native working population.*

    and there you have the “compassionate conservative” view from the GOP and business types…

    a “peon class to exploit”

    just fucking overflowing with the very milk of human Kindness, ain’t it?

    nuff fucking said…

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, don’t call me a ‘compassionate conservative’. I’m nothing of the kind. It’s a manipulative and basically false campaign slogan and I reject it utterly.

    just fucking overflowing with the very milk of human Kindness, ain’t it?

    I value truth over ‘kindness’, gonzo.

    Someone’s always going to be on the bottom of the economic pyramid. In America that has traditionally been immigrants. The immigrants understand this and still come here because peonage here is better than peonage in Mexico.

    You don’t need to be ‘kind’ when you’re fair and give people the opportunity to help themselves.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    well now…

    i guess what i am taking exception to is your quite Honest assertation that part of your personal political motivationstems from the desire to hold a “peon class to exploit”

    i heartily applaud your direct Honesty in stating the position so clearly… it shows the utter Truth of your “elitist pig” moniker, without a Doubt

    it also clearly shows the motivation for much of not only your own, but much of GOP policy in modern times…

    they want their “peon class” for economic exploitation… doesn’t matter who or what, or at what Cost to our Nation or Society… much less those “peons”

    fuck that, and fuck all those who feel that there needs to be a “class” of people for exploitation of ANY kind…

    me?

    i’ll stick with “all Men are created Equal”

    thank you very much

    and hopefully more and more Americans will wake the fuck up and Reject this elitist bullshit that calls for the vast Majority of Human Beings to be subjugated and exploited for the economic Interests of the Elite few…

    so, bitch all you want… i Call ‘em like i See ‘em

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Gonzo, I believe that in translation you just said:

    “fuck reality, fuck human nature, fuck giving people a chance to come to this country and work their way up like our ancestors did.”

    The truth is that someone’s going to be at the bottom of the economic pyramid no matter what you do. Mindless egalitarianism isn’t going to change the way economies work.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    and Dave.. fuck your feeble attempts at diffusing or “framing” my Words

    NO translation is Required…

    i meant EXACTLY what i said… no more, no less

    i’m well Aware of the Reality surrounding contemporary Economics

    what i fervently Reject is the entire Concept of a “peon class”

    Lincoln freed the slaves, yes?

    and spare me the bullshit apologist Quisling statements about the “bottom of the economic pyramid”… far different for a person to be at the bottom of the Economy and a “peon class for economic exploitation”

    let me add, for the gentle Readers, the assertation that forming and deliberately constructing Policy that not only forms this “peon class” but utilizes said underclass as illegal aliens to bypass Regulations and taxes as well as to artificially depress Wages for legal Workers in order to further improve the bottom line for the Elite

    i can safely assure you there is NO “mindless” in my views of Egalitarianism…

    so many bitch about wanting a “free market economy” but then advocate ANYTHING they can in order to CONTROL said Economy for their own personal Benefits

    so spare me the hypocritical bullshit, and stick to the Honesty which got you to actually type “peon class for economic exploitation”

    your View of subjective Reality is duly noted, once again

    don’t spoil It by vaucous backpedalling

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I know some good peon websites, but they’re not safe for work.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    heh…once again, Suss drags it into the Puddle…

    but i digress…

    Excelsior?

  • Arch Conservative

    “Gonzo, don’t call me a ‘compassionate conservative’. I’m nothing of the kind. It’s a manipulative and basically false campaign slogan and I reject it utterly”.

    That’s absolute horsehsit Nalle. A real compassionate conservative” such as myself knows that not everyone deserves compassion.

    I have lots of compassion for those who cannot help themselves such as children, the elderly and the handicapped. I even have compassion for able bodied adults who experience misfortune that is beyond their control such as someone getting cancer or injured in a car accident.

    However I do not have compassion for adults who h ave all their mental faculties and physical abilities intact and want to whine about how unfair life is because they don’t make as much money or have as big a house as the next guy. To them all I have to say is learnto be happy with what you have or shut the fuck up and try harder to better your own situation and stop blaming evryone else.

    It’s liek all this class warfare bullshit being discussed by the likes of Gonzo. Too many people feeling sorry for themselves these days. That’s what wrong with most people.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    ArchBing… yer mistaking me…

    i’m NOT talking anything like “class warfare”

    what i was talking about are illegal aliens, and the reference to them as a “peon class to exploit”… which appears to be the main goal for a percentage of those who like the status quo… or want even more unregulated and illegal “peons”

    i’ve got NO problems with legal immigrants.. or for able bodied adults to work hard in order to better their lives… far from it, finest kind of Principle as far as i’m concerned…

    but i think we should have a level Playing field, and that the Rule of Law is there for a Reason, and is MORE important than the false Profits garnered from “a peon class to exploit”

    hope that helps

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    and Dave.. fuck your feeble attempts at diffusing or “framing” my Words

    You sure love that accusation. Pity it’s so meaningless. When I restate something you said, it’s for purposes of clarification. If you don’t agree with how I ‘framed’ it then explain it clearly.

    what i fervently Reject is the entire Concept of a “peon class”

    Do you object to the fact that there will always be someone in the economy who does the scut work or the choice of the term ‘peon’? I’ll gladly use ‘prole’ or ‘underclass’ or something else if you like. But since we’re talking Mexicans peon seemed appropriate.

    and spare me the bullshit apologist Quisling statements about the “bottom of the economic pyramid”… far different for a person to be at the bottom of the Economy and a “peon class for economic exploitation”

    Really? Do explain to me the difference under our capitalist system. So long as the bottom rung of the pyramid has the opportunity to advance through hard work and intelligence, where’s the problem with them being on that bottom rung as an underclass while they are learning the ropes?

    let me add, for the gentle Readers, the assertation that forming and deliberately constructing Policy that not only forms this “peon class” but utilizes said underclass as illegal aliens to bypass Regulations and taxes as well as to artificially depress Wages for legal Workers in order to further improve the bottom line for the Elite

    Policy doesn’t form the class, economics and the capitalist system form it. And they do it whether you want them to or not and regardless of what term you use for them. They’re part of the system and there’s no escaping the need for them.

    i can safely assure you there is NO “mindless” in my views of Egalitarianism…

    Odd, I thought you were sort of the modern day equivalent of the puritan Leveller movement.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    on with the Dance…

    /sigh

    Dave sez…
    *If you don’t agree with how I ‘framed’ it then explain it clearly.*

    in which he alludes to my saying…
    *they want their “peon class” for economic exploitation… doesn’t matter who or what, or at what Cost to our Nation or Society… much less those “peons”

    fuck that, and fuck all those who feel that there needs to be a “class” of people for exploitation of ANY kind…*

    the last sentence of that little rant sums it all up pretty clearly… exploitation, i just don’t like it.. it’s not fair trade usage of labor or services… but literally exploiting said Individuals by gathering the fruits of their Work with less than fair compensation

    ni the case of these illegal aliens… much less than free market Value.. and they have NO chance to do anythign about it by the very fact of their being illegal…

    hence the “exploitation” part… and why statements about the “bottom rung on the economic ladder” are blatantly bullshit

    those illegals have NO way to “clinb the ladder” now, do they? there is a definate *ceiling* at the bottom few rungs to which NO illegal can climb past, no matter how hard they work

    this is the bit that Dave *framed* as…
    *”fuck reality, fuck human nature, fuck giving people a chance to come to this country and work their way up like our ancestors did.”*

    notice the huge difference here?

    not only is his statement completely different than what i’d said… it alludes to some kind of “un-american” attitude on my part

    such cannot be further form the Truth

    i think it’s un-american to want a “peon” class that can NEVER climb the *ladder*.. and yet costs american citizens in many ways, not the least of which is an artificial depression of wages in some areas

    so much for the bullshit outright Lie of “When I restate something you said, it’s for purposes of clarification.”

    on to the next…

    Dave sez…
    *Do you object to the fact that there will always be someone in the economy who does the scut work or the choice of the term ‘peon’?*

    well now.. peon has the bit about indentured servitude, at the leisure of the landholder

    and here i thought as Americans.. we are Free, and thus indentured to no one… even illegal aliens… also he fogets the second half of his revealing epithet…”for economic exploitation”

    so.. indentured underclass for economic exploitation…. stil sounds like shit that came form the mouth of an elitist…

    on and on…

    hope that makes it a bit more clear…

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    on with the Dance…

    I’m not into the pointless dancing. I prefer to get to the point, which I will make one more time for you. Then I’m done.

    fuck that, and fuck all those who feel that there needs to be a “class” of people for exploitation of ANY kind…*

    It doesn’t have anything to do with wanting or needing such a class of people. It’s just a function of our economic system that someone will be at the bottom of the heap and if there isn’t anyone to fill that role at a given them then things start to go south. I’m just acknowledging the realtities of capitalism.

    It doesn’t mean those people aren’t better off than they would be under a different system or in another country and it doesn’t mean they can’t improve their lot in life – sometimes pretty damned quickly – but it IS a fact of that life in our system that we need base level workers (better euphemism for you?).

    the last sentence of that little rant sums it all up pretty clearly… exploitation, i just don’t like it..

    Then off to cloud-cuckoo land for you, because in the real world everyone is exploiting someone or trying to, and the reason that capitalism works is that it takes that into account and allows it to resolve itself equitably and naturally.

    it’s not fair trade usage of labor or services… but literally exploiting said Individuals by gathering the fruits of their Work with less than fair compensation

    II never said ONE word about less than fair compensation. I also didn’t mention bondage, slavery or indenture – which seems to be what you’re reading into this.

    ni the case of these illegal aliens… much less than free market Value.. and they have NO chance to do anythign about it by the very fact of their being illegal…

    And here’s the dance, because you know this isn’t true. We’ve been over it time and time again. Illegals earn competitive wages, 80% of them paying taxes and social security, and those who are off the books and do day labor are parallel to a class of natives who also choose to live and work that way.

    those illegals have NO way to “clinb the ladder” now, do they? there is a definate *ceiling* at the bottom few rungs to which NO illegal can climb past, no matter how hard they work

    Aha. Hoist by your own pitard. They have limited advancement only so long as they remain illegal. Give them a route to citizenship and your problem is solved. In the normal course of things their ‘moving up’ is moving back to mexico where the money they’ve earned in 3 or 4 years in the US will give them a higher social and economic status there. But like you said, problem solved if you let them become citizens.

    i think it’s un-american to want a “peon” class that can NEVER climb the *ladder*.. and yet costs american citizens in many ways, not the least of which is an artificial depression of wages in some areas

    Well sure, I agree with you there. Keeping them down by keeping them illegal is truly criminal.

    and here i thought as Americans.. we are Free, and thus indentured to no one… even illegal aliens… also he fogets the second half of his revealing epithet…”for economic exploitation”

    They’re not free and they don’t enjoy full rights so long as they’re illegal.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    and hence why i say “Dance”

    cuz we just go round and round…

    you find no flaw in exploiting said “peons”, but admit as long as they remain illegal there’s a host of problems

    fair enough

    how about we start by enforcing the Law and prosecuting those who employ the illegals…

    you know.. a “supply side” Answer to the dilemma

    but you have a good weekend…

    Excelsior?

  • Bliffle

    “Peon” class,ehh. Sounds like feudalism to me. But then, that’s what I think the neocons are: neo-feudalists. All power to the top few and misery for the rest. I suppose we’ll get a puritan moralist teaching us that this is good, that it incentivizes the miserable to improve themselves and struggle up the ladder. And if they choose crime then they’ve incriminated themselves and we can treat them miserably again. Eventually, as in Sao Paolo Brazil, the peons kidnap family of the rich, demand ransom, mutilate, send fingers in the mail, etc. It’s all a matter of incentives. What The Elite overlook is that when they’ve satisfactorily exploited the peons they must inevitably turn on each other to satisfy their greed and insecurity.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Bliff, you don’t understand feudalism. Not at all. Serfdom is not an inherent component of feudalism and feudalism does not place all of the power or authority at the top. It’s a system of two-way relationships in a hierarchical system. In its pure form it’s actually a rather fair and equitable form of government for a pre-industrial society.

    Federalism was essentially invented as a way to preserve the best elements of feudalism in a society which was not based around a hereditary nobility, with Democracy and elections replacing inheritance.

    Dave

  • Bliffle

    What strange ideas. Under feudalism ALL the rules and laws are set by the lords, with perhaps some merciful standards set by the king. The serfs have no say in the laws, and often no choice but to accept. All they get is some military protection from the lord, but they must serve in the army at the discretion of the lord. Serfs were better off than slaves because, typically, they couldn’t be sold, nevertheless they were considered property of the lord and, for example, the lord had the privilege of sleeping with a serf girl the night of her wedding to a serf. I suppose this makes feudalism attractive to some.

  • Zedd

    Arch Conservative sez:

    However I do not have compassion for adults who h ave all their mental faculties and physical abilities intact and want to whine about how unfair life is because they don’t make as much money or have as big a house as the next guy. To them all I have to say is learnto be happy with what you have or shut the fuck up and try harder to better your own situation and stop blaming evryone else.

    What demographic is that? What hard working people who have a fair playing field go around whining about how unfair life is?? I’ve not heard of or seen that designation or representation on any poll, television news interview, or political rally.

    AC, the reason that the Republicans lost is because you have a difficult with the truth. You make up scenarios that don’t exist and go on a rampage scaring people, with manufactured boogie men, terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and masses of lazy jealous whiners who want our money. You staunch republicans lie so much that you don’t even realize when you are telling a bold face lie anymore. I bet you didn’t even consider that what you just posted by just be untrue. You just wanted to make a point so you MADE UP something that sounds probable. That is a problem. Where is your integrity man?? There are no masses of Americans who go around whining because they are jealous. THOSE PEOPLE DON’T EXIST. This country is made of hard working people who want their fair shake. You included.

    You are a sucker. You support the few who have weaseled and stolen more than their portion FROM YOU. Your hope because you believe their crap is that you will rise to their economic level some day so you support their corrupt deeds and call it capitalism. You will NEVER be among the “upper crust”. You will NEVER reach America’s version of nobility. Neither will your children. Wake up and quit funding their vacations to Cannes.

    Enough with the lies. It’s old, very late 80’s and gone with the 90’s. Let it go. It’s over. Rush, O’Reilly, Bush, Rummy, Foley, Lay, Rove, Haggard, and all of the rest of perverts, druggies, drunks, all liars…., its over. It’s not the war as much, it’s the YUCK factor. The war was just the most glaring and the most costly of the lies but it was the culmination of GROSSNESS; purposeful, callus deposits of vileness on society without remorse. How about starting from scratch? Try thinking for yourself like real men used to do and quit kissing up to the wealthy who don’t give hoot about you.

    Go NANCY P!!

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Zedd, are you familiar with the phrase ‘cutting off your nose to spite your face’?

    Oooh, I don’t like the GOP, let’s install a socialist elite to run the country instead.

    Dave

  • MCH

    #45 bears repeating…

    “For that reason, I don’t agree with this:”
    (Clavos)
    “The Dems will probably retake the House, and could possibly retake the Senate. This is a sad fact. Deal with it.”
    (RJ Elliott)

  • Nancy

    Like it or not, Zedd makes good points. The Republicans lost this election so thoroughly because we, the peons, were sick of being peed on by them, the congressional and BushCo elite who have for 12 + years behaved and believed they are above the law & specially privileged; sick of being lied to, manipulated, & fed misleading propaganda & spin at the drop of a hat, in the cynical belief that we’d swallow it whole (as some of us obviously do), & that those who protested or refused to be lead could be conveniently labelled as giving aid & comfort to the enemy, indeed, as BEING the enemy! You label me – us – as the enemy at your peril, as they found out to their sorrow last night. We, the peons, are as American as any lying neocon wrapping themselves in the flag for camoflage; more so, because we’re the ones actually working & serving & (some of us) dying overseas for a cynical plutocrats’ war.

    The extreme right has taunted the rest of us enough, now it’s time to give them their own back: Get over it, & get a life. Don’t like that advice? Just remember that what you dish out, you’d better be able to swallow yourself, ’cause it sure do come around again, kids.

  • Lumpy

    Nancy the republicans lost not because of your ‘peons’. Who don’t even vote, but because of republicans and moderate independents who turned against their overspending and failure to fulfill promises on anything for the last 3 years.

  • Nancy

    who do you think the ‘peons’ are? They’re the just plain folks – the voters – who’ve been lied to & manipulated for the past several years. We’re talking about the same crew.

  • Martin Lav

    Spot on Nancy!
    I’d say that maybe the conservatives ought to wake up and take note, however, I can see the depression turning to anger already and the socialist label being applied as we speak.