While the far left celebrates and declares the party to be theirs, what power the Democrats have left may be slipping away altogether.
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.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - 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.
27 - 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.
28 - 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.
29 - 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.
30 - 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.
31 - 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
32 - 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.
33 - 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.
34 - Dean
I thought I saw Iraq in the equation. Only a neocon still believes that is why we are in that swamp.
35 - 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.
36 - 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.
37 - 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
38 - 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.
39 - 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
40 - 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
41 - 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.
42 - 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...
43 - JP
Lumpy: Check this 3rd party effort out.
44 - 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
45 - 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.
46 - 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.
47 - 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.
48 - Scott
Oops...that quinnipiac poll was after the primary. My bad.
49 - 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?
50 - Nancy
By inference, yes; altho I'd still like to have Dave or the others weigh in as well. Thanks.
51 - 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?
52 - 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.
53 - 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". :>)
54 - 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?
55 - Scott
Overall, this article is one of conjecture, fabrication and wishful thinking. Way to be, Dave.
56 - 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.
57 - 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.
58 - 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?
59 - 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?
60 - 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
61 - 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
62 - Clavos
What he said...
63 - 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
64 - 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
65 - 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.
66 - 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...
67 - 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
68 - 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?
69 - 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
70 - 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?
71 - 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
72 - 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?
73 - Matthew T. Sussman
I know some good peon websites, but they're not safe for work.
74 - gonzo marx
heh...once again, Suss drags it into the Puddle...
but i digress...
Excelsior?
75 - 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.