Is there a political Gatorade prescription for "conservative fatigue"?
What’s breaking?
The GOP is in trouble.…
"A sinister cabal of superior writers."
Is there a political Gatorade prescription for "conservative fatigue"?
What’s breaking?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments126 - zingzing
okay. i agree with most things that you have to say here, although i believe politics confuses itself enough through deliberate confusion. i mean, how the hell does honestly wanting to help the poor turn into manipulative racism? can't people see the difference?
the whole thing is stupid.
127 - Dave Nalle
#106 and #107 clearly show the Big Lie principle that has lured many decent people into towing the GOP party line. Note how they trot this one out when they are backed into a corner by their own action.
And here's the classic technique of the left, to compare everything to Hitler so that they don't have to deal with truths they can't disprove and are uncomfortable with.
The fact is that the powerbase of the Democratic party is maintained by encouraging class envy and racial hatred and by keeping a large portion of the population ignorant and dependent through public education indoctrination and a system of social welfare programs which make them clients of the state and inclined to vote for those who promote a nanny state.
What disgusting ignorance. If the Republicans had had full control of the government for the past 50-60 years, minorities wouldn't even be able to vote. We'd be back in the days of poll taxes and "oops, this isn't your polling place, you have to go across town. And hey, where's your ID? What, there's no bus? Oh, well, try again next time."
Pure ignorance and bullshit. A majority of the Republicans in congress have voted in support of EVERY piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed and Republicans spearheaded a lot of the early civil rights reforms.
True, DJR, but Republicans have been the worst at exploiting race-based fears over the last several decades.
How about this. Give me ONE example of the GOP promoting any kind of race based program or using race as a campaign issue or a method of 'scaring' voters. You can't do it. The GOP has always had a racially blind policy.
Yes - very true about the southern white Democrats. But I'm really referring to the post-Nixon Republican Party.
No major civil rights reforms have been proposed or passed by either party since Nixon. They were all passed before his presidency.
Too often we talk about Republicans and Democrats as if they are constant forces. When I rail against the Republicans I am referring to the Party of the last few decades, as Eric B. points out.
Again, how have they been racist in those decades? Not supporting affirmative action is not racist. It's the exact opposite. Affirmative action and similar programs help keep minorities in a status as second class citizens. Opposing them promotes real racial equality.
Dave
128 - Samuel James
Here's a prediction: if/when the Democrats take back Congress, we can forget the NSA hearings, Gitmo hearings, Iraq hearings, and the like. All Democratic efforts will be centered on blocking Bush's judicial nominees, and gathering up grassroots support for Hillary. This will be the Dems plan.
Actually, the way things are going now, it looks like scandal hearings would be more likely under this malleable GOP majority than with a focused Democratic.
129 - Heckler
Dave claims; "And here's the classic technique of the left, to compare everything to Hitler ..."
Actually
Dave, read carefully. I did not compare anyone or anything to Adolf, I cited the "big lie" principle, written about by Goebbels and utilized by all modern politicians as well as Madison Avenue.
So once again, your vapid attempt at disputing a valid point is tossed aside because you can't seem to keep your details straight due to having to twist your logic into so many unsalted pretzels just to keep up your rationalizations.
Listen to your inner Franklin.
130 - JustOneMan
Sammy James...you are on target...the Dems could care less about national security or human rights...its all about winning elections...
Good points!
131 - JustOneMan
Heckler, me think thou should be eating a watercress sandwich with madonna and sadam!
132 - zingzing
justoneman: "the Dems could care less about national security or human rights...its all about winning elections..."
dude, with that last part, you're just describing politics. that's not a democratic or republican position.
but how can you think that national security and human rights aren't on the democratic agenda. sure, you could take it as such, but really, dems are just opposed to the republicans' METHODS. dems would surely take a different approach, and i'm also sure it would be a big part of whatever efforts they make on the domestic and international front.
133 - JustOneMan
zing..heres the problem...the Dem approach is simple...what ever Bush wants they are against it...if them assume power they will have to present tactical plans and ideas and LEADERSHIP...something "in my opinion" they are incapable of...
remember "I was for it before I was against it"
134 - zingzing
oh god... how can madonna anger you anymore? so easily manipulated... pathetic.
135 - JustOneMan
zing dont get your last comment???
136 - zingzing
you know that anti-bush is not the whole extent of democratic thinking.
i don't know what the dems would do if in power, but i would hope it would not include torture, premptive war, spying on us citizens, holding prisoners without charge or trial, etc.
bush's leadership has proven destructive to america on several levels. so...
137 - zingzing
maybe i didn't get yours then...
138 - Jon Sobel
A majority of the Republicans in congress have voted in support of EVERY piece of civil rights legislation ever proposed and Republicans spearheaded a lot of the early civil rights reforms.
This may be true, but it doesn't refute my point that current right-wing policies are bad for minorities.
Again, how have they been racist in those decades? Not supporting affirmative action is not racist. It's the exact opposite. Affirmative action and similar programs help keep minorities in a status as second class citizens. Opposing them promotes real racial equality.
I'm not talking about affirmative action. It has many valid arguments on both sides. I'm talking about things like: opposing gay rights; opposing women's rights to control their own bodies; and ABOVE ALL, reinforcing the split between the haves and the have-nots by keeping wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny minority of the very rich and corporations beholden only to their shareholders, while gutting the power of government to advocate for the common good. This has the effect of keeping the poor poor and the gheottoized ghettoized while making the middle class work harder and harder just to get by. (As a member of the latter class I speak from experience.)
139 - zingzing
what about nixon's southern strategy? is that what it was called? that was pretty racist.
140 - Heckler
JoM feebly attempts insult with; "Heckler, me think thou should be eating a watercress sandwich with madonna and sadam!"
Varlet! Verily I say unto thee, thou art indeed a churlish knave that shouldst know far better than to tempt the wrath and ire of those who art thine own superior at verbose bantering.
Now, hie thee to a nunnery and receive thy lashings in good manner as befits one who dost call himself a "man". Scourging is the least required of thee in order to enter the realm of learned debate.
Forsooth, indeed a special seat at the Inferno awaits the likes of thee, nestled twixt Torquemada and Stalin.
141 - JustOneMan
Heck...my comments were to out you and they did...your posts seemed to be hmmmmmmmmmm a little incoherent...and inane at times...and please in the future please give credit to sources when you plagiarism their writings.
142 - JustOneMan
zing...was Clinton's "first black president" strategy racist?
143 - Heckler
JoM, as to your requests, where have I plaigerised without giving credit? Now , I do indulge in postmodernistic sub-reference at times.
As for "outing" me. Any editor that can check IP's, or even regular readers of the commentary should have spotted who I "am" by now. For those that haven't, then they aren't paying attention, and it's not like I am doing this for anyone but myself.
Now, to bring this whole mess back to topic.
The elephants are in trouble and are circling the metaphorical wagons around Rove as he barks orders to the legions of Gannonites. The donkeys are running around like headless chickens hoping that the "we are better than those scumbags" defense works.
I would guess that the next Carville/Rove will emerge for the dems sometime this summer, even if I have to go and do it my own damn self.
At least that way we will get some peace and quiet from gridlock, as well as a much hgher quality of reality TV as the investigations begin.
Good times, IMO.
144 - chantal stone
Heckler...as a "regular reader", I noticed...
quite a pleasantry, indeed :)
145 - DrPat
Jane, you ignorant slut!
Oops, wandered into the wrong ad hominem argument. I'll leave this one to the guys here, and head back to my retro corner...
146 - Arch Conservative
Gop is int roubly and "Chocolate city" Nagin who just got re-elected is a shining example of the type of dem who will save us all.
147 - Arch Conservative
"Chocoloate city?"
Yeah there's no such thing as a raicst Democrat or a racist black person huh.
148 - JustOneMan
Ray Nagin - "the Anti-Noah"
149 - Dave Nalle
At least that way we will get some peace and quiet from gridlock, as well as a much hgher quality of reality TV as the investigations begin.
I don't think it's realistic to expect full scale investigations of Democrat corruption to begin before 2008.
Dave
150 - Heckler
Well Dave, we knwo your partisan views, so such a statement is not unexpected from you.
I don't hold trust that the dems would investigate themselves any more than the repubs have done for the last 6 years.
My fervent desire is that Ds hold at least on Branch, and that Rs hold the other, then they can watch each other like hawks, eat the young, weak and unfit, and cause less trouble.
You know, the way the system was designed to work, and does, unless one Party gains totalitarian control for a while.
Like the last few years.
151 - Dave Nalle
I agree that the system works better when control of the houses is split, actually. I had hoped that the GOP control of both houses and the white house would make genuine reform possible, but Bush was remarkably unsuccessful in his efforts to do anything but the most mild tax reforms. That being the case, we are indeed better off with a government gridlocked between the two parties because that way things will at least not get any worse because very little will get done.
The idea that the last few years are an example of totalitarian control is, of course, laughable. If it were true then Bush would have been able to implement some of the reforms he campaigned on, and most of them have gone nowhere at all.
As for my 'partisan' views, I'm only a partisan for the truth.
Dave
152 - Arch Conservative
So many of us repubs are disgusted with our elected GOP leaders because they have been acting like Democrats.
If the GOP does lose a few seats or control come novemeber it will be because the gop base stayed home and not because the dems actually had any resonable, well thought out proposals for our problems that would merit thier victory.
There is only one thing that fills us over here on the right with more dread than the idea of Democrats in power and that is Republicans in power behaving like Democrats and thinking they can go on doing it without any reprucussions.
Even if the Dems do gain control of congress I take much consolation in the knowledge that the manicial, narcississtic, power hungry, pathetic excuse for a genuine human being that is Hillary will never be president and that fact that those on the far left who much of the Dem party is beholden to are too friggin stupid to realize this will almost certainly ensure a GOp victory in 2008.
153 - zingzing
do you really think that they're going to try to get hillary elected? ha. haha. not really. if the dems are stupid enough to try, they deserve the loss. everyone knows she's devisive. it's no fucking secret.
as for your chocolate city comment... get real. no racist dems/black people... come on. of course there are. stop it.
154 - Heckler
Dave, I am right with you on your first paragraph in #151.
For your second paragraph, I might say you are being a bit naive and put forward the idea that Bush and his cronies have done EXACTLY what they wanted to do, and that your expectectation of them doing what they SAID they were going to do is what is laughable.
And of course, I must thank you for the laugh at your last line. "Partisan for the truth" is the best one I've heard in months. You are much funnier than Gallagher.
155 - Andy Marsh
He might be funnier than Gallaghar...but I've seen his pic...he has the same hairline!
Sorry Dave...couldn't help myself...I love having a full head of hair at my age!
156 - Arch Conservative
Well zing..the Dems were stupid enough to run Kerry in 2004 so they quite possibly could be stupid enough to run Hillary in 08.
Heckler is right when he says that Bush and co have done exactly what they wanted to do. His base didn't get what they wanted especially in the areas of limiting government and governement spending and the whole border issue. We are now angry and hopefully the party will leadership will wake up and realize that we won't stand for them running a RINO like Guiliani or Mccain. Man I can't stand Mccain. We need a real dead red (couldn't say true blue now could I) conservative on the ticket in 2008. Someone in the mold of Ronald Reagan. Someone who if he found himself in agreement with Ted Kennedy on any issue what have to take a moment ot find out what had gone wrong. The only name mentioned so far that comes even remotely close to this is George Allen but he doesn't have national name recognition as of yet.
As for Dems not running Hillary who will they run then zing? Kerry, Gore? Dean, the nation has already said no thank you to that pitiful trio....
157 - zingzing
we're going to run darth vadar. i don't fucking know. it's two years from now. i don't really think they should have run kerry in 04... but whatever. i wouldn't have let bush run again either. shows how much i know about running for president.
158 - Arch Conservative
Interesting strategy........
Run frankenstein...he loses.. run Vader....
Don't think it will work though.
You lefties need to tell who us who you're gonna run soon so we can start diggin up dirt on them now.
Hillary's too easy. We already have a library of shit on her.
159 - JustOneMan
Hey arch... the rumor in the beltway is that they Dems are really considering to nominate Rep. William Jefferson for president...good sources say he is a "BIG MONEY" raiser!
160 - zingzing
oh my, you're too funny.
we are going to run one of those prisoners from abu ghraib with the hood over his face so you won't know who it is until it's too late. and to spite you.
161 - JustOneMan
Hey thats pretty good...who best could represent the Dems...but an enemy of the US...and who said the dems are soft on terror...the problem is they are just rooting for the enemy!!
162 - Nancy
I have to agree with Arch on this one: the Dems are just stupid & feckless enough to run Hillary in 08; you can see it trickling thru their tiny little brains like feeble flickering firefly lights from time to time. Also there's no one in the D party with any name recognition, except perhaps Obama, who they would probably use as the VP. On the other hand, the GOP has plenty of Big Names, all right: DeLay, Frist, Ney, Abramoff, Hastert, Libby, Cheney, Rove, and of course Bush himself. In the case of the GOP, name recognition is not necessarily a good thing, especially when it's closely associated with federal grand juries, lying, or singlehandedly running US credibility & budgets into the ground, etc. Good ol' Jefferson is merely that charming perenniel exemplar of the scandal-soaked, corrupt deep southern politico, a la The Kingfish; that particular critter comes in all colors, flavors, and parties & is peculiar to the Deep South in its flagrancy.
I'm in a quandry: I can't vote for the GOP: their corruption & arrogance exceeds my capacity to forgive & forget, even if they field Jesus Christ on the ballot; on the other hand, I won't vote for any of the waffling wimps of the DNC, either, a party that for 6 years has had the GOP's nuts served up to them steaming hot on various platters and they haven't done a damned thing with any of them! Too much disarray.
163 - zingzing
go, terrorists! go! yeah, team!
164 - Arch Conservative
As if the Clintons weren't as corrupt as Jefferson.........
The Clintons make Jefferson look like a boy scout......they're just better at covering thier tracks......
Maybe if Jefferson had taken a couple of classes at the prestigious Clinton school of deceit and treachery he would have learned that sometimes you just have to whack people to protect yourself....
Vince foster......Ron brown.......Suzanne Colman....Jim Macdougal....Ed wiley......
Man I hate the Clintons. Maybe karma will rear it's ugly head and the dems will actually nominate Hillary for pres and someone with good aim will take a shot at her and send her down for a dust nap.
165 - Jet in Columbus
The Clintons were found innocent of all charges but one by YOUR republican congress Arch-lying about an extra marital affair. What are you the National Inquirer of Truth???
Let's compare the Clintons to Nixon!
166 - Arch Conservative
Being found innocent and being innocent are two completely different things Jet.
The Clinton's body count is much higher than Nixon's .
167 - Jet in Columbus
More Arch Con bullshit if ever I heard it, the justice system is only valid when it's convenient to you?
and you're right, no one got killed in a useless war that we lost by the way in Vietnam while Nixon was in office right?
168 - JustOneMan
Jet...please do your history homework...
Remember Nixon inhereted the the war from Kennedy and Johnson!
In addition, right or wrong Nixon did what was best for the country he resigned...unlike the "Great Stain Maker"...mr.Clinton...
169 - Jet in Columbus
Nixon ran the Vietnam war for 7 years whether he inherited it or not, time to pull those blinders that only look to the right off guys! Clinton was cleared of those charges by a REPUBLICAN congress grasping at any straw they could, but couldn't succeed, no matter who they tried no matter how they lied and manufactured evidence.
It all started with a lie called whitewater made up by a bunch of sore loser republicans and an obsessed special prosecutor trying their best to probe something that wasn't true.
Clinton was only guilty of one thing that any man would do-he lied about having an affair on his wife.
You can repeat it till you're blue in the face but those are the facts.
170 - Matthew T. Sussman
"Maybe
karma will rear it's ugly head and the dems will actually nominate Hillary for pres and someone with good aim will take a shot at her and send her down for a dust napsomeone will kill Hillary Clinton."If you weren't a fan of electronic monitoring, folks, now ya are.
171 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks Matt, it might be noted that it's illegal to threaten political figures lives. Suss makes a very valid point that was demonstrated quite clearly once when a guy started mouthing off about someone and the secret service called Howard on another line to keep the guy on the line long enough to trace the call and arrest him.
Now you don't want poor Eric to get a search warrant on his door to get your name and address do you. Oh..... never mind the NSA probably has it already anyway. Hmmm maybe Bush is good for something after all-shutting you up!
172 - MCH
"Jet...please do your history homework...
Remember Nixon inhereted the the war from Kennedy and Johnson!"
...and it took him five years (1968-73) and 26,000 KIA to get us the fuck outa there...
173 - Jet in Columbus
Thanks MCH, but he didn't take office till Jan 1969 you wouldn't want him critisizing you too!
174 - MCH
True, Jet, my bad...but technically, we weren't totally outa there until '75, two years after the cease-fire...so I'll stick with the figure of five years...
175 - Jet in Columbus
Oh I wasn't arguing, only that he came into office in 69 and left early in 74
No biggie