“NEVER SAY NEVER”…WELL, OKAY. BUT THE GOP IS TOAST
How much trouble are Republicans in with the voters?
At the moment, it appears that it may be more efficacious for some Republicans to change their party affiliation to “Independent Wiccan.” At least that way they could probably get the pagan vote. And they may even be able to siphon away some votes from the hedonists, although it’s a tough sell what with the Hollywood crowd overwhelmingly Democratic.
When Tom Reynolds, the Chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee trails in his own race for re-election by 15 points a month before election day, you can take that as a sign from heaven that there will probably be a lot of new faces sitting in the House on January 6, 2007 - the day the new Congress will convene for the first time.
And very few of those new faces will be Republican.
Political analyst and polling guru Stuart Rothenberg (a Democrat but a respected professional) believes the dam has already broken and a Democratic tidal wave on election day is almost a virtual certainty:
The national atmospherics don’t merely favor Democrats; they set the stage for a blowout of cosmic proportions next month.
No, that’s not a prediction, since Republicans still have a month to “localize†enough races to hold onto one or both chambers of Congress. But you don’t have to be Teddy White or V.O. Key to know that the GOP is now flirting with disaster.
Let’s forget all of the niceties and diplomatic language and cut to the obvious truth: From the White House to Capitol Hill, Republicans look inept. And that assertion is based on what Republicans are saying. Democratic rhetoric is much harsher and, therefore, easier to dismiss as partisan claptrap.
[snip]
You can be sure that the Foley mess will percolate for a while, as Democrats and journalists ask House Republicans what they knew and when they knew it. Instead of being able to focus on their accomplishments in office or their challengers’ warts, Republican House Members running for re-election will have to spend too much of their time answering questions about the scandal.
Indeed, this WaPo piece highlighting the problems of long time Congressman Clay Shaw from Florida seems to confirm Rothenberg’s analysis while pointing up the potential difficulties for even safe Republicans:
Rep. E. Clay Shaw Jr. (R-Fla.) was trying to talk about security Friday at bustling Port Everglades, but with planes roaring overhead and containers slamming onto trucks, nobody could hear him.
That’s a common problem for Shaw and Republican candidates around the country these days — trying urgently 30 days before Election Day to frame a winning message but finding their efforts drowned out by the furor over former representative Mark Foley (R-Fla.).
“It’s sucking all the air out of the room,” Shaw said in an interview after his news conference at the port. “It’s a tough time; there’s just total saturation right now.”
Back in Washington, Republican strategists acknowledge privately that, even under their best-case scenario, Foley’s sexually charged messages and allegations that House leaders were too passive in responding to them will remain an all-consuming distraction for GOP.
The constant drip, drip, drip of revelations, charges, counter charges, and thundering denunciations from Democrats (who seem more interested in reading the private messages of a pervert than they do in listening to the phone calls of people who want to kill us) are political stilettos thrust into heart of the GOP, disgusting decent people everywhere from both parties not only for their content but for the cavalier attitude of Hastert, Reynolds, et al to Foley’s cyberstalking. With each new revelation, people are reminded that Foley could have - should have been stopped. Any kind of investigation would have revealed the raunchy IM’s and perhaps even Foley’s contact with pages after they left the program.
I predicted here that a page would come forward by Friday acknowledging that he had sex with the Congressman. I was off by less than 48 hours:
A former House page says he had sex with then-Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) after receiving explicit e-mails in which the congressman described assessing the sexual orientation and physical attributes of underage pages but waiting until later to make direct advances.
The former page, who agreed to discuss his relationship with Foley with the Los Angeles Times on the condition that he not be identified, said his electronic correspondence with Foley began after he finished the respected Capitol Hill page program for high school juniors. His sexual encounter was in the fall of 2000, he said. At the time, he was 21 and a graduate of a rural Northeastern college.
I don’t think there is any doubt that if proper procedures had been followed, Foley would have been discovered long ago as a member who was using the page program as a sexual bullpen, sizing up potential lovers (online or in person) while they were still teenagers and then soliciting sex after their graduation.
The question really isn’t whether his behavior was illegal in the strictest sense of the word. Despicable conduct knows no boundaries of legality when it is practiced against children of 17, 18, or 19 years old. And some conservative bloggers seem to think that it is possible since no law was broken, the entire scandal is a trumped up effort by Democrats to elicit outrage at Republicans for their actions in the matter.
I have no doubt that much of this scandal has been orchestrated by Democrats to gain maximum political advantage. I think one would have to be brain dead to think otherwise. But Foley and his enablers (consciously or unconsciously ignoring the signs of trouble and warning bells for years) don’t need Democrats to make themselves look negligent or worse, like a bunch of calculating, back room politicos more concerned with the electoral impact of Foley’s misdeeds than in protecting the children whose safety had been entrusted to them by their parents.
Foley was a bomb waiting to go off. Whether some Democratic operatives nudged the scandal along by feeding the media is really not the point, although I find it fascinating in a historical sense to trace the origins of the information to expose the creeps who apparently wish to out gay Republicans regardless of whether or not they wish to have their sexual orientation made public. These low lifes are the hypocrites not the gay Republicans. To browbeat the GOP for supporting a President whose anti-terrorist measures they believe violate American’s privacy while looking on with satisfaction and cheering as the most personal, private details of a person’s life are plastered all over some bottom feeder’s website is where the real hypocrisy in this whole scandal resides.
As it now seems likely that the GOP will be given the boot by voters on election day, America will turn toward the Democrats looking for leadership on budget issues, entitlements, the War on Terror, and other vital issues facing the country.
It says volumes that the American people will not find any new ideas or solutions from Democrats - only the promise that they will “drain the swamp.”
Given the Foley mess and the culpability of the GOP leadership in failing to act on it, that should be more than enough to keep the Democrats busy for a while.
‘Never say never’ … well, okay, but the GOP is toast
How much trouble are Republicans in with the voters? At the moment, it appears that it may be more efficacious for some Republicans to change their party affiliation to ‘Independent Wiccan.’…
Trackback by The Shape of Days — 10/8/2006 @ 11:47 am
The anecdotal evidence I am seeing on conservative Web sites is that this Foley mess is a Democratic dirty trick and the Republicans those people are talking to plan to vote to keep Congress in Republican hands so that we do not lose the war on terror and make the United States a terrorist target like much of the Middle East, and especially Iraq. In addition, some of the polls are showing that Foley has had little to no effect on the Republican congressional races. You are reading Democratic sites that of course think the world has ended for Republicans. In the meantime, I recommend you check out Strata-Sphere and MacRanger, both of whom are following up on the discrepancies behind the Foley revelations and the interest the FBI et al. are taking in Democratic operatives.
Comment by Public Enemy — 10/8/2006 @ 12:47 pm
The sad an disgusting fact is that the Republicans deserve everything that happens to them in this upcoming election, if they get wiped out!
The pathetic and disgusting fact is, the only alternative to the Republicans, are the Hate-America-First party, the Surrender-to-the-Jihadis party; the Party that despises George Bush for no other reason that he is George Bush, the Party that literally has the same talking points as Al Qaeda, the Party of Anti-Americans such as John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.; the Party that literally wants to destroy this country, and it’s way of life, and that is the DEMOCRATS.
It’s enough to make me sick to my stomach!
Comment by Dale in Atlanta — 10/8/2006 @ 2:06 pm
Shorter Public Enemy: “Don’t read THEIR propaganda, read OUR propaganda.”
Comment by David (SNAFU Principle) — 10/8/2006 @ 2:25 pm
[...] Another warning for the Dems comes from rightie blogger Rick Moran: As it now seems likely that the GOP will be given the boot by voters on election day, America will turn toward the Democrats looking for leadership on budget issues, entitlements, the War on Terror, and other vital issues facing the country. [...]
Pingback by The Mahablog » Foley Frolics — 10/8/2006 @ 3:09 pm
As a Democrat, I can guarantee you that the Democrats aren’t capable of executing something this brilliantly and ruthlessly effective.
Something like this can only arise from hubris on the part of the party in power.
Comment by Geek, Esq. — 10/8/2006 @ 3:41 pm
For David (SNAFU Principle) Or read all sides and try to draw a reasoned conclusion. Or, on the other hand, wait until Election Day and see how it all comes out at the polls.
Comment by Public Enemy — 10/8/2006 @ 5:16 pm
Hidden camera in the Washington Post Newsroom
Don’t bother asking how we do it. Suffice it to say that our operatives have placed our unique Blogotronic™ mini-cameras and microphones in the newsroom of the WaPo. Shhhhhhhh… let’s listen in…
Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — 10/9/2006 @ 5:12 am
Foley has resigned, so how does this represent that the GOP failed to act?
That said, how many duped polls will you succumb before you recognize you’ve been duped?
Comment by syn — 10/9/2006 @ 9:05 am
I would recommend that take your head out of your overly ample ass and grow up.
One bogus poll - yeah. Two - maybe. But every major race has been affected by this scandal.
Or does Tom Reynolds being 15 points down in a safe Republican seat mean that his whole district is suffering mass delusions?
Go back to your sandbox and let the adults talk now…
Comment by Rick Moran — 10/9/2006 @ 9:12 am
Dale in Atlanta said:
“The pathetic and disgusting fact is, the only alternative to the Republicans, are the Hate-America-First party, the Surrender-to-the-Jihadis party; the Party that despises George Bush for no other reason that he is George Bush, the Party that literally has the same talking points as Al Qaeda, the Party of Anti-Americans such as John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, etc.; the Party that literally wants to destroy this country, and it’s way of life, and that is the DEMOCRATS.
It’s enough to make me sick to my stomach!”
Dale, you are usually reasonable and thoughtful, with some good original thinking, in your comments. This boilerplate from Hannity, Rush, etc., is hyperbole, at best. The country operated just as well as it does today during most times when liberals had control of the government. America fought wars of defense, provided needed services, and helped business and labor succeed (admittedly, at different levels of success at different times, just as with conservatives).
Fearmongering got us into an intractable mess in Iraq and fearmongering about Democrats being the same as al-Qaeda will get the same results. If you oppose liberal programs or ideas, tell us what is wrong with them specifically. You will frequently be correct, I would wager. An honest liberal would have to admit that the world as we know it has not ended under conservative rule. An honest conservative would have to say the same about liberal rule. Hysteria and hyperbole is not much of an argument from any political viewpoint.
Comment by ed — 10/9/2006 @ 10:03 am
For Ed:
In response to your question for Dale in Atlanta. We actually have nothing to predict the future with but the past and what people have to say. There is no way (unless one is a clairvoyant) to tell what the future will bring. Having said that, here below is one suggestion (whether or not you agree with him) of what the spokespeople and congressional Democratic leaders have said and done in the past and may do about the North Korea nuclear test:
North Korea Tests Nuke
That headline should scare people back to the reality that we live in a dangerous world. It should also remind everyone that the ‘Clinton Plan’ set this eventuality in motion. Here’s what AllExperts said:
It is reported that President Clinton’s officials only agreed to the plan because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the nuclear power project was completed.
Here’s where AllExperts read that:
Clinton administration officials have privately said that they agreed to the plan in 1994 only because they thought the North Korean government would collapse before the project was completed.
Lovely, huh? What’s worse is that North Korea later admitted that it stopped honoring the treaty shortly after signing it. Needless to say, Democrats thought it was a good plan:
Speaking in the Senate on March 7, [2001], Senator Biden argued that “it would be irresponsible not to discover whether North Korea is prepared to abandon its pursuit of long-range missiles in response to a serious proposal from the United States, our friends, our allies…The United States should end our ‘prevent defence’ and go on the offensive to advance our national interests, particularly the dismantlement of North Korea’s long-range missile programme. Now is not the time for lengthy policy reviews or foot-dragging on existing commitments. Now is the time to forge ahead and test North Korea’s commitment to peace.â€
Sen. Biden didn’t take into account that they’d abandoned their treaty obligations years before, 7 years to be precise. Implicit in Biden’s comment is that the current policy had failed. His statement also explicitly said that we should continue with that failed policy.
Bet the ranch that Democrats will blame President Bush for not doing more to ‘contain’ North Korea. Bet the ranch that they’ll try ignoring the fact that their president is the one who created the mess in the first place.
Hugh is on top of this, saying:
The nuke-rattling is a strategy of a gangster regime left to its own devices throughout the ’90s, and for which there is now no obvious solution. Iran will become the same problem unless confronted and obliged to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha will find a way to blame Bush and demand hearings into Bush Adminsitration policies, even as the clock ticks down.
The truth is that Clinton dumped a bunch of messes in President Bush’s lap by kicking the can down the road on every major foreign policy issue. The truth is that Democrats don’t care that the Clinton administration did more damage in their time in office to endanger us than every president other than Jimmy Carter.
There isn’t an easy resolution to this crisis but I’m thankful that President Bush is in office rather than Bill Clinton. People might disagree with President Bush but one thing is certain: He doesn’t believe in Clinton’s ‘Kick the Can Down the Road’ approach to foreign policy matters.
One thing that’s predictable is that Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean will all issue press releases by mid-morning condemning President Bush for not doing enough to avert this crisis. It’s also predictable that they’ll each mention that we need a “new direction†and that the new direction will be “tough and smart†if Democrats are elected. Don’t believe their nonsense. Pelosi, Reid and Dean were all advocates of “opening bilarteral discussions†with North Korea and Iran. The time for that has passed.
Whenever you hear Democrats talking about “opening dialogues with Iran and North Koreaâ€, play devil’s advocate and ask “what’s to be gained by that approachâ€? I suspect that most Democrats advocating that approach will be left speachless and dumbfounded.
That should be your first proof that we can’t afford a Democratically-controlled House or Senate. We need serious policymakers, not that bunch. (Per http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/)
It is possible that if the Democrats take Congress in November they may realize that treating the war on terror like a law enforcement problem will not work; that talks with North Korea have not and will not stop Kim Jong-Il from his nuclear activities; that Iran is posing a greater nuclear threat than talks will correct, but why take the chance? One of them is quoted as having said that if Iran fires a nuclear weapon we should bomb them with our nuclear weapons. Does that make sense to you?
From what I have been reading the Democrats in the House plan to start impeachment proceedings against Bush as soon as they take office and Charles Rangel plans, when he takes over the Appropriations Committee, to cut the funding for the war in Iraq. You may not be a student of history, but I am. All of this Democratic naivete sounds suspiciously to me like the isolationists’ talk prior to World War II. I really don’t think that acquiesing to the Democratic vision of ending the NSA program, repealing the Patriot Act, and planning for how to treat the victims after the terrorists strike us again is going to save this country from Kim Jong-Il’s sending his nuclear weapons to other rogue players on the world stage or Islamofascist terrorism. From everything I have read, the Democrats do not seem to realize the seriousness of the world situation and to let them take charge would be like putting five-year-olds in command of a nuclear submarine. The children might not accidently fire the nuclear weapons, but do we want to put our lives on the line in case they do?
Comment by Public Enemy — 10/9/2006 @ 11:09 am
Dear PE:
How old are you? If you are a student of history, why has your study provided you with nothing of value (you are using politics, not history in your essay)? Did you even read what I said about fearmongering before indulging in fearmongering? Now I’ll type slowly for you.
I am in the middle of my fifth decade of living under the prospect of nuclear attack. I live each day fully and as fearlessly as possible. We were under much more threat from Communists in the Soviet Union and China, with thousands of nuclear weapons than we will ever be from North Korea or Iran. This is also true of the threat from terrorists. But being a student of history, you know this already, correct?
Secondly, my historical contention that Democrats have done a reasonably decent job of governing in the past has not been refuted by you. You did mention that President Clinton “kicked the can” on foreign policy, but that is hardly proof that Democrats have not kept the nation working fairly well overall during their times in power. And if we are going to be political, which president recently announced that the resolution to the war they started will just have to fall to the president following them? Roosevelt? No. Wilson? No. Hmm. I give up. Well, you are a student of history, so perhaps you can enlighten us.
I am curious regarding you statement that the Democrats will find that treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem will not work. Hasn’t law enforcement efforts stopped several terrorist attacks (the airline attacks planned out of London, the new millinium attacks planned in the United States for instance)? And why would you favor NSA evesdropping in the law enforcement approach is without value?
Talking with enemies has a long tradition in the game of diplomacy. Resolution to problems and conflict has actually occurred from such efforts. You being a student of history and all, I won’t insult your intelligence by listing them for you.
If talking will not prevent North Korea (or Iran or Pakistan)from giving nuclear weapons to terrorists, what then do you propose? Preemptive nuclear strikes? Invading North Korea to give the people democracy and to overthrow a dangerous tyrant?
You don’t like Democrats and their policies. Fair enough. Criticize away! I dropped out of the Democratic party 20 years ago because of crazy, misguided policies. Once again, slowly, Democrats have been misguided in the past and may be misguided in the future. However, to accuse Democrats of being anti-American and treasonous is unfounded, wrong, and against the grain of history. I am not afraid of Democrats, Republicans, Communists or terrorists. President Bush has caused massive problems by using fear as a political weapon. Your anticipated loss of Congress by the Republicans is the first bitter pill of that bludgeoning the public with it.
Comment by ed — 10/9/2006 @ 11:46 am
Dale in Atlanta Said:
2:06 pm
It’s enough to make me sick to my stomach!
[Try some Pepto-Mismol. And remember, voting in Georgia is November 8. Mark your calendar.]
Comment by anonymous — 10/9/2006 @ 1:52 pm
“Mismol” … Pepto-Bismol, of course. And maybe an Alka-Seltzer … Plop plop, fizz fizz, Dale …
Comment by anonymous — 10/9/2006 @ 2:01 pm
I love it how all those pollsters think that the American voter is sooooo stupid that they will turn their backs on the party that they have rallied around because of one slug in their company. They really believe that a voter in Illinois who hates everything thing the left stands for will now vote for the left because of Mark Foley and the betrayal of Republican values. But of course, if the pollsters and the MSM keep telling conservatives they are going to lose long enough, maybe some of them will decide to stay home on election day because since conservatives are going to lose anyway, what’s the point in voting.
How stupid do you think American voters are? What has Mark Foley got to do with my local congressman? What has Mark Foley got to do with jobs in my district? What has Mark Foley got to do with the taxes I pay? Nothing.
News Flash…..because of one slug in the House it doesn’t mean that conservative voters are a) going to stay and home and not vote or b) vote for someone who is their polar opposite on the issues.
If anything, I see a hugh push in the last two weeks before the elections and it won’t be coming from the left. If you think that the Republicans use fear, you may be right. The fear of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, is a great reason to get out the vote for conservatives.
Comment by retire05 — 10/9/2006 @ 4:56 pm
Of course the Repubs should lose. They’ve been spinning people in circles
for years, but it seems people are finally seeing throught their rouse.
After all, what actually is going right?
Afghanistan - on the verge falling apart
Iraq - flying apart at the seams
North Korea - blowing up nuclear bombs
Iran - about to go nuclear, gaining more influence in Iraq
Palestine/Israeli conflict: worse and South Lebanon destroyed
Bin Laden free and terrorism flourishing
Unilateralism has alienated allies and forced the USA to take on greater burden alone
Americans are more than ever despised abroad.
On the home front :
National debt has doubled - approaching 10 trillion dollars
(increased as % of GDP also), which will come home to roost.
Military stretched to the limit
Scientific research stifled in deference to Evangelical base.
Forget about the child porn ring being run out of Foley’s office.
The things that have gone right, such as jobs, stock and home prices
are things that the admin never really touch. Everything that they touch,
goes dreadfully wrong.
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/9/2006 @ 5:02 pm
Bruce, excuse me if I worry about what is going on in the United States before I worry about all those nations you listed. And as far as us not being liked by other nations, it never seems to be a problem when they need our money, now does it?
Let me see:
Unemployment at 4.7%
Stock market at all time highs
National deficit coming down like the walls of Jerico
Minority business and home ownership at all time highs
Education gap between minorities and whites narrowing
All this in spite of the fact that we must educate those who have no legal right in this nation and in their own language or pay for their medical care not to mention all the other social services. Think what the unemployment rate would be if we did not factor in the illegal base.
And since two Americans just won Nobel Peace Prizes in science, I guess the evangelical base has not stifled research all that much.
Hitler didn’t like us much but that didn’t stop us from kicking his tail but since you are so worried about us being liked, I would suggest you go visit Kim Jong Il and Almondjoyjihad and convince them what nice people we really are. And think of the frequent flyer miles you will rack up.
Comment by retire05 — 10/9/2006 @ 5:42 pm
>>Bruce, excuse me if I worry about what is going on in the United >>States before I worry about all those nations you listed. And as >>far as us not being liked by other nations, it never seems to be a >>problem when they need our money, now does it?
Guess money can’t buy love now, can it?
>> Unemployment at 4.7%
>>Stock market at all time highs
>>National deficit coming down like the walls of Jerico.
So it’s like 300 billion instead of 400 billion.
That’s still a pretty high wall.
>>Minority business and home ownership at all time highs
>>Education gap between minorities and whites narrowing
Some things that the ADMIN did nothing to HELP, HAVE worked out
on their own. Just imagine how great things would be if the ADMIN was
out on their arses completely!
>>All this in spite of the fact that we must educate those who have >>no legal right in this nation and in their own language or pay for >>their medical care not to mention all the other social services.
But at the same time, the ADMIN makes the ILLEGAL IMMIG issue
a major point (distraction). Yet it has very few real world impact to most Americans, and helps a great deal. They don’t have an easy life here. But of course it has to be dealt with, and I’m not sure I’d be betting on either party hit a home run.
>>Think what the unemployment rate would be if we did not factor in >>the illegal base.
Higher probably - how many non illegals want to scrub chemical vats and work 12 shifts in slaughter houses.
>>And since two Americans just won Nobel Peace Prizes in science, I >>guess the evangelical base has not stifled research all that much.
Guess they can fit Big Bang into creationism and Dna
into God’s plan. But seriously, it’s the message it sends.
Research into
>>Hitler didn’t like us much but that didn’t stop us from kicking his >>tail but since you are so worried about us being liked, I would >>suggest you go visit Kim Jong Il and Almondjoyjihad and convince >>them what nice people we really are. And think of the frequent >>flyer miles you will rack up.
Love it or leave it? I’ve left it already, but I still love it.
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/9/2006 @ 8:31 pm
OK, Bruce,
so while the left claims what a wonderful job Bubba did with the economy and unemployment, you chose not to give President Bush the same credit. So be it.
“how many non-illegals want to scrub chemical vats and work 12 shifts in a slaugher house”
Well, gee, perhaps you should go to norhtwest Arkansas and talk to the people there who worked for Tyson, Bruce’s and all the other poultry plants. They worked there, their fathers worked there, and their grandfathers worked there. Now they are unemployed. They were put out of work by an industry that not only hired illegals, but sent people to Mexico to recruit illegals. Middle American families who worked in slaughter houses, raising their families on those jobs. So obviously, there were Americans who worked in those jobs and you didn’t know it. Now, those same Americans are on the unemployment
dole.
So now you want Repubicans out on their arses. OK. You really think the party of appeasment will do any better? If you do, perhaps it is better you are not in the U.S. any longer.
Comment by retire05 — 10/9/2006 @ 8:43 pm
Retire05:
Regarding economy: if it was worse under Clinton, Bush would get credit.
But it wasn’t. Bush inherited a good one. Suprisingly still fairly strong.
So he gets points for not blowing something (for a change).
Immigrants: Those home-growns sue too much. See illegals = no lawsuits cause the INS will come. So BIG CORPS like ‘em. Whose fault is that?
War: Also, afraid that was Truman who won the “big one”. Not exactly an appeaser. Nixon and Ford lost Vietnam. Run and cutters. Which party were they again?
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/9/2006 @ 9:37 pm
Bruce, perhaps you haven’t heard about the bunch of illegals that are suing Wendy’s because when the Wendy’s corportation learned the employees were illegal Wendy’s let them go. So much for your illegals=no lawsuits theory.
Yep, Truman was a fighter as was Kennedy. But then came LBJ and the Democrat party changed. Instead of doing what he should have done, LBJ let the anti-war people get out of hand (”hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids have you killed today”) and by the time Nixon was in office the Communist Party of America had financed a large revolt on our own streets against the war in Vietnam. We didn’t lose that war. We gave it away. Vietnam was over by the time Ford took office. So don’t know how you can say Ford was a “run and cut” president. There was a time when Democrats stood their ground for our nation’s security. FDR when he backed Britian by twisting the law and Truman when he used the atom bomb. But those Democrats no longer exist. Too bad. I hated it when the Democrats left me and sold out to the far left. But I can’t support a party that cares more about the rights of terrorists than they do about killing the terrorists.
Comment by retire05 — 10/9/2006 @ 9:49 pm
I can sympathise with what you’re saying “Retire05″.
But at the same time, is the current Admin handling the so-called
war on terror, correctly? It’s a different kind of war.
No body wants the terrorists to blow up another building, but is
what’s going on in Iraq really going to prevent that?
What is the right way to “solve” the problem?
There may not BE a solution. It may just have to peter out naturally, eventually. More moderate voices are encouraged.
But at the same time, the US is asking for more trouble,
shaking a hornets nest.
It isn’t the wild west out there. There were rules in the wild west
compared to what’s going on now. We were supposed to save
the town from the bad guys, then Nelly and her three
kids come out and hug us. But that dream evaporated.
We need to get out of the wild wild, mid-east,
eliminate oil dependence, and the need to have troops there.
The admin has not addressed this issue at all.
I don’t know the answers, but we need to change tactics.
The current admin isn’t doing that. If it ain’t working, they say it is. If it’s broke they deny it is.
A righteous war is worth fighting. WWII was one. Vietnam, probably not.
Iraq? If it had been done right, with a 500,000 troops from around the world,
then perhaps. But the way it has been run, it’s worse off than before,
Saddam and all.
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/10/2006 @ 12:10 pm
Can someone define the “far” left for me? It appears to be a popular phrase amongst the right and so called moderate dems. anecdotaly when i ask repubs i know they mention issues like abortion, affirmative action, immigration, etc. But i know that republicans like Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, and the GOP candidate for the Michigan Gov. seat ( Dick DeVos )support affirmative action - i can name GOP officials that support a womans right to choose, and so on. so what exactly is the “far” left?
Comment by Phonics 4 dummies — 10/10/2006 @ 2:11 pm
The far left is a simplistic notion created my spinmeisters to silence
critical thinking. A sterotype.
To me, the main difference between right and left, is same as justice vs. mercy. Both are parts of goodness. Right-wingers tend to emphasise justice
and rightousness, while lefties mercy and compassion. We need both, and most
people, left or right, demonstrate both at one time or another. You say
tampon, I say tampoon. Let’s work the whole thing out.
Right-wingers draw a smaller circle of “us” and “family” while lefties
tend to have a larger one. But I think that right wingers feeling for “us” and “family” may be more concentrated and passionate as a result. The downside
of this is a mild (to extreme) paranoia.
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/10/2006 @ 9:34 pm
And I should add to the above that the lefties weakness is mild to extreme naivete’.
Choose your poison I guess.
Comment by Bruce Manrose — 10/11/2006 @ 8:38 am