Most Ridiculous Campaign Strategy of 2006

Email Print posted by ProfRich 01/05/2007 05:06:39 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
The most ridiculous campaign strategy from 2006 was the insistence by Repubs that Democrats must present a strategy for what to do in Iraq.  If not, no one should vote for them. 

I must admit at first glance this actually seems reasonable but I didn't have to think about it too long before realizing how foolish a tactic this was.  There are two huge problems with it. 

(1) It had no hope of working

(2) It only served to highlight the Repub's failures

I think the strategy was a trick, personally.  It goes like this.  Demand the dems present a plan for whow to handle the military situation in Iraq (supposedly to justify their right to take back Congress).  The more specific the better.  Then when they do, hammer them mercilessly for criticizing the military decisions of a commander-in-chief during a war.  Every political observer knows you do not attack the countries military plan while it is going on.  You can question the war itself, you can say you think it should end, talk about troop levels a bit but you don't detail all the wrong turns in specific strategy (not if you are an officeholder at least).  This makes sense, it makes us appear weak and confused, it erodes confidence among the military, it is a good rule of thumb.  

All of which the Repubs would pounce on as soon as the Dems directly contradicted a tactical decision.  (i.e. we should pull troops out of location A and concentrate on location B).  The Repubs were all ready to go crazy.  You would have heard the word treasonous a lot on Fox Radio (bet you think they didn't know that word after hearing their coverage of the Valerie Plame affair, huh?) 

(Many of you will remember those super-patriot Repubs do not feel any compulsion to follow this rule.  From Somalia through Libya and into Kosovo they were relentlessly unsupportive and derisive of Clinton as C-in-C.) 

You see, these repubs don't spend a lot of time reading the Constitution so they apparently did not realize that Congress does not control the nation's military.  Demanding that Senators and House members have a plan for waging war in Iraq is a little like demanding a running back has a plan for a stadium upgrade before you sign him to contract.  Its not his job. 

The trick did not work.  Dems did not seem to buy the argument that they had to produce a strategy.  They pretty much ignored this pathetic attempt to bait them. 

Why was this so easy to do?  

People hated the Republicans.  GW was dragging around an approval rating in the 20s, people's number two issue was corruption, number one was the war and no one was tricked into blaming the democrats.  The dems haven't done a whole lot right since Clinton left but they knew when to sit there and watch the other guy self-destruct.

Of course, what made it super easy was that the Repubs didn't have a plan either.  This was the most fascinating part of all.  The Repubs demanded a plan from the Democrats despite the fact the Dem congressman have no say in the implementation of the war.  Now who is in charge of that?  Oh wait, I have the Constitution right here.  Something called the president! 

It was surreal to see the president, drifting aimlessy through a sea of chaos and failure demand Democrat Congressional candidates explain how to do his job.  Did you ever get the feeling the request for a Democratic plan was an honest one cause Bush was just out of ideas?  I did.

It seemed most Americans were not near as interested in an alternate plan considering there was no actual plan.

Now as to how this affects how to vote.  I see it this way.  You have two options.

1) Someone with either no plan or a plan that has emperically been proven an unmitigated disaster and a staunch refusal to change that plan.

2) Someone who won't come out with a plan.

Maybe neither option is very attractive but you would have to be a presidenital sized idiot to choose the first one.

The other argument runs like this.  The repubs seems to be saying we have screwed up Iraq SOOOOOOO bad we can't fix it but the dems can't either so vote for us.

If that is true (and it very well might be) I am voting against the Republicans based in their track record of screwing things up so bad no one can fix them.  If Iraq is a lost cause, dear God, lets stop them before they do it again. 

Ultimately faced with a choice between potential failures and proven failures, well that is no choice at all. 

 

< Bush please look at my mail! | Troop Death Count >
 Display:
Most Ridiculous Campaign Strategy of 2006 | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
Did anyone else see it this way (none / 0)

I am more interested in what others who vote for the dems think (since this is opinion) than Ken and Arcos time-wasting attempts to nitpick irrelevant details.

Incidentally I heard today the dems have decided to adopt Bush's Irag panel's recommendation.  This is both prudent and cuts him off at the knees since it was his own damn panel. 

by ProfRich on 01/05/2007 05:08:45 PM EST

remember me? (none / 0)
“I am more interested in what others who vote for the dems think (since this is opinion) than Ken and Arcoso time-wasting attempts to nitpick irrelevant details.”

You might have noticed that when conservatives don’t comment on your blogs, they just disappear into oblivion. Our job is to keep the forum lively by sparking debate. We wouldn’t want to see you waste all of your hard work.

“Incidentally I heard today the dems have decided to adopt Bush's Irag panel's recommendation.”

It appears that Bush has also decided to adopt some of the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Next week, the president will announce plans to increase troop levels by 30,000, as prescribed by the ISG. Thank you, James Baker and Alan Simpson. I think we’ll take you up on it.

“Dems did not seem to buy the argument that they had to produce a strategy.  They pretty much ignored this pathetic attempt to bait them.”
 
We can all agree that Democrats have steadfastly refused to produce a strategy regarding Iraq. But here’s an interesting question to ponder. What are the Democrats going to do about Bush’s surge in the number of troops? Will Democrats vote to cut funding for the war? They did it during Vietnam War, and it worked perfectly, remember? We lost.


Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, so I guess they finally have to do something. Right?
go get 'em!

by KenTX on 01/06/2007 03:20:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep it's all the Democrats fault (none / 0)
Oh Ken can we spin this some more.


We can all agree that Democrats have steadfastly refused to produce a strategy regarding Iraq.

ROTFLMAO….Yep here we go….the Republican Congress followed uncurious George blindly to wherever he wanted to go, singing praises and lining the path with palm leaves as if he where the Messiah leading them to paradise. The Republican Congress and Uncurious George marched down the path without accepting Democratic input and even accusing any who didn't pick up a drum and march along as being Anti-American, Anti-Troops, and sympathizing with the not quite well defined “enemy”  And where did the Shrub lead them? Into a cluster fuck that even the hard line Right Wing Conservatives are running away from.
So NOW that it is universally accepted by the experts that Iraq is FUBAR, the cons whine, pout, and shout like children on a playground, that the Democrats haven’t produced a strategy.
If you had really wanted a “strategy” why not ask before hand instead of locking the doors and keeping Democrats out. Why not listen to the REAL experts in on the Middle East who warned you before hand that it was a mistake to try to inflict Democracy on a country that wasn’t prepared to accept it.No what Republicans want now is to find some way to blame others for something that was all their doing. Republicans own this war whether they like it or not. I know the Cons are screaming “Yeah but Democrats voted for it too!!!” which some did, but in the minds of the American people when you think Iraq War, you think Republican.
As for as what will the Democrats do? Probably very little. The AWOL, drunken coked up,  flyboy, who gets his marching orders from converstation with the Almighty is still Commander and Chief, so he can deploy were he wants, and the Congress is not going to cut funds for the troops.


Why are the Republicans looking to the Democrats for a strategy. after all, Shrub has the hot line to heaven that allows him to talk to his "Higher Father&qu ot; can't he just place the call and ask "What would Jesus do?" Wasn't it The Almighty who told him to go take out Saddam. Well place the call and quite looking to the Democrats to bail your asses out.
 

Like Johnson in Viet Nam, it’s your guy who got us into, I’m just wondering if some Democrat is going to pull the Nixon playbook out and run on a “super secret” plan to get us out.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/06/2007 10:16:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
OK, then Democrats can shut up! (none / 0)
"Why are the Republicans looking to the Democrats for a strategy. Quit looking to the Democrats to bail your asses out."
 
So let me see if I've got this straight? Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, but they have no ideas on the subject of Iraq? They will allow Bush to surge the troop level? They will allow Bush to maintain forces in Iraq indefintely?

Hey...thanks!

But I don't think "alligator arms" inaction from Democrat lawmakers will make Cindy Sheehan happy.

As a matter of fact, this is the kind of issue that has the potential of tearing the Democrat Party into pieces. ProfessorRich from Austin will tell you that this is exactly what happened in 1968. Remember the Chicago Convention?

by KenTX on 01/06/2007 11:23:14 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow, You know so little and talk so much (none / 0)

THE CONGRESS CANNOT DIRECT THE MILITARY!

This is pretty clear to even the dimmest 11th graders (I know, I teach them).  Why can't you grasp this?

Congress cannot control troop levels!  Bush can.  This cannot split the party like it did in '68 because in 1968 the President was Lyndon Baines Johnson who was (unlike Bush) a Democrat and, incidentially (unlike Bush) a Texan.

The party, in '68 was not angry at Congress for escalating troops in Viet Nam they were angry at the president! And, just like then, if America is gonna crucify someone over this debacle, it will be the president.

The crazy, wishful thinking that one day the American electorate will wake up and blame this stupidity on some democrats who have been in (a very small slice) of power for 36 hours is really, really bizarre.

But what the hell, if you keep yelling it loud enough on Fox News maybe it just might work. 

By the way, an offshoot of the "make them attack the president's war strategy them call them treasonous" is the "make them say they will cut funding and call them treasonous."

Give it up repubs, the dems aren't gonna jump in front of this bullet for you.  Grow up and take some responsibility for your failures for once.

The democrats aren't gonna finish the shit sandwich you made so shut up and start eating. 

by ProfRich on 01/06/2007 12:26:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Man, this is gonna be fun! (none / 0)
“THE CONGRESS CANNOT DIRECT THE MILITARY!”

Since you’re a high school teacher, you’re supposed to already know this stuff, but allow me to review a few facts with you.

The Constitution creates a system of checks and balances and separated powers. Congress has the power to "declare War," but the president is the commander in chief of the military. Congress can "raise and support Armies," but the president picks the generals.

Congress controls the purse strings. If Congress disapproves of a war, it can refuse to appropriate money to sustain it. For example, Congress ended the Vietnam War by cutting off all funding for combat operations in Indo-China after Aug. 15, 1973.

Congress is now controlled by Democrats. They can vote at any time to restrict funding of the war. By restricting funding, they can force withdrawal. By restricting funding, they can force redeployment. By restricting funding, they can prevent a surge of 40,000 additional troops. In fact, John Murtha is talking about doing exactly that.

The NetNut Kos Kooks and the MoonBat Left Blogosphere and the Cindy Sheehan Sheeple Disciples are well aware that the Democrats have the ability to shut down the war. They will demand immediate withdrawal. If Congressional Democrats ignore the Looney Left, there will be an inter-party Civil War that will make 1968 look tame by comparison.

2007 will be the year of craziness in the Democrat Party. It seems that all 51 Senate Democrats are trying to get the party nomination for president. Meanwhile, Republicans are going to stay the course. Then we will sit back and enjoy the sight of Democrats eating each other over the subject of Iraq.

by KenTX on 01/06/2007 01:28:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am done with you here as well (none / 0)

I have addressed these issues (the parts that are actual issues anyway) and explained the Republican insistence that Dems should threaten to cut off funding so the Repubs can begin to blame them for the Repubs mistakes is pathetic politicking.  Ken, be a man, accept the conservatives responsibility for the disaster that is Iraq and quit dreaming
the Dems are gonna somehow make it all thier fault.

The control of the military and its failures are the president's responsibilty and his alone. 

The rest of your post was just republican talk show gibberish 

by ProfRich on 01/06/2007 02:38:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Iraq (none / 0)

"responsibility for the disaster that is Iraq"

Iraq is not a disaster. As I've stated many times- just my shear number of terrorists we've killed in Iraq, we can not say it is a failure. Once we accomplish the goal of a stable government in the middle east in which to base a military base out of and wage future campaigns out of against the rest of the despots in the middle east, Iraq will be one of the best decisions we've made.

 I can't believe they let you teach brainwash out children in our schools and turn them against out country and our troops. ....and tax payer dollars are funding you...

 

by acroso on 01/07/2007 05:32:32 AM EST

[ Parent ]
arcoso logic.... (none / 0)

As I've stated fabricated many times just my shear number of terrorists we've killed in Iraq

Oh..now there's a real measure of success...hummmm...where have we heard that before....

There is absolutely no way to acurately determine how many "terrorists" are killed in Iraq... estimates range from 2500 to 50000.

Of course  Bush must think it's easy , you just ask them for their al Qaeda memebership card then you shoot them... 

 

I can't believe they let you teach brainwash out children in our schools and turn them against out country and our troops. ....and tax payer dollars are funding you...

 

And you are an example of ?????

by MRFred on 01/07/2007 11:51:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Get your ass out there then. (none / 0)

You PUSSY.

You COWARD. 

You WARMONGERING CHICKENHAWK PIECE OF SHIT.

You know that guy you see in bars - that weaselly, pedophile-looking scumbag - who likes to talk shit about people, loud as he can, and then sneak out the back as soon as the first punch is thrown?

That's YOU, Acroso.

YOU'RE the slimy, weaselly little fuck in the bar.

Congratulations. 

by kiki on 01/17/2007 05:43:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right, kiki (none / 0)

That IS acroso. He's that guy.

 

by Tergenev on 01/18/2007 09:51:10 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Funding... (none / 0)


Veto...? Would Bush veto do ya think ?

by MRFred on 01/06/2007 03:59:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
KenTX is not humble or shy! (none / 0)
If there is one thing I enjoy more than being correct, it’s coming back to the forum with evidence, and then reminding you guys how prescient I was.

Here is KenTX on Jan 6:

“The NetNut Kos Kooks and the MoonBat Left Blogosphere and the Cindy Sheehan Sheeple Disciples are well aware that the Democrats have the ability to shut down the war. They will demand immediate withdrawal. If Congressional Democrats ignore the Looney Left, there will be an inter-party Civil War that will make 1968 look tame by comparison.

2007 will be the year of craziness in the Democrat Party. It seems that all 51 Senate Democrats are trying to get the party nomination for president. Meanwhile, Republicans are going to stay the course. Then we will sit back and enjoy the sight of Democrats eating each other over the subject of Iraq.”

Here is the New York Times on Jan 15:

"The growing pressure on Democrats to confront the White House was highlighted by a speech delivered Sunday by John Edwards, the former Democratic senator from North Carolina who is seeking his party’s presidential nomination. Mr. Edwards, who voted to authorize the war when he was in the Senate in 2002 but has since said that it was a mistake, said Congress had a moral duty to cut off financing.
 
“If you’re in Congress and you know this war is going in the wrong direction, it is no longer enough to study your options and keep your own counsel,” Mr. Edwards said at Riverside Church in Manhattan, where the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once gave a speech denouncing the American campaign in Vietnam. “Speak out, and stop this escalation now. You have the power to prohibit the president from spending any money to escalate the war — use it.”
Mr. Edwards also called on fellow Democrats to support the immediate withdrawal of 50,000 troops.

In making his speech, Mr. Edwards staked out antiwar turf in the nascent Democratic presidential primary contest while challenging others to do the same — most notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who also voted to authorize military action in Iraq in 2002 but has yet to take a position on legislative options like withholding money. She visited Iraq on Saturday to speak with military commanders, and plans to explain her views in fuller detail when she returns Tuesday.

Howard Wolfson, a senior adviser to Senator Clinton, criticized Mr. Edwards’s remarks by taking aim at the former senator’s image, promoted by aides during the last presidential election, as an optimistic and unifying figure. “In 2004 John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign,” Mr. Wolfson said. “Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.”

by KenTX on 01/15/2007 03:53:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kens a little testy (none / 0)

OK, then Democrats can shut up!

I imagine Democrats will shut up about Shrub invading a country that posed no threat to the United States, while letting Osama (the “evil doer” behind 9-11) slip away, costing U.S. taxpayers BILLIONS, while his corporate cronies got richer with their war profiteering, and being personal responsible for lying us into a war that has killed over 3,000 of our brave young men in women, when Republicans shut up about Clinton getting a blow job.


So let me see if I've got this straight? Democrats now control both Houses of Congress, but they have no ideas on the subject of Iraq? They will allow Bush to surge the troop level? They will allow Bush to maintain forces in Iraq indefintely?

It really doesn’t matter if they have ideas or not, Shrub has made it clear that he is a war time president and only his ideas are what counts, and constitutionally he is correct. He is the Commander in Chief. It is his decision as to how to deploy troops.


Now I’m sure the Republicans would love for the Democrats to cut off funding to the troops, in fact I’m sure SOME get that tingly feeling in their nether regions just thinking about it. After all they could then bring back the tried and true propaganda talking point about how Democrats hate the military and are endangering the mission blah, blah, blah, but unlike Shrub and his gang of elitist who could care less about sending troops into danger without the proper equipment, causing needless loss of life and limb, the Democrats will look for other ways to pressure the Decider while funding the troops to see they have the equipment they need to remain as safe as possible.


While the “Decider in Chief” tries to figure out how his “physical” Daddy, who warned against regime change, could have been so right while his “spiritual” Daddy who told him to invade could have been so wrong. After in his “gut” he knew Saddam had WMD’s, and the people would greet us as liberators, and Democracy would flower across the land, and it would be only a matter of a few months, and it would cost very little, and Iraq could pay for the war themselves and it goes on and and on and on. Yep, I’m thinking his “Spiritual” father in the words of Ricky Ricardo “got some splaining to do”


Hey...thanks!
You’re welcome.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/07/2007 01:36:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Double Bubble Hubble (none / 0)
Thanks Hubble. So what I think I hear you saying is that Democrats have no intention of getting involved with the War in Iraq? In spite of the fact that they ran on a platform of getting America out of Iraq, they don't have any ideas, and they have no plan of action?

They want us to stay in Iraq, so it will hurt Bush? They don't care about Iraq?

All they care about is acquiring political power so they can get back to the only issue that is important to Democrats: REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN AMERICA!

Now do you see why I hate these guys?

by KenTX on 01/08/2007 08:20:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken's lonely...down there (none / 0)

"Now do you see why I hate these guys?"

Yeah, because they get laid.  I thought we'd established that already. 

by OneHitKill on 01/08/2007 08:40:44 AM EST

[ Parent ]
These people are demented (none / 0)

This Ken guy was just on another thread explaining how he and his trollz consistently make us look like fools. 

Are y'all reading this?  These people are nuts.  Did you see Bytchbang down there.  They are like demented Chatty Kathy dolls.  Pull the string and get the Clinton rant/no conservaite has ever been wrong about anything spiel.

There little Neocon Utopia has blown up in their faces so completely they have lost their damn minds!

There was a time when I was so angry and annoyed by Republicans, it just ate away at me.  Now they are just comical.  Just sad, little, broken irrelevant clowns.  

I feel like we are all just sitting around waiting for them to respawn as a new and improved more competent version. I wonder if this is how they felt when we ran Carter/Mondale/Dukakis in four straight elections.

by ProfRich on 01/08/2007 10:54:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
It's a simple concept even a Republican should get (none / 0)
In spite of the fact that they ran on a platform of getting America out of Iraq, they don't have any ideas, and they have no plan of action?

It's not that they have no ideas Ken, it's the fact that the "decider" isn't going to listen to anything they say.

Yes they could cut off funding, (and just the thought is like Viagra to Republicans) but that would only hurt the troops not the  "Decide r in Chief", because HE is the one who gets to deploy troops as HE see's fit.

What would Democrats do? They would follow the recommendations of the Iraq study, which said basically what John Murtha has been saying for awhile now. We need to redeploy ALL troops out of Iraq by 2008.

So keep screaming and blame the Democrats, but I think everyone already knows this one belongs to the Republicans alone, and no matter how you try to spin it they are going to retain ownership.

But look on the bright side maybe the insurgents are in the last throes, maybe Democracy will flower across the land, maybe we will find WMD's, and maybe Santa will bring Shub a brain as a late Christmas present.

Oh yeah did you know Bill Clinton got a blow job?

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/08/2007 10:09:13 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really, He's a lawyer? Who woulda thunkit (none / 0)
Did you know that as a lawyer he used the procecutors own definition of "sexual relation" for his denial and by the definition that they chose he wasn't technically lying?
Did he weasle? You bet, but it was Kenn Starr who gave him weasel room when he had two other definitions of sexual relations that would have taken it away.

Did you know that Bubba was impeached for Lying under oath and NOT for having a blowjob?

Yea, and I believe that like most of the American people at the time (he had a 73% approval rating during the impeachment) that it was a stupid insignificant thing not worthy of impeachment and a waste of taxpayers money and time when there were many other more important issues that the congress should have been spending our tax money and time on.

But after over $60 million of the taxpayers money investigating everything from a land deal that he lost money on, to why travel agents were replaced that it was vital to the American people to find out that he didn't want to admit in a CIVIL suit that was just as stupid as the investigation that he had had an inappropriate relationship with a consenting adult, who happened to befriend a old crone who betrayed her, the president and the country by trying to ruin him.
And the petty, vindictive, mean spirited Republicans used it to try and cripple his presidency and his popularity.

It just didn't work, the majority of the American people still like Bill, and that just drives the cons bat shit crazy.

Compared to what Shrub has done to this country and its military, the lies he's told to do it, I'll take Bill anyday.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/08/2007 11:05:47 AM EST

[ Parent ]
For your sake, just stop (none / 0)
Because the quantity, magnitude and breadth of Bush's lies are so enormous I will just send you here:
http://www.bushlies.net/
And you can now debunk every single one of these lies or start the call for impeachmnet.

Charts and graphs will be oprtional.

by ProfRich on 01/08/2007 11:21:12 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The repugs went back under the rock (none / 0)
The repugs can take that  little lapel pin they have been wearing and shove it.

The days of disagreeing with the president being seen as unpatriotic are over. 

Someone turned on the light and they went scurrying like the cockroaches they are. Wasn't it big ( not as big as his ass though) Of Dennis Hastert to hand the gavel over to Nancy?  Guess he is a little pissed off or something  heh

The south is going to be the only place that the repugs are viable.  Unfortunately for them.  The dems don't need and never needed the south to win. ( feel free to post graphs and paste other peoples opinions here)


by Tiny Demon on 01/05/2007 05:51:34 PM EST

SEDITION OMG (none / 0)
The days of disagreeing with the president being seen as unpatriotic are over.

I think this has been true for some time now, since significantly (perhaps a year or more) before the election.  Republicans haven't been able to admit it until just recently, of course.

by jarett on 01/07/2007 12:01:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
9000 troops? (none / 0)
I think Bush forgot at least two zeroes. 900,000 more troops would have been a more reasonable course of action. 9000 is moving in the right direction at least.

by acroso on 01/06/2007 06:15:50 PM EST

The Desperation of the Nation (none / 0)
It is now at the point where before a plan can be proposed that a first the question has to asked: a plan to do what? What are the objectives now?

Its fair game, although highly disengenous, for the republicans to ask what is the democtrats "plan". Of course they have no plan since no one can really define the objectives in any way that makes sense to all the parties envolved. So the democrats best political strategy is to watch Bush sink in his own quicksand and wait until he finally surrenders to them. This strategy is camoflouged with their oddball way of supporting  Bush's surge (Reid and Levin) and acceptance of the Baker propasals. They will not cut funding on the war since in effect they are funding the demise of the rebublican party for the next 10 election cycles. Once the military and intelligence agencies finally give their OK, then they will go ahead and impeach him.

Bush is in obviously in a corner now. He has few moves left. His neo-con think tank coward advisors have betrayed him, and Cheney is holed up who knows where. His pathetic state is greatly demoralizing for the country to observe as we wait with dread to hear the new "plan" unveiled next week.

From what we hear from the leaks he has totally ignored the will of the pepole expressed in the 2006 elections and intends to gp in the opposite direction.

It seemed most Americans were not near as interested in an alternate plan considering there was no actual plan.


Thats true. The desperate straits of the country are equal ly evident. The voters chose democrats overwhelmingly in the house and senate even when they did not have a plan for Iraq with some exceptions like Ned Lamont and Dennis Kucinich (I think he ran this time) and Lamont lost. Not having a plan was not as important as throwing out the corrupt idiots who started this fiasco war. The unfortuate part is the country was so desparate to accomplish this they required no real alternatives from the democrats. Meanwhile the killing goes on with nothing accomplished.

The nation finds itself in one of its darkest moments right now thanks to the course this admiistration has taken in the last 6 years.  


by Tom Paine Jr on 01/07/2007 12:48:33 AM EST

Great post (none / 0)

 I think anyone who calls themselves a democrat cannot forget that the dems are in office overwhelmingly because the repubs have been such miserable failures.  The country has not so much turned to the dems as away from the only other alternative.

I have been telling friends and family for six years that what the democrats need is a "hero" to save the party.  A figure to unite around and follow into the future.  I now believe all of America needs someone like this. 

Clinton was certainly one of these for the dems as Jefferson was in 1800 (people forget how viciously divided the country was before TJ).

The greatest example, of course, was FDR who kept America from going down the road Germany, Russia, Japan, Italy and others went when the world economy came unglued.

Sadly, when things get as screwed up as they are now and no "hero" appears on the scene disaster can strike.  I believe very strongly one of the key causes of the Civil War was a serious drought of good strong leaders.  The failure of the elected officials of this country to deal with the problems that were evident to even the simplest fool over the course of decades (culminating in the leadership disaster that was Abraham Lincoln) did as much as anything to propel our country into its greatest crisis.

Yes, for now the dems are wise to sit on their hands but the whole nation will be in serious trouble if 2008 does not bring a capable, inspiring, effective leader. 

by ProfRich on 01/07/2007 03:36:03 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Democrat "Heroes" (none / 0)
"I have been telling friends and family for six years that what the democrats need is a "hero" to save the party.  A figure to unite around and follow into the future.  I now believe all of America needs someone like this." 


Well, let's take a look at the kind of "heroes" the Democrat Party has produced in the last 40 years.

"Clinton was certainly one of these"

Really? What did he accomplish after eight years in office?

by KenTX on 01/07/2007 03:58:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton did all this and got a BJ too? (none / 0)
Clinton accomplishments?

Let’s see longest economic growth in U.S history.

Child immunization levels all time high

Lowest percentage of people on welfare in 35 years

Put over 100,000 more police on the streets (A program cut by Shrub) and having the lowest crime rate in 25 years.

Tax cuts for working class families, not the top 1%.

Balanced the budget and actually had a surplus to start paying down the National Debt.

Clinton paid down over $355 Billion of the national dept over his last three years and left a surplus in the budget, unlike George and his record deficits and increasing the National Debt from $5.7 trillion when Clinton left office to over $8.7 trillion now. The current debt limit is $9 trillion.

Achieved an unemployment rate of 3.9% the lowest in thirty years.

Largest wage growth in 30 years and creation of over 22 million new jobs, with medium household incomes reaching $40,000 per year, and the lowest poverty rate since 1979.

I could go on but of course it wouldn’t really do any good because as we all know none of it counts because CLINTON GOT A BLOW JOB, and that's just wrong.

It's better to bankrupt the government, start the wrong war in the wrong country, sell out to your corporate cronies so they can war profiteer and earn thier blood money on the broken bodies of our brave men and women, than to get a hummer.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/09/2007 11:20:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Just because.... (none / 0)
This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever just because...This is the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some people started singing it, not knowing what it was, and they'll continue singing it forever

by ProfRich on 01/09/2007 12:34:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Memo to Bizaroworld (none / 0)

I don't really understand how I can be a sore loser when my side is winning.  I could be a sore winner, I suppose.

See I don't want to spoil the ending since you apparently haven't gotten there in your little time capsule world, but Clinton doesn't get removed from office.  We Win!!!

And since you apparently missed it, here is a quick recap of the 2006 elections 

On a related note, people really hate Bush.

But cheer up, if Bush can just shift 25% of Americans from the "we think you suck" to the "we think you rock" column he could get up to Clinton's all-time low approval/disapproval ratings   (Comparing CBS polls to CBS polls)

Yeah, we are such losers.

by ProfRich on 01/09/2007 01:41:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
BytchBang is talented (none / 0)
"LOL! I always wondered,.. When Bubba shoved his cigar into Monica's beaver,.. It must have looked a lot like Arafat. Especially if she could make the lips quiver. -- Right?"

That is much funnier than anything I ever posted. How did I miss it?

by KenTX on 01/15/2007 04:13:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
eBay comes through again.... (none / 0)

Here is a"BEAVER Antique Cigar Box" only 11.99 on Ebay. 

Beaver, cigar and "box" all in one reference!

 

by MRFred on 01/15/2007 05:15:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey BB, (none / 0)
Have you noticed that liberals are starting to treat us more kindly? Even Tiny Demon is behaving in a civil manner. I think they are starting to exhibit the classic symptoms of "buyer's remorse".
weiners

by KenTX on 01/15/2007 10:48:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Kenny Boy .. the sane one on the block? (none / 0)
I'm not ever here because you are boring. You conservative dick wads keep repeating the same tired ass shit  over, and over, and over. Your opinion is meaningless because you are delusional.

Psychiatric literature defines delusional thinking as "false or irrational beliefs maintained despite clear evidence to the contrary."

That describes the 3 or 4 conservative dick wads that don't seem to have a grip on reality on this sight.

Ignorance is fun for a while,  but it becomes tedious. Why people bother to pay any attention to you assholes at all is totally beyond me. They must like  crafting. You know , cutting and pasting. I'm sure they are into scrap booking as well.

As for me, I would rather shave my head with a fucking cheese grater.

Now get back to your "debates"  and Ill get back to real life.( real life is the thing people do when they aren't on the net. Actually talking to real friends IN PERSON  imagine that! )

by Tiny Demon on 01/15/2007 11:32:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The old Tiny is back! (none / 0)
Hey TinyFruitFly, good to have you back.

I found your videos on youtube. I didn't realize you were so famous?

by KenTX on 01/16/2007 03:18:28 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Hahahaha! (none / 0)

TinyDemon attacks KenTX, so TinyDemon is T3h Gh3Y!!!1!!! Oh, the spirit of Conservative debate is alive and well.

Good God, man, don't you ever get tired of looking like a fucking child? 

by kiki on 01/17/2007 05:28:59 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tiny kiki (none / 0)
"TinyDemon attacks KenTX, so TinyDemon is T3h Gh3Y!!!1!!!"

Tiny Demon describes himself as "gay as pink ice, and proud as punch".

Tiny introduced his sexuality as a topic for discussion. As a matter of fact, other than shrill, open, gayness, he contributes very little else to the forum. 

by KenTX on 01/18/2007 05:38:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Met your match (none / 0)

Since when do you wait for invitations to talk about someone's sexuality?  The Ken of yesteryear was always rarin' to make homophobic sentences containing the word "rectal."  What made you decide to pass that stone*?

* milestone 

by OneHitKill on 01/18/2007 11:46:59 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I beg your pardon! (none / 0)
I've never used the term "rectal" in my life!

"Catcher's Mitt", yes. 

"Golden Boy", yes.

"Turd Burglar",  yes.

"Bowel Boy", yes.

"Ankle Grabber", yes.

"The Gerbil Whisperer", yes

"Salad Tosser", yes

But never "rectal".

by KenTX on 01/18/2007 12:53:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Make me search why don't ya (none / 0)
You're right, the word I was thinking of was "intestinal," not "rectal."  Of course, in your denial you've already used the word "rectal" twice now, so I guess that's the end of an era.

by OneHitKill on 01/18/2007 08:34:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Call it what you want (none / 0)

I know it feels like good will to you, but it's actually just relative silence.  (Because my mom taught me, when I have nothing nice to say, not to say anything.   Didn't you have a mamaTX?)  No mean-spirited jab, no purdy picture, no anti-Clinton slur you can come up with will make me long for dark days of republican representation.

by OneHitKill on 01/16/2007 01:51:18 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, Ken, Ken, Ken... (none / 0)

It really is embarrassing when you talk to yourself like this. Seriously, everyone knows.

And frankly, no, I haven't noticed that. But I have noticed that Republicans are bitching and whining like the spoilt, petulant, pathetic little pussies they are, even more than usual. Keep it up!  

by kiki on 01/17/2007 05:34:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your approved! (none / 0)

 

 

I cant speak for the "liberals" but that old model depreciated so badly we had to trade up....No credit, bad credit...your approved!

by MRFred on 01/17/2007 08:49:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democratic Heroes. (none / 0)

Speaking of Heroes Reagan must only be considered a great president if you compare him to George Bush jr.

Thanks to Reagan's policies we have Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. You must have missed the video of a smiling Rumsfield greeting  "Saddam" in Iraq.

Sadam was just Another Republican "Friend"  who became Americas enemy.

Remember Noreaga. = Reagan.


Do you dare compare Clinton to any of the last 4 Republican Presidents.

1. Nixon - Impeached

2. Reagan - Supported Saddam and sold weapons illegally. Should have been impeached. Oliver North American Hero. Thats all you need to know about the Republican party.

3. George Bush Sr. At least he knew how to win a war.

The Do nothing President. 

Supporter and business partner of the Republican Friend. "The Saudis"

I guess we can thank them for 9/11 Thanks Saudis.  

4. George Bush Jr.  - I dont think this space contains enough characters. Lets just leave it at soon to be impeached.

Yes Clinton was almost impeached and if you are true American you should demand that George Bush be Impeached. 100,000 dead iraqis. 15000 injured service men. 3000 dead servicemen. 750 billion dollars and counting.

Now if you were for Clinton being impeached you have to be a member of impeachbush.org.

Comparing Clinton lying to anything Bush has done and your lying to yourself.

 
It seems to me Republicans have mastered this art.

 

 

Imagine if Clinton started the Iraq war. How would you feel then. Impeach right?

Yet you probably dont think Bush should be impeached right?  

 

Keep Lying to yourself.  

 

 

 

by langx on 01/07/2007 07:22:16 AM EST

Samll Correction (none / 0)
Before Arco and Ken soil their shorts "winning" this argument, Clinton WAS impeached.  He was NOT removed.

by ProfRich on 01/07/2007 11:54:21 AM EST

[ Parent ]
My Boy clinton (none / 0)
"Do you dare compare Clinton to any of the last 4 Republican Presidents."

I am delighted to compare Clinton with the last four Republican Presidents. What did Clinton accomplish after eight years of office. What's that? Did you say anything?

And let's not forget the other great Democrat presidents of our lifetime: Jimmy Carter and Lyndon Johnson.

What a great track record Democrats have achieved!

by KenTX on 01/08/2007 08:13:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Clinton (none / 0)

He accomplished NAFTA causing us to lose much of our sovereignty. He established the right to lie under oath as long as you spin it and stay popular enough to pretend you didn't. Hmm what else- he stacked the court with a lot of pro-abortion activist judges. Raised taxes. not much else other than stink the place up a lot.

by acroso on 01/09/2007 04:05:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Greatest Presidente Ever (none / 0)

Clinton allows us to run across the border when ever we want...his national guard can't stop us...they cannot shoot at us ....he passed CAFTA and took so much money from the Abramoff and he ...no..no wait that's Bush.

 

by Marion E Delcalcetin on 01/09/2007 07:15:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh, Acroso and you were doing so well (none / 0)
Hmm what else- he stacked the court with a lot of pro-abortion activist judges.

Several post without a mention of abortion or the courts, but like a person with OCD you just can't help yourself.

So what type of people did Shrub want to appoint, We'll skip poor Harriet, who showed a remarkable lack of understanding for even the fundemental concepts of Constitutional law, who the Uncurious one wanted to appoint as a Supreme Court judge, let's look at another nominee who didn't make it

Remember Claude A. Allen? Why he was W's #1 domestic policy advisor and a man who W had nominated to the Federal bench.

A former domestic policy adviser to President Bush has been charged with theft for allegedly receiving phony refunds at department stores.
Claude Alexander Allen, 45, was arrested Thursday by Montgomery County police for allegedly returning more than $5,000 worth of merchandise he did not buy, according to county and federal authorities.

Allen was the No. 2 official in the Health and Human Services Department when Bush nominated him in April 2003 to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. Bush nominated him to the court again a year later, but Allen never received a Senate vote. link


Gosh if it weren't for those mean ole Democrats we could have this outstanding citizen sitting in judgement over crimimals. I knew the administration was full of crooks and thieves and Shub wants them to judge others.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative." John Stuart Mill

by Hubble on 01/10/2007 01:17:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Democratic Heroes. (none / 0)

We dont need a Hero we just need someone with a brain in the White House.

 

Thats more I can say for the current idiots running the show.  

by langx on 01/07/2007 07:24:14 AM EST

Most Ridiculous Campaign Strategy of 2006 | 61 comments (61 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: