PDA

View Full Version : Howard Dean's Party



John Ashcroft
02-14-2005, 11:59 AM
By TED VAN DYK, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006284)

If you've seen "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," you'll know how I feel about the state of the current Democratic Party. The film, as you'll recall, depicted the bodies of decent, normal citizens being taken over while they slept by alien entities marching in conformist and destructive lockstep.

In its original 1950s version, the film was meant to portray the McCarthyism of the time. But it strikes all too close to home for Democrats who once fought everything McCarthyism represented but who now are stuck in a reactionary groupthink of their own.

The culminating act of this sad transformation will come today when Howard Dean is elected national party chairman. This is the same Dean whose presidential campaign spent millions of dollars, failed to win a primary, and flamed out in episodes of reckless Bush rage. Mr. Dean pledges that he is interested only in serving his party and has no plan for a 2008 candidacy. Whether he does or does not, he will become the party's principal spokesman for the next three years. Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the party's congressional leaders, will be eclipsed by the more colorful, uninhibited Mr. Dean. Television news channel and network talk show producers will provide the former governor every minute of exposure he craves.

A national party's chairman is particularly important when his party is out of power. Until 30 years ago, the Democrats' official spokesman and titular leader, after a losing presidential campaign, was their defeated candidate in the prior election. Hence Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey took center stage for the party and personally selected the party's chairman (Stevenson chose Paul Butler, Humphrey chose Fred Harris and Larry O'Brien). That tradition ended, however, after the 1972 campaign, when George McGovern was pushed aside after his landslide loss. Subsequent losing candidates, including Al Gore and John Kerry, have similarly been sidetracked to make way for the new.

Mr. Dean's ascendancy to the chairmanship could have parallels with Mr. Harris's. After his 1968 defeat, Humphrey pondered a choice between Mr. Harris and former North Carolina governor Terry Sanford as party chairman. Mr. Harris, along with Sen. Walter Mondale, had co-chaired Humphrey's nominating campaign. Sanford had chaired his general-election campaign. Mr. Harris badly wanted the chairmanship after having been passed over for Sen. Ed Muskie as Humphrey's running mate. A soft-hearted Humphrey gave him the job. Mr. Harris, who had his own presidential ambitions, then cast his lot as chairman with the party's most activist constituencies. In so doing he ruined his own presidential chances, lost his Oklahoma Senate seat, and narrowed the party's base. Sanford would have broadened it.

Republican control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and state houses gives the GOP its strongest national position since at least the Eisenhower period of the 1950s. As Democrats ponder their role in opposition, they might consider how their predecessors conducted themselves during that time.
Democratic congressional leaders Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson pursued a strategy in opposition which, down the road, paid long-term dividends for their party. They supported the Eisenhower administration on national security issues during a dangerous time--intervening with the White House when necessary to stop mistakes such as Vice President Richard Nixon's proposal to use nuclear weapons to bail out French forces at Dienbienphu. They observed the general rule that a president deserved to have the nominees he wanted for key administration and judicial appointments and questioned them only selectively.

Congressional Democrats of that period did, however, use their investigative authority to highlight episodes of public and private corruption. Most importantly, they began preparing the ground for landmark domestic legislation--which ultimately became the Great Society--even though they lacked majorities at the time to pass it. In 1965, after President Johnson's huge victory over Barry Goldwater, Democrats promptly passed the agenda they had nurtured during the Eisenhower years.

The party's visible leaders and voices are pursuing an entirely different strategy today. It generally amounts to angry opposition on all issues all the time. President Bush's Iraq intervention was problematic. But had Mr. Kerry been elected president, he would be following essentially the same path today in Iraq as Mr. Bush--that is, to build an elected Iraqi government's capacity to maintain sufficient security that American forces could leave. Yet most Democrats' reaction to the first essential step in that strategy, the successful completion of elections, has been to dismiss the elections' importance, to charge Mr. Bush with "having no exit strategy," or to demand he set a hard timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

For many years Democrats, more than Republicans, pointed to the need to reform Social Security for the long term. Social Security, after all, was a Democratic invention and a cornerstone of the party's commitment to economic security. Yet, in the face of the Bush reform initiative, many senior Democrats have chosen simply to deny the need for change. That is not a viable policy or political position. Democrats are quite right to challenge the notion of partial privatization of the system. But they have an equal obligation to offer an alternative reform plan, the components of which are self-evident and which would require little public sacrifice. Why not seize the opportunity the Bush initiative presents and move public opinion toward a Democratic alternative on Social Security?

The Democrats' present disorientation has been in the making for decades. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he acknowledged that its political downside was the end of the Solid (Democratic) South. In 1968, Humphrey lost to Nixon because traditional blue-collar Democratic voters in New Jersey, Ohio and Illinois cast ballots for George Wallace's third-party candidacy. Postelection surveys indicated they did so because they felt alienated from what they saw as Democrats' values and orientations. The disaffections became wholesale in 1972 when Mr. McGovern's peace candidacy was overwhelmed by the "acid, amnesty and abortion" agenda of some of his supporters. As Mr. McGovern's 1972 platform coordinator, I can attest that most of his national convention delegates had less interest in his candidacy than in their own narrow social-agenda objectives.

Jimmy Carter reclaimed moderate Democratic voters, including some Christian conservatives, in 1976. But the erosion in the party's middle-culture base resumed in 1980 as millions of Democrats, including a high percentage of union members, cast Republican votes. President Clinton, as President Carter before him, reclaimed some of those votes. But when "HillaryCare" imploded in 1994, it not only sank health-care reform indefinitely, but also helped Republicans regain a House majority for the first time in 40 years. They have not relinquished it. Something else happened during the Clinton years. President Clinton's eight-year emphasis on short-term tactical politics--focused on his own political survival--left the party without any coherent intellectual foundation.

With the advent of the Dean chairmanship, the Body Snatchers' takeover will be complete and the party of ideas will have been fully transformed to one of reflexive and strident opposition.

Mr. Dean's passion and partisanship no doubt will deepen Democratic support in enclaves they already dominate. My home city of Seattle will remain a blue stronghold. But it will be only one of a few. If you examine the 2004 electoral map closely, you will see that several states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Jersey, voted for Mr. Kerry but could trend longer-term toward the GOP. President Bush made gains over 2000 nationally among female, black, Latino and Catholic voters. If they cannot break free of Deanism--i.e., strident opposition to all things Bush--Democrats could find themselves by 2008 the party of Hollywood, Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, George Soros and high-culture media--but not of most Americans.

And Ford would have you believe we Conservatives are scared of Howard Dean...

Second-term blunders by President Bush, or international or economic setbacks, could make voters want change and give Democrats a political reprieve. But what if events go Mr. Bush's way? Unremitting, undifferentiated rage is not an appropriate platform for an opposition party. Voters will reject continuing negativism and obstruction.

I tried to tell them...

Memo to Democrats: It is time to return to the old-fashioned way. Ask the questions: What are the needs of our country? What are our constructive proposals to meet them? How can we best push those proposals forward? If Democratic leaders and candidates ask those questions, and try seriously to answer them, voters may once again be prepared to let them govern.

BigBadBrian
02-14-2005, 12:27 PM
YEEAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!


http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2004/01/20/newdaanapgallery.jpg

John Ashcroft
02-14-2005, 12:36 PM
Yeaaaaaaaaaghhhh!

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 01:13 PM
I think very little has gone Bush's way since the inauguration. His Social Security 'reform' is failing, and is showing his general ignorance on the issue. Condi was confirmed, but now with these memos coming out conveniently AFTER the fact, one has to wonder. The Iraqi election is over, but clearly the major winner is the Iranian Gov't, which has now extended it's influence in the region.

The war in iraq is not really going to go any better, elections or no. What either troubles me, or makes me hopeful is as to how lightly the Republicans are taking Dean.

If Dean can energize the youth vote as he did, and continue to lead the way on broadening his grassroots fund raising, and if Dean manages to tap into a populist strain that previous DLCers have shown themselves unable to do, the Republocants may in fact be in trouble. Aren't some Christians alreading wondering why Bush has done very little on abortion or their other bread and butter issues or legislating morality.

BigBadBrian
02-14-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Aren't some Christians alreading wondering

Hitting the sauce so early in the afternoon, Nick? :confused:

McCarrens
02-14-2005, 01:58 PM
Dean being head of the DNC is a great thing for America and I mean that in the exact opposite way Ford does.

YAWN
02-14-2005, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Aren't some Christians alreading wondering why Bush has done very little on abortion or their other bread and butter issues or legislating morality.

Not really. Actually, most Christians who voted for Bush didn't do so with the intention of him changing the moral face of the nation through legislation, but knowing that God's word would have some influence his decision making across all areas (not necessarily specifically targeted to the so-called "Christian issues"). Of course, it often seems Dubya feels that the "In God We Trust" written on the dollar constitutes "God's word", so whatcha gonna do... :(

ELVIS
02-14-2005, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
His Social Security 'reform' is failing, and is showing his general ignorance on the issue.

What are you talking about ??

It's not failing, nor is it going to fail, and the President is anything but ignorant on the issue...

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by BigBadBrian
Hitting the sauce so early in the afternoon, Nick? :confused:

No! I had a classroom full of little bastards today that distracted me and forced me to post early! Now that I am home however, I shall be hitting the sauce extensively as a result.:bottle: Fucking cheers!:guzzle:

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by YAWN
Not really. Actually, most Christians who voted for Bush didn't do so with the intention of him changing the moral face of the nation through legislation, but knowing that God's word would have some influence his decision making across all areas (not necessarily specifically targeted to the so-called "Christian issues"). Of course, it often seems Dubya feels that the "In God We Trust" written on the dollar constitutes "God's word", so whatcha gonna do... :(

I really don't thinks he is hearing God's word. The little voices in his head are schitzophrenia.;)

ODShowtime
02-14-2005, 03:39 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What are you talking about ??

It's not failing, nor is it going to fail, and the President is anything but ignorant on the issue...

Where the fuck have you been? What issues isn't he ignorant on? :rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
What are you talking about ??

It's not failing, nor is it going to fail, and the President is anything but ignorant on the issue...

Seeing as he can't answer a basic question from a lady, who managed to slip through the rather elaborate Bush security net keeping out subversive non-Neo Cons and secularists; I say he hasn't a fucking clue outside what he is spoon fed from his right-wing charlatan advisors.

Warham
02-14-2005, 06:31 PM
Yeah, Bush hasn't gotten much done since the Inauguration. Wasn't that fucking three weeks ago? Oh, the humanity! The wasted time!

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, Bush hasn't gotten much done since the Inauguration. Wasn't that fucking three weeks ago? Oh, the humanity! The wasted time!

Oh he's done plenty! What I said was things haven't been going his way. And it may get worse.

Warham
02-14-2005, 06:42 PM
It's been three fucking weeks. Let's have this conversation about two years from now, after the Republicans win some more seats in the House.

Nickdfresh
02-14-2005, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by Warham
It's been three fucking weeks. Let's have this conversation about two years from now, after the Republicans win some more seats in the House.

Or another thousand or two die in Iraq for no WMD's and to make a failed state? Who knows?

FORD
02-14-2005, 09:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Ashcroft
By TED VAN DYK, Seattle Post-Intelligencer (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110006284)

If you've seen "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," you'll know how I feel about the state of the current Democratic Party. The film, as you'll recall, depicted the bodies of decent, normal citizens being taken over while they slept by alien entities marching in conformist and destructive lockstep.

A perfect description of the DLC moles, I'll have to admit.

In its original 1950s version, the film was meant to portray the McCarthyism of the time. But it strikes all too close to home for Democrats who once fought everything McCarthyism represented but who now are stuck in a reactionary groupthink of their own.

True. Far too many have bought into the neocon traitor agenda :(

The culminating act of this sad transformation will come today when Howard Dean is elected national party chairman. This is the same Dean whose presidential campaign spent millions of dollars, failed to win a primary, and flamed out in episodes of reckless Bush rage.

Mediawhore myth. Next......

Mr. Dean pledges that he is interested only in serving his party and has no plan for a 2008 candidacy. Whether he does or does not, he will become the party's principal spokesman for the next three years. Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the party's congressional leaders, will be eclipsed by the more colorful, uninhibited Mr. Dean. Television news channel and network talk show producers will provide the former governor every minute of exposure he craves.

Thank God! It will be good to hear something other than PNAC talking points coming from "Democrats" for a change. Reid seems to have found at least one of his balls recently, but Pelosi is worse than useless.

A national party's chairman is particularly important when his party is out of power.

Which is precisely why we needed Howard Dean on the job :)

Until 30 years ago, the Democrats' official spokesman and titular leader, after a losing presidential campaign, was their defeated candidate in the prior election. Hence Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey took center stage for the party and personally selected the party's chairman (Stevenson chose Paul Butler, Humphrey chose Fred Harris and Larry O'Brien). That tradition ended, however, after the 1972 campaign, when George McGovern was pushed aside after his landslide loss. Subsequent losing candidates, including Al Gore and John Kerry, have similarly been sidetracked to make way for the new.

Judas is a sitting senator, so presumably he wouldn't be eligible for DNC chair anyway.

Mr. Dean's ascendancy to the chairmanship could have parallels with Mr. Harris's. After his 1968 defeat, Humphrey pondered a choice between Mr. Harris and former North Carolina governor Terry Sanford as party chairman. Mr. Harris, along with Sen. Walter Mondale, had co-chaired Humphrey's nominating campaign. Sanford had chaired his general-election campaign. Mr. Harris badly wanted the chairmanship after having been passed over for Sen. Ed Muskie as Humphrey's running mate. A soft-hearted Humphrey gave him the job. Mr. Harris, who had his own presidential ambitions, then cast his lot as chairman with the party's most activist constituencies. In so doing he ruined his own presidential chances, lost his Oklahoma Senate seat, and narrowed the party's base. Sanford would have broadened it.

Republican control of the White House, both houses of Congress, and state houses gives the GOP its strongest national position since at least the Eisenhower period of the 1950s. As Democrats ponder their role in opposition, they might consider how their predecessors conducted themselves during that time.
Democratic congressional leaders Sam Rayburn and Lyndon Johnson pursued a strategy in opposition which, down the road, paid long-term dividends for their party. They supported the Eisenhower administration on national security issues during a dangerous time--intervening with the White House when necessary to stop mistakes such as Vice President Richard Nixon's proposal to use nuclear weapons to bail out French forces at Dienbienphu. They observed the general rule that a president deserved to have the nominees he wanted for key administration and judicial appointments and questioned them only selectively.

Congressional Democrats of that period did, however, use their investigative authority to highlight episodes of public and private corruption. Most importantly, they began preparing the ground for landmark domestic legislation--which ultimately became the Great Society--even though they lacked majorities at the time to pass it. In 1965, after President Johnson's huge victory over Barry Goldwater, Democrats promptly passed the agenda they had nurtured during the Eisenhower years.

This proves that Mr VanDLC is completely ignorant as to what Howard Dean campaigned on in his bid for DNC chair. In every speech and interview he gave on the subject, he referenced the strategies that Republicans used to assume power. He is very much aware of what our party needs to do to win back the votes of people who are not now, nor will never be, truly reprsented by the party of rich corporatists, the GOP.

The party's visible leaders and voices are pursuing an entirely different strategy today. It generally amounts to angry opposition on all issues all the time.

Really now?

A war criminal is confirmed as Attorney General and an incompetent liar as Secretary of State. Where's the angry opposition? :confused:

President Bush's Iraq intervention was problematic. But had Mr. Kerry been elected president, he would be following essentially the same path today in Iraq as Mr. Bush--that is, to build an elected Iraqi government's capacity to maintain sufficient security that American forces could leave. Yet most Democrats' reaction to the first essential step in that strategy, the successful completion of elections, has been to dismiss the elections' importance, to charge Mr. Bush with "having no exit strategy," or to demand he set a hard timetable for U.S. troop withdrawal.

It's common sense that if you invade a country and occupy it, that you make a way to get out. Of course the PNAC agenda makes it obvious that there never was an intention of getting out at all. As for the election, the "winner" seems to be a convicted felon and alleged Iranian spy, who until recently, was PNAC's best buddy.

Tell me something doesn't stink there?

For many years Democrats, more than Republicans, pointed to the need to reform Social Security for the long term. Social Security, after all, was a Democratic invention and a cornerstone of the party's commitment to economic security. Yet, in the face of the Bush reform initiative, many senior Democrats have chosen simply to deny the need for change. That is not a viable policy or political position. Democrats are quite right to challenge the notion of partial privatization of the system. But they have an equal obligation to offer an alternative reform plan, the components of which are self-evident and which would require little public sacrifice. Why not seize the opportunity the Bush initiative presents and move public opinion toward a Democratic alternative on Social Security?

Junior doesn't want to save Social Security, he wants to destroy it, and turn it into another tool to make fat cats on Wall Street even richer. How do you "save" something by turning it over to another potential Enron??

As for the Democrats coming up with an alternative, maybe they should. Maybe they also should have reasonable time to do so, since Junior's plan is barely 2 weeks old.

The Democrats' present disorientation has been in the making for decades. When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, he acknowledged that its political downside was the end of the Solid (Democratic) South. In 1968, Humphrey lost to Nixon because traditional blue-collar Democratic voters in New Jersey, Ohio and Illinois cast ballots for George Wallace's third-party candidacy. Postelection surveys indicated they did so because they felt alienated from what they saw as Democrats' values and orientations. The disaffections became wholesale in 1972 when Mr. McGovern's peace candidacy was overwhelmed by the "acid, amnesty and abortion" agenda of some of his supporters. As Mr. McGovern's 1972 platform coordinator, I can attest that most of his national convention delegates had less interest in his candidacy than in their own narrow social-agenda objectives.

Geezus, if this guy's a Democrat, I'm Ronald Fucking Reagan :rolleyes:


Jimmy Carter reclaimed moderate Democratic voters, including some Christian conservatives, in 1976. But the erosion in the party's middle-culture base resumed in 1980 as millions of Democrats, including a high percentage of union members, cast Republican votes. President Clinton, as President Carter before him, reclaimed some of those votes. But when "HillaryCare" imploded in 1994, it not only sank health-care reform indefinitely, but also helped Republicans regain a House majority for the first time in 40 years. They have not relinquished it.

Only because Ted's buddies in the DLC keep throwing the game with suckass appeasement pussy candidates.


Something else happened during the Clinton years. President Clinton's eight-year emphasis on short-term tactical politics--focused on his own political survival--left the party without any coherent intellectual foundation.

With the advent of the Dean chairmanship, the Body Snatchers' takeover will be complete and the party of ideas will have been fully transformed to one of reflexive and strident opposition.

Mr. Dean's passion and partisanship no doubt will deepen Democratic support in enclaves they already dominate. My home city of Seattle will remain a blue stronghold. But it will be only one of a few. If you examine the 2004 electoral map closely, you will see that several states, including Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and New Jersey, voted for Mr. Kerry but could trend longer-term toward the GOP. President Bush made gains over 2000 nationally among female, black, Latino and Catholic voters. If they cannot break free of Deanism--i.e., strident opposition to all things Bush--Democrats could find themselves by 2008 the party of Hollywood, Manhattan, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Al Sharpton, Michael Moore, George Soros and high-culture media--but not of most Americans.

Bullshit. First of all, to say that a party chairman shouldn't be "partisan" is absolutely ridiculous. It's a PARTISAN JOB, for fuck's sake!! BTW, I don't see anybody telling Kenny Mehlman that he's too "partisan"

Democrats in all 50 states voted for Howard Dean because they know that he is committed to a Democratic party in all 50 states.

In last year's campaign, the Pukes, the whores and the DLC slammed him (out of context) with his statement about campaigning to the "guys in the pickup trucks with the Confederate flags), but they didn't bother to listen to what he was actually saying. The Republicans have hijacked the "Red state" vote by promoting irrational fears of "gun confiscatin' libruls" or "sodomites recrutin' your younguns" and more recently "terraists". Fuck that shit. elections shouldn't be decided on fear mongering, they should be decided on issues. What about jobs?? Who's gonna bring them back to your "red" state? Who's going to see to it that your schools have the funding to stay open. Not George Bush Jr.

That should be the message. The Democratic party is, and always has been the party of the working class. The REAL Americans and true patriots who built this fucking country, and who keep it going. So why in God's name would anybody want to vote for corporatist elitists, especially an empty headed imbecile born with a silver spoon up his nose??

George Bush has NO CLUE how someone in Mississippi, or Arkansas, or West Virginia, or even Texas has to struggle to make ends meet. He's never had to do it. Nor has anybody he personally knows, given the bubble-boy existence that the PNAC'ers keep him in.

And Ford would have you believe we Conservatives are scared of Howard Dean...

Only the DLC traitors in our own party fear him more.

Second-term blunders by President Bush, or international or economic setbacks, could make voters want change and give Democrats a political reprieve. But what if events go Mr. Bush's way?

What if Hell installs a ski jump? Doesn't mean a snow storm is likely.

Unremitting, undifferentiated rage is not an appropriate platform for an opposition party. Voters will reject continuing negativism and obstruction.

Worked for Dole & Gingrich in the 90's didn't it?

Don't worry, I'm sure Reid and Pelosi will continue to sell out. And I hope they get their asses handed to them in the primaries.

Memo to Democrats: It is time to return to the old-fashioned way. Ask the questions: What are the needs of our country? What are our constructive proposals to meet them? How can we best push those proposals forward? If Democratic leaders and candidates ask those questions, and try seriously to answer them, voters may once again be prepared to let them govern.

Which is EXACTLY what Howard Dean will accomplish as DNC chairman :cool:

John Ashcroft
02-14-2005, 10:22 PM
War Criminal as Attorney General????

Thank God the American people recognize the sense-defying agenda of people like you and Dean when they vote. I mean, this stance puts you on the same footing as most of the Third-World tyrants that hold "human-rights" commissionerships in the U.N. It's staggering to comprehend, but it's also exactly why your party will fade into irrelevancy with every "Dean-like" appointment. Newsflash: YOU'VE LOST JUST ABOUT EVERY NATIONAL ELECTION THAT YOU'VE RUN SINCE 1994!!!!

But hey, keep up the good work!

Cathedral
02-14-2005, 11:08 PM
So much hate, mistrust and division among us...We're fucked if that doesn't change.

Mark my words on that.

Satan
02-15-2005, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
So much hate, mistrust and division among us...We're fucked if that doesn't change.

Mark my words on that.

Maybe after these criminal bastards are impeached and they make like their former business partner Dick Nixon....and get the Hell out.

It's coming...... The one thing right wingers can't excuse will be the very thing that will bring the BCE down.

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 12:42 AM
Hey, If all the allegations i have read in the last 4 years are true, and can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt...I'm all for justice being served.

I consider myself a true compassionate conservative because i respect the opinions of those who do not agree with me as well as those who do.
What gets my crawl is the lack of respect i get in return solely based on my political views.

I do however consider this division to be a very destructive force in our society and it will be our downfall if we all don't take a refresher course in Bi-partisanship and get back to the business of serving ALL Americans.

FORD
02-15-2005, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
Hey, If all the allegations i have read in the last 4 years are true, and can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt...I'm all for justice being served.

I consider myself a true compassionate conservative because i respect the opinions of those who do not agree with me as well as those who do.
What gets my crawl is the lack of respect i get in return solely based on my political views.

I do however consider this division to be a very destructive force in our society and it will be our downfall if we all don't take a refresher course in Bi-partisanship and get back to the business of serving ALL Americans.

That will be much easier when we are rid of these criminals who serve NO Americans.

For it is they, and their mediawhores who push the division in the first place.

The reason the neocons attack Michael Moore as viciously as they do is because his last two movies have completely exposed their agenda of manipulating the American people.

For my own part, I can deal with true conservatives any day. A lot of what Pat Buchanan has said over the years has turned my stomach, but the guy is looking downright sensible compared to the neocons.

I will not compromise with those traitors. I will not agree to even 1% of their agenda, and I will not excuse any of it. That goes for the BCE, the PNAC'ers and their sympathizers like Biden and Hillary who claim to be "Democrats".

True conservatives should reject these unAmerican bastards in the same fashion.

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 09:16 AM
I'd reject them if i was convinced that all the crazy conspiracy theories were true.
And if they are true then prosecuting them for their crimes should be easy, don't ya think?

Clinton was taken through the ringer over a freakin blow-job, man. To think that any liberal in that loop in Washington couldn't or wouldn't bring the roof down on Bush for all the things he's accused of, is very hard for me to believe.

That must mean there isn't anything to prosecute and explains why the far left "backseat politicians" are louder than those who are in the loop.
Why isn't Nancy Pelosi calling for Bush's impeachment and prosecution?
Or Teddy Kennedy for that matter?

It doesn't wash with me that if all of it is true then he wouldn't be called on it.

Clinton was taken to task for a lot less than that and i know there are Dems that just wish they had solid evidence that wasn't manufactured to nail Bush with.

So, why no ralley to see justice done?
Are the common Joe Schmoe Democrats smarter and have access to classified documents that those working in Washington everyday do not?

It just strikes me odd that the loudest people screaming that Bush is a crook are those who have no power to take action.

Where's the damn action?
If he were guilty of anything charged, the witch hunt would have ensued a long time ago.

But again i repeat, Prove to me he is guilty of the charges and i'll put the cuffs on him personally.

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by FORD
For it is they, and their mediawhores who push the division in the first place.


I disagree because the hate speeches began before his first day in office.
It all boils down to this, Ford.
The modern liberal, and i don't mean all Democrats, is not interested in compromise. they want to run this country on their own agenda and create a socialist society where nothing is sacred.

I don't want to see any single american disenfranchised, I believe in fair and equal representation for all citizens.

Damn, I sound more like an independant here, don't i?

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 10:02 AM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
War Criminal as Attorney General????

Thank God the American people recognize the sense-defying agenda of people like you and Dean when they vote. I mean, this stance puts you on the same footing as most of the Third-World tyrants that hold "human-rights" commissionerships in the U.N. It's staggering to comprehend, but it's also exactly why your party will fade into irrelevancy with every "Dean-like" appointment. Newsflash: YOU'VE LOST JUST ABOUT EVERY NATIONAL ELECTION THAT YOU'VE RUN SINCE 1994!!!!

But hey, keep up the good work!

Yup! The same tyrants we send our al-Qaida suspects to as we "out-source" our torture. You know like Egypt, Syria, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and the list goes on...Why if i didn't know better, i'd say Bush was full of shit on his "Spreading of Democracy" message.:rolleyes:

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
I disagree because the hate speeches began before his first day in office.
It all boils down to this, Ford.
The modern liberal, and i don't mean all Democrats, is not interested in compromise. they want to run this country on their own agenda and create a socialist society where nothing is sacred.

I don't want to see any single american disenfranchised, I believe in fair and equal representation for all citizens.

Damn, I sound more like an independant here, don't i?

You seem like a sensible Republican Cat, what do you think about Bush's hate speech regarding fellow Republican (an actual War Hero) John McCain? You know, his "wife's a drug addict," his service in Vietnam made him prone to angry outbursts, he has a black child (actually an adopted asian kid). That sort of shit.

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 10:34 AM
I don't like dirty politics, but there isn't much to say about it when both sides of the isle are guilty of engaging in improper if not down right mean tactics.

McCain seems to be fine with him now, I don't see any grudges being held there.

However, I would rather not see dirty politics being practiced at all.

We the voters are the ones that have the power to control this though. All we need to do is send a clear message that those who participate in dirty politics will not get the votes needed to win.

It's pretty damn sad how truth and facts don't seem to matter much when campaigning. Far too much goes un-challenged on both sides.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
I don't like dirty politics, but there isn't much to say about it when both sides of the isle are guilty of engaging in improper if not down right mean tactics.

McCain seems to be fine with him now, I don't see any grudges being held there.

However, I would rather not see dirty politics being practiced at all.

We the voters are the ones that have the power to control this though. All we need to do is send a clear message that those who participate in dirty politics will not get the votes needed to win.

It's pretty damn sad how truth and facts don't seem to matter much when campaigning. Far too much goes un-challenged on both sides.

McCain is biting his tongue and is rumored to despise Dubya. For 08?' (SNL had a funny animated segment on that before the election).

YAWN
02-15-2005, 10:58 AM
Doubt it. We may see him in the primaries, but a lot of folks were saying McCain may be a little mentally out of it by the time Decision '08 rolls around, and if Jeb decides to throw his hat in the ring, then he's sadly probably a GOP lock. Sucks, too; I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary. He woulda kicked ass.

aesop
02-15-2005, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by Cathedral
Or Teddy Kennedy for that matter?


He'd have to put down his bottle of Scope he sneaks by the bottleful in the Hall's restrooms. But hey, at least we know his breath is clean :)

And why his face looks like a red crayon...

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by aesop
He'd have to put down his bottle of Scope he sneaks by the bottleful in the Hall's restrooms. But hey, at least we know his breath is clean :)

And why his face looks like a red crayon...

Teddy's a nonusing alcoholic, same as Dubya.;)

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
McCain is biting his tongue and is rumored to despise Dubya. For 08?' (SNL had a funny animated segment on that before the election).

If the same things were said about my wife i most likely wouldn't bite my tongue and would be very vocal about my displeasure.
McCain has nothing to gain or lose by biting his tongue.

For the most part, politicians are all scum in my opinion.

Major changes are long overdue.

Jeb won't get my vote if he gets the nod cause i have had enough of the Bush folk running things after this term.

Give me Rice or i may have to cross party lines, providing the candidate isn't Kerry or Clinton.

Ya know, If you all had put Joe Liberman up against Bush i'd lay money he'd have won last Nov.....I would have voted for him.

Warham
02-15-2005, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Or another thousand or two die in Iraq for no WMD's and to make a failed state? Who knows?

A failed state?

Weren't you one of those here that said Kerry would win the election here?

I wouldn't be calling anything if I were you.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Warham
A failed state?

Weren't you one of those here that said Kerry would win the election here?

I wouldn't be calling anything if I were you.

Time will tell. Since things have worked so well so far, I guess I'll just have to bite my prediction.

BigBadBrian
02-15-2005, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by FORD
. That goes for the BCE, the PNAC'ers and their sympathizers like Biden and Hillary who claim to be "Democrats".

True conservatives should reject these unAmerican bastards in the same fashion.

That's kind of funny.

I asked LoungeMachine in another thread who he would like to run in '08 and he said

JOE BIDEN

read it in post #30 right here. (http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16934&perpage=30&pagenumber=1)

You Libs need to have an interesting debate.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 05:17 PM
Wesley Clark WILL be in the running. I saw him on CNN and he wouldn't say yes to Wolf Blitzer's questions on his possible candidacy for 08', but he waffled and said "I'm in business, but I enjoy public service..." which qualifies as a yes, he's running in 08.'

BigBadBrian
02-15-2005, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Wesley Clark WILL be in the running. I saw him on CNN and he wouldn't say yes to Wolf Blitzer's questions on his possible candidacy for 08', but he waffled and said "I'm in business, but I enjoy public service..." which qualifies as a yes, he's running in 08.'

Possibly. Nobody at this point is going to say yes or no.

Warham
02-15-2005, 05:37 PM
He'll be running in '08, and will again look foolish in the Democratic Primary Debates, trying to gloss over radical comments by his good friend, Michael Moore.

"Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," Clark answered. "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot."

BigBadBrian
02-15-2005, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by Warham
He'll be running in '08, and will again look foolish in the Democratic Primary Debates, trying to gloss over radical comments by his good friend, Michael Moore.

"Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," Clark answered. "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot."

We'll see who MM has as his poster boy this time. That is a candidate's death sentence. :gulp:

Cathedral
02-15-2005, 05:53 PM
I'll say yes, I would love to run for President of this fine country.
But i'd be assassinated in no time because i would demolish the party lines and actually attempt to represent all my fellow americans.

Ok, you want abortion to stay legal?
I have some rules and guidlines to put in place first.

1) Nobody will be permitted an abortion under the age of 18 without parental consent. If it is an incest/rape deal, then the offender is removed from the house and brought to justice. abortion will be granted if the minor chooses to get one.

2) Since it takes 2 to get pregnant, it will require the consent of both individuals before an abortion is granted.

3) Any Dr. undermining the system will be charged with murder and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Taxes:
A flat tax rate depending on your income will be implemented with 10% a year invested in a personal retirement account that cannot be used for anything but retirement. no withdrawls or squandering of the money will be permitted. additional deposits can be made to this account by the owner of the account.

Justice:
No more filling the prisons with drug addicts, they will be rehabilitated and placed back in society with a 3 strikes and your incarcerated kind of sentence, and the death penalty will be abolished nation wide.
Death is too easy for murderers and they should be made to suffer doing hard labor until God takes them out.

I would really like to implement harsher punishments, but my way is a tad inhumane.

Steal = Lose a finger for each offense.
Rape = You get neutered
Murder = Life in prison doing the hardest labor possible. if your hands aren't bleeding by nightfall, you didn't work hard enough and back out in the fileds you go.

I have more, but you get the idea of where i'm coming from with this.

Warham
02-15-2005, 06:04 PM
With the murder punishment, you sound eerily similar to Bill O'Reilly.

Nickdfresh
02-15-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by Warham
He'll be running in '08, and will again look foolish in the Democratic Primary Debates, trying to gloss over radical comments by his good friend, Michael Moore.

"Well, I think Michael Moore has the right to say whatever he feels about this," Clark answered. "I don't know whether this is supported by the facts or not. I've never looked at it. I've seen this charge bandied about a lot."

Yeah, that will make or break him.:rolleyes:

Warham
02-15-2005, 10:36 PM
Well, it certainly didn't help, did it Nick?

Being related to Michael Moore in ANY fashion will kill your political career in the long run.

Nickdfresh
02-16-2005, 08:48 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Well, it certainly didn't help, did it Nick?

Being related to Michael Moore in ANY fashion will kill your political career in the long run.

Why, his documentary movie has made a bundle, sounds like an able, successful entrepreneur! Certainly he's no worse than Rupert Murdoch, who has made millions from catering to the crowd that want their news with a right-wing slant under the pretense of greater truth.

But I really think it doesn't matter either way. Clark lacked political: organization, legitimacy in the DLC's eyes, and experience. Who knows, maybe a Clark/Obama ticket will materialize. It's really much too early for this speculation.

Warham
02-16-2005, 08:50 AM
Yeah, his cut and paste job did make him some loot. He certainly has no talent to make a real movie, so he has to use folks like George W. Bush. He shouldn't want Bush out of office! He'd be in a soup line if it wasn't for Dubya.

Nickdfresh
02-16-2005, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, his cut and paste job did make him some loot. He certainly has no talent to make a real movie, so he has to use folks like George W. Bush. He shouldn't want Bush out of office! He'd be in a soup line if it wasn't for Dubya.

Have you ever seen it Warhammy? It's quite a good 'cut and paste' job, regardless of whether you want to believe his facts or not. Poor George! He's be in the soup line if it weren't for his asshole father and their extensive Saudi investments.

Warham
02-16-2005, 09:00 AM
Well, if I was in a soup line, and I had to pick which one of those guys I had to be I'd choose Dubya. At least I could get a woman if I was Duyba.