Dumbocrats force out Hackett

[LoungeMachine]

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 - Page updated at 12:00 AM

Iraq veteran abandons campaign for Senate
By Chris Cillizza

The Washington Post


Paul Hackett alleged Democratic party leaders sabotaged his efforts.


WASHINGTON — Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett withdrew from Ohio's U.S. Senate race Tuesday, blaming the national Democratic Party for his inability to gain financial traction in his primary contest against Rep. Sherrod Brown.

"I made this decision reluctantly, only after repeated requests by party leaders, as well as behind-the-scenes machinations that were intended to hurt my campaign," Hackett said in his formal withdrawal statement.

Hackett alleged that several party leaders — including Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. — had made calls to donors discouraging them from contributing to his campaign, allegations DSCC spokesman Phil Singer denied.

Hackett's departure from the race ensures that Brown, a seven-term House member, will be the Democrats' standard-bearer in the fall against Republican Sen. Mike DeWine. Liberal blogs, which are largely credited with building Hackett into a national force, were divided on his decision and its ramifications. Former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., condemned the situation as "old politics at its worst" on the Huffington Post blog. Markos Moulitsas, who runs the popular Democratic blog Daily Kos, defended the move, however, arguing that Hackett "didn't stand a chance" against Brown in the primary.

Republicans sought to paint Hackett's withdrawal as a blow to Democrats' chances in November. "Hackett was controversial and said some nutty stuff, but he had the potential to play in the middle," said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokesman Dan Ronayne.

Hackett's decision not to run for the Senate ends a political odyssey that began in August 2005 with his largely unheralded candidacy in the Cincinnati area's 2nd District. The seat was vacated when Rep. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, was named U.S. trade representative.

[Warham]

Sounds like your kind of party, Lounge!

[Nickdfresh]

Really stupid, short-sighted move...

[Warham]

He should have seen this coming. The Democrats don't want any Iraq War veterans in their party.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
He should have seen this coming. The Democrats don't want any Iraq War veterans in their party.

Apparently, no IRAQ war veterans want to be in the Republican party (the party of the Chickenhawk internet posers) either...

[Warham]

I don't know why. They wouldn't be torpedoed by their fellow party members if they ran for public office.

Republicans treat their veteran party members with respect, even if they did just serve in the Alabama Air Guard back in the 70's. :)

[Warham]

It must have been hard, for example, for the DNC to prop up John Kerry as a Vietnam War Hero® when they so vehemently opposed the war in the first place.

They must have been biting their lip the whole time supporting that 'babykiller'.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I don't know why. They wouldn't be torpedoed by their fellow party members if they ran for public office.

Republicans treat their veteran party members with respect, even if they did just serve in the Alabama Air Guard back in the 70's. :)

The RNC/DNC torpedo candidates all of the time if they think somebody else has a better chance to win, which is what this is about, hence my "short-sighted" comment...

Funny though, I can't remember the last time you started a thread actually criticizing the Republican party, yet here LOUNGE and I are both railing against the Demo'wits...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It must have been hard, for example, for the DNC to prop up John Kerry as a Vietnam War Hero® when they so vehemently opposed the war in the first place.

They must have been biting their lip the whole time supporting that 'babykiller'.

Oh, they were huh?
http://www.ee.princeton.edu/~jay/lbj.jpg
Read history much? A lot of Democrats fully supported Vietnam, which ultimately tore the party apart...

Didn't you ever read about the 68' convention, c'mon, GOOGLE it or something...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The RNC/DNC torpedo candidates all of the time if they think somebody else has a better chance to win, which is what this is about, hence my "short-sighted" comment...

Funny though, I can't remember the last time you started a thread actually criticizing the Republican party, yet here LOUNGE and I are both railing against the Demo'wits...

You 'railing' against the Democrats? Nick, when did you decide to become a professional comedian?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
You 'railing' against the Democrats? Nick, when did you decide to become a professional comedian?

Do you actually address any points? Or are you just going to throw out red herrings? Yeah, I criticized the "Demo'wits"...

Just like I'm a Republican that rips apart the Republo'can'ts...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Oh, they were huh?
http://www.ee.princeton.edu/~jay/lbj.jpg
Read history much? A lot of Democrats fully supported Vietnam, which ultimately tore the party apart...

Didn't you ever read about the 68' convention, c'mon, GOOGLE it or something...

The Democrats have never recovered from the George McGovern candidacy.

It was a good year for Republicans. 1968.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Do you actually address any points? Or are you just going to throw out red herrings? Yeah, I criticized the "Demo'wits"...

Just like I'm a Republican that rips apart the Republo'can'ts...

When was the last time you voted for a Republican for President?

The 'republo'can'ts' apparently can, since they control everything now, Oral Office, both Houses and the Supreme Court.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
The Democrats have never recovered from the George McGovern candidacy.

It was a good year for Republicans. 1968.

You mean they elected a guy who was basically impeached, and forced to resign from office?

BTW, I already said I voted for a Republican president once in my lifetime...

What a short memory you have.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean they elected a guy who was basically impeached, and forced to resign from office?

Think long term, Nick. I know you can do it! Didn't you eat your cheerios this morning??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
When was the last time you voted for a Republican for President?

The 'republo'can'ts' apparently can, since they control everything now, Oral Office, both Houses and the Supreme Court.

So this is what this thread devolves into as always...

My party is better than 'your' party...

BTW, they've blown it. Nobody trusts them anymore...

They "own" everything huh? So when is Roe vs. Wade going to be overturned?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean they elected a guy who was basically impeached, and forced to resign from office?

BTW, I already said I voted for a Republican president once in my lifetime...

What a short memory you have.

WOW! Once!

Why would you even claim to be a Republican then? Are you one of those fencesitters who can't admit to being a Democrat when asked by others in 'real life', away from the internet connection?

[Nickdfresh]

Because I registered as a Republican...

By 'fencesitter,' do you mean someone that actually thinks for myself and doesn't swallow all the shit fed to me by the high command?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
So this is what this thread devolves into as always...

My party is better than 'your' party...

BTW, they've blown it. Nobody trusts them anymore...

They "own" everything huh? So when is Roe vs. Wade going to be overturned?

Roe vs. Wade is such a small item in the much larger picture, Nick. Liberals, of course, are obsessed with that ruling, and it comes up as the main topic in every Supreme Court nomination. See, Republicans actually supported abortion-rights liberals that were appointed to the Supreme Court, as evidenced by the Ginsburg vote. Why can't it be the other way around?

What do the Democrats have to offer, Nick? Tell me their grand scheme for America! I might be swayed! LOL

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Think long term, Nick. I know you can do it! Didn't you eat your cheerios this morning??

Apparently I know a little about history, and not just what I can GOOGLE for flames sake...

I had oatmeal, maybe you should try it...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Because I registered as a Republican...

By 'fencesitter,' do you mean someone that actually thinks for myself and doesn't swallow all the shit fed to me by the high command?

Liberals have been fed by their high command since the early 30's.

You've got a head start on us.

[Warham]

I'm sure you have your Hillary Clinton 2008 bumper sticker all ready to go, even though she doesn't have a hell's chance to win?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Roe vs. Wade is such a small item in the much larger picture, Nick. Liberals, of course, are obsessed with that ruling...

AHAHAHAHAHHA! You're just priceless today, I laughed outloud at that one. Yeah, the religious right hasn't made that a cornerstone of their platform...:D




and it comes up as the main topic in every Supreme Court nomination. See, Republicans actually supported abortion-rights liberals that were appointed to the Supreme Court, as evidenced by the Ginsburg vote. Why can't it be the other way around?

You don't consider those that support abortion-rights to be Republicans though...

And if it's such a non-issue, why doesnt BUSH just appoint Sandra DAY-O'CONNOR type moderates instead of hard right judges...

CLINTON never tried to force an ardent leftist down anyone's throat...


What do the Democrats have to offer, Nick? Tell me their grand scheme for America! I might be swayed! LOL

Well, not starting wars over faulty intelligence, not trying to roll back the New Deal, not allowing jobs to be outsourced would be a start...

But mostly, I think the inherent incompetence and corruption of the Republican hypocrites should be punished...

"You might be swayed? LOL" Okay, so you refuse to think for yourself and have already swallowed the shit-sandwich fed to you by the Party. Good bitch. That's called being an "enabler."

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I'm sure you have your Hillary Clinton 2008 bumper sticker all ready to go, even though she doesn't have a hell's chance to win?

HILLARY isn't the nominee, at least not yet. BTW, who is she running against? Sen. Unelectable? Who is going to win since she "can't?"


Buhuhahahahahahahahaha!

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Warham
Sounds like your kind of party, Lounge!


They eat their young, don't they? :D

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
They eat their young, don't they? :D

You mean like when you vote for a party that is completely against your presumably middle-class interests?

[Warham]

Clinton never nominated a moderate for the Supreme Court, Nick. I thought you were a history expert! You don't think a former top attorney for the ACLU is an 'ardent' leftist? You can't be so naive, Nick. Then again...

Yeah, you think the unethical behavior should be punished, but you would have voted Slick Willie in for a third term if that were possible, right? No, I think you just want success to be punished. Liberals hate being down.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
HILLARY isn't the nominee, at least not yet. BTW, who is she running against? Sen. Unelectable? Who is going to win since she "can't?"


Buhuhahahahahahahahaha!

It doesn't matter who she runs against. They could bring up Jeb Bush as their nominee, even though the public is sick of hearing about any bush that's not on a woman.

Once they hear her shrill voice ranting and raving during the primaries, that'll sew it up.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
You mean like when you vote for a party that is completely against your presumably middle-class interests?

I dunno, I've make more money now than when a liberal who cared about my 'interests' was in office.

YMMV

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Clinton never nominated a moderate for the Supreme Court, Nick. I thought you were a history expert!

You know what I mean, and I never claimed to be an expert. I just have a clue.


You don't think a former top attorney for the ACLU is an 'ardent' leftist? You can't be so naive, Nick. Then again...

Who's this?


Yeah, you think the unethical behavior should be punished, but you would have voted Slick Willie in for a third term if that were possible, right? No, I think you just want success to be punished. Liberals hate being down.

How could I vote for CLINTON in a third term?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
It doesn't matter who she runs against. They could bring up Jeb Bush as their nominee, even though the public is sick of hearing about any bush that's not on a woman.

Once they hear her shrill voice ranting and raving during the primaries, that'll sew it up.

LOL That's exactly what they said in NY...

[Warham]

Ginsburg was an ACLU attorney. She had also stated during the hearings that she believed a woman had the right to an abortion. She was then voted in by a 96-3 margin.

And with the Clinton thing, I put the 'if it were possible' clause.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
LOL That's exactly what they said in NY...

Yeah, New York, the bible belt of America! Is it possible to find a more liberal state, other than Massachusetts?

When's the last time that New York went for a Republican President? Ronald Reagan in '84?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Ginsburg was an ACLU attorney. She had also stated during the hearings that she believed a woman had the right to an abortion. She was then voted in by a 96-3 margin.

And with the Clinton thing, I put the 'if it were possible' clause.

So? The ACLU has supported all kinds of causes...

They've even backed Republicans....

But of course, the idea of civil liberties is a far left principle these days...

And you can't judge her record solely on being an ACLU attorney...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, New York, the bible belt of America! Is it possible to find a more liberal state, other than Massachusetts?

When's the last time that New York went for a Republican President? Ronald Reagan in '84?

Yeah, only the mayor of it's largest city and the governorship are controlled by Republicans...

And who would be ashamed of not going for either BUSH at this point BushEEP?

Again, you just repeat yourself. "All liberals/Democrats believe [ ]."

"But, but, but CLINTON..."

And you're always wrong...

[Warham]

No, you are right, but she has went on record as saying she pays attention to and cites rulings from other countries when deciding on how she'll adjudicate from the bench, a conservative no-no.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yeah, only the mayor of it's largest city and the governorship are controlled by Republicans...

And who would be ashamed of not going for either BUSH at this point BushEEP?

Again, you just repeat yourself. "All liberals/Democrats believe [ ]."

"But, but, but CLINTON..."

And you're always wrong...

Bloomberg's a Republican like you're a Republican, in name only.

Again, I ask you, are you going to pull the lever for Hillary in 2008? Just admit it now, whoever wins the Republican nomination, it doesn't matter! You'll still pull the 'D' lever.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, you are right, but she has went on record as saying she pays attention to and cites rulings from other countries when deciding on how she'll adjudicate from the bench, a conservative no-no.

Well, apparently, a lot of "conservatives" were on board with it too...

Though, she may have done it with cases involving little or no judicial precedent here. Oh, God forbid the US be influenced by someone else... We sure take their bad-intelligence, uncritically, when it suits us...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Bloomberg's a Republican like you're a Republican, in name only.
...

Yup, there we go. He's "not really a Republican" because you disagree with him. Here comes the split...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Well, apparently, a lot of "conservatives" were on board with it too...

Though, she may have done it with cases involving little or no judicial precedent here. Oh, God forbid the US be influenced by someone else... We sure take their bad-intelligence when it suits us...

Yeah, it's always good to consult with court rulings from countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria before ruling on what's best for America.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Yup, there we go. He's "not really a Republican" because you disagree with him. Here comes the split...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

:D

Gee, is it only me??

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, it's always good to consult with court rulings from countries like Iran, North Korea and Syria before ruling on what's best for America.

Really? Who did that? WTF are you even talking about?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Really? Who did that? WTF are you even talking about?

Nick, drink some more coffee!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only

:D

Gee, is it only me??

I don't know, let's see...

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_In_Name_Only


Rhetoric
Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell have been labeled as Republican In Name Only by some conservative members of their own party who see them as too moderate or liberal.
Enlarge


Good luck with that next election...LMAO


Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell have been labeled as Republican In Name Only by some conservative members of their own party who see them as too moderate or liberal.

The term RINO originated in the 1990s and came into widespread usage around 2000 [1]. It is used by conservatives to delegitimize moderate Republican office holders. Those Republicans who are labeled RINOs counter that the conservatives who call them RINOs are too far right and too politically naive. They point out that they can and do win in moderate and liberal areas and without their votes the Republicans would lose control of Congress. Furthermore the moderates in the Northeast point out their people founded the GOP in the first place, while most of the critics (especially in the South) are recent converts to the party.

Moderates say the “RINO” business is just a rhetorical device to exaggerate the importance of a couple issues that especially concern the right wing of the party (notably abortion). If you come up with an index of 25 criteria for being a Republican, focused on support for national and state policies and candidates over the last two decades, then the moderates have a solid Republican record.

The term RINO often comes into public discourse during Republican primaries. Many conservatives want the Republican party to defeat moderates so that the party will be even more conservative, (even if the moderate/liberal Republican is an incumbent).

Some conservative organizations use the term RINO to help describe some of their activities. The National Federation of Republican Assemblies started the "RINO Hunters' Club" and the Club for Growth (which is mostly concerned with conservative economic issues) started the "RINO Watch".

The acronym has led to the analogous DINO, a Democrat In Name Only, referring to those who are too conservative. The term Fox News liberal has also been used in this context. The two acronyms are, at the same time, puns on the popular English-language shortenings of the words rhinoceros and dinosaur.

Both terms are used by more ideological (politically speaking) members of either party to challenge fellow party members for their positions. In some cases, the platforms of the members in question are not even necessarily close to the opponents'—they just do not necessarily follow the party line in every case. Examples might include Senator John McCain, whose voting record is quite conservative on many issues, or Senator Joe Lieberman, who is in the mainstream of his party on many domestic issues.

Putative RINOs sometimes reply that they are "Raging RINOs" - Republicans / Independents Not Overdosed (on the Party Kool Aid)[2] "Kool Aid" in the name is a reference to the mass suicide in the Jonestown cult.

[Warham]

Rudy and Colin aren't going to win the RNC nomination, and I don't wan't either sitting in the Oral Office!

Hillary still won't win. :)

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Rudy and Colin aren't going to win the RNC nomination!

Hillary still won't win. :)

Well, we know who 'won't win.' So who will? Rick LAZIO?

[FORD]

"Dumbocrat" is an appropriate name for what Schumer and Reid are doing.

Dumbo was an elephant. And they're acting like Republicans interfering in state primary contests.

I suppose they'll target Washington next and try to force Corporatewhore Cantwell on us for another 6 years.....

www.votemark.org

[Warham]

FORD, you're reading this...

Care to chime in about that wonderful woman, Hillary Clinton, and her chances of winning the 2008 DNC nomination?

[Nickdfresh]

The party of corrupt, hypocritical religious extremists... ROFLMAO...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
The party of corrupt, hypocritical religious extremists... ROFLMAO...

Yeah, if your religious, that's evil.

All Republicans are 'religious extremists' in your liberally-warped mind.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
FORD, you're reading this...

Care to chime in about that wonderful woman, Hillary Clinton, and her chances of winning the 2008 DNC nomination?

About the same as the chance of a snowstorm in downtown Hell.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Yeah, if your religious, that's evil.

No. Religious extremistism IS evil... Nice try at rewriting though --well not really.


All Republicans are 'religious extremists' in your liberally-warped mind.

Really? I've never said good things about non-religious, non-creationists, backward, hating-deficit-spending Republicans?


Yeah, okay. Actually, most of the Republwhores you worship aren't really Christian at all, that's the point...
http://wilsonhellie.typepad.com/for_the_record/pictures/koolaid7.jpg

[Warham]

No, I don't remember you saying anything good about any Republicans, actually.

Let me revise that, in the last 100 years.

But we can change that!

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
No, I don't remember you saying anything good about any Republicans, actually.

But we can change that!

Why don't you do a search function? Or are you too busy doing laundry?

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Why don't you do a search function? Or are you too busy doing laundry?

No, we don't want to use that efficiently deadly search function! I'd hate to hurt you, Nick.

Besides, I revised that to not include Presidents who served back in the 1800's.

[Warham]

I got an idea.

I know this might put you in some amount of undue physical pain, but you could name one good thing a Republican president has done in the last thirty years?

[Nickdfresh]

C'mon WARHAM, stop folding your Ronald Reagan Underoos for a minute and go ahead...

I think I've explained where I come from about a 1000 times, I'm sick of repeating myself...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
C'mon WARHAM, stop folding your Ronald Reagan Underoos for a minute and go ahead...

I think I've explained where I come from about a 1000 times, I'm sick of repeating myself...

Nick, don't put down the greatest president in the last fifty years.

Nothing wrong with Ronald Reagan underroos. Now, when you buy a pair of Clinton underroos, they come pre-stained.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
I got an idea.

I know this might put you in some amount of undue physical pain, but you could name one good thing a Republican president has done in the last thirty years?

Impossible. The last Republican to do anything good was Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, in spite of his otherwise criminal behavior.

But that was more than 30 years ago.

[Warham]

Originally posted by FORD
Impossible. The last Republican to do anything good was Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency, in spite of his otherwise criminal behavior.

But that was more than 30 years ago.

FORD, good job! :D

Let's see if Nick can work through it and come up with something.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Nick, don't put down the greatest president in the last fifty years.

A.) He's not the greatest President evah'.

B.) I'm not putting him down, just the drooling sycophanting...


Nothing wrong with Ronald Reagan underroos. Now, when you buy a pair of Clinton underroos, they come prestained.

No, he only stains other peoples' clothing...

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
I got an idea.

I know this might put you in some amount of undue physical pain, but you could name one good thing a Republican president has done in the last thirty years?

I'll name a couple. Nixon introduced the Privacy Act of 1973, and went to CHINA. Both very ironically considering he was paranoid schizo...

Pres. FORD calmed things down and was a good figurehead after Watergate...

REAGAN did pressure the Soviets into finally giving in and allowing a reformer to transition away from Communism. He also knew which Carter policies to continue, such as increased defense spending, and helping the Afghan guerrillas, except he allowed the SAUDI's and Pakis to take over the show and support the extremists elements (i.e. the BIN LADENS)... And he did help to reestablish some consumer confidence...

And he cut taxes before he raised them.:)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
A.) He's not the greatest President evah'.

No, but then again, I didn't say he was the greatest president 'eva! That's Honest Abe, another Republican. :)

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I'll name a couple. Nixon introduced the Privacy Act of 1973, and went to CHINA. Both very ironically considering he was paranoid schizo...

Pres. FORD calmed things down and was a good figurehead after Watergate...

REAGAN did pressure the Soviets into finally giving in and allowing a reformer to transition away from Communism. He also knew which Carter policies to continue, such as increased defense spending, and helping the Afghan guerrillas, except he allowed the SAUDI's and Pakis to take over the show and support the extremists elements (i.e. the BIN LADENS)... And he did help to reestablish some consumer confidence...

And he cut taxes before he raised them.:)

Wow. I'm impressed.

With that said, you wouldn't have voted for any of those guys right, even though you listed some great accomplishments?

You would have voted for Humphrey in 1972, Carter in '80, and Mondale in '84?

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Wow. I'm impressed.

With that said, you wouldn't have voted for any of those guys right, even though you listed some great accomplishments?

They were accomplishments, very few ever make "great" ones...

And how do you know I wouldn't have voted for any of those?


You would have voted for Humphrey in 1972, Carter in '80, and Mondale in '84?

Why don't you make a list of 'great accomplishments' of Democratic Presidents?

I'm not up for WARHAM'S 20-questions today...

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
They were accomplishments, very few ever make "great" ones...

And how do you know I wouldn't have voted for any of those?


Oh, it's just an educated guess. After you've admitted to voting for Kerry and Gore, I think we can make a projection of how you would have voted had you been old enough.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Oh, it's just an educated guess. After you've admitted to voting for Kerry and Gore, I think we can make a projection of how you would have voted had you been old enough.

Bushy wasn't available to vote against then...

So, again, are you going to answer the equivalent of your own questions? Name an accomplishment by a Democratic President in the last 60-years...

Which one, of any, would you have voted for?

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh


So, again, are you going to answer the equivalent of your own questions? Name an accomplishment by a Democratic President in the last 60-years...


Warpig NEVER answers direct questions, Nick.

Remind you of anyone?

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Bushy wasn't available to vote against then...

So, again, are you going to answer the equivalent of your own questions? Name an accomplishment by a Democratic President in the last 60-years...

Which one, of any, would you have voted for?

The only Democrat I would have voted for would have been John F. Kennedy. He was so unlike his brother Teddy, it's like night and day. Well, maybe Teddy was like that then, but he's gone off the deep end.

As for the question about accomplishments, let's see, in a nutshell:

Clinton - The only good thing Clinton did was sign Welfare reform. He did get the deficit down, so he gets a few bonus points for that.

Carter - Peace talks between Egypt and Israel successful.

Johnson - Eh.

Kennedy - Tax cuts good. Handling of Cuban Missile Crisis good. Good Democratic presidency. This is the guy the DNC should look at as a person to pattern their national candidates after, not Clinton.

Roosevelt - Masterful handing of WWII. New Deal helpful in short term, but in long term, I think it's turned into an enabler.

[LoungeMachine]

I take full credit for shaming Warpig into FINALLY answering a direct question.


You're all Welcome.

LMMFAO

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Warpig NEVER answers direct questions, Nick.

Remind you of anyone?

:cool:

It's so easy to prove you wrong day in and day out.

:D

[Nickdfresh]

He actually put up some thoughtful answers...very good.

[Warham]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He actually put up some thoughtful answers...very good.

I can give more, but that's the Cliff's Notes version.

I'd have to do some more research and thinking to give more in-depth and thought-provoking answers...you know, the kind that give Lounge a headache trying to wrap his brain around.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
He actually put up some thoughtful answers...very good.


You're welcome

:cool:

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
You're welcome

:cool:

You always underestimate others here while overestimating yourself.

Keep dreamin!

:)

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Warham
You always underestimate others here while overestimating yourself.

Keep dreamin!

:)

Yes, it was pure coincidence that you fianlly posted an answer minutes after I said you never do.....:rolleyes:


LMMFAO

[4moreyears]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Warpig NEVER answers direct questions, Nick.

Remind you of anyone?

:cool:

Ford

[FORD]

Originally posted by 4moreyears
Ford

I don't think that was the answer. Probably someone a little older, a lot stupider, and several million less brain cells, since I never had a 20 year cocaine habit.

Oh, and I don't look like a chimp either.

[Warham]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
Yes, it was pure coincidence that you fianlly posted an answer minutes after I said you never do.....:rolleyes:


LMMFAO

Lounge, you've actually posted something that's accurate!

Wow!

:cool:

[Warham]

Let's talk about those two backstabbers, Dingy Harry and Chuckie Schumer.

[FORD]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's talk about those two backstabbers, Dingy Harry and Chuckie Schumer.

Let's not. My blood pressure's high enough as it is, and it's too goddamned cold outside to walk it off.

Fucking DLC party wrecking pussies :mad:

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by Warham
Let's talk about those two backstabbers, Dingy Harry and Chuckie Schumer.

Well I'm not happy about it. But before I go down the HACKETT as Martyr road, there was a recent article in TIME that was rather unflattering to Paul. I think he's a good guy that means well, but I'm not sure how great his grasp of the issues are...

Having said that, he'd be in good company in that category if he made it to the congress, and that's directed to both the Democratic and the Republican...

[FORD]

I believe Hackett should have actually stayed with the same House race that he almost won last year (and probably DID win, except for some "humidity problems" with the machines in Mean Jean Schidt-for brains home precinct.

This is OHIO, after all.

Sherrod Brown said he wasn't running for the Senate, so Hackett stepped in. That should have been the end of it. Brown wanted back in. OK, fair enough. Let the voters of the state decide the primary.

What pisses me off is that Schumer (and Rahm Emmanuel in the House races) has been pulling this kind of shit all over the country, and I'm sure they'll target Washington state next, where Mark Wilson is running against that corporatist DLC whore Maria Cantwell.

This is a bluer than blue state, and we do not want DLC candidates, and we certainly don't need them to win. This was a Dean & Kucinich state, not a Kerry state, and we're damn proud of it.


The one good thing in Ohio is that Brown is still a decent candidate, by all indications.

But Hackett still got screwed. And he's already given his word NOT to go back to the 2nd district House race. So the man who served as the blueprint for all the other Iraq vets jumping into politics has been forced out of the 2006 election. I believe he deserved a little better than that.