We now have one new opening on the Supreme Court, with another possible one to come, and an extreme right wing President seeking to satisfy supporters who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and consider Roe v. Wade the work of “activist judges” which should be overurned.
I’m guessing the Democrats will be steamrolled over in the vetting process, which means we’ve got one hope: That Presidents who appointed extremely conservative judges to the SC have not always gotten what they bargained for.
PAD
• 
And more to the point, after all those years of Clinton-bashing, conservatives now control all branches of government. So maybe there’s something to their tactics.
“Conservative pundits have hammered away nonstop at liberals for years, and framed the parameters of every major issue before the American public, usually in the most insulting and negative tones possible.”
You know who I wanna see run? Alan Sheppard, the President from Sorkin’s movie “The American President” I would like to see the Sheppard he gave you at the END of the movie run. But seriously, they Democrats need to get a dámņ PPERSONALITY in the White House. FDR had personality. Johnson had personality. (and yes, I realize Johnson was a Democrat.) Hëll, Clinton had personality. Kerry didn’t. The Democrats should run a real fire-breather, someone who can give a speech like a mutha. (I am flashing back to some of Jed Bartlett’s better speeches.) The only problem with getting a really good canidate is the whole convention process: no matter how good the canidates are going in, you end up with watered-down, BS spouting, won’t-touch-an-issue-with-a-ten-foot-cattle-prod “canidates.” On both sides. Which is why I wanna see Powell or McCain run. Or someone, ANYONE who can actually talk about real problems instead of spout party line BS, or run dirty, slander based campaigns.
Actually, I just realized the Campaign I wanted to see: Abe Lincoln V. Teddy Roosevelt. (Sounds like a good action movie too.)
There’s no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bûllšhìŧ at you with high powered cannons.
Thus guaranteeing that things will never, ever get any better. Jed Bartlett would be ashamed. Hëll, so would Bruno.
No more. Fighting fire for fire, tit for tat, saurce for the goose, take your pick. But yeah, you bet your ášš. Decades of trash talk, of distortion, of lies…and now Conservatives are crying out that LIBERALS are being unreasonable? Screw that. There’s no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bûllšhìŧ at you with high powered cannons.
I seriously think you underestimate the amount of bûllšhìŧ flung by liberals in the past.
Personally, I don’t think that deliberately taking the low road will work for liberals, expecially since the manner in which they seem to be going about it is by throwing out anyone who isn’t sufficiantly angry and fanatical. Lieberman went in just 4 short years from being worthy of being a heartbeat away from the presidency to being considered by many in the party of being a Republican in Democrat’s clothing. Meanwhile the Republicans have made moderates like Arnold and Rudi their poster boys. Yeah, they have the Santorums as well, but the GOP is still better positioned to call itself the party of ideological inclusion. And that will appeal to the independents, the ones that you need to win.
I don’t see those folks responding well to the angry, take no prisoners, win by any means necessary Democrats. But we will see. There’s always the very real possibility that the Republicans will make themselves so unappetizing that any alternative is viable but it says something about the left that their best hope seems to be either hoping for conditions to degrade or to simply do better at being corrupt and dishonest than their opponents are.
Me, I’ll never say “Yes. Absolutely.” to being unreasonable, even to score a few cheap political points. It’s not worth the cost. And if I slip up and ignore reason out of passion or a desire for something to be true even though it obviously isn’t, I’m sure someone will point it out to me and I’ll take my deserved lumps.
Actually, rereading that last post it came across less tongue-in-cheek than I intended. Without being able to hear vocal intonations, “ashamed” has connotations that I didn’t really mean and comes across as an attack rather than a gentle dig. To atone, I offer the following Television Without Pity images: http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=churchsign13qk.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=churchsign63xz.jpg
That said, I really don’t think sinking to the bad guys’ level is really good for either the opposition party or the nation in general. If you think it’s wrong, it’s wrong when you do it too.
That is an excellent quote, PAD. Every time I hear it, it seems so strong, and so accurate. The Democratc Party does need to find a way to stand up for itself, to take back the definitions. I would prefer if it didn’t sink to the dirty, snarky, nasty, insubstantial level of many of the Republicans, however. Are the people stupid enough to be swayed by these tactics a large enough bloc for a side to control the country? Let’s hope not.
Meanwhile the Republicans have made moderates like Arnold and Rudi their poster boys.
After reading “It’s My Party, Too” I have to laugh at this statement. Sure, the GOP likes to trot the moderates out to make people think they’re not ALL a bunch right wingnut looney tunes, but these same moderates are hated and despised by the very people they’ve pledged their loyalty too. Maybe it’s because I live in Pennsylvania and have seen first hand how the far right have tried to destroy moderate republicans like Arlen Specter that I find it hard to believe in the big tent theory of republicanism anymore.
but the GOP is still better positioned to call itself the party of ideological inclusion.
Ha, yeah, the party whose base is rallying against Alberto Gonzales because he hasn’t done enough to convince them that he’s committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.
“Sure, the GOP likes to trot the moderates out to make people think they’re not ALL a bunch right wingnut looney tunes, but these same moderates are hated and despised by the very people they’ve pledged their loyalty too.”
Den, with all respect. Bull.
There is the old idea that there may be a very vocal minority, but the majority is usually quiet and moderate. Like Buckley supporters. Yes, Ann Coulter sells more books, but she doesn’t sway as many people. Like Andrew Sheppard says at the end of “The American President:”
“You gather a group, of middle-age, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values, and character,”
Well, that shows a low opinion of the American people. I have always stood with Lewis on this one.
“People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they’ll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They’re so thirsty for it they’ll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there’s no water, they’ll drink the sand.”
The American people are smart, and for years, politicians have been treating them like they are stupid, like they are sheep who have to be carefully hearded down certain alleys, and that they will follow you blindly.
Well, they won’t. They will turn around and bite you in the ášš if you don’t tell them the truth. Nixon found that out, so did Reagan and Clinton. Bush is too. What the American people are looking for is a LEADER; Republican or Democrat. You notice how low Bushes numbers are? He was elected with what? 51, 52%? Now he is in what? the low 30’s? Obviously some people don’t like it anymore. The people who support him now are those who listen to Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, and it looks like that number is getting lower. at least 20% of that 51% were the people who were hoping, BEGGING, that they would get a president who was a leader. They thought they had one, and now they find out they were wrong. And they are turning on him. His numbers are almost free-falling. It doesn’t matter to him, but he is screwing over his party. All the people who kept quiet, who were hoping things would get better…all of them are slowly slipping away from Bush. They people you talk about who are laughing at the moderates? They aren’t jeering ’cause they speak for a majority. They are jeering ’cause they are all thats left.
And those Moderates? They are hoping they can bring the Republican party back to what it was, back to a moderate, sensible group that actually got stuff done. And all the evidence that you need that I am right is Bushes falling numbers.
Nixon found that out, so did Reagan and Clinton
What, exactly, did Clinton find out, outside of the fact he shouldn’t shag ugly interns in the Oval Office?
Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn’t win in a landslide?
That his approval rating wouldn’t be far better than Bush’s?
Maybe it’s the fact that, looking at some articles online, all recent presidents (since Carter) have had hindsight on their side – their approval ratings increased after they left office.
Although, Clinton’s average was on par with Reagan’s. And as I’ve said in the past, Reagan was pretty much a teflon president anyways.
“What, exactly, did Clinton find out, outside of the fact he shouldn’t shag ugly interns in the Oval Office?
Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn’t win in a landslide?
That his approval rating wouldn’t be far better than Bush’s?”
I agree about the numbers, but there was a great deal of public recrimination against his actions. I wasn’t refering solely to numbers, but also to the public backlash. And, I think that he really helped the Rep. cast the Dem. as this kind of degenerate party who doesn’t care about family values, and is all about destroying the “American way of life” ie, some kinda “Leave it to Beaver” lifestyle that the rep. think we had. He may have been a good president, but he didn’t do much for his or the party’s reputation.
I agree about the numbers, but there was a great deal of public recrimination against his actions. I wasn’t refering solely to numbers, but also to the public backlash.
I think the public backlash, in the wake of what Bush has done, was actually quite minimal.
I think most people… sane people… realize what a crock it was that millions were wasted on that investigation into Clinton.
People *should* realize that the whole thing was a con to try and get Clinton out of office. There’s nothing like trying to get rid of the popular ones…
And, I think that he really helped the Rep. cast the Dem. as this kind of degenerate party who doesn’t care about family values
Which is all bûllšhìŧ spin on the part of Republicans, because there are any number of them that are no better (Newt Gingrich comes to mind).
But, they just play the propoganda game better.
People *should* realize that the whole thing was a con to try and get Clinton out of office.
Just because you like him? Sure they should, that really flies!
And it is not a matter of comparing one man’s indiscretion against another, but Newt aside, most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them.
“…most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them.”
You mean like Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-North San Diego County), who bought a small yacht for $200,000, then sold it for $600,000 to someone who knew it wasn’t seaworthy, but who needed help looking into getting a Presidential pardon for bid-rigging? And who later used a mortgage company owned by that man’s nephew to purchase a home in Del Mar for $1,000,000, only to have the second mortgage paid off by that man in lieu of the money for the boat? And who then sold the house for $1,400,000 to a defense contractor, who was later forced to sell it himself at a $700,000 loss? And who then moved onto a houseboat on the Potomac which is owned by that defense contractor (and named “The Duke-Stir”, in Randy “Duke” Cunningham’s honor)? All of which occurred while Cunningham was sitting on the House Intelligence Subcommittee and the House Defense Appropriations Committee? None of which behavior is even being regarded as particularly surprising by such Congressional cohorts as Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon)?
Yep, sounds real clean to me…
“Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions.”
interesting. i really don’t see the Democrats pandering to the extreme left. i don’t think the extreme left really has a voice in this country.
we’ve gotten to a point where people like Howard Dean are being criticized for being extreme liberals. Howard Dean is just a loud moderate.
hëll, i’ve heard people call Clinton an extreme liberal. in my opinion, he’s the best Republican president since Eisenhower.
it’s been argued that Nixon’s 1960 platform was in many ways to the left of Gore’s 2000 platform. i feel that political discourse in this country has moved very far to the right.
Yep, sounds real clean to me…
Of course, he’s a Republican.
But then, Newt tried to hide his skeletons too. Tom DeLay, too, is now trying to bury his before somebody finds them.
most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them.
Oh please, the right is dominated by people who think that even admitting that you’re not infallible is a sign of weakness.
There is the old idea that there may be a very vocal minority, but the majority is usually quiet and moderate.
I’m not talking about the rank and file. I’m talking about the people who are in control of the GOP right now and they are the extremists. No, they’re not the majority, but they are in control. I don’t know how long moderate republicans will put up with being dominated by the insane wingnut faction, but hopefully, they’ll wake and take charge soon. Anyone who dreams of a Giulliani or McCain in ’08 is doing just that, dreaming. It’ll never happen. If you’re not part of the neocon club, forget it.
Den,
“After reading ‘It’s My Party, Too’ “
See, I love this. Christine Todd Whitman is an incompetent, bumbling phony. She’s described as “moderate” by the press simply because she acts like a Democrat. The same “moderate” label is used for Specter, for the same reason. The main reason they are characterized by the press as “moderate”, despite some conservative leanings, is because they are for abortion “rights”. If they didn’t, they would be carciatured by much of the press the way Republicans like Frist and Santorum are.
When somebody like Whitman appears, she is labeled by “The New York Times” and other major media as a “star”. Funny how the media thinks they know better than average Republicans who their “stars” are. Whitman left office in disgrace, while there is a good chance Santorum will run for President in 2008 if he wins re-election over a tough opponent in 2006.
Gee, maybe he resonates with more people.
Santorum will be lucky to hold on to his Senate seat. He (like Bush) is sinking in the polls. Why? Because he’s an áššhølë who tried to con a financially strapped school district into paying $100,000 to send his kids to a cyber-charter school.
The main reason they are characterized by the press as “moderate”, despite some conservative leanings, is because they are for abortion “rights”.
And here I thought they were moderate because, as stated earlier, any Republican left of Ann Coulter would be moderate these days. 🙂
I get the impression from Jerome’s posts that he considers Coulter to be a moderate. 🙂
Seriously Jerome, thanks for proving my point about how much the far right of the GOP despises their “moderate” members.
Den,
No. Bill O’Reilly is a moderate. Ann Coulter is a strident conservative.
And I don’t hate “moderates”. I just find the double-standard amusing. Tim Lynch stated that the Democrats should throw out all “moderates” like Lieberman and that he couldn’t stand the Clintons because of NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He also blasted Reid for being “anti-choice”. So much for the Democrats’ “big tent”.
But the Deaniacs can say these things and it’s “Oh, well they just want the Democratic Party to get back to it’s roots.”
It’s only when Republicans want someone to stick to their party’s principles that there is an uproar from the press and people who believe the way you do.
And you have yet to refute my point. Cite me one example of the press calling a pro-life Republican “moderate” and I will buy 5 copies of your favorite comic book to share with your friends:)
Conversely, as long as Clinton was staunch in his support of abortion rights, feminists looked the other way on repeated charges of sexual harassment and a credible charge of rape and Democrats kept their mouths shut as he signed NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, weakened Kyoto, and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act.
Oh, and Dan Rather would actually categorize a charge of rape as his “personal sex life”.
This of a man Michael Moore has called “The best Republican president we ever had.”
Given this, I really am not concerned with labels or hoping the Republicans find more “mainstream” candidates. Bush I was far more “moderate” than Dubya or Reagan, and how did that help. It seems the people the elites – especially in the media deem as “electable” have a hëll of a time winning elections.
And this spin that Bush needs to make his Supreme Court choice to “unite” the country is such pifflr it’s almost like watching “Saturday Night Live” listening to all the democrats repeat the talking point. Unite the country? That’s one of the criteria listed in the Constitution for picking a Supreme Court justice? Don’t think so. The Democrats didn’t seem terribly concerned about “uniting the country” when they made sure Robert Bork went down in flames and tried to torpedo the Clarence Thomas nomination? Yep, those hearings united the country:)
They cared about getting who they wanted so they would get the rulings they wanted, and that’s exactly what Bush is going to do.
Bill “I need bodyguards becuase the Left is trying to kill me” O’Rielly is a moderate?
If you say so. Personally, I’d put him in the ‘fruit loop’ category, but to each his own…
I agree. O’Reilly is a conservative, although I will give him credit for saying that Coulter is over the line.
And Jerome, I could go back 20 years and list all of the character assassinations perpetrated by the right (starting with the Bushites spreading rumors that McCain is gay, that he had an illegitimate black daughter), but I doubt it would do anything to convince you. It’s obvious that everything revolves around the issue of abortion for you. You see the Democrats as supporting anyone who is in favor of abortion rights and that’s probably true to an extent. We’ll see how much support Casey Jr (pro-life Democrat – yes, they exist) gets as he tries to unseat Santorum.
But I see the same thing going on in the GOP, where anyone who doesn’t shamelessly pander to the extreme religious right is derided as a RINO and faces well-funded challengers in the primaries (again, see Arlen Specter). Hëll, Bill “Gee, George, I don’t know if tears can spread the AIDS virus” Frist has all but shredded the credibility he had as a physician by pandering to the anti-science crowd.
But hey, I know none of that will make any difference to you.
It’s only when Republicans want someone to stick to their party’s principles that there is an uproar from the press and people who believe the way you do.
Right, like Bush & Co. have stuck to the party principles…
The neocons threw away most of those principles 10 years ago… except their intolerance of abortion & gays. That’s about the only things ‘conservative’ about the Bush Administration.
So what are the Republican principles of today?
From what I can tell, they can be summed up as:
Swagger around like you’re a cowboy and own the entire world, especially if you were too chickenshit to serve in combat.
Hate gays and non-Christians, except Jews, so long as they stay in Israel.
The ends justifies the means. If the facts don’t match your claims, change the facts. If they still don’t match, change the justification and deny you ever made the original one.
Pander to the extreme end of the pro-life movement. If the facts later prove that the woman really was in a persistant vegetative state, deny you claimed she wasn’t. And be an vindictive bášŧárd and open a criminal investigation against the husband just because you’re the governor and can.
“Whitman left office in disgrace, while there is a good chance Santorum will run for President in 2008 if he wins re-election over a tough opponent in 2006.”
No way. I’ll be amazed if he wins re-election and the Democrats would have to vote a real loser to make me ever want to support him.
“But I see the same thing going on in the GOP, where anyone who doesn’t shamelessly pander to the extreme religious right is derided as a RINO and faces well-funded challengers in the primaries (again, see Arlen Specter).”
It’s funny that Specter is trotted out as an example of how the republicans are purging the party of moderates when A- he was supported in his primary battle by Bush and even–yep–Santorum and B- He became the head of the Judiciary Committee. Some purge. Can I be purged like that? I could use the extra power.
“Anyone who dreams of a Giulliani or McCain in ’08 is doing just that, dreaming. It’ll never happen. If you’re not part of the neocon club, forget it.”
We’ll see. If one of them does get the nomination watch how fast the left demonizes them as arch-conservatives. (And here’s a tip–McCain at least really IS conservative).
” i don’t think the extreme left really has a voice in this country.”
Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites. There are good opinions to be found but a lot of real craziness as well. It’s amazing how many Democrats want to throw Lieberman out of the party, for example.
“Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn’t win in a landslide?”
Which would be great for republicans–imagine another 52 seat gain in the House!
It’s funny that Specter is trotted out as an example of how the republicans are purging the party of moderates when A- he was supported in his primary battle by Bush and even–yep–Santorum and B- He became the head of the Judiciary Committee. Some purge. Can I be purged like that? I could use the extra power.
How soon we forget that just seven months ago, the neocons were rallying to strip Specter of that committee chairmanship based on a single comment he made. Lucky for him that Senate seniority rules trump even the neocon agenda.
Yeah, Bush backed him last year, only because he saw the writing on the wall. The far right wackjob that ran against him in the primary would’ve gone down in flames in the general election.
Santorum though, is sinking fast. Unless Junior does something incredibly stupid, he will beat Santorum just with the Casey name.
Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites.
I can find a dozen websites dedicated to people who want to have sex with a goat while on fire, that doesn’t mean those sites have any political clout.*
There are good opinions to be found but a lot of real craziness as well. It’s amazing how many Democrats want to throw Lieberman out of the party, for example.
And on the conservative sites, you’ll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs.
*I’ll give Jason Alexander credit for the sex with flaming goat joke.
Whitman left office in disgrace
I guess if you want to define “no longer wanting to rubber stamp Bush’s hypocritical environmental policies” as disgrace.
“And on the conservative sites, you’ll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs.”
You’ll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they’d vote for, although they’d never vote for a Democrat.
“How soon we forget that just seven months ago, the neocons were rallying to strip Specter of that committee chairmanship based on a single comment he made. Lucky for him that Senate seniority rules trump even the neocon agenda.”
Yet the point still stands–Specter was supported by the republican establishment and has gained power. Any spin you wish to put on it cannot change these facts.
“Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites.”
I can find a dozen websites dedicated to people who want to have sex with a goat while on fire, that doesn’t mean those sites have any political clout.*
You must be joking. Moveon spent some 21 million doallars–more than Emily’s List and the AFL-CIO. I mean, come on. Reality based, remember? They are serious players. Though I will admit that some of the sex with enflamed goat sites are more entertaining.
“And on the conservative sites, you’ll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs.”
Well, on SOME conservative sites, certainly…it just seems odder in the Lieberman case since, unlike the examples you give, he wast only 4 years ago considered worthy of the VP post.
“You’ll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they’d vote for, although they’d never vote for a Democrat.”
Nonsense. Two words. Zell Miller.
You’ll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they’d vote for, although they’d never vote for a Democrat.
you realize that statement is completely contradictory, right?
Yet the point still stands–Specter was supported by the republican establishment and has gained power. Any spin you wish to put on it cannot change these facts.
So, you’re saying that the fact that he has survived several attempts to ruin him is proof those attempts never happened?
Riiiiiiight.
Moveon spent some 21 million doallars–more than Emily’s List and the AFL-CIO. I mean, come on. Reality based, remember? They are serious players.
Reality: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and the courts. If these sites have any clout at all, they must be hording it for the apocalypse.
So, you’re saying that the fact that he has survived several attempts to ruin him is proof those attempts never happened?
Riiiiiiight.
No, but that would certainly be an easier argument to knock down.
I’m saying that it is not entirely logical to hold up Specter as some kind of martyr to the cause of republican moderation when, once again, the FACTS are that his conservative primary opponent was NOT supported by the President or even the other arch conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. And despite the fact that, yes, some conservatives did not want him in a position of power in teh Snate, he is now the chairman of the house judiciary committee and about to get major face time on TV. He’s in a pretty enviable position. If he is an example of the power of the radical right I guess the moderates can sleep easily.
Reality: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and the courts. If these sites have any clout at all, they must be hording it for the apocalypse.
Well, I didn’t say they use their clout very effectively. But with the kind of money they are throwing around they certainly have access to power. They were a big part of Howard Dean getting the position he enjoys today.
Now if you want to say that clout is only enjoyed by those who are part of the party in power, well, ok. By that logic, the NRA had no clout during those magical two years of the Clinton presidency where Democrats controlled the House and Senate. The truth is that one can wield power even when one’s side is in a waning period. The Democrats and those groups that support them are not helpless.
“”And on the conservative sites, you’ll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs.”
Well, on SOME conservative sites, certainly…it just seems odder in the Lieberman case since, unlike the examples you give, he wast only 4 years ago considered worthy of the VP post.”
whereas McCain would never have had a shot at mounting a serious campaign, right?
and as for liberals having a voice, perhaps i should have said a voice in the party. i really see the Democratic leadership as being very firmly centrist, even right of center. i mean, having a moderate like Howard Dean as chair is considered radical.
you realize that statement is completely contradictory, right?
Thanks for pointing that out, Den. I never would have realized that.
Of course I realize that’s completely contradictory.
Nonsense. Two words. Zell Miller.
Two problems:
A) Miller will never run again.
B) Miller’s a Democrat (in name only, of course, but still the wrong name). They’d never vote for him.
You’re also missing the point. Lieberman is one of the very few pro-Iraq war, pro-Israel hawks on the left side of the aisle.
Curse this ‘submit’ button, Bill. It is because of Lieberman’s stances on the war and Israel that he enjoys this phantom support from the wingnuts. It isn’t real support, mind you, but it allows them to say one good thing about a Democrat that is supposed to still be part of the party machinery.
[thick-headed idiot mode] The London bombings are just another convenient way to distract us from the Iraq war[/Craig J. Ries mode]
Two problems:
A) Miller will never run again.
B) Miller’s a Democrat (in name only, of course, but still the wrong name). They’d never vote for him.
I didn’t think that there was actually anychance of Miller running, I was only pointing out that the idea that Lieberman was the only Democrat that conservatives love was wrong. Miller is probably the one most loved. Miller could become a Republican tonight and be welcome; Lieberman much less so (Though he’s be worth it just for the “neener neener neener” points).
“Lieberman is one of the very few pro-Iraq war, pro-Israel hawks on the left side of the aisle.”
Well, there’s also Hillary…
whereas McCain would never have had a shot at mounting a serious campaign, right?
I’m sorry indestructibleman (love the name by the way–one of my favorite low budget Lon Chaney Jr movies had the same name.) but I don’t understand what you meant. Do you mean that McCain won’t be able to mount a serious campaign for the 2008 election if he, as I suspect, attempts to do so? I’ve heard a number of people here say this and maybe I’m misreading the tea leaves but I think that McCain may have a far better chance than you’re giving him.
It is because of Lieberman’s stances on the war and Israel that he enjoys this phantom support from the wingnuts.
They’re saying nice things about the guy because they agree with some of his opinions? The dastardly jackanapes! Is there no end to their evil?
Seriously, how old would Lieberman be in 2008? A McCaine/Lieberman Unity Party ticket…
Nice and productive, Ham-head. You win the prize for first disgusting use of a tragedy for petty purposes…
Be proud.
In light of douchebaggery and rectal haberdashery above and beyond the call of duty, Ham, I hereby dub thee X-ray II.
-Rex Hondo-
“The London bombings are just another convenient way to distract us from the Iraq war[/Craig J. Ries mode]”
Well, there went all my respect for you, Ham. I have often disagreed with Craig, but I would never accuse him of saying that this is a “convenient distraction,” especially cause this is gonna FOCUS ATTENTION ON THE WAR!!!
Plus three for style, but Minus several million for outright stupidity.
[thick-headed idiot mode] The London bombings are just another convenient way to distract us from the Iraq war[/Craig J. Ries mode]
I give you an honorary middle finger.
If you need an image, give me a minute and I’ll find you a link.
But you definately take the prize for “Most Ignorant Son of a Bìŧçh on This Forum Right Now”.
If anything, this was designed to draw further attention TO Iraq, not away from it.
Or are you too stupid to realize that?
I’ll guess the latter.
Sadly, Patrick, he’ll have to settle for First Disgusting Use of a Tragedy For Petty Purposes On This Forum – looks like he was beaten to the mark by a bit on another forum I’m on.
This still makes it one of the more egregiously stupid statements I’ve seen around here since X-Ry got disemvowelled, though.
I’m saying that it is not entirely logical to hold up Specter as some kind of martyr to the cause of republican moderation when, once again, the FACTS are that his conservative primary opponent was NOT supported by the President or even the other arch conservative Senator from Pennsylvania.
Let me explain it to you this way, Bill: All politicians are two-faced weasels. And yes, I’m including democrats and republicans if that makes you happy. Bush and Santorum show one face to the public by supporting Specter because party unity is expected. But the real fact is that they are secretly hoping that he goes down in flames.
Since you like to through the word fact around, here’s another fact for you: Specter has been the target of several well-organized groups who have openly stated that they want to bring him down as an example to all the other “RINOs”. It is their stated goal to send a message that if they can bring down a senior senator, then every other “RINO” will have to tow the line their way or face a similar attack.
Now, Specter has been a good enough politician to survive these assaults, but that doesn’t negate the FACT that he is the target.
The best example of the two-faced nature of politicians is the old SNL skit of Reagan, as portrayed by Phil Hartman. He had the kindly old man “oh, well…” down pat…then, when the doors closed and the press wasn’t looking, he transformed into this gravelly voiced hard-case that was essentially running the whole planet. It was funny, but in that “you know there’s a grain of truth to that” kind of way.
Politicians need to portray a certain face to get elected. Then they need to actually get stuff done…and that takes a whole different kind of bášŧárd.
“I’m sorry indestructibleman (love the name by the way–one of my favorite low budget Lon Chaney Jr movies had the same name.) but I don’t understand what you meant. Do you mean that McCain won’t be able to mount a serious campaign for the 2008 election if he, as I suspect, attempts to do so? I’ve heard a number of people here say this and maybe I’m misreading the tea leaves but I think that McCain may have a far better chance than you’re giving him.”
sorry. i was being ironic (which i realize doesn’t necessarily always come across in text).
you (i believe) had pointed out how Democrats are attacking Lieberman. then someone pointed out how conservatives attack McCain.
then you came back with something to the effect of, “but the funny thing is that Lieberman was considered good enough to be Veep candidate just four years ago.”
i was trying to point out that four years ago McCain was considered good enough to have some sort of shot at the nomination for president.
that said,i do, with serious reservations, like McCain. by political standards, he appears to have great integrity. he has spoken out on media consolidation and put forth campaign finance reform legislation (not that it worked that well) and been on what i consider to be the right side of many important issues.
that said, the Democrats would have to run a real loser for me to vote for McCain. still, i wouldn’t be deeply troubled by his being president.
oh, and, while i’ve heard of it, i’ve never seen Indestructible Man, though i’ve always been a fan of old horror films. my handle comes from a comic book character i created but never did anything with.