What the HÊLL is with this guy’s left eyebrow? He’s like Spock on crack.
PAD
57 comments on “Is anyone watching the Dem reply?”
Bad Botox injections ;-P
Well, the left eyebrow is a item that will make him easier to pick up and a good way to do political cartoons of him
There are Democrats in Virginia??
This is like a bad cover of a Bill Clinton speech. Steven Hawking with his speak and spell would sound better than this guy.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH I just saw the eyebrow…GHERU scared
The guy was speaking to us like a SUV salesman talking to a soccer mom.
There are Democrats in Virginia??
Yes, we’re invading from Baltimore. Viva la resistance!
As yes, the only unpardonable sin in politics: not looking good, the hëll with what’s being said. As Dennis Miller pointed out when everyone was laughing at Admiral Stockdale’s hearing aid being turned off, he got that hearing aid as a result of the beatings the Vietcong gave him.
Um, rrlane, are you watching the same speech? At least this speech has more connection with reality.
And may I please note my full real name is attached to my post?
This sucks. We can’t even brag about the Dems having a decent comeback. All we can do is make fun of them to in the hopes that it will send the message that they need to change tactics and take some action.
Sorry, I gotta go with rrlane on this one. While I might be more in this guy’s camp insofar as what’s coming out of this guy’s mouth, his delivery was continually dipping into snake oil territory. I certainly wouldn’t buy a car from him. Obama, on the other hand… why isn’t this guy getting more play? It’s a pleasure to listen to him talk; he’s obviously a very practiced and polished speaker. I hope that was this Kaine guy’s one and only run, because I don’t think the Dems are going to get the mileage they’re expecting out of him.
…Oh, and did it seem to anyone else that the majority of Kaine’s response was “whatever Bush said, I’m saying the complete opposite of, so therefore you must love me unconditionally?” I get you need to rebut what Bush said, but do you mind backing it up a little more? Perhaps that’s a constraint of having your statements be shorter and more concise, but it seems to me a college debate team could’ve drafted a better response to that on the spot, let alone after having Bush’s speech since around 6pm.
It’s been pointed out that his use of the “there’s a better way” refrain is reminiscent of THE GRADUATE. Of course, it helps if you have someone who looks like Robert Redford delivering it. Which they, um, didn’t.
You know, as long as Tim Kaine was going to do The Rock’s People’s Eyebrow, he should have taken it all the way. Called Bush a Jabroney, threatened to lay the smackdown on his roody-poo candy-ášš, and delivered a People’s Elbow to a midget dressed up as Karl Rove.
It would have been great. It never fails to amaze me that my savvy political advice is given away for free and totally ignored.
reminiscent of THE GRADUATE. Of course, it helps if you have someone who looks like Robert Redford delivering it.
Don’t you mean “The Candidate”?
It would have been great. It never fails to amaze me that my savvy political advice is given away for free and totally ignored.
Well, you get what you pay for…
I wanted to get up and leave the room, but I kept thinking that if I tried that, he’d offer to “check with the boss” to see if he could get me better price on that used car in the parking lot.
On the other hand, my initial reaction was more along the lines of, “When is this guy going to pass the offering plate around the room, and then ask us all to bow and pray with him?”
Actually, that might not have been a bad idea. “Pray with me now, people. Pray with me… so we can get the power that we lost back from those dirty, nasty, EVIL Republicans. Heal! Heal! Feel the power!”
Amen.
RLR
Duh…yeah, I meant THE CANDIDATE…now if he’d kept muttering about “plastics”…
When I saw Kaine, I was immediately reminded of the commonly prescribed stereotype of the Christian right. When he began uttering references to God multiple times, it seemed more a poorly contrived way of “proving” that the Democrats have God as a central focus, as a way to sway people back to their party, than a genuine response.
What about the guy in the Dr. Who scarf?
When I saw Kaine, I was immediately reminded of the commonly prescribed stereotype of the Christian right. When he began uttering references to God multiple times, it seemed more a poorly contrived way of “proving” that the Democrats have God as a central focus, as a way to sway people back to their party, than a genuine response.
That’s a general problem the Democrats have now. Because they’ve allowed the GOP to claim a monopoly on religion and faith for so long, any attempt by a Democrat to talk about God ends up looking like insincere “me-tooism.”
Kaine is a good guy. I’ve worked around him and Warner for four years now and have to say that they earned the respect given to them.
Kaine is and has been a man of faith and has always spoken about it. The fact that so many people want to swallow the G.O.P. line of “The Dems hate the Christian faith” and act amazed that a D may speak on his faith is just showing how stupid they are.
Jerry, I am not questioning his faith for a minute, simply the reasoning behind choosing him to respond. It struck me as a bit timely.
What’s with the eyebrow? Either bad Botox or tri-geminal nerve paralysis, probably. And he didn’t look old enough to me to need Botox.
But it was terribly distracting–I ended up not looking at him and just listening.
As a matter of fact, the slimeball the Repubs put up against Kaine in the gov race tried to make Kaine’s faith an issue. i.e. “He’s a Catholic, so he won’t wanna fry people!! Boo! Scary Catholic! Boo!”
I think the outcome of the race speaks to how effective a tactic it was… 😉
1Speaking as a Virginian, I don’t think he’s going to be a bad governor. I know where I live in the Hampton Roads area, voting patrons changed just for him. The cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake always vote Republican, and did the rest of the ticket besides Tim Kaine. I really hope his predecessor, Mark Warner, gets the Democratic nod (which seems to be staying fresh in the freezer with Hillary’s name on it) for president. If he’s half as good at being president as he was at being the governor we’ll be in good hands.
By the by, while Virginia is a red state it’s not the backwater, incestuous, illiterate state that one might think. We elected the first black governor several years ago (even though he pretty much sucked) and have had to back-to-back Demcratic governors. We can be liberal, you just need to give us a reason.
This dates back to the American Revolution. Massachittes (being one of the most liberal states from the get-go) had their panties in a wad from day one. Virginia agreed with them from the most part, but was tentative. Then comes the Intolerable Acts and the closing of Boston Harbor, and we said, “Yep, that f–cked up. Let’s take him out.”
Fred,
I wasn’t really saying that you were. I was kinda typing fast and speaking in generalities about a subject that always has me slapping my head in frustration.
The Democrats had a president, Jimmy Carter, who spoke of his faith on a regular bases and even took time out for the church functions and volunteer work that he did before holding office. He took office only thirty years ago. Since then the Ds have had a long series of governors, senators, congressmen and one prominent Jewish VP candidate who all displayed their faith’s strength in their lives in both public and private matters. Many editorialists and commentators who skew left (like, say, the owner of this site) make room in their lives for their faith and are quite open about it. Many people in the general public who vote Democrat go to church every Sunday right by the side of their Republican neighbors.
But all of a sudden the Democrat’s politicians can’t speak in public on religion without people commenting on it as if they were speaking on something completely foreign to them. They get accused of me-tooism and people talk about how strange it is that **they** would speak on the subject at all.
It’s a definite tribute to the strength of the Republican propaganda and noise machines. Ten plus years of really banging the drum that the Ds hate any religion (other then Islam) out there, wearing their religion on their sleeves, attacking anyone who expresses the belief of the separation of church and state as hating or suppressing Christianity and framing any debate that they can around the bible have paid off in spades. The Rs have made Jesus their man in the eyes of the public at large. Rs can commit crimes while talking about their faith and still come out with their Jesus credentials intact. Ds can get filmed walking out of a Sunday service and the talk turns to how they’re putting on a show and trying to play catch up with the “mainstream” Christian Conservatives.
The proof of this is all over the place. On local radio and on the blogs I hear and see people who are Ds or support Ds talking about how strange and awkward it was to listen to Kaine talk about his faith or how it just came off as a me-tooism prop. It’s a stigma that sticks to the Ds better then the one about how they hate cops and almost as well as the one about how they hate the military. It just amazes me how so many people who know, or actually are, members of the general public who are Democrat voters allow themselves to have their viewpoint on the subject so easily controlled by the promoters of the Republicans talking points.
Was he saying anything? I was too busy watching that eyebrow to notice what was coming out of his mouth.
The proof of this is all over the place. On local radio and on the blogs I hear and see people who are Ds or support Ds talking about how strange and awkward it was to listen to Kaine talk about his faith or how it just came off as a me-tooism prop. It’s a stigma that sticks to the Ds better then the one about how they hate cops and almost as well as the one about how they hate the military. It just amazes me how so many people who know, or actually are, members of the general public who are Democrat voters allow themselves to have their viewpoint on the subject so easily controlled by the promoters of the Republicans talking points.
Jerry, how is it the Republican’s fault that some Democrats are so hostile to religion that they are willing to attack their own for having religious views? That would be like me getting pìššëd at Democrats when I see a Republican who fits the stereotypical gay baiting homophobe.
Tell the nimrods at Dailykos to get over themselves and accept the fact that not everyone has to walk in lockstep with their narrow view of what is (in this case literally) politically correct. If the lunatics who espouse such tactics as the recent threat to “out” a senator if they don’t vote against Alito are allowed to hold any sway within the party it will end very badly for the Democrats. While my tolerance for incompetence probably will forever keep me from being a member of the party I don’t want to see the Republicans have too easy a time staying in power.
I thought up to a few days ago that the 2006 elections were practically a lock for the Dems to take back a good bit of power, the Senate at least, but recent events give me pause. If they blow it–and after the Alito fiasco and the fact that Dean seems to be badly botching the money game it is beginning to look like they might be–I’ll be almost afraid to see what happens.
Tell the nimrods at Dailykos to get over themselves and accept the fact that not everyone has to walk in lockstep with their narrow view of what is (in this case literally) politically correct. If the lunatics who espouse such tactics as the recent threat to “out” a senator if they don’t vote against Alito are allowed to hold any sway within the party it will end very badly for the Democrats.
Truly. They forget that THEY are the mirror image of the religious right ideologues they profess to hate so much.
Religion is a major part of most Americans’ lives. The wingnuts know that and appreciate it. The moonbats don’t and their contempt for religion has alienated them from most of America.
Kaine’s religion is a truthful part of him; people saw that and responded to it. The twits on the left who can’t understand that (and understand it in a visceral and emotion way, NOT just in an intellectual way) are going to be a big reason the Democrats may remain a minority party in America, despite the incompetence of the current administration.
“Jerry, how is it the Republican’s fault that some Democrats are so hostile to religion that they are willing to attack their own for having religious views? That would be like me getting pìššëd at Democrats when I see a Republican who fits the stereotypical gay baiting homophobe.”
You point to the Dailykos crowd. Fine. I’m not talking about the far left nutjobs though. They are no more the core of Democrat voters or pols then the Klan is on the Republican side. I’m talking about most of the people in the middle. I’m talking about people who see themselves as Democrats, vote Democrat, go to church or at least practice a faith and still act like they’re being shown an alien from the Crab Nebula when they see a Democrat on TV talking about their own faith.
I’m talking about the middle of the road Republicans that I work around and know that have family, friends and neighbors that are church going Democrats of faith and still talk about how Democrats hate religion and want to destroy Christianity in America.
Look at some of the people out there balking at Kaines remarks or commenting on how strange it was to hear him speak on his faith. It’s not just the nutjobs on the far side of each team. It’s also the middle ground people. It’s also some of the same people who cry about how the Rs are claiming faith as theirs and theirs alone.
Jerry, you make a good point (though I think the comarison of the dailykossacks to the klan is unfair–they are rabid but they don’t burn down churches or engage in much other physical violence that I have seen. They are also a much more important and influential part of the party than the Klan could ever be–Dailykos raises a lot of money and as for influence, even John Kerry posts there now).
Maybe Kaine just didn’t come across well. Not all Democrats who talk religion are doubted–Obama, Jackson, sharpton all talk openly of faith (is it somehow ok for Black Democrats to be religious but not White ones??? Why would that be?) Lierberman got critisized for his views but not for being religious.
I think that “the religious right” has been such a boogeyman to the left for so longthat even a whiff of anything that might resemble it is immediately suspect. You may have to be Black or Jewish to get away with being openly religious in the party without raising eyebrows. (Among a few, at least.)
A big part of the problem is that in the years since Carter, the Democratic party has essentially become a coalition of minority interests, so they feel a lot of pressure to bend over backwards to look like they’re accomodating to every minority viewpoint. On the other hand, the Republicans have basically announced, “We’re a majority Christian group. If you’re not a Christian, you can come to the meeting, but if you’re offended when we start talking about Jesus, deal with it.”
Jackson, sharpton all talk openly of faith (is it somehow ok for Black Democrats to be religious but not White ones??? Why would that be?)
Er, many on the Right tend to enjoy letting Jackson & Sharpton talk about anything, just because those two tend to make áššëš of themselves in the process (and thus it’s bad PR for the Democrats).
I think they’re both a bit loopy and, more often than not, they play the race card to try and get what they want.
roger Tang wrote a couple of things which caught my attention:
First – “Religion is a major part of most Americans’ lives.”
I know that polls show that most people believe in a higher power (that category would include me), and that a clear majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But every poll which I remember seeing puts regular church-goers at under 40 percent – maybe even low to mid 30s. Though one could argue that church attendance isn’t necessarily required to make religion a “major part” of one’s life, I suppose.
The other statement that caught my notice: “the Democrats may remain a minority party in America.”
You may’ve just been referring to the results of recent elections; but this, combined with other occasional comments I’ve seen, leads me to ask – what is the enrollment in the respective parties? Last I’d heard, the Republican Party had NEVER come within four (?) million members of the Democratic Party. If they actually have more members than the Democrats now, that would be big news (certainly to me); if not, it’s just another indicator of how successful they’ve recently been at grabbing unaffiliated voters and keeping their members loyal and getting them to actually vote.
(Not to pick on you, roger – I liked your point about rabid zealots at dailykos being the mirror image of the religious right idealogues; just two points which caught my attention which happened to be in your post.)
Um, rrlane, are you watching the same speech? At least this speech has more connection with reality.
And may I please note my full real name is attached to my post?
Yes, I’m pretty sure we saw the same speech. The one with the guy who thought he found a snazzy phrase by saying “there’s a better way fifteen times? Is that the one you saw?
Oh, and since it seems to mean something to you for some reason. My name is Rich Lane (“rrlane”–do you need to know what the middle initial stands for too?)
I posted before reading down farther and seeing others had also pointed out the “better way” catch phrase. Ah, well.
Don’t get me wrong. Bush’s speech was far worse, but this guy offered us nothing.
The one with the guy who thought he found a snazzy phrase by saying “there’s a better way fifteen times? Is that the one you saw?
And he still didn’t outdo Bush’s usage of the word “freedom” in his SotU this year. 🙂
And he still didn’t outdo Bush’s usage of the word “freedom” in his SotU this year. 🙂
Oh, point granted, absolutely. Bush’s speech was horrible. It’s just that it seemed to me that the Dems’ response was “Look at us! We’re not them!”
It’s just that it seemed to me that the Dems’ response was “Look at us! We’re not them!”
I think the problem for the Dems is that they’ve been forced into this position by a far-too successful propoganda campaign run by the Republicans.
I mean, look at all the incredible bs that has been caused by Bush. Yet he’s made of teflon as much as Reagan was (and he’s been as harmful to the environment as the real stuff.)
The Republicans have won on the few issues that they know they can get people in an uproar about, and then they sit back and wait for the next election to do it all over again.
Want to win an election? Say you want to ban gay marriage (and then ignore the issue). Claim you’re better than the Democrats on national defense (smearing veterans in the process). Go on about moral values (even though you really have none yourself).
Or, even better in Bush’s case, claim you’re a “compassionate conservative”, and then show otherwise. Then say you’re a peace president and start two wars. Or maybe you can say that we shouldn’t be in the business of nation-building, and then do just that after you start one of those said wars. 🙂
I’ve read comments about liberals saying that they’re a “marginal” party who works in lockstep with the views of the Democrats.
And yet, seeing as how the Democrats can’t put up a proper defense against Republican propoganda, I think people that say that are brainless gits who really don’t know the first thing about politics, otherwise they’d realize that liberals are independent thinkers, which is exactly why they’re not doing well, and the people who think such things are bowing before Bush because they don’t have any unique thoughts of their own.
Where’s my soapbox?
The Democrats are the exact opposite of marching in lockstep. They want to oppose Bush on his inept handling of Iraq, but they know that “cut and run” is a loser position. So, half of them are calling for withdrawals while the other half are calling for sending more troops into the quagmire. For the past several years, they have been floundering around trying to articulate a coherant vision of the country while the Republicans have a “strategery” (sorry, couldn’t resist). Sure, the anti-gay marriage initiatives were cynical ploys to get the base out and were never a serious policy priority, but they worked. And in 2008, they’ll have another wedge issue ready for the same thing.
Meanwhile, the Democrats need to get their act together, because right now, they can’t organize a ham sandwich, much less a national campaign.
The Democrats are eating their own. Any deviation from the dailykos idea of what a “real” Democrat is can get you excommunicated (With one notable and interesting exception–it has become ok to be a pro-life Democrat again. actually, gun control has been pretty much abandoned as well.)
There was a story in Roll Call (I think) about how Cynthia McKinny tried to get good seats at the SOTU and when told they were reserved for Senators, got all hissy about how those who would not vote for a filibuster should get no privilages. Lieberman, who many still think was elected Vice President in 2000 is now no longer welcome in the party by a sizeable number of members. I have a fear that the Democrats may get talked into running on a “Vote for us and we’ll begin impeachment hearings!” platform and snatch massive defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. If the party totally self destructs there will be nothing to take its place save one party rule and the inevitable corruption that will follow.
Den wrote: “A big part of the problem is that in the years since Carter, the Democratic party has essentially become a coalition of minority interests, so they feel a lot of pressure to bend over backwards to look like they’re accommodating to every minority viewpoint.”
I was just mulling over this same point not two days ago.
I haven’t, in recent memory, aligned myself with any party, but it seems the older I get, the farther away the hard-core, predominantly left-leaning Democrats keep pushing me. At the same time, they embrace radical windbags who seem bent on alienating everyone but their most fervent followers. Yes, I realize the Republicans do the same thing, but, in my mind anyway, they are currently a lesser of two evils. Recent national elections show that I’m not the only non-aligned person who feels this way. I mean, is there any long-time Democrat out there who, with a straight face, would disagree that Democrat powerhouse Sen. Ted Kennedy is so radical left these days, he makes his brother, JFK, seem conservative by comparison?
Yet, despite my strong reservations with the Democratic leadership as a whole, I haven’t yet been tempted to register as a Republican. Registration would be a blanket endorsement, and I certainly do not endorse every Republican politician.
Yet, despite my strong reservations with the Democratic leadership as a whole, I haven’t yet been tempted to register as a Republican. Registration would be a blanket endorsement, and I certainly do not endorse every Republican politician.
I’m in the mirror image boat. I’ve been a registered Republican since I’ve been old enough to vote (23 years now), but I am extremely disenchanted with the direction of the GOP and have been for years. Yet, I can’t bring myself to switch to the Dems because I can’t get over the feeling I’d be endorsing a philosophy I really don’t believe in.
Yes, I realize that’s illogical, but I guess I feel that I haven’t changed, it’s the GOP that have abandoned the basic tenets of conservativism, and I still consider myself a moderate conservative. I could go independent, I guess I’m hoping I can help the moderate voice of the party during the primaries at least.
Probably tilting at windmills, I know.
Ted Kennedy a powerhouse? Sure, Senate seniority rules guarantee him cushy seats on high profile committees, but does he really have a lot of incluence on the democratic party as a whole? Compared to Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the others who hold real leadership positions in the party?
Honestly, I don’t know of anyone outside of Massachusetts who doesn’t consider Teddy to be anything other then a drunken dinosaur whose glory days were done over 30 years ago.
The description that the Democrats are eating their own is fairly apt, though. Since the 2000 election, there has been a struggle between the ultra-liberal wing and the “New Democrat” wing that Clinton succesfully ran with. Unfortunately, the ultra-liberal wing has had the upper hand for a long time now.
The GOP, on the other hand, has largely been successful in appearing to unified and organized. They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing. I think they’ve been successful in the past few elections now based on the substance of their platforms, but just on having the appearance that they can get things done.
Case in point: 2005 was Bush’s worst year in terms of his approval rating and the reason for that is mainly because he’s looked ineffective. First by his failed social security privitization plan and then the bungling at FEMA over Katrina.
They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing.
While they eat their own in private, not in public. Well, except for McCain. 🙂
The last election proved that a platform of “we’re better than that loser” wins you nothing. The Dems need to put together a plan that voting block can get behind, like the GOP has done. Stop trying to appease everyone, settle on a few key election points, and win some seats. The GOP is probably at it’s most vulnerable it’s ever going to be, but that doesn’t mean you can put a monkey up as a candidate and expect to win. If liberal voters were more of the mindset of “I’m voting for my SIDE, because that’s how we WIN,” you could do that. But for some reason, liberal voters need to have a reason to vote FOR a candidate. If all the Dems do is ask for votes AGAINST the GOP, we’re going to see very little change come this time next year.
They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing. I think they’ve been successful in the past few elections now based on the substance of their platforms, but just on having the appearance that they can get things done.
Hmm, perhaps…then again, the RNC is campaigning heavily for Lincoln Chafee, a Republican so moderate he actually admitted that he did not vote for Bush in 2004! I can’t imagine the Democrats ever getting behind someone so out of tune with their agenda.
While they eat their own in private, not in public. Well, except for McCain. 🙂
Don’t be surprised if they eat him right into the 2008 nomination.
The GOP is probably at it’s most vulnerable it’s ever going to be, but that doesn’t mean you can put a monkey up as a candidate and expect to win.
What’s good for the Republicans isn’t so for the Democrats. 🙂
Hmm, perhaps…then again, the RNC is campaigning heavily for Lincoln Chafee, a Republican so moderate he actually admitted that he did not vote for Bush in 2004!
Decisions on whether the RNC supports a candidate have less to do with ideology then with keeping the seat in the party. Chafee’s views may be inconsistant with administration’s, but he can win in Rhode Island and keeping the overall GOP majority in Senate is a higher priority for the RNC then the ideological purity of one senator. Second, the RNC is the heart of the party establishment, so support for the incumbants is expected.
But at the same time, he has been labled a RINO by many true believers in the party and has been the target of a number of “grassroots” Republican groups would just as soon wish he’d retire.
See also: Arlen Specter.
I can’t imagine the Democrats ever getting behind someone so out of tune with their agenda.
I can name one: Bob Casey, Jr. Like his father before him, he’s strongly pro-life, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is backing him because they believe he’s their best chance to oust Rick Santorum.
Don’t be surprised if they eat him right into the 2008 nomination.
I still don’t see it. McCain is not just a political outsider in the GOP, there are many powerful figures in the party that hold deep personal animosity towards him because of his maverick style.
The last election proved that a platform of “we’re better than that loser” wins you nothing.
It never is. Cutting away the “yellow dog” members of each party, presidential elections are decided by the 20% or so of voters who are described as moderates (or, as Anne the Nutcase calls them, “idiot voters”). As a group, they are less interested in blind adherence to ideology (thats what makes them moderates, duh) then they are in effectiveness. The GOP is in a tough spot today because it took Bush all of five minutes to piss away all the wonderful “political capital” he earned in the 2004 election. It’s not because of the Abramhoff scandal or the Plame scandal or the illegal wiretaping scandal. It’s because from his failed Social Security privatization plan to Katrina to Harriet Meirs to the quagmire in Iraq, Bush has looked ineffective as a leader.
If the Democrats want to win more seats in 2006, they are going to have to put something on the table that shows they can get something done instead of just chanting “Bush sucks” over and over again.
I can name one: Bob Casey, Jr. Like his father before him, he’s strongly pro-life, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is backing him because they believe he’s their best chance to oust Rick Santorum.
Take away the pro-life part and he’s as Democratic as the next guy–very pro-union ofr example. As I mentioned earlier, being pro-life has suddenly become not as much of a kiss of death in the party as it had been. Same for gun control; every Democratic candidate for President has to have his obligitory “watch me shoot a small animal” moment.
I mean, there’s no question that Casey supported Kerry, right? While the RINO label is too often applied to anyone to the left of Reagan, in Chafee’s case it probably fits. If the Senate ends up tied I would fully expect him to switch parties.
If the Democrats want to win more seats in 2006, they are going to have to put something on the table that shows they can get something done instead of just chanting “Bush sucks” over and over again.
I agree. The problem is that Bush, like Clinton, has the gift of driving his opponents nuts. And generally, nuts don’t do well in elections.
• 
Bad Botox injections ;-P
Well, the left eyebrow is a item that will make him easier to pick up and a good way to do political cartoons of him
There are Democrats in Virginia??
This is like a bad cover of a Bill Clinton speech. Steven Hawking with his speak and spell would sound better than this guy.
AHHHHHHHHHHHH I just saw the eyebrow…GHERU scared
The guy was speaking to us like a SUV salesman talking to a soccer mom.
There are Democrats in Virginia??
Yes, we’re invading from Baltimore. Viva la resistance!
As yes, the only unpardonable sin in politics: not looking good, the hëll with what’s being said. As Dennis Miller pointed out when everyone was laughing at Admiral Stockdale’s hearing aid being turned off, he got that hearing aid as a result of the beatings the Vietcong gave him.
Um, rrlane, are you watching the same speech? At least this speech has more connection with reality.
And may I please note my full real name is attached to my post?
This sucks. We can’t even brag about the Dems having a decent comeback. All we can do is make fun of them to in the hopes that it will send the message that they need to change tactics and take some action.
Sorry, I gotta go with rrlane on this one. While I might be more in this guy’s camp insofar as what’s coming out of this guy’s mouth, his delivery was continually dipping into snake oil territory. I certainly wouldn’t buy a car from him. Obama, on the other hand… why isn’t this guy getting more play? It’s a pleasure to listen to him talk; he’s obviously a very practiced and polished speaker. I hope that was this Kaine guy’s one and only run, because I don’t think the Dems are going to get the mileage they’re expecting out of him.
…Oh, and did it seem to anyone else that the majority of Kaine’s response was “whatever Bush said, I’m saying the complete opposite of, so therefore you must love me unconditionally?” I get you need to rebut what Bush said, but do you mind backing it up a little more? Perhaps that’s a constraint of having your statements be shorter and more concise, but it seems to me a college debate team could’ve drafted a better response to that on the spot, let alone after having Bush’s speech since around 6pm.
It’s been pointed out that his use of the “there’s a better way” refrain is reminiscent of THE GRADUATE. Of course, it helps if you have someone who looks like Robert Redford delivering it. Which they, um, didn’t.
You know, as long as Tim Kaine was going to do The Rock’s People’s Eyebrow, he should have taken it all the way. Called Bush a Jabroney, threatened to lay the smackdown on his roody-poo candy-ášš, and delivered a People’s Elbow to a midget dressed up as Karl Rove.
It would have been great. It never fails to amaze me that my savvy political advice is given away for free and totally ignored.
reminiscent of THE GRADUATE. Of course, it helps if you have someone who looks like Robert Redford delivering it.
Don’t you mean “The Candidate”?
It would have been great. It never fails to amaze me that my savvy political advice is given away for free and totally ignored.
Well, you get what you pay for…
I wanted to get up and leave the room, but I kept thinking that if I tried that, he’d offer to “check with the boss” to see if he could get me better price on that used car in the parking lot.
On the other hand, my initial reaction was more along the lines of, “When is this guy going to pass the offering plate around the room, and then ask us all to bow and pray with him?”
Actually, that might not have been a bad idea. “Pray with me now, people. Pray with me… so we can get the power that we lost back from those dirty, nasty, EVIL Republicans. Heal! Heal! Feel the power!”
Amen.
RLR
Duh…yeah, I meant THE CANDIDATE…now if he’d kept muttering about “plastics”…
When I saw Kaine, I was immediately reminded of the commonly prescribed stereotype of the Christian right. When he began uttering references to God multiple times, it seemed more a poorly contrived way of “proving” that the Democrats have God as a central focus, as a way to sway people back to their party, than a genuine response.
What about the guy in the Dr. Who scarf?
When I saw Kaine, I was immediately reminded of the commonly prescribed stereotype of the Christian right. When he began uttering references to God multiple times, it seemed more a poorly contrived way of “proving” that the Democrats have God as a central focus, as a way to sway people back to their party, than a genuine response.
That’s a general problem the Democrats have now. Because they’ve allowed the GOP to claim a monopoly on religion and faith for so long, any attempt by a Democrat to talk about God ends up looking like insincere “me-tooism.”
Kaine is a good guy. I’ve worked around him and Warner for four years now and have to say that they earned the respect given to them.
Kaine is and has been a man of faith and has always spoken about it. The fact that so many people want to swallow the G.O.P. line of “The Dems hate the Christian faith” and act amazed that a D may speak on his faith is just showing how stupid they are.
Jerry, I am not questioning his faith for a minute, simply the reasoning behind choosing him to respond. It struck me as a bit timely.
What’s with the eyebrow? Either bad Botox or tri-geminal nerve paralysis, probably. And he didn’t look old enough to me to need Botox.
But it was terribly distracting–I ended up not looking at him and just listening.
As a matter of fact, the slimeball the Repubs put up against Kaine in the gov race tried to make Kaine’s faith an issue. i.e. “He’s a Catholic, so he won’t wanna fry people!! Boo! Scary Catholic! Boo!”
I think the outcome of the race speaks to how effective a tactic it was… 😉
1Speaking as a Virginian, I don’t think he’s going to be a bad governor. I know where I live in the Hampton Roads area, voting patrons changed just for him. The cities of Virginia Beach and Chesapeake always vote Republican, and did the rest of the ticket besides Tim Kaine. I really hope his predecessor, Mark Warner, gets the Democratic nod (which seems to be staying fresh in the freezer with Hillary’s name on it) for president. If he’s half as good at being president as he was at being the governor we’ll be in good hands.
By the by, while Virginia is a red state it’s not the backwater, incestuous, illiterate state that one might think. We elected the first black governor several years ago (even though he pretty much sucked) and have had to back-to-back Demcratic governors. We can be liberal, you just need to give us a reason.
This dates back to the American Revolution. Massachittes (being one of the most liberal states from the get-go) had their panties in a wad from day one. Virginia agreed with them from the most part, but was tentative. Then comes the Intolerable Acts and the closing of Boston Harbor, and we said, “Yep, that f–cked up. Let’s take him out.”
Fred,
I wasn’t really saying that you were. I was kinda typing fast and speaking in generalities about a subject that always has me slapping my head in frustration.
The Democrats had a president, Jimmy Carter, who spoke of his faith on a regular bases and even took time out for the church functions and volunteer work that he did before holding office. He took office only thirty years ago. Since then the Ds have had a long series of governors, senators, congressmen and one prominent Jewish VP candidate who all displayed their faith’s strength in their lives in both public and private matters. Many editorialists and commentators who skew left (like, say, the owner of this site) make room in their lives for their faith and are quite open about it. Many people in the general public who vote Democrat go to church every Sunday right by the side of their Republican neighbors.
But all of a sudden the Democrat’s politicians can’t speak in public on religion without people commenting on it as if they were speaking on something completely foreign to them. They get accused of me-tooism and people talk about how strange it is that **they** would speak on the subject at all.
It’s a definite tribute to the strength of the Republican propaganda and noise machines. Ten plus years of really banging the drum that the Ds hate any religion (other then Islam) out there, wearing their religion on their sleeves, attacking anyone who expresses the belief of the separation of church and state as hating or suppressing Christianity and framing any debate that they can around the bible have paid off in spades. The Rs have made Jesus their man in the eyes of the public at large. Rs can commit crimes while talking about their faith and still come out with their Jesus credentials intact. Ds can get filmed walking out of a Sunday service and the talk turns to how they’re putting on a show and trying to play catch up with the “mainstream” Christian Conservatives.
The proof of this is all over the place. On local radio and on the blogs I hear and see people who are Ds or support Ds talking about how strange and awkward it was to listen to Kaine talk about his faith or how it just came off as a me-tooism prop. It’s a stigma that sticks to the Ds better then the one about how they hate cops and almost as well as the one about how they hate the military. It just amazes me how so many people who know, or actually are, members of the general public who are Democrat voters allow themselves to have their viewpoint on the subject so easily controlled by the promoters of the Republicans talking points.
Was he saying anything? I was too busy watching that eyebrow to notice what was coming out of his mouth.
Wally
http://www.thegraphicsgarage.com
The proof of this is all over the place. On local radio and on the blogs I hear and see people who are Ds or support Ds talking about how strange and awkward it was to listen to Kaine talk about his faith or how it just came off as a me-tooism prop. It’s a stigma that sticks to the Ds better then the one about how they hate cops and almost as well as the one about how they hate the military. It just amazes me how so many people who know, or actually are, members of the general public who are Democrat voters allow themselves to have their viewpoint on the subject so easily controlled by the promoters of the Republicans talking points.
Jerry, how is it the Republican’s fault that some Democrats are so hostile to religion that they are willing to attack their own for having religious views? That would be like me getting pìššëd at Democrats when I see a Republican who fits the stereotypical gay baiting homophobe.
Tell the nimrods at Dailykos to get over themselves and accept the fact that not everyone has to walk in lockstep with their narrow view of what is (in this case literally) politically correct. If the lunatics who espouse such tactics as the recent threat to “out” a senator if they don’t vote against Alito are allowed to hold any sway within the party it will end very badly for the Democrats. While my tolerance for incompetence probably will forever keep me from being a member of the party I don’t want to see the Republicans have too easy a time staying in power.
I thought up to a few days ago that the 2006 elections were practically a lock for the Dems to take back a good bit of power, the Senate at least, but recent events give me pause. If they blow it–and after the Alito fiasco and the fact that Dean seems to be badly botching the money game it is beginning to look like they might be–I’ll be almost afraid to see what happens.
Tell the nimrods at Dailykos to get over themselves and accept the fact that not everyone has to walk in lockstep with their narrow view of what is (in this case literally) politically correct. If the lunatics who espouse such tactics as the recent threat to “out” a senator if they don’t vote against Alito are allowed to hold any sway within the party it will end very badly for the Democrats.
Truly. They forget that THEY are the mirror image of the religious right ideologues they profess to hate so much.
Religion is a major part of most Americans’ lives. The wingnuts know that and appreciate it. The moonbats don’t and their contempt for religion has alienated them from most of America.
Kaine’s religion is a truthful part of him; people saw that and responded to it. The twits on the left who can’t understand that (and understand it in a visceral and emotion way, NOT just in an intellectual way) are going to be a big reason the Democrats may remain a minority party in America, despite the incompetence of the current administration.
“Jerry, how is it the Republican’s fault that some Democrats are so hostile to religion that they are willing to attack their own for having religious views? That would be like me getting pìššëd at Democrats when I see a Republican who fits the stereotypical gay baiting homophobe.”
You point to the Dailykos crowd. Fine. I’m not talking about the far left nutjobs though. They are no more the core of Democrat voters or pols then the Klan is on the Republican side. I’m talking about most of the people in the middle. I’m talking about people who see themselves as Democrats, vote Democrat, go to church or at least practice a faith and still act like they’re being shown an alien from the Crab Nebula when they see a Democrat on TV talking about their own faith.
I’m talking about the middle of the road Republicans that I work around and know that have family, friends and neighbors that are church going Democrats of faith and still talk about how Democrats hate religion and want to destroy Christianity in America.
Look at some of the people out there balking at Kaines remarks or commenting on how strange it was to hear him speak on his faith. It’s not just the nutjobs on the far side of each team. It’s also the middle ground people. It’s also some of the same people who cry about how the Rs are claiming faith as theirs and theirs alone.
Jerry, you make a good point (though I think the comarison of the dailykossacks to the klan is unfair–they are rabid but they don’t burn down churches or engage in much other physical violence that I have seen. They are also a much more important and influential part of the party than the Klan could ever be–Dailykos raises a lot of money and as for influence, even John Kerry posts there now).
Maybe Kaine just didn’t come across well. Not all Democrats who talk religion are doubted–Obama, Jackson, sharpton all talk openly of faith (is it somehow ok for Black Democrats to be religious but not White ones??? Why would that be?) Lierberman got critisized for his views but not for being religious.
I think that “the religious right” has been such a boogeyman to the left for so longthat even a whiff of anything that might resemble it is immediately suspect. You may have to be Black or Jewish to get away with being openly religious in the party without raising eyebrows. (Among a few, at least.)
A big part of the problem is that in the years since Carter, the Democratic party has essentially become a coalition of minority interests, so they feel a lot of pressure to bend over backwards to look like they’re accomodating to every minority viewpoint. On the other hand, the Republicans have basically announced, “We’re a majority Christian group. If you’re not a Christian, you can come to the meeting, but if you’re offended when we start talking about Jesus, deal with it.”
Jackson, sharpton all talk openly of faith (is it somehow ok for Black Democrats to be religious but not White ones??? Why would that be?)
Er, many on the Right tend to enjoy letting Jackson & Sharpton talk about anything, just because those two tend to make áššëš of themselves in the process (and thus it’s bad PR for the Democrats).
I think they’re both a bit loopy and, more often than not, they play the race card to try and get what they want.
roger Tang wrote a couple of things which caught my attention:
First – “Religion is a major part of most Americans’ lives.”
I know that polls show that most people believe in a higher power (that category would include me), and that a clear majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. But every poll which I remember seeing puts regular church-goers at under 40 percent – maybe even low to mid 30s. Though one could argue that church attendance isn’t necessarily required to make religion a “major part” of one’s life, I suppose.
The other statement that caught my notice: “the Democrats may remain a minority party in America.”
You may’ve just been referring to the results of recent elections; but this, combined with other occasional comments I’ve seen, leads me to ask – what is the enrollment in the respective parties? Last I’d heard, the Republican Party had NEVER come within four (?) million members of the Democratic Party. If they actually have more members than the Democrats now, that would be big news (certainly to me); if not, it’s just another indicator of how successful they’ve recently been at grabbing unaffiliated voters and keeping their members loyal and getting them to actually vote.
(Not to pick on you, roger – I liked your point about rabid zealots at dailykos being the mirror image of the religious right idealogues; just two points which caught my attention which happened to be in your post.)
Um, rrlane, are you watching the same speech? At least this speech has more connection with reality.
And may I please note my full real name is attached to my post?
Yes, I’m pretty sure we saw the same speech. The one with the guy who thought he found a snazzy phrase by saying “there’s a better way fifteen times? Is that the one you saw?
Oh, and since it seems to mean something to you for some reason. My name is Rich Lane (“rrlane”–do you need to know what the middle initial stands for too?)
I posted before reading down farther and seeing others had also pointed out the “better way” catch phrase. Ah, well.
Don’t get me wrong. Bush’s speech was far worse, but this guy offered us nothing.
The one with the guy who thought he found a snazzy phrase by saying “there’s a better way fifteen times? Is that the one you saw?
And he still didn’t outdo Bush’s usage of the word “freedom” in his SotU this year. 🙂
And he still didn’t outdo Bush’s usage of the word “freedom” in his SotU this year. 🙂
Oh, point granted, absolutely. Bush’s speech was horrible. It’s just that it seemed to me that the Dems’ response was “Look at us! We’re not them!”
It’s just that it seemed to me that the Dems’ response was “Look at us! We’re not them!”
I think the problem for the Dems is that they’ve been forced into this position by a far-too successful propoganda campaign run by the Republicans.
I mean, look at all the incredible bs that has been caused by Bush. Yet he’s made of teflon as much as Reagan was (and he’s been as harmful to the environment as the real stuff.)
The Republicans have won on the few issues that they know they can get people in an uproar about, and then they sit back and wait for the next election to do it all over again.
Want to win an election? Say you want to ban gay marriage (and then ignore the issue). Claim you’re better than the Democrats on national defense (smearing veterans in the process). Go on about moral values (even though you really have none yourself).
Or, even better in Bush’s case, claim you’re a “compassionate conservative”, and then show otherwise. Then say you’re a peace president and start two wars. Or maybe you can say that we shouldn’t be in the business of nation-building, and then do just that after you start one of those said wars. 🙂
I’ve read comments about liberals saying that they’re a “marginal” party who works in lockstep with the views of the Democrats.
And yet, seeing as how the Democrats can’t put up a proper defense against Republican propoganda, I think people that say that are brainless gits who really don’t know the first thing about politics, otherwise they’d realize that liberals are independent thinkers, which is exactly why they’re not doing well, and the people who think such things are bowing before Bush because they don’t have any unique thoughts of their own.
Where’s my soapbox?
The Democrats are the exact opposite of marching in lockstep. They want to oppose Bush on his inept handling of Iraq, but they know that “cut and run” is a loser position. So, half of them are calling for withdrawals while the other half are calling for sending more troops into the quagmire. For the past several years, they have been floundering around trying to articulate a coherant vision of the country while the Republicans have a “strategery” (sorry, couldn’t resist). Sure, the anti-gay marriage initiatives were cynical ploys to get the base out and were never a serious policy priority, but they worked. And in 2008, they’ll have another wedge issue ready for the same thing.
Meanwhile, the Democrats need to get their act together, because right now, they can’t organize a ham sandwich, much less a national campaign.
The Democrats are eating their own. Any deviation from the dailykos idea of what a “real” Democrat is can get you excommunicated (With one notable and interesting exception–it has become ok to be a pro-life Democrat again. actually, gun control has been pretty much abandoned as well.)
There was a story in Roll Call (I think) about how Cynthia McKinny tried to get good seats at the SOTU and when told they were reserved for Senators, got all hissy about how those who would not vote for a filibuster should get no privilages. Lieberman, who many still think was elected Vice President in 2000 is now no longer welcome in the party by a sizeable number of members. I have a fear that the Democrats may get talked into running on a “Vote for us and we’ll begin impeachment hearings!” platform and snatch massive defeat from the jaws of almost certain victory. If the party totally self destructs there will be nothing to take its place save one party rule and the inevitable corruption that will follow.
Den wrote: “A big part of the problem is that in the years since Carter, the Democratic party has essentially become a coalition of minority interests, so they feel a lot of pressure to bend over backwards to look like they’re accommodating to every minority viewpoint.”
I was just mulling over this same point not two days ago.
I haven’t, in recent memory, aligned myself with any party, but it seems the older I get, the farther away the hard-core, predominantly left-leaning Democrats keep pushing me. At the same time, they embrace radical windbags who seem bent on alienating everyone but their most fervent followers. Yes, I realize the Republicans do the same thing, but, in my mind anyway, they are currently a lesser of two evils. Recent national elections show that I’m not the only non-aligned person who feels this way. I mean, is there any long-time Democrat out there who, with a straight face, would disagree that Democrat powerhouse Sen. Ted Kennedy is so radical left these days, he makes his brother, JFK, seem conservative by comparison?
Yet, despite my strong reservations with the Democratic leadership as a whole, I haven’t yet been tempted to register as a Republican. Registration would be a blanket endorsement, and I certainly do not endorse every Republican politician.
Yet, despite my strong reservations with the Democratic leadership as a whole, I haven’t yet been tempted to register as a Republican. Registration would be a blanket endorsement, and I certainly do not endorse every Republican politician.
I’m in the mirror image boat. I’ve been a registered Republican since I’ve been old enough to vote (23 years now), but I am extremely disenchanted with the direction of the GOP and have been for years. Yet, I can’t bring myself to switch to the Dems because I can’t get over the feeling I’d be endorsing a philosophy I really don’t believe in.
Yes, I realize that’s illogical, but I guess I feel that I haven’t changed, it’s the GOP that have abandoned the basic tenets of conservativism, and I still consider myself a moderate conservative. I could go independent, I guess I’m hoping I can help the moderate voice of the party during the primaries at least.
Probably tilting at windmills, I know.
Ted Kennedy a powerhouse? Sure, Senate seniority rules guarantee him cushy seats on high profile committees, but does he really have a lot of incluence on the democratic party as a whole? Compared to Pelosi, Reid, Dean and the others who hold real leadership positions in the party?
Honestly, I don’t know of anyone outside of Massachusetts who doesn’t consider Teddy to be anything other then a drunken dinosaur whose glory days were done over 30 years ago.
The description that the Democrats are eating their own is fairly apt, though. Since the 2000 election, there has been a struggle between the ultra-liberal wing and the “New Democrat” wing that Clinton succesfully ran with. Unfortunately, the ultra-liberal wing has had the upper hand for a long time now.
The GOP, on the other hand, has largely been successful in appearing to unified and organized. They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing. I think they’ve been successful in the past few elections now based on the substance of their platforms, but just on having the appearance that they can get things done.
Case in point: 2005 was Bush’s worst year in terms of his approval rating and the reason for that is mainly because he’s looked ineffective. First by his failed social security privitization plan and then the bungling at FEMA over Katrina.
They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing.
While they eat their own in private, not in public. Well, except for McCain. 🙂
The last election proved that a platform of “we’re better than that loser” wins you nothing. The Dems need to put together a plan that voting block can get behind, like the GOP has done. Stop trying to appease everyone, settle on a few key election points, and win some seats. The GOP is probably at it’s most vulnerable it’s ever going to be, but that doesn’t mean you can put a monkey up as a candidate and expect to win. If liberal voters were more of the mindset of “I’m voting for my SIDE, because that’s how we WIN,” you could do that. But for some reason, liberal voters need to have a reason to vote FOR a candidate. If all the Dems do is ask for votes AGAINST the GOP, we’re going to see very little change come this time next year.
They’ve done this mainly by putting the far right wing firmly in control and completely ignoring their moderate wing. I think they’ve been successful in the past few elections now based on the substance of their platforms, but just on having the appearance that they can get things done.
Hmm, perhaps…then again, the RNC is campaigning heavily for Lincoln Chafee, a Republican so moderate he actually admitted that he did not vote for Bush in 2004! I can’t imagine the Democrats ever getting behind someone so out of tune with their agenda.
While they eat their own in private, not in public. Well, except for McCain. 🙂
Don’t be surprised if they eat him right into the 2008 nomination.
The GOP is probably at it’s most vulnerable it’s ever going to be, but that doesn’t mean you can put a monkey up as a candidate and expect to win.
What’s good for the Republicans isn’t so for the Democrats. 🙂
Hmm, perhaps…then again, the RNC is campaigning heavily for Lincoln Chafee, a Republican so moderate he actually admitted that he did not vote for Bush in 2004!
Decisions on whether the RNC supports a candidate have less to do with ideology then with keeping the seat in the party. Chafee’s views may be inconsistant with administration’s, but he can win in Rhode Island and keeping the overall GOP majority in Senate is a higher priority for the RNC then the ideological purity of one senator. Second, the RNC is the heart of the party establishment, so support for the incumbants is expected.
But at the same time, he has been labled a RINO by many true believers in the party and has been the target of a number of “grassroots” Republican groups would just as soon wish he’d retire.
See also: Arlen Specter.
I can’t imagine the Democrats ever getting behind someone so out of tune with their agenda.
I can name one: Bob Casey, Jr. Like his father before him, he’s strongly pro-life, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is backing him because they believe he’s their best chance to oust Rick Santorum.
Don’t be surprised if they eat him right into the 2008 nomination.
I still don’t see it. McCain is not just a political outsider in the GOP, there are many powerful figures in the party that hold deep personal animosity towards him because of his maverick style.
The last election proved that a platform of “we’re better than that loser” wins you nothing.
It never is. Cutting away the “yellow dog” members of each party, presidential elections are decided by the 20% or so of voters who are described as moderates (or, as Anne the Nutcase calls them, “idiot voters”). As a group, they are less interested in blind adherence to ideology (thats what makes them moderates, duh) then they are in effectiveness. The GOP is in a tough spot today because it took Bush all of five minutes to piss away all the wonderful “political capital” he earned in the 2004 election. It’s not because of the Abramhoff scandal or the Plame scandal or the illegal wiretaping scandal. It’s because from his failed Social Security privatization plan to Katrina to Harriet Meirs to the quagmire in Iraq, Bush has looked ineffective as a leader.
If the Democrats want to win more seats in 2006, they are going to have to put something on the table that shows they can get something done instead of just chanting “Bush sucks” over and over again.
I can name one: Bob Casey, Jr. Like his father before him, he’s strongly pro-life, but the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania is backing him because they believe he’s their best chance to oust Rick Santorum.
Take away the pro-life part and he’s as Democratic as the next guy–very pro-union ofr example. As I mentioned earlier, being pro-life has suddenly become not as much of a kiss of death in the party as it had been. Same for gun control; every Democratic candidate for President has to have his obligitory “watch me shoot a small animal” moment.
I mean, there’s no question that Casey supported Kerry, right? While the RINO label is too often applied to anyone to the left of Reagan, in Chafee’s case it probably fits. If the Senate ends up tied I would fully expect him to switch parties.
If the Democrats want to win more seats in 2006, they are going to have to put something on the table that shows they can get something done instead of just chanting “Bush sucks” over and over again.
I agree. The problem is that Bush, like Clinton, has the gift of driving his opponents nuts. And generally, nuts don’t do well in elections.