Who Elects These Democrat Idiots!?!

Damn straight, Dennis. No tickee, no laundry. It makes party membership and allegiance a lot more coherent. Nobody should be allowed to vote in a primary without a party card--and primaries should be funded at party expense, being recognized as private functions of private organizations.

 

Re: To Steve Levicoff

Yep, and his downfall was using city money to pay for escort services.

I can't make up this stuff.


Bruce

 

Re: Re: To Steve Levicoff

Was he a Democrat???.......strange....someone at the office told me he was a Republican.

 

Re: Re: To Steve Levicoff

Apparently, you can. Springer didn't use public funds. His personal check was found in the possesion of an escort service. Personal, not public. Also, it occured when he was on the city council. He resigned, but regained his seat the next year. Two years later, he was elected mayor of Cincinnati.

By Republican standards, he's got at least three more lives. (See Nixon and Checkers, the loss to JFK, the loss in California to Pat Brown, and Watergate.)

 

Five Republicans I wouldn't terribly mind seeing in the White House:
Arlen Specter
Christine Todd Whitman
Colin Powell
Thad Cochran
John McCain

If you can spot the handful of Democrats in the House who are dim enough to compare bin Laden to the founding fathers (and I could find equally stupid Republicans without breaking a sweat), I'm sure you can come up with a few you could bring yourself to vote for.


Cheers,

 

Re: Re: To Steve Levicoff

Perquisites of office, Bruce.

 

Just for the record, President Bush never employed the term “strategery.” The term originated as a punch line for a joke by Will Ferrell (impersonating Bush) on Saturday Night Live. Similarly, Sean Connery never said, “Alex Trebek, your mother is a whore!” That phrase was expressed in a different sketch by Darrell Hammond (as Sean Connery) to Will Ferrell (who played Alex Trebek).

 

Indeed. I stand corrected. Now, who's impersonating him saying "nucular"?

 

...snip...

Obviously, the Kennedy name is pretty special here in Massachusetts but I've got to think that Teddys political status is at least somewhat threatened these days. He's certainly doing the big anti-war thing (although I've got to say that if his old buddy Bill Clinton was in the White House he would probably keep his mouth shut...what I'm saying here is that I think he's probably more anti-Bush than anti-war...this may hold true for many detractors of Bush's current stance) but considering the fact that all the polls I've heard suggest that most people are for invasion, he may be mis-reading the cue-cards. Besides, Mitt Romney, who once lost to Teddy in a senatorial race, was just elected as Governor. Does this indicate a shift to the right in Massachusetts politics? Is this the beginning of the end for Teddy? I, for one, would be happy to see him go. Even if he was replaced by another Democrat.
Jack

 

The basic problem is the democratic party is badly in need of leadership. The mainline DNC does not believe this stuff, they are just hoping that it might stick to Bush. There was a time these sort of comments would have gotten a phone call from leadership. There is no one in that role. There are no stars in the Democratic Party that can carry a national ticket, and they know it. They are dreadfully fearful of another embarrasing loss in the House and Senate. The strategy right now is to have nothing to lose , no name seats throw mud and hope it sticks. Murray? Kaptur? Who?
The problem is they have spent eight years defending scandals that have sunk several politicians. The bar has been lowered so now nothing sticks. The Democratic party needs a new path, a new strategery if you will. They badly need vision.

"I could envision a Bush in the White House, well into the first quarter of this new century" --- John McCain

Anyone got Jeb Bush in 2008 stickers yet? Clinton won the election, Bush Sr. won the legacy.

 

But he is so entertaining when he starts moralizing.

20 something years ago he porked Margaret Trudeau. Bad judgement or bad eyesight?

 

Re: Re: Who Elects These Democrat Idiots!?!

Well done, Tracy.

Saturday's Toledo Blade story adds "She said young, disenfranchised Islamic extremists are being recruited as terrorists every day."

DID I miss a fatwa from Bin Laden or something? I did not know that these terrorists merely seek the opportunity to vote!

Kaptur analogizes the American revolutionary experience with Istlamist terrorism, confusing the forces of progress and widening of opportunity with the forces of reaction that would narrow all opportunities and murder anyone not conforming to their mystical ideal! CAN a Congresswoman be more clueless!?!?

Clearly, her false moral equivalence is motivated by the same altruism that motivated Sen. Patty Murray to make her similarly false comparison. Leftists are--after the fall of the Berlin Wall, even after the fall of Communism--still unable to successfully distinguish between force and volutarism without demeaning the latter and cheerleading the former. (Which is why I await their Reformation before I will again associate with them again!)

--Orson

 

Well, I would hardly call Mitt Romney "right wing", but it is interesting that a Republican has held the corner office on Beacon Hill since 1991. I do think that the Kennedy mystique is starting to fade, mostly (IMO) because many of the old-timers who were JFK loyalists are now dying off.

Besides the fact that I disagree with just about every policy decision he's ever made, I've met Ted Kennedy more than once (while I was working), and found him to be arrogant, condescending, and downright rude. In other words, a typical Kennedy.


Bruce

 

I'm not so sure.

I think that it's obvious that America is nearing an historical cusp. Quite likely we will be in a new era a month from now.

If the war goes well, Iraq collapses like a house of cards and casulties are minimal, and if US forces uncover almost completed a-bombs and tons of weaponized anthrax, Bush will be on top of the world.

But if the war goes badly, the US suffers thousands of battle deaths, the oil fields are set ablaze and the Iraqis continue to hold out in Baghdad and other cities as civilian casulties mount and the US fears being dragged into street fighting... The US will be portrayed as a mad-dog aggressor acting in defiance of the UN, countries in the world that supported us after 9-11 will abandon us in disgust, and the Democrats will be screaming for George Bush's head.

That would be a disaster that it might take the Republican party (and the nation itself) a generation to recover from.

I think that the situation is extremely dangerous and unpredictable right now. Nobody can say who will have a legacy a couple of months from today.

 

Yes--Bill--it (the Bush-led war on Iraq--is a huge gamble. The US faces a historic cusp.

TOM Friedman gets it; you get it; many many many otherwise smart people ("why there?" "why now?") just don't get it!--the size of the bet, or grasp the unknowably high-wire risks of the results. (Think beyond the war--the next three to seven years.)

But it's simple geopolitics aimed at the transformation of a culturally, politically, and economically stagnant (when not reactionary) region of the world--all while simultaneouly tackling the threat of WMDs, an unfinished war, and the sources of Islamist terrorism. AND then hoping that the success of popular soveriegnty, openess, and prosperity will inspire emulation, reform, and revolution elsewhere.

It's that breath-takingly huge a bet! As big as D-Day was for the fate of Europe: a synergistic strike in the heart of Islam--and leaves me glad NOT to earn the big bucks for making these decisions....It's exciting and as scarry as Hell....did you just say "nailbiting?" You could well have!

--Orson

 

Interestingly, today’s issue of Parade magazine answers that very question.

”Pronunciations vary from region to region. Boston-bred JFK, for example, spoke of Soviet nuclear missiles in ‘Cuber.’ President Bush pronounces nuclear ‘nu-cu-lar,’ as did Dwight Eisenhower, who was born in Texas.”

 

Thank you, Gus.

Its good to know that the reason Bush pronounces it "nu-cu-lar" isn't because he is a Republican. For a moment I thought this is what Rich was implying.

 

If it is, James Bond is a Republican.

As a liberal who tends to vote across the D column, I should say that the DNC is undergoing a change in leadership, and judging the party by the words of a few flakes now is very much like it would have been to judge the Republican Party by David Duke a decade ago. From January 1993 to November 1994, Democrats held the presidency and both houses of Congress. My advice to anyone of either party who thinks the Republicans somehow have a lock on American democracy: Get real and look at the two razor-thin elections we just had. Just because the DNC didn't win this time doesn't necessarily mean it's in any sort of overwhelming crisis.


Cheers,

 

"Crisis?"--Si! "Shift?"--No!

Change of leadership? Then how come Tony Coheolo (sp?), the DNC chair didn't go?

It's true that two close elections do not portend dramatic shifts--demographics ensure that it's not that! But a crisis? That surely it is.

First, Clinton oversees the lose of both Houses of Congress in backlashes, then his successor loses the White House race that ought to have been a cakewalk. And now, the "new" leadership (Sen. Hart strikes me as the most painfully immune to new ideas of all--in addition to Daschle and Gephard), can't rise above pandering.

Yup!--I call this a crisis--a crisis for want of new ideas for leadership to embrace.

--Orson

 

Coelho.