Redstate

Was you can't come here as a foreigner and bad mouth the President, but you can contribute to my PAC so I can do it for you.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

that was in the follow-up memo. What he meant to say aloud was "blah blah bush, blah blah nazi, blah blah chickenhawks, blah blah no such thing as the devil"

But anyway, he accidentally said something that makes a useful sound byte I think.

absentee

And here I thought they were too busy GOVERNING, FIGHTING THE WAR, and WINNING ELECTIONS, but now I'm told they're just sleeping!
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

I thought engaging blowhards and tyrants was part of governing, and leading.

Republicans are in power and Democrats aren't.

that Santorum decided it unwise to let Rangel and Pelosi take on Chavez by themselves. His statement is welcome. I guess he had the day off from the hard work of "governing".

What does that have to do with either "hard work" or "governing?"
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

prefer to eat cold.

W had three scrumptious cold dinners in 2000, 2002 and 2004. It is highly likely that the blowhards will buy him a similar dinner in 2006.

who are you addressing? Because I am not indignant. I just recognize them for the liars they are.

The irony is spot on, and I see more humor in the comment than "indignation."

he would've told Chavez to take his "discounted" heating oil and stick it up his a**. He is all to happy to condemn Chavez behind his back and accept his largess to his face.

Remember when Giuliani told the Saudi prince to take his $10 million check and stick it because the prince suggested that the US bore some partial responsibility for 9/11. If Rangel is not being disingenuous, let's see him tell Cahvez where to go with his oil.

Of course, that would take principles, and we know that Rangel is no Guiliani.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

I've listened to their speeches. I know what they think. They don't believe a word of what they said.

both of which are possible, one much better than the other.

1) Similar to two brothers fighting, arguing, etc... until someone outside the family says the same thing about the second brother as the first did. Then the brothers both beat him up.

2) Driven by polls showing that the American voters are not really rallying to Chavez's ranting.

I tend to think it is 2), BUT they deserve thanks because they are standing up for the country and the President.

Good motivations are rarely found in politics, it's hard enough to get good actions. So when a good action comes, which this is, I am happy for it, and not too worried about the motivation, which is probably not that good anyway.

streiff is completely right about the hypocrisy and lack of sincerity, but it is nice Pelosi and Rangel made those comments. Thanks to them for standing up and saying that, let's hope they do it again at some point, I'm not holding my breath.

why is it too much to ask them to behave in a civil manner as they demand from Chavez?

They are pandering again (still) just as always, maneuvering for position. They don't believe a word they said because they don't believe in anything to begin with. If they actually had any beliefs they wouldn't have to keep searching for a way to "frame" the debate. If they actually believed anything people would know it; we wouldn't need a "frame" to put around it.

A pox on them --- and the entire American left. See here if you need more proof.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

You know, I like coming here, because most people are pretty reasonable (well, for a political site, anyway). But this is just absurd.

There are principled and unprincipled Democrats, just like there are principled and unprincipled Republicans.

Both sides of the divide do everything in their power to convince "the people" that they are the ones that should be running the country. It is completely hypocritical to call it "pandering" and "maneuvering" only when Democrats do it. I also love the use of scare-quotes around "frame". As if Republicans don't attempt to use carefully orchestrated talking point campaigns (The Daily Show runs segments on these all the time) to push their policies.

I realize that "righteous indignation" is the bread-and-butter of political discourse, but running a frontpage entry that condemns Democrats for defending the President takes it to an absurd level.

I guess the most relevant question is, what would the front page post say if Pelosi and Rangel hadn't made comments condemning Chavez?

One of the Democrats in question has likened US actions in Iraq to the murder of six million Jews. Just a "talking point" I guess.

If you can find Republicans who have engaged in similar rhetoric you will have a point. Otherwise, you don't.

"Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history." -- Pat Robertson

"Joseph Goebbels was the Minister of Propaganda for the Nazi regime and whose very famous quote was, 'If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.' All right? 'If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the truth.' And that's what Stuart Smalley and Michael Moore and all of these guys do." -- Bill O'Reilly

"The argument that some who play to the politics of hate and envy and class division will say is, 'Well, that's only 2 percent -- or, as people get richer, 5 percent, in the near future -- of Americans likely to have to pay [the estate tax]. I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust: 'Oh, it's only a small percentage. It's not you; it's somebody else.'" -- Grover Norquist

On stem-cell research: "We certainly have all seen the rejections of Nazi Germany's abuses of science. As a society and a nation, there ought to be some limit on what we can allow or should allow." -- Jeff Sessions

"[Kyoto] would deal a powerful blow on the whole humanity similar to the one humanity experienced when Nazism and communism flourished." -- James Inhofe

"A vote against the `re-election' of President Bush is like supporting Adolph Hitler during World War Two." -- Tom Cole

"What do you think Hitler would have thought if Roosevelt would've lost the election in 1944?" -- Tom Cole

"Now, forgive me, but that is right out of Nazi Germany. I don't understand ... why all of a sudden we are passing laws that sound as if they are right out of Nazi Germany." -- Phil Gramm

By which I meant just that. Can't you find any Republican saying that the Democrats want to commit genocide? Surely there is one out there?

Have you ever listened to the things that Rangel says?

And you will not find me sparing criticm of Republican idiots and panderers --- John McCain (R-News Media) and Arlen Specter (R-Yes It Is All About Me) come immediately to mind.

The Daily Show runs segments on these all the time

And that cost you any credibility you might have hoped to acquire. The Daily Show? Now theres a source of news and meanigful opinion if I ever heard of one.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Your willingness to criticize some people with R's after their name doesn't disprove my point, because the only thing you criticize them for is being "bad Republicans" for not agreeing with you.

My point was that the political dialogue demonstrated in this thread essentially boils down to I disagree with Democrats' policies so they have no morals and everything they say is a lie calculated to mislead the American people into doing something stupid like voting for Democrats. I agree with the Republicans' polices, so they are honorable and truthful and everything they say is a attempt to open a dialogue and educate voters so that they do the smart thing and vote for Republicans.

It is absurd. And yes, I realize that both sides do this constantly.

But this post has taken this "rightous indignation" to a whole new level of absurdity by quoting two Democrats supporting the President and then attacking them anyway.

RE: The Daily Show

Well, as a liberal, I don't know that I have any credibility here anyway.

But if you aren't watching The Daily Show, you are honestly missing out on some hilarious political satire. I know they are mostly make fun of your guys right now, but hopefully that will change in a few months. :-)

Oh, and this:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/TV/09/28/comedy.politics/

That is a pretty accurate description of the first chunk of your post. I haven't seen a whole lot of threads on here about how all Republicans "are honorable and truthful and everything they say is a attempt to open a dialogue and educate voters." Republicans actually get ripped on quite often here. Throw out somebody like McCain, Chafee, Specter, Hagle, or Stevens as an example of someone who is "honorable and truthful and everything they say is a attempt to open a dialogue and educate voters" and see what kind of response you get.

As far as TDS goes, yes, it was funny before Stewart came along and ruined it. Stewart is about as funny as a wet paper bag. Which is still approximately 12x funnier than Franken or Keilor. Even their non-political stuff is completely unfunny.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

they're meeting in my broom closet this weekend. They're sharing the venue with the unicorns and leprechauns. Do you want an invite?

he would've told Chavez to take his "discounted" heating oil and stick it up his a**. He is all to happy to condemn Chavez behind his back and accept his largess to his face.

Remember when Giuliani told the Saudi prince to take his $10 million check and stick it because the prince suggested that the US bore some partial responsibility for 9/11. If Rangel is not being disingenuous, let's see him tell Cahvez where to go with his oil.

Of course, that would take principles, and we know that Rangel is no Guiliani.

(inadvertantly replied to another post up the thread with this)

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

anything it was Rush. Just looking at what is here I don't find anything unique enough to be trademarked.

"our" side of the aisle, eh? Could be that "our" side of the aisle hasn't made similiar statements about Bush and are now trying to make people forget about it. Could be "our" side of the aisle, like the White House and State Department, doesn't see any point in addressing this nonsense.

Applauding them for this would be akin to applauding them for talk of "tax cuts" or "cutting spending" during an election. We know their lying through their teeth... We've been down the same road 1000 times before. How many times do you have to go down it before you stop applauding to the insincere stuff they spew while staring at the latest poll numbers.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

So, uh, is it Democrats or Republicans that we outraged about here?

It's like if I went to a dock and tried to unload a ship without being a member of the right union. Sure, it's fine if the union dockworker does the same thing, but not if I do. Rangel is just protecting his job. He doesn't want to have to compete against low priced foreign labor in the field of anti-Bush screed generation.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

I'd rather be called names by a lunatic that defended by liars.

How, exactly, have they been sticking up for the US? The fact that this is even worthy of comment is because they have said nothing supportive of or civil towards Bush for 5 years and we're supposed to think this is genuine.

of one's enemies. I'd rather have enemies like Chavez than friends like Pelosi.

In Vino Veritas

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Not saying that they "have been." But in this lone instance they defended the OFFICE of the President, even if it was not in defense of W.

is what you're saying.

How is it that "sticking up for the US" = "supporting bush"?

It must really make your gut clench that something between 50% and 60% of the US population doesn't "stick up for the US", ie, "support bush".

And for all the squabbling amongst D's and R's, I've never heard any respectabe Dems take the gratuitous that Chavez has. There's an obscensly enormous gap between Chavez and the Dem leadership that shouldn't need to be explained. Chavez and his ilk have very little in common with the politics of the Dems where the rubber meets the road.

Our "tit for tat" bickering in this country is very different from what Chavez stands for.

Don't tread on me.

is that Chavez and Aminuhwhatever believe that what they say resonates in America because they watch CNNI, read the NYT, and think that drivel is representative of American thought. The "Devil" stuff was over the top, but most of the rest of both their remarks could be found in any Democrat or Lefty talking point memo or Blog. Did anyone see Rick Leventhal's attempted interview with that Democrat Woman Mk.1 AI outside the church; she sounded just like Chavez.

In Vino Veritas

other than the "diablo" comment there is nothing in Chavez's speech that you didn't hear at John Kerry's nominating convention.

What Chavez and Ahmadinejad was not accidental and not deranged. Their speeches were calculated to play to the "non-aligned" delegates in the UN and the biggest TV audience they were going to have: that in the US.

where they produce those women with dark, unkempt hair, pursed lips, and bad attitudes? No wonder there are so many homosexual men on the Left!

In Vino Veritas

is Exhibit A as to their impact.

Justifiable Homosexuality

Fortuna Favet Fortibus

Probably account for choice of the incorrect "devil" over the correct "Hitler" comparison.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

There's a lot of spooky right-wing christian kooks that make me shutter with some of the nonesense they say. They vote Republican and I'm sure you're were glad to chalk them up in the Bush column but you're also glad that they're not controlling the agenda and definitely don't speak for all conservatives, republicans and people on the general right.

I know that they don't represent the majority of the 60 million who voted for Bush...although many kossacks would have you believe that. Just like that whacky lady doesn't represent the majority of the 58 million who voted for Kerry...although many GOP advocates (not just voters) would have you believe that as well.

That "drivel", not sure what you're referring to exactly, DOES represent some of American thought. We are not uniform or indoctrinated into one point of view....though I wish we were all a little less indoctrinated than we are. I don't give that much weight to the effects of certain media in terms of what kind of picture they paint from the outside. Amadinijad (sp?) had his dissenters whether we hear about them or not.

Don't tread on me.

a foreign country and listened/watched CNNI? After a week, you'll be wanting to pick up an AK-47 and start screaming Yanqui Go Home or Death to the Infidels. It is pure propaganda! Radio Moscow back in the bad old days was far more subtle and sophistocated.

In Vino Veritas

and No, I don't get that reaction from CNNI or any local news be in France, Italy, Spain or anywhere.

It's my own experience.

Don't tread on me.

1. That 16% of the population think that it is "very likely" that Bush and his cronies set up 9/11.
2. That 40% of the population thinks that Bush is in control of the price of fuel and is only letting it fall now for the purposes of winning the election.
3. That 31% of the population think that Bush should be impeached.

That indicates a very sizable loon population backing the Democrats. We aren't talking about one random voter. We don't have anywhere near that many crazies on the right.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

and it's sad. But I can say that I've argued with some of my republcians friends about gas and oil. They had the crony opinion while I told them it didn't work that. Granted, these were rustic populist republcians more like Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs but conservatives nonetheless.

Ignorance abounds in all countries. People believe a lot of things whether the media debunk them or not. We could find many instances.

As for point one, that's just stupid. Like the kooks who think judgement day will happen in their lifetime and believe in Adam and Eve over dinosaur bones and evolution.

And the final one: seething partisan anger. Just like with Clinton...who I didn't think should have been impeached either. There were and are more important things to worry about.

Don't tread on me.

1. Believing Bush had the WTC wired with explosives or that they remote controlled a plane into the tower goes far beyond ignorance. 9/11 deniers, just like holocaust deniers, aren't just "ignorant" or "stupid." There is something seriously wrong with them.
2. You can bet the vast majority of those who think Bush is controlling energy prices are not voting for Republicans. I mean, really. Who is going to vote for the evil guy who is single-handedly ripping him off at the pump every day?
3. Clinton did actually commit a crime, and that is why he was impeached. Remember he lost his license to practice law as well, for the very same offense. It's pretty hard to come up with a crime that Bush committed without venturing into crazy tinfoil hat territory. (see #1)

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Those discussions did happen. Remember when the Senate held hearings about price gouging? Scarborough even got in on it thinking that there was foul play. These friends, avid republicans, believed it too.

I couldn't how many people actually believed anything would come of it. There are more populist "Lou Dobbs" republicans than you think. Come to small town America and you'll see that "Kudlow-Republicans" are in short supply.

BTW, I understand Clinton broke the law and was disbarred, I just thought, as many did, that it wasn't a very serious matter.

Don't tread on me.

when did Lou freakin Dobbs become a Republican?

I agree, doing something that gets you disbarred is actually pretty trivial. Criminey, there are lines of them standing outside everyday

What is he to you then?

He's a conservative republican last I checked.

Don't tread on me.

Republican? Maybe, it's a party with open membership. Conservative? Only from the point of view of you lefties who can't distinguish the various factions of the party.

But I'm doubtful of his Republican credentials, given his open support for John Forbes Kerry in 2004. Come on.. anyone who can support THAT man for dogcatcher isn't anywhere NEAR a conservative or any other kind of mainstream Republican.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.

of how many times you elude to me as a lefty whether directly or indirectly.

Libertarians are not "lefties"...they are "libertarians" to varying degrees. We seem "lefty" in some ways, "righty" in others. You simply identfy it has "lefty" because it differs with your point of view. Just as liberals identify me as "righty" when I differ with them.

"Left" is not defined as any political opinion that Neil Stevens does not agree with.

Dobbs: Dobbs is about as old-fashioned populist classic conservative as they come...a la Buchanan. He may not be a conservative like you but he's conservative nonetheless. I don't recall him supporting Kerry but if he did he holding his nose as protest vote to Bush. If he did, we wasn't the only one.

Story:

I remember watching Scarborough one night with his guests Kudlow, Buchanan and former Clinton guy Robert Reich. The topic was oil prices. Kudlow and Buchanan both conservatives were arguing so bad that Joe had to break it up. Both conservatives, yes. But different kinds.

You don't get to define labels...for what their worth. If you think loyalty to a party line makes you conservative or a mainstream republican, then I disagree and bluntly say you are wrong. I have lots of friends and family who republican and voted for Bush twice and yet are very unhappy with him...but their not switching parties.

My good friend with whom I always discuss politics is an avid loyal republican and doesn't like Bush or the job the congressional leaders are doing anymore. He defends the party's principles but makes no excuses. He criticizes them more than I do.

The only liberal I ever talk politics with is my girlfriend. And that isn't much fun because if go too far with her, I nothing but attitude and not much else so I only go into things we agree on and tip toe around the rest.

Don't tread on me.

but I know what he ain't. He ain't a conservative or Republican as the terms are commonly understood.

Check again.

Don't tread on me.

think a conservative ought to be.

No, it doesn't make any sense to me either, it is just one of those things you will have to learn to accept.

I live there. We aren't all a bunch of populists and isolationists that only vote for Republicans because we love guns and hate gays. Buchanan and his ilk are not as popular here or anywhere else as you are always making them out to be. Remember when he left the party and then came crawling back because nobody went with him?

BTW, I understand Clinton broke the law and was disbarred, I just thought, as many did, that it wasn't a very serious matter.

Well, I guess perjury isn't serious unless it's a nobody doing the perjury. I can assure you that if you or I tried the same thing we would've been in a lot more trouble than Bill got into. I think that's backwards. Elected officials should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, than the rest of us. The same goes for all those politicians that get convicted on bribery charges and get much less time than the folks who gave them the bribes.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

and getting disbarred was jutsice. I was referring more to the impeachment trials.

Don't tread on me.

perjury is considered a very serious crime indeed.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

And for all the squabbling amongst D's and R's, I've never heard any respectabe Dems take the gratuitous that Chavez has.

Only eight days before Durbin's remarks, Rangel, on New York City's WWRL radio, attacked Bush for the "fraudulent" case for his War in Iraq: "It's the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country. This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed [emphasis added]. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored." When the host asked Rangel to clarify, the congressman said, "I am saying that people's silence when they know terrible things are happening is the same thing as the Holocaust, where everyone would have me believe that no one knew those Jews were killed over there."

Chavez is a classless moron.

So how does that make him different from, say, Charlie Rangel?

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

There's an insanely bigger difference between Chavez and Dems than there is between Dems and Repubs. If you disagree with that, your partisanship had affected your better judgement.

A matter has got to be pretty blatant for me to defend Dems in a broad-brush manner but this is one of them. Our Demcratic Party, had very little in common, thank god, with Chavez's authoritarian socialism. I'll breathe in allergins over asbestos any day.

This is ridiculous. there's no "there" there.

Don't tread on me.

aren't qualified to vote on my judgment and I'd ask you to refrain from that in the future as a debate technique. If you really feel like you need to I'm sure there is a diary over at dKos just waiting to be written on the subject.

But to the point the fact that you'd prefer Rangel over Chavez implies you feel safer with a charter member of the hate-America society in the Congress than in Caracas. I, on the other hand, much prefer Chavez to Rangel because Chavez is honest and not in danger of chairing a House committee.

all of it. But I'll still vote in November. ;) qualified and all.

BTW, I'm not sure what debating techniques you're speaking of. This is when I get really irritated with many RSers. It's on policy, wonky tax discussions and other issues that actually matter, it's these silly tirades that result from my differing view of the political landscape, "game of politics" and all the branding its generalizations that come from it.

I don't bother with it DKos. I gave up on it a long time ago. Too much contrived hystera. But here, I guess I'm still naive enough to express my disagreement on such topics...only to get the same hostile, narrow reactions, though only 3 or 4 posts instead of 20 from seething liberals.

Don't tread on me.

the name of the site would be a dead giveaway that this was not a libertine website. If you don't like our politics it is kind of hard to think of a reason as to why you'd engage on strictly political issues and not keep to things like legal dope, etc.

I usually only jump in the wonkier policy threads on spending, tax and budgetary and governance issues.

I usually steer clear of the political red meat threads. They're not for me. I wind up getting into heated disagreements and remember that I'm not always on the same page as you all in terms of "politics"...which is very different from "policy". it's ironic though because politics is the marketing game you sell to enact or reform "policies".

I just couldn't resist on this thread because I found it so ridiculous. I should have left my first post and been with it.

this isn't worth it.

Don't tread on me.

Don't tread on me.

As a foreigner, Chavez is far less dangerous to our country than Rangel. Chavez can't lead impeachment proceedings against the President, he can't revoke the tax cuts that have kept the economy going, he can't defund the GWoT, and he can't take more of my hard earned money away from me. Rangel on the other hand has the potential to do all of that and more, and has explicitly stated he intends to do so if the dems regain the majority in the House.

who volunteer to lead the others to the block.

In Vino Veritas

The crocodile will eat them last.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

Harkin says the U.S. has put billions of dollars into the Iraq war, when it could be helping poor countries with things like clean water, medical aid and education.

... going into nice fat Swiss bank accounts and certain PACs maybe.

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

I agree. Even if Rangel and Pelosi made their statements for purely political reasons, I think they should be commended.

Meanwhile, if you want a really big laugh, check out the outraged and anguished howls from the denizens of the Democratic Underground.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

See The World In HinzSight!

It's a shame you can't explain why without the flippant responses.

I know it's a big "if"....if frogs had wings and all that....

1. The GWOT/Iraq is the far and away the biggest issue of the upcoming election cycles.

2. The GOP's main source of support from swing voters (that small segment of the population that actually decide their vote based on issues, not ideology or blind party loyalty) is because the GOP is seemingly serious about dealing with the threats to this nation.

3. If....there's that word again....the Dems came out tough on terrorism they would essentially nullify that issue with the swing voters.

To my mind, that could equal trouble for the GOP.

You see the "so-called war" as a wedge issue we are using to win elections, not as an actual war that our future depends upon. Nothing would make me happier to see the Democrats interested in fighting the GWOT, or at least not standing in the way (as someone else mentioned). Any negative effects to the political calculus would be a small price to pay for a united front on the GWOT.

As far as #2 goes, the ridiculous slam on everyone who doesn't vote a split ticket is stupid and unnecessary. You know, most of us do pay attention to the issues, and it isn't so that we know what positions to adopt so we can be in line with our party of choice.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

The vast majority of this country vote straight tickets. Swing voters have decided our last two national elections. They are the group that determines the winner.

Where did I say "so called war"?
It's a real war. There are people dying every day on both sides.

It would be a good thing for this nation if the two parties could unite to fight the terrorists. I'm glad you wouldn't have a problem losing some Congressional seats to see it happen. I think there are many others who would have a problem with that. For some folks, politics overrides all.

The vast majority of this country vote straight tickets.

So what? Does that mean they aren't voting on the issues? That they are just reflexively voting for the letter? Most people identify with the platform of one party over the other. The parties do stand for things. So it should hardly be surprising when people vote straight tickets.

Swing voters have decided our last two national elections. They are the group that determines the winner.

This is false. Base turnout is the most important factor in every election. If you don't turn out your base, it doesn't matter how popular you are with the swing voters. You have to start with the base. Bush 41, for example, did not have the base. Dole was pretty much a placeholder that didn't excite anybody anywhere.

Where did I say "so-called war"?

You didn't, but I've seen that reference made many times on the left. By those who think it's just a one sided deal... we are there for conquest, the oil, to distract people from the domestic agenda, or whatever other nefarious purpose would cause us to invade peace-loving countries that never did anything to us.

---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

Conventional wisdom says that swing voters determine elections. Heck even that arch-conservative nemesis of all time Tricky Dick Nixon ran to the right in the primary to win, than ran harder to the left to get the swing voters in the general election. He said as much.

Trouble is, swing voters have not determined the outcome of most of the elections in the past decade, possibly longer. What has determined the outcome of elections is the ability of the party to turn out its base. And W has done a very good job at that, so good in fact, that the Dems are still convinced he stole the first election, and will be stunned again when they still control neither branch of congress at the end of this one.

It's a shame you can't explain why without the flippant responses.

Here is a non-flippant explanation. There is a concept in marketing called "permission." It means that the public will give you permission to do a certain thing. This usually means that the public has some experience with your efforts in various areas, so they will "give you permission" to enter a new area. For example, Mercedes has permission to build a luxury SUV. Hyundai does not. If Hyundai builds and promotes a luxury SUV, they will have a heck of a time convincing people to buy it. Heinz has permission to make various kinds of food items, but Heinz audio components would be received skeptically.

The problem for Democrats is that they do not have permission to be strong on fighting terror. If they say they will do it, they sound like Hyundai telling us they have made a luxury car. Since at least the 1970's the Democrats have been unambiguously the anti-war, anti-military, cut-defense-spending alternative. Sometimes people want this; one reason Clinton got in was that the Cold War had ended and people figured the "peace party" was an OK choice for the times. And sure enough, Clinton got in there and cut defense spending. That was OK for the times; it's what people voted for.

The proportion of voters who arrived from the forest so recently that they do not know what the Democrat "brand" stands for is quite small. Such people could perhaps be persuaded by silver-tongued Democrats that it is safe to leave defense of the country in Democrat hands. But no one else would believe it. Democrats are the party of don't build the missile, don't fund the tank, cut the airplanes, pull the troops out, and hound defense contractors out of business. Democrat politicians have loudly and proudly favored that policy set for more than thirty years.

The Democrats no more have "permission" to be the "tough on terrorism" party than they have permission to enter the light truck market. They are free to try it, but they should expect to lose their shirts.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

Develop alternatives to existing policies and keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable. Milton Friedman

n/t

Dems get aggressive on fighting terror

Is there a Comedy Club in your town?

John
---------
True, you can sit outside in Paris and drink little cups of coffee, but why this is more stylish than sitting inside and drinking large glasses of whisky, I don't know.
P.J O'Rourke

I think many Democrats are so terrified they sign up for blogs which they abhor and act like trolls...

"Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori"

We're talking about the Dem's, like Charlie Rangle, who on June 6, 2005 on NYC's WWRL radio said:

It's [the Iraq War] the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country.

This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn't their ox that was being gored.

Hat tip to Larry Elder.

I will be mistaken for the Flying Nun before the Democrats are perceived to be "agressive on fighting terror". What a joke. Rangle, Kerry, Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, Boxer, and on and on and on...

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

You seem to be a lot of Democrats yourself. At least two; maybe more. I just torched both of your accounts. We don't do sock puppets around here. Please don't start a third identity; next time we block your IP address.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.