In a span of 90 minutes Tuesday, three prominent Democrats offered competing visions of how to proceed in Iraq and displayed how difficult it will be to turn what was once the Republican Party's strongest asset into its electoral downfall.

Look the Dems couldn't get it together in San Diego. After "Duke" (R) was jailed
for taking millions of dollars of bribes the media seem to think that the Republican who won the race, did so narrowly. If there should have been a given, for the Democrats to demonstrate that they are anything more than the party of whiners, this was it. Don't forget, also, that the Demos heavily supported McCluckey against Pombo and they lost that one BIG TIME. They conveniently ignore the fact that the Minutemen candidate won 5% of the vote. Had a greenie won 5% of the vote you can bet that the democrat media would have made that front page news.

In another race, for Virginia senate, the Democrats had to run a "former" Republican against an "unabashed Liberal". Webb, the Republican beat the Liberal Democrat in the Democrat Primary. So the democrats have to run from their own liberal faction.

Remember when the Democrat won the governorship there? It was a harbringer of the fall of the Republican party in the United States and conservatism in the world. (Never mind that Virginians typically have a Democratic governor.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton told a gathering of nearly 2,000 liberals that the war was a "strategic blunder" but warned it would not be in the nation's interest to "set a date certain'' for withdrawal.

She was followed by House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, who told the same group the war was a "grotesque mistake" and that troops should be withdrawn "at the earliest practical date."


Moments later, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's standard bearer in 2004, said he had made a mistake by voting to authorize the president to use military force in Iraq, and he called for a "hard and fast deadline" for troop withdrawal.

Three "liberal" democratic leaders speaking to the same group of 2,000 libbies and they can't even talk to each other let alone to the nation with one voice.

That is because they know that they have no position on anything.

And here is the reason why:

The poll found that 51 percent of Americans still say it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq, a drop from nearly 60 percent at the end of last year. The new poll found that 48 percent believe the war is winnable, up from 39 percent in April.

The Democrats rely too much on public opinion polling which is the least important polling. The only polling that matters generally happens every year around November when people leave their homes, go to pre-assigned places based on where they live, cast a ballot, then return home. Democrats seem to have trouble grasping that.

The USA Toady/Gallup poll shows about a ten point swing in public opinion based on the fact that al-Zarqawi was killed.

Fickle.

Democrats:

If you have no core beliefs you are always going to look stupid trying to cater to every public opinion polls.

By comparison, a resolution written by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Petaluma calling on Bush to "develop and implement a plan to begin the immediate withdrawal" of troops, has attracted just 35 co-sponsors.

Lynn Woolsey, to her credit has been unwaveringly critical of the Iraq War and Bush, and is one of the biggest libbies in Congress (and quite ugly) can't even get a significant number of libbie dems to sign onto a libbie bill.

Kind of reminds me of how the Republicans gave that moron John Murtha the opportunity to vote for his cut-and-run" plan and the vote was 403-3. (Lynn Woolsey was one of the three that voted for that).

When Hillary was waffling the crowd:

Many booed. Hecklers began yelling, "Bring the troops home." And when Clinton had finished speaking, she was met by a loud chants of, "Bring the troops home, now!"


Geez, Hillary, you are at a libbie conference and getting booed?

What do you think mainstream America is going to do to you in 2008?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/06/14/MNGGBJDM6S1.DTL

Some actual policy debate isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's not as nausiating as the droids in the Republican party that are more interested in toeing the party line than doing what's right.

I anticipated this argument.

I anticipated this argument.

And?

What's wrong with differences of opinion within a party? Here in Canada, one of the problems that faced the federal Liberals when they were in power was that the party held a stranglehold over members of parliament and essentially disallowed things like free votes or penalizing Liberal MPs that voted their conscience instead of the party line. The arrogance of the Liberal party leadership putting party ideology ahead of democratic principles was unmitigated and a contributing factor as to why they now sit in Opposition.

I'd rather have politicians that actually act on the will of the people they serve rather than men like Jean Chretien or Karl Rove.

And?

And, this statement implies that on the other side of the aisle there is NO dissent.

Guess you haven't heard of John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

What's wrong with differences of opinion within a party?

Myopia is not difference of opinion.


Here in Canada, one of the problems that faced the federal Liberals when they were in power was that the party held a stranglehold over members of parliament and essentially disallowed things like free votes or penalizing Liberal MPs that voted their conscience instead of the party line.

Canada is not the US. In fact, we don't even have the same type of system.

See, here in the United States of America, we ACTUALLY get to vote for the leader, not a party who then puts some long-lived jerk into office.


The arrogance of the Liberal party leadership putting party ideology ahead of democratic principles was unmitigated and a contributing factor as to why they now sit in Opposition.

I don't care.

I'd rather have politicians that actually act on the will of the people they serve rather than men like Jean Chretien or Karl Rove.

Lets see, you compare the man who was elected (however stupidly) with a guy who is not elected.

Apples and spaceships.

And, this statement implies that on the other side of the aisle there is NO dissent.

Guess you haven't heard of John McCain, Arlen Specter, or Arnold Schwarzenegger?

Yes, and I know what happens to men like McCain that dare to step out of line: they're savaged by the Rove attack & smear machine.

Myopia is not difference of opinion.

Is every dissenting opinion "myopia" to you?

Canada is not the US. In fact, we don't even have the same type of system.

They're similar enough to make the point. Putting party ideology ahead of doing the right thing or even daring to offer differing opinions is simply retarded.

Lets see, you compare the man who was elected (however stupidly) with a guy who is not elected.

Apples and spaceships.

No, exactly the same thing. The two men are more alike than you apparently understand in their handling of those that dare dissent or step outside the party line.

They conveniently ignore the fact that the Minutemen candidate won 5% of the vote.


Jesus was crucified in Israel.


Had a greenie won 5% of the vote you can bet that the democrat media would have made that front page news.


Prostitution is a crime in 49 states.


Remember when the Democrat won the governorship there? It was a harbringer of the fall of the Republican party in the United States and conservatism in the world. (Never mind that Virginians typically have a Democratic governor.)



Guns use directed force from expanding gasses to propel a lead-based projectile!


The USA Toady/Gallup poll shows about a ten point swing in public opinion based on the fact that al-Zarqawi was killed.

Fickle.


George Bush said he didn't authorize the leaks before he authorized the leaks.


:rolleyes:

I don't respect DINOs[Democrats In Name Only],the Democratic Party will get nowhere by being Republican Lite.

John Kerry regets his votes for the war:rolleyes: ,it's easy to say that now,he [and Hillary] shouldn't have voted for this bullshit war in the first f----in' place.:mad:

Canada is not the US. In fact, we don't even have the same type of
system.
See, here in the United States of America, we ACTUALLY get to vote for
the leader, not a party who then puts some long-lived jerk into
office.

You do realize, I hope, that when we vote for president our votes don't count directly towards the election proces. The electoral college votes for the President. Meaning, in the US we don't directly elect our leaders either, at least in the executive branch of government.
And, in most parliamentary systems, if you vote for a third party that vote isn't thrown away. In the US, if 85% vote Dem or Repub, and 15% vote Independent, that 15% just wasted their vote. In a parliamentary system, they would have to structure the resulting government so that the 15% that voted independent is represented.
Canada and the US definitely have different systems. I'm not entirely convinced the US is better though. Definitely different however.

Yes, and I know what happens to men like McCain that dare to step out of line: they're savaged by the Rove attack & smear machine.




Just like any other Democrat that acts all stupid and shit.


Is every dissenting opinion "myopia" to you?
No, I made the distinction that there is a difference between dissent, which McCain does, and myopia which the Demos practice.


They're similar enough to make the point. Putting party ideology ahead of doing the right thing or even daring to offer differing opinions is simply retarded.

Sure and Canada's system is similar enough with Cuba's to make inane anaologies.

]Jesus was crucified in Israel.
Geez, even when you try to attempt to flatter me with your copying you are still wrong.

Not Israel.


Prostitution is a crime in 49 states.

Is Nevada the one that allows it?



Guns use directed force from expanding gasses to propel a lead-based projectile!

Put the business end in your mouth and check your theory.


George Bush said he didn't authorize the leaks before he authorized the leaks.


:rolleyes:

Well no, he didn't.

[QUOTE]You do realize, I hope, that when we vote for president our votes don't count directly towards the election proces.

You miss the point entirely, as usual.

It's funny that rightwingers, who's entire "plan" for Iraq was to bomb them, then move in, and they'd throw flowers and candy and dance in the street, who specifically said there's no need to plan for a long, drawn-out guerrilla war, because they just don't see it happening, are accusing other people of myopia.

Absolute lack of forsight, and they talk about myopia.

It's funny that rightwingers, who's entire "plan" for Iraq was to bomb them, then move in, and they'd throw flowers and candy and dance in the street, who specifically said there's no need to plan for a long, drawn-out guerrilla war, because they just don't see it happening, are accusing other people of myopia.

Absolute lack of forsight, and they talk about myopia.

I also remember how the country would be destroyed if Nader was elected, and then the guy they voted for is busily trying to fulfill that vision.

You miss the point entirely, as usual.
What point? I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by insulting the Canadian form of government really.

I anticipated this argument.

Did you anticipate this argument crushing the entire premise of your thread like a bug?

Democrats don't need a platform. All they have to do is appear less despicable than Republicans. Which is to say, they need to sit back and do nothing while the Republicans self-implode. I'd say that plan is working quite well...


Vote for Gridlock
It's the patriotic thing to do
Ronald Bailey


Today I'm going to do something that I have never done—I will vote in Virginia's Democratic Party primary. Oh sure, I've voted Democratic—once. That was for George McGovern back in 1972. I was 18 years old. Since then it's been a mix of Libertarian and Republican candidates for various local, state and federal offices. What is motivating me to do this? It's not the platforms of the Democratic primary candidates. Former Secretary of the Navy James Webb is protectionist-minded and his opponent businessman Harris Miller wants to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies. So my attraction is not to the candidates or their proposed policies, but to the idea of gridlocked government.

The Democrats are right about one thing—the Republicans on Capitol Hill have slithered into a comfortable culture of corruption. It's not just the corruption of too cozy relations with lobbyists, but it is also the corruption of power wielded without restraint. The federal budget under the Bush Administration—ably helped by the big spenders in the Republican House and Senate—is hemorrhaging money faster than LBJ's Great Society did. In addition, the Bush Administration and Congress revealed even more incompetence in their bungled response to the flooding of New Orleans by hurricane Katrina. Congress is wasting time on debating and voting on the Gay Marriage Amendment and the Flag Protection Amendment. And even worse, the Republican Congress supinely allowed the rise of an imperial presidency which authorizes wide-scale domestic spying, the torture, and indefinite detention of prisoners—policies that make the president into judge, jury, and jailer. The Bush Administration even asked the Department of Justice about the legality of halting the 2004 presidential elections in the event of a terrorist attack. Why? After all, the recent Iraqi elections were not halted because of terrorist attacks and Spain went ahead with its general election three days after the Madrid train bombing in March 2004. Finally, let's not forget the tragic mismanagement of the war in Iraq.

Last January, in my annual crystal ball column, I predicted: "A rising tide of voter disgust with corruption will toss the Republicans out of the U.S. House of Representatives in the November elections and a new blessed era of gridlocked government will begin." And there are promising signs that it might actually happen. On Sunday, the Washington Post reported that the Democrats are closing the fundraising gap with Republicans. The Post article points out that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has raised $6 million less than its Democratic counterpart. Also in six of the ten open House races, the Democratic candidates are out-raising their Republican opponents. The Democrats need to win 15 more seats to take over the House of Representatives.

It could happen. Polls show that the Republican Congress is in deep trouble with voters. Fewer than 30 percent of those polled in the last month believe that Congress is doing a good job. And according to a June 1 Quinnipiac University poll, voters think that President Bush is the worst president of the last six decades. Bush's unpopularity will likely boost Democratic candidates in 2006 Congressional races.


http://www.reason.com/links/links061306.shtml

What point? I'm not sure what you were trying to accomplish by insulting the Canadian form of government really.

I wasn't trying to insult the form of government that the Canadians enjoy.


I was merely asserting that comparing the two isn't such a great analogy.

Then you got all pedantic.

Seems that not everyone is happy with the manner of elections in Canada though:

Canada has followed the main practices of Westminster-style parlimentary democracy: a first-past-the-post electoral system, and APPOINTED upper house, and five-year parliaments which the prime minister can choose to dissolve earlier.

There is another aspect where the comparison really falls down. We elect our Senators through direct elections. (before you get out your history book to point out that that wasn't the way it always was-----I KNOW>)

Mr. Harper....unveiled bills under which elections would take place at fixed four-year intervals.


Mr. Harper said that these changes would remedy a "democratic defecit".

This is the leader of the Canadian people elected under their system saying this.

Is he just trying to put the electoral system of Canada down too? LOL



The above quotes are from the June 3rd issue of The Economist.

Did you anticipate this argument crushing the entire premise of your thread like a bug?

yes. It is a "Walgreen's World" from your viewpoint.

Democrats don't need a platform. All they have to do is appear less despicable than Republicans. Which is to say, they need to sit back and do nothing while the Republicans self-implode. I'd say that plan is working quite well...



http://www.reason.com/links/links061306.shtml

Gridlock?

The democrats ran a Republican in that race.

The democrats backed a Republican (in name only albeit) against Pombo.

Is gridlock democrats running Republicans?

That sounds like it will increase the Repub majority.

Gridlock?

The democrats ran a Republican in that race.

The democrats backed a Republican (in name only albeit) against Pombo.

Is gridlock democrats running Republicans?

That sounds like it will increase the Repub majority.

He left the Republican party. Why do you think he did that?

He left the Republican party. Why do you think he did that?

Because the Democrats were afraid that the liberal would define them as liberals.

Read the story.

Because the Democrats were afraid that the liberal would define them as liberals.

Read the story.

That doesn't explain why he left the Republican party, only why the Democrats accepted him.

Again: Why do you think he left the Republican party? The Democrats got a win. The winning candidate is a Democrat. He isn't a Republican. Why do you think the winner left the Republican party and joined the Democratic party?

Do either of you really think you're ever going to convince the other one that your party is better?

The Democrats aren't my party. I'm asking him to think this trough, and to try to figure out how people, people who are winning elections, are leaving the Republican party.

...right. The Democrats aren't your party, but you think the fact that one guy left the Repubs to join the Dems is proof positive that the Dems are the bestest party evar!! :rolleyes:

...right. The Democrats aren't your party, but you think the fact that one guy left the Repubs to join the Dems is proof positive that the Dems are the bestest party evar!! :rolleyes:

Did I say that, or are you making things up?

That's was feenian's argument. That the Republicans are just totally kicking ass because they're losing members, and that is "proof positive" that they're livin' high on the hog.

Okay, so what does one guy switching parties prove?

That his argument that the Democrats are a sinking ship based on people leaving the Republican party because it's moved too far to the right for them is silly. As the Republicans kept moving further and further to the right, attacking their own moderate wing as "RINOs" and actively trying to get them out of the party, they've opened up the option, which the Democrats are trying to sieze, of painting themselves as the mainstream, moderate party. If this guy, a successful moderate Republican, had to leave the GOP and join the Democrats, proves anything, it's that the Republicans have done themselves a lot of dammage.

Feenix, I don't think that Boo could have a "road to Damascus conversion", but you might be able to be saved.

Never give up hope.

You've dodged the question: If people who are winning office are doing so after abandoning the Republican party, why do you think they're abandoning the Republican party?

You've dodged the question: If people who are winning office are doing so after abandoning the Republican party, why do you think they're abandoning the Republican party?

What are you basing this assertion on?

The fact that where the dems targeted Repubs in San Diego and in Pombo's district they lost miserably?

What are you basing this assertion on?

The fact that where the dems targeted Repubs in San Diego and in Pombo's district they lost miserably?

. . .


In another race, for Virginia senate, the Democrats had to run a "former" Republican against an "unabashed Liberal". Webb, the Republican beat the Liberal Democrat in the Democrat Primary. So the democrats have to run from their own liberal faction.


They ran a Democrat. He used to be a Republican. The question is why you think people leaving the Republican party is a good sign for the Republicans? The Democrats are picking up middle ground while the Republicans push ever-further to the right. How is that positive for the GOP?

. . .



They ran a Democrat. He used to be a Republican. The question is why you think people leaving the Republican party is a good sign for the Republicans? The Democrats are picking up middle ground while the Republicans push ever-further to the right. How is that positive for the GOP?

Yawn.

Read.

Learn.


They ran a former Republican against a LIFELONG LIBERAL DEMORAT