http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnist ... =110007905
Excerpts:
Exactly half the chamber repeatedly leapt to its feet to applaud this banality or that. The other half remained resolutely glued to its widely cushioned seats. It seemed a metaphor for the Democratic Party: We don't know where to stand or what to stand for, and in fact we're not good at standing for anything anyway, but at least we know we can't stand Republicans.
But the Democratic Party seems to be near imploding, and for that most humiliating of reasons: its meaninglessness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... 06_TB.html
EXCERPT:
But today's Democrats largely refuse to even admit that the problems President Bush is trying to solve even exist. They offer nothing. And this mentality was also on display Tuesday night in Congress. On most of the president's major pronouncements regarding our war against radical Islam, the Democrats sat on their hands.
Dems are IMPLODING
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
The dems are not necessarily the best organized group--and dealing with a republican dynasty that masterfully manipulates the media and public perceptions is something new and hard for the dems to learn how to deal with. Its only too easy to brand anyone a traitor and accuse them of not supporting the troops if they take the position of being against the war in Iraq. Of course, this openly flies in the face of the fact that increasing numbers of troops on the ground and fighting admit they are against the war in principal--but that does not prevent them from honorably answering the call to duty to serve their country and supporting their fellow troops in their units. They deserve our full support in as much that they deserve our best support for their sacrifices. But this does not mean we have to blindly agree to a flawed mission that continues to erode the resources of the country and the military.
The good news is that the DEms don't really have to take on the republicans directly--the Republican party itself is now distancing itself from the policies of the administration and its corrupt power PAC groups. DeLay's downfall and the election of a Gingrich-era leader are clear evidence of this.
The administration's continued attacks on public entitlement programs will definitely come back to bite the Republicans in the ass come election time, not to mention continue to erode the public's confidence in realizing the American dream of retiring in relative security.
marcoInThe Bunker
The good news is that the DEms don't really have to take on the republicans directly--the Republican party itself is now distancing itself from the policies of the administration and its corrupt power PAC groups. DeLay's downfall and the election of a Gingrich-era leader are clear evidence of this.
The administration's continued attacks on public entitlement programs will definitely come back to bite the Republicans in the ass come election time, not to mention continue to erode the public's confidence in realizing the American dream of retiring in relative security.
marcoInThe Bunker
Great Googly-moo!
.... a republican dynasty....
Now doesn't that have just a lovely sound to it??? Marc, I think that this is the most poignant, unbiased, and accurate assessment you have ever posted !!!
The Dems are in big big trouble, not because of masterful Repub media manipulation or spin, but because they cannot, or dare not, express what they would REALLY LIKE TO DO.....ie raise taxes and repeal tax cuts, surrender and appease in Iraq and the GWOT, spend even more on entitlements, and have unlimited abortions on demand. They are reflexively opposing everything that Bush proposes, while offering no positive agenda ( ie NO BETTER PLAN.....there I go again). Meanwhile, they spend immeasurable time and efforts trying to find some avenue to impeach Bush (Rathergate, Plamegate, NSAgate, Quailgate, Abramovgate, etc), which just is not going to happen, but when you have nothing better to offer, might as well use your time trying to destroy the opposition you cannot beat at the ballot box.
Marc, Joe, Mike, Christy, and others, at least you guys/gals have the courage of your convictions and openly call for tax increases and increases govt spending on entitlements, but as a political platform, your Dem pols have decided thus far NOT to make these positions the basis of their platform. Just to remind you, Clinton ran on a "middle class tax cut", got elected, then passed the largest tax increase in history....not unlike the new Virginia governor.
Hoping that the Repubs just "self-destruct" rather than developing a clear "democratic message" is just another recipe for Dem defeat in 2006. I am expecting more of the same failed strategy from the Dems again this year. Should be fun to watch......again....can't wait for November.
Marco
Now doesn't that have just a lovely sound to it??? Marc, I think that this is the most poignant, unbiased, and accurate assessment you have ever posted !!!
The Dems are in big big trouble, not because of masterful Repub media manipulation or spin, but because they cannot, or dare not, express what they would REALLY LIKE TO DO.....ie raise taxes and repeal tax cuts, surrender and appease in Iraq and the GWOT, spend even more on entitlements, and have unlimited abortions on demand. They are reflexively opposing everything that Bush proposes, while offering no positive agenda ( ie NO BETTER PLAN.....there I go again). Meanwhile, they spend immeasurable time and efforts trying to find some avenue to impeach Bush (Rathergate, Plamegate, NSAgate, Quailgate, Abramovgate, etc), which just is not going to happen, but when you have nothing better to offer, might as well use your time trying to destroy the opposition you cannot beat at the ballot box.
Marc, Joe, Mike, Christy, and others, at least you guys/gals have the courage of your convictions and openly call for tax increases and increases govt spending on entitlements, but as a political platform, your Dem pols have decided thus far NOT to make these positions the basis of their platform. Just to remind you, Clinton ran on a "middle class tax cut", got elected, then passed the largest tax increase in history....not unlike the new Virginia governor.
Hoping that the Repubs just "self-destruct" rather than developing a clear "democratic message" is just another recipe for Dem defeat in 2006. I am expecting more of the same failed strategy from the Dems again this year. Should be fun to watch......again....can't wait for November.
Marco
Marc stated: " Its only too easy to brand anyone a traitor and accuse them of not supporting the troops if they take the position of being against the war in Iraq. "
Marc,
Who was called a traitor by anyone in the Bush Administration.....can you provide a link to a quote making this assertion?
Marco
Marc,
Who was called a traitor by anyone in the Bush Administration.....can you provide a link to a quote making this assertion?
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
Maybe--but first you show me where I said the Bush Administration said it, my cherry-picking daddyo.Marco Zee wrote:Marc stated: " Its only too easy to brand anyone a traitor and accuse them of not supporting the troops if they take the position of being against the war in Iraq. "
Marc,
Who was called a traitor by anyone in the Bush Administration.....can you provide a link to a quote making this assertion?
Marco
Of course, it would be the height of hypocrisy to DENY that assertion. (And yes, Rummy and Cheney have used this con in response to opposition to a policy that they feel is benefitting the war effort--by saying opposing their policies aid the enemy).
Just where are the funds going to come from for the increasing conflicts in the MIdeast? How are we going to be able to go to war with the rest of the Arab world, as will inevitably be necessary as destabilization continues? We are spiraling down a whirlpool of deficit spending where the administration has clearly shown its preference for war-making and hand-aways to big business while ignoring the real plight of real Americans languishing as pensions, health care benefits and other entitlements are reduced or eliminated--let alone the failure to aid recovery for Katrina victims in the south.
The level of corruption and arrogant self-interest of the neo-con rule in this country is unprecededented in the history of our country--and could very well change the future of all Americans forever for the worse. You guys are on the bridge of the Titanic yelling "increase speed" rather than slow or turn with a huge deficit iceberg straight ahead.
MarcoNeroPartyOn
Great Googly-moo!
Marc,
I await your retrieval of that quote from someone from the "republican dynasty" calling one of your brethren "a traitor".
Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
Osama has stated that he would agree to a truce with the USA if the USA withdraws its troops from Iraq. Liberals, including Dean, Murtha, & Kucinich, have called and are continuing to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Are these men traitors? Of course not. But certainly their views on the Iraq war are not inconsistent with Osama's desires.
To point out this obvious congruence of thought between Osama and these Liberals is simply a statement of reality, not a smear on someone's patriotism.
I ask anyone: what is a legitimate criticism of these Libs who want immediate withdrawal, as Osama (and Saddam) have requested? Is it unfair to point out that thier positions are similar to those advocated by OBL, or a fair criticism?
As for the deficit and debt, I have advocated freezing spending until the budget becomes balanced. In fact, I have advocated true spending cuts to balance the budget, but neither party has the courage to make these cuts, which most consider "political suicide". So freezing the budget, while imperfect, is a more realistic option.
Marco
I await your retrieval of that quote from someone from the "republican dynasty" calling one of your brethren "a traitor".
Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
Osama has stated that he would agree to a truce with the USA if the USA withdraws its troops from Iraq. Liberals, including Dean, Murtha, & Kucinich, have called and are continuing to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Are these men traitors? Of course not. But certainly their views on the Iraq war are not inconsistent with Osama's desires.
To point out this obvious congruence of thought between Osama and these Liberals is simply a statement of reality, not a smear on someone's patriotism.
I ask anyone: what is a legitimate criticism of these Libs who want immediate withdrawal, as Osama (and Saddam) have requested? Is it unfair to point out that thier positions are similar to those advocated by OBL, or a fair criticism?
As for the deficit and debt, I have advocated freezing spending until the budget becomes balanced. In fact, I have advocated true spending cuts to balance the budget, but neither party has the courage to make these cuts, which most consider "political suicide". So freezing the budget, while imperfect, is a more realistic option.
Marco
-
Flying Lobster
- Posts: 1042
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:17 pm
OK--I'll take you up on your challenge. I absolutely maintain that Bush himself accused those who oppose his policy(s) as "giving comfort to the enemy" which is a verbatim description of treason in the US constitution.Marco Zee wrote:Marc,
I await your retrieval of that quote from someone from the "republican dynasty" calling one of your brethren "a traitor".
Let me see if I understand what you are saying.
Osama has stated that he would agree to a truce with the USA if the USA withdraws its troops from Iraq. Liberals, including Dean, Murtha, & Kucinich, have called and are continuing to call for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Are these men traitors? Of course not. But certainly their views on the Iraq war are not inconsistent with Osama's desires.
To point out this obvious congruence of thought between Osama and these Liberals is simply a statement of reality, not a smear on someone's patriotism.
I ask anyone: what is a legitimate criticism of these Libs who want immediate withdrawal, as Osama (and Saddam) have requested? Is it unfair to point out that thier positions are similar to those advocated by OBL, or a fair criticism?
As for the deficit and debt, I have advocated freezing spending until the budget becomes balanced. In fact, I have advocated true spending cuts to balance the budget, but neither party has the courage to make these cuts, which most consider "political suicide". So freezing the budget, while imperfect, is a more realistic option.
Marco
But you and your neo-con buddies can rejoice every day in a circle-jerk as more troops die needlessly, more people suffer domestically, more tax-payer money is wasted in payolla pork-barrel buy-offs of congressmen, more of the environment is destroyed, and more of the country's future is bankrupted in the name of record profits for the elite. But hey--as long as nobody has a better plan, well fuck-all and screw 'em!
marcoTheWorldIsMyToilet
Great Googly-moo!
may i reply for you marco?Flying Lobster wrote:
But you and your neo-con buddies can rejoice every day in a circle-jerk as more troops die needlessly, more people suffer domestically, more tax-payer money is wasted in payolla pork-barrel buy-offs of congressmen, more of the environment is destroyed, and more of the country's future is bankrupted in the name of record profits for the elite. But hey--as long as nobody has a better plan, well fuck-all and screw 'em!
marcoTheWorldIsMyToilet
(only a rhetorical question, don't ya know )
dear Mr. 'marcoTheWorldIsMyToilet',
TISK! TISK!
signed,
yours truly,
anonamorose
i'm working up a new style, so i beg your forbearance.
i'm thinking of trying a new nom de plume ( to replace markemX ) that would be reflective of the new nature, yet retain some continuity with the name alliteration/confusion/bastardization of the past.
perhaps...' marquetry ' ?
the dictionary definition is as follows:
"decorative work in which elaborate patterns are formed by the insertion of pieces of material into a wood veneer that is then applied to a surface."
i'm not sure though, the name may have not been used yet, but... (ignoring the single word 'wood' in the definition) the style seems hauntingly familiar and may be just too derivative.
i'm thinking of trying a new nom de plume ( to replace markemX ) that would be reflective of the new nature, yet retain some continuity with the name alliteration/confusion/bastardization of the past.
perhaps...' marquetry ' ?
the dictionary definition is as follows:
"decorative work in which elaborate patterns are formed by the insertion of pieces of material into a wood veneer that is then applied to a surface."
i'm not sure though, the name may have not been used yet, but... (ignoring the single word 'wood' in the definition) the style seems hauntingly familiar and may be just too derivative.