Comments on: House Democrats’ Disunity & Their “Unimaginative” Agenda

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:54:01 +0000

#17 – NDXXX, it will take many years of libtards hitting themselves with the open door and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory before they even get a clue how out of touch they are with mainstream America.

So yeah, I’d guess maybe 2012 but don’t hold your breath.

Regards,
Peter H.

By: Calarato

Calarato — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:54:58 +0000

and “slated to” by whom? Kos who takes payola to hype candidates? LOL

By: North Dallas Thirty

North Dallas Thirty — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:42:28 +0000

The prize for political party most indebted to moonbats? You bet.

One of these days, lester, you’re going to figure out that fawning at the feet of people like Cindy Sheehan, who blame the Jews for world problems and send money and aid to terrorists attacking US soldiers and interests, is not a good idea.

I used to think it would happen after the third election in a row you lost (2000, 2002, 2004). Now I’m beginning to think it may be 2010 before you finally get it right.

By: lester

lester — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:41:59 +0000

democrats are slated to win and will win.

By: The Thunder Run

The Thunder Run — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:20:47 +0000

Web Reconnaissance for 06/23/2006…

A short recon of what?s out there that might draw your attention….

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 06:29:18 +0000

Funny that you should mention my Athena, Christopher. As it was reading Peggy’s column earlier this afternoon (THurs) which inspired me to write this post!

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 04:31:48 +0000

I think Peggy Noonan was spot on this morning in her column where she wrote:
“On the Democratic side, it is not just as bad but worse. They don’t only think they’re more sophisticated than their base, more informed and aware of the complexities. I believe they think their base is mad.
You can see their problem in their inability to get a slogan. Which, believe me, is how they think of it: a slogan. “Together for a Better Future.” “A Future With Better Togetherness.” Today for a better tomorrow, tomorrow for a better today.

A party has a hard time saying what it stands for only when it doesn’t know what it stands for. It has trouble getting a compelling slogan only when it has no idea what compels its base. Or when it fears what compels it.”

I find it difficult to worry about a party going over the cliff taking control of Congress.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:51:03 +0000

Like Yetis, Sasquatch, and Nessie, the spectres of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Murtha (un-indicted co-conspirator in the Abscam scandal) are useful figments to frighten small children into eating their oatmeal.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 01:58:06 +0000

Gryph, I think you’re right; ifthere were a serious third party slate, it could do quite well this year.

By: Bruce (GayPatriot)

Bruce (GayPatriot) — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 00:36:36 +0000

If you say it really fast…. it sounds like “Nude Erection for America.”

Of course then you picture Teddy Kennedy and Robert Byrd…. and you get all “Ewwwww!”

By: Patrick (Gryph)

Patrick (Gryph) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 23:44:54 +0000

Actually GPW, I think that with the current “get out of Iraq” stunt the Democrats have so brilliantly carried off in the last week, that they have screwed any chance of the Democratic Party having any real voice in Government for at least the next 10 years.

However….

As you have pointed out, there are also some fractures in the GOP majority. Who knows how that will play out? I think that the social conservative card may be overplayed next election, if it has not been already. The rhetoric isn’t going to sound so inflaming when the American public hears it the second time around. Rove is becoming the child who cried wolf (or “EEK! The Homosexuals Are Coming to Get You!)” too many times. And he doesn’t seem to get that.

Really, if ever there were a time that either a third party or slate of independent candidates, or the Lieberman’s and McCain’s, could come in and wield some real power, it might after the next election. Probably not by winning a majority, but by winning enough clout to split the Congress three ways on some issues. Thats what is starting to happen now.

In my district of course, I have Rep. R-Buck McKeon, who’s primary claim to fames seems to be bringing back pork-filled Easter Eggs for Santa Clarita. So I’ll be voting for Martha Stewart as a write-in candidate. At least she will know how to decorate them better.

By: Ed of Tampa

Ed of Tampa — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:46:36 +0000

I agree with #1 and I am a voting Democrat that will vote GOP in every race in my local!

& Yes #5, the Democrats have always had an agenda:
a. Raise Taxes
b. Impeach President Bush
c. I will use their words “REDEPLOY” forces in Iraq, wink, wink!
d. Mislead the Gay & Lesbian community to support them.
e. Open borders (course that’s Bush’s plan too, that hate him so much they can’t even admit they agree with him on it).
f. Apolgize to all the Muslims, especially the terrorists.
g. Advocate for MORE liberal Judges so they can ensure the at least control the judiciary.
h. etc. etc.

I WILL STAY A DEMOCRAT UNTIL AFTER THE 2008 RACE! THEN GOING INDEPENDENT BUT WILL ALWAYS BE CONSERVATIVE!

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 22:37:17 +0000

Gryph, follow the links in the post above; it\’s not much of an agenda. Lester, go back and check the Contract with American, you\’ll see it\’s far more than an anti-everything agenda (as you allege).

By: lester

lester — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:45:25 +0000

the contract with america republicans were largely anti-everything too. as it turns out all the things they DID believe in , “finishing the job” in Iraq, reforming social security, bringing honour back to the white house (lol ) they were totally incompetent at when given the chance to implement them. because they aren’t / weren’t good ideas.

By: Patrick (Gryph)

Patrick (Gryph) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:44:36 +0000

The Democrats actually HAVE an agenda? Naw… you are joshing me.

By: Ted B. (Charging Rhino)

Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:39:23 +0000

While the Democrats are only-against issues, there’s one big problem; many of the moderates are pissed-off at the Republicans. Several otherwise Republian voters that I have talked to in the last few weeks are going to vote-against our incumbent Congressman, regardless that the Democratic candidate is a certified anti-war, socialist union-activist. The electorate here is just fed-up with the current Congressman and the Republicans in-general; and are willing to withstand one or two terms of left-wing nitwits just to get rid of the current crowd. They have rationalized that the Democrats can’t do “that much” damage if they are in for a few terms…especially after the profligate spending and the scandalous earmarks of this Congress.

They know that Pelosi et al are screaming moonbats, but they just want the incumbents OUT!

Get a load of my Democratic Party candidate; http://www.carolgayforcongress.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=more_14534§ion=more_14534
…And she just might get elected.

Psst, I think she’s a closeted-lesbian…

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:13:45 +0000

#2 – lester, get a clue. How can campaigning AGAINST a party ever help a party that was never FOR anything? You guys can’t even agree on an Iraq withdraw resolution!

That sucking sound you hear is lester, ian, raj, rightiswrong and all other moonbats gasping for air as their party is being deflated…

Regards,
Peter H.

By: lester

lester — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 21:02:57 +0000

this is the new contract for america and the democrats are campaigning against a similarly corrupt party. and polls of Iraqis, americans and even US troops show democrats are way ahead of the curve on the timetable issue. The animosity towards Bush is very appropriate, he’s the worst president in American history.

By: Peter Hughes

Peter Hughes — Thu, 22 Jun 2006 20:53:30 +0000

And that, dear readers, is why the GOP will retain both houses of Congress. You read it here first from me.

Regards,
Peter H.