Ignore this website!
http://www.evilgopbastards.com/
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=how_deep__is__your_love
How Deep Is Your Love?
Republicans are up to their usual tricks -- questioning the patriotism of their opponents. The media, as usual, is playing along because it lauds political success, not virtue.
Paul Waldman | May 6, 2008 | web only
In September of 1988, the presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush decided to demonstrate that their Connecticut Brahmin candidate was positively turgid with patriotism, particularly in comparison to his opponent (a guy with a name that was just too ethnic). So they sent Bush to a flag factory in Verona, New Jersey, where he lovingly fondled Old Glory for the cameras. To any reasonable observer, it was just too much. But Roger Ailes, Lee Atwater, and the rest of the Bush brain trust didn't mind a bit of criticism. They made their point.
It was not the first time a Republican campaign made the argument that their candidate loved America like all good Americans do, while their opponent might not. And more and more, the current campaign, at least from the Republican side, is shaping up like pretty much like every other presidential campaign of the last forty years. You've got your lack of patriotism charges, your elitism charges, your race-baiting, your fear-mongering – all the carefully prepared dishes from the GOP campaign menu. The current target of the patriotism attacks is Barack Obama, but have no doubt that if Hillary Clinton is nominated these particular cannons will be quickly shifted in her direction -- you may have noticed that she does not wear a flag pin!
With a naïveté that might be charming if it did not have real consequences, many Democrats think that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain just has too much integrity to claim that his opponent is somehow less than truly American. Veteran Democratic consultant Jim Jordan, for instance, was quoted in Sunday's Washington Post speculating that John McCain might not "be the kind of man who would play this kind of dishonorable campaign against someone." But we don't have to wonder about whether McCain is too honorable to wield this attack, because he already has.
Like the man he wants to replace, McCain is implementing a strategy based on a division of labor. The most despicable lies (Obama was educated in a fundamentalist madrasah! He refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance!) circulate in anonymous emails and on right-wing websites (and rest assured, right now a team of conservative operatives is assembling a slander strike team on the model of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth). These lies are then blasted, in only slightly less insane form, from every instrument in the right-wing noise machine's marching band, including talk radio and Fox News (and the occasional nincompoop politician).
Finally, you have the candidate himself, who will not come right out and say the things his supporters are saying, but will find ways to cue discussions of his opponent's patriotism by dropping in subtle and not-so-subtle hints on the topic. McCain has already aired ads calling himself "the American president Americans have been waiting for," thereby suggesting that other candidates are either not Americans themselves, or might be the American president foreigners have been waiting for. He has also said, referring to Obama, "I think it's very clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States." (A side note: given how good the Bush presidency has been for Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, and pretty much every terrorist group on the planet, there can be little doubt that they'd be much happier with the guy who wants to stay in Iraq and generally continue the Bush foreign policy.)
So there's no need to wonder whether McCain's hand will be stayed by the conscience we have been led to believe lies somewhere within him. He flip-flopped on immigration, the Bush tax cuts, and ethanol because he wants to be president and he knows this is his last chance. He sucked up to repellent radical clerics like Jerry Falwell, John Hagee, and Rod Parsley for exactly the same reason. And if he thinks that attacking his opponent's patriotism is what will get him to the White House, he'll do that too.
You won't, of course, see anyone in the press condemn the Republican nominee for this, and not just because John McCain could strangle a puppy while taking a hit from a crack pipe, and David Broder and Chris Matthews would say it shows what a straight-talking maverick he is. No, the reason the press won't condemn it isn't because of their love for McCain, but because of their absolutely bottomless cynicism. No attack is considered too low, no tactic too unethical. The only question is whether it works. If it does, they will praise it; the only thing they condemn is political failure.
So the Democratic nominee will have to find novel ways to demonstrate his or her patriotism. But what would a president with insufficient patriotism look like? Other qualities we want in a president might be assessed for their relative quantity. Judgment, wisdom, foresight, morality -- of these, it would seem you can't have too much, and the more you've got the better. Yet we're supposed to believe that at some point, an adviser would say to President Obama, "Sir, this is what's best for America," at which he would finger his empty lapel and reply, "America? Eh."
Perhaps the general election debates should feature some sort of patriotism-off, in which the two candidates engage in a competition to prove the depths of their love for this great land of ours. Renditions of "The Star Spangled Banner" could be compared, with extra points given if the candidate cries actual tears. Candidates would then be given a blue towel, a white towel, and a single sewing needle; first one to produce a proper flag, using his or her own blood to dye the red stripes wins. That covers the "American Idol" and "Project Runway" portions of the competition -- don't ask about the dancing.
If the primary debates are any measure, what we'll see in the general election may not be much more edifying, so long as the agenda is being set by the collection of bottom-feeders that populate our press corps (to take just one recent example, when Obama appeared on last Sunday's "Meet the Press," Tim Russert spent the first fifteen minutes asking him question after question about Jeremiah Wright, as though there could possibly be anything more to say on the subject). Again and again, the "issue" of flag pins and the location of hands relative to hearts will be solemnly raised, all justified by the fact that the lamest and most dishonest attacks are "out there." None of it will have anything to do with what the next holder of the world's most powerful post will actually do once reaching office.
But of course, that isn't really the point. Republicans don't raise these attacks every four years because they truly believe that their exists some real relationship between a president's degree of patriotic fervor and the good he'll do for America. Instead, it's one more way of arguing that the Democratic candidate isn't "one of us," that he stands outside the circle of our tribe. He doesn't share our values, he doesn't speak our language, he doesn't love what we love and hate whom we hate.
And there's one more reason they'll be making these attacks, just as they did in the last election, and the one before that, and the ones before that: because it works.
Ha Ha .... How deep is YOUR love?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10238.html
Politico: GOP getting crushed in polls, key races
John McCain is planning to run as a different kind of Republican. But being any kind of Republican seems like some sort of death sentence these days.
In case you've been too consumed by the Democratic race to notice, Republicans are getting crushed in historic ways both at the polls and in the polls.
At the polls, it has been a massacre. In recent weeks, Republicans have lost a Louisiana House seat they had held for more than two decades and an Illinois House seat they had held for more than three. Internal polls show that next week they could lose a Mississippi House seat that they have held for 13 years.
In the polls, they are setting records (and not the good kind). The most recent Gallup Poll has 67 percent of voters disapproving of President Bush; those numbers are worse than Richard Nixon's on the eve of his resignation. A CBS News poll taken at the end of April found only 33 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the GOP — the lowest since CBS started asking the question more than two decades ago. By comparison, 52 percent of the public has a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
Things are so bad that many people don't even want to call themselves Republicans. The Pew Research Center for the People & the Press has found the lowest percentage of self-described Republicans in 16 years of polling.
"The anti-Republican mood is fairly big, and it has been overwhelming," said Michigan Republican Party Chairman Saul Anuzis.
With an environment so toxic, does McCain have even a chance of winning in November?
See Also
Limbaugh: 'My impact will increase'
Under Clinton's rules, Obama still wins
Why the Obama-Clinton ticket is nuts
The McCain camp thinks so — but only if he sands down the "R" next to his name. "Nobody ever gets elected president by running on their party label," said Charlie Black, a senior McCain adviser. "The character, the qualities, the independence — that certainly allows him to rise over the party label. It is more important than usual to rise above the party label."
This statement seems a little at odds with the current McCain strategy. The presumptive GOP nominee has spent much of the recent campaign fastening himself to the traditional Republican brand and even to Bush himself. McCain's views on the war, the overall economy (especially supporting the Bush tax cuts he previously opposed), the mortgage crisis and judicial appointments are hardly the stuff of a new kind of Republicanism.
McCain risks looking inauthentic and conventional to both camps if he simply solidifies his standing with conservatives and then races back to the middle to appeal to swing voters.
For now, Republicans are heartened by how well McCain sometimes does in head-to-head polling with Barack Obama, the likely Democratic nominee. But it's silly to watch those numbers: They fluctuate and reflect nothing more than momentary feelings about the candidates, and they come at a time when public attention is fixed on the final rounds of the Democratic slugfest.
Right now, most voters with any familiarity with McCain probably know him as a war hero, somewhat of a maverick in the Senate and a pretty affable candidate. Let's see how they view McCain after Democrats use their decisive money advantage to paint him as a much-older Bush clone who loves an unpopular war and knows little about the economy.
Democrats provided us a look at their polling data from 17 swing states — data they're using to craft new attacks on McCain as Bush 44. The Democratic National Committee polling, according to a memo it provided, has two-thirds of swing voters expecting McCain to pursue policies very similar to Bush's. The voters' top three concerns about McCain: his age, his support for the war and his similarities to Bush.
The latest DNC ad ties two of the three together, slamming McCain over the war and showing a picture of him embracing Bush. Lots more to come on that front, DNC officials said. The DNC will leave the age issue alone for now.
Many top Republicans seem heartened by Obama's likely victory on the Democratic side. They say they're confident Obama will pay a big price for his relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the persistent questions about his patriotism and his inability to connect with working-class whites in swing states.
These are all big problems for Obama. But he will have a massive cash advantage when it comes time to fight back, and the Republican National Committee's fundraising edge over the DNC won't be enough to overcome it. Consider this fact: Since the beginning of last year, Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton and the DNC have raised $460 million total — about $200 million more than what McCain, Mitt Romney and the RNC raised together in the same time span.
Rich liberals operating outside the traditional fundraising structure are also in private talks to vastly outspend the GOP on issue ads and voter mobilization efforts.
Still, McCain's biggest problem is the toxic political atmosphere for his party.
It's so toxic, some Republicans are pointing to 1976 as a favorable historical comparison. That was the year Gerald Ford ran in the dark shadows of Watergate and lost to Jimmy Carter. Says Dick Wadhams, the chairman of the Colorado Republican Party: "When voters really homed in on the choice between Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter and what each stood for, Gerald Ford almost won the election despite this horrible environment."
Tax Free yachts brought to you by those left coast Repugs!
The California Republican Party's answer to a $20 billion budget deficit?
Tax loopholes for yacht owners.
Watch our new ad and sign up for Courage Campaign updates on the "Yacht Party"
Q: What is the "Yacht Party"?
What else would you call the California Republicans who decided to support an appalling tax loophole for yacht purchasers while our state is facing a massive
$20 billion budget deficit and teachers are getting pink slips? The Republicans earned this new brand. Credit California bloggers for this good piece of snark.
Q: How does this yacht tax loophole work?
Say you live in California and you just can't live without a new yacht. So you buy one. If you want to stiff the state on your sales tax, you simply stash the boat
out of the state for 90 days. Poof, you don't have to pay your taxes like the rest
of us. Nice, eh?
Q: Why does the yacht tax loophole (sloophole) matter?
If we close this loophole, the state would bring in about $26 million. It is a relatively small sum given how massive the budget deficit is, but with our
economy in free-fall and schools and parks being closed, every dollar counts.
We shouldn't be protecting the personal profits of yacht and private jet
purchasers when California's future is in jeopardy. Not to mention that the state and its workers are losing out on any renovation work these new owners want done to their new boats, which is now done out of the state, or country.
Q: Why didn't the Republicans repeal it?
Beats the heck out of us. They had two chances to repeal it in the Assembly (on February 15th & 19th) and the members either "took a walk" or voted against repealing the loophole. The California Constitution requires a 2/3rds majority vote to our change taxes. That means we need a few Republicans to do the right thing. With California facing a catastrophic budget crisis, they failed to repeal this outrageous loophole.
Q: Why not the "Yacht & Private Jet Party"?
This loophole covers both airplane and yacht owners, but really it is much more fun to just call them the "Yacht Party," don't you think?
Q: How can I help you air this ad on TV?
Click here to contribute and help us brand the Republicans as the "Yacht Party". It sure is a lot snappier than "Grand Old Party" (GOP).
Q: How else can I help?
Sign-up below to get more information from the Courage Campaign as we continue to work to change the conversation in Sacramento and make 2008 a new era for progressive politics.
http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/yachtparty
Can you please use some bizarre color choices to go along with all your random font sizes.
It's painful. I know.
You Might Be A Democrat If...
• You own something that says, "Dukakis for
President, " and still display it.
• You've ever said, "We really should call the ACLU
about this."
• You believe that a few hundred loggers can find
another career, but the defenseless spotted owl must live in its preferred tree.
• You ever based an argument on the phrase, "But
they can afford a tax hike because..."
• You keep count of how many people you know in each
racial or ethnic category.
• You believe our government must do it because everyone
in Europe does.
• You can't talk about foreign policy without using the
word conspiracy.
• You think Ralph Nader makes a lot of sense.
• You don't understand why anyone was bothered by
Jane's trip to Hanoi.
• You think solar energy is being held back by those
greedy oil companies.
• You've never been mugged.
• You actually expect to collect Social Security.
• You think the State of Florida should have tried to
reform Ted Bundy.
• You think the Great Society has actually worked.
• You don't see the similarity between WONK and WANK.
• You got teary-eyed during the film "The American
President."
• You think Ayn Rand is an African currency.
• Your house smells like a garbage dump because of your
commitment to recycling.
• You think political patronage describes the Kennedy
family.
• Your High School Year Book goals included the words
"help people."
• You think the Free Market is where they hand out
Government cheese.
• You think Carter should be on Mt. Rushmore.
• You believe personal injury lawyers when they say
they are just trying to defend the little guy.
• You know that those profit mongering drug companies
could find a cure for AIDS if they really wanted to.
• You actually believe the NY Times and Washington
Post.
• You know at least one Vegan.
• You trust Teddy Kennedy when he said that she was
driving.
• You'd rather own Birkenstock than Merck Stock.
• You think public housing is great, but just NIMBY.
• You think the anti-war protestors from '60s are the
real heroes.
• You think that Supply Side Economics refers to your
dope dealer's stash.
• You think Michael Jackson is a great example of
diversity.
• You actually think that poverty can be abolished.
• You think that Joan Baez had something to say.
• You admire the Swedish welfare system.
• You know that Jefferson really meant to say
"Entitled to Happiness."
• You think the Flat Tax should be at 95%
• You go to Gay Pride Day parades so that no one can
call you homophobic.
• After looking at your pay stub you can still say,
"America is undertaxed."
NO? CAN THIS BE?
Republicans fear public has lost confidence
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-14-gopfallout_N.htm
By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Republicans must regain the confidence of Americans and recast their message to voters to avoid a catastrophe in the fall congressional elections, top GOP officials said Wednesday in a stark postmortem of a loss in rural Mississippi.
Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who runs the committee tasked with helping elect Republicans to Congress, said Tuesday's defeat in Mississippi — after losing GOP seats in other special elections in Illinois and Louisiana — was evidence that "a large section of the American people doesn't have confidence in the Republican Party."
Mississippi: Dem wins House seat in special election
"What we've got right now is a deficiency in our message and a loss of confidence by the American people to do what we say we're going to do," Cole said in a conference call with reporters.
He said, "When you lose three of these in a row, you have to get beyond campaign tactics and take a long hard look: Is there something wrong with your product?"
Cole did not elaborate on potential defects, but Democrats had a ready answer.
"The Republican message is 'no, veto, and status quo,' " said Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. He said Republicans couldn't win in Mississippi even though they poured $1 million into the race, sent Vice President Cheney to campaign and tried to link Democratic candidate Travis Childers to the controversy over Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's former pastor.
Obama mentioned Childers' victory in a speech in Michigan. "This is a hard-core Republican seat, and they lost it by 8 points. They did everything they could. They ran ads with my face on it."
In a memo to GOP leaders posted on Politico's website, retiring Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., offered a blunt verdict: "The Republican brand is in the trash can. ... If we were a dog food, they would take us off the shelf."
"This is as bad as it gets for any party," said David Wasserman, House editor of the Cook Political Report, which tracks each race. "I've never seen a more defeated tone." Nevertheless, Wasserman said, his analysis shows the Democrats will pick up far fewer districts than they did in the 2006 election, when they gained 31 seats. He estimates the Democrats will gain five to 10 seats in the fall. "Democrats won most of the low-hanging fruit in 2006," he said.
Democratic leaders, not surprisingly, have a different view. They hope to capitalize on their winning formula in Mississippi and Louisiana, where their candidates' cultural conservatism played well.
"This clearly is a sign that there is no congressional district that is safe for Republican candidates who are following in the Bush shadow," said Van Hollen, whose committee has $44.3 million on hand, compared with $7.2 million for Cole's National Republican Congressional Committee.
Davis called the atmosphere for House Republicans "the worst since Watergate and is far more toxic than the fall of 2006."
House Republicans met with Cole in the Capitol to sift through the ashes of defeat in Mississippi's 1st District, which became vacant when Republican Roger Wicker was appointed to the Senate to replace retiring Republican Trent Lott. House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the result "a wake-up call." But there is no consensus on how to fix it.
Former speaker Newt Gingrich has urged House Republicans to come out with a series of dramatic proposals, including a moratorium on congressionally directed spending items known as earmarks. His ideas were not widely embraced.
Boehner is rolling out an "American Families Agenda" this week focusing on national security, tax cuts, balancing the budget and boosting domestic oil production.
The sleepy people.....well, they'll wake up Nov. 5th and figure out all their redistricting and gerrymandering backfired because they never thought in a million years a black man would lead %95 of black voters to the booths and nullify their plans of erradicating the African American sector where only %35 normally vote.
Just like the war, the economy, the environment, and justice, they know not the right way to accomplish much good. Failed policies and nothing short of fear mongering make bipartisanship unlikely.
The world we live in is filled with enemies. A hysterical diatribe is inapropriate. Avenues of communication must be maintained. The republicans better wake up and ditch their current dirt. They need to learn to follow the will of the people.
Gonna be many Repugnant losers come fall..... many die hards at TulsaNow seem to have jumped ship already.
Contests for Senate Signal Big Trouble for GOP
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/331699
"As it turns out, a review of polling data from around the country makes it obvious that a lot more than three seats could fall to the Democrats. "
Just breaks my heart....
With Congress' approval rating at about 12%, I'm surprised ANY incumbents would be doing well in the polls. Pelosi and Reid have been nothing but impotent blow-hards, not any better than what they replaced.
No one in DC seems to care anymore. That is what's disappointing.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
With Congress' approval rating at about 12%, I'm surprised ANY incumbents would be doing well in the polls. Pelosi and Reid have been nothing but impotent blow-hards, not any better than what they replaced.
No one in DC seems to care anymore. That is what's disappointing.
People just hate the other 434 Representatives and 98 Senators that DON'T represent them.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
With Congress' approval rating at about 12%, I'm surprised ANY incumbents would be doing well in the polls. Pelosi and Reid have been nothing but impotent blow-hards, not any better than what they replaced.
No one in DC seems to care anymore. That is what's disappointing.
People just hate the other 434 Representatives and 98 Senators that DON'T represent them.
Now that's classic. Spot on as usual, YT.
Jane Pauley's hubby NAILS IT again!!!!!!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3571364
Millard Fillmore sux....
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
With Congress' approval rating at about 12%, I'm surprised ANY incumbents would be doing well in the polls. Pelosi and Reid have been nothing but impotent blow-hards, not any better than what they replaced.
No one in DC seems to care anymore. That is what's disappointing.
It's in the single digits now.....heh...
The Democratic Congress has a lower approval rating than the President? That's bad.
I'm not really partisan, I think they are mostly all bums. Certainly when they get together they are. The low approval ratings are well deserved on both accounts.
The numbers have been skewed to make Dumbya's number look better in comparrisons. Take for example Jim Inhofe. His approval rating could be %10 resulting from a %0 national rating and %40 approval here in Oklahoma.
Otherwise, the numbers have been republicanized.
The line for pitchforks forms on the right, torches on the left.
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
The Gallup poll and the LA Times "republicanized" the numbers? That makes sense...
Or that every poll (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcp-avg-904%22) shows the same thing, a slumping approval rating for a Democratic Congrses.
It's amazing how you keep finding ways to lose more credibility. Just when I think conversations with yourself and spamed articles has you at a new low, you manage to find new ways. Do you even have a left-wing blog to back up this latest theory, or is it purely "original" (read: made up)?
The Democratic Congress is the least approved governing body in American history. The King enjoyed a 40% approval rating before we decided to oust him (or about 40% of the Colony was fine staying with the king). Bush has never dipped so low.
Deal with it.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
The Gallup poll and the LA Times "republicanized" the numbers? That makes sense...
Or that every poll (//%22http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/#rcp-avg-904%22) shows the same thing, a slumping approval rating for a Democratic Congrses.
It's amazing how you keep finding ways to lose more credibility. Just when I think conversations with yourself and spamed articles has you at a new low, you manage to find new ways. Do you even have a left-wing blog to back up this latest theory, or is it purely "original" (read: made up)?
The Democratic Congress is the least approved governing body in American history. The King enjoyed a 40% approval rating before we decided to oust him (or about 40% of the Colony was fine staying with the king). Bush has never dipped so low.
Deal with it.
It doesn't matter much what the approval numbers are for the overall Congress, when the approval numbers are always much higher for the specific congressman in a voter's district.
"It's always the 'other' congressman who sucks. It's my guy who's OK."
I disagree with that notion, namely because I don't think the area's congressmen are all that hot.
But, in general, that's the way it always has been, for decades.
True, but not AS BAD as it is now. When the number became THE LOWEST we entered into territory beyond the status quo.
Plus, I really just needed to hop into the FOTD self discussion thread to check reality. The subject isn't that important (by virtue of being in this thread).
I accidentally watched Bill O'Reilly on the Fox News Channel last Friday. He was talking about Patroits and Pinheads. So I wondered what makes him think he has the right to question a citizen's Patroitism.
I have noticed that Ultra-Conservative Republicans (aka The American Authoritarians) like to claim their opponents are unpatriotic. What makes them think that they have the right to determine who is patriotic and who is not.
I have noticed an interesting pattern with these ultra-con Republicans: "A person who disagrees with an ultra-con Republican is labeled as either unpatriotic or liberal or both."
Patriot is defined as, "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests." Therefore, an American patriot follows the authority of the United States Constitution and in the best interest of citizens does not violate their right to privacy.
Ultra-con Republicans arrogantly assume they have the right to question a person's patriotism when in fact it is the patriotism of the ultra-con Republicans that should be question.
(P.S. I went there. So sorry I tried not to. And yes I am voting for Barak Hussein Obama. It's not the name I am voting for, it is the man with a plan that I support.)
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
True, but not AS BAD as it is now. When the number became THE LOWEST we entered into territory beyond the status quo.
Plus, I really just needed to hop into the FOTD self discussion thread to check reality. The subject isn't that important (by virtue of being in this thread).
You seem to be deviating from your mid town bubble and are sounding pretty insecure. Please return to your sad little world.[:P]
Or did you just eat lunch and are feeling wicked?
What is his plan, anyway?
quote:
Originally posted by buckeye
What is his plan, anyway?
His plan is to win the election and change the country's current situation. Don't worry about his plan if you do not know how to research. It beats the shoot from the holster plan based on lies told to our allies and our fellow citizens. And why not fear what the current cronies are doing to the constitution, department of justice, and the economy with their avoidance and distraction plan. If you were not fearing the days of total neo-con Bushevik deception plans, why fear what the future plan holds?
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
Translation: I don't know.
- - -
FOTD, I've been fairly secure in my bubble for a good while now. I got out to the lake for some sailing over the weekend and downtown for fireworks, otherwise, bubble bound. Other than daily work-related travels.
Be specific.... I do know Obama's plan. Which plan is McBushies today?
Two thoughts:
As poor as it may be, at least we have a choice, unlike Zimbabwe.
For those who think things could not possibly get worse, Bill Cosby (I believe) had a routine about never challenging worse. Just as soon as you think things could not possibly get worse, they do. I guess we'll find out in January regardless of who wins the election.
The Republican Party has lost it's way. It has been hijacked by an assortment of different ideologues. Each of them has held to a small portion of conservative values and threw the rest out with the garbage. Very few true Conservatives remain in elected positions within the Republican Party.
The sad truth is that THEY, having not held to true conservative principals, are the reason for the downfall of the Republican Party and at the very same time, are using our dwindling support as proof that we need to move further away from true conservative principals in order to regain the majority. It sickens me.
We do need to regroup and change our direction, but not in the direction they "wish" for us to turn. We need to renew the Republican Party and if that means losing more seats, to replace these idiots with real Republicans than so be it.
The excerpt, I'm about to show you, is the true identity of the Republican Party, responsible for our rise to greatness. When we abandon our core principals, we suffer.
Do you recognize the greatness behind these words?:
"We, the members of the New Republican Party, believe that the preservation and enhancement of the values that strengthen and protect individual freedom, family life, communities and neighborhoods and the liberty of our beloved nation should be at the heart of any legislative or political program presented to the American people. Toward that end, we, therefore, commit ourselves to the following propositions and offer them to each American believing that the New Republican Party, based on such principles, will serve the interest of all the American people.
We believe that liberty can be measured by how much freedom Americans have to make their own decisions, even their own mistakes. Government must step in when one's liberties impinge on one's neighbor's. Government must protect constitutional rights, deal with other governments, protect citizens from aggressors, assure equal opportunity, and be compassionate in caring for those citizens who are unable to care for themselves.
Our federal system of local-state-national government is designed to sort out on what level these actions should be taken. Those concerns of a national character—such as air and water pollution that do not respect state boundaries, or the national transportation system, or efforts to safeguard your civil liberties—must, of course, be handled on the national level.
As a general rule, however, we believe that government action should be taken first by the government that resides as close to you as possible.
We also believe that Americans, often acting through voluntary organizations, should have the opportunity to solve many of the social problems of their communities. This spirit of freely helping others is uniquely American and should be encouraged in every way by government.
Families must continue to be the foundation of our nation.
Families—not government programs—are the best way to make sure our children are properly nurtured, our elderly are cared for, our cultural and spiritual heritages are perpetuated, our laws are observed and our values are preserved.
Thus it is imperative that our government's programs, actions, officials and social welfare institutions never be allowed to jeopardize the family. We fear the government may be powerful enough to destroy our families; we know that it is not powerful enough to replace them. The New Republican Party must be committed to working always in the interest of the American family.
Every dollar spent by government is a dollar earned by individuals. Government must always ask: Are your dollars being wisely spent? Can we afford it? Is it not better for the country to leave your dollars in your pocket?
Elected officials, their appointees, and government workers are expected to perform their public acts with honesty, openness, diligence, and special integrity.
Government must work for the goal of justice and the elimination of unfair practices, but no government has yet designed a more productive economic system or one which benefits as many people as the American market system.
The beauty of our land is our legacy to our children. It must be protected by us so that they can pass it on intact to their children.
The United States must always stand for peace and liberty in the world and the rights of the individual. We must form sturdy partnerships with our allies for the preservation of freedom.
We must be ever willing to negotiate differences, but equally mindful that there are
American ideals that cannot be compromised. Given that there are other nations with potentially hostile design, we recognize that we can reach our goals only while maintaining a superior national defense, second to none."
RONALD REAGAN
"Hatred is the Liberal's revenge for having been intimidated "....intimidated? Lied, distorted, bamboozled? I'm not intimidated because the damage done will be here long after this devil decends to hell.
Our fearfull leader....this piece is incredible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-cohen/bushs-banned-interview-an_b_111804.html
Bush's Banned Interview: An Insight Into Insanity
Boys and girls, this is what happens when your mommy (the Quaker oats man) drinks martinis and eats barbituates while pregnant....What a repulsive piece of excrement.
TulsaNow's Itinerant Exorcism Servicer
Liberals were vile, hateful, commie blow hards long before Bush came to power. By the way, are you a liberal by chance? I'm catching a funny vibe. [8D]
quote:
Originally posted by Crash Daily
Liberals were vile, hateful, commie blow hards long before Bush came to power. By the way, are you a liberal by chance? I'm catching a funny vibe. [8D]
Who said anything about the Dumbya's and commies? They were in with Hitler. He was a fascist. A genetic defect or just a genetic trait among the Dumbya's?
It's his Socialist/Fascist side raising its' ugly head. If he leaned any further left, he could have been a Democrat. On the bright side, we've found common ground. We both don't like him for the same reasons. [}:)]
Bush to hasten Iraq troop withdrawal in bid to help McCain win White House
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bush-to-hasten-iraq-troop-withdrawal-in-bid-to-help-mccain-win-white-house-866885.html
By Leonard Doyle in Washington
Monday, 14 July 2008
"President George Bush wants to speed up the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq, a move that could help to quell the anti-war anxieties of voters before November's presidential election.
Drawing down large numbers of troops would enable the Republican candidate, John McCain, to say that his forceful military strategy for Iraq was correct. Alone among Republican and Democratic politicians, he consistently urged Mr Bush to take on the insurgents with extra forces. He is now attacking his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, for preaching policies of defeat by calling for a withdrawal in 16 months.
American commanders want to reduce their deployment in Iraq to ease the strain on the military and free up troops for Afghanistan where they are taking a beating from the Taliban and other militants.
Nine American soldiers were killed and 15 wounded yesterday in the bloodiest day in three years for US forces in Afghanistan. In a multi-pronged attack, revealing sophistication and daring, militants overran a remote US base near the Pakistan border on the front lines of the hunt for Osama bin Laden. It was the deadliest on US forces in the country since 16 combat troops were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade in the same area in 2005.
Concerns are also growing that Mr Bush wants to release fighting forces before he leaves office in January, in the event of conflict with Iran.
By the times of Mr Bush's departure, three of the 15 combat brigades now in Iraq could have left the country, say government and military officials. That would still leave up to 130,000 frontline troops in the field – a reduction from the 170,000 deployed in the "surge" last year.
A rapid US withdrawal would mark a sharp turnaround in the fortunes of the Bush administration from only two years ago, amid the bloody slaughter of growing numbers of Iraqis and American soldiers. Anti-war feeling is at fever pitch in the US and the military is said to be near breaking point from its extended combat deployments.
This was the climate in which Mr Obama, a fierce opponent of the war, shot to prominence to seek and eventually win the Democratic presidential nomination. The Illinois Senator will head to Baghdad in a few weeks to take soundings from Iraqi leaders and US military commanders about a withdrawal. He is taking with him the Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, a fierce critic of Mr Bush's policies in Iraq with him as he seeks to arrange the orderly removal of all US combat troops if he is elected president in November.
Mr Obama's plan is to remove one or two brigades every month, but he says that he will be guided by military commanders on the ground. Mr Hagel has sometimes been suggested as a possible vice-presidential running mate for Mr Obama, who needs to reach out to Republican voters if he is to expand the Democratic vote and win the White House. As the conditions in Iraq improve, the government and armed forces have shown an ability to combat insurgents that would have been unthinkable a short time ago. The number of attacks on American and other forces has dropped sharply and is now down to the levels of 2004 when the insurgency was gathering steam.
The faster pullout being considered by President Bush would free US troops for duties in Afghanistan where the Taliban and other insurgents are growing in confidence and strength. In the past three months more American soldiers died in Afghanistan than in Iraq as violence has declined.
"As the Iraqi security forces get stronger and get better, then we will be able to continue drawing down our troops in the future," the US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, said last week.
General David Petraeus, the US commander in Iraq, is reviewing troop levels and officials say that he is expected to take a more cautions approach and recommend smaller reductions in forces. "
Need more proof of how sick the repiglican party, the Grand Old Pukes, have made everything? Just read this sad sad news.
Haven't paid much mind to those hollering to impeach. Is it too late?
Hurry 1-19-09. What? How many daze to the election? Better think twice about supporting repiglicans. They put their party before our soldiers, our integrity, and our honor.
Get ready for terrorist alerts. Code orange?
Brolin, Wright, others in film crew arrested Mon Jul 14, 8:58 AM ET
SHREVEPORT, La. - Josh Brolin and Jeffrey Wright, along with members of a crew filming an Oliver Stone movie, were arrested during a bar fight Saturday morning, police said.
ADVERTISEMENT
Shreveport police Sgt. Willie Lewis said Brolin, Wright and five others were arrested just after 2 a.m. at a club called the Stray Cat bar.
A call to deal with a rowdy patron drew interference from other patrons, Lewis said.
The Times of Shreveport reported that Brolin was booked and posted $334 cash bond to be released. Police could not say Saturday night whether he or the others had been released. The paper said they are part of the crew on an Oliver Stone film, "W," about President George W. Bush.
A call to Brolin's publicist was not immediately returned Saturday night.
"W" began filming in May in Shreveport. Brolin plays President Bush and Wright plays former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The cast also includes Elizabeth Banks as first lady Laura Bush, Ellen Burstyn and James Cromwell as the elder Bushes and Thandie Newton as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Brolin appeared in three films last year, "In the Valley of Elah," "American Gangster" and "No Country for Old Men," which won the best-picture Oscar.
Wright won a Tony Award for "Angels in America" on Broadway and a Golden Globe for the same role in the television miniseries. He also has appeared in "Syriana," "Ali" and "Casino Royale."
"W" is Stone's third presidential film, following "Nixon" and "JFK." He also directed the Vietnam sagas "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Platoon," which won four Oscars including best picture and director.
The Academy Award-winning director only began shopping his script for financing in January, but has quickly captured the interest of investors and Hollywood.
Stone has said the film, which will focus on the life and presidency of Bush, won't be an anti-Bush polemic, but, as he told Daily Variety, "a fair, true portrait of the man. How did Bush go from being an alcoholic bum to the most powerful figure in the world?"
Must be a comedy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/w-actors-arrest-details-t_n_113218.html
"W" Actors Arrest Details: Tasers, Pepper Sprayed, "N" Word Reports TMZ
stumble digg reddit del.ico.us news trust TMZ | July 16, 2008 10:46 PM
Saturday in Shreveport, LA actors from Oliver Stone's Bush biopic "W" were arrested around 2 am in what has been billed a bar brawl, and Wednesday night new details about possible repeated tasering, pepper spray and use of racial slurs emerged. If the reports of cell phone video existing are true, the story won't end here.
THURSDAY MORNING UPDATE: Shreveport police confirm video and audio from patrol car cameras exists and is being reviewed. Details to come.
The altercation involved Josh Brolin (who plays President Bush), Jeffrey Wright (Colin Powell) and five others.
Late Wednesday TMZ reported the following:
Josh Brolin and Jeffrey Wright, who were arrested this past weekend at a Shreveport, La. bar, were pepper sprayed and tased by cops. And, we're told, police went on a vulgar rant -- and portions were caught on cell phone video.
The incident occurred during a wrap party for Oliver Stone's movie "W" about the Prez. Local station KTBS reports and TMZ sources say Wright, who plays Colin Powell, was repeatedly tasered and pepper sprayed as he lay prone on his stomach in the street. We know witnesses heard the officers using extremely foul language, including the "N" word, directed at Wright.
Our sources say Brolin was observed by witnesses attempting to make peace and standing still as he was repeatedly sprayed in the eyes by cops.
Brolin is know for roles in films like "No Country For Old Men" and "In the Valley of Elah" while Wright won a Tony and Golden Globe for the same role in "Angels in America" and costarred in "Syriana" and Bond flick "Casino Royale."
The devil asked these guys if they thought they would claim executive privelege and immunity.
Their reply:"WE'RE JUST CARRYING OUT 'METHOD ACTING' TO ITS LOGICAL CONCLUSION, SINCE WE KNOW OUR SUBJECTS WILL NEVER BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE."
GOP senators scramble for lifeboats
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11923.html
"Republican Senate leaders — terrified by the prospect of losing five or more seats in November — have freed their members to vote however they need to vote to get reelected, even if that means bucking the president or the party's leadership.
On at least four votes over the past month — Medicare, housing, the GI Bill and the Farm Bill — Republican leaders haven't even bothered whipping members to toe the party line or back President Bush's veto threats. Instead, a GOP leadership aide says leaders have told vulnerable senators that it's all right to "get well" with voters by siding with Democrats on anything but energy and national security.
It's unusual for rank-and-file members to get a green light to blow off their party leaders. But these are unusual times for Republicans. They are genuinely worried they could get their clocks cleaned in November. The prevailing attitude: It is better to lose some big votes now than big races in November."
No power left in the Reapiglican's convctions.
Post all this worthless cap on your blog or something. Seriously. It isn't spurring discussion other than whether or not posting it is worthless or not. Your not even TRYING to make it spur discussion (say, but commenting on, summarizing, or otherwise making the post relevant).
You don't like Republicans, check. We get it. I fear posting here because you might take it as encouragement.
Could the people that read these post acknowledge it, or can we just lock this spam fest?
I wish I could vote for Obama....
If it wasn't for his lack of backbone with the FISA ruling, thus destroying my 4th amendment rights, I would have seriously considered voting for him.
quote:
Originally posted by TeeDub
If it wasn't for his lack of backbone with the FISA ruling, thus destroying my 4th amendment rights, I would have seriously considered voting for him.
Your vote don't count .....this is Reapiglican Red state. Vote of McSame (R-Idiot).