Democrats Say Rice Misled About Iraq War

[gldstwmn]

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats said Tuesday that Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) lied to them, misled Americans about the Iraq (news - web sites) war or served as an apologist for Bush administration failures in Iraq, but she remained on track for confirmation as secretary of state.

Rice, who has been President Bush (news - web sites)'s national security adviser for four years, was one of the loudest voices urging war, Democrats said. She repeatedly deceived members of Congress and Americans at large about justifications for the war, said Sen. Mark Dayton (news, bio, voting record), D-Minn.

"I don't like impugning anyone's integrity, but I really don't like being lied to," Dayton said in opposing Rice's nomination on the Senate floor. "Repeatedly, flagrantly, intentionally."

Rice is expected to win confirmation on Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., predicted that Rice would have "an overwhelming majority" of votes.

Sen. Richard Lugar (news, bio, voting record), R-Ind., cautioned against "inflammatory rhetoric that is designed merely to create partisan advantage or to settle partisan scores."

Rice would succeed Colin Powell, who often found himself on the outside looking in with Bush's close circle of war and national security advisers.

By contrast, Rice is a trusted Bush loyalist. As a principal architect of the Iraq invasion and the administration's war on terrorism, she shares blame for overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), Democrats said.

Dayton accused Rice and other Bush administration officials of "lying to Congress, lying to our committees, lying to the American people."

Politicians rarely use the word "lie," preferring some of the milder terms other Democrats used Tuesday.

"There was no reason to go to war in Iraq when we did, the way we did and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.

Rice is not directly responsible for intelligence failures prior to the Iraq war that overestimated Saddam's nuclear capability, said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "But she is responsible for her own distortions and exaggerations of the intelligence which was provided to her," Levin said.

"Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the administration used to scare the American people," Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., said.

The Senate set aside most of the day Tuesday to debate the Rice nomination after Democrats revolted against a plan to confirm Rice last week, on the same day that Bush took his oath for a second term.

"We should have been done last week," Frist said. "I was disappointed that we are having to march through the debate today. But ultimately the vote will occur."

Republicans who took the floor to endorse Rice included Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who has been a sometime critic of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

"Dr. Rice has the intelligence, the integrity and the experience for this job. She has the president's confidence," Hagel said.

In his dealings with Rice, "she's always been candid and honest, and she listened," Hagel said.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on Tuesday sought to capitalize on sharp questioning of Rice during her confirmation hearings. The DSCC sent a fund-raising e-mail signed by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., with the subject line "Taking a Stand."

"I will continue to make my voice heard on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections," Boxer wrote, noting her questioning of Rice. "Click here to contribute to the DSCC today."

"This disturbing letter puts to rest any doubts some may have had that this is all about politics," Rice spokesman Jim Wilkinson said.

Meanwhile, the Republican National Committee sent an e-mail to its supporters with the subject line "Meet the New Face of the Democratic Party." It portrayed Boxer as having a "left of liberal" voting record and being closely tied to the Hollywood elite. The e-mail included a link for supporters to "support the Bush agenda by becoming a team leader today."

Democrats, in the minority in Congress, often resort to delaying what they cannot defeat.

Byrd, the longest-serving Democratic senator and a student of the Constitution, insisted that his party is merely doing its duty.

"I am particularly dismayed by criticism I have read that Senate Democrats by insisting on having the opportunity to debate this nomination have somehow been engaged in nothing more substantial than petty politics or partisan delaying tactics," Byrd said, his voice rising in anger.

[irishgrl]

GIVE EM THE BYRD! (is there a smiley for THAT?) :nod:

[strandinthewind]

They were not scared to hammer her and, therefore, W during the speeches today :cool:

[gldstwmn]

They were not scared to hammer her and, therefore, W during the speeches today :cool:

they should hammer her. She should have been fired ages ago.

[irishgrl]

she gets the job :mad:

[strandinthewind]

they should hammer her. She should have been fired ages ago.

I was having this conversation with a friend this evening. I made the analogy to an employee that made such a collosal mistake and that regardless of intent, they should be canned and any business would do so as no company can afford that kind of liability. My friend wisely noted that Bush would have no clue how to run a successful business because ALL of his have failed :eek: :nod:

[Hawkeye]

I think Condi just might be the ticket to get Bush impeached. I can see her beeing W's Monica Lewinsky. Those two are so close I'd bet a small amount of money they're alreayd having an affair :laugh:

[tynan88]

Not to be racist, but I don't think Bush would go there sexually.

Tynan

[SuzeQuze]

Why this Jim Wilkinson found Boxer's fund raising letter containing this quote, "... in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections," disturbing is beyond me. :shrug: She was just being honest, this administration is reckless and Iraq is a nightmare. Do they really not see this? Perhaps not, because they're living in some alternate universe.

[strandinthewind]

Not to be racist, but I don't think Bush would go there sexually.

Tynan

True - but stranger things have happened. Look at Strom Thurmond - who, when he a HUGE racist, was having a clandestine affair with his parent's housekeeper and fathered a child through her out of wedlock - then paid hush money in the form of child support for YEARS. So, who knows.

[strandinthewind]

Why this Jim Wilkinson found Boxer's fund raising letter containing this quote, "... in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections," disturbing is beyond me. :shrug: She was just being honest, this administration is reckless and Iraq is a nightmare. Do they really not see this? Perhaps not, because they're living in some alternate universe.

Maybe it was because many Democrats voted to give W the authority to go to war :shrug: and now they, as a party, are complaining about :shrug:

I am not saying that I do not want more D's elected, I do :nod: I am just profering this as a possible rationale :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

Maybe it was because many Democrats voted to give W the authority to go to war :shrug: and now they, as a party, are complaining about :shrug:

I am not saying that I do not want more D's elected, I do :nod: I am just profering this as a possible rationale :cool:

It was a strange choice of words "disturbing". Of course she's going to say we need to get the republicans out and the democrats in in a fundraising letter, right? Duh.

[amber]

True - but stranger things have happened. Look at Strom Thurmond - who, when he a HUGE racist, was having a clandestine affair with his parent's housekeeper and fathered a child through her out of wedlock - then paid hush money in the form of child support for YEARS. So, who knows.
I think he's more than likely to "go there", not that he did, But I don't think people are as "racist" when it comes to that as others may think they are...

[dissention]

They were not scared to hammer her and, therefore, W during the speeches today :cool:

Hehe. They didn't say jack **** until Barabara Boxer spoke up and throttled Minute Rice (along with Kennedy). Did you see the confirmation hearing last week when Obama had his turn to ask her some questions? Talk about kissing ass, my word. He did so much of it that his lips were brown.

[dissention]

Not to be racist, but I don't think Bush would go there sexually.

Tynan

I disagree. :xoxo:

Wasn't it just last month that an article was published in the Washington Post that said they don't have to speak to each toher at all to know what each other is thinking, they just act instictively and with the nod of ahead? It also said that when they do speak, it's usually only a few words. Majority Report had a contest on their blog to see what they say to each other and they read mine on the air. :D

[ryan8472]

I disagree. :xoxo:

Wasn't it just last month that an article was published in the Washington Post that said they don't have to speak to each toher at all to know what each other is thinking, they just act instictively and with the nod of ahead? It also said that when they do speak, it's usually only a few words. Majority Report had a contest on their blog to see what they say to each other and they read mine on the air. :D
What did you write, dare I ask? :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

Hehe. They didn't say jack **** until Barabara Boxer spoke up and throttled Minute Rice (along with Kennedy). Did you see the confirmation hearing last week when Obama had his turn to ask her some questions? Talk about kissing ass, my word. He did so much of it that his lips were brown.

That's a real disappointment regarding Obama. :distress:

[dissention]

What did you write, dare I ask? :laugh:

I forgot, actually. :laugh:

I'll check the blog, they should have it in the archives.

[dissention]

That's a real disappointment regarding Obama. :distress:

I'm not an Obama fan one bit, so there's no disappointment on my end. I saw the writing on the wall when I had the displeasure of hearing his Godspeak at the DNC.

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I would have liked to see Obama be a little more forceful and/or pressing...he seemed to give advice rather than question...and of course voted for her..so.. there's that.
BUT, he is new to the Senate so I will give him that....

Chris

[irishgrl]

we're now stuck with her. its the end times for sure...

[irishgrl]

I'm not an Obama fan one bit, so there's no disappointment on my end. I saw the writing on the wall when I had the displeasure of hearing his Godspeak at the DNC.
I know nothing about Obama other than he is being packaged as the bright new up and comer in the party. I wonder if he is being groomed for bigger things?
:shocked:

[strandinthewind]

I would have liked to see Obama be a little more forceful and/or pressing...he seemed to give advice rather than question...and of course voted for her..so.. there's that.
BUT, he is new to the Senate so I will give him that....

Chris

The D's had no choice but to vote for her. To stand on principle would have been political suicide for those in moderate states. In politics, you fight the fights you can win and you can do no one any good if you are not there because you have lost to the other side in a hopeless battle like this one :shrug:

I hate it, but that is the reality of it, esp. considering W does have the clout right now, which I hate as well :shrug:

As for Obama - he is no fool - he is not about to bloddy himself on this done deal. I do think, however and hopefully, this was a gimme to Bush and perhaps a veiled warning to watch it when nominating the alleged new Justice this term. That is a fight the D's can win and they will swarm like bees IMO.

[amber]

I do think, however and hopefully, this was a gimme to Bush and perhaps a veiled warning to watch it when nominating the alleged new Justice this term. That is a fight the D's can win and they will swarm like bees IMO.
Gosh, I sure hope you're right, but it's hard to tell with the "roll over and spread em" that the dems have been doing... :(

[strandinthewind]

Gosh, I sure hope you're right, but it's hard to tell with the "roll over and spread em" that the dems have been doing... :(

Well, they have and they have not. I mean not all D's are screaming liberals. Most of them are moderate, which is reflected in their voting :shrug:

[SuzeQuze]

... this was a gimme to Bush and perhaps a veiled warning to watch it when nominating the alleged new Justice this term. That is a fight the D's can win and they will swarm like bees IMO.

Dear God, let this be so.

[strandinthewind]

Dear God, let this be so.

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Politics is all about nuance and the big picture. That is mostly a sad thing as far as I am concerned, but it is the way it is and has been for a long, long time.

I think the D's looked at Rice and thought - well, she is a lot better than some religious zealot that W could have nominated and while she has celarly made some mistakes and outright lied to support the war (which most of them voted for mind you :eek: ) - this is a battle they need not fight too hard as she has not been totally incompetent in her former job and appears to be a bright person in general.

I think they, therefore, are somewhat wisely saving their big guns for the fight on the SC nominee, which they CLEARLY can win because most of America is pro-choice, which is WAY different that pro-abortion.

But, this is all conjecture. Who knows what the Democrats will do and I am just thinking out loud :cool:

[gldstwmn]

I was having this conversation with a friend this evening. I made the analogy to an employee that made such a collosal mistake and that regardless of intent, they should be canned and any business would do so as no company can afford that kind of liability. My friend wisely noted that Bush would have no clue how to run a successful business because ALL of his have failed :eek: :nod:

So true... :laugh:

[amber]

Well, they have and they have not. I mean not all D's are screaming liberals. Most of them are moderate, which is reflected in their voting :shrug:
Exactly. And they're even more moderate *now* ....Republocrats.... :wavey:

[strandinthewind]

Exactly. And they're even more moderate *now* ....Republocrats.... :wavey:

I tend to disagree because history demonstrates they have pretty much always been moderate. I think there have always been more moderates than liberals and that they make up the bulk of the D party :shrug: I certainly agree that the R party has grown bolder than is used to be in its willingness to assert the far religious right's agenda, but the same could be said for the D's and the far left. I support this by using gay marriage as an example. That issue is generally seen as far far left and less than 15 years ago there is not way it would have been raised to the extent it has been :shrug: Same thing in the right for the Partiot Act stuff (though most of that was available via RICO and other statutes that have been around for a very long time now). Thus, I think the far ends of each party are trying to assert themselves and are name calling the moderates. Having said that, the country as a whole has grown more conservative.

Food for thought :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

I tend to disagree because history demonstrates they have pretty much always been moderate. I think there have always been more moderates than liberals and that they make up the bulk of the D party :shrug: I certainly agree that the R party has grown bolder than is used to be in its willingness to assert the far religious right's agenda, but the same could be said for the D's and the far left. I support this by using gay marriage as an example. That issue is generally seen as far far left and less than 15 years ago there is not way it would have been raised to the extent it has been :shrug: Same thing in the right for the Partiot Act stuff (though most of that was available via RICO and other statutes that have been around for a very long time now). Thus, I think the far ends of each party are trying to assert themselves and are name calling the moderates. Having said that, the country as a whole has grown more conservative.

Food for thought :cool:

This is a somewhat retorical question, is it the inherent nature of a bi-partisan system to become polarized, each side moving far away from the other?

[strandinthewind]

This is a somewhat retorical question, is it the inherent nature of a bi-partisan system to become polarized, each side moving far away from the other?

Well, I think it is more cyclical. I also think that events like 9/11 tend to make it lurch to the right because, to analogize, an angry (justifiable or not) mob has no conscious :shrug:

But, I think most D's are moderate and for the most part always have been - I think the voting history as a whole of the D party since the 70's shows that. I also think that as issues like abortion became more stylized over time, it tended to make moderates look conservative to the far left.

For example, what parent would not want to know if their 13 year old daughter is having an abortion? I get that the parental notice is tricky because some of those abortions are from parental abuse. But, the far far left screams about this not so much for that valid exception (even with an escape clause for abuse situations), but because they see it as a slippery slope argument in that it is just one more incident of the far right trying to chip away at the right to choose. Is is conservative to vote for a parental notification? I do not think so. Does it violate Roe v. Wade to require parental notification? I do not think so. AND - I think that is not that conservative of a position :shrug: Yet, I am sure to most far left people I just commited blasphemy :laugh:

Food for thought :cool:

[SuzeQuze]

That's a tough one because if identifying with the young girl, which I once was, I would NOT want my parents to know. But if I were the parent I would ABSOLUTELY want to know. I don't know what the answer is. I would say not to require notification just because it isn't part of the larger issue, keeping it legal and accessible when required. I don't know, this issue hurts my brain. I just think people, even young girls, should have a choice regarding this. I feel for any parent who finds out after the fact their little girl went through this. But imagine if your parents are very conservative and would send you away or something if they found out? The girl should have the ultimate say over her body, even if a minor.

[dissention]

I know nothing about Obama other than he is being packaged as the bright new up and comer in the party. I wonder if he is being groomed for bigger things?
:shocked:

I hope to hell isn't. I cannot stand him. He makes my skin crawl almost as much as Bush. Truly phony and annoying.

[strandinthewind]

That's a tough one because if identifying with the young girl, which I once was, I would NOT want my parents to know. But if I were the parent I would ABSOLUTELY want to know. I don't know what the answer is. I would say not to require notification just because it isn't part of the larger issue, keeping it legal and accessible when required. I don't know, this issue hurts my brain. I just think people, even young girls, should have a choice regarding this. I feel for any parent who finds out after the fact their little girl went through this. But imagine if your parents are very conservative and would send you away or something if they found out? The girl should have the ultimate say over her body, even if a minor.

I agree to an extent, but the law is children have to have parental consent for any other kind of surgery :shrug: If the fetus is effectively nothing more than a pesudo-appendix because it is not viable but for being in the mother and a child must have parental consent to remove the appendix - I am unsure why abortion is any different. Moreover, a parent can make their child undergo a surgery the child may not want :shrug: This is just such a difficult area. In the end, I am for telling the parents solely because I think parents have dominion over their children in that they are responsible for them - but I think there are always exceptions.

[strandinthewind]

I hope to hell isn't. I cannot stand him. He makes my skin crawl almost as much as Bush. Truly phony and annoying.

:laugh: You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership :laugh: Hmmmmmmmm :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :p

[dissention]

:laugh: You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership :laugh: Hmmmmmmmm :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :p

I like many, just not the majority. :p

[amber]

:laugh: You like maybe two of well over 500 in FFederal Govt. leadership :laugh: Hmmmmmmmm :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :p
That sounds about right... :shrug: Though it may be one more than deserves it. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

I like many, just not the majority. :p

You are SO called out - NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that when I asked you a similar question you responded that you liked Snow, Ford (who no longer is in power), and maybe another. But, this is a diff question, so let's hear what your definition of "many" is :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

[dissention]

You are SO called out - NAME THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please note that when I asked you a similar question you responded that you liked Snow, Ford (who no longer is in power), and maybe another. But, this is a diff question, so let's hear what your definition of "many" is :wavey: :wavey: :wavey: :wavey:

The previous question was what Republicans I liked. Snowe and Ford were the only ones. :laugh:

As for who I like now? Sure.

Boxer
Leahy
Kennedy
Conyers
Kucinich
Cantwell (depending on the weather, but it's usually stormy)
Jeffords
Mikulski
Chafee (I have respect for him, not his politics)
Snowe (ditto)
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barney Frank
Corinne Brown (how could I forget her?)

Shall I go on? I could be here all night, especially if you want me to list politicians from my state. :woohoo:

[strandinthewind]

The previous question was what Republicans I liked. Snowe and Ford were the only ones. :laugh:

As for who I like now? Sure.

Boxer
Leahy
Kennedy
Conyers
Kucinich
Cantwell (depending on the weather, but it's usually stormy)
Jeffords
Mikulski
Chafee (I have respect for him, not his politics)
Snowe (ditto)
Sheila Jackson Lee
Barney Frank
Corinne Brown (how could I forget her?)

Shall I go on? I could be here all night, especially if you want me to list politicians from my state. :woohoo:

That was one of the last questions :shrug:

That is hardly many - to me many would be like 150 our of the 600 or so currently in Federal Office (House, Senate, Cabinet, etc.) - but I am glad you like some. I like those as well, but think they are not as effective as the moderates. But, I like them all the same.

[dissention]

That was one of the last questions :shrug:

That is hardly many - to me many would be like 150 our of the 600 or so currently in Federal Office (House, Senate, Cabinet, etc.) - but I am glad you like some. I like those as well, but think they are not as effective as the moderates. But, I like them all the same.

If I was looking for effectiveness, I'd be saluting the Republicans, not Democrats. But, alas, effectiveness was not the basis on which the question was asked. ;)

If I wanted to support moderates, I'd be supporting the Democratic party. I don't and I'm not, so I'm no longer a Democrat. Their middle-of-the-road bull**** has got to end or it will be the death of their party. And it will happen soon.

[strandinthewind]

If I was looking for effectiveness, I'd be saluting the Republicans, not Democrats. But, alas, effectiveness was not the basis on which the question was asked. ;)

If I wanted to support moderates, I'd be supporting the Democratic party. I don't and I'm not, so I'm no longer a Democrat. Their middle-of-the-road bull**** has got to end or it will be the death of their party. And it will happen soon.

But, my point was when has the Democratic Part ever been anything but moderate at least since say FDR. When have they EVER supported the liberal (and I mean LIBERAL - not today's Fox News definition of it) agenda. I suggest it never really has and has in general been made up of moderates for a long time :shrug:

[dissention]

But, my point was when has the Democratic Part ever been anything but moderate at least since say FDR. When have they EVER supported the liberal (and I mean LIBERAL - not today's Fox News definition of it) agenda. I suggest it never really has and has in general been made up of moderates for a long time :shrug:

That isn't the point. :shrug: And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.

[amber]

That isn't the point. :shrug: And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.
:xoxo: :thumbsup: :woohoo:
I agree.

[strandinthewind]

I agree with you - but that is not going to happen - and sadly so. Most of America will embrace the far religious right before they will the godless far left. Sad - but apparently very true. So, I think embracing the far left as the agenda of the D party is political suicide. Look at Clinton - he was wildly popular because he was a moderate - perhaos more so in the beginning - and he knew how to win the war instead of the battle. I will grant you he was not perfect, but he was better than anything we have now and I would take him back in a minute. And he got in office by staying in the middle with his voting record (rhetoric does not interest me), at least how that was defined then. Carter and Kennedy as well. Johnson was a little more liberal with the Civil Rights Act, but he was hardly what I would call a screaming liberal.

I also think the D's have got to figure out a way to discredit Fox News AND have the public care that it has been discredited. I am unsure how it will do that short of a Rather esq. scandal.

Anyway - food for thought.

[dissention]

I agree with you - but that is not going to happen - and sadly so. Most of America will embrace the far religious right than the godless far left. Sad - but apparently very true. So, I think embracing the far left as the agenda of the D partyt is suicide. Look at Clinton - he was wildly popular because he was a moderate. I will grant you he was not perfect, but he was better than anything we have now. And he got in office by staying in the middle, at least how that was defined then. Carter and Kennedy as well. Johnson was a little more liberal with the Civil Rights Act, but he was hardly what I would call a screaming liberal.

And nominating a senator from Massachusetts wasn't suicide? Sending Hillary to the front lines to embrace faith-based initiatives and console the loony pro-lifers isn't suicide? Having Clinton tell his own party to get over it isn't suicide? Pushing Obama down the throat of every progressive isn't suicide? People are dropping out of the Democratic party like flies on a hot summer day in Texas. And it will only continue unless they embrace some real liberal objectives, objectives and goals that will make progressives stay and vote for them. Otherwise they're going to alienate the far left (I'm proof of that) and they won't have that built in base come next election. And without that, they cannot win. So I guess it's just lose-lose at this point. :nod:

I also think the D's have got to figure out a way to discredit Fox News AND have the public care that it has been discredited. I am unsure how it will do that short of a Rather esq. scandal.

Anyway - food for thought.

It'll never happen. If the American public can't see that Faux News is utter **** by now, they're never going to see it.

[GypsySorcerer]

That isn't the point. :shrug: And surely you wouldn't even SUGGEST that the Democrats aren't jumping ship and swimming to the right side of the island.

The point is that with the rise of Neoconservatism, the Democrats have been kicked to the sidelines to watch as the neocons take over everything in their path (and brilliantly, might I add). As the neocons get stronger and stronger, the Democrats get angrier and hungrier for a slice of the pie back the top. So, what do they do? They goes as far to the right as humanly possible. What they are now is what the Republican party was 30 years ago. Unfortunately, it's a loser strategy because the further to the right they go, the more true liberals and progressives they lose. Middle America then looks at the Democratic party and asks what is so different between them and the Republicans. They won't come up with a very good answer and will therefore see no reason to change horses in the middle of the stream.

We're going to be stuck with the neocons for ages unless the Dems grow some balls and truly embrace liberalism. They don't need to simply ignite the base, they need to set themselves apart from the Republicans and bring something new to the table. Until they do that, they're f*cked and will be the minority party for years and years to come. You said yourself that the Democratic party isn't the anti-war party. Neither are the Republicans. Democrats bitch about No Child Left Behind, yet they passed it. They bitch about Medicare, but they passed it. Everything they bitch about is because of them, just as it is because of the Repugs. The line that separates the two parties has gotten blurred to the point where you're lucky if you can even see it. The only thing that separates the two parties is that the Democrats bitch and moan, yet do nothing. The Republicans bitch and moan, then turn around and do what they want and get **** done.

Very true. This belongs in your sig. :laugh:

[dissention]

Very true. This belongs in your sig. :laugh:

:laugh:

I change that thing more than my underwear, dear.

[strandinthewind]

And nominating a senator from Massachusetts wasn't suicide? Sending Hillary to the front lines to embrace faith-based initiatives and console the loony pro-lifers isn't suicide? Having Clinton tell his own party to get over it isn't suicide? Pushing Obama down the throat of every progressive isn't suicide? People are dropping out of the Democratic party like flies on a hot summer day in Texas. And it will only continue unless they embrace some real liberal objectives, objectives and goals that will make progressives stay and vote for them. Otherwise they're going to alienate the far left (I'm proof of that) and they won't have that built in base come next election. And without that, they cannot win. So I guess it's just lose-lose at this point. :nod:

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is :shrug: ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint :shrug:

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

[GypsySorcerer]

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is :shrug: ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint :shrug:

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it. :shrug:

[dissention]

Interestingly, Clinton (a moderate) won twice, the second time by a comparative landslide.

Gore (a moderate) won the popular vote and if the post election studies are to be believed - the electoral vote. AND he did this in the aftermath of Clinton's scandal, which pissed many on both sides off - granted for different reasons.

Kerry - got 48 or 49 percent of the popular vote and, possibly the most electoral votes, if the fraud occurred - AND had it not been for the Kerry's conceding he probably was inaccurate before Congress in the Nam hearings, the Swift Boat Vet (mostly) lies, Rather, and the perception that Kerry was an elitist (which he is :shrug: ) with no real agenda that significantly differed from Bush on the war - which is what Kerry tried to run on - he would have won.

So, playing to the middle in the Presidential race has worked from that standpoint :shrug:

I mean history demonstrates there is no way a far left or far right (remember the public (or at least alot of it) blindly and stupidly considers W a centrist) will win a national election.

You fail to see my point. They are committing suicide by abandoning their progressive base. I was saying this back during the campaign. Don't for a second think that they aren't going to go even further to the center now that they lost the last election. And the very people like me who stood by them are jumping ship.

[dissention]

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it. :shrug:

EXACTLY.

Those who vote for him are right-wingers. They don't want gay marraige, they approve of Iraq, they turn a blind eye to corruption, they're religious fundamentalists, you name it. These are the people who elected him. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

I don't think many people consider W a centrist. He is perceived as a far right-winger, and his "base" love him for it. :shrug:

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him. That other significant portion sees him as a moderate. I think people do not care if religion is in the govt., they think aborition is wrong, and they really deep down hate gay people or at least do not think they should dare to have the same rights as straight people. While I think these issues are important, to most they are not even worth considering unless the other gut is trying to advance them :shrug: Thus, I think the non-base people that voted for W at least are willing to buy into he is a uniter and the evil D's are the dividers. Butm even so, Kerry, who played it straight to the middle, almost won :shrug:

[GypsySorcerer]

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him. That other significant portion sees him as a moderate. I think people do not care if religion is in the govt., they think aborition is wrong, and they really deep down hate gay people or at least do not think they should dare to have the same rights as straight people. While I think these issues are important, to most they are not even worth considering unless the other gut is trying to advance them :shrug: Thus, I think the non-base people that voted for W at least are willing to buy into he is a uniter and the evil D's are the dividers. Butm even so, Kerry, who played it straight to the middle, almost won :shrug:

:confused: I think few non-base people voted for Bush. He added to his base by reaching out to the fundies. :shrug:

[strandinthewind]

EXACTLY.

Those who vote for him are right-wingers. They don't want gay marraige, they approve of Iraq, they turn a blind eye to corruption, they're religious fundamentalists, you name it. These are the people who elected him. :shrug:

Well, respectfully, no.

These are not far right issues. Most states voted in the high 70th percentile against gay marriage. Certianly that included moderates and many Democrats. Many D's voted for the war in Iraq and the past leader of the D party validated it. All administrations are corrupt. Name one that wasn't - save - perhaps Carter and even then I doubt it because he was a politician.

Thus, I stand by my proposition that people see W as a moderate and to beat him, which Kerry almost did, people will have to play to the middle which is where the votes are.

[SuzeQuze]

:laugh:

I change that thing more than my underwear, dear.

:eek: Sick, Kyle!

I agreed with what you had to say too. Dems need some fire in their pants. No trying to look like the Rs, it's not working and not going to work. Also, they can be liberal without being "far left". Just be more liberal, dammit. By liberal I mean watch out for and fight for the little guy. You don't have to be "godless" to be liberal. It's these stereotypes that get things so confused. Black and white thinking, missing the forest for the trees.

Dammit, we just need to lift everyone up, not just the rich white folks, everyone. Other countries look at us with all of our wealth and shake their heads that we treat our poor and middle class the way we do. It's regoddamdiculous and it needs to change. And not with cowtowing and other yellow-bellied ****e. Take an effing stand, stick by some principles, move things forward. Reread the constitution, that would be a fabulous start. Meditate on what it means to be American. What does freedom really mean? Are we actually demonstrating a government other countries should model themselves after? Just get some sh*t done. Do it.

[dissention]

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him.

Of course it is. The plan has been to get the base energized all along and the base turned out in record numbers for Shrubya. If it wasn't for the gay marriage baiting, Shrubya would have lost, plain and simple. But he lit the fire under their asses and won as a result.

And, if no one else wants to dare say it, I will: the Democratic party, as a whole, did not like Kerry and he didn't energize them ONCE. He was a lousy candidate and you can bet your stars I'm kicking myself for supporting him. :nod:

[ShangriLaTroubl]

I agree you'd be surprised at the amount of republicans who do not feel Bush is in the far right wing...as well as independents and undecideds...

An overwhelming amount of ppl voted for Bush because he's someone they'd like to have a BBQ with..not because he's good at what he does

Chris

[dissention]

I agree you'd be surprised at the amount of republicans who do not feel Bush is in the far right wing...as well as independents and undecideds...

An overwhelming amount of ppl voted for Bush because he's someone they'd like to have a BBQ with..not because he's good at what he does

Chris

Those are the people who should be disenfranchised. :shocked: :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

:confused: I think few non-base people voted for Bush. He added to his base by reaching out to the fundies. :shrug:

I submit that there are not 60,608,582 in the far right base. Bush clearly picked up votes from D's and moderates. Interestingly, Kerry picked up votes from disgruntled moderates as well.

I know many people who are not really extremist on the right that voted for W because Kerry gave them no alternative. That is not W's base.

But, to be sure, W's base was important to him as was Kerry's.

[strandinthewind]

I agree you'd be surprised at the amount of republicans who do not feel Bush is in the far right wing...as well as independents and undecideds...

An overwhelming amount of ppl voted for Bush because he's someone they'd like to have a BBQ with..not because he's good at what he does

Chris

Thanks for saying what I was trying to say - only in a better way!!! :xoxo:

[SuzeQuze]

True - but it is not just his base that is electing him. That other significant portion sees him as a moderate. I think people do not care if religion is in the govt., they think aborition is wrong, and they really deep down hate gay people or at least do not think they should dare to have the same rights as straight people. While I think these issues are important, to most they are not even worth considering unless the other gut is trying to advance them :shrug: Thus, I think the non-base people that voted for W at least are willing to buy into he is a uniter and the evil D's are the dividers. Butm even so, Kerry, who played it straight to the middle, almost won :shrug:

If they see Bush as a moderate then I've got some beach front property in Florida to sell them. I vote based on issues so they matter to me, but you may be right about others. I think people bought into the fearmongering, they believe that this president will protect them. Also, those making 200k plus get to keep more of their money so they'll vote for him. I don't think he gained people based on appearing moderate. Also the military people voted for him, them and their families. Oh I'm getting ill...

[strandinthewind]

Those are the people who should be disenfranchised. :shocked: :laugh:

thank you Anne Coulter :p ;) :laugh: :wavey: :p :xoxo: :angel:

[dissention]

I submit that there are not 60,608,582 in the far right base. Bush clearly picked up votes from D's and moderates. Interestingly, Kerry picked up votes from disgruntled moderates as well.

I know many people who are not really extremist on the right that voted for W because Kerry gave them no alternative. That is not W's base.

But, to be sure, W's base was important to him as was Kerry's.

While that surely would be a stretch to say 60 million are his base, I would venture out and say that he added millions upon millions to his base after 9/11. And he got people to vote based on religious issues alone, and they are most definitely his base.

[GypsySorcerer]

I submit that there are not 60,608,582 in the far right base. Bush clearly picked up votes from D's and moderates. Interestingly, Kerry picked up votes from disgruntled moderates as well.

I know many people who are not really extremist on the right that voted for W because Kerry gave them no alternative. That is not W's base.

But, to be sure, W's base was important to him as was Kerry's.

The leftovers who did not vote for W because of gay marriage voted for him because of terrorism. He may have picked up some moderates, but I'd bet money they already had right-leanings.

[strandinthewind]

The leftovers who did not vote for W because of gay marriage voted for him because of terrorism. He may have picked up some moderates, but I'd bet money they already had right-leanings.

I think I am taking issue with your painting them as right leanings, etc. - I think gay marriage is a far left issue. The votes in Congress and in America support me here. Civil Unions are generally the more moderate approach.

W won on terrorism because Kerry never provided them with an alternative nor could he really beause he voted for the war in Iraq and had a long haekish history in dealing with Iraq. I think Kerry thought people were so mad at W for going into Iraq that they would flock to him based on his past history as a decorated soldier who did not shirk his duty like W. He was wrong. He needed a concrete plan in five words or less and he never found one :shrug:

But, even so, Kerry knew he had to woo these people with the right leaning and he failed to do so. The only way to woo them is to play to the middle becuase they sure are not going to be impressed by hard left issues.

Finally, Kerry was and is seen as an elitist. W is not even though W's family is.

[dissention]

W won on terrorism because Kerry never provided them with an alternative nor could he really beause he voted for the war in Iraq and had a long haekish history in dealing with Iraq. I think Kerry thought people were so mad at W for going into Iraq that they would flock to him based on his past history as a decorated soldier who did not shirk his duty like W. He was wrong. He needed a concrete plan in five words or less and he never found one :shrug:

Finally, Kerry was and is seen as an elitist. W is not even though W's family is.

I agree with all of that. :woohoo: Gimme a cookie.

But, again, take anyone from Massachusetts or New York, plop them down into some random southern state, and show me someone who doesn't view said person as a fancy-pants elitist. :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

While that surely would be a stretch to say 60 million are his base, I would venture out and say that he added millions upon millions to his base after 9/11. And he got people to vote based on religious issues alone, and they are most definitely his base.

Well, not all religious people are his base. I am religious and I am not his base. I know many like me. And - Kerry was religious as well. So was Clinton. Granted they were not zealots like W - but they often cited God.

[dissention]

But, even so, Kerry knew he had to woo these people with the right leaning and he failed to do so. The only way to woo them is to play to the middle becuase they sure are not going to be impressed by hard left issues.

Which then alienated Kerry's base and kept progressives from voting for him.

[GypsySorcerer]

I think I am taking issue with your painting them as right leanings, etc. - I think gay marriage is a far left issue. The votes in Congress and in America support me here. Civil Unions are generally the more moderate approach.

W won on terrorism because Kerry never provided them with an alternative nor could he really beause he voted for the war in Iraq and had a long haekish history in dealing with Iraq. I think Kerry thought people were so mad at W for going into Iraq that they would flock to him based on his past history as a decorated soldier who did not shirk his duty like W. He was wrong. He needed a concrete plan in five words or less and he never found one :shrug:

But, even so, Kerry knew he had to woo these people with the right leaning and he failed to do so. The only way to woo them is to play to the middle becuase they sure are not going to be impressed by hard left issues.

Finally, Kerry was and is seen as an elitist. W is not even though W's family is.

No gay marriage = conservative
Civil Unions/no Amendment = moderate
gay marriage = liberal

If people voted for no gay marriage, I think it's safe to bet they have right leanings.

While you're correct in saying that right now Americans don't favor gay marriage, that landscape is changing. I also think there's many who disapprove of the Amendment, regardless of their position.

[GypsySorcerer]

Well, not all religious people are his base. I am religious and I am not his base. I know many like me. And - Kerry was religious as well. So was Clinton. Granted they were not zealots like W - but they often cited God.

Not all religious people are his base for sure. But most of his base is religious. ;)

[strandinthewind]

I agree with all of that. :woohoo: Gimme a cookie.

But, again, take anyone from Massachusetts or New York, plop them down into some random southern state, and show me someone who doesn't view said person as a fancy-pants elitist. :laugh:

And that is why Clinton won twice. Interestingly, even as an elitist portrayed as having no agenda, Kerry still got 57,288,974 or 48% of the official vote - that is pretty good.

On top of all of this, more people votes than ever before.

[dissention]

Well, not all religious people are his base. I am religious and I am not his base. I know many like me. And - Kerry was religious as well. So was Clinton. Granted they were not zealots like W - but they often cited God.

Kerry is as religious as my left testicle, dear. :laugh: I don't know a single person who bought that religious act of his. Honestly.

[strandinthewind]

Which then alienated Kerry's base and kept progressives from voting for him.

I diagree and the numbers for the other parties do not support that. I think almost all progressives knew that it was important to vote for Kerry no matter the cost to their pride because W was and is FAR worse. Didn;t you do that?

[dissention]

I diagree and the numbers for the other parties do not support that. I think almost all progressives knew that it was important to vote for Kerry no matter the cost to their pride because W was and is FAR worse. Didn;t you do that?

Of course I did. But I could tell you stories that would make you blush of how many people I know and random strangers I've spoken to who refused to vote for Kerry because of the things he said. He treated us true liberals as if we were the bastard stepchildren of the Democratic party. And that's why people are now leaving that party in droves.

[strandinthewind]

No gay marriage = conservative
Civil Unions/no Amendment = moderate
gay marriage = liberal

If people voted for no gay marriage, I think it's safe to bet they have right leanings.

While you're correct in saying that right now Americans don't favor gay marriage, that landscape is changing. I also think there's many who disapprove of the Amendment, regardless of their position.

The state amendments passed at higher than 70% in most states. If change is coming those numbers do not reflect it :shrug: I think there well never be a Federal Const. Amendment because it takes too many votes. But, if the state numbers and the national poll numbers are any indication, the public wants to ban gay marriage.

[SuzeQuze]

.... He needed a concrete plan in five words or less and he never found one :shrug:

Finally, Kerry was and is seen as an elitist. W is not even though W's family is.

You can't speak the way Dubya does and be seen as elitist. :laugh: If you spoke with any of my family you would wonder where the hell my vocabulary came from. Just because he doesn't sound elitist doesn't mean he isn't, I think people are getting elitist confused with bright and knowledgable which used to be desired traits.

Regarding Kerry, you hit the nail right on the head above and are absolutely right. He might have won if he could have articulated a specific plan for Iraq. But he doesn't talk in specifics because he suffers from analysis paralysis and thus is ineffective. I think people saw that in him and just didn't see him as doing anything for them.

[dissention]

The state amendments passed at higher than 70% in most states. If change is coming those numbers do not reflect it :shrug: I think there well never be a Federal Const. Amendment because it takes too many votes. But, if the state numbers and the national poll numbers are any indication, the public wants to ban gay marriage.

Look at youth attitudes concerning gay marriage. The landscape is changing.

[GypsySorcerer]

The state amendments passed at higher than 70% in most states. If change is coming those numbers do not reflect it :shrug: I think there well never be a Federal Const. Amendment because it takes too many votes. But, if the state numbers and the national poll numbers are any indication, the public wants to ban gay marriage.

With the exception of Oregon, those were all red states.

[dissention]

You can't speak the way Dubya does and be seen as elitist. :laugh:

:laugh:

Is our children learning?

[strandinthewind]

Of course I did. But I could tell you stories that would make you blush of how many people I know and random strangers I've spoken to who refused to vote for Kerry because of the things he said. He treated us true liberals as if we were the bastard stepchildren of the Democratic party. And that's why people are now leaving that party in droves.

But, back to my original point, the far far left is not the D party - it never has been. AND - even if those people leave now, I suspect a fair percentage will be back in 2008 depending on who the R candiate is. Moreover, the numbers of the far far left are not that significant when compared to the moderates :shrug: Ain't politics grand :rolleyes:

[GypsySorcerer]

But, back to my original point, the far far left is not the D party - it never has been. AND - even if those people leave now, I suspect a fair percentage will be back in 2008 depending on who the R candiate is. Moreover, the numbers of the far far left are not that significant when compared to the moderates :shrug: Ain't politics grand :rolleyes:

The D's need to build up their urban voters. Because of sheer numbers, they'd win over rural America.

[SuzeQuze]

:laugh:

Is our children learning?

I know that the human being and fish can coexist peacefully! :laugh:

[dissention]

But, back to my original point, the far far left is not the D party - it never has been.

And I never argued otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that as the years wear on, the Democratic party becomes more and more conservative. And that's not a way to win votes.

[dissention]

I know that the human being and fish can coexist peacefully! :laugh:

I did denounce bigotry and I did denounce interracial marriage!

[strandinthewind]

You can't speak the way Dubya does and be seen as elitist. :laugh: If you spoke with any of my family you would wonder where the hell my vocabulary came from. Just because he doesn't sound elitist doesn't mean he isn't, I think people are getting elitist confused with bright and knowledgable which used to be desired traits.

ITA - I have said more than once that people loved Clinton and Bush for the same reason - they both come across as real people and nonelitist. Granted Clinton had far humbler beginnings than W, but Clinton was a Rhode scholar, which is pretty elite :shrug: W is also well educated and, IMO FAR from dumb - despite his inability to speak - I mean you cannot be an idiot and fly a jet fighter. But, they both come across as real people to the general public. That is what makes them well liked even when they are lying :nod:

[dissention]

The D's need to build up their urban voters. Because of sheer numbers, they'd win over rural America.

But, see, they're too concerned with winning over rural America. And they'll do and say anything to do it. Problem is, they can't face the reality that it's not going to happen.

[SuzeQuze]

I did denounce bigotry and I did denounce interracial marriage!

I know what sovereignty means, it means that you are sovereign, that you have...that you're sovereign...:laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Look at youth attitudes concerning gay marriage. The landscape is changing.

True - but we are talking 20 years or so from now. Who the hell knows what will happen then. Plus, they could always change their minds after years of demionizing gay people by their religious leaders :eek:

[strandinthewind]

With the exception of Oregon, those were all red states.

true - but W did not win by those margins in those states :shrug:

[dissention]

True - but we are talking 20 years or so from now. Who the hell knows what will happen then. Plus, they could always change their minds after years of demionizing gay people by their religious leaders :eek:

The youth of this country are not cattle like their parents, contrary to popular beliefs. Growing up in the current environment will shape them into true liberals in the future. I firmly believe that. :nod:

[SuzeQuze]

ITA - I have said more than once that people loved Clinton and Bush for the same reason - they both come across as real people and nonelitist. Granted Clinton had far humbler beginnings than W, but Clinton was a Rhode scholar, which is pretty elite :shrug: W is also well educated and, IMO FAR from dumb - despite his inability to speak - I mean you cannot be an idiot and fly a jet fighter. But, they both come across as real people to the general public. That is what makes them well liked even when they are lying :nod:

They do share that trait. It is charm. I would vote bright over charm any day but apparently that is not how most people feel. I agree on the point that Bush is not dumb. I really don't think he is, although most definitely he's a dunce linguistically. But he seems to know exactly what he is doing which is even more frightening.

[dissention]

I know what sovereignty means, it means that you are sovereign, that you have...that you're sovereign...:laugh:

Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...well...er...um...you can't get fooled again.

[strandinthewind]

And I never argued otherwise. I'm simply pointing out that as the years wear on, the Democratic party becomes more and more conservative. And that's not a way to win votes.

well, yes it is and Kerry getting 48% and 57,288,974 votes is prrof of that. As are the votes gotten by Clinton and Gore :shrug: They know that the far left will for the most part vote for the D candidate in a swing state and even if they do not, the D candidate picks up maybe four votes for every far left vote lost :shrug: It is a numbers game pure and simple.

[Hawkeye]

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

[SuzeQuze]

Fool me once, shame on you...fool me twice...well...er...um...you can't get fooled again.

As I say to my friends in Texas, I wish I knew the law.

[GypsySorcerer]

true - but W did not win by those margins in those states :shrug:

He won by quite a bit in KY, MO, etc. :shrug: It was not 70%, but it was 60%.

[strandinthewind]

But, see, they're too concerned with winning over rural America. And they'll do and say anything to do it. Problem is, they can't face the reality that it's not going to happen.

well, that is a bit shortsited :shrug: The D's still have to carry some of these states for the Senate? They are not going to do that with a far left agenda?

[dissention]

well, yes it is and Kerry getting 48% and 57,288,974 votes is prrof of that. As are the votes gotten by Clinton and Gore :shrug: They know that the far left will for the most part vote for the D candidate in a swing state and even if they do not, the D candidate picks up maybe four votes for every far left vote lost :shrug: It is a numbers game pure and simple.

If I see that :shrug: icon again, I am going to vomit. That thing drives me bonkers more than I can express with the written word. :laugh:

As for what you said, I'll respectfully disagree. The Dems are at a crossroads and they're currently going in the direction of the bad road. If they continue on, they're in big ****ing trouble, believe you me.

[strandinthewind]

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

I would vote for him in a minute, esp. over W - I wanted him to win the R nomination in 00 - I would have voted for him over Gore any day of the week.

[strandinthewind]

He won by quite a bit in KY, MO, etc. :shrug: It was not 70%, but it was 60%.

Thus, my point that gay marriage and the amendments are issues that cross over party lines and are supported by many D's - sadly so IMO.

[dissention]

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

FORGIVE ME WHILE I VOMIT IN MY HAT

He's a tool. Integrity is a word he's never heard. He's not against Iraq, he's all for it.

[strandinthewind]

If I see that :shrug: icon again, I am going to vomit. That thing drives me bonkers more than I can express with the written word. :laugh:

As for what you said, I'll respectfully disagree. The Dems are at a crossroads and they're currently going in the direction of the bad road. If they continue on, they're in big ****ing trouble, believe you me.

what do you mean :shrug:

:p :p :p :laugh:

Again, you are not supported by history, but only time will tell :cool:

[strandinthewind]

FORGIVE ME WHILE I VOMIT IN MY HAT

He's a tool. Integrity is a word he's never heard. He's not against Iraq, he's all for it.

as are most of the D's and America (sitting on hands to omit icon) - the no war people are in the clear minority - more so in the beginnig though.

[dissention]

I would vote for him in a minute, esp. over W - I wanted him to win the R nomination in 00 - I would have voted for him over Gore any day of the week.

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

He's a coward and a man of questionable character. Anyone who would continue to stand by the very people who spread vicious lies about his family like that is a man I would never vote for, regardless if it's John McCain or Dennis Kucinich.

[strandinthewind]

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

He's a coward and a man of questionable character. Anyone who would continue to stand by the very people who spread vicious lies about his family like that is a man I would never vote for, regardless if it's John McCain or Dennis Kucinich.

I think that just means he knows politics - which is a sleazy affair to say the least. Regarding 08 - we will have to see who runs - I recant and instead reserve my opinion :cool:

[dissention]

Again, you are not supported by history, but only time will tell :cool:

I'm not speaking of the past. I'm speaking of the here, the now, and the future. Where have you been? :confused:

[dissention]

I think that just means he knows politics - which is a sleazy affair to say the least. Regarding 08 - we will have to see who runs - I recant and instead reserve my opinion :cool:

Politics or not, selling out like that and supporting the people who did such things leaves a disgusting taste in my mouth. I wouldn't vote for him on a school board, let alone the office of the POTU.

[dissention]

as are most of the D's and America (sitting on hands to omit icon) - the no war people are in the clear minority - more so in the beginnig though.

I'm not a Democrat, so I could care less, dear. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

I'm not speaking of the past. I'm speaking of the here, the now, and the future. Where have you been? :confused:

I know that - but my point is history demosntrates elections are won by playing to the middle. That is where the greatest numbers of votes are and those votes are obtainable. I submit most far left people are loathe to vote D in any event because most D's are moderate and therefore do not support their agenda. Will that historical pattern be continued in the future, I think so. The reason I think it will is that, again, there are far more votes to get amongst the moderates than the far left and that will not change in four years. But, only time will tell.

[Hawkeye]

:shocked::shocked::shocked:

He's a coward and a man of questionable character. Anyone who would continue to stand by the very people who spread vicious lies about his family like that is a man I would never vote for, regardless if it's John McCain or Dennis Kucinich.

He only does what he has to, to survive. He's gone on countless shows and expressed his disagreement with the curent administration, he then goes and supports them, because its his only choice.

[strandinthewind]

I'm not a Democrat, so I could care less, dear. :xoxo:

I know - but we were talking about the votes the D party can get. The vast majority of those votes are amongst moderates and people disgruntled with W, but not liberal.

[dissention]

He only does what he has to, to survive. He's gone on countless shows and expressed his disagreement with the curent administration, he then goes and supports them, because its his only choice.

:laugh:

Yeah, he went so far as to claim that he wasn't a personal friend of John Kerry and that he had never even been to Kerry's house. All in the name of supporting Bush. :D

He isn't fit to kiss my lily-white, elitist ass. I'll impugn his integrity any day because the man has NONE. Not one shred of it.

[dissention]

I know - but we were talking about the votes the D party can get. The vast majority of those votes are amongst moderates and people disgruntled with W, but not liberal.

No, we were talking about McCain and how he supported Iraq. Then you piped up and said that most Democrats did, too. That's what we were discussing. ;)

[dissention]

I know that - but my point is history demosntrates elections are won by playing to the middle.

Yes, and history has demonstrated so wonderfully that nothing ever changes politically. :rolleyes:

[strandinthewind]

No, we were talking about McCain and how he supported Iraq. Then you piped up and said that most Democrats did, too. That's what we were discussing. ;)

But McCain was a subset of the future of the D party discussion - keep your eye on the ball :laugh:

[strandinthewind]

Yes, and history has demonstrated so wonderfully that nothing ever changes politically. :rolleyes:

apples and oranges - changing of politics has little to do with playing to the middle (whatever that may be in 2008 or any other election period) because that is where to get the most votes.

[dissention]

But McCain was a subset of the future of the D party discussion - keep your eye on the ball :laugh:

Keep your eye on the ball, dear, it had nothing to do with the Democrats. You're the one that brought them into the fold. :wavey:

[dissention]

apples and oranges - changing of politics has little to do with playing to the middle (whatever that may be in 2008 or any other election period) because that is where to get the most votes.

Not anymore.

Quote me on that. ;)

[strandinthewind]

Keep your eye on the ball, dear, it had nothing to do with the Democrats. You're the one that brought them into the fold. :wavey:

Hmmmm - five pages of the discussion of the D party compared to like three posts about McCain which were in the context of the future of the D party :rolleyes:

:shrug: <--------- you deserved that for trying to pull that spin :laugh:

[Hawkeye]

No, we were talking about McCain and how he supported Iraq. Then you piped up and said that most Democrats did, too. That's what we were discussing. ;)

Mcain and those democrats supported Iraq before they knew it would be a disaster and believed Bush's lies. Once he figured that all out, he was against the war.

[strandinthewind]

Not anymore.

Quote me on that. ;)

how are the votes going to flee from the moderates? I am asking because I am curious - I am not being snarky. I mean there is 200 years of this history with few exceptions. The only way I think that will happen is if W screws up even more and the R candidate is miserable. But, W really cannot screw up anymore than he has.

[dissention]

Hmmmm - five pages of the discussion of the D party compared to like three posts about McCain which were in the context of the future of the D party :rolleyes:

:shrug: <--------- you deserved that for trying to pull that spin :laugh:

Talk about spin, you're the master at it. This is from the first post mentioning McCain by Hawkeye:

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

Nowhere in that post does he relate his feelings about McCain to our discussion of the stage the Democrats are currently at when it comes to winning national elections. Then you tried to spin it into a "Democrats don't oppose Iraq" type thing. ;)

[dissention]

Mcain and those democrats supported Iraq before they knew it would be a disaster and believed Bush's lies. Once he figured that all out, he was against the war.

BULL**** :xoxo:

Do you honestly believe that the Senate was given the same intel we were? If so, I've got a swamp to sell you in Florida. Even I knew the intel was bogus and that Saddam had nothing, McCain did, too. And he still supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He votes with Shrubya every time he needs more of our money to waste.

[Hawkeye]

Talk about spin, you're the master at it. This is from the first post mentioning McCain by Hawkeye:

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

Nowhere in that post does he relate his feelings about McCain to our discussion of the stage the Democrats are currently at when it comes to winning national elections. Then you tried to spin it into a "Democrats don't oppose Iraq" type thing. ;)

I brought up Mcain because you guys were talking about democrats not being democrats soit made me think of Mcain who I want to be president who is kind of like the oppisitte.

[strandinthewind]

Talk about spin, you're the master at it. This is from the first post mentioning McCain by Hawkeye:

The guy I want to be president in 08 is John Mcain. I know you dislike him for some reason Diss, but he's against the Iraq war and for helping the enviroment, and probably more of a democrat then some democrats.

Nowhere in that post does he relate his feelings about McCain to our discussion of the stage the Democrats are currently at when it comes to winning national elections. Then you tried to spin it into a "Democrats don't oppose Iraq" type thing. ;)

well, despite Hawkeye's observations, I was talking about it in the context of the future of the D party. I think he was as well. But, if you took it differently, so be it.

[dissention]

I brought up Mcain because you guys were talking about democrats not being democrats soit made me think of Mcain who I want to be president who is kind of like the oppisitte.

McCain needs to retire. Plain and simple. He makes me sick. The day I stand and announce my support for the man who said my "mixed" son was the product of having an affair is the day I piss ice cubes and announce my conversion to Christianity. McCain needs to go away and find some integrity.

[strandinthewind]

BULL**** :xoxo:

Do you honestly believe that the Senate was given the same intel we were? If so, I've got a swamp to sell you in Florida. Even I knew the intel was bogus and that Saddam had nothing, McCain did, too. And he still supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq. He votes with Shrubya every time he needs more of our money to waste.

Lord here we go again, the world though SH had WMD and the UN voted unanimously for him to account for it. He initially balked and then in the end complied. W would have none of that and jumped the gun.

Interestingly and hypertechnically, it was not that SH had or did not have WMD - it was that he refused to account for them. That was what he was being hounded to do. All he had to do was say - here is the country - go and look - knock youself out AND - here are all of our records - knock youself out. Yet, he did not do that for many many years. So, while I think W was wrong to invade when he did and he could have waited until the inspections were done, SH did not have clean hands and pretty much has the brunt of this on his insane shoulders.

Again and to be clear - I think W was wring to invade Iraq when he did and how he did.

[dissention]

Lord here we go again, the world though SH had WMD and the UN voted unanimously for him to account for it. He initially balked and then in the end complied. W would have none of that and jumped the gun.

Interestingly and hypertechnically, it was not that SH had or did not have WMD - it was that he refused to account for them. That was what he was being hounded to do. All he had to do was say - here is the country - go and look - knock youself out AND - here are all of our records - knock youself out. Yet, he did not do that for many many years. So, while I think W was wrong to invade when he did and he could have waited until the inspections were done, SH did not have clean hands and pretty much has the brunt of this on his insane shoulders.

Again and to be clear - I think W was wring to invade Iraq when he did and how he did.

Wrong as you are, I'm not taking the bait. :xoxo:

[strandinthewind]

Wrong as you are, I'm not taking the bait. :xoxo:

Okay - so the UN did not repeadtedly find SH had not accounted for his WMD and did not in the end unanimously vote to find SH in breach of his duty to prove he had disarmed - that never happened. Then, SH welcomed with open arms and a pre-inspection tea and lawn party, the US, the UN, and the inspectors and allowed them access into his palaces and other places he had formerly balked at inspections in. SH was always 100% compliant with the UN and all of this tommyrot was the US making up that SH was non complaint. Finally, the UN, France, and probably Russia had not been bought by SH to ensure no UN military action :rolleyes:

Agan, this does not excuse W for manipulating the truth and making people think SH and OBL were in bed together - nor does it excuse his rush to a war that perhaps the end of the inpsections could have avoided and in this rush he sent in too few ill equipped troops with an ill advised plan and some of the troops were not properly trained and thus tortured prisoners. Those are nad acts that fall solidly on W's shoulders.

But, to say or imply that Iraq did not deserve a closer look after 9/11 (no direct connection to 9/11 exists, but they were still a terrorist state with a history of invading countries and with a maniac at the helm) - is not really fair.

On edit - I want to be clear that W has behaved pig headedly and without care or regard for the well being of American soldiers and the Iraqi people we are there to liberate. I just think that the initial re-look at Iraq was warranted.