0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 10:48 am
bluevein and dys, I would have to concede to your superior opinion on "mouthbreathers and bushworship," since it makes more sense than my post/opinion.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 02:47 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
No. I know it's too spacial for you to understand, but you must learn to look at 1) Bush's tax policies and how they have affected health insurance for the middle class (higher taxes and higher health insurance premiums), and 2) how the middle class will react to Bush's incompetence to handle our economy (consumer confidence is falling). It doesn't matter that Bush does not run GM.


you couldn't be more incorrect C.I. The small minority of mouth breathers who still support and defend bush don't have to understand anything except bushworship. That's all that's required of them. :wink:


Indeed (huff, huff, huff) Bush is Good, his will be done!

The righteous might of the Lord W will smite all of you non-believers! (huff huff huff).

Though I walk through the valley of the depraved Lefties, I will fear no Liberal for W is with me. His Rove and his Staff will comfort me.

Chok -koff - koff! Tough to eat popcorn and breath at the same time!
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 04:18 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Chok -koff - koff! Tough to eat popcorn and breath at the same time!


Good heavens! Please don't injure yourself. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 05:27 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Chok -koff - koff! Tough to eat popcorn and breath at the same time!


Good heavens! Please don't injure yourself. :wink:


No such luck.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 05:42 pm
JustWonders wrote:
... Considering that the majority of the electorate is dominated by pro-military with strong religious beliefs, ....


Says who?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Oct, 2005 07:44 pm
Well, to name two, Galston and Kamarck - two Democrats who recently wrote a paper warning the Dems to not tilt too far left. WaPo picked it up and I posted it here (somewhere) a few days ago. (Galston and Kamarck are both veterans of the Clinton administration, by the way).

Quote:
On defense and social issues, "liberals espouse views diverging not only from those of other Democrats, but from Americans as a whole.

[...]

They contend that Democrats who hope the party's relative advantages on health care and education can vault them back to power "fail the test of political reality in the post-9/11 world." Security issues have become "threshold" questions for many voters, and cultural issues have become "a prism of candidates' individual character and family life," Galston and Kamarck argue.


I think it's fairly common knowledge that those who are pro-military and those with strong religious beliefs primarily vote Republican. They also make up the majority of the electorate. Why else do you think the Democrats - with Howard Dean leading the way - are suddendly trying to reinvent themselves? From the Galson/Kamarck paper, via WaPo:

Quote:
They warn against overreliance on a strategy of solving political problems by "reframing" the language by which they present their ideas, as advocated by linguist George Lakoff of the University of California at Berkeley: "The best rhetoric will fail if the public rejects the substance of a candidate's agenda or entertains doubts about his integrity."


They go on to say that the Democrats are pretty much fooling themselves if they think they'll get the Hispanic vote, not to mention they continue to lose with white Catholics and married women.

All in all, it's not looking good for you lefties.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 02:09 am
JustWonders wrote:
I think it's fairly common knowledge that those who are pro-military and those with strong religious beliefs primarily vote Republican.


This is a very interesting statement. "Swords into plowshares" is here (in Germany) one of the main slogans by the (religious) peace/anti-war movement (and was THE slogan for democracy in the former GDR).

Those with really strong religious beliefs are anti-war; traditionally, they made the highest percentage of the conscientious objectors (religious objections had been the only 'easy' reason for some years).
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:36 am
My above post questioning the validity of the religious vote was basically a hunch that the claim had more to do with talking points than facts. It just hasn't been shown to be true. So, this morning I went searching for the facts.

As suspected, the Bush gains at the time of the 2004 election were not from the religious right. If anything, it was from married white women and high school dropouts.


http://www.beliefnet.com/story/155/story_15598.html

Quote:




http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000931.php

Quote:
... According to the NEP poll, Bush carried men by 11 points (55-44), exactly the same margin he had in 2000 when he carried men by 53-42. Among women, however, Kerry's margin was only 3 points (51-48), down from the 11 point margin Gore had in 2000 (54-43)... and it is entirely due to the Democrats' reduced margin among women.

Bush widened his margin among white voters--still 77 percent of voters--to 17 points (58-41), up from a 12 point margin (54-42) in 2000. And among hispanics, now 8 percent of voters, the poll indicates a Kerry margin of only 53-44, a dramatic compression from Gore's 62-35 margin among the same group in 2000.



http://www.emergingdemocraticmajorityweblog.com/donkeyrising/archives/000935.php

Quote:
3. Whites by Gender. Democrats' falloff among whites appears to have been concentrated almost entirely among white women, rather than white men. This year, Bush carried white men by 25 points (62-37), only a point more than his 24 point margin in 2000 (60-36). In contrast, he carried white women by 11 points (55-44), a big improvement over the single point (49-48) by which he carried this group in 2000.

4. Education. Democrats' slippage by education group was concentrated entirely among the non-college educated. Kerry split the college-educated as a whole evenly with Bush, just as Gore did in 2000, and actually carried those with a postgraduate education by 11 (55-44).

But, where Gore lost the non-college educated as a whole by just 2 (49-47), Kerry lost them by 6 (53-47), including an 8 point deficit among those with some college (up from a 6 point disadvantage in 2000) and a 5 point deficit among those with just a high school degree (up from just a single point disadvantage in 2000). Most startlingly, Kerry only carried high school dropouts by one point (50-49), while Gore had carried the same group by 20 points.

Given that Bush's increased margin came entirely from the non-college educated and given the increase in Bush's margin among white voters, we would expect that Bush's performance among white working class voters must have improved substantially.

...Arguably, that's the story of the election right there. An additional wrinkle on the white working class vote is that this falloff was likely concentrated among white working class women, not men, judging from the figures cited above on Bush's big gains among white women, but no change among white men .

...Bush's margin among white married men staying about the same across elections and actually shrinking a bit among white unmarried men. But among white married women, his margin increases from 9 to 18 points and, among white unmarried women, he actually achieves a tie, compared to a 15 deficit in 2000.


As you can see, the gains claimed by the republicans are much more complex and do not indicate an overly active religious right. Too many other factors have been ignored, such as the votes of married women, which could just as easily be argued as having been swayed by the "Fear Factor" as by religion.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:55 am
LOL!!! I just have to wonder what Squinney's reaction would have been if I'd produced two right-wing BLOG opinions to answer her question "says who?"

Oh, well. The Democrats will continue to ignore advice from within their own party and once again feign puzzlement on why they keep losing Smile
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 06:34 am
The data is available if you'd like to do your own analysis. I think it's pretty clear that Evangelicals did NOT put Bush over the top, nor is the Religious Right as important as they like to make themselves out to be regarding elections.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 06:59 am
JustWonders wrote:
LOL!!! I just have to wonder what Squinney's reaction would have been if I'd produced two right-wing BLOG opinions to answer her question "says who?"

Oh, well. The Democrats will continue to ignore advice from within their own party and once again feign puzzlement on why they keep losing Smile


How much is this lady like the character from Monty Python and the Holy Grail?
http://bluegoldfish.blogs.com/surface/images/holygrail021.jpg

Rove? More powerful than ever.
Libby? A vertiable mountain of stability.
Frist? Leaders should always have it so good.
DeLay? Top of his game.
Bush? Everybody loves him. Everybody. Stats going up up up.
Iraq? A garden of peace. Nothing but progress. Just like the administration said.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:18 am
I never said it was. There are, however, a few here that are terrified that you might be wrong and have spent lots of time trying to prove it LOL.

Now it seems they've convinced no one - least of all, their own cohorts Smile

I'll leave you kiddies to fight it out amongst yourselves Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:24 am
blatham wrote:
Rove? More powerful than ever.


Well, yes.

<A great source of irritation to the lunatic fringe here>

Smile
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:27 am
In the morning quiet...letting that last post speak for itself.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 07:49 am
<<<< Sends up a small prayer of thanks Smile
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 08:54 am
I know there are few Rush Limbaugh fans among the conservatives here and none among the liberals, but his guest essay in today's Wall Street Journal was just too good to pass up. Sorry about posting the whole article but registration will be required to access it within a couple of days.

Rebut it if you can.

Excerpt:
Quote:
The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton. . . .

. . . .The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.


AMERICAN CONSERVATISM

Holding Court
There's a crackdown over Miers, not a "crackup."

BY RUSH LIMBAUGH
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
I love being a conservative. We conservatives are proud of our philosophy. Unlike our liberal friends, who are constantly looking for new words to conceal their true beliefs and are in a perpetual state of reinvention, we conservatives are unapologetic about our ideals. We are confident in our principles and energetic about openly advancing them.

We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution.
Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.

We conservatives are never stronger than when we are advancing our principles. And that's the nature of our current debate over the nomination of Harriet Miers. Will she respect the Constitution? Will she be an originalist who will accept the limited role of the judiciary to interpret and uphold it, and leave the elected branches--we, the people--to set public policy? Given the extraordinary power the Supreme Court has seized from the representative parts of our government, this is no small matter. Roe v. Wade is a primary example of judicial activism.
Regardless of one's position on abortion, seven unelected and unaccountable justices simply did not have the constitutional authority to impose their pro-abortion views on the nation. The Constitution empowers the people, through their elected representatives in Congress or the state legislatures, to make this decision.

Abortion is only one of countless areas in which a mere nine lawyers in robes have imposed their personal policy preferences on the rest of us. The court has conferred due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay and benefits on illegal immigrants. It has ruled that animated cyberspace child pornography is protected speech, but certain broadcast ads aired before elections are illegal; it has held that the Ten Commandments can't be displayed in a public building, but they can be displayed outside a public building; and the court has invented rationales to skirt the Constitution, such as using foreign law to strike down juvenile death penalty statutes in over a dozen states.

For decades conservatives have considered judicial abuse a direct threat to our Constitution and our form of government. The framers didn't create a judicial oligarchy. They created a representative republic. Our opposition to judicial activism runs deep. We've witnessed too many occasions where Republican presidents have nominated the wrong candidates to the court, and we want more assurances this time--some proof. The left, on the other hand, sees the courts as the only way to advance their big-government agenda. They can't win national elections if they're open about their agenda. So, they seek to impose their policies by judicial fiat. It's time to call them on it. And that's what many of us had hoped and expected when the president made his nomination.

Some liberal commentators mistakenly view the passionate debate among conservatives over the Miers nomination as a "crackup" on the right. They are giddy about "splits" in the conservative base of the GOP. They are predicting doom for the rest of the president's term and gloom for Republican electoral chances in 2006. As usual, liberals don't understand conservatives and never will.

The Miers nomination shows the strength of the conservative movement. This is no "crackup." It's a crackdown. We conservatives are unified in our objectives. And we are organized to advance them. The purpose of the Miers debate is to ensure that we are doing the very best we can to move the nation in the right direction. And when all is said and done, we will be even stronger and more focused on our agenda and defeating those who obstruct it, just in time for 2006 and 2008. Lest anyone forget, for several years before the 1980 election, we had knockdown battles within the GOP. The result: Ronald Reagan won two massive landslides.

The real crackup has already occurred--on the left! The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org. It nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer. Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy and new propagandists like Michael Moore. Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton.

The Democratic Party today is split over the war and a host of cultural issues, such as same-sex marriage and partial birth abortion. It wants to raise taxes, but dares not say so. It can't decide what message to convey to the American people or how to convey it. And even its once- reliable allies in the big media aren't as influential in promoting the party and its agenda as they were in the past. The new media--talk radio, the Internet and cable TV--not only have a growing following, but have helped expose the bias and falsehoods of the big-media, e.g., Dan Rather, CBS News and the forged National Guard documents. Hence, circulation and audience is down, and dropping.

The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years. They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam, the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression. Beyond looking to the past for their salvation, the problem is that they continue to deceive even themselves. None of their comparisons are true. Meanwhile, we conservatives will continue to focus on making history.

Mr. Limbaugh is a radio-show host. This is the latest in our occasional series.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417
0 Replies
 
kelticwizard
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 03:39 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
Rebut it if you can.



Limbaugh wrote:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org.
As opposed to the Republican Party, which was hijacked years ago by TV preachers like Pat Robertson, who calls for the outright murder of foreign leaders whose major offense is to say uncomplimentary things about America.


Limbaugh wrote:
It [Democratic Party]nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
As opposed to the GOP, whose leaders largerly supported the VietNam War while making damn sure they weren't sent over there. Such as Bush, Cheney, and so many others.


Limbaugh wrote:
Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy....
Kennedy an extremist? Yeah, to guys on The Free Republic.


Limbaugh wrote:
Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.
Yes, how dare those awful Democrats even consider someone whom Limbaugh and his buddies have been vilifying since 1992? Hate to see if Chelsea ever turns to politics-Limbaugh has been vilifying her since she was 12.


Limbaugh wrote:
And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton. . . .
Held in contempt by who, the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Why don't you ask the folks in Harlem who turned out to celebrate in the streets when Clinton opened his office there? Oops, I forgot-Harlem doesn't count for Rush and his supporters.



Limbaugh wrote:
. . . .The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years.
At least we had some glory years. The Republicans are stuck with the decidedly unglorious past five years.


Limbaugh wrote:
They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam...
Support for it slips every day. And you know it.


Limbaugh wrote:
....the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate.....
Watergate was called "a third rate burglary" when it first started. Who knows how far this might go? Hint: Not Limbaugh.

Limbaugh wrote:
.....and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression.....
The Great Depression? Hardly. We just look at it as the exposure of the notion that Bush and the GOP are the only ones who supposedly can protect us. How many terrorists give several days notice when and where they are likely to strike, as Katrina did?


Limbaugh wrote:
None of their comparisons are true.
Glad to see Limbaugh didn't strain himself actually giving any reasons they aren't.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 04:41 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
I think it's fairly common knowledge that those who are pro-military and those with strong religious beliefs primarily vote Republican.


This is a very interesting statement. "Swords into plowshares" is here (in Germany) one of the main slogans by the (religious) peace/anti-war movement (and was THE slogan for democracy in the former GDR).

Those with really strong religious beliefs are anti-war; traditionally, they made the highest percentage of the conscientious objectors (religious objections had been the only 'easy' reason for some years).


Appears that a prior response was lost in the ether - I shall try and recreate.

Yes it is, isn't it.

But is it all that surprising?

On the one hand we have religious Germans who have adopted a New Testament approach of turn the other cheek (You don't suppose this has anything to do with historically cataclysmic Teutonic militarism do you?). On the other, we have religious Americans who have adopted a decidedly Old Testament approach to smiting evil wherever it is found. (You don't suppose this has anything to do with the pervasive nature of post-modernist thought in popular American culture do you?).

It is interesting that fundamental American christians tend to reflect an Old Testament view of the world all the while evoking Jesus as the Savior and Lord. This is, of course, the very sort of generalization about christians which I abhor. Surely, though, it must be OK, given my bonafides.

What is the percentage of Germans who consider themselves "religious?"
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 04:48 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Rebut it if you can.



Limbaugh wrote:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org.


KW
Quote:
As opposed to the Republican Party, which was hijacked years ago by TV preachers like Pat Robertson, who calls for the outright murder of foreign leaders whose major offense is to say uncomplimentary things about America.


You see some media types pulling in a Robertson or Falwell as "representative of the Christian right", but you sure don't see either of these two speaking for the Republican party or running RNC sanctioned incendiary ads.

Limbaugh wrote:
It [Democratic Party]nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.


KW
Quote:
As opposed to the GOP, whose leaders largerly supported the VietNam War while making damn sure they weren't sent over there. Such as Bush, Cheney, and so many others.


And this is responsive to Kerry's anti-war agenda how?

Limbaugh wrote:
Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy....


KW
Quote:
Kennedy an extremist? Yeah, to guys on The Free Republic.


And every other person who is likel to vote Republican.

Limbaugh wrote:
Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton. [/quote

KW
[quote]]Yes, how dare those awful Democrats even consider someone whom Limbaugh and his buddies have been vilifying since 1992? Hate to see if Chelsea ever turns to politics-Limbaugh has been vilifying her since she was 12.


Are you seriously saying that Hillary is not a divisive figure? Does your transparent attempt to make Rush look worse change that?

Limbaugh wrote:
And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton. . . .


KW
Quote:
Held in contempt by who, the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Why don't you ask the folks in Harlem who turned out to celebrate in the streets when Clinton opened his office there? Oops, I forgot-Harlem doesn't count for Rush and his supporters.


Held in contempt by the courts, dear. Try to keep up here.

Limbaugh wrote:
. . . .The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years.


KW
Quote:
At least we had some glory years. The Republicans are stuck with the decidedly unglorious past five years.


That must be why we have been winning all those elections since 1994 and are likely to continue to do so into the foreseeable future as long as the Democrats can't come up with any new glory years of their own.


Limbaugh wrote:
They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam...

Quote:


KW
Quote:
Support for it slips every day. And you know it.


So we can put you down as one who hopes the efforts in Iraq will fail? That kind of impression really endears a party with pro-military, pro-American types like most GOP supporters are.

Limbaugh wrote:
....the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate.....


KW
Quote:
Watergate was called "a third rate burglary" when it first started. Who knows how far this might go? Hint: Not Limbaugh.


So far the Bush administration has been the least investigated and the least scandal ridden of any in the last half century. That just really torques you guys, doesn't it. Smile

Limbaugh wrote:
.....and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression.....


KW
Quote:
The Great Depression? Hardly. We just look at it as the exposure of the notion that Bush and the GOP are the only ones who supposedly can protect us. How many terrorists give several days notice when and where they are likely to strike, as Katrina did?


Well you better clue in your Democrat buddies who accuse the administration of intentionally dissing black people and other poor and who are prophesying doom and gloom in the economy for the foreseeable future.

Limbaugh wrote:
None of their comparisons are true.


KW
Quote:
Glad to see Limbaugh didn't strain himself actually giving any reasons they aren't.


And you did so, how?
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Oct, 2005 05:18 pm
kelticwizard wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Rebut it if you can.



Limbaugh wrote:
The Democratic Party has been hijacked by 1960s retreads like Howard Dean; billionaire eccentrics like George Soros; and leftwing computer geeks like Moveon.org.
As opposed to the Republican Party, which was hijacked years ago by TV preachers like Pat Robertson, who calls for the outright murder of foreign leaders whose major offense is to say uncomplimentary things about America.

Now Republicans are more than capable of naming numerous persons, other than Robinson, who truly represent their party. Who, as opposed to Dean, Soros, and Moveon.org, represents the Democratic party?

I, as a Republican, am more than happy to denounce Robertson. Will you do the same for Dean, Soros and Moveon.org?


Limbaugh wrote:
It [Democratic Party]nominated John Kerry, a notorious Vietnam-era antiwar activist, as its presidential standard-bearer.
As opposed to the GOP, whose leaders largerly supported the VietNam War while making damn sure they weren't sent over there. Such as Bush, Cheney, and so many others.

I'm sure if we (fairly) matched up Republican and Democratic political leaders we would find a roughly even mix of those who served in Vietnam and those who did not. There certainly is something to be said for the personal courage of John Kerry who placed himself in Harm's way for whatever reason. Perhaps he schemed to get out in far less time than was usual; perhaps not. The fact of the matter is that any time on the front was dangerous, and he was there.

I think the point concerning Kerry as an anti-Vietnam War personage goes well beyond personal courage. First, we have the Democrats, like moths, entranced by the flame of past and questionable triumphs. Secondly we have a candidate who attempted to cash in on his service ("...reporting for duty!") some years after he attempted to cash in on his aversion to that service (...reminiscent of Gengis Kahn...).


Limbaugh wrote:
Its major spokesmen are old extremists like Ted Kennedy....
Kennedy an extremist? Yeah, to guys on The Free Republic.

Perhaps you're right. Perhaps a Senator who reliably utters hyperbolic and inflammatory slurs about the opposition is not an extremist. Perhaps he is only a sybaritic fool; blowing hard from a gin blossom face. Either way, you Lefties love him so who is kidding who?

Limbaugh wrote:
Its great presidential hope is one of the most divisive figures in U.S. politics, Hillary Clinton.
Yes, how dare those awful Democrats even consider someone whom Limbaugh and his buddies have been vilifying since 1992? Hate to see if Chelsea ever turns to politics-Limbaugh has been vilifying her since she was 12.

This is just a stupid response. Hilary may be God's gift to the earth, but do you seriously question that she will be a divisive candidate?

Limbaugh wrote:
And its favorite son is an impeached, disbarred, held-in-contempt ex-president, Bill Clinton. . . .
Held in contempt by who, the people who listen to Rush Limbaugh? Why don't you ask the folks in Harlem who turned out to celebrate in the streets when Clinton opened his office there? Oops, I forgot-Harlem doesn't count for Rush and his supporters.

If Clinton's only supporters are the folks in Harlem (as worthy as they may be) then perhaps he is nationally held in contempt. Blacks represent about 12% of the population, and, most assuredly, citizens of Harlem represent an infinitesimal fraction.


Limbaugh wrote:
. . . .The American left is stuck trying to repeat the history of its presumed glory years.
At least we had some glory years. The Republicans are stuck with the decidedly unglorious past five years.

Childish.


Limbaugh wrote:
They hope people will see Iraq as Vietnam...
Support for it slips every day. And you know it.

Whether or not that is true, Iraq is not Vietnam. 2005 is not 1969. Accept it, and move on.


Limbaugh wrote:
....the entirety of the Bush administration as Watergate.....
Watergate was called "a third rate burglary" when it first started. Who knows how far this might go? Hint: Not Limbaugh.

Indeed, but why not assume it is far worse?

Limbaugh wrote:
.....and Hurricane Katrina as the Great Depression.....
The Great Depression? Hardly. We just look at it as the exposure of the notion that Bush and the GOP are the only ones who supposedly can protect us. How many terrorists give several days notice when and where they are likely to strike, as Katrina did?

If not Bush and the GOP who? Greenpeace? The ACLU? The Kennedy Clan? Moveon.org? The Mayor of New Orleans? Nancy Pelosi? The Gay & Lesbian Pride Association? The Rainbow Coalition? PITA?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/14/2025 at 11:05:23