0
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread

 
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 04:37 pm
Cyc, you're certainly welcome to those opiions and perceptions. Judgin' from how well they've done for The Democratic Party, at the local, state, and yes, even the 51% national level, you're more than welcome to 'em.

Enjoy.


There's plenty more to come. 2006 is gonna be a real hoot.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:35 pm
Do you suppose we can keep the Dems in this kind of denial until 2008?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 06:57 pm
'Pears so.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:02 pm
this just in, DeNile IS a river in Africa.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Mar, 2005 07:03 pm
...and the Dems are drowning in it.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 10:53 am
Laughing
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 07:43 pm
Someone catch me, please! I'm getting a little woozy!!

An NPR reporter eating her shoe! On Television!!!!!

[quote]Totenberg Eats Shoe, Admits Misjudgment
on Iraq Election's Power


NPR's Nina Totenberg eats her shoe. Asked on Inside Washington over the weekend if President Bush deserves credit for the democratic movements rising in the Middle East, Totenberg, a critic of Bush's Iraq policy, replied that "if I had a hat I would have to eat it." Then, as she briefly brought a shoe to her month, she noted that "I've got my shoe here" and conceded that "I really did not think that this election in Iraq would make that much difference and I was wrong." She quickly added, however, that "it really does help that Arafat died and they had a real election in Palestine." Totenberg soon returned to her liberal roots, cautioning "that we not engage in a certain level of triumphalism about this." The Wall Street Journal's John Harwood went even further in crediting Bush: "George Bush is going to deserve more credit," for democracy in the Middle East, "than Ronald Reagan did for the demise of the former Soviet Union." [/quote]

http://www.mediaresearch.org/stillshots/2005/totenberg030705.jpg

<Wonders if it tastes a bit like crow>
<Hopes it's not a Manolo Blahnik>
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2005 08:36 pm
Ah, yes. The crow is served!

Eat up, wrongo's.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 01:10 am
Slips in, catches JW and smiles because we're living in exciting times indeed! (http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif) (And; continues pitying the fools who insist on choking on every last piece of bad news instead of rejoicing in the staggering quantity of exciting developments.)
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:14 am
Thanks for savin' my tush, O'Bill. This one's for you!
<Bush must really have the goods on Chirac and Schroeder>

EU DECLARES HEZBOLLAH A TERROR OUTFIThttp://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif

<Oh, and thanks, EU!>
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:37 am
Amazing. :smile: Glad to see they're getting with the program.

http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/party/party-smiley-017.gif
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:41 am
JustWonders wrote:

<Bush must really have the goods on Chirac and Schroeder>
But several EU governments, concerned about upsetting delicate Middle East negotiations, have so far been reluctant, including France, Spain and Britain.


Schröder is from Germany, and the the initiative for all that started with the German official demand to the EU some time ago:wink:
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:48 am
Quote:

March 11, 2005
Editorials/Op-Ed
Source
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 09:53 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Amazing. :smile: Glad to see they're getting with the program.


Actually, the opinion of the EU-Parliament has been the same during the last couple of months, if not years - althought the number of the pro-"Hisbollah-is-a-terrorist-group" MEPs was smaller years back.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:07 am
Walter - the jury's still out on whether or not France and Germany are really "with the program" or will choose to ignore the program. We shall see.

:wink: back
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Mar, 2005 10:10 am
Fine - or not: I will have to wait anxiously until the final ruling.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 11:04 am
ATTENTION FELLOW GOPERS, NEOCONS, CLASSICAL LIBERALS, MODERN CONSERVATIVES!! We are not only winning elections at the polls, but it is beginning to look like we are beginning to receive acknowledgement of winning pn intellectual and philosophical fronts as well:

Monday, March 14, 2005
March 14, 2005
Democrats Are Out of Gas
By Michael Barone

What do Democrats want? Many answers, or partial answers, can be found in the 90th anniversary issue of the New Republic, in the post-election issue of the American Prospect and in various other writings by Democrats unhappy with the defeat their party suffered in 2004.

These writers avoid the left blogosphere's wacky claims that the election was stolen. They understand that both parties played to win and tried really hard to win, and both parties made massive efforts to turn out their vote. John Kerry got 16 percent more votes than Al Gore. George W. Bush got 23 percent more votes in 2004 than in 2000.

Most of these Democrats focus on domestic policy. New Republic editor Peter Beinart has called for purging those Democrats unwilling to robustly fight the war on terrorism. But that position has not elicited much response, except for calls to show more respect for the military and a certain quietness among vitriolic Bush critics after the Iraqi election.

On domestic policy, the Democrats' thrust is to expand government to help ordinary people. But few get specific. In the American Prospect, historian Alan Brinkley says Democrats should re-engage "with issues of class and power." But exactly how, he doesn't say. In the New Republic, Jonathan Chait argues that, while conservatives are guided by ideology, liberals are guided by facts. Expanding government is a matter of examining facts and doing the sensible, compassionate thing. But he doesn't have the space to get very specific. Nor does he address David Stockman's argument that in policymaking, powerful interests tend to trump powerful arguments -- a criticism Democrats make, sometimes cogently, of Republican practices.

The New Republic's Martin Peretz takes a bleak view: Liberalism is "bookless," without serious intellectual underpinnings, as conservatism was 40 years ago. Back then, the liberal professoriate was churning out new policies, some of which became law. Today, the campuses provide liberals less guidance. The economics departments have become more respectful of markets and more dubious about government intervention. The social sciences have followed the humanities into the swamp of deconstruction. Peretz notices that liberals have no useful ideas about education. That overstates the case, but most reform ideas have come from the right, while most Democrats have focused on throwing more money at the teacher unions.

The bleakest picture of Democrats' prospects comes from two usually optimistic analysts, Stanley Greenberg and James Carville. In their latest Democracy Corps memo, they lament that, despite what they see as Republican stumbling on Social Security, voters don't think Democrats have new ideas for addressing the country's problems. By denying that Social Security has problems, "Democrats seem stuck in concrete."

In the New Republic, John Judis takes a longer view. Since the 1970s, he notes, Democrats have had little success expanding government. He blames this on international competition, the decline of private-sector unions and stronger business lobbyists. A revival of liberalism, he writes, "would probably require a national upheaval similar to what happened in the '30s and '60s. That could happen, but doesn't appear imminent."

The Democrats' problem is that they have proceeded for years with a goal of moving America some distance toward a Western European welfare state. Just how far, they have not had to decide. But Judis looks at Europe and sees a failing model: high unemployment, stalled economies and the welfare state in retreat. Nor is raising taxes on the rich a sound strategy: Democrats did that in 1993, and Republicans won control of Congress in 1994.

Democrats in power can make small, quiet moves toward redistribution, like the expansion of the earned income tax credit in the Clinton administration. Out of power, they can focus on policies for which arguments can be made by vivid anecdotes, like prescription drugs for seniors. Or they can obstruct change and wait for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid to gobble up larger shares of the economy. But that will take time.

For now, Democrats are facing the fact that general arguments for a larger welfare state just doesn't seem attractive to most voters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-3_14_05_MB.html
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:37 pm
If I were a liberal who really cared about the Democratic party, I'd be really discouraged at that report.

<Proud to be a GOPer>
<Neocon will do>

LOL.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:45 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
On domestic policy, the Democrats' thrust is to expand government to help ordinary people.


Now, since government has grown faster under George W than under any other president, is he a Democrat?

And if it's not a good thing for government to help ordinary people, who is government to help?

That's one weird position piece.



equally weird, and entertaining is this offering

http://www.nrbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6370

Quote:
the common title of "neoconservatives" for this group is actually quite misleading, since not a drop of conservative blood flows in their veins. Ryn instead calls them "neo-Jacobins," arguing persuasively that they have sold America "a recipe for conflict and perpetual war." The neo-Jacobins, Ryn explains, have an unshakeable belief in their own moral superiority, which justifies their claim to unrestricted political dominance. They oppose the restraints of traditional morality and limited government -- and are intent on using American might to impose their skewed and non-traditional visions of justice and virtue on other countries.

According to Ryn, even many conservative Americans have been hoodwinked by the pseudo-patriotism of the neo-Jacobins. As a result, neo-Jacobins have now even gained control of conservative media, foundations and think tanks, from which they manipulate conservatives and liberals alike into supporting a self-serving imperial agenda for our nation that is decidedly at odds with our founding principles.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 09:24 pm
This is so funny.

They're pissed because we don't mind being called neocons--so now, they're trying to rename us again.

They'll keep calling the think tank for more names--while we win all the elections.

the neo-super-bad-mean-scary-Jacobin-Christian party...
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/30/2022 at 03:38:05