Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, June 29, 2006

Democrats not presidential

June 29, 2006

Advertisement

The Senate votes on pulling out of Iraq revealed a damning fact: Of the many Democrats running for president, there is not yet a commander in chief among them. No one who imagines personally shouldering the terrible burdens of wartime leadership could possibly vote for either of those awful resolutions.

Yet the five Dem Senators aiming for the Oval Office - Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Joe Biden, Christopher Dodd and Russ Feingold - raised their hands to demand troops begin leaving Iraq this year and that President Bush submit a plan for total withdrawal. Kerry and Feingold went a sorry step further by sponsoring a resolution calling for a complete withdrawal in a year.

The efforts got only a single GOP vote and not even all the Democratic ones, a sign of Dem disarray and GOP decisions not to run from the war. One result is that the momentum is changing. Less than five months before midterm elections, a Democratic sweep looks less likely. Once again, Bush's flaws, which are huge, seem less dangerous than unprincipled ambition and fecklessness.

Dems hate to be accused of "cutting and running," but what else to call those deplorable war votes? Kerry, the instigator, tried a sleight-of-hand, saying his measure envisioned a "redeployment" within a year. C'mon - redeployment is another word for retreat. And surrender. And defeat.

Yes, Iraq is a horrible hellhole where nothing has gone as planned or promised. The Pentagon still does not have a clear view of the enemy. The cost has been too high and victory is not assured, which is why the American public wishes it had never happened. Some Dems conceded they tried to tap into that disgust with their pullback votes.

But it's bad policy and worse politics. On a gut level, our choices remain starkly simple: Either we finish the mission, which is to nurture a stable Iraqi democracy, or we give up and get out. There is no in-between, almost-pregnant choice. Arguing that we have to finish by any date means we're leaving then, regardless of the situation. If we're leaving on a schedule, why not leave now and cut our losses?

We stay or we go. Even most of those voters who hate the war realize as much, which is why I believe Dems hurt themselves with the pullback baloney. No matter how it is sliced and packaged, setting a departure date is planning for defeat.

Oddly, in a dig at Sen. Clinton, Kerry said pols "can't have it both ways" on Iraq. Yet he and the other Dems want just that. They want to surrender - later. Or they want to fight - a little while longer. Kerry is the worst. His resolution to leave within a year was his second choice. He first proposed we leave this year, then he extended it by six months. Mr. Flip, meet Mr. Flop.

If any of those Democrats had been at our nation's helm in history, we would not have gotten to D-Day or to Appomattox. Whether it is difficult is not the test of war. Those who would be president must have a steadier, more long-range view of our national interest.

Bush has that gene, often to a fault. He is stubborn and arrogant and wrong more than right. But he believes in the war on terror and has staked his presidency on winning in Iraq. In war and peace, but especially in war, the job requires such resolution. Those who don't have it shouldn't apply.

Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News.

Comments

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

xenophonschild:

Sounds like someone didn't get his nappy naptime today.

HAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

At least Kevin spells your name correctly most of the time.

Keep working at it and soon your screenname will consistently be something insanely clever.......

HAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAH

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

Arminius:

For someone who was violently raped, there was no 911 call, no police intervention, no medical examination, no arrest, no established date of the "incident" and there exists a sworn deposition from the "victim" denying that it ever happened.

Apart from all that public-domain uncontrovertible fact, your fantasy is true.

HAAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAAHAHAH

Surprised that you are spending so much time and effort on the wrong side of debunked propaganda.

Maybe not that surprised.

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

xenophonschild:

You're nothing but an ex-con loser who spent his time in prison as someone's girlfriend. You're a waste of my time.

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 9 months ago

HGA:

Very cogent. Am interested in seeing how the liar Arminianus tries to wiggle out of this one.

Five years, you say? Terrible. Just terrible. Perhaps the troops now stationed in Iraq could have scoured Afghanistan for OBL; but then, who would have corrected the mistake GWB's daddy made in the First Gulf War?

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

holygrailails:

Bill Clinton had eight years to get bin Laden and failed. Obviously, if getting bin Laden were easy, Clinton would have gotten him. Clinton liked to do easy things (and easy women, except for Juanita Broaddick, whom he violently raped).

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

Arminius:

There was nothing wrong with the US supplying resources to Muslims to fight the Russians in Afghanistan until one of the Muslims hijacked planes and attacked us years later.

There something wrong with not going after the Muslim who hijacked the planes and attacked us.

Instead of spending all of your energy in historical revisionism to place some artificial distance between a terrorist and his former ally, why not explore why Usama Bin Laden is still at large after almost five years of the Bush Administration?

0

xenophonschild 7 years, 9 months ago

Godot:

Not necessary to adapt to the litany of Muslim quackery you outlined; just become a fundamentalist Christian conservative Republican . . . in Kansas . . . and you'll wind up in essentially the same mind-set.

The liar Ariminianus: You boy Ronald Raygun funneled military supplies to the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, ostensibly to fight the Russians. You demonstrate a remarkable inability to assimilate the truth, but this one is really very simple. Even the publisher of two under-subscribed Kaw Valley rags should be able to understand the basic truth that Ronnie Raygun and his merry band of neocons hurried up and supplied weapons, primarily to hasten Russia's demise in Afghanistan.

And William the Great had absolutely nothing to do with it, so there's no way to gratify your psycho-sexual affliction inre this subject. Sorry.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

I meant to say "accountable". Apologies.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

Godot:

That's the first that I've heard that your plea for quarter for Kevin was satire.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Only took you two weeks to adopt that excuse.

=======

Serious problems relating to others???

Sounds like someone wants to demonize people who hold you accoutable for what you post.

HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

========

With a Monty Python name like Holygrailale, how can you say I don't have a sense of humor???

Unless you don't like Monty Python.

I suppose it might be possible.

But not in my household.

0

Godot 7 years, 9 months ago

HGA does not appreciate satire; HGA has no sense of irony or humor; HGA obsesses; HGA has serious problems relating to others.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Do you recommend the NYT, I don't know much about newspapers or what to read in general??

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

RightThinker:

Can't argue with a guy who thinks that a President with a negative 45 degree slope in his approval ratings since 9-11-01 is "an excellent leader and a wonderful purveyor of freedom and democracy."

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA

And who's a nutcase????

HAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

Pick up a newspaper once a quarter or so.

HAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHA

Oh, and after you've picked it up,........read it.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

Godot:

Let's review:

========================================

Posted on June 11 at 12:40 a.m.

Did you know that Arminius had a second cousin, twice removed, who died on 9-11? How could you be so rude, so insensitive, so undeserving of free speech, for attacking him, the survivor he is, like this? ----- Godot

On Coulter remarks anger N.Y. politicians

========================================

Posted on June 11 at 10:32 p.m.

holygrailails:

"Explain to me how losing a distant relative on 9-11 gives you leave to libel????" ---- Holygrailale

I guess that's a question for the Jersey Girls. It does not pertain to me. ----- Arminius

On Coulter's nastiness is nothing new

========================================

Yep, not a whole lot of misrepresentation there......

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH

Kevin isn't backing you up on this one.

Do you want me to repost Kevin's libel against John Kerry and John Musgrave that elicited your protest???

Glad to do it.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Holygrail, come on out of the tub and rehab yourself......YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!

The whole world will be better off because of Goerge Walker Bush. He is an excellent leader and a wonderful purveyor of freedom and democracy.

You'll see the light, holygrail, when the Dems fall flat and you're in the pit of despair, you'll have a re-birth. I know you are going to be reformed.

0

Godot 7 years, 9 months ago

HGA, I am honored that you devote such energy to misrepresent what I say.

0

holygrailale 7 years, 9 months ago

Godot,

Why don't you tell us about Kevin's second cousin.

The one who died on 9-11 and on whose behalf, we are supposed to leave Kevin (Arminius) alone.

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAH

Vote Republican or submit to Islam. ----- Godot

HAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

0

Godot 7 years, 9 months ago

So, therefore, we should all give up and die; prostate ourselves before the Mullahs and ask our heads to be removed for the indiscretions of our elected and ineffectual government employees and officials. We should all die because government sucks. We should not defend ourselves. Our children deserve to be slaves. Our women should hide behind the hajib; our daughters should not be educated; we should all reject democracy because of the mistakes of democratically elected officials, and those made by corrupt and entrenched civil servants.

We owe it to our children to sacrifice them for the failures of their forebears. At least, in their slavery, they will not bear the guilt we bear for our success.

0

swbsow 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by Arminius (anonymous) on June 29, 2006 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

STAFF04:

"You can't answer it, so you call me a liar?"

It is indeed a lie to say the U.S. provided bin Laden with aid.

Our government denies this, congressional and media investigations failed to find a connection, and even al Qaeda's #2 denies that bin Laden received aid for the U.S. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/20...


I'm just here for a minute, but Arminius, you and I have already gone around about this.

Fact #1 - The deceased #2 was not in Afghanistan until late 1989 well after the Soviets pulled out. He was a late comer to the scene when all the covert aid to Afghanistan and Pakistan's ISI (remember them? You never refuted anything about them funneling CIA money & weapons to the Afghan Arabs). After he hung out in Afghanistan for a short time, he was incarcerated in a Jordanian prison from 1992-1999. He didn't even combine his group, Tawhid, with Al-Qaida until October 2004.

How would he have known of the U.S. involvement/aid in the 1980's?

Fact #2 - Mujahideen refers to all freedom fighters in the Soviet-Afghan war. There are lots of mujahideen. They were in Bosnia know as El Muhajid who were vets of the Soviet-Afghan war. They are in Pakistan under many different groups. They, with the help of ISI (Pakistan's verision of the CIA and major funneler of CIA funds & weapons) fought in the Soviet-Afghan war.

The Taliban is a group of mujahideen from that war and they are mainly Afghans. The Northern Alliance is not considered muhajideen as they were mainly tribal warlords and really were not a group during the Soviet-Afghan war. They did not come into play until after the Soviets left.

"Reagan armed and trained Osama bin Laden and his followers in their Afghan jihad, and authorised the CIA to help to pay for the construction of the very tunnels in Tora Bora in which his one-time ally later successfully hid from US planes." http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1236414,00.html

On a separate note concerning whether the U.S. supported Saddam or not...

The CIA in 1963 helped get the Ba'athists into power.

You still have not acknowledged the Teicher testimony contained below, http://www.webcom.com/~lpease/collections/hidden/teicher.htm

0

scott3460 7 years, 9 months ago

The article is a nice bit of wishful thinking, but as it stands today, 70% of the public has seen Bush and does not approve. His continued bumbling through the summer is not going to help things. The Democrats are virtually assured of picking up seats in the House, and may even pick up a few in the Senate (Missouri, for example) during the mid-terms. That sets up two years of a whole lot of partisan bickering and not much of the conservative agenda getting accomplished. It is very likely that a demoralized right is going to be facing off against a still pissed off left. And fingers are pointed at the Democrat candidates, but who are the Repubs going to run? McCain? Frist? Jeb? Not much of an attractive candidate on that side of the ledger either at this point. All I know is the more people see of conservatives in power the less they like it & the worse it is for them. And no matter what, I think the people will vote overwhelmingly for competence in the Oval Office, which will be, perhaps, the final telling rebuke of the current cast of idiots.

0

awoc 7 years, 9 months ago

Libtard? What is the antonym, repugtard? You should be proud.

What a vile person you're trying to be. Small wonder I find myself coming here less often. The LJ-W site is clearly out of hand and, for the most part, unmoderated.

Please respond if you wish, I won't see it. Have fun.

0

bialystocknbloom 7 years, 9 months ago

Don't refer to me as a woman because I'm NOT. I'm a 20-year-old MALE. And don't patronize me or talk to me in a condescending way. That just shows that you're not taking this or any debate seriously.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Missy, Tsk Tsk, I was merely treating you like a big girl. Please don't get so upset.

"And I don't see a lot of these qualities in the people commonly associated as "libtards." "

One often misses the forest trying to see past all the trees.

See, we can talk like mature, cordial, respectful adults and really; what does all the name calling accomplish?

Respectfully, Conservativeman

0

bialystocknbloom 7 years, 9 months ago

I'm not a woman so don't address me as such.

And I don't see a lot of these qualities in the people commonly associated as "libtards." I see them sometimes, but neither party or political leaning is perfect so I don't see the point in all this namecalling and animosity.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Ma'am, Forgive me.

Posted on June 28 at 12:06 p.m.

Definition of Libtardation: Libtardation is a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills manifesting themselves in a political agenda.

This disability originates around age 18 upon indoctrination by the NEA through public education.

Five Assumptions Essential to the Application of the Definition and identification of Libtardation.

  1. Unfounded fear of global warming and irrational belief that all things human are bad.

  2. Valid assessment considers cultural and linguistic diversity as well as differences in communication, patriotism, honesty, and behavioral factors. (multiculturalism is bad)

  3. Within an individual, limitations often coexist with bad ideas. Self perception is of supremacy and elitism resulting in racism (minority races cannot equally compete with the majority).

  4. An important purpose of describing limitations is to develop a profile of needed supports (Social welfare dependence).

  5. With judicial activism, libtardation is allowed to flourish creating a morally corrupt social welfare state or in extreme cases a communist state.

Libtardation is not a disease but has many of the same characteristics of a disease. If allowed to go untreated, like a cancer it will destroy a healthy society.

0

bialystocknbloom 7 years, 9 months ago

fyi Bialystock and Bloom were the leads in Mel Brooks' "The Producers" and are guys.

0

bialystocknbloom 7 years, 9 months ago

Great but I have a question. Not meaning to be sarcastic or anything I just need clarification from you and rightthinker, rtwngr, etc. I'm genuinely curious:

Do you classify any person that defines themselves as "liberal" as a "libtard, dumbocrat, etc." or is there another level? Because that's the impression I'm getting. I consider myself to be liberal. Not super-liberal, not very liberal. More of a moderate, really.

MR. bialystocknbloom

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by bialystocknbloom (anonymous) on June 29, 2006 at 2:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know it really says a lot about your character when you use awful, immature, derogatory words to label someone who has a different opinion of you.

Ms. Bialystocknbloom, Please inform me as to what "words" I have specifically used to "label" you? Unless you know yourself to be a Libtard or a Dumbocrat I can see no offense that I might have committed. I was not aware that one could register as a "dummiecrat" or "Dumbocrat". If however you are a registered dummiecrat or dumbocrat, and if such political parties exist then you have my most sincere sympathies.

Your mature and thoughtful post has been received and I will personally consider your concerns. Your opinion is very important to me and it is my endeavor to make our discussion on the topics here at LJW a most enjoyable experience. If you continue to experience derogatory and awful words please continue to express your concerns. Your feelings are important.

Cordially, Conservativeman

0

bankboy119 7 years, 9 months ago

Wow this has gotten pretty bad. I didn't even bother to read the last 1/2 of the posts.

I would say the Democrats don't have a presidential candidate yet. Their only strategy is that they will bring troops home immediately and cause chaos in Iraq and that they aren't Bush. Hopefully the American people are smarter than that. If the Democrats could form a good strategy there is no reason that they should not be able to sweep the elections come November. Fortunately, I don't believe that they can because they have not yet.

0

bunnyhawk 7 years, 9 months ago

Democrats, Republicans, liberals, neocons.........it all makes absolutely NO DIFFERENCE! Y'all have handed your electoral process, your freedom, and your children's futures over to a corporate oligarchy...........the very same time of rampant profiteering that brought this country to the brink of collapse in 1929. I guess y'all are too busy playing video games to study history!

0

bialystocknbloom 7 years, 9 months ago

You know it really says a lot about your character when you use awful, immature, derogatory words to label someone who has a different opinion of you. I don't see anyone from the opposition making up words to describe you guys. Sure there's name-calling but that's in personal vendettas and not used to describe half the country because of what their registration cards say.

Get some class.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Well, conservativeman, November is drawing near and the Dummiecrats just don't have this thing in the bag like they thought. Howeird Dean will probably not be the DNC chair after November.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker, I was thinking the same thing. The DNC never manipulated votes in Chicago, the Daly's were/are politicians of integrity. The political machine in KC MO never rigged an election. After 4 consecutive terms from 1930-1946 the DNC wasn't accused of being out of control.

The Wisconsin dumbocrats were recently CONVICTED for illegally tampering with an election. I wonder if any GOP staffers were convicted for election irregularities? My last check was "0"!

The libtards are killing me today. shhheeeeshsh

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Those are some really good conspiracy theories bozo.....you almost have me thinking you don't like W, maybe even loathe him.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 9 months ago

You don't have to have viable policies to get elected-- BushCo have proven that. All you need to do is run a good lying, divisive and fear-mongering campaign, screw with the elections just enough to prevent a significant percentage of any votes that might go against you from being counted, and voila, you've got a governing majority in the Congress and the presidency.

I guess the Democrats need to find another Clinton who can successfully adopt Republican tactics as well as he did in order to regain power.

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

staff04:

"Lots of people, after learning things, change their views."

You've just learned that your contention that the U.S. provided aid to bin Laden has been proven false. Why don't you admit you were wrong and then you won't get winded trying to run in circles.

The US gave SAMs to Afghan natives, not to Afghan Arabs. BTW, how many U.S. military aircraft in Afghanistan have been downed by Stingers since 2001?

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Arminius- Did we get that whole stinger missile thing sorted out? I don't have time to run circles around you all day.

0

Jamesaust 7 years, 9 months ago

I agree with the core point.

While the present state of the ruling GOP (in contrast to the rank and file) gives the Democrats the best election opportunities at every level they've had in years, its not just going to fall into their lap.

To gain power, the Democrats are going to have to shake up, find a leader who can impose rational, responsible, voter-attractive policies and enforce punishment against wayward Party dissenters. (Hint: muzzle Kerry - proven loser.) So far, I haven't seen any signs of this. We're about 4 months from Election Day. What is the Democrat platform again? Hmmm...something about corruption, competence, and Bush. I don't think you can sell fizzy sugar water without sharpening that up a bit.

Our system strongly enforces a two party system. Nothing says that those two parties have to be Democrats and Republicans. Or that the partisan division between them has to be drawn on the issues as it is done now. Either party capable of evolving into an emphasis on fiscal prudence and social freedom could sweep the field. Or, I suppose, a Democrat - maybe Lieberman - and a Republican - maybe McCain, or Giuliani - could just form a new majority party (and we'll see which of the two leftovers collapses).

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

I hate using the word ignorant/ignorance, so I just won't.

Lots of people, after learning things, change their views. One place to start is to not base your opinions on yesterday's news. I actually have a higher opinion of Bush today than I did a year ago. You know why? Because I didn't decide that I knew everything I needed to know about him a year ago. I kept learning. Something everyone could benefit from.

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

STAFF04:

"You can't answer it, so you call me a liar?"

It is indeed a lie to say the U.S. provided bin Laden with aid.

Our government denies this, congressional and media investigations failed to find a connection, and even al Qaeda's #2 denies that bin Laden received aid for the U.S. http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Jan/24-318760.html

I called you a liar for a very simple reason--you lied.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Posted by rhd99 (anonymous) on June 29, 2006 at 12:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Democrats not presidential? GIVE ME A BREAK

Breaking News: President Clinton was playing hide the cigar with an intern old enough to be his daughter. The moral bankruptcy of the presidency was achieved. President Bush has no where to go but UP in the arena of Presidential integrity.

No reply is necessary.

Thank You.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

What's changed with the Dummiecrats---they've been at this for well over a year now???

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

rightthinker- "Published on Thursday, September 15, 2005 by WorkingForChange"

Today is June 29, 2006. Are you really going to claim that this article is even remotely relevant today?

0

conservative 7 years, 9 months ago

Two things,

Staff04, The announcement that there will be less troops there is not the same thing as saying we are leaving completely and setting an arbitrary timetable. It only shows that as the Iraqi government becomes more and more able to take care of their country, we will continue to pull out and let them.

2nd. Fecklessness? Wow, had to look that one up.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

by staffinfection04:

"This article is about how Democrats who called for bringing the troops home are wrong. "

I think the article is leaning more toward the idea Dummiecrats don't know WHAT they want to do as a whole. So what else is new.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

staffinfection04:

"Do you have anything substantive to say here, or do you just come to call names?"

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0915-35.htm

holygrail says I dont' read, but on-line stories like these (along with my newsweek, Newsmax, Ann Coulter book or whatever) are some of the things I read.

I think this article fairly well sums up where the Dems are at in this war/troops thing.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Oh, and I'm actually kind of a big guy. I run about 6'2", 230.

You called me little man...liar.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Arminius- Actually, I would. I asked a substantive question that deserves an answer. You can't answer it, so you call me a liar?

Just because you keep saying it doesn't make it true.

Oh, and what happened? Got your butt whupped on the other board, so you have to chase me around to call me names? Pretty weak, dude.

0

rhd99 7 years, 9 months ago

Democrats not presidential? GIVE ME A BREAK. The definition unpresidential is someone who occupies the Oval Office now who has NO COMPASSION for the veterans when he allows his INCOMPETENT VA secretary to be let off the hook during ID theft investigations. GET A CLUE, BUSH!

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

STAFF04:

You wouldn't recognize substance if it bit you in the butt, little man. All you've got is lies.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

You're right. He is definitely a deciderer.

Unfortunately, that's not what this article is about. This article is about how Democrats who called for bringing the troops home are wrong. I simply want to know, why is it only right or acceptable if the deciderer does it, but somehow Democrats who have advocated for EXACTLY THIS POLICY are not presidential?

Do you have anything substantive to say here, or do you just come to call names?

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

by staffinfection04:

"Do you really think he cares about winning a war in Iraq? All he cares about, as demonstrated by his actions on this issue, is winning a war against Democrats. Seriously effed up priorities, and he just keeps making them clearer and clearer."

This clearly shows you are beltway insider idiot....the last thing W cares about is what the Dummiecrats or the the far-left media thinks. A ten year-old can see that. Maybe W's handler's mull sh*t over, but W does not, nor does he care what the critics will say.

Holding your finger up in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing is patented by the Dummiecrats.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

staffinfection04, the real funny thing is the Dummiecrats don't know WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

At least W decides to do something and does it......this is a quality only a handful of Dems have.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

You are a real class-act, you know that? I am going to laugh you all the way back into your hole this fall, and again in the fall of 2006.

I can't honestly remember the last time you posted anything substantive that related to one of my posts. Can you?

0

Arminius 7 years, 9 months ago

staff04:

"There are a couple of governors out there that are, however."

Yes, but unfortunately for Democrats, those governors are all Republicans.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Oh, and I agree that the Democratic hopefuls in the Senate are not presidential.

There are a couple of governors out there that are, however.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Neither of you have anything to say about Bush's announcement that HE, not democrats, is planning to start pulling troops out? Hypocritical idiots, just like the author...

Do you really think he cares about winning a war in Iraq? All he cares about, as demonstrated by his actions on this issue, is winning a war against Democrats. Seriously effed up priorities, and he just keeps making them clearer and clearer.

0

rightthinker 7 years, 9 months ago

Good article. It solidifies my belief that the Dems are just gonna be caught with blank stares the first Tuesday in November. And unless they do a 180, again Nov. '08.

I'm still baffled why in the world they put Screamin' Howeird Dean in as DNC chair.....I'd almost be worried if they had picked someone you could halfway take serious. Hell, McAulliffe was a sight better and he was the schmoe of all schmoes.

0

conservativeman 7 years, 9 months ago

Surrendercrats like Kerry, Hilldabeast and Feingold are the leadership of the DNC.

WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS!!

They want to share with the country their losing ways. NO THANK YOU.

The Dumbocrats are looking worse every day. They should take a cue from the Kerry campaign. They look better when they just shut up and hide.

0

staff04 7 years, 9 months ago

Was it last week or the week before that Bush announced that they would start pulling troops out in September?

What day did that poll come out that changed the Administration's policy again???

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.