I Have Said It Before, And I Will Say It Again . . .
Are Those Vultures I See Circling?
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Democrats | Featured Stories — Comments (96) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If the Democrats don't do well in this year's midterm elections--and by "well" I mean "take control of at least one chamber of Congress"--then Howard Dean's days as Chairman of the Democratic National Committee may well be numbered (read on):
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton took a backhanded swipe at Democratic National Committee boss Howard Dean Thursday, saying Dean's long-term party-building efforts should take a back seat to fundraising for the midterm elections.
"The [Republican National Committee] is pouring tens of millions of dollars into races and we're not matching that," Clinton said during a DNC fundraiser in Washington.
"We're doing investments, you know, in ground and other efforts which will be very beneficial, but the RNC has about $60 million to $70 million waiting to drop on our candidates," she added.
To boost Democratic coffers, Bill and Hillary Clinton will host a million-dollar fundraiser for party committees on Oct. 4 at their Washington mansion, Whitehaven.
The senator also plans events in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida, and will host an event for Virginia senatorial hopeful Jim Webb, who has been gaining ground against stumbling incumbent Republican George Allen.
Many Democrats, including Clinton advisers, are frustrated with Dean's "50-state strategy," which accentuates grassroots organizing at the expense of election-specific cash-grabbing.
The Democrats' Senate and House fundraising committees, led by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Rahm Emmanuel (D-Ill.), have had banner years, while Dean's DNC has lagged with about $11 million on hand compared to the RNC's $39 million in the bank.
Clinton campaign spokeswoman Ann Lewis said the senator's remarks weren't meant to be critical of Dean, calling them "a positive reference to the 50-state strategy and also a recognition that we still need to raise money for Democrats." Clinton hopes to help raise an additional $5 million for candidates; several insiders predicted the Clintons might generate as much as $2 million at next week's fundraiser.
Yeah, right. Other "positive references" have been noted here, and here. And if you have a subscription to OpinionJournal's Political Diary, you can read what John Fund has to say about Dean's standing with the Democratic Party these days.
But in the event that you don't have a subscription, then here is Fund's commentary in full:
If Democrats fail to win control of either the House or Senate, they are already preparing a scapegoat. It's Howard Dean, the unsuccessful 2004 presidential candidate who rebounded to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Dean's insistence on pursuing a "50-state strategy" that emphasizes grass-roots organizing rather than pouring money into targeted races has earned him a backhanded swipe from none other than Hillary Clinton. At a DNC fundraiser last night, Ms. Clinton told the audience: "The [Republican National Committee] is pouring tens of millions of dollars into races and we're not matching that."
Aides to Ms. Clinton insisted she meant no criticism of Mr. Dean even as they circulated through the crowd talking up her fundraiser to benefit party election efforts on October 4. But other Democrats leave no room for doubt about their displeasure with Mr. Dean. They point out that the DNC has only $11 million cash on hand, barely a quarter of the funds available to the Republican National Committee. They say Mr. Dean's strategy is aimed at building up a national party for the long-term when the party needs to focus on the short-term goal of winning elections. They point to a recent Dean message to donors where he touts the fact that the DNC has precinct organizers in Mississippi. But that state has no competitive races this year for Congress, and the races for governor and state legislature don't take place until 2007.
"The hands are already being placed on the dagger that will be pointed at Dean if the party underperforms this year," a leading Democratic fundraiser told me. He noted that previous DNC chairmen have steered as much as $20 million towards the party's efforts to win House seats. Mr. Dean, by comparison, has only pledged $2 million. "Those numbers are pretty stark -- Dean had better hope the party does well in November."
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Barone spokes a wheel or ten. — Comments (1) »
I Have Said It Before, And I Will Say It Again . . . 96 Comments (0 topical, 96 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
After the election, Howard Dean will likely resemble deer hit by semi-truck and ran over by a few others if he does not win something.
Personally, I think we are about to see the Democrats engage in a civil war no matter what happens.
Dean actually has the correct strategy. The Democrats need to rebuild their party structure in the Red states, not just rely on the Pacific States and the Northeast.
His problem is tactical, and ideological. He just lies about Bush Lying and has an ideology that leaves most Americans blinking.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
Dean's problem is systemic in nature with the Democratic party. Where once it was the party of Liberal interests groups such as labor unions and social equality and poverty, other groups with an agenda more outside of the mainstream have come into power.
Take just one interest group which holds strong power in the Democratic party, Homosexuals. While most Americans are not homophobic, they don't particular care to have an agenda of gay marriage shoved down their throats, and they don't like be called names for expressing that point of view. Supporting a gay rights agenda is a sina qua non to be Democrat now days. The American people as they say in advertisement, won't eat the dog food" however, a systemic problem.
On religion, Democrats have not always been adverse to religion, and for students of history, recall that much of the resistance to the VietNam war came from the clergy. Today's Democrats being driven by the Far Left Anarchist wing are not only anti war, they are mostly pacifist/blame America in nature and openly hostile to all forms of religion. As some of the vitriol recent poured on Joe Lieberman has shown, a person of strong faith is not respected by this same wing and collection of people. In both cases, positions out of step with middle America on spirituality in general and at least to this point in regards to the current conflict in Iraq.
Deans problems are far more serious than coming up with a 50 state strategy.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
His problems are that 1) he's a loon and 2) most Americans are not.
By the way, the 50-state strategy is necessary, but doomed. It's not enough to have a good marketing plan; you have to have something to sell that the customer wants to buy. The Demoonicrats don't have what people want to buy, except free money. People may want free money, but they don't want to say they want free money. At least, most of them don't.
--
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
The left doesn't want to say they want free money, so they say they want an end to war, gay rights, etc. That's why the Dems don't have to make any sense in order to get their support. And why it doesn't matter if the Dems have nothing the left wants except free money.
The rest of the country...they vote against, not for. And right now they seem to be more against the Republicans' something than the Democrats' nothing. It is always easier to be against something than nothing; perhaps the Democrats aren't as stupid in their nothingness as many here think they are.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Dean’s grass roots effort to clone moonbats is for Dean’s benefit. Moveon.org, KosKidz and the majority of the Netroots already perceive victory in defeat. It’s not unreasonable to expect them to hold the Beltway Democrats and Diebold responsible for any losses in ’06.
A civil war within the party risks subjugating the Democrat Leadership to the base even more, and it’s entirely possible that is Dean’s the DNC’s unstated position, win or lose.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...with the Kossack/netroots/Moveon crowd. They are very different constituencies. The Kossacks et al are more the children of Trippi than Dean.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
...as a "big tent." Maybe because it's such a circus.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I have said it before that I believe Republicans will lose the House. It is down to 12 seats Democrats need because of the Foley issue. Indiana is about to lose 3 Republians because of My Dumbass Mitch(our governor), Ohio isn't looking much better, Kentucky has 2 seats up for grabs and I am sure there unpopular governor isn't helping. I wouldn't be suprised if Democrats took about 25 seats.
In the Senate Corker and Allen seem to want Republicans to lose. I thought a month ago it would be impossible for Democrats to retake the Senate. But at this point Corker is just getting beaten down 24/7 and Allen can't get off this racism thing. Only think Republicans have going for them in NJ. I still think at this point(mainly because of NJ) Republicans will barely keep control of the Senate.
I think Republicans are about to stage a civil war because for one I am pissed off with all this Religious Conservative crap. You have me on some social issues(like guns) and on economic issues. You lose me on the environment and education. But when you have Republicans saying the most important issue is Gay Marriage I am just shocked.
P.S. I love your hope of what will happen and while I don't like some of the Democratic Leadership I don't see a better alternative.
I feel the same way you do. Gay marriage is not the most pressing issue of our time. On one hand we say that we are at war, and so the President get some deference, but then we spend the whole month of August trying to pass a "DOM" bill. I got married in June, and I get the feeling that if gays were allowed to get married, our wedding and marriage (so far) would have gone the same way.
Evil prevails only when good men do nothing.
Gay marriage is not the most pressing issue of our time.
Clearly it is to you, and to some other commenters here.
They are most likely working on the theory that Americans won't come out and vote on the most pressing issues of our time, but they will come out and vote on issues like gay marriage.
But you're cutting off the opportunity for really new "Must Watch TV".....Gay Divorce Court.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I think Republicans are about to stage a civil war because for one I am pissed off with all this Religious Conservative crap.
I don't know what particular "crap" you are taking about. If you are unhappy about a party with a religious bent then you are going to be unhappy with the GOP. That sounds like a personal problem though.
This parties bread-and-butter is families with children, and by extension, "family values". Thats not going to change.
25 years ago it wasn't this way and 15 years ago it wasn't this way. I am unhappy with the GOP I did say that earlier. They would have my vote if I didn't think they were trying to destroy the Constitution and portray me as a bad Christian. I am also unhappy with the GOP constantly attack the legal system.
When the GOP's bread-and-butter issues are gay marriage and abortion then the party is going to need to worry. I live in the 4th Congressional District of Indiana, a very conservative district, but if you think around here Independents are chearing and moderate Republicans are happy you are far off. If the Democrats didn't elect an unelectable, poor public speaker, who probably couldn't run a successful campaign if our Representative was caught shooting a 3 year old kid while buring the American flag, he would be in trouble.
If Liberatarians were back in charge of the Republican party I would have a much easier time voting for them. So hopefully in the future I will be able to again.
The evolution of the Republican Party over the past decade or so seems to have been a boon to the Libertarian Party. I expect them to continue to strengthen if the GOP continues its current course.
If Liberatarians were back in charge of the Republican party I would have a much easier time voting for them. So hopefully in the future I will be able to again.
Libertarians were never in charge on the Republican party, and I doubt very much that you ever voted for it before.
I plan on voting for Senator Luger this Fall
I have voted for some Republican city council members
I have voted for the Republican Secretary of Education and will again this fall
But, I really don't need your justification of what is a good Republican. I am not a good Republican or a good Democrat.
you are sick of "all this religious conservative cr*p", I assume you disagree with the spirit, intent and framework of the Constitution and Bill of Rights since both are chock full of concepts and ethics based on Christianity. Additionally, you can add the Federalist Papers and Mayflower Compact to your "cr*p" list also.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
I have heard this argument from my father, a life long conservative, who thinks the party focuses too much on social issues today.
I concur to a point. The party has not been balancing the interests of fiscal and social conservatives. If the next Republican Presidential does this, I feel the divisions will heal, but if not we could be in for a lot of trouble.
The party has not been balancing the interests of fiscal and social conservatives.
Really, I'd like to know.
TRY to understand. I am against abortion on demand, and I don't much care for the gay agenda, and I think the ACLU goes too far in attacking the Boy Scouts and Christmas trees and such.(but I believe these are mostly local issues and should be handled locally not nationally).
However, there are far more important things going on in this country right now, not being adequately addressed by a REPUBLICAN administration and congress.
Like out of control spending, our impending fiscal collapse, and illegal immigration to name three.
Now imagine that for every one like me, there are probably at least two independents who feel the same way but think even less of the so-called social issues. That does not mean that the party should abandon those issues but it does mean that the national party apparatus should concentrate on those fiscal and security issues and thus insure large victories.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Like most people, when I hear the politicians of either party talking god, guns, race, gays, or abortion, I conclude that they are either incapable of dealing with the issues they should be dealing with, or they aren't willing to talk about how they are dealing with them, or they just plain don't care...they only want to stay in office and continue feeding at the trough.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Politicians that spoke of God and Guns-Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Reagan and Dubya
God-Lincoln, FDR, JFK, LBJ, JEC, RWR, WJC, GWB
Race-ALL, incl. Lincoln, JFK, LBJ, RMN, and non-pol MLK, Jr
gays-Bill Clinton signed Defense of marriage act
abortion-Reagan opposed it, Clinton twice vetoed bill prhibiting jabbing scissors into skulls of babies with feet dangling from vagina
which of the above:
were incapable of dealing with the issues they should be
weren'twilling to talk about how they are dealing with them
or just plain didn't care but only wanted to stay in office and continue feeding at the trough.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
When I said "talking about," I was being overly broad and vague, thinking...silly me...that my meaning would be clear within the context of the current conversation. I didn't mean "ever mention the issue" or "ever vote for or sign a bill involving the issue" or "having a position on the issue." I meant making these issues a focal point of their campaigns or (if in office) their political agenda.
To take a stab at your question, nonetheless:
FDR was before my time.
I was pretty young when JFK was in office, but he seemed to have dealt badly with the Bay of Pigs, very well with the Cuban Missile Crisis, and showed considerable promise as a Cold Warrior. I'm inclined to think he didn't take the domestic issue of race (which was a substantive issue at the time) seriously enough and therefore didn't handle it well enough. He seemed to excel at talking about how he was handling things and why.
LBJ was incapable of handling Vietnam (another 'stay the course' fiasco) and didn't seem particularly anxious to talk about how he was (not) dealing with it. I'm not sure about his Great Society efforts; the idear never sparked my imagination.
RMN was very capable at everything but communicating. I can't understand why Republicans have never learned the value of communication skills to a presidency, but clearly they never have.
JEC was incapable of handling much of anything but his own luggage, as far as I could tell. (I have an irrational dislike of JEC.)
I don't think RWR dealt with much of anything substantive; he left that to his Administration and focused on being the Great Communicator...a strategy that has much to recommend it, IMO, particularly when you are as capable at communicating as he was.
I notice you left GHWB off the list entirely; seems appropriate.
I was busy during WJC's tenure in office, but I got a good look at him during his early days in Arkansas. He is very capable at economics and politics, and he is an excellent communicator. I don't think he gives a hoot about defending marriage, and signed the DOMA because it suited his political agenda.
GWB...too soon to say.
MLK. I think whoever it was that tagged him as "the most dangerous man in America" was absolutely right, and I mean that in a good way. Very capable, and a knock-out communicator.
As for their motivations, I can't say. Who can look into another man's heart. Probably not feeding at the trough, though. The Presidency is about ego and power; Congress is about feeding at the trough.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
god, guns, race, gays, or abortion
Editorial note: So many libs think the wirld began when they were born. Earth to libs. Read history.)
Lincon-race
Supreme Court puts religious free speech, gun rights in jeopardy in the 1960s.
Nixon did emphasize strict constructionist judges as did Reagan, Bush 41 and Dubya.
Carter asked people to vote for him because he was a Christian and would never lie.
SCOTUS outlaws abortion.
Reagan runs on it, as does 41 and 43.
All Dems but Carter run on it to keep it legal and daily worship at the shtine of the suction and scissors.
Most dems run on race-arguing that the white man should forever bear the guilt of our forefathers and take care of the helpless blacks only liberals can properly love.
Dems, before 1994, regularly ran on gun control.
Mass Court legalizes gay marriage in 2002?
Now its an issue and properly so.
See how ignorant were your "deductions"? Read some Conan Doyle.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
You seem to think in very binary terms. I am certainly not ignorant of any of these facts. You seem unable to absorb the concept that simply including something on your list of issues is not the same as making it a focal point of your campaign.
The focal points of Reagan's campaign were economics and defense...definitely not abortion. He had a position on abortion...doesn't everybody? And he stated what it was...doesn't everybody? So what?
Are you under the impression that I'm a liberal?
Interesting that you posit that liberals think the world began when they were born and then proceed to try to "enlighten" me by citing Lincoln (clue...pretty much everybody has heard of Lincoln and his position on race, whether they've read history or not)...and a bunch of politicians who were in office after I was born, as is clear from my previous post.
Are you really unfamiliar with any presidency (except for Lincoln's) prior to FDR? Is that because you think the world began when you were born (except when it twinkled into existence for the few years that Lincoln was in office), or just that you haven't read history?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
First, they are not local issues. They are national issues. You may feel that they SHOULD be local issues, but thats a whole diffeent topic. Abortion and gay marrage are issues which can only be settled at the national level. If you don't like it, take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who made it that way.
Second, you cannot point to anything the GOP is actually doing about these issues. The national party has done little more than pay lip-service to these questions for years, and it seems rather obvious that they really do not want to get involved. So I'm confused by the constant allegations that the party works too hard on these issues. I don't know what political scene you are observing but it looks nothing like the one I see.
Third, you mention illegal immigration as a problem the GOP is failing to address. No argument there, but that would seem to be as much a social issue as abortion. I get the impression that "social issue" is code for "an issue I think government should not be involved with".
Bush and the GOP in DC have done about all they can do on abortion. Bush has moved the Court closer to having an anti-Roe majority. And the GOP does have a vote on abortion and pro-marriage evry year which is moving their way. the problem is that there are too many liberals in America and too many,albeit disproportionate, libs in congress. So we run on the issues to get more seats. thats free speech persuasion to make law/
House and Senate passed fence law only and rejected the amnesty wholistic approach!!
good news
progress
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
that the national party only pays lip service to these social issues (immigration is a social and economic issue), then you ought to be with me on denouncing this heavy emphasis on these issues during election time, while not doing a damn thing about them, or anything else for that matter when they get in power.
you assert that they are national issues because of the supreme court, but isn't that something that most conservatives have bemoaned for years?
Look, when electing a President, yes I want someone who will appoint strict constructionist judges. Other than that, it ought to be our economic/entitlement crises that we concentrate on, because believe me, if we keep going forward like this we will witness one of the worse crashes in our history in just a few years.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I don't think we are in immediate danger of an economic crisis, and perhaps not even in long term danger. It's true that spending is projected to reach about 50% of GDP in another few decades. Thats a political crisis for small government types like ourselves, but I expect the country will survive it in some fashon, probably by raising taxes and cutting benefits.
If you want to be technical about it, the President has as much official responsibility for economic issues and spendng as he does for the so-called "social issues". It's just that some people find it more acceptable for him to be involved in one rather than the other.
Ultimately it's the erosion of the the social conservative position which is driving the erosion of fiscal conservatism. You cannot fix the latter without addressing the former.
you assert that they are national issues because of the supreme court, but isn't that something that most conservatives have bemoaned for years?
I don't follow you. Yes, it would have been nice if the Court had not killed federalism. But its dead now and its insane to pretend otherwise. The "social issues" are national issues, whether we think they ought to be or not. To say we won't fight these issues on the Federal level because we don't think they belong there is just another way of saying "We surrender."
it would have been nice if the Court had not killed federalism. But its dead now and its insane to pretend otherwise.
Sounds like you're doing a bit of auditioning yourself here, Jon. Is there nothing we can say to dissuade you from pronouncing the demise of the country that was founded (in "some" form) in 1776?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Your last comments have, inter alia, involved longing for MAD and conflating lamenting the death of federalism with believing the country to be dead.
Those are merely the highlights.
As I mentioned in an earlier comment, my preference was to off you based on your initial comment. A couple of other folks felt more magnaminious than I, so you're still here.
I reserve the right to off you, as soon as I can figure out whether you're merely stupid (something with which I must deal, I fear); an extraordinarily irritating troll (wave bye-bye); or pathologically insane.
What guidance you could give would be appreciated.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
With a moniker like that, I wouldn't be tossing around stuff like "Drama Queen".
Just a thought...you might want to consider something a bit more up-market.
With the exception of the tax cuts, the Republicans have done nothing for fiscal conservatives. We have a large deficit which is being closed too slowly and we have massive increases in spending.
Republicans been betraying fiscal conservatives ever since Newt et al broke their Contract with America.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
that I have seen since the GOP was in the minority and proposed abolishing all but the DOD. Seriously, the only way to cut the size of government in a significant way (more than 10% of the budget) is to take on medical costs and social security.
Given the war being waged against us, defense is off the table and isn't near the % of the budget that medicare, medicaid and social security are any way.
So, despite all the whining by the fiscal crowd, I have yet to see them tell us what they would cut other than a few sewer projects and bridges, ie pork, which is an infinitesimally small part of the budget, and a part that will always be necessary for political oiling for deals.
They need to put up or shut up. They didn't exactly rally for Dubya when he rolled it out.
can we agree on this defecationfromhadesmug?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
I'm a Tom Coburn fan. As he points out, excessive highway pork spending was not "necessary" for political oiling until 1982 when a modest $386 million was earmarked for "demonstration projects," in direct contradiction of a House rule that had been dutifully observed for 70 years. By 1987, earmarks had grown to $1.3 billion. By 1991, to $6.1 billion. By 1998...$9 billion. And, for the next two years, the discretionary budgets put forward by the Republican Congress exceeded Clinton's requests by more than $30 billion.
In contrast, the largest highway construction project of all time (Eisenhower's interstate highway system), was passed without any "political oiling" at all. If the Republicans have found it "necessary" for "deals" over the past 25 years, I think this suggests that their leadership over that period has not been nearly as good at "deals" as they were previously.
What would I cut besides the pork? I don't claim to be an expert in federal budgeting, but I would target social security retirement benefits, for sure. I see no reason anyone else should fund my retirement. I've been earning a decent living my whole life.
As for defense being off the table...no. Looking at the casualties we have experienced over the past 25 years due to terrorism, and in the 5 years since 2001 (not counting those who have died in Iraq), I have no reason to think that the Iraq War has saved any American lives...for all I know, if we had attacked only Afghanistan and then brought our troops home, our losses would have been the same. In contrast, I know that the Iraq War is now responsible for almost as many deaths as the 9/11 terrorists, and that the death toll continues to trend upward. Before the end of next year, it may have cost more American lives than all the terrorist attacks over the past 25 years combined...including the homegrown terrorist attack in OKC.
So I am more than ready to withdraw. Our government has been telling us for years now that our homeland security is far stronger than it was on 9/11, and that we have seriously weakened the terrorists' ability to mount an attack on us. If those statements are accurate, then the odds of another major and successful attack on American soil any time in the foreseeable future should be extremely low, while the odds of losing at least another 500 American lives in Iraq over the next year are virtually 100%.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I'm a So-Con and let me just say that these issues have been a part of the GOP since at least 1980 when Reagan put abortion into the platform.
They are not the whole issue nor will they continue to be.
The truth is that there are a range of issues that I do not agree with the party on and I think that there are very few who agree on absolutely every issue. Just hang in there and go with the party that best represents you.
Frankly, I hate the GOP on free world trade which in mind is as much of a capitulation as it would be not to fight terrorism, but they are a far better party on my key issues ( #1 of which is abortion because it ends children's lives ).
You need to figure out what your top two or three issues are and vote with the party and candidates that best represent you there.
For me it's:
abortion (more particularly -- conservative judges)
GWOT
lower taxes / spending
On the third one, it's hard to get excited about the GOP, but at least some part of the GOP are there for me.
Economic Policy
Defense
Tied - Education/Judicial
I consider myself pro-life, but I want to know what is a Conservative Judge or a Liberal Judge. Are you talking about strictly Constitutionalist approach or actually party approach.
Both sides make good Constitutional arguments. I don't consider myself a law expert but I do take classes in law when I can and after I get my MBA I plan on getting my Law degree.
I see every member of the Surpreme Court as extremely qualified and I am sure if any of them came onto this site they would tear us all apart with their legal expertise. So when I talk about Judicial I am not talking strictly about what judges to nominate, but about keeping the judgical system the way it is without constant threats from Politicians.
I find your post refreshing kudos.
When people start talking about "conservative" and "liberal" judges, they are usually talking about the corruption of our judicial system. And a lot of them simply want to see it corrupted even more...but their way.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
So I think your list keeps you with us and I'm glad to hear it. I understand your frustration even if I disagree with you on the issues.
To clarify, I want strict constructionist judges. However, I will say that I would find it difficult for competent strict conservative judges not to overturn Roe vs Wade.
I have problems with Roe v Wade but I don't at the same time.
I believe everyone should have the right to buy birth control and condoms. That was the first time the Right to Privacy was used because Catholics tried to ban them statewide. I think Roe v Wade though pushed it a bit more which does worry me.
What worries me also is if they overturn it what will happen. If a state says anyone who gets an abortion done will be convincted of Murder but in another state it says it is ok what will happen? You will have 2 main areas in the Constitution competing with each other.
Can you quote which parts of the Constitution will be conflicting if two states have different sets of laws on abortion?
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
They coverup their scumbags and get them re-elected. We run them off. My bet is the replacement for Foley will win.
They have Dean, who literally did not win one primary and has basically nothing to do with normal Americans leading their party. They have very little money and their opinion leaders are people who hate America and want us to lose this war and accomodate terrorists. It is literally not possible to tell the difference between a terorist's threats to America and a democrat. We ahve a tremendous economy and the highest levels of employment in history. Home ownership is at an all time high.
Stop with the self-absorbed negativism and buy in to the MSM lies. Get involved with GOTV. Give some money to good candidates. We either win this war or lose it. We either back the vest we got or we bring in a bunch of loser never wuzzer dems to screw up the war, the economy and our lives.
Snap out of it. We have an election to win.
Dean won the Vermont primary.
I haven't checked the figures lately myself, but last I looked, they had a lot less money than the Republicans (as usual), but they did not have "very little" money. The Democrats are used to having less money than Republicans, so I don't see that as a biggie. Most campaign spending is a waste of money, anyway. Elections are mostly a goldmine for the MSM...billions of dollars in advertising revenue and something meaningless to yap endless about.
Their opinion leaders do not hate America, they hate Republicans.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
While it's true the DNC currently has less cash-on-hand than the RNC, this is atypical. Until recently, the DNC was awash in cash that poured into their coffers from a few, very large liberal donors-- foreign and domestic.
The GOP historically, and more so since McCain-Feingold, relies on a larger number of small donors for campaign contributions and party-building efforts.
One may wish to research the percentage of millionaires and number of self-financed campaigns from each party in the current congress to find out exactly who is used to having less money.
It seems that the Hollywood and liberal-elites have chosen to sit on the sidelines somewhat, but one must also take into account MSM's in-kind campaign contributions posing as news stories.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...who you mean by "they." If you mean their top-level campaigns, Reagan and Bush Sr. each outspent both Carter and Kennedy, just as GWB and McCain each outspent both Gore and Bradley. I believer hunter was referring to the DNC, but I am not aware of any good source for historical data on the annual fundraising efforts of the DNC and RNC per se. (I would be fascinated to see such data.) If you mean "the Democrats" and "the Republicans," you are speaking of mythological beasts who have money only in mythology.
Regardless of your definition of "they," the number of donors and the size of their individual contributions has nothing to do with how much money "they" have. A billion dollars is a billion dollars is a billion dollars, whether it comes from a billion small donors or one very fat cat.
And no, I do not "have to"...nor will I...take MSM spending into account as in-kind contributions. That is mythology also.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
If you are referring to “they” in my tag quote, its meaning depends on how well one understood President Reagan, and the context in which that line was said.
Incredibly, it's even more applicable today than it was when President Reagan uttered those words.
I would define ”they” as:
Those who live in a narrowly constructed alternate-reality, which by design, is completely devoid of facts and events that do not support a narcissistic, relativist world-view.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
...in hunter's statement that "they have very little money."
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I'm no Christian, but given the choice between some of the so-called fiscal conservatives I've seen, and the positive energy of the mainstream religious right, I'd rather be in a party with the latter if I had to pick one or the other
Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our society. Republicans who seem to want to fight on the grounds leased to us by the left (progressive-style talk of 'working' economic policies, ACLU-style Constitutional rights-oriented struggles, and on how much money to send to lefty union-run government propaganda farms schools), rather than hitting them on the first principles, I think we can do without.
Plus there's the basic fact that it's been since the religious right came out in force for our party, rather than when the movement conservatives coalesced here, that we've been WINNING.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our society.
Hoosier and I can remember a time when the desire to see government meddle in our society was the hallmark of a liberal. (Still is, but now many conservatives seem to have gone over to their side.) Then, it was known as social engineering. I think the term has fallen out of favor, because it used to be the conservatives who used it to denigrate liberals. Now that they have become equally anxious to have government engineer our society, they have fallen mute on the matter.
Marriage is none of the government's business. Marriage has served as a basic building block of our society because it is a social institution. Social institutions are created and sustained naturally by society (ie, by people acting freely, not by government forcing or prohibiting behavior); government institutions must be created and sustained by organized effort.
The day that marriage needs the government to defend it, it will be already dead as a social institution, and embalming it as a government institution won't change that. If anything, all efforts to do so will only hasten its demise. Marriage was at its strongest as a societal institution in the early days of this country, when people married simply by exchanging vows in front of the local preacher, without any involvement of the government at all. The legal side of marriage has always been just another effort by the blood-sucking politicians to squeeze another buck out of us citizens.
Apparently the religious right has a lot less faith in marriage than I do. Indeed, I am hard-pressed to think of anything less in need of defending than marriage. But then, faith is an act of courage, something that seems to be in short supply at both ends of the political spectrum these days.
____________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Who's meddling? There WAS no issue until radical homosexual activists, and their allies in certain courts and cities, started THEIR meddling, the way I see it.
Marriage is a SOCIAL institution, and was working fine the way it is before these people jumped in and made it a political issue.
If marriage is none of the government's business, tell that to Massachusetts courts and the city of San Francisco. Then this whole mess will go away.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Marriage is an Economic Institution
Today it is seen as a Social Institution but it never use to be that way.
I am in favor of keeping marriage in between a man and a woman, but I don't see a problem with the State giving the same rights to a gay couple as a married couple.
I would think that would be a decent compromise but who knows.
That's the libertarian view alright: nothing's social. It's all economic.
I'd rather the Republican party not go libertarian, though.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
Economy in the broadest sense is societal...people behaving freely (as in "free hand"), not directed by government. If that's what you mean, I agree...there are significant economic motivations for couples to marry.
I don't know what people mean by "marriage" if it is not 1) a religious ritual and/or 2) rights endowed by the State to a couple it recognizes as legally "married." Thus, when you say that you favor keeping marriage between a man and a woman, but having the State give gay couples the same rights as a married couple, I can't think of what you might mean other than you support government restrictions on the practice of religion. IMO, if we do that, then we have unarguably come to the end of the country that was founded in 1776.
Is that what you mean?
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Is there anything we can do which will not lead you to announce that the country founded in 1776 has come to an end?
...the government has been "meddling" in marriage for a long time now. When do think it started? And how, exactly? That is, when was the first law enacted that addressed marriage?
I've never been impressed with the "he started it, mommy!" defense. Either you are meddling or you are not.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
I can't stand the radical left, but in terms of sheer ANNOYANCE the arrogant, self-absorbed 'independents' annoy me more.
I will say this though: You're an idiot if you don't understand the difference between a) finding a Constitutional requrement that imposes a specific definition of marriage and b) reacting to that finding by taking action to restore the defintion that existed beforehand.
To equate the two is like saying a deposit and a withdrawl at the bank are the same because they're both just passing money around.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
At least you aren't calling me a liberal. What is it that has led you to conclude that independents are self-absorbed?
On meddling...are you saying someone found a Constitutional requirement that imposed a specific definition of marriage? Who found it? Where was it hiding? What was it? When was the requirement established? By whom?
If I say a boa constrictor and a garter snake are both snakes, am I "equating" them? Does that mean I don't understand the difference between the two? Snakes is snakes; meddling is meddling.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
the BIG picture. There is at least one Democrat with a national profile who is almost certainly not hoping the Democratic Party takes control of either chamber of Congress. This is the same Democrat who has defined herself as a centrist with hawkish tendencies on national security, and who knows that - regardless of the situation in 2006 - the Democrats aren't going to win in 2008 if they're perceived as cultural liberals and weak on national security issues. And this is the same Democrat who doesn't want to have to run to the left during the primaries to secure her party's presidential nomination. You know who I'm talking about.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
It is true that, if the Democrats don't take back something on November 7, the insider knives will come out of their sheaths and start slashing on the morning of November 8.
The question is the Dean Democrats. They have stuck with him through many highs and lows since the summer of 2003. I think they believe in his grassroots approach and will not abandon him, no matter what happens in November...although many of his more recent converts probably will. The question is whether they have become entrenched enough (and educated enough) to protect him. I don't know the answer to that. What I do know is that, while no one's been looking, the Dean Democrats have, in fact, taken control of a sizeable chunk of the Party on the ground. They have succeeded mostly at the county level, but they've also made some inroads into a good number of state organizations as well.
The other key players are the DNC members. While they may be sorely disappointed in another loss in November, they basically have a choice between being losers with no money or losers with money, because the other wing of the Democratic Party wants to keep its money at the national level. Dean won chair by promising to funnel a big chunk of party contributions to the states. As long as he continues to keep that promise, they may well continue to stand behind him.
that unless the dems take the house by more a half a dozen seats Dean will be replaced by 2008.he has wasted to much money for the results they've been getting.
He is most likely to be in serious trouble if they actually lose seats.
There will probably be a good bit of grumbling if they make no headway, but I think most of the DNCers are committed to "staying the course" through 2008, particularly if Dean continues to funnel DNC contributions to them (the state parties).
If they gain any seats at all, he is probably going to be sitting pretty in that chair through 2008.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
Don't forget that the Dems held on to Terry McAullife after their 2002 debacle (which he said was a good night for Dems) and they let this 3 Stooges style incompetent continue to lead them to defeat in 2004. The modern-day Democratic Party is extremely fissured and unwilling to call a spade a spade, so to speak. Most Dems, I expect, know Howard Dean is mentally and emotionally unstable, but it's a big question if they're willing to stand up to him.
So, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Dean stays on, even if the Dems go down in flames.
Dean is a self-absorbed, America hating, conspiracy promoting idiot. He raises little money, he relies on wackjobs like Kos and Soros, he is more afraid of Americans than he is of terrorists and he is rude.
I hope he stays in the DNC until 2008, when he runs successfully for the DNC nomination.
I think that no matter how bad a job he has done, Dean may end up looking like a real sharp guy in November. Between the President taking a political walkabout for about 18 months and ceding the political debate to the Dems and the press, the Foley scandal, RINOs on the rampage, Allen's missteps and the WAPO's smear attack, and now this terrible Foley scandal, the job may be done for Dean despite his incompetence. And if the Dems stand in control next month, who will dare ask him to step down and enrage the nutroots base? Maybe there's a silver lining here, because if he's in place in '08, he might sink the Dems then, assuming the Republicans are organized.
They will sink themselves, Dean or no Dean. You will see impeachment comming out of the wahzoo and the American public will grow sick of it real quick.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
I hope the American people are actually sickened by Bush impeachment proceedings. But with Katie and company frowning ominously about how serious the charges brought against Bush are, I'm afraid the public may respond much differently from what they did when the media rolled their eyes over the charges brought against Clinton.
If the Dems take control and focus on impeachment, the American people will indeed be sickened. Not because they don't think Bush deserves to be impeached, but because they will see it for what it is, just as they saw the Clinton impeachment for what it was...a bunch of greedy and spineless politicians wasting their time and the American people's tax dollars on petty partisan politics, instead of focusing their efforts on the many serious issues of real importance to this country.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
If perjury and obstruction of justice are partisan issues, then the Democrats are the party of crooks.
You said it, not me.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
I disagree only with the "the." All parties are the parties of crooks. Corruption is the fundamental nature of parties; it is their reason for being...the only end to which they are certain to arrive.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
they'll have to be sunk. They were bankrupt from the Sixties on, even further back, yet they stayed in power until '94. There have been times when Republicans could take advantage of serendipitous situations and grasp one house or the other, '48, '80 or the Presidency, '68, '80, but it was only in '94 that the Republicans mastered that which has bedeviled them thoughout the modern era, melding social and fiscal conservative constituencies into a consistent national agenda. Now lack of leadership dedicated to keeping those two constituencies intact and in balance is threatening Republican control.
The Democrats have the places that can and will turn out the votes, from the graveyards if necessary; they are good at it and they get away with the fraud and corruption. They have running governments down; Republicans are so anti-government that few will work for one except at the highest levels and most of those don't know where the light switches and rest rooms are and are so anti-government employee they won't ask anybody. So, in sum, Democrat control is the natural order of things in much of the Country and in the federal government.
If an only if Republicans can harness to a consistent, well articulated agenda that keeps both sides of the coalition pulling in tandem can we stay in power. Even then, absent Democrat suicides, with which they oblige us from time to time, it will be a narrow thing until we've been in power long enough and securely enough to get a grip on the stuctures, processes, and personnel of governments. Until we do, we will constantly be bedeviled by leaks, sabotage, bureaucratic sandbagging, scandals, and the occassional Foley eruption.
I've been through several Blue to Red transitions and vice versa. It takes the Ds about two hours to throw out every Republican and put themselves firmly back in control. The Republicans NEVER do it and never really get control. In six years, GWB has put only the thinnest veneer of Republican appointees on the federal government and pays the price every day. They had a half century of absolute control of the federal government, and you're not going to change it in a couple of terms. Many Red and most Purple states are much the same; the elected positions are R, but many appointees and the bulk of the bureacracy stays D.
Those who believe that some time in the wilderness will be a good thing are simply foolish. The Ds will have their house in order in mere moments and it will take years of backbench sniping and sabotage, e.g., Gingrich, to ever wrest control away. We can denigrate their policies and their thought processess, but until we understand that they are one helluva bunch better at running a government than we are and start to do something about it, we'll be biting our nails at every election and fighting amongst ourselves trying to keep the coalition together due to the compromises we have to make with narrow and divided majorities.
In Vino Veritas
For example, if the Republicans lost the Senate, the filibuster as we know it would be gone faster than you could say '51 votes'.
---
Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community
is nearly two decades too old. The Democrats have, with all of their built in superiorities slipped to less than 40% of likely voters in every poll. They simply are not the majority party.
The republicans can indeed shoot themselves in the foot as they have in the last two years by abandoning their base. But all it takes are good candidates with a decent message and you will win most elections in all but a few of the blueist states.
When candidates articulate a believable right of center or libertarian/right message they tend to win in this country.
But you are right about one thing, we need leadership.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
control where they are in control at all and have much less "territory" to defend. And while the 40% may be a good figure as a percentage of voters, it certainly isn't as a percentage of districts and electoral votes. The Country is very narrowly divided in those terms.
In Vino Veritas
and so I think that a better, more aggressively Reaganite conservative could win 55-58% and bring in more congressional seats.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Dem fraud govt experience
GOP never really gets control
GOP must get better at running it!! yes, we have to fire lib bureacrats and hire ours and the bets way to do this is shrink govt. We have to get conservatives to own and run media and universities and govt agencies.
We have to quit letting msm false view drive our behavior 48 hrs after we win elections.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
is that the democrats don't have to say anything, they don't need content or substance, they don't have to make sense, they don't even have to be coherent. Kerry proved this,if it needed proof, in '00. He came close without being consistent for 24 hours much less the campaign.
Dean's WSJ piece was archtypical. The usual swipes at Bush and the a very few things the dems would do. Personal favorite, create jobs, and good paying jobs, not a hint as to what magic wand will be used for this enormous non-market achievement.
Fools fall for it. Hillary was supposed to do the same for NYS, she hasn't and of course can't, and it makes not a smidgen of difference.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The same things about Republicans
What do Republicans have to say other than Stay the Course and Beware of Gays. Stay the Course isn't a stratagy btw.
It doesn't make what you say true or worthy of note, though.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
...it is just not a strategy that leads to an end goal, only to more of the same. It's the "strategy" that LBJ pursued in Vietnam; then Nixon came in and developed a strategy that led to an end goal.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
who is feeling that "stay the course" isn't a strategy. Have you folks seen this vid of the Shepard Smith interview of Bill Kristol?
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
then Nixon came in and developed a strategy that led to an end goal.
losing?
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
...is how I would describe it, but I don't have a strong opinion on the matter. Losing seems accurate enough, also.
In any case, if it was lost, it was LBJ who lost it, not RMN.
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
http://devine-gamecock.townhall.com
www.race42008.com
"Within the covers of the Bible are the answers for all the problems men face." - Ronald Reagan
Unfortunately, the Dem Congress is going to lose Iraq in 2007. History repeats itself.
As another poster has said, sitting out this election is not an option.
There is a very long article about Dean and his efforts to implement the 50-state strategy in this morning's NYT Magazine:
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/magazine
_______________________________
Partisanship...so 20th Century.
They won't be able to pull any "Bush**" garbage, and the GOP candidates will be on the coattails of whoever our Presidential nominee is. I think 2008 will be our year, especially for Presidential. The Dems might do OK this year, but they need to do a lot better than OK to get any standing...
Edited to remove creative effort to evade profanity policy