A quick test.
By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If you can work out why the second sentence of the below Grey Lady quote (H/T Glenn):
Democrats said they had not yet figured out how to counter the White House's long assault on their national security credentials. And they said their opportunities to break through to voters with a coherent message on domestic and foreign policy — should they settle on one — were restricted by the lack of an established, nationally known leader to carry their message this fall.
- is so freaking hilarious, you may just be a Republican. Or a Democrat with a burgeoning Maalox addiction.
The rest of the article? Summation: "Democrats think that they'll win, except when they don't, quite, and it'll all be because of the GOP either way." Read it if you like watching reasonably bright people try and fumble with machinery that they don't quite grok. Personally, after a while I find it kind of depressing...
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | Score One for Powerline — Comments (72) »
A quick test. 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I laughed. But truthfully, doesn't it look like satire? I'll swear it could be a quite lifted straight from Scappleface.
they're doing all the assaulting not the other way around. Maybe that's the message the American people are getting plus the fact that it's difficult to be for someting and against it at the same time. It's a reprise of the '04 "we've got to get the message out" howl. You can't teach a dead dog new tricks.
so I can't cite it, but somebody noted in the last day or so that the Dem's real problem is that "...you can't beat something with nothing."
And the probablity that will draw "something" in this poker game is pretty slim.
Well, since you asked.
How about the intro, where Democrats fail to recognize that one reason they can't 'counter' the 'assault' is because they are essentially assaulting themselves with their actions on the NSA 'domestic spying' issue, their carping about how the war is being conducted in Iraq, the torture issue, and countless other misreadings of public opinion. Democrats could counter that assault simply by shutting their mouths.
How about the fact that they have virtually no national security credibility to begin with. How can the White House assault something that essentially isn't there?
How about the fact that the problem isn't a lack of opportunities, its the absence of a coherent message. Think 'I voted for it before I voted against it' Kerry, and 'imprison Delay', but 'withold judgement on Saddam' Dean.
The last part is the cherry on top. The problem isn't a lack of nationally known democrats, it's that most nationally known democrats aren't viewed as leaders.
I like that excerpt Moe, thanks.
I am sure I will pass your test with flying colors. My challenge will be how to effectively and congently convey my answer-should I ever be able to figure out what that answer is- to the readers a RedState. In advance of that, vote for me!
It just seems so STUPID!
I don't understand why anyone would vote for these people.
I guess identifying your problem, and then not doing anything about it is considered nuanced.