Mark,

It sooo sad how obsessed you are with smearing the democrats on one hand and covering as a master apologist for you parties current inept administration on the other hand. I think you should focus a little more constructive criticism inwards. Your's is the party in COMPLETE control who has revealed to the world how corrupt, inept and in need of reform they are. Like an alcoholic, the first step is to admit you have a problem....THEN you can proceed to fix the problem. We need GOOD Republicans for this country to work...now start working on bringing your party back from the dark side instead of making excuses for them like a battered house wife cus your bruises and black eye and shaky voice tell all.

Hey, that's pretty good muirgeo. Not to put too fine a point on it I think you're being too kind to Noonan "it's so sad how obsessed you are...." actually he is delusional. That can be dangerous not sad.

Muirgeo,
Accept the fact that America recognizes moonbats for what they are. Be proud of it, and keep helping us for 06 and 08. Without your help a middle left moonbat might win and then Iran could proceed with their plans to annihilate. Thanks for your help!

Peace.

Muirgeo - You are right about this site's obsession with criticizing liberals. Every post is a two part affair like:

1.[an article/blogpost/interview about anything]

2. In summary, the liberals [don't get it/are ruining this country/are liars/are cowards/won't tell you this/won't admit this/are immoral/hate Bush/are hysterical]

"Blogs Against Liberals" would be a much more fitting name for the actual mission here.

I guess I just don't get it.

A candidate enters a congressional race after declaring on national TV that she is entering the race because the incumbent has been too compliant with the Bush administration on the war, illegal wiretaps and universal healthcare.

I don't see how this amounts to "hiding beliefs."

To me it seems that if a powerful, ranking member of an important House (or Senate) committee is knocked off in a party primary -- that should tell you where rank-and-file party members are.

That both candidates are from solidly "blue" district/state(s) I think it is safe to say that a successful challenge will not only keep the seat in Democratic hands, but will move congressional Democrats farther to the left -- what harm, I say.

The tide does seem to be turning -- but mainly in places where the Democrats are in firm control already -- that's pretty much how the system is supposed to work.

While I certainly appreciate the concern for those poor, abused, conservative Democrats shown by this site -- Democratic candidates will be selected by Democrats -- not some blogger's vision of what they wish the party was.

If a majority of Democrats in a given district are ready to throw out incumbents in favor of candidates with a left-wing agenda -- so be it.

As Will Rogers noted -- "I don't belong to any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat."

Good man!

I guess I just don't get it.

A candidate enters a congressional race after declaring on national TV that she is entering the race because the incumbent has been too compliant with the Bush administration on the war, illegal wiretaps and universal healthcare.

I don't see how this amounts to "hiding beliefs."

To me it seems that if a powerful, ranking member of an important House (or Senate) committee is knocked off in a party primary -- that should tell you where rank-and-file party members are.

That both candidates are from solidly "blue" district/state(s) I think it is safe to say that a successful challenge will not only keep the seat in Democratic hands, but will move congressional Democrats farther to the left -- what harm, I say.

The tide does seem to be turning -- but mainly in places where the Democrats are in firm control already -- that's pretty much how the system is supposed to work.

While I certainly appreciate the concern for those poor, abused, conservative Democrats shown by this site -- Democratic candidates will be selected by Democrats -- not some blogger's vision of what they wish the party was.

If a majority of Democrats in a given district are ready to throw out incumbents in favor of candidates with a left-wing agenda -- so be it.

As Will Rogers noted -- "I don't belong to any organized political party -- I'm a Democrat."

Good man!

Oops, the dreaded double post -- sorry.

The democrats should be applauded for questioning and holding their leadership responsible. As opposed to the Republican neocon mind-be-numbed koolaide drinking sheeple frontal lobotomized Bushbot apologist.

Yeah! Like DPW, China Trade, Choice, Harriet Miers, Campaign finance Reform, Border Security, Guest Worker Programs, Gay Marriage. We're just a monolith of single minded thinking.

Bring it on, Dems!

I'm dying to see these people reveal themselves in all their glory. It will be a nice change over the past five or six years, when all I've seen is the double tracks they've left behind them at every step of the way. Those tracks are the dug-in heels as they oppose, oppose, oppose each and every proposal or policy objective put forward by this Administration and the Republicrats. I have yet to see a single coherent piece of legislation proposed by the Dems. And I probably won't be seeing one, either - at least until after the election. Then, depending on who comes up with the biggest piece of the political pie, we might see some action.

If the Dems win, I predict that the first order of business will be legislation for Impeachment of Pres. Bush. They're already working on it, I'm sure. If the House falls to them, you can bet that all other items of national importance will fall by the wayside in favor of an Motion for Impeachment. Then, look for a series of bills to gut whatever progress has been made on any issue whatsoever by this Administration. They'll let their mask off at that point, because they'll have two years to readjust it for anyone who might doubt what they're really all about - the redistribution of capital wealth via government fiat.

If the Republicrats maintain or increase their hold as a majority power (a concept they seem strangely unable to grasp), you'll see a continuation of the "double heelmark" opposition on the part of the Demublicans. They won't be offering any constructive legislation, just opposition - loyal or otherwise...

Either way, you can count on the drive-by media to continue to act at the semi-official mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the Demublican party. We can always count on them!

To those who are griping about the tone of this blogsite I say: "Get over it!" What part about "Blogs For Bush" didn't resonate with you or give you a concept of what to expect when you come here? I could gripe about dailykos or huffingtonpost, but I choose to not frequent those sites any longer, since I tired of the neverending litany of abusive, hostile and overtly hateful posts. I suggest that if it bothers you that much, that you do the same. Go somewhere where your "sensibilities" aren't so "offended..."

I really can't see the Democrats faring well this election. Or in any election, for that matter.

And if Feingold is really their greatest hope for 2008, they won't be doing well then either.

GOP will remain in charge for a while.

Democrats aren't going to fare well this year. And if Feingold is really their big hope for 2008, that'll be a losing year for them as well.

GOP is in command for the foreseeable future.

If the democrats are in trouble, then why aren't republicans willing to take a stand on issues that the majority of the american people support?

1. Strong border control and security at the U.S.-Mexico border (even the President is soft on this issue).
2. Reduction and control of "earmark" spending (repulicans are responsible for killing this in the house).

I could go on, but the real point here is the republican leadership's unwillingness to tackle these issues and allow democrats to appear as better than they really are.

I am frankly discusted with the spinelessness of the republicans in Washington and am losing my patience.

Here is someone else's perspective that basically sums up my point.

If the President isn't careful, he may end up becoming a powerless politician that can only wait out the rest of his term.

April 20, 2006
Bush Approval Starts to Near Danger Level
The new FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll has President Bush's Approval down to 33%. This is 3 points lower than any previous poll FOX News has released, and needless to say it is not good news for the White House. Among Republicans his approval has dropped to 66% and therein lies his major problem and the answer to how he can bounce back.

The President has got to get his Republican base back in the fold. If he can do that his approval ratings will stabilize in the high 30's and low 40's and he will be in a position to mount a comeback this fall. Bush could take sliding approval ratings into the high 30's in the RCP Average, but deterioration below 35% - it's not there yet, but the FOX poll could be a troubling leading indicator for the White House - starts to indicate loss of core support in his Republican base and that can become a very slippery slope which could effectively kill his presidency. He's got to pick a fight with the Democrats on something and get his base reenergized. Compromising with Ted Kennedy on immigration is not the answer to his political problems.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/blog/2006/04/bush_approval_starts_to_near_d.html

"...the very liberal Harman"

Sez you!

I live in Harman's district, and I can tell you that she is not in any way liberal.

Jane Harman, in 1998, referred to herself as "the best Republican in the Democratic Party." She does not deny this. Jane Harman is an official member of the Blue Dog Democrats, a coalition of self-described "conservatives." Jane Harman is one of the few Blue Dog Democrats who is not from the Deep South. Jane Harman voted for (and continues to support) the occupation of Iraq and the Patriot Act (twice!). Jane Harman is an active and key Democratic supporter of President Bush's illegal, unchecked warrantless spying program. And when the program was finally exposed, Jane Harman voiced her outrage... not at the administration for engaging in warrantless spying on Americans in violation of the law, but at the NYT for daring to speak of it. 6 of Jane Harman's top 7 campaign contributors are Defense Contractors.

All these things may have made sense back when Congressperson Harman originally represented the 36th district (1993-1999). But since then the district has been gerrymandered to make the 36th a gaudily-safe Democratic seat. This gerrymander specifically removed the rich, conservative enclave of Palos Verdes from the district. At the same time, it expanded the district to include the ultra-liberal community of Venice, and the quite-liberal communities of Mar Vista and West L.A. In '04, Kerry trounced Bush in CA-36, 60%-40%. Harman's last GOP congressional challenge in CA-36 was a token one, in the form of an unfunded schoolteacher without even the most rudimentary campaign experience, who ran to the *left* of Jane Harman on several issues. Make no mistake: the 36th IS LIBERAL, and Jane Harman is CONSERVATIVE.

Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA

The Democrats (House/Senate members) have been remarkably restraint from pandering to the far left of the party. There is no call for impeachment, and very little for even censorship. The there is no cry for an immediate pull-out of Iraq. Not even Murtha’s plan (same as Newt’s) calls for an immediate pull-out.

On the other hand, the Republicans can’t do enough for the wacky right:
Terry Shiavo
Anti Gay Marriage Amendment
Anti Free Speech (flag burning) Amendment
Creationism
Stem Cell Research Prohibited
Anti Birth Control
Anti Free Choice for any reason even to save your own life
Invading Iraq to bring on the apocalypse (Bush was told to invade by Jesus)
Prayer in School

You know, it's pretty hard to be in COMPLETE control when the minority party is full of obstructionists. THE DEMOCRATS ARE OBSTRUCTIONISTS!

extramedium and muirgeo:

I have noticed the lower Bush's ratings get (33%) the more vocal Mark becomes attacking liberals. If we think it is bad now, I wonder what it will be like when Mr. W hits single digits?

And in my opinion Democrats haven't fared better because the Repuglicans have mastered the art of framing the conversation and Democrats have concentrated too much on reacting to their attacks. Rather they should just ignore them and push forward their own ideas.

BTW has anyone been to www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.com?

They are the answer to swift boat veterans. Add them to the 7 Generals asking for Rumsfeld to resign (in disgrace)

I brace for Marks diatribe against liberals and how they have ruined the flavor in jelly beans.

Oh Bane, you wanted to know why Iraq would send their top diplomat to Niger if not for yellow cake? Why not ask al-Zahawie http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,491666,00.html
:
“He had been sent to Niger — as well as Benin, Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville — he explains, as part of an effort to convince African heads of state to visit Iraq. Such visits would break the embargo on flights to the country, and Baghdad hoped this would undermine the UN sanctions regime. The inspiration for the project, al-Zahawie suspects, had been recent visits by African leaders to Libyan leader Muammar Ghadafi, which had broken the embargo on flights to that country.”

A private citizen in Los Angeles is dissatisfied with her Democratic rep, and she decides to challenge him in the primary.

In Connecticut, a private citizen thinks his senator has betrayed his party, and decides to challenge him in the primary.

Sounds like healthy democracy. What's not to like?

Ash, You are going against the democratic platform.... Shame on you!!!

Democrats have concentrated too much on reacting to their attacks. Rather they should just ignore them and push forward their own ideas.

Barney,
Thanks for that, although it has nothing to do with this thread.
Credibility is the key;
al-Zahawie said, ""Frankly, I didn't know that Niger produced uranium at all," ?????!
Now, I know I believe that more than British Intel, French Intel etc. etc. etc.
I mean, why would Saddam's Iraqi government official lie?

SEW,

You really think Iran can or will annihilate us? You pitiful poor frightened ignorant child you. What a tool you are.

Boy, point out some liberal hysteria and who comes out of the woodwork??? Liberal hysterics!!

First, no one pointed out the blatant bias of the article in the first place. This is not journalism, folks, this is editorializing at its worst---at its worst because it is masquerading as a news story. The inherent dishonesty of the original article is stunning, starting with the calm assertion of "warrantless wiretapping". Electronic interception of specifically designated international calls between specifically identified persons is a far cry from going in and establishing an ongoing physical wiretap. But who's interested in facts when the propaganda is so much more emotionally satisfying?

Second, pointing out the liberal knee-jerk attack mode towrd any position varying from the far far left is hardly an attack. It is an observation. Mark is hardly the first to observe that the attack-dog mentality of the far left is getting more and more accepted, as they absorb more and more of what used to be a rational party. Not one he, or I, agreed with, but at least a rational party. I don't mind, and I don't think Mark does, either, though I would not claim to speak for him. But we, and many others, see the radicalism of the far left alienating the moderates of the party, which is hardly anything we would object to.

Third, it would be WONDERFUL to see the Dems "holding their leadership responsible." But it appears to those of us with calmer views that what is represented in this article is the exact opposite---it is attacking their leaders for being responsible.

Responsible people understand that we must monitor certain international communciations, even when one end of a given communication might be in this country. Responsible people understand that it is simply not possible to gather the information needed to support true wiretaps on every known terrorist in this country, particularly when it is so easy to get disposable phones and phone numbers daily. Responsible people understand that if a terrorist in, say, Munich, makes a call, we need to know who he is calling, and it is ridiculous to drop off the call if it happens to be to someone in Detroit. Responsible people also understand that they might have only seconds to intercept that call. Responsible people know the only responsible thing to do is to listen in, and if the information passed is simply a new recipe for couscous, to ignore it---but if it is a plan for the destruction of innocent life, it had damned well better be recorded.

Reasonable people know that if the guy in Detroit talks about robbing a bank or stealing a car, that inforamtion simply cannot be used against him, because of the manner in which it was learned---there was no warrent, dontcha see. But responsible people understand that the information could be used to prevent an attack, and feel, somehow, that that would be a good thing. Responsible people know that the intercepts will be subjected to rigorous judicial review, and will be made available to those who need to know, including those on certain Senate committees.

But this kind of responsible evaluation of a much-maligned and much-misrepresented government attempt to protect our country does not fit into the far left radical position that it is illegal and immoral to do these things....because it is Bush doing them. And it is the calling to heel of those who stray from the radical talking points that was addressed by Mark.

Fourth, consrvatives challenge their party, and their leadership, all the time. Even when I did not think Tom DeLay should have been indicted for something that was not against the law when he did it, I did think he, and others, needed to avoid certain activities even if they were legal, because they just smelled bad. A lot of us called him on that. How many on your side called Pelosi for the same thing, or Reid, or the others on your side of the aisle who did the same things?

Fifth, many thanks to Barney for his support of the theory that the left is simply losing its mind. For this gem, Barn, we are truly grateful... "As opposed to the Republican neocon mind-be-numbed koolaide drinking sheeple frontal lobotomized Bushbot apologist."

Hmmmm...Iran has weekly rallies in which it pledges the destruction of the United States.

Iran's leaders make repeated speeches promising a world in which the United States does not exist.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and officials believe they could have as many as 10 functional warhead size atomic bombs within a year.

Now, if Bob had your address, murky, and repeatedly threatened to go over there and kill you, and went online with that threat---accompanied by photos of him with many guns and grenades and rocket launchers---and told everyone of his plans to kill you, you would be begging for someone do DO somethng about him. And rightly so, because people who make those kinds of threats often excecute those threats. I'll bet you were one of those who excoriated the Littleton Colorado police for ignoring the Kliebold and Harris threats. I'll bet you got all wound up about the claim that the government had advance notice of 9/11 and didn't do anything about it. But you sure seem willing to overlook overt and supported claims of plans to wipe us---and that includes YOU---off the planet.

So what would you do, murky? Just ignore Iran? Or are you one of those who never has a plan, just sits back and pokes fun at those who do?

Does anyone wonder what a "teacher" is doing being a far left wing fringe kook? Seems like lots of America haters are teaching our children.

"Fifth, many thanks to Barney for his support of the theory that the left is simply losing its mind. For this gem, Barn, we are truly grateful... "As opposed to the Republican neocon mind-be-numbed koolaide drinking sheeple frontal lobotomized Bushbot apologist."
Posted by: Almiranta [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 21, 2006 02:46 PM

Sorry to burst your bubble, but that was not me.

I posted this:
The Democrats (House/Senate members) have been remarkably restraint from pandering to the far left of the party. There is no call for impeachment, and very little for even censorship. The there is no cry for an immediate pull-out of Iraq. Not even Murtha’s plan (same as Newt’s) calls for an immediate pull-out.

On the other hand, the Republicans can’t do enough for the wacky right:
Terry Shiavo
Anti Gay Marriage Amendment
Anti Free Speech (flag burning) Amendment
Creationism
Stem Cell Research Prohibited
Anti Birth Control
Anti Free Choice for any reason even to save your own life
Invading Iraq to bring on the apocalypse (Bush was told to invade by Jesus)
Prayer in School
Posted by: Barneyg2000 [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 21, 2006 12:34 PM

"Now, if Bob had your address, murky, and repeatedly threatened to go over there and kill you, and went online with that threat-..." Almiranta

Change the name from Bob to keefer, than maybe we could relate. keefer, loves to hide behind his computer and threaten blogers.

Our bleeding hearts are ..... well bleeding for you barney! No wonder you guys are known as the whining, crying, complaining, pessimistic party. You can't even handle a little harrassment from good ol' Keef!

I just love to see the way you guys read some dumb polls, like it gives you a monopoly on things! You guys just keep thinking that upset republicans & moderates are going to hand you the election. it just gives me more to laugh about come election day!

Almiranta,

Couple all of what you have so eloquently pointed about about Iran with the fact that their leadership is hoping to bring back the 13th or "hidden" Imam by starting the apocalypse, and we have all the makings of a world nuclear conflagration.

We musn't forget that these same Iranians used wave after wave of THEIR OWN CHILDREN to clear minefields during the Iran-Iraq War. If they are willing to do something so diabolical as that we can count on their williness to detonate a nuke on our shores if they ever got the chance.

Could Iran anihilate us Murky? NO, but they would certainly bloody our nose, and it would be much worse than 9/11.

What is simply astonishing to me is that all of these leftist think that President Bush is responisble for this, when the Iranians first made their intentions clear by invading our embassy and taking hostages in 1979.

It is not just a coincidence that this occurred during the Carter Administration. Whenever our enemies view us as weak and or divided they will attempt to take advantage. This is precisely why the nonstop calls for withdrawl from Iraq and impeachment of the President by democrats and the MSM are emboldening our enemies.

Our bleeding hearts are ..... well bleeding for you barney! No wonder you guys are known as the whining, crying, complaining, pessimistic party. You can't even handle a little harrassment from good ol' Keef!

I just love to see the way you guys read some dumb polls, like it gives you a monopoly on things! You guys just keep thinking that upset republicans & moderates are going to hand you the election. it just gives me more to laugh about come election day!

Barney,
There is no prohibition on stem cell research.
Just a thought, how about in the interest of honesty we should accurately represent what the opposition believes.

The Left has a new slogan,"A clean sweep for a clean slate". ALL sitting politicians:local,state and federal, are out on there fat wallets in November. And Almiranta, your nose must drag on the ground, because you sure do tell woppers. Peace

Barney,
There is no prohibition on stem cell research.
Just a thought, how about in the interest of honesty we should accurately represent what the opposition believes.
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at April 21, 2006 04:04 PM

If this is the only fault that you have with my post, including Bush gets his foreign policy directly from conversations with god, than God help us!

Rather they should just ignore them and push forward their own ideas.

hahahaha!!! What ideas, Ash-hole?

Change the name from Bob to keefer, than maybe we could relate. keefer, loves to hide behind his computer and threaten blogers.

OMG, Baloney--you still can't write. School's out in less than two months, and you're gonna be held back in the third grade--again.

I'm not hiding behind my computer, and I'm not threatening anyone either. Have I ever threatened you, Baloney? Don't worry, little fella--I wouldn't strike a minor child...

Barney,
I give up; arguing with you is an exercise in futility.

“Hey Bane, I said some really stupid things and all you did was point out the obvious on one stupid thing. Whoo-hoo, I win!”
Yep, you’re far too smart for me.

Bane,

It's patently obvious that arguing with most of these kookbats is useless. I will agree with you, lil' Baloney is about the worst of the bunch--he's a complete idiot, and his writing is appalling. Next is morongeo, followed by shortz and slippy.

Why do you think I do little else other than to call them names? Trying to reason with them is a waste of time; they're pre-programmed parrots who have nothing to offer but hatred of their own country. Enjoy them, laugh at them, just don't ever get like them. Cheerio!

"Have I ever threatened you, Baloney? Don't worry, little fella--I wouldn't strike a minor child...Posted by: keefer [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 21, 2006 05:06 PM

Wrong as usual keefer. Read this:

"Baloney, you're startin' to irritate me. Why don't you come down to Sykesville so's we can discuss this problem. Better not; you wouldn't last in a room with me. Well, maybe if you brought your big sister along.
Don't make me mad, Baloney; you wouldn't like me if I were mad..."
Posted by: keefer at March 9, 2006 07:56 PM

keefer,
It's like being in a schoolyard; I'm used to professionals (adults) who frame an argument, defend their opinion, then agree or agree to disagree.
I'm not used to researching a point of view, framing an argument, having the subject changed, redefining the terms, arguing facts, being taunted by plebeians over my education and experience, then having to start all over because they can’t digest a contrary opinion.
Well, my vacation is over this weekend and Monday I go back to work, I won’t be posting during the day, and maybe not after work either.
I will, however read Matt and Mark, and peruse the comments for your sardonic wit. Take care,
did I mention childish games of Gotcha!? (Barney?)

Barney,
Get a job, find a good woman or a good man, (your choice), and try to get out more often. You're wasting your time being a liberal; all the best liberals are dead now, all that's left are contrarians and obstructionists.

Barney,
Get a job, find a good woman or a good man, (your choice), and try to get out more often. You're wasting your time being a liberal; all the best liberals are dead now, all that's left are contrarians and obstructionists.

Bane, that was the type of response that I have come to expect from you. When you can’t debate an argument with facts, you use opinions and smears.

bane posted "I'm not used to researching a point of view,..."

I could not agree more.

Barney,
You couldn't agree less either, because you don't realize what you just posted.
Think about it. We'll wait ...

Barney,
Waiting ... this is going to be funny when the light bulb goes on ...

What, I couldn't agree with your assessment of yourself that you don’t waste your time researching facts?

Like when you said that France did not have an ownership stake in the Niger mines and France does, or when you said there where no other logical reasons for Iraq to meet with Niger other than for trade in yellow cake, and I provided there were, or, as state above, all my statements about republicans pandering to the religious right were correct, and your best response was to result to insults?

Yea, you don’t spend any time researching the facts.

"Hmmmm...Iran has weekly rallies in which it pledges the destruction of the United States.

Iran's leaders make repeated speeches promising a world in which the United States does not exist.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons, and officials believe they could have as many as 10 functional warhead size atomic bombs within a year."

Three of the best reasons to have not invaded Iraq! We do have REAL ENEMIES out there!

dl: You want an idea? How about spending less money funding the war in Iraq? Let's spend the money we save on making the Mexican border more secure. Let's spend more on port security (air and sea)?

You won't agree with it, but it is an idea and a solid one.

Ah keefer, missed your kindly comment. You can read my idea above addressed to dl. There's an idea.

"somewhere in the Interstate Highway System, a toll booth is missing it's idiot"

lil' Baloney is about the worst of the bunch--he's a complete idiot, and his writing is appalling. Next is morongeo, followed by shortz and slippy.

Posted by: keefer

Second place only!?! Dang Barney what do I have to do to pass you up.

Of course keefer you take the cake for the most worthless debater on the neocon side.

Of course when we say you are the worst that's no honor since we deal in reality you really are the worst. When you say Barney is the worst that means he's the best because you guys get everything backwards.

Muirgeo - You are right about this site's obsession with criticizing liberals. Every post is a two part affair like:

The irony of that statement is amazing. Ever gone to DailyKos or Dummyunderground or any of the other left wing lunatic sites. They will ban any conservative thought within generally 4 to 6 hours. Mark at least allows you little boys to actually post here time and again.

Why, I have no idea but he does.

Muirgeo - You are right about this site's obsession with criticizing liberals. Every post is a two part affair like:

The irony of that statement is amazing. Ever gone to DailyKos or Dummyunderground or any of the other left wing lunatic sites. They will ban any conservative thought within generally 4 to 6 hours. Mark at least allows you little boys to actually post here time and again.

Why, I have no idea but he does.

Muirgeo - You are right about this site's obsession with criticizing liberals. Every post is a two part affair like:

The irony of that statement is amazing. Ever gone to DailyKos or Dummyunderground or any of the other left wing lunatic sites. They will ban any conservative thought within generally 4 to 6 hours. Mark at least allows you little boys to actually post here time and again.

Why, I have no idea but he does.

Hmmmm...

The original title of this thread is "The Democratic Crackup." In just over 12 hours, and some 46 comments later, the ensuing debate has deteriorated into some sort of Pee-Wee Herman exchange of "I know you are! But what am I?" and assorted namecalling - not entirely coming from the left's point of view. Most of those types of comments, however were made by some of the more infamous leftist visitors to this site. It kind of proves the point that Mark was trying to make in his original analysis of the article in question, doesn't it? Alimantra put it best, though, when stating, "Boy, point out some liberal hysteria and who comes out of the woodwork??? Liberal hysterics!!"

Bane of Liberals' Existence, Keefer, Almiranta and a few other regulars to this site have engaged our left-wing associates in yet another pointless exchange of ideas and arguments. But feeding the trolls doesn't seem to make the trolls any less hungry does it? I appreciated the effort, however, and regret that BOLE won't be posting so much, due to less time available. His thoughts are refreshing and uncommonly civil even in the face of the less-mature posters among us...

Keefer's "take no prisoners" approach is just what the leftists need to keep their panties all wadded up and continue their incessant postings with no apparent point to them. Good job, keef!! We can always count on you to throw some gas on a simmering fire... (LOL).

BearmanUSMC chimed in with his usual short, to the point response, yet avoided feeding the trolls. Good job man!

Almiranta: I really enjoy your ability to swerve around the verbal construction cones thrown up at you by the wacky leftists, and to stay focused on the subject of the thread - both here and in other posts.

Mark: You've done a great service by starting this thread and then letting the left speak for itself! Are you CERTAIN that Karl Rove and/or George Bush (hiss!) didn't have anything to do with this? ;)

I truly enjoyed it!

P.S. My momma often told me that it was dangerous to have an argument with a fool because people standing by and watching will have a hard time trying to figure out who the fool is...

dbog,

My Dad gave me a different version with the same moral.

"When you're arguing with an idiot, make sure he's not doing the same thing"

Ah that was a generation with lots of wisdom.

"How the midterms will play out remains to be seen - personally, I see a GOP victory shaping up;"

I disagree.

At the Dear Leader's approval rating dropping to 33% and probably lower after Rove and Ney are booked, you can bet that the rest of the Republican Rubber stamp Congress won't be doing well either.

The only way Republicans will maintain comtrol of congress is if a war with Iran breaks out.

Wag that dog!

Patrick,

Harman is endorsed by the NEA and the California Teacher's Association - two bastions of left/liberal thiking. She is a pro-abortion fanatic. She thinks that President Bush cooked the pre-war intelligence books, and believes that President Bush has ordered torture of captured terrorists - she calls the NSA's signals intelligence program a "warrantless wiretap" program, per leftwing Party Line. She's also an environmentalist fanatic...if you don't consider her liberal, then I'd like a full description of someone who is liberal in your view.

three dots,

Oh, there's no argument against people setting up primary challengers to shake up the political establishment...but the thing is, other than Ney's challenger, all the serious primary challengers in 2006 are leftwing extremists challenging leftwing Democrats for being insufficiently leftist...this is a signal that all is not well in Democrat-land.

....other than Ney's challenger, all the serious primary challengers in 2006 are leftwing extremists ...this is a signal that all is not well in Democrat-land.

Posted by: Mark Noonan

Mark,

I thought you were a supporter of the troops. You calling the 36 vets running as democrats and the 7 Iraqi war vets running for congress as DEMOCRATS extremists?????

From US NEw & WR,

..."National Republican Congressional Committee spokesman Ed Patru says 38 vets (including at least two who fought in Iraq) are mounting challenges as Republicans in 2006...

and

...."For Duckworth and seven other veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan running as Democrats for the House of Representatives--along with nearly 50 other vets--the 2006 midterms will test how strong that platform is. "

http://www.democrats.org/page/content/fightingdems/index/

Consider your sail windless....you hate vets.....

"...George Bush wants to wiretap your home without a warrant..."

Yup, you want to contact Al Qaida, or, they you; expect Uncle Sam to listen in. Oh my!!!

Don't like it; move.

dav (lower case)---

We seem to have had a couple of options, neither of which was very palatable. One was to deal with Iran, with its neighbor, Iraq, just across the border with chemical and biological weapons. Given Sadamm's history of using these types of weapons, the idea of being in such close proximity to them while fighting a war with another country was not very appealing.

The other was to deal with the WMD first, and hope that in the course of stabilizing Iraq the youth of Iran would see what could happen even in the Middle East, even in a Muslim country, and would take care of their own problem, themnselves.

To some extent, the second approach has proven to be the better one. While stabilization in Iraq is progressing more slowly than we would have liked, it is progressing, and neighboring countries have taken note. We need to remember that it is a process, not an event.

It is quite fashionable in some circles to claim that anything short of instantaneous, total success is the same as failure. It's a valuable position for those deeply invested in failure. But no culture, much less government, has gone through the radical changes we are talking about in Iraq without spasms of opposition and even regression. It is to be expected. Most of us did expect it, and are not shocked, alarmed, or dismayed at a completely predictable and normal evolution.

But it has not escaped the notice of moderate Muslims, secular Muslims, and young Muslims that even with the ongoing conflicts in Iraq, it is still ahead of other countries. In a way, it gets even more attention that in a country flooded with foreign insurgents determined to derail the democratic process, in a country marked by random violence, the people still have more freedom than they did before, and more than most have in other countries.

And what it may come down to is a decision by approximately 70% of Iranians that they are not willing to fry for the promotion of a radical dream, a dream which requires them to suffer and die by the millions, when the option is to get rid of the reigning mullahs and put together an Iraqi-style form of representative governement. Because, you see, now there IS an Iraqi-style form of representative government.

If this doesn't happen, we have to be aware of the dangers and ready to act, if it becomes necessary. And hysterical rantings by Ranty Rhodes about the Bushies trying to start World War III and we'll be lucky if anyone is left alive when it's over do not contribute to a rational understanding of the problem or any kind of a solution.

dbog, thanks for the kind words. For a while it looked like there was a concerted effort to flood the site with wild-eyed lefties, and it was a pleasure to see you, keefer, bearman, bane, and warrior providing some balance.

I'm reading Politics Lost by Joe Klein, and while he takes a lot of cheap shots at Bush, making or repeating unfounded accusations without acknowledging the denials or evidence to the contrary, he also makes some good points about his own side. He talks a lot about the hijacking of the Old Democratic Party by the radical left.

He makes a lot of the same points made by Zell Miller in his book. He also makes the point that while the Republicans have also had to deal with a radical wing in their party, there has never been a danger of that wing overtaking and dominating the party, while that is exactly what is happening with the Dems.

While I am a stauch conservative, I am not a lockstep Republican. I vote Republican because that is the party most likely to govern in the way I, as a conservative, think the country will benefit by being governed. I do not hesitate to criticize the party when I think it is going in the wrong direction, or its leaders. I see the same characteristics in most of the conservatives posting here.

But where are the moderate Democrats? Don't they read blogs? Don't they post? Don't they have opinions? Or are they so dispirited by the direction their party is being dragged, and by the reality that they may have to vote Republican or not vote at all because the new radicals don't speak for them, that they are just silent?

Is there a site where true Democrats talk about positions, issues, matters of policy? Because while conservatives can, and do, have spirited debates on issues, disagreeing and then often hammering out reasonable compromises, all I see from the vocal other side is snottines, hatred, and a mishmash of non-facts paraded as the basis for their FEELINGS.

***********
Terry Shiavo
Anti Gay Marriage Amendment
Anti Free Speech (flag burning) Amendment
Creationism
Stem Cell Research Prohibited
Anti Birth Control
Anti Free Choice for any reason even to save your own life
Invading Iraq to bring on the apocalypse (Bush was told to invade by Jesus)
Prayer in School
**************

This is a list of what is supposed to represent the "wackiness" of the right.

Terri Schiavo----how odd to think that believing in civil rights even for the severely disabled is "wacky". You know, no death penalty without due process, that kind of thing. Guess the last administration of any country which openly supported the elimination of the disabled was not wacky at all, Barney? But fairness is. Thanks for clearing that up.

Anti Gay Marriage Amendment. Typically tortured syntax, but I think you mean an amendment saying that marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman, as opposed to what you really SAID, which is that the "wacky" right wants an amendment for anti gay marriage. Pesky double negative---nearly as big a problem to libs as the infamous Rogue Apostrophe. But how is it "wacky" to memorialize a concept that has been in existence as long as people have been getting married? (Clue---that's a long, long, time.) On Planet Lib, it is not "wacky" to completely redefine an institution which has had only one definition for many centuries, but it IS wacky to defend that definition.

Anti Free Speech (flag burning) Amendment. Plenty of conservatives feel that while burning the flag is despicable, it can be considered a political statement and should be protected by the Constitution. Emotionally, I'd like it to be protected. Intellectually, I think that such an amendment would be inconsistent with the Constitution. If so many other conservatives did not also feel this way, the amendment would be a done deal.

Besides, burning the flag is such a vivid way of screaming to the world "LOOK HOW STUPID I AM!!! I AM DESECRATING THE SYMBOL OF THE FREEDOM I HAVE TO DESECRATE THE SYMBOL!!"

Creationism. Yup, any opinion you don't share is by definition "wacky". Do you identify other religious beliefs as "wacky"? Exactly when did "liberal" come to mean "intolerant"? Of course, to be completely honest, I am guilty of the same thing. Now that liberalism has become a religion, based on faith and unquestioning acceptance of dogma, I do ridicule it. Never mind...

Stem Cell Research Prohibited. As has been pointed out to you, stem cell research is not prohibited.

Anti Birth Control. The only form of birth control the conservatives disapprove of is the one that depends on having sex and then killing off the result. The mainstream conservative point of view is, Do whatever it takes to NOT get pregnant, and there is no problem. And before you chant the mantra of rape and incest, etc., the number of pregnancies from either one is a very tiny percentage of abortions performed in this country every year. On the other hand, I know two adult women who have had three abortions each, and another who had an abortion because she doesn't ever want children but won't get her tubes tied because she heard it would make her stomach "puffy".

Anti Free Choice for any reason even to save your own life...

The number of pregnancies which would endanger the mother's life is so miniscule, the "saving the mother's life" argument is very very feeble. But as much as I abhor the taking of an innocent life, most would agree to allow abortion when the choice is the life of the mother or the life of the baby. BTW, a pregnancy that dangerous would probably result in the death of both, so that would be a reasonable compromise. And it NEVER applies to partial birth abortions. Why not? If you don't know, ask and I will tell you.

Invading Iraq, etc... Total bunk. A weird and bizarre compilation of several of the farthest of the far left talking points. An embarrassment to even mention any of them, much less all at once.

Prayer in School And why not? It went on for decades, with no ill effects. But lately it has been watered down to ALLOW it for those who want to do it. And that still gets the lefties braying about the non-exstent "separation of chruch and state". And the reglious zealots of the Church of What's Happening Now (aka radical lefties) only want THEIR form of prayer to be allowed in schools. You know, the teachers who try to indoctrinate their youngs students into hating Bush, making anti-Bush posters, etc. Read Orwell. To paraphrase: All religions are equal---but some are more equal than others.

Harman is endorsed by the NEA and the California Teacher's Association - two bastions of left/liberal thiking. She is a pro-abortion fanatic. She thinks that President Bush cooked the pre-war intelligence books, and believes that President Bush has ordered torture of captured terrorists - she calls the NSA's signals intelligence program a "warrantless wiretap" program, per leftwing Party Line.

All of these things are in no way "left-wing." They are similar to the beliefs of an old-line "moderate" Republican. As for Harman's right-wing beliefs, as Matt Stoller explains: "She's a key backer of the NSA eavesdropping program, she voted for the flag burning amendment, she supported the bankruptcy bill, stood stridently for the war in Iraq, strongly supported the Patriot Act, has voted to strengthen the death penalty, and has voted to eliminate the estate tax. She's a Blue Dog and a DLCer, and she receives contributions from the PACs of Boeing, Northrup Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon."

You simply misunderstand where the "left" is in this country. The extreme left is not currently represented in the Democratic party (except for a few isolated Congresspeople), because the Democrats moved right in the '90s. Challenging Harman from the left is a way to get the Democrats back to the center, where, for example, pre-emptive war (a radical idea, not a conservative idea) is no longer given any support by Democrats.

Anyway, you don't even understand the concept of what a primary challenge is for. Tom DeLay and Grover Norquist mounted primary challenges all the time to weed out "moderate" Republicans and force still others to move far to the right. Did that hurt the party?

Muirego,

Nope, just shows that the few Democrats who are serving in the military will ruthlessly exploit patriotism in order to get ahead...sorta like a Democratic Presidential candidate from a couple years ago...the Republican soldiers who might want a political career are busy still fighting the war...

dbog, thanks for the kind words. For a while it looked like there was a concerted effort to flood the site with wild-eyed lefties, and it was a pleasure to see you, keefer, bearman, bane, and warrior providing some balance.

Posted by: Almiranta at April 22, 2006 12:31 PM

Diddo those sentiment to dbog- Almiranta, some of us have to be out there getting rich so we can pay for all those social programs that the cons won't cut, and the high gas prices since the cons won't get some balls and start some SERIOUS drilling here in the homeland........... oh my gosh, did I just complain about my own party? I'm sorry, disregard that george, DAV, & Ash! I really am a sheep, behind my party all the way! Actually, I would be a true sheep just to keep you lefty loonies out of power!