Politics like Voltron rewards the team that works together. Insipid point, sure. It bears reminding only because; A) that more or less explains why people want to get rid of Lieberman, B) that was the thesis for my second post on this site, and C) the GOP just lost it (via Americablog).
[I]n the aftermath of reports that Norquist served as a cash conduit for disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the irascible, combative activist is struggling to maintain his stature as some GOP lawmakers distance themselves and as enemies in the conservative movement seek to diminish his position.“People were willing to cut him a lot of slack because he’s done a lot of favors for a lot of people,” said J. Michael Waller, a vice president of the right-leaning Center for Security Policy who for several years was an occasional participant at Norquist’s Wednesday meetings. “But Grover’s not that likable.”
Norquist has lashed back at his critics, accusing them of dishonesty, personal vendettas and political gamesmanship. He has saved his choicest words for Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose Senate Indian Affairs Committee last month stated in a report that for a small cut, Americans for Tax Reform served as a “conduit” for funds that flowed from Abramoff’s clients to surreptitiously finance grass-roots lobbying campaigns.
For basically a decade now the GOP has used the Abramoff-Norquist-DeLay nexis of money, ideology and power to keep the Specters and Chaffees on a tight leash. As much as these guys focused on defeating Democrats you could argue that they focused equal time on defeating and threatening to defeat GOP incumbents who stepped too far out of the party line on the critical issues (taxes, corporate deregulation and, since the rise of Gearge W. Bush the singleminded support of presidential power uber alles). Over its own caucus the GOP leadership kept hold of both carrots and sticks that the Dem leadership couldn’t begin to match.
How times have changed. Now with Abramoff cooperating with the feds and the Hammer facing the most humiliating sort of career denouement imaginable, the last standing leg of the stool is Grover Norquist. It seems somehow touching that Norquist, facing investigation and short on friends, thinks that he can stare down McCain on this issue. Sleaze has become an issue if not The Issue of ’06 and if only for that reason alone Norquist seems doomed to lose.
Looking into my crystal ball it seems likely that losing the sleazy triad of party enforcement will bring out the Republican Liebermans in force. The GOP may still keep one or both houses of Congress, but assuming that Democrats manage the most minimal sort of discipline (cough) the big threats like Social Security privatization and sending the tax code even further into ridiculousland should be more or less finished.
Necessary caveat: I would never say that the GOP isn’t a threat in general. They are. But rather, a good number of major legislative successes and near-successes of the last six years have demanded a party discipline that I think just isn’t possible without a big carrot and a big stick. Absent the Abramoff-Norquist-DeLay troika I suspect that the centrifugal forces of authoritarian theocracy versus laissez-faire corporatism verus increasingly incoherent neoconservatism could pull the party too badly apart to deliver on the Big Bills.
Pb
Don’t get me wrong, I’ll be thrilled to see Norquist lose out on this one–just so long as McCain doesn’t come out as the big winner in all of this (and just in time for ’08…)
Ben
To play devil’s advocate though, is it good for dems if the republican party gets less crazy and starts acting liking regular republicans again, especially if Hillary is the dem nominee in ’08?
Steve
I don’t think the Republican party can really turn their brand around 180 degrees by 2008, but in any event, I don’t think it’s good for the country when either party is extremist.
Sherard
It’s always fun to see Tim wax poetic about how the GOP is dooming itself.
I do love wishful thinking in action. Or is it projection ? That was a pretty cool trick where he almost rationalized the extreme attacks on a member of their own party – Lieberman. Gotta play as a team, remember. I guess that’s as good a reason as any to bad mouth “Rape Gurney Joe”.
Pooh
Sherard says
Oh, sorry, the talking points lack their usual punch today, I lost interest.
Nutcutter
Now that’s an interesting thought.
Just what the GOP have to do to doom itself?
Fuck up intelligence and start a war on mistaken assumptions? Deliever the country into massive debt? Lower taxes while raising expenditures, the direct opposite of Republican teaching for the last 50 years? Try to dismantle Social Security just as the largest crop of beneficiaries in history is about to start getting checks? Ignore a growing healthcare calamity in the country and appear to be in league with corporations and moneyed interests WRT the issue? Completely fuck up the country’s disaster preparedness and response to natural disasters? Get in bed with corrupt money grubbing thieves? Try to interfere with private medical decisions made by a family struggling with a patient’s right to die and their own broken hearts? Waste time on worthless issues like flag burning and marriage defense, fiddling with voter pandering while Rome burns?
“There is no more important issue (than defense of marriage) facing this legislature …” — A Republican state legislator, to a tv camera, July 2006.
Just exactly what would these crazy dishonest corrupt lying inept incompetant bungling panding cocksuckers have to do, to “doom” themselves?
Just asking.
BumperStickerist
My understanding is that, despite the GOP retaining control of both houses of Congress, 2006 will represent a stunning victory for the netroots. ~ cough ~
And, cough, the Lamont Gambit is going to pay HUGE dividends when it comes to Democrats maintaining party discipline. I mean, hell, Joe Lieberman was polling recently at 54% when running as an independent against both a Republican *and* a Democrat.
54% in a threeway race.
That’s *precisely* the kind of guy the netroots should go after in a primary campaign. Because, apparently, Joe doesn’t need them to be elected to the office.
The netroots: Strong. Smart.
If Lieberman wins as an independent there’s no shot at the Dem’s having any party discipline. Moderate Dems will scoff at the Pelosi/Reid/Clinton party discipline talk and *completely* ignore the netroots.
Throw in the fact that the Republican Congress may no longer be as ‘evil’ because Abramoff / Delay / Norquist are not in the picture and pretty soon you find yourself in a situation where Moderates on either side of the aisle will be emboldened, not to mention empowered.
My guess is that the Republican Party will better be able to work with its moderate members than the Dems will after the 2006 elections.
Which rolls you right up to 2008.
But, the Lamont/Kos ad was a terrific idea. Really. Smart. Strong.
.
searp
Next up: the tax cuts have to be rolled back or we will be bankrupt. That will be the work of the next 5 years, regardless of who is in power. It will be interesting to see how it is done.
Steve
What a hilarious piece of bullshit analysis that was. Well done, bumperstickerdude.
p.lukasiak
54% in a threeway race.
welcome to the wonderful world of name-recognition, moron.
Dems are going to rally around Lamont when he wins the primary…because the ones that don’t are screwed the next time they run for election. (yeah, Joe Biden missed a train, and Barb Boxer suddenly isn’t sure if she’ll have time to campaign for Leaver-man or not…)
Pb
Ok… since we’re talking about GOP idiocy here, and since I don’t see an open thread… this is hilarious! That guy is like the unwititing poster child for abortion…
The Other Steve
NEWS FLASH!
Bush trumpets tax cuts as part of pro-growth vision!
The Deficit is only $300 billion this year, not the $450 billion he projected in January.
In other news, I have made signifigant gains on my own personal budget, limiting my spending to only 1.5 times my salary, instead of 2.0 times my salary as I had originally projected. Now frankly, I think the girlfriend should be happy about this. I’m only half as fiscally irresponsible as I originally had claimed. But for some reason she keeps saying I spend too much money. Ungrateful woman!
The Other Steve
I forgot to mention that last year I projected I was going to spend 3 times my salary!
So I’ve cut my fiscal deficit in half!
That ungrateful woman really should be impressed, but she’s not.
SeesThroughIt
Pb, that link is fan-fucking-tastic!
BumperStickerist
Yeah … no shit, that was the point there, brightguy. Lieberman would be the .. oh what’s the political term here … oh yeah, the incumbent. He wins on name recognition throughout the campaign.
Ummm, yeah … because
……. why, exactly?
Other than because you think that’s what Democrats are trained to do, give me a reason why a significant percentage of Dems who supported Lieberman in the primary not vote for Lieberman as an independent?
Or, put another way, do you think that Lamont is such an engaging politician that he can attract enough voters to win with Lieberman in the race?
The answer is ‘no’. Further, Lamont won’t poll higher than 35-37% in the general election should he win the primary – despite the efforts of the netroots. Lieberman will win and then will you have?
Besides a couple of weeks of posting about how next time will be different and some discussion about the size of the moral victory won by the netroots.
But, obviously, you’re the smart people here.
Just ask yourselves.
.
Jay C
Tim, while I really really truly absolutely hope you are right, my cynicism bot keeps me from getting up too much hope in this direction. There are just too many other deflection issues (Iraq being the most obvious) out there for the GOP campaign honchos to sieze on (no 1929 in the offing economically) to whip up the public over (abortion/contraception regulations), to make them forget about the sleazy graft-fest (terrorist plots foiled) the GOP-run Congress has become (gay marriage!).
Mr Furious
Bah. the party discipline is more or less reflexive with these guys. Nobody wants to get caught out on their own on major legislation. I’ll believe the chaos when I see it.
The three-legged corruption stool has simply been replaced with the diner-style one-legged Rove stool.
Perry Como
These Bushites are fiscal geniuses!
Perry Como
You know what, I take that back. This crap started under Reagan. Republicans have zero credibility when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
Steve
It’s so funny to watch concern trolls prattle on about the extremism of the netroots and how bad it is for the future of the Democratic Party, when you keep in mind that John McCain, of all people, may not get through the primaries in 2008 because the base considers him “too liberal.” John McCain!
BumperStickerist
I guess ‘concern troll’ is the term favored by ‘self-flagellating echo chamberists’
Using your hypothetical – do you think McCain would lose in a three-way in Arizona if he decided to run as an independent?
I don’t.
I haven’t considered whether McCain would run as an independent if he lost the Rethuglican primary but, as Lieberman already has stated he will run should he lose the Democratic primary, I guess we’re back to that ‘reality’ thing you all seem to consider yourselves ‘-based’ in.
Can Lamont win in a three-way race in November?
Ummmmmmm …………….. no.
Which isn’t trolling, it’s a bit of that ‘reality’ thing you’re all so fond of.
.
Also, fwiw, you(all) have a tendency to play the ‘troll card’ a bit reflexively. Asking you to think through what’s going to happen isn’t trolling by any sane standard.
————————————————
and, in the spirit of full disclosure, no matter how bad Bush is as president, Kerry – based on his Senatorial record and how he ran his campaign – would have been worse.
I think even John ‘Agonistes’ Cole could agree with that.
I think.
Steve
I wouldn’t keep digging the hole if I were you. Your point is no more meaningful than “I have a poll which shows your guy losing, so you shouldn’t support him.”
John S.
And in the spirit of online bloviating, you just pulled a whopper out of your ass.
Bush the President is NOTHING like Bush the Governor nor does he reflect ANY of the promises he made during his campaigns, so the entire premise of your argument is bogus.
You are free to state that it is your baseless opinion that Kerry would have made a worse president than Bush, but to state it as it were fact is complete bullshit.
Nonsensical comments like this don’t make you a troll, they just make you look like an idiot.
Daebo
Let’s get this straight. The democrats of CT, a predominately democratic state, choose Lamont over Lieberman in the primary. Lieberman then breaks the 4th rule of party politics and refuses to cast his support to the primary winner and runs as an independant.
And you think no one in CT will notice this little trick? Do you seriously believe that CT voters never saw Joe’s idiotic cartoon comercial?
I don’t know if Lieberman would win or lose running as an independant after being dumped in a primary, but I damn sure know you don’t either. The entire scope of the race will change “if” Lieberman loses the primary. If you can’t grasp that perhaps it’s time to spend a little time in Hartford.
Nutcutter
Right. Bush’s campaign tactic called McCain’s Brown Baby was the proof we needed that he’d be a great president. And as luck would have it, it has proved out, hasn’t it? Bush is a total disaster and an embarassment. We’ll be lucky, literally, to survive him.
And Senatorial record? The Senate is a club of ruch people who hang out in smoke filled rooms. Nothing about it translates into presidency. Nothing about it lends itself to that kind of judgment.
Bush? Failed oilman. Drunk. Spoiled rich kid who shirked his National Guard duty.
Fuck you, man, you are talking out of your ass.
Dave
“We’ll be lucky, literally, to survive him.”
Just another example of the drama queens of the Internet left….get a hold of yourself, you’re getting hysterical.
Go blow in a paper bag for a bit.
The Other Steve
At this point based on everything we’ve seen. That’s delusional.
Kerry wasn’t my first choice, but at least he’s not a moral coward like Bush. This nation cannot afford two more years of cowardice being our guiding principle.
Say whatever you will about issues of gay marriage, abortion, whatever, they are immaterial and unimportant. When you get right down to it, what is important to our nation, it’s long term viability and it’s standing in this world as a beacon of hope is adherence to the principles laid down by our founding fathers. None of whom were cowards.
The Other Steve
WHAAAAA!!!!! Gay marriage is going to destroy us all!
WAHAAAAA!!!!! Warren Buffet is the Josef Mengele of the 21st century!!!!!
WHAAAAAA!!!!
GFY
Nutcutter
Andrew Sullivan.
Your president is a lying drunk, a sociopath.
Emphasis, mine.
Stormy70
Actually, National Security will be on the table in September, when the Congress will debate what to do with terrorist detainees. Sept. 11th will have its five year anniversary, and people will be remembering which party takes global jihad seriously and offers solutions, and which party sits arounds bitching about everything Bush does to try to protect the country. Just in time for the midterms. Sweet.
Democrats will be hammered on National Security, as usual since defending against terrorism does not exit in the Reality-Based community. Hmmm. I wonder who Americans will rally behind in November.
Steve
I understand that the Republican strategy is to repeat the usual smears like “Democrats don’t care about defending America” rather than to run on, say, the merits of actual Republican “solutions” to terrorism like the glorious Iraq war. That’s cool. In your shoes, it would be my strategy too.
Rusty Shackleford
How Conservatives Have Become Authoritarians and What it Means
Rusty Shackleford
Where have you gone Barry Goldwater? Conservatives turn their lonely eyes to you.
Sojourner
Check the polls, sweetpea. Only about 1/3 of the country buys your shit about national security any longer.
Don
Talk about rejecting the reality-based community – dems love terrorism, Stormy? Keep repeating it and maybe it’ll become true, but I wouldn’t bet on it. That kind of talk might have worked well when confidence was high and “trust us” had some weight, but now people have seen that “trust us” translates into avoiding judicial oversight and secret spying on citizens.
The Republican Machine may still have the chutzpa and skill to paint anyone asking for details and co-operations between the three branches as a Traitor but I think it’s gonna be harder for them.
John S.
Which party would that be? The Green Party?
The Supreme Court is a party? I don’t remember voting for them…
Well, good mindless folk such as yourself will no doubt pull the Republican lever. As for the other 2/3 of Americans, I don’t think they’re buying what you’re selling.
Isn’t there something on Tivo you need to watch?
Krista
Stormy, no offense hon, but I think it can only be called a solution if it actually has a good chance of working. All these guys seem to do is throw an awful lot of money and an awful lot of American lives at the problem.
demimondian
Stormy, it’s good to have you back!
In this case, though, you’re right. The American people will have the chance to remember the party which brought us _My Pet Goat_, stovepiped intelligence, selective prosecution of leakers, violation of our international agreements, mushroom clouds of yellow dust that didn’t exist, Jack Abramoff, Grover Norquist, Tom DeLay, Republican rewriting of the House ethics rules, Terri Schiavo, record gasoline prices, higher taxes on the middle class, …
2500+ American dead in Iraq. A civil war in Iraq. A terrorist haven in the failed state of Iraq. Mass murders by soldiers who needed to be brought home from Iraq. A permanent draft for reservists to Iraq. WMD production facilities that weren’t there in Iraq. Sectarian warfare in Iraq.
It’s going to be terrible running against the record, I know, but, gosh, it’s just the best we can do.
Darrell
If the Iraq war has made America less safe as you have suggested today and explicitly stated before, then why don’t you libs have the honor to campaign on what a disaster it has been to remove Saddam, and then EXPLAIN FOR ONCE what you do differently? .. I believe after 9/11, removing Saddam from power and planting a democracy in a region of despots that had spawned so much terrorism had to be done. I believe it was a good idea to make Afghanistan and Iraq magnets for terrorists so that our trained military could kill them there rather then civilians dealing with them attacking us here. You and your side feel it’s been a huge net negative.. then have the fucking balls to say so in a campaign and don’t whine like bitches when Republican point out that you really and truly have no plan other than to scream “Bush lied”
If Dems lose on national security, it won’t be because of Repub “smears” or “sloganeering”, it will be because the Dem liberal base is extremist as hell and unserious about fighting terrorism. Doubt me? Then please explain the leftist ‘solution’ to fighting terrorism, other then bitching about Bush monitoring terrorist’s financial transactions?
Truth is, Stormy is absolutely right, and it must sting like hell to hear someone say out loud what everyone knows – Dems do nothing but bitch about everything Bush is doing to defend the country. All you need to do is look at their recent screaming tirades over Bush’s “diabolical” program to track terrorists through their financial transactions, and their near universal support of the NY Times publishing details on that classified program. No, Republicans only need to shine a light on lib Dems acting like lib Dems, and the American people will decide for themselves
Darrell
That post is a classic example of what I mean. If you Dems really feel that way, then why not say the same thing in a campaign? Keep harping to the American people about the casualties and the deaths, the “failed state” of Iraq, and continue describing the situation in “the sky is falling” terms, while not offering one fucking alternative solution. Then after you get clocked in elections, blame it all on Republican ‘dirty tricks’ rather than taking responsibility for your whacked views and positions which the American people reject.
Pb
Darrell,
Hmm, what would that have been. A threat… that wasn’t Iraq… Oh yeah. Remember that ‘Osama’ guy?
Now fuck off, Darrell.
Perry Como
Glad to see the Senator weigh in on this.
What’s our plan? Stay the course!
How much will it cost? Who cares!?
Steve
I’ve explained it many times, including right here on this blog, to you. You don’t want to have an adult discussion about it, you just want to shrug off whatever anyone brings up and go right back to babbling about how Democrats have no ideas. So like, have a nice day. Keep telling yourself the Republicans win with the power of successful and appealing ideas rather than sloganeering and smear jobs.
Darrell
Can you explain it succinctly in 2 or 3 sentences, or are you referring to the vague book you cited last week on the Dems plan for defense? And even that plan would never be tolerated by screaming liberal masses who only want to rant about Bush shredding our constitution
Darrell
You Dems feel Iraq is a “failed state” and that “Bush lied us into war”, then tell the American people exactly that in the Dem campaigns this fall. Let them see who you are. And don’t dare offer any alternative plan on how to better fight terrorism.
Sojourner
Darrell, you need to read this, then think long and hard about exactly how much you’re willing to give up to continue to support this administration.
Perry Como
John Dean is just a raving moonbat leftist.
Darrell
No, he’s a ‘maverick’ truth teller exposing the lies of criminal Bush
Steve
The invitation to keep banging my head against the same old wall is respectfully declined.
Slide.
I guess that is what a Barry Goldwater conservative is to the crowd that has taken over the Republican party.
Perry Como
Olberman interviews the unhinged leftist John Dean. Dean notes that conservatives are overwhelming more likely to have an authoritarian personality. The leader/follower schtick where the leader can do no wrong.
Perry Como
Sound familiar nannystate-Darrell?
demimondian
Here’s the question that the Republicans need to answer if they want to win the House this Fall. What is their plan to deal with terrorism? How are they going to deal with the threat the regime of Saddam Hussein poses to our on-going national security? What is the Republican’s plan for determining the number of number two men in Al Qaeda? What is their plan for determining the number of number one men in Al Qaeda? What is their plan for locating the number one man in Al Qaeda?
Seriously, I just want the best for their party.
Slide.
Invading Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism but even if you believed it had, it has been a total failure hasn’t it?
bin Laden STILL alive 5 years after murdering 3,000 Americans. “Wanted Dead or Alive”
terrorist attacks WAY UP
Afghanistan getting worse and worse with the Taliban getting stronger.
Iran continuing merrily on its way to becoming a nuclear power.
North Korea laughing at Bush’s tough talk and doing whatever it damn well pleases anyway firing missles at Don Ho’s backyard.
Iraq… well, Iraq is Iraq. “Bring em on”
Yes, Bush’s “plan” to fight terrorism is doing just fine and dandy.
demimondian
I want the Republicans to once — just once — explain their plans for eliminating euthanasia, and for elevating Randall Terry above American’s families in life and death decisions.
Slide.
but I am glad that the Darrells of the world want to point to Iraq as Bush’s strategy in dealing with terrorism. I have no problem with that. I hope every Republican running in November trumpets that fact. Yes, let America judge for themselves if Bush’s Iraq invasion is the great success that Darrell thinks and has made us all safer – well not all since 20,000 Americans have already been horribly wounded and 2,500 have been killed – can’t imagine that they, or their families, feel “safer” nor do I imagine do the military men and women that are on their third and fourth tours in Iraq.
question Darrell, how dumb do you really think the American public is?
Perry Como
You have a problem with Chinese kids?
demimondian
Did I say anything about goats?
Perry Como
I wonder if Darrell has his air rifle?
demimondian
No — Darrell’s right-tenancy in the 103rd Chairborne would be at risk if he ever actually, like, touched a weapon. He trusts His President to sit on top of the White House with His Great Air Rifle and protect Darrell from the EvilTerraWrists(TM).
tBone
I’ve got some fishing pliers if you need help getting that hook out, Darrell.
What’s the White House using for bait, anyway? It must be pretty damn tasty.
Zifnab
Hahaha. That was a fantastic link Perry.
Ancient Purple
So closing the section that was out to hunt down OBL was….?
demimondian
Oh, thou of the color of the blossoms of Sequim, what do you mean when you ask
Surely, you know that it was an attempt to draw the terrawrists out, by encouraging them to attack our allies? Just look at hom well that worked in Spain, or in Lebanon.
Pan Pan (anon)
The real conservative Troika is Norquist, Abramoff and Ralph Reed. Delay was just their personal representative in congress. Fortunately, all four are going down in flames now.
BumperStickerist
Ummm, yeah. Survive. Lucky to. got it.
okay, smart guy, what if Kerry had pounded back *hard* when the Swift Vets stories started coming out? All reports were that Kerry wanted to, but couldn’t convince his strategists to take that course of action.
Ringing.Endorsement.There.
Thanks for proving my point.
oh yeah, you missed one. Incumbent President.
The decision by Kerry to campaign against a sitting president on the basis that he was a failed oilman, drunk, spoiled rich kid who shirked his National Guard duty was one of those ‘Smart. Strong.’ decisions. Gore was the guy to make that case during the 2000 election. He didn’t.
Once Bush was elected, those issues you raised simply don’t matter. Really. They don’t. Get over it.
Listen – once you guys collectively start making accurate predictions about elections your opinions will be worth a damn to people other than yourselves. Absent that, you’re just sitting at the Gas n’ Sip on a Saturday night … by choice.
Were you to go back and read Kaus’s columns going from December 2003 to the election you’d discover that he was, well, right. Read Kos’s posts over the same time frame and you’d find out that he was, well, wrong.
Apparently, that doesn’t matter.
All that’s needed now to ensure a Republican presidential victory in 2008 is for Bob Shrum to run the Democratic campaign. The candidate the Republicans run won’t matter.
———————————————–
As for what the Republicans need to do to keep control of the House and Senate … at the moment they just need to show up as they’re the incumbents.
The Dems have no national message that they’ve held to for more than 2-3 weeks and, so far, they’ve shown no ability to craft a unifying message that’s in opposition to Bush.
If they came out as ‘The Loyal Opposition’ and simply said that they were going to fill the Consitutional role of the legislature to provide checks and balances to the Executive Branch … but leave all the “Evil Bush Shredding the Constitution for the Benefit of His Evil Rich Friends” out of the equation, the Republicans might be in trouble.
You guys can’t make any sort of sustained argument for Democratic control of the House or Senate without going down the Evil Chimpy McHitlerburton: Worst.President.Ever path.
And neither can the Democratic Party.
but, as always, you’re teh smart ones in the room.
Never forget that.
BumperStickerist
Kos: Libertarian Dems
Yeah, that’ll work, up until all the single issue voters on the Dem side finish splitting off because their specific cause isn’t addressed as a priority.
At which point there’ll be a third party and Libertarian Democrats will, thanks to the same sort of election laws that prohibit Lieberman from using the word ‘Democrat’ call themselves something else.
.
John S.
And here I thought that bumper stickers were supposed to be succinct, with a clear message. Long-winded, rambling rants without any discernable point are hardly worthy of a person calling themself “BumperStickerist”.
Your nom de plume is a misnomer.
KCinDC
If Norquist’s enemies in the Republican Party want to undermine him, surely all they need to do is get the LGF/Malkin/RedState crowds stirred up about his Muslim wife and his work with Muslim groups, including the dreaded CAIR. In fact, I’m surprised the War on Islam wing of the party hasn’t demanded Norquist’s head years ago.
chopper
The decision by Kerry to campaign against a sitting president on the basis that he was a failed oilman, drunk, spoiled rich kid who shirked his National Guard duty was one of those ‘Smart. Strong.’ decisions.
were you asleep for the entire election year? or can you actually show us where kerry based his campaign on bush being a drunk failed oilman?
but, as always, you’re teh smart ones in the room.
of course not. the ones running campaigns revolving around fags gettin’ hitched and flag burning are. everyone knows that. the guys talking about idiotic issues like balancing the budget are just a bunch of sore losermen.
chopper
You guys can’t make any sort of sustained argument for Democratic control of the House or Senate without going down the Evil Chimpy McHitlerburton: Worst.President.Ever path.
same thing worked fine for the goopers in 1994. they’re entire message until a few months before the election when they finally crafted a message was merely anti-clinton.
Steve
Guess what, it’s a new election this year. The time for childish taunts relating to the outcome of the last one has passed. Or, actually, folks like bumperstickerdude should feel free to waste their time enjoying it while they can. This is, after all, what it is like for the “adults” to be in charge.
Andrew
You’re right, Steve.
Election season means that it’s time for an Orange Alert.