Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

September 10, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IT'S OPPO TIME!....The Washington Post reports today that Republicans plan to spend the vast bulk of their campaign money this year on negative ads focused on "personal issues and local controversies." Matt Yglesias comments:

I also feel like this directly contradicts reporting that was in major papers just last week. Persona issues and local controversies are, of course, always good campaign fodder. Spending the "vast majority" of one's war chest on that, however, does seem like a bit of a desperation move.

Actually, this sounds like exactly what we've been reading for a while, doesn't it? Namely that Democrats want to try to nationalize the campaign and Republicans want to prevent that from happening. After all, national issues (Iraq, Bush, K Street corruption, Medicare donut holes, etc.) aren't exactly working in the GOP's favor at the moment.

It also seems like a pretty smart move to me. There are only about 40 Republican seats in the House that are realistically in danger, and a good part of that danger seems to be based on little more than a vague sense that things aren't going that well at the moment. It's hard to reverse a vague sense like that among inattentive independents, but it's not that hard to pick up five percentage points in a single district by accusing your opponent of mopery and dopery of some sort. And five points is all they need in a lot of these districts.

Desperate? Maybe, but it seems pretty smart to me. If the Republican Party can pull this off and we all know it's something they're very, very good at I suspect Democrats are going to have a harder time this fall than pundits are predicting.

Kevin Drum 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (114)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Just don't use this:

http://www.armchairsubversive.com/

We Republicans are the Moral, Jesus- and Family-loving party!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on September 10, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Link.

Red State Mike -- please prove that all the links in this are bogus!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on September 10, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Are you a closet republican? 6 years of fuckups and this.

The republicans wish "A good part of that danger seems to be based on little more then a vague sense..."

The 'danger' isn't from a vague sense of anything. It's from the certainty that the people leading the country are corrupt evil lying theocratic, fascist sacks of corporate war-mongering shit. There is no vagueness about it. You have it precisely wrong. The electorate in this country is so increadibly stupid that any sort of vagueness at all and they will just stick to their preconcieved notions and vote like they did last time. The reason voters are turning away from republicans is that they have been evil corrupt and incompetent for so long that there is no longer any cloudy vagueness behind which the republicans can hide.

Posted by: TomK on September 10, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

The Washington Post reports today that Republicans plan to spend the vast bulk of their campaign money this year on negative ads focused on "personal issues and local controversies."

Good plan. And the most important personal issue is why liberals and democrats were defending Bill Clinton for having sex with Monica Lewinsky. The documentary The Path to 9/11 shows the reason why Clinton wasn't willing to wage war on Al-Qaeda as George W Bush is willing to do is because Clinton was obsessed with having sex with Monica Lewinsky. Liberals and democrats must explain why they defended Clinton's immoral and sinful sexual behavior that caused 9/11 to happen.

Posted by: Al on September 10, 2006 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Phukher:
Red State Mike -- please prove that all the links in this are bogus!

Umm, well Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he had sex with a 15 year old girl that produced a child;>

Posted by: Martin on September 10, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

TomK, stop whining. Letting the Chinese pump a half-trillion dollars into our economy is shear brilliance! People complain that most of our personal income taxes go to pay for interest on the debt, but that is a small price to pay for someone who hates abortion and Loves Jesus to lead us!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on September 10, 2006 at 1:49 PM | PERMALINK

GOP '06: MAJORITY RULES..BUT NOTHING IS OUR FAULT

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yes -- Al is entirely right! The greatest threat to our country is The Clenis! It is All Powerful!!! It can destroy skyscrapers! It haunts Al and me, while awake and, especially, while sleeping!

Bad liberals!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on September 10, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting...

So we have a politcal party that morphs huge cash donations from major businesses into broadcasted lies about ordinary American citizens who happen to be running for office.

Fascinating...

This sounds like a great place to live.
What's the name of this banana republic?


Posted by: koreyel on September 10, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Does this mean that the GOP has abandoned it's "Terror and Turnout" strategy? From my experience, excessive negative advertising doesn't garner you support so much as decrease turnout.

I've been quite disappointed with Dems campaigning of late, but I don't see this as making it any harder for the Democrats. What's making it hard is the Democrats pretty pathetic campaigning. If they don't get on the ball, the GOP will be able to "define" (e.g. smear) the Democrats. They should have learned from the Kerry campaign that letting the other guy smear you early makes it near impossible to change negative perceptions.

Posted by: gq on September 10, 2006 at 1:53 PM | PERMALINK

Al, maybe bushie got so confused and invaded Iraq because he was distracted by Jeff Gannons bald head.

Posted by: Chrissy on September 10, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

The key question is, "has the boy who cried wolf cryed a few times too many"....eventually all campaign tropes run their course. It's clear from polling that terror is on it's way down - does it have enough juice left for Repubs in Nov? I think not, but we'll see.....if R's win in Nov, I don't think it will be terror, it will be the efficiency of their turnout operation.

Posted by: Steve in SJ on September 10, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, this is one time I think you have it wrong, I think you are doing what some Dems do best by looking over your shoulder and being too paranoid about past failures. I don't have as cynical and attitude about the fall elections.

While I think all of us who ar smart enough to realize that the races will tighten, you need to remain confident that the undercurrents of discontent are not just causual grievances but in fact strong distate for the current situaiton unlikely to be pursuaded soley from some negative advertizing. Remember it is not only the Reps who get access to the airwaves, dems will get their shots in too. The Dems have some $$ this time they haven't had before and the public will not just hear one side of the story.

Remember the fundamentals you are soo good at pointing out. The economics are really driving this thing. Stagnant or falling middle class wages, rising interest rates and falling house prices (no more middle class ATM's), rising energy costs both for gas and electrical, rising costs of healthcare. These are the issues Dems can and will use to win.

Posted by: latimlf on September 10, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Of course the Democrats' campaigns will also be negative. So it depends upon who slings the better class of mud--and who lands the first solid punch.

If the reaction to the GOP hit is, "you're just saying that because he called you a rubber-stamp for Bush's bad policies," then I think the Dems win. Conversely, then conversely.

The voters will choose the side that promises the least amount of pain--that much I know for sure.

Posted by: Steve High on September 10, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Things would be so much easier this year if Osama Bin Laden was a queer.

Posted by: enozinho on September 10, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

Bilbray whipped Busby in that CA special election almost entirely by running on local issues. That, combined with hatred of Hispanics, swung it in his favor. (And don't try to pitch that line about the CA-50 being overwhelmingly and incorrigibly Republican; I've lived there. No district with a Starbucks on every third corner, and a beach next to it, is *that* Republican anymore.)

Posted by: Linus on September 10, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Already laying out the "They STOLE the election!" excuses?

Posted by: rnc on September 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

Since it's Sunday, let's trot out a truth from that great etheist Bertrand Russell:

"All movements go to far."

Exhibit A: Todays GOP

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

And while we are at it, lets retaliate for "Democrat" Party with Publican party.

Let me refresh the memory of the wingers, since Democrats have fared better throughout history than the Publicans have:

Publican, in the Gospels, is derived from the publicanus of the Vulgate, and signifies a member or employee of the Roman financial companies who farmed the taxes. From the time of the Republic the Roman State relieved itself of the trouble of collecting the taxes in the provinces by putting up the taxes of each in a lump sum to auction. The highest bidder received the authorization to extort the sum from the province in question. Such a system afforded ample opportunity for rapacious exactions on the part of the company and its officials, and the abuses were often intolerable. On account of these, and more, perhaps, because of the natural though impotent Jewish hatred of the Roman supremacy, those of the Jews who found it profitable thus to serve the foreign rulers were objects of execration to their countrymen. In the Gospel narrative we find them as a class habitually coupled with "sinners" and the "heathen".
Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Linus wrote:

"That, combined with hatred of Hispanics..."

"Hatred of Hispanics" = "not wanting to pay exorbitant taxes to accomodate a never-ending wave of illegal aliens"

I think the pundits are right, Republicans have found their issue -- illegal immigration. If they run with it, they'll probably *gain* seats in the House. The Democratic position is summarized here by Linus, and there's not much room in it for rational Americans of any political affiliation.

Posted by: Erkon on September 10, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

That congressional and senatorial committees are spending most of their money on negative ads isn't news, as the article points out near the end their traditional role is to air negative ads. The tactic is neither smart nor desperate, it is standard. In that aspect the article is GOP psych-out.

The NRCC is drawing attention to the DCCC's comittment of a sizable chunk of cash to field, since the DNC has fallen short. The NRCC and NRSC can afford to spend almost all of their money on ads since the RNC has plenty of cash and has field covered with its "battled-tested turnout operation". The NRCC is putting the best spin on their bad financial situation.

Posted by: tib on September 10, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

If you are gonna be an Atheist (cultural) Jew in Missouri, know your gospels.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone on these threads ever actually seen a huge GOP congressional defeat? I'm not old enough to have experienced it myself. Just curious what the cleaning bill for mopping up all those exploded wingnut heads is likely to be.

Posted by: enozinho on September 10, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

As recently as yesterday, you folks were blasting the Republicans for running their campaign around the global war on terror. Today, you're blasting them for focusing almost entirely on personal issues., which seems to mean that they're ignoring the GWOT. I don't know what to believe.

The one thing I do believe is that RNC Ken Mehlman is smarter than DNC Howard Dean. I have confidence that Mehlman will do something effective.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 10, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

A 'smart' strategy? C'mon this is pretty basic Republican politics - there is no special 'smartness' about it. Effective, disingenuous, immoral...yes...smart no. Call it what it is.

The true and more interesting question is whether the Democrats will fight to win.

Posted by: Gregor Samsa on September 10, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

And I have confidence that the sheeple will look up...

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

The pathetic political organization with the pompous moniker "The Grand Old Party" is a decrepit, morally bankrupt disaster with the most corrupt and incompetent president in history at the helm. They have absolutely nothing to run on, having deceived the country into a war that has no purpose and that is bankrupting our children's future.

The Dems simply need to stay focused on the hideous corruption of the Republican Party and on how weak on terror they are and how these gutless cowards want to run a war on bad checks they are leaving to our children to pay off. In short, keep hammering these losers relentlessly, because that is exactly what they are.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 10, 2006 at 2:39 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, I'd feel a little better if your post registered even a little emotion at the outrage you are posting about.

God forbid you help formulate some responces to the evil acts you have detailed. Your even handed moderation can be a bit tiring and maladaptive.

We are engaged in a nine week war. The GOP thinks and acts that way. Its time the Dems stop fingering their asses and join the battle.

Posted by: Keith G on September 10, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

It looks like a perfect opportunity to nationalize the negativity of the nattering nabobs.

Posted by: toast on September 10, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. A John Brunner nod. The Sheep Look Up...presents the reader with a story about the Earth in several years, with a very pessimistic view, on the edge of dark-future Cyberpunk. In a world where the American president is nothing but a figurehead, USA's biggest export is dirty air...

Touche, indeed!

Posted by: Joyfully Subversive on September 10, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

What a grand enlightening revelation! Dems are pussies! Who wouda thunk?

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Well! Two people here have heard of me! Perhaps all is not lost!

Posted by: Austin Train on September 10, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

I honestly thought that obscure reference would pass by unnoticed.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

"The one thing I do believe is that RNC Ken Mehlman is smarter than DNC Howard Dean."

I hope the Publicans really think this. They have been pounding the "Dean Scream" so long they actually don't listen to the man anymore and don't see that he runs verbal circles around the increasingly desperate, continuingly creepy, "adapt to win, not stay the course" RNC Chairman.

However, IF the Publicans can pull off enough character smears around the country to keep the House, it will indicate that the Democrats have not done enough to find the squeeky clean candidates we all KNEW they'd have to run.

And will the MSM bite again, like they did with the Swift Boaters? Is the press "tired" of the Bushit, too? How local papers and TV stations respond will matter. So maybe the question is, "Is corporate American ready for a change?"

Posted by: Cal Gal on September 10, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, absolutely right. The Republicans' big pitches haven't worked too well, and now's the right timing to go negative with personal attacks. It's the only thing they have remaining, and the snailmail campaigns should help them. And it hits the "personal values" meme. In many areas, voters still aren't getting news from the internet -- it's still the mainstream media, newspapers, and the post office. Let's hope the Dem candidates are ready to fight back!

Posted by: Lee A. Arnold on September 10, 2006 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Soon the American military body count will equal the slightly less than 3,000 who were killed on 9/11. How will aWol mark THAT day?

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on September 10, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

By ignoring it. Or spinning it.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

Desperate? Maybe, but it seems pretty smart to me.

Smart would be not screwing up your rule so titanically badly that even your tired-and-true branding on national security doesn't work any more.

I agree with the others who question your characterization of the national mood as "a vague sense that things aren't going that well at the moment." The GOP has no credibility at all, and their mendacity, incompetence and corruption is a matter of common knowledge at this point.

Of course they have nothing left but to go negative, and who knows -- it might actualyl work. But it isn't a smart strategy, it's absolutely the last chance they have to wrest victory from the jaws of humiliating defeat.

And then, of course, they'd have to run the country for two more years, and there's no reason at all to believe they'd do any better a job than they have been. Ford help us all.

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

With every post, "ex-liberal" offers us great hope by spotlighting the utter dishonesty of the Republican Party. If the GOP had anything better, they wouldn't have to resort to such tired bullshit.

As recently as yesterday, you folks were blasting the Republicans for running their campaign around the global war on terror.

Typically dishoenst. The Republicans richly deserve blasting for characterizing their opponents as peacenik appeasers and surrender monkeys, especially given the GOP's record of incompetence in the so-called "War on Terror."

Of course, again, the GOP's reliance on straw men shows that they don't dare focus on their own record, and on their pet issue, yet, so that's strongly encouraging.

Today, you're blasting them for focusing almost entirely on personal issues.

For "focusing almost entirely on personal issues," read "running a smear campaign," and again, the criticism is apt.

You really gotta love -- well, no, you don't, really -- the skill with which "ex-liberal" frames his/her/its dishonesty. It's just a pity he/she/it applies this undeniable talent for so vile a cause.

which seems to mean that they're ignoring the GWOT.

Ford knows where you pulled this inference from, but now that you mention it, Osama bin Laden is still at large, so you may be onto something there...

I don't know what to believe.

Oh, sure you do...whatever talking points the GOP faxes you on a given day. Shame on you, "ex-liberal."

Posted by: Gregory on September 10, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

I find it encouraging that the primary point of the just started TV ad campaign by the republican senate hopeful in washington state is that you should pay absolutely no attention to party when you vote.

Posted by: jefff on September 10, 2006 at 3:30 PM | PERMALINK

Question for those who know about inner workings of the Democratic Party:

Why is it so hard for them to do the simplest of things that are required for winning - smears, character assassinations, push polling, lying and cheating? These are much easier to do than writing tomes on what your big ideas are in response to the Repubs who laugh all the way to White House and the Capitol at the Dems' inability to do what's necessary and so obvious.

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

I heard that Karl was going to run on fear this year. I guess that isn't working out, so now they are going to plan B. I kinda like it. If Democrats go negative on them the base will stay home in droves. Democrats win.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 10, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

People will vote for almost anyone before they vote for "crazy." Keep it in mind.

Posted by: elliot on September 10, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

But they have no compunction about voting for "stupid" do they?

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

If the Publicans retain their majority in either chamber, it is a sad commentary on our country. If the Publicans are not roundly and soundly turned out, a lot of people will be living in the country they deserve.

But what about the rest of us? As for me, I know how to reload ammo.

Keep your powder dry, folks. That's all the advice I have.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

Yes. They will vote for stupid over crazy. Keep it in mind.

Posted by: elliot on September 10, 2006 at 3:57 PM | PERMALINK

It's good to know that people who compare President Bush to Hitler and to a chimpanzee disapprove of negative campaigning.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 10, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

BTW, thinking you're going to need guns if you lose an election comes under "crazy." Left or Right.

Posted by: elliot on September 10, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not going to yield to Gilead without a fight.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

it is a sad commentary on our country..

Not at all. It's a sad commentary on the Democratic Party.

Any strategy is doomed to utter failure if it requires the American people to be anything more that mere mortals and thus be (a) impervious to what they say and hear and (b) always skeptical of what the President and his cohorts tell them.

Republicans understand this very well. All the evidence of the Democrats' electoral defeats of the recent past suggests that they don't.

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

Oops! what they see and here.

Posted by: gregor on September 10, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

elliot

Is this Charlie's latest?

Posted by: Foundation of Mud on September 10, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

I am wary, elliot. I'm a jew and an atheist. And if they come for my kind again, I am taking some with me, not just rolling over.

Posted by: Global Citizen on September 10, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Al,

You are nothing but a smegma licking douche schnozzle.

A stupid one at that.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 10, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

"The Democratic position is summarized here by Linus, and there's not much room in it for rational Americans - all of whom hate Hispanics - of any political affiliation."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Posted by: Linus on September 10, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

let me get this straight, they are gonna spend 45 million in smear campaigns when they won't even raise minimum wage? Or use this money for other Charities?

Why would anyone spend so much on smear campaigns? I mean I would spend that If I was corrupt..but I answer my own question...
==
Debt and wars are a good thing. -- Donald Dumsfeld Investment banker and war planner.
==
You Jack, heres a Republican, from the Reagan admin stating that they indeed DID ally themselves with Osama;
"We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets.
--Ron Paul Republican
==
Yo JACK.
Al Qaeda rose out of the Cold War and WERE appeased by the Republicans.

Suck on that "Jack"

Posted by: Repubs Ally with Osama on September 10, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

See the Republicans allied themselves with Osama, the Reagan 'Freedom Fighters' and now they are gonna try and deny and revise history, and now say that Clinton was solely responsible for Al Qaeda when they appeased them!


The republican slant, if not so deadly to America, would be funny. It is instead ignorant and stupid.
This is why they must spend 45 miilion to cover up their stupidity with millions of dollars in media 'spin'
Too bad you can't unspin history no matter how much money they throw at it.

RIP GOP
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"It's the Stupidity, Stupid."
[My Carvel-esque quote, feel free to use it =8^]

Posted by: Quit and Run Ronnie on September 10, 2006 at 5:21 PM | PERMALINK

"We learned nothing after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden when he applied this same logic toward the Soviets."
--Ron Paul [R]
Bush/Cheney/Reaganites aka Terrorist Appeasers

Suck on that Jack

Posted by: Suck on this Jack on September 10, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

The basic theory behind going negative on a challenger is to convince the voter that the incumbent is no worse than the challenger, so why vote for the challenger. Sort of the devil I know is better than the devil I don't know.

This year folks aren't voting against Joe Republican Congressman, they are voting against the Bush Administration and the Republican party. Had there been any daylight between Bush and the threatened members of congress the negative attacks on the challengers would probably work. The Republicans problem is that they have been so disciplined that in the minds of most voters a vote against Joe Republican Congressman is a vote against GWB.

Going negative is intended to supress the positive votes for the opponent. All of the studies show that it always suppresses the votes for the guy who goes negative, but the theory is that it doesn't suppress your vote as much as it does the opponents.

As I said people aren't motivated to vote for Democrats this time. They are motivated to vote against Republicans. I don't think those folks are going to care much about the negative ads aimed at the Democrats. The Republican faithful, especially the faith based faithful, are not very motivated to vote for Republicans. Going negative will just give those folks another reason not to vote.

The announced plan isn't smart politics as much as it is all they have got. It is the Karl Rove equivalent of a Hail Mary. They might get lucky, but don't count on it.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 10, 2006 at 5:24 PM | PERMALINK

Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the 2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Posted by: Suck on this Jack on September 10, 2006 at 5:27 PM | PERMALINK

Hi Kevin,

I've been reading you for years -- since way back in your early CalPundit days -- but have never commented.

You posted several days ago that "breaking eggs was not your style" (but if someone else stood up and took action you'd "try not to kibutz too much.")

Today you say that Republicans may keep their majority after the midterms -- and you seem to be saying it with indifference.

There's a lot to do in the next two months and the stakes are very high.

Maybe it's all for nought, but I have to try, to give it my best.

Surely we agree that the cause is just -- is it really the time for all this fatalism and lethargy??

Your posts make me want to give up.

Posted by: je on September 10, 2006 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

The Honorable Donald "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio) was indicted in 1989 on a misdemeanor charge that he had sex with a teenage girl. At a meeting, secretly taped by a ...
www.congressionalbadboys.com/Lukens.htm

Rep. Donald "Buz" Lukens (R-Ohio) was sentenced in 1996 to 30 months in prison for conspiracy and accepting bribes while in office. Lukens had already been ...
www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/1998/01/pritchard.html

Lukens, Donald Edgar (b. 1931) also known as Donald E. Lukens; Buz Lukens of Middletown, Butler County, Ohio. Born in Harveysburg, Warren County, Ohio, February 11, 1931. Son of William Arthur Lukens and Edith (Greene) Lukens. Republican. U.S. Representative from Ohio, 1967-71, 1987-90 (24th District 1967-71, 8th District 1987-90); member of Ohio state senate, 1975. Member, Farm Bureau; Freemasons; Shriners; Kiwanis; Order of Ahepa; Sertoma; Delta Chi. Convicted in 1989 on a misdemeanor charge of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, by having sex with a 16 year old girl; sentenced to 30 days in jail. Indicted in February 1995 on five counts of bribery and conspiracy; a jury in October 1995 found him not guilty on three counts but was unable to reach a verdict on the other two; a mistrial was declared. Reindicted in March 1996, tried and convicted. Still living as of 1998.

They are gonna have a very hard time making the democrats look worse than they are with nothing but smear, we have facts!! =)
==

Urban Dictionary: Republican pedophiles
Republican activist and Christian Coalition leader Beverly Russell admitted to an incestuous relationship with his step daughter. ...
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Republican+pedophiles

==
http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/ludoricus-lunardi.html

Posted by: Suck on this Jack on September 10, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

Once again, it just points to how ignorant, intellectually lazy, and uninformed (misinformed) a large percentage of the electorate is. Gee, does this remind you of any persons currently holding national office?

It's sickeningly sad that money plays such an important role in priming the populace for the election, but if that's what it takes, we need get down and dirty, and be relentless at the local level.

Posted by: PaulMoeller on September 10, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

"I am wary, elliot. I'm a jew and an atheist. And if they come for my kind again, I am taking some with me, not just rolling over."

No problem with that. But in the meantime take a minute to look around the world and see who's really been going after the Jews and atheists.

Posted by: elliot on September 10, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

In October, Robertson published his first novel, The End of the Age. According to Robertson, this novel is a biblically correct and authentic representation of how the end of the world is likely to unfold in 2007.

Beaming with pride, Robertson read a comment from a contributor on "The 700 Club" saying that while God had given the revelation to John the Divine, He kept back its interpretation for Pat Robertson. [Oh Jeebus save us from these nuts]

==
Now Damnit Pat which is it? In 1980, he announced to his staff that God had revealed to him that the end of the world would follow a war in the Middle East in 1982.,

Anne Coulter says it was gonna happen in 6-6-2006..

Dan Quayle thought he would speed up the Armageddon in vietnam with nuclear weapons,

Gary North thought the Y2k bug was the 'End times'

Francis Fukuyama sees end times ala Strauss sometime in the near future..neo-cons.
==
Talk about conspiracy theories...
The general's threat to nuke Baghdad touches off a cataclysmic final war. Its highlights include a battle in the Great Plains where a brigade of angels wielding death rays assists the Christian general's forces, and the extermination of all Israelis with a neutron bomb dropped on Haifa. Then the trumpet blows, the rapture occurs, and the saved all rejoice in the superior sex appeal of their new, glorified superbodies.

When one considers that this lurid scenario is presented as serious instruction about a destiny more real than the here-and-now, and no mere fantasy or entertainment, the sheer madness of it becomes breathtaking. As with Robertson's earlier The New World Order,

==
You know, I consider myself a christian, but these guys, these guys must have their dicks in the peanut butter jar again..they are f--king Nuts!
And people listen to them time and time again..


Posted by: Suck on this Jack on September 10, 2006 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

You Dems better get your excuses ready.

Posted by: Frequency Kenneth on September 10, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

"I am wary, elliot. I'm a jew and an atheist. And if they come for my kind again, I am taking some with me, not just rolling over."

No problem with that. But in the meantime take a minute to look around the world and see who's really been going after the Jews and atheists.
==
Yes let's look around..seems to me your safe if you go with Christians that are not extreme right wingnuts. And it's not just the Jewish and atheists they want to destroy for their very warped interpretations of the bible..they also see the mayan indians as an enemy to be disposed of so they can be fly into the aether..I don't know how this works that killing others makes them free, its very twisted..demonic even.

Pat Robertson used his Christian Broadcasting Network to raise money for Efran Ros Montt, the evangelical Christian who presided over the Guatemalas 1982 genocide, which killed over a hundred thousand Mayan Indians.
==
You Dems better get your excuses ready.
Heres another of their Satanic Freeks.
Your an Idiot Kenneth if you back these sickos.

Posted by: Suck on this Jack on September 10, 2006 at 6:02 PM | PERMALINK

Jack, have someone read you a newspaper.

Posted by: elliot on September 10, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Of course they'll go negative- what makes this year different than any other?

Posted by: Preston on September 10, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

I absolutely love the fact that one of the oppo ads the reps are going to run chastizes a doctor for suing his patients. Funny thing is he sued his patients for outstanding bills that they didn't pay. So it would seem that republicans actually are in favor of people getting free healthcare, otherwise why would they think it bad that a doctor actually try to collect for work that he did?

Posted by: Nobody on September 10, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, I expect Dems to pick up a few seats, but nowhere near the amount people are expecting. They're just a weak party.

Posted by: KC on September 10, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if anyone notices that the GOP can't, won't, and doesn't campaign on the positive attributes of any candidates. Instead, it's all Swift Boat smears all the time. That's their only skill - demonizing the other guy. They have nothing positive to say about their own guy.

I wonder why that is?

Posted by: craigie on September 10, 2006 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

Linus nails it. Immigration will be a HUGE issue in this year's elections. And the Democratsinstead of capitalizing on the very real fact that Republicans have been at the helm while all those illegals have been pouring across the borderwill squander the advantage they have merely by virtue of NOT being in charge by embracing the illegals and lecturing us all about the need to love our fellow man. This is raw meat for the Republicans.

Think about it. The party that's had absolutely no say in immigration policy or enforcement will be transformed into being "weak" on immigration, thus making it weak on border security and therefore suspect when it comes to combatting the evil terrists. And the Democrats will march right into the pit. This "Kumbaya" party really has become a bunch of losers. Not locally, but nationally. Local candidates often basically have to run against the national leadership.

The Democratic Party is really not a party anymore and that's not a good recipe for success.

Posted by: Nixon Did It on September 10, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

GOP '06: MAJORITY RULES...BUT NOTHING IS OUR FAULT

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 10, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin? WTF? The country, the environment, our livelihoods, and our national security are seriously compromised. And you come out with this? You are part of the problem. I know you don't see it, and mistake pessimism for objectivity, but Jesus.

Rove's giant bubble 666 head needs to be countered with truths and strident counter adds.
This time, its for the planet.

Posted by: Sparko on September 10, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

This is a tough time. A kind of limbo ... because the gloves don't really come off until after the 9/11 anniversary. Yet, I do hope that we can move beyond the sense of lethargy/inevitability/powerlessness quickly. By the way: The loss that we commemorate tomorrow reverberates with our personal losses, as I discovered today while remembering my sister who was watched with me then but is sadly and profoundly gone from this earth now. I am looking for the energy that should reappear in a few days. Lets stay with it. We need to get out and push the vote; there is a long way to go. But, believe me, the sense of anger/loss/wanting something different/sourness is definitely out there (and strong.) Lets recognize it; and, act on it.

Posted by: chris on September 10, 2006 at 8:56 PM | PERMALINK

This is a tough time. A kind of limbo ... because the gloves don't really come off until after the 9/11 anniversary. Yet, I do hope that we can move beyond the sense of lethargy/inevitability/powerlessness quickly. By the way: The loss that we commemorate tomorrow reverberates with our personal losses, as I discovered today while remembering my sister who was watched with me then but is sadly and profoundly gone from this earth now. I am looking for the energy that should reappear in a few days. Lets stay with it. We need to get out and push the vote; there is a long way to go. But, believe me, the sense of anger/loss/wanting something different/sourness is definitely out there (and strong.) Lets recognize it; and, act on it.

Posted by: chris on September 10, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Am I the only one to have noticed that the Path to 911 mini-series is being aired opposite the Colts/Giants game. The most anticipated pro football game in years.

You get the feeling the Republicans have lost their touch?

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 10, 2006 at 9:29 PM | PERMALINK

If the Republican Party can pull this off and we all know it's something they're very, very good at I suspect Democrats are going to have a harder time this fall than pundits are predicting.

Excellent point, Drum!

And if they can't, I suspect the emocrats WON'T have a harder time.

See? We can all do that!

Why don't you just phone them in from the crapper?

Oh... You are?

Posted by: Lettuce on September 10, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

Why in the world is any American going to believe anything anyone from the Republican party has to say? I think most of Middle America is soooo over that.

Posted by: Jim Meyer on September 10, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

Then I should wish the 2 parties goodluck! Looks like it's a never ending competition to me.

Posted by: tyn1 on September 10, 2006 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Looks to me like the Republicans plan to toss excrement wherever they can. If it's clear that you'll lose on the issues, you make it personal. If you're not sure that your personnel have the personal qualities to level the playing field, you go after your opponents' personal lives. And you do it in the ugliest way possible, because you're looking to suppress turnout.

Make your opponent look bad. Make the political process look filthy. Raise the emotional level and lower the reasonableness of the argument. Keep flulshing this sewage over the voters, and they will begin to adopt your perverse view of politics: that it's a game played for power rather than the process by which we make collective decisions.

So you've acted like an ass and polluted the environment. You still haven't played your trump card: You know how to cheat, because you've done it in at least three elections since Clinton was president. You cheat again.

Posted by: Little Flea on September 10, 2006 at 10:31 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

I would like to add to those who have already suggested that you appear to have put little or no thought into this.

"and a good part of that danger seems to be based on little more than a vague sense that things aren't going that well at the moment."

Is that really your considered opinion on why Republicans might be lose a substantial number of seats... a few minor vague problems!?

"I suspect Democrats are going to have a harder time this fall than pundits are predicting."

What pundits are you talking about exactly? I know of no one who is predicting that the Democrats are going to cruise to victory in the election and are going to pick up majorities in the Senate and house. The "pundits" I read suggest they have a shot, is that what you are referring to?

Posted by: Catch22 on September 10, 2006 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin,

Sorry. You're dead wrong. Republicans donors are just throwing good money after bad. The negative campaigning, will be turned right around. There are too many dems riled up about this administration, and there are too many republicans who are genuinely upset with their party. Negative campaigning will just make these republicans seem even more out of touch.

The Rove magic is over. Witness the fiasco this Disney stunt has already turned into. Karl may as well just throw himself under the wheels of the plain now and save us the waiting.

Posted by: patience on September 10, 2006 at 11:03 PM | PERMALINK

Y'all should point out and prominently tout in your ads this "negative" strategery. After all, what could a more compelling example of a "do nothing" party and congress that as the majority government, and incumbents, all they can run on is negative ads.

Lame.

People aren't stupid. Point this crap out in your ads, and toss in "incompetence" too.

Posted by: Jimm on September 10, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK
Umm, well Strom Thurmond was a Democrat when he had sex with a 15 year old girl ...> Martin at 1:48 PM
Republican hero Strom Thurmond:

He was the originator of the 1956 "Southern Manifesto" against the 1954 Supreme Court desegregation ruling. Thurmond holds the record for the longest filibuster in Senate history; he spoke against the 1957 civil rights bill for twenty-four hours, eighteen minutes. He switched from the Democratic to the Republican Party in 1964 and aided Barry Goldwater in his unsuccessful bid for the Presidency against Lyndon Johnson. Thurmond was instrumental in the "southern strategy" that won the White House for Richard M. Nixon in 1968. Thurmond is the author of The Faith We Have Not Kept (1968).

All the old Dixicrats show their Republican colors eventually.

No district with a Starbucks on every third corner, and a beach next to it, is *that* Republican anymore.) Linus at 2:20 PM

Any neighborhood with a 'bucks on every third corner is a Republican Yuppieville.

...the crucial indicator is that CA 50 voted roughly "normally". By normal I mean the following. Kerry's share of the two-party vote in the district was 44.3%. Gore's share was 44.1%. Busby's share on Tuesday was 48%. In other words, Busby was able to attract a larger percentage of voters than Kerry or Gore could - but not much more...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/closing_the_books_on_ca_50.html

... Republicans have found their issue -- illegal immigration. ... Erkonat 2:29 PM

What will the Republican corporate sponsors do without cheap, immigrant labor?
I do believe is that RNC Ken Mehlman is smarter than DNC Howard Dean. ex-liberal at 2:31 PM

Of course you do; of course, he isn't, but he has more money and a nastier Campaign Master: Rove.
It's good to know that people who compare President Bush to Hitler... disapprove of negative campaigning. ex-liberal at 4:11 PM

Are you speaking of Rummy because I've never heard any candidate in a campaign that.
... if they come for my kind again, I am taking some with me, not just rolling over. Global Citizen at 4:33

Spoken like a Palestinian: No justice, no peace.
... demonizing the other guy. They have nothing positive to say about their own guy. craigie 7:12 PM

Also, they usually espouse a moderate democratic rhetoric that they abandon as soon as elected.
Kevin: I suspect Democrats are going to have a harder time this fall than pundits are predicting.

Experience has shown that even exit polls seem to provide no prediction of the final Diebold count.

Posted by: Mike on September 10, 2006 at 11:54 PM | PERMALINK

*yawn*

Pre-emptive CYAs are a BS way out. Claim your victory Dems. Now is the time to assertively state you'll win the House and Senate this year. Trust yourselves. All this nutroots activity is sure to generate wins. Seriously.

No pre-emptive conspiracy theories, please!

Posted by: Birkel on September 11, 2006 at 12:37 AM | PERMALINK

"Linus nails it. Immigration will be a HUGE issue in this year's elections. And the Democratsinstead of capitalizing on the very real fact that Republicans have been at the helm while all those illegals have been pouring across the borderwill squander the advantage they have merely by virtue of NOT being in charge by embracing the illegals and lecturing us all about the need to love our fellow man. This is raw meat for the Republicans."

Did I say that? I think it was Mickey Kaus who said that.

I'm a clueless lib. Do you love your fellow man? You should, or else...something bad.

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 12:38 AM | PERMALINK

""I am wary, elliot. I'm a jew and an atheist. And if they come for my kind again, I am taking some with me, not just rolling over."

No problem with that. But in the meantime take a minute to look around the world and see who's really been going after the Jews and atheists."

What I'd like to know is what happens to us part-Jews at the Rapture. Does He save the mischlings for last like Hitler? Will Sword not Peace Jesus be rummaging through the records of the Holy Roman Empire, and will we have to prove our Christian-ness back to 1750 like they did for the SS, or will a recent conversion suffice? What if it's only half sincere; do you think He knows? And how do all those Mormon baptisms fit into all this?

Posted by: Linus on September 11, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

lemme see 40 million for a soaperamentary [ABC smear movie]
45 million for attack ads...

And no raise for min wage earners and no charitable donations to the families of the fallen soldiers, no charity to the innocent children maimed by colatteral damage..90 million for smear and none for humanity.

Compassionate Conservatism rules huh?
Not to mention the list of republican pedophiles, and the corruption, Delay Cunningha, Prostitutes and forced abortion is Delays Mariannas,his petri dish of $$$ Yeh,this nowrastrash film and the smear will do wonders.BTW I live in Texas and the hispanics hate bush because they don't care about minimum wage, the democrats have the working class hands down, not the GOP greedy corrupt crooks =)

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

lemme see 40 million for a soaperamentary [ABC smear movie]
45 million for attack ads...
Compassionate Conservatism??

Where? Where?

No raise for min wage earners [many hispanic duhh, GOP screwed up big time there]

No charitable donations to the families of the fallen soldiers? What compassion!!

No charity to the innocent children maimed by colatteral damage..? comapassion??

90 million for smear and none for humanity?
compassion where are you?

Compassionate Conservatism rules huh?

Want to see the list of republican pedophiles again?, and the corruption? woo wee Delay, Abranoff, Cunningham, Prostitutes and forced abortion in Delays petri dish in the Mariannas? $$$

Yeh,this nowrastrash film and the smear will do wonders for the GOP 'compassion'...
Katrina? No compassion there..

BTW I live in Texas and the hispanics don't care for bush because bush and the GOP don't care about minimum wage or them, the Democrats have the blue collar working class hands down, not the GOP greedy corrupt crooks!! bwwhahahhahaaa =)

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Mike - may I explain why I think Mehlman is smarter than Dean? It's because Mehlman understands the calendar. The Dems spend 21 months calling the Reps all sorts of names. The Reps sit back and take it. The Dems look great in the polls. Then, 3 months before the election, the Reps start campaigning. Surprise, surprise! They do much better than expected in the election.

Another reason the Dems get surprised is ironically the friendly media. Most of the media support the Dems, which helps them. But, it also makes them overly optimistic.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 1:13 AM | PERMALINK

Katherine Harris MPA 97 joined the 108th Congress with eight years of governing experience at the state level, having served in Floridas State Senate and as Floridas Secretary of State. Last November, she joined other new members of Congress for an orientation held at the Kennedy School and sponsored by the Institute of Politics. In looking back on both her experience in government and at the Kennedy School, Harris emphasized the central role of negotiation in government. She recalled that the pedagogy at the Kennedy School, making particular note of Professor Roger B. Porters class on business and government, taught her how to move legislation forward. She eagerly explained, At the Kennedy School the most extraordinary solutions would come from the most unlikely sources.
==
Hahahaaaaa Harris is a Kennedy Liberal?

Ohhh man..
Hey I wonder Katherine, the Ivey League Libera, ever went for a ride Teds Car?

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

LETS GET PERSONAL!!

* Republican pastor Mike Hintz, whom George W. Bush commended during the
2004 presidential campaign, surrendered to police after admitting to a
sexual affair with a female juvenile.

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:20 AM | PERMALINK

Another reason the Dems get surprised is ironically the friendly media. Most of the media support the Dems, which helps them. But, it also makes them overly optimistic.
Posted by: ex-liberal

lemme see Faux news [racist Oreilly falafel guy, not liberal]

CBS [dropped reagan docudrama after the caterwauling by the GOP and Pundits, [still shoed on Showtime]]

ABC and the Path to 9/11 soapoperamentary..

Yeh that's 'liberal media' allright..but I guess you think george bush and katherine harris, ivey league liberals, are republicans? hahahahaaa

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

Reagan praised the mujahadeen as freedom fighters battling an evil empire, stating, "To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Interventions_of_the_Reagan_Administration

And Reagan allied himself with AL qaeda!! lmao..

ex-liberal lmao

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:26 AM | PERMALINK

Reagan considered the anti-Communist rebel groups such as the Contras and Afghan mujahideen to be freedom fighters and the "moral equivalent of our [America's] founding fathers" fighting against Communism.
==
and today they attack america,,fighting against capitalism!! Oh Yeh.

You GOoPers sure don't read much do you??

Posted by: Dick Dastardly on September 11, 2006 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

Reagan considered the anti-Communist rebel groups such as the Contras and Afghan mujahideen to be freedom fighters and the "moral equivalent of our [America's] founding fathers" fighting against Communism.

Take that and suck on it ex-liberal GOoPer..gonna change your name again?

Posted by: Ronnie Morals Reagan on September 11, 2006 at 1:31 AM | PERMALINK

How did Pong do at the U.S. Open?

Posted by: R.L. on September 11, 2006 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

Dick Dastardly wrote: CBS [dropped reagan docudrama after the caterwauling by the GOP and Pundits, [still shoed on Showtime]]

There was one difference. Although many conservatives "caterwauled" about the Reagan miniseries, no elected or appointed Republican threatened CBS. By comparison, Minority Leader Reid impolcitly threatened to deprive ABC of their broadcast license.

This shows that the Republicans are now the party of free speech, while the Dems are the party of government censorship. One more reason why I'm an ex- liberal.

P.S. I wonder how many posters here approve of Reid's threat...

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 3:02 AM | PERMALINK

"One more reason why I'm an ex- liberal."

hey...i'm the one who delivers the jokes around here....


Posted by: jay leno on September 11, 2006 at 7:11 AM | PERMALINK

The Republicans can spin all they want, but they won't be able to spin history. Serious historians will pore over the records of this administration, and will render judgement.

And the judgement won't be about whether or not Iraq was a mistake(it was); it will be about the reasons for Iraq. Was the administration intentionally deceptive, or incompetent or both? Personally, I think it's a bit of both.

The failure of this administration to admit when it has made a mistake or a series of mistakes(anybody catch Cheney on Meet the Press yesterday?) will be fodder for researchers for years. Bush is going to go down as one of the worst presidents in the history of this nation, and there is nothing Karl Rove can do about it. The die has been cast.

Bush was wrong on Iraq, he was clueless about Katrina, he has done nothing about immigration or Social Security, his Medicare bill has been a fiasco, and the country is even more divided than it was when Clinton was president. The Republican leadership in Congress has shown itself to be more interested in maintaining its position than in legislating meaninful legislation.

Democrats need to draw a powerful lesson from this. Someone, at some point, has to stand up for the American people and realize that they work for us, not big business and special interests. Where is Jimmy Stewart(Mr. Smith Goes to Washington)when you need him?

And who will be Bush's successor? We must have an informed, articulate president who can reestablish relationships with our traditional allies, and extricate us from the Iraq boondoggle. Who is out there with the smarts and the integrity? That, in the end, is the message. We need wisdom and integrity in the WH and in Congress. I don't know if it's possible to find candidates who possess both.

For some reason, when this country began, we were lucky enough to have leaders who actually put this country's well-being first. Was that a fluke of history?

Posted by: Susan on September 11, 2006 at 7:21 AM | PERMALINK

Suck on This, Jack / Dick Dastardly / Trinary Suka:

Nice to see you changed your handle because I had the temerity to disagree with you on the other thread (you know -- like you threatened that I should :). Your style, however, is unmistakable.

Jeez, I never realized I had so much *influence* around here ...

It's not so much that I disagree with you per se. It's more that I think you'd be a more effective communicator if you just put down the meth pipe every so often :)

As for the thread topic, yeah I agree with others -- Kevin's "objective realism" is demoralizing. I do think that going negative this extensively has the chance to suppress turnout precisely in the wrong sorts of voters. What's striking about this election is the level of motivation in the anti-GOP vote. We're unshakable. They can maybe get some swing voters / independents to stay home, but odds are this hurts them as much as us. I agree with Ron Byers; this is Rove's version of a Hail Mary pass.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on September 11, 2006 at 9:18 AM | PERMALINK

"By comparison, Minority Leader Reid impolcitly threatened to deprive ABC of their broadcast license."

The "implicitly" leaves you a hell of a lot of wiggle room, doesn't it, you whiny, lying, despicable piece of shit?

Posted by: brewmn on September 11, 2006 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn - Harry Reid wrote a letter including these words:

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.

Coming from someone who may be Majority Leader of the Senate in a few months, I'd say the implicit threat was pretty obvious.

brewmn, if Dick Chaney had written these words to a TV station, you'd see the threat quickly enough!

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

"Coming from someone who may be Majority Leader of the Senate in a few months, I'd say the implicit threat was pretty obvious."

The reference to the Communications Act is what's called laying down a foundation for the conclusion presented in the following sentence. But since you are a rightwing troll, I'd say your recognition of the implicit threat comes straight from Rush Limbaugh.

And, if your last statement is true (that I would see a threat if Dick Cheney sent the same letter), it's only because Cheney has already proven himself to be a vindictive, ratfucking bastard. See Plame, Valerie.

Posted by: brewmn on September 11, 2006 at 3:39 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn - Uh, Richard Armitage has confessed to being the one who divulged Valerie Plame's role in sending Joe Wilson to Africa. Cheney was suspected for a long time, but he has been exonorated by Armatage's confession, as well as the fact that the Special Prosecutor charged nobody with the crime of leaking Plame's name.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

The republican warchest will be spent defining the character of the democratic opponents. What is non-american about this. Money is freedom of speech and if the dems cant stand the heat then....

Lets see what the how their character looks under the light of day. Cut & run is not a winning campaign platform.

Posted by: Paul the Cynic on September 11, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

"brewmn - Uh, Richard Armitage has confessed to being the one who divulged Valerie Plame's role in sending Joe Wilson to Africa. Cheney was suspected for a long time, but he has been exonorated by Armatage's confession"

He's only been exonerated in your mind. The complaint against Libby makes it clear that there was a systematic concerted effort to discredit Wilson, and it was coordinated in the VP's office. The fact that proving that a crime (other than Libby's perjury) was committed would be very difficult, given the code of silence these scum have adhered to. But it in no way changes the fact the they blew a CIA agent's cover and compromised national security for partisan purposes.

Posted by: brewmn on September 11, 2006 at 6:33 PM | PERMALINK

brewmn, it was appropriate for the White House to discredit Wilson since he was a big liar. The liberal Washington Post recently wrote:

it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Although the White House was right to dispute Wilson's lies, all the evidence is that Armitage was the outer of Valerie Plame, rather than anyone in the White House.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 11, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINK
Although the White House was right to dispute Wilson's lies, all the evidence is that Armitage was the outer.... ex-liberal at 7:47 PM
The White House did not dispute any lies, it offered lies to smear truth. Joe Wilson is more truthful and the entire Bush regime and their pathetic little sychopants. The evidence is that Armitage only mentioned her name as Wilson to Novak, Novak called Rove to confirm and Rove and Libby then contacted at least 6 reporters with the phony story that Wilson was a partisan sent by his partisan wife, in the process outing a covert CIA agent. That is McCarthyism and despicable but typical. Bush and Cheney lied and are still lying about Iraq, Saddam, and al Qaeda. Posted by: Mike on September 11, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Most people, (like Kevin) have a fuzzy idea in their minds of what the future might bring. The method they usually use for prognostication is to take the events of today and project them into the future. Trouble is, it is an incredibly flawed method. What really happens is usually an about-face, a 90 degree change of direction or a unpredictable surprise.

Bearing that truth in mind, who says the Republicans will forever have success in scaring the American public into wetting their beds and voting for them? Its getting old, folks, a counter reformation is growing. Ive seen many political cartoons lately that bust the Repuglies for their negative campaigns and fear mongering. The cartoonists dont lead, they pick up on the developing sentiment and run with it.

My prediction: Repuglicans negative campaigns add to their national disaster in November.

Posted by: James of DC on September 11, 2006 at 9:33 PM | PERMALINK

``It also seems like a pretty smart move to me.''
Screw smart. It's destructive and desperate and vile.

Posted by: secularhuman on September 13, 2006 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly