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

October 18, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

IF THE DEMOCRATS WIN....So what happens if Democrats win control of Congress in November? Conservative Bruce Bartlett says, nothing much:

Democrats are unlikely to get more than a very thin majority in the House. If they get the Senate as well, it will not be with more than a one-vote margin. Consequently, effective control will be in the hands of moderates who often work with Republicans on specific issues. In a delicious bit of irony, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, lately excoriated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, may end up holding the balance of power in the Senate.

As for impeachment and cutting money for Iraq, such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it. They will make the White House pay a price for Iraq, but will ensure that they dont get blamed for any debacle resulting from failure to provide adequate money for our troops.

At the Washington Post, liberal Harold Meyerson mostly agrees. He says the Democratic agenda will be pretty much what you'd expect:

It includes raising the minimum wage, repealing the Medicare legislation that forbids the government from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices, replenishing student loan programs, funding stem cell research and implementing those recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission that have thus far languished.

....Confronted with an up-or-down vote on raising the minimum wage or making medication for seniors more affordable, many Republicans will side with the Democrats....Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they're confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation?

If Democrats win, they'll be able to propose legislation for the first time in a long while, and this gives them considerable agenda-setting power. And while impeachment is little more than a bogey man that Republicans use to scare their troops into forking over campaign contributions, Democrats will have considerably more oversight power, even if Republicans did gut the oversight staff when they took over a decade ago. And not a moment too soon.

Kevin Drum 12:08 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (246)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

How come when Dems have a slim majority, they are powerless, but when Repubs barely get it in, they have a screaming mandate?

Posted by: Kenji on October 18, 2006 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

impeach everyone who is eligible. go nuclear in the Senate. shut the Reps out of everything in the house. make them suffer dearly for being the naughty little turds they've been. end each day with a collective Evil Scientist laugh.

Posted by: cleek on October 18, 2006 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

Democrats will have considerably more oversight power, even if Republicans did gut the oversight staff when they took over a decade ago.

I don't think Democrats will win the Senate. Either they don't win enough races or Joe Lieberman will switch to the Republican Party. Unlike liberals and democrats who only care about partisanship and bashing Bush, Joe Lieberman believes in patriotism before partisanship. Unlike liberals, Joe Lieberman belongs to the Patriotism party that holds the good of America should come become before the special interest of liberals. Joe Lieberman understands liberals will never change their tone because they don't care about America enough. Joe Lieberman will do what is right and switch to the Republican Party before he lets the liberals take over and destroy this country as they did in the 60's and 70s.

Posted by: Al on October 18, 2006 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

These so called moderates, instead of working to end Democratic obstructionism, will be working to enable Republican obstructionism.

Are those positions politically equivalent?

Impeachment also seems out of the question *now*, and considering the veritable mounds of evidence uncovered by this Congress's diligent investigations, that's not likely to change.

Posted by: Boronx on October 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM | PERMALINK

So, the Democrats will use hat little power they may have to try and bind the administration's hand, forcing them to raise taxes and lose the war in Iraq. Nice to know what we're dealing with, in addition to baby killing and graverobbing.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 18, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

That's not ironic about Lieberman, that's why someone ran against him in the first place.

Posted by: Tom on October 18, 2006 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINK

I know that they will probably not have enough votes to override a veto, but, and it is simply a dream, if they could only restore our Republic.

Of course, many fine pieces of furniture were created under monarchies.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto. George W. Bush has already vetoed stem cell legislation, and he has staunchly opposed raising the minimum wage since the day he entered politics. What will congressional Republicans do if they're confronted with a series of vetoes of popular legislation?

I hope the Dems make a majority of Americans despise Republicans and prep the way for 2008 by showing how un-compassionate conservatives are. Unmask the cretins and pound 'em into the dirt where they belong.

Don't forget to pass legislation on voter reform and mandate a paper trail. Let's see Republicans vote against that and Bush veto it. Heh.

Posted by: GOP defector on October 18, 2006 at 12:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'm with Bartlett and Cleek. I'm betting heavily on the Democrats going politically insane.

Posted by: enrique on October 18, 2006 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINK

More people with be without medical insurance and US soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2012.

Posted by: Hostile on October 18, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Impeachment will not initially be on the agenda. But Bushco will defy Congress (subpoenas, signing statements, refusal to turn over documents) and try to force a crisis, which eventually will force the House under its Constitutional duties to explore the possibility of impeachment. It only takes a one-vote majority to approve articles (against both Bush and Cheney), and force the Senate to have a trial.

If this comes down the road, looks for Dems to assert that in the event of convictions, they will turn the Speakership over to some compromise interim president agreeable to most people (who will not run for election in 2008). Since the Speaker does not have to be a member of the House, this could be easily arranged if we were to get to the point of conviction in the Senate. (Obviously turning the presidency over to a Democrat would be a barrier).

Posted by: hopeless pedant on October 18, 2006 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINK

"all of those without health insurance and US soldiers will still be in Iraq in 2012"

Geez, you mean that 43 million people will be sent to Iraq - Well, it could help alleviate the homeless problem.

Posted by: stupid git on October 18, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

When the Democrats take the House, they obtain subpeona power, as well as the power to control which legislation comes up for a vote and which legislation gets held up forever. As the Republicans have demonstrated, this is considerable power.

Also, Bush doesn't have a line-item veto (despite his attempts to use signing statements as a form of line-item veto). The Dems can attach measures Bush doesn't want to measures that he must have. He can try to play chicken, the way Gingrich and Clinton used to, and shut down the government. But if the measure Bush doesn't want to accept is a popular one, he'll lose.

Posted by: Joe Buck on October 18, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

Dems hold some gravitas (default only)on the 'tough on Terrorism' competition, at least for the present.

They should begin cutting the perks to Iraqi elected officials as a preamble of future cost reduction, sans progress, while continuing to pound the drum on the WWoT, then funneling some of the Iraq Money Pit cash and providing a moveable feast for fighting the terrorists elsewhere.

Impeachment must be addressed, but put on the back burner, on the low-down. They cannot prevent leaks about same, but must use every means available for de-emphasizing it.

Then, every sonofabitch who profited from their votes on the floor on either earmarks, or reconstruction, or defense, should face 2-10 years living in Section 8 housing, while using public transportation to their minimum-wage jobs. Their assets should be disgorged and placed in trust for some Iraq Vet costs in the future.

Posted by: Semanticleo on October 18, 2006 at 12:32 PM | PERMALINK

1. Shrunken staffs can be re-inflated.
2. You think McCain wants to run the president by voting for or against a veto of a minimum wage hike.
3. The money shot. Put Iraq under pay-as-you-go budgeting. Attach a real nasty tax on the wealthy-like say a surcharge on the estate tax equal to the sum requested in the next supplemental appropriation for Iraq and Afghanistan. STICK TO IT! Make the GOP either cave, or go to the people with the slogan "Iraq. It's worth dying for, but not paying for."

Posted by: JMG on October 18, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

It doesn't really matter what the Democrats do, at least in the short term. If Congress changes hands, it will be because the voters are throwing out the Republicans.

The Republicans will bring out the same tired bag of harpies to berate the Democrats as appeasers and obstructionists, just like they have for a decade. But it will fall on deaf ears.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 18, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think Bush will veto much. He's too ego-driven and I think he'll focus almost entirely on his legacy the next two years and attempt a fall-back to a moderate position on domestic issues.

Posted by: Fred F, on October 18, 2006 at 12:35 PM | PERMALINK

If the Dems don't impeach Bush forces them to vote on attacking Iran.

If Dems haven't got the nerve to impeach the party is better off not taking control of the House.

Posted by: Carl Nyberg on October 18, 2006 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINK

Enrique: You must not have read Bartlett. His main point is that the system, as it works, will check Democratic efforts. But his minor point is the following: "such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it." In other words, Bartlett in no way says the Democrats will go politically insane. He says the Democratic leadership knows what is insane and what isn't.

I think this comment by Bartlett is interesting: "Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, lately excoriated by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, may end up holding the balance of power in the Senate."

Was Lieberman excoriated by the liberal wing of the party. What makes it a wing if Lieberman lost the Democratic vote? Sounds more like he lost the heart of the party. I'm an independent, a former Republican, so you'd think I'd like Lieberman. But I just find him increasingly irrelevant, incompetent, and embarrasing.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott on October 18, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, one more thing that partially contradicts my first post. Why do the Democrats HAVE to do anything? People don't vote for divided government to get things done, they choose divided government to STOP things from getting done. If a Dem majority keeps Bush from starting any more wars for us to lose, they'll earn the thanks of a grateful nation.

Posted by: JMG on October 18, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

So ... the measure for impeachment, [or assassination] as always, is not how evil the man, but his usefulness to the jewish cabal that controls our government for the express purpose of advancing Jewish interests.

WTF ?

Posted by: cleek on October 18, 2006 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not through it yet, but this looks really interesting.

Rolling Stone: The Worst Conrgress Ever

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 18, 2006 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK

What jewish cabal that controls our government?

Name names. C'mon, lay some names on us. And links.

Posted by: GOP defector on October 18, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

INGSOC

Sorry to interrupt;

The White House has added Chavez to the Axis of Evil for his use of the word Satan against Big Brother. North Korea has detonated a nuclear device. To protect the homeland from these threats Big Brother has declared war on Canada and Cuba.

The two minutes of hate follows.

INGSOC

Posted by: INGSOC on October 18, 2006 at 12:53 PM | PERMALINK

It's amazing that the impeachment meme is being so much more thoroughly floated by the Republicans than by the Dems, who seem to cower from the very mention of the word. The Republican leadership must think, for some reason, that Bush has committed high crimes and/or misdemeanors while in office, and apparently the GOP rank and file agrees with this.

Now, why do you think that is?

Posted by: Boots Day on October 18, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

The Dems won't even do oversight. They are gutless wonders.

I am fucking so serious.

Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 18, 2006 at 12:55 PM | PERMALINK

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bush say that he would sign a minimum wage increase if such legislation ever makes it to his desk? He was presumably operating under the assumption that a GOP Congress would never pass such an increase anyway, so why not score some cheap political points by endorsing it? But hey, it was a pledge he made nonetheless.

Posted by: keptsimple on October 18, 2006 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINK

If things go the way they look like they are going to go we should have about the same kind of majority in the house the Republicans have. That isn't a screaming mandate unless the Democrats do what the Republicans have done and really enforce party unity. Frankly, that is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are in. I would like to see the Democrats actually reach out to the center in the Republican party. They have been nearly as disenfrancised as the Democrats. I would like to see the House reinstitute institutional training for freshmen and softball (and other social connections) for the entire body. Newt Gingrich's extreme partisan crap needs to be scrapped. If we don't, the house will jump to the Republicans very quickly.

The Senate is going to be 49/51, 50/50 or 51/49. I am sorry but that isn't enough to get anything done. If Democrats get a one vote lead they will take charge of the committee process. That will mean they can do real oversight. That would be interesting, but it wouldn't mean impeachment unless they found Bush in bed with a dead hooker or a live boy.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 18, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: You were betting that the Dems will not win the House. So now I wonder: why are you speaking as if you are already defeated? Reality, as we are seeing in the war in Iraq, has a way of ignoring talking points, particularly the weightless tasteless nutritionally-empty blather mouthed by the commenter Al, who probably has little or no clue of the historical significance of the term "liberal," having instead learned it in the academy of Limbaugh.

Another thing: Why do the Al's and the American Hawk's always comment under pseudonyms? Are they afraid to fight the good fight with their real names? Are they hiding behind their keyboards and their personas? I always wonder. It seems so wimpy.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott on October 18, 2006 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

al's mommy,

I think you might be right. People who wouldn't even stand up for the Constitution and would allow Habeas Corpus to be suspended are too frightened to do oversight. That means we, their employers, are going to have to push their sorry asses every day they are in office.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 18, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Kenji: How come when Dems have a slim majority, they are powerless, but when Repubs barely get it in, they have a screaming mandate?

Audacity, which is a polite term for balls.

Should they make it through both houses, many of these measures will face a presidential veto.

Or a signing statement saying he will ignore everything. Of course the following Democratic president would reverse the interpretation in the signing statement.

Posted by: anandine on October 18, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

I predict that, if Democrats take over the Senate, they will spend the next two years lambasting Republicans for using anti-majoritarian cloture votes to gum up the works.

Posted by: Grumpy on October 18, 2006 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINK

I post under a pseudonym because I don't want people to know that I'm actually Rip Taylor.

Posted by: American Hawk on October 18, 2006 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINK

I will be happy if they just get Karl Rove, the evil incarnate of unmatched virulence that has infected the body politic of this country.

Posted by: gregor on October 18, 2006 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Hawk: So let's see: Americans dying in Iraq fighting for freedom. American Hawk hiding behind a pseudonym. Can't get much more pathetic than that.

Posted by: T.R. Elliott on October 18, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

Universal healthcare, minimum wage, earmarking reform, electoral reform, Medicare reform, bankruptcy reform and predatory lending, financial information privacy act, repeal the torture bill, reinstitute FISA requirements, phased pullout from Iraq...

Wow, they've got a lot to do!

Posted by: MeLoseBrain? on October 18, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

So, do we cut and run after we legalize gay marriage, or after we make flag burning mandatory? Also, cute puppies shall heretofore be outlawed.

Posted by: Cazarto Bin Laden on October 18, 2006 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

If the Dems win and are to be something other than plutocratic placeholders, they must take up the most important challenge in many many years and push the Constitutional crisis started by Bush and Cheney to resolution. Maybe this results in an attempt at impeachment, maybe not. But if the Dems do not attempt to put a halt to Bush's undermining of the basic principles of our system of government (limited govt power, with the different branches checked and balanced against each other), the USA as we have known it is doomed. The next two years will make or break our Union.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC2Wx7MYcpE

Posted by: nine on October 18, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK

Cazarto, the first step needs to be to ban the Bible. Then we can start cutting and running.

Posted by: Boots Day on October 18, 2006 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK

Following on from some comments above, although I am truly thirsting for some payback against the extemist idiots who have so thoroughly damaged our county, I think it's time for the Dems to do something to repair the fractures that were foolishly created by Gingrich, Norquist and their ilk. Ron's suggestion of reaching out to moderate Repubs makes sense in that regard.

On a similar note, a friend of mine is part of a movement to develop a "unity ticket" for the 2008 presidential run; a ticket consisting of a Dem and a moderate Repub.

Check out this website for further details:

http://www.unity08.com/

Posted by: Wonderin on October 18, 2006 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

The all important thing is who makes the calendar. For years, the Democrats have been shut out of even proposing legislation. I have a friend who's a minority staffer on House Energy and Commerce and she has complained for years that the minority has no ability to put anything in the calendar.

A Democratic majority matters a hell of a lot.

Posted by: Bernard on October 18, 2006 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINK

Impeaching Bush might be too much for this Congress.

With a solid week's worth of investigation, I'd bet the Congress could uncover enough evidence to impeach Rumsfeld. That could be popular on both sides of the aisle.

And a month's worth of investigations into Halliburton and the secret Energy Task Force, and Cheney might be in the docket.

And then reopen prisoner abuses and... there goes Abu Gonsalez.

And let Bush stew.

Posted by: Wapiti on October 18, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

A really stupid post, on a par with articles in 2001 talking about how Bush was so politically wounded by the recount that he would not be able to govern strongly.

1. Impeachment talk is stupid. Can you say President Cheney? Lots of other reasons, but that alone is enough.


2. Investigation is where it is at. We need to smear the Repubs the way they smeared us in 2000. The repubs knew they were not going to impeach Clinton, it was all about poisoning the well for Gore.

We need to make the country so aware of the criminal behavior of the Repubs that we can win 2008 no matter who or how we run. Our goal should be to make the next two years a living hell for the thieves in office, and have Bush leave office as the most disgraced and despised President in a generation.

Posted by: Tom O on October 18, 2006 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Kevin,

You forgot to throw in a reference to what "Jane Galt" thinks of the matter. Sheesh.

Posted by: Gregory on October 18, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

The names on this broadcast have only been changed in order to protect the bigots.

And stay tuned for more song and dance by Roi Georg ll doing his rendition of "Over There"..."and I won't come home until it's over, over there."

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

As previously observed in this comment thread, the majority party controls the committees. A Democratic majority means that Democrats control the legislative process, and control the oversight over the Executive branch. This means, for example, that Democrats can stall any Republican bill in committee, and can totally prevent any Bush judicial appointments. Do not underestimate the power of even the slimmest majority.

Posted by: charlie don't surf on October 18, 2006 at 1:28 PM | PERMALINK

a ticket consisting of a Dem and a moderate Repub

If that's people like McCain and Lieberman - both who rolled for Bush on torture and suspension of habeus corpus - forget it. Pro-torture is not moderate, I don't care how much lipstick you put on the pigs.

Posted by: Wapiti on October 18, 2006 at 1:30 PM | PERMALINK

Why is the impeachment of an incompetent criminal, who is dismantling the Bill of Rights "insane"? I see it as the Dems Constitutional obligation.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 18, 2006 at 1:31 PM | PERMALINK

I think the key fact, as the author correctly states, is that if the Democrats regain control of the House, they regain control of the political agenda, since all legislation must originate in the House. They will have the opportunity to do to the GOP just what the GOP did to them on Iraq, i.e. force them to make difficult choices between voting with the public at large, or voting according to their principals. It'll be really interesting when Bush vetoes a minimum wage increase and congressional Republicans are forced to decide whether or not to vote to override it.

If the Democrats are smart, they will also attack the GOP on taxes by passing a single piece of legislation that both lowers taxes on the middle class and raises them on the wealthy. That would force Republicans to either vote against a middle-class tax cut, thus offending much of the country, or to vote to raise taxes on the wealthy, thus offending much of their base.

Additionally, give the profligate spending of the Republican Congress the last few years, this will also be a chance for the Democrats to gain currency with the fiscal responsibility crowd by proposing some sort of balanced budget legislation (not a constituional amendment, but perhaps a requirement that unbalanced budgets need to pass with 60% of the vote instead of 50%+1).

Posted by: mfw13 on October 18, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

If the Democrats are smart, they will also attack the GOP on taxes by passing a single piece of legislation that both lowers taxes on the middle class and raises them on the wealthy. That would force Republicans to either vote against a middle-class tax cut, thus offending much of the country, or to vote to raise taxes on the wealthy, thus offending much of their base.

It's easier than that. Many of Bush's tax cuts sunset -- and if the GOP wants to call that a "tax increase," then it's one Bush himself signed into law.

All the Ds have to do is extend those (the elimination of the marriage penalty and the increase in the child credit, for example) that benefit the middle class, and just let the GOP have its own way -- sunset clauses -- on the others.

Posted by: Gregory on October 18, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans have had no "agenda" other than to funnel money to their backers and themselves. The agenda they proclaimed was just a ruse to attract conservative voters.

The Democrats also have no agenda: they are not solidly for universal health care, unions, progressive taxes or any of the sundry items "liberals" wish for.

So what would happen if Democrats controlled Congress? They will funnel money to their backers.

On the other hand, they won't go off invading countries based on ideology; they won't destroy social security, etc.

So go out there and vote for the Democrats: they will do absolutely no good -- and that is a good thing.

Posted by: Dicksknee on October 18, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

It would do little good to Impeach Bush if it wasn't a lock to Convict and Evict him. So, don't expect it to happen. The Repubs are focused on it because they know that would be justice.

Posted by: MarkH on October 18, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

I would like to see the Democrats actually reach out to the center in the Republican party.

To do what?

Posted by: Hostile on October 18, 2006 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

Let's see - First we cut and run - Then we invade Grenada. Then Tierra del Fuego - Attack Chavez from his rear.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Josh Marshall just had a post where he said that media bias against Democrats was because Democrats lost the last three elections. Well, I don't think he'd had his morning coffee yet. Media bias against Democrats has been institutionalized since about 1969. When Nixon went to China he took corporate media with him and they've been with him ever since. It was a revolution at least as profound as any other social revolution we've had, and gets little, er, media attention. (But we did get twenty-five years of David Brinkley loudly wondering about whether he might be too liberal).


There are different kinds of headaches, the good kind and the bad kind. The bad kind come unbidden, but the good kind are from concentration and focus. Business, law and government, though they often may not seem like it, are intellectual activities. Consider mathematics. Hard math gives you a headache. If you're a mathematician and can only do easy math problems that don't give you a headache, you're a bad mathematician.

I've often heard conservatives say that Democrats give them a headache and so they flee to easy-minded Republicans. But they have to relax. We have to work to relax them and help them realize that's a good kind of headache.

Posted by: cld on October 18, 2006 at 1:42 PM | PERMALINK

If a Dem ticket were to have a moderate Republican, I think we'd be talking about someone like Colin Powell, for whom I don't have a lot of respect, but if running with him as VP could guarantee election Gore, Edwards, Kerry, Feingold president, and then provide bipartisan cover for what will need to be done post-election, then fine, I can live with that.

On impeachment: the House impeaches (indicts) by majority vote; the Senate has the trial, with 2/3s needed for removal. In 1974, the House was on the verge of impeaching by a large margin, and the Senate, which probably had 58 Dems or so (many still Southern moderates or conservatives) would have been able to come up with the 2/3s to remove Nixon (and then only because Ford, not the resigned Agnew, would have become president).

Posted by: hopeless pedant on October 18, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Dem will have committee chairmanships and committee majorities, where things like the renewal of the objectional parts of the Patriot Act will die before they ever get to the floor, and where nominees like Alito and Gonzales will be sent packing.

Dem control will make a HUGE difference.

Posted by: Robert Earle on October 18, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's a great idea to make flag burning mandatory.

On July 4th.

To celebrate the fact that we CAN.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 18, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK

Even with strong control of both the House and Senate, the Democrats would not be able to accomplish much without Bush's acquiesence. I suspect they would moderate a lot of the campaign rhetoric and get done what they and Bush can agree on and nothing more. I suspect the government would run on temporary budgets for the rest of Bush's term.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 18, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Democratic house should vote for a bill granting complete legal amnesty to Republicans because:

"They are lunatic dumbshits, natural born crooks, liars and child molesters who believe in the devil"

Then, watch as all the Republicans vote to pass the bill.

Posted by: Matt on October 18, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

"mandatory flag burning amendment"

Well, as long as you throw in the Confederate one as well or at least start the fire with one"

Posted by: Boys in Blue on October 18, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest thing on the agenda is THE BUSH TAX CUT SUNSET!

The dems don't merely need to control one house of congress to roll back the Bush tax cuts because they require a new law to be extended.

Posted by: pj on October 18, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

Republicans purge voter rolls in four states,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/10/18/85915/109

Posted by: cld on October 18, 2006 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

That's a red herring.

It's not so much about what they *will* do anymore, unfortunately. It's what they either won't allow or won't allow to continue that matters.

You don't start lifting weights when you have an open wound. You have to heal that shit before you get strong.

Posted by: Jon on October 18, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

To do what?

Posted by: Hostile

Fair question. I want to see Democrats reach out to moderate Republicans to cleave them away from the Jim Ryun fringe. Yesterday Kevin posted about the Sun Newspaper endorsing Democrats in Kansas for almost the first time ever. Not long ago several of those Democrats were moderate Republicans. The religious right has frozen them out of their owe party. Those moderate Republicans looked around and figured out they had more in common with Democrats than with the fringe of their own party.

The Congressional Republicans have established a system where the right fringe runs everything. The moderates got to vote for proposals from the fringe. I bet more than one or two of those frozen guys are pissed as hell.

If you look at the Democratic party and what Democrats really stand for you will find that for the most part they are fiscally conservative. For the most part Democrats are envrirnomentally aware, but not insane. They are more interested in good government and making government work than they used to be. They want smart foreign policy. They want trade, but they want to protect jobs. Lots of them want to really solve health care and stop job flight. Generally they have a middle class agenda. There are even pro-life Democrats. No Democrat I know is pro-abortion. Pro-choice yes, but pro-abortion, nobody I know. A lot of democrats want to level the playing field between individuals and corporations. That means some additional regulation of corporations. Of course, they aren't crazy. Jobs are a family value.

The common ground between moderate Republicans and nearly all Democrats is obvious. Why not open the tent and invite them in. Why not work with them to change the country's direction.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 18, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest impact of the Dems winning a house will be its impact on Conference Committees. Without being able to sneak in amendments through conference committees Congres will have to have more actual dialogue about legislation.

Posted by: crack on October 18, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

"The Democratic house should vote for a bill granting complete legal amnesty to Republicans because:

"They are lunatic dumbshits, natural born crooks, liars and child molesters who believe in the devil"

Then, watch as all the Republicans vote to pass the bill."

Ok, now *that* was funny.

Posted by: chaboard on October 18, 2006 at 2:40 PM | PERMALINK

I'm hoping that the new Democrats coming in will see themselves as having an agenda, something most of the wishy washy Dems-protecting-their-jobs don't seem to have. The many vets, I think, will make sure that things like body armor happen, which will mean a lot to our troops. Being in charge of the agenda, and getting more air time (perhaps) should be meaningful, although they will also suddenly give the conservative media a target other than Bill Clinton for all that goes wrong.

In any case, I can't wait.

Posted by: catherineD on October 18, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Ron.

Posted by: Hostile on October 18, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

The American Hawk is really Rip Taylor post was hilarious, though a horrible insult to Rip's social conscience. He does (did?) try, on purpose, to make people laugh, a far more useful thing than trolling.

Posted by: Ace Franze on October 18, 2006 at 3:10 PM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget, It's not the republicans that are the problem,It's the Neocons that have taken over the Republican party,Many Republicans would be happy to have the Neoparasites off there back.So let's not bash all Republicans there are very worthy members of that party.Lets work on throwing out the Neo trash.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that matters at this point is Iraq. After 3 1/2 yrs of war with no one in this gov't analyzing or adjusting our tactics; with zero accountability and no oversight is the biggest disgrace imaginable. We need our next congress to do a thorough examination of every defense contract, intelligence failure, troop deployment, etc. and get a real look at what's going on in Iraq. Oversight hearings will allow a national discussion about what is really happening there and what kind of long-term problems we'll be dealing with in the region.

Posted by: D. on October 18, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Interesting to follow the bouncing ball. Many of the neocons left the Democratic Party because they thought the liberal wing had taken control. They are now beginning to be rejected by the Republicans, because they are considered to be too extreme in their ideology.

Ron Byers makes some very interesting points. As a born into a Kansas Republican family, I did not switch until I came back from Germany under JFK's leadership as CinC, and began to see the John Birchers, the Southern Democrat conversion to the party and the religious right begin to completely change the party. When the moderate Senator Kuechel of California was dumped in the primary and replaced with Max Rafferty, I became a born again Democrat - Have never regretted it.

When a party of any stripe is taken over by the extremists, it is not long before the Committee of Public Safety emerges.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Impeachment damn well should be on the agenda day 1. This administration has commited egregious crimes. Not prosecuting them for it out of a potential political blowback is utterly unacceptable.

This isn't about Clinton or 2008 or triangulation or any of that. This is about accountability. Period. The executive must be reigned in. If the Democrats won't do that then they are complicit with the republican crimes.

There is a time for politics and a time for principle. Now is the time for the latter, and to hell with them if they are too cowardly.

Posted by: Tlaloc on October 18, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum opines:

So what happens if Democrats win control of Congress in November?

Bah! Nothing!

This is where you libs get it wrong once again; you have effectively lost the expectations game WEEKS before the election. Say that you actually do take both the House and Senate. Well, by what margin? A large on or a narrow one?

All of the bluster from the Dumbocrats has centered upon a revolution as in, the Republican take over of 1994. Fat chance, phony libs! You don't have the Get Out the Vote and you don't have the money! You don't have the ground game or the organization. What you do have is a group of hairy-legged frumpy old gals in suburban DC who can call their like-minded pals in San Francisco to whine about how their diary about free condoms for grade schoolers didn't get elevated on the Daily MarKos site or whatever. You do not have the infrastructure to win; Screaming Howard has gone broke trying to build it.

Hence, you lose. You lose because you should have been playing the expectations game with a little bit of skill. Now we have unhinged liberals offering up sums of money they have never honestly seen to bet that the Dumbocrats will win in November. Hello, Earth to liberals: this is not how you play the expectations game.

Karl Rove has played the game perfectly; if the Republicans hold control of either the House or Senate he looks like a genius. This is why a hundred million dollars sits in a bank account ready to be spent. This is why Screaming Howard is looking for a banker foolish enough to loan the Dumbocrats 5 to 10 measly million dollars.

Bah! You can't win so don't even try!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 4:17 PM | PERMALINK

"...impeachment is little more than a bogey man that Republicans use to scare their troops into forking over campaign contributions..."
Why???
For fuck's sake, Bush is what impeachment was invented for.

Posted by: hmmm on October 18, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Where do you get this preposterous idea (which you, umm, floated yesterday) that Dean's DNC is looking for a loan?

I call bullshit. Link it or stuff it.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

Here's an idea: don't impeach Bush (much as I dearly want to impeach the treasonous little liar). Instead, impeach Cheney.

Their heads will explode, I guarantee it.

Posted by: Stefan on October 18, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

catherineD:

I'm hoping that the new Democrats coming in will see themselves as having an agenda, something most of the wishy washy Dems-protecting-their-jobs don't seem to have. The many vets, I think, will make sure that things like body armor happen, which will mean a lot to our troops. Being in charge of the agenda, and getting more air time (perhaps) should be meaningful, although they will also suddenly give the conservative media a target other than Bill Clinton for all that goes wrong.

If wishes came true, there'd be a tooth fairy and a moon made entirely out of cheese! Are we to assume that the eight year debacle of the Billary administration is not to blame for anything in this country? Hello, the man raised taxes and destroyed the military and invited terrorists to dine in our cities on the blood of the innocent. Don't you understand that accountability begins with blaming the person who did things wrong?

mfw13 or whatever because I don't care:

I think the key fact, as the author correctly states, is that if the Democrats regain control of the House, they regain control of the political agenda, since all legislation must originate in the House. They will have the opportunity to do to the GOP just what the GOP did to them on Iraq, i.e. force them to make difficult choices between voting with the public at large, or voting according to their principals. It'll be really interesting when Bush vetoes a minimum wage increase and congressional Republicans are forced to decide whether or not to vote to override it.

Fool! George W Bush has the veto AND the right to wage war any way that he sees fit! Your side already voted for the war and now you think you can tell the Commander in Chief how to fight it? Your side eats high on the hog off the largesse of government and you think they'll raise one manicured finger to do anything about the minimum wage? The finger they lift will be the one that tells you to f#@%! off, sir.

crack(head):

The biggest impact of the Dems winning a house will be its impact on Conference Committees. Without being able to sneak in amendments through conference committees Congres will have to have more actual dialogue about legislation.

Consider yourself a legislative genius, eh? Well, all of the legislating in the world won't save the Dumbocrats from the mighty pen of George W Bush, who will veto the pants off of your silly little attempts to turn this country into a Workers Paradise.

Bobby Earle:

Dem will have committee chairmanships and committee majorities, where things like the renewal of the objectional parts of the Patriot Act will die before they ever get to the floor, and where nominees like Alito and Gonzales will be sent packing.

Ah, sorry--it's a bit late to stop Judge Alito from ascending to the Supreme Court and I don't think you'll have much luck stopping the current Attorney General from showing up to work every day, so if this is how the Dumbocrats think things work, well, no wonder you're all morons.

Jon boy:

You don't start lifting weights when you have an open wound. You have to heal that shit before you get strong.

Brute strength won't get you anywhere. Take it from your uncle Norman--all I have to do is outthink you and your are easily defeated.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

1. Impeachment talk is stupid. Can you say President Cheney? Lots of other reasons, but that alone is enough.

There's nothing in the Constitution to prevent Cheney being impeached at the same time as Bush.

Posted by: Stefan on October 18, 2006 at 4:38 PM | PERMALINK

wow! Norman Rogers '08

snark

Posted by: nonny on October 18, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

Well Norman when does that thar thinking gon'd ta stert.Or ar ya jest holdng back.Mube if ya git that thar little boy off yer lap we could see sum that tinking.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1, Political Animal's pathetic bitch:

On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts--the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats--to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million.

What banker is going to loan the Ragin' Cajun the money? Don't you have anyone respectable who can beg for money? Someone who owns a serviceable suit, perhaps? Someone who's had a shave, haircut and a shower this side of the millennium?

And you wonder why I can't stop smiling.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

You know, it was amusing for a minute when Norman first came back, but the bloviating and bluster and invective are just tiresome now.

Please link to your source that says the DNC is broke. I would refer you to the fundraising thread of a few days ago. Or to the OpenSecrets.org website.

I have offered my sources, please do likewise.

Respectfully;

"Hormonal" Citizen

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

James Carville is a pundit, not a member of the fundraising committees. He's entitled to make any sort of suggestion he wants.

How does this exactly prove that the DNC is broke? As I told you last thread, they've already committed their funds.

A little extra money never hurt, so I'd probably agree with you that Hillary should toss it their way, if others in the party find Carville's suggestion worthwhile. There are a number of woefully underfunded and newly competitive House races that I think we'd all like to see more flush.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yes Norman most of your fundraiser's are headed to jail so your little money supply is drying up very fast.It is not easy to raise money legally.The Dems have been getting plenty of money from your old legal donors, They can see what is going to happen Nov. too bad you can't.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

Once more for the slow readers--why borrow the money or think about borrowing the money if you have it? Oh, we're talking about the Dumbocrats:

On a conference call today, James Carville suggested that the Democratic Party should expand beyond just the top targeted races. He believes the party should help fund previously ignored Democratic challengers in second- and third-tier districts--the next 30 to 50 Republican-held seats--to fully capitalize on this environment and help those candidates maximize their chances of winning. Carville went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million.

rmck1 spews up shit:

A little extra money never hurt, so I'd probably agree with you that Hillary should toss it their way, if others in the party find Carville's suggestion worthwhile. There are a number of woefully underfunded and newly competitive House races that I think we'd all like to see more flush.

You make my point for me! This is a national election! And you admit that there are "...woefully underfunded and newly competitive House races..." Those are your words, sir, and they refute all of your liberal moonbat compatriots beautifully: if there WAS enough money in the DNC's coffers, you wouldn't HAVE woefully underfunded races! Ninny! And I suppose you'll change your hemming and hawing and say I didn't refute you. Well, too bad. I have refuted you. And with your own words! People who have money don't talk about borrowing more. That's insanity. And we're talking about the Dumbocrats. I repeat myself.

And a bonus insult:

Well Norman when does that thar thinking gon'd ta stert.Or ar ya jest holdng back.Mube if ya git that thar little boy off yer lap we could see sum that tinking.

And here we have the extent of the unhinged loony bin liberal left--pidgin English, perversities and pusillanimity.

You're all pathetic little low hanging fruit, waiting to fall on the ground and rot. Don't think anyone cares what happens to you after election day. Your leftwing moonbat heroes of today will extend their asses out of their limosine windows and shit on you as they drive by, you know.

Why do you even bother thinking you can make a difference? On election day, you'll hammer away at your little blog threads and forget to vote, as always. It's not as if you actually know where to go to vote. A hint for the rmck1 crowd: that private booth downtown with the dingy curtain off skid row where they show your favorite randy movies is not for voting, mmmkay?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

See you on Nov.7 you little Keyboard commando.Norman What a Bush.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 5:01 PM | PERMALINK

Glad that the trolls get paid by Schaife for the amount of type printed and not their conversion rate. Kind of a waste of good Pittsburg money to see neither one person converted nor one vote changed in all this time.

Well, there was that one "liberal" who has now seen the radiance and glow and places an ex before his moniker. Formerly he was merely a soul on the road to Damascus; now he has become St Gullible the Protector of the Poor.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINK

I wonder if Norman wears one of those cute little hat as he hammers away on the keyboard.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Umm, Norman ... I know this is going to be a little difficult for you to grasp, but -- our money problems right now are the result of an embarrassment of riches, target-wise. If it were up to the Emmanuels and Schumers of our party, we'd be exclusively focusing on heavy expensive-market media buys in a handful (15 or so) of purple industrial states. Whether or not Dean went lock-step with the congressional committees, we'd be having this "problem," because we have more states with potential winners than we've had for over a decade. All this started breaking our way after FoleyGate, the Woodward book, the NiE in the last days of September ...

This is a good thing, Norman. One of the reasons, btw, the RNC is so flush is because you have so *few* seats to target. You have the money -- but why dump it on sure losers, right? How 'bout that Schlesinger in CT! Or Chafee in RI! Our DeWine in OH! Or Santorum in PA! Or ... :):):)

Keep it up, old friend. You can't write comedy this good :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:09 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You certainly did not demonstrate your wild-eyed assertion that the DNC is broke.

Global posted the link which knocked that bald LIE down flat.

Busted, Norman :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Karl, don't forget out Helena way. Need to buy some more ethnic jokes.

Posted by: Conrad Burnout on October 18, 2006 at 5:14 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Norm, you might want to dial it back a notch or two...the other trolls smell panic.

Posted by: Rich Scaife on October 18, 2006 at 5:15 PM | PERMALINK

Or that talent in Missouri. You know, the senator who sits on the SASC and doesn't show up for 2/3 of the meetings? The ones he shows up for, he doesn't bother to participate.

Ike Skelton, on the other hand, also from Missouri and the Ranking Democrat on the HASC, has a near-perfect attendance record, and asks tough quetions in the hearings. This is all part of the public record, readily available with a Nexis account. Or at the public library if you can't get the scratch together for a Nexis link.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

> When the Democrats take the House,
> they obtain subpeona power, as well
> as the power to control which legislation
> comes up for a vote and which legislation
> gets held up forever.

My intuition tells me that the Cheney/Yoo theory will be invoked and that the Administration will refuse all subponeas as violations of the Unitary Executive and the AUMF for Iraq. That signing statements essentially reversing the intent will be attached to every bill. And that the Administration will impound, redirect, and just flat out refuse to comply with Congress as it likes.

What will the Democratic leadership do then? Let's be real: the traditional/mainstream media is NOT going to help the Dems or criticize the President/Republicans.

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 18, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

Where would I be without my own personal one-man contradiction machine:

If it were up to the Emmanuels and Schumers of our party, we'd be exclusively focusing on heavy expensive-market media buys in a handful (15 or so) of purple industrial states. Whether or not Dean went lock-step with the congressional committees, we'd be having this "problem," because we have more states with potential winners than we've had for over a decade.

Once again, you find two different landmines with one foot and blow your ass sky-high. Do you really think a political party with adequate cash in hand would even contemplate borrowing money if it already had it? Of course not. This is why no one will speak to Carville's gaffe--never reveal which players are injured to your opponent.

You also step in hot shit and it soaks through and burns your flesh to a crisp, sir: Emmanuel, Schumer are on one side, Dean is on the other, and they are rowing in different directions and your little boat is going in circles without so much as a rudder. Who is in charge? No one. Good luck winning a national campaign that way!

And you wonder why I'll be drinking champagne on election day!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 5:25 PM | PERMALINK

If the Dems win? Think: Foley-style scandals.

Bush is somewhat bulletproof with respect to scandals related to foreign (or even domestic) policy. If Dems use their subpoena power to uncover Foley-style scandals of personal corruption or purely political scandals (Watergate style spying on the other side, for example)...then all bets are off for the Administration. They will be in deep, deep trouble. Is there any question that this stuff is out there?

The sheer arrogance and hubris of Republicans makes me think that there are Foley style scandals right below the surface right now. If Dems uncover them, the public outrage could trigger a legitimate impeachment.

Oversight of policy is important, but for the Bushies, it's the personal/political scandals that are most dangerous. And the Dems could uncover an awful lot with subpoena power...

Posted by: owenz on October 18, 2006 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

"If Democrats Win" - in some circles there will be visions of the Huns going after Nuns in Belgium, the Vikings invading the lands of the Saxons. Lots of villages ravaged, women plundered, cows raped, horses looted, wells burned, houses poisoned, old men pillaged..... Nah, that was the Monty Python invasion.

Posted by: stupid git on October 18, 2006 at 5:28 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

It is so painfully (not to mention laughably) clear what you're trying to do here. You've trolled the blogs for months looking for Democratic dissent. First it was the bloggers against Lieberman; when that issue died (as all sensible activists have left that race to the voters in CT, considering it in the bag for us either way), now you're dredging up the infighting between the Dean partisans and the Schumer/Emmanuel conventional wisdom.

Ooh, ooh, circular firing squad! Well guess what -- it's completely irrelevant now. Schumer and Emmanuel themselves (not to mention our very own Missourian Global Citizen) would credit Dean for laying tbe organizing groundwork for some of those very seats which are newly in play. So this isn't a relevant argument anymore -- certainly not in the home stretch of the election.

Norman Norman Norman -- leave it to a troll like yourself to take such a fine batch of homemade lemonade and try to turn it back into lemons.

Sure we could use some more money, given that 75 races are in play in the final three weeks, when a year ago everybody expected 25 at most :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

I think it makes perfect sense to diversify ones holdings. The DNC is building a strong party from the precinct level up. Because of this, seats are in play that probably should be safely red, but suddenly are not. Races like Madrid vs Wilson in New Mexico, and Boyda vs Ryun in Kansas. The Johnson County Sun, the republican stalwart of Johnson County Kansas has broken 56 years of tradition and is endorsing a slate of Democrats, after granting only a handful of Democratic endorsements in the entire history of the paper. This is significant, believe me. I have years of Kansas politics under my belt, includung bruising state school board fights, which reason always wins in the end.

What is happening in the Kansas GOP is a microcosm of the conflicts that are tearing at the fabric of the national party.

Deans strategy has put us in the position to capitalize on your misfortunes. Sorry 'bout that, but thems politics.

Emanuel and Schumer, on the other hand, have been able to concentrate on other races. Division of labor, my friend. It's a good thing.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Global:

Waitaminute -- are you in KC/Missouri or KC/Kansas? If the latter, my apologies for misidentifying your state.

Otherwise on your post:

Word.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

I am in Missouri now - but only by about 13 blocks. I am still marginal in Kansas politics because a) they'll still have me, and 2) my children have high school diplomas from the parochial school in KCK that produced the first black astronaut.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

Global Citizen,

Must say that talentless keeps his eyes focused on what sells in Southwest Missouri - Saw him on FAUX News's little sister CNN, formerly the most trusted name in news - Iraq? Nah - No, it was those two guys walking hand in hand towards the Court House in Joplin. Perhaps, they were merely looking to see if there were any county openings, but then one can't be too careful.

Well, of course an aside about Pro-Life.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

GC, Bob,

How are Dean's efforts to borrow money going?

Posted by: rdw on October 18, 2006 at 5:47 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Carville's remark wasn't remotely a gaffe. It's like inheriting an estate from a kooky relative you didn't know you had and having to take out a loan on the mortgage in order to pay the taxes.

Sometimes unanticipated windfalls challenge one's cash flow.

Hell, *anybody* would think it's a good idea for the Democrats to beg, borrow or steal (metaphorically speaking) as much money as they could to capitalize on all these newly-available targets nobody thought they'd have six months ago ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Quit lying, Wooten. That myth has been debunked. Check Global's link upthread; that was a suggestion of Carville's, not an action of Dean's.

Troll boi.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Why would Carville make the suggestion?

Posted by: rdw on October 18, 2006 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

Sometimes unanticipated windfalls challenge one's cash flow

Like keeping the NJ Senate seat?

Posted by: rdw on October 18, 2006 at 5:58 PM | PERMALINK

Instant refutation of shit eating twit rmck1:

October 17, 2006
DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC
The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

While the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.

The money is not designated for specific Senate races, however, sources tell us that two races in particular were used as leverage in negotiations between the DSCC and the DNC. Those two races: New Jersey and Virginia. Apparently the extra DNC money will help soften the financial blow the DSCC was taking by incurring the extra cost of saving Sen. Bob Menendez from the challenge of Republican Tom Kean Jr. as well also trying to target Virginia. New Jersey and Virginia sport three of the most expensive media markets in the country (NYC, Philly and DC). In addition, TN was also a factor in the DNC-DSCC discussions as the investment the DSCC is making is possibly more than they expected.

A national party committee taking out a loan toward the end of an election cycle is not unusual, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle. In '04, the DCCC took out a loan in an attempt to save the Texas Democratic House incumbents. In the end, four of those five Texas Democratic incumbents lost.

There has been some speculation (driven a bit by Democratic pundits like James Carville) that the DCCC might take out another loan this cycle in order to spend money on some of these new House seats that have come into play over the last few weeks.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

No comment necessary; shit eating twit rmck1 and his hormonal citizen are blown out of the water and left to paddle in circles with Screaming Dean, Emmanuel and Schumer.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:00 PM | PERMALINK

The S. E. T. says:

That myth has been debunked.

The myth of your competence was debunked today and you are reeling, my boy, reeling!

And you wonder why the Dumbocrats can't win an election.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers wrote: "Screaming Howard is looking for a banker foolish enough to loan the Dumbocrats 5 to 10 measly million dollars."

rmck1 challenged that assertion: "Where do you get this preposterous idea (which you, umm, floated yesterday) that Dean's DNC is looking for a loan?"

Norman Rogers quoted some unspecified and unattributed source: "James Carville ... went as far as to suggest Democrats go to the bank and borrow $5 million."

James Carville is not Howard Dean nor does he represent the DNC, nor has the brain-dead blowhard Norman Rogers presented any evidence whatsoever that the DNC headed by Howard Dean is seeking to borrow any money from anyone.

Norman Rogers is a liar, a fraud and a phony.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

"..all I have to do is outthink you and your are easily defeated."

It's truly a shame that none of your thinking seems to be done in English. Perhaps your grammar is better in the original German.

Posted by: solar on October 18, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

Well, as the Pittsburg papers say, Casey has finally pulled ahead of Sanctimonious is fund raising - In the latest announcement, Casey raised 4.2 mil to TrickyRicky's 3.7 - For the sprint to the finish, they will both have approximately 3.6 to 7 apiece to make the airwaves of the Keystone state intolerable.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 6:04 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Because it's an obvious suggestion. Nice attempt to deflect from lying that this meant Dean was borrowing money.

Menendez has a nice huge war chest salted away for the final weeks -- as a product of the Hudson County machine, he knows how important GOTV is at least as much as Mehlman does.

Good luck with your attempts to move those polls, btw. Odds are you won't -- and there'll be *another* Senate race (along with DeWine and Santorum) you'll have to abandon, followed up by another gleeful Nagourney writeup :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:05 PM | PERMALINK

Seminal Anal Cyst:

Norman Rogers is a liar, a fraud and a phony.

October 17, 2006
DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC
The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

Reading skills diminished, eh? How I do love smashing the loony bin liberal moonbats all to pieces with the rock of reality! Smash! Another liberal walks away in tears.

sonar:

It's truly a shame that none of your thinking seems to be done in English. Perhaps your grammar is better in the original German.

Schadenfruede is my middle name...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers wrote: "Instant refutation of shit eating twit rmck1 ..."

That's nothing but instant posting of a block of unsourced text which you probably wrote yourself and which in any case contains not one single statement of verifiable fact but only rumors attributed to unnamed sources.

You are liar, a fraud, a phony and a bullshit artist who is only interested in spewing bile and wasting people's time with your vicious ignorance.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

No, we are not paddling in circles, we are stroking toward the finish line, and we are a boat-length ahead.

There has been some speculation (driven a bit by Democratic pundits like James Carville) that the DCCC might take out another loan this cycle in order to spend money on some of these new House seats that have come into play over the last few weeks.

So? If this means that Nancy Boyda replaces Jim Ryun, and Patricia Madrid replpaces heather Wilson, and Conrad Burns, Jim Talent, Mike DeWine, and Rick Santorum go down in flames, so be it. I'll chip in for the monthly nut.

And per the quote you chose: ...new House seats that have come into play over the last few weeks.

Thank you Doctor Dean! We would not be able to capitalize on your misfortune without his 50-state strategy. Seventy five seats are in play as Publicans burst into flames, and we anticipated, at best 25 competitive races.

I'll take that kind of problem any day of the week. You can't spin this bad, guys. Find a new tactic.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

(And you wonder why I'll be drinking champaign on election day.)Because you will be a Democrat on Nov. 8. Classic Neocon what a Bush!!

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 6:10 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

So the DNC did take out a loan? Okay, my apologies; I was wrong.

Coolies :)

I say they borrow to the hilt. With the odds accruing for at least one house takover, you can be sure that TPTB are going to want a piece of that action and will gladly pony up to pay it back :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers wrote: "How I do love smashing the loony bin liberal moonbats all to pieces with the rock of reality!"

You are obviously greatly impressed with your ability to robotically regurgitate boilerplate text.

You don't identify the sources of the text that you cut and paste, because if you did, it would be immediatly obvious that it is fact-free right-wing garbage propaganda.

You are nothing but a mental slave, gloating over your own stupidity and ignorance.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

I see the synchronicity factor between us is pegging the meter :)

*hifive!*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

S.E.T. rmck1:

So the DNC did take out a loan? Okay, my apologies; I was wrong.

Seminal Anal Cyst:

That's nothing but instant posting of a block of unsourced text which you probably wrote yourself and which in any case contains not one single statement of verifiable fact but only rumors attributed to unnamed sources.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

SecularAnimist has a point:

Post the link, Unsourced Text Boy.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

Common sense, like reality, has a well-known liberal bias, I guess Bob. (*hi-5 back atcha*)

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

In other news today, the Philadelphia Inquirer still has not asked Reid to resign, making this, what day 7 or 8? Keep searching for the word Thomas - With apoligies to SNL, Francisco Franco is also still dead.

And Kean, even though he said that he would not use his own money, has lent his campaign in New Jersey $400,000. Matched with 500 thou received from the Publicans, he will now have almost as much as Menendez, about 5.5 million, to hurl at the airways.

Those airways surrounding Philly will be spin, spin, spin for days.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

What happens on November 7 if there are real election problems in 4 or 5 states. People who think they are registered have been purged? Too few machines are installed in Democratic precincts? Power outages? Diebold?

What happens if a lot of Americans wake up and figure out that they have been disenfranchised? Will there be violence? Will there be protests in the streets? Just what will happen if all the Turd Blossom fears come through? Are we looking at a genuine social upheaval? A lot of people are who I have enountered are very angry. If they feel disenfranchised all hell could break out. Just a worry.

Posted by: Ron Byers on October 18, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

rmck1 wrote: "So the DNC did take out a loan? Okay, my apologies; I was wrong."

Norman Rogers has posted zero evidence that the DNC took out a loan. All he has done is cut and paste unsourced text containing allegations of rumors from unnamed individuals.

Norman Rogers is just another brain-dead ditto-head blowhard whose so-called "politics" has absolutely no content but hatred of "liberals", and you have absolutely no reason to apologize to such scum.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Seminal Anal Cyst:

You don't identify the sources of the text that you cut and paste, because if you did, it would be immediatly obvious that it is fact-free right-wing garbage propaganda.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/10/dnc_finds_more.html

October 17, 2006
DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC
The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.
While the DNC doesn't have $10M to just toss around to another campaign committee, the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt to come up with the extra cash DSCC Chair Chuck Schumer has been pleading for from DNC Chair Howard Dean. The actual amount of the loan the DNC is taking out is not known as the committee holds out hope they can raise nearly everything they need before the election. But a line of credit has been opened.
The money is not designated for specific Senate races, however, sources tell us that two races in particular were used as leverage in negotiations between the DSCC and the DNC. Those two races: New Jersey and Virginia. Apparently the extra DNC money will help soften the financial blow the DSCC was taking by incurring the extra cost of saving Sen. Bob Menendez from the challenge of Republican Tom Kean Jr. as well also trying to target Virginia. New Jersey and Virginia sport three of the most expensive media markets in the country (NYC, Philly and DC). In addition, TN was also a factor in the DNC-DSCC discussions as the investment the DSCC is making is possibly more than they expected.
A national party committee taking out a loan toward the end of an election cycle is not unusual, particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle. In '04, the DCCC took out a loan in an attempt to save the Texas Democratic House incumbents. In the end, four of those five Texas Democratic incumbents lost.
There has been some speculation (driven a bit by Democratic pundits like James Carville) that the DCCC might take out another loan this cycle in order to spend money on some of these new House seats that have come into play over the last few weeks.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

BZZZZTTTT!!! You are the weakest link, Norman! Goodbye!

I googled the following:

DNC Takes Out Loan For DSCC The DSCC's optimism about winning the Senate is apparently contagious as the DNC is going to pony up an extra $5-10M for the Senate committee, according to sources familiar with the previously reported arrangement between the two campaign orgs.

This thread was the only hit.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I read the Hotline piece. I still say So. Fucking. What.?

If so many imploding Publicans (Hey! The Imploding Publicans sounds like a good name for a rock band!) means we have to borrow a couple of bucks to mount chalenges in three times as many seats as were "in play" a few short weeks ago, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. The more of your neo-con constitution-rapers who get sent packing, the better.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnamist:

A case of posts passing in the night. Doubtless now you saw my rejoinder to ol' Norman :)

You and I are on the same side of the fence on 98% of issues, and mostly on politics. But I do tend to view trolls in a different light than you do.

Norman may be a disreputable fellow in any number of ways -- but he's one of PA's favorite trolls because his rhetoric is so completely over-the-top.

I say you relax a little and enjoy the ride :) Nobody here takes Norman *seriously*. As long as we're rebutting the talking points, there's no point in not having have a little fun along the way ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

Just buying up a few more seats.Thankyou very much.Could go Super Majority on the Neocons.BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAhahahahahahahha.

Posted by: Thomas2.0 on October 18, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Following after 133 comments runs the risk of being redundant, since I have not read all the input, but I would be happy with enough Democrats to prevent any more Roberts, Scalias, and that ultimately self-hating and Uncle-Tom African-American porn king, Clarence Thomas. Who rmembers George 41 declaring that Thomas was best the candidate of any race for the Supreme Court? What buffoons are the Bushies.

Posted by: biosparite on October 18, 2006 at 6:32 PM | PERMALINK

Okay - I am such a loser that I have to go be somebody now - Minds await indoctrination at the hands of a liberal educator. We tried to hire some conservatives, but we couldn't find any with solid science credentials, so we sent their ID flogging asses to the philosophy building.

I left the troll-whacking club at the head of the bridge, under the foliage on the right. Use it wisely and swing it with force.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, I have a link. Can I play?

Barker told investigators that Cortez pushed the 14-year-old girl to the floor and made "thrusting motions" as Barker held down her hands; then they switched positions, Bierce said.

Sometime during the assault, Barker said he heard gunshots come from the bedroom, where the girl's parents and sister had been taken, and an agitated Green emerged and said he had killed them, Bierce said.

According to Barker, Green then put down the AK-47 he had been carrying and raped the girl, while Cortez held her down, and then picked up the gun and shot her several times, Bierce said.

Green then went into the kitchen and, when he returned, said he had opened the propane tank and they needed to get out of the house because it was about to explode, Bierce said.

Sweet, sweet victory.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 18, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

Take care, Globe. Indoctrinate them well! Make them kneel before the all-powerful force of FALSIFICATION EPISTEMOLOGY !!!

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ....

(That was supposed to be a mad scientist laugh, if you didn't catch it.)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

I would simply be happy if enough Democrats could restore our Republic.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

Norm, I told you to dial it back! We can't be seen to be getting all panicky!

I'll hold back this month's check, damn it!

(By the way, did you find that National Journal piece by clicking on the link over at Drudgie's place?)

Posted by: Scaife on October 18, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

Oh man, why did you post that here ...

We were just having fun rebutting trolls on politics -- and now my appetite for dinner is completely shot.

Seriously. You know I love ya, eno, but this was the wrong thread to do that in.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry Bob. You're right. I just have a hard time watching the trolls dance while Rome crumbles.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 18, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINK

Ten more soldiers died yesterday - Yes, the trools, rhymes with fools, do indeed still dance.
However, I would like to believe that there are far more guys in the 101st Airborne who are closer to the Band of the Brothers guys than that miniscule rogue group of cretins.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

That story needs to be told, don't get me wrong ...

It's just that ... if it were just another lurid tale of inner-city violent crime, it'd be one thing. But it's impossible not to read that without feeling the most grievous kind of remorse that it was done in our names as American citizens.

If the trolls were gloating because they were *winning* the election -- it'd be another thing, too. I'd say bombs away -- reality check time.

But they're not. They're totally desperate, and their little danse macabre was amusing to watch.

But even *with* a Democratic victory, this albatross is going to be hung around our necks for years. We won't begin restoring our moral credibility at least until Bush is removed -- this election, important as it is, is still only a baby step in that direction.

And that's why looking directly at the crimes committed in our name is so utterly heartbreaking and demoralizing.

The trolls, of course, don't give a shit. They have the armor of endless rationalization and denial.

We don't. We're the ones who suffer the most from this shit.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

BZZZZTTTT!!! You are the weakest link, Norman! Goodbye!
Okay, I read the Hotline piece. I still say So. Fucking. What.?
We were just having fun rebutting trolls on politics -- and now my appetite for dinner is completely shot.
Seriously. You know I love ya, eno, but this was the wrong thread to do that in.
You and I are on the same side of the fence on 98% of issues, and mostly on politics. But I do tend to view trolls in a different light than you do.
Sorry Bob. You're right. I just have a hard time watching the trolls dance while Rome crumbles.

And you wonder why you can't win an election!

Poor loony bin liberals! All it took was for me to show up and post articles found in the news and you all lose your minds! You go completely gaga and start shooting at one another and contradicting and attacking your teammates! This is why Karl Rove will deliver a masterstroke on November 7: his opposition is childish and foolish.

And you wonder why I laughed so hard at you I had to go pee.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

TheThirdPaul:

Good words, those.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

"Attacking [our] teammates?"

Since when?

I think it's time they adjust your meds, Norman.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 6:58 PM | PERMALINK

The Shit-Eating Twits says:

I think it's time they adjust your meds, Norman.

Mmm, pharmaceutical and mental health advice from you, sir? I will pass, thank you.

As an added bonus, your uncle Norman cleared out his SPAM E-mail and found this missive from Screaming Dean:

Dear Norman Rogers Hates Dumbocrats,
People have been talking about you.

I've been talking with people who have donated to the Democratic Party in 2006, and over 2,000 people have a message for you:

If you donate before Election Day, one of them will match your contribution -- and you'll get to meet that person online.

You've probably gotten a message from an organization saying that some anonymous, wealthy donor will match your donation. We're going to try something different.

Right now, over 2,000 people who found a few dollars in their budget to support Democrats in this historic election are waiting to match the donation of someone who hasn't given yet this year.

They're people just like you who believe that every Democrat should own a piece of this party -- in contrast to the special interests and lobbyists that own the Republican Party (as if Americans needed another reminder of that, Ohio Republican Congressman Bob Ney pleaded guilty to corruption charges on Friday).

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

[yes - I certainly did register at the site for research purposes as 'Norman Rogers Hates Dumbocrats"]

Listen to me, liberals: I am one man, but I am a Republican, and today a Republican stood up to the entirety of liberaldom and smashed it backwards through a plate glass windown and onto its pathetic ass. You will never defeat me and you will never know peace so long as I am here to bring you my wit, my wisdom, and my clever while funny little asides.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers quotes a National Journal blog entry containing nothing but alleged rumors attributed to unnamed sources while pretending it is a news report:

... according to [unnamed] sources ... the DNC apparently has decided to go into debt ... The actual amount of the loan the DNC is [alleged by unnamed sources to be] taking out is not known ... There has been some speculation (driven a bit by Democratic pundits like James Carville) ...

Norman Rogers is not only a brain-dead ditto-head blowhard, a liar, a fraud, and a phony, he is also an idiot. Even if the rumors alleged in the National Journal blog are true, what they really indicate is that the Democrats are finding themselves competitive with Republicans in a lot of races where they didn't expect to be.

But since his so-called "politics" has no content whatsoever except his neurotic hatred of "liberals", it doesn't really matter to Norman Rogers whether the Democrats take control of both houses of Congress or not, because he can wallow in his hatred of them just as easily either way.

Indeed, he will probably be able to wallow more deeply in his neurotic hatred of "liberals" if the Democrats do win, so in his heart he's probably hoping for a Democratic sweep -- although he can never admit that to himself. Such is the nature of his mental illness.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers wrote: "All it took was for me to show up and post articles found in the news ..."

You posted an "article" repeatedly without giving the source. When you were humiliated into giving the source, your "article found in the news" turns out to be a blog posting from the National Journal's blog which does not contain one single statement of fact, but only alleged rumors attributed to unnamed sources.

You are nothing but a clown -- the sort of clown who tries to get low-grade laughs out of falling on his face over and over and over again.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on October 18, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

what they really indicate is that the Democrats are finding themselves competitive with Republicans in a lot of races where they didn't expect to be.

From Time.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which had once hoped the son of the legendary Washington Redskins coach would be able to fend for himself, is having to spend $900,000 on radio ads and mailings in Virginia to try to shore up Allen, a boot-wearing, tobacco-dipping conservative who once hoped to fill the Ronald Reagan niche in the '08 presidential field. The committee had already spent $450,000 there, but decided this week that it would have to spend the maximum it can, doubling its investment.

I think it's fair to say that when a fake Southerner doing an amazing Phil Hartman impression of Reagan needs 1.5 million to get re-elected, that the GOP is in a wee bit of trouble.

Posted by: enozinho (wetorture.com) on October 18, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

SecularAnimist:

Nicely done :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

enozinho:

BingoBangoBongo :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

today a Republican stood up to the entirety of liberaldom and smashed it backwards through a plate glass windown and onto its pathetic ass. You will never defeat me and you will never know peace so long as I am here to bring you my wit, my wisdom, and my clever while funny little asides.

Does anyone else see our Norman as a W.C. Fields caricature?

Is this ass-clown serious? a Republican stood up to the entirety of liberaldom and smashed it backwards through a plate glass windown and onto its pathetic ass.

How so, Normie? You bluster and blow, but your assertions are so much fluff.

...I am here to bring you my wit, my wisdom, and my clever while funny little asides.

Okay - you got me - we are laughing, but we are laughing at you, not with you.

By the way, that liberal rag the Wall Street Journal released a poll
today. The Publicans are polling ten points lower than the Democrats were in 1994.

The American.People.No.Longer.Trust.You.

Now you were saying?

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

As I've said, I've always seen ol' Normie more like the big Lebowski.

"My advice to you? Get a job, sir ... "

But I suppose "Frankly, I'd rather be in Cleveland" works as well, especially adjusted for the age of the imaginer.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, I can see that too, Bob. Either one works for me. A caricature of a parody of a spoof. Talk about all hat and no cattle...

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

It's the grandiosity that tickles me the most. The raging defensiveness of that huge yet glass-fragile ego that produces double standards -- like the patently violent imagery in what you quoted, yet if I "do" something similar to him, he literally threatens to go to the state police.

While it's comical as hell, it's also pretty strong evidence, I think, that this is a real bipolar or hypomanic type and not a spoof. Or perhaps schizotypal, with paranoiac tendencies.

Gahh, if he's really bipolar, could you ever *imagine* what Norman is like on his depressive days? ... *shudder*

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

You guys are letting Norman suck you into the wrong argument. The Republicans always raise more than the Democrats, and probably always will. After all, they are the party of the rich. The problem is that elitists like Norman actually think that more money equals moral superiority, which is certainly a hallmark of the Republicans. But unless they actually go out and spend all of that money buying votes, they won't be able to stem the tide. As for managing expectations, some blog commenters definitely go overboard, but the Democratic leadership is being much more circumspect. It's interesting that more Republicans than Democrats seem to be predictng a landslide. Now I'm seeing Republicans say "If the Dems don't win by overwhelming margins it's a disaster for them." Nice try.

As for impeachment, again it's Republicans talking about it as much as Democrats, because they're hoping that any oversight or investigations can be portrayed as vengeful Democrats just causing trouble. But a lot can be done without starting impeachment proceedings. Investigations into the way the administration manipulated intelligence, and continue to do so, can still be conducted. Ethics investigations can be undertaken. And there's no way Bush can veto those. Then we'll see where they lead.

Oh and Norman? Mmmkay? and Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah are so 2005. Next you'll be using *crickets* No wonder you can't see things crumbling. You still think it's last year.

Posted by: ChrisO on October 18, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

ChrisO:

Last year?

Norman is still frothing about Altamont and Charlie Manson :)

Dude hasn't had an idea in 30 years.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps you have not seen The Big Lebowski in a while - Do not believe he said "sir" - Dude called everyone "dude".

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINK

TheThirdPaul:

No, no, not the *little* Lebowski -- not The Very Dooderino Himself.

I was thinking Norm reminded me of the *big* Lebowski. I wish I could remember the name of the character actor who played him ... the gruff old gazillionaire married to young trophy wife Bunny "I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. If Brad gets to watch, it's another $300" Lebowski.

Jeff Bridges: "Wait ... lemme see if there's a cash machine around somwhere ... "

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Dude, David Huddleston played Jeffery Lebowski.

Norman comes off at times as an amalgamation of the three Nihilists in the film.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on October 18, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINK

Chrissy boy:

Now I'm seeing Republicans say "If the Dems don't win by overwhelming margins it's a disaster for them." Nice try.

Ah, one idiot can think. It's called the expectations game and the Dumbocrats have lost it completely. Anything short of taking the House by thirty seats will be a let down based on all of the polling and the bloviating we see here every day of the week.

You do not win the expectations game in American politics by betting people that your side will win and going by polling numbers three weeks before a national election. You must establish a ground game first--no Dumbocrat should say anything more optimistic than ...golly gee, I hope we pick up a few seats and win the races we're supposed to win...

And if you do just that, you've broken even in the expectations game. Win by a lot--you win the expectations game. But you have, one and all, set yourself up to lose the expectations game if you can't blow the Republicans out of the water.

A word to the wise--you won't blow anyone out of the water. You'll have success, you'll have failure, you'll have woulda, shoulda, coulda. But you won't win it all.

Seminal Anal Cyst:

Norman Rogers quotes a National Journal blog entry containing nothing but alleged rumors attributed to unnamed sources while pretending it is a news report:

Okay, I'll post an item from the Daily MarKos website if you promise to crack a smile. Yes. Just smile. A little. Okay? Please smile. Ahh...that's a good smile. It is from a blog. Is that copacetic with you? Let's see what it says.

Unopposed House Democrats Sitting On $26,288,418
by Chris Bowers
Wed Oct 18, 2006 at 06:24:42 PM PDT
Amidst all of this talk about taking out loans to fund key races and newly emerging races, not enough attention has been given to the huge amount of money House Democrats who are unopposed for re-election are currently storing away in their campaign bank accounts. I just did a quick tallying using Open Secrets, and calculated that the 45 Democrats who are not facing a Republican opponent this November have $26,288,418 in their campaign bank accounts as of September 30th, 2006. I put together a web page that details the cahs on hand for each of the forty-five unopposed Democrats:

Unopposed Democratic Cash

For the sake of comparison, the DCCC currently has $34,867,692 cash on hand, and the NRCC has $36,019,485 cash on hand. Further, Rahm Emmanuel apparently believes that Democrats are ahead, tied or competitive in 58 Republican held seats. The amount of money unopposed House Democrats are currently sitting on would equal $453,248.59 to each of those 58 districts.


That $26.3 million should be the fruits of the successful 435-district strategy this cycle, where for the first time in a long time Democrats ran candidates in more districts than did Republicans. This is supposed to be one of the ways that the fifty-state strategy actually drives resources to swing districts, rather than draining resources from swing districts. It is particularly disgusting that unnamed Democratic consultants are trashing Howard Dean for running the fifty-state strategy, rather than pressuring all of the unchallenged Democratic incumbents to donate their entire campaign bank accounts to the DCCC and / or Democratic challengers. These incumbents do not need election cash, since they have already won their elections. What these incumbents do need is a Democratic majority so they can actually govern for their constituents.

Now, because I didn't get this from eleven different news outlets, I hope you'll permit me pasting it here. There is data here from Hormonal Citizen's very own OpenSecrets.Org. Yes, I did cut it off--you can go to this link and pull the rest of the article down and shriek "gotcha!" at me like the unhinged little lefty you are:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/18/212442/04

What does that tell us?

It highlights the real reason why Screaming Howard is being pressured to borrow money--no one will give up what they're hoarding. Methinks it is the retirement fund for so many of these Dumbocrats. It is what they will spend to their hearts content when they leave office. It tells us that the Dumbocrats are in such willful disarray that they do not trust each other any further than they can throw each other. They have millions that will go unspent and if you fail to win by big margins--the expectations game again--all anyone will speak of is the missed opportunity and the millions that went unspent weeks before election day by Dumbocrats who preferred to hoard their money--remember Billary and her personal stash of over 15 million--and I will laugh til tears roll down my cheeks at you.

And you wonder why I can stamp my foot and make it sound like thunder to you...

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 9:47 PM | PERMALINK

And you wonder why I can stamp my foot and make it sound like thunder to you...

Norman, for a guy who knows nothing you certainly are noisy.

But what we really wonder about is how a freak of nature like yourself can survive in the putrid atmosphere of your soul.

Posted by: obscure on October 18, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

It is from a blog. Is that copacetic with you?

***

[hushed whisper of awe] Norman posted something... . . . from a blog!!!

Posted by: obscure on October 18, 2006 at 10:17 PM | PERMALINK

"It's the grandiosity that tickles me the most. The raging defensiveness of that huge yet glass-fragile ego"

Yup, which is why the only way to handle dear little Normy is to either troll him or ignore him. Taking him seriously is a complete waste of time. I still treasure that thread where he defended Donald Rumsfeld. Fricking hilarious....

Posted by: PaulB on October 18, 2006 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

I should note, by the way, that trolling dear little Normy is a piece of cake. He simply cannot fail to respond once his name is mentioned. You can even tell him flat out that you're trolling him and he will still fall into the trap. Truly amazing ... just like Pavlov's dogs.

Posted by: PaulB on October 18, 2006 at 10:35 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I will give you that, old chap; the expectations game is indeed very important. George Bush shows up at a debate and manages to string a few grammatically correct sentences together consecutively -- and he's proclaimed the winner. In politics, perception is reality.

I can't (and won't) speak for others -- but this is why I keep my personal expectations down to a five seat majority in the House and a four-seat pickup in the Senate.

And the reason you won't take me up on my wager is that you know this is very much a likely outcome.

As for the Dems sitting on wads of unspent cash -- I haven't followed those stories. If Kevin posts about them, I'll read them. I don't read Kos nor take my cues from it.

I'll just put out a silent agnostic's equivalent of a prayer that the Democrats with extra cash do the right thing and share wben and where appropriate. Otherwise, I buy into no conspiracy theories nor do I take seriously a person who's so obviously trying to stir up internicene Democratic conflict just before an election.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 10:39 PM | PERMALINK

See, now I call that a moving goalpost. First it was "You will lose!" BWA HAH HAH HAH HAH HAH.

Now if we con't take the house by 30, we lose?

I love the smell of desperation in the evening. It smells like...Victory.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

Besides, when it comes to control of the legislative calendar and committees -- a majority changes *everything* :)

Even if we only win by one seat in the House -- we can assure Bush waddles just as awkwardly as he quacks :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINK

What the Dems OUGHT to focus on first and foremost is UNDOING all the IDIOTIC actions of this idiotic administration.

Posted by: Yeah! on October 18, 2006 at 10:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hormonal Citizen:

I love the smell of desperation in the evening. It smells like...Victory.

I haven't changed my position. You will all lose, and you may lose so badly that the careers of a few hundred prominent Dumbocrats will come crashing down--this is why so many are hanging on to their warchests. That was me playing my own expectations game, and just like the shit eating twit, you fell for it as well. Does your uncle Norman have to spell it out for you? Would it make a difference? On the off-hand chance that you win the House and Senate, all it will take is one stroke of the pen and George W Bush will increase the size of the House of Representatives and appoint however many Republicans are necessary to ensure control. The Constitution may not allow it, but that is precisely the point: all Bush needs to do is show that the Dumbocrats can't defend America and he can do whatever is necessary to ensure the defense of the Republic. And your side voted to give him wartime powers! Is that irony, or is that just irony wrapped inside of a birthday present you forgot to open?

I'm still waiting for someone to actually refute anything that I've said. Talk about moving the goalposts! I can post something from the most virulently leftist website in all of the blogosphere and you unhinged lefties still won't believe it!

PaulywaulyB:

If I don't acknowledge you, and if you don't acknowledge me, does anyone care? Of course not.

The angrier you get the more powerful I become. And you wonder why I think you're all morons.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 11:00 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

You're off on quite an excursion there, old chap. If Bush tries to stack the Congress unconstitutionally, there will be impeachmeent with full SCOTUS backing.

You can't just arbitrarily create more seats and stack the House with your team. That's completely unhinged; nobody's discussed anything remotely like it.

Except, of course, Norman. A (perhaps clinically) delusional man who feeds on power fantasies.

Whatever, Norman. Let me know when you wish to come back down to RealityLand where we can discuss something of substance in the realm of the possible.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

We are a pretty heavily armed nation to take that route against, Norman. And don't think that the military will turn on the cutuzenry like the Chinese military did.

What you advocate, "with a stroke of his pen" is tantamount to an overthrow of the constitutionally elected government. I wouldn't put it past the petulant publican jackass to try it, but it wouldn't fly. There would be a bloodletting of massive scale. Is that what you want? Civil unrest so your boy can sieze power permanently? If so, you are a traitor to America. Oh, that's right - you are a right-tard publican, so that is a given.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Globe:

I wouldn't bother getting too indignant. Norman feeds off it like a vampire on fresh blood.

I'm wondering if the comment he made was nothing more than an attempt to get a rise out of us.

If he does believe it -- he has clinical mental problems. If he doesn't believe it -- he's just a garden-variety mean-spirited anti-social egomaniac.

Heh, talk about your Cyllia and Charybdis ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:14 PM | PERMALINK

common:

But what we really wonder about is how a freak of nature like yourself can survive in the putrid atmosphere of your soul.

Thank you for asking. I take long walks by the shore, I avoid eating products that contain refined flour and I receive regular checkups from my family physician. I appreciate it when you all ask about my health and I am happy to keep you apprised.

The Twit:

Besides, when it comes to control of the legislative calendar and committees -- a majority changes *everything* :)

Yes, a majority certainly trumps the veto! In case you forgot how the government works, no law becomes a law unless the President signs it. If he vetoes the law, the House and Senate must override the veto. Do you think you're going to win a large enough majority in three weeks to accomplish this?

Even if we only win by one seat in the House -- we can assure Bush waddles just as awkwardly as he quacks :)

Ho, now you get it! Keep revising your guesstimates downwards! Keep moving the goalposts, as your hormonal friend says! It only took several dozen whacks to the noggin before you got it!

You can't just arbitrarily create more seats and stack the House with your team. That's completely unhinged; nobody's discussed anything remotely like it.

The wartime powers granted to the President are complete. If the President can suspend the writ of Habeus Corpus, he can do whatever he likes to ensure that the Republic is safe from its enemies, both foreign and domestic. This includes Dumbocrats who try to hold hearings to get into the matter of what happened to a missing fish sandwich and where a billion dollars of taxpayer money went after Senator Byrd jammed an amendment into an appropriations bill with a crowbar.

Hormonal Citizen:

I wouldn't put it past the petulant publican jackass to try it, but it wouldn't fly. There would be a bloodletting of massive scale. Is that what you want? Civil unrest so your boy can sieze power permanently? If so, you are a traitor to America. Oh, that's right - you are a right-tard publican, so that is a given.

That is sedition. A hint to you: the President has the power during wartime to deter sedition as well. He can do whatever is necessary to keep the American people safe.

And you wonder why there's a buzzing in your ear when you talk into the phone!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I always had it, Norman. You've flung all sorts of straw men at me, but I've been entirely consistent the entire time we've discussed this. I predicted a small majority in the House and I wished Hil would give up some of her cash. As of two days ago, on the thread where you first showed up and went off your meds :)

The problem with your little theory, Norman, is that the people elected those Democrats -- and the people won't stand for having their representation abridged in such a manner. Warrantless wiretapping or habeas rights for unlawful combatants are one thing -- and though they carry serious Constitutional implications for anyone who cares about the issues, it's a little obscure to the average voter.

What is *not* so obscure is a naked power grab by a Nixonian Executive Branch.

Global's correct; the people won't stand for it. We have the right to forcibly remove a despotic government.

You call that sedition -- we call it the Declaration of Independence.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:24 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

And we also call it the Articles of Impeachment, if it comes to that.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

El Twit:

You call that sedition -- we call it the Declaration of Independence.

Which is not the law of the land! The Constitution is the law of the land, you officious boob! Oh, the laughter and the joy I feel when you enter into debate and screw the pooch is like none other and I truly cherish this opportunity we have together. I do so enjoy watching your tattered and shabby command of the subject turn into a shattering defeat every time you press the 'post' key with your quivering little fingers.

The Great George W Bush signed into law the Fiscal Year 2007 Defense Authorization Bill while the Dumbocrats dreamed of a mid-term election victory and a pants pocket full of lobbyist money. What does this piece of legislation do? Why, it virtually guarantees that he will have control of the wayward Dumbocrats at a time of his choosing.

The new law virtually repeals the Posse Comitatus act and turns the National Guard into the Praetorian Guard, to the everlasting shame of the Dumbocrats who let it slide through three weeks or so ago.

* Section 522 (House section 511) extends from 270 days to 365 days
the period for which the Selected Reserve and Individual Ready Reserve may be involuntarily called to active duty.
* Section 1076 (Senate section 1042):
Amends the "Insurrection Act" (i.e., Chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) by:
-Changing the title of chapter 15 of title 10, U.S. Code) from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order";
-Changing the title of section 333 of chapter 15 from "Interference with State and Federal Law" to "Major Public Emergencies; Interference with State and Federal Law";
-Clarifying the President's authority, under section 33 of chapter 15, to use the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, without a request from a State governor, to restore order and enforce Federal laws in cases where, as a result of a terrorist attack, epidemic, or natural disaster, public order has broken down; and
-Including those who are obstructing the laws to the existing requirement for the President to issue a proclamation ordering insurgents to disperse and retire peaceably to their abodes within a limited time.

I take this term "insurgents" to mean anyone who is a registered Dumbocrat or an Independent who voted Dumbocrat or a turncoat Republican who voted Dumbocrat. OR anyone who watches Keith Olbermann, whether the sound is turned up or not.

Amends Chapter 152 of title 10, U.S. Code, to authorize, with certain limitations, the President, in any situation he determines to exercise the authority provided in section 333 of chapter 15, to direct the Secretary of Defense to provide supplies, services, and equipment (e.g., food, water, utilities, transportation, search and rescue, medical care, and other assistance necessary to save lives and property) to persons affected by the incident.
Amends section 12304 of title 10, U.S. Code, eliminating the limitation imposed on the President's authority to involuntarily call to active duty members of the reserve components to perform law enforcement and other duties in response to serious natural or man-made disasters, accidents, or catastrophes to only those incidents involving terrorist or weapons of mass destruction threats or attacks.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah! Is this law Constitutional? Too late! Judge Alito sits on the highest court in the land and there's nothing you can do about it now, suckers! And you wonder why you can't accomplish anything.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 18, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

I know exactly where the lines are. You think the government doesn't know everything about me, still to this day? My husband is an electrical engineer and he was a SAC officer with launch codes for ten years. I have been thoroughly vetted. Every instructor and professor I had in college, teammate from seventh grade soccer, high school teacher, and my prom dates mother were all interviewed in depth when he married me. He has been retired since 2001, but he finished his career in electronic intel.

Believe me, Norman, I know precisely what I can say. So peddle your threats of callin' up the gummint elsewhere.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 11:44 PM | PERMALINK

Norman:

Nice attempt to change the subject away from your bizarre idea of stacking the House with a bunch more Representatives at the stroke of Bush's pen.

That Posse Comitatus Act stuff is something beloved of the right-wing looney tunes who cherished the idea of the National Guard as the true heir of a citizen militia and not an arm of the Federal military. I'm not legally well-versed to evaluate what it is you quoted (maybe cmdicely will come along and make some remarks about it), but it sounds like expanding the Executive power to call out the Guard in times of terrorist attack.

Again -- what exactly does this have to do with expanding the size of the House with Republicans by fiat?

Answer: Nothing at all :)

Keep digging, Norman. We can barely see you down there, but we're still enjoying all those hearty grunting sounds :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

No officer can issue, and no troop can follow an unlawful order. If they try something like that, it better fucking work or there will be gallows constructed on town squares throughout the land. That's not sedition, Norman. That is patriotism.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 11:46 PM | PERMALINK

Global:

Amen to that, sister.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 18, 2006 at 11:49 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry. meant to preview. It would be an unlawful order to direct military force against the citizenry, and this military of citizen soldiers would not do it. Of course a few would try, There are megalomaniacs in every military - the most political prick on the face of the earth is a Bird Colonel with stars in his eyes - but if they didn't succeed, and they would not succeed, they would hang. Too many retired Generals have spoken up. The troops who refused to turn on the citizenry would have leadership.

Ah fuck it - I'm just gonna go write a thriller, not argue with this asshat.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 18, 2006 at 11:52 PM | PERMALINK

The Amazing, Incredible Shit Eating Twit, rmck1:

And we also call it the Articles of Impeachment, if it comes to that.

Good luck to you, sir!

If you can't possibly hope to override a veto, do you really think you can impeach George W Bush? Bwah hah hah hah hah! You're the cream of the crop, my boy, the finest the liberal movement has to offer right now! I hope you can post your payment pal information so that the other loony bin libs can make donations to keep you flush with Internet bandwidth and a good home computer. Wouldn't want to the liberal movement to lose its finest son to a mishap! And I urge all of you to use a surge protector. If you uncle Norman can accomplish one good thing this evening, please use a surge protector to ensure that your electronics products are not fried by a power surge.

More twittery:

I'm not legally well-versed to evaluate what it is you quoted (maybe cmdicely will come along and make some remarks about it), but it sounds like expanding the Executive power to call out the Guard in times of terrorist attack.
Again -- what exactly does this have to do with expanding the size of the House with Republicans by fiat?

George W Bush can put the full weight of the US military against you, Joe Six Pack, with the stroke of a pen right this moment. Correct? Since we have the new law right here before us to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt, I would like you to then explain why he then cannot add members to the House. Which is more reasonable to conclude? That the President has the power to do what he thinks is necessary or that he'll stop and ask himself "what would rmck1 in ShitTown New Jersey think?"

We'll make a deal: you start thinking, I'll stop figuratively whipping your ass in public with a leather belt in front of your homies.

Hormonally Challenged Citizen:

Ah fuck it - I'm just gonna go write a thriller, not argue with this asshat.

Yes! That's good! Just give up!

My final thought for you all before I leave--you just don't want it bad enough. You see the victory, you know you want it, but you libs are too unhinged to close the deal and take what you want. What else is new? Ask President Kerry about "wanting it bad enough."

Goodnight to you all and enjoy your one way ticket to oblivion and back.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 12:02 AM | PERMALINK

Dear little Normy, confirming my point, writes: "PaulywaulyB: If I don't acknowledge you, and if you don't acknowledge me, does anyone care? Of course not."

LOL... Q.E.D.

"The angrier you get the more powerful I become."

ROFL.... Normy, dear, has it still escaped your attention that I'm trolling you, mocking you, and laughing at you? Alas, dear chap, you lack the capacity to make me angry.

"And you wonder why I think you're all morons."

Actually, dear, we don't wonder that at all.

Posted by: PaulB on October 19, 2006 at 12:12 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, and Normy, dear, in case it continues to slip your alleged mind, I'm trolling you, dear, which means that every time you respond, I win. TTFN. YHBT. HAND.

Posted by: PaulB on October 19, 2006 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Do you know what? You people are a bunch of fucking idiots. This guys not real. You're falling for a P A R O D Y, you dumbshits.

Posted by: Le Pen on October 19, 2006 at 12:17 AM | PERMALINK

No Norman, You are never going to be budged, so rather than give up, I will apply my energies where they will be more effective and useful. You are a waste of my time; and of skin, for that fact, but I digress.

You have no idea what I want or how badly. But I do want it (Democrats in charge) bad enough that I won't be distracted by your asinine blathering, and I won't be derailed by you and your foam-flecked screeds.

Slapping your bald head is just like my cat bringing a live mouse in the house and putting it in her food bowl. I have made a real difference in my state's senate race. I have effective avenues of recourse. Using research skills, and my access, I was the one who ferreted out the information from meetings minutes of the Senate Armed Services Committee that Claire McCaskill has been bashing Jim Talent with, i.e. that he has missed 2/3 of the SASC meetings that have taken place since he was appointed to the body.

This is fun and all, but I have bigger fish to fry than a little twerp like you. Now if you will excuse me, I have homework to do.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

Le Pen - yeah, we know, but he's the most interesting one we have. Some of his stuff is pure comedy gold.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

I really miss the original Al. Al did some first class trollin.' May he rest in peace.

But I also miss tbrosz. And waterfowl. They weren't deranged, but they were consistent and they were serious. Hell, I would even like to have conspiracy nut back for a minute or two.

Norman is interesting; not to be taken seriously, of course, but interesting none the less.

But the current crop-o-trolls really pales in comparison to the original crop-o-trolls.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Hormonal Citizen:

Actually, that was me. I am Le Pen. I threw that out there because you all have a tendency to talk about me when I'm gone. How sad is that?

I also did that just to see if your compatriot Shit Eating Twit would make friends with Le Pen. But who has time to humiliate the simple minded? Not me.

Lighten up and get some sleep, toots. You're way too tense.

And you wonder why Dumbocrats can't win elections.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Good night, Norman.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 12:36 AM | PERMALINK

ZI just had a vision of John Lovitts throwing back a cape and shouting "I am Le Pen" Like I said, pure comedy gold. Thanks for the chuckles before lights out.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

rmck1? rmck1?

Yoo hoo. Where are you? I want to be good friends with you and find out your innermost thoughts. I am quite interested in what you have to say about a number of subjects.

Yoo hoo.

Where did you go?

Oh, yes. And Goodnight to you, Hormonal Citizen.

Damn!

I gave away the charade. Blast it all to hell...

Posted by: Le Pen on October 19, 2006 at 12:39 AM | PERMALINK

Norman:

I don't know if you're gone, but what you said above so flies in the face of logic and common sense it deserves a comment.

It's like asking me to prove that George Bush can't have monkey brains for breakfast tomorrow.

What you propose is *ludicrous*, Norman. Nobody on the most frothing wingnut blog ever suggested he'd do such a thing as add Representatives without reference to a census or a districting map. It's simply not within the realm of possibility. And the American people -- least of all the new Congresss (including the Republicans, who don't want their power diluted even if in the minority) -- would ever stand for it.

And since talking about it is like trying to have a dialogue with your imaginary playmate -- I will stop now.

There really is nothing further to say on the issue.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 12:48 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

I actually do miss conspiracy nut -- or perpeller head, as I liked to call him. He was like Jay, only with a genuine sense of humor.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

Globe:

And waterfowl was/is awesome (she still shows up every so often). A classical violist and music journalist; we've had great email dialogues about contemporary composition techiques.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

As for impeachment and cutting money for Iraq, such actions would be politically insane and the Democratic leadership knows it.

Well how low does Bushie's poll numbers have to get before impeachment should be an issue.

Posted by: Cheryl on October 19, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Posted by: mmf铃声 on October 19, 2006 at 3:15 AM | PERMALINK

I'll say it, moderate Dems are the enemy.

We need real leadership, not focus-group-tested talking points. We need more leaders who are fed up with what has been taking place here for the last few decades. We need someone to save America from 'moderation.'

The current batch of Dems are uninspiring and come off as self-serving jerk-offs. If they don't get a majority in both houses, it is their own fault for listening to over-paid consultants who are scared of the god voters and their serpentine leaders.

Get a back bone dems and run on an impeachment agenda!!!!


It is the one thing the republicans are not expecting.

Posted by: Michael Buchanan on October 19, 2006 at 6:26 AM | PERMALINK

Goodnight to you all and enjoy your one way ticket to oblivion and back. Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 12:02 AM

This one goes in the Wingnut Hall of Fame.

Not kidding.

Posted by: obscure on October 19, 2006 at 6:35 AM | PERMALINK

to oblivion and back

Priceless!

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 19, 2006 at 9:57 AM | PERMALINK

Liberals et al:

Who is awaiting their punishment? Who will challenge me? Who will raise their hand to me and take back a bloody stump?

I have won the evening and left you all dazed and confused. I have beaten you all and left you wandering around in a funk, haven't I?

And, for the record, I'm not bald. It's a hair system. It's my hair, it's on my head, I'm not bald--I say again, it's a hair system.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 10:14 AM | PERMALINK

Because it's an obvious suggestion. Nice attempt to deflect from lying that this meant Dean was borrowing money.

It is obvious for Carville. As a paid strategist he stands to prosper even more from increased spending and then again, it's not his money. This is all gravy for him.

You are correct regarding expectations. Clearly Rove and Mehlmen are spending little time holding down the glee on the left and might be pleased Carville is getting wide coverage. What happens to the base when they lose after being promised huge victories? Will they be as demorialized as after 2000? Or 2002? Or 2004?

Ron seems to be suggesting we'll get mass riots. Isn't mass suicide more likely? After all, these are peace loving liberals who will be most disappointed. Wouldn't they be the least likely to turn toward violence?

Isn't the real prize in 2008? What happens after getting shut out again you head into 2008 with a demoralized base and no one to challenge Hillary Clinton?

Check this out: the seats you do pick up will be with conservative candidates. Bob Casey is more conservative than Arlen Spector. The Democratic senate will be more conservative as well as the Democratic house. You can't win in 2008. There will be a redistricting in 2010 and the GOP will gain 7 to 10 seats in 2012.

The trend established in 1981 is soldily on track. Both parties will be more conservative in 2013. The WH will be solidly conservative (Mitt or Rudy) and the Supreme Court will be even more solidly conservative.

Sorry Bob but you cannot stop the trend. The old lefties are dying and they did't reproduce. The MSM is more biased but less effective. NBC announced another 7,000 layoffs today and will move it's 'long struggling' MSNBC afffiliate into NBC space. We know sometime before 2010 the NYTs, LAT's and other big city papers will have another 10% downsizing as well as ABC and CBS. Drudge is reporting the perky one is caving in the ratings.

Your party will of course survive. You just won't be the same party. Casey's daddy wasn't allowed to show his face at the convention for his views. Today your party pours millions into the Sons pockets for those same views.

The Clintons are beautiful aren't they? What amazing fund raising prowess and unmatched charisma. Slick Willie gave conservatives a decade of dominance. How much will Hillary grant us? It's so perfect. She can't win and you can't stop her.

I can't blame you for enjoying this moment. You define desperation. By all means savor it. For it will get worse.


Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

My brother rdw:

The WH will be solidly conservative (Mitt or Rudy) and the Supreme Court will be even more solidly conservative.

No, my little working class hero. The 2008 Republican ticket will be:

Gingrich
Santorum

And they will win forty states, beating Billary/Obama by nearly three million popular votes.

You can write that down in your book of memories, liberals. You can write that down and we can revisit it, election day, 2008.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Norman,

I like Newt but not as President. He's a great idea man and I hope he's always campaigning. But his negatives are too high and his support too narrow. I like Ricky was well and will vote for him next month. But Ricky is too conservative and not ready for prime time. He made too many mistakes in front of the media. It's not enough to be right. One has to pick their battles.

I never thought I'd go with Rudy while always liking him. He was a fabulous mayor and the star of 9/11. He is a terrific stump speaker and campaigner. His messy personal life is a serious issue but seems to be under control and will be overlooked. His moderate views on social issues such as abortion and marriage will be fully offset by his strong support for judges like Sam Alito and John Roberts. Conservatives will be thrilled with his views on judges.

Recent polls have shown wide and deep strength with very high likeability and very low negtives. He'll crush Hillary.

Mitt is my not so dark, dark horse. He's very strong on all of the issues and is developing a reputation as a very, very strong campaigner. He's got a terrific, balanced background and the avantages of being a mostly conservative governor of a northern state. The knock of his morman faith is vastly over-rated. He's been married for 36 years. If it's between McCain, Gingrich, Guliani and Romney and life issues are a factor he wins easy.

Sorry Norman. Unless Rudy's personal life unravels again it's Rudy for Pres and Mitt for VP. They carry the red states and Ohio and PA easily. Rudy forces the Dems to spend big bucks defending NYS while Mitt helps out too.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

Wait a minute. Did I see a few posts ago that Norman called someone else an "officious boob"? Wow.

And Norman, your breathtakingly fact-free posts are so long because you spend more time congratulating yourself on your supposed victories than you do making any kind of coherent point. I have noticed that you effectively ignore the points to which you have no response, focusing instead on those who don't muster very good arguments. I for one knew that the Democrats were talking about borrowing money, so the people insisting it was a lie were going to be proven wrong. (Note to othe posters: Don't insist that something is a lie unless you actually know it is. You really set yourselves up, and Norman actually ends up thinking he won some important point.)

But I notice you didn't respond, Norman, to my point that more money doesn't really mean anything other than you've got more money. I would assume the Republicans had more money when they were losing to Clinton, and more money when Gore won the popular vote, and more money when they fought the Congressional races to a standstill in 2004. But all of that money comes with a price, and all of the lobbyists and special interests who have been running the government and writing legislation under the Republicans are going to provd to be the downfall of the Republicans. What delicious irony. I'll bet Bob Ney had more money than his opponents, and Duke Cunningham, and the next ones to fall, Curt Weldon and Jerry Lewis. At least they can entertain their cellmates with stories of how powerful they used to be.

Depsite all of your bluster, it seems you mostly are congratulating yourself for being right about elections that haven't happened yet. And I'm sure even you can see the logical disconnect there.

But that's alright, keep posting. I'm sure this is the only place in your sad life where you can boast like this. The people who are unfortunate enough to know you would no doubt laugh you out of the room.

Posted by: ChrisO on October 19, 2006 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

In order to STEAL two US Presidential Elections, the GOP-Owned Mainstream Media spend FOUR FULL YEARS "reporting" virtually NON-STOP on the Lewinski affair 24/7/365 to the exclusion of many other matters of far greater importance to Americans and our American interests. As has now become more than abundantly clear, the GOP in fact had no programme of substance, merit, or positive effect for our nation, quite the opposite, thus the Lewinski matter was chosen by the GOP as "the" issue in order to discredit Clinton via their 4 year nonstop all-media smear campaign simply because they had no other device that might work against Clinton, who was in fact such a popular and effective Commander In Chief while his domestic policys were producing a 400 Billion dollar domestic surplus at home that things were going unacceptably well for the USA as far as the GOP was concerned. How could the GOP ever hope to regain credibility in order to seize control of the American people once more? It was decided
that 4 years of media brainwashing would do the trick. Now, less than ONE MONTH after the Republican Child Sex Predator story first broke in the form of Mark Foley's explicit messages to underage Congressional Pages, the very same Republican Owned Mainstream Media is desperately doing everything it possibly can to once again mislead and disinform as many citizens as possible by taking the GOP Pedophile story OUT of the media, as witness todays crop of carefully crafted mind-control headlines: "Foley Controversy Ebbs", "Louisiana Page Not Central To Inquiry, Lawmaker Says", and this gem; "Original Page Matters Not". But Americans understand the Foley im's do in fact matter quite a bit more than the media would have them believe; Pedophilia is rampant in the GOP. The Foley debacle is merely the beginning of the story of what has actually been supported and practiced by the lawless Republican cabal.

Posted by: USA Today on October 19, 2006 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

norman,

Obama will not join Hillary for the same reason Mark Warner dropped out. She can't lose the nomination but can't win the general electon. She can't help him and he adds nothing to the ticket. She own's the minority vote and Illinios. He does not want to be identified as a Clinton guy. Warner would be a far better choice helping to carry Virginia but he recognizes it's a lose - lose proposition.

The next successful Democratic politician will need distance from the Clintons.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Do not contradict your betters.

Giuliani and Romney are, respectively, not Christian enough and Christian in the wrong way. Your man is Gingrich, and just as he led the 1994 revolution, he will lead us to victory in 2008 with Mr. Santorum by his side. These two decidedly Christian men will ensure that America enjoys a Christian Century and that our nation will be ruled by the Word of God, not the word of Man.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Norman,

Sorry my friend. Neither of your candidates will reach double digits in national polls. Romney is if anything too christian but it won't hurt him. Rudy is christian enough.

This will not be a Christian century simply because chrtistians do not want it to be a Christian century. Religion will remain an important element in politics in the US if only because the secularists breed themselves out of existance. Our Government will continue to function via judeo-christian values but will always honor the principle of the separation of church and state.

We are becoming more conservative. We are not becoming more religious.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 1:00 PM | PERMALINK

my betters:

here's a recent WNBC/Marist poll

Rudy Giuliani 23
Condoleezza Rice 20
John McCain 15
Newt Gingrich 7
Mitt Romney 4
Bill Frist 4
George Allen 2
George Pataki 2
Sam Brownback 1
Tom Tancredo 1
Chuck Hagel - 0

Hagel is a media creation and a laughter. Bill Frist on down have no shot. Newt gets only 7% with outstanding long term name recognition. In a republican only poll this is a disaster. He cannot attract moderates or Dems of any stripe. Condi Rice has no shot and no interest.

Mitt is very low due to low name recognition and a suggestion his faith is a serious negative. However he getting outstanding reviews from conservative pundits and aggressively campaigning. He will pass Newt who is unelectable and set himself up perfectly for VP. He will get all of the Newt vote and some of the Condi Vote.

BTW: These polls were terrific for Rudy and poor for McCain. Rudy has sky-high trust and likeability. McCain is not liked or trusted by conservatives. He has the highest negatives among republicans.

BTW2: McCain has serious problems being a Senator especially with GWB in office. Senators rarely get elected because they have to take difficult votes and GWB doesn't like McCain. Rudy and Mitt get to hide for these votes. John has alienated several segments of his base and it's going to cost him.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

We are becoming more conservative. We are not becoming more religious.

Balderdash. You should pray that the Creator spares you an eternity in hell for saying that.

Americans love a winner. Gingrich has always been a Christian and a winner. I'm sorry but no one is going to accept a Papist as President in this century. We tried it with Kennedy, and the Pope was calling the shots until November, 1963.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Americans love a winner. Gingrich has always been a Christian and a winner.

He was until he was fired.

I am a Newt fan. He was and is a critical cog in the conservative movement. He will always be because he is brilliant and he simply cannot shut up. He has much in common with Slick Willie in this regard. Newt will never be President nor will he win a single primary. His value lies in shaping the debate, framing issues, developing ideas to solve them and then selling them.

Get used to seeing Rudy in mass every Sunday. Fret not about the Pope. He's a good guy too!

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

He was until he was fired.

Cite, please. You blaspheme - the man stepped down for the good of the Republican Party. What kind of a self-loathing Republican are you, anyway? Just who's agenda are you pushing? If I tell you that Newt will be the nominee--and, believe me, I am well travelled in Republican circles and feature prominently on the donor lists for the candidates at this early stage of the game--then I expect you to toe the line and hush.

Mr. Giuliani is a known philanderer. They will trot out his little mistresses and that will be the end of him. At least Newt has the better discretion to marry his objects l'affaires.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 1:55 PM | PERMALINK

We tried it with Kennedy,

Tell me you are not amused at the fact this Democrative party is soooooo different than the party of JFK. While I think the man was too sleezy and far too reckless he would be a welcome change from the feckless Jimmy Carter and Bill Clintons of this party. JFK is to the right of most neocons.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Cite, please. You blaspheme - the man stepped down for the good of the Republican Party. What kind of a self-loathing Republican are you, anyway?

I'm a very proud conservative and I'm very proud of the fact Newts head got too big for the rest of him and he was shown the door. It was time for him to move on and become an elder statesman. Hence his exalted position today.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Giuliani is a known philanderer. They will trot out his little mistresses and that will be the end of him. At least Newt has the better discretion to marry his objects l'affaires

Norman, you don't want to go here. Newt has a longer record than Rudy and zero to brag about. If we want to wallow in their personal histories lets just elect Mitt and get it over with.

I'm not quite sure who will be troting out his mistressess but if I were McCain or Newt I'd make damn sure it wasn't anyone associate with them. My 1st suspect would be Mr. Blue Dress's wife but the dems won't have an impact no matter what they do.

BTW: I think Rudy married his girlfriend.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

I'm a very proud conservative and I'm very proud of the fact Newts head got too big for the rest of him and he was shown the door. It was time for him to move on and become an elder statesman. Hence his exalted position today.

"Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican." -Ronald Wilson Reagan.

I am now in on the joke - ha ha. You are one of those dirty libs who is "spoofing" me.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

If we want to wallow in their personal histories lets just elect Mitt and get it over with.

Brilliant move, you ass.

Mr. Romney has an ancestor who engaged in Mormon bigamy. I doubt very much whether the American people are going to trust their country to a man who worships from the Testament of Brigham Young and has eleven underage great-grandmothers on the same limb of his family tree.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:12 PM | PERMALINK

I am now in on the joke - ha ha. You are one of those dirty libs who is "spoofing" me.

Not at all. Ronnie is a hero of mine. I'm not trashing Newt. He's out of office for a reason. His current role as a professor and lecturer is perfect for him and the party.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

This tidbit gives me the titters:

Hey, John!
In 2004, over 171,154 Americans donated $328,479,245 and countless hours of time to help John Kerry get elected President. Now, two years later, Democrats have a real opportunity to regain a majority in both chambers of Congress.
John Kerry? Hes still hanging on to $8,352,685 of our money, while Democratic candidates in competitive districts are short on funds, and the DNC, DCCC, and DSCC are out of money.
Tell John Kerry to let our money go and help take back Congress by sending an email to info@johnkerry.com.

All this while Screaming Dean has to go out and borrow money!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:19 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Romney has an ancestor who engaged in Mormon bigamy. I doubt very much whether the American people are going to trust their country to a man who worships from the Testament of Brigham Young

Now who's joking? Americans don't care much about one's ancestorsrs. Few Americans have any clue at to who or what Bringham Young did. If they're going to consider fidelity in one's marriage Romney is far, far better positioned than Newt, John and Rudy. He's been married to the same woman for 36 years has 5 sons and 13 grand-children.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Now who's joking? Americans don't care much about one's ancestorsrs.

Now, stop teasing. In America, the only thing that matters is what your father did and who he worked for. Everything else is just a bunch of egalitarian hooey.

I'm speaking of the people who run things, sir. Are you confusing the people like myself who run things with the wanna-be ladder-climbers like yourself? I have given Republicans $226,000 in donations since the November 2004 cycle and I sit on three different boards. Look what happened when Clinton was in office. His father was a vagabond and look where it led the country.

Are you daft as well as a self-loathing Republican?

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

rdw,

Remember to toe the line sir. Remember your place. Do not anger me or cause me to lose my temper. I still cannot tell if you are one of these dirty libs who is spoofing me.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

That's better.

Shh!

Alright then.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

His father was a vagabond and look where it led the country.

And ronnies daddie?

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 3:02 PM | PERMALINK

For those who believe Democrats will impeach Bush if they gain control of both houses of Congress, I have two words: Dick Cheney. How is he an improvement to the Democrats' fortunes?

If the Democrats gain control, it is time for them to impress voters for the next two years, and that is not done with partisan impeachment trials. They should desire to increase their majority in 2008. The key will be undertaking legislation that ordinary Americans are concerned with.

Democrats won't cut and run from Iraq, and they don't have to. Troop movement is ultimately controlled by the President, and Democrats can continue to point out that the war is going badly and the Republican president refuses to acknowledge it. If this country is still embroiled in Iraq come November 2008, Republicans won't stand a chance of re-election!

Posted by: Rob Mannequin on October 19, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

What a *precious* exchange between Wooten and Norman *that* was, boys 'n' girls :)

From his remarks on the other thread (pushing a guy in a wheelchair down three flights of stairs in a mall parking deck because the guy got too close to Norm's Escalade), I'm beginning to strongly suspect that ol' Norman is, indeed, a parody.

And if he's a parody, he's ripping rdw a new one, and Wooten is just too dense to get the joke :)

"Don't contradict your betters."

ROTFL !

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wooten is just too dense to get the joke


It's really not that hard Bob. See right through the 'your betters' did you? You are the 2nd coming of Albert Einsten you are!

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Rob,

What are you doing here? Sane libs are not allowed to post here. It's for rocket scientists like Bob.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Hey look -- *you're* the one responding to this guy without a shred of irony and taking everything he says at face value :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

Shit eating twit:

Yes, rdw is your better. Show the man some respect and step back into line.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 19, 2006 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Hey look -- *you're* the one responding to this guy without a shred of irony and taking everything he says at face value

Bob,

Now let's be honest. At 'your betters' anyone with an IQ above 50 would know he was having some fun. I know you think only libs are smart enough to figure that out but in fact most 2nd graders would have been right on it.

Obviously unlike most 2nd graders you were unable to figure out my 'lack of irony' was in fact irony itself.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 4:39 PM | PERMALINK

rdw:

That's some pretty transparent sardonicism, rdw.

In fact, it's so transparent that all *I* see in your posts to Norman are your usual reiteration of the talking points :)

Because literally -- that's indeed all you wrote.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 19, 2006 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

are your usual reiteration of the talking points :)


So the GOP has established talking points for Mitt Romney? Newt? I don't think so.

Speaking of talking points have you noticed how some in the MSM are finally pucking up on my thread of a re-militarized Japan? That's correct Bob. I don't repeat talking points. I create talking points.

Posted by: rdw on October 19, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK

Going back to re-read this exchange because it was just so amusing
the first time -- and also to see if I couldn't salvage something
to comment on regarding what these two mooks thought of the '08 GOP
field -- I seem to have overlooked this from (who else?) Norman:

> And, for the record, I'm not bald. It's a hair system. It's my hair,
> it's on my head, I'm not bald--I say again, it's a hair system.

I chuckled for a good three minutes ... dear
lords ... "it's a hair system." PRICELESS :)

Of course, it's also another good argument that Norman is a
parody. Nobody's *this* Phil Hartman-like in real life :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 20, 2006 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Alright, some serious commentary on your view of field, since you're clearly the more sensible of the two. You may be a troll, but you at least smell like a real person. Norman's coming off more and more like a parody; personally I don't trust a thing he says. You really think a guy who sits on five boards and gives six figures to the GOP would be wasting his time posting on Washington Monthly?

Anyway ...

I agree with you about Mitt Romney. I think he has the fundamentals to hang around after McCain implodes (and McCain will implode) and pick up the conservative mantle. He seems to have good creds with both social and fiscal conservatives -- and that's essential to win a GOP presidential primary. I think Allen's finished whether he squeaks into his Senate seat or not. He was supposed to drip "authenticity" and Reaganesque charm, and instead he came off like a jerk. He's toast.

I don't agree with you at all about Rudy, though. The only reason his national positives are so high is that the only thing most people outside of the Tri-State Metro Area know about him is that he was the mayor of NYC during 9/11. They associate that "accidential hero" moment with Rudy. But what you're missing is that Rudy was a pretty rotten mayor, with a truly awful relationship with the press. He was known as a guy with a mean streak who held a grudge and didn't work well with opposing groups. His rep is the opposite of Bloomberg's -- a real stiff in his first term who seems to have grown into his job. Rudy has a severe lack of humanity that won't play well with a travelling press corps. He has the McCain tendency to snap at people under pressure with none of McCain's effusive charm and compelling back story. Rudy is a former prosecutor who likes to order people around. And the crime rate dropped as part of a national trend.

Because Rudy has virtually *nothing* to give the social conservatives (he's pro-choice and probably pro-gay marriage; his gay friends let him crash at their place during the divorce), he'd need something really extraordinary to attempt to run that gauntlet in the GOP primaries. McCain has it -- the POW background; Rudy doesn't at all. Does Rudy Guiliani really look like the sort of guy who'd be comfortable at an Iowa state fair admiring butter cows? C'mon ... he's goin' nowhere.

As for Gingrich? I agree with you; his moment has passed. And you're right about the adultery baggage; his was pretty henious considering the wife he divorced while she was in the hospital with cancer and the 20-year-younger trophy acolyte he nabbed during the Lewinsky farce. But beyond that, you do seem to recognize that Newt is too polarizing a figure. He just doesn't have the aura, the sort of compensatory compassion that a conservative needs to project -- at least to get elected the first time. Newt's too much an intellectual without that visceral connection that Bush was at least skilled at faking for awhile. And Newt wouldn't be running as a bold idea man the way he led the '94 revolution -- he'll be running to preserve the status quo. Not at all his strength, and I don't even think he'd want the job.

As for whether Romney's Mormonism disqualifies him? Hey, I don't think so -- the LDS has become just another mainline denomination -- but if true, that's some weird bigotry issue with the Prot fundies who have such a lock on the primary process. If there'll be anti-Mormon comments, you hear them from two places: secular liberals who dislike religions the more non-mainstream they are -- and born-again Prot fundies. Since the former have no influence in GOP primaries, if Romney goes down -- blame it on Tony Perkins and Pat Robertson.

Santorum is too much of a freakazoid to even comment on. As you said -- not ready for prime time. The fetus-in-the-refrigerator story says all you need to know about that fruitcake. And since he's about to be squashed this election, it will thankfully become a moot point.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 20, 2006 at 7:23 AM | PERMALINK

Bob,

McCain is no more a serious player now than he was in 2000. It's a truism that if the press likes a certain GOP candidate the GOP faithful do not. His only selling point is that he beats Hillary and thus this would suggest he could pull a Kerry. Few people actually liked John Kerry and almost no one voted for him. It was thought he was the only one who could beat Bush and only because his military experience could close the national security gap.

Kerry's advantage was a pitiful Democratic bench. McCain is dealing with the strongest GOP bench in decades. He's also got the same Senate problem Kerry had. He's taken too many unpopular votes and pissed off too many conservatives. They do not like the man. He is vain and pompus. I also think when people get serious the age thing is a serious problem. Reagan was 3 years younger but far more vigorous.

Rudy is in terrific shape. He was a terrific mayor of NYC and will easily carry the region with a solid shot at NYS. He had a very solid reputation before 9/11 which he's used perfectly to extend and enhance his image completely reversing the damage from the Senate run.

I've read various reports of his stump speeches and he is outstanding before conservastive audiences. His liberal positions on social issues are not a factor because he's a star regarding judges. He's always been a star in this regard and gave both John Roberts and Sam Alito strong support.

This is an area where McCain has been a moron. He's the social conservative but he's been weak on judges. It's matter if his vanity of love of the press leading him to try to show moderate credentials for good pub. That's fine for the general election but it's toxic in GOP primaries.


Rudy has been pitch perfect on judges. McCain has been weak. That alone will cost McCain the nomination.

As far as the things you mention about Rudy's weaknesses you just so your lack of understanding of the conservative voter. The fact he didn't get along with the NYC press is great. The fact McCain does places him under suspicion. They're uber-libs. If you get along with them you can't possibly be a strong conservative and most likely are a suck-up. Ditto for the opposition groups in NY. They're libs. He wasn't supposed to get along with them.

You are a moron regarding the crime rate. This is the jewel in the crown. NYC is the 4th safest city in the nation with a crime rate a fraction of other big cities ALL DUE to Rudy. He led a stunning reversal of fortunes for NYC and his reputation is gold. It is because of this crime rate he leads in the polls 5 years after 9/11.

As far as Rudy in Iowa state, he's a big hit. He can work a crowd as well as anyone. He can but does not need to milk cows. He's a very personable and likeable guy. It's recent in-depth polls which made me a believer. People like Rudy and they respect him and they know him. His numbers are far better than the competition in this regard and his warts are known. Once people make up their mind they like someone it's very hard to change their minds.

Rudy is in.

Mitt is on paper a fabulous candidate. The religion thing is a non-starter and in the end an advantage. Unlike the other candidates he has a sterling personal life married to the same lass for 36 years, 5 sons, 12 or so grandkids, missionary work, successful businessman and governor of an uber-liberal state. I have read from conservative pundits he's outstanding in a crowd ala Rudy. He knows how to work a room and he knows what they want to hear. He has a record of turning skeptical audiences into fans and he's been building a well regarded staff. He's low on name recognition and has a long way to go. Assuming the boy scout persona is accurate and he has the temperment he'll be an outstanding candidate for both Pres and VP. Rudy is so strong I doubt he'll beat him but he would be perfect for the VP slot to build the name recognition needed for 2016. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell can only help Mitt by expressing suspicion.

Newt is not a serious candidate. His negatives alone preclude a serious bid. I love Newt. Most people don't like him at all. George Allen is toast. Condi has zero interest and is not a politician. She will not run. Frist has less charisma than Kerry. Hagel will never register above 1%. The race will start to clarify once Condi makes it clearer she's out and Mitt gets more exposure. McCain will never be more than a distant 2nd praying for Rudy to falter. He'll drop out when Mitt passes him.

It's Rudy - Romney.

BTW: Who will Hillary tap?

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 8:25 AM | PERMALINK

rdw:

Hmmm ... I'll have to keep my eye open for Rudy, as you're probably right that I don't have a strong enough insight on GOP primary voters to judge. But I still do think you're hyping him; I don't think anyone (least of all Rudy himself) would be talking about a presidential run if it weren't for 9/11 -- which humanized a guy who previously everybody thought was something of a jerk. But he may speak well in front of conservative crowds.

I don't see why you think support for judges trumps something like a woman's right to choose. If that phrase crawls off your lips, you're dead to a critical segment of the GOP primary electorate. And Rudy can't finesse that; either his position "evolves" (and he's a flip-flopper) or he risks the ire of single-issue pro-life voters. I think you're deliberately minimizing this.

While it's probably true that having a rotten relationship with the NYC press corps and liberal groups is an asset in the GOP primary -- it's a double-edged sword and not an asset at *all* in the general election. You either have to be a natural with the press like McCain, or else you need to have a very tight circle of advisors who will serve as gatekeepers. Bush had Rove and a cadre of super-loyal, super-protective people around him in the primary. I haven't seen this with Rudy. If he doesn't cultivate one, I'm afraid that a few Unscripted Rudy Moments might be enough to tank him.

You're simply wrong about the crime rate, Wooten. The "Broken Windows Theory" only goes so far; the crime rate dropped in every major city throughout the 90s. The controversial Freakonomics thesis is that this was due to the missing unwanted generation after abortion was legalized (I won't go there) -- but in any case, the economy certainly improved (and 100k cops were put on the streets as per Clinton) in correlation to the crime rate reduction. Rudy can take *some* credit, of course. But he didn't pull it out of his hat anymore than Clinton pulled the Roaring 90s out of *his* hat.

But I *will* keep my eyes on him. You've certainly made a more convincing argument than I would have credited previously. It's not a great testament to your bench, though, if the only serious rival you suggest is Romney. That's two guys, plus McCain -- everybody else being ciphers.

I'm not ready atm to speculate on '08 for the Democrats. I'm ambivalent about Hillary. One thing that truly bugs me (and I think part of this is deliberate on the GOP's part) is that she's not being battle-tested. The GOP is giving no help at all to Spencer -- and this is precisely to coat Hil with an aura of inevitability. It's wise strategically from the GOP's POV (though Novak argues otherwise -- a stronger candidate could at least keep her in-state and away from fundraisers for other candidates). It's not Hillary per se that bugs me -- it's the aura of inevitability. Now that Warner bowed out, I'm not sure who's going to become the anti-Hillary.

It's really too early yet for me to start thinking much about it. Unlike a Republican, I have an election to look forward to that's just around the corner ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on October 20, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

I don't see why you think support for judges trumps something like a woman's right to choose. If that phrase crawls off your lips, you're dead to a critical segment of the GOP primary electorate. And Rudy can't finesse that; either his position "evolves" (and he's a flip-flopper) or he risks the ire of single-issue pro-life voters. I think you're deliberately minimizing this.

Because it's a judicial issue. The problem with abortion is in Roe v Wade 9 judges created a right that does not exist in the constitution and should be up to the states to decide. Rudy's opinion on abortion as President does not matter. Rudy's opinion on judges is critical. He will apppoint the type of judge that will not legislate from the bench.

His position does not have to evolve and he understands the conservative position perfectly. Appoint judges who will reverse Roe and he intends to do exactly that.

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

it's a double-edged sword and not an asset at *all* in the general election. You either have to be a natural with the press like McCain, or else you need to have a very tight circle of advisors who will serve as gatekeepers. Bush had Rove and a cadre of super-loyal, super-protective people around him in the primary

It's not a double-edge sword. An adversarial relationship with the MSM is an asset. McCains close relationship creates deep suspicion. This will be especially true this election when the MSM has been so beat up for 6 years. They've had decreasing circulation every year and one disaster after another including Dan Rather, Joe Wilson and many others.

The NYTs will have zero impact on the GOP primaries and little impact on the general. Conservatives just don't get their news from the NYTs or ABC and what little they see they do not believe.

Every candidate has their super-protective handlers. The difference now is the alternative media. If hillary put out nonsense the MSM can't protect her.

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

It's really too early yet for me to start thinking much about it. Unlike a Republican, I have an election to look forward to that's just around the corner ...

Unlike a liberal I can walk and chew gum at the same time. What you are saying is, 'we don't have a decent candidate".

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:33 PM | PERMALINK

Rudy can take *some* credit, of course. But he didn't pull it out of his hat anymore than Clinton pulled the Roaring 90s out of *his* hat.

Actually Rudy can take a great deal of credit because it was he who engineered the most dramatic turnaround in the country, by far! NYC has come so much further than every other large America city it's stunning. That's why he'll carry NY.

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:35 PM | PERMALINK

It's not a great testament to your bench, though, if the only serious rival you suggest is Romney

You have no bench. Hillary has no credible competition and you know it. She chased Warner out. I think McCain, Newt and Frist are credible candidates but I don't think they can win a primary against Rudy or Mitt. Each wold beat hillary.

I think Gore, kerry and Edwards are absolutely pitiful.

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:39 PM | PERMALINK

It's not Hillary per se that bugs me -- it's the aura of inevitability. Now that Warner bowed out, I'm not sure who's going to become the anti-Hillary

This is really a deliciously ironic situation. Bill Clinton is such a rock star you literaly have no choices. It's all his decision and you can't do a thing about it. I remain stunned at his popularity. He has cost your party so much. He's been a pitiful party leader with a consistent record of failure. He selects bad candidates and he makes bad campaign decisions. In 2002 he decided to go after Jeb Bush in Florida and transferred $5M in DNC funds from GA to FLa. Jeb won by 14% and Max Cleland lost as did the sitting governor and a few house seats.

He's got too much of an ego to shut-up yet he irritates more people than he pleases. Your party cannot win if he's the leader. Even if you pick-up 16 seats and get the house you'll still be 40 short of 1992. Pick up 5 Senate seats and you are still 7 short of 1992.

Look at what is at stake. Lose in 2008 and in 2012 the red states get another 7 to 10 electoral votes.

Posted by: rdw on October 20, 2006 at 5:51 PM | 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