Today's LATimes front page story regarding the GOP chances for success despite all the polls is freaking me out. President and his brain still think that they will win. What's up with that? What's your take?

I still think the republicans are going to win, but I'll go along with your hypothetical:

If the media manages to tilt the election towards the liberals, they-- like the scorpion-- will be unable to resist their nature. Look for federal funding for baby killing (using euphemisms like 'stem cells' and 'abortion'), grave robbing ('called the death tax')and trying to impede investigations against terrorists.

When the American people are reminded that Democrats support greater rights for terrorists than innocent babies, they'll recoil in horror and correct their mistake in 2008.

Cradle robbing is the Public an MO - from Birth Taxes that mean every child born owes he government $30K because our responsible publican leaders (HA!) do not believe in PAYGO to not being able to keep their hands off underage pages.

Cradle-robbers, the lot of them.

From the email address, the AH post seems to be real.

We are in deep shit if people still think like that.

What's next?

IMPEACH.
REMOVE.
CONVICT.
PUNISH.
JUSTICE.

Hopefully, before lunch.

Dem's will not be control of enough to make meaningful changes in direction. Best hope for Dem's is to roast the Repub's over the coals of house investigations to show the accountablility required for effective government (and war fighting and nation building) was severely lacking in the current crop of Repub's. Holding the coat for Repub's or hiding the corruption, or getting caught in the Iraq tarbaby can only lead to defeat in 2008. The Dem's must show they are clearly different that the Rebub's by 2008.

If Bush does reach out, the Democrats can respond that yes, they are willing to work with Bush to create a better Iraq policy, but the prerequisite is to do a thorough set of Congressional inquiries on how the war has been conducted and the true state of the Iraq situation. If the Democrats are to be a partner they have to be a fully informed partner, and also a co-equal partner.

Heh, thanks for the reminder, Chuck.

Come to think of it, I *did* vote on Wednesday.
Two days ago.

Ah, the spin begins.

The media "tilting" the electorate.

Well, here in Oregon, the Oregonian's Editorial Board endorsed Ron Saxton, the Pub for Guv.

That was two weeks ago, when the polls indicated the race was extremely tight.

In this morning's Oregonian, large headlines about the polls favorably shifting to Governor Kulongoski. One reason given was the offputting by the Pubs - the smell factor. Ah, yes the tilting by the media, I presume.

Not only can I not imagine Bush giving that speech, I can't imagine the Democrats cooperating if he did. Every indication is that most Democrats in Congress are out for payback, not moving forward and improving things in the country.

Personally I expect the Democrats to take the House but not the Senate. Either way, expect more gridlock. But then I'm an optimist.

My take? Gergen is trying his new routine before he hits the road to pursue his new career in stand-up.

Bush asking for a bipartisan effort to bring the war to a just and speedy conslusion?

Now that's comedy.

And gregor, don't have a cow. Bush is delusional, and Rove is already saying that they've lost (because not enough people took his advice). The Times is just trying to sell papers.

Bush HAS CLEARLY SAID that if the Dems win, the terrorists have won.

He CAN'T work with TERRORISTS!

God, Kevin, you Godless idiots are so dense.

If the media manages to tilt the election towards the liberals,

I know it's the usual wingnut whine to complain about how liberals talk down their noses to "us common folk," but then why do they always portray the electorate as a bunch of mindless boobs who will slavishly vote whatever way the media says.

C'mon, hawk, try making an intelligent arguement for a change.

Bush has never done anything with humility his entire life. Why would he start now?

I think we'll see Bush and his administration continue to act like spoiled, petulant children, only more so. It will be 2 years of gridlock and acrimony, with Bush/CheneyCo flaunting the accepted SOP, rules, and law with increasing disregard and hubris that will make the first 6 years look like a high school Model UN Club.

They will dare the limp-wristed congress to use their powers of oversight, like a jaywalker staring straight at a patrolman, flipping the bird the whole time. They will go down in a blaze of glorified havoc, trying to wreck and destory everything around them, like a drunken, abusive spouse on an episode of Cops — shirt off, on the lawn, expletives bleeping, swinging a baseball bat of wretched desperation, before he is tackled, bound, and thrown into the backseat of a waiting patrolcar.

Don't say I didn't tell you so, but remember that Max Cleland was up 5-8 points in every poll, and then "lost"!

Yay for the Good Guys!

Look for federal funding for baby killing (using euphemisms like 'stem cells' and 'abortion'), grave robbing ('called the death tax')and trying to impede investigations against terrorists.

I can't wait! I'm so excited.

OBF - The Major and I voted Wednesday as well. Great minds, eh?

There's no doubting that Democrats support greater rights for terrorists than innocent babies. Even you have to admit that much.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah - but some babies grow up to be terrorists. (especially when foreign powers occupy their country). So it's really a mixed blessing.

I believe Nancy Pelosi has said there will be no IMPEACH.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:54 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, well Bush said Saddam had WMD. You've got a double standard?

That would be very big of Bush, closing the doors after the horses have left the stable.

If Dems take control of the house (a big if, I admit) they will already have gained a role in war policy- it would be pretty nervy of Bush to offer them something they already have. Which means it might happen after all.

What's going to happen? That's easy. From Tuesday onward, everything that goes bad in Iraq will be the fault of the weak-kneed Democrats in Congress. That'll include everything that went bad *before* Dems became the majority.

Paul Belian of Brussels Journal: However, the current American elections are relevant for Europe, too. If they lead to the American withdrawal from Iraq, Europe will face a widespread intifada. The withdrawal will be perceived as a defeat of the West and the Muslim “youths” in Europe’s cities will become even more arrogant. They utterly despise the Europeans, whom they perceive (not entirely without reason) to be men dressed up as ballerinas, and they hate America because it fights back. In a world ruled by men who only understand the language of power it is better to be hated than despised.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1626

I do not know who Paul Belian is, but his idea is intriguing.

American Hawk, quit with the "grave robbing" motif. It makes me laugh out loud. It's as stupid as John Kerry.

Well, at least Gergen provides the pro forma Beltway reaction. Actually, the time for Bush to make that speech -- and live up to it -- was sometime around mid-September 2001.

By propping up Bush's sagging political fortunes, and giving him license to do what he'd really wanted to do all along in Iraq, bin Laden undoubtedly exceeded his own wildest aspirations. He hobbled the U.S. with the most incompetent leadership in its history. There's a real element of luck involved, but already it's clear that bin Laden achieved the greatest strategic victory since the end of the Cold War.

Oh and remember Republicans;
Don't vote - just Pray, because Jesus will make things all right. Trust in Jesus. Jesus is your friend.

His admitted recovery from alcoholism, relying on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as well as his repeated references to marrying above himself are "humble".
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Chuck, that reminds me. I've got some land in South Central Florida. Great development opportunity. But I'm tied up in other projects right now. You want to buy it? (I think there's a big, red, bridge in there somewhere too).

Tom Daschle, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein, Ed Kilgore, and Daniel Levy

With moderates like these crafting policy, we can assume the American people are fucked!

Instead of sending the Baker Commission to Gaza, send the Marines.

From the email address, the AH post seems to be real.

We are in deep shit if people still think like that.
Posted by: gregor

Having delusions is not the same as thinking

Even Gergen's "conciliatory" speech contains an infamous Republican straw man. We should take the option of leaving immediately off the table? Who put it ON the table, exactly? As far as I can tell, NO ONE has, ever!

GWB has shown humility .....

Comedy Gold!

Remember Repubs. 11/07 is the day of your scheduled monthly tryst with the male prostitute for $300.

Here's what's going to happen: If the Dems take the House every single problem, misstep, war death, budget snafu, policy failure, crashed airplane and auto safety recall will be their fault starting November 8th. If they also take the Senate the above will become retroactive to, oh, year 1892. Bush will claim if not for divided government he could lead but now with Dems in (partial?) power all is lost. Rove will tee up on the situation and hit a home run in 2008. By then the sheeple, trolls, zombies, wingnuts and evangelicals will be convinced Democrats are Satan's spawn and let the pogroms begin. Since the above groups make up most of the electorate it'll be Brownback or Frist or some other whackjob measuring for the drapes.

David Gergen is a real mensch. Any administration would do well to have men like him advising. That's why Bill Clinton called on him.

George W. Bush is a putz. He doesn't have the talent to work with Dems in Congress except to ask George Allen to spit on them.

From the POV of relationships and being nice, I like Gergen's suggestion. Trouble is, there's no way an improved strategy will come out of such joint planning. Here's why. We have four possible strategies, broadly speaking;

1. Do more - more troops, more attacks.

2. Stay the course.

3. Do less.

4. Withdraw.

If Stay the Course isn't working, I think we ought to either Do More or Withdraw. But, Demcratic input into Bush's decision process can only result in Do Less, a strategy even less likely to work than Stay the Course.

Furthermore, very few Dems have been interested in seriously participating in the decisions. Although I didn't agree with Jack Murtha, his suggestion of withdrawal was an option worth considering. But, most Dems just want to find fault with Bush and his team.

He goes on to say that if "Bush were to be man enough to ask the Democrats to join him," Dems should take him up on it even if it might hurt them in the short term. In the long run, it would demonstrate their governing bona fides and increase their political capital.

This presumes facts not in evidence: to wit, that there is a "good" method of continuing the Iraq war that Dems could sign on to that would end in complete disaster and, therefore, in the long run as well as the short be a political and policy disaster for Democrats to join on to just for the phantom benefit of collegiality.

If the Democrats want to establish governing bona fides they can do it only by governing well. That means pursuing, as best they can, good policy. If Bush wants to actively and forthrightly cooperate with that, then fine (though that doesn't eliminate the need for accountability for any past misdeeds.)

But you don't establish governing bona fides by abandoning principle and the vigorous pursuit of good policy to pursue compromise for its own sake just because the other side used some conciliatory language. That's plain stupid.

I expect net neutrality will be legislated away by whichever of the two oligarchic parties holds a majority. GE will demand it.

There's also the slight matter of Gergen being a Republican. Democrats should demand a pretty high burden of proof before considering his advice on any subject.

His admitted recovery from alcoholism, relying on Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, as well as his repeated references to marrying above himself are "humble".

Christians lie all the time. Bush is not humble or he would admit to his mistakes. And Charlie can't even tell the truth about who or what he is.

"Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers enlist. Their choice in life; prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause."

Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03

David Gergen is a real golem.

That's why Bill Clinton was stabbed in the back by him.

Rev. Ted Haggard admits on tape that he bought meth from Mike Jones and Haggard also says he went to see the male escort initially for a...a... mwahaha...a masssage!!!! based on a referral from a Denver hotel!!!

You can't make this shit up!

A massage from a male escort means...

I did not have sex with that man... Mr. Jones.

Heh.

they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party.

That would be the republicans for anyone without a program.

I just have to say (in my professional capacity as a print production artist), that cover art is really ugly. I looked at it for a while before I figured out what is wrong, your artist forgot to knock out the black region under the newspaper and above Truman's arm. I would have just used the whole photo and done a blue or red spot color duotone masked onto the background only.

Yes it will be a cold day in hell before Bush gives that speech. BUsh sees politics as a sport. There is no "greater good", only winners and losers, us and them.
For the 1st poster above, Rove and Co have no choice but to act like they are certain they will win. That's how the game is played.

I tell you what, if after all of these polls predicting massive Democratic gains next Tues, something truly dirty will have to occur for the Republicans to maintain control of the House.

Tough choice - Either prison, no head from Ann or the military. Hmmm.

Paul Belian is beloved by the right wing "the Muslims" are under my bed crowd - Next, we'll have the Doofus from Drexel Hill extolling Belian's recent visit to NYC and appearing on VBlogs with Atlas Shrugged. The loonies also love him because he is in a flap with the Police over home schooling his children. Trying to save them from his perceived view of the PC of EU as it were.

He constantly writes and blogs from Brussels about the invasion of the "Islamofascists". If you go to Atlas Shrugged, you will find that filth attracks filth.

Kevin,

C'mon now. We all know, Gergen included, that Bush cannot make that concession. If he does this the GOP loses their "true believers" for a considerable period of time. The GOP also loses significant funding from its base. The nutjobs like limbaugh, malkin, the whole crew at powerline etc. will go into convulsions. He will have to be forced to change because at least then he can say he was "resolved" and then blame the Dems for the loss in Iraq. He simply will not take the blame for that. Not ever.

What if Democrats win control of Congress next week? What then?

Introduce a bill to export all republicans to Iraq.

Give 'em a pair of boots, a rifle, some ammo, and a bible.

Iraq is there problem. They need to be sent there to fix it.

NOW!

Bush seems to have sort-of taken Gergen's suggestion. He has offered the Dems a role in planning for Iraq, although he didn't mke the offer in a nice way:

Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq
Fri Nov 3, 2006
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - President George W. Bush challenged Democrats on Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

I wish the Dems would respond with a better plan. Bush can use the help.

Good God the world will not come to an end Nov.8 when the Dems take control of the House.The only thing that will change is Osama won't get everything that he could wish for from Bush.

Bush is incapable of doing what Gergen suggests. He will do what he always does, which is demand total capitulation to his will.

It is not the responsibility of the opposition party to bail his punk-ass out. Period.

He may as well stand there (in front of hundreds when the venue holds thousands) and tell the truth: "Okay folks, I gotta level with y'all. I got nuthin."

Maybe I'm a cynic, but I'm afraid a Dem victory plays out the way Billmon predicts...

http://billmon.org/archives/002922.html

Meanwhile, in Billings, Montana Bush made the front page of the Billings Gazette - under the fold. Above the fold was a larger picture of the flag-draped coffin of Petty Officer Second Class Chuck Kompaa, arriving at Logan International.

Would anybody here like to wager on the Cardin-Steele matchup in MD?
So, uh, good luck with that Senate takeover, guys.
Seriously.

Please, if you know any Democrat voters do them a favor and remove sharp objects before Tuesday. If you wait until Wednesday it may already be too late.
The champipple won't even be dry on the convention center floors before calls of 'stolen' elections begin.

Shrub will merely descend into his bunker and await the breakthough of the Ninth Army at Halbe.

Some of his last words will be "They're all traitors". and "Et tu, Barney?". Probably more of a slur "Eat you, Barney".

Global Citizen; It is not the responsibility of the opposition party to bail his punk-ass out. Period.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

As a revered war hero, Eisenhower could have destroyed JFK's reputation. But, Eisenhower knew that maintaining JFK's status would help America lead the cold war against the USSR. He was focused on defeating America's enemies, not his party's enemies.

I do think it is a bit of a shame about Shrub having to make any changes regarding Rumdumb.

After all, they have spent so much money to install a hot line, ala the Red Phone, between the two of them. At the present, all Shrub has to do is touch a button and say, "Doofus Three, this is Doofus One, Over".

Inigo, rather dull blade? Rapier needs sharpening.

We are not dealing with Ikes Republican party. We are dealing with an abomination.

Global Citizen: Meanwhile, in Billings, Montana Bush made the front page of the Billings Gazette - under the fold. Above the fold was a larger picture of the flag-draped coffin of Petty Officer Second Class Chuck Kompaa, arriving at Logan International.

A good example of media bias.

thethirdPaul,

See you Wednesday.

Media bias? That was their own coming home dead after dying for this presiddents mistake. Reality is biased against the right, and there is apparently very good reasons for this.

ex-liberal,

I wish the Dems would respond with a better plan. Bush can use the help.

your wish was granted months ago:

In April, the "Real Security" plan, and in September, the Dem leadership and General Clark hosted an event to promote their thorough analysis of the failings of the current administration: get the report here.

Bush seems to have sort-of taken Gergen's suggestion. He has offered the Dems a role in planning for Iraq, although he didn't mke the offer in a nice way:

Bush claimed that Democrats can't answer the question "What's your plan?," even though many have answered the question. He then claimed that "We have a plan for victory. We have a plan to secure this country", even though he has never clearly outlined one, other than "victory" or to stay "until the job is done." Since he is the Commander in Chief and has the power to both make plans and execute them, he should put up or shut up.

Inigo,

Would anybody here like to wager on the Cardin-Steele matchup in MD?

Sure. You confident enough to give odds, or are you just proposing a straight-up bet?

Not to the dead mans family, or his friends, or his community.

Chuck,

Are you predicting the future or do you mean the previous thread? I have to say if it's a prediction I find your comment funny. If it's reporting on a previous thread I find it par for the course.

Thanks Angry. I refuse to acknowledge that waste of pixels.

Edo,

According to the polls your side so loves your guys ahead. It'll have to be you giving odds/points. Right? I mean, that's how confident you are, right?

I'll see you on Wednesday. With bells on.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

As a revered war hero, Eisenhower could have destroyed JFK's reputation. But, Eisenhower knew that maintaining JFK's status would help America lead the cold war against the USSR. He was focused on defeating America's enemies, not his party's enemies.

Ya think Ike's forbearance might also have been related to the fact that pretty much all the operational plans for the Bay of Pigs fiasco were drawn up by his appointees?

The historical ignorance of the right-wingers doesn't surprise me any more, but I am still taken aback at how they insist on flaunting it. Which is why a post from "ex-liberal" and his ilk rarely rates more than a "You again? Shut the fuck up, already."

Apparently I hate apostrophes.

guy's

Bush challenges Democrats to offer plan for Iraq
Fri Nov 3, 2006
SPRINGFIELD, Missouri (Reuters) - President George W. Bush challenged Democrats on Friday to offer their plan for winning in Iraq as he swept across Republican strongholds in the U.S. heartland to try to help his party's candidates survive on Election Day.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Shorter Bush: help me, you filthy animals! Why won't you help me clean up my own mess!

Objectively, though, a visit by the President of the United States is a bigger NEWS story.

to campaign for an incumbent? That's a bigger NEWS story than the return of a dead soldier? Thanks for making your priorities clear, Chuck. You clearly don't support the troops or their families if you think a campaign visit for an incumbent is more NEWSworthy.

Stefan - It's even better. He (Bush) is so weak right now that he is campaigning for Talent(less) hack in the only part of the state where he is polling ahead of McCaskill!

He isn't coming to KC where we have buried five soldiers and marines in as many weeks.

Inigo,

You're the one that suggested a bet. You're the one claiming to be so confident.

sglover - Ya think Ike's forbearance might also have been related to the fact that pretty much all the operational plans for the Bay of Pigs fiasco were drawn up by his appointees?

No, sglover, the operational plans were drawn up by Kennedy's people. E.g., you can read a description of how they went wrong in the book Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes by Irving L. Janis
.

David Gergen seems to never say anything original. Whenever he's on TV, he's the least interesting commentator, says the blandest things, and he's the one who always agrees with what everyone else is saying.

But I agree with what he said this time.. :)

Edo,

See you on Wednesday, sunshine.

I fear what we've seen so far out of this President is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to Presidential power. Previously, Bush used the rubber stamps in Congress to make it appear he had unity on policy, at least from the party in power. What I think you're going to see come Nov 8 is a situation where Bush pushes the power/control/executive authority envelope way past where it's ever been before. I'm of the opinion the Democrats will retake at least one house of Congress, but regardless of how many seats the Democrats pick up, the bigger impact will be to scare those Republicans that survived re-election more towards the center and away from Bush. It has to be clear to the surviving Republicans any further association w/ Bush is death wish, and they'll also attempt to back track towards positions that Republicans historically maintained. The latest mega-pastor, gay prostitute sex scandal (assuming it's true it will quickly develop legs) is going to further erode the radical right and drive surviving Republicans away from supporting the Radicals and towards traditional Republican roots. What this means is Bush will be further isolated and he'll react by unilaterally taking steps independent of Congress. Bush, son of wealth and privelege,doesn't know how to play well w/ others so he's going to take further steps that further executive authority.

This election is a confidence vote on Bush; I hope for a resounding no confidence vote on Nov 7. That said, the larger the thrashing Bush takes, the more he'll react in a polarizing way.

We're headed for a very significant Constitutional Crisis this time w/ the Executive Branch being further isolated from any cover provided by the Republicans in Congress.

It's only going to get more nasty on Nov 8.

Gergen is smoking crack. Expecting humility from George W. Bush is about as likely as expecting silver monkeys to fly out of John Kerry's ass.

Will you be explaining how the Democratic Tsunami that is about to hit the beach was actually a loss for the Democratic party and good for the publicans?

Well that is good advice that Gergen gave but he is predicating that mature or sane people are currently in the White House, which isn't the case.

President Eisenhower didn't see it that way. JFK made every error in the book in his disatrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Nevertheless, Eisenhower made no public criticism.

That's because JFK inherited the Bay of Pigs invasion from Eisenhower, you fuckwad. The Bay of Pigs was a Republican plan, developed under Nixon's supervision.

Still, I like the subtext of "ex-liberals's" message: mercy! Please have mercy on us, for pity's sake!

Thanks for making your priorities clear, Chuck. You clearly don't support the troops or their families

Once a human being has developed its reasoning and awareness to the point where it can realize what a disturbed sociopath Charlie/Thomas/Chuck is, he no longer has any use for it.

A blastocyst can't recognize an idiot, which must come as a great comfort when you are one in spades.

President and his brain still think that they will win

Hey -- we're winning in Iraq, too, aren't we?

garyk - he's going beyond polarizing right to ionic about 11:00 p.m. eastern on November 7th.

We are absolutely winning in Iraq -- name ONE SINGLE military battle we've lost? The Democrats, of course, want us to snatch defeat right out of the jaws of victory though.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:28 PM | PERMALINK

The battle for hearts and minds. If you limit your criteria to "military battles" -then DUH, of course we're winning. But if you have a shred of human decency, you should give a crap about the hundreds of innocent Iraqis that are abducted, tortured, and murdered by the militias who have infiltrated and virtually control the government WE INSTALLED.

So go ahead and limit your criteria to "military battles" only. By that definition, if it allows you to sleep at night, then swell. But you're lying to yourself, and frankly, you're a disgusting, evil shit.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to rid the country of these incompetent, corrupt, arrogant, deceitful, hyprocrites...

name ONE SINGLE military battle we've lost

The ongoing insurgency. It is a military battle being fought in the streets of Iraq as we speak. WTF do you think is killing our soldiers?

Also, Operations Lightning and Black Thunder and Rum Drunk and every other when that was supposed to once and for all kill all the terrorists and stop the fighting.

Next.

Stefan - please go read Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes by Irving L. Janis. It's a great book. Not only does it give the background to the Bay of Pigs disaster, it also covers 6 or 7 other planning disasters. It's a great read. It's particularly valuable for those in management.

I read the book a long time ago, but still remember parts of it. The psychology of Kennedy's planning group wound up requiring that they all be in agreement. As I recall, one who disagreed was thereupon excluded from the planning group. Different viewpoint ought to have been encouraged; instead they were suppressed.

The final plan made little sense. E.g., a possible fallback called for our invading troops to withdraw to a certain area, but it was impossible to get to that area, because of geographic considerations. (swamps or mountains IIRC)

To Kennedy's credit, he learned a lot from that fiasco. His leadership in the Cuban missile crisis was masterful. Had he not been murdered, I think he would have been a great President.

You don't believe Bush when he says he married above himself?
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

I do believe that he married above himself.
I just don't believe he's sincere when he says that.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome trool?

I didn't give a crap about the hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Japanese . . .
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

And yet another fruit salad of Apples and Oranges brought to you by Chuck.

I didn't give a crap about the hundreds of THOUSANDS of innocent Japanese that were KILLED

Precisely what makes you a sociopath.

And a disgusting, evil piece of shit.

If a Republican Congress can spend taxpayer dollars investigating Bill Clinton’s Christmas card list, there is more than sufficient justification for a Democratic Congress to investigate (1) Cheney’s secret energy task force (2) who forged the Niger documents claiming Iraqi purchases of “yellowcake” (3) the missing 28 pages from the 9-11 Commission’s Report, detailing Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (throw in James Baker’s law firms role in abetting that cover-up) (4) the role Cheney and others in the Bush Administration may have played in allowing Enron to game the So. California energy market and on and on and on.

The disparity between Congressional oversight over the Clinton vs. the Bush Administration is appalling and given the magnitude and seriousness of the wrongdoing involved, downright criminal. If the Dems take back Congress (and I remain deeply skeptical), they need to bury this Administration in subpoenas and lawsuits!!!

As I recall, one who disagreed was thereupon excluded from the planning group. Different viewpoint ought to have been encouraged; instead they were suppressed. The final plan made little sense.

I cannot possibly think what this reminds me of....

Trex - are you the same Trex from the DNC site that was at the Lamont rally today where the Liebergoons blockaded the bus and wouldn't let Ned or his people debark?

Wasn't it one Washington Monthly that published a "What if the Dems lose?" series in '04? And wasn't one of those essays devoted to the idea that, if the Dems didn't take the WH in '04, it would lead to the destruction of the Democratic party. That was Grover Norquist who wrote that, as I recall.

So he was half right - we didn't win, and one of the political parties is going to self-destruct as a result.

Gergen has found a personal niche market as everyone's favorite "reasonable conservative." When he's not giving bad advice to conservatives, he's giving equally bad advice to liberals.

Not me, Globe.

Every U.S. Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations has met its military objective(s).

In fact, Operation Forward Together in August was only the most recent counter-insurgency operation to fail. In fact, the body count in Baghdad tripled while it was in place.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome trool?
Posted by: Feh on November 3, 2006 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe he'll refuse to pay his underage male prostitute, who will shoot him in the head.

One can hope.

. . . The latest mega-pastor, gay prostitute sex scandal (assuming it's true it will quickly develop legs) is going to further erode the radical right and drive surviving Republicans away from supporting the Radicals and towards traditional Republican roots. . . .
Posted by: garyk on November 3, 2006 at 3:21 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, it's true, all right. I hear there's recorded phone messages. Republicans seem to have the worst luck with recording devices. Maybe in 100 years when they manage to lie their way back into power, they ought to ban them.

Anyway, that WEDGE cuts both ways now, doesn't it. Little pyro Karl Rove likes playing with fire. Now he's going to feel the burn.

Every U.S. Iraqi coalition counter-insurgency operations has met its military objective(s).

So you're saying that Iraq's death-spiral to chaos is part of the plan?

I just don't believe he's sincere when he says that.

Nor humble, which is what Chuck wants to believe. Its a false humility.

Then we can compare to the complete list of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, etc., etc.

Eh? Barney Frank and Gerry Studds were involved in a "mega-church, gay prostitute sex scandal"?

Please provide citations.

Tell me which political office Haggard was running for?
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Ayatollah.

. . . and that was a stretch to broadbrush every Republican.

Not really. I hear republican anuses are highly stretchable.

Are you still defining "fail" as "kill every terrorist"?

Tell me Chuckles - how does President Bush define "success" in the War on Terror? We don't have success criteria, we don't have an exit strategy - this has been the argument against Bush's alleged "plan" from day one. You can't ask US to define "failure" if your Dear Leader can't even define "success".

Using "generally accepted accounting practices", we have met every military objective set forth in Iraq.

How about; "keeping wmd out of the hands of terrorists?" - well, we only succeeded at that if there were no WMD in the first place - unless the WMD are in Syria, which means, they ARE in the hands of "terrorists".

How about a more specific - REAL example? The 400 tons of high explosives at Al Qa Qaa - that Rummy FAILED to secure, even after troops had already visited the site? The site was subsequently looted AFTER it was under US control, and those same explosives are now. . . oh, what, being used as paperweights sold at Iraqi craft-faires? You know god damned well what they're being used for. There's no fucking excuse for such incompetence, and there's no fucking excuse for refusing to acknowledge that this was a fuck up of massive proportions, and certainly an example of a FAILURE in a strict military definition. We essentially GAVE the enemy the very weapons that are now killing our own troops. That's not a successful operation.

chuck,

Please site [sic] your evidence to conclude you do not think Bush truly believes he married above himself with Laura?

Please cite your evidence that he does.

More to the point, it's a false humility. If he had said "Laura married below herself" then it might be a truly humble statement.

As I posted in another thread, this is a conservative victory -- which was won in the primaries. Therefore, no progressive initiatives domestically or internationally. Bush will find it easier to work with the new conservative Democrats, and will do so.

Conclusive victory in Iraq will be a paramount goal and trump withdrawal plans. Bush will get almost everything he wants from Congress in this area.

Leftish Democratic Senators and Representatives will find themselves marginalized. Democratic Congressional leadership, led by Nancy Pelosi, will tack swiftly to the right.
The power struggle between progressive and conservative Democrats will continue, favoring the conservative.

Impeachment? Other than shrill demands from some of the most powerless and marginalized Democratic representatives, there will not even be serious talk of this.

Many gay rights advocates will migrate to the Republican Party and shift focus to the state and local level.

Democratic presidential candidates will arise from the ranks of conservative current and former state governors.

Frequent commenters on this blog will remain in a perpetual state of outrage.

Was "securing the Al Qa Qaa site" a military objective BEFORE the groundwar started though?

If it wasn't, then it was unquestionably a failure in planning. either way, its a failure.

Sweet Lou,

Many gay rights advocates will migrate to the Republican Party and shift focus to the state and local level.

You clearly live in an alternate universe if you truly believe this.

"You mean Bush is going to actually suspend habeas corpus like Abe Lincoln did?!
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK"

Yes, except whne Bush does it there won't be any real justification for it. Lincoln= good, Bush = bad.

"Chuck" is "Alice" isn't he?

Bush devours the people who cooperate with him. Full stop. Always. Full stop.

Politicians fall into two camps. The "Let's get rich together" ones (the Warren Buffet model) and the "Let's make me rich" ones (the MS model). Bush is the ultimate "Let's make me rich" politician. Cooperating with him is ludicrous.

Accepting an offer like this from bush would be as disasterous as nominating Lieberman would have been in 2004. Both would have the practical effect of splitting the party for a decade. We'd lose congress in no time, and we'd be in iraq for 20 years. I doubt even the democratic party is that dumb.

JRI,

"Chuck" is "Alice" isn't he?

Hmmm...seems more like Charlie from the old calpundit days. "alice" suffered from the caps-lock syndrome that Chuck hasn't displayed much of.

Thanks Lou. Your truths haunt me.

Tammy Duckworth, a Bush's War veteran, beat out a liberal Democrat to run in Illinois' 6th district. A fucking war veteran. I doubt Tammy is a liberal, but I do think she accepts the need for wars to maintain US dominance in the world. She obeyed Bush. She will obey Bush. She will not protect us from Bush.

Regarding Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, the Constitution cites 2 reasons: invasion and rebellion. I think the Civil War counts as a rebellion. And get this: Lincoln's was illegal. And why? Because Congress has the power to suspend habeus corpus not the prez & our courts were still running. 2 factors. Even if Congress wants to suspend it, they can't because our courts are still running.

Lincoln's was rational if illegal. Bush's is arbitrary and dangerous.

Re: Gergen -- A few years back, some clever pundit pointed out the guaranteed way to be proven wrong in politics: Give George Bush the benefit of the doubt.

Edo,

Democratic candidates have run as fast as they could from gay rights issues. It might be argued that they are to the right of George. W. Bush, who said gay marriage was an issue for the states to determine, rather than outright denouncing it.

The argument that the Democratic Party is the lesser of two evils for gay rights advocates is becoming weaker.

"We're just going to stay the course" George W Bush. 12/03, 4/04, 3/06

"We've never been stay the course" 11/06

Yes, Chuck you have found lots of references were George W Bush said he thought Laura was wonderful, great, above him, etc. So what? He is a proven liar. Thus, using his words isn't all that convincing to me.

Kevin - C'mon. For the love of Christ, do something about this miserable fuckhead. He brings nothing to the debate, he's just a fucking pest, like the hyperactive nephew you hate to see at the reunion because he's full of sugar and his parents are ineffectual jerks too boot.

Block this ignorant scumbag.

maybe he is Alice...

All I know is sweet justice has happened,All you rightwing bible thumping nimrods have had your money that you sent into the True believers has been used to buy Gay sex and Meth.I love it that will keep all the truly religious believers home tues.See ya AH Al Chuck and all.

Pale Rider punched Alice's clock one too many times and he/she/it faded away. I recall the time "it" was asked what "it's" AFSC number was after claiming service and it took "it" three days to respond.

Fuck off and die asshole.

And Chuck, you obviously know nothing about Christ's message, which was decidely anti-war.

Rep Katherine Harris's personal email:

kebbeson@hotmail.com

That's for chumps like you. I'd as soon set your lying ass on fire. Didn't you promise to kill yourself? Get on it. Humanity will be the better for it.

Now follow me over to AmericaBlog, why don't you? They are much more abusive to the trolls over there.

President Bush has always said that his tactics are flexible even as "stay the course" is the overall strategy; and he has said that he welcomes constructive criticism from Democrats, such as his good friend Joe Lieberman.

A speech such as Gergen outlined would have no beneficial effects at all, as the main points have been rejected already, on many occasions, by most Democrats. If Gergen's idea had any merit, Lieberman would have won the Democratic primary in Connecticut.

If Bush were smart, he would appoint Senator Lieberman to his Cabinet. That would allow the Republican Governor to appoint his replacement and the Senate would go from 50-50 (my guess) to 51-49 in favor of the Republicans.

YOU'VE NEVER HEARD OF A "JUST WAR"?

Jesus never did.

THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

I suppose you might if you were employed, or even employable. But as it stands you're just a kook who's only life is...well, apparently this blog.

Chuck. Got Meth buddy.ha ah h ha hahahahahahah

"you obviously know nothing about Christ's message, which was decidely anti-war."
_________________

Hmmm. Everyone's message is anti-war (well, maybe with the exception of certain jihadists). There's just disagreement about when wars need to be fought.

Re Christ's message:

While "in the Beatitudes, Jesus tells us 'blessed are the peacemakers' (Matt. 5:9)..."

"Jesus elsewhere acknowledges the legitimate use of force, telling the apostles, 'let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one' (Luke 22:36)."

"The New Testament sets forth the goal of peace but acknowledges the legitimate use of force. It does so by John the Baptist's acknowledgment that Roman soldiers, whose job it was to enforce the Pax Romana, or 'Peace of Rome,' could keep their jobs (Luke 3:14) and by Paul's observation that the state 'does not bear the sword in vain' but is 'God's servant for your good' (Rom. 13:4)."

...Then we can compare to the complete list of Barney Frank, Gerry Studds, etc., etc.
Posted by: Chuck on November 3, 2006 at 3:59 PM | PERMALINK

LOL! I must have missed the part where Barney Frank and Gerry Studds based their entire career off of peddling hate and bigotry against gays. I'll try to pay more attention next time around.

Trash and Chuck;
The jihadis have a doctrine of "Just War" too. Glad you agree with them. Wish we could put you guys in Gitmo too. Along with the deluded worshippers of the Church of the Free Market, and their very similar twisted justifications for "Just War".

Waiter: would you like some peace and justice with your chaos platter?
Chuck: "just war."

Hostile,

"f******" is not the adjective _I_ would choose to modify "war veteran"...

I think Tammy Duckworth and other conservative Democrats will challenge the White House strongly on the management of the war in Iraq while supporting the goal of definitive victory.

The real rollovers will be the Democratic leadership -- the senior Senators and Representatives -- who will provide only lip service to progressive policies while jockying to preserve their positions and status.

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our #1 priority." -- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I don't know where bin Laden is. It's not that important. It's not our priority." -- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

BTW:
Bob Ney just resigned.

Republican Culture of Corruption, Coverup, War-Profiteering, Bigotry, and Closeted Gay Sex.

chuck: Using "generally accepted accounting practices", we have met every military objective set forth in Iraq.

hey man...go to the source....

"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is."

- Governor George Bush - Houston Chronicle - 4/9/99

By the way, Trash and Chuck -
Pi is still not 3.0.

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

...."Taliban no longer is in existence." - GWB Sept-2004

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"We found the weapons of mass destruction.." Bush, Interview in Poland, 5/29/03

Osama_Been_Forgotten wrote:

Trash and Chuck;
The jihadis have a doctrine of "Just War" too. Glad you agree with them. Wish we could put you guys in Gitmo too. Along with the deluded worshippers of the Church of the Free Market, and their very similar twisted justifications for "Just War".
___________________

Well, OBF, it's always good to know where one stands with folks, but I hadn't realized you were so bloodthirsty. This is the first time I've heard someone claim that acknowledging the concept of Just War deserves imprisonment.

That's rather harsh, seeing as how much of international law is based on that concept. Does your invitation to Gitmo include all the members of militaries or merely the American military?

chuck: THAT'S ALL THE EVIDENCE YOU GOT?! THAT BUSH IS A "PROVEN LIAR"? I'LL TAKE THAT TYPE OF CASE TO THE JURY EVERY TIME.

"I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." - Page 54 o