More Republicans quit as party faces election disaster

[obeygiant]

times online uk (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2288803.ece)

A rash of resignations on Capitol Hill and among President Bush’s senior staff has increased the impression that Republicans are fleeing for the exits before electoral disaster next year.

In the past week three of the party’s four leaders in the House announced that they would not seek re-election, and yesterday Tony Snow, Mr Bush’s spokesman, became the latest senior White House aide to quit. This came after the announcement by Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s chief strategist, that he will leave on August 31.

The growing exodus has intensified Republican fears that as the Bush presidency ends mired in Iraq, the party faces further losses in the House and Senate next year, a Democrat victory in the presidential race and an era of internecine bloodletting.

Although a Democrat White House victory is far from assured, by every measure the Republican Party is in trouble. Recent polls show that compared with 2002, when America was split evenly over party identification, now only 35 per cent call themselves Republican - whereas 50 per cent say that they are Democrat.

At the end of the Reagan presidency 37 per cent of young people - those aged 18 to 25 - were Republican. That is down to 25 per cent today.

For the first time in a decade Democrats are raising vastly more money than Republicans. Before next year’s congressional elections the Senate Democratic campaign committee has more than $20 million (£10 million) in cash - compared with less than $6 million for its Republican counterpart.

In the House the Democratic campaign committee has $20 million in the bank; the Republicans only $2 million. A comparison between the top three presidential candidates for each party reveals a wide disparity. The leading Democrats had cumulatively $95 million cash on hand at the end of June; their Republican rivals only $33 million between them.

On Capitol Hill the core of the Republicans’ House leadership is leaving. Last week Dennis Hastert, who lost his job as House Speaker when Democrats regained control of the chamber last November, announced that he would not stand for re-election. So did Deborah Pryce, another member of the House leadership. She leaves vacant her Ohio seat, a bellwether and one of the most vulnerable.

Not at all surprised.

[LethalWolfe]

And the pendulum starts swinging back the other way...


Lethal

[Ugg]

And the pendulum starts swinging back the other way...


Lethal

... and it's about time.

[solvs]

... and it's about time.

Ha, I was just about to say something like that. Y'all didn't believe those of us who spoke of the pendulum swinging the other way eventually. Took it awhile, I guess, but here comes even more backlash.

Dem better get off their collective butts and capitalize on it.

[leekohler]

Bye bye! Try not to let the door hit your collective a**es! :)

[dswoodley]

Dem better get off their collective butts and capitalize on it.

They better, but if the current congress is an indication, they won't. Pity too because this calibre of incompetence demonstrated by the current administration doesn't come around that often.

[mactastic]

times online uk (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2288803.ece)



Not at all surprised.
Why do you say that? I thought things were going swimmingly in Iraq? That's the big issue of the day, isn't it? And since All Is Well there, why the GOP rush for the door?

[Cooknn]

Ron Paul is Republican and is against Iraq, correct?

[SMM]

I have been scratching my head over what has been going on in congress, and with the democratic primary races. Some makes sense, much of it does not.

One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate. Nowadays, if you open your mouth, you are on FOX that night, having your words completely twisted, so the end result is lies. So, if a candidate plans to begin troop pullout from Iraq, they really cannot speak of it. You can imagine the fallout from the media reporting.

There are a great number of things which I would do, but could not talk about specifically during a campaign:

1) Disband Homeland Security - this was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and they have taken on a life of themselves. Let the agencies do their job.
2) Re-write the Patriot Act - remove the provisions that are unconstitutional.
3) Reverse Bush's dictatorial powers from the office of President.
4) Fire every Bush appointee - starting with the 150 attorneys from Pat Robertson's law school.
5) Begin an investigation into the rape of the environment.
6) Finally - GET RID OF LOBBYISTS - now and forever.
7) Begin investigations into the profiteering from the Iraq war.
8) Cut-off all funding of private security forces and private intelligence companies.

First, and foremost, STOP THE WAR. Bring all of our carrier groups over there. Tell the faction leaders, we are making an orderly exit. If anyone attempts to harm our troops as they are leaving, we will resort to full-scale conventional warfare to prevent it.

I would like to see congress begin more investigations right now. I think that would show a commitment to reversing the catastrophic policies of the current administration. I think it would also draw favor with some moderate republicans.

[dswoodley]

What happens when you have two equally unispiring factions vying for national control?

Congress approval rating at 18%

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

[skunk]

Bring all of our carrier groups over there. Tell the faction leaders, we are making an orderly exit. If anyone attempts to harm our troops as they are leaving, we will resort to full-scale conventional warfare to prevent it.I agree with all your points except this one: you are occupying a foreign sovereign state under false pretences, so it's up to you to extricate yourselves without resorting to further bluster and killing. Don't add the threat of waging "full-scale war" on a defenceless country already under occupation, whatever that would mean in the circumstances, to the catalogue of shame.

[SMM]

What happens when you have two equally unispiring factions vying for national control?

Congress approval rating at 18%

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28456

The question is WHY has Congress failed to capture the 'hearts and minds'. Let's face it, the Democratic leadership seems to be acting like they cannot loose in 2008, as long as they do not screw-up. They really do not have to make any real blunders. All they have to do is NOT give the far-right media piranhas anything to attack them with. And they have and will continue to do so.

Republican campaign has been essentially since the Nixon era. You get your candidate to smile and seem 'All American'. Then you turn the attack dogs loose on the opposition. If nothing exists, you invent it. You make them campaign defending themselves, while yours sings 'home, home on the range'. I think the Democrats thought the American people would see through this obvious 'smoke and mirrors'. Well, they did not. It looks like the Democrats are finally waking up to the realization, you cannot win against an adversary who lacks any moral principles.

The Democrats do not have the numbers to overturn a Bush veto. There is little to be gained by turning public sentiment against him. He will go down as the most loathed President in history. The Democrats cannot do anything about Iraq, which would jeopardize the troops we still have there. They do not have the Constitutional authority to order them home. If the American people expect a new congress to come in and stop the war, they do not understand government.

Somethings which need to be done, and which can be done without a great deal of political fallout, are the congressional investigational committees. They have started and are making some headway. There is an oversight committee for every branch of government. IMHO everyone of them has sufficient reason to investigate, and bring charges against corporations, and Bush appointees, who have spent the past several years breaking the law.

I think this will go a long way in bolstering public support for the Democratic congress. I also think there is a large group of Goldwater Republicans who are totally fed up with the neocons. I would love to see this group regain its former prominence.

[SMM]

I agree with all your points except this one: you are occupying a foreign sovereign state under false pretences, so it's up to you to extricate yourselves without resorting to further bluster and killing. Don't add the threat of waging "full-scale war" on a defenceless country already under occupation, whatever that would mean in the circumstances, to the catalogue of shame.

Skunk,

I am not really going to disagree with you philosophically. Allowing our forces to leave peacefully is the goal. We cannot demobilize in a day. As each day passes, those left behind become more vulnerable. It is not their fault. We will be ending the occupation. An orderly withdrawal is required. We cannot allow our remaining troops to be subject to retaliation by opportunists. This is actually an incentive for the faction leadership to curtail violence by small groups. We must protect our troops. This worked in Vietnam, and not a single sortie was required.

[dswoodley]

Skunk,

I am not really going to disagree with you philosophically. Allowing our forces to leave peacefully is the goal. We cannot demobilize in a day. As each day passes, those left behind become more vulnerable. It is not their fault. We will be ending the occupation. An orderly withdrawal is required. We cannot allow our remaining troops to be subject to retaliation by opportunists. This is actually an incentive for the faction leadership to curtail violence by small groups. We must protect our troops. This worked in Vietnam, and not a single sortie was required.

nicely said, SMM. Whatever anyone's position on the war is, it has to keep in mind allowing more unnecessary troop deaths during a withdrawal serves no one's interests.

[imac/cheese]

Somethings which need to be done, and which can be done without a great deal of political fallout, are the congressional investigational committees. They have started and are making some headway. There is an oversight committee for every branch of government. IMHO everyone of them has sufficient reason to investigate, and bring charges against corporations, and Bush appointees, who have spent the past several years breaking the law.

I think this will go a long way in bolstering public support for the Democratic congress. I also think there is a large group of Goldwater Republicans who are totally fed up with the neocons. I would love to see this group regain its former prominence.

I do not think that the public will give more support to a Democratic led congress that does nothing but investigate Bush. yes the public doesn't like Bush or approve of him right now, but we want to see the dems do something. With so many republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush it should not be that hard to find enough defectors to switch sides especially if the dems move to a moderate agenda that many republicans can agree with.

[leekohler]

I do not think that the public will give more support to a Democratic led congress that does nothing but investigate Bush.

I would completely support such a congress- but they'd also have to impeach, try and remove him and his entire regime.

[imac/cheese]

I would completely support such a congress- but they'd also have to impeach, try and remove him and his entire regime.

I had no doubt that you would, but you are not the general public. I don't think the average joe really wants to see congress waste its time with another impeachment trial that goes no where and gets nothing done.

[leekohler]

I had no doubt that you would, but you are not the general public. I don't think the average joe really wants to see congress waste its time with another impeachment trial that goes no where and gets nothing done.

You missed the last part of my sentence- and how exactly would holding this clown accountable be a waste of time?

[mactastic]

With so many republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush it should not be that hard to find enough defectors to switch sides especially if the dems move to a moderate agenda that many republicans can agree with.
Republicans TALK like they're trying to distance themselves from Bush, but until the start VOTING like they're trying to distance themselves from Bush, it's all just mouth-music.

Let's face it, the modern GOP is not going to give Democrats any credit for moving their policies to the right to try to appease the GOP. It will just be taken as a sign of weakness, and exploited appropriately.

And I'm sorry, but a moderate agenda that many Republicans can agree to? How about one that many AMERICANS can agree to? Like the majorities who say bring our troops home?

[imac/cheese]

You missed the last part of my sentence- and how exactly would holding this clown accountable be a waste of time?

Your post said "try and remove him and his entire regime" which would never actually be accomplished because the republicans would block it. So in my opinion it would waste a lot of time and money and not accomplish anything except give us all something to argue about. I am not defending Bush. I just think that since the Dems won the 2006 election and now have control of both houses, I would like to see something occur other than investigations. If that is all they can do, I don't think the american public will be all to pleased with them.

[leekohler]

Your post said "try and remove him and his entire regime" which would never actually be accomplished because the republicans would block it. So in my opinion it would waste a lot of time and money and not accomplish anything except give us all something to argue about. I am not defending Bush. I just think that since the Dems won the 2006 election and now have control of both houses, I would like to see something occur other than investigations. If that is all they can do, I don't think the american public will be all to pleased with them.

Then I guess the answer would be to vote out the Republicans blocking the investigations, wouldn't you think? Don't think that can't happen- paybacks are a bitch. ;)

[imac/cheese]

Then I guess the answer would be to vote out the Republicans blocking the investigations, wouldn't you think? Don't think that can't happen- paybacks are a bitch. ;)

Yes that would be one answer. But I don't think that we will be able to vote out any republicans before we also elect a new president. Once Bush is gone, I really don't want to see congress spending all their time trying to bring charges against him. If they focus on the past they will lose their ability to affect the future.

[SMM]

I do not think that the public will give more support to a Democratic led congress that does nothing but investigate Bush. yes the public doesn't like Bush or approve of him right now, but we want to see the dems do something. With so many republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush it should not be that hard to find enough defectors to switch sides especially if the dems move to a moderate agenda that many republicans can agree with.

You either did not read what I wrote, or did not understand it. If you have followed the threads, I have been pretty clear about my support for impeachment. But, my last post specifically focused on investigations of corporations, and Bush appointees. Are you are saying we should not investigate:

1) War profiteering
2) Kickbacks and compensation for rolling back environmental laws
3) Influence peddling
4) Inappropriate use of federal agencies for political purposes
5) ..and so on...?

There is a list of unanswered crimes a mile long. I thing the American people want to have their faith in government restored. That is only gong to happen until after there is a reckoning. The truth must come out and the guilty punished. Why do you think the approval numbers are so low?

[leekohler]

You either did not read what I wrote, or did not understand it. If you have followed the threads, I have been pretty clear about my support for impeachment. But, my last post specifically focused on investigations of corporations, and Bush appointees. Are you are saying we should not investigate:

1) War profiteering
2) Kickbacks and compensation for rolling back environmental laws
3) Influence peddling
4) Inappropriate use of federal agencies for political purposes
5) ..and so on...?

There is a list of unanswered crimes a mile long. I thing the American people want to have their faith in government restored. That is only gong to happen after there is a reckoning. The truth must come out and the guilty punished. Why do you think the approval numbers are so low?

Oh silly you! Don't you know that investidating blow jobs is far more important? ;) :rolleyes:

[imac/cheese]

Oh silly you! Don't you know that investidating blow jobs is far more important? ;) :rolleyes:

Even though I think perjury is a serious crime, I think that trying to investigate and impeach Clinton was a waste of time as well.

[leekohler]

Even though I think perjury is a serious crime, I think that trying to investigate and impeach Clinton was a waste of time as well.

Fine- but investigating and punishing Bush certainly is not. There is much he needs to answer for. Read and respond to SMM's post. I'm curious as to why you think those things are unimportant to address.

[Sdashiki]

Can not a single candidate, even an independent for whom this statement makes the most sense, say:

I am not a Republican.

I am not a Democrat.

I am an American, like everyone else.

[mactastic]

Even though I think perjury is a serious crime, I think that trying to investigate and impeach Clinton was a waste of time as well.
See for me it's all about what the perjury is preventing investigators from discovering. An affair? Who cares. That affects only the individuals involved and their families. Lying about outing an undercover operative working on Iranian nuclear proliferation issues? Much more important. Lying about spying on Americans without a warrant? Much more important.

The right is going to try to play the "political retaliation" card for any attempt at oversight or investigation. And of course they vehemently denied that Clinton's impeachment was political retaliation for Nixon's near-impeachment. It's a nifty little dodge, you gotta give them credit.

[mactastic]

Can not a single candidate, even an independent for whom this statement makes the most sense, say:

I am not a Republican.

I am not a Democrat.

I am an American, like everyone else.
Never make it past the primary voters. ;)

[Sdashiki]

Never make it past the primary voters. ;)

I dont like living in a country filled with only 2 kinds of people.

Where is the melting pot that is America, jammed down our throats as children in public schools?


I never even spark conversations anymore with people who are obviously, in their manners and words, on one side or the other. They dont have opinions, they have quotes and pundits.

[imac/cheese]

You either did not read what I wrote, or did not understand it. If you have followed the threads, I have been pretty clear about my support for impeachment. But, my last post specifically focused on investigations of corporations, and Bush appointees. Are you are saying we should not investigate:

1) War profiteering
2) Kickbacks and compensation for rolling back environmental laws
3) Influence peddling
4) Inappropriate use of federal agencies for political purposes
5) ..and so on...?

There is a list of unanswered crimes a mile long. I thing the American people want to have their faith in government restored. That is only gong to happen until after there is a reckoning. The truth must come out and the guilty punished. Why do you think the approval numbers are so low?

You are correct. Those are serious crimes that should be looked into. I have not seen any evidence that proves these crimes have actually occured, but I haven't really been looking for any either. If there is evidence enough to press this by all means the congress should proceed.

I do disagree with the statement about faith in government. I think what would restore America's faith in government would be some action and some accomplishments instead of a bunch of drawn out investigations that split the parties down the center and end up with nothing really happening or at the most some sort of minor reckoning (with pardons from Bush). I think that is congress had jumped right in after the elections and actually accomplished something, they would have a lot more respect from the people. The general public does not really know about the list you mentioned so they do not require a reckoning.

[imac/cheese]

See for me it's all about what the perjury is preventing investigators from discovering. An affair? Who cares. That affects only the individuals involved and their families. Lying about outing an undercover operative working on Iranian nuclear proliferation issues? Much more important. Lying about spying on Americans without a warrant? Much more important.

I disagree. I think it was Ross Perot who said something like this:

If a man is willing to lie to his wife and cheat on her, why should I think he would not lie to me. (Saying that he would never hire a man he knew to be having an affair).

[leekohler]

I disagree. I think it was Ross Perot who said something like this:

If a man is willing to lie to his wife and cheat on her, why should I think he would not lie to me. (Saying that he would never hire a man he knew to be having an affair).

What about a former coke-snorting frat boy who lies about reasons for wars?

[mactastic]

I disagree. I think it was Ross Perot who said something like this:

If a man is willing to lie to his wife and cheat on her, why should I think he would not lie to me. (Saying that he would never hire a man he knew to be having an affair).
True. I suppose someone who will lie to you about something trivial will lie to you about anything.

Of course that means anyone who has ever told any kind of lie, white black or other, is not fit to be elected to office. That ought to just about empty DC...

[Sobe]

One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate.

You're kidding right?

must....stop....laughing....at....absurd....political...commentary.

[skunk]

True. I suppose someone who will lie to you about something trivial will lie to you about anything.I'm guessing your wife doesn't read your posts... :eek:;)

[dswoodley]

You're kidding right?

must....stop....laughing....at....absurd....political...commentary.

i wouldn't put the blame 100% on Rove et al, but they sure have done a lot to move the country away from any tone of civil discourse.

[mactastic]

I'm guessing your wife doesn't read your posts... :eek:;)
Nor do your clients? ;)

[SMM]

You're kidding right?

must....stop....laughing....at....absurd....political...commentary.

Maybe you should post something of substance. This adds zero value to the thread. I will give you the outright lead on 'absurd commentary'.

[Sobe]

Maybe you should post something of substance. This adds zero value to the thread. I will give you the outright lead on 'absurd commentary'.

The value it adds is a simple voicing of dissent that not everyone agrees with that site, your opinions, or the endless parade of liberal voices that file through the Politics, Religion, Social Issues part of the forum.

Take a look at the topics:

More Republicans quit as party faces election disaster

Please tell me (criminalizing the antiwar movement)

3 Pills - $US 350.00

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

Proof the rich are getting richer

The Right Wing On Campus

Young GOP leader accused in gay sex crime

The CIA did not do enough to stop Al Qaeda before 9/11

"The real speech of George W Bush"

Do we need another 9/11?

Ever seen this site before? (Conservapedia)

Tony Snow

Army suicide rate highest in 26 years

U.S. lags behind 41 nations in life span

*******


I could go on. It's relentlessly negative, anti-republican, anti-bush, anti-war, anti-establishment.

Even if the topics that are somewhat neutral (like Tony Snow for example), it's just an excuse to remind everyone how much the poster hates anything with a GOP near its name.

So how much exactly does yet another anti-bush comment add to the thread? You had lots of those, yet you pick on the one that says "hey maybe I disagree."

Your incisive bit of commentary was "not at all surprised"

Well done mate, you certainly hit the nail on the head there with that piece of hard hitting analysis!

EDIT:
Actually that was referring to the OP, not SMM...his analysis would take me a fifth of Jack Daniels and a bottle of Percocet to comment on.

[SMM]

i wouldn't put the blame 100% on Rove et al, but they sure have done a lot to move the country away from any tone of civil discourse.

This is what I wrote:


One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate


Notice, I only used Rove as an example. Some of the real filth in the Neocon ranks are republican strategists; Roger Ailes, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, etc.

What do they all have in common - devout liars.

[obeygiant]

Notice, I only used Rove as an example. Some of the real filth in the Neocon ranks are republican strategists; Roger Ailes, Bill Kristol, Richard Perle, etc.

What do they all have in common - devout liars.

Just because they see the world differently then you doesn't make them liars.

They are no more liars than the dem strategists opposite them.

[SMM]

Actually that was referring to the OP, not SMM...his analysis would take me a fifth of Jack Daniels and a bottle of Percocet to comment on.


Well, this is SMM. Please have your percocet cocktail. It might help you quell you rage. I usually do not like to debate those who have given up thinking for opinion. Actually, 'opinion' is not really correct, it is 'position'. Opinion suggests there was an intelligent thought process attached to it.

You attack the thread subject content in this forum. It is an open forum. If you do not find the subjects of interest, start your own threads.

Yes, the majority of the posts here are anti-Bush, Anti-GOP. Why not? Bush is the most loathsome president to ever hold office. That is my opinion. If you do not like it, too bad. I do not seek your approval for my opinions. I will not speak for the other members.

This is an open forum to speak your views, and/or start your own threads. If you do not like it, there are other boards where you can 'buddy-up' with your fellow republicans. Or, you can just add your own commentary to the threads here, hopefully without an attitude.

[SMM]

Just because they see the world differently then you doesn't make them liars.

They are no more liars than the dem strategists opposite them.

That is not true. Normally, in a debate I would concede there is a distortion of the facts by both sides. But those named have actually lied to the American people. There is so much documented evidence of this, it is not a matter of opinion.

[Sobe]

Well, this is SMM. Please have your percocet cocktail. It might help you quell you rage. I usually do not like to debate those who have given up thinking for opinion. Actually, 'opinion' is not really correct, it is 'position'. Opinion suggests there was an intelligent thought process attached to it.

You attack the thread subject content in this forum. It is an open forum. If you do not find the subjects of interest, start your own threads.

Yes, the majority of the posts here are anti-Bush, Anti-GOP. Why not? Bush is the most loathsome president to ever hold office. That is my opinion. If you do not like it, too bad. I do not seek your approval for my opinions. I will not speak for the other members.

This is an open forum to speak your views, and/or start your own threads. If you do not like it, there are other boards where you can 'buddy-up' with your fellow republicans. Or, you can just add your own commentary to the threads here, hopefully without an attitude.

See maybe that's the difference. I don't have any rage.

I'm also not interested in posting to please you or your desired "attitude" as if I were working for you and you're my editor.

Isn't it nice when someone tells you how much they love having their opinion regardless of yours and then proceed to tell you how you should do the same?

Maybe you can jimmy up a separate list of rules for us evil conservatives, so we know how to post to please those so much wiser for seeing through all those Republican rascally tricks.

And take heart, that post was partially aimed at you...after all I need to make sure my posts adhere to the SMM rules of substance! We wouldn't want to have any frivelous postings in a macintosh political board! No Sir, we wouldn't.

[SMM]

See maybe that's the difference. I don't have any rage.

I'm also not interested in posting to please you or your desired "attitude" as if I were working for you and you're my editor.

Isn't it nice when someone tells you how much they love having their opinion regardless of yours and then proceed to tell you how you should do the same?

Maybe you can jimmy up a separate list of rules for us evil conservatives, so we know how to post to please those so much wiser for seeing through all those Republican rascally tricks.

And take heart, that post was partially aimed at you...after all I need to make sure my posts adhere to the SMM rules of substance! We wouldn't want to have any frivelous postings in a macintosh political board! No Sir, we wouldn't.

Nice try. However, you will not find success in trying to perform a personal vasectomy on me. I am well beyond those tactics. So far you have done little more than attack people for being liberal. If you have arguments of substance, then bring them on.

[Sobe]

Nice try. However, you will not find success in trying to perform a personal vasectomy on me. I am well beyond those tactics. So far you have done little more than attack people for being liberal. If you have arguments of substance, then bring them on.

You love the word "attack" don't you.

I'm not attacking anyone for being liberal. What I did was to make the observations.

That may not exactly be an argument of substance, but it is certainly a valid observation, even if you dismiss it as irrelevant.

And again, although you will certainly dismiss it as surely as you did previously, I do not consider you to be the arbiter of what is a matter of substance and what is not.

It was important to me, I commented on it. Get over yourself.

[solvs]

Whatever anyone's position on the war is, it has to keep in mind allowing more unnecessary troop deaths during a withdrawal serves no one's interests.
As opposed to more unnecessary deaths while not withdrawing?

but you are not the general public.
Actually, looking at recent polls, about half the country would agree with him. And a large percentage certainly do want investigations. Don't know about impeachment for all of them, but Cheney and Gonzo aren't doing so well. If they can accomplish something AND continue investigations so we have at least some oversight, we might like them more than just voting for them because we hate the other side right now.

I have not seen any evidence that proves these crimes have actually occured, but I haven't really been looking for any either.
If you were, you would see that they have.

must....stop....laughing....at....absurd....political...commentary.
You're right, Rove didn't help to completely split this country apart after a majority of us stood together after 9/11, demonizing the opposition that's now the majority.

Except, you know, he did.

It's relentlessly negative, anti-republican, anti-bush, anti-war, anti-establishment.
Didn't used to be like that. Was the opposite actually. Maybe if they stopped sucking so much and screwing everything up, a majority of the posters here, and a majority of Americans, wouldn't dislike them and what they're doing so much. But they do and they are, so we don't like them.

If it was the Dems doing this stuff, do you think we wouldn't still be doing this... because you must not have noticed that we do criticize them too.

Just because they see the world differently then you doesn't make them liars.
No, the fact that they're liars make them liars.

[mactastic]

See maybe that's the difference. I don't have any rage.
Yes, so little rage that you need hard liquor and prescription painkillers just to talk to a liberal...

I'm also not interested in posting to please you or your desired "attitude" as if I were working for you and you're my editor.

Isn't it nice when someone tells you how much they love having their opinion regardless of yours and then proceed to tell you how you should do the same?

Maybe you can jimmy up a separate list of rules for us evil conservatives, so we know how to post to please those so much wiser for seeing through all those Republican rascally tricks.

And take heart, that post was partially aimed at you...after all I need to make sure my posts adhere to the SMM rules of substance! We wouldn't want to have any frivelous postings in a macintosh political board! No Sir, we wouldn't.Yep, you got that persecution complex down pat! We're all out to git ya, dontcha know? Funny thing is, this forum has reflected the changes in Bush's popularity among the general public pretty neatly. Go back and read the "relentlessly liberal" tirades from back in 2003. This forum skewed conservative then, just as the electorate did.

Today the forum reflects the reality that a majority of Americans do not approve of Bush or the war in Iraq. But of course conservatives are excellent at rejecting any reality that doesn't agree with them. And then they declare that they feel persecuted by the mean nasty rotten left...

[Sobe]

Yes, so little rage that you need hard liquor and prescription painkillers just to talk to a liberal...

Yep, you got that persecution complex down pat! We're all out to git ya, dontcha know? Funny thing is, this forum has reflected the changes in Bush's popularity among the general public pretty neatly. Go back and read the "relentlessly liberal" tirades from back in 2003. This forum skewed conservative then, just as the electorate did.

Today the forum reflects the reality that a majority of Americans do not approve of Bush or the war in Iraq. But of course conservatives are excellent at rejecting any reality that doesn't agree with them. And then they declare that they feel persecuted by the mean nasty rotten left...

sense of humor check on aisle one, sense of humor check

[dswoodley]

As opposed to more unnecessary deaths while not withdrawing?


That's not even what we're talking about. The issue is how to proceed with a withdrawal. Why are you dragging this off topic?

[leekohler]

The value it adds is a simple voicing of dissent that not everyone agrees with that site, your opinions, or the endless parade of liberal voices that file through the Politics, Religion, Social Issues part of the forum.

Take a look at the topics:

More Republicans quit as party faces election disaster

Please tell me (criminalizing the antiwar movement)

3 Pills - $US 350.00

Poll: Majority mistrustful of upcoming Iraq report

Proof the rich are getting richer

The Right Wing On Campus

Young GOP leader accused in gay sex crime

The CIA did not do enough to stop Al Qaeda before 9/11

"The real speech of George W Bush"

Do we need another 9/11?

Ever seen this site before? (Conservapedia)

Tony Snow

Army suicide rate highest in 26 years

U.S. lags behind 41 nations in life span

*******


I could go on. It's relentlessly negative, anti-republican, anti-bush, anti-war, anti-establishment.

Even if the topics that are somewhat neutral (like Tony Snow for example), it's just an excuse to remind everyone how much the poster hates anything with a GOP near its name.

So how much exactly does yet another anti-bush comment add to the thread? You had lots of those, yet you pick on the one that says "hey maybe I disagree."

Your incisive bit of commentary was "not at all surprised"

Well done mate, you certainly hit the nail on the head there with that piece of hard hitting analysis!

EDIT:
Actually that was referring to the OP, not SMM...his analysis would take me a fifth of Jack Daniels and a bottle of Percocet to comment on.

If it takes you that many intoxicants to make a rational commentary, I'd say you do have anger management issues.

Conservatives have let their party be taken over by wackos. That's not our fault, it's the fault of conservatives. If we feel the need to call them on it, I think that's out duty as Americans. If you choose to defend them, you'd better come up with some really good proof to back up your defenses because this current administration is a nightmare.

Funny thing is- a lot of us here don't even consider ourselves liberals, but we've been painted that way by Bush and his ilk. Anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, terrorist-lovin, anti-American liberal, who wants to help comfort the enemy. And you wonder why there's a lot of anti-conservative threads here?

[dswoodley]

If it takes you that many intoxicants to make a rational commentary, I'd say you do have anger management issues.

Conservatives have let their party be taken over by wackos. That's not our fault, it's the fault of conservatives. If we feel the need to call them on it, I think that's out duty as Americans. If you choose to defend them, you'd better come up with some really good proof to back up your defenses because this current administration is a nightmare.

Funny thing is- a lot of us here don't even consider ourselves liberals, but we've been painted that way by Bush and his ilk. Anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, terrorist-lovin, anti-American liberal, who wants to help comfort the enemy. And you wonder why there's a lot of anti-conservative threads here?

True conservatives don't even have a party anymore! they hate bushco too!

I think some of what you say in the last paragraph has a lot of truth to it, but it swings the other way too.

If you are tough on immigration, then you are a racist...
If you are not in favor of gay marriage, then you hate gays...
If you don't want to give more money to schools, then you hate kids...
If you want to see America be successful in Iraq, then you're a fascist...
If you don't have "Bush sucks" tatooed on your forehead, then you're a Nazi

I have varying positions on these things, but it hasn't prevented me from getting called a "hater" by both sides. Why do I have to be a "hater" just because I'm opposed or not opposed to something?

[Sobe]

If it takes you that many intoxicants to make a rational commentary, I'd say you do have anger management issues.

Conservatives have let their party be taken over by wackos. That's not our fault, it's the fault of conservatives. If we feel the need to call them on it, I think that's out duty as Americans. If you choose to defend them, you'd better come up with some really good proof to back up your defenses because this current administration is a nightmare.

Funny thing is- a lot of us here don't even consider ourselves liberals, but we've been painted that way by Bush and his ilk. Anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, terrorist-lovin, anti-American liberal, who wants to help comfort the enemy. And you wonder why there's a lot of anti-conservative threads here?

I don't need anything. It's called hyperbole. It's a literary device. You should look into it sometime.

I don't have a problem with people holding Bush's feet to the fire, or any politicians for that matter.

It would be nice if the anti-Bush crowd held Democrats to the same standards though.

I mean let's face it, it wouldn't matter what Bush did, you'd be against it on principle.

Being negative is fine, but at some point you actually have to stand FOR something, rather than just be against everything republican.

[TheAnswer]

It's called hyperbole. It's a literary device. You should look into it sometime.

If the sword does not wound correctly, that's the fault of the one wielding the sword, not their intended victim.

[Sobe]

If the sword does not wound correctly, that's the fault of the one wielding the sword, not their intended victim.

I will most humbly take my leave of you. You cannot, sir, take from me anything that I will not more willingly part withal.

Bill S.

[dswoodley]

If the sword does not wound correctly, that's the fault of the one wielding the sword, not their intended victim.

Ah yes, but words are more delightfully subtle instruments.

[mactastic]

sense of humor check on aisle one, sense of humor check
Ohh... I'm sorry, you meant all that as a joke! Hahahahahaha... OMFG, you're too much. Stop it! You're killing me with right-wing humor! Hahahahahaha.....

It would be nice if the anti-Bush crowd held Democrats to the same standards though.
You obviously haven't been here long enough. Although it would be nice if the anti-Clinton crowd would hold Republicans to the same standards. We could start with an equalling of the Congressional investigations. When the Democratic Congress has pursued as many investigations of Bush as the GOP did of Clinton... oh wait, there isn't time left in Bush's tenure in office.

[Sobe]

Ohh... I'm sorry, you meant all that as a joke! Hahahahahaha... OMFG, you're too much. Stop it! You're killing me with right-wing humor! Hahahahahaha.....


You obviously haven't been here long enough. Although it would be nice if the anti-Clinton crowd would hold Republicans to the same standards. We could start with an equalling of the Congressional investigations. When the Democratic Congress has pursued as many investigations of Bush as the GOP did of Clinton... oh wait, there isn't time left in Bush's tenure in office.

Well it's certainly not my fault if you insist on assuming that my goal was to amuse you.

As far as investigations go, have at it. If you want to find a whipping boy you can look elsewhere.

What I don't do, however, is buy into the relentless negativity. You seem to be doing well enough for the both of us though, so the scales should be able to manage.

I mean seriously why even bother to post -- all you're interested in doing is repeating your dislike of the Bush adminstration. Is there anyone who isn't aware of the depths of your hatred?

Just write a manifesto on a blog and post a link to it. You'd accomplish roughly as much.

[leekohler]

I don't need anything. It's called hyperbole. It's a literary device. You should look into it sometime.

I don't have a problem with people holding Bush's feet to the fire, or any politicians for that matter.

It would be nice if the anti-Bush crowd held Democrats to the same standards though.

I mean let's face it, it wouldn't matter what Bush did, you'd be against it on principle.

Being negative is fine, but at some point you actually have to stand FOR something, rather than just be against everything republican.

Read through these forums and you'll see what most of us stand for. Shouldn't take you that long. Umm...and if you'd read more here, you'd find that all of us slam the Dems just as much- you're reading what you want here. We've discussed our disappoinment with the new Congress for a while.

As far as what Bush does, I have a hard time finding anything the man can do right, he's done so much wrong.

[skunk]

I don't need anything. It's called hyperbole. It's a literary device. You should look into it sometime.Perhaps you should make your "literary devices" more recognisable. You're obviously being far too subtle.

I mean let's face it, it wouldn't matter what Bush did, you'd be against it on principle. Being negative is fine, but at some point you actually have to stand FOR something, rather than just be against everything republican.I'm against illegal neo-colonialist wars, I'm against being lied to, I'm against relentlessly reckless, incompetent and murderous geo-politics being waged in pursuit of a flawed and dangerous ideology. If Bush wasn't doing all these things all the time, I probably wouldn't feel so negative towards him.

What I'm FOR, though it may well be a vain hope, is some semblance of self-awareness, fairness and honesty in our dealings with others. I'd like to be represented in the world by someone who has the courage to admit what interests he or she serves, and the skill and leadership qualities to do it effectively.

[mactastic]

Well it's certainly not my fault if you insist on assuming that my goal was to amuse you.

As far as investigations go, have at it. If you want to find a whipping boy you can look elsewhere.

What I don't do, however, is buy into the relentless negativity. You seem to be doing well enough for the both of us though, so the scales should be able to manage.

I mean seriously why even bother to post -- all you're interested in doing is repeating your dislike of the Bush adminstration. Is there anyone who isn't aware of the depths of your hatred?

Just write a manifesto on a blog and post a link to it. You'd accomplish roughly as much.
Why do you bother to post at all? I've seen nothing but invective and hyperbole from you.

Are you here to discuss and debate, or are you here to troll?

[Sobe]

attack and invective.

All I did was have the audacity to comment on the fact that the thread and the forum was overwhelmingly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.

It seems that's a little too much for people to handle though.

You can go right down the list.

It's not I feel that, It seems that, one could argue that...

It's bam bam bam bam this is lies, illegal, ad nauseum.

There are (gasp) reasonable people who disagree with those characterizations.

If Congress wanted to, they could pull funding for the war as soon as they convened. Why haven't they?

If this war is illegal, the result of lies, and neo-colonist, I mean if it is that big a slam dunk, I would think we would see daily posts railing against the Democratic majority for their complicity in these actions and failure to cut off funding yesterday.

Heck if I thought all those things were the case, I would be all over Congress like a cheap suit.

But we simply do not see that. The result is that it is so much noise because the assertions lack the followthrough to its natural logical conclusions.

[mactastic]

You're kidding right?

must....stop....laughing....at....absurd....political...commentary.

All I did was have the audacity to comment on the fact that the thread and the forum was overwhelmingly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.
Lol... No you made a lame, rude, drive by comment that had nothing to do with any observation about the nature of this thread or the forum in general. You got called on it, and got defensive. And subsequently adopted your current persecution complex.

Get over yourself man!

And you might want to re-evaluate your claim that lefties here don't criticize Democrats when they **** up.

[leekohler]

attack and invective.

All I did was have the audacity to comment on the fact that the thread and the forum was overwhelmingly anti-Bush and anti-Republican.

It seems that's a little too much for people to handle though.

You can go right down the list.

It's not I feel that, It seems that, one could argue that...

It's bam bam bam bam this is lies, illegal, ad nauseum.

There are (gasp) reasonable people who disagree with those characterizations.

If Congress wanted to, they could pull funding for the war as soon as they convened. Why haven't they?

If this war is illegal, the result of lies, and neo-colonist, I mean if it is that big a slam dunk, I would think we would see daily posts railing against the Democratic majority for their complicity in these actions and failure to cut off funding yesterday.

Heck if I thought all those things were the case, I would be all over Congress like a cheap suit.

But we simply do not see that. The result is that it is so much noise because the assertions lack the followthrough to its natural logical conclusions.

You could also get off your butt and go look through this forum. You'll find exactly what you claim we don't talk about. Go ahead, try it- I dare you. If your going to make that kind of claim in here, you'd better be able to back it up. All you're doing is speculating. Did I not just mention that we've been PO'd at congress and have disussed that issue at length before in this forum? It's here my friend. If you haven't seen it, you're either not looking or simply ignoring it. If you look hard enough, you'll also find mention that many of us write Congress on a regular basis.

[Sobe]

Lol... No you made a lame, rude, drive by comment that had nothing to do with any observation about the nature of this thread or the forum in general. You got called on it, and got defensive. And subsequently adopted your current persecution complex.

Get over yourself man!

And you might want to re-evaluate your claim that lefties here don't criticize Democrats when they **** up.

It had everything to do with the forum, and to a lesser extent this thread. That you fail to grasp that connection is something for a trained professional.

As for being defensive, I was systematically verbally assaulted for daring to make the comments. Any defensiveness you may discern is not due to the nature of my comments but rather the nature of the responses and their tone.

You can keep trying to bully me if you like, but I'm not going to buy into your psuedo-psychological analysis anymore than I'm going to buy into your characterization of my posts.

So do you refuse to comment on why there is an endless assault on Bush but Congress is getting so much less attention -- or shall we just leave it at the fact that you'd prefer to pick on Bush?

[Sobe]

You could also get off your butt and go look through this forum. You'll find exactly what you claim we don't talk about. Go ahead, try it- I dare you. If your going to make that kind of claim in here, you'd better be able to back it up. All you're doing is speculating. Did I not just mention that we've been PO'd at congress and have disussed that issue at length before in this forum? It's here my friend. If you haven't seen it, you're either not looking or simply ignoring it. If you look hard enough, you'll also find mention that many of us write Congress on a regular basis.

Man, can we do away with the burning down of straw men? I'm not claiming it was never discussed. What I said was that you look at the page and it's just all anti-Bush, anti-GOP.

I don't have to search to see 10,000 anti bush posts do I?

If this war is illegal, the result of lies, and neo-colonist, I mean if it is that big a slam dunk, I would think we would see daily posts railing against the Democratic majority for their complicity in these actions and failure to cut off funding yesterday.

Where does that say you've never discussed it?

Oh I see, you inferred it.

[TheAnswer]

It had everything to do with the forum, and to a lesser extent this thread.

Then perhaps the wisest course of action would have been to address this by creating a thread about this subject in the forum, instead of injecting it into the thread in the manner you did without directly addressing the issue at hand.

Your complaint about the lack of threads critical of Democrats or examples of liberal policies gone wrong can be corrected by starting threads about those issues yourself. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to discuss those issues.

[skunk]

If this war is illegal, the result of lies, and neo-colonist, I mean if it is that big a slam dunk, I would think we would see daily posts railing against the Democratic majority for their complicity in these actions and failure to cut off funding yesterday.I have little idea what your Democratic majority is up to (not much, it would appear), but I do see what instability and destruction the crass and criminal policies of your Administration and mine have brought upon the Middle East, and I shall continue to comment on it as I see fit.

[mactastic]

It had everything to do with the forum, and to a lesser extent this thread. That you fail to grasp that connection is something for a trained professional.
Ah yes, you're such the victim here. It's not like you entered this thread with verbal diarreah spewing forth now, is it? And then insinuating that I need mental help? Oh yea, that's takin' the high road.

As for being defensive, I was systematically verbally assaulted for daring to make the comments. Any defensiveness you may discern is not due to the nature of my comments but rather the nature of the responses and their tone.
Ah I see. So when you insult someone and they do the same to you, it's their fault for reacting to your first comment? Have some personal responsibility for your actions! Yet you continue the martyr routine: "It wasn't my insulting comments that caused the trouble, it's other people reacting to my insulting comments that's the problem." You're hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be amusing.

You can keep trying to bully me if you like, but I'm not going to buy into your psuedo-psychological analysis anymore than I'm going to buy into your characterization of my posts.
Just when I think you can't get any more obtuse, you manage to do so. Here you are complaining about my "pseudo-psychological analysis" (of which I have offered none), yet in the lines above you suggest that I need mental health help. Hmmm... projection anyone?

So do you refuse to comment on why there is an endless assault on Bush but Congress is getting so much less attention -- or shall we just leave it at the fact that you'd prefer to pick on Bush?
Do you refuse to comment on why the forum has switched from dominated by conservative commentary while Bush was popular to the current situation -- or shall we just leave it at the fact that you'd prefer to simply insult anyone who disagrees with you?

[Sobe]

Ah yes, you're such the victim here. It's not like you entered this thread with verbal diarreah spewing forth now, is it? And then insinuating that I need mental help? Oh yea, that's takin' the high road.

I entered this thread commenting on SMM's remark that:

"One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate."

It's an absurd comment, and I posted as much.

Your entry into this thread was:

"Why do you say that? I thought things were going swimmingly in Iraq? That's the big issue of the day, isn't it? And since All Is Well there, why the GOP rush for the door?"

Just so we're clear, calling B.S. on Karl Rove being responsible for the demise of honesty in politics is verbal diarrhea, but sarcastic hyperbole on the state of iraq is high political discourse?

Ah I see. So when you insult someone and they do the same to you, it's their fault for reacting to your first comment? Have some personal responsibility for your actions! Yet you continue the martyr routine: "It wasn't my insulting comments that caused the trouble, it's other people reacting to my insulting comments that's the problem." You're hilarious. If it wasn't so pathetic, it would be amusing.

Before I said anything to you, you commented that I had so little rage that I needed the drugs and alcohol I joked about needing to read an SMM post. Then I had a persecution complex, then I had invective and hyperbole, then you characterized my comment as lame, crude, and a drive by, claimed I got "called on it" and was now all defensive.

All of that was prior to the comment I made on seeking a trained professional.

I could go on and on, but why bother? Just as you aren't interested in the merits of the point, nor are you interested in the merits of refutations to your assertions.

Just when I think you can't get any more obtuse, you manage to do so. Here you are complaining about my "pseudo-psychological analysis" (of which I have offered none), yet in the lines above you suggest that I need mental health help. Hmmm... projection anyone?

The only sign of my obtuseness is my inability to just ignore the thread entirely...alas.

Do you refuse to comment on why the forum has switched from dominated by conservative commentary while Bush was popular to the current situation -- or shall we just leave it at the fact that you'd prefer to simply insult anyone who disagrees with you?

Not at all. If you go back and read what I said, you'll find a comment that it's not just that it is anti-Bush but rather that Congress appears relatively immune from the same level of criticism even though they have the power to end the war tomorrow and undo much of what people complain about Bush over.

In a rational world one would expect a certain amount of anti-incumbency, and anti-Bush fervor, but you should certainly see more anti-Democratic majority. Alas, one doesn't.

So yeah people can continue posting as they see fit. I never suggested anyone should shut up or stop posting or even change their point of view.

What I did suggest is that the one-sidedness of the threads appears to be out of whack with the political reality.

If you or others wish to deny that or ignore it, that's your choice and your cross to bear.

[SMM]

I entered this thread commenting on SMM's remark that:

"One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate."

It's an absurd comment, and I posted as much.

Just so we're clear, calling B.S. on Karl Rove being responsible for the demise of honesty in politics is verbal diarrhea, but sarcastic hyperbole on the state of iraq is high political discourse?



So, here you go again. You offer no substance to challenge my posts, except to call them absurd, and my opinion 'verbal diarrhea'. You have also taken this thread sideways, which is a cheapster's trick to avoid addressing an issue.

There are many very smart, learned people who post here. They are not going to be mislead by anyone posting drivel.

The history of the republican strategists is very well documented. One can start with "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean. I would not recommend it to you. It would shatter your glass world. I take that back. You would just consider it 'verbal diarrhea'.

[Sobe]

So, here you go again. You offer no substance to challenge my posts, except to call them absurd, and my opinion 'verbal diarrhea'. You have also taken this thread sideways, which is a cheapster's trick to avoid addressing an issue.

There are many very smart, learned people who post here. They are not going to be mislead by anyone posting drivel.

The history of the republican strategists is very well documented. One can start with "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean. I would not recommend it to you. It would shatter your glass world. I take that back. You would just consider it 'verbal diarrhea'.

If you're going to lay the responsibility for the end of honesty in political debate at Karl Rove's feet I feel quite comfortable calling that absurd.

The history of republican strategists is neither necessay nor sufficient to substantiate your claim. You mentioned one -- Rove. An assertion which you made without any comparison of past honesty in political debate. When your position is challenged it is then my responsibility to be "substantive."

So SMM's say so is acceptable. Someone who says it is absurd suffers from a lack of substance?

You made the assertion, so back it up or admit you overstated the case like a reasonable person would.

It is not my place to do your research for you.

You mention the Dean book, saying it would "shatter my world."

You know nothing of my world, my reading habits, nor my willingness to seek out antitheses to my points of view.

Dean was neck deep in Watergate, so it might make for an interesting read. He did go to my alma mater though, so I should probably give him a chance.

[j26]

All I did was have the audacity to comment on the fact that the thread and the forum was overwhelmingly anti-Bush ...

Don't forget that this is an international forum, with a significant number of posters from outside the US.
Whatever Bush's popularity is in the US, he's generally hated by people across the world, primarily due to his contempt for international law, and pandering to big business.

Internationally, the Democrats are more likely preferred as the less insanely off the scale right wing party in the US (you do not have a left-right divide in US politics - it's more like a right-far right divide). Come to Europe or South America to see real left wing politics.

[Sobe]

Don't forget that this is an international forum, with a significant number of posters from outside the US.
Whatever Bush's popularity is in the US, he's generally hated by people across the world, primarily due to his contempt for international law, and pandering to big business.

Internationally, the Democrats are more likely preferred as the less insanely off the scale right wing party in the US (you do not have a left-right divide in US politics - it's more like a right-far right divide). Come to Europe or South America to see real left wing politics.

Both of my parents are right off the boat from Europe (well not right off the boat, it was quite a while ago), and I'm first generation American...so I've heard plenty of anecdotes and such from friends and relatives about how the rest of the world views America in general and the Bush Presidency in particular.

It is a good point though about the international flavor.

[solvs]

That's not even what we're talking about. The issue is how to proceed with a withdrawal. Why are you dragging this off topic?
Because that's what's happening right now as the alternative to any withdrawal, which makes it about as on topic as anything else posted here.

Conservatives have let their party be taken over by wackos. That's not our fault, it's the fault of conservatives. If we feel the need to call them on it, I think that's out duty as Americans. If you choose to defend them, you'd better come up with some really good proof to back up your defenses because this current administration is a nightmare.

Funny thing is- a lot of us here don't even consider ourselves liberals, but we've been painted that way by Bush and his ilk. Anyone who disagrees with them is a commie, terrorist-lovin, anti-American liberal, who wants to help comfort the enemy. And you wonder why there's a lot of anti-conservative threads here?
I think this about answers your questions Sobe, but I'll add my 2 cents.

It would be nice if the anti-Bush crowd held Democrats to the same standards though.
We do when they are responsible for the **** ups.

I mean let's face it, it wouldn't matter what Bush did, you'd be against it on principle.
Not true. I stood behind him after 9/11 when I didn't even care about him before that (positively or negatively). I didn't start disliking him until he started screwing things up, which he continues to do spectacularly. If he started doing things right, or even stopped doing things wrong, I'd stop disliking him so much, even considering all the damage he's already done.

It's not even about more bad than good, I can't think of a single thing he's done right. Not a one. I even asked people awhile back and nobody could really come up with anything other than he didn't block the National Call Registry. Maybe you can help me with that, because I'm honestly still stumped.

Being negative is fine, but at some point you actually have to stand FOR something, rather than just be against everything republican.
But they're the ones who are (were in the case of Congress) screwing things up. I'm against them because I'm against what they're doing. Why wouldn't I be? Give me something to be for and I will be for it, but as we're pointed out to dispute you, the Dems aren't exactly it.

There are (gasp) reasonable people who disagree with those characterizations.
Maybe some of those reasonable people can provide proof as to why they disagree with those who've given proof as to why they feel the way they do.

If Congress wanted to, they could pull funding for the war as soon as they convened. Why haven't they?
Because besides being not feasible, they're ineffective do nothings who couldn't get much done even if they had a larger majority because as we keep point out to you, they suck.

If this war is illegal, the result of lies, and neo-colonist, I mean if it is that big a slam dunk, I would think we would see daily posts railing against the Democratic majority for their complicity in these actions and failure to cut off funding yesterday.
Look harder, because they're there, even if they aren't as loud because they aren't the ones who started the fire, they're just dropping the ball in putting it out.

But we simply do not see that.
Maybe you don't. You must be new here. Again, though they aren't the ones responsible for starting the war, and worse screwing it up, they were complicit in the early stages and don't do enough now to end it in a feasible way, opposition or not. So we're frustrated with them, but angry with those actually responsible. Not to mention all the other stuff the neocons and their supporters have done wrong, while the Dems are mostly guilty of doing nothing or not enough. The anger isn't equal, because the actions are not equal.

What part of this are you not getting?

[Sobe]

What part of this are you not getting?

My inability to "get it" is a function of my allocating blame as much to Congress and the American people as I blame the executive branch.

It's not that I don't "get it" but rather that I disagree with the characterization of it.

AUMF in Iraq:

House of Representatives

420 Ayes, 1 Nay and 10 Not Voting (the Nay was Barbara Lee - D-CA).

Senate

98 Ayes, 0 Nays, 2 Present/Not Voting (Senators Larry Craig - R and Jesse Helms - R).

Angry with those actually responsible?

The war was carried out with the full a priori approval of force by Congress and it wasn't even close.

This wasn't a war where Congress said no and President Bush said "screw you I am doing it anyway"

I see Congress just as responsible as the President.

One would think that if Congress were totally lied to and the AUMF were a house of cards built on those lies, Congress would act quickly under Pelosi to correct that wrong.

A little history, ripped from Congresspedia (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Carl_Levin#Voting_record)
During the October 2002 debate over the resolution giving President Bush the authority to use military force against Iraq, Levin proposed an amendment (S.AMDT.4862) restricting the president from using force without U.N. authority. In addition, the amendment required the president to again receive authorization from Congress if Iraq defied the provisions of a U.N. resolution. Supporters felt as though doing so would ensure that the U.S. maintained the cooperation of the global community. Opponents believed that the U.S. did not require the permission of other nations to protect itself. The amendment failed 24-75.

Check out the roll call on S.Amdt. 4862 to S.Amdt. 4856 to S.J.Res. 45 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00235#position)

28 democrats voted NAY, 4 more than voted YAY.

This was over a year after the AUMF was passed and leading up to the war.

IF those 28 democrats had voted YAY you would have had 25+28 = 53 YAYs and Levin's amendment would have passed, restricting Bush's ability to use force without UN authority.

Of course Republicans are to blame too, but they are already taking heat on it, whereas the Democrats are not really, although there have been some rumblings like with Hillary.

Bottom line: On October 10, 2002, the Democrats had the opportunity to prevent the war as we know it from ever happening.

They decided not to.

So who is responsible?

EDIT: The YAYs were not only Democrats. Chafee (R at the time) and Jeffords (I) also joined in.

[solvs]

I never said Dems didn't play their part. As a matter of fact, I clearly point out the fact that they were and still are complicit. But this was all Bush. He wanted to attack Iraq, he made the case, and his administration screwed it up. Had they done a better job of it, preferably for actual reasons that didn't turn out to be false, a lot of us wouldn't be complaining. Up until last year, the Republicans were in charge of both houses. They were the ones screwing everything else up, with a minority of the minority party complicit. We are criticizing the Dems for their continued complicity, such as with FISA and the lack of progress with Iraq. You must not be paying attention if you don't see that. But even when they use their slim majority to try something and don't puss out like with FISA, they are blocked by the Repubs and/or vetoed by Bush. They don't have the votes in both houses to completely stop Bush, even if every Dem voted with them and even a few Reps came over to their side.

As I said, we are frustrated with the Dems for their lack of progress in the brief period they've had a slim majority and for their bandwagoning when they were the minority, but angry with the Repubs for all of the mistakes and ineptitude and corruption they were responsible for. And furious with the Bush admin for their considerably larger part in these messes and the continuation of such failed policies and scandals. And though frustrated with the Dems for not pushing enough, attempting to claim they have equal culpability to those mainly responsible is disingenous at best. For that matter, for every William Jefferson (or Charles Schumer, check the latest threads for that one), how many Ted Stevens and Mark Foleys are there, let alone Dennis Hasterts there to cover them up. Not to mention all of the Freedom Fries, Bridges to Nowhere, and Terry Schivos. When the Dems get that bad, we will criticize. For now though, the majority of the problems are still stemming from the conservative side, so the majority of the posts are about them.

Again, if you think we're being too partisan, go find some bad news about Dems or good news about Repubs, or neocons (good luck with that) and post it yourself... or just do what they rest of us do and wait until it's something legitimate and post in an already created one like the aforementioned one 'mac created about Schumer.

[leekohler]

I never said Dems didn't play their part. As a matter of fact, I clearly point out the fact that they were and still are complicit. But this was all Bush. He wanted to attack Iraq, he made the case, and his administration screwed it up. Had they done a better job of it, preferably for actual reasons that didn't turn out to be false, a lot of us wouldn't be complaining. Up until last year, the Republicans were in charge of both houses. They were the ones screwing everything else up, with a minority of the minority party complicit. We are criticizing the Dems for their continued complicity, such as with FISA and the lack of progress with Iraq. You must not be paying attention if you don't see that. But even when they use their slim majority to try something and don't puss out like with FISA, they are blocked by the Repubs and/or vetoed by Bush. They don't have the votes in both houses to completely stop Bush, even if every Dem voted with them and even a few Reps came over to their side.

As I said, we are frustrated with the Dems for their lack of progress in the brief period they've had a slim majority and for their bandwagoning when they were the minority, but angry with the Repubs for all of the mistakes and ineptitude and corruption they were responsible for. And furious with the Bush admin for their considerably larger part in these messes and the continuation of such failed policies and scandals. And though frustrated with the Dems for not pushing enough, attempting to claim they have equal culpability to those mainly responsible is disingenous at best. For that matter, for every William Jefferson (or Charles Schumer, check the latest threads for that one), how many Ted Stevens and Mark Foleys are there, let alone Dennis Hasterts there to cover them up. Not to mention all of the Freedom Fries, Bridges to Nowhere, and Terry Schivos. When the Dems get that bad, we will criticize. For now though, the majority of the problems are still stemming from the conservative side, so the majority of the posts are about them.

Again, if you think we're being too partisan, go find some bad news about Dems or good news about Repubs, or neocons (good luck with that) and post it yourself... or just do what they rest of us do and wait until it's something legitimate and post in an already created one like the aforementioned one 'mac created about Schumer.

That's not what SoBe is interested in. He just wants to assert that we all just hate conservatives, when we've pointed out already that we ***** on everyone when appropriate. For instance, if Hillary were to become President (fat chance), I bet I'd have plenty to say about her after about 6- 8 months of her term.

[Sobe]

That's not what SoBe is interested in. He just wants to assert that we all just hate conservatives, when we've pointed out already that we ***** on everyone when appropriate. For instance, if Hillary were to become President (fat chance), I bet I'd have plenty to say about her after about 6- 8 months of her term.

Actually I try to be very specific. I don't know what you think in terms of hating conservatives, but the posts certainly seem to go that way.

Regardless, please I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong as time goes by. I'll be the first one to respond to you congratulating you for your fair-mindedness when the situation arises.

[dswoodley]

Actually I try to be very specific. I don't know what you think in terms of hating conservatives, but the posts certainly seem to go that way.

Regardless, please I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong as time goes by. I'll be the first one to respond to you congratulating you for your fair-mindedness when the situation arises.

I'll argue for both sides. I do some legitimate dem/lib bashing, but not nearly as much as there is conservative/rep bashing.

[leekohler]

Regardless, please I'll be more than happy to be proved wrong as time goes by. I'll be the first one to respond to you congratulating you for your fair-mindedness when the situation arises.

And I'll believe that when I see it. ;) Actually, you had your chance today, but I doubt you looked.

[Sobe]

And I'll believe that when I see it. ;) Actually, you had your chance today, but I doubt you looked.

I wasn't aware this was a timed match.

Can I call a timeout to check?

[leekohler]

I wasn't aware this was a timed match.

Can I call a timeout to check?

Haha! It's the Schumer thread.

[Sobe]

oh man, of all the names to invoke...

[solvs]

I don't know what you think in terms of hating conservatives, but the posts certainly seem to go that way.

I do some legitimate dem/lib bashing, but not nearly as much as there is conservative/rep bashing.

When the Republicans, namely Bush, stop giving us reason to bash, we will stop bashing. Until then, we bash what we see as legitimate. The Dems simply don't do enough to deserve as much of a bashing, mostly because they don't do much of anything. Ironically one of the few legitimate things we can bash them on. And do. Often.

Look around the forum some more and you'll see that.

[leekohler]

When the Republicans, namely Bush, stop giving us reason to bash, we will stop bashing. Until then, we bash what we see as legitimate. The Dems simply don't do enough to deserve as much of a bashing, mostly because they don't do much of anything. Ironically one of the few legitimate things we can bash them on. And do. Often.

Look around the forum some more and you'll see that.

I tried that approach already- didn't work. ;)

[solvs]

I tried that approach already- didn't work. ;)

I know, me too. Frankly, sometimes I wonder why we bother. Somebody's gotta do it though.

[teflon]

To Sobe, no one wants to bash. Every one would rather that the president and congress give them nothing to bash about. People would rather not have the war and the lies that they bash about. But Bush and his administrations are not letting that to happen. People (at least here) don't bash out of entertainment, it's out of anger and concern.

For instance, if Hillary were to become President (fat chance), I bet I'd have plenty to say about her after about 6- 8 months of her term.
Actually, isn't Hillary very likely to be the next president? I was at the airport couple days ago, and while waiting for my luggage the tv news broadcast says that she's getting 48% of support versus Obama's 25%. So if indeed the next president is a Democrat, then it would most likely to be Hillary. While I like Obama better, I support Hillary mostly for feminist reasons :p. Too bad I can't actually vote.
Hmm I wonder how many of Hillary's supporter support her for the same reason I do...

[leekohler]

Actually, isn't Hillary very likely to be the next president? I was at the airport couple days ago, and while waiting for my luggage the tv news broadcast says that she's getting 48% of support versus Obama's 25%. So if indeed the next president is a Democrat, then it would most likely to be Hillary.

God help us all if she gets nominated. I've said this before- I think the result of her nomination would galvanize the right the likes of which we haven't seen in years. She's disliked by many on the left as well. She'd be just as divisive as Bush, if not moreso. That's not what we need right now.

[Sobe]

God help us all if she gets nominated. I've said this before- I think the result of her nomination would galvanize the right the likes of which we haven't seen in years. She's disliked by many on the left as well. She'd be just as divisive as Bush, if not moreso. That's not what we need right now.

I think you're quite right.

Forget about her politics, there are a great number of people out there who just have a real emotional, gut hatred of her.

In some ways it's very similar to how some view President Bush.

[leekohler]

I think you're quite right.

Forget about her politics, there are a great number of people out there who just have a real emotional, gut hatred of her.

In some ways it's very similar to how some view President Bush.

The sad fact is- I don't think her politics are much different than Bush's- pay the right amount of money and she'll do whatever you want. She's business as usual. I still could never understand why conservatives hated Bill Clinton so much. He gave them damn near eveything they asked for, including NAFTA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Hillary backed off healthcare after the industry paid her off, so I fail to see what we'd gain by electing her.

[Sobe]

The sad fact is- I don't think her politics are much different than Bush's- pay the right amount of money and she'll do whatever you want. She's business as usual. I still could never understand why conservatives hated Bill Clinton so much. He gave them damn near eveything they asked for, including NAFTA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Hillary backed off healthcare after the industry paid her off, so I fail to see what we'd gain by electing her.

I can't speak for everyone but from what I recall at the time, Hillary bothered a lot of people, initially anyway, because they saw her as seeking a sort of illicit power grab from the First Lady's position.

It snowballed from there.

The secret healthcare meetings didn't help, then the Rose law firm, Vince Foster, etc etc.

To be sure other first ladies had enormous influence on their husbands, but I think Hillary's method just rubbed people the wrong way.


She seems to have none of her husband's grasp of the process, at which President Clinton was really quite adept.

I always felt that President Clinton was a bit left for me, and I questioned his private life, but I thought he did an ok job overall.

[mactastic]

I entered this thread commenting on SMM's remark that:

"One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate."

It's an absurd comment, and I posted as much.

Your entry into this thread was:

"Why do you say that? I thought things were going swimmingly in Iraq? That's the big issue of the day, isn't it? And since All Is Well there, why the GOP rush for the door?"

Just so we're clear, calling B.S. on Karl Rove being responsible for the demise of honesty in politics is verbal diarrhea, but sarcastic hyperbole on the state of iraq is high political discourse?
No, that's me trying to get someone who has steadfastly maintained that All Is Well in Iraq to explain why he isn't surprised that the GOP is losing candidates faster than Rush Limbaugh can pop pills. My comments were at least aimed at eliciting a substantive response. Yours were nothing more than a childish playground taunt.

Before I said anything to you, you commented that I had so little rage that I needed the drugs and alcohol I joked about needing to read an SMM post. Then I had a persecution complex, then I had invective and hyperbole, then you characterized my comment as lame, crude, and a drive by, claimed I got "called on it" and was now all defensive.
You do have a persecution complex, invective and hyperbole are not something you "have", although they are certainly well-used tools in your rhetorical toolbox, and your comments were lame, crude and of a drive-by nature.

All of that was prior to the comment I made on seeking a trained professional.
Telling you that you are arguing from the persecuted POV is not telling you to seek mental help, which is what you said to me. The fact that you would conflate the two simply shows how weak your arguments are.

I could go on and on, but why bother? Just as you aren't interested in the merits of the point, nor are you interested in the merits of refutations to your assertions.
Ah, but you ARE interested in the merits of my point, and my refutations of yours? Don't insult my intelligence.

The only sign of my obtuseness is my inability to just ignore the thread entirely...alas.
Sadly it is not.

Not at all. If you go back and read what I said, you'll find a comment that it's not just that it is anti-Bush but rather that Congress appears relatively immune from the same level of criticism even though they have the power to end the war tomorrow and undo much of what people complain about Bush over.
If you looked before you assumed, you would find that Congress is not immune from my criticism, nor of that of many other liberal posters here. However, I do find it amusing that you would put equal blame to Congress an Bush on this matter. Surely Congress deserves plenty of blame for their spinlessness, but The Decider is the one who put forth the policy, advocated for it relentlessly, and conducted it so incompetently. All while claiming that Congress has no right to dictate terms to him. And yet you want to turn around and say Congress isn't getting as big of a ration of **** from the public as Bush, and that's just not fair?

In a rational world one would expect a certain amount of anti-incumbency, and anti-Bush fervor, but you should certainly see more anti-Democratic majority. Alas, one doesn't.

So yeah people can continue posting as they see fit. I never suggested anyone should shut up or stop posting or even change their point of view.

What I did suggest is that the one-sidedness of the threads appears to be out of whack with the political reality.

If you or others wish to deny that or ignore it, that's your choice and your cross to bear.
I'll gladly take my cross over yours any day. Mine is much lighter.

So do you deny that Rove has had a large part in coarsening the tone of discourse in politics these days? Do you view him as having worked to improve the tone? Has he counseled Bush to govern as a uniter, or a divider?

[solvs]

In some ways it's very similar to how some view President Bush.

Are you saying people have an irrational hatred of Bush, or a rational hatred of Hillary, because I don't think either is true.

For the record, most of us here don't like Hillary for various reasons, but a majority of those who say so have given very valid reasons that have nothing to do with her gender, her grab for power (though I somewhat agree with), nor her being liberal (which she really isn't), in the same way we have of Bush, whose actions we dislike more than just what we think is his general political POV.

[teflon]

Well, Hillary was a republican when she was young. She turned Democrat around 35 years ago because she was against the Vietnam War, and maybe some other reason I can't recall. So I guess she would always have some conservative values. However, while some view it as a power grab, I just thought she was a strong woman. Bill Clinton always said that if he got elected his wife would play a big role in his presidency. I admire that she has her own career, the first First Lady that has a post-graduate degree, and in general an independent woman in comparison to most other First Ladies.

[solvs]

I always say that I can't stand her, but she did do pretty well the last time she was President. :p

[yg17]

Hillary's doing so well in the polls because Bill was such a great president, people are hoping that if we get her, we get him back in some form.

I'm rooting for Obama myself, but I don't think it's the end of the world if Hillary gets elected. And I'd take her over any of the republican candidates.

[solvs]

Hillary's doing so well in the polls because Bill was such a great president, people are hoping that if we get her, we get him back in some form.

He wasn't that great, but compared to the current administration, I don't blame people for looking back as fondly as they do.

I know that's why I do. :p

[AHDuke99]

I have been scratching my head over what has been going on in congress, and with the democratic primary races. Some makes sense, much of it does not.

One of the worst things the republican political strategists (like Rove) have done, is killed honest political debate. Nowadays, if you open your mouth, you are on FOX that night, having your words completely twisted, so the end result is lies. So, if a candidate plans to begin troop pullout from Iraq, they really cannot speak of it. You can imagine the fallout from the media reporting.

There are a great number of things which I would do, but could not talk about specifically during a campaign:

1) Disband Homeland Security - this was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11 and they have taken on a life of themselves. Let the agencies do their job.
2) Re-write the Patriot Act - remove the provisions that are unconstitutional.
3) Reverse Bush's dictatorial powers from the office of President.
4) Fire every Bush appointee - starting with the 150 attorneys from Pat Robertson's law school.
5) Begin an investigation into the rape of the environment.
6) Finally - GET RID OF LOBBYISTS - now and forever.
7) Begin investigations into the profiteering from the Iraq war.
8) Cut-off all funding of private security forces and private intelligence companies.

First, and foremost, STOP THE WAR. Bring all of our carrier groups over there. Tell the faction leaders, we are making an orderly exit. If anyone attempts to harm our troops as they are leaving, we will resort to full-scale conventional warfare to prevent it.

I would like to see congress begin more investigations right now. I think that would show a commitment to reversing the catastrophic policies of the current administration. I think it would also draw favor with some moderate republicans.

i wish i lived in the same fantasy world as you do. sure, forget the war we are fighting in the middle east, bring everyone home, get rid of the patriot act and homeland security, and let's begin running investigation that will get nowhere! wonderful idea! are you one of the types of people who believe terrorism is a myth made up by the bush administration to scare us? do you believe that he pulled off the 9/11 attacks single handedly and there's no such thing as al qaeda? all we need is to run investigation after investigation to waste both time and tax payers money. profiteering of the war? big deal, everyone profits off some disaster. That's life and being a business. people line up to make money off things like hurricanes and other types of disasters. i guess you also believe business and capitalism is wrong as well.

[AHDuke99]

Hillary's doing so well in the polls because Bill was such a great president, people are hoping that if we get her, we get him back in some form.

I'm rooting for Obama myself, but I don't think it's the end of the world if Hillary gets elected. And I'd take her over any of the republican candidates.

why obama? i keep asking people this and all they tell me is how charismatic and optimistic he is. i dont think the terrorists in the middle east or iran or North korea will care. i bet they'd love to see a 1/2 term senator become president. back during 9/11 he was a lowly young state senator. what are his policies? no one can ever tell me.

[Ugg]

i wish i lived in the same fantasy world as you do. sure, forget the war we are fighting in the middle east, bring everyone home, get rid of the patriot act and homeland security, and let's begin running investigation that will get nowhere! wonderful idea! are you one of the types of people who believe terrorism is a myth made up by the bush administration to scare us? do you believe that he pulled off the 9/11 attacks single handedly and there's no such thing as al qaeda? all we need is to run investigation after investigation to waste both time and tax payers money. profiteering of the war? big deal, everyone profits off some disaster. That's life and being a business. people line up to make money off things like hurricanes and other types of disasters. i guess you also believe business and capitalism is wrong as well.

Your post is meant as farce? Isn't it?!?!

Profit even trumps the constitution?

[solvs]

i wish i lived in the same fantasy world as you do.
Talk about a fantasy world. Need I remind you that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. As a matter of fact, our failures in that war have made things worse. Especially since we pulled resources from where the real terrorists were in the 'stans, which we're also now losing. And since we haven't made the necessary national security changes the 9/11 commission recommended. The Patriot Act gives the perception of safety, but doesn't really do anything regular police work already in place wouldn't, without the mistakes and corruption possible by not needing proof or oversight. That makes us a little angry. Doesn't it you?

And as for profiteering, that's my tax money too, so you're damn right I don't like it. Especially in cases where it actually hurts the troops when companies overcharge us, then skimp on materials. If you aren't bothered by that, there's something wrong with you and people like you letting the corruption and incompetence happen.

[imac/cheese]

And as for profiteering, that's my tax money too, so you're damn right I don't like it. Especially in cases where it actually hurts the troops when companies overcharge us, then skimp on materials. If you aren't bothered by that, there's something wrong with you and people like you letting the corruption and incompetence happen.

Profiteering is a hard thing to control when you want the work done quickly. I spent time in Saudi while in the military doing construction management and we pretty much had an open checkbook to build whatever we needed. We had to add in the "Saudi Factor" to all of our cost estimates because every company there changed a lot more than normal market value. Doing construction on the US base would be 3-4 times more expensive than doing the same work in the local community. The only companies that I worked with that actually had somewhat realistic cost estimates where both run by Americans. They were making a great living working over there but they were still a lot cheaper than any of the local companies. It was really a win-win situation where the company made a lot of profit but the US saved a lot of money versus going to local companies who were trying to gouge the US for every dollar. We would try to sole-source our contracts to them as much as possible because we knew they would give us the best price and a good product. We often paid more than it was worth but that was the cheapest we could get it.

Just my experience...

[skunk]

Yet another reason not to engage in unnecessary wars: the normal rules both of commerce and morality get suspended.

[solvs]

Profiteering is a hard thing to control when you want the work done quickly.

Some oversight would be nice, but even when we catch them, they barely get a slap on the wrist and go back and do it again. And again. I'm assuming though that you're against that, and just saying that it's the reality. I'm hoping at least.

I was more responding to the post above saying profiteering was not only acceptable, but should be welcomed as honest capitalism, which is, of course, completely ridiculous, and why some of there problems are happening as some in charge look the other way.

[solvs]

I know I posted this in another thread, but I guess it's more appropriate here:

Republican Culture of Corruption: 2007 So Far (http://senate2008guru.blogspot.com/2007/08/republican-culture-of-corruption-2007.html)

Like I've said, Dems are far from innocent, but with all of the above, I don't blame the Repubs for wanting out.

[AHDuke99]

election disaster? not hardly. i mean, sure the GOP has screwed up, but if there's one thing america hates more than the GOP its the democratic congress. they are hardly ensured an election landslide. nancyboy pelosi has hardly dont anything that she's promised.

[leekohler]

election disaster? not hardly. i mean, sure the GOP has screwed up, but if there's one thing america hates more than the GOP its the democratic congress. they are hardly ensured an election landslide. nancyboy pelosi has hardly dont anything that she's promised.

"nancyboy pelosi"- nice slur. At least you wear your bigotry out in the open though. What is it with you that you can't express yourself without name-calling? I've noticed this a lot with "conservatives" lately. Knock it off- makes you look immature and certainly doesn't help your point.

However, I will give you this- the only way democrats can possibly lose the presidency is if they nominate Hillary.

[mactastic]

Well, the election calendar in the Senate heavily favors Democrats this next time around; but outside of that I think they will be hard-pressed to have another election as successful as in '06 if they continue this spineless capitulation to Bush and the GOP.

The American people support Democratic positions, they just think Democrats are not worth supporting because they have no courage of their convictions. Just listen to the way Democrats talk versus Republicans. It's easy to pick out who's willing to stand up for their beliefs -- and it ain't the Democrats.

[solvs]

Actually, people are frustrated with Congress. If you break it down by party, the Dems aren't doing that bad. Better than I'd expect actually. People are frustrated with the Dems, true. Some of us will even say we don't like them. But it's a lack of what they're doing, not what they're doing. People absolutely cannot stand the Repubs right now, especially the neocons. Dems are frustrated with their own, but will not turn away from the party, and will probably still vote against the Reps, of nothing else. Moderates are doing the same. Republicans on the other hand are very disappointed in their own. With a few exceptions, most of them just don't feel strongly enough against the Dems either. I suspect many will stay home again, some even voting for the more moderate Dems as they did last time. Won't be a huge sweep, but it will be a Dem majority.

Just hoping they don't find a way to screw things up like they always do, and yeah, most of us don't like Hillary.