February 01, 2007
Zogby tried to gauge it, with laughable results:
When pollster John Zogby asked a group of 339 likely Democratic voters earlier this month whom they wanted for president in 2008, one or two mentioned Connecticut's senior senator.That's so rich.
One or 2 percent mentioned Christopher Dodd?
No. One or two people, Zogby said.
"I'm competing with the margin of error in most polls," Chris Dodd grinned as he described his underdog status recently to a New Hampshire audience.
He should be so lucky. The margin of error was 5.4 percentage points.
In the Zogby America poll, Dodd registered as a hyphen - a placeholder indicating he polled at less than 1 percent.
Even 2004 candidate Joe Lieberman, who is not running this year, got 2 percent of likely voters saying they favored him.
Somewhere, Lieberman (who was roundly dissed by Dodd last fall) is smiling.
Dodd has earned a new nickname in my book - Senator Hyphen.
January 31, 2007
Gore to announce Presidential bid at the Academy Awards? (Assuming, of course, he gets to make an acceptance speech if his ninety-six minute Powerpoint presentation wins for "Best Documentary").
That would be just perfect.
h/t: The Hillary Spot
January 24, 2007
Guess he just wasn't master of his domain.
The 2008 race just got less fun. :-(
Might be medication time.
January 22, 2007
"The Kennedy inaugural was the single . . . speech that brought me into public life. Those famous words 'Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.' That's what it has meant to me to be a Democrat."
- Sen. Joe Lieberman
I second that. Though I was not born when that speech was made it was the one that most influenced my early (and former) identification with the Democrat party.
Unfortunately, the commitment to "the survival and the success of liberty" has been absent from that party's national identity for some time. And it's not likely to return anytime soon.
January 19, 2007
At the end he gets in a nice dig at Shrillary:
"[Hillary Clinton] was impressively presidential in her studious, almost censorious, wayÂ—carefully attired in deep red, her tone competent, severe and ready to take on all comers.Heh.
Yet she also was the kid we know from high school: the one who claims to be the only Â“adultÂ” in the 11th grade. Sometimes they are cheered. Sometimes they are booed. SometimesÂ—and this is the worst fateÂ—they get laughed at silently."
January 18, 2007
Hugh Hewitt says it best:
I would love to hear why losing in Iraq would be in the national interest. And I would love to hear the humanitarian justification for leaving BaghdadÂ’s civilians to the tender mercies of the murderous militias and terrorists that stalk that city.But don't you dare question their patriotism.
And I would also love to hear Democratic leaders respond to these poll numbers. But I wonÂ’t hold my breath.
January 11, 2007
Chris Dodd is Joe Biden without the stunning personality.
I can visualize the conversation with his associate in the Senate later today: more...
January 05, 2007
Good thing neither of them is Commander-In-Chief, eh?
Tell you what, kids. You go and try and pass your little minimum wage bill or whatever else you have planned. The President will worry about troop levels. It's his job, not yours.
January 04, 2007
Media whore "Peace Mom" Cindy Sheehan and her merry band of anti-war protesters. (At the link is the video of them shouting down Rahm Emanuel - priceless).
Standing in front of the microphones, Democrat leaders looked very uncomfortable and gave each other sidelong glances as if to say "Um, what the f@#& is she doing here?" Sheehan and company weren't interested in the domestic policies that Dems intend to try and ram through over the next two weeks. Nor, I suspect, are many of the other Leftoids who erroneously claim credit for the Congress' recent change of control.
Finally, Emanuel and the others had to retreat back to the caucus room to hide and wait for the rowdy bunch to go away.
Um, Rahm. I don't think they're going away anytime soon. Hey, you guys helped create this monster, now you're going to have to deal with it.
Sister Toldjah has the money-quote:
"If your party canÂ’t stand up to being confronted by hostile moonbat Â’supportersÂ’ like Cindy Sheehan what does that say about your ability (or lack thereof?) to stand up to Al Qaeda?"UPDATE DEUX:
Thanks to JAron for the inspiration:
"Holy Christ! It's Mother Sheehan! Run away!!! Run Away!!!
December 13, 2006
Should Johnson be incapacitated, Rounds would appoint a replacement (presumably a Republican) to finish out his term which expires at the end of 2008. In other words, there's a chance that the Senate could be tied at 50-50 with Dick Cheney being the tiebreaker - effectively giving control of the Senate to the GOP for the next two years.
This could get ugly. And it's probably the last thing this country needs right now.
December 06, 2006
This one will have many Dems scratching their heads and the nutroots screaming at the top of their lungs. Don't get me wrong, I'm pleasantly surprised that he won't be pushing "Operation Cut And Run", but who saw this coming?
Well, Pelosi for one.
But when asked what he told Pelosi about his thinking on Iraq, Reyes replied: Â“What I said was, we canÂ’t afford to leave there. And anybody who says, we are going pull out our troops immediately, is being dishonest Â… WeÂ’re all interested in getting out of Iraq. ThatÂ’s a common goal. How we do it, I think, is the tough part. There are those that say, they donÂ’t care what Iraq looks like once we leave there. LetÂ’s just leave there. And I argue against that. I donÂ’t think thatÂ’s responsible. And I think it plays right into the hands of Syria and Iran.Â”So how do you anti-war Lefties like your Speaker now? Inquiring minds want to know.
***UPDATE: Curt at Flopping Aces clipped some reax from the peanut gallery at DU. As expected, vile and frothing at the mouth.END UPDATE***
Ed Morrissey points out that this is yet another example of how Pelosi has spent the last month seriously undermining her own credibility:
"Pelosi stripped Harman of the chair that she gave Reyes primarily because of her support of the war in Iraq and a lack of partisan animus on Harman's part. While Reyes promised to vigorously pursue the issues of the warrantless NSA surveillance of international calls and other counterterrorism efforts by the Bush administration, clearly the Democrats expected someone less inclined to keep troops in Iraq, let alone add to the contingent. Even Harman has not gone on record in support of an expansion of troop levels.This is pretty significant. Because the more split this thin majority is over the next two years, the less damage they can do.
So why did she replace Harman? It seems obvious that the decision had much more to do with personal issues than with policy. Democrats may want to rethink her Speakership in light of the series of strange decisions she has made in the wake of their victory. The rule of personal whim has just about destroyed their momentum and may have set up the House caucus for a devastating split at the moment of their greatest unity in a generation."
November 30, 2006
Where the Republican majority best resembled the Prussian Army - disciplined, unified and determined - the Democratic majority in the upcoming Congress is disunited, dispersed and divided into myriad caucuses and special interest groups. One could purchase the Republican majority wholesale by making a deal with the speaker and the majority leader. But to get the Democratic majority in line, one has to buy it retail -- caucus by caucus.For the sake of the country, I hope he's right. Apparently the "Blue Dogs" will be a particular force to be reckoned with. And as a block of 44 votes in the House, it'll be damn near impossible for Pelosi to push anything near and dear to the moonbat brigade. And this can only mean one thing: war between them and the nutroots.
First, one has to go to check with the Black Caucus -- hat in hand -- to see if one's bill has enough liberal giveaways to round up its forty or so votes. Thence to the Hispanic Caucus for a similar screening. Then, with one's legislation weighted down with liberal provisions added by these two groups, one has to sell it to the Democratic Leadership Council moderates and, even worse, to the Blue Dog Democrats -- the out and out conservatives.
If you are fortunate enough to pass these contradictory litmus tests, you then have to go to the environmentalists, the labor people, and even the gays to see that your bill passes muster. Only then can you begin to hope for House passage.
The result of this labyrinth is that the relatively moderate bill you first sought to pass ends up like a Christmas tree, laden with ornaments added to appease each of the caucuses. Unrecognizable in its final form, it heads to House passage.
Nancy Pelosi will face the same obstacle. By the time her legislation emerges from the lower chamber, it will bear little resemblance to what she had in mind, liberal as that might have been. As Clinton said, after he watched the mangling of his legislative program by the various caucuses in the House, "I didn't even recognize myself."
Once the highly amended liberal legislation emerges from the House, it will make easy fodder for a Senate filibuster. So left leaning that it stands no chance of attracting 60 votes, it will be dead-on-arrival.
Pass the popcorn!
It was a solemn pledge, repeated by Democratic leaders and candidates over and over: If elected to the majority in Congress, Democrats would implement all of the recommendations of the bipartisan commission that examined the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.And it's not like they even had that many campaign promises. They basically ran on "vote for us, we're not them". In the coming weeks and months we should be finding out about more serious concerns - the pledges that they didn't campaign on but made to their special interest group supporters.
But with control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly: a wholesale reorganization of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the nation's intelligence agencies. Instead, Democratic leaders may create a panel to look at the issue and produce recommendations, according to congressional aides and lawmakers.
Because plans for implementing the commission's recommendations are still fluid, Democratic officials would not speak for the record. But aides on the House and Senate appropriations, armed services and intelligence committees confirmed this week that a reorganization of Congress would not be part of the package of homeland-security changes up for passage in the "first 100 hours" of the Democratic Congress.
Captain Ed puts it plainly:
People should take note of the reforms that the Democrats wish to pursue in this next session of Congress. They want to clear out the Republicans from the levers of power, but offered John Murtha for Majority Leader, along with his pork-barrel extortive politics and the legacy of Abscam. They promised a tough and competent effort on national security, but offered a disgraced and impeached former judge to run the Intelligence Committee. Democrats pledged to take immediate action on all of the Commission's recommendations, but they will balk at any meaningful reform that limits the power of their master appropriators, including Murtha himself.At least Pelosi and Co. can say they were for the recommendations before they were against them.
In other words, the Democrats plan on using Intelligence budgets the same way that both parties have used them in the past: as a means to perform favors for powerful friends. Those who believed they voted for change in the midterms might find themselves vindicated; it looks like Congress will change for the worse, and in record time at that.
November 28, 2006
Let the bloodletting begin.
"I have been informed by the speaker-elect that I will not serve as the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress," he said. "I am obviously disappointed with this decision." Hastings won election to Congress in 1992, after having been impeached and removed from office as a federal judge. He concluded his statement by saying, "Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet."And the money shot to this fiasco:
"It's ugly," said one Pelosi aide. "It's just really, really bad."Heh.
November 18, 2006
OK, admit it. You were all thinking it, weren't you? Now it's been said, and by a Liberal no less. I hope this sticks.
And if it does stick, I'm stealing it!
November 16, 2006
Nancy's first defeat, leaving a festering open wound for the new majority.
When a Liberal Democrat loses the NY Times Editorial Board, that says a lot.
November 15, 2006
Carville said the other Democratic campaign committees had borrowed to the hilt.Oh, I can't wait to hear Dean's response, assuming he's man enough to respond at all.
He said he tried to meet with Dean to argue for additional spending for Democrats in the final days of the campaign, but Dean declined and gave no reason why.
Asked by a reporter whether Dean should be dumped, Carville replied, Â“In a word, do I think? Yes.Â”
He added, Â“I think he should be held accountable.Â” He added, Â“I would describe his leadership as Rumsfeldian in its competence.Â”
Carville likened the Democratic takeover of Congress to the civil war battle at Gettysburg, which the Union army won but failed to pursue the Confederate army when it retreated.
Â“We should have chased them down,Â” Carville said. There was no immediate response from Dean or the DNC.
You want a piece of me, you Birkenstock-wearin' Lefty punk?!?
C'mon you nutroots folks! Don't you think it's about time you rode Carville out of town on a rail? I mean, comparing Howard Dean to Union General George G. Meade? That's an insult!
November 12, 2006
Once again, the Dem leadership thinks that just because you have military service on your resume that you have some kind of moral authority that cannot be questioned. I mean, there's no reason that America should be concerned (or the terrorists encouraged) that Democrats may not have what it takes to handle national security...is there?
If Murtha wins, so does the GOP. But the country loses. Big time.
120 queries taking 0.0886 seconds, 281 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.