Gary Andres' column in the Wash Times today looks at the current trend of Democrat strategies and shakes his head. Instead of harnessing Liberal enthusiasm to champion its own legislative agenda, the party has resorted to simply trying to tear down that of the Republicans. Message to Dems: Voters don't like that!

Republicans and conservatives sometimes sentimentally yearn for the good old days, wondering why Democrats don't play by the old rules. No such luck. Some of the loudest and most influential voices in the Democratic Party -- such as Simon Rosenberg of the New Democratic Network, and blogger Markos Moulitsas from the Daily Kos -- care more about creating acrimony than alternatives. These activists dominate party voters, volunteers and contributors, and their message to Democratic congressional leaders is clear -- combat yes, consensus no.

As Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek recently, Mr. Rosenberg and his new Democratic allies argue success lies "not (in) ideological purity but combativeness." The "left" wants Democratic lawmakers to erect barriers blocking the party's move to the center and to hamper cooperation; congressional leaders have clearly heard the request and already started construction -- a political public-works project that won't stop anytime soon.

Then again, maybe a better title would be "The Democratic Party: Stuck On Stupid".

Posted by: Gary at 07:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

The fellas over at Dog Snot Diaries have been poking their sticks at the Lefty blogs and stirred up a hornets nest on the topic of Michelle Malkin. Really vile stuff.

What is it with these Democrats these days? I swear, if I woke up everyday so full of bile and rage, I think I'd probably kill myself. Go check out these mean old meanies here.

Posted by: Gary at 04:20 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.

Donna Brazile, the Democrat political consultant who ran Al Gore's 2000 Presidential Campaign, has an editorial in today's WaPo.

Brazile, author of "Cooking With Grease: Stirring The Pots In America", writes of her strong support for President Bush's plan for the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast region. She writes:

On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Bush called on every American to stand up and support the rebuilding of the region. He told us that New Orleans and the entire Gulf Coast would rise from the ruins stronger than before. He enunciated something that we all need to remember: This is America. We are not immune to tragedy here, but we are strong because of our industriousness, our ingenuity and, most important, because of our compassion for one another. We are a nation of rebuilders and a nation of givers. We do not give up in the face of tragedy, we stand up, and we reach out to help those who cannot stand up on their own.

The president called on every American to reach out to my neighbors in New Orleans and throughout the Gulf Coast. The great people of this country have already opened their hearts in the immediate aftermath of the storm, and their tremendous generosity has done more than just provide extra comfort -- it has saved lives. Now the crisis of survival is over. But the task of rebuilding remains, and the president made it clear that every single one of us has a role to play.

Posted by: Gary at 08:04 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

1 my personal feeling about the prez. withstanding, i can (kicking and screaming) admit that it actually was a very well done speech, powerful even, and delivered quite well. the whole "it's impossible to imagine america w/out new orelans" spiel was quite a powerful sentiment to me, until i fully considered the fact that it's not like bush actually sat down and wrote the thing himself. i guess that's because presidents have speech writers. this prompted the wife and i into a lengthy discussion about the sad state of affairs we're in when the leader (and previous leaders) of the free world don't even author the words that come out of their mouths. what does that say about their commitment to the words being read? are they merely moving their lips to someone's else's penned ideas? is there ANY genuine feeling there? p.s. since i don't have any conservative friends (not a conscious choice, just the way things happened) and since my lifelong republican parents left the party in disgust before the last election, maybe you could answer this question for me: why are conservatives always SO angry and reactionary? you got your gung ho texan in office, twice. you got your war, twice, and surely more to come. you have control of the senate and a soon to be appointed conservative chief justice. fox news is the highest rated cable news channel in history and the FCC is primed to outlaw every offensive word and boob on the airwaves (except rush, of course) - so why all the anger? you folks have won, BIG TIME! i'd think you would be content enough over your baker's dozen of landslide victories in the past five or so years, so why so glum, chum?

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 08:51 AM (yT+NK)

2 I don't understand the question. You have Liberals who claim that the President put troops in harm's way because of oil, halliburton, his texas buddies, whatever. You have Liberals screaming at the top of their lungs that Bush = Hitler, a smirky chimp, a dolt, a doofus, the anti-Christ, whatever. You have Liberals characterizing Republicans as evil, rich white people who've never done anything to earn a living and hate black people, among other outrageous claims. You have Liberals pounding their fists that the GOP wants to starve children who are in poverty, take away Grandma's health care and social security benefits, do everything in their power to destroy the environment, send homosexuals off to a concentration camp, take over the world, force a theocracy on the American culture to make its citizens go to church on Sunday and swear allegiance to God or else join the homosexuals in the concentration camps and go back to the days of Jim Crow laws. That's pretty much the daily talking points coming from the Democrats, who are being driven by the uber-Left Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, Americans Coming Together (ACT), the liberal Blogosphere (Kos, Atrios), etc. And conservatives are "angry"? Have you listened to the speeches of Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, any Hollywood Liberal? Have you ever read the comments on Democratic Underground.com? These folks are not only angry, their anger has so blinded them that they live for not other reason than to find a way to get George W. Bush removed from office (by high-powered rifle, if necessary). You'll have to provide some concrete examples of how the right is "angry". Generally speaking, I'd say we're pretty even-tempered. Yes, we feel passionately about what we believe in and we aren't shy about saying so. But who exactly would you consider to be an "angry" conservative that you could consider representative of American conservatism? I think your question is driven more by perception than reality. :confused:

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 09:29 AM (PLHs9)

3 have you ever actually listened to coulter, hannity, o'reilly, rush, and savage? not exactly what i'd call a "friendly" bunch. they spit absolute venom over the airwaves and though you claim them as impassioned voices for the cause, a lot of their mccarthy-esque "traior talk" and anti-muslim rhetoric makes me cringe at the thought of some outsider tuning in and thinking that is the overall sentiment in my country. if it is, than no doubt many, many folks are happy with it and my heart grows even heavier with saddness. and your right about the left, they're angry too, but for the wrong reasons. they only want bush out just so they can skip on in and make just as big a mess of things as the repubs. and i think it's a little short sided to say all non-repubs view repubs as evil, rich, and uncaring. i have no problem with the repubs, just politicians. and PLEASE, don't try to sell the "hard-working W." spiel. if you don't think that little rich boy had EVERYTHING handed to him in his charmed little life, then we're definitelty talking about seperate people. i'm not saying he hasn't worked for things, but not in the way i've earned for myself and i'm sure you have too. rich daddy = all the perks (ask big head teddy k., he'll tell 'ya.) now, it should be noted that most free-thinking people (i hate to use the term "liberal" due to the negative connotation it has received in the past years) don't hate bush because he's republican, we hate him because he's a criminal -like clinton was a criminal (BIG TIME!,) and kerry, teddy k., bush sr. and ESPECIALLY ronnie reagan (i hope he has his own special little place in hell alongside all of those "awful" AIDS-catching gays and their awful gay disease he ignored REPEATEDLY during his reign, and he DID.) the differnt parties can call themselves what they will and subscribe to whatever belief system they choose, but at the most basic level, they all chose a career in politics, desire and hunger for power, and will take the needed measures to remain so. it strikes me odd that folks such as yourself with very firm convictions and a strict belief in the party lime can be convinced that one side of the political spectrum is all wrong and the other all right. if that was the case, wouldn't we have A LOT less problems in our country? aren't they all politicians? until someone convinces me otherwise, i'll be happy to NOT vote in 2008 unless neil young throws his hat in the ring.

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 10:54 AM (yT+NK)

4 heh heh... my typo above when i referred to the party "lime" was intentional. it actually refers to the large, green citrus fruit ted kennedy squeezes into his 64 oz. early morning "breakfast scotch."

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 10:59 AM (yT+NK)

5 First of all Michael Savage has his own little mental disorder going on there. I don't consider him very representative of conservatives in general. He's a right-wing version of Kos, with a microphone. Coulter can go over the top at times, but that's her schtick. Most of what she doesn't come from anger but rather the desire to get Liberals to lose their minds over it. Hannity and O'Reilly aren't angry. Hannity can sound a little self-righteous at times, and O'Reilly is merely arrogant. As for Rush, I would challenge you to find anything he's ever said that you can call "angry" and make sure it's in the proper context. Limbaugh's arguments are intelligent and funny. He skewers the Left, yes, but in an amusing way. The last thing I would call him is angry. That's a myth perpetuated by people who don't actually listen to him. Look, anger and hate don't sell. Nobody in significant numbers wants to hear it. It's a downer. That's why Air America's ratings are in the toilet. Anger is all they have. Liberals have no sense of humor and take themselves waaaaaay too seriously. I don't think I can honesty be accused of that. Twisted, perhaps. But angry? Fuggedaboutit.

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 11:47 AM (PLHs9)

6 And based on your last comment, you strike me as pretty darn angry, if not downright bitter. I can understand you aversion to signing on to (or even supporting) a particular party but there is a definite taint of cynicism in the tone of just about every comment you've ever left on this blog. What then, do you believe? And spare me the "I make up my mind issue by issue" routine. You don't have to take the same side of every topic, but general philosophy one holds should at least abide by some guiding principles. If you're content to sit squarely in the middle with your arms held out against right and left, that's fine. But if you want my honest opinion, that sort of "whatever the average person believes is fine with me" mentality strikes me as being kind of wishy-washy. So let's here it. Can you list, say, five basic premises that guide your thinking that you hold as self-evident or pretty solid. Or are you still "evolving" or something?

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 12:18 PM (PLHs9)

7 i see your point. i never listened enough to any of 'em enough to get an overall perspective, but all i've heard i don't care for. coulter's a royal b@#*h and i guess she's popular because horny old men who spend way too much time studying politics find her strong voiced and attractive (she is simplistic, utterly henious, and what i like to refer to as "boner repellent.") hannity spends too much time buffing the "patriot" badge although he seems to confuse "love of country" with blind loyalist nationalism. savage you got right on the money. o'reilly gets no credit in my book as i don't see how any former host of "inside edition" could. and rush, dear god, rush... my personal hero, the late comedian bill hicks who was about as "left of left" as they come, actually paid rush a compliment once saying that although he disagreed with about 150% of what that jelly-filled jackass says, few people speak so deeply from the heart and with such total conviction as rush does. eh...good for him i guess. for me, he's too much of a hypocrite and should keep his mouth shut about imprisoning drug addicts as he shovels a mountain of vicodin down his gullet. maybe i was off base saying these folks were angry. they make ME angry, but more than that, they eventually make me upset in the sense that this is inevitably where our country is headed and there's too many democrats and too few committed to REAL change to make things better.

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 12:24 PM (yT+NK)

8 "too few committed to REAL change to make things better" What REAL change would you like to make? You've already made you opinions clear about Reagan, Clinton and Bush. I'm assuming your opinion of the elder Bush is none too high, either. So of all the Presidential leadership that you have experienced first hand in your short life (yes, I looked it up on your Blogger profile), none seem to have satisfied your definition of a leader committed to REAL change. If I were to guess, I'd say you are never married, with no children and not a homeowner. It would not shock me in the least if you were a full-time student and have not worked full-time at a job that you considered to be in your field of expertise. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time. However, if I'm correct than the only thing I can tell you is that you're still a wet-behind-the-ears pup whose experience with the REAL world is so limited that you don't know shit. Don't take offense, I'm just trying to be honest. You're probably jaded with the system as you see it and haven't really settled on a "set" belief system to guide you. And that's fine. But believe me, when you are older and the world of responsibility lands firmly on top of you, you will find yourself being forced to view many of these issues in a new light. You may chose Left or may choose Right. You may chose one way here and another way there. Again, that's fine. But by and large you will be confronted with the choices. They can't be avoided forever. I wish you luck on this journey, and may you find yourself less angry, less bitter and more content ten years from now. Ciao. :wink:

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 01:43 PM (PLHs9)

9 "whatever the average person believes is fine with me" is most definitely NOT fine with me as the average person either A.) doesn't care about anything remotely outside of their silly little strip mall, gas guzzling, suburban condo lifestyles, or B.) buys the bull they're selling hook line and sinker. before i get to the five things, i'd like to point out that as a whole, i AM still evolving. how could i learn anything new if i wasn't? and right on the money you are, beacuse i am a cynic, or at the very least, i'm just majorly mistrusting of authority figures and people in power. i also assume the cynic in me comes out when my gut tells me i'm being lied to. bitter? maybe a tad, although i'd like to work on that as it kind of brings the "evolution" to a standstill. if i'm bitter, it's for nothing more than the fact that people in the world treat each other awfully and are too damn proud to say "fair enough" and call a truce. a lofty idea? yes, it is. but it's as simple as it sounds if everyone would get on board. my beliefs: 1. i believe in total and absolute respect for mother nature: F#@K the economy and eveything that goes with it. money comes and goes but we only got one planet, and it's majorly f-ed up. and, you can't truly love god if you value $$$ over his most perfect creation. 2. i believe in the universal human family: this involves treating people as individuals and not judging the actions of a few as the intent of the whole. 3. i believe war is wrong: for all reasons, no exceptions. it's as old as time itself and dates back to when the first people on earth had their first disagreement and you know what, it's never solved a damn thing before, during, or since. i think it's time we tried another approach as the only thing war solves is the question of whether or not there will be future wars. if we (all people) keep killing and fostering these hard to dissolve, deep-seeded resentments, then the answer is "yes." 4. i belive there is always a better way: i really understood this one last election when i looked at those two f-ing clowns and asked myself, "my god, this is the greatest, most freedom-loving country on earth and THESE are the best choices we can come up with?" gimme a break. when both sides are willing to settle for nothing more than a victory, everyone looses. 5. i beliEve in the promise of america: and all the freedom and opportunity we have here. i also believe that goodness is being eroded by a few greedy parasites trying to grab all they can before the next election, which essentially, is the aim of every politician: say whatever you need to get in, rape all you can, and pray they don't find out about it before the polls close. at the rate we're going, i'm loosing my faith in the u.s.a. quickly. well, there they are. not much, i know, but i get satisfaction out of it as i'm sure do with your own beliefs. you probably think me a loony but that's fine. i am passionate about life and the world around me, and if i can say "no hard feelings" and extend the old olive branch and hug someone who hates me for no reason, i consider that a victory. does that make me a p#ssy? in the eyes of some, i'm sure, but i've been called worse and i'd rather get tagged with a bad name than put my soul in jeopardy. don't know what else there is, so i'll let the immortal words of bill hicks send me off: "It's (life) just a ride and we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings and money, a choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your door, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one." - bill hicks

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 02:24 PM (yT+NK)

10 since i was never much of a jock, i'll spare you what the high school football coach said about "assumptions." let's see: i'm 26 and i'm getting married in less than a month, am currently in the process of buying a home, have been working various different jobs since 15 (my pop put me to work in a warehouse and i had no choice,) have lived on my own since 18, would kill myself if i were a student, and currently hold a respectable management position for a media company (no, we don't cover news.) let's see, what else, i'm covered in tattoos, grew up in a middle/lower class philadelphia neighborhood, love my god and have worked extensively as a community organizer in inner city neighborhoods to help bring about change. case in point: i've been places and seen things you can't f**king imagine, and unless you've ever walked door to door in a jersey city housing project on election day trying to get folks out to vote AND you were alone AND white like myself, you probably can't teach me anything about the REAL world or accuse me of being wet behind the ears. that's working for REAL change, not just talking about it or voting for it. cheers!

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 19, 2005 02:43 PM (yT+NK)

11 Interesting. For all your cynicism, I noticed quite a bit of idealism and sentimentality interlaced in all that. With regard to #2 (the universal human family: this involves treating people as individuals and not judging the actions of a few as the intent of the whole) be careful not to transfer your opinion of politicians too broadly to those who might vote for them. Congrats on your wedding and good luck on your closing (I don't know which is more stressful). :-) Peace (though strength)

Posted by: Gary at September 19, 2005 02:59 PM (PLHs9)

12 thanks much, gary! it's been a crazy and stressful couple months but everything is sorta falling into place. i'd be lying if i said i didn't immensely enjoy our little "back and forth." not quite sure what i've gotten out of it all, but maybe, just maybe, i'm getting a little closer to that "understanding" thing i'm always ranting about. i don't have to agree, nor does anyone else for that matter, but i think that if i can AT LEAST get a sense of where the other person is coming from, and embrace that, then some little gaps can be bridged in preparation of attacking the bigger ones. practice makes perfect, i guess. oh, and i'm happy to tell you that my bachelor party this coming saturday will be held at the south philadelphia republican club! i didn't even know south philadelphia had any republicans! with all the strippers and booze i'm going to have there it will probably look more like a bill clinton democratic fundraiser, but i won't let slick willie ruin my fun. cheers!

Posted by: the most rev. jack habit at September 20, 2005 06:55 AM (yT+NK)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Crazy old Uncle Al is at it again. In a speech to the Sierra Club in San Fran, he not only blames Bush for the aftermath of Katrina but implies that, because of Global Warming, the President knew just how bad it would be:

Bush administration officials have said Katrina's damage could not have been anticipated, but Gore rejected that.

"What happened was not only knowable, it was known in advance, in great and painstaking detail. They did tabletop planning exercises. They identified exactly what the scientific evidence showed would take place," Gore said.

Clearly the former Vice-President is off his meds again. So Al, how's your multi-million dollar public access channel doing these days?

UPDATE: 4:55pm
On a related note, Mac Johnson of Human Events lays out five proposals that would make future efforts more successful.

Posted by: Gary at 03:44 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 170 words, total size 1 kb.

Ted Kennedy on Hurricane Katrina:

"What the American people have seen is this incredible disparity in which those people who had cars and money got out and those people who were impoverished died."

h/t: Best of the Web (2nd Item down)

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 54 words, total size 1 kb.

WaPo reporter Dan Balz laments the country's lack of unity in the aftermath of Katrina, but comes to the wrong conclusion. Balz's theory is that Bush "the divider" has changed since the country was united by 9/11. WRONG. The big change that has taken place is with the Left in general and the Democrats in particular.

Since the end of 2001, Bush has remained steady and consistent in both his policies and his outlook. If anything he's one of the most predictable Presidents in U.S. history. A huge majority of Americans (91% at one point) approved of him then. But many over the last four years have decended into bitter partisan attacks on the President - attacks fueled by the increasingly angry Left.

Patrick Ruffini hits the fallacy of Balz's assumptions right on the head:

Balz doesn't examine the profound change in the Democratic Party that comes closest to explaining the sharply disparate reactions to the two disasters. Four years ago, Daily Kos was barely a glimmer in our eye, Joe Lieberman was a frontrunner for the 2004 nomination, Howard Dean was still considered a "moderate", the DLC was still ascendant, the words "liberal" and "lefty" were almost never spoken in polite conversation, The New Republic represented the mainsteam of Democratic thinking inside the Beltway and you wouldn't think twice about calling David Corn and The Nation "far-left." As I've documented, the party's vitriolic reaction to Katrina was shaped on the blogs. Had those blogs been around on 9/11, we would have seen the same response, with immediate cries of "Bush knew."

Posted by: Gary at 11:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.