June 28, 2006
According to a tip to Matt Drudge: "The Clinton aide, Laurie Rubiner, was overheard saying to Reid spokeswoman Rebecca Kirszner, You suck and How could you do this?.
June 23, 2006
Lorie Byrd writes this morning what I had suspected about this as well as some advice for Democrat politicians:
"The new Chicks CD sold well the first couple of weeks, topping the charts. It is hard to imagine with the cover of Time Magazine, a 60 Minutes feature and an avalanche of favorable media, that the CD would not be a top seller. I recently heard Democratic Congressman Harold Ford, Jr. say he went out and bought a copy the first week.The advice, alas, is sure to be ignored. It's an elitist mindset. And it would be more than appropriate to identify them as "Dixie Chick Democrats" - tone deaf, from a marketing perspective.
I suspect that many who never would have paid a dime to listen to the Dixie Chicks when they were a kitschy country band, went out and purchased a copy as a political statement.
Although sales the first week put the CD at the top of the charts, compared to the previous Dixie Chicks CD, sales were down considerably. Concert ticket sales in some venues have been so slow that some shows may even be cancelled.
The example of the Dixie Chicks rejection by many country music fans is one that carries a lesson those marketing any product would do well to heed. It easily translates from musicians and fans to politicians and voters, too. When politicians treat voters as ignorant and backward for not accepting their position on an issue, the voters are likely to go elsewhere."
Then again, if Natalie Maines can't understand the NYC subway system, how can we expect this dim bulb to understand her fans?
June 22, 2006
Because the only word besides "fail" that's more appropriate to be read in the same sentence as the name John Kerry is "gigolo".
June 19, 2006
Looks like Irey is not holding back:
"John Murtha Wrong on National Defense. John Murtha actually voted to cut spending on our national security by $76 billion. Then, he voted in favor of instituting the draft! And, perhaps most stunning of all, John Murtha spoke out against the brave men and women who are defending our freedom by calling for an immediate withdrawl of our troops from Iraq."She made an appearance on FoxNews today. HotAir.com has the clip.
Anyone who saw Murtha's appearance on "Meet The
Shills Press" yesterday can see the man has lost his mind.
Diana Ivey for Congress!!! Because Benedict Arnold served his country too.
"The primarys August 8th. The deadline for submitting the requisite 7,500 signatures for an independent run is 4 p.m. on August 9th. If hes going to play chicken with Lamont in the primary, he needs to raise the stakes and promise that he wont start collecting signatures until the primarys over. Wouldnt it be awesome on August 9th to watch the army of Joementum canvassers see if they can beat the clock? You know the nutroots retards would send out teams of anti-canvassers to harass them, too. Imagine someone opening their door in Danbury to find two kids with a clipboard in Lieberman t-shirts and two idiots behind them in black bloc gear trying to shout them down with blood-for-oil slogans. Please, god, make it happen.Personally, I'd prefer to see Lieberman win outright because it'll make the Kos Kidz and Moron.Org look stoopid. But then if Lieberman wins as an independent, it'll make the DSCC look even worse.
The next six to seven weeks should be fun.
June 16, 2006
For Democrats in Washington, however, these were the salad days of the party. You had Vietnam, Watergate, and a coming gathering of Congressional strength in the wake of these events. Michael Barone writes this morning about how Dems see 2006 through the prism of 1974. For them, Iraq is Vietnam, Fitzmas is Watergate and they are predicting a major shift in power come November.
Unfortunately for them, it's not quite turning out that way. The CA-50 special election was not a harbinger of a Dem takeover in the works, Iraq is a mission that is succeeding more every day (especially now that the Z-man has been terminated) and Fitzmas just flopped worse than they could ever imagine. All in all, a pretty lousy week for the Donks.
"Historians may regard it as a curious thing that the left and the press have been so determined to fit current events into templates based on events that occurred 30 to 40 years ago. The people who effectively framed the issues raised by Vietnam and Watergate did something like the opposite; they insisted that Vietnam was not a reprise of World War II or Korea and that Watergate was something different from the operations J. Edgar Hoover conducted for Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy. Journalists in the 1940s, '50s and early '60s tended to believe they had a duty to buttress Americans' faith in their leaders and their government. Journalists since Vietnam and Watergate have tended to believe that they have a duty to undermine such faith, especially when the wrong party is in office."Perhaps if Democrats tried looking forward instead of miring themselves in nostalgia for the past, voters wouldn't be so hestitant to entrust their future to them.
Sen. John F. Kerry (who, BTW, served in Vietnam - just in case you hadn't heard) has been kicking around a proposal to call for complete withdrawal from Iraq by the end of the year, a proposal similiar to the one Rep. John Murtha has made in the house. Kerry, who is obviously playing to the moonbats, would have the U.S. leave the new Iraqi government in the lurch just as they're getting on their feet and telegraph to our enemies, our allies and the rest of the world that our word is meaningless and we're quick to abandon our friends when the pressure from a vocal minority becomes too much to handle. Did I mention that Kerry served in Vietnam? Right before he betrayed his band of brothers on national television by pushing lies about our troops. And Senate Democrats are happy to let Kerry make his anti-war noise. That is, as long as they don't have to put their money where their mouth is.
"Oh shit! They're calling for our votes!"
So once again, the GOP called their bluff. Sen. Mitch McConnell introduced the measure for a vote and it crashed and burned 93 to 6. Democrats did what they do best. The retreated. Six Senate Dems (a who's-who of Lefty stalwarts that included Russ Feingold, Teddy Kennedy and Tom Harkin) stood firm, only to be left behind in the stampede by their 38 other colleagues.
Mark Coffey has the money quote this morning about this sham:
"A lack of guts, pure and simple; if you believe it, vote it, dont weasel out by accusing the Republicans of calling you unpatriotic.."It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
The House just passed it's own resolution affirming the U.S. should not pull out.
June 15, 2006
With Lamont's increased poll numbers, Lieberman has a decision to make as to whether or not he should officially bolt the party and put his name on the ballot as an "independent". Lieberman would have to submit a petition signed by registered voters on August 9th (the day after the primary) to qualify as an independent candidate for November. Clearly, he couldn't wait until then, so he'd have to make that decision over the next seven weeks (preferably sooner rather than later). The Left is already pressuring Lieberman to make his move and if he chooses the independent route, he will likely alienate a number of Democrats who feel he is "bolting" his party.
The truth, however, is that he is being forced in this direction. Were Lieberman to run as an independent, the Democrats would certainly lose a Senate seat. Lieberman is so popular among CT voters overall that he is projected to win easily against Lamont and Alan Schlesinger, the Republican. And as an independent, he would no longer have any reason to associate with his former party. Surely, he could wield more power and influence by allying himself with the GOP.
So where is the logic in this course of action?
Ah, there is the rub. This puts the DSCC in an awkward position. Sen. Chuckie Schumer, the Committee's Chairman, has already publicly backed Lieberman in the race. But they back him as a Democrat. What if he becomes an independent?
"In order to financially support an indie Lieberman, does the DSCC need to have the CT Dem Party officially endorse Lieberman's indie run? Can the state party do that if Ned Lamont wins the Dem primary? Of course, the DSCC could simply sit out, something they regularly do in senate races where they don't believe party outcome is in jeopardy."Somehow I don't think the DSCC is going to get off that easy, though. Some Lefty powerhouse bloggers have already issued a call to arms. They want Schumer to go on record as saying that the DSCC will support whichever candidate gets the nomination - meaning Ned Lamont, who would be assured the nomination if Lieberman goes independent. If the DSCC continues to back Lieberman, they suffer the wrath of the netroots. If they were to back Lamont, they officially endorse a "retreat and defeat" candidate in a high profile Senate race who would end up losing anyway.
Either way, the GOP benefits from a weakened, divided Democrat party. So the Left is willing to pull a "D" out of the Senate count just to make a point. They go after a guy who reliably votes with his party 90% of the time but supports the GWOT - not for political gain, but because he genuinely supports it on principle. Now, they'll essentially push him into an alliance with the opposition.
Hey, whatever floats their boat.
June 12, 2006
"Nevertheless the Stark-McDermott-Kucinich reaction, echoed and amplified, often scatologically, by dozens of commenters on the popular dailykos.com and myDD.com left-wing Websites, tells us something disturbing about the Democratic Party -- and provides a clue why Democrats were unable to eke out a win in last week's special congressional election in the 50th congressional district of California.Certainly all this doom and gloom has been driving down the President's poll numbers. But the fact remains that the more visibility that the moonbats get the more voters recoil at the thought that success for the Democrats is defined by a failure in Iraq.
It comes down to this: A substantial part of the Democratic Party, some of its politicians and many of its loudest supporters do not want America to succeed in Iraq. So vitriolic and all-consuming is their hatred for George W. Bush that they skip right over the worthy goals we have been, with some considerable success, seeking there -- a democratic government, with guaranteed liberties for all, a vibrant free economy, respect for women -- and call this a war for oil, or for Halliburton.
Successes are discounted, setbacks are trumpeted, the level of American casualties is treated as if it were comparable to those in Vietnam or World War II. Allegations of American misdeeds are repeated over and over; the work of reconstruction and aid of American military personnel and civilians is ignored."
But don't you dare question their patriotism.
123 queries taking 0.1193 seconds, 252 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.