November 10, 2006
Memo to Howard Dean: You need to understand that a trial against Rumsfeld is a trial against the United States. You want to weaken the United States in the tradition of Jimmah Carter? Go ahead and offer the human sacrifice. But keep in mind that this is your big chance to ensure that you keep your majority. Tell this ungrateful "ally" in no uncertain terms to suck your balls. That is, if you can find them.
The country is watching.
November 01, 2006
"Could Karl Rove have dreamed up a better October surprise than having the Democrats' most recent choice for Commander in Chief suggest that the men and women are dying [in Iraq] because they weren't smart enough to get into law school?"John Kerry's attitude toward the military is locked in a template formed by Vietnam, and one that is shared by so many elitist Liberals. For them, military service is either a line item you use to pad your political resume or something that's only for suckers who can't get out of it, like jury duty.
- Karen Tumulty
October 31, 2006
Â“You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you donÂ’t, you get stuck in Iraq.Â”What a douche bag.
- John F. Kerry
Capt. Ed wants to know what other Democrats think of this quote:
Wow. Just wow. It's worth recalling that Kerry at one time aspired to command these same men and women from the White House, and claims to still want to lead them. How would these people react to taking orders from a Commander-in-Chief who believes them to be uneducated, lazy losers?After all, Kerry is only saying out loud what so many Democrats are thinking.
We'll see if Kerry's peers in the Democratic Party support Kerry's description of our fighting men and women. If Democrats that have had John Kerry campaign on their behalf refuse to address Kerry's remarks or openly supports their characterization, it will expose the hypocrisy and the contempt that the Left has for the military. All of the talk of "supporting the troops" will be revealed as lip service.
The Llamas swing back at John Effin' Kerry.
Senator John McCain - a real war hero - issues a statement calling for Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq.
October 26, 2006
Democrats may say what they please and do as they please - Republican speech must be carefully scrutinized for any hint of inappropriateness - and all Republicans be immediately called on to disavow anything anywhere done with less than perfect gentlemanliness & elegance.Go read the whole thing here.
Democrats may strike in any way they like - and may go sobbing to the media if they get back any portion of what they dish out.
And it works, because after all: in this game, the ref wears their jersey.
Honestly, what a bunch of pussies.
October 17, 2006
The Hartford Courant reports the tally:
Ned Lamont donated another $2 million Monday to his U.S. Senate campaign, bringing his personal investment to $4.5 million this month.$4.5 million this month works out to over $264,000 per day.
His personal total for the campaign is now nearly $11 million.
His main rival, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, had raised nearly $15 million as of Sept. 30, the close of the last reporting period.
Joe Lieberman, a man without a party, can raise $15 million but Ned Lamont - like a panicky buyer on eBay who keeps clicking the "bid now" button as the clock ticks down - keeps tapping into his bank account to keep his campaign afloat.
Calling Chuck Schumer...Schumer? Sen. Schumer?
October 05, 2006
The proposed sign would read:
Â“Due to a withdrawal of a candidate after the Primary Election which resulted in the substitution of a new candidate by the respective party: In the race for Representative In Congress, District 16, any vote cast for Mark Foley (REP) shall be counted as a vote for Joe Negron (REP).Â”Seems fair enough, no?
But you just knew what the Democrats' reaction would be. The folks who scream "voter suppression" every single election are howling over this.
The Democrats, whose candidate for FoleyÂ’s district is Tim Mahoney, sent a letter to state elections Director Dawn Roberts on Wednesday saying such a notice would violate a law banning supervisors from favoring a particular party.Nice, huh.
They asked Roberts to immediately send a letter instructing supervisors not to post any notices or include them in mailings with absentee ballots.
Seriously though. It won't matter. I have no way of knowing which way that race will ultimately go, but the fact is that Florida Republicans just aren't as stupid as Florida Democrats - who proved back in 2000 that they couldn't even figure out a simple ballot.
I recall voters in Missouri having no problems understanding in 2000 that by voting for a dead guy as their Senator, his wife was actually going to get the votes.
In any case, the GOP will spend plenty of time and money in their GOTV effort to ensure that it's well understood that Foley's votes will go to Negron.
But talk about blatant hypocrisy. Six years ago, Democrats were doing everything they could to manufacture votes and charging Republicans with disenfranchising the simpletons of Palm Beach County. Now they're against a simple clarification that could potentially disenfranchise Republican voters. With them it's always "count every vote", unless it's a vote for the GOP.
What a load of crap.
October 04, 2006
The FEC will eventually key in the DSCC September independent expenditure data sometime after the DSCC files its regular monthly report on October 20th. From past experience, the data will be electronically available after the election. Included in the data will be the over $5 million in independent expenditures made in September that PoliticalMoneyLine has spotted already. For example, the $999,137.90 media buy on 9/1 for the Sherrod Brown v. Mike DeWine race in Ohio; the $900,000 media buy on 9/26 for the Cardin v. Steele race in Maryland; and the $618,616 media buy on 9/26 for the Sherrod Brown v. Mike DeWine race. DSCC independent expenditures in September totaled over $410,000 in Montana, over $265,000 in Tennessee, over $1.9 million in Ohio, over $1.3 million in Missouri, over $190,000 in Rhode Island, and over $900,000 in Maryland.Hmm, let's see. Ohio, Maryland, Tennessee, Montana, Rhode Island...
No Connecticut, huh? Guess Neddy's gonna have to keep writing himself checks to campaign with.
Rasmussen mirrors Quinnipiac poll. Lieberman by 10. That giant sucking sound you hear is the wind emptying out of the nutroots sails in CT.
October 03, 2006
Thankfully, it turns out that the article isn't referring to Howard Dean. Whew. That's a relief. We need this guy right where he is.
"So, how's it going on the campaign trail, Liebs, old pal? Looking forward to keeping that seniority are we? Wink, wink. Nudge, nudge. Say no more?"
The nutroots, of course, sees this as a betrayal. And I don't blame them.
Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of MoveOn.org, a liberal advocacy group that supports Lamont, said Lieberman may be spreading false information to make himself a more attractive candidate.Seems to me that Reid and co. not only see the writing on the wall in terms of Lamont's viability but they're also making preparations should the Senate make-up end up in a tie - 49-49-2.
Â“This is a Lieberman campaign tactic,Â” he said. Â“Democratic leaders are supporting Ned Lamont.Â”
Bill Grad, who sits on the Democratic Town Council of Greenwich, Conn., LamontÂ’s home town, said Lieberman has very actively distanced himself from the Democratic Party, and that it was wrong of leaders to promise anything.
Â“Why should Reid tell the guy in advance that heÂ’ll have his seniority. If it comes to that, thatÂ’s fine. But itÂ’s disappointing, itÂ’s greatly disappointing that he would be given assurances.Â”
It'll be interesting to read the Lefty blogs in the coming days.
September 26, 2006
From behind the benign faÃƒÂ§ade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris WallaceÂ’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know Â– the angry, sarcastic, snarling, self-righteous, bombastic bully, roused to a fever pitch. The truer the accusation, the greater the feigned indignation. Clinton jabbed his finger in WallaceÂ’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentatorÂ’s space.Morris then goes on to poke holes in many of the former President's assertions that he made in that interview. As someone who was once a close confidant and adviser, Morris is nonetheless comfortable sharing his experiences with Clinton. He parted ways with the Clintonistas years ago and no longer fears Bubba's wrath.
But beyond noting the ex-presidentÂ’s non-presidential style, it is important to answer his distortions and misrepresentations. His self-justifications constitute a mangling of the truth which only someone who once quibbled about what the Â“definition of Â‘isÂ’ isÂ” could perform.
On a related note, The Anchoress has a rather lengthy and well written analysis of Clinton's "daddy" issues - a must-read.
September 25, 2006
First, Hugh Hewitt has - in my opinion - the best assessment on this bizarre incident:
Bill Clinton's record vis-a-vis Osama cannot withstand even two minutes of sharp questions-and-answers. He's obliged to tightly control every encounter with the press, denounce every serious work of history, obfuscate by pointing to meeting after meeting or to non-sequitors like the fact that no one knew at the time that Osama was connected to Mogadishu (but when, Mr. Clinton, did you become aware of his connection), legal tap dancing --the FBI and CIA wouldn't let me do it-- and the worst of all, chest thumping about how he'd be waging the war if he was still president.Bottom Line: Suck it up Bill. It's not all about you. The ball was dropped on terrorism for almost two decades before you came along. Be a man. Take some responsibility and - for God's sake - get over yourself and your precious legacy. It's really pathetic.
Whatever Clinton hoped to accomplish with this childish filibuster and tantrum, it guaranteed the opposite: No such fury is required when the facts are on your side. You don't have to control every encounter and explode with anger and accusations when asked if you would like to comment on a new book.
September 22, 2006
Michael Dukakis: Lloyd. How's that martini treating you?It's been eighteen years since that hilarious sketch, but for Democrats some things never change.
Lloyd Bentsen: Not too badly, Mike. I wish the polls were treating us a little better.
Michael Dukakis: Well, Lloyd, we represent unpopular and discredited views.
Lloyd Bentsen: Mike! Now that it's all over, you can tell me. You were gonna raise taxes, weren't you?
Michael Dukakis: Well, you bet I was! Through the roof! But now.. I won't get the chance.
- Dukakis After Dark
The President launched a second front in his campaign offensive on behalf of GOP Congressional candidates - "They will raise your taxes".
No idle threat, this is a statement of fact. Democrats all along have been assailing "Bush's tax cuts for the rich", ignoring the reality that everyone who pays taxes has benefited - and has felt that benefit in their personal situations. Voters understand this only too well. High gas prices this past year have reminded Americans how tough even a small bite into their discretionary income can be. It also ignores the fact that the President's tax cuts have led to a booming economy, low unemployment and reduced deficits.
To borrow a cliche from Forrest Gump: Democrats and taxes go together like peas and carrots. It's always been standard operating procedure for them. But the President is reminding voters what happens if the Dems take the House, and if Charlie Rangel becomes Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee: repeal of the tax cuts of the past five years, which means tax hikes.
It's not speculation, it's the truth. And it's a winner for the GOP. Expect to hear it between now and November 7th again...and again...and again...
September 15, 2006
The Democrats' mistake--ironically, in a year all about Mr. Bush--is obsessing on Mr. Bush. They've been sucker-punched by their own animosity.Back in 1984, former VP Fritz Mondale asked his fellow Presidential candidate Gary Hart, "Where's the beef?"
"The Democrats now are incapable of answering a question on policy without mentioning Bush six times," says pollster Kellyanne Conway. " 'What is your vision on Iraq?' 'Bush lied us into war.' 'Health care? 'Bush hasn't a clue.' They're so obsessed with Bush it impedes them from crafting and communicating a vision all their own." They heighten Bush by hating him.
One of the oldest clichÃƒÂ©s in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a clichÃƒÂ© because it's true. You have to have belief, and a program. You have to look away from the big foe and focus instead on the world and philosophy and programs you imagine.
Mr. Bush's White House loves what the Democrats are doing. They want the focus on him. That's why he's out there talking, saying Look at me.
Because familiarity doesn't only breed contempt, it can breed content. Because if you're going to turn away from him, you'd better be turning toward a plan, and the Democrats don't appear to have one.
Which leaves them unlikely to win leadership. And unworthy of it, too.
He could just as easily ask the same question of his party, twenty-two years later.
September 11, 2006
However, Confederate Yankee made a post today that expressed exactly what I was thinking but in a more eloquent manner than I ever could. Here I share a portion that really nails it.
"Five years later, American Democrats have more hate in their hearts for their own President than they do for the terrorists that killed almost 3,000 of their countrymen. They refuse to confront terrorism. Some would rather blame America and the world they think they understand, rather than face up to the fact that the world we all thought we knew was just an illusion. They are in catastrophic psychological denial, and cannot face the fact that "the other" they have spent their lives providing moral equivalence for were the ones who attacked our country.And these are the stakes heading into November 7th.
It is so much easier to blame Bush than face the fact that we were attacked because we are the beacon of freedom for the world, and the greatest threat to radical Islam. It is so much easier to blame Bush, than realize that decades of denial led us to that horrific moment. If they can only blame Bush for that dayÂ—and every day since that their worldview has been shown to be vapid, self-serving, and a fraudÂ—then their denial can go on, and "reality-based community" can continue to live in a world that has refuses to learn, to adapt, to change.
The Left refuses to learn from 9/11 and knows no way forward. It is why they grasp so insistently to the past, clinging to what was and what might have been, instead of moving forward to forcefully determine what should be and what must be done to secure our freedoms for the future. It is they that childishly insist for the "Perfect War" theory, stating a belief that any war not fought with perfect foresight and accuracy is wrong, while knowing securely no war has ever met their standard.
They show that they hate the present and don't understand the lessons of the recent past. They strive for stagnation and stasis and blaming ourselves, but they offer no hope for the future.
They blame Americans for radical Islamic plans for world domination. They vilify our troops instead of the terrorists they fight. They attack western governments fighting for freedom instead of eastern governments and the terrorists they sponsor that are fighting for oppression and destruction of our way of life.
The Left offers America and true liberalism a death sentence, seeking to repeat the failed policies of 30 years in denial.
We will not listen to them again.
That, perhaps, is their greatest fear of all."
Read the whole post here.
September 07, 2006
This is a good thing.
Democrats are gnashing their teeth over what they see as an attempt to smear their hero, President Clinton. It is important for Americans to watch this docu-drama, but not to assign blame for the 9/11 attacks. There's plenty of that to go around.
No, as Hugh Hewitt (who has seen it) points out, the most important reason to watch is to remind us about what it is we are fighting against and how serious the threat is. Those who now howl about the tarnishing of the Clinton legacy fail to grasp this:
Rather the mini-series is the first attempt --very successful-- to convey to American television viewers what we are up against: The fanaticism, the maniacal evil, the energy and the genius for mayhem of the enemy."It is all about them" - yeah, that pretty much summarizes the Clintonista perspective. It's not about national security, it's about trying to preserve some kind of legacy for the man who "feels your pain".
In the self-serving complaints about this scene or that take delivered by Richard Ben-Veniste and other proxies are replayed again the deadly narcissisms of the'90s. The program's great faults are --they say-- in the inaccurate portrayal of Bill Clinton and his furrowed brow and continual efforts to track down bin Laden.
It is all about them, you see. Just as it was in the '90s. To hell with [FBI Agent John] O'Neill or the victims of 9/11, and forget about the worldwide menace that continues to nurse its hatred, though now from caves and not compounds.
Not a word from these critics about the program's greatest strength, which is in the accurate rendering of the enemy, and the warning it might give about the need for continual vigilance.
"If only those attacks had come on my watch, it would've been my big moment in history. And imagine all the grieving ladies that I could've groped...er...I mean hugged."
Former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who is now the head of the William J. Clinton Foundation, had this to say:
"It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."Guess he forgot to tell Michael Moore.
H/T: the Llamas (who wisely advise that you keep your mouth free of food and drink while viewing) ;-)
Ha! That was from the RNC for real. LOL!! Love it.
September 05, 2006
Some posts, however, are too priceless to pass up. Like this one. Enjoy!
August 09, 2006
August 04, 2006
Um, won't this make those constituents who are already sick to death of her even more motivated to vote her out?
August 02, 2006
There's finger-pointing and sniping all around as none of the organizations - the DNC, the DCCC and the DSCC - can find unity in their approach to campaigning:
Democrats consider the 2006 elections their best chance in a decade to recapture the House, with widespread unease over Iraq and with Republicans lagging in polls. Rep. Charles B. Rangel (N.Y.), who would become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee if Democrats picked up the 15 seats needed to regain the majority, said in an interview yesterday that he will quit Congress if the party does not capitalize on an unparalleled opportunity.Rangel will quit if Democrats don't take the House? Where've I heard that one before? I suppose he'll threaten to move to Canada next. Of course, just the possibility of Charlie Rangel chairing the Ways and Means Committee is incentive enough for even the most dissolutioned Republican coming out on November 7th.
Democrats' organizing has been slowed by a philosophical dispute between Dean, who argues that the party needs to rebuild its long-term infrastructure nationwide while trying to win back the House and Senate, and congressional Democrats, who want to use party resources for an all-out push this fall.
Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is less concerned about the Dean approach than House leaders are. "We are obviously concerned," a senior Senate Democratic strategist said, but Schumer moved ahead two months ago with a plan to fortify get-out-the-vote operations in 15 states, including targeting disgruntled Republicans. Democrats sympathetic to Dean said Emanuel and Pelosi are trying to blame the DNC chief in case they do not win back the House.
"Frankly, I like our chances in States like Wyoming and Mississippi."
But there's good reason for Democrats to be concerned because the GOP "machine" - after years of ineffectiveness - has improved itself every election cycle since 2000.
Republicans are far more united in their approach, building on what both sides said worked well in 2002 and 2004. They are routing all turnout efforts through the Republican National Committee, which had $45 million in the bank -- four times as much as the DNC -- as of June 30.Sorry, moonbats. Ohio wasn't "stolen". You can blame all those real-live honest-to-goodness Republicans that came out on election day - and the party's organizational strength that got them to the polls.
The RNC runs a strategy known in political circles as the 72-hour program. It focuses on using phone calls, polling data and personal visits to identify would-be GOP voters and their top issues early in the cycle. The information is then fed into a database, allowing party leaders to flood them with pro-Republican messages through e-mail, regular mail and local volunteers. On Election Day, they receive a phone call or a visit to remind them to vote.
A GOP strategist involved in the effort said the RNC did a post-election review of every person it contacted, looking at how many times they were reached, which issues were discussed and whether they voted. This information was supplied to about 30 targeted states earlier this year, and RNC officials track the states to see whether they are reaching goals for adding new names and contacting old ones.
Both parties credit this program with putting President Bush over the top in Ohio in 2004 by exceeding GOP turnout projections in key areas.
For all their talk about this November being such a huge opportunity, the current state of the Democrat party isn't helping its chances to take advantage of it. John Hinderaker at Powerline puts it this way: "It's hard to believe that such a momentous election could turn on organizational incompetence on the part of the Democrats, but, hey--we can always hope."
119 queries taking 0.0549 seconds, 289 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.