As much of a non-story this is, I figure I'd comment on it being as I'm from CT. Sen. Chris Dodd (Dumbass-CT) is considering a run for the Presidency. Frankly, Dodd is about as unimpressive a candidate as you could get. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska has more chance at being President and the odds of that happening are slim to none.

Dodd is a five-termer who won his first race for the Senate off of his famous last name (his father, Thomas Dodd, was Senator until that body censured him and he was thrown out on his ass by the voters).

Chris Dodd's major claim to fame was his love affair with such notable communist dictators as Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua. And supposedly he and "Tailspin" Teddy Kennedy used to swap cocktail waitresses in the 1980's when Dodd was divorced.

Democrats have a host of has-beens and also-rans to choose from in two years. Even hacks like DE Sen. Joe Biden are going to be throwing their hat in the ring. I'll be surprised if Dodd is still in the running come January 1, 2008. But it should make things interesting here in CT.

Posted by: Gary at 04:31 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 1 kb.

1 The only thing striking about Dodd are his eyebrows. He's a joke. Don't be looking for him to last long in this race!

Posted by: Pam at May 24, 2006 09:10 PM (XmCyD)

2 Look out for Biden. He is smart, can articulte his position well --and-- he actually has a plan for Iraq that doesn't include cut and run --or--stay the course. Dodd couldn't get the nomination on a bet. Biden at least is in the running and has something substansive to say rather than talking points to nowhere.

Posted by: gosilent at June 05, 2006 01:01 AM (PNisb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I remember Susan Estrich as Michael Dukakis' campaign manager in the 1988 Presidential campaign. I followed her work closely because back then I actually voted Democrat. In fact, you might say that 1988 was the year I first immersed myself in politics, following the rigors of a Presidential campaign from Iowa to Election Day.

Lately, Estrich is political commentator on FoxNews for the Liberal point of view. And for a long time now, she's been taking crap for it by her friends on the Left. This morning, she has some advice for the peanut gallery:

IÂ’ve taken a lot of heat from the left for working for Fox News, and frankly, IÂ’m a little bit sick of it. The truth is that IÂ’ve been very well treated at Fox: I say what I want; IÂ’m treated with respect; and IÂ’m paid well.

But thereÂ’s an even more fundamental point. You donÂ’t win elections just by preaching to the choir. You win by convincing people in the middle, many of whom actually watch the top-rated cable news network. Some of these people are even over 54 years of age (another of the latest attacks), and not only do they spend a lot of money on purchases, but they vote in higher numbers than any other demographic group (thereÂ’s a reason no one ever dares to touch Social Security).

The way I see my job is to try to present the strongest arguments possible to the most important voters in the country, which I think is pretty critical for my party. Democrats who refuse to appear on Fox News because of their claims of conservative "bias" are in fact foregoing an important opportunity to reach swing voters who might actually decide elections.

The irony is that I find that often, simply by occupying the middle, I can win the fight. And what do I get from my friends on the left? Criticism that IÂ’m not a real Democrat because IÂ’m too centristÂ… How dare I be pragmatic?

My answer is very simple. Unlike Mr. [HuffPost blogger, Bob] Cesca, I not only have worked for every network, I also worked, formally or informally, for every Democratic candidate to run for president in the 1980Â’s and 1990Â’s. I understand the difference between running on the left and losing, and running in the center and winning. I wrote three Democratic Party platforms. I see no honor in defeat. IÂ’d rather win in the middle than lose on the left, and you donÂ’t need to call anyone names to do it.

Republicans may bicker and shoot themselves in the foot every chance they get. But as long as Democrats are "running on the left and losing", the GOP can keep winning - despite itself.

Posted by: Gary at 03:12 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 477 words, total size 3 kb.

CT businessman Ned Lamont garnered 33% of Democrat delegates at the party's State Convention on Friday, higher that the 15% needed to force a primary vote on August 8th.

Sen. Christopher Dodd nominated Lieberman, acknowledging his own differences with his colleague. Unlike Lieberman, Dodd was willing to wage a filibuster to fight the Alito nomination.

But Dodd, his voice hoarse, shouted from the podium that those differences do not outweigh Lieberman's strong record on bedrock Democratic issues.

"You may disagree with Joe on a particular issue. Despite those differences, Joe Lieberman is a valued member of the U.S. Senate," Dodd said. "Joe Lieberman takes on the Bush administration. Don't ever forget it."

Either way it's a win-win for Republicans. On the one hand, it will create a schizm between moonbat Democrats and moderate Democrats as they wrestle for control. And it will tie up precious resources and media coverage that could be better spent promoting lower-level Democrat candidates in tight races.

And if by some freak aligning of the stars Lamont were to win the nomination, a Senate seat that seemed a lock for reelection comes into play for the GOP. I think I'll go buy a package of mentos, and giggle myself silly on the way to the store.

Posted by: Gary at 08:06 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 280 words, total size 2 kb.

I came across this interesting piece in Time Magazine online by Liberal (and non-Bush fan) essayist Caitlin Flanagan who complains that the Democrat Party is pushing aside SAHMs (stay-at-hom moms) - including those that would normally vote for them.

"Most of the 60 million people who voted against George W. Bush have lifestyles more like mine than the Democratic Party would like to admit. Most of us aren't the Hollywood Elite or the nontraditional family. Many of us do what I do, which is go to church on Sunday, work hard and value my marriage. Again, it's not so much my party's platform that rejects the family; God help us all if Bush's brutality to the poor continues much longer. It's a small but very vocal minority, the Democratic pundits, who abhor what I represent because it doesn't fit the stereotypical image of the modern woman who has escaped from domestic prison. Fifty years ago, a stay-at-home mom who loved her husband would not automatically be assumed to be a Republican. The image of the Democratic Party that used to come to mind was of a workingman and his wife sitting at the kitchen table worrying about how they were going to pay the bills and voting for Adlai Stevenson because he was going to help them squeak by every month and maybe even afford to send their kids to college.

The Democrats made a huge tactical error a few decades ago. In the middle of doing the great work of the '60s--civil rights, women's liberation, gay inclusion--we decided to stigmatize the white male. The union dues--paying, churchgoing, beer-drinking family man got nothing but ridicule and venom from us. So he dumped us. And he took the wife and kids with him.

And now here we are, living in a country with a political and economic agenda we deplore, losing election after election and wondering why.

It's the contempt, stupid."

Posted by: Gary at 12:05 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 357 words, total size 2 kb.

The NY Times headline says it all: "Democrats Eager to Exploit Anger Over Gas Prices".

Fine, exploit anger. That's about all they're good at. But while voters are unhappy about gas prices, what reason exactly are Democrats going to give that having them in power makes any difference? They certainly have no track record to boast of.

"While Democrats are eagerly laying blame for the situation on the Republicans, they did little to advance energy measures in eight years under President Bill Clinton. Democrats remain split to some degree over how to proceed, but in general favor greater investment in "clean fuel" technologies, more incentives for driving fuel-efficient vehicles and stronger steps toward reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Those positions were included in a measure sponsored last year by more than 30 Democratic House members who opposed the Republican version of the energy bill. Even so, 75 Democrats in the House and 25 in the Senate voted with the Republicans to pass Mr. Bush's bill.

The recommendations of the memorandum to Democratic candidates include holding a campaign event at a gas station "where you call for a real commitment to bringing down gas prices and pledge that, as a member of Congress, you will fight for families in your district, not the oil and gas executives for which the Republican Congress has fought so hard."

A survey by Public Agenda, a nonpartisan research organization, in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs magazine suggests that the message could not be more timely. The survey said voters now believed that fears over energy independence rivaled the Iraq war as the leading foreign policy issue for the nation.

Daniel Yankelovich, chairman of Public Agenda, said the survey found that 90 percent of Americans viewed the lack of energy independence as a risk to security, that 88 percent said problems abroad were endangering supplies and increasing prices and that 85 percent believed that the federal government could do something if it tried."

Sure Democrats (as noted above) are in favor of "'clean fuel' technologies, more incentives for driving fuel-efficient vehicles and stronger steps toward reducing emissions of greenhouse gases" but how exactly does that lower gas prices? It doesn't. And gas prices are what people are so upset about. You have only two ways to lower gas prices - increase the supply or cut gas taxes - and Democrats don't believe in either. Holding stunts like having campaign rallies at gas stations is about as lame as you can get.

If Republicans in Congress are smart (and there's no reason to assume that they are) they should 1) hammer the Dems over their hostility to ANWR drilling and 2) call for even a modest cut in Federal gas taxes. Both are do-able, practical solutions that would force Democrats to show voters that they are the real price gougers.

Posted by: Gary at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.

We keep hearing about the possibility of the Democrats taking the House in November. One of the big numbers being thrown around is how they "only" have to unseat fifteen Republican incumbents to take a tenuous one-seat majority of the lower chamber.

But what pundits are forgetting is that in addition to taking those seats, they would have to hold every single district currently held by a Democrat. And, as Nathan Gonzales points out in his column at TownHall.com, no party has managed to do that in the last fifty years. He explains:

"In 1958, Democrats took over 49 seats (defeating 35 Republican incumbents and winning 14 GOP open seats), while Republicans still defeated a single Democratic incumbent. Eight years later, Republicans took over 43 Democratic seats, but Democrats simultaneously took over four GOP-held seats.

In 1980, Republicans took over 37 Democratic seats, but Republicans managed to pick off four seats from the DemocratsÂ’ column. And in 1994, Republicans took over 56 Democratic seats (defeating 34 incumbents and winning 22 Democratic open seats), yet Democrats still won four Republican-held open seats."

Gonzales looks at eleven Democrat seats that are vulnerable to flipping Republican. And I can guaranty you that Karl Rove's recent reassignment to political matters will be focused on all of them. So before Dems start to get giddy about their prospects, they better be watching their backs or they're likely to find come November 8th that the make-up of the next Congress will be fairly status quo.

Posted by: Gary at 09:07 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 298 words, total size 2 kb.

Liberal Columnist David Corn has a piece posted at TomPaine.com in which he looks at what he sees as political similarities between 2008 and 1968. Essentially, he says that the potential leading candidates for the Democratic Nomination in two years - Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold & John Edwards resemble those of '68 - Hubert Humphrey, Eugene McCarthy and Robert Kennedy.

While I think the comparison is more than a bit of a stretch, the overall comparison may be apt in that modern Democrat Presidential candidates tend to splinter their party in wartime. Unlike Democrats in the early part of the 20th century - FDR against the Nazi's and Japanese and Truman against the Soviets - who united their party against a common enemy, the modern Democrats are fighting with themselves to decide exactly who the enemy is. In both 1968 and today, the leading faction decided that the enemy is not foreign, but rather domestic. For the today's anti-war Democrats, the enemy is actually Republicans (the Bush Administration) and Democrats with strong positions on National Security (Sen. Joe Lieberman).

While normally Corn and I agree on...well, almost nothing, he has one observation that I can buy into:

"There are, obviously, distinctions between 1968 and now. Hillary Clinton is not a commander-in-chief in charge of a tragic war (or the No. 2). There is yet no sizeable antiwar movement, as there was in 1968, for Feingold to use as a base. Edwards is not the vacillator that Kennedy was—although like Kennedy, he does raise poverty as an issue. But it sure seems possible that the Iraq war—if Bush does not achieve his complete victory there in the next two years—has the potential to dominate the Democratic contest and to split the party, as the Vietnam war did in 1968.

For now, the party is repressing those potential differences. Look at the Democrats’ recently released "Real Security" platform. Iraq is covered on page three of the three-page statement. And the plan offers little: "ensure" 2006 is a year of "significant transition" to full Iraqi sovereignty and of "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces"; "insist" that Iraqis make political compromises to unite their country and defeat the insurgency; "strongly encourage" allies and other nations to play a "constructive role." That's not much. The plan says nothing about what should be done if the problem in Iraq is not a self-contained insurgency but a civil war—or something close to it. Should the United States keep 130,000 troops in the middle of a sectarian conflict? Should it pick a side?

Clinton is straddling, not leading, and much of the leadership of her party is essentially doing the same. That might help Democrats in the coming congressional elections by providing on-the-ropes Republicans with little to attack. Then again, it might not. But the conflicts and dilemmas posed by the Iraq war will probably persist. If so, Democrats could find that their biggest challenge is not the Republicans but themselves."

While the anti-war Democrats will not be taking to the streets during their 2008 convention the way they did in Chicago in 1968, their influence will probably be just as significant. Only instead of nominating a Hillary Clinton as their Hubert Humphrey they may very well nominate a Russ Feingold or an Al Gore as their version of the Democrats' 1972 nominee, George McGovern. If this turns out to be the case, don't be surprised if history repeats itself - with a Republican ending up in the White House.

Posted by: Gary at 10:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 662 words, total size 4 kb.

Since Sen. Joe Lieberman is getting a challenge - albeit a weak one - from within the party, he hasn't ruled out running as an Independent.

“I have not foreclosed the option,” Lieberman said at a news conference at the Capitol. “If I wanted to run as an independent, I would. I’m running as a Democrat. I’ve been a Democrat all my life.”

Go ahead, guys. Push out everyone that isn't a die-hard Bush-hating moonbat. It won't be long before the party that was once the "big tent" will be able to fit into a pup tent.

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 166 words, total size 1 kb.

Slap-happy GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is all humble and apologetic now for hitting that Capitol police officer. It seems her race card has an expiration date, as fellow Democrats have been avoiding her like the plague.

Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Ga., expressed "sincere regret" Thursday for her altercation with a Capitol police officer, and offered an apology to the House.

"There should not have been any physical contact in this incident," McKinney said in brief remarks on the House floor. "I am sorry that this misunderstanding happened at all and I regret its escalation and I apologize."

Heh.

Posted by: Gary at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 132 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrat Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois stopped by Hartford last night to endorse Sen. Joe Lieberman for his reelection bid this year. Giving the keynote speech at the party's Jefferson Jackson Bailey dinner, Obama publicly threw his support behind the Connecticut Senator who is facing a challenge from the moonbat Left.

"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.

"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said.

Obama received widespread attention for his keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, delivered while he was still a state senator.

Lieberman became Obama's mentor when Obama was sworn into the Senate in 2005. They stayed close at Thursday night's event, too, entering the room together and working the crowd in tandem.

Despite the camaraderie between the two, the crowd was clearly more receptive to Obama's remarks than Lieberman's speech about party unity and the potential for Democratic victories at the ballot box this fall.

In fact, scattered boos greeted Lieberman when he took the podium, and he had to stop three times during his remarks to shush the crowd so he could deliver key points.

Granted, Lamont has zero name recognition right now. It's a long way to August. And then there's the potential financial support of Left-wing 527's. But overcoming a 55 point deficit? Sometime over the next four months the CT Democrats in Hartford are going to have to officially endorse Lieberman. How long will they wait in order to try and appease the moonbats?

Now the big question is: How long will it take the Kos Kids to rip Obama a new one and start calling him a "traitor" and a "Bush butt-boy"? One website is already calling Obama "a serious disappointment to progressives" and that he "just thew away a lot of good will, if you ask me". Pretty darn polite, if you ask me. But as Lamont's quixotic quest becomes more and more unlikely, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the Left taking their vitriolic anger out on Obama.

UPDATE: 11:30am
Nope, didn't take long at all as Mark at Decision '08 notes.

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 515 words, total size 4 kb.

I'm not making this up.

Yeah, right. When winged monkeys fly out of Harry Reid's butt. They've just released a "position paper" on national security:

It covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security, but it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.

The platform also lacks specific details of how Democrats plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida mastermind who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 115 words, total size 1 kb.

Eh, who cares?

via Cox & Forkum

Posted by: Gary at 04:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Democrats in Congress have been feeling the heat from their moonbat base to step up attacks on the President. The heart of their campaign will not be about policies, ideas, proposals or solutions. It'll be all about Bush.

WI Sen. Russ Feingold's recent "censure" stunt pushed the envelope a little further on Monday and the censure/impeachment movement in the Democrat party is growing to the point where anyone with Presidential aspirations is caught between a rock and a hard place. The editors of the WSJ's OpinionJournal.com observe that this will come to a head in this year's mid-term elections:

In other words, everything that Mr. Bush has been accused of during the last five years, no matter how Orwellian or thoroughly refuted, will be trotted out again and used as impeachment fodder. And lest you think this could never happen, Judiciary is the House committee through which any formal impeachment resolution would be introduced and proceed. As the country heads toward 2008 and a Democratic nomination fight, John Kerry and Hillary Rodham Clinton would be hard-pressed to avoid going along with Mr. Feingold, Al Gore, and others feeding the bile of the censure/impeach brigades.

Which brings us back to Mr. Feingold's public service in floating his "censure" gambit now. He's doing voters a favor by telling them before November's election just how Democrats intend to treat a wartime President if they take power.

Not only do they want to block his policies, they also plan to rebuke and embarrass him in front of the world and America's enemies. And they want to do so not because there is a smidgen of evidence that he's abused his office or lied under oath, but because they think he's been too energetic in using his powers to defend America. By all means, let's have this impeachment debate before the election, so voters can know what's really at stake.

"As I predicted, the test for all Democrat candidates in all races (which is necessary to push impeachment) will be the Feingold standard...The Democrats are now caught between their rhetoric and their political survival!"

Posted by: Gary at 09:00 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 371 words, total size 2 kb.

Democrats everywhere are shouting "Run Away! Run Away!" as Sen. Russ Feingold throws a milkbone biscuit to the Left-Wing kooks.

Captain Ed weighs in:

Only an idiot would attempt to make a president the enemy during wartime, especially for an action that he performed in defense of the country. In fact, the 9/11 Commission specifically scolded the Bush and Clinton administrations for not allowing the NSA to do its job and surveil international communications. The Republicans would be happy to have that debate, especially with someone who wouldn't vote to continue allowing counterterrorism agents to use the same legal tools provided to investigators in racketeering and child-pornography cases.

Fortunately for the Republicans, Feingold demonstrated that he is that big a fool. Other Democrats were not as sanguine about the proposal, sensing that scolding a president over a program supported by a solid majority of the electorate would fall flat with swing voters.

Posted by: Gary at 09:29 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 2 kb.

Despite a vigorous attempt by MoveOn.org, the Kos Kids and other members of the Lefty blogosphere to defeat Representative Henry Cuellar in the Democrat primary, the Texas Congressman beat challenger Ciro Rodriguez yesterday and is headed to an almost certain re-election this November.

Let me take a moment here. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Thank you.

Adam C. at Redstate.org looks at what this means in terms of political trends with Hispanic voters.

Republicans have not put a lot of time and effort into pursuing minority votes over the past few decades mostly due to a belief in a colorblind policies. However, President Bush and Governor Bush of FL have done extremely well in the Hispanic communities of their home states. With 8 years of Presidential outreach and a concerted effort at the state level, Hispanic voters are warming up to the Republican party. And it would not surprise me to see someone like Congressman Cuellar leave the Democratic Party if he continually draws primary challenges from the MoveOn.org wing of the party. After a few terms in Congress, he would have the homegrown support to switch if need be and he might bring a few voters with him. As long as the coastal left wing of the Democrats continues to believe their views are popular in working class Hispanic neighborhoods in TX (and similar districts), they will remain in the proverbial wilderness outside their coastal stronghold.

Finally, the lesson from the successful outreach to the Hispanic community on issues of faith, school choice, and rewarding hard work is that sometimes it takes reaching out to a community before they give you a chance. I think the Republicans have learned this lesson and are applying it to the black community now. The message of low taxes, equal opportunity in the school of one's choice, respect for faith, and opposition to abortion-on-demand and same-sex marriage has opened new doors for the Republicans. The fact that some moderate Democrats are winning primaries on the same issues is additional evidence that these positions are winning ones.

Once again. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

h/t: Mark at Decision '08

UPDATE: 3:00pm
Kos isn't sweating it, though.

So we didn't kill off Cuellar, but we gave him an ass whooping where none was expected and made him sweat. That's the reason why Lieberman is sweating in Connecticut and lining up his dog and pony endorsement shows to flex his muscle. He can't take for granted that a no-name businessman with no political experience and zero connections in his state's political establishment will be a non-factor, not with what we've done for people like Dean and now Ciro.

Posted by: Gary at 11:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 485 words, total size 3 kb.

Lots of grumbling amongst the Democrat leadership these days over Chairman "Mad" Howard Dean's lack of fund-raising prowess, not to mention his stewardship of what he manages to take in.

Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) challenged the former Vermont governor during a session in Pelosi's office, according to Democratic sources. The leaders complained about Dean's priorities -- funding organizers for state parties in strongly Republican states such as Mississippi -- rather than targeting states with crucial races this fall.

Neither side was willing to give ground, according to several accounts of the meeting. Dean argued that his strategy is designed to rebuild the party across the country, and that he had pledged to do so when he ran for party chairman. Reid and Pelosi countered that if Democrats squander their opportunities this year, longer-term organizing efforts will not matter much.

Democratic congressional leaders are particularly worried because the Republican National Committee holds a huge financial advantage over the DNC. One congressional Democrat complained that Dean has -- at an alarming rate -- burned through the money the DNC raised, and that Republicans may be able to swamp Democrats in close races with an infusion of RNC money.

In its most recent filing with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC reported raising $50.1 million so far in the 2005-2006 cycle and had $5.8 million cash on hand at the end of last year. The RNC had raised $103 million and had $34 million cash on hand.

And what did folks like Reid and Pelosi expect when Dean became the Party Chairman? This is a guy that raised almost $50 million for his Presidential bid and made it all disappear before the Iowa Caucus!

Posted by: Gary at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

CT Businessman Ned Lamont has told WTNH's Mark Davis that he is set to formally announce his campaign to challenge Sen. Joe Lieberman in the States's Democrat primary.

Frankly, I've never heard of the guy. But what do I know? Lieberman is popular with voters of both parties State-wide. But only Democrats get to choose their Senate candidate. And a lot of them are pissed off at Joe because of his support of the Global War on Terror and our current operations in Iraq.

Are there enough moonbats to throw him over the side? It's a long-shot but anything's possible. Left-wing Democrats have been salivating at the thought of making an example out of Lieberman to show other Democrat Senators around the country that the MoveOn.org crowd really calls the shots in their party.

I'm skeptical about Lamont's prospects but it will be interesting to watch.

Posted by: Gary at 03:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 158 words, total size 1 kb.

That's the question that BullDogPundit examines. Whether it's Kim Jong Il or Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez or the death-cult of Hamas, this ex-President keeps showing up like the proverbial turd in the punchbowl. And it always has the effect of undermining the nation he once took an oath to defend.

When will someone in the Democrat party have a "Sister Souljah moment" and call out Carter for what he is - a friend to America's enemies? Could it be because the base of the Democrat party today shares the same beliefs as Carter? How sad is it that a Democrat wanting to be President can't stand up to the lunacy of Jimmy Carter for fear of alienating the party faithful? I think that in and of itself explains why the American people don't trust Democrats on national security.

Posted by: Gary at 12:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

It looks like this 24-hour delay of information following Dick Cheney's hunting accident is the latest in a long line of news stories that the Left is convincing themselves will be the stake in the heart of the Bush Administration. And, as with all the others, they're working it up in their own minds as a huge deal. The rest of America, however, doesn't share their passion.

Mickey Kaus comments on this strange phenomenon in Slate. The catalyst for his post is the myth that "Brokeback Mountain" is somehow sweeping the Red-State rich heartland (a duplication of the "Fahrenheit 9/11 is sweeping the heartland" meme of 2004):

Much of Democratic politics seems to now consist of embracing and fanning similarly comforting, but ultimately deceptive, liberal memes [Kaus' emphasis]. Enron has fatally damaged Bush, Abu Ghraib has fatally damaged Bush, Katrina has fatally damaged Bush, Abramoff has fatally damaged Bush, the Plame investigation will fatally damage Bush--you can catch the latest allegedly devastating issue every day on Huffington Post or Daily Kos (and frequently in the NYT). If you believe the hype--if you don't compare Michael Moore's box office with Mel Gibson's box office, in effect--you'll believe that Democrats don't need to change to win. They just need to push all these hot memes forcefully. If you don't believe the hype--if you think that netroots Dems are too often like the Iraqi Sunnis who think they're a majority--you'll look for a Bill Clinton-like alternative with greater red-state appeal.

Before Democrats go hog wild on some of these memes, they really should step back and ask themselves "how would a reasonable person react to this story?". Clearly on this hunting accident story the reasonable people of this country are scratching their heads over what the big deal is, if they're paying any close attention at all. Unfortunately for the Left, the perspective of a "reasonable person" is one they just don't seem to be capable of.

Posted by: Gary at 11:00 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 3 kb.

I'll be damned...if I can tell you...exactly what that is...but check out this... neat trick I can do...with my eyebrow! Doesn't it make me look...like The Rock?

Cyrus at Conservative Thought isn't buying it.

Posted by: Gary at 06:40 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.