Germany has brought a lawsuit against outgoing SecDef Donald Rumsfeld for "war crimes" at Abu Ghraib. That's a good one.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 03:20 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

"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?"

- Karen Tumulty
Time Magazine
10/31/06

Posted by: Gary at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 107 words, total size 1 kb.

Their utter contempt for the military.

“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 don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”
- 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?

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.

UPDATE:
The Llamas swing back at John Effin' Kerry.

UPDATE DEUX:
Senator John McCain - a real war hero - issues a statement calling for Kerry to apologize to the men and women serving in Iraq.

Posted by: Gary at 08:45 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 245 words, total size 2 kb.

1 They all agree in their hearts, but will not say so publicly. Neither will they publicly rebuke Kerry, but stay silent. That's how they deal with the embarrassments in their party.

Posted by: Pam at October 31, 2006 11:00 AM (E1H09)

2 Hanoi JOhn won't apologize because it's all Bush's fault. BDS added to the loser image (actually loser is a fact) has put Hanoi over the edge. He is now officially insane and an embar'ass'ment to the country.

Posted by: Scrapiron at October 31, 2006 01:48 PM (YadGF)

3 So this is where the swift boat types hang out when they can't show their faces in public anymore... lol The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas. Why not do something constructive and worry about the real problem of getting rid of the people that made the disastrous decisions that have broken the military? Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers need and won't enlist themselves. Get rid of the Neocons and the GOP that supports their incompetence. The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me...

Posted by: Connecticut Man1 at October 31, 2006 05:25 PM (39DNf)

4 And you ungrateful schmucks still wonder why you keep losing.

Posted by: Gary at October 31, 2006 09:00 PM (Z0vta)

5 And much like bush... Bush supporters are too stupid to realize when Kerry calls bush stupid. Not the servicemen. And mark this down there you republican fraud: I am an unaffilliated. I don't support any party so "I never lose!" But you will on november 7th... I am also a Veteran. I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car, all the while denying the soldiers the "beans and bullets and armor and adequate manpower" they really need. Stick a fork in yourself... You are done.

Posted by: Connecticut Man1 at October 31, 2006 11:18 PM (39DNf)

6 The military is broken as evidenced by the fact that they have had to lower the standards of enlistment eligibility in order to barely meet recruitment quotas. What do you mean by "broken"? The Dept of Defense employs 1.4 million active duty. 1.28 million Ready and Stand-by Reserves as of September 2000 Total armed forces: 2,685,713 Active Troops: 1,426,713 Total troops: 2,685,713 By branch: Army - 500,203 *I think this is from the number of soldiers who were put on active duty from the Reserves and ARNG) * USMC - 180,000 Navy - 375, 521 Air Force - 358, 612 Coast Guard - 40,151 Army components: 494, 291 Active Duty, 342,918 in the ARNG and 204,134 in the USAR There are more soldiers on U.S. soil than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Only a small minority of Marines are actually in Iraq. Re-enlistments have been at a record high; and since 9/11, the desertion rate has plummeted. Around .24%. Getting rid of the people that cheerlead in Washington (and on the net) but don't provide all of the armor the soldiers need Ask him some of the past spin and won't enlist themselves. I just may. And why didn't you go be a human shield, as skye might say. The Chickenhawks in the GOP discust me... Chickendoves in the Jackass Party disgust me... One does not need to serve on the frontlines to support the war. But let's say we're all cowards who believe in this war, but are too afraid to fight "the bad guys". So what? It's all the more reason to be supportive of our troops and appreciative to the depths of our souls, for all the sacrifices that they and their families are making on behalf of the rest of us. Whereas people like John Frakkin' Kerry look upon them with his Ivy League pomposity and contempt, as poor, uneducated victims. There are many ways to serve your country; and many of the milblogs I've frequented who have addressed the chickenhawk argument, say just that. I believe it was CJ at One Soldier's Perspective who might have said the chickenhawk argument is a bogus argument that is only designed to shut down debate. Even within the military, not everyone can serve on the frontlines of combat; the majority of soldiers never even get to fire an M-16 at any of the enemy during their entire service. Going by the chickenhawk line of reasoning, where only those who serve have the authority to comment and talk about war, does that mean the combat soldier's opinion somehow outweighs the opinion of the soldier who serves as a mechanic? Maybe we should have our generals take point and lead the charge? Starting with George Bush? How does that make any kind of logical sense? Do you believe that crime must be fought? That criminals must be stopped from victimizing our society? It's dangerous work. Because I support crime-fighting, does that mean I have to join the police force, since they are placing themselves in danger, and I am not? I think being a firefighter is a necessary and honorable profession. I am very grateful to firefighters. Again, I am on the sidelines, when the 911 call comes through and the firetruck sounds its siren; I'm the one pulling off to the side of the road. Should I feel guilty, because those brave souls are fighting a fire in MY neighborhood, and I am not? If I am not satisfied with some policymaking involving the police dept or the fire dept, am I not allowed to have an opinion because I never served in either of the two? Then perhaps we should not criticize our Congressional leaders since most of us have never held a Senate or House seat, let alone been in the President's cabinet. After all, we don't have their perspective and their unique experience; therefore, we should just shut up. That's what you're saying. Now, there is some merit in that; but taken in the manner in which the anti-war Left wants it to be taken in, can you see why it is not an argument that deserves serious attention?

Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:06 AM (nrGCx)

7 I am also a Veteran. And a jackass. Telling Gary to "stick a fork in it"? A real class act you are. So you're a veteran of what, exactly? Spewing bullshit? Or are you a Kerry "anti-war movement" veteran or a Murtha "cut-and-run" veteran? If you are a vet, thanks for your service, all the same; but it doesn't give you immunity from being daft in the head. You can't hide behind that aegis and demand respect, when you haven't given any. I don't take kindly to cheerleaders like the chickenhawks in the GOP that feign "patriotism" by slapping a bumper sticker on their car, Like the "chickenhawks" in the GOP? Republicans with military service: 15.6% Democrats with military service: 9.6% Independants with military service: 0.2%

Posted by: wordsmith at November 01, 2006 02:21 AM (nrGCx)

8 Connecticut Man1, your comments do more to convince readers not to vote for Democrats than anything I could ever write. Anger? Check. Incoherence? Check. Statements you can't back-up? Check. Typos? Check. Moonbat speak (chickenhawks, neocons, et. al.)? Check. All indicative of your standard, garden-variety sociopath. Thanks for your help.

Posted by: Gary at November 01, 2006 11:17 AM (QoxB+)

9 I am so sorry you were slighted by one of us. As you know, Kerry is retarded and most real Democrats would lift the ban on assault weapons if you could get off a good enough shot. Today's real Democrats are so much more like Reagan Democrats than Reagan ever was, sir, that I believe a quick inventory of your beliefs and your adopted party is in order. As for his poorly timed quote, I am a firm believer that he is even worse with words than President George "Food on your family" Bush. As I said on my site, Kerry forgot to say "Us," which wouldn't be the first time a politician forgot about "Us." God Bless You and I pray the healing can begin.

Posted by: Lunatic1 at November 09, 2006 12:39 AM (RjZEG)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

As explained by David Frum:

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.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 02:45 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

If you ever needed confirmation that the DSCC has completely abandoned Ned Lamont - their chosen candidate - in his Senate bid, you need only look to how the Greenwich millionaire finances his campaign. For all intents and purposes, it's a self-funded effort. The party apparatus that is tasked with supporting the election efforts of its designated Senate candidates has clearly "cut and run" from CT.

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.

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?

Posted by: Gary at 04:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 196 words, total size 1 kb.

So now that Mark Foley has resigned, the replacement candidate has been picked. That candidate, Joe Negron, has requested that a sign be put up in polling places explaining that any votes for Foley will go to Negron. Florida election rules prohibit the removal of Foley's name from the ballot.

The proposed sign would read:

“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).”

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.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 10:25 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

The Corner at NRO highlights this FEC report of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee's expenditures in September:

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.

No Connecticut, huh? Guess Neddy's gonna have to keep writing himself checks to campaign with.

Heh.

UPDATE:
Rasmussen mirrors Quinnipiac poll. Lieberman by 10. That giant sucking sound you hear is the wind emptying out of the nutroots sails in CT.

Posted by: Gary at 03:38 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 213 words, total size 2 kb.

That was my first thought when I saw: this headline.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 11:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 50 words, total size 1 kb.

According to a story in The Hill, Joe Lieberman says he's received assurances from the Senate Democrat Leadership that - should he win - he will keep his seniority and committee assignments.

"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.

“This is a Lieberman campaign tactic,” he said. “Democratic leaders are supporting Ned Lamont.”

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.

“Why should Reid tell the guy in advance that he’ll have his seniority. If it comes to that, that’s fine. But it’s disappointing, it’s greatly disappointing that he would be given assurances.”

It'll be interesting to read the Lefty blogs in the coming days.

Posted by: Gary at 09:20 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 246 words, total size 2 kb.

Dick Morris reminds us that the Bill Clinton we saw on FoxNews this weekend is the Bill Clinton that those who worked closely with him knew all too well:

From behind the benign façade and the tranquilizing smile, the real Bill Clinton emerged Sunday during Chris Wallace’s interview on Fox News Channel. There he was on live television, the man those who have worked for him have come to know – 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 Wallace’s face, poking his knee, and invading the commentator’s space.

But beyond noting the ex-president’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 “definition of ‘is’ is” could perform.

On a related note, The Anchoress has a rather lengthy and well written analysis of Clinton's "daddy" issues - a must-read.

Posted by: Gary at 08:50 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 226 words, total size 2 kb.

OK, since the big Bill blow-up on FoxNews has already been covered to death, I'm only going to make one link and one comment.

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.

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.

Posted by: Gary at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 241 words, total size 2 kb.

Michael Dukakis: Lloyd. How's that martini treating you?

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
SNL 11/5/88

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...

Posted by: Gary at 10:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 300 words, total size 2 kb.

Peggy Noonan has a column in the WSJ this morning with some good insight on how Democrats with Bush-Derangement Syndrome (BDS) are there own worst enemy.

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.

"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 clichés in politics is, "You can't beat something with nothing." It's a cliché 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.

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

For weeks before today, I had planned to put into words the sad state that the Democrat party is in as well as my own disgust at the way so many of them view our current war against Islamic Fascists. I thought perhaps today would have been an apt day to do so.

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.

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 day—and every day since that their worldview has been shown to be vapid, self-serving, and a fraud—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.

Posted by: Gary at 04:30 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 508 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Thanks for sharing that link Gary. I went over to Confederate Yankee and read the whole thing. And it didn't take long for the "usual suspects" on the left to descend on CY's comment section and prove the point of the post. If these lefties had spent have the energy fighting terror as they do fighting those who are trying to win this war we would have won by now.

Posted by: Mike's America at September 12, 2006 12:25 AM (SHL+1)

2 A whole nation has a hard time staying angry over an attack that killed over 3,000 people yet these cretins manage to maintain the intensity of their rage towards a President and half the voting population who voted for him. These people have issues.

Posted by: Gary at September 12, 2006 09:09 AM (PLHs9)

3 Gary, It is called LCDD ( Liberal Cognitive Dissonance Disorder) - there is no known cure.

Posted by: Skye at September 12, 2006 08:17 PM (l9Zv4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Cry-baby Clintonistas (and even Bubba himself) are screaming for ABC to edit their mini-series "The Path To 9/11" or pull it outright. By going apoplectic about the broadcast, they are amplifying the attention given to it and will no doubt spur interest for potential viewers who might otherwise have been unaware of it.

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.

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."

Posted by: Gary at 09:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 433 words, total size 3 kb.

Allahpundit links a great ad for for the Donk's future newsletter - "America Weakly".

H/T: the Llamas (who wisely advise that you keep your mouth free of food and drink while viewing) ;-)

UPDATE (5:15pm):
Ha! That was from the RNC for real. LOL!! Love it.

Posted by: Gary at 09:05 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 64 words, total size 1 kb.

I could link stuff from Wuzzadem.com every day of the week. But that would make me lazy. Wouldn't it?

Some posts, however, are too priceless to pass up. Like this one. Enjoy!

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

I'd like to step back a bit with some personal reflections about Joe Lieberman. Joe and I go way back. No, we've never actually met. But my own political history is very much tied to his career as CT's Senator over the last 18 years. more...

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 874 words, total size 5 kb.

GA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney is planning on showing an ad 1,175 times in the five days leading up to the Democrat primary.

Um, won't this make those constituents who are already sick to death of her even more motivated to vote her out?

Posted by: Gary at 10:26 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 49 words, total size 1 kb.

That's about how you could describe the waning strength of the old-time Democrat political "machine" these days. The WaPo reports on all the internal difficulties the party of Reid, Pelosi, Dean and Murtha are having in trying to ensure that they get out the vote this fall.

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.

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.

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."

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 686 words, total size 5 kb.