I wonder, Steve, exactly what the populace will do if the scenario you mention, Dems with wide poll leads end up losing by the normal 1.5% on voting day. You don't think the public will "buy it" this time. Recent history is not on your side. I argue that the Media will again trumpet a GOP mandate and Bush will be off and running.. They'll have to be brutally drubbed, and I don't think we are close to that point yet.
Posted by T2 at October 9, 2006 06:08 PMSimilarly, Diebold can swing an election where the parties or candidates are within five points or so of each other without the result immediately being suspect.
GOP, November 8, on why they won every race by exactly 100 votes: "I guess we are good closers. What are you going to do about it, punk? Oh, look, over there, it's a terrorist."
Please. Without being suspect? They steal elections in Broad Daylight. See: Florida, 00; Ohio 04. Democrats shrug. Lather, rinse...
Posted by Mister Larry at October 9, 2006 06:08 PMThe problem under the numbers for Democrats is that Republicans are losing more confidence and trust with the American people than the Democrats are picking up. My own reception here shows why. Instead of welcoming my differing views as being different, you folks lump me in with Bush because I have not gone as far left as you simply are. That's why the margin of victory for Democrats in November will be narrow and not the landslide it could and should be. You are too married to your own dearly held hatred of Bush to really welcome in Bush-doubters as opposed to fellow Bush-haters. So narrow a victory can easily be overturned in 2008 if you do not cement it before then.
If the Republicans learn from Schwarzegger's chameleon parade as a centerist here in California and trot out McCain or some other moderate to face of against Hillary or Evan Byah, you folks are toast once again.
If Bush gets censured or impeached in 2007 but remains in office as Clinton did in 1998, then be happy with that little pound of flesh and start looking beyond your hatred of Bush to actually becoming the ruling party and deciding what it is you have to offer us that the GOP won't or can't. You are not going to turn Bush-doubters into fellow Bush-haters and you need to deal with that fact. Those of us who once supported Bush do not need to be made to feel "evil" or "stupid" by your vitriol, not if you want to keep and build on the narrow majority the Foley scandal has appeared to have laid in your laps.
The Democratic Party has always been better suited to being a "Big Tent" party than the Republican Party. Evangelicals cannot help but be fractuous toward any group that they do not consider "real" Christians. It is just in their nature. Log Cabin Republicans are out with Foley and so is the "Big Tent" policy of the Republican Party. The real question is whether or not the new Democrats are ready to take in and keep the refugees. So far, this refugee does not feel all that welcome.
Posted by NorCalRINO at October 9, 2006 06:13 PMSimilarly, Diebold can swing an election where the parties or candidates are within five points or so of each other without the result immediately being suspect. But if the storyline the rest of the way is that the Democrats are piling up a large lead in the generic ballot, and then somehow on Election Day a dispirited base suddenly turns out to vote and gives the GOP a slim several point win, no one will buy it, not even the sycophants in the media.
Simply bullshit, Steve. The population will wander around saying, "I think we got robbed."
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 9, 2006 06:32 PMT2 and Mr. Larry:
I know you folks are still stuck on the 2000 Presidential Election, but the rest of America really has moved on. From my "centrist" viewpoint BOTH parties did their best to steal the 2000 election. The Republicans just did a better job of lying and stealing than the Democrats. Expect the same tricks and the usual suspects. It is really too bad that Mexico has a better grip on fair elections these days than we do, but Democrats will win enough seats in the House by large enough numbers that cheating won't work. The trouble is that you folks should be routing the Republicans right now and you are not because you are still licking wounds from six years ago. Quit looking back and start looking forward. If you become the majority party, you are going to have to quite complaining and start governing.
Posted by NorCalRINO at October 9, 2006 06:34 PMSpeaking of Rove, he's gonna be at a fundraiser where I go to school tomorrow. Some of the campus groups are sending out emails with the location for protests... YAY! I'm between classes and my hetero life mate had her class canceled when the protest is supposed to happen.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at October 9, 2006 07:12 PMSoto:
Similarly, Diebold can swing an election where the parties or candidates are within five points or so of each other without the result immediately being suspect.
Yep. There's the Escape Clause. I'd been hoping that a Democratic victory would finally silence all of the moonbat nonsense about election-stealing, but it appears that even if we do wind up with a Speaker Pelosi, it won't be because exit-polling is a crock or because races aren't the domain of statistical sampling, but because Diebold hasn't yet figured out a way to game the system in favor of the Republicans beyond some arbitrary vote margin.
Oh, well. Take the victory, anyway. It's not like these rationalizations can't just be dusted off for the next cycle.
Posted by Toby Petzold at October 9, 2006 07:26 PMIf Bush gets censured or impeached in 2007 but remains in office as Clinton did in 1998,
Nope. He's a war felon. Prison and a trip to the Hague. Big difference.
You are not going to turn Bush-doubters into fellow Bush-haters and you need to deal with that fact.
Oh, the fucking pathos!
Instead of welcoming my differing views as being different, you folks lump me in with Bush because I have not gone as far left as you simply are.
Hmm. The problem seems to be that you don't read the posts and comments. Hit the archives, spunky. You may find you are on the exact wrong blog. Maybe something more centrist would be better for you. Make sure to include "I would like to have a beer with Bush" in your first post.
So far, this refugee does not feel all that welcome.
My God. Please stop the pathos. You can maybe control others in your life with this pathetic crap, but here you only come off as smarmy and controlling beyond all belief.
Posted by phidipides at October 9, 2006 07:51 PMOh, yeah, dust off your tinfoil hats and get ready to fly off as a moonbat:
Posted by ann at October 9, 2006 08:00 PM"I wonder, Steve, exactly what the populace will do if the scenario you mention, Dems with wide poll leads end up losing by the normal 1.5% on voting day."
T2, I have asked myself that same question again and again lately. What will we do? Personally, I have come to the conclusion that we need to have a plan in place now for the possibility of that very scenario happening. The Democrats must have a plan in place, and 'we the people' must commit to what we will accept and what we will not accept. The time to plan is now, not after the elections are hi-jacked. We must be prepared for what I suspect will happen looking back at the last two elections.
Posted by Judith at October 9, 2006 08:38 PMNorCalRINO, you would be hard pressed to find too many centrists on this site. Phidipides is right, this blog is for progressive liberals, not centrists. This is the site where people have little tolerance left, and many of us, including myself, are madder than hell. The people here hate/dislike Bush for only one reason. He has spit on the Constitution of the United States and our Democracy and made a mockery of every brave soldier who has died fighting for this Country. Whether you like it or not, the man who sits in our White House is a criminal and should be tried at the Hague for war crimes, along with the rest of the cabal. If you want moderate, this is not the blog for you.
Posted by Judith at October 9, 2006 09:06 PMP.S. Am I angry? You betcha.
Posted by Judith at October 9, 2006 09:09 PMNorCalRINO writes:
My own reception here shows why. Instead of welcoming my differing views as being different, you folks lump me in with Bush because I have not gone as far left as you simply are. That's why the margin of victory for Democrats in November will be narrow and not the landslide it could and should be. You are too married to your own dearly held hatred of Bush to really welcome in Bush-doubters as opposed to fellow Bush-haters.
I haven't seen your "reception here" -- at least, all your posts that Google turns up have been unremarkable, to the extent that no one has remarked on them.
I'm also not clear on what you mean by Bush doubters vs. Bush haters. I've seen very few people here, or elsewhere in the blog world, that truly hate Bush. Instead, I see many people who love America and hate what they see Bush doing to their country. They may, for example, dislike his unjustifiable foreign entanglements, his ballooning national debt, or is abuse of the constitution. They may find fault with his lying, or his secrecy, or his cronyism. And so on, and so on...
But they do not hate Bush, the man. To see this, consider what would happen should he decide to resign his office, turn over all the details about his use of it to the proper authorities, and apply for a job as manager of a Burger King in the midwest.
I would guess that most of the people you call "Bush haters" would be thrilled for the chance to write him a glowing letter of recommendation, heartily endorsing his career change.
So how, exactly, are you "Bush doubters" different? And how do you justify the use of the term "Bush haters," so loved by Bush apologists despite (or perhaps because) of its blatant inapplicability?
--MarkusQ
Posted by MarkusQ at October 9, 2006 09:16 PMAll ---
In reading some of the comments posted while I was composing mine, it appears I may be wrong--but I doubt it.
So I'll ask you all, point blank:
If the only thing stopping Bush from flipping over his cards, turning all his notes and papers over to the proper authorities and getting a job as a manager in some midwest Burger King was that he needed a letter of recommendation from you, would you or wouldn't you give it your best shot?
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Bonus points if you'd even loan him the money to fly out for the interview.
Posted by MarkusQ at October 9, 2006 09:28 PMDoubter???????
How in the hell can you be a "Bush doubter" after six years?
Posted by at October 9, 2006 09:35 PM"I haven't seen your "reception here" -- at least, all your posts that Google turns up have been unremarkable, to the extent that no one has remarked on them."
Huh? You are saying by way of remarking on my remarks that they are not being remarked upon? I suppose being flamed is a better description that remarked upon, so to that extent your criticism sort of makes sense. Otherwise, you could be part of the circular firing squad the GOP is currently engaged in. You folks just do not have the makings of a forward-looking Party of the Majority.
I would count on open Civil War in this country before I bet money on seeing Bush or Cheney in jail and I am in no way advocating such an insane situation. The Bush-lovers would simply not stand for it. Plan on seeing Michael Jackson in jail for molesting little boys long before you Bush-haters ever see him in jail. You sit around and worry about the next election being stolen and then fantasize about seeing Bush in jail. If the GOP has the power to steal the next election, be sure they would also have the power to keep their boy out of jail.
Now I understand how Byzantium fell and how the Moguls over-ran China. Their lefties were sitting around mulling over nonsense when a chance to avert disaster was in their grasp. Keep this up and the GOP has a chance to recover from shooting themselves in both feet.
You folks on the left are just too out there for us folks in the middle. But then you are the people who think of "Brokeback Mountain" as a cowboy movie when its pretty obvious they are herding sheep. You do know the difference between a cow and a sheep, don't you?
Posted by NorCalRINO at October 9, 2006 09:42 PMRino, your breezy, unsupported opinion/platitudes are becoming tiresome, and phidipides has you nailed. Steve identifies his blog as "left/centrist" and that's surely what it is. There are very few radical leftists in America.
Elected officials in America go to jail if they break the law, not because they are "hated". And beloved national figures go to jail if they break the law, too. At least in countries which operate under the rule of law.
If people here argue that Bush (or Cheney) may go to jail, or "should" go to jail, it's not because they "hate" him---it's because, based on what they have read or seen reported, he has been responsible for violating applicable law, not simply beause they "hate" him.
Perhaps you are unaware of the enormous amount of lawbreaking (some of it admitted) in which this administration has and is engaged. Perhaps that's what keeps you a Bush "doubter" in your nomenclature. I'd advise you to read more, comment less.
Posted by euzoius at October 10, 2006 06:13 AMSo, NorCal turns out to be a troll afterall.
Posted by Judith at October 10, 2006 07:34 AMYou folks on the left are just too out there for us folks in the middle. But then you are the people who think of "Brokeback Mountain" as a cowboy movie when its pretty obvious they are herding sheep. You do know the difference between a cow and a sheep, don't you?
Posted by NorCalRINO at October 9, 2006 09:42 PM
Please, by all means, go ahead and use the standard Republican't straw man tactics and make blatantly innaccurate blanket statements about progressives and liberals on this site, and then wonder why you get a frosty reception here. And keep on posting comments about it, too - I'm sure you might be able to come to some sort of conclusion about the reasons for the lack of empathy with your political positions.
It is unfortunate that the positions you consider to be differing views are remarkably similar in tone, factual knowledge (or lack thereof), and left-handed compliments (if not outright insults and lies) about the Democratic and/or liberal political commentary around here, to the Republican't lies and hypocrisy being propagated by the conservative media, the conservative government, and the conservative religious organizations in this country. You even try to spin the stolen election in Mexico as a better grip on fair elections. Please. That must be why there has been rioting in the streets, conservative hijinks and repression, and general strikes all over Mexico because of the recent election.
We would love to welcome you into the fold, RINO. But you have to get over your hatred of Democratic politics first.
Posted by (: Tom :) at October 10, 2006 07:36 AM(:Tom:), Great response to NoCalRINO...I have started and then decided not to post several comments to him/her addressing this very issue about why the lack of a flower throwing reception by many longtime regulars here. You summed it up much better than I was able to so I thank you for it.
Posted by emal at October 10, 2006 01:11 PM