A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You've already started drinking for the evening, haven't you?

Yes. he's an inverse chicken little. The Dems will pull 30-40 % of the vote into the forseeable future. You'll have at least 25 -30 Senate seats etc. You have your loyal base- no need to worry. And since you have Hollywood- well there will be $$$ for really good commercials and documentaries about oil wars.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Yes. he's an inverse chicken little. The Dems will pull 30-40 % of the vote into the forseeable future. You'll have at least 25 -30 Senate seats etc. You have your loyal base- no need to worry. And since you have Hollywood- well there will be $$$ for really good commercials and documentaries about oil wars.

See, I'm teasing Bilmore about taking a SHP post so seriously that he's apparently convinced that the party's headed to the left of Nader. I figured he's just drinking again.

Your inspiration seems to be something more profound, an embrace of Michael Moore hatred that you'll be hanging on to for a good decade, coupled with the sweetness of a cleansed political memory that comes after your party's victories, but before the majority party's infighting and overreaching begins.

Your more expansive worldview is harder to attribute to having one too many at the Adam's Apple downtown, Hank, if you know what I mean. But it's bold. I like it! Hang onto it -- it'll keep you warm during the cold nights of the Congressional investigations that are the staples of second-term presidents.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
You've already started drinking for the evening, haven't you?

Alas, no, I haven't even stopped teleconferencing yet.

It just seems to me that youze guyz are going quite overboard on the demonization of an influence that I think is way overperceived. Note how I keep pointing out "me atheistic" - I have less love for the sinbots than you, most likely - but with your constant snide "faith-based putzoids" this and your "Jeezuz-howls-on-the-train" that, you just seem so horridly bitter that you're gonna shoot yourselves all in the feet. Maybe better to wash them?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Alas, no, I haven't even stopped teleconferencing yet.

It just seems to me that youze guyz are going quite overboard on the demonization of an influence that I think is way overperceived. Note how I keep pointing out "me atheistic" - I have less love for the sinbots than you, most likely - but with your constant snide "faith-based putzoids" this and your "Jeezuz-howls-on-the-train" that, you just seem so horridly bitter that you're gonna shoot yourselves all in the feet. Maybe better to wash them?

As I recall, this conversation started with youze guyz telling us that because Boxer wrote a letter to a liberal blogger, it portended the complete Marginalization of The Democratic Party, Home of the Wackos.

Seemed a silly premise to me. Perhaps even snide. In any event, I'm a bit baffled at your surprise and disappointment that others would point out this Administration's, and your party's, special relationship with the Lord as counterexamples. Trust me, we hear you each and every time you proclaim that "you athiestic" and that you not like them.

Nevertheless, bilmore, it's you're party, and you got to dance with them that brung ya, even if the partners are not always to your liking.

We in the newly-formed minority understand the deal. And, as a matter of perspective, I'd imagine that you in the majority would remember the GOP's colorful history during the bomb-throwing days of the Gingrich Era. Beyond the ultimate truth of whether the Godliness of the GOP will bring your party political deliverance or exile, making these arguments are what political minorities do. Where, exactly, in your lively discussion about political wackos did you think this conversation would go?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Nevertheless, bilmore, it's you're party, and you got to dance with them that brung ya, even if the partners are not always to your liking.

And here I am at the dance, dressed to the nines, and I see you looking in through the drapes.

This wasn't about "do I love our religio-centrics". This was about "D's need to determine which way, if any, they want to or need to move to rebuild a viable winning base." My Boxer point was, she and others of her ilk (that's like a social club in California) are stepping up and assuming the "face" of the D's right now. I doubt that's a good move for the D's. If anything, I think there are more votes to be mined by moving D's slightly center than by moving left. Come up with a candidate less fulsomely and historically liberal than Kerry, with the same ideas and plans, and I think the D's win. A candidate, and a party, that responds to the more extremist left view, while being more satisfying for the hardcore activists, marginalizes D's to a smaller and smaller vote.

We seem to be able to survive our Buchanans. Can you survive your Boxers?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
We seem to be able to survive our Buchanans. Can you survive your Boxers?

You know, you had a hard time with your Buchanans in 1992.

Democrats survived its Kennedy affliction from the 1980s, and prospered (relatively speaking) for years thereafter.

Boxer may or may not be the "face" of the Democratic party now. Frankly, I think you could argue that the differences between California's two senators and their approach to the Rice nomination that so affected you reflects the difference that the party is trying to sort out now.

You seem to prefer to look at the snapshot and conclude that not only that this is Boxer's ugly day in the sun, but also to draw long-term lessons from it. I prefer to think that it's not a snapshot, it's a movie.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Hang onto it -- it'll keep you warm during the cold nights of the Congressional investigations that are the staples of second-term presidents.

Disenfranchisement in Fla. 2000? Already done-
Voting irregularities in Ohio 2004? Check.
Bush lied- poeple died? Done.

What next?

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Disenfranchisement in Fla. 2000? Already done-
Voting irregularities in Ohio 2004? Check.
Bush lied- people died? Done.

What next?

OK, I know I'm stretching, but its early. How about:



Cheney's Coat Stopped the Vote!

aV

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Frankly, I think you could argue that the differences between California's two senators and their approach to the Rice nomination that so affected you reflects the difference that the party is trying to sort out now.

This should have been sorted out after the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections. The answer is right in front of them, but they refuse to see it because they can't believe that the country does not believe in their ideology.

I'm not saying they have to move hard to the middle, but they do have to marginalize the 30% of the party that wants to pull the to the left. Clinton understood this. Hillary understands this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By 2012, I bet the GOP will have 30-40% support in the black community.

Is it too late to get in on this action? I bet you $250 (in 2012 dollars) that the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 does not get 30% of the vote.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Is it too late to get in on this action? I bet you $250 (in 2012 dollars) that the GOP presidential nominee in 2012 does not get 30% of the vote.

I want in on this easy win, myself. Position-wise, Blacks are so conservative on gay marriage, abortion, immigration, etc. But polls have shown them this way for 10 years and there still aren't many (any?) socially conservative positions/votes among the Congr. Black Caucus.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by andViolins
OK, I know I'm stretching, but its early. How about:



Cheney's Coat Stopped the Vote!

aV

I'm not usually in the position of defending Dick Cheney. But, the man has a bad heart. Cold can literally kill. I don't know if he was wearing the parka in order to avoid angina, or because he's a callous, self-centered prick, but I'll at least allow for the possibility.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not usually in the position of defending Dick Cheney. But, the man has a bad heart. Cold can literally kill. I don't know if he was wearing the parka in order to avoid angina, or because he's a callous, self-centered prick, but I'll at least allow for the possibility.

i refuse to believe that he has a heart. even one two sizes too small.

aV

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I'm not usually in the position of defending Dick Cheney. But, the man has a bad heart. Cold can literally kill. I don't know if he was wearing the parka in order to avoid angina, or because he's a callous, self-centered prick, but I'll at least allow for the possibility.

Knowing what you know about the subject, if he did wear the parka due to the condition of his heart, would this tell you anything about the current seriousness of his health? Would someone with his heart condition "generally" dress with such caution, or does this indicate to you a more serious problem then is generally perceived?

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,145825,00.html

Polls Close in Historic Iraqi Elections

BAGHDAD, Iraq — The polls in Iraq have closed, ending the country's first open elections in more than 50 years and setting a course for what U.S. officials hope will be a long democratic future.

All around the country, Iraqis defied threats of violence and cast their votes. An initial estimate of turnout from the Independent Electoral Commission indicated that 72 percent of eligible Iraqi voters had turned out to cast their ballots.

72%? Hell Ty, what'll it be once it's ready for democracy?