All Hank, all the time.

[flare up]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have to say that as a Democrat, I would be offended by being characterized that way. Politics isn't tribal. The biggest problem facing this country today is that too many people are acting as thought this is not only true, but proper.

I say this is the biggest problem facing us today, not terrorism or taxes or jobs or immigration, because the attituds that you're either with us or against us is standing in the way of finding workable solutions to all the other problems.

Wrong.

The biggest problem is that the Democrat party and their assorted liberal collaborators (see Greens, communists, socialists, Europeans, godless atheists, pedophile worshipping pro-Islamics, moral relativists, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Sean Penn etc. et al) are not only happy to live in their collective wacked out dream world of nonsense, rather than work with the real world and patriotic americans, they have also force fed slightly less than 50% of the populace (who are stupified after being miseducated in the liberal teachers' union controlled gulags the left calls public schools), their treason laced fetid kool aid.

Part and parcel with this is that last democrat party President left a illusory legacy re: peace, security, and economic prosperity that we are still picking up the pieces of today. Thank G-d for W and the adults in his administration. History will bear out their unwavering leadership in the defense of Freedom and moral justice in the face of America's left winged fifth columnists.

That last post and posts 1719 and 1720 are perfect indicators of the left's delusions.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by flare up
Wrong.

The biggest problem is that the Democrat party and their assorted liberal collaborators (see Greens, communists, socialists, Europeans, godless atheists, pedophile worshipping pro-Islamics, moral relativists, MoveOn.org, Michael Moore, Sean Penn etc. et al) are not only happy to live in their collective wacked out dream world of nonsense, rather than work with the real world and patriotic americans, they have also force fed slightly less than 50% of the populace (who are stupified after being miseducated in the liberal teachers' union controlled gulags the left calls public schools), their treason laced fetid kool aid.

Part and parcel with this is that last democrat party President left a illusory legacy re: peace, security, and economic prosperity that we are still picking up the pieces of today. Thank G-d for W and the adults in his administration. History will bear out their unwavering leadership in the defense of Freedom and moral justice in the face of America's left winged fifth columnists.

That last post and posts 1719 and 1720 are perfect indicators of the left's delusions.

So in other words, you agree Lieberman is toast.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
So in other words, you agree Lieberman is toast.

you know how some more socially moderate republicans could look at McCain and think he will rein in Bush if he strays to far towrads crazy- Don't you think any dem candidate would benefit from the realistic voters being able to look at Joe and think hil or kerry or whomever won't be allowed to just lay down for the jihadis?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you know how some more socially moderate republicans could look at McCain and think he will rein in Bush if he strays to far towrads crazy- Don't you think any dem candidate would benefit from the realistic voters being able to look at Joe and think hil or kerry or whomever won't be allowed to just lay down for the jihadis?

Mostly I was responding to f-up's enthusiastic assertion of the existing partisanship in American politics, and pointing out the consequences of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.

To your point - what do the socially moderate republicans run in Washington these days? How popular are Chafee and Snowe in republican circles? Then why should dems be sensitive to intraparty checks and balances when the republicans have been so successful ignoring them?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
So in other words, you agree Lieberman is toast.

I don't know about Lieberman. I just fear that ultimately we're all toast.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Mostly I was responding to f-up's enthusiastic assertion of the existing partisanship in American politics, and pointing out the consequences of that. In other words, you can't have it both ways.

To your point - what do the socially moderate republicans run in Washington these days? How popular are Chafee and Snowe in republican circles? Then why should dems be sensitive to intraparty checks and balances when the republicans have been so successful ignoring them?

ummm, my point was that hard core republicans might give money to the guy who runs against Lieberman- it hurts the Dems both in the Senate and in Nat'l elections.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
ummm, my point was that hard core republicans might give money to the guy who runs against Lieberman- it hurts the Dems both in the Senate and in Nat'l elections.

I didn't get that from your post, but anyway - they can sure give it to whomever they want. But I don't agree it will harm the dems to support a dem. Can you point to a position Lamont has taken that is either a) at odds with mainstream dem positions*, or b) further left than that (I mean like Barbara Lee-further left)?

* To the extent the dems have a consensus or a limited number of consensi.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I didn't get that from your post, but anyway - they can sure give it to whomever they want. But I don't agree it will harm the dems to support a dem. Can you point to a position Lamont has taken that is either a) at odds with mainstream dem positions*, or b) further left than that (I mean like Barbara Lee-further left)?

* To the extent the dems have a consensus or a limited number of consensi.

you need to go read my posts again. you miss the point. he's your McCain- it doesn't matter what the replacement is.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you need to go read my posts again. you miss the point. he's your McCain- it doesn't matter what the replacement is.

I understand your point. My response to it is - the majority of republicans don't care, really, if they have McCain, because the majority of republicans don't agree with him. That's why he's running around right now trying to suck up to the social conservatives of the party before 2008. Similarly, if the dems see the republicans being so successful ignoring THEIR moderates, why should the national dem party spend any effort to save Lieberman? Especially since most Connecticutt dems would be happy to get rid of him anyway - they despise his stance on the war.

The legacy of 43 will include, besides Iraq, the relatively extreme political polarization his administration and party have imposed.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
The legacy of 43 will include, besides Iraq, the relatively extreme political polarization his administration and party have imposed.

That certainly is the way they have generally operated, but they just recognized and played the existing game.

We can't pin that one on Bush or the GOP. The polarization of America, and our political parties, is a trend that has been happening for a long time, as liberals/conservatives self-selected and sorted themselves out along party lines.

Politically, it has accelerated in the past 15 years or so, but the trend has its roots in the various social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, you don't see the liberal R's or conservative D's much anymore.

S_A_M

eta: To me, the remarkable part about the Bush administration strong and persistent "Fuck Congress" (and/or "Fuck the Judiciary") approach to governance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I understand your point. My response to it is - the majority of republicans don't care, really, if they have McCain, because the majority of republicans don't agree with him. That's why he's running around right now trying to suck up to the social conservatives of the party before 2008. Similarly, if the dems see the republicans being so successful ignoring THEIR moderates, why should the national dem party spend any effort to save Lieberman? Especially since most Connecticutt dems would be happy to get rid of him anyway - they despise his stance on the war.

The legacy of 43 will include, besides Iraq, the relatively extreme political polarization his administration and party have imposed.

winning is not about the extremes, but in keeping your moderates, and hyping your extremes- but w/o losing your moderates.

McCain/ Lieberman may never win a primary, but there presense as national figures keeps moderates around- I'm talking about voting booths not the fucking senate.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That certainly is the way they have generally operated, but they just recognized and played the existing game.

We can't pin that one on Bush or the GOP. The polarization of America, and our political parties, is a trend that has been happening for a long time, as liberals/conservatives self-selected and sorted themselves out along party lines.

Politically, it has accelerated in the past 15 years or so, but the trend has its roots in the various social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s. Thus, you don't see the liberal R's or conservative D's much anymore.

S_A_M

eta: To me, the remarkable part about the Bush administration strong and persistent "Fuck Congress" (and/or "Fuck the Judiciary") approach to governance.

2. This was chronicled in "Culture Wars" in the late 80s/early 90s

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
My response to it is - the majority of republicans don't care, really, if they have McCain, because the majority of republicans don't agree with him.

Most Republicans do agree with McCain on most policy issues. He's off the reservation because he tried to win GOP primaries by appealing to independents and because he's too willing to buck the party line. McCain's reputation as a moderate belies what he actually votes for -- he gets a lot of press out of the exceptions (e.g., campaign-finance reform) to the rule.

[taxwonk]

The story broke about 20 minutes or so ago. Here is the CNN report.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
The story broke about 20 minutes or so ago. Here is the CNN report.

Someone bombs a bunch of Indians on 7/11?


*Poor taste I know, but you know someone is going to make this connection