Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
With RT as my witness I am not that sock, although I did invent the obviously fallacious use of the introductory "long time lurker...." line for socks on this board.

I think it was either patentpara or lady val who first used it...or chris.

It's not a penske sock.

[SlaveNoMore]

taxwonk
Michael Moore is a representative of the liberals in America as Jerry Falwell or Rick Santorum are representative of conservatives. Which one are you more closely in line with?

I'm not particularly in line with either, but then again, I neither watch The 700 Club nor do I live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and haven't voted for Senator Santorum. Apparently, the people there seem to like him enough.

I, however, am not going to be so uttely predictable and boring as to suggest that either of these men don't have a lot of support in their respective wings of the Republican party. And that their comments - when inappropriate - may reflect poorly on the party as a whole.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Good luck finding one. The Repubs care far more about winning elections than winning wars.

Really? Not according to this article - which I agree with whole heartily.

Why Dems dominate state
Jill Stewart

Friday, June 24, 2005

Printable Version
Email This Article

Main Opinion Page
Chronicle Sunday Insight
Chronicle Campaigns

THINK OF 1958, so distant in the past that the Los Angeles Times ran front-page stories about Alaska finally being voted the 49th state and Russia launching a rocket that nearly reached the moon -- "farther than any object man has sent from the Earth."

Something that didn't make headlines -- because the reality of it wouldn't become clear for years -- was the fact that 1958 was the last time Republicans controlled the Sacramento Legislature, aside from an occasional oddball year or two.

It was the year California went Democrat, and never went back.

I mention 1958 because of the hectoring by California GOP hard-liners, whom pundits call the "circular firing squad" because of their corrosive effect on the party. We'll remain a one-party state as long as the GOP fails to quell its far right, which insures the party's failure here.

As a fiscally conservative Democrat, I want California to return to a two- party system, and thus engage in a true debate over the big ideas. Yet as Republicans gear up for the 2006 statewide elections, they are once again taking actions that guarantee they get nowhere in their uphill battle to regain California.

Exhibit A: Steve Frank, who e-mails his California Political Views and News to journalists and party activists, recently declared that Republican state Sen. "Abel Maldonaro (sic) was a Hillary Clinton wannabe," for running for state controller soon after becoming a senator. Another missive reported that Keith Richman, a moderate Republican Assemblyman running for state treasurer, deserved the "Republican In Name Only" (RINO) award given him by the Club for Growth because he supported taxes.

GOP leadership in California is so lily-white it might as well be 1958. Instead of whining about Maldonado's ambition, the GOP should fast-track this rising Latino star from Santa Maria (Santa Barbara County). Yet they prefer the high-tech approach of crossing their fingers to bring new faces into the ossified party hierarchy.

As to Richman's RINO, Schwarzenegger probably works more closely with Richman than all but two or three Republican leaders. But it wouldn't be a circular firing squad if the Club for Growth actually cared whom the governor respects.

Exhibit B: At a gathering of Republicans in Los Olivos (Santa Barbara County), Gary Mendoza, a former deputy mayor of Los Angeles running for state insurance commissioner, announced that if liberal Silicon Valley Republican Steve Poizner gets the GOP nomination instead of him, Mendoza won't support Poizner against the Democrat who runs. Mendoza got applause from moderates and conservatives alike by calling Poizner's supporters the "Gore-Lieberman wing" of the GOP.

Mendoza, a moderate and a decent guy, tells me, "Less than one one- hundredth of Republican primary voters supported the 2000 Gore-Lieberman recount, as did Steve Poizner, who is really a Democrat." His sharp critique is mild compared to vilification of Poizner from the right. (You can imagine what hard-liners say about Abel Maldo-whatever and that socialist Keith Richman.)

Poizner's crime is his mixed ideology. Yet his issue-by-issue approach is not unusual among Silicon Valley's unorthodox Republicans. Moreover, the majority of California Republicans and independents who might lean Republican are mixed-issue voters. A long as the far- ight is the tail wagging the party's dog, the GOP will drive these voters away.

Some hard-liners are whispering that Jim Gilchrist, the founder of the Minuteman Project, might be a terrific replacement for U.S. Rep. Christopher Cox of Orange County, who was tapped by President Bush to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

I'm not going to smear the Minuteman Project, like hysterical Democrats who thought crazed gunmen were on the loose. It's clear that somebody besides just talk radio needed to call attention to the porous border. However, promoting a lightning rod like Gilchrist is typical GOP hard-liner mentality: Put forth an easily demonized Newt Gingrich-type, then act mystified when voters and the California media recoil against the entire party.

We're left with a virtually permanent Democratic Legislature, a study in myopia and dysfunction. Was anybody besides me amused when the Legislature in recent months held inept public hearings to "learn the cause?" News flash: the Legislature wrote the environmental laws that severely slashed gas production in California, leading to the worst gas-pump prices in the nation.

If Republicans had controlled the Legislature for nearly five decades, things would be no better. Instead of the most harmful gas prices in America, we'd have oil drilling all along the coast. Permanent one-party rule never works.

The California Republican Party should grasp this better than anyone. Yet instead of drafting nonideologues capable of winning statewide races and rebuilding the party, GOP activists are doing what they do best: taking position in the circular firing squad.

Jill Stewart, a print, radio and television commentator on California politics, can be reached at www.jillstewart.net.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
Okay. Do you want to work up the power point presentation or should I?

What, you don't have a photoshopped picture of Karl Rove peeing gassoline on a naked Hillary Clinton engulfed in flames?

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
I sent an email to the VRWC talking points desk. As soon as they get back to me I will let you know, although it would not surprise me if some ended up in Iran.

I only ask because, y'know, these little adventures cost American lives and money, and while the Republicans don't give a shit about either, we liberals - funny thing - we do. From the article:

• "Leaders of the American Legion, the Paralyzed Veterans and the Disabled American Veterans all noted a striking partisan division in Congress on veterans issues, with Democrats giving them much more support than Republicans.
  
  Traditionally, Violante said, "Republicans have been supportive of defense," but he said Bush administration policies and votes in the House and Senate suggest that the GOP does not view the care of veterans as "a continuing cost of war."

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You missed the part where your blowjob-obsessed political attacks on the man did what they aimed to do -- limited his ability to lead. That was the point all along. No regrets.

To be fair to Bush and Clinton both, there was little we could do to get bin Laden inside Afghanistan -- if you don't believe this, try reading Sacred Terror, or Clarke's book, or Ghost Wars -- and there was no political support to put boots on the ground inside Afghanistan until after 9/11. But at least Clinton was paying attention, and trying.



The other part -- the "into custody" crap -- is simply wrong.



Read Clarke's book, if you care. It's actually interesting stuff.

On the first point, just as he did not need a popular referendum to do his job on national defense, he did not Congressional support. Commander in Chief was his job. He could have led and taken the actions of a leader. He didn't. His distractions were of his own doing, but like Bill, you and party regulars persistently deny the concept of personal responsibility. I am more of an ownership society type of guy.

On two, I will find my own book and post a link.

On three, if Clarke was so fucking great, why didn't he help Clinton solve the problem? Didn't the 911 plot start during Clinton's watch and wasn't Clarke part of that team too?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
You must be kidding. Hussein controlled the alleged WMD. The revolution wasn't about to get control of them. Assuming there were WMDs to begin with.

I wasn't talking about the famous disappearing WMDs. I was talking about all the terrorists that were being trained in Iraq to join Al Queda in its unholy war against Mom, apple pie, and baseball. You must remember that part, the explanation that was offered up when the WMDs failed to appear?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you're a long-time lurker, then you'll know that I don't like Moore, so it's particularly irritating to have him held up as some kind of political leader. Since you're so keen on staying on topic, the topic was Karl Rove's bon mots, not Michael Moore.

I thought the topic was showing how Rove's statement wasn't altogether untrue.

Where is the outrage over the comments of the head of the DNC, Howard Dean?

Is he going to get on television, apologize to the 44.8 million registered Republicans of this country for his odious statement "Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives..." and resign?

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by taxwonk
What, you don't have a photoshopped picture of Karl Rove peeing gassoline on a naked Hillary Clinton engulfed in flames?

I almost got banned for posting a pic of Hillary's penis on the adult board. I don't do phottoshoppe anymore. I retired.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
So then Bush's lies about WMD are okay because he wasn't under oath?

If he did lie, it was not under oath so it was not illegal. It is amazing that a group of lawyers can't understand the difference between lying and lying under oath. President lie all the time. Every president lies. But lying to a judge under oath. That is a whole different ball game.

[Iron Steve]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I only ask because, y'know, these little adventures cost American lives and money, and while the Republicans don't give a shit about either, we liberals - funny thing - we do.

I think everyone realizes that, but unfortunately, that's the current cost to prevent America from becoming an Islamic republic. The French are currently preserving their lives and money quite well, but 20 years from now the current savings will have all been for naught.

[SlaveNoMore]

sgtclub
The "fringe" of your party fielded several presidential candidates in 2004.

Ahem. One of them is now the de-facto "head" of the Party

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Iron Steve
On the first point, just as he did not need a popular referendum to do his job on national defense, he did not Congressional support.

I don't think he could have invaded Afghanistan without some Republican support, much as Bush got support and authorization from Congress before he invaded. You guys bitched and bitched about the launching of a few cruise missiles -- you weren't about to let foreign policy distract anyone from the whole blowjob thing.

On three, if Clarke was so fucking great, why didn't he help Clinton solve the problem? Didn't the 911 plot start during Clinton's watch and wasn't Clarke part of that team too?

Read his book. The problem is Islamic fundamentalism. And I didn't say he was fucking great, but he was the nation's top counterterrorism official under both Clinton and Bush, so if Bush had been interested in doing something to protect the country from Al Qaeda, listening to Clarke would have been the logical place to start.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I'm not particularly in line with either, but then again, I neither watch The 700 Club nor do I live in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and haven't voted for Senator Santorum. Apparently, the people there seem to like him enough.

I, however, am not going to be so uttely predictable and boring as to suggest that either of these men don't have a lot of support in their respective wings of the Republican party. And that their comments - when inappropriate - may reflect poorly on the party as a whole.

See, I guess that's where we differ. When Falwell and Santorum speak, I assume their comments are refelective of a faction of morons who unfrotunately hold a disproportionate amount of sway over the policies of the Republican party. I don't end to associate them with the party as a whole.

By the same token, I view Michael Moore as an narcissitic opportunist who has taken his ability to make money by taking absurd events and quotes out of context and setting himself up to appear to be victimized by The Man. My personal feeling is that he probably holds a slightly greater amount of influence over the Democratic Party than Lyndon Larouche, who also regularly tries to hijack the party's name to serve his own addle-pated purposes.

It's really only the Republicans who want to give Moore any greater credit than that as an influence in Democratic politics.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
What has Dean said that compares to Rove's recent comments?

I'm catching up. See above.