January 31, 2006

Democrats Keep Losing So They Can Win In 2008
— Ace

This from the Daily Kos, the new leader of the progressive movement.

while watching the fight over Alito ensue I was struck by the lack of conviction displayed by some members of the Democratic party and then it hit me.....the DLC doesnt want us to retake either congressional house this year....they want things to continue on a downward turn until its obvious to everyone in our country that control of government has to be taken away from republicans.

your comment 'things have to get a whole lot worse..." is exactly how i think the DLC see's the upcoming election and the chance for a BLUE revolution.

I think there is a faction in our own party that is secretly hoping for another mid term defeat for us JUST so they have an easier time of it in the 08 elections.

It's worked before. Rocky Balboa let Clubber Lang pummel him for three rounds. "He's not getting beat," Paulie observed. "He's getting angry!"

And we all know how that turned out.

So, you know, it's a perfectly viable theory. If you're on, say, Thorazine and/or crack.

Thanks to LauraW.

Posted by: Ace at 09:22 AM | Comments (75)
Post contains 206 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That was by knotlookin, one of Kos' commenters.

Posted by: lauraw at January 31, 2006 09:28 AM (OfQIJ)

2 That seems to be the standard liberal reading of the tea-leaves after the Alito humiliation. "We lost, but dadgummit, we let them know we are here!" Very Billy Jack (right before The Man shackled Billy and hauled his counterculture ass off to prison). Cue in the strains of "One Tin Soldier".

There does seem to a bit less of the wailing-and-gnashing-of-teeth, but maybe the Left is just getting punch-drunk....

One think I do know -- I'm gonna monitor the SOTU thread on Kos tonight, just for laughs. That kind of entertainment is hard to come by these days!

Posted by: Monty at January 31, 2006 09:30 AM (/V4PN)

3 One think I do know -- I'm gonna monitor the SOTU thread on Kos tonight, just for laughs. That kind of entertainment is hard to come by these days!

I'm with ya Monty. Kos in one browser, DU in the other. Good times.

Posted by: JackStraw at January 31, 2006 09:32 AM (J8+2b)

4 Ya know, with all these lamentations about spineless dems coursing through the Sinestrosphere, perhaps the Reps will finally realize they're in the majority and start acting like it.

Posted by: Iblis at January 31, 2006 09:33 AM (9221z)

5 In other news, Pittsburgh is planning to lose the Superbowl on Sunday hoping that will make things easier next year.

Posted by: PointyHairedBoss at January 31, 2006 09:36 AM (YaR8u)

6 This Kos guy is a GENIUS.

Just look at how the Repubs gained power: They let Dems win control of Congress for 40 years, and then -- BOOM! they were ripe for the picking.

http://home.u-s-history.com/pages/h1032.html

Genius.

Posted by: TallDave at January 31, 2006 09:36 AM (ddcFb)

7 it's a brilliant strategy! until the dems discover six months later it was rove's scheme all along... he planted dean as chairman of the party as well as sheehan in a futile senate bid. etc., etc.

Posted by: mcmorris at January 31, 2006 09:38 AM (sFoY0)

8 I love the revelatory paradigm-shifts the KosKids go through every time their expectations are shattered. They never re-assess their assumptions or logic - they just jump to a new paradigm. Agile little devils, but all for naught.

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 09:40 AM (vpYuK)

9 Even given the thorazine and/or crack -- whatever the merits of taking short-term losses for medium-term gains, surely a pair of Supreme Court justices who will serve for the next two or three decades doesn't seem to fit the plan.

Posted by: JSinger at January 31, 2006 09:43 AM (aDWqE)

10 "once i built a party way up high towered in the sky, once i built a party now i sigh, brother, can you paradigm" (to the tune "brother can you spare a dime")

Posted by: mcmorris at January 31, 2006 09:46 AM (sFoY0)

11 Reminds me of a game in the 70's of which Alabama was beating the tar out of my Beloved Tenn. Volunteers. At halftime the network guy asked Coach Majors what his game plan was. He quoted "We are letting them run for as much yards as they want until they tire themselves out". Sounds like Kos and the Democrats are using the same offense.

Posted by: Republicanpundit at January 31, 2006 10:01 AM (ceUgn)

12 Here trollie trollie trollie. Daddy's not coming back home, he's got a new girlfriend.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at January 31, 2006 10:08 AM (rE+jU)

13 How many times are these losers gonna keep hauling out the, "yeah, we lost but we covered the spread" line?

Posted by: kelly at January 31, 2006 10:13 AM (wOrpg)

14 Achieving Victory Through Losing Horribly Everytime, by Al Gore

Posted by: lauraw at January 31, 2006 10:26 AM (OfQIJ)

15 They're just mentally preparing themselves for the butt-kicking that they know is coming their way.
After they convince themselves they then will try to convince the Reeps that they planned to lose.
How sad.

And unfortunately the Reeps will need more to make them that they are in charge.

Posted by: The Real Steve at January 31, 2006 10:29 AM (n0lBX)

16 *make them know that they are in charge. oooops

Posted by: The Real Steve at January 31, 2006 10:32 AM (n0lBX)

17 They have two choiices about what to say:

1. "America is rejecting our positions on just about every issue. We must re-think our positions if we hope to win in the future."

OR

2. "We are doing the rope-a-dope and letting the Republicans punch themselves out. In 2008, we will be ready to come out swinging."

Which one do you think their fragile egos would allow them to believe?

Posted by: Steve L. at January 31, 2006 10:38 AM (hpZf2)

18 I almost think they don't really want to win. It keeps them as the underdog. That way, everyone else is a sheep, but they're the free thinkers.

You can't speak truth to power if you're the one in power.

Plus, it's easy to carp from the sidelines than it is to play the game.

Posted by: Jason at January 31, 2006 11:05 AM (Y2Bw/)

19 It's certainly a provocative thesis. But really, we can't know for certain without proper testing. I recommend they give it a try for the next seventy years, just to make sure the data is solid, and then come back and report.

Posted by: Sobek at January 31, 2006 11:11 AM (6GK9U)

20 Mike, geno, Tank, Jersey, any random Troll,

Tell us what you think about the latest from Moonbat Central. Are you losing because you want to lose, or are you losing because you're wrong?

Posted by: max at January 31, 2006 11:24 AM (9lsky)

21 I thought they were losing because Republicans kept clouding the issues with things like Iraq, gay marriage and tax cuts.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2006 11:30 AM (8TcCs)

22 Was it Kos or Atrios who threatened to reveal his double super secret plan to thwart the omnipotent power of the DLC?

Time to dust off that old chestnut.

Posted by: Tom M at January 31, 2006 11:40 AM (d6bNm)

23 Now I know why the MSP chose Red for the Republicans and Blue for the Democrats. They didn't want to say 'the coming Red Revolution'.

Posted by: Kitty C at January 31, 2006 11:45 AM (f2nXc)

24 Not thorazine, but imprintable brain cells are their last hope.

Posted by: Smitty at January 31, 2006 11:49 AM (MP/aT)

25 While the Kossite sounds like he's engaging in ex post facto rationalization, there is a case to be made for this strategic calculus, especially given the Democratic congressional party's fundraising woes.

Looking at 2006, just a few months ago, the Democrats probably thought they were poised for big gains, due to issues like the Supreme Court, Iraq, and congressional corruption. But the GOP met most of these issues and have muted, if not mooted, them.

So some may calculate that it is better not to waste resources on a losing 2006 fight and concentrate on 2008, when you have a Presidential election where you might be able to count on coattails. Of course, there currently does not appear to be a potential Democratic candidate with both Kossite/MoveOn appeal and coattails potential, so this might be a pipedream.

Another factor is, at least in looking at Senate races, Democrats are better poised in 2008 than in 2006. 2006 looks to be a year where the Democrats would need to concentrate efforts on defending some key seats (the retiring Sarbanes' seat in Maryland, retiring Dayton's seat in Minnesota, Bill Nelson's in Florida, Menendez' in New Jersey) and trying to pick up a couple (among the retiring Frist's in Tennessee, Talent's in Missouri, DeWine's in Ohio, Santorum's in Pennsylvania, Ensign's in Nevada). They could reasonably hope the balance to result in a 3-seat pickup, reducing the Republican majority to 52 (although a smaller gain or a wash is also possible).

That would allow the Democrats in 2008 to target Allard in Colorado, the retiring Collins' seat in Maine, Coleman in Minnesota, and perhaps a few others. There aren't very many potentially vulnerable Democrats in 2008 whose seats need defending either, so more resources could be devoted to the offense.

So you have a combination of better prospects for the Senate and potential Presidential coattails for the House, as well as, of course, the Presidency itself. Risky, but far from an irrational strategy.

Posted by: Dave (in NYC) at January 31, 2006 11:51 AM (1ILk2)

26 I think, based on the current administration's failures in key areas...

1. Healthcare
2. Medicare's drug dispersement fiasco
3. Oil & gas prices
4. The Iraqi fiasco
5. Bush's steadfast adherence to whatever policy he's implemented, regardless of the consequences
6. Corruption via Delay, Frist, Abramhoff, Ney, etc.

...the Democrats will do very well in the 2006 elections. I don't know if they can carry the day, regaining control of congress or the senate, but they should do better than the last election, how could they do worse?

I also think it's no more than wishful thinking on the part of the conservatives that they're going to pound the Democrats...but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

And, yes...before everybody jumps on the bandwagon:

I know, I'm a liberal troll, who couldn't possibly know anything and shouldn't be posting comments like this and will be going to hell because I don't agree with everybody here and I don't like George or Dick or Rummy or Karl or Bill or Tom or any of the rest of these weasels.

And, if i were later in the day, I'd be at the beach with my Labs, watching the sunset and having cocktails...so there.

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 12:43 PM (leJWb)

27 how could they do worse?

Indeed!

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2006 12:52 PM (pzen5)

28 at least buddy picked a thread somewhat related to what he wants to talk about.

I would like it if people made a point by making a point. "Bush fail, re: gas prices" is not a point.

I would think that "gas prices" as a fiasco/failure/whatever, there would have to be a cause and effect. Bush did X and gas price did Y. Or because of gas prices, the unemployment rate/economic growth rate dropped. What is the problem?

On the other hand, one could wonder what the solution to gas prices problem is? Maybe artificially lowering the cost? To explain that this is an economic disaster shouldn't be required. How about order more gas production? Physcially impossible.

Create lower mpg cars.? That's one idea, and people are not buying as many SUV's thanks to higher prices. Maybe Bush could order people to stop driving, limiting MPG. Not likely, but it does deal with the demand element of prices.

The only real option, one with a 8 year lead time, is to allow the construction of more oil refineries. Refineries are the choke point, and Katrina damaged enough of them to spike prices. So, who is standing in the way of that idea?

So, what is the problem and solution to high gas prices? Maybe, by balancing the need to stop ecological damage caused by new refineries, America has decided to accept higher prices, hoping that that would lower demand.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2006 12:58 PM (8TcCs)

29 Mary M., what will the excuse be later this year?

Posted by: Pixelflash at January 31, 2006 12:59 PM (O+1/6)

30 2. Medicare's drug dispersement fiasco

I think we all agree that this was/is/will be a fiasco. But, and correct me if I am wrong, didn't this bill pass with strong bi-partisan support? Isn't this part of a socialized "Healthcare Plan" that the Dems favor so much? So what part of this fiasco are the Dems responsible/accountable for?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at January 31, 2006 01:13 PM (nVA0o)

31 6. Corruption via Delay, Frist, Abramhoff, Ney, etc.

How in the hell is Bush responsible for these guys' corruption? I guess he is also responsible for the corruption on the Dems side in this scandal? I mena, couldn't it be that the people taking the money were corrupt money grubbing bastards all on their own could it?

Posted by: at January 31, 2006 01:17 PM (nVA0o)

32 how could they do worse?

Um, let's see:

Steele wins in Maryland to succeed Sarbanes, and Kennedy wins in Minnesota to succeed Dayton. Bill Nelson loses in Florida to Democrat bugaboo Kathleen Harris. Menendez falls to Thomas Kean, Jr., the son of a popular former governor of New Jersey. Maria Cantwell falls in Washington, and maybe Ben Nelson in Nebraska. Loss of six.

Running for reelection in states leaning Republican, Talent, Ensign and DeWine win in Missouri, Nevada and Ohio, respectively. Ford fails to capture the retiring Frist's seat. Shock of all shocks, Santorum prevails in a hard fight in Pennsylvania. Gain of zero.

"Independent" Jeffords is succeeded by "independent" Sanders, so the balance becomes 61-38-1. Chafee, chastened by a conservative primary challenge, endeavors to become a more reliable member of the caucus, if not necessarily more conservative politically (think Specter). Rather than having merely to maintain party discipline, the Democrats are forced to rely on trying to peel off Republicans if they ever want to sustain a filibuster.

Slightly less worse? Ben Nelson keeps his seat. Santorum loses. Net loss of four for the Democrats. 59 Republicans.

Slightly less worse? Both Nelsons and Cantwell prevail, and Santorum loses. Net loss of two for the Democrats. 57 Republicans.

The only really good opportunity for a Democratic pick-up is Pennsylvania. The others are toss-ups, and the states are red. Conversely, the Democrats are vulnerable in two otherwise blue states - Maryland and New Jersey - and Minnesota is something of a toss-up.

how could they do worse?

As Dave in Texas notes, indeed...

Posted by: Dave (in NYC) at January 31, 2006 01:21 PM (1ILk2)

33 ...I'd be at the beach with my Labs

Still fucking the dogs heh?

Posted by: Madfish Willie at January 31, 2006 01:26 PM (nVA0o)

34 "Hmmm...what's missing from this list? Oh, right - ideas. You've got to get some of those before you'll do 'very well' in any elections. John Kerry's defeat should have taught you guys that much."

While that's generally true, I think the recent elections in Canada show that corruption will eventually get a party kicked out. Not that the new conservative guy (I've already forgotten his name, because come on, it's Canada) doesn't have any ideas, but I suspect his election has less to do with Canadians accepting his ideas than it does with them getting tired of liberal corruption.

Whether or not that has any impact on '06 remains to be seen. The Abramoff scandal is just as tied to the Dems as to the Republicans (as is clear to all but the most perfectly blinded with partisan rage), and even if it weren't it's a bit too convoluted and complex for the typical American to care about, so the story doesn't get much traction.

"4. The Iraqi fiasco"

Yeah, the sight of all those Iraqis voting in three national elections sure did make me more inclined to vote Democrat.

Posted by: Sobek at January 31, 2006 01:38 PM (6GK9U)

35 Remember this is the reality based party you are talking about.


Posted by: B Moe at January 31, 2006 02:00 PM (oo8c+)

36 And as usual, the responses are all packed to the gills with objectivity.

The bottom line: Bush has done absolutely NOTHING wrong...and could do no more than he has already...to make things better.

And the reason his approval ratings are so low has nothing to do with his performance, it's because of the polling companies just don't like him.

Especially that 62% number...the one about the country going in the wrong direction...well, who cares?

Really.

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 02:08 PM (leJWb)

37 I know I don't.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2006 02:10 PM (BSzSC)

38 It will be interesting to hear the rest of the Dems pre-prepared reactions to the SotU speech. They're starting off with: "There's a better way . . .." The question is whether they can successfully complete the second sentence, to whit: "And that way is . . . ."

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:13 PM (vpYuK)

39 Sobek:

"The Abramoff scandal is just as tied to the Dems as to the Republicans"...is total bullshit...and anyone who reads...knows that.

And hey...where are those pesky photos of Georgie and Abramhoff?

If there's no fire...why all the smoke??

Posted by: at January 31, 2006 02:14 PM (leJWb)

40 Davey,
I'm surprised you don't care. I thought you were a loyal American.

Oh, well...another dream...crushed.

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 02:16 PM (leJWb)

41 is that wrong of me, do you think?

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2006 02:18 PM (BSzSC)

42 http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

Mary, Mary, oh no, Mary... OH GOD NO!!!

WHAT WILL BECOME OF US NOW???????????????

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:19 PM (JV5Qt)

43 Watch out, Dave. She's using the evil ellipses again. Many a mortal soul has been lost by staring at the ellipses for too long.

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:20 PM (vpYuK)

44 It's over Mary...it's over...the polls aren't saying what we want them to say anymore...

it's time to run...I won't be making it for cocktails tonight...

it is a long way to Canada.

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:22 PM (JV5Qt)

45 Conservatives...won in Canada too.

Posted by: Jersey at January 31, 2006 02:22 PM (JV5Qt)

46 NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:23 PM (JV5Qt)

47 Hey, Mike...I thought you wre coming over for sunset and cocktails?

Let me know...the dogs are getting antsy.

P.S. - Little geoff...you got some kinda problem wit da...ellipses?

Do ya...huh...do ya?

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 02:24 PM (leJWb)

48 geoff, I thought those were like, blackouts or something.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2006 02:26 PM (BSzSC)

49 2. Medicare's drug dispersement fiasco

Oh, and Mary? I know you're a stickler for typos, so you might want to use the word "disbursement" rather than "dispersement." Wouldn't want people thinking you were a moron, now, would we?

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:26 PM (vpYuK)

50 Goodbye, Mary, my little one.
You gave me love and helped me find the sun.
And every time that I was down
you would always come around
and kick me more on the ground.

Posted by: Bart at January 31, 2006 02:27 PM (+88/j)

51 Scary-Mary,

I never want to see you again, you whore.

Using polls was your idea...look where that got us...

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:28 PM (JV5Qt)

52 you got some kinda problem wit da...ellipses?

I know that it's part of your signature writing style, and that it's consistent among all your personae. So rather than being annoyed, I just imagine grabbing a dug everytime I see them. Helps pass the time and adds a lot of flair to your content.

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:30 PM (vpYuK)

53 Oops, should be a "you" between "imagine" and "grabbing."

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:31 PM (vpYuK)

54 And as usual, the responses are all packed to the gills with objectivity.

And your responses and questions are subjective by comparison?

Now answer my questions fuckwit:
--------------------
2. Medicare's drug dispersement fiasco

I think we all agree that this was/is/will be a fiasco. But, and correct me if I am wrong, didn't this bill pass with strong bi-partisan support? Isn't this part of a socialized "Healthcare Plan" that the Dems favor so much? So what part of this fiasco are the Dems responsible/accountable for?

--------------------
6. Corruption via Delay, Frist, Abramhoff, Ney, etc.

How in the hell is Bush responsible for these guys' corruption? I guess he is also responsible for the corruption on the Dems side in this scandal? I mean, couldn't it be that the people taking the money were corrupt money grubbing bastards all on their own could it?

Or close that gaping cake-hole!!

Posted by: at January 31, 2006 02:32 PM (nVA0o)

55 I've been thinking long and hard about the ramifications for the Democratic Party. I've been wondering where the ultra-liberal wing will turn when next time it comes to elect their candidates. Will they really turn their back on the only viable candidates or will they compromise their principles for some short-term gains, hoping for the slow steady movement of the country toward their goals.

Lying! Actually what I've been thinking is...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosers!

Posted by: Not Thomas Jefferson at January 31, 2006 02:37 PM (jO8/W)

56 I never said Bush was "responsible" or Delay, etc., but, as president he could have distanced himself a long time ago...much like Clinton could have fessed up to getting blowjobs...but they never do...and then they pay the price.

If you catually do not think people in America do not link Bush with Delay, etc...you-are-dreaming.

The Medicare program was pushed through by chickenshit politicians on both sides, along with the drug companies who will make a fortune...but...Bush is president and he's supposed to oversee such situations.

Does this asshole EVER do ANYTHING WRONG???

I swear...NOBODY will EVER say anything negative about this little twerp.

P.S. geoff: The ellipses save time...and are more conversational in tone.

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 02:45 PM (leJWb)

57 The ellipses save time...and are more conversational in tone.

If they fill in the spots where you would normally say "uh, durrrrrr." I'll stick with my method for interpreting them, though.

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:47 PM (vpYuK)

58 I hate to say it...but it's you-know-what-time here on the coast...and no, I don't mean numbnut's speech.

Oh, by the way...I hear Alito's wife will be peeling an onion, while reading a post from Sortelli, during the speech to maximize her weeping.

P.S. Mike, I'll be by the stairs around the lifeguard stand.

Posted by: Mary M. at January 31, 2006 02:49 PM (leJWb)

59 Saves time...every time my mind wanders...I hit the . key until the drugs kick in...

it's more conversational...like a conversation with a retard...

A poll posting retard...Mary, you bitch! He's back to 50% approval...it's like everything we were...trying to say...doesn't matter...

Mother was right about us...

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:50 PM (JV5Qt)

60 That 7:08 comment basically illustrates why you are such a boring,empty whore of a troll. You posted 6 "ideas" about why 2006 will be good for Democrats. Various posts answered these in one way or another. The best you can come up with is to dismiss everyone's reaction as Bush praise. So much for your earlier plea for us not to dismiss you out of hand.

Suck on it, troll. You have nothing.

Posted by: joeindc44 at January 31, 2006 02:50 PM (6p1mn)

61 "P.S. Mike, I'll be by the stairs around the lifeguard stand."

Sure you will...you don't even exist.

I'll be at my three saloons...getting a header.

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 02:52 PM (JV5Qt)

62 So she never realized that Mike wasn't here?

Posted by: geoff at January 31, 2006 02:58 PM (vpYuK)

63 Oh, he was here. But he's moved on to Mary M. now...after the way you guys violated him...just like he moved to "me" after the way you beat Jersey like a dog.

You want to know the real meaning of the ellipses? Pain. The pain of lonliness and defeat...only alcohol can numb it...

Each little dot on the screen...is a tear...struggling to hold it in...a cough, a sloppy sob...and then finally the letters come again...full of impotent rage.

Mary's bi...polar.

But if we're gonna play the game...let's imagine Mary balling up her fat...hammy fists...and beating Mike on his manbreasts...while she asks why he betrayed her through snotty tears of shame...

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 03:06 PM (JV5Qt)

64 We know Mike as something of an anal sex enthusiast who likes to grab his ankles and be mounted from behind.

Posted by: Mike's Friends At The Salon at January 31, 2006 03:09 PM (JV5Qt)

65 That's shit disturber who likes the back and forth.

Posted by: Mike at January 31, 2006 03:10 PM (JV5Qt)

66 I like that whole "what has Bush done right?" schtick that you've stolen, MaryMike.

Please tell us that you came up with it yourself. Then you can tell us you're part of the reality-based community. The reality where lollipops grow on trees, unicorns gallop through the woods, and ice cream fairies give out free waffle cones of Ben & Jerry's when pinkos are in power.

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at January 31, 2006 03:26 PM (tnsUn)

67 sammiches don't grow on trees. strong people with the will to do what has to be done make them.

thank God for them.

Posted by: Dave in Texas at January 31, 2006 03:33 PM (G/Ez4)

68 The sammich of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the smooth spreading condiments of patriots and tyrants. - Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: Sue Dohnim at January 31, 2006 03:40 PM (tnsUn)

69 sammiches don't grow on trees. strong people with the will to do what has to be done make them.

Replace 'sammiches' with 'pornos.'

Posted by: jeff at January 31, 2006 03:44 PM (wZLWV)

70 Ahhhhh - it is Mary, fabled Gaijin ellipse goddess. You are epic in my land. Like those inch-high fairies that hang out with Mothra. Epic like that.

Posted by: Random Japanese Tourist at January 31, 2006 03:49 PM (5JwsD)

71 OK Mary/Mike shit for brains... here is your original statement, emphasis mine:
I think, based on the current administration's failures in key areas...

1. Healthcare
2. Medicare's drug dispersement fiasco
3. Oil & gas prices
4. The Iraqi fiasco
5. Bush's steadfast adherence to whatever policy he's implemented, regardless of the consequences
6. Corruption via Delay, Frist, Abramhoff, Ney, etc.
Now, I'll spank your hairy little ass :

I never said Bush was "responsible" or Delay, etc., but, as president he could have distanced himself a long time ago...much like Clinton could have fessed up to getting blowjobs...but they never do...and then they pay the price.

You said it was the administration's failure - read the first line of your own post, dimwit. How is the corruption of individuals the fault or under the control/direction of the administration? How should he have "distanced himself"... thrown them into a bonfire? Please explain.

If you catually do not think people in America do not link Bush with Delay, etc...you-are-dreaming.

Who are the American people linking with Reid and the rest of the corrupt Dem politicians? Surely not Bush - if so how do they figure that Bush controls them.

The Medicare program was pushed through by chickenshit politicians on both sides, along with the drug companies who will make a fortune...but...Bush is president and he's supposed to oversee such situations.

It was a bi-partisna bill and Bush should have vetoed it - along with campaign finance reform among others - but his veto would have been overridden in both houses so WTF was he supossed to do? How is that the fault of the current administration?

I will give you #5. Now answer my questions, if you can stay on topic long enough.

Posted by: Madfish Willie at January 31, 2006 04:28 PM (nVA0o)

72 How exactly do they plan to pull off a blue revolution, considering their restrictions on gun control - they outlaw guns, and we collect them all?

Posted by: Francase at January 31, 2006 05:15 PM (3z1Bt)

73 My God, Mary's right.

Bush has no chance of being re-elected in 2008.

We're finished, gentlemen.

Posted by: Brian B at February 01, 2006 05:04 AM (rGfpg)

74 Laura Bush 2008

Posted by: scott at February 01, 2006 05:11 AM (Ffvoi)

Posted by: sdfgfgd58h at November 28, 2011 12:49 AM (R9wBA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
111kb generated in CPU 0.24, elapsed 1.8554 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.7256 seconds, 311 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.