How to Enrage a Democrat

Wall Street Journal ^ | 5-17-08

[kingattax]

If nothing else, we now know what it takes to make a Democrat go nuts. One word: "appeasement."

Notwithstanding that President Bush named no names in his speech to Israel's Knesset on Thursday, Barack Obama instantly called it a "false political attack." On him, of course.

To House Speaker Nancy Pelosi it was "beneath the dignity of the office of the President."

"Offensive and outrageous," thundered Hillary Clinton from somewhere in South Dakota, followed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: "reckless and irresponsible." [Barack Obama]

When the party's top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.

Forget the complaint that Mr. Bush used a Hitler analogy. It's the here and now that has these Democrats upset. The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.

This has been a particular Democratic vulnerability since at least the George McGovern campaign in 1972. The most famous and destructive image from a Democratic presidential campaign the past 25 years was the helmeted Governor Michael Dukakis in a tank. In 2004, John Kerry tried to run on his biography as a Vietnam vet. Didn't work.

If Barack Obama has an Achilles' heel, this is it. He first exposed it last July in a Democratic debate when he replied, "I would," to a question of whether he'd meet as President with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "without precondition." Even Mrs. Clinton took a shot at that one, calling the Senator's comment "irresponsible and frankly naive."

[Perdogg]

If I were a democrat, I would be encourage by coming to FR to read all of the attacks on John McCain and about how people are going to stay home.

[MissMagnolia]

When the party's top four Democrats come roaring out of the blocks in unison, something has hit a nerve.

That 'something' is called The Truth.

[ilgipper]

We are in quite a predicament. Their candidate is so bad that I will easily pull the lever against him to keep his ignorance far from the White House. Our candidate is with us about 60-70% of the time, but decidedly uses the same liberal nonsense justifications on the issues where he is opposed to us. I am very comfortable with differences of opinion if the argument is rooted in logic and not adopting the liberal attack lines. His justifications for global warming, closing Guantanamo, etc are identical to the wrong headed excuses from the left.

[papasmurf]

Hey, barry...a fox smells his own butt first, ya’ know.

[papasmurf]

If I were a democrat, I would be encourage by coming to FR to read all of the attacks on John McCain and about how people are going to stay home.

Not necessary. Just knowing McManiac/Amnesty is the nominee, is enough encouragement fro any DUmmy.

Just so you know, I will not stay home, I will go vote, as I always do. I just won't cast a vote for POTUS.

[Condor51]

How to Enrage a Democrat

If nothing else, we now know what it takes to make a Democrat go nuts. One word: "appeasement."

Well I'll be darned. What always worked for me was

What's 2+2 =

They always come up with some esoteric bullsh*t like poverty or environment and I'd say no, its; 4.
They come back with more crap like institutional racism and again, I'd say, nope its still 4.

It drives them completely loony.

[Nateman]

If I were a liberal , I'd vote for John McCain.
A liberal republican leader can pass a whole lot more liberal stuff than a liberal democrat because the opposition becomes mute.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Establishing and communicating preconditions is negotiation -- or at least part of a negotiation process. Anyone who doesn't consider setting preconditions to be a valid exercise, isn't a serious negotiator.

The Democrats seem to have some notion that "negotiation" is all about using wit and charm in face-to-face meetings. What do the Democrats' consider to be the U.S. interests in these negotiations? What do they suppose that the interests and objectives of the counter-parties (i.e. evil terrorist regimes) are? What would the Democrats consider to be their "BATNA" (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)? If the Democrats can't provide clear answers to those questions -- they aren't planning to "negotiate".

They might be planning to prostrate themselves before the Islamists and the commies in N.Korea; they might be planning to beg "forgiveness" for whatever they imagine the U.S. needs to be forgiven for; they may be planning a capitulation -- but, they aren't planning to negotiate in the interests of the U.S. Appeasement may be too kind a word.

[DB]

The democrats should be encouraged. At present they have three candidates for president and by election day they will have two. So no matter who gets elected one of their own will be in the White House come 2009.

[Perdogg]

If we have two boxes on a table, you get to pick one box to receive the contents of the box. You are told that “There is a 40% chance there is $1 Million dollars in Box A” and a “There is a 0% chance there is $1 Million dollars in Box B”. You don’t walk away from the table because there isn’t an 85% chance there is $1 Million dollars in Box A.

[the invisib1e hand]

Mr. President, I beg you, tweak on!

[sourcery]

Obama: "I resemble that remark!"

[MarkL]

This whole thing was cooked up by the media in order to try to cut back on the dem on dem infighting, and try to redirect the anger towards President Bush, who the leftists in the dnc and the media hate so virulently.

On the other hand, I'm also reminded of the quote, "Me thinks he protesteth too much." Meaning that while President Bush may not have meant Obama nor the dems in general - personally I think that he was taking a shot at Jimmy Carter - the dems and Obama just think that it hit too close to home...

Mark

[stevie_d_64]

As the “Monty Python” “Knights of Nih” would say...

“Go find us a schrubbery!”

No wait...

“Appeasement, Appeasement, Appeasement!”

Arghhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[Canedawg]

” The fuse that set them off is any suggestion inside the context of a live presidential campaign that the Democrats are soft on national security.”

Duh. They are.

[wally-balls]

This sounds like great sport! In the spirit of driving these basatards off a cliff (figuratively, but I would prefer literally) let’s have some fun with names.

I offer for your consideration the following: Appeasemocrats or TakeitintheA$$mocrats

[PA Engineer]

Those are Democrats.

[gogogodzilla]

And if I were the Republican National Committee... I'd be looking for any reason, whatsoever, to ditch McCain.

Amazing how our party seems to be actively pursuing electoral suicide.

[wastedyears]

Wanna enrage a Liberal?

Speak the truth