Posted on 08/04/2005 2:08:23 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
LOL
All you have to do to beat a LIBERAL is to ask them to truthfully answer some questions.
Democrats don't listen to this. 2004 is just around the corner and your focus is desperately needed on that election.
This from the Boston Globe? Better finish this 1st cup of coffee and re-read the article. (sarc)
"It all depends on what the meaning of is, is"!
"And powerless the Democrats will remain -- unless more of them win office.
One usually has to search the walls of a roadside latrine to acquire such astounding wisdom."
;D!
My, Oh my - A Joan Vennochi moment of clarity. Think anybody in MA is listening, intellectually capable of listening, able to stop bloviating or emoting long enough to listen or otherwise sober enough to know what she's talking about? Not bashing Bush may be heresy in Beantown.
She never was kind to Kerry. I think she's holding out for Hillary but it's hard to drag the stupid party along to achieve your goal.
"Powerless party of the petulant!!" ping
As a boomer myself, former lefty too, I know what you are saying is basically correct.
I am ashamed of my cohort, and, as boomers are today's leaders of the Democratic party, you have pretty much nailed why the party is so disfunctional. It's not so much the drugs, but the refusal to leave the sixties which has paralyzed them for 40 years.
Note how sixties music is ubiquitous,they refuse to let it go. They (ok, WE) still carry the scars of the generational rift they(we) created. What occurred with the sixties generation is the equivalent of self-performed cultural frontal lobotomy.If I hear the Righteous Brothers one more time I think I'm going to scream.
For the Clintons, Kerry, even Gore, the enemy is still the "military industrial complex", capitalism still has not won them over, and belonging to the "movement" still gives them a feeling of superiority, a "warm fuzzy feeling", not unlike a drug high.
And make no mistake, tearing down the "establishment" is still the goal.
A telling paragraph in her column:
***...In his campaign, Hackett called Bush a ''chicken hawk" for failing to serve in Vietnam and ''a cheerleader for the enemy," for goading Islamic militants to ''bring it on." It was not a winning strategy against Bush in the past, and it wasn't for Hackett against Schmidt. His attacks caused Republicans to throw money and resources into the race. Besides, chicken hawk Republicans have a track record for knowing how to dissect and dismantle war heroes, from fellow Republican John McCain to Democrats Max Cleland and John Kerry....***
________________________
LIBERALS don't know how to get out from under their anti-war, anti-strong U.S. position now that they can't spin it. It is going to kill them.
Bump!!
awesome....
Schmidt was another weak-spinned, Ohio Republican... and as long as Ohio Republicans nominate this type of candidate, Democrats will always be tough to beat.
I bet Vennochi's just 'dyin to do a column on Hillary!
Well, hey . . . they did enjoy a stunning, astonishing victory by having Hackett lose by less than they thought he might.
Isn't tht progress of a sort?
(Yeah. Rignt.)
I always found it ironic that the people on the left, who see themselves as such compassionate humanitarians, are the only ones who every uses the disgusting, elitist and condescending term "the masses" to describe people.
The article does a reasonable job of stating the obvious but I doubt that basing a campaign around the slogan "Stem Cell Research Now!" is much of a political winner.
"[T]he powerless party of the petulant."
LOL, that's pretty good!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.