Posted on 12/08/2005 7:28:03 AM PST by Carl/NewsMax
Liberal Democrats are so upset with Hillary Clinton's waffling on the Iraq war that some are now saying they're "ashamed" of her.
The Daily Kos - the political web site widely read by the party's base - is urging Democrats to move beyond Mrs. Clinton and her husband, declaring: "Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her" for president.
The scathing editorial, written by Kos contributor "Trifecta," states outright: "More than anything else, I am ashamed of Hillary Clinton."
"When you look dispassionately at some of the things [Bill and Hillary] are capable of, it should leave one very skeptical and concerned about a 'third term' for this pair."
The Kos writer compares Hillary - unfavorably - to President Bush, saying she's an unprincipled opportunist when it comes to key issues while Bush shows leadership in the face of adversity.
"When faced with low poll numbers on his crappy ideas, Bush plods on," the Kos pundit says. "And [he] still gets them passed, pushing his agenda forward."
Meanwhile, Trifecta complains the Clintons "put their fingers to the wind" and run away from the fight.
The left-wing blast at Hillary also compares her unfavorably to Sen. Joe Lieberman, whose defense of the war last week contrasted sharply with Mrs. Clinton's weaselly claim that she was tricked into voting to give Bush the authority to attack Iraq.
"Holy Joe Lieberman is a true believer in this war," says Trifecta. "He may be scorned, but as idiotic as his views are, I genuinely believe these are his views.
"Hillary on the other hand is simply unbelievable. She protested Vietnam, knows this war was a stupid mistake, but is so damned cynical that she is engaging in this twisted posturing, all to serve her personal interests. . .
The Kos Hillary slam concludes: "Shame on her. Shame on the Democratic Party if they ever nominate her."
see, you got me so upset I misspelled disdain. :)
These quotes from KOS and what not.. are so out there... they are not even right enough to be wrong.. if that makes sense.
You are exactly right. This whole thing is a typical Clinton ploy to make her appear more centrist, when we all know she's an EXTREME left-wing Marxist.
All those screaming at her now are doing it with their fingers crossed behind their backs. They will vote their usual 10 times for her when the time comes.
It only took them, what, 13 years to figure this out? Man, I've heard of "slow" before, but this is glacier speed.
"Moonbat." Gotta be that.
Pick up a couple on your next trip to "Wolkenkuckucksheim" for me.
I hope does. Unfortunately, we couldn't get THAT lucky!!!!
OOPs. I hope HE does.
I doubt it. Either they're too dumb to comprehend it and will never wake up, or they're too sociopathic to care and already know.
Reply to #80 tomorrow.
I'm sorry to hear this. /mischievous smile off
> What's a mondfledermaus?
Approximately German for moonbat.
will look for it. thanx. :)
So do you really hold disdain for those who place the dictates and laws of God above secular ambitions? Millions of Christians are just supposed to throw up their arms and say, "God can wait, we have to defeat Hillary!"?
Let me ask you, when does this browbeating end of those who state they'll vote their conscience and stand by their principles? Tell me, what happens post-Hillary? Do you honestly believe a like-minded liberal won't replace her in 2012, 2016, 2020...? Are we just supposed to accept the status quo and fall in line every four years, abandon our deep-held beliefs, and vote for a non-conservative candidate solely on the premise to defeat the evil liberal?
You can call Christian conservatives 'foolish' and hold as much disdain for them as you wish, because they are in pretty good company when it comes to knowing what's not only truly important, but what this country is in dire need of.
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible
"To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian" --- George Washington
"To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them" --- Jedediah Morse
We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. Weve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God --- James Madison
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever --- Thomas Jefferson
Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers --- John Jay
"Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged --- Ronald Reagan
( I believe your argument for doing so isn't even consistent with your stated values: voting for hillary is the ultimate act against life.)
"voting for Hillary"? I won't bother to rebut this ludicrous insult.
My feelings for the CC or anyone on the right who would place a de facto vote for hillary...
No, it is you, and all who will vote for a liberal-republican, who will be placing a de facto vote for HRC. As I said before, prepare to reap what you sow.
NOTE: I am not arguing for Giuliani here. I am not arguing for a secularist. What I am arguing for is VOTING FOR HILLARY'S OPPONENT, WHOEVER THAT PERSON MAY BE. (It may be a conservative or moderate, it may be a Christian, it may be an Italian or a Jew. It may be pro-life or it may be pro-choice. I don't care which.)
You're not being up front here. You have stated that you do not believe a conservative, a true conservative, (and by definition that would be one who is pro-life), can beat HRC. You said it regarding the senate race in NY and you said regarding a potential race for the presidency. You've stated that a pro-life candidate would surely lose vs. HRC. Of course, though, you are wrong.
I'd be interested to know though, do you, personally, believe abortion to be the killing of a human life? And the question's relevant, as it's answer will explain your mindset, hence some reasoning to your thought process.
What I am trying to say is that it would be the height of irresponsibility to place a de facto vote for hillary clinton.
I agree. So be responsible and vote for the conservative in the GOP primaries that will go on to defeat HRC in the general election. See, it really isn't as difficult as you seem to strive to make this out to be.
As for 1776 or 1812, total annihilation wasn't a possibility, so I put those eras aside.
And how exactly are we now in danger of "total annihilation? My examples of 1776 and 1812 are very germane, (I notice you passed over the Soviet threat in the 1980s. Perhaps the GOP should have elected Phil Crane or Howard Baker instead of that pesky, Bible believing, pro-life Reagan). The British, if they'd had been victorious, would have shot or hung a good percentage of Americans, especially males. Those left alive would have suffered a fate much akin to the Irish in the 17 c. under Cromwell.
In the cold war, MAD and a nuclear bipolar world maintained rational actors and limited threat.Today's post-9/11 world, OTOH, is asymmetric, not rationally based and the threat is unlimited.
I apologize, but I don't the faintest clue what this means. (In other words, you're talking over my head.)
Post-clinton, post-Watson and Crick, anyone can put together an A-bomb or a dirty bomb or a biological WMD. And with global travel, anyone can place it anywhere. And the islamofascist terrorists want to do all of it.
1. This doesn't translate into "total annihilation"
2. Vote for the conservative candidate in the GOP primary and you won't have to worry if I'm wrong in number 1.
So, I don't agree with your premise that the era of terrorism has an analog in history.
OK.
I hope you can excuse my bluntness and somewhat aggitated state. I don't take too kindly to myself, and millions of others, being labled "foolish" because we've the audacity to think God's way just might be correct.
It seems we agree on the destination, but at odds on what roadmap to use in getting there.
|
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie.Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Forgive my kidding. I know that your heart is in the right place and you mean the best for America.
As I previously stated, our goal is the same, we just disagree on the route there.
This actually isn't good news.
The more the democratic base turns against Hillary, and toward some wingnut (could be any number of people), the more likey that enough 'Average Joe' democrats will vote for someone like Mark Warner or Evan Bayh, who would be much, much more difficult to beat.
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.