Kick Me, I'm a Democrat (sniff, sniff, have Kleenex handy)

Slate ^ | Jan. 29, 2006 | Michael Kinsley

[American in Singapore]

Of course, nobody on the left can figure out that they are Losers in Loserville - and going to stay that way for quite some time - because more and more Americans are figuring out that they offer nothing but negativity, depression, doom-and-gloom, and opposition to anything. Where's the Plan? Where's any plan?

And, most importantly, most Americans realize that these leftist-sucking libs can't be entrusted with trying to ensure our safety.

Now this dope is blaming the Electoral College? As the late, great Jackie Gleason used to say: "Hardy har har!"

In the last couple of weeks, I have heard the leftists exclaim that the Supreme Court Justice hearings should be scrapped and that the State of the Union should be scrapped, both because they are irrelevant. And now this: the Electoral College is a big problem... Is this their biggest plan to get into power? To do away with all our institutions because they can't play with the rules?

As Rush has said, their ignorance and stupidity is starting to be dangerous.

[Lancey Howard]

the pathetic and apparently surprising inability of 45 Democratic senators to stop 55 Republicans from approving anyone they want

Huh?

Yeah, I caught that too.
For one thing, there are actually 44 Democrat Senators, not 45. In any event, 55 - 44 ain't even close. Not to mention that "anyone they want" happens to be a highly qualified and experienced judge who was nominated by a twice-elected President who promised the American people that he would appoint judges just like Alito. What on earth is Kinsley whining about??

Kinsley is not well. Clearly he has become delusional. Sad.

[JennysCool]

Your CON-puter needs to hold its breath. Or breathe into a bag.

[jocon307]

"This is not an argument for complacency."

Certainly not, it's a rant that makes NO SENSE. Micheal Kinsley has lost his mind.

[fieldmarshaldj]

I always pictured him as the infant in "Rosemary's Baby."

[Darkwolf377]

It seems to be time once again to play Kick the Democrats.

You mean "morning"?

(stretches, wipes eyes) Okay, I'm on it.

[Darkwolf377]

For FReepers with little time, I'll give the condensed version, to be read while imagining Michael Kinsey with that deer-in-the-headlights look of his:

"Democrats care about people. Republicans care about money. Waaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!!! Democrats love everyone. Republicans just enjoy killing, and sending other people's son's and daughters to be killed. Waaaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!! Republicans are mean. Democrats care. Waaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!! Why doesn't everyone love us when we care so much? Waaahhhh!!!!!!"

I miss anything?

[Berlin_Freeper]

It's too difficult to kick a worm.

I would rather play crush the treasonous Democrats.

[Darkwolf377]

And then there is election of 2000. We can argue forever (and will) about who won that election, but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats. Attributing 2000 to the Democrats means they have won two of the past three elections

There's the Dems for you in a nutshell: "We won the 2000 election."

OK, if you say so. Wave your arms, it makes it harder for them to get the net over you.

His tortured explanation about the use of "plantation" by HRC must be read to be believed. Amazingly, he writes about a trip Dick Cheney made to shoot quail at a plantation: "Hillary Clinton talks about a plantation, but Dick Cheney goes to one."

Michael, are you really THAT stupid that you're trying to equate HRC comparing Congress to a slave-keeping plantation with good taste, and somehow equate Cheney going to a modern plantation with slave-owning? My God, you're a moron.

[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

One of my big regrets in life was that I didn't kick Kinsley to the curb when I had the chance - I passed him on the street in D.C. outside CNN's DC bureau about ten years ago. He's even more of a sniveling shrimpy girly-man in person than he comes across as on TV or in print!

[Chi-townChief]

Pretty funny, actually.

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Huh?

Huh? indeed.

List of Nominees for Federal Judgeships that are twiddling their thumbs waiting for a Senate vote.

1. William James Haynes II ~Nominated 9/23/03

2. Brett M. Kavanaugh ~Nominated 7/25/03

3. Susan Bieke Neilson ~Nominated 1/7/03

4. Henry W. Saad ~Nominated 01/07/03

5. Joseph Frank Bianco ~Nominated 07/28/05

6. Timothy Mark Burges ~Nominated 07/28/05

7. Sean F. Cox ~Nominated 09/10/04

8. Thomas L. Ludington ~Nominated 01/07/05

9. Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr.~Nominated 07/28/05

10. Daniel P. Ryan ~Nominated 04/28/03

11. Brian Edward Sandoval ~Nominated 03/09/05

12. Peter G. Sheridan ~Nominated 11/05/03

13. John Richard Smoak ~Nominated 06/08/05

14. Terrence W. Boyle ~Nominated 01/07/03

15. William Gerry Myers, III 05/15/03

16. Thomas Craig Wheeler ~Nominated 6/14/05

This is "approving anyone we want"?

[Blueflag]

in his text he writes a line that 'proves' Democrats believe even the highest courts are part of the political process:

" ... the party that has lost the White House, both houses of Congress, and now the courts ..."

'the party that has lost ... the courts.'

Political parties <--> courts. Only a Democrat sees them as aligned.

[mewzilla]

[Fresh Wind]

...the pathetic and apparently surprising inability of 45 Democratic senators to stop 55 Republicans from approving anyone they want...

Maybe you should ask President Kerry for help on this one.

[50sDad]

No, no...I have heard the real reason a thousand times, every time they fail an important new tax or civil restriction in my state. It is because they "failed to fully communicate the issue to the voter." Because if the voters [idiots who are only children, really] only fully understood how right we are and how wrong the Republicans [tiny-minded, gun-toating, Bible-thumpng, backward morons] are, they would approve our plans in a heartbeat!

[Arrowhead1952]

And then there is election of 2000. We can argue forever (and will) about who won that election, but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats. Attributing 2000 to the Democrats means they have won two of the past three elections, three of the past four, and a non-apocalyptic three of the magic seven.

but if the question is whose views attracted more voters, there is no dispute that the answer is the Democrats

This guy DOES NOT get it at all. Still bitter about 2000 and actually thinks the RATs attracted more voters. Their views probably attracted more voter, but those views made more people vote for Republicans.

[libertylover]

surprising inability of 45 Democratic senators to stop 55 Republicans

Gee, I knew Democrats were dumb, but I thought they at least knew that 45 is smaller than 55.

[Howlin]

You won't believe this one.

[Miss Marple]

Kinsley is completely nuts. I think his Bush-phobia has pushed him over the edge.