Posted on 02/06/2006 8:10:44 PM PST by buckeyesrule
The implosion of the Democratic Party. Plus Tom Shales's snobbery and a tribute to Wendy Wasserstein.
Thursday, February 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.
The president's State of the Union Address will be little noted and not long remembered. There was a sense that he was talking at, not to, the country. He asserted more than he persuaded, and he chose to redeclare his beliefs rather than argue for them in any depth. If you believe, as he does, that the No. 1 priority for the American government at this point in history is to lead an international movement for political democracy, and if you believe, as he truly seems to, that political democracy is in and of itself a certain bringer of world-wide peace, than this speech was for you. If not, not. It went through a reported 30 drafts, was touched by many hands, and seemed it. Not precisely a pudding without a theme, but a thin porridge.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
This seems to be a cute game liberals play where they have this fake sympathy for victims of flight 93. What people like Shales really hate about flight 93 movie is that people will watch it and they'll remember how they felt that day. Shales would rather forget about it and his leftwing pals would like to continue living their political lives as if nothing happened that day.
Nailed it. This is exactly the mindset of the bulk of the Democrat Party.
If only Shales and Rich had an embassy.
I don't always agree with Peggy, but I do always respect her. In this piece I can do both.
than this speech was for you.
I hope that this was not what she actually wrote. I wince everytime I see "than" instead of "then," or "women" instead of "woman" on this forum.
I guess that makes me anal, I guess I am.
Get it right people. If you have a legitimate point to make, don't screw it up by making stupid grammatical mistakes.
Aw, come on, Peggy. Just because you didn't write it doesn't necessarily mean it was bad. Stop with the "woman scorned" routine.
"You wonder at the intemperance of angry young lefties and then think of the example set for them by exhausted old lefties."
I don't wonder. The angry young lefties are products of the angry old feminists.
C'ya, Friedan, I won't miss you at all.
[If you believe, as he does, that the No. 1 priority for the American government at this point in history is to lead an international movement for political democracy, and if you believe, as he truly seems to, that political democracy is in and of itself a certain bringer of world-wide peace, than this speech was for you. If not, not.]
I do believe that. Today's Democrats do not. That's the number one reason why they lose elections.
I used to be one of those union lunch-pail Democrats, but now I agree with Ronald Reagan who said: "I didn't leave the Democratic party. The Democratic party left me".
bump.
But, unless I'm in a particularly intellectual mood, I find her tedious.
It's not that she's not beautiful or attractive, which she is, she's just long-winded.
She must get paid by the word.
Democrat wish list:
1. That all of America forgets what happened on 911.
2. That we will fail in Iraq.
3. That terrorists hit us again... so they can say that Bush did nothing to protect us and that his war in Iraq has increased terrorism around the world.
Just a few of what I am sure is a really long list.
Spot-on assessment of Peg. She tends to wordy and windy, with a dollop of self importance.
vaudine
Or either Karl Rove, and I have dealt with Karl personally... Karl has lost his frickin' mind.
The disconnect between the budget and the upcoming election is - well - I just can not fathom the rationale or the political direction of this Admin anymore.
You do not, in an election year, ask your vulnerable moderates up for reelection to throw themselves on their sword.
Anyway... for what its worth... if this is what Karl has "up his sleeve", he must be relying on redistricting to pull the big guy through. That does not, however, explain how he is going to handle the Senate.
Perhaps, Karl has already determined that the Senate is lost.
Watch for attenuates from the Admin on the right to life, and strict constructionist judges in the coming months- judicial crapola from the lib judges and so forth- that's the only reason he needs the Senate anymore. If you hear that- you will know that they still believe the Senate is in play.
But... I have the feeling that this WH is in disarray and that they are lost politically.
There is only so much one can do to keep up the faithful tempo when war is waning.
Either they are going to lob bombs at Iran (and that IS what is going to happen- therefore- the budget doesn't matter), or they have determined that our our good Lord has made way already for Iran to sink a tanker or two off Hormuz and beg the inevitable- a 3rd front caught in the middle of two enclaves of our boyz.
To this thread:----> Peggy, my dear, has been spending too much time waltzing with the libs of NY and is beginning to acquire their penchant for opacity.
The SOU speech was ok- nobody's gonna remember it. I mean really, What SOU do you actually remember from Bush I, or Clinkhead? Hell I don't even remember Reagan's except that he started that tradition of pointing people out in the gallery and announcing grand initiatives.
As gump says: "that's all I got to say about that."
I agree completely what you write of.
It is very sad indeed.
I think they have all gone over the edge.
I think it's a certainty that bunker-buster bombs will be flying into Tehran during the next three months.
The only questions are
1) where from? and
2) will any nukes be flying back?
That seems to be pretty good a 'wag the dog' concept for 2006 to me, one the Rove-is-a-genius-running-the-world crowd would probably seize upon. Especially if the answer to question 2 is "No." Maybe even if the answer to question 2 is "Yes."
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.