Why Democrats Will Lose Again in ‘06'

ChronWatch ^ | June 20, 2006 | J. B. Williams

[tobyhill]

I could have stated it in one phrase,"the Rats won't win because they're idiots".

[Joann37]

This guy has the described "progressives" brilliantly!

[Smedley]

I heard this snippet on the radio yesterday:

The Republicans deserve to lose, but the Democrats don't deserve to win.

My feelings exactly

[Chi-townChief]

I prefer to call them "PIGressives."

[PlainOleAmerican]

AMEN!

[PlainOleAmerican]

A sentiment shared by many these days!

[PlainOleAmerican]

Totally appropriate!

[RobRoy]

I've always looked at modern progressives like this: they believe it is "progressive" to continue down the same path even though you can see that 50 feet ahead it will take you off the edge of a cliff. Anyone that suggests that maybe we should go back to the last fork and take a different route is accused of wanting to "turn back the clock."

Too many progressives are "blind" progressives.

[Ticonderoga34]

And when the RATS lose the '06 election they will scream, "election fraud".

They really are idiots.

[Chi-townChief]

The trouble is that a lot of folks plan on voting against conservatives to "punish" RINOs. The Santorum/Specter situation comes to mind.

[betsyross1776]

Does anybody ever think they will win. All you have to do is look at that party they spell losers!

[Digger]

Even the ole compassionate conservative himself, George W. Bush is “progressive” on matters like illegal immigration, globalization

Let's include his push for Frist, his nomination of Harriet Meires & keeping all of the Bubba holdovers.

[brushcop]

Good one. I've always believed that the self-anointed label of "progressive" was just that: self-anointed; to give the impression that they are somehow in possession of knowledge and status unattainable by us, the unwashed.

Their ways of governing (Marxism/Socialism) always fails, always, at great cost of lives and liberty.

[Common Tator]

During the teens and twenties of the 20th century the socialists referred to themselves as progressives. Robert LaFollette was head of the progressive (socialist) party.

But by the 1930s the word progressive had such a negative connotation that the "Progressives" began to refer to themselves as "Liberals."

But by the late 1990s the word Liberal had taken on such a negative connotation that Socialists started calling themselves Progressives again.

[PhilCollins]

"Progressive" shouldn't mean "liberal." The dictionary definition of progressive is "of, relating to or characterized by progress." Progress is determined by each person's opinion of what should be done to improve.

John Cox is a conservative republican presidential candidate who says that he's a progressive conservative. He's the only presidential candidate who supports a national sales tax. He's pro-life, and he supports stricter penalties for illegal immigrants. He's campaigned in every county in Iowa and in the majority of the counties in New Hampshire and South Carolina. His website is www.cox2008.com.

[Dilbert56]

Can't imagine the frustrations of the far left. Everything they stand for has been rejected by the voters and they just dig in deeper. Democrat politicians sympathize with them but, when push comes to shove, they vote to get reelected. Either their sympathy is false or they don't have the courage to risk reelection for their beliefs. Neither is a flattering portrait.

I think Kerry has come up with the right strategy for gutless politicians. Sometime in the next 18 months the Iraqi government will be capable of self-defense and our troops will come home. Kerry will say that the withdrawl shows he was right. As long as he keeps sliding the proposed date, eventually, one day it will match reality.

I hope the Republicans can successfully paint the Democrats as politicians who will send troops to war if it means getting reelected, and will cut-and-run if the polls show weakening support. Yes, Mr/Ms. Soldier, these "leaders" will send you halfway around the world and then undercut you as soon as it's politically viable to do so. Our enemies needn't fear us - a good P/R campaign is a "get out of jail free" card. You just have to convince the media that it's not safe to deploy reporters. Then spoon feed them false and slanted reports. The rest takes care of itself.

The only fly in the ointment is the current President. He believes his job is to do difficult things, then leave. He is the exact opposite of his predecessor who would do nothing if it might damage his popularity and will never leave. Al Qaida and the Baathists now realize they have to stay viable until at least 2009 if they're going to win. That's a long time on the run.

[Almondjoy]

Oh please.. there is nothing socialist about globalism(since it's based on capitalism and letting corporations go global instead of thinking locally.. which is the true spirit of capitalism). And there is nothing socialist about the war on terror since everyone knows that the Soviets were among the most brutual on the planet and that lives on in the war that the Russians still fight today.

But on illegal immigration I'll give the article credit on Saying Mr. Bush is socialist.

[PlainOleAmerican]

Yes, but they have a large "loser" constituency...

[PlainOleAmerican]

Hard to forget these... but worth remembering!