Posted on 01/26/2005 8:26:29 AM PST by RWR8189
The Senior Senator From California, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Has Publicly Endorsed Condoleezza Rice For Secretary Of State. “I’m supporting Condoleezza Rice. I know her. She’s a friend. We have had the opportunity to have many discussions. We have participated in many groups that discuss world issues.” (Sen. Dianne Feinstein, CNN’s “Wolf Blitzer Reports,” 1/25/05) Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), The New Face Of The Democrat Party, Attacked Rice’s Credibility On The Senate Floor: “[Rice] dodged so many of [the committee questions], and again, resorted to the half the story and even got herself in deeper water in some of her responses. So I can't support this nomination.” (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 1/25/05, p.S403)FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Boxer Is Even Using Her Negative Attacks Against Rice To Raise Money For The DSCC. “‘I will continue to make my voice heard on the Senate Foreign Relations committee, but in order to put the brakes on four more years of misdirection in Iraq and reckless policies at home, we need to elect more Democrats to the Senate during the 2006 midterm elections,’ Boxer wrote, noting her questioning of Rice. ‘Click here to contribute to the DSCC today.’” (Anne Gearan, “Democrats Say Rice Lied Or Misled Them, But Confirmation Expected,” The Associated Press, 1/25/05)
The new face of the Rat party looks like the south end of a north bound horse.
Boxer doesn't lie. She was too stupid to read that big long war authorization with all those polysyllabic words.
If you asked her if she liked Kipling, she'd reply. "I don't know how."
Never say 'face' and Feinstein in the same sentence.
Perhaps Di-Fi has realized who won the election and is looking at the "red" counties in California. Sen. Boxer better take a cue from ex-Senator Tom Daschle--don't get too out of step with the folks back home.
A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition.
–Rudyard Kipling
How insensitive the families of the tsunami victims to make such a callous remark!
< /SARCASM >
TS
It sure would be nice if the CA GOP actually fielded a decent candidate against DiFi in '06... after they rolled over for BoXer and now We All reap the winds of discontent they themselves seeded by not backing their own candidate.
I'm thinking Kaloogian. Howard Kaloogian.
Hell yeah she does. When she was grilling Rice she said that 20% of teh causualties were from California when it was more like 11%
Both are weasels. Apologies to the animal.
I'll never forget the gentleman who was shining my shoes (!) the day after the 2000 election -- when the outcome was still in doubt. He told me he voted Democrat but he was a church-going man and felt that Democrats were out of touch. I asked him why he didn't vote Republican. He said he didn't know because he voted Democratic as everyone else did, but he had about had it with them. I'm guessing that he voted Republican in '04.
My guess is that if the Republicans have a decent, God-fearing candidate in '08, the black vote will be 80:20 instead of 90:10. And it will continue to erode.
Sad but true statement about the predilections, and common sense, of the typical California voter.
The typical voter will learn the hard way, eventually, should we hold back even trying and just go along as moderates, then?
That is nothing more than selling one's soul and principles out, if you ask me.
A defeatist attitude will get you a Loss everytime, imo.
I disagree and seriously doubt that 'Star" power is the best course for governance.
The media and corrupt officials on the dem side of things are getting their comeuppance and little of it is due to anything the Gub is proposing, imo.
There is a delayed fuse burning that was lit long before he came on the scene.
Working our system of goverment to bring about a result, demands that a movement garner the support of a majority of voters. It is foolish to think that enough office holders whose views do not mirror the views of a majority of voters can be elected. It is a proveable fact that if 70 percent of the voters share a view, both parties will adopt that view. We are approaching a situation in which 70 percent of our voters reject abortion. The Democrats are in the process of changing their position of abortion. Hillary sees that even if many other Democrats do not. The Democrats will change. It will just take some time.
The key to changing a single state or even the entire nation is to find candidates that are as close to your views as possible while still being able to get the support of a majority of voters. A winning rightwing candidate must get votes from just left of center and add to those the votes of those to the right of center in order to win. A winning leftist candidat must get voters from just right of center and add to those the votes of those to the left of center in order to win.
Of course it goes without saying that defeated candidates never change anything. To be anything except hot air, a candidate has to win.
Our states are varried. And what it take to win in a liberal state is far different than what it takes in a conservative state. The center in Callifornia is nothing like the center in South Carolina. A liberal Democrat who could win in South Carolina would be far too right wing to win as a Republican in California.
If most Republicans in the federal legislatures are conservative and they can add to that liberal Republicans from the liberal states, the conservatives can enact much of their agenda. If the Republicans just limit themselves to conservatives they can never get enough votes in the Senate to enact or repeal anything. The nation would just drift ever more leftward.
One has to be aware that at least 20 percent of the voters are not ideological. Political philosophy is not a consideration in how the center votes. So a winning candidate has to win a philosophical base and a majority of the non ideological center.
Movements based solely on political philosophy are doomed to failure. They can never win enough votes to get elected. They never can convince a majority of the voters to support their philosophy.
The far left when it refuses to compromise to get in power only insures that the center right rules. When the far right refuses to compromise to get in power only insures the center left rules.
The nation changes when one of the parties nominates a candidate that only appeals to its ideological base. That is when the other party wins a big victory and proceeds to move the nation in its directions. Thus a right wing Barry Goldwater as the Republican candidate elects a Lyndon Baines Johnson with enough of a margin for LBJ to create the Socialist Great Society.
Since 1980 this nation has been gradually inching to the right. But the center is still way to the left of where it was in 1928.
Moving this nation to the right can happen. But it takes political servanats and a right of center electorate who understand how to move the center. It took two generations to move this nation as far left as it is now. It will take two generations to move it back.
The left is convinced the right is not patient or smart enough to do it. The left may very well be right.
Thanks, Common Tator, for the perspective.
Indeed, it's a slow death struggle with an ideology that will stop at nothing, and like a parasite, continues to ciphon off the lifeblood of the very host that allows it sustenance and refuge.
The sad thing is, at the rate we are going, in a few years we may not need to worry about our borders or sovereignty... and the work will have been done from within our own institutions.
So, I guess we do get the government we deserve in the end.
Ouch!
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.