They (the American voter) can also smell it when someone really believes, as opposed to that faux belief described as positioning. That's why the late, great Paul Wellstone, a guy who any reasonable person would have said was too liberal and too unpolitic to be a politician, got elected twice. Was it the ill-advised pep rally masquerading as a memorial service that did in Wellstone's surrogate, or was it that the unaccustomed whiff of principle had disappeared with the ebullient firebrand who dared oppose the president's bully war?
But what constitutes left when viewed from the right—or when viewed by political consultants—isn’t really left at all. Wanting to register and license guns, or eschewing a quick-fix tax cut to avoid ever-increasing deficits: those aren’t radical notions.
That she has managed to grow up believing that registering guns isn't a radical notion, or that raising taxes will reduce deficits, is clear evidence of what is wrong with the Democratic Party.
The equality of women?
You mean the right of women to be raped by the President of the United States---while the "feminists" gather together to call the rape victim a "slut"?
I can sum it all up in 4 words. "I am wealthy, Dad". My Dad was on the DNC. His brother was a top executive with the AFL. Another of Dad's brothers was a factory worker and his sisters were just a housewlfes of hourly labor families.
I have 14 cousins our parents were Democrats. Most of us are Repubicans. When I became a Republican my dad asked me how I could be a Republian... "They are for the wealthy", he said. I replied, "I am wealthy, Dad." So are most of my cousins.
Hopefully, Nancy Pelosi will make it clear for you and others too. Hopefully.
| ...The Republican Party's historical hostility to the rights of women and the welfare of immigrants
There was time when I worried that someone might read one of these New Yawk Tawking Heads and believe this kind of stuff. But now I find myself laughing at it. It's like these people have diminished to the point where there is now just a little clique of them in New York and Hollywood, and they talk themselves into believing weirder and weirder things. Like some inbred royal family, they're slowly going nuts. To hear Quindlan talk, or Moyers over in that other thread, unspeakable horrors are about to be unleashed on the populace by crazed right-wing fanatics. You'd think George W. Bush, who gets booed all the time around here for not being conservative enough, is about to establish the American Taliban. Do they really believe this stuff, or is this part of the denial-and-anger phase of the hosing they took last week? Whatever it is, they sound more and more like paranoid crazy people every day. And to think, they used to be "mainstream journalism." Now they're just a trickle of liberal looneytoons, singing ever-crazier hymns to an ever-smaller choir. |
Liberals want AND NEED people to be helpless without them. They need people to avoid self reliance at all costs. They like the idea of providing sustenance, barely. It's best if this sustenance saps desire for self improvement, for we can't have people thinking they can improve themselves without government help.
Liberals need to be able to tell people where and how to live. They need this because they know...KNOW...what is best for you. Your ideas on the subject are quite irrelevant, for what do you know after all, you of the great unwashed.
It's vitally crucial that if you are an independent thinker, that you be squashed like a bug, because independent thinking is as anathema to a liberal as it was to Ho Chi Minh or is to Fidel Castro.
For liberals, you can't properly drive any car you like nor should you be permitted to smoke without tripling you tax nor hunt or shoot trap for that matter.
For liberals if you make minimum wage, you already are a winner in life's lottery, so just plan to send it in...we'll send you what you need...that's our job..and WE know what you need.
For liberals, if you harvest renewable resources, you are the devil incarnate. If you find nonrenewable resources, you should plan to leave them right where they are. The earth doesn't need you and your resources are not there for your betterment or anyone elses, for that matter.
If you don't work for the government, you are sub-human. Oh, and don't bother negotiating any employment contract on your own, that's a liberals job. Never mind that many of we liberals have never really produced anything, what's important is that we know what's best for you.
This can go on and on. When you are dealing with liberals, recall that things are never either good or improving. They are always bead and getting worse...that's why a liberal was put on earth. It's a liberal job to slow the speed at which the world is going to hell in a hand basket. That's the best you can hope.
Finally, it's the lot of a liberal to be brain dead. If there was ever a liberal on earth that could read, he or she would see that Richard Nixon was exponentially more liberal than was Hubert Humphrey on the most liberal day of his life. You can look it up.
......and the downside of this would be?????
Want a suggestion, Anna?
Modern History Sourcebook:
The Passage of the 19th Amendment
The roll call on the amendment follows:
FOR ADOPTION - 36.
Republicans - 36.
Capper, Cummins, Curtis, Edge, Elkins, Fall, Fernald, France, Frelinghuysen, Gronna, Hale, Harding, Johnson, (Cal.,) Jones, (Wash.,) Kellogg, Kenyon, Kayes, La Follette, Lenroot, McCormick, McCumber, McNaty, Nelson, New, Newberry, Norris, Page, Phipps, Poindexter, Sherman, Smoot, Spencer, Sterling, Sutherland, Warren, Watson.
Democrats - 20.
Ashurst, Chamberlain, Culberson, Harris, Henderson, Jones, (N. M.,) Kenrick, Kirby, McKellar, Myers, Nugent, Phelan, Pittman, Ransdell, Shepard, Smith, (Ariz.,) Stanley, Thomas, Walsh, (Mass.,) Walsh, (Mon.)
AGAINST ADOPTION - 25.
Republicans - 8.
Borah, Brandegee, Dillingham, Knox, Lodge, McLean, Moses, Wadsworth.
Democrats - 17.
Bankhead, Beckham, Dial, Fletcher, Gay, Harrison, Hitchcock, Overman, Reed, Simmons, Smith, (Md.,) Smith, (S. C.,) Swanson, Trammell, Underwood, Williams, Wolcott.
The 19th Amendment was introduced to the Senate in 1878 by Senator Sargent, a Republican from California.
The first five women elected to the House of Representatives were women:
| MEMBER AND PARTY | STATE | YEARS OF SERVICE |
| Jeannette Rankin (R) | MT |
03/04/1917 - 03/03/1919; 01/03/1941 - 01/03/1943 |
| Alice Mary Robertson (R) | OK |
03/04/1921 - 03/03/1923 |
| Winnifred Sprague Mason Huck (R) | IL |
11/07/1922 - 03/03/1923 |
| Mae Ella Nolan (R) | CA |
01/23/1923 - 03/03/1925 |
| Florence Prag Kahn (R) | CA |
03/04/1925 - 01/03/1937 |
So, Anna, why don't you do the 30 minutes of research it took me to find out the real deal on the Republicans history?
Historical hostility? Oh, like when Bill Clinton says, "you might want to put a little ice on that"?
Welfare of immigrants? First, since they are immigrants they are fleeing something worse or are trying to get out of high tax countries. Second, it's the welfare 'for' Illegal immigrants we have a problem with.
Big business and big contributors? You mean like the fat cat club of trial lawyers? The million dollar check writers like Speilberg, Streisand, Riener, Hanks, et al? The contributors from big business that they give government money too and get insider tips from like Worldcom, Enron, & Global Crossings?
Oh, I get it now, thanks Ms. Quindlen....moron!
The Republican Party's historical hostility to the rights of women and the welfare of immigrants, its favoritism toward big business and big contributors, Richard Nixon's unwavering willingness to trade integrity for victory and Ronald Reagan's cheerful indifference to the disenfranchised:It never dawns on Anna that Bill Clinton demonstrated hostility to the rights of women (hello Paula, Monica, Juanita, etc.) and immigrants (Elian, did you enjoy the gun in your mug?), had favoritism toward big business (particularly cronies like Global Crossing and Tyson foods) and big contributors (see Terry McAuliffe's fundraising list), an unwavering willingness to trade integrity for victory (too many examples to name just one) and a cheerful indifference to the disenfranchised.
But that was different, because he was a pro-abort Democrat.
No spin possible. Don’t even try. Those pundits who suggest that this enormous victory could be bad for the Republicans because now they’ll have no one else to blame—oh, please!
Is it just me, or is this stuff starting to sound comedic to everyone now?