GOP Meltdown

[yeahwho]

How low can they go? Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15167150/site/newsweek/)article examines the current GOP fallout.

The democrats sure don't seem to be grasping any clear strategy to make the citizens more enamored with this, it's a pretty sad state of affairs.

[kaiser soze]

do the democrats really need to do anything more than just let the republicans dig their own hole?

[The Notorious LOL]

yeah, they need to do a lot. I think people are becoming more impatient with the suit and tie broken promises political stereotype we have come to know.


When people talked up John Kerry like he was this political godsend, I realized that the majority of democrats are stupid as hell and I have no interest in aligning myself with such a sad pathetic excuse for a political party.

[Schmeltz]

do the democrats really need to do anything more than just let the republicans dig their own hole?


Of course they do, man. If the current governing party digs themselves in too deep, which they arguably already have, then any potential replacement (or, in America, the only replacement that exists) has got to offer some kind of way out of the mess. Otherwise they will simply inherit the monumental problems caused by the Republicans without any coherent plan to resolve them.

No, it's not enough for the Republicans to lose the elections. They have to be replaced with a party prepared to address the nightmare that the Bush administration has created. Can the Democrats do this? Unfortunately, I think Notorious LOL is right - this "opposition" has diluted itself to the point where merely winning votes is looked on as some kind of grand, unbeatable strategy. Actually providing practical solutions to the very real political dilemmas that confront Americans right now is way beyond their grasp.

You guys are fucked.

[Pres Zount]

When people talked up John Kerry like he was this political godsend, I realized that the majority of democrats are stupid as hell and I have no interest in aligning myself with such a sad pathetic excuse for a political party.

haha that's awesome.

[yeahwho]

A Publicists Mightmare! Thats what the Democrats are. Clinton has been vilified by talk radio and Fox news for 14 years now. The democrats should figure this one out. He's a visible liability because of a real propaganda job, not just my thoughts, reality. I have to agree with the sentiments towards Kerry and the Democrats. Now they have Al Gore peeking from behind the curtain. Christ! Get a Clue!

My pep talk to the Democatic Party:

Let go of Clinton and go out on your own now democrats, you can mention the gains of the last democratic president, but don't use his name! The Republicans are falling flat on their faces at the moment, they are going to do what they always do, attack attack attack attack attack (http://www.10zenmonkeys.com/2006/10/04/5-nastiest-campaign-ads-so-far/) and even attack (http://vernonrobinson.com/twilightzone.shtml) with real zeal (http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2006/09/just_about_the_1.shtml#015793)!!!

So dear democrats, use the attacks of the Republican Party and compare them to reality of this current administration, explain how the Republicans have made Americans familiar with the word attack, for instance the attack on Iraq which has generated 100 attacks on U.S. soldiers a day, or the lack of attack on the National debt, or lets say the attack on morals and honesty and how about the attack on civil liberties? How about the Attack by Dick Cheney on 78-year-old Harry Whittington? Peppered my ass! The point is there is a virtual cornucopia of material that can and should be attacked by the democrats yet they always dumb down and let these hack Republicans out soundbite them. It's moronic. Democrats Dumb Up!

[sam i am]

^^^^
Wow.

I gotta respect where you're coming from. I've been saying this is the case privately for years, but now one of you has caught on to the "grand scheme" we on the Right have : attack your candidates, win elections, incrementally implement our agenda, and outraise the Demos in cash.

Wait until you see the ad blitz over the next month before election day. The Republicans have WAY more money (http://www.fec.gov/press/press2006/20060517party/Party15month2006.html) to spend - although this is outdated, I've seen recent reports that the RNC still has about $50 million more than the DNC to spend - and will attack attack attack attack attack, as yeahwho likes to say.

Even with all of the current Mark Foley hoopla and as bad as ratings are for the Republicans and Bush, Bush is NOT on the ballot; generic "Republicans" are not on the ballot - each district and state has it's own dynamic and will play out far differently than is portrayed in the "national" media.

For example, did you know that Tom Kean, Jr., a Republican, is ahead in the polls over Bob Menendez in New Jersey? -->> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1702325/posts

Of course, there is always dynamism to polling and more can be revealed, but the Republicans' money edge in the last month of the race should have Democrats at least as fearful as yeahwho is above...

[Documad]

Nancy Pelosi says that in her first 100 hours as Speaker, the House will put forth legislation that (1) put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation;" (2) enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission; (3) raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; (4) cut the interest rate on student loans in half; (5) allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients; and (6) broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. Then pass "pay as you go" legislation, meaning no increasing the deficit. Bush-era tax cuts will have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era.

We may all disagree with some priorities, but it sounds like a good plan to me.

[sam i am]

Nancy Pelosi says that in her first 100 hours as Speaker, the House will put forth legislation that (1) put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation;" (2) enact all the recommendations made by the 9/11 commission; (3) raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour; (4) cut the interest rate on student loans in half; (5) allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients; and (6) broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds. Then pass "pay as you go" legislation, meaning no increasing the deficit. Bush-era tax cuts will have to be rolled back for those above "a certain level." She mentioned annual incomes of $250,000 or $300,000 a year and higher, and said tax rates for those individuals might revert to those of the Clinton era.

We may all disagree with some priorities, but it sounds like a good plan to me.

How will #1 be implemented? Sounds more like a pipe dream.

#2 should prove interesting....where's the funding coming from for that?

#3 - why not make the minimum wage $20 an hour so that everyone is rich?

I'll go along with #4 - high interest rates suck.

#5 - why not just import them all from Canada?

#6 - sounds great...let's not use actual science, but makeup some crap that sounds politically correct to the pro-abortion crowd.

Rolling back tax cuts sounds great if she also has a plan to not spend another dime on Iraq, the military, Social Security, deficit and interest financing, etc.

Sure...great plan Nance!(y)

[Echewta]

I agree, good luck with number 1. Even if her intensions are true, there are hundreds of other members of congress that are ready to water whatever she puts out.

Sam, if she was to roll back the tax cuts, why would she need to not spend money on things if taking away the tax cuts brings in more money?

[yeahwho]

Nancy Pelosi (http://www.house.gov/pelosi/) or should I say perhaps President Pelosi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession)?

[chrisd]

can i get that without the bacon?