More ads from the secret archives of the DNC.
He’s quaking in his cave, I know it.
If confrontation doesn’t work, we can always use diplomacy.
Indeed.
Is it me, or does she give off a creepy Blade Runner vibe to you, too?
Now that’s just scary.
I for one welcome our new Pelosian overlords.
It’s going to be a major pain in the ass having to bury all the guns in the backyard again, though . . .
Gloria Allred is a better dresser, and less of a self-promoter.
You forgot, “America’s number one MILF”.
Ick, ick, ick, ewwwwwwwww. I think I grossed myself out.
Reminds me of the old Rodney Dangerfield line: “She musta been something before electricity.”
Nah. None of my mom’s friends was the Borg Queen.
Does she ever blink?
CAN she blink?
I thought the most telling thing about Nancy on Sixty Minutes was her comment on how all the Jihadis were in Iraq (which begs the question so why don’t we fight them there). She said no, we should leave so they will leave.
Ok–Nancy, where are all those Jihadis going? Are they going to San Francisco? My guess is they won’t have flowers in their hair.
Nancy Pelosi bathes in the blood of fetuses. Keeps her looking young and fresh.
Is it just me or are her eyes glowing…
Well, are they?
Yeah, she does remind me of a irascible housewife. With too much botox.
I wonder if she contains trans-fats? I know I do.
It occurs to me that, on “Battlestar Galactica,” we’ve only seen seven or eight of the Cylon “skinjob” models…
Yeah, yeah, easy target there.
Here’s a serious question that I would like to have you guys answer, though, because I’m starting to get antsy as the day approaches:
Is there still a small-government wing in the Republican Party? The author of this article doesn’t seem to think so.
If a vote for conservative Republicans is simply a vote for a more robust and intellectually confident form of socialism, then what is the point? Conservatives are more willing to fight the jihadists, but it is a half-hearted fight that sacrifices the lives of US soldiers to save enemy civilians. Why should we accept that as the best that we can do? How can we expect to get anything better if we reward these people with our votes?
Coat-hanger rhinoplasty is more Brazil than Blade Runner.
GET YOUR LAWS OFF MY SEPTUM
Um, Ards?
What do you think we’ll end up with if the Democrats get rewarded with actual power as a result of your refusal to vote for Republicans?
What makes you think kicking the bad Republicans out of office in favor of even worse Democrats is going to communicate what you want it to communicate?
The congressional election cycle is two years long. During that time, you have the opportunity and the means to communicate with your elected representatives and remind them what they said during their campaigns, and make it plain to them that you expect them to hold to their expressed principles once they’re in office, or they’ll pay the price. It has been done.
Buty if you wait until the effing FALL CAMPAIGN to decide to do something about what’s bothering you, you only make things worse and you deserve it.
The rest of us, however, do not.
Exactly. The time to have swapped out poorly performing Republicans was during the primaries, a la Pennsylvania. Deciding to toss the vote to the Democrats *now* takes, frankly, a special kind of stupid.
Because it’s still the only option. The two-party system isn’t just broken, it’s corrupt. At some point principle demands saying enough.
Who knows, after the imminent fall of the American Republic under two-party “rule”, and as squatters pick through the remains of government offices and private residences, maybe the Libertarians will abandon their two-plank platform of dope law repeal and subscription police and fire departments and actually do something useful.
Not to be a pessimist or anything.
Speaking of Left Coast neofeminism, what’s it called when there’s no evidence, no witnesses, no charges, and hence no crime?
Opportunity for womyn’s “groups”, the Nannies Who Know Better. Or the working title: Guilty until proved female.
I don’t know what the election will communicate if the Democrats win. But I do know this: In the fight against terrorism, the Democrats, if they get their way, will eschew any military action against rouge regimes and instead will try appeasement, international diplomacy, UN resolutions, etc., none of which will work to do the slightest good, all of which will simply let the terrorists grow stronger—and when all of that fails, it will be appeasement, the UN and diplomacy that is discredited.
Whereas, what has President Bush accomplished? He has attempted to fight a civilian-friendly, partial, limited war, in which he accepts virtually all of the left’s main ideas, including, for instance,
– The willingness to sacrifice American soldiers for the sake of Iraqi civilians, based on the left’s cherished idea that the strong must be willing to sacrifice for the sake of the weak;
– The willingness to let the Iraqis form any sort of government, even a theocracy, a willingness based on acceptance of the left’s idea of multicultural, the notion that since no culture or system of government can be considered superior to any other, the Iraqi people have the right of self-determination, even if that means the Iraqis elect a regime that rejects the very concept of rights.
– The willingness to take responsibility for rebuilding Iraq’s infrastructure, based on the acceptance of the left’s notion that “if you break it you must fix it”;
And it isn’t working, because you can never win a war fighting under the left’s terms. But the result is that Bush has succeeded in discrediting the idea of using military force to destroy terrorist-sponsoring states and has given the left a vast amount of ammunition to support their pacifist claim that military action can achieve no good.
Do you see what is going on here? Bush accepts almost all of the left’s key ideas—but when these ideas cripple the war on terrorism, it is not the left’s ideas that are discredited, it is the very idea of using military force that takes the blame.
This same pattern plays out with domestic politics as well.
So here is the question: If the left’s ideas are going to dominate anyway, why not let their disastrous effects discredit the left?
By electing Republicans who claim to back capitalism, freedom and an aggressive foreign policy of self-defense—but who, in reality, accept and practice the left’s ideas—we still get the disastrous effects of the left’s ideas, but the left gets to blame those effects on capitalism, freedom and a vigorous foreign policy. The good ideas take the blame for the consequences of the bad ideas, while the good ideas never really get tried.
Because your analysis is somewhat slanted and crude in its attempt to paint Bush and congress as nothing but left in application. Democrats are worse, even if Republicans could do better (war in Iraq, afganisatn), come up short (port security, emergency reaction) or if they’ve betrayed their own principles (growth of givernment and spending.
The other problem is that while the Dem’s in power are appeasing, negotiating and U.N.-ing the Arab world, their failure just might be result in one or more mushroom clouds/dirty bombs/smallpox fueled anthrax devastating one or more major US urban centers. i would rather not declare “nbow do you idiots get it about jihandists>” while burying casulaties in the 6 figures.
There is no way in hell that Dems are going to do any of things that we conservatives/libertarians would like to see. hold the “faux” conservatives feet to the fire.
Nancy Pelosi does not exist in a vacuum. If, after November 7th, Nancy Pelosi is not Speaker of the House – it means Denny Hastert is Speaker of the House.
That would be the same Denny Hastert, who does not even meet the ethical standards of one of the most corrupt Tammany Hall politicians at the turn of the century.
Even if you disagree with Nancy Pelosi politically, she is a much much better choice for Speaker of the House than Denny Hastert.
We have an opportunity to vote directly on who we would prefer for Speaker of the House and 3rd in line to the presidency on November 7.
Denny or Nancy? Choose wisely.
I don’t actually agree with this, Michael. This is an argument that was made by some Objectivists in 2004. I think it assumes that people aren’t intelligent enough to tell the difference between what Bush says and what Bush does, or that there aren’t people out there smart enough to point out the chasm between those two. Reading the commenters here, I think you can see that that’s not the case. They all see that there is a gap. The question is then what to do about it.
To BJ and McGehee: First, I’m not talking about making a Democrat Commander-in-Chief, I’m talking about throwing the bums out of Congress so that we have two years of Republicans having to actually fight for their principles–if they can still remember what they are. I think that might be good practice leading up to the 2008 campaign. Hold their toes to the fire? How does that work exactly, if your vote is guaranteed no matter what they do?
Second, what I was wanting was a discussion, not an excommunication. I was asking for input, because it is a question I’m still struggling with.
The 2004 election was a referendum on Bush’s doctrine of preemption and his stated willingness to end those states that sponsor terrorism. I voted for him then in spite of his domestic policies, because a vote for Kerry was clearly a vote for appeasement. That is not the case this year. Bush has not lived up to the things I voted for in 2004, and voting against his party now cannot be interpreted as a rejection of his 2004 rhetoric.
Okay, well there’s one good counter-argument to what I’m saying. *Sigh*
On the other hand, there’s nothing better for discrediting a Democrat than putting her in a position where she will get lots of face time on television.
Selfishly, I don’t want Pelosi in a position of power…ever
I don’t want to be pauperized by taxes and a collapsing economy, and I live in an area on the terrorists short list of 9/11 part deux.
I’d rather work on replacing Hastert within the Republican party than handing over the keys to the liquor cabinent to Kennedy, Rangel and Pelosi.
That’s wishful thinking. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that it’s more a outsiders’ club than a party, and deep down inside they don’t want to ever win. There’s simply no other way to explain how a party can continue to exist on the margins of American politics despite most faithfully representing the founding principals of the country.
Oh Godless one, I feel your pain.
I think that all of this would be a little less nausia inducing to conservatives/libertarians if Bush and the ‘Thugs hadn’t thrown gargantuan amounts of money at Education, Medicare and Transportation in addition to the Iraq and Afganistan expenditures. My other problem is the utter, blessed irony that comes from the Dem’s giving Bush no credit whatsoever for the non-war expansion of programs that they say they love (not to mention the tacit approval for the biggest, sloppiest helping of pork evah!) Geez, we haven’t even touched upon immigration!
How do I move past this cesspool of broken dreams? I just don’t know if the answer is to vote in Democrats, not a one of which has had anything interesting to say in addressing these very concerns. I am unmoved hearing liberal democrats in my state talking about “fiscal prudence.” I’m going to vote for Santorum because he was one of the few guys who attempted to shore up some of the conservative initiatives.
Bottom line: as much as I want to send some kind of head whacking message to the ‘Thugs, I just can’t bring myself to push the donkey button. I don’t know if this helps but at least it’s honest.
Where’s that dang Motrin…
Pelosi or Denny? I feel better already…
Entirely. Well, the part that wasn’t downright sarcastic, that is.
The two-party trainwreck we have must be just enough entertainment value or dust in the air to prevent the real puppeteers from exposure. Of course, that implies conspiracy, but I don’t know how else to see this charade.
Or is that just the way it goes in the battle of Democrat Marxism versus Republican Socialism as the masses figure out how to game the system?
The lack of a valid third party is an amazing thing. But it’s nowhere near as bewildering as wholesale pandering, selling-out, and corruption that’s saturated all of government. Voters and their parties are secondary; special interest makes the rules and those rules are anti-constitutional.
Why that isn’t a daily topic around the blogosphere serves to illustrate how ignorant of Washington’s real goings on even the active American political mind really is.
A little less time online, friends, and a couple days a month in your local legislature please. If you don’t come back white with rage you’re unconscious.
Pelosi just finished an interview on Kudlow. She comported herself well. Pro-growth, won’t raise the cap gains tax, pay as you go, balanced budget…
Even more interesting – no horns or glowing eyes. Huh. After reading this thread, I really expected to see them.
Kudlow quote: “Demonizing Pelosi is a loser for Republicans.”
Pundits on Kudlow after the interview mostly agree (except for the Republican shill) – Divided Government is good for economy, good for the markets, and that is why the markets are going higher as Republican polls go lower.
Investors live in a reality based world. They liked the idea of a Dem house before the interview. They’ll like it more now.
Ardsgaine, I think we have two different issues here. I agree there are people out there smart enough to see the gap between what Bush says and what he does—many, for instance, have pointed out the inaction on North Korea and Iran after naming them in the axis of evil. But how many people realize that even when Bush does, in fact, do what he says he will do—he is utterly crippled by his acceptance of the left’s ideas? My impression is that few understand this.
I agree that the last election was a referendum on Bush’s doctrine of preemption and his stated willingness to end those states that sponsor terrorism – but what percentage of the voters now agree with preemption? Hasn’t that percentage drastically declined? Is it not now, and for at least the foreseeable future, going to be far more difficult for any President to get Congressional authorization for large scale military action? I think it will be next to impossible.
I, too, am torn about how to vote. I voted for Bush last time for exactly the same reason you did. I don’t buy into the left’s claim that Bush is creating more terrorists abroad—but I do fear he is creating more pacifists here at home—and we can scarcely afford many more.
BJ, I understand your concern about there being another 9/11 while the Democrats are “appeasing, negotiating and U.N.-ing the Arab world”. But other than the fighting in Iraq, what is Bush doing except appeasing, negotiating and UN-ing?
If Republicans lose because Republican voter turnout goes down—as opposed to Republicans voting for Democrats—it will be quite obvious that this does not represent an endorsement of the Democrats, but rather a withdrawal of support from a party that has moved far too close to the Democrats. Would it not be a good thing to make clear to the Republicans that they cannot win elections if they betray the principles of limited government, free enterprise and a muscular foreign policy—and do so without surrendering the White House?
“Would it not be a good thing to make clear to the Republicans that they cannot win elections if they betray the principles of limited government, free enterprise and a muscular foreign policyâ€â€and do so without surrendering the White House?” – ms
I know you didn’t ask me, but I agree. I’d suggest there is actually a double benefit (if you accept Niskanen’s et.al. work that divided government restrains the growth of government). If the election results play out the way it looks now – Dems take the House, Republicans hold the Senate – you can probably assume it will stay that way through the ‘08 election as the usual incumbent advantage reasserts itself. That means you will have a divided government regardless of which party wins the executive. Republicans are driven back to their limited government roots, AND divided government. Win Win.
Absolutely. And the time to do that was during the Republican Primaries. Now, given a choice between a tax and spend Dhimmocrat and a tax and spend Repugnacan, I’m still pulling the lever for the one that will vote to defend me against terrorists.
TW: If you vote for the Dhimmocrats, you run the risk of being dead 23 days after the election.
Exactly the point, but you have outlined a false choice. The real choice is between Big Spending, Big Deficit, big Government single party control, vs. historically proven restrained spending growth under divided government.
You do have to vote for Democrats in the House to get the benefits of divided government, but you are not voting for the Democrat agenda – just split power. It works.