Comments on: Et Tu, Hillary?

By: gun rights for all

gun rights for all — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:48:43 +0000

Vote for Hillary turn in your gun tommorow get robed or raped next week. Hillary will weaken this country and throw it into civil war. Do you want the UN patroling the streets of the USA? If you think Bush is bad just hope that Hillary doesn’t win in 08. You think she is in the best interest of mainstreem America? What has she really done to protect the children? Take daddys guns so he can’t protect his family. But she doesn’t support laws to put child rapists in jail for 25 to life. How can anyone that supports abortion say that they are doing anything for the children? If Hillary is elected I will move to Isreal or Switzerland until she is assinated. I think if she wins it will be the shortest presidency in history. I am not telling anyone to assinate anyone, but wouldn’t shead a tear if she was.

By: william s

william s — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 00:08:48 +0000

All you have to say about the dems. is think Kennedy!

By: Sean P

Sean P — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:51:29 +0000

What’s going on with Hillary is that her position on Iraq has so alienated the base of her party that she is forced to pander to it on every non-security issue she can in order to curry favor. And, as much as I prefer candidates who don’t pander to those who do, if you HAVE to pander to your base, better to do it on this issue than on our nation’s security. Joe Lieberman, every Republicans’ favorite Democrat, is doing the same thing, lets not forget.

Now, that’s not to say this isn’t extremely poor long-term planning on HRC’s part. By going 0 for 2 with Bush’s Supreme Court nominees, and backing the filibuster option, she has essentially handed the Republican Party veto power of any of her potential Supreme Court nominations — assuming her master plan comes to fruition. But traitorous? Not hardly.

By: dmac

dmac — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 00:49:54 +0000

“I don’t know who Ralph Neas is, and I’m not familiar with what NARAL did that you are referring to.”

Then why on earth make the argument, Peter? Your cognitive dissonance on these threads are quite amazing at times.

By: peter

peter — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:13:30 +0000

I didn’t say or imply that the Court acted on the Rebpublicans’ orders — however, the result was everything the GOP could have hoped for. The decision in Bush v. Gore was the act which put George Bush in the White House. That is demonstrable fact.

I don’t know who Ralph Neas is, and I’m not familiar with what NARAL did that you are referring to. I don’t claim that Democrats universally belong in the pantheon of saints. However, I don’t think there is a time in recent history (since 1960, anyway) where you can make the case that Democratic misdeeds caused them to win an election they should have lost.

It’s my opinion that the Swift Boat thing caused Kerry to lose the election. It was concurrent with his nomination and basically stopped him in his tracks for a few weeks. (You could argue that he could have responded better — but I don’t think that your ability to respond effectively to false smear campaigns is a very important criterion for how good a President you would be). You could also make the case that Bush won the nomination in 2000 because of Rove’s smearing of John McCain in the South Carolina primary. Politics ain’t beanbag — but I don’t see how anyone could deny that playing dirty played a significant, if not decisive, role in GOP wins over the past several years.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:41:27 +0000

They play dirty, the Supreme Court to bail them out…demonstrable facts, are they?

I guess that means you have proof that the Supreme Court acted on the orders of the Republicans – that would be a demonstrable fact. Otherwise, it’s an opinion…

As far as the playing dirty goes, well, gee, I guess the Democrats are little angels…Ralph Neas and NARAL certainly wouldn’t dream of distorting a Republican position and then feeding talking points to Teddy Kennedy and Patrick Leahy, now, would they?…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:29:08 +0000

Why should anyone be alienated by what I wrote? These are all demonstrable facts — if I am wrong, then I am eager to learn why I am wrong –

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:20:10 +0000

peter, I believe fatman was referring to the well-known and universally acknowledged Democratic tactic of alienating anyone who doesn’t agree with them 100% – a tactic you yourself have done well with in your reply…

By: peter

peter — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 15:13:34 +0000

I don’t wonder why the GOP wins elections –

a) they have a lot more money to spend
b) they play dirty: allied organizations, such as the Swift Boaters, combined with the Lee Atwater-Karl Rove school of political brawling, will confuse enough people to win elections
c) the House seats are gerry-mandered in their favor
d) when all else fails, they have the Supreme Court to bail them out

By: fatman

fatman — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 08:14:03 +0000

“brain-dead 42 percent”?

I take it. Mr. Palcewski, that offering you a Dale Carnegie course in how to win friends and influence people would be a waste of time

And the left wonders why, for all their faults (and they ARE legion), the GOP keeps winning elections. :~