A.L., isn't it astonishing to watch people so obsessed, so narcissistic, as to continue to flog the same decomposed carcass that once had some equine features?

It is amazing the Democrats want to impeach Bush for basically obeying the Iraq Liberation Act, a DEMOCRATIC law.

"A.L., isn't it astonishing to watch people so obsessed, so narcissistic, as to continue to flog the same decomposed carcass that once had some equine features?"

Actually, it's rather entertaining to watch some "dude" fall off his high horse and get trampled to death by it. And then flog the horse to death for not bucking the faux cowboy off it's back sooner.

People want to impeach Bush because he is an incompetent moron. The fact that he lied and broke numerous laws could be overlooked by a arge majority if he were able to succeed at his games.

See ya at the rodeo.

I don't know about astonishing, but it is amusing to watch the socialist party (I hate to call them 'liberals' now, because if that once noble term has any meaning they've long betrayed it) self-destruct like this. People like Cowboy Bob put a smile on my face. Sometimes I get depressed about the future of the good old USA, and then I hear Michael Moore saying some fool thing and I'm again reminded of one of my happy thoughts. "You don't have to be perfect. You just have to be less stupid than your opponent."

It was true of WWII. It was true of the Cold War. It's true of the War on Terror.

The only real problem I have right now is that the Democrats have become such a weak stone, that the Republicans have little to nothing to keep them sharp (and honest). The Republicans don't really represent my interests either. I would welcome an real opposition party in American politics. Just as soon as one shows up.

Funny, Ipsos has absolutely nothing about this remarkable poll on their website, so no details or demographics are available. Kind of important with Ipsos, since they frequently do Bush approval polls in which more than half of the respondents are Democrats. Or Canadians.

Afterdowningstreet.org (talk about a wistful domain name) has this really funny information to share, though:

NOTE WELL: The After Downing Street Coalition hired Ipsos Public Affairs to do this poll. Ipsos did not sponsor the poll, but was very helpful, cooperative, and professional. Please do NOT complain to them that they did not do the poll for free.

Since those rich Canadian greedheads at Ipsos aren't donating their time and resources to the cretin-proletariat, I hope they at least had the decency to accept payment in food stamps or dime bags of pot.

I always thought that lying in court under oath was pretty much impeachable and lying in front of a TV set was pretty much par for the course for politicans.
If people want to support impeaching Bush, more power to them. As you pointed out, I'm sure it keeps the base energized. But more distressing is the notion that this is the base. What happened to that 20 percent of swing voters that each party strives to get every election? Surely they can't be so radicalized that this isn't a turn-off?
My problem with the "liar Bush" hypothesis is that to believe it, one must believe a large complex conspiracy orchestrated in the WH, carried out by intelligence agencies all over the world, and accomplishing nothing worthwhile. This charge is usually followed by "no blood for oil" which I am also trying to figure out. I support armed agression against Iraq. Where is my case of free Penzoil 10W-40? I was lied to! Maybe this impeachment thing isn't a bad idea after all.

Cowboy Bob, believe me when I say that as a Republican, I sorely hope you bring your party around to your thinking. Soon.

The problem with AL's source is not that they are loony. It is they are defined as loony. It is a twofold problem. One, loony has come not to mean soneone whom thinks differently but that their beliefs have no moral foundation and can therefore be dismissed. The right side of the political spectrum has more than their fair(far?) share. Wtiness anyone whom thinks the Hurricane results are an act of god against sinful people(Calm down Farrakna said it too). The right protects and uses these people(Elmer Gantry or Jim and Tammy Faye Baker) to keep discussions from taking place about more important issues.

Two, the real issue is that the Democratic Party has not sat down and made the decision to create viable alternatives to these people. If you do you can then say look everybody has their extremists and make the point look at our serious people. You may not like the Federalist Society but they put out information that is credible and logical. Much of their goals have been acheieved by being able to deflect criticism of their ideas because there is no credible counterside. By not securing the loose cannons on your own ship it is hard to be seen as responsible.

"Now I'm pretty comfy saying that this is a view pretty far out of the mainstream."

Can you define exactly which view you are talking about here? Impeaching Bush?

And I'm curious, from where does this blessed All Knowingness derive? When politicians talk about what they think is "the mainstream", I tune out. When bloggers do it, they're just as guilty of talking out their ass.

I'm also wondering why someone posting under the moniker "Armed Liberal" makes it his business to bring controversial or opposing Dem/Liberal viewpoints into this forum so that they can get clubbed. You must enjoy this, because there's nothing productive about your activities that I can think of.

Why don't you try another line of work; as a blogger, you're a failure. You're the internet equivalent of a guy who throws cut up fish into the shark tank and then claims to be an advocate for vegetarianism. It's pretty clear you get your jollies from watching Right Wingers engage in a feeding frenzy.

sound like these sites should contact Rep. Harmon

"Defense Posture

For years, polls have shown Democrats running at a disadvantage to Republicans on national security issues, and many strategists believe this was the biggest factor behind presidential nominee John F. Kerry's loss to President Bush last November.

Last week, a new political action committee was launched with the aim of bolstering Democratic credibility on defense debates. Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) is forming SecureUSPAC, designed partly as a fundraising group but also as a mechanism to sharpen the party's message on national security issues and train candidates to speak more effectively about them.

Harman is the ranking Democrat on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and has recruited as board members for her PAC such prominent Democrats as Richard C. Holbrooke, former U.S ambassador to the United Nations. At today's formal announcement of the PAC, pollster Mark Mellman will present research on where the party stands with the electorate on security questions."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/08/AR2005100801139.html?sub=AR

Taylor Gilbert

This is why the Democrats have a continuing problem of the nature AL speaks to. You make a link(?) to someone responsible(Jane Harmon) and the leadership responds to her this way: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR2005092601395.html

It is part and parcel of the things wrong in the Party. I am not suggesting Democrats become the Politiburo the House of Representatives is under the Republicans but the constant shooting yourself in the foot has got to stop.

Parrot?
At some point you have to stop fighting the last war. You can be bitter all you want about clinton's impeachment but when you bring it on yourself...
The current war is one, establish real credentials about foreign and military affairs among the legislative and policy class of the Democratic party. That means admitting we are in Iraq for a long while(Afghanistan type pullout failed states create serious problems) to the public. Two, establish budget priorities to deal w/ Iraq and the current domestic needs. Three, articulating a fiscal and tax policy to meet these needs. Four, just plain relax about most social issues. Economic and social prosperity among the lower and middle classes calms anxiety more than discussing personal family issues.

Democrat Leadership obviously support the ideas of democrats.com because they haven't started legal action to take over the domain name.

Wonder where that leave http://www.whitehouse.org

"These guys aren't running the DLC, but neither are they aggrieved grad school dropouts who work in a tofu factory in Bellingham, far from the levers of Party power."

Oh, so they are paid consultants to the DLC? Or do they just give advice to the DLC for free in a Dobsonesque fashion?

This post is an example of what can happen to a bored blogger on a slow news day.

"...as a blogger, you're a failure."

As a heckler, you're not so impressive yourself.

If you're really interesting in understanding the drift of A.L.'s gist, you might read some of his previous (and highly successful) blogs, like this one. Flush out your headgear and listen to a new perspective for a change.

Or don't. I'm sort of torn. The sensible, sober, post-9/11 side of me wants to see more people like A.L. in the Democratic party, that discourse may be elevated and petty juvenile politics may be squelched. The old unreconstructed Republican-reptile side of me wants to see more people like you, because you remind me of the great Democratic massacres of 1980 and 1994, in which my tribe took a great heap of scalps.

Robert:

I agree with you on your points.

I guess the article I posted a link(10/8) to is Harmon's response to your posting about her potential replacement as the head of the committee (9/26).

If my link did not work, just drop the " ?sub=AR" and it works.

As far as my confidence in Pelosi's choice of a replacement I will borrow a slogan from Pelosi's comrades, " not in our name". But that may be too much of an endorsement of a group that I abhor.

Or don't. I'm sort of torn. The sensible, sober, post-9/11 side of me wants to see more people like A.L. in the Democratic party, that discourse may be elevated and petty juvenile politics may be squelched. The old unreconstructed Republican-reptile side of me wants to see more people like you, because you remind me of the great Democratic massacres of 1980 and 1994, in which my tribe took a great heap of scalps.

Good point, while the Dems seem to be delighting in their new chairman Howard “I hate my opponents and everything they stand for” Dean for tossing red meat (or tofu) to the base, Ken Mehlman seems to be working diligently and constructively to not only retaining the Republican majority but expanding it as well.

That being said, I’m still ticked off about the spending and the failure to get entitlement reform enacted even though the GOP is still objectively better than the Democrats on both counts.

The great failure of the Democratic Party is to process 9/11 and realize that the electorate wants results: a. get those responsible; b. see to it that it never happens again.

In response the Dem base was organizing protest marches in the dust of the WTC; "our grief is not a cry for war," folks from Joe Biden to Michael Moore felt military action against Afghanistan was a crime and we needed more of the same bipartisan failure (ignoring or "talking" the problem away) that was rejected on 9/11.

Bush at least minimally responded to this need in the electorate; while Dems offer ... more law enforcement in foreign countries? At worst this rises to Bill Clinton brushing aside FBI requests to press the Saudis and hitting them up instead for donations. At best we get marginal players extradited to face pretty minimal charges at home, and slap-on-the-wrist sentences in places like Spain and Germany.

WHAT policy have Dems articulated against the challenge of Al Qaeda and the global jihadist movement intent on establishing the Caliphate?

Promising to mobilize the nation, build up a whacking great Army, and go get bin Laden wherever and as a plus wreck Iranian and/or Pakistani nukes would at least be different from Reps and look responsive to the problem. Rolling out a defined policy of strategic nuclear elimination of any state complicit in a nuclear attack on the US (explicitly naming Iran and Pakistan) would at least be different. Proposing a crash-program to go bio diesel and promise a policy of "first strike" against nations aiding or harboring terrorists against us aimed at killing the regime would at least be different. Instead I just see pandering to anti-War elements and repeating the Nixon-Clinton failed policy of ignoring terrorism that's steadily increasing against us. Like Reps in 1992 unable to cut themselves off from Pat Buchanon's Kultur Kampf (who cared about Murphy Brown's baby?) Dems are beholden to their cultural issues based on 1968.

Yeah, I'm gonna have to agree with Parrot? on this one - this post is exceedingly weak tea.

I can understand AL cutting back on posting during family emergencies and the like, but given the deluge of substantive issues lately - everything from Katrina to Harriet Meiers to Tom DeLay to the number of Iraqi battalions capable of acting independently dropping from three to one (something I don't think I've seen anybody comment on here at WoC, incidentally) - harping on something like this just seems petty and pointless.

Actually, after recently reviewing most of Armed Liberal's posts over the past year, I have to ask why he still has "Liberal" as part of his name. This isn't meant as an insult - he's free to call himself whatever he wants. But in all seriousness, I'm not sure I've seen the man post one thing that could be considered even vaguely leftist in recent months. And for all his talk of wanting to reshape the Democratic party, the vast majority of his posts look more like partisan attacks than constructive criticism. (Yes, even the post referencing Obama's stuff over at DK.)

I really do think if AL's gonna talk (exclusively!) like a moderate conservative, that's what he should call himself.

And Glen, remarks like your response to Parrot? are just ignorant: 1980 had far more to do with Reagan's charisma and optimistic appeal than any weakness of the Democratic party as a whole (keeping in mind that Carter was just one man), while the problem in 1994 was simply that turnout was extremely low for everyone except PO'd Republicans. And crowing about 1994 especially may come back to haunt you, given what the trends look like for the '06 midterms...

Chris: "1980 had far more to do with Reagan's charisma and optimistic appeal than any weakness of the Democratic party ..."

1980 was the end of an era for the Democratic Party. An entire generation of old liberals were wiped out: George McGovern, Frank Church, Warren Magnuson, Birch Bayh. All of the big left-liberals (except Ted Kennedy) with 20+ years in the Senate - in the case of Magnuson, more than 30 - went crashing down. We're talking catastrophic change.

Granted Reagan had lots of charisma, but any party that has such an allergic reaction to charisma might be thought of as having some sort of weakness.

Chris,

...to the number of Iraqi battalions capable of acting independently dropping from three to one (something I don't think I've seen anybody comment on here at WoC, incidentally)

Perhaps you should check out this Winds of Change front page post by Murdoc (from October 5th) if you're actually interested in this topic. It was a timely, direct discussion of the situation. You probably won't like the tone, though, as it's written by someone competent in the subject who actually looked into the facts of the matter and didn't fall for the media's this-is-a-disaster spin.

Actually, after recently reviewing most of Armed Liberal's posts over the past year, I have to ask why he still has "Liberal" as part of his name. This isn't meant as an insult - he's free to call himself whatever he wants. But in all seriousness, I'm not sure I've seen the man post one thing that could be considered even vaguely leftist in recent months.

If you don't understand why he calls himself "Liberal" even though he doesn't post the usual leftist talking points, I'd suggest you didn't "review[] most of [his] posts over the past year" very closely.

Gosh, guys - I hate to disaappoint everyone. But let me make a simple point; it's going to take the votes of folks like me to win in 06 and 08.

I'm madly unhappy with a bunch of things Bush has done and is doing. (Miers? Come on...)

So why not take a break from vilifying me and see if you can come up with a way to win me over?

Note: a prominent liberal friend has just written two columns thrashing various GOP organs here in CA and nationally.

I emailed him, and bet two good bottles that a) the Arnie Initiatives would bat at least .500 in November, and b) that the D's would pick up at most one or two seats in Congress in 06.

He took the first bet and rejected the second one...

...so you've got that going for you...

A.L.

Re: Jane Harmon et al.

Isn't the Dems' even bigger problem that their "wise men" themselves have so little credibility on this stuff, having sold it on Clinton and the Kerry campaign?

When I read that Holbrooke is headlining this attempt to repair Democratic foreign policy, I'm more appalled than assured.

We know we will win in 2006 and 2008. Clinton saved the country with his patented welfare reform and budget surplus. Only the Clintons and their people can save the country again from the adventurism that is alienating our allies in Europe and the muslim world. The Clintons can't lose, now that we've had eight years of bronco busting administration.

Someone has a good point. The Democrat Party has the bureaucratic equivalent of atherosclerosis. There isn't any new blood or ideas rolling around the Dem intelligensia, and there won't be as long as the grey beards sit athwart it screaming "STOP!"

Case example, Bob Shrum, how many elections has he won recently?

Please. "People like you"?? It would be doom for any party to try to design a platform to appeal to mushy headed pseudo-partisans.

"So why not take a break from vilifying me and see if you can come up with a way to win me over?"

I guess we can add "attention starved" to your psychological profile. Thanks for helping to further elucidate your role in the blogosphere, and explain why you post here pretending to be a Liberal.

And please, don't think of this as "vilification". I would view it more as free career counselling.

And here's a free one for you: Another great idea to help Dems get elected...how about if we simply try to count all the votes in Florida or Ohio next time? That would have put a Dem in the WH in both 2000 and 2004.

So, if you're really serious about a Dem ascendency (which I think you are not), THAT should be your focus. Not all the claptrap you purvey in this Red forum that is supposed to help Dems.

Parrot

Ah yes, if they had just counted the votes fairly. Except in Florida the vote was to close to call, in the properly filled out ballots Bush won by 500 odd votes. And then depending on how someone divined the intent of a voter either to stupid or to lazy to fill out the ballot correctl, either Bush ir Gore won depending on what "standards" were used. And since the national popular vote was about separated by about 500,000 votes out of a 100 million cast, that his pretty close as well. In ohio the difference was 124,000 votes. No matter how you slice it, Kerry wasn't going to win that. And lets say he did win by 1000 votes. He still lost the popular vote by 3 million, so I guess he would have been "selected not elected". Then we can begin to discuss the fraud in Wisconsin. Dems stole that state. So please Parrot, crawl beneath your rock. AL has asked for reasons to vote for your candidates. You have none.

AL:

Gosh, guys - I hate to disaappoint everyone. But let me make a simple point; it's going to take the votes of folks like me to win in 06 and 08.

I'm madly unhappy with a bunch of things Bush has done and is doing. (Miers? Come on...)

So why not take a break from vilifying me and see if you can come up with a way to win me over?

AL - I don't think I was vilifying you. As I said, you're perfectly free to call yourself what you want, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with being a conservative: I just think people who are should be honest about it. (See also Miller, Zell.)

But for someone who's "madly unhappy" with things Bush has done, here's the thing - you never, ever talk about it. Half the crew of the freakin' National Review has been more critical of Bush on every political front than you, the nominal "liberal", have. I dunno, maybe you are just waiting for the right Democratic candidate to come along and sweep you off your feet, but judging purely from the tone of your recent public writings, it'll be a cold day in hell before you ever come back to the fold. Put simply, you're holding Democrats to a standard of competence that you're sure as heck not holding Republicans to, and that's a double standard they'll never be able to meet.

And that's ok - it's a free country, and I don't find most conservative arguements particularly indefensible. But I tend to think that the party's better off writing guys like you off entirely, and letting Bush's blatantly obvious incompetence push a whole bunch of independents and disaffected Republicans back over towards the left.

Note: a prominent liberal friend has just written two columns thrashing various GOP organs here in CA and nationally.

I emailed him, and bet two good bottles that a) the Arnie Initiatives would bat at least .500 in November, and b) that the D's would pick up at most one or two seats in Congress in 06.

He took the first bet and rejected the second one...

...so you've got that going for you...

Ok, well, I'll surely keep the experience of your anonymous anecdote in mind. (And hey, your friend wouldn't have happened to mention that gerrymandering (yes, done by both parties) is gonna make it real hard for anybody to change the electoral balance in congress, no matter how public opinion shifts?)

Shad:

Perhaps you should check out this Winds of Change front page post by Murdoc (from October 5th) if you're actually interested in this topic. It was a timely, direct discussion of the situation. You probably won't like the tone, though, as it's written by someone competent in the subject who actually looked into the facts of the matter and didn't fall for the media's this-is-a-disaster spin.

I stand corrected, then. But you're fooling yourself if you think Murdoc's post didn't have at least as much spin as the "media" - it's simply pointless to pretend that relying on US support and logistics units is somehow leagues better than having to fight alongside US combat troops, too. But hey, if it makes you feel better in the meantime to snipe at me, have at it.

If you don't understand why he calls himself "Liberal" even though he doesn't post the usual leftist talking points, I'd suggest you didn't "review[] most of [his] posts over the past year" very closely.

Actually, I think I did. Random quotes about "protecting the weak against the powerful" aside (which tend to be immediately undercut by calls for "4th generation" policies that magically solve these problems without, y'know, actually doing anything about them) there's just no there there. But if you want to actually point out some concrete examples yourself rather than just questioning my reading skills, have at it.

Here is proposal from Andrew M Sullivan on how a strong party influences events to the consternation of the other party. Using Miers is a good start but I would recommend not voting for her while all the while smiling in there face about what a great pick she is.

Orginalism as a doctrine is inherently racist, sexist and backward looking. I relish fighting this idea.

Here is proposal from Andrew M Sullivan on how a strong party influences events to the consternation of the other party:http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_09_dish_archive.html#112923801516134038
Using Miers is a good start but I would recommend not voting for her while all the while smiling in their face about what a great pick she is.

Orginalism as a doctrine is inherently racist, sexist and backward looking. I relish fighting this idea.

"But I tend to think that the party's better off writing guys like you off entirely, and letting Bush's blatantly obvious incompetence push a whole bunch of independents and disaffected Republicans back over towards the left.

Beautifully put! And the last word needed on this subject in this clearly bitter, hostile and quickly evaporating subculture of Right Wing confusion and anger.

Parrot: "... this clearly bitter, hostile and quickly evaporating subculture of Right Wing confusion and anger."

I don't get it. What does the Cato Institute have to do with this?

[That was a joke, Cato fans. Just a joke, okay?]

Orginalism as a doctrine is inherently racist, sexist and backward looking. I relish fighting this idea.

Excuse me but there is no credible evidence that Bush lied about anything. Its just the fever swampers masturbating.

A left-wing poll, fixed to get the result they want, is not news. Its propaganda.

RA says..

"Excuse me but there is no credible evidence that Bush lied about anything. Its just the fever swampers masturbating."

Reality says..

"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations."

But AL, your cry of vilification is even sillier than the post itself.

RA says..

"Excuse me but there is no credible evidence that Bush lied about anything. Its just the fever swampers masturbating."

Reality says..

"The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.

"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.

"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations."

But AL, your cry of vilification is even sillier than the post itself.

As to the word Liberal in your moniker, one needn't be a liberal to be disgusted with this administration. And I seriously doubt that roughly 60% of Americans consider themselves Liberal.