Chicago Business Daily

Is it a good political strategy for the Democrats to pick a fight with seniors? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPv726PGh8U http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_gr6l2BhE4 The elites are calling Grandma & Grandpa racists!

Are Democrats charging Tea party with Racism purely as a political strategy? Apparently so, even though they admit there is NO evidence that the Tea Party is any more racist than any other group...so why keep spreading the lie? excerpt... Mary Frances Berry admitted this at the Politico: Professor of American Social Thought and History, U. Penn. : Tainting the tea party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats. There is no evidence that tea party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness. And, there you have it. Democrats are flinging the r-word as a political maneuver. We all knew it. Now they admit it. http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/prominent-black-activist-admits-brandind-tea-party-racist-is-effective-tool-for-naacp-democrats/ LIBERALS! Aren't you going to denounce this liberal professor and ex Govt worker for helping to spread these lies about another political group? I thought you guys fought against racism and prejudice

Are the Democrats terrible about political strategy? Democrats on the hill are "blaming" Bush for the war in Iraq. But most Democrats voted to invade four years ago. Shouldn't Democrats be more saying the war was won, and justified, and only the incompetence of Rumsfield, Cheney, and Bush later led to the collapse of Iraq, This way they are being stong; not being hypocritical; and, frankly, more correct than the current mushy stance that must rely on the public's amnesia?

When are Democrats going to modify their 'blame bush' political strategy to include their own accomplishments? Obviously blaming Bush worked for Democrats in 2006. It worked again in 2008. But it would seem (despite all indications to the contrary) Democrats think they can use this strategy ONE MORE TIME. Do you think the American public is going to buy a 'blame bush' message from a party that has been in control of Congress for 4 years now?? http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/pelosi-we-can-stop-blaming-bush-when-the-problems-go-away.php In an interview on MSNBC this morning, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi mentioned that the root of the financial crisis lies in the policies of the Bush administration. So, reporter Chuck Todd asked whether voters would tire of hearing Pelosi and her party blame today's problems on the last president. "When do you feel like that runs out with the public?" Todd asked. "It runs out when the problems go away," Pelosi said. proud left..........."4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq" Perhaps in their dreams Democrats believe they did this. But in REALITY, it hasn't happened yet. "25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying" You mean that same program that failed miserably?? lol "51. Lower drug costs for seniors" WOW. Cutting a backroom deal with PhRMA is not exactly lowering drug costs. lol "9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible" LOL Have you been watching this administration?? "10. Limits on lobbyist’s access to the White House" WTF are you smoking?? He has as many exceptions to his no lobbyist rules as he does rules. What a joke.

What is the democrats strategy for winning in November? Please let me preface this by saying I don't have an affiliation with any political party in particular. This is a bi-partisan question. It seems to me that the Democrats have absolutly no strategy or idea about what they are going to do when they retake control of Congress... except impeach Bush. Does this seem unethical to anyone? Regardless of your opinions on Bush, shouldn't a party gain power based upon their plans to implement new, better policy rather than their talking points about how stupid the current administration is?

What's worse, spying to determine a political strategy, or arming an enemy with weapons? Was Watergate, bugging democrat offices to determine political strategy, worse than clinton sending missile guidance systems via loral space and bernie schwartz to china? which are now used on nuke tipped missiles currently pointed at us(as well as on iranian missiles via china and north korea)for campaign cash in 1996? i noticed neither of you brainwashed commie socialist morons answer the question directly but as usual used the insane tactic of diversion to another topic. typical. liberalism clearly is a mental disorder.

When will the Democrat's racial division, political strategy end? Im a former moderate democrat who left over democrats calling everyone who was against them as being racist. I did not want to associate myself with such uncivil people.

Is the new political strategy working in Iraq? It would appear Americans do not think the democrats in Congress know what they are doing. What do you think? 62% of Americans disapprove of the Democrats handling of Iraq, while only 37% approve (ABC News/Washington Post, 4/12-15, 2007). At 62% they might not have control of the congress today, do wonder if Americans feel cheated?

According to the following news article, are the Clintons succeeding at their 2012 political strategy? YAHOO NEWS Republicans shed 'underdog' status in White House race According to an Associated Press-Yahoo! News poll, John McCain has attracted disgruntled GOP voters, independents and even some moderate Democrats to pull even with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. http://news.yahoo.com/

Why are Democrats mad at Bush for giving free health care to those that need it? Late last week, the Bush administration announced plans to curb the practice of states putting already-insured and non-needy children on the rolls of a federal program that subsidizes health insurance for uninsured and needy children. Democrats were outraged. “This is a political attempt by the administration to try to intimidate states,” Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) told the Washington Post. The Democratic Congress had just passed two versions of a bill to let states expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to children in families making three and even four times the federal poverty level ($60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four). With his new rules and his veto threats against their bill, President Bush is spoiling their plans. But aside from the feigned outrage always involved in politics, why are Democrats be so unhappy about dedicating federal money only to those who need it, and not to those who don’t? In most parts of the United States, a family of four making $60,000 is doing pretty well and doesn’t need a handout or even a “hand up.” The answer is that Democrats in Congress do not just want the government to cover the needy and uninsured. They want to legislate incrementally until they have established universal or near-universal taxpayer-funded coverage, beginning with children. This is not the paranoid idea of a few conservatives, but a plan outlined in an April 9, 1993, memo from Hillary Clinton’s health-care task force. The memo, which became public later only thanks to lawsuits forcing sunshine rules on the task force, was previously mentioned in a Washington Times report ten years ago, when the SCHIP program was first created. The memo describes three possible methods of implementing universal health coverage. The first two involve a state-by-state phase-in of plans that involve state and federal government funds and employer mandates for the working uninsured. But “Option 3” would have implemented a similar program by population group, beginning with children and expanding from there. The proposed name for the program, Kids First, had deeper meaning than one might suspect: it was the front end of a plan that would later cover everyone. The memo states that: Part I Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with States given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures. Part II of this proposal involves the development of purchasing cooperative (PC) structures and the actual phase-in of all other population groups within the PC system. The memo also laid out a timeline: By January 1995, all employers were to be mandated to purchase health insurance for their employees’ children. By July 1997, all employers would have been required to purchase health plans for the employees themselves. By January 1998, self-insured adults would have been required to buy policies under the same “purchasing cooperative” structure. The state would then roll into the system children on other government programs besides Kids First, and then perhaps even “early retirees with benefits.” This grand plan never came to pass because HillaryCare failed. But although Kids First is different in many ways from SCHIP (which has no employer mandates, for example), the political strategy is the same. It fits perfectly with Democrats’ current legislative attempt to expand the program to wealthier families. It does not fit at all with the Bush administration’s new rules, announced last week. These would, under most circumstances, bar SCHIP for children in families making more than 250 percent of the poverty level (according to 2007 poverty guidelines form the Department of Health and Human Services, that’s a family of four earning $51,625 a year). The administration’s new rules seem pretty reasonable — even tame. They would make states insure 95 percent of poor children (below 200 percent of the poverty level) before diverting their federal grants on the middle class (above 250 percent). Critics note that no state has put 95 percent of its uninsured children on SCHIP, but this would suggest that states have failed their mission, not that they should start giving handouts to people who can easily insure their own children. In order to prevent non-needy families and their employers from dropping private coverage and putting children on the dole, the administration will also require non-needy children to be uninsured for a year before they are eligible for SCHIP. If the income threshold for SCHIP already sounds high for a family of four, it is more so for larger families. My father provided a pretty good life to our family of seven on his comfortable but modest university professor’s salary. He says he never even thought of going on welfare — but maybe he should have. Even Bush’s new “draconian” SCHIP rules would have allowed all five of us kids to go on government health insurance, as long as Dad was making $77,725 or less. The Democrats’ plan would have covered us all on a $93,000 salary, or even (had we lived in New York State) $124,000! (I have trouble imagining my own mother as a six-figure welfare queen.) The Democrats’ SCHIP outrage, while perhaps politically savvy (who could oppose insuring children?), has nothing to do with the real problem of those poor and uninsured. There are several ways the government could make insurance affordable — President Bush has proposed a generous health-insurance tax deduction, and others have proposed a repeal or circumvention of burdensome state0insurance mandates that massively inflate prices. But the Democrats’ expansion of SCHIP into the middle class is not a solution to any existing problem. It is welfare for those already faring well, and with an eye toward expanding government in the future.

Why are Democrats still in favor of a cut and run strategy in Iraq? Why is Nancy Pelosi refusing to allow the Presidents military funding a chance for a vote, does she hate America that much, that she would STARVE hundreds of our troops for political points.

Is Political Strategy and Manipulation Ethical? I've had two people tell me now that a career of political strategy is unethical when one values helping society raise it's consciousness as a whole, and would like individuals to feel more empowered. This is very important because political strategy is my career choice, and that's part of my belief system. In political strategy, I would use appeals to many emotions, including guilt, fear, and anger, in order to achieve the objective of electing a candidate. However, I'm personally committed to helping people feel more positive, in daily interaction I enjoy encouraging people in everything that they do. These two people would say that I'm a hypocrite, and that I would be contributing to the problem of people in society vibrating at a lower state of consciousness. But...I don't know. Am I a hypocrite? Is it impossible to have both those goals? I think I'm simply interested in the manipulation of emotional states, and the effects of pairing objects with them. I notice how you can control or change a person's behavior simply by changing their emotions. I can use this manipulation in positive and negative ways. As a political strategist, however, I would simply be doing this from an academic perspective. My goals would be mundane and innocent -- the election of a candidate. The persuasive appeals I would make as a political strategist would do nothing more than pair a negative (or positive) emotion, such as fear (or happiness), with a specific object, such as terrorism while a Democrat is in office. An appeal like this, I think, would not have any effect on the state of consciousness of a person. What do you think? Would work in political strategy contribute to the lowering of consciousness in society? Is it Ethical? Is it unethical to manipulate a person, even in a positive way? Do we have the right to step into the boundary of free will?

Do democrats label conservatives racist to gain black votes? http://video.foxnews.com/v/4159536/democrats-use-racism-as-political-strategy/?playlist_id=86923 Please no ranting on the source of the video...

Democrats: Do you believe the Democratic candidates are using the war in Iraq as a political tool? to gain votes? Do you think this is a wise strategy? Do you believe it's working? Are you confident that the candidates who are promising that they will end the war in Iraq will come through time efficiently? I will tell you want I think later on.

What do you think of the Dems new political strategy....forget governing, try to drive wedge btw GOP/Tea Party? This seems like another disaster waiting to happen (Dems are proving themselves quite capable of political fk ups recently).........What do you think?? http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31991.html “Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical — yet time-sensitive — opportunity for Democratic candidates,” the DSCC writes. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.” The memo urges Democratic candidates to force their opponents to answer a series of questions on health care, taxes and some of the favorite causes of the far right: “Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen? Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards? Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place? Do you think President Obama is a socialist? Do you think America should return to a gold standard?” If a Republican candidate says no to any of the questions, the memo says Democrats should “make their primary opponent or conservative activists know it. This will cause them to take heat from their primary opponents and could likely provoke a flip-flop, as it already has several times with Mark Kirk in Illinois.” tall green alien...........So the Democratic strategy is call the Tea Partiers "morons". That will work about as well as calling them "unAmerican" don't you think?? (Remember how it backfired miserably....)

With two wars going strong; Where are the anti-war protesters? Could it be that anti-war protests were more about Bush. Now that a Democrat is in office, nobody cares a bit about the soldiers or “innocent people” being killed in the middle east. I think sympathy and concern for those people were fake from the get go and little more than a political strategy for democrat victory. Why do you former anti-war protesters shy away from denouncing Obama’s participation in what you once called “an illegal war”. Will you call for Obama to face war crime charges as you call Bush to?

Is the Democrats new "strategy" really to blur the line between GOP and Rush Limbaugh? This would explain why there are so many Rush Limbaugh questions: IT'S THE DEMOCRATS PREFERRED METHOD OF DISTRACTION. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090304/pl_politico/19596 "Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House. " (notice that keyword "believe".....Democrats do a lot of that now) spirish............I'm not a member of the G.O.P...........I'm just wondering why Democrats have reduced themselves to such petty nonsense (I mean they ARE IN POWER)

Why do Democrats consider the "Southern Strategy" of the 1960's to be racist - when it was anything but? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" ...

Is the American political spectrum broken? One of the major problems in American political consciousness today comes from a misrepresentation of the political spectrum. This is partly the result of a deliberate effort to put all of America's enemies (fascists and communists) into the same basket after World War II, and a deliberate effort by the American "Right" to classify everything that they oppose as "Leftist". After World War II the Republican Party was struggling for survival and was in the process of reinventing itself. Part of the political strategy of some Republicans was to portray the Democratic Party of Truman and Franklin D. Roosevelt as "Red," thereby associating "Liberalism" with "Socialism". It was a common tactic during the 1950s to accuse Democrats of being "Communists" or "Communist sympathizers", a tactic that worked well during the McCarthy era and has had a lasting impact on how Americans view politics. Full Article: http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm Ghost Rider: I wasn't talking about Obama or Hillary, I was talking about the American Political Spectrum.

Are Democrats admitting their own defeat on Iraq? If victory in Iraq was oversold at the outset, there are now signs that defeat is likewise being oversold today. One of the earliest signs of this was that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said that he could not wait for General David Petraeus’s September report on conditions in Iraq but tried to get an immediate congressional mandate to pull the troops out. Having waited for years, why could he not wait until September for the report by the general who is actually on the ground in Iraq every day? Why was it necessary for politicians in Washington to declare the troop surge a failure from 8,000 miles away? The most obvious answer is that Senator Reid feared that the surge would turn out not to be a failure — and the Democrats had bet everything, including their chances in the 2008 elections, on an American defeat in Iraq. Senator Reid had to preempt defeat before General Petraeus could report progress. The Majority Leader’s failure to get the Senate to do that suggests that not enough others were convinced that declaring failure now was the right political strategy. An optimist might even hope that some of the senators thought it was wrong for the country. Another revealing sign is that the solid front of the mainstream media in filtering out any positive news from Iraq and focusing only on American casualties — in the name of “honoring the troops” — is now starting to show cracks. One of the most revealing cracks has appeared in, of all places, the New York Times, which has throughout the war used its news columns as well as its editorial pages to undermine the war in Iraq and paint the situation as hopeless. But an op-ed piece in the July 30 New York Times by two scholars at the liberal Brookings Institution — Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack — now paints a very different picture, based on their actual investigation on the ground in Iraq after the American troop surge under General Petraeus. It is not a rosy scenario by any means. There are few rosy scenarios in any war. But O’Hanlon and Pollack report some serious progress. “Today,” they report, “morale is high” among American troops and “civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began.” In two cities they visited in northern Iraq “American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate” in providing their own security. “Today,” they say, “in only a few places did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.” In the last six months, O’Hanlon and Pollack report, “Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists.” In Ramadi, where American Marines “were fighting for every yard” of territory just a few months ago, “last week we strolled down the streets without body armor.” Victory is not inevitable, any more than victory was inevitable when American and British troops landed at Normandy in 1945. General Eisenhower even kept in his pocket a written statement taking full responsibility in the event of failure. But victory is not even defined the same way in Iraq as it was in World War II. American troops do not need to stay in Iraq until the last vestige of terrorism has been wiped out. The point when it is safe to begin pulling out is the point when the Iraqi military and police forces are strong enough to continue the fight against the terrorists on their own. That point depends on how much and how long the current progress continues, not on how much the Democrats or their media allies need an American defeat before the 2008 election. O’Hanlon and Pollack warn that “the situation in Iraq remains grave” but conclude that “there is enough good happening in Iraq that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.” But 2008 may have an entirely different significance for politicians than for these Brookings scholars.

what was the southern strategy employeed in the 1960s by the nixon administration? where did this idea come from to convert dixiecrats (southern democrats) to vote republican? how did it affect the political landscape after the 1960s?

Can you democrats just stop with this Third George Bush term crap? It's going to be a failed campaign strategy to attach McCain to Bush in every way. The truth is, most Americans knew about McCain long before GWB ever entered the scene. McCain has his own "brand" and amateur political ploys like "3rd Bush Term" don't appear to be resonating with independents, only Democratic loyalists.

Are repubs going through the same withdrawal that dems underwent from 1968-2006 b/c of the Southern Strategy? Let me rephrase because of lack of space. "Do you think that Republicans are going through the same flaw in the American Electorate that Democrats went through because of over reliance of the "Southern Strategy"?" Furthermore by relying on this strategy has the republican national party allowed the democratic national party to grab many other key factors in the American electorate. Lastly what would you do if given the task to expand the party? Which demographic would you target and why? Would you expand? Why or why not? (Btw these aren't HW questions. Just came up with them I want to know what would be your political strategy. Lastly what do you think of the questions lol) (Asked this in elections that section is not as active as politics is xD) Joe and Jim thanks you understood what I was asking. I'm not being demonizing in any sense. Just a purely political strategy question.

A question for political pundits regarding Democratic candidates for nomination...? If both of the Democratic candidates for Presidential nomination announced they would, and then chose a middle-of the-road Republican person for their VP running-mate, would it be possible to accomplish a definite Democratic win in the fall? It seems the Democrats would all vote for one of he Democrats, and the more liberal Republicans may be swayed tro the Democratic side by Clinton (Republican women & Hispanic voters) or Obama (Republican African-American and younger or more liberal voters). Wouldn't that be a good political strategy to get a Democratic President into the White House, with strong bipartisan support for the Administration from Congress, for the next 4-8 years??

Did Obama basically admit Democrats watered down their own healthcare bill with this statement? Apparently "behind closed doors" (the place where the healthcare bill was written) is where industry lobbyists (ie PhRMA etc.) do their magic and "water down" what is supposed to be reform legislation. What do you think?? Did Obama admit Democrats watered down their own reform bill?? If not, why was it ok to craft healthcare "reform" behind closed doors but not financial "reform"?? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100426/ap_on_bi_ge/us_financial_overhaul Following the vote, the president said he was "deeply disappointed" and urged Senators to put the interests of the country ahead of party. "Some of these senators may believe that this obstruction is a good political strategy, and others may see delay as an opportunity to take this debate behind closed doors, where financial industry lobbyists can water down reform or kill it altogether," Obama said in a statement. "But the American people can't afford that."

Isn't it obvious that Health Care Reform for Republicans is completely political? This version that passed is very central. There is no public option. It clearly states against gov't funds to pay for abortion. The CBO found that it's fiscally responsible and will lower our national debt over the next few years. It helps corporate America by bringing in 30 million more customers to the insurance industry. In fact, it sounds very much like a bill that Republicans would love to vote for. Doesn't it? I personally felt that Democrats conceded too much and wished that there were more sweeping changes but whatever. So why are Republicans so adamantly against it? Hmmm, could it have anything to do with the fact that their main and most important political strategy is to have Obama fail in this his most important political referendum? Oops, that didn't go so well. And why are Conservatives on Y!A so against it? Could it have anything to do with the fact that they believe and follow whatever FOX news tells them, because FOX news is the propoganda machine for Republicans and Conservatives and they want Obama to fail and are perfectly okay with twisting facts, misrepresenting and blatantly lying about the facts of this Health Care bill and the Conservatives that watch their programming are so blinded by their hatred of Obama that they are so easily willing to neglect the facts that are sitting right in front of their face?

Will Democrats run FOR something instead of AGAINST something? Hillary Clinton incontestably spoke the truth about the Iraq war this past February at the annual meeting of the Democratic National Committee when she said, “I understand the frustration and outrage, (but) you have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding, to do anything.” She heard a smattering of boos for enunciating a simple fact of life in the Senate. The Left of the Democratic party didn’t want to hear it, and it forced the Democratic leadership of Congress and the Democratic presidential candidates — eventually including Clinton herself — to act in contravention of this reality, to the party’s serious detriment. There is a limit to how much Democrats can hurt themselves on the war. No matter what they do, the war is still unpopular and a net drag on Republicans. Nonetheless, Democrats have helped drive the approval levels of Congress down to historic lows and suffered an enormous opportunity cost. Throughout this past year, they could have seized the broad middle in the debate concerning the war. They could have worked with a slice of moderate Republicans on legislation that wouldn’t have forced an end to the war, but made them the representatives of a bipartisan alternative to Bush’s strategy. Instead they talked of ending the war outright, positioning themselves to the left of the public and setting themselves an unattainable goal. Thus, they became the party of the impotent left-wingers. They fell victim to all the same dreary failings of overreaching congressional Republicans after their takeover of Congress in 1994 — hubris, self-delusion, and a slavish devotion to their political base. They made a hard timetable for withdrawal their bottom line when they could have gotten Republicans to support something short of that — say, a bill calling for the implementation of the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. The timetable didn’t have the votes, but Democrats figured that if they forced Republicans to keep voting on it, eventually they’d buckle. This meant the Democratic Congress would be characterized by partisan confrontation leading to ... nothing. At least until such time as Republicans caved, which Democrats considered inevitable. They mistakenly believed the Iraq debate could head in only one direction — theirs. Meanwhile, their base locked them into their strategy. A fear stalks the Democratic party — of the bloggers and activists of groups like MoveOn.org who will punish anyone for departing from the strictest antiwar orthodoxy. August was supposed to be the surge’s Waterloo. Republicans would go home and hear from angry constituents about the war. Antiwar groups would hammer them. But Republicans didn’t hear much about the war. Lawmakers from both parties took trips to Iraq where they saw improving security conditions firsthand, and some Democrats were forthright enough to say so. The table was set for Gen. Petraeus’s September report, which Democrats had convinced themselves would be the war’s final gasp. A few weeks ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even fretted that the administration wouldn’t allow Petraeus to testify publicly. All through the summer, Republicans used Petraeus’s September report as a placeholder — urging that we wait to hear from the general — and when he testified, he made as persuasive a case as possibly could be made for the war. Democrats were wrong-footed. Their all-or-nothing opposition to the war made it impossible for them to digest any good news, so they resorted to ham-handed attacks on the general’s credibility. Even the usually shrewd Rep. Rahm Emanuel — architect of the Democratic takeover of the House — blustered, “We don’t need a report that wins the Nobel Prize for creative statistics or the Pulitzer for fiction.” So, amazingly, President Bush is able to endorse Gen. Petraeus’s recommendation for a conditions-based drawdown in troops from a position of relative strength. Four years into an unpopular, often mishandled war, Democrats are the ones scrambling for a new political strategy. And, as so often happens in politics, they did it to themselves.

Who killed Common Sense? Democrats, Republicans, or political correctness? Mr. Common Sense My parents told me about Mr. Common Sense early in my life and told me I would do well to call on him when making decisions. It seems he was always around in my early years but less and less as time passed by. Today I read his obituary. Please join me in a moment of silence in remembrance, for Common Sense had served us all so well for so many generations. Obituary, Common Sense: Today we mourn the passing of a beloved old friend, Common Sense, who has been with us for many years. No one knows for sure how old he was since his birth records were long ago lost in bureaucratic red tape. He will be remembered as having cultivated such valuable lessons as knowing when to come in out of the rain, why the early bird gets the worm, life isn't always fair, and maybe it was my fault. Common Sense lived by simple, sound financial policies (don't spend more than you earn) and reliable parenting strategies (adults, not children are in charge). His health began to deteriorate rapidly when well intentioned but overbearing regulations were set in place. Reports of a six-year-old boy charged with sexual harassment for kissing a classmate; teens suspended from school for using mouthwash after lunch; and a teacher fired for reprimanding an unruly student, only worsened his condition. Common Sense lost ground when parents attacked teachers for doing the job they themselves failed to do in disciplining their unruly children. It declined even further when schools were required to get parental consent to administer aspirin, sun lotion, or a band aid to a student, but could not inform the parents when a student became pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Common Sense lost the will to live as the Ten Commandments became contraband, churches became businesses, and criminals received better treatment than their victims. Common Sense took a beating when you couldn't defend yourself from a burglar in your own home and the burglar can sue you for assault. Common Sense finally gave up the will to live, after a woman failed to realize that a steaming cup of coffee was hot. She spilled a little in her lap, and was promptly awarded a huge settlement. Common Sense was preceded in death by his parents, Truth and Trust, his wife Discretion; his daughter Responsibility; and his son Reason. He is survived by three stepbrothers; I Know my Rights, Someone Else is to Blame, and I'm a Victim. Not many attended his funeral because so few realized he was gone. If you still remember him, pass this on. If not, join the majority and do nothing.

Why do you think President Obama is advocating for a public option rather than a single payer system? What is the political calculus involved here? What do you think his strategy is? The Democrats control both the House and Senate, and I know that President Obama truly believes in a single payer system. He is too intelligent not to. Why does he not muster the political will to get a single payer system? Having universal access and coverage is a social justice issue plain and simple. I just wish he would champion the cause outright rather than via the public option.

Do the Social Democrats frighten you? Listening to the political debate pre-election the only consistent message is that New Labour and Conservatives are equally incompetent, whilst the Social Democrats have identified our problems and formulated a strategy to overcome them. The others just throw mud. Why is the British electorate so lilly livered when it comes to making up their own mind? Do they prefer the failure they are accustomed to, rather than the prospect of success in change?

Was democrat's health care strategy written in federal-prison? While in prison—or “forced sabbatical,” he called it—Creamer wrote a lengthy political manual, Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007). http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/07/was-democrats-health-care-strategy-written-in-federal-prison/

What's going to happen in November when McCain wins? Will Obama supporters apologise for blindly following someone they know very little about? Will the media apologise for its biased reporting against Hillary? Will the Democrat 'elite' apologise for their sexist and devisive political strategy of letting the first female and first so-called black would-be presidents contest a presidential ticket which is really important at this time?

Why do Democrats now push "trickle down economics"? Democrats have always criticized the Republicans for being so pro-business instead of focusing govt resouces to the people. The Dems say that this is what got us into this mess. Yet now all the democrats are scrambling to give govt money to big corporations because their sucess will trickle down to the people. What happened to helping the people instead of big business, and why are the democrats employing this strategy they previously insisted did not work? Why do we have two competing political parties if their solutions to the problems are the same pro big business attitude? Wouldn't all that money spent do better if given to the people in the form of job retraining and govt. purchasing incitives and tax rebates instead of pouring more money and sweatheart loans into failed businesses and corporations which would be more in line with the democrats principles instead of abandoning those principles which got them elected? I'm reading your answers which are mostly insightful but seem only to defend these policies by giving a new name to the same old corporate welfare

Will the Democrats run the war the correct way? Bush set to announce troop buildup plans By JENNIFER , Associated Press. WASHINGTON - President Bush will tell the nation Wednesday night he will send more than 20,000 additional American forces to Iraq, acknowledging that it was a mistake earlier not to have more American and Iraqi troops fighting the war. Seeking support for a retooled strategy to win support for the unpopular illegal war , the president will acknowledge that the rules of engagement were flawed because certain neighborhoods in Baghdad were put off limits by the government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. "Military operations sometimes were handcuffed by political interference by the Iraqi leadership," he said. Bartlett also said the Iraqis had failed to deliver on earlier pledges to commit more of their troops. "They (the Iraqis) are going to have more boots on the ground," he said. Still, The USA military will still lose like they did in Vietnam.

Why are Democrats actually acting proud to be using Stalinista propaganda tactics? This country is screwed, time to lock and load. Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House. The strategy took shape after Democrats included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise. Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s.

Why do democrats complain about everything, but never have a solution? Democrat Congress Has Failed San Francisco Chronicle, Edward Epstein writing: "Senate Democrats, increasingly restive over the war in Iraq, plan to force a series of votes starting today aimed at either changing the course of President Bush's policy or embarrassing Republican members over their continued support for a war the public has soured on." They've done this over and over and over again, but, "This time, Reid said, things will be different. 'We want there to be change and it should not be a fig leaf,' he said." These things are going to be different this time. "A draft of the interim report," whether the Iraqi government has reached its benchmarks, "circulated Monday among government agencies, concludes that the government in Iraq has met none of its targets for political, economic and other reform, an official who asked not to be identified told the Associated Press. Another report, this one from Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on how Bush's troop-increase strategy is working, is due by Sept. 15. But," as I told you yesterday, Dingy Harry "Reid and the Republican Senate defectors said they don't want to wait until then to change Iraq policy." They don't want to wait until General Petreaus reports in September, for all the obvious reasons. "The strategy of the Republican Senate leadership as Democrats seek votes on anti-war amendments is still not clear." Of course it's not clear because they're undecided what their strategy ought to be. But let me give you a couple realities here, folks, and listen to me on this. Reality number one is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are running Congress and they have been running Congress twice as long as the General Petraeus plan has been in place. Reality number two is that public support for Congress has collapsed. Have you seen the latest polls? I don't care what the president's numbers are. They are what they are. The congressional numbers are even worse. Do we not think, ladies and gentlemen, that it may be time for new leadership in Congress? Perhaps maybe Senator Reid should be replaced and Speaker Pelosi should resign. Congress needs a new direction. Take every argument they're using to get us out of Iraq -- ignore Petraeus, deny his plan, the time to work and so forth -- and turn it around against them. The current leadership of Congress has failed. They've failed to deliver on their promises. They failed to set the country on the right course! They've failed to gain the support of the American people. They're a total political failure. As a matter of fact, during their leadership, Reid and Pelosi, the American people have rejected, overwhelmingly rejected their leadership. Anybody who has lost faith with General Petraeus has to be disgusted with Reid and Pelosi. If the Petraeus leadership can be judged in, what is it, two or three months now, the Reid and Pelosi leadership's had two or three times as much time and has clearly accomplished zilch, zero, nada, nothing, except a whole bunch of political stunts: Armani suits, grandchildren on the knee, a big mallet, 100 hours on the road to nowhere, secondhand smoke legislation, secondhand mirrors, minimum wage, a bunch of chicanery supposedly getting rid of earmarks but not really doing it -- and America gets it. Disapproval of the Reid-Pelosi Congress has collapsed, 37% to 24% after only six months. Well, if we're not even going to give Petraeus the full length of time he was promised and assured, and we're going to pronounce it a failure already and "a collapse of leadership" and there's no political will and support, the Iraqi people haven't met their benchmarks, well, neither the hell have Reid or Pelosi. They haven't met one benchmark. They haven't done one thing. The support for the US Congress in this country has not just plummeted. It has totally collapsed. So using their line of reasoning and thinking, we need new leaders in Congress, and we need them now. The Democrats are the ones that need the new plan and they need the new plan now, folks. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/10/MNGRJQTJLQ1.DTL

Will the American Insurgents stop committing civil disobedience, if Obama wins? The (2) political parties are so polarized, its obvious to anyone who has objectivity, many liberals actively harm the USA, as a strategy to gain political power for their party. We hear and see, every day, liberals going neagtive, wanting our economy to suffer, bordering on treason over the war, supporting any enemy of the USA, attacking corporations (their primary target), its never ending....... Republicans deserve their fair share of criticism but the worst things that republicans have been doing, are acting like democrats- not sealing our borders, spending money like drunken sailors, not reducing government, not promoting a flat tax so everyone pays taxes in proportion to their income, in summary, the worst thing you can say about a republican, sometimes they act like a democrat! If Obama wins, will the liberals who attack our country, routinely, just focus on corporations, to advance socialism OR will they continue to support our enemies and stay "negative"?

Why is ABC broadcasting Political Propaganda? In "The Path to 9/11," ABC has included scenes which are outright fabrications - all of them casting Democrats in a bad light. Why not include scenes casting both parties in a good light, or Republicans in a bad light? Because ABC is not Fair and Balanced, like Fox - that's why. By openly lying about events in the years preceding the attacks, ABC has demonstrated political bias. It's no small coincidence that this is happening in an election year. It's an excellent strategy, one used by propagandists for many years. By cloaking this politicized statement in the guise of "historical fiction", ABC is not required to air opposing viewpoints. In addition, many people will believe this "fiction" to be fact, especially if its false premises are re-enforced by politicized statements under similar guises, such as "entertainment", or "talk show". The Democrats have offered to help ABC correct factual errors in the "fiction", but ABC has thus far refused. Why? Because ABC is engaging in the production of biased political propaganda. They have no intentions of making this production Fair and Balanced, the way Fox would. In the spirit of fairness, the Republicans should also extend a helping hand, since they are just as interested in political integrity and fairness as the Democrats. In addition, they would be protecting their own interests and verifying that the end product is indeed fair to both sides. This is the time for all Americans interested in fair and balanced politics to come forward and assist ABC in getting the story straight. Obviously this is no time for anyone to let political bias affect the truth, so anyone proposing that EITHER side be prevented from helping ABC is unfair and biased. God Bless America. God Bless the Democrats, Republicans, and people of all beliefs. Already I see one response blaming Clinton for everything. When will biased people learn? The Democrats AND Republicans AND people of all other beliefs must come forward to protect the fair and balanced truth. Still more answers using this question as a springboard to complain about the Democrats, whereas I suggested that ALL parties come forward in a fair and balanced spirit to protect the truth, the way Fox News would and the way ABC obviously has no intentions of doing. I'm sorry if this approach offends politically biased responders such as berryv1, but the fair truth is more important than your discomfort at being biased. STILL MISSING THE POINT - another biased response, this one from tkm18. I don't see how even these biased responders can miss the point - this is the time for ALL sides to come forward to protect the unbiased truth. These biased responses, attempting to use this issue as a springboard against the Democrats, are ABSOLUTE PROOF that the truth needs to be protected, and that BOTH Democrats and Republicans need to get involved. It'll be interesting to see how the pundist propagandists from both sides slice and dice this question the way these biased responders have, to highlight only the things that protect their biased interests. When will they learn? Fair and Balanced is the only way.

About those political questionnaires in the mail? You know, the democratic and republicans mail them out to voters to give you an opportunity to tell them whats important to you. You check off how important the various issues are to you, i.e., strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. The ones I receive are from the democrats and they have a question about the war in Iraq. It says: "We were misled by President Bush and his administration into going to war in Iraq. Squandering lives and treasure by launching a preemptive war was a mistake. Further, the administration doesn't have a strategy for ending this quagmire. Diplomatic means should be fully exhausted before committing our country and its people to waging war". And so, the democratic party wants to know our opinion on the war. Democrats could check the box, that they strongly disagree, and still be a democrat. I just wonder if the republican questionnaire's offers the same choice? Or is it a foregone conclusion that all republicans support the war?

Why can't or don't conservatives understand this simple truth......? ....that the Republican Party and their lobbyist are waging a propaganda campaign to paint everything Obama does in the most negative light possible. Solely for the purpose of winning back the congress and the White House. It's sad and pathetic that you Conservatives are falling for this obvious distortion, hook-line and sinker. The fact is EVERY piece of legislation that has ever passed in the history of the US has pros AND cons. What the current strategy by the Right wing is to only focus and comment on the cons of Obama's legislation and ignore and downplay the pros. I understand that both sides of the political spectrum practice this strategy. Democrats and liberals are guilty of this as well, but it seems to me that most of the Conservatives commenting on this site are completely oblivious to this. They actually really think that Obama is the Antichrist, that he is out to bankrupt the country, that he is a socialist or communist or fascist or whatever negative regime there is. It's ridiculous crap! Many of you accuse Obama supporters of "drinking the Kool-aid". Perhaps you should look in the mirror and see whose "kool-aid" you have been drinking. What say you?

Are you one of the 49% that view Rush Limbaugh negatively? The Democracy Corps released results of a public survey on Wednesday that underscores just how astute a political strategy it is for Democrats to tie the Republican Party to Rush Limbaugh. According to the Democratic polling firm, voters view the conservative talk show host "negatively by a two-to-one ratio (53 to 26 percent), with nearly half the country, 45 percent, viewing him very, very negatively. Among independents, the ratio rises to three-to-one." In short, Limbaugh is toxic for the GOP brand. But the findings only get worse from there. "By a nearly two-to-one ratio (57 to 32 percent) a majority of voters -- and independents -- say Limbaugh does not "share their values," but Republicans are in a different world where, by two-to-one, they believe he shares them." "On virtually every question the great majority of the mainstream rejects Limbaugh's ideas and vision of the Republican Party, which severely constrains Republican elected leaders. It does not help that some of the key voters in the 2006 and 2008 elections, like younger voters, are particularly uncomfortable with Limbaugh's politics. Conservative Republican voters, however, embrace Limbaugh, giving him a very high favorability rating; they say he shares their values and urge Republican leaders to defend him when he is criticizing President Obama."

Why have the Democrats Failed? Democrat Congress Has Failed San Francisco Chronicle, Edward Epstein writing: "Senate Democrats, increasingly restive over the war in Iraq, plan to force a series of votes starting today aimed at either changing the course of President Bush's policy or embarrassing Republican members over their continued support for a war the public has soured on." They've done this over and over and over again, but, "This time, Reid said, things will be different. 'We want there to be change and it should not be a fig leaf,' he said." These things are going to be different this time. "A draft of the interim report," whether the Iraqi government has reached its benchmarks, "circulated Monday among government agencies, concludes that the government in Iraq has met none of its targets for political, economic and other reform, an official who asked not to be identified told the Associated Press. Another report, this one from Iraq commander Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker on how Bush's troop-increase strategy is working, is due by Sept. 15. But," as I told you yesterday, Dingy Harry "Reid and the Republican Senate defectors said they don't want to wait until then to change Iraq policy." They don't want to wait until General Petreaus reports in September, for all the obvious reasons. "The strategy of the Republican Senate leadership as Democrats seek votes on anti-war amendments is still not clear." Of course it's not clear because they're undecided what their strategy ought to be. But let me give you a couple realities here, folks, and listen to me on this. Reality number one is that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are running Congress and they have been running Congress twice as long as the General Petraeus plan has been in place. Reality number two is that public support for Congress has collapsed. Have you seen the latest polls? I don't care what the president's numbers are. They are what they are. The congressional numbers are even worse. Do we not think, ladies and gentlemen, that it may be time for new leadership in Congress? Perhaps maybe Senator Reid should be replaced and Speaker Pelosi should resign. Congress needs a new direction. Take every argument they're using to get us out of Iraq -- ignore Petraeus, deny his plan, the time to work and so forth -- and turn it around against them. The current leadership of Congress has failed. They've failed to deliver on their promises. They failed to set the country on the right course! They've failed to gain the support of the American people. They're a total political failure. As a matter of fact, during their leadership, Reid and Pelosi, the American people have rejected, overwhelmingly rejected their leadership. Anybody who has lost faith with General Petraeus has to be disgusted with Reid and Pelosi. If the Petraeus leadership can be judged in, what is it, two or three months now, the Reid and Pelosi leadership's had two or three times as much time and has clearly accomplished zilch, zero, nada, nothing, except a whole bunch of political stunts: Armani suits, grandchildren on the knee, a big mallet, 100 hours on the road to nowhere, secondhand smoke legislation, secondhand mirrors, minimum wage, a bunch of chicanery supposedly getting rid of earmarks but not really doing it -- and America gets it. Disapproval of the Reid-Pelosi Congress has collapsed, 37% to 24% after only six months. Well, if we're not even going to give Petraeus the full length of time he was promised and assured, and we're going to pronounce it a failure already and "a collapse of leadership" and there's no political will and support, the Iraqi people haven't met their benchmarks, well, neither the hell have Reid or Pelosi. They haven't met one benchmark. They haven't done one thing. The support for the US Congress in this country has not just plummeted. It has totally collapsed. So using their line of reasoning and thinking, we need new leaders in Congress, and we need them now. The Democrats are the ones that need the new plan and they need the new plan now, folks. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/10/MNGRJQTJLQ1.DTL

Are Republicans trying to divide and conquer the Democrats? Gender vs Race? In politics and sociology, divide and rule (derived from Latin divide et impera) (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination of political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Democrats will spend the next 24 hours acting out what their staffers have referred to as a “publicity stunt.” While Republicans focus on the dangers posed by al Qaeda in Iraq, our long-term national-security interests in the Persian Gulf, and the warnings that the United Nations and the Baker-Hamilton Commission are issuing on the potential consequences of withdrawal, Democrats will spend the next 24 hours acting out what their staffers have referred to as a “publicity stunt.” They are staging a modern-day version of Jimmy Stewart’s round-the-clock filibuster from Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to wear down opponents of a firm deadline for withdrawal. The only problem: They are, in effect, filibustering their own bill. For people who might be scratching their heads, a little background. Yesterday Republicans asked that a 60-vote threshold be used for a vote on the Levin Amendment to the defense-authorization bill. The Levin Amendment is a controversial proposal calling for withdrawal from Iraq by April, and the standard procedure for amendments like it has always been the 60-vote threshold. As the Democratic majority leader said earlier this year: “In the Senate it’s always been the case you need 60 votes.” So why the theatrics? Democrats are feeling the heat from the antiwar base that gave them the majority in both Houses of Congress last November. Meanwhile, President Bush offered his own change of course. He announced a new Iraq strategy in January to deploy several additional brigades to Baghdad and battalions to Anbar province. By securing the capital, he said, American and allied troops would have a good shot at tamping down sectarian violence and creating the conditions for political progress that everyone says are needed to create stability in Iraq. The president chose General David Petraeus to lead the mission, and Senate Democrats confirmed him by a unanimous vote. The president’s new plan was devised in consultation with America’s top military commanders in Iraq and the Iraqi prime minister. And it had the backing of a co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, James Baker, who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January that they should give the strategy a shot: “The general that you confirmed the other day, 81 to nothing, this is his idea,” Baker said of General Petraeus. “He’s the supporter of it. He’s now the commander on the ground in Iraq. Give it a chance.” Yet despite this plea, Senate Democrats declared the surge a failure before it began. Senator Barack Obama spoke for many in his caucus when he said in January, “The president’s strategy will not work.” So it surprised no one that soon after confirming General Petraeus, Democrats repeatedly tried to pass a bill that would have limited the General’s mission. Their only claim to success was a bill that funded the mission they claimed to oppose. And even that took more than three months to pass before being vetoed by the president because of language that set a date for withdrawal. In response to the veto, Democrats resubmitted the vetoed funding bill without the timeline, infuriating their antiwar base and setting up this week’s debate — and the threat of a bad Jimmy Stewart impersonation. Not coincidentally, today’s stunt was announced in conjunction with an antiwar protest on the Capitol grounds. The real question, of course, is not who’s in the driver’s seat of the Democratic strategy for Iraq. It’s why Democrats would allow themselves to pull a self-described publicity stunt like this in the first place on an issue as serious as the war. Democrats seem to have forgotten that they voted 80 to 14 to give General Petraeus until September to report on the strategy they sent him to Iraq to complete. That was the framework we agreed to, and signed into law, for the conduct of this debate. But then, they voted to send General Petraeus to Iraq even as they declared his mission a failure. Our troops and our top military commander deserve better. At the very least they should be able to expect that we will stick with our pledge to give General Petraeus until September to report back on progress and the law which a majority of the Senate voted for in May. This war, and its potential consequences, are too serious for anything less. Our enemies aren’t threatened by talk-a-thons, and our troops deserve better than publicity stunts.

Will the Democrats take the time to listen to General Petraeus’s report,? As General David Petraeus prepares to deliver a progress report on the troop increases in Iraq to Congress at a hearing on Monday, the Washington spin machine has gone into overdrive trying to frame the latest “reality” coming out of Iraq. Despite tens of millions of dollars having been spent on advertising and targeted campaigns by liberal groups like Moveon.org, the incessant cries to precipitously retreat and withdraw from Iraq are now being overshadowed by reports showing some positive results and undeniable progress. It began with Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack’s trip to Iraq in July. The one-time war critics wrote in the New York Times that military progress is creating greater stability on the ground in Iraq. The anticipation of General Patraeus’ upcoming report on the developments in Iraq has sparked a new flame of optimism that the Democrats are having fits trying to ignore and spin, culminating just this week with Katie Couric reporting from Iraq about the “substantial progress” being made there. While there is no doubt that mistakes have been made in Iraq, the reasons to be cautiously optimistic today are evident — at least for those that are willing to see them and understand that a different strategy has yielded different results. American troops have eliminated al Qaeda sanctuaries in the Baghdad Belt, forcing al Qaeda to abandon their safe havens and seek refuge outside the cities. Operation Phantom Strike, launched by Gen. Petraeus, has dismantled vehicle-bomb networks, prevented terrorists and militants from reconstituting their forces in Baghdad, and prevented Shiite militias from taking over al Qaeda’s former territories. While there is little doubt that the heroic action of American forces greatly contributed to these successes, they are not the sole reason behind recent progress. Iraqi citizens are volunteering to join the fight for their country with Iraqi security forces, which are held accountable to U.S. commanders. Even the Sunnis and Shiites are beginning to work together as part of the Iraqi Security Forces to defend their families from al Qaeda. Yet Democrats apparently don’t want to be confused by the facts. Despite the mounting signs of progress and hope, Democrat leaders continue to blindly demand that our forces be precipitously withdrawn from Iraq. In addition to forcing politically driven votes in Congress that have no chance of becoming law, they continue to criticize our military leaders’ tactics in Iraq — at times even resorting to questioning their truthfulness and the motives of American operations. Many Democrats who initially voted in favor of removing Saddam Hussein’s regime quickly turned their backs on the effort as the mission grew more complex, and as a result, more difficult. Another newly elected Democrat walked out of a Committee hearing as retired General Jack Keane spoke of the progress being made in Iraq. Others even went so far as to threaten to cut funds without a troop withdrawal, which would have left the brave men and women who volunteered to serve our nation without the proper protection and support they need from their own government. A critical moment in our nation’s history approaches. Will the Democrats take the time to listen to General Petraeus’s report, or are they already writing the talking points to withdraw from Iraq? If we listen to the words of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House, I think we know the answer. It is worth noting that had we listened to them just a few months ago — when they referred to our mission in Iraq as a “failure” and already “lost,” — we never would have seen the Iraqi people participating in efforts to secure their nation. General Petraeus will present his assessment next week, and from there Congress and the president will decide how to best proceed. The Democrats have already bet their entire political future on the notion that the U.S. mission in Iraq will end in catastrophic failure. James Clyburn, the third-most senior member of House Democrat leadership even admitted that a positive report from General Petraeus would be “a real big problem” for Democrats. Maybe they are blinded by their own pessimistic spin, but these days the chances of hearing hope or optimism about victory in Iraq from a Democrat leader or presidential candidate are, as we say in Texas, between slim and none… and slim got up and left. Former Michigan Senator Arthur Vandenberg had the right idea, “politics stops at the water’s edge.” We live in a tumultuous world, and while no one would argue that there is a time for Democrats to be Democrats and Republicans to be Republicans, now is the time for Americans to be Americans. Together, before we allow the political spin machine to corrupt reality, let us all listen to General Petraeus before we rush to conclusions. Let us reflect on his recommendations and observations instead of allowing the politically expedient to overshadow the long-term good. And most of all, let us remember that, as a nation, our greatest achievements and successes have been rooted in optimism and victory, rather than defeat and failure.

If Democrats go for the nuclear option what will happen to them? Democrats are screwed on health care. If they don't pass it, they wasted a lot of political capital for nothing. If they go with the nuclear option, it could blow up in their face. If going for health care has cost them this much political capital, I can't imagine what the nuclear option will do. I would be concerned that people could start killing the democratic Senators. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/19/senate-democrat-outlines-nuclear-option-strategy-health-care/ The sound of anger, I love it. I doubt anybody get's killed, but people are going to be pissed if they go nuclear. It will be the end of the democrats.

Does anyone Democratic or Republican realize smearing is an activity for 8 year olds? Yes Obama knows Bill Ayers. No, Obama is not a terrorist. Those who believe so are only doing so out of a religious like affiliation that denies one a capacity to reason (and frankly bad political strategy as the undecided and independent's don't give a fuck about this same old political garbage raking) Democrats, is this really worth dignifying with a response and throwing back Keating 5, his numerous affairs, his drug abusing wife, his nepotistic advantages? Yeah, it'd be awesome if everyone's candidate was an angel but they're not. Why is America US vs Them? What happened to friendly competition opposed to ruthless competition aiming for monopolization? Tell me what you're going to do for me and my family, not that the other guy sucks worse than you. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Do you think the congressional Democrat 'all of the above' energy strategy will work? Democrats plan to return to Washington and the campaign trail next week with a message on offshore drilling that they say will put Republicans on the defensive…. On Capitol Hill, congressional Democrats say they will try to corner the Republicans by offering them votes on their own agenda with Democratic priorities mixed in.”We’re about to do a political reverse takedown on the Republicans,” said Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Top House Democrats say that shortly after Congress reconvenes, they will put on the floor a piece of legislation that will include an expansion of offshore drilling but also a renewable electricity mandate, energy-efficiency standards for buildings and oil industry tax provisions. Some Democrats have started to describe the legislation and the broader message on energy as “all of the above” — a term first coined by House Republicans to describe their own legislation. http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/02/congressional-dems-get-smart-on-pushing-all-of-the-above-energy-vote/#more-3700 What do you think the result of this strategy will be? Will congressional Republicans agree to the compromise? Or if they reject it, what kind of ramifications do you think that will have on the November elections?

Have you fallen for the Rush is the head of the GOP political spin? "Top Democrats believe they have struck political gold by depicting Rush Limbaugh as the new face of the Republican Party, a full-scale effort first hatched by some of the most familiar names in politics and now being guided in part from inside the White House. The strategy took shape after Democratic strategists Stanley Greenberg and James Carville included Limbaugh’s name in an October poll and learned their longtime tormentor was deeply unpopular with many Americans, especially younger voters. Then the conservative talk-radio host emerged as an unapologetic critic of Barack Obama shortly before his inauguration, when even many Republicans were showering him with praise. Soon it clicked: Democrats realized they could roll out a new GOP bogeyman for the post-Bush era by turning to an old one in Limbaugh, a polarizing figure since he rose to prominence in the 1990s." http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=CF892DDC-18FE-70B2-A8417E6D9DABB37B

LIBERAL DEMOCRATS: Isn't It Great That The American People Reject Their Surrender Date? How do Liberals feel that they couldn't get their surrender date to stick? Also, why do they care if the volunteer troops are only made up of 7% Liberals? Isn't it just their Vietnam strategy at work--tear down the country, blame America first, and use the troops as pawns for their own political gain? Should Liberals worry about their own kids who are sitting home getting high and playing video games like cowards?

What political party would match me? http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApMZg3sE.Ib_MnkH7K9oLhPsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090605154752AAFubUB After seeing all the bashing from Democrats as well as Republicans, what political party would match me. I am a moderate Republican. I tend to be in the middle. I see flaws in both parties, honestly. Here is what I support: I embrace family values. I oppose gay marriage. I support some form of health care for the poor. LESS TAX! SMALL government! Gun control laws. Strategy in foreign policy and relations. No big government spending. 50/50 on abortion. Depends on situation. Pro-Christian. Pro-minority. No racism! Pro-Constitution (Believe social issues be left to states due to 10th Amendment.) No legalization of marijuana. Salmon, you are obviously criticizing me for having a mostly Conservative base.

Is there a simple way to hold Congress & Senate accountable for a straight 'up or down' vote ? Is there a simple way to hold Congress & Senate accountable for a straight 'up or down' vote instead of political wrangling? Democrats playing trump card more often By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer Sun Jul 8, 12:40 PM ET WASHINGTON - It is the closest thing that Senate leaders have to a trump card, the only way to wrestle the famously balky institution into predictable action. ADVERTISEMENT Lately, though, the nearly century-old tool known as "cloture" has become more of a routine way to score political points. Once, it was a carefully wielded ace used to push a difficult bill past a parliamentary hurdle and into law. That is because cloture — a way of cutting off debate and setting a final vote in the otherwise ungovernable Senate — has lost much of its potency as a legislative tactic. Cloture votes were conceived to free the Senate, in exceptional cases, from the whims of a tiny minority. Such votes now serve to showcase the majority party's agenda and the lengths to which the opposing party will stand in the way. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is on track to shatter the record for cloture motions filed. He highlighted that statistic recently to illustrate what he called "Republican obstructionism." The strategy mirrors the one Republicans used against then-minority Democrats three years ago in a closely divided Senate. Many believe the GOP's portrayal of then-Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., as an obstructionist cost him his seat. Reid has turned to cloture early and often — 42 times since January. He says it is out of necessity because Republicans — sometimes just a small band of conservatives — have sought to block not only Democrats' priorities but also some initiatives that enjoy bipartisan support. He used it repeatedly, with disappointing results, on the immigration measure that just collapsed amid bipartisan opposition. Reid, however, also has used cloture votes to put Republicans on the record on hot-button issues. They include opposing President Bush's Iraq policy, expressing "no confidence" in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and backing a bill that would unionize workplaces without secret ballot elections. "We have spent a lot of time on the Republicans delaying what the American people want us to do, and that is legislate," Reid said in a testy exchange with Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the minority leader. McConnell said Reid's use of cloture votes was "a power grab." "The Senate isn't a factory. We don't push things down the line," McConnell said. "There is a saying about courtship: Shoot for two, end up with zero. So far, this would be a fitting epitaph for a Congress that has sought to do much but has accomplished little." Cloture emerged in 1917 as a way to limit filibusters, the tactic by which senators use their rights of unlimited debate to delay or block legislation. President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated by a 23-day filibuster that stalled his proposal to arm merchant ships in World War I, called a special session to consider a cloture proposal. The Senate, he said, is "the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own, have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." The resulting rule held that if two-thirds of the Senate's 100 members agreed, debate on a measure could end and a vote on passing or rejecting the proposal could take place after each senator had an opportunity to speak for another hour. The high bar for cloture meant it was seldom used and almost never successful. Senate historians say cloture was invoked in only five cases over the next 46 years. Cloture rules have been revised a number of times, most significantly in 1975. That is when the threshold for ending debate was lowered from two-thirds of the Senate, or 67 senators, to three-fifths, or 60. In 1986, the cap for debate after cloture was shortened, from 100 hours to 30 hours. Robert B. Dove, the Senate's parliamentary referee between 1965 and 2001, said cloture lost some of its power as political divisions in the Senate became more prominent. "There used to be a difference between how you voted for cloture and how you felt about the underlying bill. That has all gone by the boards. With the Senate in an incredibly partisan position now and the margins so tight, cloture is really not a great tool," Dove said. Former Sen. George J. Mitchell, D-Maine, was majority leader in the early 1990s. He said he became accustomed to seeking cloture on matters large and small when he realized that Republicans would object to virtually any action he tried. Both parties are equally guilty of that practice, he added. "It was more or less in anticipation — and probably based on some specific threat — of filibuster," Mitchell said. "It's common on both sides now that people use it when they think it will advance their political goals and to block legislation that they don't support." During Mitchell's last two years as majority leader, cloture was sought 80 times, just short of the record of 82 set during the next Congress under Republican Sens. Robert K. Dole of Kansas and Trent Lott of Mississippi. Some Republicans suggest that Reid's pace toward eclipsing that record might be intended to portray GOP lawmakers in the 2008 election as blocking the nation's business. "You artificially run up the number of cloture votes and then set out on a search- and-destroy mission to tarnish incumbent Republicans as obstructionists," said Eric Ueland, who served as chief of staff to former Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Still, with Republican objections coming fast and furious, cloture may be among Democrats' only options. GOP lawmakers spent the last few hours of Senate business before the Fourth of July break blocking final negotiations on broadly supported lobbying overhaul and anti-terrorism legislation. "It's the only way to manage the floor," said Reid's spokesman, Jim Manley. "The alternative is to do nothing, and that's absolutely unacceptable." Besides, Mitchell said, campaigning on a theme as obscure as a slew of failed cloture votes would be a tough feat. "The public's view is, 'You're in charge — you produce,' " he said. "If you don't produce, it's your fault — even if it's the other guys who prevented you." ___ On the Net: Senate background on cloture: http://tinyurl.com/333udm

Are the Democrats playing right into Al-Qaeda's hands by declaring the war is lost? Hasn't this been Al-Qaeda's strategy All along? Knowing instead of doing what needs to be done they turn and run in an effort to save and keep their political powers.

Are you voting for the Democratics? or Progressives or Working Families Party? Acorn has its own Political Party other than the democrats. Above is a word cloud of the associations in the Bertha Lewis contacts list we received. Some are legitimate business dealings. Forest City Ratner, for example, is both bailing out ACORN and relying on its support for its construction projects. But others are more intriguing. The larger the name, the greater the frequency of the name appearing in the contacts list. For many years it has been speculated that SEIU and ACORN share a common foundation. This seems to suggest as much. In fact, in at least one appearance on the contacts list, an SEIU official has an ACORN email address. But were this picture a tree, the trunk would be the Working Families Party. Roger Stone has suggested the Working Families Party is ACORN. Bertha Lewis’s contacts list suggests as much. Lewis is both the head of ACORN and also the Co-Chair of the Working Families Party. As you can imagine, ACORN would have us believe that those are separate roles. However, information suggests otherwise and we also know that ACORN has a habit of creating political parties for its own ends. To understand how the Working Families Party is part of ACORN, we need to understand the concept of “fusionism.” I’ve written about this concept before and it is essential to ACORN’s political strategy. As I noted back in 2008, ACORN played a vital role in the Chicago area New Party — the far left political party that endorsed Barack Obama. From my 2008 article on Obama’s New Party ties: Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a [Working Families Party] member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate, let’s call him Barack Obama, received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the [Working Families Party], Obama’s [Working Families Party] votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes. The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. “[The Wall Street] Journal’s editorialists fretted last fall about how the New Party was responsible for a labor movement that was drifting leftward …. As [openly declared socialist] Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) puts it, ‘If the Wall Street Journal editorial page goes after you, you can pretty well bet you’re doing the right thing.’” ACORN knows all about Fusion because it worked with the New Party in Chicago as if the New Party were ACORN’s political party. In These Times reported on February 17, 1997, that “the [New] [P]arty, with 80 members in the [17th] ward, many of whom are also active in the Service Employees International Union and the advocacy group ACORN, has begun to build a parallel precinct organization.” With the experiences it garnered in Chicago, ACORN knows how to deploy fusion in elections. That brings us to the Working Families Party (”WFP”) in New York. In this “fusion” system, candidates appear on the ballot lines of all the parties that endorse them. The WFP, thus, leverages power by selectively awarding its line to candidates who support its agenda. So, for example, Hillary Clinton in 2000 received 102,000 votes for U.S. Senate on the WFP line, meaning 102,000 people sent her a message that their support was contingent on her supporting the WFP’s agenda. According to WFP Executive Director Dan Cantor, this message gets louder down the ballot. “We brand our endorsed candidates right on the ballot so that voters who might not know the candidate still know how to vote on the important issues,” he says. According to Elizabeth Benjamin in the New York Daily News, Even the Democrats - who have become the WFP’s closest allies since the party helped them win a slim majority in the state Senate - are looking to distance themselves. They’ve got plans to build their own field organization. That would enable Dems to rely less onthe WFP’s controversial for-profit arm, Data & Field Services, which has drawn scrutiny from the city Campaign Finance Board. This is important because, following ACORN’s pattern of practice, the WFP set up Data & Field Services to skirt around election laws as a for-profit entity. Unfortunately for them, the New York Campaign Finance Board ruled Data & Field Services is part and parcel WFP. That means it has to comply with campaign finance rules. If it were shown that ACORN is joined at the hip to WFP in the same way Data & Field Services is, then ACORN might also have to comply and disclose — something it does not have to do now. As it stands now, with the close association between the two, a candidate can get on both the Democ

what do you think about the Democrats saying NO to no more troops for Iraq?? Senator Biden Tells Bush NO MORE TROOPS FOR IRAQ! Quote [link to news.yahoo.com] WASHINGTON - Incoming Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Joseph Biden, a potential Democratic presidential candidate, said Tuesday he would oppose any effort by President Bush to increase U.S troops in Iraq as part of a new war strategy. Biden also announced he has summoned Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to testify before his committee next month to discuss the administration's new plan for Iraq as soon as it is made public. The Delaware Democrat took advantage of a quiet holiday week to draw attention to his own proposal for Iraq, which includes beginning a drawdown of U.S. forces and finding a political settlement among the various ethnic factions there

THE WAR IN IRAQ: Would "cutting off funding" of the war be equal to "not supporting the troops?" It has been said that the Dems can end the war simply by cutting off funding to the war. However, Senator Carl Levin said today that his party (the Dems) won't want to do that because it would play right into the political strategy of President Bush. Instead, they have a plan to withdraw most of the troops, and leave a smaller force for anti-terrorism or whatever. Aren't the democrats just playing politics here themselves? It seems to me that the democrats would like to end the war. But they are afraid tat if they do something that seems harsh, like cutting of funding to the war, that they will be accused of not supporting the troops. But would they be guilty of that if they cut if funding? The whole question of "supporting the troops" is constantly being used by both sides. Would cutting off funding mean not supporting the troops? What should the democrats do? Cutting off funding would not put troops at risk. Its not like the troops would wake up and not be served breakfast, or would not be given the right equipment to protect themselves. They would have all the resources they need to get out. There would just be no funding for the continuation of the operation.

are the Democrats trying to lose in Iraq? Rep. Nancy Boyda [D - Kan.] walked out of the Armed Service Committee hearings when retired Gen. Jack Keane said that "progress is being made." She later commented that "there was only so much (of that) that you could take until we had to leave the room for a while ...." ** Also last week, a spokesman for Speaker Pelosi said the Democratic leaders "are not willing to concede there are positive things to point to" in Iraq. ** Commenting on the possibility that Gen. Petraeus' Sept. report might be positive [referring to the surge strategy], House Majority Whip James Clyburn [D. - SC] said that such good news would be "a real big problem for us." **** Who is it that has the 'tunnel vision'?? Doesn't this seem to you that the Democrats can't handle the possibility that civilization is making progress in Iraq? What do the Dems want -- political power in America (if temporary) at any cost to the rest of the world? {I actually read most of the responses you folk write.}