Why Are The Democrats So Scared? You Would Be Too

Remove all ads!

Take a look at this. It is from a transcript of MSNBC's Countdown:

WTF, I mean really, this has to be a new bottom for "conservative" pundits. And just when you thought they could not get much lower. Here's more:

Gore is not even in office any longer. He is not even a politician at this point. It is no wonder that Demomcrats, and everyone else, for that matter, are afraid of being attacked by these minons of the "American Way."

Could be, but it's little wonder that anyone with any sense would want to run for office these days. Still the idea of a Gore comeback seems to be real enough to scare the conservatives into their swift boats this far from the election. Gore could be for real.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13065636/

 

I don't know if they are specifically attacking Gore per se, but anything coming from a Democrat at large. The news for the Republicans is rather grim. They are facing the real possibility of losing one, and possibly both houses of Congress this fall. Spin though they try, one point where the Republicans have always fallen short is in regards to the environment. Given all the other bad news they've suffered through in recent months, they certainly don't need people rushing to see Gore's movie. I believe it's only a matter of time before the Republicans draft up some new anti-abortion legislation or anti-gay marriage legislation. When times are hard, it's always good to know you can go to your bread and butter issues to rally the seemingly ever-shrinking base.

 

Even South Park took a shot at Gore in their "ManBearPig" episode. The mythical creature espoused by their "I'm thuper theriouth" (note the wimpy lisp) Gore-bash was supposedly half man, half bear, and half pig. (Yes, that's one-and-a-half. *sigh*) Naturally, the creature did not actually exist, and was just Gore's attempt to get attention. Can anyone smell the global warming likening?

Utterly ridiculous and far too obvious, but I did love the episode for the line, "Dude, did Cartman just crap treasure?"

 

I may be taking this thread in a direction it wasn't intended, but the democrats should be scared. The republican party is arguably at its lowest point it has been in decades. Yet, the only message the democrat's leadership can come up with is "Bush stinks, and they are all a bunch of crooks". Then what happens we have scandals with democrats caught with bribe money being stored in their freezer.

The democrats have/had a great opportunity to deliver a message about what they believe in and their roadmap for the future. The population is/was ready to listen. Instead they let the far loony left control the agenda and so far have gained nothing.

As a conservative I shudder to think what would have happened if the democrats had a real leader. The mid-term elections would have been a formality, instead the democrats retaking Congress is only considered a possibility.

 

Which agenda is that? I'd really like to hear all this because it is something I'm not aware of. The Dems have the "me too" party in the opnion of many (myself included). I guess being on the left makes me a "loon," in your opinion, but that's fine, since the notion of America having a "real leader" seems to be something that makes you "shudder."

 

I agree. As a nation it has been many years since we have had a real leader. The only one I have ever known was Reagan. The last democrat was probably Roosevelt.

My point was if the democrats had a centrist leader who could control the more extreme members of the party (hence the loony comment) they would have easily swayed millions of middle of the road voters to their party. Instead we have a President with record low popularity and the opposition is unable to capitalize on it.

 

TGS - The left has such little influence on current policy that it is not even taken seriously by the Democrats any longer. On the other hand, the conservatives have been taken w-a-y too seriously by both parties. But the country is shifting back to the center again since 9/11, which is a good thing. John Kerry was more in the center than George II has ever been, but that did not help in in the last election. But things have finally changed.

Reagan was good leader in my opinion as well, but Bill Clinton was still a better president than Reagan was regarding real policy. But even Reagan lied over the Iran-contra scandal. Again, more manipulation...

 

But if the Best the Democrats can campaign on is that they aren't George W., that's no advantage--Geroge W. can't run again either...

The Democrats, if they want back into the White House, need someone that can win the election, not bank on the Republicans losing it...

 

Not being a republican, in our current climate, is probably advantage enough.

 

Actually, An Inconvenient Truth is a pretty good film... there are some annoying political biopic moments, but overall it seemed to me the film made a strong argument on global warming, in addition to showing off Gore in a positive light and puncturing a few canards from the last election (parts are shot in the Gore family farm that he was supposed to have made up...)

No wonder the usual suspects are at it again with the misdirections and deflections...

 

I thought this was a good read

 

Typical. Bill Clinton never deserved to be impeached. In fact, the whole "culture of impeachment" as a political weapon was started by the Republicans during the Clinton years. Sorry, but the author of the piece tipped his hand when he went off on Clinton. Quite typical for these folks I would say.

 

Since when in our (or any) legal system is "deserving" a component of determining if someone should be prosecuted? He lied under oath in a court of law. That is called perjury. Perjury is a crime. He was prosecuted. End of story.

Now I agree with you that if they had removed him from office (I can't think of the actual term off the top of my head), that would have been over the top.

 

No, sorry. You are wrong here. He was NOT convicted. The House brought charges, but they were dismissed by the Senate. In other words, he was found not guilty of a crime. It was entrapment. Bill was on trial in the Paula Jones case, (something which Ken Starr had no right to charge him with anyway), and an unrelated story of how he was involved with Monica was brought into the case with the desire to merely discredit the president in an affair with another woman. The question was inapporpriate to begin with. Sorry, but it is hardly as simple as you would like us all to believe.

 

lets play the spin game!

 

Actually, lying under oath only constitutes perjury when the lie has something to do with the case in question. Given that whether or not Bill Clinton recieved oral sex from Monica Lewinski bore no relevance to the Paula Jones case, Clinton's lie did not fit the legal definition for perjury.

 

Let's see. This topic is about Al Gore's warnings about Global Warming, and the rabid, hysterical attacks that were made on it by the far-Right pundit industry. Aldeth pointed out how the neo-cons will use their favorite tactic of launching violent attacks in their "theme" areas to distract the public's attention. A couple of conservative posters pointed out that Gore is passe. And what is the current hot topic on this thread? The stains on Monica Lowinsky's dress! Thanks for keeping us up to date, guys. Talk about passe!

So I will say that anyone who wants to talk about dress stains is trying to change the subject. (If you really want to talk about dress stains, start a new thread. Maybe someone still cares.) And why do that? Because the real subject is uncomfortable. Tell us--you can use more than twenty five words--why Global Warming is a myth, without referring to the Nazis, Joseph Goebbels, or Adolf Hitler, those renowned experts on the environment. Tell us, with verifiable, scientific evidence, that Al Gore is full of crap.

 

The real question is whatr can the democrats do differently that will slow down Global Warming without collapsing the economy on top of itself? So having the White House supported by the oil lobby doesn't help, but if you're going to raise an alarm about Global warming, then get some answers on what to do about it.

 

I'm pretty sure that the rising sea level which will inevitably (if we fail to adress the problem) put most of Florida and much of Western California, Oregon, and Washington State under the ocean will ultimately be a hell of a lot worse for the economy than any envioronmental regulation we pass now to prevent it from happening. However, if the economy is really that important, I guess it'll be OK to ignore the environment for now. It'll eventually go away on its own.

Incidentally, the economic cost of environmental regulation has been greatly exaggerated. Environmental regulations are not going to destroy our economy. Thinking long term, they will actually serve to protect it.

[ June 21, 2006, 07:09: Message edited by: Drew ]

 

Hell, even if it does collapse the economy, we are talking about the only place we are capable of surviving - namely planet earth. It's not like if earth tanks we can get up and move elsewhere - at least not yet. I do not doubt that most if not all environmental regulations will ultimately have an economic cost - and potentially a very steep cost in some cases - but can we really put a price tag on how much our planet is worth?