cheney's replacement?


the only way we can squeeze more god into this government.

Keith Richards would be a kick-ass VP. Some citizenship semantics to work out, but he'd remind Dubya of his priorities. Blow and broads, not God & conquest.

C'mon, we all know it's gonna be Cunnilingus Riiice...Gap Toothed booch

awesome tactic. call me a blind follower of some marginalized media character and ignore the point being made.

i prefer "barch", or better yet, "niggotch"

Hey, look....it's Rattle And Dumb.

Booch is from E-40, he of weirder slang than I, but you win..I may even change my name.

Veering off topic... I completely approve of Cotton's tactic for dealing with the small print wankery. I just might adopt this measure myself.

i'm curious why you think this won't hurt anyone next year (seeing as how you're actually involved in politics) while i was but a youngster when the gop was swept into power in 94, i've read oodles of recent pieces pointing out that corruption problems with the dems had a lot to do with it. and i've been a little bit heartened to see honest republicans distancing themselves from the boosh/delay/frist machine...
but perhaps i just need some edumacatin', please do clarify.

In my mind every incumbent on both sides of aisle should be in trouble during the midterm election, but since the majority of congressional seats are now safe seats, I don't see too many in party challenges happening and I don't see the Dems picking up that many seats.

There hasn't really been an outrage over these scandals in any states where the Republican party is at risk and right now most people polled feel that all of Congress is doing a crappy job as is the President.

The Dems don't have a Contract for America to hang their hat on and use to connect with your average voter.

The one funny in that is that I don't recall hearing of the Contract with America until after the election. And I stayed pretty informed as an eighth- and ninth-grader... And, yes, I know, there was a huge signing ceremony with all Republican House candidates led by Newtie in September of '94, but, again, I didn't see anything of it until after the election results came in.

... Now, you could blame the liberal bias in the news media, but I actually think it was a savvy play by the GOP. In case they didn't win out in Nov., they wouldn't have the albatross of having swung for the fences and struck-out haging around their neck, and possibly scotching future candidacies and campaigns.

Or, if they were to win - as they did do - they could instantly put forth a message and a platform, declaring nothing safe and the future now (then). They would look proactive and robust, in that case.

(So. It was to prevent embarrassment or to aggrandize, pursuant outcome.)

Intelligent, if not necessarily wise.

No?

I'll stab: Your premise is correct, the so-called Republican Revolution in 1994 was successful in large part because the Democrats had become too fat and happy after years (save the Senate '81-'86) of Congressional dominance. This kind of dominance usually breeds corruption and pork spending ("tax and spend liberals" if you will) The Dems also suffered from a horrendous lack of leadership at the time. Clinton had been elected President but no one at the national level had any intentions of turning over any national party power to the Clintons at that point (they were looking like sub-Carter failures at the time)

The pattern is repeating itself with one exception. The Republicans in power have proven the power corrupts ethos once again by spending money like drunken sailors and peddling their asses to the highest bidder.

The exception is leadership. In '94 the Repubs had Gingrich (who had served as Minority Whip) to lead the so-called Revolution and assemble the fundraising and hierarchecal structure necessary to get this done.

The Dems don't have this (and as I heard David Gergen and Pat B. complain last night----neither do the Repubs) kind of leadership or structure right now.

So all things being equal, the incumbents will most likely keep more seats than they lose.

I will lead the Democrats to victory in 2006. Raise me $1,000,000 by next Tuesday and it's on.

But seriously, the Dems just need to offer a real alternative to the Republicans. I'd say most Democrats in Congress right now are basically neoliberals who have more in common with moderate Republicans than genuine left-wingers. I think we need less Liebermans and Kerrys and more people like Dennis Kucinich and Sherrod Brown.

And I realize that many people in the country are conservative on gun issues and gay marriage, but I don't have a problem if someone embraces liberal economic values while catering to the "moral values" of the region. I think a lot of poor religious people are basically voting Republican because they don't see a difference between the parties economically, but they do see a huge difference on social issues.

I think Nader made some good obervations on the last election in the following video.
rtsp://cspanrm.fplive.net/cspan/project ... 4_nader.rm

Well, he did have courtside seats.

Ralph Nader - the Spike Lee of political campaigns.

And, Al Gore - Ralph/Spike's Reggie Miller?

There's this, and there's the credibility gap. And there's the partition.

We have entered a through the looking glass post-Watergate era wherein nothing that Democrats say is believed, so it really doesn't matter.

The Senate is closer to competitive, you may see Dems take 3-4 seats (I haven't handicapped it, but the Rs are having trouble recruiting for races they would win in 'normal years' i.e. Florida, ND) The House is so gerrymandered there really is no hope, and many of the candidates being fielded are from the B team, because 10 years of Republican gains leaves your bench short.

In my mind the main problem is that the Dems still JUST DON'T GET IT. Not to call anyone out, but the shit that Borg and scottycash and whomever else prattle on about is precisely the shit that no turns average people off. You can't just tell people that faggots deserve to get married and that unions deserve the right to organize: You gotta organize the unions who will then fight for your side. And gay marriage is the worst issue ever and will remain an albatross everywhere it is on the ballot.

I think the main problem is the Dems' desire to "Take Back the House," motherfucker you've been out the house so long they have repainted it, re arranged the furniture, and the teenagers are openly fucking where your parenst bedroom used to be. This is akin to me driving up to 617 Longer Dr. and asking if I can move back in. It is backwards looking and counterproductive. They are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and it just ain't gonna work. The New Deal Coalition CANNOT and probably SHOULD NOT be put back together...look for another way to build a governing coalition, and look for other ideas about how to make government work.

I could be wrong, there is a possibility that all dems will have to do this year is "not be the other guy" but I just don't see it.

Some broad who's too old to be rocking Spring Break appears to have had her awful, stinkin' boozin' catch up to her....