Would Democrats Be Better Off With 59 Senators -- And A New Majority Leader?
Would the Democratic Party, and Senate Democrats in particular, be better off if current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his re-election bid next year? This is a provocative question, but it is now one that needs consideration, since Reid's poll numbers in his own state remain so dismal. The possibility of Reid becoming only the second Majority Leader since the 1950s to lose his own seat (Daschle was the other one) is looking more and more like the safe bet (to put it in gambling-friendly Nevada terms, as it were). Which leads to the question of what impact this will have on the Senate, what impact on the Democratic Party, and what impact on the country at large.
To do so, lots of assumptions must be made (which will no doubt be ridiculously inaccurate when the election does happen -- such is the nature of political prognostication). The election is still over a year away, and a lot of things can happen in the meantime. Reid's popularity could go up among his home-state voters (he will likely have a hefty amount in his campaign warchest). Democrats in general could be riding a wave of support nationwide, after passing healthcare reform and after the economy recovers and job losses end. Then again, Democrats may have failed on healthcare reform, and the job losses could continue right up to election day. These two subjects, in my opinion, will do more to dictate the type of playing field Democrats face in 2010 than anything else. And they could both easily go either way, at this point.
So, for the purposes of argument here, we're going to assume that both the Democrats and the Republicans hold all their current Senate seats. Maybe some wins and some losses, but the numbers stay the same across the board. This is extremely unlikely, I should point out, but as I said, this is just for the purpose of setting up my main discussion, not an actual attempt at calling the Senate balance at the end of next year.
So, the Republicans hold 40 seats, the Democrats hold every seat except Harry Reid's. But Reid loses, flipping one seat to the Republicans -- which also loses the mythical filibuster-proof majority for the Democrats. The other fallout from Reid's loss would be that the Democrats would have to pick a new majority leader. And that could possibly do more for the Democrats than holding on to that sixtieth seat would have.
Of course, this would depend on who the Democrats picked to lead them in the Senate. There are a lot of choices, many of whom most people aren't familiar with -- because they're not media hounds. And there is a whole spectrum of political leanings to choose from as well. Now, I don't expect the Democrats to pick either a hard conservative or a hard liberal to the spot, although they might indeed surprise me. The Majority Leader's job is often filled by a compromise candidate who is selected for his knowledge of the Senate, and Senate procedure (seniority also figures in this choice a bit). Or by someone who is seen as particularly effective at moving legislation, or at moderating arguments between different Democratic factions.
This is kind of how we got Harry Reid in the first place, it should be pointed out. Meaning getting rid of Reid as Senate leader may just mean someone of his ilk winds up replacing him.
But what if the Democrats picked someone with some political spine, who was a lot better than Reid at holding his party together? A no-nonsense guy or gal who cracked the whip and cracked some occasional heads, and got some things done. At the very least, someone who could give a commanding and forceful press conference, instead of doing an impression of Caspar Milquetoast.
This would change the tenor of the debate in the Senate. If Democrats were on the offense on their own agenda, instead of Reid's perpetual defensive moves, could they be more successful even with only 59 votes? If the Democratic Senate leader started a debate by saying "Democrats believe X, and we are going to fight to pass a bill which reflects those values," rather than starting the debate (as Reid has done, too many times to count) by saying "Democrats believe X, but we're probably not going to hold the line on it, and we're totally open to compromise on the issue with the Republicans, so let me begin the debate by offering to give away half the Democrats' demands in return for absolutely nothing from Republicans. Everyone happy now?"
This may sound harsh, but it is born of Reid's continuing disappointment as the leader of the toughest chamber of Congress. Reid seems to begin each fight by caving. Since Reid is an ex-boxer, let me put this in Nevada boxing terms: he has a "glass jaw." One tiny hit, and he shatters. His fear of getting punched, to continue the metaphor, leads him to dive to the canvas rather than taking even the first blow, at times. Add to this his apparent inability to strong-arm his committee chairmen into producing the bills he wants, and you get exactly the situation we find ourselves in now in the Senate (see: healthcare reform).
Now imagine a Senate leader more in the mold of L.B.J. One of the reasons Johnson was picked as John F. Kennedy's running mate was the bipartisan respect for his ability to get bills through the Senate. L.B.J. would do what it took to get the bill passed. Imagine someone like that in charge of 58 other Senators. Instead of Reid's instant capitulation, imagine a majority leader who started the conversation by saying "America strongly supports our position on Y. We are going to fight hard for all Americans in this debate, and we offer the hand of bipartisanship to those on the other side of the aisle who are listening to the 72 percent of Americans who want Y. I caution any Republicans, though, because voters are going to remember whether you joined with us as we passed Y, or whether you put your own political goals ahead of doing what your constituents want you to do."
I simply cannot imagine Harry Reid ever delivering a line like this. But it does indeed frame the question -- could a strong-willed fighter of a majority leader be more effective in passing the Democratic agenda than what we have now? Could a politically-savvy leader convince enough wavering Republicans that it was in their best political interests to join the Democrats to overcome the inevitable filibuster threats? Even with only 59 Democrats, could a different Senate leader actually be more successful than Harry Reid has been with 60?
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
-- Chris Weigant
The short answer is YES!!!!
But do we really have to wait that long? It would be great if he was no longer leader of the Senate. Can't the Senate just call a vote and elect someone who has a spine?
Stan...
Reid is pretty dismal. He doesn't seem to realize the negotiating position of Democrats.
A position that is actually made stronger by the constant Republican criticism.
Democrats need to realize that Republicans will be critical and unsupportive no matter how much they try to reach out and work with them.
So there is no incentive to compromise with them. If you do, they will turn around and bash any legislation anyways.
If you're going to be painted as "socialists" no matter what you do, why not at least get what you want accomplished?
- David
There is another possibility that merits at least SOME consideration.
Perhaps Reid and the Democrats just give lip service to the progressive/liberal agenda.
Perhaps they act the way the act because they WANT the status quo to continue.
"...Let's not write off one possible explanation, simply because we don't happen to like it."
-Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN
Michale.....
Stan -
Elections for leadership take place in December, in the congressional end-of-year break. Technically, this is between Congresses, or between sessions. This year, for instance, it'll be between the 1st and 2nd session of the 111th Congress. Next year, it'll be between the 111th and 112th Congresses.
What I cut from this article was an explanation of the whole leadership election process. Basically, it's a vote between sitting members of the caucus. Leadership challenges do happen, but they're rare when the current leader has gained seats in the last election. Fairly or not, this is the usual measuring stick for success or failure among Senators (and House members, in their leadership votes). But there's a lot of back-scratching going on, too. Leaders have to get a majority of votes, which is why being there for a long time helps, as the more seniority, the more friends you make (so the theory goes).
Personally, for instance, I'd be happy with Majority Leader Al Franken, but that just ain't gonna happen for years, if it ever does. I like all the people suggested so far over in the comments at HuffPost: Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Charles Schumer. But we'll see...
I still think the battle lines this fall over healthcare will be drawn between the House Progressives and the Senate Blue Dogs. Nancy Pelosi has lined up with her Progressives, so far at least, and Harry Reid has lined up with pretty much nobody so far (no surprise there). We'll see how it plays out...
-CW
Feingold: No health care bill before Christmas
Large Mercer crowd opposes reform plans
U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold told a large crowd gathered for a listening session in Iron County last week there would likely be no health care bill before the end of the year - and perhaps not at all.
It was an assessment Feingold said he didn't like, but the prospect of no health care legislation brought a burst of applause from a packed house of nearly 150 citizens at the Mercer Community Center.
"Nobody is going to bring a bill before Christmas, and maybe not even then, if this ever happens," Feingold said. "The divisions are so deep. I never seen anything like that."
http://www.lakelandtimes.com/print.asp?SectionID=9&SubSectionID=9&ArticleID=10027
Michale,
I think it's much more politically expedient to be a Republican. The corporate media cheers every move you make and largely is able to drown out any dissent.
As a Democrat, it's much different. Even though the public overwhelmingly elected Obama, corporate media coverage is still largely negative. Look at how the media shies away from refuting the birthers and gives them air time.
It's funny to me that conservatives still scream so much about a "liberal media" when it's all owned by GE and other large corporations. This is why Jon Stewart is the most respected newsman in America.
I think Harry Reid believes if he is somehow able to come up with a compromise, the attack machine will leave him alone.
Pelosi, on the other hand, seems to understand that it doesn't matter what you do, they will still come after you. Reid could propose eliminating the entire federal government and he would still be called a "socialist".
Once you realize this, it makes it easier to grow a pair.
-David
One very simple way to render the "Birthers" impotent.
Release the "long form" of President Obama's birth certificate.
That would expose the "Birthers" for the nut cases that they, allegedly, are.
Put it into another context.
What did it take for the public to accept the fact that there were no WMDs in Iraq..
Well, the RELEASE of the facts that there were no WMDs in Iraq..
The simple FACT that the full long form certificate has not been released gives the birther "theory" validity..
Sure, you can claim that "they" won't listen to anything..
Perhaps not.
But "THEY" can be relegated to the tin foil hat status, IF President Obama desired it.
So, either one of two points is accurate.
Obama doesn't WANT to refute the claim.
Or Obama is INCAPABLE of refuting the claim.
Either way, the claim AND the Birthers retain validity.
If this is a problem for you, complain to President Obama.
Regardless of the "Birther" issue (which is easy to refute, if the alleged "facts" are as they are claimed to be) the simple fact is, there is a real and definite "love affair" with President Obama as a ratings catcher. This largely explains why Democrats have not crashed and burn to date.
But, public reaction is a precursor to ratings.
And, as has become evident, Obama's honeymoon is definitely over.
You are correct in one aspect, though.
It IS harder to be a Democrat in the here and now..
And, why do you think that is?
Because it's a hard tough world in which we live in. And the ability to see the good in even the most despicable human being is a sure fire way to insure your own brutal death. Just ask Nicholas Berg or Daniel Pearl.
Being a conservative is more about survival than anything else these days.
Michale.....
I could see how people who think Obama is not a U.S. citizen might have a hard time surviving. :)
Otherwise, about your survival comment. Huh? Are you saying Daniel Pearl was killed because he was liberal and would have survived if he was conservative?
You're not making sense, brutha. Weren't they both killed because they were American?
-David
Michale -
Oh, please. Don't tell me you've bought into the birther nonsense.
There's no long form to release. The paper records were destroyed (for EVERYONE born in Hawaii) years ago, when they converted to digital record-keeping. So people can demand it until they're blue in the face, but they're asking for the impossible.
And what about those newspaper announcements? Did Gary Seven go back in time to the 60s and change a few newspapers just so Obama could get elected? Puh-leeze.
-CW
@David
I could see how people who think Obama is not a U.S. citizen might have a hard time surviving. :)
And yet, it continues to, not only survive, but flourish and to plague the Obama Administration.
Why is that?
Because Obama refuses to put the speculation to rest.
Again, why is that?
As I mentioned above, there are only 2 possibilities.
A. Obama is unable to put the speculation to rest.
2. Obama is unwilling to put the speculation to rest.
Either way, President Obama should come clean and answer the "why".
His current answer of, "it won't make any difference to the 'birther' crowd" is so much political BS and it belies the alleged "transparency" of his administration.
Otherwise, about your survival comment. Huh? Are you saying Daniel Pearl was killed because he was liberal and would have survived if he was conservative?
You're not making sense, brutha. Weren't they both killed because they were American?
Yes, both Pearl and Berg were killed because they were Americans. But they were Americans espousing the Left Wing ideal that, 'if we just talk to our enemies, they would no longer be our enemies.' As a result of belief in that ideal or, more accurately, as a result of taking that ideal into the lions den, they were killed.
To put into a historical context, they were like the Pre-Reformation Vulcans who went to the various tribes to preach of Surak's philosophy of logic. Many of these "missionaries" were killed.
The true liberal's ideals and principles are not in keeping with the reality of today's world and it's dangers.
It's apparent that the Left, in general, has come to grips with that fact. This is evidenced by many on the Left adopting and adapting tactics that use to be exclusive to the right. But the Left has a long ways to go.
@CW
There's no long form to release. The paper records were destroyed (for EVERYONE born in Hawaii) years ago, when they converted to digital record-keeping. So people can demand it until they're blue in the face, but they're asking for the impossible.
The problem with this entire issue is that the so-called 'facts' coming out of the Obama Administration are conflicting. He was born at this hospital, he was born at that hospital. There IS a long form that can be released with permission, there is NO long form that cannot be released at all. It's been reported that many people have "seen and touched" the alleged long form Birth Certificate that OTHERS claim doesn't exist.
You see the dilemma? By not being transparent (there is that word again...) Obama fuels the controversy and makes it look like he has something to hide. As I said, it's almost as if Obama WANTS to fuel the controversy.
It's like his relationship to Ayers. It's the dog that DOESN'T bark that makes people wonder.
The second problem is that everyone who has "verified" the long form has a vested interest in the outcome. There is a clear conflict of interest that also fuels the speculation. Again, speculation that could be immediately eliminated with some transparency.
And what about those newspaper announcements? Did Gary Seven go back in time to the 60s and change a few newspapers just so Obama could get elected? Puh-leeze.
It's common practice for relatives (grandparents, etc etc) to place birth announcements in their home town for children born elsewhere. This is supported by the fact that the birth announcements lists the GRANDPARENT'S address, not the address of the alleged rented cottage that was Stanley Ann's home at the time. (As an aside, what kind of parents would curse their daughter by naming her "Stanley"!! :D )
It's likely that Obama was born in Hawaii as he claims.
But, by refusing to be the "transparent" President he said he would be, he gives credence and credibility to those who make these allegedly outrageous claims.
Obama has it in his power to regulate the birthers to the fringe hystericals that also serves as home to the types that believe President Bush, the Mossad and the Girl Scouts planned and executed 9/11.
The mere fact that Obama can't, or won't, do this leads a logical and rational person to ask the logical and rational question.
WHY?
Michale.....
For the record, I don't believe the birthers claims.
Do you HONESTLY think I want to see a President Pelosi!!!!?????
I get ill just thinking about it! :D
But the conflicting "facts" coming out of the Obama Administration gives the birther's claims credibility.
Obama simply needs to be transparent and it will all go away. As much as any hysterical Conspiracy Theory can "go away".
The dog needs to start barking.
Michale.....
http://www.wnd.com/files/baro.pdf
Interesting read...
Michale.....
CW
There's no long form to release. The paper records were destroyed (for EVERYONE born in Hawaii) years ago, when they converted to digital record-keeping. So people can demand it until they're blue in the face, but they're asking for the impossible.
Obama's own words shows that there IS a birth certificate to be released.
"I discovered this article, folded away among my birth certificate and old vaccination forms, when I was in high school."
Page 26, DREAMS OF MY FATHER
Like I said above, I don't think the birther's claims of Obama not being a citizen have any merit. Even if it's true, he still should remain President.. (President Pelosi... {cringe, cringe})
But there are facts that simply MUST be explained.
Why would Obama spend over 1.4 million dollars in legal fees to keep his birth certificate private?
What is on that certificate that would prove so damaging?
Why did he travel to England on an Indonesian passport?
Why won't he reveal early college financial records?
Look at it from a different perspective.
If Bush had had similar questions regarding his background, the Left would have gone batshit, screaming from the high heavens, about these issues?
Don't ya'all agree that these questions SHOULD be answered?
Michale.....
Perhaps the "birther" discussion should be moved up to the TRASH OF THE WEEK commentary. :D
Michale.....
Why did he travel to England on an Indonesian passport?
DOH!
That should read, "Why did he travel to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport?"
Michale.....
Heheheh. It's interesting that much of the controversy started when Obama released his birth certificate.
If he doesn't have a long form birth certificate, does that mean he's not a citizen?
It doesn't prove anything.
The Supreme Court has even rejected the birthers arguments and yet they continue to see what they want to see.
Actually, I kind of think the birthers work in Obama's favor as they tend to highlight the extreme lengths they are willing to go to in their hatred.
-David
Heheheh. It's interesting that much of the controversy started when Obama released his birth certificate.
Probably because it's not a true "Birth Certificate".
It's simply a certificate saying that there is a birth certificate somewhere.
By Obama's own admission, he has or had the actual birth certificate. Why not release it? What could be on there that is worth 1.4 million dollars to keep secret??
If he doesn't have a long form birth certificate, does that mean he's not a citizen?
It doesn't prove anything.
You are correct, in and of itself, it doesn't PROVE anything.
But that, coupled with all the misstatements and false statements coming out of the White House, is very strong circumstantial evidence that something is amiss.
Put it another way. You go and try apply for a passport and the only proof of identity you have is a couple birth announcements in your local hometown paper..
See how far that gets ya... :D
The Supreme Court has even rejected the birthers arguments and yet they continue to see what they want to see.
Incorrect. The SCOTUS rejected hearing the case. That is a far cry from rejecting the arguments.
Actually, I kind of think the birthers work in Obama's favor as they tend to highlight the extreme lengths they are willing to go to in their hatred.
Yea, like the "GOP" who vandalized the Colorado Democratic Party HQ?? That also was an example of the "hatred" against Obama.
Oh wait. It was a DEMOCRAT who vandalized things..
WOOOPS..
It's easy to demonize those who hold opposing viewpoints. Sometimes, it's even deserved.
But, as I have shown beyond ANY doubt, there are real questions that Obama should answer if he really wants to lay the controversy to rest.
The dog needs to start barking.
Or, he can ignore it and hope it goes away on it's own.
From all indications, it doesn't look like it's going to happen..
Michale.....
Last time I checked, in this country, people were innocent until proven guilty.
The "birthers" have shown no evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii. None that is credible anyways. And by this I mean more than innuendo and just plain made up.
Innocent until proven guilty. A founding principle of our country. One that separates us from the monarchies of Europe.
Obama has nothing to prove. The onus is on the birthers to provide some evidence. Not rumors and innuendo.
Quite frankly I think you're a terrorist, Michale. The evidence is that you spend all of your time on the net and you seem to hate the American system of government. I demand proof! If you can't prove you're not a terrorist, then it's very suspicious and I will assume you are!
(Of course I say this tongue in cheek :D. See how ridiculous this sounds.)
These things are not evidence. Just as the birthers have no evidence. Innocent until guilty. This is our system. Unless you hate that too (would that mean you hate America?).
Why aren't you outraged that the birthers have shown no credible evidence?
But please, continue down this path as, just like Sarah Palin, it shows what conservatives have become today- crazy- and independents need this constant reminder.
David
Last time I checked, in this country, people were innocent until proven guilty.
{cough} Bush {cough} War Criminal {cough} Liar {cough}
'nuff said on THAT issue.. :D
The "birthers" have shown no evidence that Obama was not born in Hawaii. None that is credible anyways. And by this I mean more than innuendo and just plain made up.
The "birthers" have enough compelling circumstantial evidence to create a reasonable doubt.
To put it another way, if NOT being born in Hawaii was a Class A Felony, there would be enough evidence in this case to warrant an investigation.
Obama has nothing to prove. The onus is on the birthers to provide some evidence. Not rumors and innuendo.
If he is a President for ALL Americans as he claims (and as I believe he is) yer damn right he has something to prove.
Now, if he is a President JUST for those who agree with him, then you are correct. In THAT case, he doesn't have anything to prove.
These things are not evidence. Just as the birthers have no evidence. Innocent until guilty. This is our system. Unless you hate that too (would that mean you hate America?).
Does that apply to Cheney?? Bush?? Of course not.
Double standard here...
Why aren't you outraged that the birthers have shown no credible evidence?
Because they HAVE shown credible evidence.
A lady who was a neighbor of the residence listed in the birth announcement recalls no baby born at the time indicated.
Proof positive? Of course not. Credible? Unless you can show me any reason why that lady would lie, it's credible.
The fact that Obama has spent so much of his own money to PREVENT the birth certificate from becoming public is credible evidence.
Just as it would be credible evidence if Bush paid 1.4 million dollars to keep his National Guard papers private. The Left would have screamed bloody murder at that and we both know it. Of course, the Left just went ahead and forged the papers anyways, but the point is still valid.
There is all sorts of credible evidence that, as I stated before, if we were talking about a criminal act, there would be enough evidence to warrant further investigation.
Unless, of course, you claim that "credible evidence" is defined as evidence YOU deem credible, then I guess you would be right. There is no "credible" evidence under that definition.
But please, continue down this path as, just like Sarah Palin, it shows what conservatives have become today- crazy- and independents need this constant reminder.
Funny you should bring up Palin.
I recall a quote from an Op-Ed piece I read.
"If the President of the United States is forced to, over and over again, defend against something that was posted on an online social networking site, he is in real trouble."
Or words to that effect.
You can castigate Palin all you want. But the fact is, she has the Democrats scrambling left and right like chickens with their heads cut off.
What is it about Palin that scares the Democratic Party so much?
The phrase, "me think thou doth protest TOO much" comes to mind.
Irregardless, the point still stands. If Obama really wants the "birthers" to be negated as a legitimate threat, then he needs to come clean.
What happened to the transparency that was promised?? Doesn't that bother you at all? Or do Democrats simply fall into line like good little lemmings and never question their political gods??
Michale.....
I think Palin is great for the Democratic party. She sends Independents in droves to vote Democratic.
As for comparing Bush/Cheney to Obama birthers. There are people who go overboard - for instance, the people who think Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 and orchestrated it. There does not seem to be much actual evidence to support this other than conjecture.
I'd put this in the category of the Obama birthers.
But there was actual evidence that supported that Bush/Cheney lied to send us into war. And there was actual evidence showing that Bush/Cheney broke the law to institute surveillance programs.
Even Bush/Cheney didn't dispute the 2nd, they just worked to change the law to make it legal.
So there's only a single standard and that's evidence. If there was any actual evidence supporting birther claims, wouldn't the conservative supreme court have listened to the arguments?
I find it interesting that what you admire about Palin is that she makes liberals mad. This is the old Anne Coulter approach. If you can piss off a liberal, then you win.
Good luck! :)
David
p.s. You still haven't proved that you're a terrorist. Therefore, I must be onto something here. You got all defensive and changed the subject. What are you worried about? If you're not a terrorist, wouldn't you put this issue to rest?
I think Palin is great for the Democratic party. She sends Independents in droves to vote Democratic.
If this were true, the Democrats would stay silent while she worked this "magic".
The fact that she, a private citizen, is mercilessly attacked from the lowest Democrat all the way up to the President of the United States seems to belie your claim that she is "good" for Democrats.
As for comparing Bush/Cheney to Obama birthers. There are people who go overboard - for instance, the people who think Bush had prior knowledge of 9/11 and orchestrated it. There does not seem to be much actual evidence to support this other than conjecture.
I'd put this in the category of the Obama birthers.
Fair enough.
As you, I see the validity of your comparison. I feel that there is more logic to the birther's position than to the 9/11 whack jobs, but I readily agree that is probably personal bias more than anything else.
So, point conceded.
But there was actual evidence that supported that Bush/Cheney lied to send us into war. And there was actual evidence showing that Bush/Cheney broke the law to institute surveillance programs.
No, there wasn't.
There was actual evidence that proved all actions taken by Bush/Cheney were supported and authorized by Congress.
Ever read Tom Clancy's CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER?? Beyond being a very exciting read, it also accurately portrays the notification process that is required for "black" operations.
Just because Bush/Cheney didn't clear things with all Democrats doesn't mean dick.
So there's only a single standard and that's evidence. If there was any actual evidence supporting birther claims, wouldn't the conservative supreme court have listened to the arguments?
Yer kidding, right??
I mean, imagine the possible results? Assume for the moment that the SCOTUS took the case. As I have shown, the evidence is credible and it is compelling. The LOGICAL conclusion is that Obama et al are hiding *SOMETHING* with regards to his birth certificate.
Do you REALLY think that the SCOTUS would want to rule on some that might actually DISQUALIFY Obama from being President?
Imagine the chaos that would ensue..
No, the SCOTUS took the only logical course of action and that was to (hopefully) bury they truth for the good of the country.
I find it interesting that what you admire about Palin is that she makes liberals mad. This is the old Anne Coulter approach. If you can piss off a liberal, then you win.
Other than the fact that I think Palin is kinda hot and wonders if she swings both ways, I don't have much feeling for or against her.
It's obvious that she can push the Left's buttons even as they (The Left) trip over themselves frantically trying to show she is irrelevant.
Ya can't help but admire someone who is allegedly so inconsequential, yet so in the forefront of everything. :D
p.s. You still haven't proved that you're a terrorist. Therefore, I must be onto something here. You got all defensive and changed the subject. What are you worried about? If you're not a terrorist, wouldn't you put this issue to rest?
Yes, to a terrorist, I am a terrorist.
But, who really cares about what a terrorist likes and doesn't like..
Oh, besides the Democratic Party, I mean... :D
Michale.....
Michale,
It's obvious that she can push the Left's buttons even as they (The Left) trip over themselves frantically trying to show she is irrelevant.
She certainly seems relevant to a certain crowd. And yeah, she has that way of pushing buttons. "Death panels," etc. It's the Ann Coulter strategy. Say something offensive and untrue and try to knock 'em off their message.
What she says is so far out there that she moves moderates towards voting Democratic. I know many former Republicans who voted Democratic in the last election solely because of Palin. No one has to say anything to make this happen either. All people have to do is listen to her for a few minutes. Michael Steele is very similar.
When they talk you sometimes think: huh?
The more interesting point is perhaps why these people are at the forefront of the conservative movement. I think it has much to do with what it takes for each party to be successful.
As to all the other stuff, you already know my opinions so not going to revisit those ratholes again :).
Cheers and happy weekend!
David
The more interesting point is perhaps why these people are at the forefront of the conservative movement.
If they are at the forefront of the conservative movement, it's only because the Left PUT them there.
Think about it.
If people like Palin and/or Steele didn't get the Left's panties all up in a knot, conservatives would just ignore them and move on.
The simple fact that they can push the Left's buttons is why they are so popular with the Right.
Once again, the Left is their own worst enemy.
As to all the other stuff, you already know my opinions so not going to revisit those ratholes again :).
Touche' :D
Have a good one...
Michale.....
Oddly enough, to some extent, I agree. The Democrat pols are learning though.
Like or hate Pelosi, she doesn't let all the hate get to her and just continues to do what she believes in.
-D
p.s. And yes, everything in the world is the fault of the LEFT (60% of the population that is so EVIL they deserve capital letters), or the liberal media, or illegal immigrants, or Muslims, or whoever Bill O'Reilly wants to blame today. Thank God personal responsibility is only for the poor and the left!