This has not been a good year for the Republicans.

[Guest JMA]

The Democrats have Evan Bayh and he's all we need.

Hopefully he'll get the nod from the party.

[Art Sandusky 0]

At least Democrats tax and spend so the former can pay for the latter.

[SuperJerk 0]

At least Democrats tax and spend so the former can pay for the latter.

 

Brings whole new meaning to the term "red state".

[Vyce 0]

This has not been a good year for the Republicans., Has it?

 

That's okay. It's been a bad DECADE for the Democrats.

[SuperJerk 0]

This has not been a good year for the Republicans., Has it?

 

That's okay. It's been a bad DECADE for the Democrats.

ZING~!

[Special K 0]

Zing nothing, it's the truth.

 

The Republicans are still in power, and most of the big-time Dems are having a hard time getting their issues out, and won't distance themselves from wedge issues.

 

Regardless of party, it's been a bad few years for America.

[SuperJerk 0]

Zing nothing, it's the truth.

 

I was using the "its funny because its true" zing. I stand by my zinging.

[CBright7831 0]

If anyone thinks that I am a Democrat, you are sadly mistaken.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

If anyone thinks that I am a Democrat, you are sadly mistaken.

Apart from Mike and INXS, aren't we all at least, Libs with a paint of blue or vice-versa?

[Special K 0]

Do you mean Libs with a paint of Red? Or Cons with a paint of blue? Or do you mean we're all crazy-style liberal? I'm about 50/50.

[2GOLD 0]

Do you mean Libs with a paint of Red? Or Cons with a paint of blue? Or do you mean we're all crazy-style liberal? I'm about 50/50.

 

Right down the middle here. I find myself siding with both sides on many an issue. It's like I'm arguing with myself inside my head and I can't get myself to agree.

 

Although I do what Michael Moore to stop making movies and I want Bill O'Riley to stop talking.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Do you mean Libs with a paint of Red? Or Cons with a paint of blue? Or do you mean we're all crazy-style liberal? I'm about 50/50.

 

Oh, right, forgot, sorry.

 

In Canada, the leftist Liberals are red and the rightist CPC's are blue.

 

Vice-versa in the States.

 

So wouldn't all Yanks apart from Marx, here at least leaning the opposite way on a few issues?

 

EDIT: I think I just implied Marx was an alive and well American.

 

Wonder what his thoughts would be on this site....

[Art Sandusky 0]

Most Americans are right down the middle, but thanks to sensationalization of wedge issues, we're supposedly "more divided than ever." I think if we all started focusing on truly important issues again we'd chill out a lot. I'd much rather hear that there were protestors outside of, say, the Treasury Department following some huge economic development than I would seeing the same crowd outside of a nursing home in Florida attempting to shoehorn someone into martyrdom.

[2GOLD 0]

Most Americans are right down the middle, but thanks to sensationalization of wedge issues, we're supposedly "more divided than ever." I think if we all started focusing on truly important issues again we'd chill out a lot. I'd much rather hear that there were protestors outside of, say, the Treasury Department following some huge economic development than I would seeing the same crowd outside of a nursing home in Florida attempting to shoehorn someone into martyrdom.

 

It's the media. You sell what works. For example, during the OJ trial not all white people thought he was guilty and all black people thought he was innocent. Divided sells, conflict sells, and a happy happy day doesn't sell.

 

Celebs and conflict make the ratings. And when celebs are involved in major conflicts? Hell, it's like sweeps week.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Crap like that has me not even being able to watch Fox News for morbid entertainment. MSNBC's a step above Fox, but they have Rita Cosby and barely a few minutes of live TV on the weekends. They've got slant too, but towards the left and not as pronounced as Fox. I love CNN's advertising strategy of "real news," "facts, not fear," etc. They follow up on it too for the most part, and usually the only reason missing kids and newsmagazine crap is passed off as major news is when it's a very slow news day. Even then, they're capable of presenting it in the least sensational way possible. Sure they're liberal, but at least it's an intelligent kind of liberal. MSNBC just has Chris Matthews try to get intense.

 

They're really not that bad. Each network has its own sort of personality that you can appreciate for what it is. Fox is the channel you watch if you really enjoy 20/20 or Dateline with world news being reported at the same time. If you sift out the blatantly slanted babble shows, it's at least a fairly informative channel with some smart people involved despite all the crap I give it. If it all wasn't so bush-league and had the presentation of local news (B.S. stories, plus the music they play, yikes), it'd be okay. It helps that, thanks to the growing fractures in the Republican party, they've been forced to report in more of a balanced manner. Still a bunch of assholes, but seeing their reporters rebel against their lords during the days after Katrina made me at least respect them.

 

MSNBC is unfortunately like its broadcast brother, in that it always seems more interested all the big, glorious historical stuff that comes from big stories. Their focus is also all over the place, thanks to having a broadcast network and financial channel to cover so many different things. CNN doesn't have this problem, as CNNfi isn't nearly as well-known as CNBC. They fell into the crappy news pit that Fox is in this past summer. Their primetime lineup is Countdown (pretty good for a laugh, but it doesn't make much sense when your lead story is #5 on a list), Live and Direct with friggin' Rita Cosby (who always gets "the big story" and got the equivalent of a god push in wrestling when she debuted despite being brutal to watch), Scarborough Country (Bill O'Reilly knock-off although not as insane), and The Situation (which is improving with time, I feel). This isn't exactly a great one, not that the others have good primetime lineups either.

 

CNN has experience on its side, having been around far longer than its competitors, to where we're getting to see the reporters of tomorrow with many of ones we're used to being retired now. Anderson Cooper 360 is pretty much where they have their B.S. kind of news, but at the same time it's at least pretty decent B.S. news. Think of a male Rita Cosby that has a better idea of what he's doing. I haven't the foggiest why Larry King is still on. I've never watched it, and I don't know anyone else who does either. Other than that, they simply feel a lot more impartial and professional, even if they really aren't the former. The Situation Room is the BOMB, and you know it's good when other networks try to utilize its format with multiple windows on your TV screen showing different things going on. Here's where I noticed the presentation gap between CNN and Fox. The Situation Room always seems so intense, like big shit's about to go down NOW, so you'd better be ready. Wolf Blitzer's comin' for ya. Fox has guitars and shit, fuck that. Give me plain' ol tense-ass news music. Lou Dobbs is also great, even though it seems like he won't talk about anything other than the war, immigration, and China. Plus: CNN calls it "Breaking News" when it's really warranted, unlike the others. They'll call a crap story "breaking news" just so they can have the little thing at the bottoms of their screen make people stop changing channels.

 

ABC is probably the only broadcast network I can watch and just be informed, not hearing opinions. NBC's cool, but it feels like all they can report on effectively is military and historical stuff. CBS is nice too, but old people delivering somewhat liberal news shows is grating.

[SuperJerk 0]

The Situation Room is the BOMB, and you know it's good when other networks try to utilize its format with multiple windows on your TV screen showing different things going on.

 

Maybe because other networks realize that pointing a TV camera at a TV monitor is a poor way to report the news.

[Art Sandusky 0]

But... that doesn't explain why the other networks do it. 'sides, I think it's useful when they do it, since the other areas on the video wall are usually showing the location of the story/report, as well as some kind of other video pertaining to the story or telling you who the person filing the report itself is.

[SuperJerk 0]

But... that doesn't explain why the other networks do it.

I've only seen it done on the show we're talking about. And it looks like one of those bootleg DVDs where someone took a video camera to a movie screening.

[Art Sandusky 0]

My downloading of movies has numbed me to such things probably.

 

Speaking of CNN, it feels like Wolf Blitzer has been on the clock 24/7 since the Alito hearings started.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rove: Security will be focus of 2006 campaigns

GOP strategist say Democrats have a 'pre-9/11' worldview

 

Embattled White House adviser Karl Rove vowed Friday to make the war on terrorism a central campaign issue in November and said Democratic senators looked "mean-spirited and small-minded" in questioning Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

 

"Republicans have a post-9/11 view of the world. And Democrats have a pre-9/11 view of the world," Rove told Republican activists. "That doesn't make them unpatriotic, not at all. But it does make them wrong -- deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong."

 

President Bush's top political lieutenant, making a rare public address while under investigation in the CIA leak case, joined Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman in warning GOP leaders against falling prey to the corrupting nature of power.

 

"The GOP's progress during the last four decades is a stunning political achievement. But it is also a cautionary tale of what happens to a dominant party -- in this case, the Democrat Party -- when its thinking becomes ossified; when its energy begins to drain; when an entitlement mentality takes over; and when political power becomes an end in itself rather than a mean to achieve the common goal," Rove told Republican National Committee members ending a two-day meeting.

 

"We need to learn from our successes," he said, "and from the failures of others."

Ethics concerns

 

The admonition reflects growing concerns among senior Republicans that ethics scandals in the Republican-led Congress could hurt the party in November, even among staunch GOP voters who may begin to blame corruption for Congress' runaway spending habits.

 

Mehlman couldn't have been more blunt: "One of the oldest lessons of history is that power corrupts," he said, telling RNC members that any Republicans guilty of illegal behavior should be punished.

 

The investigation of lobbyist Jack Abramoff threatens to ensnare at least a half dozen members of Congress of both parties and Bush administration officials. His ties to GOP congressional leaders and the White House pose a particular problem for Republicans. Abramoff, who has admitted to conspiring to defraud his Indian tribe clients, has pleaded guilty to corruption-related charges and is cooperating with prosecutors.

 

In an unrelated scandal, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, is expected to stand trial in the CIA leak case this summer, just ahead of the midterm elections.

 

The special prosecutor's inquiry still still under way, leaving the fate of other senior White House officials, notably Rove, in doubt.

 

Bush's political guru opened his remarks with a joking reference to the unwanted attention the case has brought him. "Anybody want to get their picture in the paper? Come on up here," he said.

A successful game plan

 

In 2002, Rove caused a stir among Democrats when he told RNC members to make the war on terrorism an issue in the midterm elections. "We can go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America," he said at the time.

 

Rove made the same case Friday, though his words were a bit more measured. Reading from a prepared text, the deputy White House chief of staff began with a call for election-year civility -- "Our opponents are our fellow citizens, not our enemies" -- and quickly turned to portraying Democrats as weak on defense.

 

"The United States faces a ruthless enemy -- and we need a commander-in-chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity that American finds itself in," Rove said. "President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."

 

He said some Democrats want to abandon Iraq too soon, which would cause enemies to "laugh at our failed resolve." Rove added: "To retreat before victory would be a reckless act -- and this president and our party will not allow it. This is worthy of a public debate."

 

He also criticized Democrats for opposing the USA Patriot Act and warrantless eavesdropping, before turning to Alito, newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts and their Democratic opponents on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

"Every effort to smear the name of these good men blew up in the face of those making the malicious charges. Some committee members came across as mean-spirited and small-minded -- and it left a searing impression," Rove said. He specifically accused Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, of creating "an ugly display" during Alito's hearing.

 

Before the RNC members returned to their home states, they approved an immigration resolution supported by the White House. A competing measure backed by hard-line conservatives opposed to Bush's guest worker program was withdrawn under pressure from White House allies.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/20/rep...e.ap/index.html

 

This is the part where I remind everybody how Bush didn't seem to give a flying fuck about terrorism from January 20th, 2001 through September 10th, 2001, and how Iraq was invaded to fight terrorism even though the relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Quaeda was fictitious. His immigration resolution that he apparently strong-armed conservative into supporting really does make me feel better about terrorism, either.

 

But, as 2004 proved, scaring people wins elections.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Wait, there's an election? All I got from that is the new marketing direction of U.S. Inc.'s current majority stockholders.

 

"Pre-9/11 mindset?" What kind of dumb shit is that?

[SuperJerk 0]

Apparently this "Pre-9/11 mindset" includes bombing al Qaeda targets back in 1998, but does not include authorizing extra $58 million to combat al Qaeda. Or something.

[EricMM 0]

Gonna be a whale of a campaign! [/Opus]

[Art Sandusky 0]

I dunno, it'll be hard to top the sleaze factor in the 2002 Georgia senatorial campaign where Max Cleland, the incumbent who lost multiple limbs from service in Vietnam, had his patriotism mercilessly attacked and lost.

[2GOLD 0]

I dunno, it'll be hard to top the sleaze factor in the 2002 Georgia senatorial campaign where Max Cleland, the incumbent who lost multiple limbs from service in Vietnam, had his patriotism mercilessly attacked and lost.

 

That doesn't speak much for the brain power of the people of Georiga does it?

A REAL patriot would have came back with no arms, no legs, no head and STILL bench pressed 1000 pounds with his chest!

[Art Sandusky 0]

Oh yes, the voters have the most blame for falling for it. I was just referring to the ugliness we're expecting in this year's campaigns.

[SuperJerk 0]

I dunno, it'll be hard to top the sleaze factor in the 2002 Georgia senatorial campaign where Max Cleland, the incumbent who lost multiple limbs from service in Vietnam, had his patriotism mercilessly attacked and lost.

 

I'm sure there is somebody out there who came pretty damn close.

[2GOLD 0]

I dunno, it'll be hard to top the sleaze factor in the 2002 Georgia senatorial campaign where Max Cleland, the incumbent who lost multiple limbs from service in Vietnam, had his patriotism mercilessly attacked and lost.

 

I'm sure there is somebody out there who came pretty damn close.

 

No way, they may have been assholes but they don't come anywhere close to that. Going after a guy who lost limbs isn't even in the same league with those guys.

 

I'd say if anyone came close it was Bush and Co saying McCain wasn't mentally stable because he was a POW. I think that's what it was. I remember someone stirring up shit about McCain's anger issues and saying it was because he was a POW. Would be great if someone had accused him of lack of patriotism. Now that would be fun.

[Art Sandusky 0]

We actually got one of those push polling calls at my house back during the 2000 primaries since my grandmother was a registered Republican. She said that it certainly would change her feelings about him if she found out that he had fathered an illegitimate child with a black woman, and she was even one of the people who helped organize McCain campaign efforts!

[The Czech Republic 0]

Remind me again why it's my sworn duty to hate John McCain. I think he's a good guy.