Why dont you Bush/Republican supporters just admit you are fucking Roman. I see enough "W" stickers and Jebus lubbers out in the real world south that I dont need your "real world" excuses why the Republicans/right will prevail and how were are blind to whats really going on in the world...you dont believe that shit either...just admit it, you're straight up Roman. Just admit what you are, that demands a lot more respect than what the bullshit the right has been throwing us for the longest time.
Hey dickbreadth - your hopes for this November are shrinking up like your withered old balls. You have no chance to take the senate and you aren't going to take the house. You think that republicans are so dumb, but then you walk into every trap they set. You accuse the administration of trying to scare everybody and then in the same breath talk about how we are more unsafe now then before the war. Its a real winner of an argument because implying that there is nothing to be scared of gives the impression that you have no fucking clue, and now thanks to ABC the whole country knows that you never did; nice publicity job there. You oppose every tool to fight the terrorists that later proves essential. Harry Reid screaming "we killed the patriot act" will make a nice commercial. That, and any picture of Nancy Pelosi. And now you're all running around bumping your heads over having to make a decission on the military tribunals, duh ... didn't see that one coming. You're going to fail in Virginia, probably even NJ, RI, TN it looks bad all over, even Lieberman's lead is growing, Talent is now up in Missouri and the NY Times just ran a piece on the congressional seats all slipping away in NY and its only going to get worse.
I look forward to seeing you froth at the mouth for the next two months trying to sell higher taxes and the Murtha/Kerry retreat, excuse me redeployment, strategy to the American public.
I guess after a while you must get used to losing and its not so bad ... i wouldnt know.
this isn't a competition. people on this board do not like bush because he is a bad president. they don't like republicans because of what they stand for. what do you stand for? my guess is greed. based on your support of bush and the republican party, here is what i know about you:
you want lower taxes for the rich, regardless of the consequences. you oppose affirmative action, welfare, abortion, and programs for the poor like head start and job corps. you want to stop immigrants from coming into this country and deport all the ones who have already established lives here. you think it was ok for the fed govt to watch people die and/or live like animals in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina. you think it was ok to go to war in Iraq under false pretenses and accept the fact that several thousand us soldiers have died along with hundreds of thousands of iraqi civilians. you think the economy is in good shape, despite our tremendous debt that was nonexistant before bush took office. you think civil rights are unimportant and trust the bush administration to disregard them, along with all privacy rights, as long as they tell us it is in our best interests.
lower taxes for everyone, except of course the millions who already pay nothing, has benefitted everyone with low unemployment a shallow recession after Clinton's interest rate cutting ride the magic carpet through the nineties economic policies, and a growing economy. 5.5 million new jobs since August 2003, and tax revenues expanding 11% this year.
Affirmative action is a policy the liberals use to allow minorites just enough education to run the copiers in their offices, but god forbid you appoint them to an important post, or let your children marry one.
My wife is an imigrant - the only difference is that her and her family spent years going through the process of doing it legally.
The Governor LA and Mayor of certainly had no problem watching the people of New Orleans suffer. "where are the buses mr. president" Oops here they are Ray.
Me and Sens. Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Fienstein, Kerry, Reid, all supported going to war.
There is no such thing as a "privacy right" in the copy of the consitution Im reading and ... "Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, whose office investigates complaints alleging civil-liberty infractions by the agency, told Congress last spring that the Patriot Act has resulted in only one potential case of abuse - when the FBI erroneously arrested and detained Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, in connection with the Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2004."
OH MY FUCKING GOD THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SHREDDED!
This is why your going to lose. Talk about spreading fear. Every one of your points is a fear tactic, race baiting, bullshit that people just arent buying anymore.
Idag har jag mest g??tt o sm??plockat h??r hemma och inte gjort ngt vettigt alls. Och jag har njutit av det till 100%. B??st av allt med denna helgen har nog iofs varit att jag lyckats sova l??nge, b??de ig??r och idag. I vanliga fall brukar jag ju vakna vid 9-9.30 senast (??ven om jag varit ute sent och partajat kv??llen innan), bara f??r att jag ??r van att g?? upp tidigt till jobbet. Och, fatiskt, det har varit riktigt sk??nt att inte g?? ut och parta till det denna helgen ocks??. Jag var n??????stan p?? v??g ut i fredags, inbillade mig att det var denna helgen det var break beat-orgie[/b] med Ali B p?? iBO, men sen ins??g jag att det ju ??r nu n??sta helg, och jag k??nde inte riktigt f??r att g?? ut om det inte var ngt speciellt.
Talk about spreading facts of why you should fear the republican party. Every one of your points is a reality, racial inequality, things that white, Republican Christians just never cared about nor will never care about.
And what have the democrats done for african americans in the last 40 years. Nothing. A bunch of failed social programs that have created like 80% out of wedlock birthrates and dependence on the welfare state. And they continue to vote for democrats at levels of like 80 - 90% its like an entitlement. But look at the hispanic vote, they could go either way, so the democrats are all falling all over themselves trying to kiss that ass.
lower taxes for everyone, except of course the millions who already pay nothing, has benefitted everyone with low unemployment a shallow recession after Clinton's interest rate cutting ride the magic carpet through the nineties economic policies, and a growing economy. 5.5 million new jobs since August 2003, and tax revenues expanding 11% this year.
bush lowered taxes for the top 1% of americans....during a war, after the stock market tanked, and while he was accumulating billions (trillions?) in debt. its not like we could have used that money for domestic programs, or to give our soldiers armor in iraq.
Affirmative action is a policy the liberals use to allow minorites just enough education to run the copiers in their offices, but god forbid you appoint them to an important post, or let your children marry one.
wait, so you are against affirmative action, but claim that those who are for it are the ones who are racist???? i thought you went to law school son. affirmative action is about leveling the playing field so that minorities are running companies, not copiers.
My wife is an imigrant - the only difference is that her and her family spent years going through the process of doing it legally.
so fuck every immigrant and their kids who did not go through that process?? send them all back. live their kids here without parents. lock 'em all up in jail?
The Governor LA and Mayor of certainly had no problem watching the people of New Orleans suffer. "where are the buses mr. president" Oops here they are Ray.
the mayor and the governor???? this was a crisis that demanded a FEDERAL response. bush sat on his ass for five days and then "flew over" new orleans. could you imagine Clinton doing the same, or any human being for that matter who watched these people on tv?
Me and Sens. Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Fienstein, Kerry, Reid, all supported going to war.
with what information? the same bullshit he fed the rest of the world. furthermore, they authorized him to use force in his discretion, not "go to war."
There is no such thing as a "privacy right" in the copy of the consitution Im reading and ... "Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, whose office investigates complaints alleging civil-liberty infractions by the agency, told Congress last spring that the Patriot Act has resulted in only one potential case of abuse - when the FBI erroneously arrested and detained Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, in connection with the Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2004."
OH MY FUCKING GOD THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SHREDDED!
there is a lot of things that arent explicitly written in the constitution but that the courts have inferred as rights. brown v. board of education ring a bell? privacy rights are inferred through the fourth amendment. and the patriot act is almost irrelevent as, in its current form, it authorizes very little as far as impeding on civil rights (unless you count the books you have checked out at the library). BUT...
how about abu ghraib? guantanamo bay? all the innocent civilians rounded up since 9-11 who have sat in cells without getting their due process rights? what about bush's unlawful wire tapping?
This is why your going to lose. Talk about spreading fear. Every one of your points is a fear tactic, race baiting, bullshit that people just arent buying anymore.
again, why is this about winning or losing for you? i support candidates who are good for the country, not good for my pocket, or solely my selfish interests. please explain why you are a bush supporter? i'd really like to know.
it should be noted that this little tiff was inspired by my assertion that the left has nothing serious to say about radical islam and when challenged to do so rant feverishly about the heinous evil of bush and his legion of the undead. Read over the last few posts and reflect on how sad it that there are those with minds so alien to the wonders of thought that even when their deficiencies are outlined to them in detail they can do nothing to address them.
Hey dickbreadth - your hopes for this November are shrinking up like your withered old balls. You have no chance to take the senate and you aren't going to take the house. You think that republicans are so dumb, but then you walk into every trap they set.[/b] You accuse the administration of trying to scare everybody and then in the same breath talk about how we are more unsafe now then before the war. Its a real winner of an argument because implying that there is nothing to be scared of gives the impression that you have no fucking clue, and now thanks to ABC the whole country knows that you never did; nice publicity job there. You oppose every tool to fight the terrorists that later proves essential. Harry Reid screaming "we killed the patriot act" will make a nice commercial. That, and any picture of Nancy Pelosi. And now you're all running around bumping your heads over having to make a decission on the military tribunals, duh ... didn't see that one coming. You're going to fail in Virginia, probably even NJ, RI, TN it looks bad all over, even Lieberman's lead is growing, Talent is now up in Missouri and the NY Times just ran a piece on the congressional seats all slipping away in NY and its only going to get worse.
I look forward to seeing you froth at the mouth for the next two months trying to sell higher taxes and the Murtha/Kerry retreat, excuse me redeployment, strategy to the American public.
I guess after a while you must get used to losing and its not so bad ... i wouldnt know. This is true. Anyone who thinks that Carl Rove can't pull out a victory in November is not paying attention. Look at Saba's post. Lies and name calling. It works on the American electorate.
I told everyone over and over that Carl Rove would not have let Bush appoint a someone into looking into Plame unless they knew out come. Dems were foaming out the mouth talking about Rove's indictment. Now, even though more than one reporter has sited Rove and Libby as sources, they come out looking smelling like roses. Meanwhile, Bush's State Department is being portrayed as as bastion of liberal democrats who leak CIA officers names.
Saba, I guess part of the reason you're a GOP is your desire to win. I have a question for you. Would you support kind the powers you believe Bush should have if a Clinton were president? The ability to nullify laws you don't like? Warrantless searches of Americans homes, bank records, phone calls. Would you still believe you have no right to privacy if Nancy Polosi were president? Would you support President Harry Ried's right to try people on secret evidence? Would you support President Howard Dean's right to torture and secret prisons? Would you support President John Edwards if he sent American troops into Sudan? Do you want President John Kerry to be able to read your emails? Should President Al Gore be allowed to override congressional passed laws?
Saba, I guess part of the reason you're a GOP is your desire to win. I have a question for you. Would you support kind the powers you believe Bush should have if a Clinton were president? The ability to nullify laws you don't like? Warrantless searches of Americans homes, bank records, phone calls. Would you still believe you have no right to privacy if Nancy Polosi were president? Would you support President Harry Ried's right to try people on secret evidence? Would you support President Howard Dean's right to torture and secret prisons? Would you support President John Edwards if he sent American troops into Sudan? Do you want President John Kerry to be able to read your emails? Should President Al Gore be allowed to override congressional passed laws?
I only wish Clinton had done half those things is 93 when the first bombing took place and he was[/b] president, and the answer to all the other questions is yes. But none of those people will ever prosecute a war they don't believe is happening so vigorously. "The tools belong to the man who can use them."
Look at Saba's post. Lies and name calling. It works on the American electorate.
uh huh.
dude is like the real-life version of alfred e neuman...
WHAT ME WORRY?
Have you ever read DailyKos, all it is is name calling and the most outrageous lies. Its like the equivalent of political pornography. And this guy is supposed to be the new democratic kingmaker? He has Kerry and Feingold and other 08 hopefuls writing in to kiss his ass. Thats like Anne Coulter being made head of the RNC, I would be worried if I were a democrat. Are there an moderate voices left in that party or have they all drank the cool-aid? They knifed Joe Lieberman in the back in an anti-Semitic blood feast and now there gearing up to try and knuckle Hillary under. The primaries have been so taken over by nutroots people that the only survivors are completely unelectable in a general election. Mark my words, your candidate in 2008 is going to be Al Gore and this time you won't need to count any votes twice to know he lost.
Look at Saba's post. Lies and name calling. It works on the American electorate.
uh huh.
dude is like the real-life version of alfred e neuman...
WHAT ME WORRY?
Have you ever read DailyKos, all it is is name calling and the most outrageous lies. Its like the equivalent of political pornography. And this guy is supposed to be the new democratic kingmaker? He has Kerry and Feingold and other 08 hopefuls writing in to kiss his ass. Thats like Anne Coulter being made head of the RNC, I would be worried if I were a democrat. Are there an moderate voices left in that party or have they all drank the cool-aid? They knifed Joe Lieberman in the back in an anti-Semitic blood feast and now there gearing up to try and knuckle Hillary under. The primaries have been so taken over by nutroots people that the only survivors are completely unelectable in a general election. Mark my words, your candidate in 2008 is going to be Al Gore and this time you won't need to count any votes twice to know he lost.
i don't agree with saba's politics, but his analysis is on point. so many shrill liberals these days running around with Bush's Last Day buttons. Nice. That's doing a lot, guys...
And, c'mon...Isn't the Bush-Alfred E. Neuman joke about 9 years old at this point? I get it. Bush is dumb, and Clinton is a manwhore. Neither side is moving above stupid insults and stereotypes. Don't try to pull the 'name calling' card.
Saba, I guess part of the reason you're a GOP is your desire to win. I have a question for you. Would you support kind the powers you believe Bush should have if a Clinton were president? The ability to nullify laws you don't like? Warrantless searches of Americans homes, bank records, phone calls. Would you still believe you have no right to privacy if Nancy Polosi were president? Would you support President Harry Ried's right to try people on secret evidence? Would you support President Howard Dean's right to torture and secret prisons? Would you support President John Edwards if he sent American troops into Sudan? Do you want President John Kerry to be able to read your emails? Should President Al Gore be allowed to override congressional passed laws?
I only wish Clinton had done half those things is 93 when the first bombing took place and he was[/b] president, and the answer to all the other questions is yes. But none of those people will ever prosecute a war they don't believe is happening so vigorously. "The tools belong to the man who can use them."
The patriot act was a quick rewrite of the bill Clinton introduced after the Oklahoma City bombing. Your heroes, led by the NRA, crushed that bill. The offending clause? Putting microscopic markers in nitro-fertilizers. Apparently this was an abridgement of the right to form militias.
As for the first World Trade bombing. Clinton caught the people involved and they are currently serving life sentences. So we can agree that he did more than Bush, who has yet to get a conviction in the second attack. He also bombed Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan that Osama Bin Ladan owned that was capable of making chemical weapons. Did you rally around your president and our troops then? The Republican controlled house and senate did not. In fact they did just the opposite, which no doubt emboldened the terrorists.
It's time for Sababaloo to go to school again. Here's a good article from the NYT book review. Therein lies the correct strategy for defeating Al-Qaeda and kin. Your blind support for failed policies because they support your false theory of "action" (i.e. we must confront these guys or they will destroy us) is silly and beneath your obvious intelligence. It is a fact that Al-Qaeda cannot destroy us through conventional methods which means they will resort to other methods to achieve there goals. Key in there scheme is to elicit responses from the US and the West that cause greater numbers to sypmathize with their idiotic struggle to return us to the caliphate. Iraq is a perfect example of this strategy. It is generally accepted that the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to draw us into Afghanistan and defeat us like the Soviets. Of course we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by invading Babylonia where we are now caught in a civil war which we will end up pulling out of. Al-Qaeda will only win if we are too stupid to figure how to iosolate them in the world. Unforunately, we have very stupid people running things at this point. I understand you don't like Carteresque leadership (equivocal and morally based) but at least be honest about the results of neo-cons' adventures in democracy building.
Skip to next paragraph WHAT TERRORISTS WANT Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat. By Louise Richardson.
312 pp. Random House. $25.95.
Karl Rove???s observation that virile conservatives march forth to defeat their terrorist enemies while epicene liberals seek to understand them was memorable for its partisan venom. Yet the fact is, without making a thorough effort to comprehend the motives, fears and capabilities of Al Qaeda???s militants, we can hardly hope to defeat them.
Modern terrorists ??? whether operating in the United States, Europe or the Middle East ??? have sought to understand us and the vulnerabilities of our open societies. It is high time we sought to understand them. Louise Richardson, a lecturer at Harvard, has now produced the overdue and essential primer on terrorism and how to tackle it. ???What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat??? is the book many have been waiting for. Richardson???s approach is clear and simple, and is deeply informed by the personal insights of one who, as a student in Dublin, was briefly recruited by the political wing of the I.R.A. She has since organized seminars and war games that have brought together academics, former terrorists and those she calls ???activists.???
It may be objected that there is a fundamental difference between Al Qaeda and the I.R.A., a European national independence movement with Christian roots that was prepared to use terrorist tactics as a rational means to achieve a political end. The I.R.A. wanted to bomb its way to the conference table, while Al Qaeda seeks to blow up the table as a symbol of Western cultural oppression. The I.R.A. usually abjured suicide attacks since its militants wanted a sporting chance of experiencing victory (the death of Bobby Sands and his compatriots by hunger strike was an exception). By contrast, Al Qaeda is commonly seen as a nihilist group with no negotiable objectives; with an ideology that embraces and glorifies suicide bombings; as so many mad dogs who can only be hunted down and killed.
Richardson points out that this is a dangerous misconception. Al Qaeda is neither unique in its organization nor unprecedented in its scale and reach, or in its readiness to inflict mass casualties. The Aum Shinrikyo perpetrators of the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for instance, hoped for thousands of deaths. With admirable clarity and deep erudition, Richardson suggests that like all terrorist movements, Al Qaeda requires three components: alienated individuals, a complicit society or community, and a legitimizing ideology. Its troops are motivated by some mixture of three key goals: revenge, renown and reaction from the enemy.
Richardson goes on to argue that the policies of the Bush administration have provided Al Qaeda with great renown and monstrous overreaction ??? precisely the stimulants it needs to prosper. By declaring ???war??? on terrorism, the White House has defined the struggle against Al Qaeda essentially as a military problem, best managed by the Pentagon. This flies in the face of all available evidence from successful antiterror campaigns. These include the British operations in Malaya in the 1950???s, the penetration of Shining Path by the Peruvian police, the defeats Turkey has inflicted on the Kurdish P.K.K. and, most recently, the co-option of the I.R.A. leadership into electoral politics through the cooperation of the London and Dublin governments.
These successes have a number of features in common. They were led primarily by police intelligence units working in very close coordination with other arms of the state, including the military and the judiciary, as well as local economic development teams. Government officials all came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists??? goals but shrank from their tactics.
A successful counterterrorist campaign, Richardson explains, seeks to empower and legitimize the nonviolent moderates, thus isolating the terrorists. Success requires governments to hold the moral high ground, convincing the undecided that the state and its agents are the good guys, who enforce democratic principles and civil liberties even among their own troops and police officers. In other words, with an effective antiterrorist policy there would be no Guant??namo, no detention without fair trial, no secret wiretapping programs and no ???renditions??? of suspects to friendly but foul regimes that practice torture. Intelligence organizations would operate under clear and strict judicial guidelines, with transparent political oversight.
In its determination to display resolve, Richardson says, the Bush administration has so far failed to learn these lessons. She points out that most governments go through an initial phase of draconian measures with full public support, a second phase of polarization, when liberals bleating about human and civic rights are treated as semitraitorous wimps, and a third phase that comes with the understanding that the tough tactics are not working as expected and that (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to have realized in Iraq) they are creating new terrorists faster than the old ones can be killed or neutralized.
This third phase leads to a reassessment, and then to a search for ways to divide the enemy and exploit the merest hint of division or ideological argument. Probably going further than this administration can yet swallow, Richardson recommends discreetly opening negotiations with Ayman al-Zawahri, the ideologist of Al Qaeda; it???s known that Zawahri had gently scolded Al Qaeda???s man in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for killing Iraqi Shiites in order to foment a civil war. And there may be rivals of Osama bin Laden whom the administration could reach out to ??? in any event, it would be helpful to insert such a worrisome worm of suspicion into Al Qaeda???s leadership. Richardson suggests that British intelligence was so adroit at developing informants and fomenting splits in Northern Ireland that there was a period when the I.R.A.???s counterinfiltration teams killed off more of their own militants than the British did.
Al Qaeda, for its part, has already shown itself quite adept a
t the tactic of dividing the enemy, exploiting differences between Washington and its European allies. And if senior figures in the Bush administration are even bothering to read bin Laden???s speeches, they should have noticed that he condemns the United States for its rejection of the International Criminal Court and for turning a blind eye to the profiteering of the Halliburton Company. As Richardson points out, this suggests that bin Laden has taken to heart ???Lenin???s key contribution to terrorist strategy ... the importance of exploiting every fragment of local alienation for its own ends.???
Richardson???s weakest point is that she does not fully address the most profound problem Washington faces. Domestic politics and wider geostrategic considerations have locked the United States into a seemingly unquestioning support for Israel and for unsavory but pro-Western regimes that will make it very difficult to win over moderate Arab opinion and isolate the terrorists. Still, improving America???s image overseas is not rocket science: witness the transformation among Indonesians after the magnificent relief effort that Washington led following the great tsunami. Now that many Americans as well as a number of officials inside the administration are going through the third phase of reassessment, the campaign against Al Qaeda can, perhaps, begin to succeed.
Martin Walker is the editor of United Press International and a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School.
The patriot act was a quick rewrite of the bill Clinton introduced after the Oklahoma City bombing. Your heroes, led by the NRA, crushed that bill. The offending clause? Putting microscopic markers in nitro-fertilizers. Apparently this was an abridgement of the right to form militias.
Clinton knew that the taggants part of his proposal would be rejected, and a bill did pass and was signed and an important part ofit was the renewal of the death penalty but as you said
they are currently serving life sentences.
whether there will be convictions in the second attack depends on whether Congress will allow for the tribunals, lets see where those democratic principles go when its time for that vote.
He also bombed Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan that Osama Bin Ladan owned that was capable of making chemical weapons.
it blows my mind that with all the crazy conspiracy theories popping up on this board, people will still get entrenched in the old democrat vs. republican debate. is any thought given to the idea that they might be in this together? that the more we bicker about red states vs. blue states the less thought we give to REAL radical change? is anyone thinking "outside the box" on this issue?
it blows my mind that with all the crazy conspiracy theories popping up on this board, people will still get entrenched in the old democrat vs. republican debate. is any thought given to the idea that they might be in this together? that the more we bicker about red states vs. blue states the less thought we give to REAL radical change? is anyone thinking "outside the box" on this issue?
You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that REAL radical change is very difficult to achieve in this country. The only way to achieve real radical change is through the system. As the right wing of this country has proven.
I think what the Bush administration has achieved is real radical change. They have not been able to dismantle the government. But they have been able to create a government that lives up to their belief that "government does not work". They believe that the federal government can not do nation building. They have proved it in Iraq. They believe that each person must rely only on their self and that the government can't help individuals. They proved it in the gulf coast. They believe that socialized medicine can not work. They proved with the prescription drug plan. The list goes on and on. We once had a government that was capable of nation building, emergency response and helping those in need. They have changed that to a country that helps only mega corporations and the super rich. That my friend is radical change.
He also bombed Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan that Osama Bin Ladan owned that was capable of making chemical weapons.
I didn't realize asprin was a chemical weapon.
You really think Osama was making asprin??
Are you just as willing to make sarcastis comments about your leading for assaulting an entire country who neither had WMD's or ties to terrorists?
In the past week Bush has admitted twice (press corp speach and public TV address)that Iraq didn't have WMD's and didn't have anything to do with 9/11. He's basically admitted that it was a personal vendetta cuz he had a problem with Saddam. His only defence is that the world is a better place with out Saddam, but right now the world would be a better place with out Bush as well. There are plenty of other leaders as bad a Saddam and we're not attacking them.
Get real. Laser hit you with hard facts and you just dismiss them. You've exposed Republicans for what they are, power hungry partisaians who only care about winning and not actually serving the people.
this thread is making me sick to my stomach yet hysterical with uncontrollable laughter
So to wrap things up thus far we all want to exterminate dolo with extreme prejudice and........... we all agree that pearle,cheney,wolfwitz,rove,delay,and the corpse of Ronald Reagan will gang rape SABADABA into permenent submission/dementia at the next Bohemian Grove Jamboree?????
lower taxes for everyone, except of course the millions who already pay nothing, has benefitted everyone with low unemployment a shallow recession after Clinton's interest rate cutting ride the magic carpet through the nineties economic policies, and a growing economy. 5.5 million new jobs since August 2003, and tax revenues expanding 11% this year.
Unemployment is about 5% right now. That is not "low unemployment" but rather the historical U.S. average since the 1950s. And it doesn't matter whether you count for the high unemployment of the 1970s because there was such REAL low unemployment during the 1990s that it still averages out to 5%.
The latest Census report from August 2006 said that median household income rose 1% but that the poverty rate stayed the same. For 2005 the report said that the poverty rate was 12.6%, that's up from the 11.7% in 2001.[/b] A Census Bureau official said that the increase in household income was due to more people working per household, but working at individual jobs that pay less than in the past.[/b]
The Census report also said that median individual income dropped - men about 1.8% and women about 1.3%.[/b]
As with previous Conservative Republican policies, the benefits of their economic programs are not trickling down to everyone.
Source: "U.S. household income rises a bit, but poverty rate maintains its grip" SF Chronicle, 8/30/06
"Median household income rose about 1 percent between 2004 and 2005, but the nation's poverty rate remained unchanged, according to a survey released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The American Community Survey for 2005, the Census Bureau's new annual demographic study, also estimated that the median income for individuals nationwide dropped - men's about 1.8 percent and women's about 1.3 percent.
Advocates for the poor were frustrated by the good news-bad news announcement. It's proof that there have been too few gains during a time of economic recovery, said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonpartisan policy research group.
....
Based on its survey of 800,000 households across the country, the Census Bureau estimates that 37 million people were living in poverty in 2005, or 12.6 percent of Americans. ....
The California Budget Project and other watchdog groups pointed out that even though the poverty rates stabilized between 2004 and 2005 - the headline that the Census Bureau used on its news release Tuesday - the rate in 2005 was well above 2001's 11.7 percent.
These groups used Tuesday's announcement to complain about federal policies, including tax cuts for the wealthy and Medicaid changes.
"We're seeing a general theme of divergences (betwen the economic classes), and we can't say the country as a whole is doing better," said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank.
...
David Johnson, chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, suggested there were more people working per household to make ends meet, but working at individual jobs that pay less."
we all agree that pearle,cheney,wolfwitz,rove,delay,and the corpse of Ronald Reagan will gang rape SABADABA into permenent submission/dementia at the next Bohemian Grove Jamboree?????
It's time for Sababaloo to go to school again. Here's a good article from the NYT book review. Therein lies the correct strategy for defeating Al-Qaeda and kin. Your blind support for failed policies because they support your false theory of "action" (i.e. we must confront these guys or they will destroy us) is silly and beneath your obvious intelligence. It is a fact that Al-Qaeda cannot destroy us through conventional methods which means they will resort to other methods to achieve there goals. Key in there scheme is to elicit responses from the US and the West that cause greater numbers to sypmathize with their idiotic struggle to return us to the caliphate. Iraq is a perfect example of this strategy. It is generally accepted that the purpose of the 9/11 attacks was to draw us into Afghanistan and defeat us like the Soviets. Of course we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by invading Babylonia where we are now caught in a civil war which we will end up pulling out of. [/b] Al-Qaeda will only win if we are too stupid to figure how to iosolate them in the world. Unforunately, we have very stupid people running things at this point. I understand you don't like Carteresque leadership (equivocal and morally based) but at least be honest about the results of neo-cons' adventures in democracy building.
peter you are really outdoing yourself here. it seems like your pfft untouchable "the gop is the permanent ruling party" schtick is becoming desperate.
let me say for the record that i'd gladly vote for candidates from ANY party who replace do nothing members of Congress. they just happen to almost all be GOP these days. for ex, the dude running against Chaffee in the RI primary was making sense on many levels.
tell me this, why does the RNC et al plan (again) to use the massive campaign war chest to "define" Dem challngers? why can't they run on THEIR record? why are they spending so much money down here in VA trying to find out how many unpaid parking tickets Jim Webb has? why can't they just tell us about all the great things George Allen and his DC GOP boys and girls have done?
.... In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats
By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza Washington Post Staff Writers Sunday, September 10, 2006; A01
Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.
The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.
"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."
The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.
Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.
And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.
"The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants."
How dare they run such a scurrlous personal attack ad like that.
Comments
lower taxes for everyone, except of course the millions who already pay nothing, has benefitted everyone with low unemployment a shallow recession after Clinton's interest rate cutting ride the magic carpet through the nineties economic policies, and a growing economy. 5.5 million new jobs since August 2003, and tax revenues expanding 11% this year.
Affirmative action is a policy the liberals use to allow minorites just enough education to run the copiers in their offices, but god forbid you appoint them to an important post, or let your children marry one.
My wife is an imigrant - the only difference is that her and her family spent years going through the process of doing it legally.
The Governor LA and Mayor of certainly had no problem watching the people of New Orleans suffer. "where are the buses mr. president" Oops here they are Ray.
Me and Sens. Biden, Edwards, Clinton, Fienstein, Kerry, Reid, all supported going to war.
There is no such thing as a "privacy right" in the copy of the consitution Im reading and ... "Justice Department Inspector General Glenn Fine, whose office investigates complaints alleging civil-liberty infractions by the agency, told Congress last spring that the Patriot Act has resulted in only one potential case of abuse - when the FBI erroneously arrested and detained Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon lawyer, in connection with the Madrid train bombings on March 11, 2004."
OH MY FUCKING GOD THE CONSTITUTION HAS BEEN SHREDDED!
This is why your going to lose. Talk about spreading fear. Every one of your points is a fear tactic, race baiting, bullshit that people just arent buying anymore.
Why?
bush lowered taxes for the top 1% of americans....during a war, after the stock market tanked, and while he was accumulating billions (trillions?) in debt. its not like we could have used that money for domestic programs, or to give our soldiers armor in iraq.
wait, so you are against affirmative action, but claim that those who are for it are the ones who are racist???? i thought you went to law school son. affirmative action is about leveling the playing field so that minorities are running companies, not copiers.
so fuck every immigrant and their kids who did not go through that process?? send them all back. live their kids here without parents. lock 'em all up in jail?
the mayor and the governor???? this was a crisis that demanded a FEDERAL response. bush sat on his ass for five days and then "flew over" new orleans. could you imagine Clinton doing the same, or any human being for that matter who watched these people on tv?
with what information? the same bullshit he fed the rest of the world. furthermore, they authorized him to use force in his discretion, not "go to war."
there is a lot of things that arent explicitly written in the constitution but that the courts have inferred as rights. brown v. board of education ring a bell? privacy rights are inferred through the fourth amendment. and the patriot act is almost irrelevent as, in its current form, it authorizes very little as far as impeding on civil rights (unless you count the books you have checked out at the library). BUT...
how about abu ghraib? guantanamo bay? all the innocent civilians rounded up since 9-11 who have sat in cells without getting their due process rights? what about bush's unlawful wire tapping?
again, why is this about winning or losing for you? i support candidates who are good for the country, not good for my pocket, or solely my selfish interests. please explain why you are a bush supporter? i'd really like to know.
I look forward to seeing you froth at the mouth for the next two months trying to sell higher taxes and the Murtha/Kerry retreat, excuse me redeployment, strategy to the American public.
I guess after a while you must get used to losing and its not so bad ... i wouldnt know.
This is true. Anyone who thinks that Carl Rove can't pull out a victory in November is not paying attention. Look at Saba's post. Lies and name calling. It works on the American electorate.
I told everyone over and over that Carl Rove would not have let Bush appoint a someone into looking into Plame unless they knew out come. Dems were foaming out the mouth talking about Rove's indictment. Now, even though more than one reporter has sited Rove and Libby as sources, they come out looking smelling like roses. Meanwhile, Bush's State Department is being portrayed as as bastion of liberal democrats who leak CIA officers names.
Saba, I guess part of the reason you're a GOP is your desire to win. I have a question for you. Would you support kind the powers you believe Bush should have if a Clinton were president? The ability to nullify laws you don't like? Warrantless searches of Americans homes, bank records, phone calls. Would you still believe you have no right to privacy if Nancy Polosi were president? Would you support President Harry Ried's right to try people on secret evidence? Would you support President Howard Dean's right to torture and secret prisons? Would you support President John Edwards if he sent American troops into Sudan? Do you want President John Kerry to be able to read your emails? Should President Al Gore be allowed to override congressional passed laws?
I only wish Clinton had done half those things is 93 when the first bombing took place and he was[/b] president, and the answer to all the other questions is yes. But none of those people will ever prosecute a war they don't believe is happening so vigorously. "The tools belong to the man who can use them."
uh huh.
Have you ever read DailyKos, all it is is name calling and the most outrageous lies. Its like the equivalent of political pornography. And this guy is supposed to be the new democratic kingmaker? He has Kerry and Feingold and other 08 hopefuls writing in to kiss his ass. Thats like Anne Coulter being made head of the RNC, I would be worried if I were a democrat. Are there an moderate voices left in that party or have they all drank the cool-aid? They knifed Joe Lieberman in the back in an anti-Semitic blood feast and now there gearing up to try and knuckle Hillary under. The primaries have been so taken over by nutroots people that the only survivors are completely unelectable in a general election. Mark my words, your candidate in 2008 is going to be Al Gore and this time you won't need to count any votes twice to know he lost.
i don't agree with saba's politics, but his analysis is on point. so many shrill liberals these days running around with Bush's Last Day buttons. Nice. That's doing a lot, guys...
And, c'mon...Isn't the Bush-Alfred E. Neuman joke about 9 years old at this point? I get it. Bush is dumb, and Clinton is a manwhore. Neither side is moving above stupid insults and stereotypes. Don't try to pull the 'name calling' card.
The patriot act was a quick rewrite of the bill Clinton introduced after the Oklahoma City bombing. Your heroes, led by the NRA, crushed that bill. The offending clause? Putting microscopic markers in nitro-fertilizers. Apparently this was an abridgement of the right to form militias.
As for the first World Trade bombing. Clinton caught the people involved and they are currently serving life sentences. So we can agree that he did more than Bush, who has yet to get a conviction in the second attack. He also bombed Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan and a chemical factory in Sudan that Osama Bin Ladan owned that was capable of making chemical weapons. Did you rally around your president and our troops then? The Republican controlled house and senate did not. In fact they did just the opposite, which no doubt emboldened the terrorists.
Sababada homework assignment #1
Skip to next paragraph
WHAT TERRORISTS WANT
Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat.
By Louise Richardson.
312 pp. Random House. $25.95.
Karl Rove???s observation that virile conservatives march forth to defeat their terrorist enemies while epicene liberals seek to understand them was memorable for its partisan venom. Yet the fact is, without making a thorough effort to comprehend the motives, fears and capabilities of Al Qaeda???s militants, we can hardly hope to defeat them.
Modern terrorists ??? whether operating in the United States, Europe or the Middle East ??? have sought to understand us and the vulnerabilities of our open societies. It is high time we sought to understand them. Louise Richardson, a lecturer at Harvard, has now produced the overdue and essential primer on terrorism and how to tackle it. ???What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat??? is the book many have been waiting for. Richardson???s approach is clear and simple, and is deeply informed by the personal insights of one who, as a student in Dublin, was briefly recruited by the political wing of the I.R.A. She has since organized seminars and war games that have brought together academics, former terrorists and those she calls ???activists.???
It may be objected that there is a fundamental difference between Al Qaeda and the I.R.A., a European national independence movement with Christian roots that was prepared to use terrorist tactics as a rational means to achieve a political end. The I.R.A. wanted to bomb its way to the conference table, while Al Qaeda seeks to blow up the table as a symbol of Western cultural oppression. The I.R.A. usually abjured suicide attacks since its militants wanted a sporting chance of experiencing victory (the death of Bobby Sands and his compatriots by hunger strike was an exception). By contrast, Al Qaeda is commonly seen as a nihilist group with no negotiable objectives; with an ideology that embraces and glorifies suicide bombings; as so many mad dogs who can only be hunted down and killed.
Richardson points out that this is a dangerous misconception. Al Qaeda is neither unique in its organization nor unprecedented in its scale and reach, or in its readiness to inflict mass casualties. The Aum Shinrikyo perpetrators of the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway, for instance, hoped for thousands of deaths. With admirable clarity and deep erudition, Richardson suggests that like all terrorist movements, Al Qaeda requires three components: alienated individuals, a complicit society or community, and a legitimizing ideology. Its troops are motivated by some mixture of three key goals: revenge, renown and reaction from the enemy.
Richardson goes on to argue that the policies of the Bush administration have provided Al Qaeda with great renown and monstrous overreaction ??? precisely the stimulants it needs to prosper. By declaring ???war??? on terrorism, the White House has defined the struggle against Al Qaeda essentially as a military problem, best managed by the Pentagon. This flies in the face of all available evidence from successful antiterror campaigns. These include the British operations in Malaya in the 1950???s, the penetration of Shining Path by the Peruvian police, the defeats Turkey has inflicted on the Kurdish P.K.K. and, most recently, the co-option of the I.R.A. leadership into electoral politics through the cooperation of the London and Dublin governments.
These successes have a number of features in common. They were led primarily by police intelligence units working in very close coordination with other arms of the state, including the military and the judiciary, as well as local economic development teams. Government officials all came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists??? goals but shrank from their tactics.
A successful counterterrorist campaign, Richardson explains, seeks to empower and legitimize the nonviolent moderates, thus isolating the terrorists. Success requires governments to hold the moral high ground, convincing the undecided that the state and its agents are the good guys, who enforce democratic principles and civil liberties even among their own troops and police officers. In other words, with an effective antiterrorist policy there would be no Guant??namo, no detention without fair trial, no secret wiretapping programs and no ???renditions??? of suspects to friendly but foul regimes that practice torture. Intelligence organizations would operate under clear and strict judicial guidelines, with transparent political oversight.
In its determination to display resolve, Richardson says, the Bush administration has so far failed to learn these lessons. She points out that most governments go through an initial phase of draconian measures with full public support, a second phase of polarization, when liberals bleating about human and civic rights are treated as semitraitorous wimps, and a third phase that comes with the understanding that the tough tactics are not working as expected and that (as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld seems to have realized in Iraq) they are creating new terrorists faster than the old ones can be killed or neutralized.
This third phase leads to a reassessment, and then to a search for ways to divide the enemy and exploit the merest hint of division or ideological argument. Probably going further than this administration can yet swallow, Richardson recommends discreetly opening negotiations with Ayman al-Zawahri, the ideologist of Al Qaeda; it???s known that Zawahri had gently scolded Al Qaeda???s man in Iraq, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for killing Iraqi Shiites in order to foment a civil war. And there may be rivals of Osama bin Laden whom the administration could reach out to ??? in any event, it would be helpful to insert such a worrisome worm of suspicion into Al Qaeda???s leadership. Richardson suggests that British intelligence was so adroit at developing informants and fomenting splits in Northern Ireland that there was a period when the I.R.A.???s counterinfiltration teams killed off more of their own militants than the British did.
Al Qaeda, for its part, has already shown itself quite adept a t the tactic of dividing the enemy, exploiting differences between Washington and its European allies. And if senior figures in the Bush administration are even bothering to read bin Laden???s speeches, they should have noticed that he condemns the United States for its rejection of the International Criminal Court and for turning a blind eye to the profiteering of the Halliburton Company. As Richardson points out, this suggests that bin Laden has taken to heart ???Lenin???s key contribution to terrorist strategy ... the importance of exploiting every fragment of local alienation for its own ends.???
Richardson???s weakest point is that she does not fully address the most profound problem Washington faces. Domestic politics and wider geostrategic considerations have locked the United States into a seemingly unquestioning support for Israel and for unsavory but pro-Western regimes that will make it very difficult to win over moderate Arab opinion and isolate the terrorists. Still, improving America???s image overseas is not rocket science: witness the transformation among Indonesians after the magnificent relief effort that Washington led following the great tsunami. Now that many Americans as well as a number of officials inside the administration are going through the third phase of reassessment, the campaign against Al Qaeda can, perhaps, begin to succeed.
Martin Walker is the editor of United Press International and a senior fellow of the World Policy Institute at the New School.
Clinton knew that the taggants part of his proposal would be rejected, and a bill did pass and was signed and an important part ofit was the renewal of the death penalty but as you said
whether there will be convictions in the second attack depends on whether Congress will allow for the tribunals, lets see where those democratic principles go when its time for that vote.
I didn't realize asprin was a chemical weapon.
You do not need to be a conspiracy theorist to know that REAL radical change is very difficult to achieve in this country. The only way to achieve real radical change is through the system. As the right wing of this country has proven.
I think what the Bush administration has achieved is real radical change. They have not been able to dismantle the government. But they have been able to create a government that lives up to their belief that "government does not work". They believe that the federal government can not do nation building. They have proved it in Iraq. They believe that each person must rely only on their self and that the government can't help individuals. They proved it in the gulf coast. They believe that socialized medicine can not work. They proved with the prescription drug plan. The list goes on and on. We once had a government that was capable of nation building, emergency response and helping those in need. They have changed that to a country that helps only mega corporations and the super rich. That my friend is radical change.
You really think Osama was making asprin??
Are you just as willing to make sarcastis comments about your leading for assaulting an entire country who neither had WMD's or ties to terrorists?
In the past week Bush has admitted twice (press corp speach and public TV address)that Iraq didn't have WMD's and didn't have anything to do with 9/11. He's basically admitted that it was a personal vendetta cuz he had a problem with Saddam. His only defence is that the world is a better place with out Saddam, but right now the world would be a better place with out Bush as well. There are plenty of other leaders as bad a Saddam and we're not attacking them.
Get real. Laser hit you with hard facts and you just dismiss them. You've exposed Republicans for what they are, power hungry partisaians who only care about winning and not actually serving the people.
He's a mental weapon.
So to wrap things up thus far
we all want to exterminate dolo with extreme prejudice and........... we all agree that pearle,cheney,wolfwitz,rove,delay,and the corpse of Ronald Reagan will gang rape SABADABA into permenent submission/dementia at the next Bohemian Grove Jamboree?????
Unemployment is about 5% right now. That is not "low unemployment" but rather the historical U.S. average since the 1950s. And it doesn't matter whether you count for the high unemployment of the 1970s because there was such REAL low unemployment during the 1990s that it still averages out to 5%.
The latest Census report from August 2006 said that median household income rose 1% but that the poverty rate stayed the same. For 2005 the report said that the poverty rate was 12.6%, that's up from the 11.7% in 2001.[/b] A Census Bureau official said that the increase in household income was due to more people working per household, but working at individual jobs that pay less than in the past.[/b]
The Census report also said that median individual income dropped - men about 1.8% and women about 1.3%.[/b]
As with previous Conservative Republican policies, the benefits of their economic programs are not trickling down to everyone.
Source: "U.S. household income rises a bit, but poverty rate maintains its grip" SF Chronicle, 8/30/06
"Median household income rose about 1 percent between 2004 and 2005, but the nation's poverty rate remained unchanged, according to a survey released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The American Community Survey for 2005, the Census Bureau's new annual demographic study, also estimated that the median income for individuals nationwide dropped - men's about 1.8 percent and women's about 1.3 percent.
Advocates for the poor were frustrated by the good news-bad news announcement. It's proof that there have been too few gains during a time of economic recovery, said Jean Ross, executive director of the California Budget Project, a nonpartisan policy research group.
....
Based on its survey of 800,000 households across the country, the Census Bureau estimates that 37 million people were living in poverty in 2005, or 12.6 percent of Americans. ....
The California Budget Project and other watchdog groups pointed out that even though the poverty rates stabilized between 2004 and 2005 - the headline that the Census Bureau used on its news release Tuesday - the rate in 2005 was well above 2001's 11.7 percent.
These groups used Tuesday's announcement to complain about federal policies, including tax cuts for the wealthy and Medicaid changes.
"We're seeing a general theme of divergences (betwen the economic classes), and we can't say the country as a whole is doing better," said Arloc Sherman, a senior researcher with the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank.
...
David Johnson, chief of the Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division of the U.S. Census Bureau, suggested there were more people working per household to make ends meet, but working at individual jobs that pay less."
It was an aspirin/medicine factory. It's been well documented.
http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/23news.html
People need to get off this left/right hate rant bullshit. Clinton's as bad as Bush. Look at how buddy-buddy Bill and HW are.
I don't think a lot of Americans would agree with this - they might say one or the other but they're not going to equate the two.
Bill Clinton could get re-elected tomorrow... Bush couldn't.
I recently schooled some conspiracy nuts on another forum by sourcing this same pool of understanding.
let me say for the record that i'd gladly vote for candidates from ANY party who replace do nothing members of Congress. they just happen to almost all be GOP these days. for ex, the dude running against Chaffee in the RI primary was making sense on many levels.
tell me this, why does the RNC et al plan (again) to use the massive campaign war chest to "define" Dem challngers? why can't they run on THEIR record? why are they spending so much money down here in VA trying to find out how many unpaid parking tickets Jim Webb has? why can't they just tell us about all the great things George Allen and his DC GOP boys and girls have done?
....
In a Pivotal Year, GOP Plans to Get Personal
Millions to Go to Digging Up Dirt on Democrats
By Jim VandeHei and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 10, 2006; A01
Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies, GOP officials said.
The National Republican Congressional Committee, which this year dispatched a half-dozen operatives to comb through tax, court and other records looking for damaging information on Democratic candidates, plans to spend more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads.
The hope is that a vigorous effort to "define" opponents, in the parlance of GOP operatives, can help Republicans shift the midterm debate away from Iraq and limit losses this fall. The first round of attacks includes an ad that labeled a Democratic candidate in Wisconsin "Dr. Millionaire" and noted that he has sued 80 patients.
"Opposition research is power," said Rep. Thomas M. Reynolds (N.Y.), the NRCC chairman. "Opposition research is the key to defining untested opponents."
The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, has enlisted veteran party strategist Terry Nelson to run a campaign that will coordinate with Senate Republicans on ads that similarly will rely on the best of the worst that researchers have dug up on Democrats. The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants.
Because challengers tend to be little-known compared with incumbents, they are more vulnerable to having their public image framed by the opposition through attacks and unflattering personal revelations.
And with polls showing the Republicans' House and Senate majorities in jeopardy, party strategists said they have concluded that their best chance to prevent big Democratic gains is a television and direct-mail blitz over the next eight weeks aimed at raising enough questions about Democratic candidates that voters decide they are unacceptable choices.
read on...
"The first ad run by the new RNC effort criticizes Ohio Rep. Sherrod Brown (D) for voting against proposals designed to toughen border protection and deport illegal immigrants."
How dare they run such a scurrlous personal attack ad like that.
Try reading past the headline