This morning, while watching C-Span, a woman called in with some very important points. She shared how the Democrats have been non-stop partisans, leveling hateful diatribes against our president, and throwing about threats of impeachment. She called them nothing but "hate-mongers." She was really angry about it and the host and guest had no comment after her call.
My question is, why not?
Why weren't they willing to discuss how the press has been so negative toward the people in the Bush Administration throughout the Iraq war? Why wouldn't they counter the caller's additional allegations that the mainstream media and newspapers gave the terrorists a "shot in the arm" (as she called it), each time they constantly demeaned, mocked and shrilly accused our president of being a "liar," "idiot," "war-monger," "Muslim-hater," and the dozens of other mean, untrue diatribes they leveled at him?
They didn't counter her accusations because they couldn't! They couldn't deny that what she was saying was absolutely true!
It has especially been true for the past 4 years!
C-Span just ignored it all and went on to another call. Funny how they give people whom the liberal lefties agree not only a platform for their views, but they usually discuss them extensively after the caller has finished speaking.
Now, after the election on Tuesday, we hear that the period of "partisan politics" will be over. Nancy Pelosi, the she-wolf left-winger who has never shown President Bush any respect throughout his presidency, and has made a career of spewing mud-splattering diatribes and criticism towards him is now poised to work with our president?
Wow!
So what happened?
Did she have some sort of political "born-again" experience when we weren't looking?
I doubt it.
Apparently, Michele Malkin very openly doubts Pelosi's sincerity and intentions, as well as the intentions of many other Democrats who are pledging to drop the partisan politics and their threat of impeachment hearings.
Oh yeah....they are going to appear sweet, moderate, non-critical, positive, and forward looking (similar to the hopes that Republicans are now talking about on all the shows), but just wait till January! The moment the gavel changes hands...look out! It's most likely going to come down upon several Republican heads; starting with President Bush! Watch what happens. The Dems now consider themselves the "gods" of the government and they will most likely take the "revenge is mine" mantra more seriously in January, as well as for the next 2 years. After being out of power and angry about it for the past 12 years, how could they resist not using their newly found power to get back at Bush, the Administration people whom they hate and any Republican who they have been seething about?
I hope and pray that both Michele and I are proven wrong about this. But I don't think that they will be able to keep their current masks on for very long.
Hat tip: Michele Malkin
Trackback URL: http://www.michellemalkin.com/mt/oct05-tb.cgi/5670
La Shawn Barber: Republicans Rebuked; Democrats Directionless
Trackback URI: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/11/09/
republicans-rebuked-democrats-directionless/trackback/
Sister Toldjah shows what Dems will look like when the masks come off! LOL!!
Restoration of W's good name coming round the bend?
*******
Update: Can there be any doubt we're in trouble when Iran supports and is pleased with our election results??
Hat tip: Drudge
Khamenei and the Dems sittin in a tree....
*******
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
25 comments:
It appears that the majority of your countrymen disagree with you?
Have you been in a cave since 2002? Did you miss the pot-shots the right took at the left the last two years? The "Swift-boating" of Kerry? Every single Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity show? Ann Coulter's books? Fox news? The Republicans have been demonizing their opponents for years. Your remarks re: Nancy Pelosi is a "she-wolf" are particularly telling.
Awww...that milder tone you took yesterday vanished after a night's sleep, I see.
I guess we'll just have to keep butting heads, then...just like ithey do in Washington!
Have a good day.
You mean the dems might sort of act like how bush has been, where he just ignores laws and writes in stuff into laws he's signing saying he can basically ignore the law?
Christine:
I'm sure that most of the Democrats are serious people who are just trying to what they think is the best for their country. Do they have faults? Sure, they probably do.
I'm sure you could say the same about the Republicans. Most of them are doing what they think is best.
Does it make people evil and she wolves when they disagree with you? Probably not.
Your current President has done some great things, but he's also made some horrible mistakes. Guess what? We are all people trying to do what we think is right. That doesn't mean the world is going to end just because the people in power happen to disagree with some of your beliefs.
Khamenei and the Dems sittin in a tree....
How would you feel if the leader of some other country was continually threatening to attack your country, had the weapons do it, and had demonstrated the willingness to carry it out by attacking your next-door neighbour without provocation?
If I was a Persian, I would be happy to see the Republicans lose some of their power too. I think most of the world now feels a little bit safer with the Democrats in control.
Stephen,
If you ever heard Pelosi's rants and verbal-bashing tirades against our president, then you would have seen the point of the comparison to "Cujo."
In any event, where's your sense of humor?
I thought it was really funny.
In this current age of anything goes, unfortunately, respect and civility for our most prominent leaders goes out the window!
Therefore, when people are in power, or, have recently gained more power than they had, it is often a given that they will be mocked and disparaged.
It's Pelosi's turn, now.
*******
Ebsfwan,
It remains to be seen why people voted as they did. Some speculate that the public probably just wanted change because they were impatient with the war effort. Others have been stating that the recent scandals involving individual Republicans damaged the reputation of the entire GOP. Others claim it was Bush's unpopularity at the time. Others have said that the 6 year election cycle had more to do with it. Maybe it's all of those reasons plus more.
It's interesting though. Stephen is correct in the sense that not all Republicans are conservative and not all Democrats are liberal. But as has been shown in the past, the conservative Democrats never get much of a voice at the election conventions. Pro-life? Don't even try to get a platform in the Dem party!!
From what I have heard, many of the Democrats that were given seats in the House are more moderate to conservative. We shall see.
*******
Limpy99 said, "Have you been in a cave since 2002?"
Yeah...I crawl out of it once in a while to use my computer!
The point that I was trying to make is that Pelosi never had any respect for our president. The others that you mentioned are not the leader of our country. Many Dems have made a career out of bashing President Bush personally, not just his policies.
*******
GMpilot,
When have you known me to have a "milder" tone? heh heh
You said, "I guess we'll just have to keep butting heads, then...just like ithey do in Washington!"
Ya got that right, my Neanderthal decended nemesis!
Ha!
Love,
Your Favorite "Church Lady"
*******
Lewis,
No. The Dems will do far more damage, if they can get away with it. My friend Mark over at Chester Street listed Pelosi's voting record and "values." Go to Meet your new speaker - Nancy Pelosi for links to each comment.
ON CONTRAST WITH REPUBLICANS: "We cannot allow Republicans to pretend they share our values and then legislate against those values without consequence."
and those VALUES are:
•Voted NO on allowing school prayer during war on terror (2001)
•Voted NO on Unborn Victims of Violence Act (2004)
•Voted NO on Human Cloning Prohibition Act (2003)
•Voted AGAINST ban on partial-birth abortion (2003)
•Voted NO to funding for school voucher program for lower-income families (1997)
•Voted NO on Pledge Protection Act to protect Pledge from frivolous lawsuits (2005)
•Voted NO on banning flag desecration (2005)
•Voted NO on equal funding access for faith-based organizations (2001)
•Voted NO to bill promoting responsible fatherhood through grants to state and non-profit orgs (1999)
•SPONSORED bill weakening requirement for voluntary prayer (2001)
•Voted NO on random drug tests for federal employees (1998)
On Immigration
•Voted NO on Border Protection Act (2005)
•Voted NO on Secure Fence Act (2006)
•Voted NO on REAL ID bill to prevent illegals form obtaining driver’s licenses (2005)
•Voted NO on military assistance on the border
On Marriage
•Voted NO on Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as one man, own woman (2006)
•Voted NO on 2004 version of Marriage Protection Amendment
•Voted NO on outlawing homosexual adoptions in the District of Columbia (1999)
•Voted NO on Defense of Marriage Act (1996)
TAXES
•Says one of top agenda items as Speaker is rolling back Bush tax cuts to Clinton era levels.
•Voted NO on reducing dividend and capital gains taxes (2005)
•Voted NO on Bush tax cuts -- $958 billion over 10 years (2001)
•Voted NO on eliminating the marriage penalty (2000)
•Voted NO on making the tax cuts permanent (2002)
•Voted NO on making death tax repeal permanent (2005)
•Voted NO on eliminating the death tax (2001)
•Voted NO on making increase in child tax credit permanent (2004)
•Voted NO on $46 billion tax cuts for small businesses (2000)
*******
Ebsfwan,
We have seen what the inaction against terrorism during the Clinton administration led up to...the worst attack on American soil in history. If you read the 9/11 Report, you would find out that the communications between the CIA, law enforcement, State Dept. of Defense, Federal and State law enforcement agencies etc. had policies in place that prevented them from gathering crucial evidence that may have enabled us to stop the terrorist plot. One terrorist was caught before 9/11, but the two that were learning to fly planes without wanting or needing to learn to land them should have sounded some alarm bells.
It is the overall philosophy of the Dems that worries me. Most (except Joe Lieberman, as one example) think that terrorism should be handled through law enforcement when it reaches our shores. The pre-emptive action done in Iraq is seen by them as a mistake and not related to the war on terrorism. The Bush administration sees it as a genuine war that needs to be fought on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq so that we don't have to face them at home.
The Dems ran on the concept of "change," but change to what? As Pelosi's agenda and voting record shows, they have no new ideas when it comes to winning the war on terror.
I just thank God that Bush is still president and will have the ability to veto any legislation that would make us appear soft on the war against terrorists.
*******
Hello Sarah,
Welcome to Talkwisdom! Thanks for sharing your views on this.
I think it is different situation altogether when a terrorist supporting country, like Iran, wants to develop a nuclear weapon vs. the fact that we have nuclear weapons but won't use them unless we absolutely have to.
Terrorists, on the other hand, have connections with Iran leaders along with a mindset whre they would not hesitate to use them against the "infidels." That would lead them to use such weapons against the U.S. and Israel, without even a thought about the collateral damage and loss of civilian life that it would cause.
They don't care! They think they would be racking up points with Allah in heaven. They have been brought up with this rabid Islamo-fascist ideology that tells them to "kill the infidels." That includes me, you, Americans, Israelis and any other non-Muslim people.
I have never heard President Bush threaten to "blow up another nation off the face of the earth." But I have heard Ahmedinijad, Khamenei, leaders of Hamas, Al Quida, the Taliban etc. desire to do so.
*******
Stephen,
I sincerely hope that you are correct that we can "feel safer" in America. Time will tell, especially when the Dems take over in the Senate and Congress. The saving grace of it all is that they don't have enough votes in either legislative body to push through any agenda that President Bush may think is harmful in the war on terror.
You said, "I have had occasion to worry about whether the US would see fit to hold and torture me for no reason and with no trial."
I don't think you fit the profile, Stephen. Are you still in Texas right now? It is the fact that we are living in a Christian nation that all kinds of diversity of religion is allowed and we are free to worship. Also, the special protections for homosexuals here is non-existent in the Muslim world.
As a self-proclaimed gay man and Christian, what makes you think that you wouldn't be at the top of the Islamo-fascist "infidel" list?
Christians have been tortured and killed over there just because they worship Christ and refuse to convert to Islam!
Regarding the election, Rejected RINOs had something to do with it, too.
Another analysis: Why the GOP lost.
Ted Haggard didn't help either...in more ways than just the recent scandal! I just found out that his additional complicity in the "evangelical global warming earth movement" also may have helped deliver control to the Dems.
Great article by Rick Scarborough.
He ended with this Psalm:
Do not fret because of evil men or be envious of those who do wrong; for they will soon wither and like green plants they will die away.
Trust in the Lord and do good; dwell in the land and enjoy safe pasture.
Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.
Commit your ways to the Lord; trust in him and he will do this.
He will make your righteousness shine like the dawn, the justice of your cause like the noonday sun.
Be still before the Lord and wait patiently for Him; do not fret when men succeed in their ways and when they carry out their wicked schemes.
Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it only leads to evil.
For wicked men will be cut off, but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land;
Psalm 37:1-9
"Another analysis: Why the GOP lost."
The reasons why are very simple, Christine.
They lost because they got us into a war for all the wrong reasons. President Bush has long claimed Iraq was the "central front" in the War On Terror, but as recently as 10 days ago, he downgraded its status as just "a part" of that war.
They lost because we were lied to and flimflammed into starting that war in the first place. Saddam, bad as he was, had nothing to do with 9-11. Afghanistan was the 'central front', and we took our eyes off it; and now the Taliban is popping up again.
They lost because we were told the war had been won by April 2003. But almost from Day 30, our troops have been involved in a slow, grinding war of attrition. If the war's been won, people ask, why aren't the troops coming home?
They lost because even though there are more jobs available now than two years ago, a person now often needs two of those jobs just to keep up with rising costs.
If you're in the security business, or a defense contractor, business has never been better...but most of us are not.
But above all, the GOP lost because they abandoned their principles. The Class of '94 came roaring into Washington, determined to turn things around, but by 2000 all the dumb ideologues were gone, as well as Newt Gingrich, who started the "Republican Revolution" but soon proved he couldn't control it. They claimed to endorse smaller government, but gave us a bigger one (DHS). They demanded fiscal responsibility, yet have given us the biggest deficits in the history of the Republic. They claimed that the family was paramount, yet stuck their nose (and their legislation) into what was, in essence, a family matter (Terri Schaivo).
They sent our men and women into harm's way, and then quietly slashed funding for veterans' care and benefits.
But above all, they lost because they forgot that "GOP" does not stand for "God's Own Party". Particularly since September, the party of "family values" has fallen on its own sword of hubris and demagoguery. Just as socialists seized control of the Democrats in the 1960s, authoritarian Christians seized control of the GOP in the 1980s. In both cases, it has led to near-disaster for both parties...and the nation.
It took 40 years for the Republicans to take over the Executive and Legislative branches. It took only 12 years for them to get into the same spot the Dems were in 1994.
When I was younger, it was always Democrats who got into scandal over sex, and Republicans who got into scandal over money. When did that all get turned around? ^_^
Wow...
Read this. Don't miss the 71 comments, either!
Now we're really in for it!!
*******
But wait!
This comment from over there is just to good not to cut and paste!!
Subject: Democrat Agenda
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to UN
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30 P.M. Nonreligious prayer and worship
- Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging
8:15 P.M. Gay Wedding - Barney Frank Presiding
8:30 PM. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan
- Susan Sarandon
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-
- French President Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters
from Guantanamo Bay... Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, a short talk
by William Jefferson Clinton
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in broadcasting award
- presented by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld
brought down the World Trade Center Towers - Howard Dean
10:30 P.M Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahmadinejad
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals-- John Kerry
11:30 P.M. Coronation Of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/washington/11beliefs.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=login
All hail President Bush.
That link requires registration with the New York Traitor, err, Times.
Sorry. I'll pass on that!
...is that sour grapes I smell from your direction??
Thanks for the welcome, Christine.
You say you think Iran developing nuclear weapons is a different situation than the US having them because you "won't use them unless we absolutely have to". I'm sure Iranians also believe their leaders won't use them unless they absolutely have to.
America remains the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against its enemies. George W Bush has plans for a pre-emptive strike on Iran that includes the use of tactical nuclear weapons, without even a thought for the collateral damage and loss of civilian life that it would cause.
He doesn't care! He thinks he would be racking up points with God in heaven. Many Americans have been brought up with a rabid authoritarian Christian ideology that tells them to convert or kill non-believers and terrorists. That includes Muslims, me and any other non-Christian people.
I have deliberately paralleled the words in your comment. I don't do this to be mocking, but I want to make the point that from the perspective of much of the rest of the world, we really don't see much difference between Iran getting nukes and the US having them. Ideally nobody should have nukes, but it seems hideously ironic to be considering nuking Iran to stop them from getting nukes.
Both the US and Iran are equally convinced of their God/Allah given rightness in every action they take. From the perspective of the rest of the world, both outlooks are are equally dangerous, but the US is currently the more dangerous nation because they already have the nuclear weapons.
I read about another sweet, loveable woman one time who wooed her prey and then delivered the fatal death blow- her nickname was the black widow. Me thinks Nancy Pelosi might be a reincarnated black widow.
Nope- this is going to be two long years of stomach turning fake smiles fro mthe left, nauseating lovey dover rhetoric, and power vomitting niceities all while secret signals will be given to the guard dogs to attack below the radar so the press isn't forced to cover the deceit.
Yeah Christine- I've been visiting that JihadWatch site quite a bit lately- great site- infact I posted in that thread you linked to a couple of times- it's simply sick to see what Conyers is doing in Michigan- Sad that there are so many haters right here in our own country- I've got a map on my site that shows just how prevelent terrorist organizations are in the U.S- kinda scarey- if you want ot take a look, here's a link: http://sacredscoop.com/?p=505
sacredscoop.com
Wow, I must be more of a democrat.. Here's what i'd agree with
•Voted NO on allowing school prayer during war on terror (2001) (What if I wasn't a christian or an atheist and didn't want my children being forced to "pray to god". Nice dig with the "during war on terror" bit there. Like that helps.
•Voted NO on Human Cloning Prohibition Act (2003) (Yay science!)
•Voted NO on Pledge Protection Act to protect Pledge from frivolous lawsuits (2005) (Because I ain't taking no pledge if I don't want to)
•Voted NO on banning flag desecration (2005) (Freedom of speech)
•Voted NO on equal funding access for faith-based organizations (2001) (There's that christian thing again. Why is the government funding faith-based organisations at all?)
•SPONSORED bill weakening requirement for voluntary prayer (2001) (? Not exactly sure what that is, but since you disagree with it, it must be something against christianity, so i'm all for that)
•Voted NO on random drug tests for federal employees (1998)
(Because what I put into my body is my own business)
On Immigration
•Voted NO on Border Protection Act (2005) (see below)
•Voted NO on Secure Fence Act (2006) (Because a bigass fence won't fix the problem and is a waste of money)
•Voted NO on REAL ID bill to prevent illegals form obtaining driver’s licenses (2005) (PLEASE at least skim http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/05/real_id.html on why REAL ID is a bad idea. Hell, read the rest of Bruce's blog entries on security.)
•Voted NO on military assistance on the border (Because the military should be protecting the borders from foreign troops. Is Mexico going to invade?)
On Marriage
•Voted NO on Marriage Protection Amendment to define marriage as one man, own woman (2006) (This one is obvious)
•Voted NO on 2004 version of Marriage Protection Amendment (This one too)
•Voted NO on outlawing homosexual adoptions in the District of Columbia (1999) (This one too.. Is it illegal for "unmarried" couples to adopt? Or single people? (well ok, in some states it is)
•Voted NO on Defense of Marriage Act (1996) (This one is obvious, too. If you want to defend marriage, make divorce illegal, or permit people to only get married once.)
TAXES
•Says one of top agenda items as Speaker is rolling back Bush tax cuts to Clinton era levels. (Because guess who the bush tax cuts helped out? Not the poor people, thats for sure)
•Voted NO on reducing dividend and capital gains taxes (2005) (Gotta pay for Iraq somehow)
•Voted NO on Bush tax cuts -- $958 billion over 10 years (2001) (Rich people tax cuts!)
•Voted NO on eliminating the marriage penalty (2000) (meh)
•Voted NO on making the tax cuts permanent (2002) (Gotta pay for the WAR ON TERROR)
•Voted NO on making death tax repeal permanent (2005) (hey, who needs your money after you die?)
•Voted NO on eliminating the death tax (2001)..
•Voted NO on making increase in child tax credit permanent (2004) (pump out those kiddies!)
•Voted NO on $46 billion tax cuts for small businesses (2000) (Lets say an easy 4 billion (and that's conservative!) a month in iraq. That's only 4-5 months worth! DAMN)
Thanks for the link to your site and alerting me to that map. It is really a scary scenario! Their goals are clear. Each terrorist organization has stated as much. Those hiding in our country under the guise of being "peaceful" Muslims are busy planning their next attack.
I really pray that the Dems in Congress do not destroy the current safeguards put in place by the Bush Admin!. But I fear that they will be soft on this issue and use their new found power to roll back all those safeguards because they naively have that pre-9/11 mindset.
It's chilling...
I, for one, am praying that the Dems do restore Habeus Corpus. Without it America is not free.
Woah.. what safeguards are those exactly?
Bush has been all about taking the safeguards of your FREEDOM away.
Stephen said, "America is beset by a culture of fear. The rest of the world does not think like this."
Sometimes, there are things to fear in this world Stephen. But what is even worse than fear, is not recognizing the big picture and/or ignoring a genuine threat. That attitude brings one to do nothing about it, like during the Clinton years.
Maybe this will open your eyes to the reality of the threat:
Obsession: Radical Islam videos available for viewing.
Stephen said, "I pray that you agree the fear demonstrated by the comment I have quoted is totally irrational and unacceptable."
I didn't claim to agree with all of the comments over there. But I did think that the original post should make us all sit up and take a hard look at what some of the Dems have been involved with now that they are coming into more power on Capitol Hill.
*******
Sarah,
You said, "You say you think Iran developing nuclear weapons is a different situation than the US having them because you "won't use them unless we absolutely have to". I'm sure Iranians also believe their leaders won't use them unless they absolutely have to."
I have to disagree with you there. The radicalism in the current Iranian government includes statements like the desire to "wipe Israel off the face of the map." They don't sound very reasonable and easy to deal with.
There is also a huge disconnect between the people of Iran and their government. I'm sure that they would love to have many of the freedoms that we enjoy here in America; whereas, their government is out to cause isolation because of their nuclear weapons ambitions.
Yes. The U.S. did use the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Remember the kamikazi pilots who would fly suicide/homicide missions? Seems eerily similar to today's Islamofascism. The Nazism of Germany back then was similar too. Once on kind of evil is destroyed, along comes another. That's the nature of evil, sin and death in this world.
If you don't think that the threat of Islamo-fascist terrorists is serious, then I encourage you to go to this page and view the videos that show the documentary Obsession: Radical Islam's War with the West.
Back to Iran. It will most likely be Israel that would take out Iran's nuclear capabilities. They did so several years ago and probably saved the whole world from an earlier threat. Iran has ties with terrorists. They have funded Hamas, Al Qaida, those still loyal to Saddam in Iraq, and they have been shown to have paid off the families of suicide bombers who have gone into Israel to blow themselves up (with the goal of killing as many Jews as possible).
President Bush was absolutely correct when he labeled Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as members of the "Axis of Evil." They certainly have demonstrated themselves to be just that...evil.
*******
Lewis said, "Bush has been all about taking the safeguards of your FREEDOM away."
I'd rather have a few inconveniences at the airport than suffer another 9/11.
Christine:
I don't think Stephen's fears are that unreal.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DETAINEES_LAWSUITS?SITE=FLSTU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Post a Comment