Re: family values

[Dell <no@xxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:42:44 -0400, Robert L Bass
<sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Total Republican Collapse Imminent
>
> by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:21:50 PM EST
> The last ten days have been amazing. Starting with Bill Clinton
> fighting back against Faux News, we have now seen:
>
>     * The National Intelligence Estimate declare that the war in Iraq
> in increasing terrorism worldwide
>     * Colin Powell say he was fired
>     * Rice is on the verge of having to resign.
>     * Bill Frist say that the Taliban should rule Afghanistan
>     * The White House met with Jack Abramoff 485 times, and had a huge
> amount of influence.
>     * Bob Woodward comes out with a book saying the Bush administration
> is lying about Iraq.
>     * Droves of Republicans are under investigation for something.
>
> I'm sure that I am forgetting some stuff too. But there is this other
> thing that is going on:
>
>     * For five years, most of the Republican leadership covered up for
> and protected a Republican congressman / sexual predator who was
> targeting young pages who worked on Capitol Hill. And the establishment
> media is saying jus that.
>     * The Republican House Leadership has been figuratively decapitated
> as a result, and now can't speak effectively on anything.
>     * The Republican response has been to blame the pages, blame each
> other, block investigations, call the incident unimportant, blatant
> lying, and show once again just how homophobic and ignorant they really
> are. Because defenses like that really work.
>     * And they did it all because they were worried it might cost them
> power.
>
> This meltdown has been breathtaking. Even before it started, Democrats
> were already on the brink of at least taking control, if not a huge
> wave election. Now, even taking the Senate seems entirely possible. At
> this point, who knows how bad things will get for Republicans in
> elections around the country. There is no way to hold off an onslaught
> like this when they were already in such a bad position. Even the
> generally cautious, uber-insider Hotline is now starting to see a wave:
>
>
>
> Matt is right that Democrats in Congress once again showed how they are
> not an effective opposition party because of their weak campaign to
> stop the torture bill (although I disagree when he says they could have
> "easily" stopped" the bill with an effective campaign). However, I am
> starting to seriously think that that bill may be the last time we have
> to worry about ineffective opposition form Democrats in Congress. In
> the face of total Republican collapse, a good situation for Democrats
> is quickly turning into a rout. My only regret is that the election
> ends in five weeks instead of two weeks, because there may be enough
> time for Republicans to at least somewhat recover and keep the battle
> for control close. Right now, at least in the House, I don't think the
> battle for control is very close. There is just no way they can win in
> the face of this when they were already losing before it.
>
> Please, someone pinch me to make sure that I am not dreaming. This is a
> total Republican collapse. The House of Representatives may now be ours
> to lose, but we need to make sure that we stay on the attack as much as
> possible, and not slack off for one second.
>
>
>
>
> Tags: Republicans, 2006 elections (all tags)
> Display:
> Permalink :: 38 Comments :: Post a Comment
>
>
> here's my only worry. (none / 0)
>
> i'm not sure how much traction it's having in the mainstream media.
>
> <namedrop>
> I was talking to Jello Biafra last night (yes, THAT Jello Biafra.) at a
> show in Oakland.
> </namedrop>
>
> And he hadn't heard about the Foley scandal at all, which was pretty
> amazing as I got to drop some knowledge on one of the guys who helped
> politicize me and turn punk rock aggroness into real change and social
> awareness.
>
> But I digress, Jello doesn't read blogs, do e-mail any of that... he
> doesn't even have a computer.
>
> I know, I know... he should.
>
> But he hadn't heard anything about it, and think about how plugged in
> he is.
>
> However, this IS still in the newscycle and people are paying attention
> now.
>
> So maybe i'm just being worrisome.
>
> -C.
>
> I write at GovernorPhil.com, a site helping elect Phil Angelides the
> next Governor of the great state of California.
> by neutron on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:31:58 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> Oh, and they also eliminated habeas corpus and legalized torture only 4
> days ago, though Bush has yet to sign the bill (expect another round of
> media attention when that happens).
>
> The only thing I can think of that's going right for them is that gas
> prices are still dropping.  Oil spot market dropped another $2/barrel
> today to $61, down from $79 just 2 months ago.  Oil prices generally
> drop in the fall - they did the same thing last year - but the drop
> this year has been exceeding quick and large.
>
> ----
> it's an occupation, not a war
> by aip on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:38:34 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> Here's what I want to know: How is the dizzying spate of
> rotten-to-the-core news items that you listed above, unfolding over the
> course of a week and change (and thank you for having the fortitude to
> gather all that slime), and ALL of it proof of the incompetence and
> evil of the Republican party -- How is this not news in and of itself?
> MSM outlets should be writing this exact story.
>
> by jamfan on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:39:35 PM EST
>
>     Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (3.00 / 1)
>
>     It's only news if it happens to Demorats..."Democrats Flounder" ...
> "Democrats Struggle to Find Message" ... "Democrats on the Defensive"
> ...
>
>     When it happens to the Rethuglicans, it's nothing to see...move
> along, please...strange aberration...
>
>     by Oregonian on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:42:47 PM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
> Pinch (none / 0)
>
> Granted, this is all very good news for the Dems.
>
> Dose of reality.  It will only take one scumbag Dem to screw it all up.
>  If it turns out that there is a Dem congressman or candidate that is
> also a bigtime Abramoff buy-off, or worse, a sexual predator, it will
> balance out the whole story -- unless the Dem leadership reacts vastly
> differently than the GOP has.  (i.e. cuts the guy right away, even if
> the seat is competitive and says something like, "we would rather have
> a right wing republican elected than a pervert.")  Will/Can the Dem
> leadership do the right thing if this happens?   I hope so, but I
> wouldn't invest my 401k on that chance.
>
> by The lurking ecologist on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:52:36 PM EST
>
>     Re: Pinch (none / 0)
>
>     if that happens- noting they do will matter. that's how the game is
> played. the republicans aren't held accountable, and we are. that's the
> reality of being on the side of angels rather than power for the sake
> of power.
>
>     by bruh21 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:03:31 PM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
>     Re: Pinch (3.00 / 1)
>
>     Here's your October Surprise.  It wouldn't surprise me if there are
> Republicans waiting to drop a scandal, even a rather thin one, a week
> or two before the election just to spread around the corruption.  Will
> it work? who knows.  Seems like a pretty decent shot to take though.
>
>     by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:20:24 AM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
> 485 times (none / 0)
>
> I've been reading the blogs on and off all day and hadn't read that
> exact number.
>
> 485 contacts with Abramoff.
>
> 485.
>
> Four hundred eighty five.
>
> k/o: 2006 politics and local blogs
> by kid oakland on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:04:17 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> You are not dreaming.  We are witnessing the total collapse of the
> Repubs.  There was open talk on Countdown tonight of Hastert resigning.
>  Who would have predicted that a week ago? I agree that it would be
> better if the election were 2 weeks away not 5 weeks but I feel good
> about where we are.  The Foley story is not going away - the press
> loves this type of stuff and the Repubs, are for once, at a loss for
> words.  Unbelievable.
>
> I also want to comment on Matt's piece and the torture vote.  I agree
> with him on the issue and wish the Dems had been tougher but I think he
> tends to under estimates the power of the majority party in Congress.
> The majority party has incredible levers of power at its disposal when
> it wants to get something done.  I am not saying the Dems couldn't have
> done more but the power of the majority can sometimes make the minority
> look weaker than it actually is.
>
> by John Mills on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:14:26 PM EST
>
> I know we don't like market references (none / 0)
>
> But today they moved in our favor. So I guess the dreaded conventional
> wisdom concurs, at least partially.
>
> The senate odds changed on Tradesports for the first time in months,
> down to 75% GOP control. And we moved back to slight favorites in the
> House, at about 53%.
>
> Those are equivalent to odds, BTW. The Iowa Futures Market clown who
> wrote to think of it in terms of a vote percentage is a moron. He wrote
> than in terms of a presidential race which was close to 50/50. Fine.
> But what about '96, when Clinton would have traded at 90+%. Does he
> really think that's equivalent to a prediction of the popular vote
> percentage?
>
> I'm watching Woodward now on Larry King and I  really wish the other
> stuff had been earlier/later or not at all. Woodward's info is
> devastating but I don't see it getting the play it deserves, probably
> based on what was mentioned on MyDD, that sex sells.
>
> My prediction that Bush's approval rating would be 45% on election day
> has been wonderfully lanced. I'll be interested to see the new polls
> but I would guess in the 40% area. The flood of news means I can root
> for gas prices to decline without feeling guilty about how it impacts
> our chances:)
>
> by jagakid on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:20:25 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (3.00 / 1)
>
> Don't unclench just yet.  Rove will have an October surprise loaded up.
>  I'd bet on a barely-averted terror plot around, oh, October 10th or
> 15th.  Although I have to say, I think it might backfire this time.
>
> by takhallus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:49:19 PM EST
>
> Okay, I'll pinch you (none / 0)
>
> I hope you're right, but I've been a Democrat too long to be wildly
> optimistic. That and the Scandahoovian genes.
>
> Here's my fear: Bush, Cheney, Rummy and many more are all indictable at
> this point. For war crimes, treason, corruption. The works. So why
> would they ever agree to "go quietly?'
>
> This gang doesn't believe in democracy. They don't believe in the rule
> of law. They don't believe in the Constitution.
>
> I do think we got 'em cornered and on the ropes. I think they ARE in
> danger of losing Congress. So at this point, Cheney and Rove have got
> to be planning a very, very big October surprise to change the
> narrative.
>
> They're not dumb. They're evil. And when it comes to power, they're
> ruthless.
>
> So what will it be? Nuke Iran? Or a domestic act of "terror?" followed
> by the declaration of martial law?
>
> This article (http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/02210 6a.html) talks
> about  how in late January of this year, Halliburton was awarded a $385
> million contract to build detention centers somewhere in the United
> States. According to the New York Times, these detention centers would
> be used to house people in the event of a natural disaster or "for new
> programs that require additional detention space."
>
> So, in light of the torture legislation just passed that allows the
> President to declare anyone to be an enemy combatant (using any
> criteria that the President chooses) and be indefinitely
> detained.........well, it's worrisome. I mean, why would we need a
> rapid construction of a network of detention camps in the United
> States?
>
> I wanna be an optimist. I hope they get their butts kick at the polls
> in November and go quietly. But these folks make Nixon look like a
> lamb.
>
> by midwestmeg on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:53:16 PM EST
>
> My theory, for what it's worth (3.00 / 1)
>
>  The media is NOT our friend. The last six years have been
> characterized by complete media sycophancy to the Bushies, with the
> runup to the Iraq war being the most egregious example.
>
>  But over the last couple of weeks, the media has actually sort of done
> its job -- and they're even FOLLOWING UP and rejecting Republican spin.
> That's a complete sea change in their approach over their behavior in
> the last few years.
>
>  So my guess is that there are still some important, powerful Americans
> who retain consciences, love their country, and have signaled to the
> "gatekeepers" that BushCo needs to be stopped. They've seen Iraq, they
> see Iran, they've seen the deficits, they see the religious right, and
> they've seen enough. They don't like where all this is going any more
> than we do -- remember that neocons are but a small subset of actual
> conservatives.  And they've unleashed the hounds to try to stop the
> madness.
>
>  My guess is that the military does NOT want to do Iran, given how
> Rumsfeld's eviscerated it, and given that the idea is nuts anyway. And
> military leaders, speaking through the unassailable and respected Jack
> Murtha, have been shocked and horrified at the pugs' treatment of him.
> That was likely a HUGE wakeup call to traditional conservatives that
> the Bush/Cheney axis is just plain batshit insane, like nothing we've
> ever seen before in America.
>
> Maybe we still have some patriots after all.
>
> The problem is that my confidence in the Democrats' ability to make the
> best of the situation is shaky at best, given their track record of
> feebleness as an opposition party. But things are going SO bad for the
> Party of Perverts that simple adequacy might just be good enough.
>
> Just my theory...
>
>
> by Master Jack on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:59:11 PM EST
>
>     Re: My theory, for what it's worth (3.00 / 4)
>
>     It's post-Katrina, the Iraq War is a disaster, there are no WMD,
> the creeps in the WH showed they were willing to out a CIA agent to
> save their own asses, even idiots see that the weather patterns are
> changing, the cost of gas has gobsmacked farmers all across the US, the
> housing market is softening... and need I mention a Republican
> pedophile?
>
>     Even people who voted for Bush in 2004 got a Wake Up Call From Hell
> with Katrina. (And, BTW, that includes  a couple of evangelicals that I
> know, who are now talking about something that they call 'Creation
> Care' to deal with global warming.)   People realize that 'something's
> wrong.'  They may not know the details, but that elemental fact does
> not escape them.
>
>     Howie Klein is probably the person doing the best job of really
> introducing candidates and making a case that -- the CALIBER of
> Democrats running for Congress this year is impressive.
>
>     Look across the country: Eric Massa (NY), Braley (IO), Goldmark
> (WA), Grant (ID), Kissell, the Dems running in Colorado... these are
> all very impressive candidates.  When have we had a molecular
> biologist/farmer in Congress?  We will if Peter Goldmark wins.  Larry
> Grant has been instrumental at Micron (largest employer in Idaho).   I
> don't recall any group of candidates this promising.  It's fascinating
> to me that SO MANY interesting, committed people are running for
> Congress.
>
>     It took the country getting into this degree of filth and slime to
> bring out the best, but I'm coming to the view that if these Dems are
> elected, this will be a very transformational election.  .  Not simply
> because 'more Dems will hold seats' -- that's very superficial.  It's
> because so many SMART Dems will hold seats.  This appears to be a
> remarkably talented group of candidates across the board, and I don't
> think the Republicans even grasp what they are really up against.
>
>     The thing that I hope more posters and commenters will focus on in
> coming weeks is how amazing it is that all these engaged, apparently
> smart, competent people are running for office.
>
>     This is very, very unusual.
>
>     Perhaps I've spent too much time with people involved in personnel
> and hiring, but the quality of the 'hiring pool' is cyclical.
> Sometimes they'll be excited because they have so many great
> prospective candidates, and then other years they're glum and grouchy
> because it's just a 'shallow pool'.
>
>     I don't fully understand what drives this, but I have observed that
> it's unusual to have a period in which SO MUCH talent is rising to the
> challenge. I suspect that many of this years' candidates might be doing
> some other things with their lives, if they weren't so incredibly
> appalled by what's happened under Bush.
>
>     I also credit Howard Dean -- whatever he's doing (along with the
> blogs) is working some strange magic.  I think that if even half these
> Democrats win, the change could be extraordinary BECAUSE these appear
> to be highly motivated, smart people who have very strong committments
> to clear outcomes. That's something that we've not seen from Democrats
> in my memory.
>
>     In other words, it's my fervent  hope that the builshit days of
> pr-brained 'wedge issues' are simply not credible in view of the very
> grim problems facing the U.S.  So if the Dem's win, they're going to
> have plenty of heavy lifting ahead of them.
>
>     And the polls will be very important -- if the Diebold machines
> toss elections to Republicans who are down by 10% in the polls, then
> the Diebold fiasco will be further revealed.  With a pretty solid gap
> in poll numbers, the Republicans have less opportunity to throw
> elections.
>
>     I really sense that we may be upon the cusp of a transformative
> time in US history.  It's going to take a lot of voter turnout, but if
> these Dems win, I have a hunch they're motivated by a whole lot more
> than a paycheck and some ego massage.  Every indication that I see
> suggests that these guys are not running in order to roll over and do K
> Street's bidding.
>
>     Should be interesting.  And Bush has so little crediblity at this
> point, he may as well pack it up. Osama could blow up the WH and half
> the public would figure it was a Rovian tactic at this point.  These
> asshats have cried 'wolf' too many times, and I don'ot see the public
> buying too much more of their bullshit.  Even the conservative voters
> that I know are seriously pissed.
>
>     by readerOfTeaLeaves on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:20:48 AM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
>         Re: My theory, for what it's worth (none / 0)
>
>         I agree. In Minnesota, the caliber of folks running for
> Congress is also unusually high---Keith Ellison, Tim Waltz, Colleen
> Rowley.....
>
>         by midwestmeg on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 10:28:15 AM EST
>         [ Parent ]
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (3.00 / 1)
>
> DO NOT get our hopes up. I do not need to go through another bout of
> post-election depression, as in 2004, when they stole the election
> AGAIN and Kerry caved at the earliest opportunity, despite having
> promised he wouldn't.
>
> by lightyearsfromhome on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:05:15 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> Even if we take both Houses, will the Democratic "leadership" have the
> guts to launch investigations or a special prosecutor?
>
> by antiHyde on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:13:05 PM EST
>
> I would say their momentum is stopped (none / 0)
>
> Their two best issues have been de-fanged. Victory is not guaranteed,
> but at least Democratic issues can now be heard.
>
> First, Speaker Pelosi no longer sounds like such a bad idea.
>
> Second, How could the Democrats possibly do any worse on Terrorism and
> Iraq than the GOP? How would that be possible?
>
> Ergo: it's time for a change.
>
> In addition to keeping up the attack, I think it's very important to
> sell candy:
>
> College loans for all
> Lower health premiums
> Higher minimum wage
> Lower gas prices
> Guaranteed Social Security for the next 100 years.
> Middle-class tax cuts.
>
> How do you pay for all this? Easy. Just get rid of the Republican
> crooks and perverts in charge of Congress.
>
> by stevehigh on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:27:49 PM EST
>
> What amazes me (none / 0)
>
> is that there has been so much evidence out there of their
> incompetence.  I have read Imperial Hubris, Richard Clarke's book,
> Assassin's Gate, Cobra II and Fiasco.  Now there is Hubris, the One
> percent Solution and now Woodward's book.  How come the Dems just can't
> keep hitting about how incompetent these people are?  Are they afraid
> of disgracing the poor families with loved ones, or worse, who lost
> loved ones, in Iraq?  This is not just a scandal, it is an outrage!
> Lord knows that if we had a Newt Gingrich on our side, the story would
> be different.  These people are throwing democracy away!  The evidence
> is overwhelming, but still, Bush has 40% support. How can this be?
>
> I have been doing GOTV calls in MD lately.  We are now working to get
> people to vote by mail.  People I call do not trust the voting system.
> This is so scary.  People feel helpless.
>
> by MDMan on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:42:10 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (3.00 / 1)
>
> Steve Gilliard introduced the pugil stick metaphor to Democratic
> electoral streetfighting,  Above is a picture of a pugil stick bout.
> In the Marines, recruits train with the pugil stick, a heavily padded
> quarterstaff.  Pugilists fight until the loser is unable to fight
> further - not in pain, not demoralized, incapacitated.  The goal is to
> induce the ability to fight back with a bayonet when completely
> exhausted and to encourage general toughness.  The victor is not
> permitted to show mercy and the loser is not permitted to request or
> receive it; the drill instructors will nail anyone who shows mercy in
> these bouts.  (Those with certain medical conditions are barred from
> the pugil stick training.)
>
> Moral: it is not enough to demoralize the GOP.  They must be crippled,
> wounded, rendered unable to inhale, begging to heaven for an immediate
> sweet end to this vale of tears.  The DEMS must keep battering them on
> this until the GOP is puking and spitting mucous in doubled-over agony.
>  Then crushed in the head with the end of the stick, hard, like a
> spear.
>
> Why?  This is the business we have chosen.  These folks protect sexual
> predators, no mercy is due to them.  Now is the time to inflict the
> mother of all righteous anger and revenge on these corrupt, fraudulent,
> bellicose theocratic bastards.  Karma for Clinton, x1000.
>
> I could say more, but this is not the forum and decorum calls for
> restraint.
>
> by Crablaw on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:07:22 PM EST
>
>     Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (3.00 / 2)
>
>         ...it is not enough to demoralize the GOP...
>
>     When your opponents are drowning, throw the bastards an anvil.
>
>     543,895 votes
>     by Michael Bersin on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:23:26 PM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
> Bet that GOP are holding their fire (3.00 / 1)
>
> In WW2, one of the features of US public opinion about the Jap soldier
> was an oscillation between ideas of him as superhuman andsubhuman.
> Either he was an android impervious to jungle conditions or a near ape
> - the favorite propaganda image - incapable of independent thought and
> action.
>
> I wonder whether the lefty opinion about the GOP as an electoral force
> has reached a similar pass: on the one hand, one has the laundry list
> of fubars in Chris's post - plus others, I'm sure, to come; on the
> other hand, we have Rove and his cohorts, an almost Fu Manchu-like
> combination of amorality and effectiveness.
>
> My sense would be that what the GOP have over the Dems is a working
> assumption that things will go seriously wrong, and the capacity to
> react decisively in real time when it does. Whereas I can see that,
> if/when Rove starts pulling rabbits out of his hat - Jefferson/Mollohan
> has been rather quiet, for instance - the Dems will go rigid and stop
> thinking effectively.
>
> The other thing is: I'm sure that the GOP has planned for losing one
> both houses - and that their plans don't include a two year pity party.
>
> They can do this (it seems to me) without impairing their ability to
> concentrate on squeezing out a win in November - which I'm sure they're
> as hungry as hell for.
>
> They will also - again, my view - be able to view a loss in November as
> an opportunity: to remove tired warhorses and inject fresh blood, to
> hone fighting skills, to show fighting spirit and tight organization to
> those from whom they need the money to fight back in 08.
>
> My sense with the Dems is that they got so used to winning Congress
> after Congress - in which individual elections could be bloody for the
> candidates, but not for the Dem parties in both houses - that they do
> not yet have the mentality for continual total war, in control or out
> of it, that the GOP has.
>
> Chris's list of snafus (plus the Six Year Itch) may be enough to push
> the Dems over the winning line this time. But - like the GOP in the
> 80th Congress - I'd say that they are woefully badly equipped to take
> advantage of their good fortune.
>
> by skeptic06 on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:50:08 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> While I'm inclined to agree that this is likely the final nail in the
> coffin of the GOP's chances of holding onto the house, I'm going to
> wait to see the latest polling after these scandals broke to see if
> voters agree before throwing away that hammer.
>
> And with all these scandals overrunning each other, I can't help but
> wonder if voters aren't going to just tune out in disgust and scandal
> overload. Actually, that can only work in our favor. It might not
> necessarily result in a wave of unexpected votes for Dems, but it'll
> likely keep more than a few base voters at home and swing voters
> leaning our way on election day.
>
> As for the senate, all this can't be helping the GOP--i.e. guilt by
> association--and there's still 5 weeks for yet more scandals to let
> loose.
>
> Are there any other members of the Wallace family who'd like to come
> through with yet another blockbuster interview?
>
> by kovie on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:51:48 AM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> Well, FWIW, I was ready to stop making contributions to Dem candidates
> this cycle. I figured the race had pretty much reached a tableau and
> didn't see it moving a lot between now and election day. From all
> reports here, it looked like the Dems were in good position to win the
> House by a few seats. Good enough. The Senate remained a very long
> shot. At best, a numerical tie, but we've got about a dozen
> Democrat-in-name-only Senators, so either way, the Senate was going to
> remain a Republican power-base. Why would I want to give more money?
> I'm going to wait another three days to see if official law enforcement
> investigations will cause everyone to clam up. If the legal system
> takes control of this, it's a long time out and, I think, the story
> will lose focus. If, three days from now, the heat is still high and
> the meltdown continues to appear inevitable, I'm going to bet the ranch
> on Democrats and hope I win.
>
> by NealB on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 02:00:28 AM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> The Horror Story of Republican demise will hopefully  carry through to
> a fair accounting via Republican Diebold Voting Machines.
>
> Bush Republicans are giving hypocrisy a bad name.
>
> truthorconsequences
> WhiteHouseHypocrisy.com
>
> Steve Brier
> by truthorconsequences on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:30:37 AM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> I think it is possible to extrapolate from here to the grave further
> damage Democratic-led House/Senate investigations will do to Bush.
> This will ensure a Democratic presidency in 2008-probably Hillary.  She
> must be thrilled to death right now.
>
> by Bob H on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 07:49:57 AM EST
>
> All caps means you're shouting (none / 0)
>
> UNLESS THERE IS REAL REFORM COMING IN  NOVEMBER. AMERICANS ARE
> ESSENTIALLY APOLITICAL.  NEVER CONFUSE YOUR FINGER POINTING AT THE
> MOON, FOR THE MOON ITSELF.
>
> Q: What's the difference between acne and a republican from florida?
>
> A: Well, Acne normally comes across young boy's faces when they're
> fourteen....
>
> by heyAnita on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:20:14 AM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> The Question should not be about mark Foley but when did the House
> republicans what they knew and when they knew it. Especially Denis
> hastart the Coverup is always worse than the Crime and this looks like
> a major cover up
>
> by orin76 on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:51:32 AM EST
>
> Collapse Imminent ? (none / 0)
>
> It ain't over till the votes aren't counted.
>
> This administration sucks.
> by thief on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 10:52:32 AM EST
>
> Don't say "ours to lose." (none / 0)
>
> 'cause then you know the dems will find a way to lose...it's still a
> close call, we still have to fight for every seat, there is no sure
> thing, the wave isn't local....please don't say it's ours to lose.
>
> by David in Burbank on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 10:57:27 AM EST
>
>     Re: Don't say "ours to lose." (none / 0)
>
>     Then how about this:
>
>     All the necessary conditions are now available to each individual
> candidate to nail their Republican opponent.  It's up to them to
> properly weild their opportunity.
>
>     by Lucas O'Connor on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:14:40 PM EST
>     [ Parent ]
>
> It is a lack of... (none / 0)
>
> Oversight once again from the Congressional Republicans. Iraq,
> Abramoff, CIA leaks and now Foley. There is no accountability. Where's
> the checks and balances? We have got to change the tone in Washington
> when we take control of both houses.
>
> People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be
> afraid of their people - V is For Vendetta
> by BlueCheese on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 12:25:27 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> Dream on, deluded Democrats.  There's no way that these
> Repulico-facists are going to give up control of the House or the
> Senate.  The sooner you face up to the fact that these idiots don't
> believe in democracy and will do anything to hang onto power (including
> stealing the last 3 national elections!), the sooner you'll finally
> actually do something after they steal yet another election.  Stop
> kidding yourselves.  Mark my words - these facists do not care about
> the will of the people.  It's time to start planning a massive protest
> or something along the lines of Ukraine, because the Democrats will not
> win at the ballot box.
>
> by nmonster on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:44:33 PM EST
>
> Re: Total Republican Collapse Imminent (none / 0)
>
> I wouldn't get too rosy yet. Dems may win the House, but that scumbag
> Lieberman is blocking all hope of taking the Senate.
>
> It's looking more and more like Lieberman WILL win and be the decisive
> vote as to who controls Congress. And you just know he'll LOVE to give
> the shaft to the Dems. for "betraying" him!
>
> Utterly unprincipled? Sure, that's Joe all over.
>
> He gets a Cabinet post or a Republican committee chairmanship and
> Cheney gets to cast the deciding vote!
>
> by Cugel on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 03:56:08 PM EST
>
> Rice Resigns? (none / 0)
>
> Rumsfeild should have had to resign hundreds of times and he hasn't.
> Bush won't make Condi resign.
>
> by delmoi on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 08:52:18 PM EST
>

watta jerk

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/