Gen. Wesley Clark is going to one lucky Congressional district to do a community service project and we get to decide where to send him. So go to Democrats Works today and vote for Darcy in WA-08.
It’s quick, it’s easy, and it’s free, so there’s no excuse not to show your support.
MAAAAAN!!!
Would I love to meet the General!
Awesome. I like him for SecDef…or Secretary of State. He NEEDS to be big in the Obama adminstration. Veep maybe?
A little birdy told me that WA-08 is among the top vote getting districts today. Far from over, but a good start.
McCain’s Preacher Moment
John McShame finally renounced “Rev.” Hagee’s endorsement — the endorsement he defended only last week in an effort to pander to the fundie bloc — after Huffington Post dug up an audio tape of the “reverend” saying God sent Hitler to help Jews get to the promised land.
How the heck do you return an endorsement, though? How big a box do you need? Do you send it parcel post or Fed Ex? Or truck freight? Do you mark it “Return to Send” or “Refused”? What about the 30-day return policy — did McShame keep this endorsement too long to get a refund?
How can anyone believe these haters speak for God?
Roger Rabbit Quiz
Hey kiddies! Once again it’s time to put on your thinking caps! This week’s subject is APPEASEMENT and the question is a real doozy, so don’t be hasty! Take your time and think through the problem before answering. Ready? Heeeeere weeeee gooooooo!!!
Which U.S. president made deals with Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi and wrote polite letters to North Korea’s Kim Jong Il?
[ ] 1. Senator Obama
[ ] 2. President Bush
[ ] 3. Barry Bonds
[ ] 4. Mother Goose
RR @ 3
I would think that McCain’s returning an old endorsement like that of Rev. Hagee is not a simple matter of finding the proper courier and paying the freight. I think he wore the suit a bit too long and now he must haggle with a clerk to make the exchange. He’s up against it. Even Nordstroms has tightened up its return policy.
So according to a rockstar of the American evangelical movement, their God sent Hitler? These are the people that have been pulling the strings of government for the last 30 years, and Repudlickers have been anxiously grovelling at their feet the whole while.
@8 What did you expect from this fascist gang?
P.S., Theirs is a small “g” god.
Rujax @1,
A couple months back I’m chatting it up at Drinking Liberally, when I look over my shoulder, and there’s Gen. Clark walking through door.
He was great. Very dynamic. And his message was that Bush was that we needed to be vigilant against Bush taking us into war with Iran in advance of the November election.
Clark as VP would seal the deal.
McInsane could whine all the live long day about his military record (including the “I ratted out my country when tortured” part) and Clark could just slam the punk.
Swift Boat Liars would be left at the shore line with their traitorous mouths agape.
Goldy…
…well THAT’s what i get for not showing up more often…
…I did get to meet Gen. Clark’s son during the 2004 campaign…a really great person as well!
I’m not convinced that Clark is the strongest veep prospect or a deal sealer. He holds no office, represents no state, has no constituency, and has been out of the limelight for years. And never had strong political credentials to begin with. He’s the Democratic version of a Colin Powell — probably competent and a solid choice for a cabinet position but not a political force the other party would have to reckon with.
Wesley Clark…the George McClellan of our time.
The Piper
@12, spot on. As sure as carrots are orange, the best pick would be John Edwards. Remember, when he was still a candidate he consistantly polled higher against McWain than Obama and Clinton.
While we are on the subject of “Appeasment”:
Bush implied Obama was an “Appeaser”, like Chamberlain. Media pointed out that Chamberlain’s mistake wasn’t that he negotiated with Hitler, but that he gave him territory. Also, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan negotiated with the Soviets and China. Then McCain tried to argue that Obama being open to talking with Iran was difference, because he didn’t say he would have “pre-conditions” before talking with them. Talk about trying to back-peddle to save a losing argument….
But this all reminded me that when Nixon visited the Soviet Union and China, there were pre-conditions which had to be met first. The U.S. withdrew it’s combat troops from Vietnam. And the U.S. dropped all claims for compensation for property of U.S. citizens siezed during their respective revolutions. They set the pre-conditions, and we met them.
And now, in the words of Stephanie Miller, “Thanks for playing another game of “Reaaaalllly BAD Analogy!”
@15…rhp6033…
Misread of history on your part…
Obama’s appeasement would be giving Iran, et al, what it wants unilaterally and unconditionally all in a vain hope – a hope upon which he will starve – that he can pesuade vipers not to act according to their character.
What Iran, et al, want is international viability and credibility, which unconditional, head-of-government to head-of-government bi-lateral negotiations would give.
When Kennedy met Kruschev unconditionally in Vienna, he got his ass whipped and Kruschev came away thinking less about reaching a deal with the U.S. and more that the U.S. could be had, hence Russia’s bold move to stick missles in Cuba.
Now, JFK redeemed himself during the Cuba Missle Crisis, but it was a crisis that he could have avoided by not licking Nikita’s shoes some months earlier.
Neville Chamberlain’s mistake was indeed negotiating with Hitler, who had already proved his mettle as an international thug, liar, bully, and mendacious scum. The whole premise of Munich was to force Britain and France to concede to Germany hegemony over Eastern Europe such that by simply showing up Chamberlain legitimized Germany’s demands and position.
BHO, shooting from a naive hip, painted himself into a corner from which he’s been trying to wiggle out ever since, hence his parsing of the language and now his denunciation of both Hamas and Hezbollah.
And this is what passes for “judgment” among Democrats these days? FDR, Truman, and a sadder but wiser JFK are all rolling over in their graves at the thought of it.
The Piper
Piper @ 15
What Iran, et al, want is international viability and credibility, which unconditional, head-of-government to head-of-government bi-lateral negotiations would give.
No. What Iran wants is credibility and influence among other nations in the Middle East, and the longer they defy “The Great Satan” the more their credibility and influence increases among those nations.
Indeed, if your definition of “appeasement” consists of giving Iran what they want in terms of credibility and influence, then the Bush Administration, and by extension John McCain, are the real appeasers here.
@16, your assessment is the standard, prepackaged, molded, beat your chest, God bless America (because God chose America), Christian self-righteous, bomb the brown people party-line klatch. Reconcile to us, if you could, concisely, how a Christian’s mentality could be to inflict heinous death and misery on innocent victims before having a simple dialog with their leaders. And spare me the sophistic redirection that I hate America.
Yes vote for Darcy! Goldy is excited– maybe she’ll finally give him a lil’ lick! (throws up)
Piper Scott @ 16:
What you fail to understand, no, what you know but fail to admit is that the “pre-conditions” for a meeting that President Obama will set and those of Lame Duck Bush are vastly different.
Bush wants Iran to meet pre-set conditions that ultimately are all the end results the Untied States would hope to achieve with Iran through negotiations. Of course, no nation state would agree to those conditions and it allows Bush to say diplomacy didn’t work. Naturally, when you set the stage for failure that’s what you get.
President Obama, on the other hand, would set the conditions to have meaningful dialogue that sets the table for success.
When President Obama says “no preconditions” he means the ones established by the failed Bush administration.
PS: Why did you avoid answering my question about Rep. Reichert’s legislative accomplishments?
@20…GBS…
You don’t set preconditions with snakes – the point is completely lost on them.
As for Cong. Reichert? That his opponent is The Darcy is ample justification to support his re-election. I don’t need to defend him when to do so among the HA Happy Hooligans would be a futile gesture.
It’s enough to poke holes in the transparent nature of The Darcy – toss back the curtain of her illusory wizardry and expose her for the humbug she is.
Not a difficult task, mind you, but again a lesson in lost points when it comes to the HA Happy Hooligans.
The Piper
Piper @ 20:
You’re non-answer is the perfect answer: Rep. Dave Reichert has not accomplished anything in congress.
Contrasted by Darcy Burner’s Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq. It doesn’t matter if there are flaws in her plan, it clearly demonstrates that a private citizen has done more to grasp the problem, elicit input from military and national security experts and then authored the document.
That is more than Reichert has done.
If you’re basing your reason(s) to back Reichert over Burner simply because she is the Democratic opposition I’m fine with that. But that doesn’t mean Reichert has any legislative accomplishments and his experience is just keeping the seat warm in the House for his eventual replacement.
Not a solid track record of success, but then again, he’s pretty much on par with the RNC since 2001.
Good luck to your party this fall, seriously, you’ll need it.
BTW – if “You don’t set preconditions with snakes – the point is completely lost on them.” then why are you and your ilk making such a big deal out of it.
Ooops, opened your mouth and inserted your foot. How does your big toe taste?
@22…GBS…
No doubt the GOP will need help this fall, and The Darcy is providing it.
Her Irresponsible Plan – not simply a white paper on surrender, but a white flag – is littered with silliness. Anyone who would endorse, let alone propound, such foolishness has no business being on any ballot more serious than the Ames Lake Homeowners’ Assn prexy contest.
Notice how the only ones taking that bit of inanity seriously are the HA Happy Hooligans and their fellow travelling bag-packers like Jay Inslee and a few unreconstructed Marxists over at the P-I?
I’ve said before that Cong. Reichert is a tad liberal for my taste on many issues, but his support for the war effort and his recent support for free trade with Columbia are enough to earn him my support.
BTW…interesting how the left orgasmically seeks to embrace enemies of the USA but can’t wait to bash friends of the USA.
Why is that? Might check the DSM-IV under the heading “self-loathing.”
The Piper
Summer nears. Therefore, piano lessons cost less. (Supply/demand.)
Please contact Goldy and he’ll get in touch with me.
Except for bagpipe operators, of course. Their rates remain double.
Piper @ 24:
“There you go again.” I suppose after 28 years of using this tired old playbook to win political office you can’t let it go, but the whole notion of “Liberals are appeasers, hate America 1st crowd, fiscally irresponsible, don’t support the troops. . . . blah, blah, blah” has run its course. It was fun but it’s done!
It didn’t work in 2006 and this year the conditions are even worse for Republicans. Americans in general are struggling with the high cost of energy. Most people haven’t really had the chance to recalibrate their personal budgets to figure out how they’re going to pay their bills while continuing to fund record profits for the Republicans largest political donors – Big OIL. George W. McCain had better know what the cost of oil was the day before him, Bush and the Republicans opted to launch a war of choice in Iraq. Because he’s going to get asked that question a lot.
Americans are going to punish Republicans for their failed leadership of the nation and more importantly, our military during a time of war. You guys got a pass in 2002 and 2004 but lost it in 2006. Staying the course is an option for you guys, but like the Iraq War, the War on Terror, allowing North Korea to go nuclear on your watch, building the status of Iran on your watch it is the worst course of action for your party to pursue. It will not play well with the electorate – even the redneck hillbillies aren’t that stupid. Except Mark the Redneck, he IS that stupid.
The only place in Congress that The Darcy is qualified to serve is as a cocktail waitress in the House Bar. Otherwise, its time to step into reality and run for your local school board.
As the Head MFR in charge of NATO, Clark nearly started WWIII with Russia. A British General and a US Navy Admiral refused his orders. What was he going to do? Oh yeah, he was going to bomb a russian airport. Go ahead and put your trust in HIS judgment. HA!