Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What Dem Buffoon Thinks It Better We Don't Take Both Houses Now ??

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:43 PM
Original message
What Dem Buffoon Thinks It Better We Don't Take Both Houses Now ??
Wish I had a link, or a transcript of Hardball, but somebody was saying that there are those in the political class (Dem I presume) that think it would be better if we only took one house of Congress in 2006!

From which anus was this crap born, and can we dispose of this shitty notion post haste???



:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
KingFlorez Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Probably a Zell Miller clone
I mean isn't that the only kind of clown who would say something like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. No...there are also those who believe that if Dems control both houses it
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 08:54 PM by blm
makes it more difficult for a Hillary candidacy, because she's more vulnerable on the "balance of power" trust issue. As if the rightwing is completely sold on the idea that if Hillary takes over the clintons can get congress to bend to their will. blah blah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. Well That's Just Fucking Brilliant...
The Dems are already preparing for their loss in '08, by hoping for a loss in '06.

Jesus... where do we get these idiots?

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Naw, its strategic thinking by all these great "consultants" we've been
using the last few years. You know, the Carvilles, Brazile's, the DLC, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. The lid will blow off Bush's lies about the economy once he is gone
And the Democrats will be in power for TWO YEARS by the time the election comes about. Two years of serious inflation/recession, housing prices falling, tax hikes to make up for Bush's give-aways and blunders, another faked AQ attack on America by BushCo-Halliburton...and two years worth of material for GOP campaign ads about how the Democrats have fucked up everything Bush started. The dems will take the blame for EVERYTHING that Bush is currently hiding from America. To our peril.

There actually is some common sense to that analysis.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Oh C'Mon...
It could also be months and months of joint congressional investigations opening the biggest can of Republican worms in American history, and banishing the Republicans to the political wilderness for another 40 years.

Why isn't the Dems getting both houses of congress, to the peril of the most corrupt congress and administration in U.S. history???

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Atman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. Don't "Oh C'Mon" me!
I didn't make up the theory. Wasn't this thread about "WHY" the meme is going around that it might be good for the dems not to take both houses? I offered another response, and I think there is certainly as much merit in the explanation as there is in any of the others here.

I'm actually surprised you'd dismiss it that fast. Can you say "Diebold?" All the republicans need is a plausible reason to present to the ignorant masses for "winning" in 2008. Allowing the democrats two years to take the blame for the ramifications and aftermath of Bush's policies seems made to order for that purpose. We've been whining for six years when they keep saying "It's Clinton's fault!" How do you think we'll look when we try to start crying "But, it's Bush's fault!"?

So "C'Mon" yourself. Theories are just that...theories. We won't know the real answers until someone who actually knows tells us.

.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 11:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I Guess It Was The "Common Sense To The Analysis..." Part
That got me "Oh C'Monin"

And no... I started this thread to find out what kind of ass would put this political mental masturbation out for public consumption 4 weeks before the election.

We could spend our time contemplating tits on a chicken too, but that like the previous "theory", it doesn't help for shit with the goal at hand.

Just ask all the people you know working on the Democratic campaigns every day and night between now and the election.

Sorry... but it's just one of those potentially deflating postulations that do absolutely no good at this point in time.

If we do in fact only take one house, THAT would be the time to bring out this "silver lining".

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. They Made It Sound As If It Was Coming From Some Political Strategist !!!
They mentioned Congressional Quarterly, but it's paid subscription only, so I couldn't search.

Course, it could be DLC...

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DefenseLawyer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
2. Bob Shrum?
Sounds like something that brilliant strategist would utter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DireStrike Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well that's completely retarded...
I suppose a case could be made that it would be good if we took NEITHER house:

- Would help the Open Voting movement
- Would keep the hot potato of the economy, about to go down the tubes, out of Dem hands

But taking only one house would be good? What... huh... whatever that guy took isn't legal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:46 PM
Response to Original message
4. Exact Same Bullshit From Scarboro (sp?) Tonight
I heard the same shit from that idiot that follows Olbermann, Scarboro or whatever his name is. I wasn't quick enough turning the station after Keith was over tonight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
magellan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
5. Must be a DINO
They believe in catastrophic success.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
6. I Wonder If It's Along The Premise Of Thinking Forward To 08?
It might be some sort of thinking that if we had both houses, repubs would find a plethora of failures or shortcoming etc to exploit in attempt to keep the presidency in 08, whereas if we only had one house we'd be able still call them out on their failures?

Who knows. Twisted logic any way ya look at it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wiley50 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 08:59 PM
Response to Original message
12. "scuse, but, maybe I'm taking you literally here, but
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 09:00 PM by Wiley50
what, exactly, do you mean to be the means to do so?

I admit, that those folks who are saying that we need to get rid of any incumbents
at all and start fresh,sometimes, seem to make a lot of sense........

But, maybe I'm taking you wrong...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chill_wind Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:02 PM
Response to Original message
14. Sounds a lot more like the Independant political class.
Edited on Mon Oct-09-06 09:02 PM by chill_wind
You hear those callers on C-Span all the time. They can't throw in with either party and hammer on "balance of power" as one of their favorite themes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
15. before the tantrum, calling them baffoons and all your other assumptions
i think it only fair to have actually what was said context, and by who
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-09-06 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. Gee... Thanks For The Lecture...
Here's a nickel.



Thanks Lucy.

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Emit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-10-06 12:39 AM
Response to Original message
19. One of the volunteers I work with explained this to me
and, forgive my memory, it stems from something someone whose name started with a "V" said, I think it was Richard Viguerie. He's been talking about the advantage of Dems only taking the House because of something to do with an economic recession on the horizon whereby it would fair better in '08 for the Dems if the Repugs kept the Senate and let things fester for them -- let the voters stew in the shit the Repus have created. It has some sort of basis in political history where regaining the presidency stems from the political atmosphere of the mid-term elections.

Here's a snip from an interview:

"Conservatives are like the biblical Jews who had to wander through the desert for 40 years until that generation of immoral, corrupt leaders had passed away," he said. "We are not going to get to the political promised land with this leadership. They don't have vision -- they don't have an idea of where they want to take the country."

Reagan never would have won had Gerald Ford not been defeated in 1976, Viguerie said, and Republicans would never have won the House if George H.W. Bush had been re-elected in 1992. "Conservatives, by the way, are not an arm of the party," he said. "We're not a wing of the party. We are the party."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/1...


Does any of that make any sense at all? I was pretty tired when he was talking about it, and not very focused at the time, and I just got back from a 3-hour GOTV meeting, so I'm a little wiped out right now myself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Aug 21st 2014, 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC