The Party Of Petulance

The silly little stunt pulled by the Democrats yesterday indicates just how far the Democrats have fallen as Bush Derangement Syndrome spreads through the Democratic side of the aisle faster than a cold. The Democrats were hoping to kick Bush while he was down, but found themselves once again in a position of weakness as the Republican base closed around Alito and the Fitzgerald investigation failed to bring down the Bush Administration. So now the Democrats are petulantly demanding that there be an “investigation” to justify their idiotic assertion that Bush “lied” about Iraq, and they were too sheeplike and stupid to question it.

The Democrats have nothing else to fall back upon but trying to refight the battles of 2002. They have no agenda for anything else. Furthermore, by doing so, it gives the GOP the perfect counter – the Democrats saw the same intelligence as the White House. They came to the same conclusion. So if Bush is a liar, so are they. It’s not an argument they can win, and this kind of idiotic theatrical stunt is only going to make themselves look bad.

The Democrats just don’t have a clue. The Republicans should thank God they have such an idiotic opposition, or they’d be sunk. Just when Bush’s fortunes appeared to be running on empty, the Democrats come up with a sure-fire way of once again making them the party of weakness and petulance. They’ve even managed to get Bill Frist hopping mad, and that’s quite an achievement. This stunt will light a fire under the Republican base, alienate moderate voters who want solutions to today’s problems, and appeal to the radical MoveOn wing of the party that provides lots of fundraising at the expense of alienating everyone who isn’t a spittle-flecked partisan.

Meanwhile, the GOP has an excellent Supreme Court nominee with a stellar judicial record, a tax reform plan that would significant reduce regulatory burdens and increase GDP growth while eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax and mortgage exemptions on homes over $1,000,000, and an agenda that looks forwards, not behind.

The Democrats are emulating the failed tactics of the 1998 GOP – which only proves that those who fail to learn from history are damned to repeat it – although it couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch…

UPDATE: The Bull Moose blog has some more thoughts on the Democrat’s anti-war positioning:

Will the American people have faith in and trust a party that claims that it was gullibly duped, or as George Romney claimed about another war – that it was “brainwashed.”? Moreover, should the objective be re-fighting the reasons to go to war and making the Democrats the official anti-war party or should the goal be achieving reasonable success in Iraq? If you believe in the former than you would encourage more efforts like the one Senate Democrats undertook yesterday. If you believe in the latter, you want the opposition party to present a better plan for winning this war.

While the war is increasingly unpopular, the Democrats should be careful that they are positioning themselves as a party that is gullible, feckless and indecisive on national security. It may provide immense partisan satisfaction to flummox the Republicans on a procedural maneuver, but beware of the long-term impact on the party which already suffers from a perception of being weak on national security.

23 thoughts on “The Party Of Petulance

  1. “The Democrats are emulating the failed tactics of the 1998 GOP – which only proves that those who fail to learn from history are damned to repeat it – ”

    One big difference in that analogy is that the majority of public opinion was against the persecution of Clinton over Zippergate…while the majority of public opinion is on the side of Democrats that waging war against Iraq was a seismic mistake.

    Overall, I’m not convinced Reid’s stunt was the right play. In the short-term, it was fun watching Bill Frist trembling with rage, bemoaning the good old days of Tom Daschle when only a year ago the Republicans proclaimed him the obstructionist bogeyman who just had to be defeated if the republic was to survive. In the long-term, however, it’ll be a fairly embarrassing stunt if the GOP can simply rewind some old C-SPAN tapes and show to the public members of the Democratic leadership making their own apocalyptic speeches about non-existent WMD back in 2002.

  2. “Specifically because they stopped using those tactics…”

    Define “those tactics.” Since 1998, they smeared the war records of John McCain and John Kerry, accused McCain of fathering a black child, accused George Voinovich and Olympia Snowe of being hand puppets of the French, questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland, and leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press. If this is a step in the right direction from huffing and puffing about Clinton’s affair with Lewinsky, then I can only assume your formula for Democratic Party revival would be the same level of viciousness.

  3. Since 1998, they smeared the war records of John McCain and John Kerry

    Only in your little world where Kerry really *was* in Cambodia for Christmas. And when has the Republican Party “smeared” John McCain’s war record? Oh, that’s another Democratic myth.

    accused McCain of fathering a black child

    Another stupid Democratic myth

    accused George Voinovich and Olympia Snowe of being hand puppets of the French

    See above.

    questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland

    As I’ve pointed out time and time again, including linking to the actual video, they did no such thing – except in the mind of puerile partisans.

    and leaked the name of an undercover CIA agent to the press.

    Odd then, that no one has been charged with doing any such thing. But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way.

    All of this just proves the point exactly. The Democrats are unhinged. All they have are the same stupid, whiny, childish attacks and nothing else. Waaah! Bush lied! Waaah! Karl Rove! Waaaah! Halliburton! Waaah! No blood for oil! Waaah! Waaah! Waaah! They’re questioning our patriotism!

    If there’s one thing that the American electorate can’t stand it’s crybabies and sore losers, and the Democrats are the biggest crybabies of all. I wonder if any Democratic strategists have figured out that even if they win this silly little debate and distort all the facts about WMD intelligence, they get the prize of standing up and saying “We were all duped by someone we routinely accuse of being an idiot.”

    There’s a winning position for you.

    Hell, all the Democrats had to do was shut the hell up and let the Republican “leadership” fall on their faces – now by playing stupid political games, the Democrats have refocused attention on their weakest issue, united the base, and once again make them look like a bunch of stupid little obstructionist crybabies.

    Thank God for such incompetent adversaries…

  4. If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in Cambodia for Christmas, as they’ve said, why couldn’t Kerry?

    You seem to forget that all you succeeded in doing was embarrassing yourself the last time you “debated” the Kerry in Cambodia claims.

    Minority parties don’t push agendas; such a thing is impossible simply by virtue of being the minority. Democrats are bravely standing up against an agenda so rabidly anti-American that, every time they try to make the case for their plans to the American people, they fall flat on their face.

  5. If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were in Cambodia for Christmas, as they’ve said, why couldn’t Kerry?

    I don’t recall any of them making that claim. They simply stated that Kerry could not have been where he said he was when he said he was there. Which so happens to be true – Kerry’s recollections were false. (And that’s being charitable.)

    Minority parties don’t push agendas; such a thing is impossible simply by virtue of being the minority.

    Which is why the Democrats still don’t get it. (Hint: read about a little thing called the “Contract With America”).

    Democrats are bravely standing up against an agenda so rabidly anti-American that, every time they try to make the case for their plans to the American people, they fall flat on their face.

    And who is questioning whose patriotism now?

    And odd that such an “anti-American” agenda seems to be the one that actually wins elections

  6. I’ve heard the push poll phone messages smearing McCain’s war records and accusing him of fathering a black child, I’ve watched clips of the TV ads comparing George Voinovich and Olympia Snowe to the French and I’ve seen a clip of the ad showing Max Cleland with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. But in the spirit of Richard Pryor and the Bush-era Republican Party platform, I guess I should believe what you say over my own lying eyes right?

    Your outburst here, much like Frist’s, is a sign that Reid’s ploy worked. The casual non-partisan viewer who took in yesterday’s coverage is probably more likely to remember Frist’s lengthy “You’re not being fair!!!!” rant than Reid’s call for a closed-door session. The Democrats have looked weak for years by being in perpetual defense mode. Will Reid’s move be a step towards the toughness necessary to convince Americans that the Dems should be the majority? Probably not by itself, but if outbursts like Frist’s inevitably follow every sneaky parliamentary backhand the Dems deliver, the GOP risks lapsing into the “He shouldn’t have said that!” mode that the Dems have been stuck in throughout the post-Clinton era.

  7. Oh, so now your defense of the Swift Boat lie is that you “don’t recall?” Well, how hard did you look? I mean, did you do any research on the topic with an eye towards disproving their claims?

    Yes, I know that John McNeil said that Kerry couldn’t have been there when Kerry said he was there. The problem is that John McNeil also said that he, John McNeil, was there – in Cambodia – when Kerry said that he was there.

    So, either McNeil was lying then, or he’s lying now. Either way basing your conclusions on the statements of a liar is probably not a good idea.

    I do remember the “Contract With America”; I recall that pretty much none of it succeeded. Thus proving my point.

    And let’s be absolutely clear. Republicans didn’t win the election because they promised to privatize Social Security (because they never campaigned on that); they didn’t win because they promised to stall investigations of corruption (because they never campaigned on that); they didn’t win because they promised profligate pork spending (because they never campaigned on that.)

    They won the election because George Bush looked like the strongest leader in the war on terror. Consider everything the Republicans have done since November 2004. How much of it was stuff they promised to do before? I don’t remember Bush running on a platform of baseball doping investigations and bridges to nowhere in bum-fuck Alaska.

    So, for an agenda that you claim “wins elections”, I don’t see any of it actually being campaign material. I don’t see any of it consistent with Republican election promises. In other words, the only way Republicans can proceed with their agenda is by a massive bait-and-switch. Winning elections? The only way they seem to win is by concealing their agenda.

    And who is questioning whose patriotism now?

    Me. I’m questioning yours. Having reading problems, or something?

  8. This play, I gotta say, ended up being a winner for the Democrats. Not that it had to be. I was super excited when I heard about this stunt. What an opportunity it provided! Here’s a perfect opportunity to contrast the grown-ups actually going about the business of government, and the children who are pulling little stupid stunts to get some attention again. I mean, it was a gold mine of opportunity. A rhetorical onslaught making the Dems look like fools was suddenly opened wide.

    And instead, what did we get? “The Senate Democrats have invoked Rule 21 without prior notification. This is unprecedented and unsenatorial. My feelings are hurt.” Come on! And then of course there was the brilliant strategy of simply caving on the demands within two hours. The Democrats looked strong and asservative, and the Republicans looked weak. Not a good moment.

  9. Well Mark if you’ve seen it it must be true, so there you have it folks, the big fables that have unified your party are now proven true. We all saw the Max Cleland commerical and since your party is occupied by the tin foil hats they need a conspiracey to aleviate the problem of not getting enough votes, it was osama, saddam and Cleland in his wheelchair all blended into one (needs to be breathlessly report for the proper effect). How dare Saxby Chambliss run that, feign the outrage and mobilize the troops with the “bad Republican” moniker and then you don’t have to have a position because you cannot let the American people know your real position on anything. It couldn’t have been the Georgia voters that threw out Cleland after he sided one too many times with the liberal majority leader Tom (oops he’s gone too) Daschle. Or wait I think they threw out their Democratic governer as well, putting in the first republican in 135 years, or handed over both the state house and senate to the repubs as well. Must have been the absolutly most effective commercial in the history of politics. What are you saying, that in effect the Georgia voters are to dumb to vote the issues and are easily tricked by those rascally republicans.
    That would be the same Max Cleland that Kerry would send down to Crawford, like a political prop sweating in the Texas sun, to make sure that Bush denounced the Swift boats or some such nonsense. Why Max you ask ? well you figure out why, it has something to do with him in a wheelchair and thinking that he was above the debate. So if anybody calls good ol Max on the carpet for spinning his tripe the Dems can say “how dare you question his patriotism, he’s in a wheelchair”. Used like the Rosa Parks funeral (did you hear old Charlie Rangel), used like the Wellstone memorial (where to start on that fiasco). All used by a political party that lacks ideas and needs to run little stunts (like Harry Reids, shut down) or political props like using a greiving mother Cindy Sheehan, to promote their party because they cannot win with their platform on the battle field of ideas. No substance, no anything, most of all no shame.
    You want to talk push polls and other dirty tricks, you Dems lower the bar to a disgracful level and feign outrage when your called on it or the other guy dares to go negative.
    You want to talk about outrage how about Steele that black Lt. Governer running for The US Senate seat in MD. Dems throw oreo cookies at him to show that he may be black on the outside but he’s white on the inside, or call him “Uncle Tom” or “Sambo” all those nice racial epithets we thought were unacceptable and repulsive in pubic discorse. All because he’s conservative and black. Were is the debate or the policy discussion, no no its the politics of the personnel attack. They will find some good dirt on him you wait, ’cause thats what your guys do. Or maybe they’ll try and steal all his financial records. Oops I guess your guys already did that too. SPare us the lecture on “dirty tricks’, your party owns it.
    As opposed to you (naturally) I was glad to see that Frist got a spine and let Harry have it for the hijacking the process.

  10. Ray M, Max Cleland led Saxby Chambliss by 10 points or more in every poll only a month before the election. Then the Republican slime machine churned out the ad in question and Cleland’s lead evaporated. It would appear as though you were right that the ad ran against him was the most successful political ad of all-time, or at least since Willie Horton.

    And I agree that the racially-based epitheths hurled against Michael Steele are outrageous and disgraceful….not to mention wildly counterproductive. The only way the Dems could lose this race in Democratic Maryland is if they give it away….and if bullshit like this continues, they could pull it off. How this excuses the slimy smear tactics of Karl Rove and the modern GOP in your mind I don’t quite understand.

    Frist got a spine? I don’t call a defensive “you’re not playing by the rules!!!!” outburst qualifies as getting a spine. As your fellow GOP partisan Greg Gorham said above, Reid laid a very rudimentary trap and Frist stepped right into it by throwing a tantrum. Reid 1, Frist 0.

  11. Oh those reliable polls again, didn’t they have Bush winning by 10% over Gore in 2000 and then Kerry winning by 3-4% in 2004, you gonna have to try harder than that Mark to make anyone believe that a mere stunt is gonna sway the voter that much. Also the willie horton ads are still the reason that Dukakis lost, couldn’t be thats he was a bad candidate (although the bettle baily look when he was riding in that M1A1 tank sure didn’t help), the idea that we voters are just too stupid to make decisions has vexed your party for a decade now, all you Dems think you have to do is rephrase the issue with flowery words and we will be hypnotised into voting for you. No issues, just symantics. not the way to build a movement.
    Hey I just happy that Frist said something,anything, as a Senate republican who by their very nature are the get along go along, warming saucer, our friends on the other side of the isle types. We republicans have to make sure they are fawned over when they actual make an utterence, even if its just to say “nu-uh”.
    They may still win in MD but at what cost to the party ?

  12. Quite frankly, Ray, I don’t think anybody expects that they can switch you over to the side of Democrats. If you can watch the profligate spending, the moralistic interference in our privacy, and the drastic realignment of our secular legal system into a Christian theocracy, while claiming to be supporting the party of “smaller government and personal freedom”, you’ve been drinking the Kool-Aid far too long to be capable of independant thought on the issue. No amount of “repackaging” is going to penetrate the web of bullshit you’re hopelessly mired in.

    On the other hand, the majority of Americans have seen right through the agenda of the Republican party; and when their vaunted but fictitous “strength” on national defense implodes, as it’s going to when the next round of Fitzgerald indictments come down, Republicans are going to have absolutely nothing that appeals to mainstream America. We’re witnessing the death of your party, Ray. It’s dying because people are waking up to the fact that absolutely none of the Republican agenda matches a single campaign claim.

  13. The Democrats will not win an election until they can develop this thing called a “platform” and talk about “issues.” They are much more comfortable discussing indictments, documents, filibusters, processes, investigations, etc. But these things do not win elections. People want to know where you going to lead the country, not complaining.

    If you honestly believe this indictment of a guy 99% of Americans have not heard of, on a charge of covering up a non-existant crime, is going to lead you to victory, I can’t wait for 2006. You gotta do a little better than that.

  14. Greg, it’s widely reported that the Dems are in the late stages of constructing their own version of the Contract with America… which point the GOP will be on defense saying that the Dems are offering the “wrong solutions” rather than their current rallying cry of the Dems offering “no solutions”. Essentially, your party’s most effective grievance about the Dems (they offer nothing constructive) is about to be taken from you. Rosa Parks will be smiling next November when it’s white Republicans being ordered to the back of the bus in the world of American politics.

  15. Chet,

    Wow, I wasn’t really buying into your incredibly well-reasoned arguments until you started cursing and playing the tough-guy persona (I’m so scared). As a matter of fact, I voted for neither major candidate in 2000 or 2004, but prefered Bush over either Dem because (in no particular order, and certainly not every issue which was considered):

    1) Tax cuts
    2) Chance for meaningful change with Social Security
    3) Chance to restrict the power of the SCOTUS (and I am both ambivalent about and bored by the topic of abortion, so that’s not a driving force for me)
    4) Pro-gun ownership (and I don’t, nor will I ever, actually own a firearm, so please don’t start with the “gun nut” crap)
    5) Reduction in spending

    So to simply state that either election boils down to who was perceived to be the tougher candidate is simply wrong. In fact, I’m satisfied with four out of the five reasons stated above in terms of effort and policy. You may not like those policies, but they mattered to many people, not just me. And count me as one of the agnostics in the US who thinks “theocracy” talk would be amusing if it weren’t so pathetic. I’ve seen NO implementation of a theocracy, and I’m not threatened in the least by any of the so-called “Jesusland” voters who vote, in part, based on their religious views. Oh, the Schivo affair? Wow, people had a point of view different than yours, explored their legal options, and lost. How that in any way, shape, or form resembles a theocracy is beyond me. In fact, it sounds exactly like how a republic is supposed to work.
    In the next two years, troops will start coming home from Iraq, there will be a democracy in Iraq, Hussien will be tried and convicted, and there will be some sort of tax reform with a small social security reform effort attached (though not nearly enough – wait till the boomers start their mandatory retirement withdrawals in, what, 2016? People will be wishing then that something had been done now). I doubt any of this will matter to you, though, since I didn’t insult, curse, use lots of exclamation points, etc.

  16. “1) Tax cuts”

    Which are worse than meaningless without a corresponding reduction in spending, which didn’t happen. The fiscal policies of the current congress are pretty much going to guarantee that the current tax cuts won’t become permanent.

    “2) Chance for meaningful change with Social Security”

    I’m still waiting. On top of that, because of the fact that most of the country (and especially AARP) are convinced that Social Security is a retirement plan and not a safety net, there’s no chance we could switch to an Australian style means-testing system, which would keep the program solvent indefinitely without having to build a new bureaucracy (which the GOP “retirement accounts” strategy would surely entail). I don’t expect anything to be accomplished within the next three years.

    “3) Chance to restrict the power of the SCOTUS (and I am both ambivalent about and bored by the topic of abortion, so that’s not a driving force for me)”

    Roberts was a pleasantly good pick for Chief Justice, but I’m still ambivalent about Alito. Wait and see.

    “4) Pro-gun ownership (and I don’t, nor will I ever, actually own a firearm, so please don’t start with the “gun nut” crap)”

    Can’t argue with you there, but frankly this is more of a congressional issue (and a fairly non-partisan one at that- the divide is really a Rural vs. Urban one than Republican vs. Democrat- it just happens that more Republicans are rural and more Democrats are urban. Rural Dems, like Howard Dean or Stephanie Herseth, tend to have fairly good NRA ratings, while urban Republicans like Rudy Giuliani tend to support stricter gun controls.)

    “5) Reduction in spending”

    No comment necessary.

    “In the next two years, troops will start coming home from Iraq, there will be a democracy in Iraq, Hussien will be tried and convicted, and there will be some sort of tax reform with a small social security reform effort attached.”

    No disagreement on the first one, but I question how much of a democracy we’ll really get. I’ll bet anyone on this board $1000 that Iraq will be under authoritarian rule again by 2025 at the latest. In any event, I don’t think it was worth the massive price tag and increase on our Chinese take-out bill, especially when we probably could have knocked Saddam out of power much more simply if we hadn’t been so focused on “democratizing” the country. (Opening negotiations with Iran to saber-rattle at Iraq, followed by bribing several of Saddam’s generals to overthrow him in exchange for some bombing support, a trade agreement and rights to a millitary base up in the Kurdish region could have probably done the trick without spending $100’s of billions… but that’s probably a little too Kissengerian for the current administration to have considered.) And fat chance on any real social security or tax reform- it ain’t coming.

    No, the problem that I have with the current administration isn’t the same as Mark’s… it’s more akin to those expressed by David Brin ( and Andrew Sullivan, so I won’t belabor the point. Yes, the Democrats suck- but at this point, they can do no worse.

  17. Mark,

    I’m sure Rosa Parks is very proud of you using her legacy for wild race-baiting and blatently dishonest attacks on Republicans. That’s the ticket to take your party back to sanity! Invoke Rosa Parks to imply that Republicans are racist. It’s interesting that you mentioned a long overlooked part of Rosa Parks legacy. She fought to put white people in the back of bus! That’s what would make her happy! For too long, people have taught that Rosa Parks fought for equality. Glad to hear her real support of reverse discrimination is being brought up once again.

    I can’t wait to see the Democrats new Contract with America. With a clear statement of support for partial birth abortion, gay marriage, and surrender in Iraq, and the Democrats will sweep to victory in 2006.

  18. Jerry, I’m glad that you were kind enough to lay out your positions. Let’s examine how the Republican party has undermined all of them

    Tax cuts? Sure, I’d like an intelligent tax policy. But we can’t run deficits forever. Tax cuts are worse than useless, absent reductions in spending. This president has presided over the largest increase in spending of any president, ever. Do you really think that we can escape the massive tax increases that it will take to offset those enormous deficits?

    Oh, I’m sure Jay will tell you that the cuts will pay for themselves with the economic growth that they’ll supposedly inspire, but after 5 years of cutting taxes, every single inch the economy gained as a result was given back this hurricane season. The idea that you can increase your income by decreasing your income is ridiculous on the face of it.

    Meaningful change with Social Security? Sorry, but the Republican plan was not only a reckless income redistribution to the rich, but it was a fundamentally flawed answer to something that wasn’t even a problem. The most outside estimates agree that, realistically, SS is more than sufficiently funded to provide upwards of 80% of the current levels of benefits. Do we need to solve that problem with a solution that could provide no benefits whatsoever? I don’t think so.

    Restricting the power of SCOTUS? Power to do what? Read the constitution and see the right to privacy clearly spelled out in the Fourth Amendment? Republicans aren’t interested in restricting the power of SCOTUS; they’re merely slaving it to the executive branch. Is that really what you want? To reduce from three branches to two? That’s taking “smaller government” a little too far, don’t you think?

    Guns? Democrats have no problems with guns. But there’s never been an armed society that didn’t make you earn the right to bear weapons, and couldn’t rescind it if you misused them. Other than that I don’t know what you have to be afraid of. So long as the Second Amendment stands your fears about your guns is just paranoia.

    Finally – “reduction in spending?” Don’t make me laugh. What have the Republicans done in five years to curb spending?

    Well, there you go. You’ve just given us five reasons that you should be voting Democratic. How can you honestly sit there and assert that the actions, not just the rhetoric, of the Republican party is consistent with your views?

  19. Chet,

    You obviously didn’t even read your own post, or mine for that matter. You said that the only reason people voted for Bush were the war and terror issues, and I gave you five reasons other than those for why I’d support a Republican over a Dem. I also prefaced my remark by saying that we wouldn’t agree on those issues, but that they were in fact issues other than war and terror. So what do you do? You argue the merits of the issues, rather than acknowledge that you were wrong about your original assertion. Of course you don’t like the Republician policies of one through four – you’re a Democrat. I disagree with you tremendously on each of your points. Bush’s tax cuts were sensible (Mark’s rhetoric notwithstanding), it’s the spending that’s the problem. Point two, social security – I have no vested interest in this program at all as it currently stands: I see it as nothing more than a stealth income tax. I just don’t care about it. If I get the money back later, fine, but if you told me they were getting rid of it tomorrow, that’s fine too. Now, give me a say in what happens with my own money (and I promise you, I will do better than the 1-2% that we currently get as a return on Soc Sec), and I’ll have an interest in it. Otherwise, yawn. Point three – please. Simply a talking point. Next. Dems are the party of gun rights? Sure. Only because every time they try to restrict them, they get their clocks cleaned in an election. And no paranoia, I’m not an NRA member, and I don’t even own a gun, so I think my perspective is more balanced than the typical individual. Point five – I agree, and if you read my post, you’d notice that I said I only like the outcome on four out of the five original preferences for Bush over Kerry/Gore. Clearly, you either didn’t read my post, or had trouble understanding the point. Again, you and I disagree on all five of the above , but they are issues, and they are on the table. Don’t delude yourself into thinking “Oh, but for the war on terror (or Jesusland), we’d be in power.”

    Like I said, I didn’t vote for either major party, but if that’s the best you can come up with, you’re dreaming if the you think the Republicians are a dying party.

  20. Jerry, you don’t seem to understand what’s going on.

    You gave me five reasons other than terror issues why you believe that someone would vote for Republicans; I proved that you were wrong – people who were intelligent and interested in those positions could not vote Republican, because Republican actions and policies are contradictory to those positions. Which you must have recognized, since you didn’t vote for Republicans in 2000 and 2004, as you’ve said.

    Try to keep up, ok?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.