While there’s no denying 2004 and 2002, the Democrats did not lose in 2000. We won the popular vote, and lost the presidency only due to a technicality. That’s hardly a staggering loss. And we won the 2000 Congressional elections, picking up seats in both houses.
My understanding is that the usage was popularized by Mr. Limbaugh, the Orca of the Airwaves, as one of his collection of snide references, to underline his thesis of rich, snooty liberal elites. etc., etc., ad nauseum. Its part of his support for that son of toil, GeeDubya…born in the tiny, rural gated community of Midland, he let other people work his way to college, and served his country best by not fucking up an airplane as badly as he did his businesses. This he accomplished by not getting into them. The thanks of a grateful nation, etc…
He can hardly wait to leave Washington, and get back to the soil of his beloved ranch, which has been in his family for months, and clear some brush. My man Bush is a brush-clearing motherf…shut your mouth!…But I’m talkin’ bout Bush!..Well, we can dig it!… Hell, you can’t even buy any brush around Waco anymore, all done been cleared! Gotta drive all the way to Killeen or Temple, you wanna get any brush!
With dozens of its members in key posititions in this Administration? Really? Don’t suppose you could provide a cite…
Ask and you shall recieve: The War Behind Closed Doors.
Must say, if you’re being sincere – and and I have no reason to believe otherwise – you’re also rather naive. For all of this is rather elementary background on the prevalent ideology of this Administration.
If you’ll pardon the spoiler, I could save you a lot of time and effort by giving you an extremely abreviated synopsis. Goes something like this: from utopia to dystopia.
Then again, you could also ignore everything that’s right in front of your lying eyes and keep yelling “conspiracy!”
:::::shrug::::
…whose prominent signatories now occupy high-level positions in the White House, as this notable example demonstrates.
Though I’m sure you’ll dismiss that as a trivial detail, too. :rolleyes:
Every time I hear Limbaugh I hear the “Democrat Party” usage. I’ve also heard it from Hannity and from Fox News commentators, but I do not have a cite, just my recollection. Listen for it (from Republican partisans), and I think you’ll hear it with some frequency these days.
(It is not a Southern usage, by the way. I’m a Southerner myself, and it’s always been the Democratic Party down here. Until recently, at least, when this bit of linguistic nonsense began filtering through.)
I could see Rush taking advantage of that kind of usage. That would make sense, unlike the rest of your post which is a tangent to… nowhere. Rush is a conservative. Bush is a conservative. Hence Rush supports Bush. Ain’t no more complicated than that.
Unless, of course you think Rush is primarily interested in fighting wealth and snootiness. Or perhaps you just don’t like the idea of a political commentator using over-the-top ridicule of his political opponents as a debate tactic. Yeah, that must be it. 
If I am deemed a member of the “Democrat Party”, contrary to that party’s preferred usage, then those who so are clearly members of the Publican Party. :dubious:
Right?
Found a few cites for you. Here’s Hannity doing it. (On Fox.)
And here are more examples from Fox News. (Although that last one is quoting Tom DeLay.)
The “conspiracy” was in response to your earlier post about global “domination” being the goal of PNAC. Look, there isn’t a politician on either side of the aisle who wouldn’t buy into the idea of American global leaderhip. It’s when you start tossing around quotes about “domination” and all the sinister connations that evokes, that it sounds just like any other conspiracy theory.
And yes, I’m very familiar with PNAC. But you want us to believe that that group has been able to manipulate virtually the entire Republican party, and most of the Democrats in Congress to boot, to support some grand plan for “global domination”. PNAC has been successful in getting some of its policies executed as policy by this administration. The fact that they might not be able to do so in the future is no indication of a loss in power or authority by the Republicans. It just means that some PNAC ideas play in Peoria, and some don’t.
True, and unfortunate. Their grandchildren will look at this the same way I look at my grandmother’s racism–as an unfortunate relic of another time.
But the issue is going to bring a lot more idle Republicans out to the polls than Democrats, and looking at the small margin of victory, one has to think this probably made the difference.
2000: Nothing left to be said about this supposed GOP “victory”.
2002: Hot on the heels of a terrorist attack, anyone who didn’t toe Bush’s line was with the Terrorists. Not surprisingly, the real Republicans are victorious over the Democrats acting like Republicans.
2004: It is finally acceptable (moreso, anyway) to criticize the administration and its proponents, but a big turnout motivated largely by homophobia pushes the GOP over the top of a razor-thin margin.
Y’all are acting like the novice poker players who sit down at the table for two hours, get an incredible run of cards, leave up $100, and then quit their day jobs because they can make $50/hour playing poker. The good cards aren’t going to come forever.
Rush isn’t a political commentator, he’s a propagandist and a lying hound. Or have you forgotten his characterization of Abu Ghraib as “hi-jinks” and “blowing off steam” like a “fraternity hazing”? Nauseating. No other word.
Your attempt to be even handed has put you dangerously close to having no percievable political opinion at all. If that’s what you want, 's ok with me, I guess.
But why bother to go to all this effort simply to be irrelevent. You didn’t vote for Bush, but you didn’t vote against him, either. For some reason, you find this state of political eunuch appealing. Your call.
A bit more like a man who bets all his money, his ass, his house, and his wife and kids that he can draw one card to an inside straight flush, hits it, and thinks that means he’s smart.
[Last hijack, I promise.]
Turns out no lesser light than Tailgunner Joe McCarthy pioneered the whole “Democrat Party” usage. From the Columbia Guide to Standard American English:
[/hijack]
Good to see it only took one afternoon for this thread to go from ‘How can Demcrats revive their party’ to ‘TEH REPUGNICANS ARE TEH EVIL!@!@!’. If simply bashing your opponents wins elections, you guys would have won the Presidency, Congress, and Home Coming Queen.
IOW, your “conspiracy” claim was bullshit, you got called on it and now you’re backpeddaling. I also note that you’ve not followed-up on your question about Bush’s initial reluctamce to get in bed with PNAC. Since you’ve obviously not had the time to watch the 120 minute PBS documentary and the ensuing articles I linked to, that question must have been specious as well. Gotta love your debating “style.”
As for my “tossing around quotes about domination,” believe you me, The PNAC needs no help from yours truly. Then again, as you go on to say that you’re indeed “very familar” with their agenda, it must come as no surprise that their goal is, in their own words, benevolent global hegemony.
So if your nitpick with Bookman’s article rest solely on his use of the word "domination’ as opposed to “hegemony” well…you say tomato, he says tomato.
One step at a time. They wanted to invade Iraq, they did. As for how, exactly, they were able to accomplish this, think that’s been debated enough? If not, open-up yet another thread on it, for I’m sure myself and quite a few other Dopers will put any doubts you may still have on that particular issue to rest.
They started a fuckin’ war based on outright lies and cooked intel in order to advance their political agenda. Not too shabby for “having some of their ideas play in Peoria,” huh?
Yep. They are “really fading into the background.” :rolleyes:
I can’t help but notice that said tactics worked for you in all three instances.
Potahto, Potato. I don’t listen to Rush, although I’ve heard snipets of his program on other shows. From what I’ve heard, I’d put him one or two rungs above Coulter.
If you want to ask me about who I voted for or why, feel free. But you’re out of line speculating about my motives. I’ve made them clear in this forum, even if you don’t remember.
Ah, c’mon, John, you don’t tiptoe delicately around my dignity, how can you expect me to tiptoe around yours? You can dish, you can take. Or you can’t.
I think telling the other party how they should vote and what they should believe in is a giant waste of time. Republicans wouldn’t like it if a Kerry had won and we had to suffer through endless threads saying, “Okay Republicans, now that you lost, here’s what you have to do: Support tax hikes for the rich, socialized medicine, and the Kyoto treaty. If you don’t, you’re a big poopypants loser.”
These advice to the electionworn threads should die a hasty death.
Besides, the problem the Democrats have is structural: Campaign finance reform has forced them into the arms of internet fundraisers and organizations like MoveOn. That is pushing the Democratic party WAY out to the left. These guys are not ‘centrist’ or even ‘liberal’ - they’re wackjobs. They’re just this side of being raving marxists (or in the case of International A.N.S.W.E.R, they ARE Marxists). That bloc of people has the support of maybe 5-10% of the electorate, and turns off the rest.
The Republicans don’t have this problem. There are no huge KKK websites raising millions. The John Birchers aren’t a major source of internet activism. The Republicans on the internet tend to be moderate, or neo-con, or if they lean to an extreme they lean towards libertarianism.
So the Democrats have their left flank tugging hard on them, while the Republicans are coasting free. Bush is not a hard-core conservative. He’s a moderate on just about everything. You guys have demonized him for four years and his aggressive foreign policy makes him look more to the right than he is. This is the President that has greatly increased funding for education, science, supports federal funding f or hydrogen fuel cells, gave 15 billion to Africa for AIDS when Clinton gave almost nothing, and is now working feverishly on the Tsunami relief effort and getting applause from around the world for it.
George Bush is not a small government conservative. He’s a pro-growth conservative. He doesn’t want to shrink government, he wants the economy to grow so the government can afford more things. He believes low taxes and lower regulations will open the floodgates of innovation and work, boost the GDP, make everyone wealthier, and then we can afford to do more good works.
That’s “compassionate conservatism” in a nutshell. Our Priemier Klein is in the same mold, and it drives the small government conservatives nuts. When he implemented tight fiscal policy with steep cuts in government spending and lower taxes, he took immense amounts of fire from the left. But you know what? We paid off our debt, ran a surplus, and got back 18% of our tax revenue that we were paying in interest. The lower taxes and pro-business regulatory policy attracted investment and people have been flocking here. We now have one of the most potent economies in the world. But what’s Klein doing with the surplus? He’s spending it on education and health care. He’s not cutting taxes much, if at all.
This appeals to a lot of people, especially the undecideds.
A 3% victory may not seem like much, but think of it this way - about 80% of the country is solidly in one camp or the other, and rarely change parties. Of the 20% left who could be swayed, Bush had a 15% advantage over Kerry.
Meh. I can make up shit about your posts, too, but I choose not it.
Probably because I never asked about Bush’s reluctance to get in bed with PNAC. Can you show me where I did.? I did ask why Bush didn’t nominate a PNAC Sec of State, if that’s what you mean. But that’s not even in the same ballpark as what you’re claiming I said.
I also note that you haven’t answered whether Condi is a neocon, which you at least indirectly claimed she was. Your vauge response, which essentially boils down to “she supported the war in Iraq” could as easily be applied to McCain or even Lieberman. Hell, it might even apply to Kerry, if we play as loosely with definitions as you seem to be doing.
At any rate, stick with your conspiracy theories if you find comfort in them. But don’t expect that stance to win any elections, which, if you recall, is what this thread is about.