Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Seriously, the people who actually want to stand for something are beginning to reclaim the party*, and if you don’t like it, too-f’ing-bad.

Look bi-partisanship is nice and all, but if that means trusting con-men with important matters, than no thanks. i’m not letting my party allow me to get swindled, especially when I had no say in the matter.

In short, screw the center of the road**. I don’t want to get hit by oncoming traffic.

*Let’s just hope this trend continues.

**Ok, maybe that statement was a little harsh, but my main point remains valid.

Buh bye. We can’t miss you til’ you’re gone.

“Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, ”

and then in another paragraph
“If you on the lunar left”

(Continue to) vote for Cons, “educator”.

Buh bye. We can’t miss you til’ you’re gone.

“Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, ”

and then in another paragraph
“If you on the lunar left”

(Continue to) vote for Cons, “educator”.

Thats just about what I expected. I rest my case.

This is simple ignorance. Either educate yourself about the matter and retract, or be revealed as a willing GOP stooge. Which is what I suspect you are, anyways, due to the hilarity contained within this next assesment:

“governing is about disagreeing respectfully, compromising, and groping, sometimes despairingly, for that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY “vital center”.”

This is your belief, nd yet, your gripe is with Democrats? Never heard of Karl Rove, have you? You’re definitely a sock puppet.

- Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy, Educator, Raisin Farmer, Poet, Warrior (August 10, 2006; atop Mount Rushmore)

So, let”s see. An organization that purportedly wants to return power back to the people, in league with Daily Kos, etc., has hitched its wagon to an ulta wealthy Exeter WASP opportunist and, in the process, trod all over a decent man because it disagrees with him on one issue, albeit a very important one. Whither nuance and the once “vital center”? Now, we have the rogues on the right, who I abhor, facing down the naive but very Rove-like “We’ll show you not to support the war!”, beat-a-Democrat-in-the-primary-at-any-cost MoveOn folks. Wonderful. What now? Having handed all political momentum back to your opponents, while tolerating vile anti-senitic rants on your various websites, what exactly comes next. Feeling pretty muscular, I bet. Bravo!
As I said yesterday, you have driven me completely out of the party, which now seems to have room only for “disaffected” naifs with no ability to manage what they have wrought. Like it or not, and this goes for both sides, governing is about disagreeing respectfully, compromising, and groping, sometimes despairingly, for that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY “vital center”. Rushing to either extreme while ranting and insulting has been tried by the likes of Hitler and Stalin. Absurd absolutism from either extreme looks the same when all is said and done.

There must be a third way. The world will not survive unless common sense moves the two extremes towards one another. So, in your delirium, pause and ponder where you are headed, if you can. You strut about as though you have accomplished something, when all you have done is tear things to pieces in a directionless frenzy.

If you on the lunar left could find some way to plant your flag nearer the middle, which would give you a footing to bring your opposites also back to that same middle, then all is lost. For now, I guess I am left with Kinky Friedman and the waning hope that you will learn to lead and not lock arms in a parody of some childhood game.
- Will Hough, Educator (August 10, 2006; West Wareham, MA)

How about the Washington Post poll?

“Do you favor or oppose the US War with Iraq?” 39% Yes, 60% No

“All in all, considering the costs….do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting or not?” Worth 39%, Not Worth 60%.

How about CNN?

60% oppose, 36% pro
57% are for a timetable
48% US will not win

I know the truth hurts, but you need to realize that you are out of the mainstream, and have a hard right, wild eyed perspective when compared to the heart of America.

Whether or not you take the position that the war should not have happened in the first place (which I now do), is sort of moot, because we’re there. Ain’t nothin’ going to change that.

Are there dozens of potential Presidential candidates that could do a better job of managing this war than Bush? Yes.

(There are teenagers and young adults that I would trust more than Bush to run this country. Not kidding.)

Clearly, neo-con decision making and leadership has made a disaster of this war, and GOP Congressional leadership, save for a few, has fallen lock-step behind the Bush administration.

So, time for a change.

My sense is that if Democrats keep pushing the “change” theme, the way Bill Clinton did in 1992, they have a decent chance to take back one of the houses, at least.

JK

Twisting numbers to support your position must be too!

Drone, think what you like, but a clear majority of the country is for all the troops being home in the next 16 months.

Yes, a clear majority of the country wants either some or all troops brought home. This is a bit different than the ridiculous claim by factcheck that “the anti-war position is held by a clear majority of Americans”.

I personally would also like to see some (but not all) of the troops start coming home by the end of this year, but that doesn’t make me “anti-war”.

Regarding the “63% of the country disapproving of Bush’s handling of Iraq”, you can count me in on that one.

The poll figures I was responding to (i.e. 61%) were the ones YOU quoted in your 10:44am post, which of course failed to support the claim in your 9:44am post that “the anti-war position is held by a clear majority of Americans”.

And that “60% of Americans oppose Iraq War” you refer to was not another question in the same poll (as you claimed), it was how CNN summed up the overall poll results. The only figure they gave was “36 percent said they were in favor of the war”, which means we’re supposed to assume that the other 64 percent (minus the margin of error) were “against the war”. What were the specific poll questions they used to reach this conclusion? Was it another “X percent are against the war and Y percent have some middle position” that they added together like they did with the 61 percent figure I posted on?

But if you want to gloat based on an assumption, be my guest.

Poll: 60% of Americans oppose Iraq War.

You were saying?
Dumbass.

So withdrawing at least some U.S. troops now equals “against the war”? That’s a bit of a reach, don’t you think?

Let’s look at how they got that 61% figure:

26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops
35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn
34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained

So they got 61% by adding the “withdraw all” and “don’t withdraw all” numbers. But do both of those groups fall into the “anti-war” category?

I think a more accurate breakdown would be as follows:

26 percent = against the war
34 percent = support the war
35 percent = Somewhere in the middle, wanting some, but not all troops out by the end of the year

So really, you’ve got only a quarter of the country that could be considered anti-war, while a little over a third support it. The remaining group is somewhere in the middle.

Claiming that “the majority” or “two-thirds” of the country are anti-war based on these poll questions is really stretching it, guys. I thought you were supposed to be the reality-based community?