News-Record.com

I am not a Bush fan, however it amaze me how the NR always has room for anti Bush letters. I have read this letter a dozen times. Yet you see no letters about Basnight and Black and the use of your TAX $$$$$. I read a blog that one wrote that he was a tight bastard, and only read the NR on line. After 43 years of going to the store and buying the NR, 6 times a week. AS of tommorow, I become a tight bastard myself.

Randy,you left out a few.
4)Bush is responsible for the starving of million of kids worldwide.
5)Bush is the reason for the increased severity of the hurricanes.
6)Bush is responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
6)Bush is the reason my air conditioner broke on the hottest day of the year...
7)yada,yada,yada...`

It amazes me how shrill the left has become...
I am sure Sadaam was a target... I am sure we were focused on what he was up to and maybe intelligence was more eager to see shadows. I don't believe anyone lied.
I guess it would have been better to leave him alone. Free elections are bad... rights for women are a bad idea... gassing villages is justified (as long as they are kurds)... Oil for Food was a good idea... Sadaam was only "funnin"...
I guess the UN deserved to skim a little bit more cash... heaven knows they need the money (some tyrant in a starving country needs a new lexus)!
Sheesh...what has become of liberals? I am really embarassed for you guys!

Yawn....I had to look at the top of the newspaper to make sure it read 2005, not 2003.

Yard dog, you left a few out:

Bush was the cause of the Air France jet in Toronto the other day.

Bush is responsible for my neighbors cat getting pregnant.

Bush is responsible for the leaky Civil Rights Museum building.

Randy the heat must be getting to you and you have been drinking too much Nancy Pelosi Kool Aid. Just take a deep breath and relax, summer's almost over.

The left's ideology has become irrelevant to the point of them losing power enmass which is causing a knee jerking outcry for attention.

The Moveon and DNC talking points haven't been refreshed in a couple of weeks so the semiar LTTE writers are having to recycle the old ones.

IMO, the general public is getting sick of hearing the smear de jours and in the case of the DSM it's a fish that's been rotted for about 2 months now.

When the Swimmer Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary, Howie Dean, Chuckie Schumer, Pelosi became the Party's standard bearers it was all over with.

Remember a guy named Tom Daschle?

yard dog
You are wrong; Bush cant be responsible for those things. The right has already proven how CLINTON is responsible for all to those things. Heck even some here would put the blame on this war on Iraq on him.

Hayes, you are wrong, my friend. Clinton gave us the biggest economic boom and the longest streach of world peace known to man. Why,if it weren't for Clinton, we would not have Hillary today. It is time for you to face the facts and admit that that Bush is the root of all evil in the world. And don't get me started on that Karl Rove! Why, he even spells his name with a "K". How lowdown can you get?

Well said Randy and thanks for pointing out John Robinson's obvious lean to the right.

Bill Stork you don't think dubya lied hoooboy you probably believe in the tooth fairy and your name sake delivers babies.

Hey dubya what you say,
How many troops will you kill today.

yard m dog: " Hayes, you are wrong, my friend. Clinton gave us the biggest economic boom and the longest streach of world peace known to man."

Carter leaves office with mortgage interest rates at 21% ($2,100/mo. payment fixed 30 yr. on $100,000 borrowed) and the threat of global thermonuclear war between the Soviet Union and the US.

Reagan/Bush#1 enter the helm and 12 years later the interest rates have been cut to 9%($900/mo.on $100,000) and Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc communism is in ruins with millions of people tasting freedom for the first time. The Technology bubble has started.

Bubba enters the stage riding on the economic, and strategic coat tails of Reagan/Bush people give him all the credit for the Tech boom of the 90's and "peace".

Yeah, Bubba was the reason, /sarcasm.

Guys,

It's 2005. Clinton is no longer in the White House. More than likely, he's shacked up with some young pretty thing somewhere at this very moment.

Bush hasn't killed any troops. That would be our enemies, the Muslim psychopaths, doing that.

Hugh, but what about all those starving kids and the hole in the ozone layer? Surely you do not defend Bush against these? And on top of all that, I'm having to cut my grass twice a week now! This is no doubt caused by Bush and his refusal to address the global warming issue. And last week my daughter's dog got sick and had to be taken to the vet. This is due in large part by Bush's dismantling of the FDA and allowing toxins to be placed into our food chain.
Forget about the soviet union, high intrests rates, and the berlin wall coming down. These issues pale in comparrison to what bush is doing to my yard!

I think someone just threw me in with the republicans. I will get back with ya after I sit down and sort this one out.

Is there a comment a person can make that will get him labelled as a moderate? I am looking for suggestions.

Hayes,maybe: "I voted for the $87B for the iraq war before I voted against it". (kerry) Or maybe"Abortion should be rare and legal". (Hilary) Then,there is the old liberal stanbby: "I support the troops but not the war". This one has been tried and true. An oldie but a goodie. It elevates liberals to the moral high ground,without angering their left wing friends.

That letter by Randy Scott came directly from an anti Bush website, the net abounds with them. They encourage that you copy these writings and send them to whomever will read them. The people writing these things have never had an original thought in their whole damn life. The News-Record should begin checking for plagiarizm a little more closely.

Yard dogs
Could we go with yard L dog(L=liberal) and
yard R dog(R=republican) to help things out?

Once more to the comment/criticism about the support the troops but not the war statements.

I fall unapologically into this category and not because I want some moral high ground or I am worried about angering my liberal friends; I am not, I am not even worry about angering my conservative friends with this position.

I have never supported this war but from the word go,ie them going in, I have felt they deserved to have everything needed to get the job done. I have never supported making a fixed time for withdrawl because like it or not I agree with Bushes logic. I even find it hard to put the blame on a few "bad apples" for what took place at the prisons.

And even the new statemenst about the possible withdrawl next year reeks with off-year election moves that in my opinion Bush is going to put the fewer troops there into greater danger. So maybe I dont support the war but I do feel I care more about what happens to those troops than Bush.

Yard dogs
Could we go with yard L dog(L=liberal) and
yard R dog(R=republican) to help things out?

Once more to the comment/criticism about the support the troops but not the war statements.

I fall unapologically into this category and not because I want some moral high ground or I am worried about angering my liberal friends; I am not, I am not even worry about angering my conservative friends with this position.

I have never supported this war but from the word go,ie them going in, I have felt they deserved to have everything needed to get the job done. I have never supported making a fixed time for withdrawl because like it or not I agree with Bushes logic. I even find it hard to put the blame on a few "bad apples" for what took place at the prisons.

And even the new statemenst about the possible withdrawl next year reeks with off-year election moves that in my opinion Bush is going to put the fewer troops there into greater danger. So maybe I dont support the war but I do feel I care more about what happens to those troops than Bush.

I was just making suggestions. you axt for them.

Ah, yes, the obligatory twice- or thrice-weekly Bush bashing letter from the "unbiased" News & Record...

Arnold R wrote: "That letter by Randy Scott came directly from an anti-Bush website..."

Really? Which one?

The writer asserts three points of facts. There are pleny of comments here from people who don't like what the writer has to say, but none of them rebutt the three assertions of the original letter.

The right will continue to deny Bush has doe=ne anything wrong, like five year old children!

The fact is:
Bush ordered troops to war killing untold numbers of Iraqi civilians. The blood is on his hands.
This is undeniable and is accepted as fact.

You guys on the right that can't see Bush's flaws simply because you are blinded by your party are pathetic. Yes us libs are mad at what Bush is doing to our country, and we will continue to express our rage for this heartless, morally impaired little man.

You are just upset because you see these things happening and understand that Bush is screwing up (along with congress) but you believe a lie and will continue to do so because you are pathetic.

Roch, the letter writer spouts opinion, not fact. Please prove they are "facts."
They're the same liberal talking points we see over and over again, no substance, just BS.
I happen not to believe what the writer states, because he can't prove they are "facts" and neither can you.

Randy:

You people are comical. Perhaps the "sinister" Dow ning street memo got no traction because it is a figment of the left wing imagination. An unbiased British Magistrate debunked the whole theory of "sexing" up intelligence reports. You losers don't ever let facts stand in your way.

Concerning WMD check the Drudge report (among numerouse others) of 1/26/04 detailing the quotes of every prominent Democrat including Bill & Hill, Kerry, Levin, Daschle, Albright, Berger,Gore, Kennedy,Waxman, Rockefeller and others talking about Saddam's WMD. I guess they're all liars also. Oops, shouldn't use the Clintons! You and your left wing locoweeds need to have brainwave tests immediately

Roch, Here is one source of the leftist seminar letters are coming from.

http://www.moveon.org/campaigns.html

This explains the same old talking point hash that keeps getting recycled and is now stinking.

Will somebody please call Evergreens Third floor moshetti is out again.

Roch, you can google almost every sentance in that letter and find the exact match or close enough variations from various blogs and liberal websites to conclude that it is 100% pure talking points.

Roch.....could be any number of sites. I highly suspect Loadedmouth.com or Sianews.com. I have read that same editorial (with the words altered slightly) in several newspapers. Back a month or so ago I read almost the exact same copy that had been printed twice on the same day, by different people, on the Orlando Sentinel's website.

I am in no way a Bush fan, but for god's sake if you are going to submit an editorial be frigging original or at least use some of your own thoughts!

Roc101, I'll be happy to address these. But let me first point out how pathetic you people are believing anything negative about our president, troops or nation must be fact.

1. Bush secretly decided to go to war in Iraq before Sept. 11.

Bull crap. It doesn't say that anywhere in the memo. It talks about the fact that are inspectors had been kicked out (during Clinton admin.). Maybe that's what you are thinking of.

2. Bush decided to deceive Congress and the American people with fixed WMD intelligence and links between Iraq and terrorism.

"Fixed"? Matthew Rycroft, the memo writer is British. "Fixed around" is a colloquialism for "to agree upon". There is only evidence in this memo that everyone in that room that day believed that Saddam had WMD's. The memo said they were concerned about him using them.

3. Bush secretly diverted $700 million from the war in Afghanistan and started bombing Iraq to provoke a war.

Where the f*ck does it say that?

This is your proof? All it proves is that you hate this country so much that you will do anything to disgrace it.

Hugh, below is pasted from the Moveon.org page you cited:

"Tell Bush to Keep His Promise: Fire Karl Rove

Newsweek magazine revealed that Karl Rove, the President's key political advisor, was responsible for disclosing the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. Rove's lawyer has confirmed that he was involved. Last year, President Bush promised that anyone at the White House involved in the leak would be fired. We believe that the President should stick to his word. That's why we're calling on him to fire Karl Rove."

Sign the petition ?
Watch The Ad ?
Write a Letter-to-the-Editor ?

So Bush is supposed to fire Rove based upon a Newsweek story? The same Newsweek who wrote a false report about Quran flushing????? Do we just fire anyone without an investigation??

This is so pathetic, when are you fanatical libs going to come up with something that will stick? Keep it up please, it just further alienates moderate Dems with some sense to jump the fence.

Dan, this rabid "hate Bush" ideology will only further destroy the Democratic party, allowing for Republicans to establish a dynasty of their adgenda upon America. Everything from USSC Justices to Treaties, Legislation and military muscle.

The "Bush Doctrine" may well become a historical precidence for the way we deal with rouge Nations for generations to come.

That is all well and good, but should be tempered with Bush's failures on the domestic side, the greatest of which is the complete tacit approval of crimminal, illegal immigration from the southern border.

Agreed Hugh, that's why I encourage the fanatical libs to keep up the attacks, it just makes them look like the losers they are, and Dems with some common sense realize it with Zell Miller being their posterboy. I was elated more than any Dem when Dean was picked to head the DNC.

When you have Dean, Pelosi, Reed, Teddy K, Hillary, Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond, Micheal Moore, etc. etc. as representatives of the Democratic cause, who could ask for anything more if you are Republican?

Before Yellowdog accuses me of being in Bush's back pocket, I will agree with you that his immigration policy is dismal and stuck in political correctness. Then again I don't see Dems doing anything about it either. I am also disappointed with the excessive spending. Bush seems to think that if he outspends liberals on social programs they will like him. Ain't gonna happen, they will just complain it's not enough.

Boy, for some big-talking men with some strong opinions, some of you guys sure come up short on facts. Here's a tip, for you: Fox News and the Rhino Times want you to have an opinion, not to be informed.

Arnold R, you first claimed the original letter "came directly from an anti-bush website." When I asked whichh one, your reply was that it "could be any number of sites." You suggest a couple of possibilities, an offering that betrays your original certainty that it came from "AN" anti-Bush web site. But it gets more ridiculous. When I searched the sites you, on second thought, "highly suspect" of being the source of the letter, including the Orlando Sentinal, I find nothing close to the content of the above letter. Mr. R, your assertions remain unsubstantiated.

Hugh's suggestion that the letter came from Moveon.org is a riot. As "proof" he provides a link to a page that has nothing even close to the substance of the letter. Come on guys, you can't just make stuff up, pretend your fabrications are as good as facts and expect to keep any credibility.

Finally, Michael screams, "Where the f*ck does it say that?" (About diverted Afgahnistan war funds to prep for the Iraq war). Here, here and here, dear Michael. (See how it's done, gentelmen, when the facts are on your side, you can substantiate them with a source. Speculation, inuendo and links to irrelevant material doesn't cut it.)

Roc101,

Only one problem. There is no mention of the Downing Street Memo in your link. If you recall, that is the subject.

Randy Scott's letter is pure conjecture. His own letter doesn't even stick to the topic. Your "facts" won't even stick to the topic.

You guys are losers and America-haters. Just admit it. There is plenty of time for you to discuss all the many ways you hate it, but stick to the subject so that we can prove you wrong one item at a time.

Regarding the question as to whether this letter was downloaded from an anti-Bush Web site:

I suspected that was a possibility when editing the letter because of its similarly to many others we have printed before. I did Google a significant portion of the letter and found no exact match or any other match that would lead me to conclude it was essentially the same letter. That said, it would have been impossible to check every possible Web site, even with the help of Google.

We have declined to publish letters in the past, including some that were produced by Moveon.org but sent over the name of local "writers."

At any rate, this letter represents a legitimate point of view -- whether others disagree or not -- and the writer is due the benefit of the doubt as to its originality.

Roch101,one of the articles you link us to is by David Sirota, a former mouthpiece for the democratic party and currently a big wig in the left wing organization "people for the american way". Hardly an unbiased source. The other quotes Bob Woodward of "deep throat" fame. Again,hardly unbiased. Sirota is demanding congress investigate this "illeagal" shifting of funds. Since Tom Delay and Karl Rove have weathered the liberal storm,could this be their next big ballyhoo?

" it just makes them look like the losers they are"

Nice Dan! Liberals are losers huh?

Liberals were responsible for things such as the Montomery GI Bill, Womens voting rights, civil rights, etc., etc., etc.

Your statement shows your narrow-mindedness. lol at your ignorance.

Brian,

Can you not defend the letter of topic? Is it so bad and so inaccurate that we have to talk about the Montgomery GI Bill?

Your post actually does more to support Dan's point than anything he could ever say. Stick to the topic. I know it is a losing one for your side but, hey, that's all ya got.

Roch, you are so obviously full of crap and trying to backpedal and find some facts to support your pathetic position.
People like you are playing right into the hands of the Muslim extremists that seek to destroy us using the Media as an ally. The can't beat us militarily, so they count on limp noodles like you to buy the "victim" crap put out by Al-Jazeera and side with them against the US.
How does it feel being hoodwinked because you're too stupid to understand what's happening?
How does it feel to be bin Laden's be-yatch?

Boris,

How do you know that Roch101 is not Taliban or Al-Qaeda? This is the world wide web. Has he said anything in this thread or any others to make you believe he is not one of them?

hmmmm, something to consider.

Boris,

Who are calling OBL's "be-yatch"? If you google Iraq War and al-qaieda you'll find there are quite a few not so limp noodles, like the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the CIA, Royal Institute of International Affairs, and the Army War College stating that the Iraq war has enhanced terrorist recruitment and diverted funds from the hunt for OBL. So it would seem that bin laden's harem is filled with this war's architects.

Frances, if you get all worked up seeing the propaganda put out by Al-Jazeera and the other outlets, and it makes you want to get US troops out of Iraq, then you've taken the bait and fallen victim to Al Quada's campaign to destroy the will of the American people. They can't beat us militarily, so they're trying to do it politically with propaganda.
If you fall for it, then you're a be-yatch of the terrorists.

Michael
Maybe you can clarify something here. Why does being critical of Bush make you a hater of america?

I assmue you were no Clinton fan during his eight years and I also assume you voiced your displeasure with him but I assume again you never once saw yourself as hating america. So why make this connection with the people critical of BUsh.

Also HUGH and DAN have even been a little critical. Would you include them in your "haters of america club"?

Dan
Be careful for what you wish for. You hoping DEan will be leading the democratic party come next elections. First I am no big Dean fan; his foot needs to be removed to often. But just like any honest dem would have to admit that though they hate Roove he is probably the best political strategist in the business now and the repubs need to admit that for all his foot inserting comments Dean,since the primaries, has put some sort of in your face attitude that was bady missing in the democratic party. I feel, my opinion here, that if there had been no Dean last year Bush would have won by a bigger margin. But Dean may them believe again and turned a runaway into a contested race coming down to one state again.

And just an observation here. As the republicans primp and gloat in front of their mirror about how great they are think about this. The last election without a doubt the republicans were a well oiled machine. Focused,committed and with a strategy no one diverged from but the dems were lost at times and really didnt offer a viable alternative. But for all the smuggness, the republicans and its supporters should maybe stop and think about something. A well oiled focused machine beat a disorganized party by only a few per centages points(and this is not about we won get over it) and only won after winning by a few thousands votes in Ohio.

How well will they fare against a more focused and committed democratic party(assuming they do it)?
And given the republican candidate will be heavily contested next time just how focused and glued together will they be next time?
Lets not forget the recent election in Ohio where an unknown democrat nearly beat a republican in a district owned by the republicans nearly the last 30 years.
Maybe it is time the republicans stop its "I'm great" primping in the mirror and realize the dems are not as dead as they think.
Underestimation is the greatest advantage you can hand any opponent.

Hayes, you are right, you know why the LIBERAL NEWS AND RECORD is on your side. They print nothing about negative about the GOOD OLE BOYS that has made NC the 49th worst managed state (AP STORY) yet VA our nieghbor with a Democrat GOV is the number 1 state. Its not the party. its the press.THe Va press hold the politicians feet to the fire, the NC press burys the dirt under the rug!

Hayes,

Yes, I despised Clinton and railed against him often. But I did so on domestic issues. When it comes to wars or "conflicts" I stand behind whoever is in office- even Clinton.

The closest I came to critizing Clinton during any type of military action was when he lobbed that one missile into the asprin factory right after his Grand Jury Testimony on his indecent exposure charge.

The Roch's and the Harper's of the world will not have a single grain of impact when it comes to getting our troops out of Iraq- none. What impact they will have, will all be negative to our troops and morale and do nothing to show any respect for our nation, president or the cause for freedom.

Disagree with the war if you like, there's nothing un-American about that. But the Roch's/Harper's and the like need to go back and read their posts from the past. They could just as easily have been written by the enemy.

No Michael I don't hate America or our soldiers or apple pie or mom; however I do hate Republicans. I never had such strong feelings about the GOP when they were about strictly fiscal matters but since they have sold their party's soul to the devil(southern white christians) to get elected I have developed a hatred for those who are ruining my country.

The first Bush screwed up in the first Bush-war on Iraqnam and lost out to Clinton because of it. Well that and "Read my lips - no new taxes". (Imagine a repub lying - hard to believe - huh?) So Bush II had to make up for his dads lying and general incompetence by tax cuts and re-attacking Iraqnam no matter what. That is what the present Iraqnam war is about and the Brits no doubt were aiding and abetting bushII by doctoring intell reports.

While we're on the subject of BushI whatever happened to Neil Bush, you know dubya's little brother. He was about to be indighted for his role in the Siverado Savings and Loan scandal when the Iraqnam part one broke out. Makes you wonder doesn't it- pres's son about to go to the big house for embezzlement and war breaks out. No more is heard about criminal trial for pres's son. Curiouser and curiouser.

Sorry dan, yard dog, et al ,

Hey dubya how are you today,
How many troops will you kill today?

He got 4 of our brave young men killed thursday.

Brian, nice try misquoting me. You left out the word "fanatical". I never said all liberals were losers. By the way, check out the election results as proof that they are losing.

Hayes, agreed that the Repubs had a well oiled election machine, but they also had a message. Dems used to have a message, but it has been lost in shrill attacks from the far left, I call them the "fanatical" left (for you Brian). This group offers no solutions, only vicious attacks which alienate moderate Dems. Cheers to you Sen. Durbin.

That's why I encourage the fanaticals to keep it up and keep losing elections. Hillary realizes she can't win being so far left, so she is reinventing herself as a centrist, albeit phoney.

Yellowdog,

I believe you have found the Holy Grail of Stupid.

Your posts are too whiney, delusional, paranoid and disjointed to respond to in a practical fashion. You are like a little kid running from a spanking. You can't defend the topic so you run, run, run to another topic. If anyone challenged you on those....watch 'ol yeller run, run, run,

If you would like to discuss the Downing Street memo and the numerous inaccuracies and sheer ignorance of Randy Scott, I'll be happy to educate you.

Dan
Should have included the message part. But again with the republicans so organized and the democrats not at that time then at least in my opinion the republicans should be more worried that their victory was not bigger and asking why not.

To use a sport metaphor here but if your #1 team in the country barely beats a clearly weaker team you can believe that coach isnt going back home patting his players on the back for their slim victory but asking why didnt we get their butts.

Again if the democrats get organized and offer a viable alternative which is very possible and with the republican side being contested just maybe the back patting the republicans are doing now should stop. I dont see Dean as a great messenger for the democrats but he will put an attitude back into the democrats. I thought throughout the last election the democrats were always on the back of their heels either apologizing,indirectly, for their positions or reacting to much to the republicans.

Also the numbers of approval for both houses,ie controlled by the republicans, are extremely low; Bushes approval continues to slip and even heard today that a new AP poll showed that only 38% of the country still supports the war and most of the make up of this group was white christian male americans making over 50,000 dollars with money to invest. Not exactly a broad representation of the country.

And if the republicans viewed what just happened in Ohio as a minor blip on their way to complete political domínation; well if I was a strategists for the democrats I would be loving all this "look how great I am" primping the republicans are doing in front of their mirrors in the morning.

Just a thought

Marshal wrote: "[T]he Roch's [sic]/Harpers's [sic] and the like need to go back and read their posts from the past. They could just as easily have been written by the enemy."

Marshal, do you have an example from me or is this just more smearing by unsubstantiated inuendo?

Roch101,

That was me, Michael, not Marshall[sic].

Are you not supporting the Randy Scott letter? Are you not considering his assertions to be facts? Are you just misunderstood?

Whether you meant to or not, you were going out on the limb supporting his letter to the point that you were trying to support the $700 mil Afghanistan claim (#3 point). It's not in the memo and has nothing to do with it. It's just a mere attempt to distract people from the fact that Scott's letter is wrong.

You can't even give our side the benefit-of-the doubt. Neither does Al-Jazeera. The memo states very, very clearly that they were concerned about the possibility that Saddam might use his WMD's on day one of the invasion.

Now that we know that point #3 has nothing to do with the memo, would you like to go back and try to defend #1 and #2? Or, can we all agree that Randy Scott's letter is nothing short of crap, demoralizing to our nation and troops and just move on?

So, Michael, even though you claim there are posts by me that "could have been written by the enemy," you fail to provide even one example when asked. That's what I expected. It's clear your assertion was an intellectually empty, unsubstantiated and childish personal attack.

It's the last paragraph from your 08/04 5:15 post. You're stating emphatically that Scott was absolutely correct about his 3rd point.

THE MEMO DOESN'T EVEN MENTION AFGHANISTAN!!

You are supporting it! You are backing the letter as fact and it is NOT. The fact that you would even attempt to claim that it is, shows contempt for the U.S. in war time. There is nothing factual about any of the claims, it could have been written by the enemy and you won't denounce any aspect of it. You support it.

Denounce the letter and I will take all back and apologize.

Michael: I was explaing the reason I believe Karl Rove and dubya wanted to go to war in Iraqnam. I absolutely believe Karl and dubya intended to attack Iraqnam no matter what, 9/11 just made it easier. You can quote Fox and Rush all you want but their BS is proof only of their bias and yours. I also firmly believe it was Karls intention to invade Iraqnam and lower taxes to vindicate the lying Bush Sr.("read my lips).

You see Michael the letters to the editor page is called the "op ed" page - opinion - page Michael. I wasn't in the Brits meeting personally but neither were you or Bill O'Leilly so we can only opine(this means make an opinion Michael, it's a verb). I do believe Karl and dubya ordered the Brits to cook the intel reports in their favor.

As to the mention of Neil Bush I really would like to know how he escaped charges of embezzelment and bank fraud, do you know. No of course you don't it hasn't been covered on Rush's show, sorry.

Now as to the grail mention - read my lips michael that is a christian artifact - hears the part where you will want to read my lips Michael: I am not a christian.

Did I leave anything out? Oh and the day I need enlightening from you will be.....nope no way that could happen. I've read a lot of your posts and you are a parrot or better said a "ditto head". At least my thoughts are my own and not stuffed into my head by some entertainer on the radio. Also as long as you insist on name calling I reserve the right to return the favor.

Yellowdog,

The fact that you would even equate Iraq with Vietnam is pure ignorance and void of any understanding of the two situations.

I've never quoted Rush, Fox or anyone else.

Rove's goal is to vindicate the senior Bush? That's just the kind of unsubstantiated crap you find aboard UFO's.

You have every right to opine any way you wish. I have every right to point out your lunacy and inaccuracies.

Rove and Bush ORDERED the Brits to cook the intel? Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, you prove me wrong.

Neil Bush? I do know what happened. A buddy of Bush Sr. who was overseeing the case gave him the lightest sentence he could under the law. It was legal and quite likely personal. But your statement was that Bush Sr. started a freakin war so that the prosecuter's would forget that he was even in trouble. That's wacko.

I believe you when you say you are not a Christian. Never said you were. Your faith is more likely in aliens.

Michael it's hard to discuss anything with someone who knows absolutely nothing except what he hears on Fox or hears on AM radio. There is no other explanation for how you Rovies all say exactly the same lines every time. Either that or you're all just plain dumb.

No sane person of even moderate intelligence would believe all the verbal spew coming from Rove and company and yet day after day you and the rest of these Rushites on this blog say the same things over and over.

If I said BushI started a war to cover up the arrest of his son for robbing a bank that's no more far fetched than your assertion (actually Olielly's assertion) that Karl and dubya want to set the Iraqis free. Magnanimus dubya aint.

Well Michael this is the end of the lesson gotta go. I do hope you will wake up and see dubya for what he is and not what Ann Coulter tells you he is. Try to think for yourself. Remove your head from your backside and use it for thinking and not a butt plug.

Oh Michael, magnanimus is a big word that doesn't mean republican. And thanks for recognizing that I am NOT christian that I truly do appreciate really.

Hey, yellowdog, get your nose out of Ted Kennedy's butt and think for yourself.
The irrationality of your arguments is beyond belief. Your hate and anger over losing the last two elections to a real leader can't be disguised, can it?
Christian or not, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Please go away and let the adults have an intelligent discussion.

Hayes: "Why does being critical of Bush make you a hater of america?"
It's one thing to oppose the Iraq war, but it's another to enjoy any of its setbacks. Think of it this way, many Americans were against us getting involved in WWII, but once we were there, there wasn't much doubt about who the Americans were pulling for. Disagree with Bush, including Iraq, think that he is stupid and his policies will blow up in our faces, but if people felt that way, shouldn't they at least hope their are wrong and he's right? That's the difference. I do not see Dan and Hugh are hoping that we lose, where bad news is good news, the same cannot be said for others.

weaker team and slim victory:
I have to ask you about this "weaker" team? First off have you totally forgotten the election of 2004? The democrats raised more money, had the backing of Soros, moveon.org, Hollywood, Michael Moore, all of Europe (remember the leaders who told Kerry they didn't want bush or the London paper having citizens write to residents in Ohio?) Bruce Springsting and the MSM add to that the war wasn't going good, the prison scandal, high gas prices, remember the draft bill put in by democrats but reported as if Bush was going to have a draft? and the stock market wasn't looking so strong and you say the Democrats were weak? I remember listening to the news and even when it was good news (like job numbers going up) it was reported as bad (not as many as expected) day after day. So tell me how were the Democrats weak?

"where an unknown democrat nearly beat a republican"
Well let's look at the candidates. The Republican was an uncharismatic, washed-up ex-state representative, not to mention that DeWine's son was in the lead for the nomination until his daddy messed up with that whole "vote of the maverick 14". Then you have a war veteran, who states that:
"I'm for limited government, I'm for fiscal responsibility, I'm for a strong national defense, and I'm for fair trade." You also have the very good tv ad that appeared to show Hackett a supporter of Bush and to show him in support of the effort in Iraq, not to mention the ad also made it appear that Bush was endorsing him. Oh and let us not forget that the ad never mentioned Hackett being a democrat.

"the back patting the republicans are doing now should stop"

I wouldn't consider it preening in front of the mirror or back patting. I would consider it egging the other side on. As I have stated before Hayes, the fanatical left wing, which has taken over the Democrat party, is a great thing for Republicans, it will be what saves them. Unless they get tough on immigration and cut spending.

Trish
There are many here who oppose the war and many as well who believe his policies will blow up in his face, me included. But you are really stretching things and I will say in the extremely wrong direction when you jump to the assumption that from this belief we will enjoy his setbacks especially with the war. Because if he is proven wrong or his goal was nobel but his strategy to reach that goal severely flawed then that would mean many americans lost their lives for nothing and I dont see any of the bush critics finding any kind of enjoyment in that. If they did then they would need some serious soul searching but they would be in a distinct minority. But even then that would make them BUSH HATERS not HATERS of AMERICA; there is a huge huuuuggge difference.

As far as the weaker party: You will have to show me the numbers on ALL money raising activities. To my knowledge Bush was a money raising machine who raised the highest amount for his campaign in the history of elections. I am not criticizing him just a statement; and I am sure if I am wrong here you will google me.

Also as far as the list of who supported who we can go back and forth on who had a bigger list of supporters and in the end they both had a long list.

Third here you mentioned things going on around in the country. My comments were focused on the state of the parties at the time of the election. And hands down the republican party was and still is in a better condition than the democrats. They were better focused,financed,simple but effective message, no changes and even a leader who was easy for the every day person on the street could relate to,something I think was really overlooked.

But if you want to argue the dems were in better condition then I think you will shock even many Bush supporters with this. DAN I am looking for your reaction to this.

As far as the thing in Ohio, you had the distinct advantage of seeing this going on, I could not from here but all I know is an ex-vet with no political experience announces out of nowhere and gives a republican a run for her money in a district owned by the republicans for the last 30 years. And you said the ads never mentioned he was democrat. If the entire district knew who the republican candidate do you really think they needed an ad to tell them who the democratic candidate was. They knew.

But hey if you want to start dancing on the grave of the democrats and start planning your monolithic control of our political system then go ahead. The arrogance in that plus the underestimation of the democrats to me you are handing the dems two great advantages. Now whether they can get their act together will be the million dollar question.

Yellowstreak,

I believe you are confusing ?lesson? with ?lessen?. You have taught nobody anything. You have only shared your feelings. But even your feelings wouldn?t go unquestioned in a PMS bitching session.

You said you ?honestly feel that ??? Well, what the hell is that? Who cares how you feel? I don?t. This is a forum to debate facts. You have offered none. You can?t debate one single fact and yet you pass yourself off as the professor. That qualifies you only as a spineless twit- not a teacher. You may feel more at home on an Oprah blog.

Let?s just stick to the facts of the subject. Is that possible? Or do we once again have to hear how you feeeeeeel? Let?s go back to the original letter. There are 3 points.

#1: Bush planned the war in Iraq (according to the DSM) before 9-11.
Have you even read the memo? Did you notice that it was dated 11 months AFTER 9-11? Does that not set off any alarms? Can you comprehend a calendar?

#2: The facts were ?fixed [around]: Do you know what that even means? Do you know what a colloquialism is? Is that too big of a word? Look it up.

#3: blah, blah, blah, $700 million?Afghanistan, blah blah.
Did you know that Afghanistan is not even mentioned in the memo? Do you care? Or is it simply more important that you find another reason to hate America?

These are what you call F-A-C-T-S. If you look it up you will notice that the word ?feelings? is not mentioned.

You hate America, you hate the president, hate the troops and you root for the enemy. And yet you seem proud. You are a shameless waste of human tissue. Or alien tissue as the case may be.

Hayes: "I dont see any of the bush critics finding any kind of enjoyment in that."

Then I suppose you missed the following comments:

Gary Kamiya, executive editor of the left-leaning Internet journal Salon, "I have a confession: I have at times, as the war has unfolded, secretly wished for things to go wrong," "Wished for the Iraqis to be more nationalistic, to resist longer. Wished for the Arab world to rise up in rage. Wished for all the things we feared would happen. I'm not alone: A number of serious, intelligent, morally sensitive people who oppose the war have told me they have had identical feelings. "Cheering the enemy," by Greg Pierce (Washington Times, April 18, 2003)
Or who could forget the Columbia professor Nicholas DeGenova, who declared his wish for "a million Mogadishus." Or the fallback to Ward Churchill who stated that soldiers should shoot their officers.

Here is a link to an article written by David Horowitz yes a nasty conservative but it puts into perspective what has taken over the democrat party and why some of us here think that when Durbin is accusing our troops of torture on the scale of Hitler and Pol Pot why that happens to be anti-American. Read it if you get the chance, I welcome your thoughts. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16259

"even then that would make them BUSH HATERS not HATERS of AMERICA"

Read the article above. Also let us not forget that during the election any bad news was good news for the democrats and they cherished it. Example, not enough jobs created meant good news for the democrats, bad news for the people without them. You tell me is that hating Bush or the poor people with no jobs?

"You will have to show me the numbers on ALL money raising activities."
"Figures the DNC filed with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday showed the Democratic committee took in about $17 million more than the Republican National Committee from January 2003 to late November." http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=299894&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312
527's: "Groups supporting Kerry or opposing President Bush raised $266 million. Those opposing Kerry or backing Bush collected $144 million, the Political Money Line said. The study was based on a review of the organizations' postelection campaign finance reports to the Internal Revenue Service."

"Although Bush raised a presidential record of $273 million from private contributors, Kerry was not far behind. He collected a Democratic-record $249 million" (Let us not forget that Bush had no opponents, add the many on the Democratic side and I'm sure the total beats Bush if you want I will figure it up.) The two quotes are from this article:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/money/articles/2004/12/13/kerry_loss_wasnt_over_money/

"They were better focused,financed,simple but effective message,"
As shown above they were not better financed, as to focus I give on that one, although it was stated that Kerry won the debates and was ahead in the polls. But as to message, I think the democrat message came across load and clear "anyone but Bush" that is why they lost. So for you to make it sound like the democrats were some weak, slapped together underdogs, you are way wrong. You say I talk about things going on, those were the things Republicans had to overcome, like day after day the MSM dumping on Bush and propping up Kerry. You make it sound like it was an easy run for the Republicans when in fact it was not.

"But if you want to argue the dems were in better condition then I think you will shock even many Bush supporters with this"

It's not the fact that they were in better condition (I mean Kerry was like the Republican's Bob Dole) however they were not the little weaklings you make them out to be. More to the point they had a heck of a lot more going for them press wise then the Republicans and I if I am wrong on this one, I would like for you to show me where. They had a Michael Moore film (blockbuster mind you), Bruce Springsting concerts, not to mention as already stated the tons and tons of anti-Bush 527 ads that played around the clock. In other words Bush had tons and tons of bad publiscity to overcome. So even though the Republicans were more organized and had a better message they had a heck of a lot to overcome then the Democrats. You make it sound like the Democrats were some underdog when in fact they were not.

"They knew" I beg to differ. Did the people who voted for Edwards no he was a Teddy Kennedy liberal or did they see him as a moderate democrat. Big difference. If his ads had ran with this true feelings of (Bush is a chickenhawk and SOB) instead of running ads making it look like Bush endorsed him he wouldn't have come close.

"The arrogance in that plus the underestimation of the democrats to me you are handing the dems two great advantages"

I am not dancing on anything. First off as I stated before in the post above not to mention numerous other times what is saving the Republican party is the Democrats embracing their "far left" side not taking the middle ground. I am dancing in joy because the further left the go the better it is for Republicans. Hillary is trying to move to the middle and that will hurt the Republicans but so far as the DNC on a whole, just look to Dean although you say he is good, yes for Republicans in moving the party to the left. Mark my words the sleeper issue in upcoming elections will be immigration and the first party to embrace reforms will be the party to win. Right now the only thing saving Republicans is the Democrats seem no more willing to do anything about it.

Oh and Hayes, I love it that when the Democrats lose it is some how a victory. Instead of saying that the Democrats have no message (or the message that the majority of people don't like) or that they are too far left, that "Bush lied" just doesn't cut it, it now comes as "the Democrats were disorganized and had less money". No Hayes the Democrat party has moved so far to the left that the majority of people are moving away from their party and that is the reason for my (so called) arrogance, the further left they go the more people move into the Republican camp.

Trish
If you read my first sentence I wrote "There are many HERE..." which means my comments were about those who blog here. I dont pretend to know what every one in america writes or says, I have more important things in life than to worry about all that BUT
In my following sentence I also wrote "IF THEY DID THEN THEY WOULD NEED SOME SERIOUS SOUL SEARCHING.." I thought that would have been enough to express my opinion about anyone who did or does see enjoyment in that. So I dont understand your attack on me for this.

And lets not forget and lets also be honest in politics and elections any bad news for the other party has been always been good news for the other. That works both ways: always has and always will and neither party can claim "what me?" in this.

Lets look at your numbers. I dont have time to google so I will use what you wrote
"The democrats took in 17 million more than the republicans from Jan 2003 to late nov."
Nice but that is only refering to a 11 month period and says nothing about the total for four years of money raising.

And this 266 and 144 million. Were these seperate groups from the parties.
Again what I was refering to was the HARD and SOFT money raised by the republican party and by Bush himself. I dont know what Bush having no opponent has to do with the price of tea in china but I am sure you will explain it.

Underdog: To keep it simple, there was just as much negative ads and campaigning going on against Kerry as there was against Bush. Dont make it sound like Bushes people played by some decent standard while Kerry people broke all the rules.
And sorry Trish but if you are saying Bush was the underdog in the last election then that is a first for me. And I really wish DAN or someone else who supported Bush would weigh in on that. i would love to here their opinion on this.

They Knew: You beg to differ about what. There was a republican Dewine,i gather from your earlier log, a the democrat and who else was that suppose to be. I mean Trish I live 4000 miles away and I KNEW he was the democratic candidate. Are you really trying to say I knew more than the people in his district. PLEASE!! Again what does who knew that Edward was a kennedy clone got to do with my comments about Ohio. I even saw republican ads during the presidential election showing dems who supported Bush so again both sides are dirty here.

I did not say when the democrats lose they see it as a victory. Never have and can not and will not speak for the democrats. But what I read on the blogs here very often is this death of the democrats and I am just saying this declaration is perhaps a little premature.

Final two comments: The republicans are about in the middle as the dems are and
nice to have you back!!

Hayes, I've been working today and unable to reply. I don't think Bush was the underdog in the election, as he was the incumbent. That being said, I agree with Trish that the aided by the media, moveon, Micheal Moore, and other left wing hack groups tried everything under the sun to attack Bush, why wouldn't they? I do remember good news being bad news in the media as Trish states as well.

If the Dems had had a decent candidate, not a Mass. flip flopping liberal, they could have won. Their effort was hampered by the left swing of the party which continues today.

Hillary will have a good chance if she desguises herself as a moderate and enough people buy it. Liberals cannot win elections by saying they are liberal, want to raise your taxes and all the other policies liberals stand for. They have to move to the center to have a chance.

Dan
I am not saying there werent the attack groups from the left but I am saying there were just as many attack groups from the right. Both sides were having to react to comments and false statements coming from all directions. Maybe and only maybe you can count a few more for Kerry but not to the point of saying this gave Kerry some distinct advantage. And the good news bad news again that worked both ways. Bad news for kerry was good news for bush and dont tell me they werent gloating when kerry was hit with bad news. Of course vice versa for Bush as well.

And your comment about the dems winning if they didnt have a flip flopping candidate. This is my point in my whole arguement. Many here including Trish keeps suggesting how the country has or is flocking away from the democrats. Sorry I dont see it. The republicans won by a narrow margin and that for me doesnt translate into somekind of mass exodus. And if the dems can get their act together and put together something viable,which is very possible, then many here will have a slight stroke when they see just how non-existent that mass exodus was;just my opinion.

And to refer back to something from Trish about winning in loosing; yes if my team doesnt give its best but still only barely looses to a team that gave its best;I am not saying the republicans cant do even betternin 2008 than in 2004(I never underestimate what another can do) then yes I will walk away knowing my potential to do better in the future is greater than his. I am not speaking for the dems but for the love of challenges I would love to be a strategist for the dems this time around. Because of the challenge not for the dems I hope you understand.

And going back to the left wing message. Bushes biggest advangtage was his who is better to fight the terrorists. I dont think the republicans can rely on that the next time around which means it may not only be the dems who need a new message.

As a political junky I think the 2008 election will be an interesting show to watch on both sides. Heck 2006 is going to be interesting.

But a final short note Dan
Germany is having its new election in a month. Merkel the CDU candidate and pretty much the pencil in winner for next Chancellor was asked to explain the basic difference between Gross income and net income. She couldnt. It just makes you warm inside knowing she is the best Germany has to get it out of its economic mess.

What ever happened to Roch101? He claimed I had him all wrong and I have assured him my apologize if he would simply state that I was wrong about him....

He claims that he never said anything that could have been written by the enemy. I showed him one example that proved him dead wrong and he disappeared.

His second chance is to merely denounce the Randy Scott letter as pure crap and we will be done with it. I will apologize for accussing him of sounding like the enemy.

In fact, other than Roch101, has anybody on this long thread defended any of it? Have we gotten so far off track here that we have to chase the liberals outside of the track, pin them down and force them to attempt to defend any of it?

I'm waiting...

Michael, you ended the discussion by moving beyond the bounds of rational thought with your suggestion that my post linking to substantiation that Bush divertied funds from the war in Afghanistan to prep for the Iraq war is an example of a post that could have been "written by the enemy."

Hayes: "So I dont understand your attack on me for this."
First off Hayes I didn't attack you and if you interpreted it that way then I apologize. I quoted you saying that "I dont see any of the bush critics finding any kind of enjoyment in that." I quoted some Bush critics saying just that. Not only that but you then state: "they would be in a distinct minority" point being they might be in the minority but that radical wing of the DNC has taken over and the moderates are doing nothing to take it back. Also let me point out that your original question asked "Why does being critical of Bush make you a hater of america?" That was what I was answering when I stated about even if you disagree those should still hope that they are wrong and Bush is right, that is the difference in say you (disagrees about policy) and say yellowdog (hater of America quote: "Hey dubya how are you today, How many troops will you kill today? He got 4 of our brave young men killed thursday." Now you tell me does that sound like someone attacking policy and hoping they are wrong and Bush is right or does that sound like someone gloating about the loses in Iraq?)
Also one more comment about how being critical makes you a hater of America. I'm not sure if you had time to read the article I linked but here is one passage:
"Leaders of the Democratic opposition have a greater responsibility because of their position of national trust. The reckless charges made by Gore and Kennedy gave license to people who supported them and trusted them to open up a war within the war -- to conduct a war on the war from inside the American establishment. This is unprecedented in the modern era, indeed since the Civil War itself."
I cannot speak for everyone here, but I agree with this, as a matter of fact to me the whole article explains it quite well. I can see the difference in dissent and to me anti-American radicals. However within the Democrat party today those lines are blurring everyday.

"four years of money raising":ou stated the Republicans had more money even the ex-DNC head stated: "Terry McAuliffe said he considered the fund raising combined with a lack of debt all the more remarkable because the party finished the 2000 presidential race with $18 million in bills to pay."
Oh and those figures I gave were what was reported by the DNC to the FEC: "The DNC raised $402 million from January 2003 through Nov. 22, the period covered in its new campaign finance report." If you want to dig back years, heck why stop at 2000, why not go all the way back to the 90's? The point being that in no way were the Democrats under financed as you implied.

"Were these separate groups from the parties."
No they were not unless you think that moveon.org is separate from the Democrat party or that the Swiftboats didn't help the Republicans. 527's were formed with the soul purpose of getting around McCain-Fenigold election reform. By law they get no direction from the parties however they are free to help that party by running ads, they cannot endorse a candidate but it's fine to trash the other guy same difference to me. Also they can raise unlimited amounts of money.

"Bush having no opponent": Well let's see if you are a Republican and wish to donate to a Republican candidate and there is only one to choose from that money would go to Bush. If you were a democrat and you wished to donate to a candidate up until the parties nomination you had what 8 to choose from or even if you want to narrow it the big 4: Kerry, Dean, Liberman and Gephart. Add those four together and match it to Bush and once again democrat's received more money.

Underdog: First off I never said Bush was the underdog nor did I state that "Bushes people played by some decent standard while Kerry people broke all the rules." What I did say was: "It's not the fact that they were in better condition (I mean Kerry was like the Republican's Bob Dole) however they were not the little weaklings you make them out to be. More to the point they had a heck of a lot more going for them press wise then the Republicans and I if I am wrong on this one, I would like for you to show me where." By the way, I highly doubt that you can show me where I am wrong here, with the studies and reports showing that overall Bush/Republicans received more bad press then Kerry/Democrats. My point being you made these statements: "A well oiled focused machine beat a disorganized party by only a few per centages points" and "the republicans should be more worried that their victory was not bigger and asking why not." Making it sound like this election should have been a walk in the park, when in fact it was no where near, bad press, 527's, musical concerts, Vote or Die, no WMD, war going bad etc. etc. However what gets me is you stating it was a "slim victory" although no landslide like Reagan, it was a heck of a lot more then either of Clinton's victories.

They Knew: Well I know that sometimes when I watch ads I have no idea who is who. What does Edwards have to do with Kennedy clone? Well do you see Edwards as a senator? No because Edwards ran as a moderate, got to Washington and became a leftist, you see the majority of people are middle of the road with a little more conservative leanings in the south, if Edwards would have ran as he was no way in the world would he have been elected, same with Hackett. Hackett's ads made it seem like he was for the war and a Bush supporter, I highly doubt he would have gotten as many votes if he had ran as the true leftist, plaintiffs attorney he is.

The whole point being is this, you don't see it but I assure you it is there, the radical left has taken over the Democrat party (their voices are louder then the moderates), even Hillary is trying to distant herself from them. The more the party panders to that side the more elections they will lose. It would be no different then if the RNC elected a radical Christian as chairman (Pat Robertson although I don't even know if he can beat Dean) I'm sure the Democrats would be cheering him on as we are Dean.

Lose as a victory: Sorry but to me that is the way it came across, the whole why did a solid Republican district have a close call with a nobody theme. Either way I say if the democrats have more victories like Ohio, I will take them!

Thank you for the welcome back, had family visiting from out of town. Oh also the Republicans might be in the middle but what I have been trying to get across is the Democrats are not they keep moving further and further to the left as seen in their leadership of Dean, Kennedy, Durbin, Reid and Bryd.

Hayes although this was directed to Dan, I have to respond: "Bad news for kerry was good news for bush and dont tell me they werent gloating when kerry was hit with bad news." What bad news for Kerry he wasn't the sitting President for one. What Kerry got hit with was the MSM would report some bad news about Bush then Kerry and the DNC would gloat about it and then a couple of days later it was found that "wait that wasn't right" and they had mud all over their faces (yes I do believe the evil Karl Rove gave them enough rope to hang themselves and then pulled the rug out).

"Many here including Trish keeps suggesting how the country has or is flocking away from the democrats"

Ok Hayes look at these figures and tell me you don't see a trend in the making: Democrats before: 290 U.S. House seats now down to 202. 60+ U.S. Senate seats now down to 44 + Jeffords. 30+ state governorships now down to 22. A 21-8 advantage in state legislatures now down to 19-21, the other way around.
With every election they are losing seats right now a solid Democrat seat Byrd is on shaky ground. Slim victory or not another seat added to the Republicans, I'll take it.
Now the main problems the Republicans face are this: acting like they are not in power, giving in to Democrats. Illegal immigration (I tell you this is a big sleeper issue the party or candidate that takes up this issue will win hands down, I even believe this is what sealed Gray Davis's defeat if he hadn't of signed that law giving illegals driver's licenses he would never have been recalled.) Those two things are the biggest weakness for Republicans, especially the caving in to Democrats and letting Democrats run the show. Not to mention the fact they are spending more then Democrats. However even with these weakness if the Democrats continue down their path of moving the party to the anti-war leftist and further left that is great news for the Republicans and it will be the only thing that saves them. Hence the reason we are cheering because that is what they are doing.

Trish
Such a long list.
Gloating: I have not read every blog here but will say I have not read a blog that would come across as gloating. If I did I dont remember it. NOW I have read many blogs where people attacked bush and/or his policies in ways I find wrong or would not do myself. And yellowdogs blog is not appropiate. I dont see it as gloating,ie that he is happy these service men have died but yes I feel he can get his message across in a better way.
But Mostly I have said nothing because some of the personal attacks from BOTH directions is way out of control and these people are adults,I assume, and I am not their babysitter.

And about that link: I have more time today and will try to read it today. But for the moment in comparison about responsibility when in 2000 the congressman from Georgia who left his arm and legs in vietnam was attacked by bush supporters ads for not being a patriot BUsh said nothing. Where was his responsiblity then? Again as I have always felt about both parties there is nothing you can accuse one party of doing that the other hasnt as well. Just because you may agree with the attacks of your side doesnt make them appropiate.

Finance: I never said the democrats were underfinanced. Yes they also raised huge amounts of money and as you pointed out probably the most in their history as well but Bush was a money making machine; nothing like him before. Again I am refering to the money going directly to him or to the party not all the freak side groups ie, moveon and swiftboats. Actually I wish they just put a muzzle on them.

Weakling: I can see where you misunderstood me there. I am not saying the democrats were some weaklings in the last election. But in comparison to the republicans they were not as organized or focused. The reference to Mr. flip flop shows how unfocues they were.

And no I was not expecting the Republicans to win in a landslide, though many bush supporters make it out they he did, but yes I thought his victory should have be bigger which again goes back to my point that if they had been a little more on message,even a better message, and in my opinion didnt allow the republicans to define what it meant to be religious or a patriot then who knows maybe today we would be saying President Kerry. BUT you know Trish that is neither here nor there. Bush won and we can if things to death.

Win/Loose + growth in seats: I made my statement knowing full well about the numbers you stated. I am sure you and all republicans will take such victories; I would to. I am just saying the republicans need to look beyond the "Win" point. Alot of those seats were heavily contested as well for many of the seats won by the democrats which means a small shift in the wind about how people feel about the current situation and things can change quickly.

And to give two points here that I am looking at:
The numbers for Bush and both houses are constantly going down. Two and half years alot can change but it seems at the moment most of the country is not happy with the republican held government. That doesnt mean they put all the blame on the repubs but if the people are not happy with the state of the country then they will take it out on the party in control and at this moment that is the republicans.

So yes I see a huge door being opened here for the democrats. Now the question is can they can their act together to take advantage of this opening before the 2006 off year elections or before the door closes.

Here is my prediction: If the democrats fail to do something positive as in reverse some of these numbers you gave in 2006 then even I will admit it will be a long time before the dems get back into power BUT if they do reverse some trends then you will see a sense of panic for the republicans going into 2008

Hayes:
Gloating: I agree about people being adults. I also am like you don't read them all and to be quite honest rarely to the point of never read yellowdog. However when you wanted an example of the difference I knew who to go to find what I was looking for. As I said the big difference in dissent and anti-American are those who criticize and those you wish they are proven right and Bush proven wrong. Whether you see it or not yellowdog falls into that category.

Cleland: First off I do not know much about this because he was after all a Senator from GA and I never seen any of those ads so it is hard to comment on something that I have no knowledge of. Also I'm not sure if you have your dates right, but Bush wasn't elected until 2000, didn't become President until 2001. I do know that Cleland lost re-election in 2002 and he states it was Bush's fault however GA like NC has become more conservative. But again I can't really say without having any background. However I do not see how this falls into what makes someone anti-American, this is not the same thing as "conducting a war on the war".

I do hope you get time to read the link, I do welcome your thoughts on it, also maybe it well help you understand what I call being anti-American.

Finance: Well the DNC did out fund the RNC during the election cycle, at one time I saw figures on what was spent and it pretty much followed what was reported as raised during the election cycle. The whole point being that the DNC was not out funded by the RNC. About the 527's, they are not going away as a matter of fact they played, in my opinion, the biggest part in the election. There is no way to discount that money. Like I said they were formed to get around McCain-Feingold, with having unlimited funding they are now a major player on the field. Although in 2008 I am not so sure if the democrats are going to be able to raise more then the Republicans. One reason, the Republicans waited till way late in the game to start forming theirs (due to the fact that they thought they were illegal and was waiting on the FEC to make a ruling, while the Democrats continued to form theirs.)

Election: One reason Republicans point out the results (I haven't seen or heard anyone claiming a landslide) is because for 4 years we heard "Bush stole the election" "Bush didn't win as many votes as Gore" "Bush isn't really President" etc. etc. Now there is no way for these people to dispute the past election.

Also in a way I can understand somewhat what you are saying. First off it wasn't a landslide, like I said Bush had a lot working against him. Maybe you didn't see it all not being over here but it was there all the time. Secondly, Bush (and I never understood why Rove allowed this to happen) made the big mistake of offering an amnesty plan to illegals and when he felt the backlash of that dropped it but I believe the damage was done. Also as I have stated before Republicans have a big problem with sticking toghether. What I mean is Republicans have so many groups within party that quite frankly it gets a bit hard to juggle them all to keep everyone happy. You have the conservative religious, south-park conservative, the moderates and then the fiscal conservative (just to name a few). So many Republicans did not like the fact of all the spending (me included) done by Bush and Congress. With just illegal immigration and the spending the Democrats could have won, except the DNC decided to embrace the anti-war left and it makes them look weak on defense.

Points: I agree with a door opening up (heck it was there last election) and your predictions. This is where I don't think you understand the difference between what you call "back patting and gloating" and us cheering the democrats on. See this is where we differ, I agree with you on the predictions, however right now it looks like the democrats are going to continue to highlight their weakness (defense) instead of hitting the Republicans with theirs (illegal, spending etc.) Hence that is the reason that we cheer every time Dean opens his mouth.

If the democrats would get off of the Iraq War, Bush lied, no terrorist threat etc. etc. they would win because like I said there is a split in the RNC already and it would only take one Democrat to come on as being strong on defense and the Republicans would lose. But right now the Democrats continue to pander to the far anti-war left and the more they do the better it is for Republicans. Even me who has never voted for a democrat would vote for a Zell Miller before I did a McCain. With every letter written like this one, Downing Street memo, bush lied, no wmds, losing Iraq etc. etc. I cheer because it keeps the Republicans weakness out of the spotlight and spotlights the democrats main weakness. And that is a good thing.