I know your game, dude.

When you cant refute the facts and simple logic (opinion) of my post, you just strike back with a "failed".

And it is not a "failure" when you and UG play the "Obama is a socialist" card? Go figure.

:lol2:

When 82% of the Democrats voted for the House health reform bill, it is hardly a failure.

When an even higher percentage voted for the stimulus bill, the SCHIP expansion, the credit card bill of rights, the pay equity for women bill, the tobacco control bill, the public lands management bill, etc......it is hardly a fractured caucus.

To be the majority party in the US today, one needs a big tent. You mistake minor disagreement by a small percentage of Democrats in Congress on one (or even a few) issues as fracturing the party.

Some among the Republican leadership understand that (Romney, Pawlenty)...others (Huckabee, Palin) are far too rigid and have the most vocal and obstinate supporters...and that is why the Republican party is the one fracturing from within.

The Republican candidate in the recent House election in NY did not defect...she was, in effect, driven out by the extremists...and not just extremists, but extremists from outside the state.

And when the dems were out of the White House that was the point. They were in the same level of turmoil and appeared to have no one in charge, no one to drive their ship. They looked like the protesters at the G-8. Everyone was there to protest, none of them for the same thing. When the party in power runs things, historically the party out of power looks disjointed and schizoprenic.

That is because you do and you just did, again.
:D

On the Merc truth scale....you failed!

The Democrats won 14 Senate seats and 56 House seats in 06 and 08 by seeking out and running moderate candidates not the most liberal candidates, for the most part. It was the national strategy guided by the DNC Chairman, Howard Dean.
The Republican approach is to stick with a conservative ideological litmus test for candidates. Some of the leaders within the party know that this is a failed strategy, but are unable to convince the hard core social conservative base that now controls the party.

I would ask again...who is running the Republican party (or the Tea Parties)? Leaders who understand how to win elections or the extreme ideologues with a litmus test?

One party has become the big tent party. Objective political observers know which party that would be.

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/upload/n...08_cartoon.jpg

A Republican party with open arms that wants to be more inclusive and more appealing to moderates?....it ain't happening, dude. :headshake

Well another report disagrees with your partisan assessment again.

Republicans, riven but resurgent
http://www.economist.com/world/unite...ry_id=14794768

Reasonable people can have different opinions on this issue.

What I took dispute with was your assessment of my opinion as "FAILED" when it is shared by many non-partisans (as well as some Republican leaders) and is simply one perspective.

In fact, on numerous opinion posts, you grade those posts with which you disagree as "FAILED"...a narrow-minded unwillngess to accept that other opinions, as opposed to facts, are valid as well.

You want to play that game....I'll get in the gutter with you and play as well.

What is most laughable is someone who describes the Speaker of the House as a Nazi and who does not know the difference between liberalism and socialism...grading others at all. :eyebrow:

Only because you grade your self as correct do you fail. And you fail here too.

She is a Nazi. Does it offend you for me to call her that?

I know the difference and I know that the Demoncrats in Congress try to blur the lines and have done a pretty good job of it in the past 10 months.

No, you don't like Pelosi. She is not a nazi.

Your continued insistence that she is has the opposite of the effect of the one you're apparently looking for: it does NOT make us think you have any clue at all what you're constantly beeping about.

I can call the bitch a Nazi if it suits me. :D

Yes you can. You lost credibility so long ago, no one is looking for any truth or enlightenment from your posts anyway.

Cool.

Heh.

RealClearPolitics HorseRaceBlog

By Jay Cost

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...tion_meme.html


And this was real interesting. Man I bet they are glad that lady lost.

Five Reasons NY-23 Doesn't Tell Us Anything

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/hor...esnt_tell.html

The 50+ Blue Dog (fiscally conservative and moderate on other issues) Democrats won in 06-08 (and 3 races since then) in open seats that were historically red districts.

Many could have been anti-Bush votes ...or there could have been more localized reasons.

But they had one common thread and that was the Republican candidate was an extremist on non-fiscal issues.

Opinions are like assholes.....everyone has one.

You just claim that your asshole emits a sweeter scent...and on that, you "fail"

Correct.


I believe more people voted against the Rebulickins than they voted for the Demoncrats.

This is one issue where I agree with Newt Gingrich....
....at least until his "Democrats are anti-religiion" nonsense.

We can disagree on why or how...but it is a fact that the Democratic party includes many moderates among members of Congress and that moderate Republicans are an endangered species.