Pelosi's leaving the door open for any wild-ass accusation and criticism her deranged minions can deliver with a straight face. Of course, the opening for hilarity is there if our masters at Rove/Cheney would just leave off fucking the help long enough to deliver today's talking points.

I don't know about you guys, but every time I call there I can barely carry on a conversation for the screaming and pleading of those cleaning women. I even learned how they say, "Please God, no more!" in Polish, which I didn't need to know!

"There is no one Democratic voice . . . and there is no one Democratic position."

So, why is there a Democratic Party?

differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party.

Today's Democratic Party: Sure we're confused. It's on purpose

Today's Democratic Party: For those too nuanced to take a stand.

There is consensus within the party that President Bush has mismanaged the war and that a new course is needed, but House Democrats should be free to take individual positions, she sad.

I don't know if it's a source of strength, but slamming the Rethugs as the source of all evil while offering no coherent alternative is definitely the Dems' one-size-fits-all policy position. Sort of the new Democratic basic black.

And that's a great typo, BTW.

The NYT should look to the WaPo. Thier headline in today's paper is: "Iraqi Vote Draws Big Turnout Of Sunnis: Anti-U.S. Sentiment Is Motivator for Many"

The WaPo's thinks that the Sunnis in Iraq only voted because they are Anti-American.

Heck, that's the same reason the Democrats vote here in the U.S.!

And why not? I mean since having a muddled, incoherent war stance worked so well for them in 2004 and all....

Today's Democratic Party, because sometimes hindsight is 50-50.

Ace-- please tell me you had this thought, too.

To the Democratic Party, the war is a "matter of individual conscience and saying differing positions within the caucus are a source of strength for the party. "

Abortion, however, isn't.

Funny how that works, eh?

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

Oh, and the NYT may not have an official position on the vote, but the WaPo does:
For President Bush, the strong turnout for Iraq's election yesterday may represent the best day since the fall of Baghdad 32 months ago because all major factions participated in the political process, according to U.S. and Middle East analysts. But the sobering reality, they added, is that the vote by itself did not resolve Iraq's lingering political disputes.

Excuse me, but I figure the WaPo thinks that the *real* "sobering reality" is that it's becoming harder and harder to deny progress in Iraq. But hey, the vote didn't resolve Iraq's "lingering political disputes," so why the hell should they even bother with voting, eh?

The MSM: Always a dark lining in every silver cloud.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

P.S. Damn Typepad crash-- this is the shit I'd be writing on *my* site, but I'm giving it to Ace for free. Grrrr.

So, why is there a Democratic Party?
Brilliant.

Today's Democratic Party: We're running out of ways to spin this. We'll read the Times and have a new position for you next week.

I have a coherent position. And Joe Lieberman has a coherent position. But I think we each need to make up our own minds on this.

And, oh by the way, allow Hillary! to define herself and the party by giving voice to something that we'll all get behind.

Go Hillary! in 2008!

Today's Democratic Party: Boldly leaving ourselves just enough wiggle room to make a difference in America

This is amazing - it's all but an admission that the Democrat's Policies will guarantee disaster in 2006. This is a chance for each dem to pander to their local constituency to get whatever votes they can.

Contrast that to the republican strategy in 2004, which was admittedly a presidential year. But everyone sought to ally themselves with Bush, if not outright, then at least on the war. You can call this cynical, or you can call it a unified strategy. And it was effective, because it put a primacy on what was really important, and then let each local race fall its own way on the other issues. It had the same effect as saying, "Get serious. We're at war." And for a few minutes in the ballot box, this probably swayed quite a few people.

Now the democrats are saying that their overriding messages will not be on the war. Treasonous cowards. They will, by tacit consent, make the war a local issue. And I'm sure the Pelosi is very comforted by that given her district.

The good news is that every liberal democrat will be showing exactly who they are as they pander to an increasingly incoherent and angry base. Get ready for the fun.

Today's Democratic Party...we're not yesterday's Democratic Party. Or tomorrow's.

(Disclaimer: Any positions espoused today not valid after 24 hours.)

These Democrat Party slogans are great -- they could be a whole thread, a la Dick Cheney's cock.

I don't have a funny slogan myself, but I love to watch you guys work.

Today's Democratic Party: Just because.

Today's Democratic party...

Democracy in the Middle East.

A growing economy.

Yeah, we're pretty much fucked.

Today's Democratic Party: Because tomorrow, the party's over.

Today's Democratic Party: We may even believe what we say!

How about a headline that says:

Despite Claims of "Diversity" and "Big Tent," GOP has only One Narrow Position on War: Win! Win! Win at all Costs!

TDP: Too smart to explain to you, now pay your taxes.

Here we go again. Let's have some fun.

The Democratic Party: We have a secret plan for Iraq. Like Nixon, but we have better hair.

Just what I need ... another time-sink. You guys are bad for 'bidness.

Quote from Pelosi in the WaPo article:

"As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we'll have a position."

When? After we win?

Today’s Democratic Party….Less of a Big Tent, More like a Collection of Circus Freaks!

No, after Hillary! tells them what it will be.

Today's Democratic Party:

Today's Democratic Party: Slouching towards irrelevance, but with an unmistakable panache, don't you think?

Did Nancy "lady of perpetual shock" Pelosi come up with us all by herself, or did she and Coward Dean have a conference call on the matter?

Remember the conference call the Dems after the 2000 election before it was settled? It was a big PR stunt with Gore, Lieberman, Gephardt, and Daschle.
They looked like major assholes; more than half the country breathed a sigh of relief for not electing that pair of boobs -- Sore/Loserman.
Good times.

Just a decoration?

Or a statement on the war?

I report, you decide.

Today's Democratic Party: We're all things to all constituents. If they aren't paying close attention.

Today's Democratic Party: Treason for no reason.

Today's Democratic Party: If you believe it, we will too.

Today's Democratic Party: Hello? Is anyone listening to us anymore? Anyone? Helloooooooo????

Today's Democratic Party: These are our principles. If you don't like them, we have others.

Groucho, that one was priceless.

Ah, the Dems...

If I can plagiarize from my favorite 80's BBC sitcom, the brilliant "Yes, Minister":

"Politicians like to panic, they need activity. It's their substitute for achievement."

Todays Democratic Party: No direction, no plan, no clue. We like it that way.

These are all really really good. Since achievement is not being glorified enough on this site, I nominate (as of post 40) the following for the best:

Tachyon: Today's Democratic Party:

Groucho Marx: Today's Democratic Party: These are our principles. If you don't like them, we have others.

Dave in Texas: Today's Democratic Party: We're all things to all constituents. If they aren't paying close attention.

Doing the work so Ace won't have to.

Did Nancy "lady of perpetual shock" Pelosi come up with us all by herself, or did she and Coward Dean have a conference call on the matter?

Pelosi: What do you think, Howard?

Dean: No, Nancy, what do you think?

Pelosi: Howard, you push too hard. Seriously, what do you think?

Dean: Nancy, we need to be clear about this. What do you think?

Pelosi: Well, I suppose that we need to say something to the press. What do you think?

Dean: I'll talk to the press. What do you think I should say?

etc., etc. etc.

Today's Democratic Party: Boy, wasn't the New Deal great?

I don't understand where the confusion is. The democrat party is necessarily diverse, because people have different outlooks on life - to which everyone is entitled - and ways of expressing same. Also, if it's hard for some of them to take a strong stand, it's because they try to see every side of every situation, in the interests of justice.

That said, I do sometimes find myself wishing for a centrist party of some sort.

Today's Democratic Party: Still trying to pick sides in the war on terror. Because war is not the time for making decisions. or showing leadership

Today's Democratic Party: So...what do you guys wanna hear?

Today's Democratic Party: Our Position? Umm...Look! A Three-Headed Man on a Donkey! (scampers away)

Today's Democratic Party: Brother, Can You Spare A Clue?

Today's Democratic Party: Riding the Short Bus since 2000.

southern_belle: The democrat party is necessarily diverse, because people have different outlooks on life - to which everyone is entitled - and ways of expressing same.

Of course it is. Any time three people get together, there will be disagreements.

But the point of a party is not for everyone to be able to express themselves equally or completely, but to find sensible positions that can serve as a platform on which to get elected. It's not about philosophical purity, but about politics. And ultimately, power. It's not a bad thing.

That said, I do sometimes find myself wishing for a centrist party of some sort.

Then look no further than the Republicans.

Seriously, the current political spectrum is very skewed historically. The worst thing about the democratic party is that taken in toto, they don't offer a viable option. Defining yourself as a democrat requires an awful lot of madicine swallowing, mainly because they are such a fragmented lot.

Republicans, by contrast, are taking in a lot of what used to be centrists simply because there is no other place to go.

By the way, I'm not saying that any of this is necessarily good.

Today's Democratic Party: Our holiday parties have got the most dynamite finger sandwiches.

Today's Democratic Party: Our holiday parties have got the most dynamite finger sandwiches.

Now, that's just BS. Most feminists won't cook, and if they do, you don't want to eat it.

AND THEY DON'T believe in the holidays ....

The point of having a "party" is to assemble people who agree to some basic tenets. Each party has a platform upon which it stands for principles that some agree with and some do not.

This way, it's easy for me to choose the party that stands for national security, small government, and family values.
I won't choose the party that stands for "nothing" except gun control, extra rights for gays, European values, government programs for lazy people, and the perpetuation of racial division.

DeeDaGo raises a good point. Today's Republican party is equally as liberal as Democratic party in the Kennedy era, and JFK in particular (read: tax cuts & defense).

The Republicans have moved to the center; the Democrats have moved to the left, way left.

Today's Demcratic Party: You don't have to believe our shit, just elect us.

Today's Democratic Party: Rorschach-Schrödinger '08

Today's Democartic Party: Blindly groping our way into insignificance.

Today's Democratic Party: Let us do the thinking for you.

Today's Democratic Party: Loving terrorism isn't too hard once you get the hang of it.

Today's Democratic Party: Vote for us. We're now 97% more content free.

Today's Democratic Party: Know-Nothings for a New Century.

But I believe in national security and family values and small government, and I shoot guns. I don't believe in programs for lazy people, either, but I believe there are some that must be helped. Surely there can be a way to tell lazy from deserving. Also, those programs go hand in hand with the economy. If there aren't enough jobs THAT PAY A DECENT WAGE, how are people SUPPOSED to survive? I also don't believe in extra rights for gays - or any political/cultural group or sub-group, race, religion, etc., etc.

What turns me off to the republican party are the general traits of intolerance and lack of compassion and understanding of the needs of some people. Not everybody is after a hand-out. Some folks start out so far behind they cannot catch up without some serious help.

Today's Democratic Party: Crashed by Pelosi & Dean.

What turns me off to the republican party are the general traits of intolerance and lack of compassion and understanding of the needs of some people.

What you'll find is that Republicans appear to lack compassion, when in fact they simply don't believe that the government is the best entity to administer compassion. Republicans are every bit as concerned about the truly needy and every bit as generous in the private sector as any other political group.

They just don't believe that it's moral to force people to be compassionate by taking their money, and they don't believe that the government is efficient or effective in using that money.

how are people SUPPOSED to survive?

The same way I do - working my ass off, posting on this stupid board, and waiting for Ace to send me a check.

Seriously, the same way I do. I work my ass off. Why should my efforts be robbed to pay for the lazy and shiftless? And when people need help, it is not through government that they should get help.

Some folks start out so far behind they cannot catch up without some serious help.

The help should not come from the government.

Look, I owe a lot to a lot of people. And I'd like to think that I've been helpful to others, in some cases, very helpful. But the government never entered the equation.

What turns me off to the republican party are the general traits of intolerance and lack of compassion and understanding of the needs of some people.

I'll just echo the comments of others here - it's not the government's job to be compassionate or understanding the needs of people. I've always believed that a government large enough to give you everything you want is large enough to take it all away.

Not everybody is after a hand-out. Some folks start out so far behind they cannot catch up without some serious help.

I understand that government should have programs for those who lose their jobs, or to help people get into college who may not be able to afford it. Fine. We do have those programs.

But I come from a middle class family. We didn't have a ton of stuff growing up, as my dad was in the military and they don't pay enlisted men all that well.

However, though hard work and some loans, I earned an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree and now have a good job, where I goof off on the computer.

Ain't America great?

Today's Democratic Party: We're for stuff before we're against it.

Today's Democratic Party: On the other hand, we're not necessarily against the stuff we were for before. We just think there's a better way to do it. No, we don't have details. Why do you ask?

Today's Democratic Party: Yeahhrrrrrggg!!

Today's Democratic Party: We support our baby-killing troops

Today's Democratic Party: We question the timing.

Today's Democratic Party: You supply the complaint, we'll provide the blame.

Today's Democratic Party: We're too smart to win elections.

Today's Democratic Party: Because success is just so gauche!

Today's Democratic Party: A rich, soothing blend of elitism and cowardice.

However, though hard work and some loans, I earned an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree and now have a good job, where I goof off on the computer.

I don't think I know ANYONE that paid for their college outright or whose parents did for them. If you're smart enough, you work hard, and have a crappy waitressing job, anyone can get through college no matter their socioeconomic status. If you're dumb or lazy, not even the democrats can help you....

We have a winner:

"Today's Democratic Party: A rich, soothing blend of elitism and cowardice.

Posted by UGAdawg at December 16, 2005 04:06 PM"

Although I would insert 'preening' before elitism.

Today's Democratic Party: Love us like the way-cool Europeans do, Stupid American!

Today's Democratic Party: That Party that welcomses a myriad of positions, unless your that icky Joe Lieberman

From Iraq the model: "Like eyelashes close in delight upon the sight of one's lover, the boxes closed their lips on Iraqis’ ballots.
The tyrants forced us to remain silent for decades but yesterday our fingers spoke out loud in purple."

Today's Democratic Party: The Chinese and Indians are going to wreck the US financially unless we increase entitlement spending before it's too late.

Southern-belle:If there aren't enough jobs THAT PAY A DECENT WAGE, how are people SUPPOSED to survive? The U.S. is a country of opportunity, not guaranteed success. If you want economic gaurantees, move to Sweeden or France. This is the one country where you can get rich without being a crook or drug dealer. But it is not a country for whiners and wimps. If its too tough for you, then move. I got my education through the G.I. bill (serving three years in the army, one year in Viet Nam) and working. I am a rich man now, but not through inheritence. Of all the things I have been (farmer, lawyer, student, soldier,stock broker, and government bureaucrat), the job I have enjoyed the most was soldier. I'm not saying my life has been always a bowl of jello (it includes one bankruptcy and my wife's miscarraige and difficult war experiences), but I most enjoy the satisfaction of knowing whatever happened, it was my initiative. I wasn't the victim of decisions of others. I joined the Army because I believed in the Vietnam war. I chose to get marrried, I chose all those things in my life and have no one to blame but myself. If you can't face the thought of being a stand up person and a winner, be a whiner. To be a successful whiner you need to move to a socialist nation that will take care of you and make all your decisions. There will be no bankruptcy and no war memories and there will be no winning or losing in your life. You can have that dull gray nothing life that Swedes, Germans and the French enjoy so much.

Today's Democratic Party, because personal attacks and conspiracy theories are all you need.

Today's Democratic Party, an entitlement mentality is the first step on the road to success

Well, I was going to respond to southern belle, but pendleton beat me to it with an excellent post. Minimum wages aren't meant as family wages, they're meant to be a stopgap between not knowing anything worth knowing economically (how to make a buck and keep it) and knowing how to provide a service that's needed by others and get paid for it. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to flip burgers.

Also, why would you, an apparently down-on-your-luck person, want the guv'mint to supply your needs? Don't you know that only about 7 cents of every dollar "appropriated" for the "poor" makes it to the intended target? That means that bureaucrats account for 93 cents of take for every dollar! If a charity were to run those numbers, they'd be shut down by the IRS in minutes.

Bottom line is, charity is giving out of personal concern. Taxes are (unconstitutional) theft, that leave bloated bureaucrats whining for ever more. If you look around, you'll find Repubs/conservatives are much more willing to give to a targeted group of their choice, Dems want it the mony to spend as the Dems see fit. You may or may not fit in the group they choose.

"Today's Democratic Party: These are our principles. If you don't like them, we have others.

This is my favorite so far, too. I would paraphrase it as:

Today's Democratic Party: These are our principles. If you don't like them, they must have been taken out of context, what we really meant was blah blah blah...

I love it when I start the shit here.

Today's Democratic Party: We'll tell you what to think. When to think. How to think. As soon as we figure out what the hell we want that to be. Bush sucks did we mention that yet?

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I am down on my luck, or want the government to give me aid. To the contrary, as I am healthy and intelligent, I can work.....and while I'm not working, I have a healthy intelligent husband who has a good job. It isn't me I worry about. I am concerned for OTHERS who are NOT as fortunate as I am. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp??

Anyway, those are just about the kind of responses that I expected to get. Without truly understanding anything about me, you make a judgment call on my motives, and it was a wrong call. How many others do you make against people without really knowing them or what they have endured or faced? You are right that life is not perfect, in fact it's damn hard. But always keep in mind that, due to circumstances, it is harder for some than for others. I don't mind at all having some of my tax money spent to help care for folks with real need. That is doing as the Bible teaches. If administered honestly and correctly, and designed not to crutch but to build, a program of government aid is not only appropriate, but advantageous. Also, if it is funded by taxes versus privately, then we could be sure that everyone was doing their part to help. Because not everyone is going to want to help, and that's where tax-funded programs make more sense.

Today's Democratic Party: You don't have to be in the country legally to vote for us. Hell, you don't even have to be alive!

Also, if it is funded by taxes versus privately, then we could be sure that everyone was doing their part to help. Because not everyone is going to want to help, and that's where tax-funded programs make more sense.

You can come out and admit that you don't believe in small government now.

Without truly understanding anything about me, you make a judgment call on my motives, and it was a wrong call.

As I recall you did exactly the same thing to me a couple of days ago.

then we could be sure that everyone was doing their part to help.

So you're fine with forcing people to help causes they don't want to support. Jackbooted thug. Seriously, though, I think it's very arrogant for you to decide who needs to help, how much help they should give, and who should benefit from that help. The fact that you personally don't mind being subject to that system has about as much national significance as the sad but anecdotal economic plight of your town.

And as far as honest administration of these types of programs, it is the nature of the beast to absorb as much money internally as it can before any leaks out to benefit the needy. That's not saying that the gov't folks are dishonest, merely that there are inherent incentives to build large staffs and programs, and few metrics for success outside the organization.

SouthernBelle: I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I am down on my luck, or want the government to give me aid.

You didn't. I don't think that anyone was speaking to your situation specifically.

I am concerned for OTHERS who are NOT as fortunate as I am.

As am I. I choose to try to help them by starting companies and providing opportunities, through charity, donations, and working through various community resources. I cannot guarantee the outcomes, but then, neither can anyone else.

Also, if it is funded by taxes versus privately, then we could be sure that everyone was doing their part to help.

In my experience in working with the government, and I work with the government a lot, NOTHING gets done except through personal initiative. If you think that because an initiative or program is given a government office to oversee it, that means that it will be successful, then you are mistaken. Government sanction does not equal success.

But to your exact point, I believe that a single person taking initiative is worth 100 who do not want to help but who are forced to. It is not my job, nor the government's, to ensure compliance with some notional helping hand.

Anyway, those are just about the kind of responses that I expected to get

Glad we could help.

Today's Democratic Party: Because Grandma voted for FDR.

I believe in small government, but not in government that functions without caring for the least fortunate among it's people. Good programs, wisely administered, WITHOUT inherent incentives, etc. Aren't there enough honest folks left in the country to provide for the poor without trying to pad their pockets at the same time?

I'm sorry, but I find some of your attitudes lacking in human compassion, and sadly, very representative of the party currently in control of the legislative bodies. Although starting businesses is a good way to help, as are employment opportunities. But apparently those aren't enough, as there are still people in this country who don't get a proper chance. What do we do about those people?

3 times each election, since 1932

Today's Democratic Party: Consistency: We also opposed the Civil War.

Good programs, wisely administered, WITHOUT inherent incentives, etc.

Unfortunately, 'inherent' means 'inherent.' That means that it comes with large beaurocracies, whether or not you have 'good programs' or 'wise administration.' From the book Thickening Government (Paul C. Light, 1995):

The core tables suggest that the thickening of goverment was not accidental - the growth seems predictable, even unrelenting. In fact, thickening appears to be the logical consequence of a number of perfectly understandable events. New positions are almost always created with the best of intentions - to enhance accountability, improve coordination, underscore a priority. Once created, they tend to spread outward, in part because the price of thickening is so low.

The book says that the anonymity and lack of accountability that inevitably occur in large organizations remove barriers to growth, while interior pressures tend to encourage it, leading to the ballooning of beaurocratic structures, giving us the inefficiency and waste we enjoy today.

You might find more receptivity to your pleas for compassion if you coupled them with a plan for reducing programs at the federal level and increasing them at the local level. This, while not the optimal conservative solution, would certainly be preferable to the failed programs we have had for 40 years.

Oh, and as far as your "conservatives are mean and lack compassion" meme, you might read one of George Lakoff's recent books. He's a very liberal UC Berkeley professor who dispels the old canard that conservatives are curmudgeons. From his book Moral Politics:

Conservatives are opposed to welfare and to government funds for the needy but are in favor of government funds going to victims of floods, fires, and earthquakes who are in need. Why isn't this contradictory?

Southern Belle, you should also read stuff by Star Parker. She explains how the liberal programs since the '60's have badly hurt the black communities in large cities.

The Dems soultion to every problem is to throw money at it. They feel the problems of the poor are caused by social and economic injustice. Their solution: Give them money; not enough money to change their lives, just enough to keep them alive without working and, more importantly, keep them beholden to their benefactors. Which is, of course, the Democrats.

Therein lies the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives. The conservative believes it isn't much help to a person by giving them a measley welfare check. The conservative would rather give the poor person a job. The conservative also believes that each individual person is responsible for what they make of themselves in life. They like to use the word "accountability."

The playing field is more than level for the poor; it is actually tilted in their favor. All the opportunities are there for their taking -- they just have to want it.

Without truly understanding anything about me, you make a judgment call on my motives, and it was a wrong call.

I'm sorry, but I find some of your attitudes lacking in human compassion, and sadly, very representative of the party currently in control of the legislative bodies.

Wow, talk about projection. You have no idea how compassionate we are.

Today's Democratic Party: From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.

Today's Democratic Party: The world's most dangerous backseat driver since 2002.

I am concerned for OTHERS who are NOT as fortunate as I am. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp??

As are many conservatives who prefer to do their charitable work personally. Why is that so hard for you to grasp?

and while I'm not working, I have a healthy intelligent husband who has a good job

How nice for you. Strange, then, that you accuse others of lacking compassion while doing nothing yourself to help out the less fortunate.

Ahhhh, but you VOTED for the "compassionate" party, right? Such an easy rationalization for your smug self-righteousness.

And while you sit on your ass at home, I'm busting my ass working every hour I can grab while putting my wife through school. Money's pretty f'n tight these days, but I managed to scrape up enough to buy a few items for people in need. It wasn't much, but it's all I can afford right now. I feel a little crappy about it, but I figure that we'll be in much better shape in another 2 years and will be able to give considerably more then.

But hey, thanks for deciding for me that I need to pay more in taxes. You are just so FUCKING COMPASSIONATE from your couch. It's breathtaking, really. I just love being lectured by wealthy layabouts like you about the need to fork over my hard-earned money to pay the salaries of lazy, no-account government employees. God forbid, I decide where to direct my charitable givings. I might not give to the right causes, eh?

Today's Democratic Party: We're Compassionate. Haven't you been listening to us?

Today's Democratic Party:

Pussified since 1968!

Today's Democratic Party:

Sigh. Poor Jimmy Carter.

Today's Democratic Party:

Al Sharpton. 'Nuff said.

Today's Democratic Party: Compassionate, so you don't have to be!

pToday's Democratic Party: Just give us the damn ball

Remember folks, doing good works, helping others, and giving to worthy charities is for shit.

Caring for others only counts when you pay the government to do it for you at much lower efficiency!

Good to know, good to know.

As are many conservatives who prefer to do their charitable work personally.

Just to hone a point in the rest of your post, it isn't really charity when you aren't doing it personally.