Why are the Democrats being silent?

As expected, what we are hearing from the Left is -- the continuing chirps of crickets. They were so hoping that they had themselves a genuine scandal with which to hurt the current administration, and when it turns out to be (yet more) trumped up BS (as we expected), they are engaging in their normal damage control techniques -- silence and denial.

Note also the implication that the Iraq - Niger uranium thing which this whole thing was based on actually DOES have legs -- and again what you hear from the Left is -- crickets chirping. More silence and denial.

At least you can give the Left the benifit of consistency -- they consistently fabricate scandals that prove to be baseless, and then consistently clam up with denials and silence when the truth surfaces.

BTW -- the URL to the linked story needs to be fixed. It should be:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/05/opinion/main1967945.shtml
 
Well, I'm certainly no Democrat, but I have an idea why they're so silent. When the titular head of the opposing party has a 60% disapproval rate and the rest of your opponents seem to be self-destructing, the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and keep feeding 'em rope.
 
"Well, I'm certainly no Democrat, but I have an idea why they're so silent. When the titular head of the opposing party has a 60% disapproval rate and the rest of your opponents seem to be self-destructing, the best thing to do is keep your mouth shut and keep feeding 'em rope."

+1

Well said.
 
If you're opponent's standing in the bottom of a hole with a shovel in his hand, you stay out of view and let him dig.

We're also just coming into the campaign season. I'm sure that Howard Dean and the two campaign committes have been studying Gingrich's brilliant 1994 plan... and if they haven't they should all lose their jobs... and the Republicans didn't start the "Contract with America" campaign until late September. Clinton was in trouble with the voters, (the worst of his presidency, as it turned out,) the Democrats were an intrenched powerful majority presiding over a scandal-plauged Congress, and the Republicans let them stew for a long time. They waited until the end to really campaign hard. They grabbed all the headlines, put the Dems on the defensive, and gave them no time to respond. It worked perfectly.

As to impeachment, the Dems haven't backed off of it, because they were never on it, at least not publicly. The only people who were saying that the Democrats would impeach the President have been Republican political consultants. It's a transparent attempt to motivate that portion of the base that truly believes in Bush. Whether or not the Dems will impeach Bush if they get the majority, I don't know. I suspect many of them would like to. But they haven't been saying so.

To ascribe sinister motives to backing away from a position you haven't taken seems a bit premature, at least to me.

--Shannon
 
The lunatic left fringe that now IS the Democratic party knows that they are doing more harm than good when they spout all that impeachment nonsense about Bush and how appeasement is their number one strategy for Iraq.

That kind of talk is used to rile up their own base of fringe lunatics, but when election time comes, they quiet down and hope that mainstream Democrats forget about all the whackiness long enough for them to go vote and pull the "D" lever and then go back home like the useful idiots they are where they are supposed to shut up and let the ultra whacky leftist bunch "do their thing".

Of course, if Democrats actually do retake the House and Senate, watch for an explosion of whacky rhetoric the day after the elections followed by their actually attempting to impeach bush and cut'n'run from Iraq etc.

Carter
 
Yes, how dare they question the King!

Actually I'm for someone prosecuting the media for the role it's had in our country over the last few years...As for Mr. Fitzgerald, I thought he behaved about as professionally as he could, at least he wasn't foaming at the mouth like some Starr.
 
Ahh - all is not quiet in mud-slingingville. Tomorrow they may call for a vote of 'no confidence' for Rumsfeld. Don't mean much - just ANOTHER sly political move to help make themselves look better while they offer nothing substantial.

At least luny Dean has kept his mouth shut lately about making this country weaker - been a while since he stated how its OK if the US doesn't have the strongest military, and how its OK if we lose a war once in while. I guess that stance was to help justify the Dems putting the political arena ahead of the country as they try AGAIN to undermine the war effort for politcal gain? OR try to make us surrender in Iraq like they did in Vietnam? Or maybe he really enjoyed us getting our butts kicked the 1st 7 months of WW2, and didn't mind all the soldiers, airman and Marines who died needlessly 'cause Japan had better planes and the Germans had better tanks? He is a sick individual. As if we would HAVE 7 months to get our act together these days if China decides to invade Taiwan or Japan, or Iran &/or Syria decides to step ugly like Saddam did.

IF they do win (not so sure what with gas going down and ongoing terrorist issues), this is the type of idiot who will be calling the shots. Be prepared for a weaker country and stronger gun control. Anyway - if they managed to impeach Bush - though for what crime I don't know - then Cheney will be president and the real fun will begin.
 
Well...

We already know that the Republican and Democratic parties are just retards going nowhere together. Neither party is good, each is just interested in pushing their own agenda the Constitution is merely secondary to them, and just a crutch to make excuses on violating it. Example: Republican leaders pass laws for illegal search and siezures. Democrats want to ban violent video games and take away firearms. Well gee, I thought the purpose of our government was to PROGRESS the ideas of the Constitution, not pick it apart and say that one way of thinking works for everyone.


Epyon
 
Hear Hear! How come more and more I feel voting is more about the lesser of two evils?

Know what you mean Esquire...Bush is a liberal next to the VP!
 
Hoof in Mouth?

Perhaps, with more and more politicians in all parties falling victim to the rampant "hoof-in- mouth" epidemic, many have decided to simply not spread the disease?
With mid-term elections approaching, and campaigns coming into full gear, the words of everyone campainging will be heard even more loudly than those spoken on the House and Senate floors. While the Republicans are on the spot having to defend the position of the current administration and it's policies, the Democrats are contented to simply say "time for change" and then lock up.
Maybe silence is the smart play this time around?
 
The lunatic left fringe that now IS the Democratic party knows that they are doing more harm than good when they spout...
Click to expand...


What's funny to me is how the most tactically sound thing for democrats to do when they hope to get elected is to SHUT UP about what they truly believe.

Or have any of you heard a PEEP about GUN CONTROL recently?

Do you think that means they really don't believe in it or want it anymore? :rolleyes:


When speaking your mind about what you actually want to accomplish politically and legislatively alienates you from the American voting majority, shouldn't you take stock of yourself?


-azurefly
 
"What's funny to me is how the most tactically sound thing for democrats to do when they hope to get elected is to SHUT UP about what they truly believe."

Maybe they realized that they don't have a plan for anything. Even their complaining has been disorganized.

John
 
Esquire, I disagree as to Mr. Fitzgerald. Certainly Mr. Fitzgerald received a pass in the media but everyone else knew this was a witchhunt soppy with getevenwithemism.

Nothing can mitigate Mr. Fitzgerald's position as a political hatchet man. No noble prosecutor "just doing my job" he.:D
 
But had it not been investigated it would have looked equally as bad on the other end of the spectrum.

There's been a charge against our leaders of cherrypickin intelligence to support their current goals and agendas.

I am for any investigation into these claims.

If we can impeach a guy for getting a lil sugar at work, should we not hold the same standard when someone seemingly leads us to war against the wrong countries?

It's as if after pearl harbor we nuked China & liberated fortress Iceland!?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top