Skip to comments.
Democrats Head for the Hills
American Spectator ^
| 04/11/03
| The Prowler
Posted on 04/10/2003 10:06:40 PM PDT by Pokey78
YOU BELONG TO ME
With the collapse of the Iraqi regime in Baghdad, Democrats in the House and the Senate watched in their offices as the U.S. Marines helped topple not only the 40-foot statute of Saddam, but the Democrats' political hopes for the next couple of years.
Over the past several days, Democrats, especially in the House, have been polling furiously through their caucus in an attempt to get a handle on public perceptions of the party during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"It probably isn't good," says one House leadership staffer, referring to the public's opinion. "If we don't know it now, we're acting like we know it."
Not a single senior Democrat in either the House or the Senate would accept an invitation to appear on television Wednesday night to discuss the events of the day in Baghdad. On Thursday, the most visible Democrat was Sen. Evan Bayh, who has supported the Iraqi policy all along.
One who is greatly concerned is Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi. On Thursday, she publicly stated she would not change her vote against the war for anything. But privately on Wednesday she asked her personal office staff to compile comments from her career that would show her as supportive of military action and America's soldiers. On Thursday afternoon, she made a very big production of her speech in the Capitol during a congressional rally for the troops. As she spoke, those men and women there in uniform -- and even some Republican House members -- snickered at her performance. "She was trying just a bit too hard," says a Republican House staffer.
What little serious polling has been done by Democrats indicates that many potential voters don't buy the notion that you can support the troops, but not support the war. "If you're a liberal Democrat, maybe that works," says the Democratic leadership staffer in the House. "But the moderate or Reagan Democrat isn't buying that. Many of them are supportive of the war effort. We've probably lost them for now, and will have to work to get them back."
Given Pelosi's mediocre performance as Democratic leader, there are already grumblings among moderate Democrats that she will have to go next time out. And while he isn't saying anything publicly, it's believed by some House Democrats that their whip, Steny Hoyer, might be willing to mount a challenge to Pelosi in January 2005 if she continues to flail about.
Supporters of Pelosi say she's getting a raw deal, that under House rules, and Republican control, there isn't much she can do legislatively or on the House floor to improve her party's position. But those arguments overlook her promise that Democrats would have a better performance during the congressional session, and would retake seats in the 2004 election cycle.
"As it stands now, we pick up seats again," says a Republican Congressional Campaign Committee staffer. "We aren't doing anything different, it's the Democrats who just keep screwing things up for themselves."
MAKING EVERY VOTE COUNT
Democrats and Republicans alike were scratching their heads on Wednesday night when former Vermont Gov. Howie Dean appeared on MSNBC and claimed that he and Sen. Bob Graham had both voted against the war in Iraq. But Dean has been out of office for months and didn't have a vote. Anywhere.
In the end, such false bravado probably no longer matters. Given that Dean built much of his early campaign on an anti-war stance, most political insiders say he'll be lucky to survive through the New Hampshire primary.
BLOODIED BUT UNBOWED
Maybe Saddam's PR guy has already found a new client. Word out of Arkansas Democratic circles is that Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark is still seriously mulling a presidential run.
"People have told him his CNN performances have been good," says a Democratic National Committee staffer.
Given that almost everyone, even at the DNC, thought those performances a disaster, one has to wonder just who's been egging Clark on. Larry King? Aaron Brown? Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf?
Clark was one of the military officers Vice President Dick Cheney ridiculed on Wednesday, saying they were embedded in cable news channels.
TOPICS: Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-71 next last
1
posted on
04/10/2003 10:06:40 PM PDT
by
Pokey78
To: Pokey78
A RAT meltdown is a lovely sight indeed.
2
posted on
04/10/2003 10:09:16 PM PDT
by
teletech
(Can we bomb Saddam, NOW!?)
To: All

Donate Here By Secure Server
Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
or you can use
PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
Become A Monthly Donor
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!
Thanks Registered
3
posted on
04/10/2003 10:10:39 PM PDT
by
Support Free Republic
(Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
To: Pokey78
"People have told him his CNN performances have been good,"
The only people who'd say that to him is the people he sees when he looks in the mirror, which is probably whenever one is nearby.
A total loser, simply wrong wrong wrong...vaingloriously wrong.
4
posted on
04/10/2003 10:11:41 PM PDT
by
jwfiv
To: jwfiv
vaingloriously wrong. Whenever I hear Clark referred to as "Supreme Allied Commander" I think he must compare himself with Eisenhower. What a mismatch!
To: Freee-dame
But it also sounds like one of Ceaucescu's many titles. That's a far better match.
6
posted on
04/10/2003 10:17:03 PM PDT
by
Kenno
To: Pokey78
Over the past several days, Democrats, especially in the House, have been polling furiously through their caucus in an attempt to get a handle on public perceptions of the party during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They have to ask? Maybe they're getting their news from Baghdad Bob
7
posted on
04/10/2003 10:17:04 PM PDT
by
Noumenon
(You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality - Ayn Rand)
To: Pokey78; teletech; Joy Angela; conservogirl; Ragtime Cowgirl; flamefront; Freedom'sWorthIt; ...
8
posted on
04/10/2003 10:19:06 PM PDT
by
ALOHA RONNIE
(Vet-Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.LZXRAY.com ..,)
To: Pokey78
By all means, do let's keep I-can-bounce-a-quarter-off-my-face Pelosi's skanky buttocks planted firmly in the the DemonRat's driver's seat.
9
posted on
04/10/2003 10:19:24 PM PDT
by
Noumenon
(You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality - Ayn Rand)
To: Pokey78
"Howie Dean appeared on MSNBC and claimed that he and Sen. Bob Graham had both voted against the war in Iraq. But Dean has been out of office for months and didn't have a vote. Anywhere."
Howie, Schmowie. Sure sounds like Albore to me.
10
posted on
04/10/2003 10:19:38 PM PDT
by
fightinJAG
(A liberal mind already is terribly wasted.)
To: teletech
A RAT meltdown is a lovely sight indeed.Indeed. But the setbacks are only temporary because RATs are ALWAYS looking for an angle. We must always be vigilant. Bush the Elder lost his re-election bid, even though he had a stunning victory over Iraq in his hip pocket, too.
11
posted on
04/10/2003 10:19:40 PM PDT
by
BradyLS
To: Pokey78
Memo to Rats:
All your votes are belong to us.
12
posted on
04/10/2003 10:23:26 PM PDT
by
fightinJAG
(A liberal mind already is terribly wasted.)
To: BradyLS
Yes. 18 months is forever in politics. The economy better be back on track by then or the DemonRats might produce an effective counter attack.
To: BradyLS
One thing that it's likely W. will NOT have to contend with, though: Ross Perot.
I continue to harp on this. George H. W. Bush lost that election because of his going back on his tax pledge--losing him a lot of base support--and even more, because H. Ross Perot mesmerized a lot of that base as well as some Reagan Democrats into voting for him.
Even after "no new taxes," GHWB would have been back in office had Perot never showed up.
14
posted on
04/10/2003 10:29:36 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: Pokey78
One of the most rewarding things about being right is being able to watch a demoncrap going at super-sonic speed in order to cover up their collective naked backside.
15
posted on
04/10/2003 10:31:57 PM PDT
by
Slyfox
To: Pokey78
This must be the elite "Special Democratic Guard" . . . heading for the hills!
To: jwfiv
Yes, Clark has been the worst, and given the collection of hacks, incoherent TV amateurs, and silly diagramming that went on, it was pretty hard to be the worst on that score. but he managed to be, by simply calling it wrong.
Frankly, the armchair generals taught us little in the news channels, I got no real sense of what the overall US strategy was from them beyond what was obvious "we are going to baghdad" (and they show a graphic of a tank going towards baghdad ... 'oh, now it get it, i needed that' NOT)
... a good thing I think, keep the enemy as confused as the cable viewers. only a few (Fox news) taught anything about real military issues.
17
posted on
04/10/2003 10:38:04 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: Pokey78
"Given Pelosi's mediocre performance as Democratic leader, there are already grumblings among moderate Democrats that she will have to go next time out. And while he isn't saying anything publicly, it's believed by some House Democrats that their whip, Steny Hoyer, might be willing to mount a challenge to Pelosi in January 2005 if she continues to flail about."
Steny Hoyer is as much a closeted socialist as Pelosi.
18
posted on
04/10/2003 10:38:18 PM PDT
by
PLMerite
("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
To: dark_lord
Without a doubt the DemonRats WILL be offensive fairly soon.
19
posted on
04/10/2003 10:38:58 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: Illbay
You are correct, 1992 was a classic 'bait and switch' campaign for voters. Ross got the male disaffected, Clinton the female disaffected. It's tough to defeat an incumbent, but the media loved another anti-Bush hero out there, stirring the pot.
A straight up Bush v. Clinton would have been a Bush win, as bush could have hammered on character and foreign policy, it was the 3rd candidate that was a stalking horse to keep it on economy ... but it didnt help that bush ran an awful campaign and clinton a very good one.
20
posted on
04/10/2003 10:42:05 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: jwfiv
I think the DNC has already gone on the record as not being happy with Wesley Clark's opinions about anything. He was being touted as a military genius - and he's turned out to be a dolt!
21
posted on
04/10/2003 10:45:46 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Slyfox
One of the most rewarding things about being right is being able to watch a demoncrap going at super-sonic speed in order to cover up their collective naked backside.Kinda like watching a cat trying to cover it's mess on a marble floor...
To: Noumenon
I agree - they have to take a poll to know where they stand ...?? Puhleeeeeze! We cannot get rid of these people soon enough.
What I want to know is when are the dems going to get wise that it has been Hitlery (the DNC) advice which has brought them to this point. When are they going to realize she does not know anything about running a state; let alone a country!!
23
posted on
04/10/2003 10:48:39 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Illbay
Are you saying that the Reform Party's legacy was eight years of Bill Clinton?
24
posted on
04/10/2003 10:51:28 PM PDT
by
Luis Gonzalez
(The Ever So Humble Banana Republican)
To: Pokey78
Democrats Head for the Hills
Democrats Head for the Caves
Why do you think they call it Democrat Underground
25
posted on
04/10/2003 10:52:51 PM PDT
by
Zon
To: Pokey78
What little serious polling has been done by Democrats indicates that many potential voters don't buy the notion that you can support the troops, but not support the war. It's just not safe yet to vote Democrat.
-PJ
To: Luis Gonzalez
Their gift to us.
27
posted on
04/10/2003 11:01:19 PM PDT
by
Illbay
To: Pokey78
"Democrats in the House and the Senate watched in their offices as the U.S. Marines helped topple not only the 40-foot statute of Saddam, but the Democrats' political hopes for the next couple of years." Fantastic!! Even though I did not have computer access last night, I was watching Fox news all evening and I could almost hear the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the RAT camp. Let's hope that their political ambitions are toppled for a couple of decades. Maybe they could take all that campaign money they'd save and buy themselves a clue. A sense of humor and a little genuine compassion wouldn't hurt either.
28
posted on
04/10/2003 11:02:25 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: WOSG
Losers going for the losers ...
beast train // bridge ---
even junta reno was publicly going saddamn sypathizer // Bush critic ...
After watching President Bush's address ... Reno said --- ''We will not solve the world's problems by might.''
''I had hoped people would come up with an opportunity for him to save face,'' she said.
29
posted on
04/10/2003 11:03:19 PM PDT
by
f.Christian
(( who you gonna call ... 1 800 orc // evo bstr ))
To: Pokey78
"Given Pelosi's mediocre performance as Democratic leader, there are already grumblings among moderate Democrats that she will have to go next time out." Heehee...that didn't take long. I think little Tommy's final pre-war statement may well have been his swan song as well.
30
posted on
04/10/2003 11:06:14 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: Pokey78
"We aren't doing anything different, it's the Democrats who just keep screwing things up for themselves." ROTFL!!! And the best part is that it doesn't cost us anything.
31
posted on
04/10/2003 11:08:27 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: Pokey78
"one has to wonder just who's been egging Clark on" Seems like Hillary could be behind it. I mean, what better way to make herself look like a sensible voice of reason than to have a festival of clowns as a backdrop for her latest political performance. It has certainly not escaped notice that she has kept her mouth shut lately, except for her calculated, albeit phoney, support for the president and the war in Iraq.
32
posted on
04/10/2003 11:13:02 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: Illbay
I agree. Clinton & Clinton are Ross Perot's responsibility. He couldn't see past his own ego and splintered the GOP vote.
To: Zon
34
posted on
04/10/2003 11:26:46 PM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: CyberAnt
Hillary's living an Eva Peron fantasy. But she's far more dangerous - the shadow she casts is that of a tyrant and a mass murderer.
35
posted on
04/10/2003 11:27:08 PM PDT
by
Noumenon
(You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of evading reality - Ayn Rand)
To: Noumenon
Yes, I agree - she's far more dangerous than most people believe. I'd even use the word treacherous instead of dangerous. She will shake your hand (which she's happily doing with the repubs in the senate), and then she will stab you in the back if it increases her power.
Never underestimate the evil will of this woman.
36
posted on
04/10/2003 11:36:16 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Pokey78; Trident/Delta
One who is greatly concerned is Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi. On Thursday, she publicly stated she would not change her vote against the war for anything. But privately on Wednesday she asked her personal office staff to compile comments from her career that would show her as supportive of military action and America's soldiers. On Thursday afternoon, she made a very big production of her speech in the Capitol during a congressional rally for the troops. As she spoke, those men and women there in uniform -- and even some Republican House members -- snickered at her performance. "She was trying just a bit too hard," says a Republican House staffer. Anybody happen to notice if the DU-ers reacted to this? No doubt they'd be calling her a traitor.
To: CyberAnt
Yes, I agree - she's far more dangerous than most people believe. I'd even use the word treacherous instead of dangerous. She will shake your hand (which she's happily doing with the repubs in the senate), and then she will stab you in the back if it increases her power. Never underestimate the evil will of this woman.
More true than most realize, and the mainstream media is in love with her.
To: Pokey78
"One who is greatly concerned is Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi....privately on Wednesday she asked her personal office staff to compile comments from her career that would show her as supportive of military action and America's soldiers." This would be a good time for her staff to ask for a raise -- think of all the work they're going to have to do!
39
posted on
04/11/2003 12:00:27 AM PDT
by
scott7278
(Four more years! Four more years!)
To: CyberAnt
21 - " not being happy with Wesley Clark's opinions about anything. He was being touted as a military genius - and he's turned out to be a dolt!"
must disagree - Clark has always been a dolt, if you remember from the past. He hasn't changed, he is still a dolt, just that this time, he had no power.
40
posted on
04/11/2003 3:32:37 AM PDT
by
XBob
To: NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
"Anybody happen to notice if the DU-ers reacted to this?" I would be hesitant to go over there right now, but I imagine the scene bears a strong resemblence to a pack of frenzied rats in the throes of a flesh-eating disease.
41
posted on
04/11/2003 5:29:25 AM PDT
by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your your mouth and remove all doubt.")
To: PLMerite
Steny Hoyer is as much a closeted socialist as Pelosi. Only by comparison with Pelosi could Hoyer be considered anything in the same ballpark as "moderate."
If Nancy Pelosi rates 100 on the dimocratic liberal socialist scale, then Hoyer's about a 90.
All this talk about a Hoyer challenge is just one more case of the dimocratic party denying power to womyn and minorities.
I support Nancy Pelosi as the leader of the dimocratic party. I suspect most Republicans feel this way, too.
To: WOSG
Without a doubt the DemonRats WILL be offensive fairly soon Did I miss something? Did the Dimocraps STOP being offensive at some point???
43
posted on
04/11/2003 5:47:47 AM PDT
by
chilepepper
(Gnocchi Seuton!)
To: Luis Gonzalez
Absolutely. Ross Perot's whole point in running was one goal and one goal only: to elect Bill Clinton. Anyone who voted for him was taken into a big con game known as "divide and conquer".
It is tough living in the US where controlling the SHEEP is such a fine art... The US media do it so skillfully...
44
posted on
04/11/2003 5:52:25 AM PDT
by
chilepepper
(Gnocchi Seuton!)
To: Freee-dame
Whenever I hear Clark referred to as "Supreme Allied Commander" I think he must compare himself with Eisenhower.I think he would prefer "Generalissimo".
45
posted on
04/11/2003 6:03:07 AM PDT
by
Fresh Wind
(Never forget: CLINTON PARDONED TERRORISTS)
To: XBob
What I said was what the source from the DNC said to the reporter - the DNC guy said he thought Clark was a military genius and Clark turned out to be a dolt.
I always knew he was!
46
posted on
04/11/2003 9:41:15 AM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: Noumenon
By all means, do let's keep I-can-bounce-a-quarter-off-my-face Pelosi's skanky buttocks ROR!
47
posted on
04/11/2003 10:18:11 AM PDT
by
SkyPilot
(Congrats Syracuse Orangeman!)
To: Irish Eyes
Well ... I have a theory about the media's "love" for Hillary.
There has been much talk about the embedded reporters. They have seen and heard things which will forever alter their view of the USA and probably the world. How it will affect them when they return is anybody's guess. But, I like to think it has altered them forever. If so, how will this affect their coverage of democrats/liberals and/or the soon to come election cycle? I don't know why, but I don't think the dems are going to be able to get away with the stuff they used to.
Some of these reporters may well begin to run headlong into their bureau chiefs or TV newsrooms. It will be curious to see which ones will break away to report the truth (after having seen such graphic reality). I have also wondered how many of them will now read "Bias" and suddenly understand what's been going on. I fervently believe the embedds are going to reinforce the new climate in America - back to GOD and country, and no longer with a left-wing slant.
Don't misunderstand - the left will remain (as always), but their voice and their influence will begin to take a steady dive, aided and abetted by the embedded media.
48
posted on
04/11/2003 10:32:14 AM PDT
by
CyberAnt
To: chilepepper
Did I miss something? Did the Dimocraps STOP being offensive at some point??? Ah ... go look up the definition of "nanosecond" in a science book. I think it says something about the longest period of time an elected librul Democrat can stop being offensive.
49
posted on
04/11/2003 4:33:15 PM PDT
by
WOSG
(All Hail The Free Republic of Iraq! God Bless our Troops!)
To: BradyLS
Bush the Elder lost his re-election bid, even though he had a stunning victory over Iraq in his hip pocket, too. He lost because of a fraudulent little Texas lunatic with big ears.
50
posted on
04/11/2003 4:44:06 PM PDT
by
Bullish
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-50, 51-71 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson