WAAAAAHHHH!!!

We're taking our ball and going home!

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.
- Napoleon Bonaparte

open mouth..shoot foot

I find it amazing that so many Dems want to curry the favor of these whackjobs while moderates on both sides of the aisle don't take them seriously.

You'd think Reid, Pelosi, Murtha and the like (toss the Breck girl on there, as well) would see that the power to sway elections rests in the hands of the independents who have no idea who Kos and his gaggle of frothing lunatics are - and would probably care less if they did.

But alas, they do not and hence expose themselves to being out of touch with the Americans they emphatically state they represent.

The democratic party is on fire and in serious danger of imploding. Kos giggles and incites his minions to keep the flames coming while the elected Dems keep throwing on effigies of open dialog.

Not to get off subject but is the debate still on and who is hosting/sponsoring if so???

And yet the silly trolls (one in particular) regularly stop by here to fling poo about how the elections of 2006 marked the end of conservatism, that the Republican party is imploding, and that they will reign supreme in 2009. Good luck with that, nutroots.

Those wacky dems never fail to entertain. Now, if they would just but out of foreign policy...

This extreme view of the opposition is not limited to Kos. Our conservative side has its share of vocal bombthrowers. Misha of The Anti-idiotarian etc., comes to mind as do occasional posts of Kim Du Toit. Both have called for the elimination of the Democrat party. But, I would also remind people, I am not seeing Misha appearing in commercials for candidates nor Kim showing up as a guest of Republican party magnates.

(N.B. John Hawkins and Michelle Malkin do appear at these fetes regularly, but I have never seen one of them play kingmaker, nor invest their posts with the level of vitriol of netroot blogiarchy.)

The problem with the far left, as I see it, is that they are going to run out of enemies real soon. GWB is not going to be president in 2009, and what will happen then? Not a single serious candidate for Republican President Nomination is as conservative as he is/was (Which isn't perfect by any means, i.e. border issues.) So then who do they turn on? The new Republican president? They seem so one note, that one would expect them to play the same song and dance for whomever gets elected.

So the implication may be: Kos is gaining influence in the Democratic Party, and this is making the party too left-wing and will cost the Dems elections. And the "freeze out" of Fox News is part of this.

I don't think the Dems pulling out of the Fox News hosting of a debate will have any discernible effect on the election. The only people who are upset about it are people who would never vote for the Dem for president anyway.

As for Kos and company radicalizing the Dems away from voters, I have 2 points:

1. Being against the war in Iraq is not a positions of a fringe group; this is not such a popular war with voters.

2. If Pelosi and company already represent "San Francisco" values, etc., I don't see how Kos would be taking them away from positions they already held.

BTW, Jay...I split my ballot, too. I guess I may not be radical enough to be considered a moonbat...

Publicus, it's not about who gets "upset." It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population.

I'm not American. I'm an honest to goodness foreigner. And my reaction on hearing this was "Oh, so you don't want the presidency after all?" But in retrospect, I doubt it will have much of an impact with the base. And the swing voters have seen the dog and pony show for a while already.

It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population.

Let me know when you have persuasive evidence that it's had any lasting effect on a substantial number of the "non-political" types. (Since Wizbang doesn't believe in polls, I don't know how you could ever do that...)

Publicus,
Being against the Iraq war, alone, is not what makes the nut roots out on the far left fringe. The causes, opinions and behaviors of these groups as a whole is what makes them fringers.

Their eagerness to persecute "heretical" thought and people, despite any offsetting upsides, is what should make folks on the left take notice and be concerned. Lieberman is a good democrat in every measure and category, BUT, he supports the war in Iraq. And for that the nutroots decided he must pay.
Fox News would have given the candidates both a larger audience AND an audience more likely to contain fence sitters or those fed up with the opposition and ready to jump ship (or just send a message at the ballot box). But the nutroots hate for Fox was too great to allow for anything but a good old fashioned "burn at the stake" bbq.

Taking a stand is not a bad thing. But the nutroots seem to go from 0-jihad with very little provocation and less analysis of the big picture than I would think is healthy in anyone I would want to associate with or to hand power to. I left the democrats 11 or so years ago because I saw this road being paved, and I am sad that my prediction has come true. I keep a close eye and ear on the fundie wing of the republicans for the same reasons.

Public opinion on the Iraq war seems to ebb and flow; if the "surge" is successful folks will change their minds yet again. What is a killer is the general anti-war sentiment within the kook left.

Americans may not be entirely satisfied with how the war in Iraq has been managed, but I guarantee you they aren't thrilled by the prospect of Congress trying to limit Bush's military options on Iran. Nor do I think they'll embrace a return to the Clinton approach of random missle strikes and a law enforcement approach to terrorism.

I, for one, welcome the new big-D Democratic overlords. If Kos's oh-for endorsement record in general elections has taught us anything, it's that what seems normal to the Kos Kids is a loser with John Q Public.

Besides, where does it say you need to be tough enough to appear on Fox News to be tough enough to deal with Iran, DPRK, Sudan, etc.? Or maybe it's a perfect illustration of the Dems surrender mentality. When the only things you are committed to fighting are things that can't fight back - like global warming or poverty - you start to look like a bunch of pussies.

"Let me know when you have persuasive evidence that it's had any lasting effect on a substantial number of the "non-political" types."

I dunno if it has any lasting effects, but why listen to the fringe, play by their rules and risk alienating your party from the swing voters?

Though, you could look at Ned Lamont and extrapolate some sort of conclusion. That strategy did an Elmer Fudd back-fire which blew off Ned's hunting cap and left his face covered in soot.

Whatever happened to him, anyway?

Anyone ever mention a 'vast (far) left wing' conspiracy?

My observations:

Principled anti-war stance: "I'm opposed to this war, and I think Bush was wrong to get us involved. That being said, we're there now and we have an obligation to do it right, which Bush does not seem to be doing to the best of our ability."

Nutroot version "Bushhitler lied!! Impeach NOW! [insert demand for exact opposite of any administration plan, no matter if said plan is identical to that called for by rootnut previously]"

Well, Publicus, the proof will come after the next election.

Not that the shortsighted people that make up the left will be convinced to make rational decisions based on long-term goals, but there it is.

The only people who are upset about it are people who would never vote for the Dem for president anyway.

SCSIwuzzy's analysis is right about this, but I would take it a bit further. The nutroots only damage themselves because they draw false conclusions from thir actions. In the case of Ned Lamont, they believed that an electoral victory in a partisan primary was the same as winning the general election. Clearly, it wasn't. The partisans who carried the day in the primary were later outnumbered, and Lamont paid the price for it.

While the Kossacks may feel that the American people are on their side on the issue of the war (and I think that's debatable,) they will make the mistake of believing that agreement on one issue constitutes agreement on all issues. Just wait. It will happen. With this much time to go before the election, they will screw up bbig time and the Democrats will pay for it. The Kossacks are just too full of themselves.

30% of Democrats think Bush blew up the WTC.

Even more have endorsed the Tinkerbell Plan.

The Tinkerbell Plan:

1) Withdraw troops to Okinawa
2) Close eyes and believe in fairies

___

Now, some of the smart ones may have lately realized how truely wacked this stuff is (Koppel, Obey, Lieberman, Davis, WP) but we can only hope that the Dem. candidates will keep lurching left.

The reason the Nutroots don't see a problem with this is that they are a minority, they know it, and they still want to full control.

Basically they don't give a rats ass about Democracy or popular rule. They view themselves as some class of elites and deserving of control.

These guys are on a secular-political jihad that has zero tolerance for dissent. It's better to view them and what they'll do next based on religious fanaticism than logic.

Robert ..., calling Obey "smart" simply because he realizes the nutroots are off their buckets isn't quite right.

Broken clock theory in full effect. He's not sitting squarely on his bucket, either.

It always cracks me up when the far-right wingnuts on Wizbang act as if they are in the mainstream -- as if what you wackjobs think has any resemblance to what Americans in general think.

"Publicus, it's not about who gets "upset." It's about the image this gives the Democrats as nut-jobs among the non-political types who make up most of the voting population."

That's right - it's all about votes you fruitloops... and here's what real Americans are thinking:

A majority of Republicans are not satisfied with the GOP presidential candidates running for the party's nomination in 2008 and would like more choices, a new poll reveals.

In the CBS News/New York Times survey of 1,362 adults nationwide, 57 percent of Republican primary voters said they want more candidates in the field, while 40 percent said they were satisfied with the current slate of GOP presidential hopefuls.

In contrast, 57 percent of Democratic primary voters said they are satisfied with the Democratic candidates, and only 39 percent want more choices.

Democrats are also more confident that a candidate from their party will win the White House in 2008 -- 84 percent of Democratic primary voters expect a Democrat to win next year, while 8 percent believe a Republican will win.

Among Republicans, 50 percent believe a GOP candidate will win, and 36 percent say a Democrat will prevail.

Overall, 61 percent of those surveyed expect a Democrat to win, and 26 percent expect a Republican victory.

Check back next week and we'll see if those numbers change.

Hey Lee, are the folks who respond to the polls you site the same type of folks who post the following in comments sections?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3097.html

by Toast on 03.14.2007 at 07:44 AM

Faux Noise picks boogers.

Faux Noise viewers eat booger sandwiches.

I don't see the Democrats as any more "radical" than they were when they won majorities in the House and Senate in November. If not appearing on a Fox News hosted debate is the big change...

What are the radical policies being pushed by Kos? Not appearing on Fox "News" in Nevada certainly doesn't qualify. Supporting a candidate who opposes the war in Iraq in a Democratic primary doesn't qualify either.

you could show me a poll tomorrow that said the planet would burn up like marshmellow and i still would not belive a thing a cbs/nyt poll said. a poll indeed :P

Well, Publicus, the proof will come after the next election.

I think the proof came in the last election.

Since when do real Americans pay attention to the far left Times, or CBS?

CBS has already proven itself to be the 'Tass' of North America, a propaganda arm of the far left. (See Rather, Dan) NYT has a decades long history of liberalism.

That you refer to them as 'real' only enforces the idea that youre so far IN to the far left ideology, you cant be objective anymore.

Posted by: Publicus at March 14, 2007 02:15 PM

Indeed. Moderate democrats were voted in and doddering old republicans voted out.

Proof being: the public wanted a change and thought to give the dems a shot. But not the looney ones.

Blue dogs in, Lamont ... not so much.

Hence, the point of this entire discussion.

Time will tell Junior.
At this time in the 1992 cycle, Clinton polled at 8 % (go ahead, prove me wrong BG2k; I expect crickets from you) and conventional wisdom had the election in Bush 41's pocket.

Remember, it ain't over till it's over

Jay Tea,

The nation won't even skip a beat doing without the coverage of candidates debate hosted by hate TV Fox news.

Those who count on Fox news for anything more than right wing fundie trash talk can go pick their nose in the corner. All the rest of us will live just fine without you.

"pick their nose in the corner"

What's up with the booger theme, today?

CB, I don't see Fox trying to stifle speech, or rolling about in hate-mongering swill as does Moveon and their ilk.

What say you?

Actually, Lee, I know my views aren't in the mainstream, nor are they represented accurately by either the right or the left. I've seen well-done polls turn out to be wildly wrong, and I've seen wild-ass guesses turn out correct, and place my bets on neither therefore.

We need both political parties strong enough to beat the bad apples out of both, but it's not happening.

And for the record, among the major political planks, I am:
100% pro-2nd amendment as supporting individual rights to keep and bear arms, but not a gun owner (currently).
Reluctantly pro-choice, because the alternative is worse.
Pro-same sex marriage, because it's not the governments business, nor is it Mrs. Grundys.
Pro-legalization of marijuana, because it's no better or worse than tobacco and alcohol, and wastes valuable law enforcement resources, however I am no pot smoker.
Pro-state and federal school funding, and would prefer a voucher system to reward stronger schools.
Pro-social safety net, give people having a bad time of it a break, while assuring that it is not taken advantage of.
Anti-high taxes, because it's been amply demonstrated that higher taxes are counterproductive to everyone except Congresscritters.
And, of course, 100% pro-defense. Support our military, keep it strong, and when we send our troops in harms way, back them all the way to victory.

Since when do real Americans pay attention to the far left Times, or CBS?

What's "far left"? Opposition to the war in Iraq? Or requiring warrants when our government spies on people?

Also, you're dreaming if you think the last election was a big triumph of "blue dog" democrats over some alleged radical fringe...

BTW --

Thanks for insulting the millions who watch CBS and read the Times as being not real Americans...

Yeah, people who oppose YOUR particular views can't be real Americans...

Good grief Publicus. The 2006 elections revealed two things, neither earth-shaking:  that the country is both war-weary and incumbent-weary.  2008 is an entirely new ballgame, holding infinitely more meaning than the last, off-cycle election.  With no Bush to campaign against the Democrats are in the same ideological morass that they have been in for the last 20 years:  having to go in front of an American electorate and explain what they actually stand for.  Good luck there, friend.

The two wildcards are progress in Iraq and who gets the GOP nomination.  I honestly believe that it almost doesn't matter who the Dems nominate, although if it's Hillary then even a weak GOP nominee should have an easy ride.  If the surge produces tangible gains for the mission (which I expect) then the only hope for the Democrat nominee is if the GOP nominates another Dole.  My money's on the eloquence, principled conservatism and campaign savvy of Newt Gingrich, with the resulting nutroots meltdown at such an outcome producing the political spectacle of a lifetime.