Tucker Carlson says GOP will win in '08.

His list of reasons why....

1.) First of all, when times are uncertain, people want strong leadership.

The Republican Party is the "Sit up and eat your peas or we're gonna spank you party," he said. "The Democrats are softer, more compassionate, like Mommy ... the kind of guy who cries at Meg Ryan movies."

2.) Another reason Democrats won't take the White House in 2008, Carlson said, is they've yet to learn what Republicans learned while Bill Clinton was president. After independent council Kenneth Starr's report on Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky was made public, the president's approval rating went up.

"How do you explain that? It's just perverse," he said. "It's a reflection of the discomfort with those who are attacking."


I think he's wrong to assume the GOP will win on these points alone, but I think his first reason holds some water. We need to overcome the 'weak on national security and defense' myth if we're going to have a legitmate chance of winning big in '06, '08, and beyond. Its just a matter of how? How can we do it without becomming just like the other side?

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1133518658249670.xml&coll=1

Tucker Carlson says bow ties look cool on men younger than 60.

Tucker Carlson is a fucking dumbass.

Fucker Carlson is stuck in 2004. He needs to realize that people see through the crap now--they saw how Nero strummed his guitar as New Orleans drowned, they saw his government stick their noses into the Schiavo affair, they saw all the "intel" for the war come apart as it was quickly revealed they'd lied to us, and now they are facing calls from BOTH sides of the aisle to end this war.

Fucker Carlson is shilling for his corporate masters. There's no fact behind any of that bilge.

As the topic poster said, it's a "myth". Myths, however, have a way of influencing people...espcially when Republicans realize the myth/perception is there and try to play to it and pretend it's reality (as Carlson did here)

1. Times are uncertain BECAUSE of Bush.

2. Bush will still be in freefall because of #1.

Do you actually call this leadership strong?????????????

You already know part of my answer, lol. I won't go there with the first reply to your thread (that I could see when I wrote this anyway). Instead I will just agree with you that we need to take this matter seriously.

This is a serious problem facing our party and it goes far beyond who you or I support in '08. People want a strong Commander in Chief. I doubt anyone would deny that. But if the Democrats fail to get out from behind the weak on national security and defense shadow. They will never really be able to compete election after election.

One that makes the case that global cooperation is NOT selling out or weakening America but just the opposite. I fear that too many Democrats who are concerned about not seeming weak on National Security take the easy way out, and compete with Republicans at sounding tough to supposedly give them "credibility". We need to make a compelling case about how our true national interests can be defended in the world rather than undercut in the world the way the present Administration is doing. Which is one reason why I feel so strongly that we need to hold the Bush Administration accountable for each and every lie they told to justify their criminal acts. A top down attitude that condoned torture led directly to Abu Ghraib, and that set back our true National Security by a decade.

n/t

there stronger on defense issues. i always point out to him the fact that clinton bombed the shit out of yugoslavia (is it still called that) he protected the people in kosovo and he bombed saddam a few times when he wouldn't let the UN check for weapons.

I point out Clintons numerous air attacks, but his critics always point our two things... The draft issue and Somalia.

Odd. Very odd.

was involved in 911 and he said yes.

vote -- so at least we didn't cancel each other out. lol but there is hope. he likes mark warner -- saw him on C-span and said he would vote for him.

met him. and he's far from a dumbass -- actually he has a very high IQ, has been with an international company for 36 years and makes a very good living. there are many intelligent people who are republicans.

okay...
There are also many very greedy people who make "a very good living" who are republicans.

But, you know, I've never put much stock in my apparently high score. All it really indicates is that one tests well.

mine time debating with you. goodbye

have fun spending his $$$$

lives and now we're comfortable. what's wrong with that? a good income also gives us the opportunity to be very charitable with those less fortunate than us.

dumb is that?

what you say to people. i'm also wondering how old you are.

Why does he still believe this? Even most pro-war Republican leaders have publically dispelled this theory. I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people hold on to this idea.

Saddam had isolated himself in a box of paranoia, and was no threat to anyone. Why would anybody believe he trusted anyone enough to collaborate on such a project?

he, McCain, was WRONG about Kosovo!

because people liked his policies and didn't much care about Monica. No one likes anything this administration or the repuke congress have done, the policies are not popular. Big difference.

The 'eat your peas' argument, if I have heard it once from him, I have heard it a thousand times. The little putz needs some new material.

I'll bet he predicted George H. W. Bush in a walk against Clinton, too.

As for WEAK ON DEFENSE--two words: JACK MURTHA. We OWN that issue now. We are the party making sense, and the damn generals agree with us. The GOP can try to spin the old themes, but the guys doing the planning are not backing them up anymore. We advocate a RATIONAL, SUSTAINABLE Defense Policy.

And that beats the hell out of the GOP's claim to fame: INCOMPETENT ON DEFENSE!!!

*

in Time magazine's poll just out yesterday. 60% want a president that is "completely different" from Bush.

People want "strong leadership"? Like what Bush has given them the last 8 years?

We may lose in '08 but not because of strong Repub leadership.

Doesn't make it so. :P

"The kind of guy who cries at Meg Ryan movies"?! Who in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster cries at a Meg Ryan movie?! Is this Tucker the -ucker's lame attempt at thinly veiled homophobia, a la "San Francisco Democrats"?

It is a worthwhile discussion though.

One of the reasons I was a Clark 08 person was that Iraq and terra were very big issues to many voters.

However, three years is a long time. Who knows what most voters will want? Obviously they will still want to feel safe, but they may want a president who is more inclined to keep his nose and troops out of other countries.

edit: this was supposed to be a reply to the original message.

:thumbsdown:

Give me 60 seconds with that piece of shit and we'll see who's crying

of those fuckers out there need a LONG 60 seconds.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:hide:





:hi:

list.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

i wish you would and then you'll wind up where you belong -- in jail.

and needs to use foul language is simpleminded.

Now, that was mean!

feelings or maybe you haven't met the right person yet.

the Republicans first have to offer a no-bid contractor $1,000 for the bag of peas, then they have to use their grandkid's credit card to "pay" for the peas, then, of course, they have to lie to the pea eating public and put surrogates on TV proclaiming that any criticism of the pea purchase will embolden the enemies of dinner.

;)

:)

Message to all you kids out there:
The defenders of dinner have fought hard so that you could have the freedom to consume all manner of produce. If you do not eat your peas, the vegetable terrorists will have...aw nevermind, just eat your peas!

Jesus, Meg Ryan would beat the SHIT out of him.

we don't @!$%& have it. Also, they should also examine 911 and ponder who the F was in office when it occurred.

Further, Bush's approval rating has NOT gone up, and questioning his actions/lies/record as president - are/is not akin to questioning Clinton's sex life.

Tucker ~ your a dope.

"uncertain?" I can't remember a time when the whole world didn't feel like it was going batshit crazy, except for a few years back in the 90's.....oh yeah, that's right....the years when a DEM was president.

Maybe he should look at the correlation between those two factors and see if he can parse a cause-and-effect relationship.

Or US citizens struggling for food and a roof over their head.
Or hundreds dying while the administration dicked around
pretending that Homeland Security could handle anything.

Repubs just don't give a damn. That's the real difference.

and their 'loyal followers' won't necessarily get out to vote then,,,,,

I cannot stand to listen to this man speak.

national security is important. The GoOp's will say look at all of the candidates with that type of experience on their side. It will be up to our side to show them the errors, outright lies and complete trashing of America's standing in the world. Democrats must speak credibly to national secuity with authority and credentials.

We won't overcome the supposed "weak on national security and defense" with inexperienced candidates that can only cite what they have been briefed on. It is clear that the public wants somebody very different than *, this next election cycle. * stole the office of the presidency with loads of inexperience and overt reliance on supposed experts and advisors. Been there, done that! Candidates without national security credentials are not as credible when addressing national security issues.

Democratic congressional candidates are showing a number of veterans becoming involved and they are being met with open arms.

Especially after he sez stuff like Cheney is tight like a dog.

That would be the Democrats who ARE Leaders..these Machavelians come under the heading of Misleaders..and they're as weak as newborn kittens now..my apologies to kittens everywhere.

.....and now ole *ucker thinks he's Nostradammus.

And IDIOTIC leadership. I think the people are starting to realize that the idiots are in charge. But strong leadership also includes admitting you have a made a mistake and working to correct it. Bush will do no such thing. He is rigid and inflexible, not a strong leader.

To quote a great non-American, any hope he had of convincing anyone that he's a serious reporter went out the window a loooooong time ago. He's still just regurgitating RW talking points and he isn't even very good at it.

They now trail the Democrats by double digits in the race for control of congress. Most people do NOT trust the GOP anymore.

When voters are asked about their specific congressman/woman they generally have a very favorable opinion of them.

His opinions mean nothing!!!

...Diebold. We Have The Machines, You Have The Vote

wannabees. Warner said we shouldn't look at the causes of the Iraq war...funny, huh?

He never said we shouldnt look at the causes. He said our priority should be focusing on a plan to bring our troops home. "Less on how we got there, more on how we get out."

Be careful what you wish for leesa. One day the DLC and moderate Democrats like myself may just get up and leave. Then you'll have 5 U.S. Senators, 20 House members, and zero chance of winning the Presidency.

If your so upset with the DLC being involved in Democratic politics... Why dont you just leave? I hear the Greens are accepting members.

:hi:

"Fortunately, I already have done that research. This is a representation of the last Congress's votes with the highest numbers going to those that most reflect progressive policy where it counts....when votes come up for actual legislation."

Harkin (Iowa) 95
Boxer (CA) 90
Lautenberg (NJ) 90
Akaka (Hawaii) 80
Corzine (NJ) 80
Dayton (MN) 80
Durbin (IL) 80
Feingold (WI) 80
Kennedy (MA) 80
Kerry (MA) 80 - DLC
Levin (MI) 80
Dodd (CN) 70 - DLC
Leahy (VT) 70
Mikulski (MD) 70
Reed (RI) 70
Sarbanes (MD) 70
Shumer (NY) 70
Wyden (OR) 70
Clinton (NY) 65 - DLC
Obama (IL) 65
Bayh (IN) 60 - DLC
Biden (DE) 60
Dorgan (ND) 60 - DLC
Stabenow (MI) 60 - DLC
Byrd (WV) 50
Inouye (Hawaii) 50
Murray (WA) 50
Reid (NV) 50
Rockefeller (WV) 50
Baucus (MN) 45 - DLC
Bingaman (NM) 40
Cantwell (WA) 40 - DLC
Johnson (SD) 40 - DLC
Kohl (WI) 40 - DLC
Conrad (ND) 35 - DLC
Feinstein (CA) 35
Carper (DE) 30 - DLC
Leiberman (CT) 30 - DLC
Landrieu (LA) 20 - DLC
Lincoln(ARK) 20 - DLC
Nelson (FL) 20 - DLC
Salazar (CO) 20 - DLC
Pryor (ARK) 15 - DLC
Nelson (NE) 0 - DLC

Just look at all those DLC voters in the bottom of the barrel...

By the way Wyden and Schumer are DLC. There are probably others on the list who you neglected to mark as DLC, but Im too lazy to look them up.

Watergate and Ford's pardon of Nixon. When the scandal is a REAL scandal instead of some trouser dropping episode it WILL hurt the incumbent party.

Hmmm.... some of us have known this meme for three years now and drafted the candidate best suited for overcoming that myth.

Not to mention that said candidate is a liberal perceived as a moderate, is from the South/mid-West, where our votes are scarcest and is highly intelligent on economic matters, as well.

:eyes:

is the dem nom. sorry love her husband, but that doesn't make her qualified to be president.

Being a Superpower means recognizing that real power has to be used sparingly. That's because real power resides in the perception of invincibility.

But, as we've learned in Iraq, Superpowers are not really invincible. War is an ugly expensive business, and it drains the coffers, monopolizes the attention and demoralizes even the strongest of nations.

The GOP shot that wad by invading Iraq. They squandered our power, and the outside perception of our power, needlessly by puting so many eggs in the basket of trying to ursurp a tinhorn dictator.

The rest of the world see's what it is doing to us. It makes us ultimately look weaker and more vuilnerable.

So, if the aim of the GOP was to flex our muscles and scare the world into submission to our will, their actions have had the opposite effect.

Thus, restraint and intelligence is the real way to be truly strong on national defense.

he's seen the proprietary code on the e-voting machines.

he had a good idea for a new show


Hmmmmm

What happened to that plan

:rofl:

MSNBC show.







































:sarcasm:

We are so mired down in Iraq, with the costs and all our troops being there.....we are unable to do anything else.

This whole damn presidency is about Iraq and Bush's legacy at this point.

Just today the 911 commission said we are still not prepared for another attack....does this surprise anyone?

Bush is all about rhetoric and smoke and mirrors. There is little substance to him and his phony little speeches.

He is a FAKE president.....no more that a puppet of the neo-cons. He is mentally unstable and very dangerous to this country.

Hell, people are actually discussing World War 3. He must be impeached if we are ever to get our credibility back!! People better wake up before it is too late!!!