nadir

* " The GOP made a net gain of four seats -- four -- in the House. They owe those gains almost entirely to Tom DeLay's unprecedented mid-term redistricting plan in Texas, which broke tradition along with a number of campaign finance laws, leaving several participants in the scheme under indictment." http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/11/index.html#004702

* "Forget Red America and Blue America. We're living on Red Planet and Blue Planet, or maybe even Dimension Blue and Dimension Red."
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2004/11/index.html#004701

* i mentioned earlier that the closest thing to successful framing is the prochoice/abortion thing. which doesnt really work anyway - and now prochoice is merely a substitute for abortion. meanwhile, the maladmin saves a few stemcells and lies their botties off to go to war and kill 101100 people and via some bizzaro logic end up as the moral crew. and they ban gaymarriage and call themselves moral. theres nothing moral about banning any marriage. its pure bigotry. the homosexuality itself, and/or the acts thereof, are purportedly a moral issue - the marriage has nothing to do with morality. meanwhile, 43 campaigned in 2000 saying that gayness is a state issue *and he said the same in the last week of this campaign* - yet somehow he wins the moral vote.

* 'pro-choice' should be a platform - not a synonym for abortion. but they probably cant use it for anything else any more. how about 'civil rights' again? that can be all encompassing. the civil right to practise any religion - otherwise there might be a time when *your* religion is at risk. the civil right to your own sexuality - otherwise there might be a time when *your daughters* sexuality is at risk. the civil right to be any race - otherwise there might be a time when *your grandson* is at risk if you or your child want to marry someone of a 'different' race. the civil right to read any book at the library - otherwise there might be a time when *you* cant rad what you want. etc.

* in the same vain - the estrich/swiftboat/notalking points thing just shows how they simply dont get it. i make sure my dad has talking points when he has an important phone call for chrissake. estrich is hardly an insider - shes hardly a fucking democrat - and they are sending her in empty handed. what are they hoping to achieve? and why arent they trying to minimise damage? to the extent that the story is true, its so damning. everyone who contributed to the $500million should be furious furious furious. the story is almost so absurd that it cant be true - but the inability to construct an effective msg mebbe points to it being true. and it comes back to two of my other points - 1. the dems assume that reality matters - or at least is sufficient. 2. the dems struggle to get beyond a laundry list - and while its true that each line item ought to disqualify the opponent, we've seen repeatedly that many knockoutout blows doesnt necessarily mean a knockout blow in bizarro world. somehow.

* in another example, the dems apparently didnt have a concession speech written - which is kinda cute - but it means that they dont get it. the radmin prolly had 10 different acceptance speechs written and could choose which one to use depending on the mood. and they probably had a few options if the machines didnt work as well.

* at least we didnt change horses midstream.

* at least 43 will have to manage his lil war in iraq

* at least there was an election of sorts

* at least there were no terrorist attacks (in america)



________________________________________________________________________________
Four more years. Seriously.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com