Republicans should take heart, because from Senator Hillary Clinton's own mouth we learn that Republicans are hard to stop!
"I know it's frustrating for many of you, it's frustrating for me. Why can't the Democrats do more to stop them?" she continued to growing applause. "I can tell you this: It's very hard to stop people who have no shame about what they're doing. It is very hard to tell people that they are making decisions that will undermine our checks and balances and constitutional system of government who don't care. It is very hard to stop people who have never been acquainted with the truth."
Also hard to stop: people who keep winning elections. Yeah, democracy sucks, but what can you do?
In some of her sharpest language, Mrs. Clinton said that abetting Republicans was a Washington press corps that has become a pale imitation of the Watergate-era reporters who are being celebrated amid the identification of the Washington Post source Deep Throat."It's shocking when you see how easily they fold in the media today," Mrs. Clinton said, again to strong applause. "They don't stand their ground. If they're criticized by the White House, they just fall apart.
"I mean, c'mon, toughen up, guys, it's only our Constitution and country at stake."
Last time I checked, only our elected/appointed government officials take oaths to protect the Constitution, so why is Hillary trying to fob her job off on the press? They only use the protections of the Constitution to make money -- which isn't bad, but certainly isn't noble either.
(HT: GayPatriot and PoliPundit, who have worse things to say about her.)
The more the Republicans have... the more they have to lose.
Mark: Therefore we should aim to have nothing, so we can't lose it!
MW; Therefore nothing. Your statement is a non-sequitur.
Its an excercise in common sense.
Those with more can lose more,
those with less lose less,
those with everything can lose everything
and those with nothing have freedom another word for nothing left to lose.
MW's statement is the oposite of your statment which can derived from common sense yet for some reason MW's is the only non-sequitur because it simply points out that we exist in a world that is somewhat governed by common sense?
tP: What makes MW's statement a non-sequitur is the "Therefore" preface... the claim that his statement logically follows from mine. It does not. My statement merely points out that Republicans stand to lose a lot more in the elections of 2006 and beyond than Democrats and that only fools believe such losses to be a remote possibility.
MW's statement, as prefaced by "Therefore", asserts that I was suggesting the Republicans should aim to have nothing so they can't lose anything. Never did I intend to suggest anything like that.
Let me put it another way...
Remaining in the majority is often more difficult than becoming the majority.
The Republicans have made enough mistakes to effectively eliminate any sense of security in upcoming elections.
The Democrats have done the same. Just when you think the Democrats are closing the gap on the Right, full-blown crazies like Hillary and Dean blow up within 48 hours of each other. Quite unbalanced.
Mark: I was just pointing out that your observation was tautological. Futher, having more to lose doesn't necessarily make it more likely that you're going to lose what you've got. It's almost certain that the Republicans will lose their majority eventually, but the fact that they have a majority now doesn't necessarily bring that future date any closer.
MW: No, it doesn't "necessarily" indicate anything... but it is, as I stated, often more difficult to remain the majority than it is to become the majority.
DD: Oh yes, Democrats make plenty of mistakes too. The advantage of being the minority party, though, is that it tends to result in better unity. Dean may undermine that unity to a certain extent as DNC chair, but I'd say that the Democrats are still more unified than the Republicans; McCain's involvement in the judicial filibuster issue and disagreements between Republicans in Congress and the White House on embryonic stem cells being among the evidence of such.
When either party is in the majority (with both the White House and Congress) is when we see the diversity within that party emerge most prominently. The same is true of unity when the party is in the minority.
His statement doesn't logically follow yours? Its a prefectly logical and quite obvious response to the issue of having more to lose. If he said "Therefore Ted Kennedy got drunk, crashed his car in a river, and left a woman to die in his car," while factual, that would be a non-sequitor. Simpling verbilizng a relation between simple mathematical inequalities, however is not.
Plus the Republicans really aren't in danger in the Senate until 2008.
tP: "Simpling verbilizng a relation between simple mathematical inequalities, however is not."
The statement that the more you have, the more you have to lose does not logically imply that you should aspire to have nothing. If he left off the "Therefore" preface, as I said, it would've made more sense logically.
The use of "therefore" makes it seem like I was implying the aspiration of nothing to avoid having anything to lose. I was not.
tP: "Its a prefectly logical and quite obvious response to the issue of having more to lose."
It's obvious... and "prefect"... but the "therefore" part of it throws it off the rails completely in terms of logically following my statement.