« Saddam Captured: The T-shirt | Home | It’s Wictory Wednesday »
The Democrats’ ScandalGate
By Matt Margolis | December 16, 2003
How many times can you keep saying “The Democrats have reached a new low,” or “The Democrats can’t get any lower,” before it just becomes cliché?
Paralyzed by George W. Bush’s immensely successful presidency, the Democrats consistently find themselves looking for a scandal where there is none.
Just in the past few weeks, we get Howard Dean putting out a ridiculous theory on Bush and 9-11 solely for the purpose of getting it talked about, even though he knows it’s not true. There’s Bush’s Thanksgiving visit to Baghdad, which the Democrats wouldn’t let Bush get away with without trying to blemish that over a turkey…
And what else can we expect now? Of course, the conspiracy theory that Saddam’s capture was planned and was used to help Bush.
Rep. Jim McDermott, (D-WA) said on a Seattle radio station yesterday that the troops could have found Saddam Hussein “a long time ago if they wanted.” When asked if he thought Saddam’s capture was planned to boost George W. Bush, he said: “Yeah. Oh, yeah.”
I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: the Democrats have reached a new low.
“I don’t know that it was definitely planned on this weekend, but I know they’ve been in contact with people all along who knew basically where he was. It was just a matter of time till they’d find him.”
Okay, how is this point in time a politically convenient time for Bush? He’s already gotten a boost as a result of the improving economy, and we’re 11 months away from the election in 2004. What made Sunday, December 14, 2003 such a politically convenient time for Saddam’s capture?
Nothing… Nothing at all.
Some Democrats, in the wake of the fallout of McDermott’s ridiculous remarks have responded negatively to them:
“With all due respect to my colleague, that is a fantasy,” Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said of McDermott’s comments. “That just is not right. … It’s one thing to criticize this administration for having done this war. I mean, that’s a fair question. But to criticize them on the capture of Saddam, when it’s such a big thing to our troops, is just ridiculous.”
These accusations are not only ridiculous and insulting to the President, but also to our military.
It just goes to show you how desperate the Democrats are to try to take George W. Bush down. However, Bush’s successful presidency will not be blemished by the Democrats’ futile attempts. Everytime the Democrats try and scandalize one of Bush’s victories, the American people will know who the slime really are.
Topics: Liberal Idiots |
Related Posts:
December 16th, 2003 at 11:17 am
[…] Matt over at MattMargolis.com has written about the new low that the Democrats are apparently striving for by their continued animosity towards Pres […]
December 16th, 2003 at 2:17 pm
A New Low
Matt over at MattMargolis.com has written about the new low that the Democrats are apparently striving for by their continued animosity towards President Bush.
How many times can you keep saying “The Democrats have reached a new low,” or “The Democra…
December 17th, 2003 at 9:02 am
The question was asked, “How many times can you keep saying The Democrats have reached a new low”? Well, as long as they keep reaching new lows. The democrat presidential hopes are sinking like the Titanic so I expect that phrase will be used by Matt quite often in the next year.
December 17th, 2003 at 9:13 am
The Republicans have reached a new low. With the conviction of Janklow all Republican are guilty of manslaughter.
December 17th, 2003 at 11:26 am
i guess all democrats are guilty of perjury and rape and murder and voter fraud.
December 17th, 2003 at 11:50 am
Frank that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.
December 17th, 2003 at 11:59 am
According to your theory, you are just another crack dealer yourself.
December 17th, 2003 at 3:00 pm
“Frank that is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”
I agree it ranks right up there with what you had to say about mcdermott. One crack pot is an idiot so all democrats have sunk to a new low. SO by your reasoning yes I am guilty of perjury and I cheat on my wife (don’t know about the rape and murder part but I sure you have some sutpid conspiracy somewhere, don’t know about the voter fraud either think you now own that one.) But I guess that is better than being a lyncher, racist, jim crow, environment polluting, lying, professional bullshiter. Take your pick.
December 17th, 2003 at 4:54 pm
there’s a difference Frank.
What McDermott said he said as a congressman which was, by all means, a political attack.
Janklow’s crime has nothing to do with his political affiliation, or his job as congressman.Therefore it is unfair to judge others in his party based on this incident which had nothing to do with his job or politics.
Sophia Merritt’s crime has nothing to do with her political position either, therefore, I have no reason to judge her entire party because of something unrelated to her capacity as a politician.
Hopefully now you can see the difference. McDermott’s attacks were politically motivated, therefore, in the big picture, and in juxtaposition with the other low acts by Democrats of personal attacks, I have every reason to reaffirm my previous statement that the Democrats have sunk to another new low…
December 17th, 2003 at 5:48 pm
You republicans have really sunk to a new low now…
Former Gov. George Ryan was charged today in a sweeping federal indictment accusing him of doling out favors and public contracts in exchange for kickbacks while serving as Illinois secretary of state and governor.
The 22-count indictment includes charges of racketeering, mail and tax fraud, and giving false statements, according to a written statement issued by the office of Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the United States attorney in Chicago.
December 17th, 2003 at 5:49 pm
Then there was that watergate thing. Shame shame shame on you.
December 18th, 2003 at 1:29 am
No Frank the difference is that we Republicans hold our people to a higher standard. If Ryan had been a donk anywhere the party would have rallied around him. The GOP here in Illinois pretty much despise George. (In all likelihood he will get off with no time served. That will be a shame, the bastard should serve time in a medium security facility. Can ya tell I really don’t like Ryan in the least?)
Livingston (the man who would be Speaker) resigned when facing lesser allegations than Clinton. Both involved martial infidelities, but Clinton committed (by his own admission) a felony to try to cover it up.
There was no party support (beyond sympathy) for Janklow compared to the near public orgasm in the 1980 donk convention for Teddy. (Oh how they wanted him to run instead of Carter, but all the delegates were committed.) In both cases people died as a result of the politician’s actions.
Republicans publicly striped Lott of his leadership position, yet the donks continue to laud Byrd. Lott made some racist comments, Byrd was a member of the Klan.
Oh and about Watergate, Nixon was on the verge of Impeachment and due in large part to GOP pressure he resigned. Clinton was actually Impeached and in large part to donk support he stayed.
The difference Frank is that the donks are morally/ethically bankrupt. As long as X corrupt political is a donk they will support him with charges that he/she is being persecuted by the VRWC, because as long as you caaaarrrrre then everything else is secondary.
December 18th, 2003 at 1:38 pm
On Monday, Democrats joined the criticism of McDermott.
“With all due respect to my colleague, that is a fantasy,” Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., said of McDermott’s comments. “That just is not right. … It’s one thing to criticize this administration for having done this war. I mean, that’s a fair question. But to criticize them on the capture of Saddam, when it’s such a big thing to our troops, is just ridiculous.”
December 18th, 2003 at 4:12 pm
Norm Dicks? Who the hell is Norm Dicks? Wake me up when a Democrat that someone outside of their own congressional district has actually ever heard of calls McDermott ridiculous.
When one of the dwarves running for President actually speaks up and calls McDermott an asshole, then I’ll be impressed.
December 18th, 2003 at 6:05 pm
The republicans spent over 100 million investigating whitewater, while only spending 3 mill to investigate 9/11. Matt, you are not very smart.
December 19th, 2003 at 9:03 am
Robert,
Had you ever head of McDermott before his pronouncement? They are both Seattle area representatives you moron.
December 19th, 2003 at 1:22 pm
To hunt and trap an conservative male (aka sister and sheep fucking redneck), you’ll need three items:
1). An Ann Coulter blow-up doll and two deep breaths to inflate it.
2). A bible with all the big words and stupid “love thy neighbor” stuff cut out.
3). A gun several times larger than his penis…which includes the tiniest of derringers.
Lay these items out in plain sight in the nearest run-down trailer you can find. Wait for one of the bare-footed Doggies to come wandering by on his way home from his latest Alcoholics Anonymous/Domestic Violence/Premature Ejaculation support group (aka KKK) and there you go! The conservative male will lunge into the trailer, you slam the door and you’ve caught yourself a moron. The rest is up to you.
To hunt and trap an conservative female (aka goat-fucking slut), you’ll need seven items:
1). Tequila
2). Donuts
3). Whiskey
4). Beer (none of that fancy bottled stuff either, they prefer cans so that they can use the empties as decorative ashtrays around the holidays)
5). Midol
6). Valium
7). More liquor
Get ahold of any cruddy, imported car (years 1977-1981) get rid of the muffler and drive around 7-11s and Mini-marts until you see a female Doggie get off her shift or taking a filterless cigarette break. Wave the Donuts and Tequila at her, pop open the hatch-back trunk and let her start in on her drinkie-poos as you drive off. She’ll be drunken, nasty putty in your hands by the time you’ve gone three blocks. Wipe off her daddy’s come and the rest is up to you!
December 20th, 2003 at 10:00 am
I see that “isitstinky” has mastered the art of cut and paste. He/it is posting this same “comment” on various conservative blogs. It’s a weak ripoff of a blogger’s post about “Hunting and trapping hippies”. A little history about “isitskinky”. This particular troll likes to pretend it’s a teenage girl but in reality he/it is a middle aged man and from what I have read in other blogs, has pedophile tendencies.
December 20th, 2003 at 10:12 pm
Public Service Annoucement:
Thanks Trollbaiter, but let me educate your readers about I-sit-stinky’s post.
This is actually the story of his mom and his sperm-donor “father’s” courtship. She just used the term “anti-idiotarian” to make him think that her IQ was above room temperature.
IMO, don’t take this troll seriously. He doesn’t want to believe his mother lied to him.
Now back to the topic of this thread…
December 20th, 2003 at 10:19 pm
Matt, will you let me know your e-mail addy? (just e-mail me)
December 22nd, 2003 at 11:45 pm
You are exactly right, brother! What we so desperately need is a one-party system in this country. What these anti-American, leftist, socialist, commie, arty, satanic democrats don’t understand is that our government would run so much more efficiently without them. Just think of how ground-breaking it would be if one of our guys, say Bush, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, Buchanan or Jerry Falwell were President, and had an all-Republican congress to work with! Any-and-all policies would be shot through the pipe like “you know what” through a goose, and then rubber stamped into law without so much as a clearing-of-the-throat from liberal traitors like Biden or Clinton.
Dissent is over-rated in its importance! I agree with you: suppress all opposing(left wing or not ultra right wing) view-points, using, if needed, the police powers of federal, state and local police, and make it all look legal both before implementation and after the ACLU lawsuits via our radical right federal and state judges. Much like Hitler had himself appointed Chancellor-ror-Life, we’ll have our policies etched in stone by our judges. To hell with a Bill of Rights!
December 26th, 2003 at 6:21 am
What, as opposed to a one party system composed of democrats? I imagine you wouldn’t be complaining, if that were the case. After all, with a liberal democrat, it’s called dissent. With a conservative, it’s called “hate-mongering” The only thing you had correct in your sarcastic comment was your “name”. In the future, especially considering the latest crop of liberal democrats, you could use as a “name” right=right/left=hypocrisy
May 21st, 2006 at 6:35 pm
efjcznlu
efjcznlu