When Cindy Sheehan stepped into the political and allowed herself to be manipulated by the Left she blew her grieving mom protective cover and is now fair game and open to criticism. No more free pass based on grief. I'm not seeing much grief but I am seeing a lot of scripted anti-Bush, anti-America, anti-Israel invective.

CD2 DFL Candidate Coleen Rowley has decided to join the Crawford protest.

Why would Rowley allow herself to be so easily branded as an antiwar candidate in a conservative district, running against a war hero?

"Why would Rowley allow herself to be so easily branded as an antiwar candidate in a conservative district, running against a war hero?"

Because she's an idiot.

As I said before Mitch - bringing up her divorce has absolutely nothing to do with the issues she raises. It's an ad hominem - and nasty personal attack. You didn't just link to this from Danged if I know - you posted it once, then bumped it up - and the part of the post visible from the front page clearly showed this was about a divorce filing.

I know you are capable of better argument than that.

Comprehend much, Eva?

*I moved it up because I found that my suspicions were groundless*.

The idea that bringing up Sheehan's divorce is a "nasty personal attack" is absurd when one considers she is openly discussing it in detail with major news outlets. Her husband also publicly weighed in on the subject the other day.

Of course, this whole episode is absurd.

The Democratic Party is disintegrating. Once they accepted Al Sharpton as a legitimate presidential candidate, they yielded the field to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and now Cindy Sheehan. They have no ideas, no strategy, and no leadership; all that remains is their absurd anti-American propaganda and TVLand martyrdom.

And we all know whose strategy that really is, and ultimately, how it will fail.

"The Democratic Party is disintegrating."

Funny... From where I'm standing, it's the Republicans falling apart under the weight of their own corruption and scandals.

"Once they accepted Al Sharpton as a legitimate presidential candidate,"

"They" Eracus? Who is this "they" you refer to? The last time I checked, John Kerry won the Democratic nomination, not Al Sharpton. And Eracus, perhaps you were unaware of this but just about ANYONE is able to declare a run for the Presidency.

"They have no ideas, no strategy, and no leadership"

Uh huh... Unlike you guys who thought it was a swell idea to invade a country based on information that you knew was false. Your strategy is to stay the course - right over the cliff and your leadership can't even eat a pretzel while watching Hee Haw without getting injured.

"And we all know whose strategy that really is"

Let me guess... You're gonna say George Soros right? Either Soros or Al Franken...

>>"From where I'm standing, it's the Republicans falling apart under the weight of their own corruption and scandals."<<

I know! That's why we can't seem to win local, state, or national elections for beans! Damn!

Oh, wait . . .

Thanks again, Doug, for proving my point.

""They" Eracus? Who is this "they" you refer to? The last time I checked, John Kerry won the Democratic nomination, not Al Sharpton."

That's not what he said. He said Sharpton was "accepted as a serious candidate". He got equal time with the rest of the Dem slate.

It wasn't far removed from giving David Duke equal time as a GOP candidate, except of course that the GOP didn't accept Duke as a candidate.

"And Eracus, perhaps you were unaware of this but just about ANYONE is able to declare a run for the Presidency."

See if it gets you on "Meet the Press", into the debates, or a seat at the horse-trading.

"Uh huh... Unlike you guys who thought it was a swell idea to invade a country based on information that you knew was false."

a) Wrong
b) Changing the subject!

"Let me guess... You're gonna say George Soros right?"

And that would be wrong why?

"And Eracus, perhaps you were unaware of this but just about ANYONE is able to declare a run for the Presidency.

See if it gets you on 'Meet the Press', into the debates, or a seat at the horse-trading."

That's true. Let me know when Ronnie James Dio is on Fox News Sunday
http://dioforamerica.com/

Or when Christopher Walken is part of the debates
http://www.walken2008.com/

My money's on Walken, but only if he promises More Cowbell !!

For comic relief, see a couple of snaps I took at the Move-On vigil in my neck of the woods last week. They came, they tried to keep candles lit, but the damned wind screwed that up, and the 75 or so that showed up dried up and blew away about 25 minutes after the "vigil" began. Thank God I didn't recognize anyone and vice versa. These people were so very prototypical humorless lefties..I felt for the kids that some brought along.

Actually Mitch, what Eracus said was,

"Once they accepted Al Sharpton as a legitimate presidential candidate, they yielded the field to Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and now Cindy Sheehan."

Couple issues here...

First, Eracus is suggesting a chronological connection between Sharpton's entry into the Presidential race running as a Democrat and some delusion that Michael Moore, MoveOn or Sheehan suddenly began directing policy decisions for the Democratic party.

It's a ridiculous statement on Erasus's part but I'm sure rather than backing up his statement with facts, he'll fire off another arbitrary "you proved my point" comment.

Second, Sharpton was given a platform early in the primaries so democratic voters could determine whether or not he was a legitimate presidential candidate. He didn't get the nomination so logic should tell you that he wasn't a viable candidate.

Third, (and I understand you were an english major so you'll understand this) Eracus says "they" an awful lot. "They" is used as a pronoun to generalize Democrats. Well, I'm a Democrat and I never believed Sharpton was a legitimate candidate. In fact, I don't know anyone who believed he was a legitimate candidate. Some people may have but clearly, they weren't representative of the Democratic party or He would have gotten the nomination.

So my question for Eracus remains... Who is the "they" you refer to Eracus?

As for the Duke comment, a more accurate comparison would be Alan Keyes. Nobody thought he was a viable candidate yet he ran as a Republican in the 2000 primaries.

"First, Eracus is suggesting a chronological connection between Sharpton's entry into the Presidential race running as a Democrat and some delusion that Michael Moore, MoveOn or Sheehan suddenly began directing policy decisions for the Democratic party."
------------------------
If Michael Moore, MoveOn.org, and Cindy Sheehan are not making policy decisions for the Democratic Party, then who is? Where is John Kerry? Where is Al Gore? Is it Howard Dean? How about Nancy Pelosi? Is it Harry Reid? Maybe it's Paul Krugman, or maybe Maureen Dowd. Sean Penn maybe?

And what's the strategy? Is it still "Bush lied?" Or is it just "Let's surrender?" Maybe it's still "count every vote." We just don't know because no one in the Democratic Party has the integrity to oppose the fanatical frenzy of warmed over hippies and the maniacal moonbat mob who believe history began the day they were born. It's still the Wonder Years for the Democratic Party; they're stuck in 1968 -- it's Joan Baez and Jane Fonda if it's not Michael Moore and Markos "Screw 'em" Zuniga. And where is Bill Clinton? Playing golf at Kennebunkport with the president's father. Where is Hillary? Polishing John McCain's shoes. Even rats know a sinking ship when they see one.

Who are they? "They" are those among us who enjoy the privilege and fortune the rest of us provide, who then condemn us for the means by which we provide it. They are the worms in the wood of their own sinking boat, who have nothing to offer but anger and hatred, and who see nothing good in the the few who sacrifice all for the needs of the many. They are the new face of the Democratic Party, whose once grand tradition is now stuck in a ditch in the middle of Texas. Talk about poetic justice.....

Eracus,

Wow. That's just a really really bizarre rant.

If I recall, you used "they" to generalize Democrats. You then go on to say,

"They" are those among us who enjoy the privilege and fortune the rest of us provide, who then condemn us for the means by which we provide it.

So, what you're saying is Democrats enjoy the privilege and fortune that you provide, but then condemn you for the means by which you provide it.

But wait...

Paul Hacket is a Democrat. You enjoy the privilege and fortune that he provided right? Why did the right attack, minimize and slander his responsibilities and accomplishments in Iraq?

I'll bet you enjoy the privileges and fortunes that come with public services but I'll bet you also bitch and complain about having to pay taxes don't you Eracus?

There's an old philosophy that says a person hates most the negative qualities in another person that are his own strongest qualities.

When you say things like,

(they)... have nothing to offer but anger and hatred, and who see nothing good in the the few who sacrifice all for the needs of the many.

You really need to go back and take a look at your own rantings.

Great work!
[url=http://yhertnmz.com/pdrx/skya.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://zkjzdoaf.com/dgce/knoo.html]Cool site[/url]

Great work!
[url=http://yhertnmz.com/pdrx/skya.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://zkjzdoaf.com/dgce/knoo.html]Cool site[/url]

Thank you!
http://yhertnmz.com/pdrx/skya.html | http://ijwhptku.com/xxtx/xzff.html

Thank you!
http://yhertnmz.com/pdrx/skya.html | http://ijwhptku.com/xxtx/xzff.html

csIf you have a free time test this urls: little girl pantyhose
http://usedpanties.madloads.com/
free pantyhose galleries
http://usedpanties.madloads.com/free-pantyhose-galleries.html
creampie panties
http://usedpanties.madloads.com/creampie-panties.html
cum on stockings
http://usedpanties.madloads.com/cum-on-stockings.html
moms panties
http://usedpanties.madloads.com/moms-panties.html

Thanks!!! furniture Very nice site.I enjoy being here.