Hey Dem Idiots: Censure Makes 2006 a Referendum Election
The alternative to a "choice election" is a "referendum election" and even the "worst/stupidest president ever" can figure out how a referendum on a 33% President is going to turn out...
So all of you Dem Pro/DLC/Pudwhackers out there help me understand this...
If we want to make this election a referendum on Bush, why don't we use censure to push the Rethugs right into his arms.
If they want to defend illegal wiretapping, let them.
If they want to defend leaking CIA agent's identities, let them.
If they want to defend the lies that led us to a 1-2 trillion dollar war, let them.
If they want to defend 2318 U.S. deaths, let them.
If they want to defend Abu Grahaib and Guantanamo, let them.
If they want to defend Katrina, let them.
If they want to defend a 9 trillion dollar debt, let them.
If they want to defend trying to privatize social security, let them.
If they want to defend tax cuts for the rich, let them.
If they want to defend a moronic medicare drug program, let them.
But for CRYING OUT LOUD, don't stand there with them.
Even though Feingold's censure resolution focused on NISA, it is easy to imagine how the campaign could play out...
We don't need no stinkin' Contract with America...
IF YOU WANT TO CENSURE THE PRESIDENT FOR THE JOB HE HAS DONE, VOTE DEMOCRATIC!
Is there any easier way to make 2006 a "referendum election"?
What is so friggin hard about that?
OK, so I may not be as sharp as many if not most of my fellow diarists, but even a chimp can see that no Rethug wants to defend Bush in this election... Why are Dems making their jobs so friggin easy? Just stand with Russ.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home