Republicans lost because...oh shut up!

Vanity ^ | 11/11/2006 | Montag

[montag813]

Is anyone else sick and tired of the endless idiotic pieces about "Why the Republicans Lost", "How Conservative Lost Their Way"...blah blah blah. Where were all these geniuses BEFORE the election?

[MamaB]

I am. I have not been on this site very much since the election because it seems like a dem site. I refuse to read that junk. If I wanted it, I would turn on the TV or radio.

[AtomicBuffaloWings]

Yes.

Kinda tired of all the vanities too. ;^)

[onyx]

BUMP

[Dutchgirl]

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Iraq was not Viet Nam until Bush fired Rumsfeld. We conservatives knew that our congress critters were NOT fulfilling their promises of streamlined , less intrusive government. We calculated that Joe six-pack swing voter accepted that betrayal of public trust in the same way we did...better the devil you know...when the decision comes down on partial birth abortion, we will know if we have accomplished ANYTHING in the last six years.

[Chi-townChief]

I agree - it's time to engage the democrat enemy and their terrorist allies. Let's hunt some rat!!

[CindyDawg]

What I would like to see is that conservatives start studying the ballots. Tell them that regardless of the outcome they won but many voters have concerns so we are going to look at the system. If any fraud uncovered though , charges will be filed.

[AmeriBrit]

It is tiring BUT, the damage that's been done to the country cannot be forgotten as we all have to suffer for it now. It's taken almost 6 years for President Bush to try and repair the damage done from 8 years of clinton, and he's still not finished, and now we'll have two more years of the RATS in control to undo all the good GWB was able to do, and whatever else they can squeeze in. Since there seems to be so many short memories among the citizens of the U.S. today, the results of this election must be repeated often so it isn't forgotten in 2008.

[Echo Talon]

Iraq was not Viet Nam until Bush fired Rumsfeld.

It would have been more like Vietnam if he would have fired him BEFORE the election for political gain..

[AmeriBrit]

Iraq was not Viet Nam until Bush fired Rumsfeld.

---

By saying the above you are calling President Bush a liar. The President and Donald Rumsfeld have both been on TV stating he resigned. Perhaps you've forgotten conveniently that he'd wanted to retire previously but the President was able to talk him out of it. If it was the intention to fire him don't you think it would have been to the Presidents advantage to have done it before the election?

[cripplecreek]

Republicans lost because...oh shut up!

[gate2wire]

Yes.

[Sloth]

By saying the above you are calling President Bush a liar.

He pretty much got caught lying in the press conference just the other day.

[ladyinred]

I think you are right.

[AmeriBrit]

HOW?

[PatrickF4]

The Dems want to compare Iraq to Vietnam... they want to paint the war as a "quagmire"... now Newt and others want to blame President Bush because it gives them legs and he's a lame duck anyway... a la Johnson.

Iraq is not Vietnam, the bias reporting on the war is what gives us this impression. It's time to focus on the real enemy - the terrorists and their allies on the Left.

[Echo Talon]

The Dems want to compare Iraq to Vietnam... they want to paint the war as a "quagmire"... now Newt and others want to blame President Bush because it gives them legs and he's a lame duck anyway... a la Johnson.

This is part of the reason why i don't like Newt, he was also advancing the theory that (someone in Washington said NOT to strike Osama) when we saw the predator video. Even After Newt was told that the Predator wasn't armed he was still advancing the lies.. Why was he doing this?(I believe it was to make himself look better somehow.) I must have some sort of faith and trust in someone if I'm going to vote for them for POTUS and I don't have must trust in him.

[Dutchgirl]

Link here

Up until this point I counted on Bush to be a man of his word. I think that Rumsfeld has been brilliant in this efforts, In three years in Iraq, we have lost fewer men than in one day at Normandy or Iwo Jima...but when Rumsfeld's accomplishments are thrown into the dust of partianship, I can already see the refusal of congress to authorise needed expenditures.

I live down the street from a lib nut who keeps a daily tally of men lost in Iraq. I have fought the good fight, the fight of morale, daily, but Bush does not look like a commander in chief these days. He looks like a partisan hack. It's all about HIM. It's all about the party. Bush is feeling "wounded." Screw him. Men have lost limbs, wives have lost husbands, fighting for a cause that is bigger than any one person.

Bush needs a little "just for men" to get rid of the gray, he needs to sharpen up his veto pen and be VERY vocal about it. Unless the dems have a 2/3 majority, they have nothing, as long as Bush is resolute.

[CGTRWK]

Where were all these geniuses BEFORE the election?

Around here, they were being shouted down and barf alerted as closet liberal defeatists for the past year or more. This backlash didn't sneak up on anyone who was willing to see it.

[NittanyLion]

No. While painful, it's necessary to analyze why we lost in order to avoid simmilar defeats in the future.