Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dick Morris: 20 years of Democratic Control
Fox News | 11/9/06

Posted on 11/09/2006 5:25:38 AM PST by pabianice

Dick Morris just on Fox: he said this is the beginning of an historic swing to the Dems. The next two years will be an unending blizzard of hearings and subpoenas and trials which, with the help of a drooling leftist media, will blanket the country, destroying the Republican Party and ensuring that dems control Congress and the White House for the foreseeable future.

Standard Morris stuff. Didn't he predict that the Repubs would keep Congress? I think it more likely that the Dems will take-off their masks and give the country a horror show for the next two years, something the elctorate doesn't want. We'll see.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dickisadick
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-166 next last
To: andy58-in-nh

See?

By your own post, you illustrate that individuals make a difference. I am glad that you are trying to encourage people to be honest and not discouraged. I just see the opportunities for change differently. I understand that you are trying to set expectations, but why set a timetable that becomes a self fulfilling prophesy when there are always opportunities? Most are small, some are big. I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and do what it takes. And it will take as long as it needs. But we don't have to fit a historical pattern. Information flows differently now.


121 posted on 11/09/2006 8:15:49 AM PST by saveliberty (I did not work my way up the ladder to be free to do as I was told)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
Good morning.
"Umm, didn't he just say the rats were going to win both houses?"

Before that, didn't he say that the Republicans would hold on?

Michael Frazier
122 posted on 11/09/2006 8:18:10 AM PST by brazzaville (no surrender no retreat, well, maybe retreat's ok)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty
I am I fact trying to encourage people to view the situation honestly, while at the same time avoiding unnecessary discouragement. There is no "timetable" for recovery - that depends on many factors, including the success or failure of our political adversaries in advancing their own agenda.

I simply want people here to understand that as a matter of historical record, such transitions do not normally take place in the course of two-year cycles. It would be a happy occurrence if in that span the Democrats managed to fudge things up to a fare-thee-well and our side got its act together once again. Regrettably, and as a matter of history, that is not terribly likely. Both human nature and the design of our political system conspire to create a longer-term ebb-and-flow of political power, the shortening of which occurs only in times of great cataclysm and danger. This may be our future, but I would not necessarily wish it so.

123 posted on 11/09/2006 8:28:51 AM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

Reagan did it and we got a Republican majority 6 years after term ended.


124 posted on 11/09/2006 8:30:22 AM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: andy58-in-nh

:-) But why get stuck in the old ways of recovery?

That's all I am suggesting. We can turn the Senate around more quickly as that's the nature of the body. House seats have been more difficult to turn over.

But think about this: in a bad year for R's look how close Michael Steele came in D MD.


125 posted on 11/09/2006 8:31:30 AM PST by saveliberty (I did not work my way up the ladder to be free to do as I was told)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: saveliberty
Michael Steele may well be one of those "leaders" the Republican Party desperately needs. From what I have seen of him, he is bright, articulate, passionate, and attractive as a candidate. But he still lost, and he lost for reasons unrelated to his personal qualities. Those reasons are not going to go away overnight, no matter what we do in the short term. (And please trust an older guy, two years is the "short term").

The Senate is an example of why the task of political recovery is so difficult and time-consuming. As I said before, our political system is built for stability; it is designed in part to make it difficult for parties to rapidly gain and lose power - that is part of its genius. As you are aware, Senate terms are six years long, and in 2008, the "Class of 02" will be up for re-election. Of these seats, 21 are held by Republicans and 12 by Democrats. See the problem?

It is by no means impossible for Republicans to do well in '08, especially if a great Presidential candidate tops the ticket. It is simply more difficult from a mathematical standpoint, and when combined with the human propensity to resist change in the absence of adequate motivation, the task will be a tall one. Hopefully, by that time Republicans will have found in this year's electoral elephant-stomping adequate motivation to change themselves.

126 posted on 11/09/2006 8:48:40 AM PST by andy58-in-nh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat

Reagan did not grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegals. Argument falls flat on its face.


127 posted on 11/09/2006 9:11:09 AM PST by peyton randolph (No man knows the day nor the hour of The Coming of The Great White Handkerchief.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Morris is right. The Democrats will go for the jugular with their lap dogs in the media reporting distorted, partial versions of kangaroo court committees set up with the express purpose of embarrassing the Administration and other viable conservative political figures.

During the next two years many indviduals who voted against the Republicans for essentially frivolous reasons will come to regret their vote just as many regretted their vote for Perot in 1992.

The "Treason Press" exerted their remaining clout with great effect on Tuesday. I have never seen more viciously biased coverage of Administration in my lifetime. the visceral disdain that the media bears toward W and some of parts of the political base were on display this campaign season. The Abramhoff and Foley psuedo-scandals were magnified beyond any reasonable measure by the MSM; corollary Democratic scandals were ignored.

This time should be used by the Conservative movement to think of counter strategies to nullify the MSM bias in reporting. I don't know what a viable counter strategy would look like at this point but it must be done or it won't matter who is nominated or what policies they advocate.
128 posted on 11/09/2006 10:17:43 AM PST by ggekko60506
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

When is Wm. Jefferson going to get indicted? How about an investigation of Harry Reid's real estate deals? Why are the investigations only going to go one way?


129 posted on 11/09/2006 10:19:25 AM PST by Defiant (The shame of Spain has stained the fruited plain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

The "1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act" granted amnesty to illegal aliens; i.e. a path to citizenship. Ronald Reagan even used the word "amnesty" when discussing it.

My argument was that Ronald Reagan granted amnesty to illegal aliens during his Presidency, and that is a FACT.


130 posted on 11/09/2006 11:20:39 AM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: ggekko60506

Your post shows that the main enemy is the Treason media and it must be the first order of business for conservatives. If it is not neutralized there is no chance for patriots.

This is the reason FR is so important.


131 posted on 11/09/2006 11:57:53 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit (If you believe ANYTHING in the Treason Media you are a fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I don't agree with the reasons, but he could be right. 1. I think there are many Republicans in Congress who prefer being backbenchers. 2. They don't even have a single issue that unifies them. The coalition doesn't have anything to hold it together.


132 posted on 11/09/2006 12:01:31 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

I don't agree with the reasons, but he could be right. 1. I think there are many Republicans in Congress who prefer being backbenchers. 2. They don't even have a single issue that unifies them. The coalition doesn't have anything to hold it together.


133 posted on 11/09/2006 12:01:31 PM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Thank goodness Morris said this because I was afraid the election results meant 20 years of Democratic Control.
134 posted on 11/09/2006 12:05:37 PM PST by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Dick Morris: 20 years of Democratic Control

What makes Dick Morris believe that the country could survive that long with the dims in control?

135 posted on 11/09/2006 12:06:38 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Former SAC Trained Killer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Actually, I don't disagree with the notion that they won the 2008 presidency on Tuesday. UNLESS they put Hillary forward in 2008.

They will conduct hearings to a happy press who will drum it down our throats, confirming the votes that just happened to the voters (it's what they'll want to hear) and in 2008, a democrat will take the presidency (and probably more senate and house seats).


136 posted on 11/09/2006 12:09:58 PM PST by Julliardsux
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Everything I need to know about what isn't going to happen politically I learned from Dick Morris.


137 posted on 11/09/2006 12:11:34 PM PST by Cinnamon Girl (OMGIIHIHOIIC ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph

uh, peyton.
The Dims are in control now.
You will get that anyway. Even if the President vetos the legislation, he can be overturned now.

So, if you didn't vote on Tuesday because you were mad about immigration, what exactly did you think the other party would do if they got control?


138 posted on 11/09/2006 12:17:02 PM PST by CitizenJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: peyton randolph
Reagan did not grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegals. Argument falls flat on its face.

The Bush/Senate treason blocked by the House earlier this year contained provisions to explode the level of third world migration. Estimates ran to 80 million more migrants over 20 years, a volume of population change that would radically change the demographics of our homeland.

The bill Bush will sign next year, from a Congress with weaker GOP resistance in both Houses, will be even worse.

Our grandchildren will attend Spanish-language mosques.

139 posted on 11/09/2006 12:20:58 PM PST by RodgerD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: IamConservative

Precisely.

And I am one who doesn't think the Democrats are going to "blow it."

Hillary is in charge now and she's going to keep them in line.

I don't expect a GOP president in my lifetime and/or what's left of it.


140 posted on 11/09/2006 12:25:44 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-166 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson