bwwarrraahhhhhhHe won the election. Iraq was THE issue...STFU NYT!!
I don't want the Republicans to "revel in power" - - I want them to cut taxes, declaw the EPA and the IRS and other government agencies, and get tons of conservative justices on the bench. That is what I want them to do. Period.
The nay-sayers are underestimating Bush again. They don't think he can do it. These are the same people who were so sure he would be swept out of office last year. If any one is long in the tooth, its the Left, whose dominance in American life is fading.
Having been wrong on every issue before the election, the Times goes on to show that it has not lost its touch afterward, either.
bwwarrraahhhhhhROTFLOL!!
"Some See Risks as Republicans Revel in Power" - YEAH!! They see their power has gone to someone else and they're just crying in their beer about it.
"Knowing what we know now, the presidential election of 2008 is probably a tossup"
lmao - at these clowns. Rhetorical nonesense - they sit around and talk to themselves and think they know the pulse of this country.
Oh okay - I can go with that - 2008 is probably a tossup. /s
We don't even know the contenders yet fool.
Yes, I remember the NYT being equally concerned when Clinton won in '92 with both houses.... NOT.
I guess its time for articles about the homeless to return as well.
I was more concerned when the Democrats were revelling.
GASP! Hide the women and children...
The New York Times is the Loser in Chief among the DLM (Defeated Liberal Media). They do not know that there were crushed, and that is why they are going to be defeated again, and again, and again.
Some See Risks if Howling Moonbats and Traitors Like Democrats Ever Get Into Power Again
NYT is sowing the seeds of doubt.
The only people worried is the left (democrats).
Is it possible the Republicans are FINALLY acting as the majority party that they are and have been for some years?
Is if finally possible that Republicans are FINALLY starting to take over in the unelected agency offices of the government?
The NYT does not report news, they direct spin. Why would they write this now if not to protect the left?
"Still, Terry McAuliffe, the Democratic National Committee chairman, disputed the long-term meaning of the gains, arguing Democrats would have won the White House had 60,000 votes shifted in Ohio, and said Mr. Bush had enjoyed a "huge advantage" because of the attacks of Sept. 11."
Too bad Terry's on his way out, he's been so entertaining, not to mention helpful for Republicans!
"Knowing what we know now, the presidential election of 2008 is probably a tossup."
So is the election of 2032. So? I don't see the point of this comment.
I don't recall similar articles when the Dems were in power for so many years.
I guess the author of the article will feel better when the Democratic overlords return. Get a life!
"overhauling Social Security and the tax code - those issues, if handled incorrectly, could undercut Mr. Bush's long-term goal for the party. "
Oh sure, we politians should just sit on our a$$ and do nothing in order to maintain power. This is why W aint no ordinary pol.
We can't achieve peace, we cannot have democractic societies, we cannot reform S.S., we cannot overhaul the tax code, we cannot stop junk lawsuits, we cannot appoint constructionist judges...why we might as well give up.
No Dice. We aren't playing around anymore. Sooner the editoralists and politicians in D.C. understand we're through complaining without results the better for them. We have a President that doesn't give a damn what people say, he'll pursue it if he believes it is right. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, but at least he can be counted upon to take these issues on despite the naysayers.
The electorate is rapidly becoming articulate, well informed and activists on a local level. The days of slacking off on our dime are coming to an end.
*Neo-Progs rhymes with Neo-Frogs
and stands for Neo-Progressives