Posted on 08/02/2005 6:53:19 AM PDT by watsonfellow
it's called losing justification......
No, it was said in the context of Navy (caller) wanting to discuss why Hackett did not adhere to the motto, "Once a Marine, always a Marine", and there was some crosstalk, then Rush said "Ok, so he's a staff puke", e.g., 'call him whatever you want'. It had already been brought forth in the conversation that Hackett had not been 'in country'.
Huge victory, huh? Snort. Their guy had to lie through his teeth and pretend to be a DINO. Only victory his winning would be is of the Pyrrhic variety.
While that is a reasonable assumption you should recall the comprehensive knowledge John Kerry showed about Vietnam. After all he was the only one who knew that our men were acting like Genghis Khan.
When I watched this gentleman last week he made a comment about his volunteering for Iraq and all I could do was think that he was planning such a political move as this every step of the way. Seemed to be a complete phony.
The chat that Hackett could win was and is just ludicrous. You just don't have that large a swing from the normal partisan balance absent a scandal, or some compelling issue. Also Hackett engaged in the same Bush bashing. That sells perhaps today in a majority of CD's at the moment, but not this rock ribbed GOP bastion. I said a 10 point win on this site, and 12 points yesterday at Ourcampaign. But I think it more likely the result will be a wider win for Schimdt, rather than a smaller one. A 15-20 point win would not shock me.
O, the Schadenfraude. It reminds me of Monty Python's "Meaning of Life":
Terry Jones: "I'm stuffed. I couldn't eat another bite."John Cleese: "But it's only a wafer-thin mint."
Fearless prediction..after he loses..we can expect him to announce he's running for the US Senate in 2006
It seems to me odd that he was against the war, but went there "voluntarily" for 7 months, then came home, just in the nick of time to run for a Congressional Seat.
A John Kerry wannabe?
John Kerry was against the war in Vietnam, but joined the Navy and went there (nevermind the "controversy" over what he did while there), then came home to publickly oppose the war and attack our side as war criminals, and oh by the way, to run for a Congressional Seat. This is the same Kerry who is so convoluted to this day that he bragged "I actually voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it".
This guy in Ohio's 2nd District has said stuff like Bush is an _ _ _ (starts with an "s" and rhymes with "Bob" when said as a word, but in invidual letter is a dirty name, and that Bush is the most dangerous man in the world, then adds that "I would still give my life to protect the guy".
Sorry, we don't need any more screwballs like John Kerry on the modern day, war-on-terror scene.
CNN is wrong. Portman, not Bush, won by over 70%.
The Bush bashing did generate him a lot of support and $$ from the hard left Move.On/dailyKos crowd....97% of which is outside his district. The Dems continue to sell their soul to this fringe element...doesn't look goods for them in 2006
Then don't parrot the WaPo tomorrow when they try that weak-ass spin as Ken has revealed is in the works.
"Fearless prediction..after he loses..we can expect him to announce he's running for the US Senate in 2006"
Here you go, Ping Deb.
I'd guess that if Hackett does get within 10 points, the Dems will claim a victory. But if it is 20 points, then they treaded water.
The 70% number is fairly typical for a House incumbent.
Some statistics from 2004 House races:
Sky-high incumbency rates. Only five incumbents lost to challengers in 2004 -- the second lowest in our nation’s history. Nearly nine in ten incumbents were re-elected by “landslide” margins of at least 20 percent.
Landslides. In 14 states, every race was won by a landslide margin of at least 20 percent in 2004. Only four states (all with less than three seats) recorded no landslide wins.
High victory margins. The average victory margin was a whopping 40 percent. Seven of every eight (83%) U.S. House races were won by landslide margins of at least 20 percent in 2004. Only 23 races (5%) were won by competitive margins of less than 10 percent.
Rush was having a back-and-forth with somebody on his staff at the EIB, and whoever this was apparently said to Rush that maybe this guy was a staff puke, and Rush repeated it for the audience, because as you know, we can't hear anything his staff is saying to him.
At that exact moment I had to leave Rush's show, so where he went from there I don't know.
But this is STUPID, for any of you who are falling for what a leftist, hate-Rush website is saying about this. Rush totally reveres the military and they totally revere him.
Do not let the leftists get to you so easily, whoever you are that the shoe fits. Whoever it does not fit, then please don't think I'm addressing this to YOU.
The fact that Schmidt is not an incumbent is probably responsible for at least ten points lost.
My rough calcs had Bush winning 02 by a pretty close to what you had-- by 22%.
"I don't have the exact numbers but I did some calculations earlier and it looked to me like Bush carried it by about 22 points."
Hey, do you have a link to that on Leip's? I never have been able to find the cong. district data on his site.
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.