Skip to comments.Landscape-Altering Vote Last Night
Posted on 11/19/2005 6:19:28 AM PST by LS
Before Congressman Billybob jumps in with what I know will be an astute analysis, I'll get my two cents in on last night's vote. I consider it to be potentially a landscape-altering vote.
First, as a caveat for all you "The-Republicans-Always-Snatch-Defeat-From-The-Jaws-of-Victory" crowd, let me admit it's a long way to 2006 and the GOP still can shoot itself in the foot, ankle, and probably rectum several times before the election. So can Bush. However, tactically this was brillilant (thank you J.D. Hayworth, Denny Hastert, and all who spoke), and for now, the GOP not only seized the high ground, but they have the Dems fully on the run.
Pay no attention to what the MSM says about this vote ("Fox and Friends" mindless twitterers were already saying, "Well, of course we can't just pull out now," which, of course is exactly what Murtha recommended and what the Dems want to do). This was a huge vote, a potentially landscape-altering vote. The GOP forced the Dems to choose between the general election next year and the primaries, and the Dems chose the general election. The result will be threefold: 1) a dramatic decrease in funding of the Dems across the board, but especially the House members' campaigns (as if Dean wasn't hurting them enough in that area anyway); 2) a decrease in the committed volunteers from the Michael Moore/Moveon/Moonbat wing; and 3) probably the most serious, intense challenges in the primaries for many of these incumbents from the left. By the way, for all the Rush Limbaugh bashers on the board, this was precisely the strategy that Rush recommended before he left on break: MAKE the Dems become more extreme and cater to their base even more.
When you add to that the sound bite gifts that the Dems gave the Republicans who can use it in all campaigns ("Our soldiers have become the enemy," for example), this tactical maneuver not only recaptured all the lost momentum from the last two months, but put the Dems on the defensive on their worst issue, and the one currently costing Bush the most at the polls. Then you have the great sound bites from the GOP side, including Congresswoman Schmidt's fantastic "cowards surrender, Marines never do!" THAT ONE will be on all the ads, you can believe it. (And it doesn't matter that she "withdrew" her remarks: they are still playing it on the tube). She is in the district next to mine, and I'm glad those fine people in Hamilton County sent her to Congress and not DeWine the lesser.
As if all this weren't enough, several Republicans emerged as stars through their actions and speeches, including Schmidt, Hayworth of Arizona, and Sam Johnson of Texas. Others severely damaged their credibility by either praising Murtha (Curt Weldon, who badly damaged his Able Danger campaign with his stupid speech) or taking the opportunity to nip at Bush (Tom Tancredo, who hurt the immigration issue that badly needs fixing). If one wonders why such people aren't in positions of power in the GOP, that was a good example of the fact that they cannot keep their eye on the ball and, to mix metaphors, "bunt the runner over to third" by sticking to the topic.
Perhaps most important, anyone watching the incredible debate had to come away with a sense that in fact these Democrats are not "patriots" and that they indeed wish we could somehow lose in Iraq. It is interesting that to my knowledge not one Dem read a single letter from a soldier at the front (I think Murtha read one from a guy in a mental ward). ALL the GOP letters were from soldiers at the front.
These comments will get out, despite the MSM. The new media will get them out; campaign ads will get them out, and if I were the GOP, right now I would assemble an ad with sound bites of these Dems' treasonous comments and start running them immediately! THE CAMPAIGN STARTS TODAY.
My take on this is that if correctly played, last night's vote possibly could cost the Dems up to 30 seats in the House in 2006. This could very well be as significant as the vote in 1900 "for" continuing to fight the Filipino Insurrection and to keep McKinley in the White House. You heard it here first. We'll see if Frist and the Senate have the same cajones or political insight that the House members have.
(co-author, "A Patriot's History of the United States")
We have a Republican Majority in Congress? When did that happen?
Thanks for the compliment in the first line of your post. And I thoroughly agree that the House vote last night was a turning point for the Republicans. And that the debate supplied a basketful of quotes that can be hung around the necks of assorted Democrats.
However, you don't have to wait for my take on the same subject. I filed mine just before midnight, last night. LOL. Click below.
An added side benefit of any war powers would be the ability to start jailing obvious traitors and other seditious parties - no different from Lincoln, Wilson & FDR.
Sometimes I think it would be better to have a anti-terror Dem president to get the left on board rather than constantly deal with this slow-motion civil with which we are currently engaged.
Good one, LS.
Great first hack at the events of yesterday. I've been waiting all morning for somebody to do something more than swat at it. Lots of meat in your analysis and some great observations (no dem reads letters....).
Excellent analysis, professor.
Hahahah. Great, John. As Patton said, "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French division behind me!"
This is a little off topic, but for anyone who can influence the RNC, I'd love to see a commercial with Harry Reid admitting he didn't read the pre war intelligence report prepared by the CIA at the request of the Democrats.
According to Rockefeller, only six Senators and very few House members actually read the report.
So let's see if we have this straight. The left is complaining about pre war intelligence being manipulated but they didn't even read said intelligence reports?
Hello? RNC - get on the ball.
Capuano, Clay, Hinchey, McDermott, Nadler, Owens voted PRESENT.
Beauprez, Berman, Boswell, Boyd, Camp, Cunningham, Davis (AL), Flake, Fossella, Gallegly, Hall, Jindal, Kind, LaHood, Miller, Gary, Moran (KS), Northup, Paul, Peterson (PA), Shadegg, Towns, Young (AK) were NOT VOTING
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll608.xml <- The vote
Good write. You hit it on the head though. We still have a number of limp wristed Republican cowards will shoot themselves in the foot at the first chance at the first chance.
I missed most of the debate last night so not sure what you are referring to when mentioning Curt Weldon and Murtha. What did Curt Weldon say? I have been following the Able Danger scenario and at one time Weldon was my Congressman.
A brief review of his words would be appreciated......
All but three voted against the measure and a handful of real cowards voted "present" proving that their empty, pandering blathering was nothing more than that.
The dims will rue the day that they were led to spew their loathing for the military and the war effort and then forced to back up their lip-service to the moonbat fringe with a public voice vote, recorded for posterity and all to see and hear. The exact opposite that they intended.
Too bad, so sad.
New Democrat slogan:
Vote for me. I was tricked into voting for a war by a dumb, lying President.
Yeah, that should work
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.