Posted on 07/16/2006 12:39:05 PM PDT by Coop
There's probably no way congressional Republicans can lose this fall, no matter how unpopular President Bush is or how unhappy the voters are with the war in Iraq. That's the prevailing view in Washington today.
But it's wrong.
If history is any guide, we're heading into a major political storm. And that means we could see a national tide in November that will sweep the Democrats back into the majority.
Virtually every public opinion measure points to a Category 4 or 5 hurricane gathering...
But many analysts have noted the absence of strategic behavior on the part of the Democrats, who have failed to recruit good candidates and have allowed the Republicans to maintain a fundraising advantage...
Over the past year, the Cook Political Report has increased the number of Republican seats it considers highly vulnerable from two to 10, and those it considers somewhat vulnerable from 16 to 25. Eighteen others are potentially vulnerable. That's a total of 53 GOP seats at risk, double the number of a year ago. During the same period, the number of competitive Democratic seats declined from 14 to 10;, while the total number of Democratic seats at risk remained at 21...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Okay. Here's a quarter. Call someone who cares.
They would hand the House and/or Senate to Dems just to try to make some point that will never be taken as such. If this happens, it will be blamed on Bush, not on the RINO. The anti-RINO message will be lost in the anti-Bush message.
"One of last year's FR threads posted up confessional evidence -- first-person gloating by a gay editor -- that most of the front-page editors at The New York Times are either openly or almost-openly gay or bisexual."
I believe the % of admitted gay editors on the Ny Slimes staff was 60 or 80%.
The vile writers for the AP staff are probably in that % range.
During the 2004 elections, that truly rare individual, a conservative gay gave me a heads about the Slimes, AP and most of the other liberal fishwraps. He said most of those writing the hit articles on GW has a long history of being gay or writing gay advocate pushing articles. He said that they wrote fiction which agreed with their wet dream fantasies instead of news, aka, Jayson Blair.
He told me to go to Yahoo search and enter the writer's name and add + gay or homosexual and hit enter. He said that I would be amazed at the results.
The first time I used this technique was on the maggot infester AP writer who lied and said that Republicans cheered when GW said that Clintoon had been admitted to the hospital with a serious heart condition.
Beside lying, this maggot infested mediot was an outfront in your face homosexual who had a long history of pushing Gay agendas and hate GW articles.
Since then most of the drive by shooting articles or doom and gloom articles for our side like this one have been written by these maggots as per the Yahoo search above. Which is why my tagline says what it says.
What "tantrum"? You and your backslapping buddy maelstorm laid it right out there: Conservatives better damn well back Bush at the polls next November or else.
That's called pushing people into a corner and rolling them -- even while Karl Rove's visage is still burning in the phosphors on my TV screen, as he stood up before the giant hatefest La Raza put together over the weekend and told La Raza -- La Raza, mind you, and *in person* -- that conservatives who won't roll over for the OBL are misguided and just don't get it, and anyway, don't worry about those goobers, Uncle Karl and Dubya got 'em hogtied. And even illegals are good Americans, the way we figure it!
That's data, Bucko. Now try fibbing to me and dissing me some more about the screw job Dubya and the RNC are giving the ones that got them to the White House -- twice.
And while you're figuring out some fairy story to cover your boss's butt on that one, why don't you pause long enough to 'splain to Lucy and me the arithmetical virtue of bitch-slapping the people who gave Bush solid majorities in both elections, so Bush and Rove can kiss up for a 40% split of the "Hispanic" vote?
Oh, and here's a hint -- Bush is still not getting 40% among Mexicans and Chicanos, his split is coming from Cubans, South Americans, and Central Americans.
The Cubans vote majority Republican habitually (ask Ileana Ros-Lehtinen down in Florida about her safe seat in the House), and the South Americans and Central Americans give Bush about a 50/50 split -- the Mexicans, by contrast, continue to return large majorities for the Democrats every single time, usually about 70/30 'Rat, and this will continue to be the case as the Texas Democratic Party emphasizes Chicano/Tejano candidates more and more on their ticket -- they put up a Mexican-American for governor, last time.
Go on, explain to me. I'm all ears.
I feel your pain.
Yeah, I bet you do, Slick. Say hi to Beast for me.
they control the market at the margin. Greenspan gave testimony to the senate about a month back on the oil markets, how it has been transformed by the hedge funds into an investment vehicle, rather then a market where sellers and buyers of physical oil determine the price.
its one thing to allow speculators to bid up prices for stocks et al to whatever they want. no one is forcing me to buy google stock. but we all have to buy oil, and to allow these machinations in the market to occur, is simply a huge wealth transfer from middle class consumers to wealthy hedge funds players.
A "wave" goodbye?
I don't agree with this at all.. wishful thinking...
There is no national call for change... there are some moonbats that hate bush and the republicans... but they are always there, and more marginalized and meaningless every year....
There is anger at the Republicans, no doubt over things like Immigration and Fiscal irresponsibility... but neither of those trend to folks going D... in fact it bodes for a more conservative R makeup after the next set of primaries.
It will be impossible for the Ds to remotely get traction as long as they have nimrods like Murtha et al out there continuing to simply side with the enemy for political gain....
A stumble by your opponent does not inately mean a gain for you.. you have to be ready to capitalize on that misstep and the democratic party, completely devoid of ideas and any semblence of sanity can't capitalize on anything. Had they run Leiberman in 04, Bush likely would not be president today.... but they went with seditious Kerry.... 06 there have been pleanty of misteps which could have given them a chance to capitalize on.. but so far nothing.
They continue to be the party of the moonbat.... Pushing for things like state sanctions relationships for homsexuals.. rights for folks with mental illnesses that make them desire to be a different gender.. so they can go into the ladies bathroom and harrass your 4 year old daughters.... for sexual deviants who desire to molest children to have their desires legalized.. etc etc etc...
As long as they are on board with such lunacy, and against he US and worldwide war to destroy the enemies of civilization itself, they will continue to lose, period.
You have yet to show that you "enjoy a rational debate". If that were the case, you would have engaged in one; you haven't.
Thank you for your concern, but I'm very well indeed. ;^)
No idea, Ed.
Read my post again. It wasn't me doing the talkin'.
I said as much.
I would not be surprised to discover that a gay cabal has moved on journalism. They did the same thing in theater, which was already a closed shop in the 60's (you were gay-friendly, or you weren't in theater), and they'd been working their web in the Velvet Underground for years. Someone once described how Rock Hudson ad-libbed a bunch of gay pickup lines during his scenes with John Wayne while filming The Unconquered down in Mexico, back in the early 60's. When the film came back to Hollywood for editing, it had the gay writers and editors rolling on the floor. Wayne had no clue (being an honest man), he was baffled by Hudson's departures from script, and all the ad-libs went right over his head.
I noticed when the gay crusade began in earnest in 1994; it was keyed to the release of the pity-party film Philadelphia, which was actually written to be a gay agitprop piece (Jonathan Demme admitted it in a TIME interview). Philadelphia answered all the criteria laid down in After the Ball, in that it presented the gay man with AIDS as a pathetic, innocuous victim, and the straights as fanged, odious wretches with serious emotional issues of their own.
Both TIME and Newsweek jumped on the film, put it on their covers (I saved the relevant stories in a clippings file), wrote sympathetic reviews, and stuffed their issues with sidebar after sidebar of gay propaganda puff-pieces. It was an agitprop orgy, and seeing the newsmags jump out there like that, I began to wonder if they had fairly stout gay representation in their boardroom, their editorial conferences, and their writing staffs. From about that time, all the MSM slammed their tiltmeters over hard left on "gay rights" (I put it in quotes because the very concept is propaganda), and they have never, ever, seriously discussed those issues honestly again.
He told me to go to Yahoo search and enter the writer's name and add + gay or homosexual and hit enter. He said that I would be amazed at the results.
Hadn't thought of doing that, but thanks for the suggestion -- overt trolls would probably pop right out, now that you mention it. Thanks very much, and thanks to your amigo.
There are a couple of gays I would trust to discuss the issues honestly, and those are Camille Paglia and Tammy Bruce. Paglia often does lunch with Rush; she teaches art history in Philly. To be a fly on their tablecloth......
Tammy Bruce called it like it is in a book she wrote about the HRC and the rest of the gay fascists; she may be girl-crazy as a three-dollar bill, but somehow she's stayed honest enough to fly in the face of the "front politics" crowd that like to mob dissenters like Laura Schlessinger, Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell, and all the leading ex-gay personalities like that Paulk fellow. (The gay cabal pulled identical stunts on both Falwell and Bob Dornan, btw, of planting a gay on his personal staff, who at the moment juste, came out to his utterly dumfounded boss. They also do the family-member thing: Chastity Bono (to bag trophy celeb Cher), Candace Gingrich and Mary Cheney (to embarrass and corner their relatives), and several others. It's lowlife, Iscariot stuff, but a favorite play in their book.)
You said: That is what I don't get though. When we use a primary contest to purify the party, then we are getting rid of the RINOs. When they attempt to get rid of someone, they are throwing him under the bus.
***
The difference is, the GOP operates, or tries to, on actual governing philosophy, consisting of personal responsibility, etc. The dems work on a philosophy of "What will it take to win?" and act accordingly. The dems are perfectly willing to get rid of candidates based on whether they might lose or not (Toricelli is a recent example). That is the difference.
Read closer: I will attempt..to abide.
. Guess I've been listening to too many politicians! Thanks for the Welcome. I have to log out so much during work, that sometimes I miss replying..sorry to take so long!
Excellent summary of the gay invasions of the arts and politics.
We are seeing the same agenda pushing and invasions in our main line churches.
Yeah, I call it "ecclesiastical cow-tipping". They're trying to roll a mainline church. Call it "capture-the-flag" for adults. They're hot and heavy after the Episcopalians, trying to bag them up and at the same time keep as many dioceses in communion as possible so they can claim they now lead the whole of American Anglicanism, and then work back to the metropolitan Church of England to try to roll them, too. It's a gay seminarians' cabal all the way. But they're after the Presbyterians, Lutherans, and Methodists, too.
They tried to roll the Boy Scouts of America the same way, with a Mr. Inside/Mr. Outside approach. Mr. Inside was James Dale, an outstanding Eagle Scout and closeted gay whom they recruited to stand up with Lambda Legal and lead attorney Evan Wolfson, Mr. Outside, to attack the BSA's moral exclusion clause. They lost in the U.S. Supreme Court, but they lost ugly -- they immediately went out and began working through gay-friendly NGO's to try to cut BSA's funding off and get them kicked out of public facilities all across the country in a big, nasty vendetta. The object of the vendetta was to use financial pain to try to force the BSA into capitulating the freedom to set their own moral policy that the Supreme Court had sustained, notwithstanding the BSA's clear victory. Ugly, ugly, ugly little PC fascists.
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.