Caution: This thread is full of FRussies.
FReep mail me if you'd like on the Ann Coulter ping list.
Posted on 07/27/2006 1:39:40 PM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
Ann Coulter just on Cavuto being interviewed.
She wanted to "remind the viewers" that the normal election cycle is for the party in the White House to lose seats. She expects this election to be one where Republicans lose seats. She added "a lot of seats" before Neil moved on to another question.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I would like those links, please.
It was used as an example to show that Ann Coulter is sometimes incorrect. Like I said - I was starting a small business, it is started and I don't have to spend as much time on it these days. In a few months it will get more hectic but for now I have a few weeks of slow time.
Or do you agree with her prediction?
Well, it's working out great for me.
And you?
Ain't that the truth, all Anne knows is creating "buzz" about herself.
Learn to read.
RFC_Gal introduced the word.
"The know-it-all Colter predicted we'd lose in 2004, a prediction also based on the "normal cycle" theory."
Do you have a citation?
True. But the President and the party bucked that trend in 2002, and I think will do so again.
I didn't say that I want John to win. You must have assumed that.
"It was used as an example to show that Ann Coulter is sometimes incorrect."
No, you made an unsubstantiated assertion.
And it was bashing.
Those are the people who are truly freaking BRAIN DEAD!
When you take a hard look at who the RATS would install as committee chairman, AND UNDERSTAND THE RAMIFICATIONS, you understand the differences are huge. Imagine only Ruth Bader Ginsburg type nominees for SCOTUS getting a vote. All those WHINERS who complain about Bush, imagine a Kerry or Gore presidency. If you think the differences are too small, you need to be committed to an insane asylum.
Because you asked a question and I answered it. I then provided an unbiased method for you to independently verify my statement.
Since it was a statement of fact, not opinion I thought you would prefer a sourced answer for your question.
This rumor started almost six months ago here in DC and has been cast aside as "democrat wishful thinking".
Rush is nuts if he believes this. (And, way behind the curve).
It's 16 seats. That would be a net switch of 32. If the democrats actually won 30 seats, they would have a comfortable 28 member working majority with impeachment hearings being held around the clock.
"What "cause" is hurt by disagreeing with Ann Coulter? She's a pundit, not a prophet."
Beside, what an assinine thing to say.
Pundits don't have causes?
You really are stupid.
Caution: This thread is full of FRussies.
FReep mail me if you'd like on the Ann Coulter ping list.
Links supporting my point.
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/06/anne_coulter_cl_1.html
Their are more, some by posters on this site. Would you like me to link to those also?
"Nope. Not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties."
Um lets see here R's = tax cuts, AWB went bye bye, more military spending, missile defense
D's = gun grabbing, tax raising, anti-military whackos
gee no difference alright </sarcasm off>
They would not have impeachment hearings around the clock. That is a totally clueless statement.
They would devote at least 8 hours per day to selling secret information for campaign contributions!
I would imagine this story will be out by tomorrow or by the weekend.
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.