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 ...
The know-it-all Colter predicted we'd lose in 2004, a prediction also based on the "normal cycle" theory
So did Rove
++++++
What a liar you are:
Rove touts Bush headway in key areas - The Washington Times: Nation/Politics - September 23, 2004
President Bush expects to help Republicans gain up to four Senate seats and seven House seats in November and already is running Sen. John Kerry out of states that had been considered battlegrounds, White House political strategist Karl Rove said yesterday.
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040923-122118-6902r.htm
Only if you care about the safety of the Nation.
There is no way we will gain seats in November. We will be lucky to not lose the majority. The Presidents numbers are draggin down the whole party. The non-partisan people are fed up with immigration, the war in Iraq, and gas prices. When people stay this mad this long, they vote against the party in power. It is the natural cycle of politics. People are not afraid of attacks on our soil because there haven't been anymore. I know that is because the administration is doing a good job of preventing it, but that will not matter to joe schmo on the street. They do not see much difference between dems and repubs.
double? as in -6, -20?
they had better get it in gear in some states where we have a chance to win, yes - even where there aren't hard core conservatives running. Like NJ and MN senate. we are already sacrificing a chance in FL against Nelson, to allow the "base" to impale themselves with Harris.
many republicans are unhappy - gas prices and the failure to drill our own oil and increase refineries, the PC War On Terror, the recent new rights to Gitmo prisoners, the carrots to the Iranian leader which did nothing but encourage the North Korean leader to launch missiles so he could get his carrots, 12 - 20 million illegals... I am NOT surprised.
I'm actually amazed by those who are surprised.
If I were polled on the phone today I would be one of those in the category that says I'm NOT happy with the way the WOT is going. It's becoming too CLINTONIAN!
We have leaks coming out of the CIA to the NYT and nobody jailed. I think Karen Hughs(sp) should be talking to the American people because this White House definately needs to improve it's PR.
forget it, if the Dems win - the war on terror is over.
we should start buying prayer mats.
She better hope not.
If the Democrats regain power, they are not going to relinquish it just because they lose an election.
One needs to be very, very afraid of the Democrats regaining the majority in the House, Senate and of a Democrat President as the Democrat Party stands now.
Either you are at happy hour or you are a DUmmie.
political correct war on terror, gas prices...
Agreed
OMG! It must be historical TREND!
Oh WAIT Historical TREND aint been in use since President Bush was 1st elected!
Uhhhhhh Maybe he and WE Reps are the AntiChrist!~}
jrg wrote:
> Not a dime's worth of difference between the two parties <
1. No difference on gun issues? Like manufacturers' liability? Like the "assault weapons" ban?
2. No difference on Supreme Court justices? Like John Roberts as compared to Ruth B. Ginsburg? Like Sam Alito as compared to Stephen Breyer?
3. No difference in the war on Islamo-Nazism? Like having Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) as Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, as opposed to crypto-socialist Rep. Bennie Thompson (D. Miss.) -- who will take over the Committee if the Dims gain control of the House. Or like putting captured terrorists at Guantanamo vs. putting them on trial at your friendly neighborhood federal courthouse?
4. No difference in tax policy? Like extending the Bush tax cuts vs. raising rates to pre-2001 levels? Or like reducing or eliminating the death tax vs. re-instating the cursed thing?
5. No difference in appointments? For example, John Bolton at the U.N. vs. the likes of Andrew Young? Or Condi Rice vs. Madame Allbright?
6. No difference in strength of character? Like having a President with Texas-style cojones, as opposed to weak sisters like the two Clintons, Algore, and Jean-Francois Kerry?
No she isn't. She's so far below great that she has to look up to see good.
Only if the Dems don't gain any. :)
Something tells me that if Coulter is saying it, the "six degrees of Rush Limbaugh" friends won't be far behind. They are so closely aligned that if one has an idea, they all think it's worth repeating.
So did Rove in 2002. Right_Virginia is the one who confused the years.
And I stand by this. Whether he just said it to raise money or excite the base to vote, I dont know but he DID warn that we could lose seats in 2002.
She agrees with Novak, who contends a 30 seat GOP loss in the house. Speaker Pelosi anyone????? So what? Chairman Rangle????So What? Impeachment of Bush??????It will be a freak show in charge in Washington. This will get very ugly.
"political correct war on terror"
LOL
Yep, invading Afghanistan and Iraq was so politically correct.
You should stick to lying about Rove.
Hey, Sam: You're right about the year, it was 2002. I really don't care one whit whether or not you believe me because Anne Coulter was wrong then and she's wrong now.
I would think you'd be relieved.
2002
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.