Posted on 10/21/2006 12:06:25 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
It's finally been found: the agenda the Democratic Party would pursue should it take control of Congress Nov. 7. For those voters who have been confused about what exactly the Democrats would do if there were to take power, things have just gotten a lot clearer. Continues...
=============================================================
Fake Pollgasms linked to Rats' electile dysfunction -- study
Wow! We just passed 300 million! At exactly 7:46 a.m. EDT Tuesday, the clock rolled over to the big figure -- 300 million times the press has told us Democrats will win back Congress! What an amazing milestone. Press "reports" that Democrats were 'poised to win back Congress' began approximately 8 or 9 seconds after the GOP won back Congress. Twelve years ago. In the fall of '96, Democrats were still 'poised to win back Congress.' In the fall of '98, Democrats were still 'poised to win back Congress,' as they were in the fall of 2000, 2002, and again in 2004. Democrats are now poised to rack up their 6th term of not having won back Congress.
But! The press says Democrats are really fired up this time, like never before -- I guess that's why Air America just filed for bankruptcy. First it was North Korea's nuke, then it was Air America -- that's two bombs from the Left in a week.
Voter turnout for Democrats during this year's primaries amounted to 16%. Armed with this knowledge, the New York Times says "enthusiasm among Democrats is particularly high this year, significantly higher . . . than the intensity of Republicans." They must be basing this on those sterling exit polls.
If you look at it historically, Franklin Roosevelt got his clock cleaned by Republicans in the 1938 midterm. It was the sixth year of his presidency. Popular Dwight Eisenhower got a shellacking from Democrats in the 1958 midterm. It was the sixth year of his presidency. Immensely popular President Reagan lost the Senate in the 1986 midterm. It was the sixth year of his presidency. Yeah, it's a mystery why Bush will lose seats in his sixth year.
Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats in the House in order to usher in world peace, surrender in Iraq, surrender to the Taliban, shut down Gitmo, repeal tax cuts, repeal the Patriot Act, block funding for border control, fund stem cell research, end faith-based programs, draw up articles of impeachment, end climate change, stop Wal-Mart, impeach Bush.
Democrats need a net gain of 6 seats in the Senate to imprint with a rubber stamp whatever junk the House passes and put Bushigula on trial for "spying" on innocent al-Qaeda-Americans, tracking terrorist financing, killing ABM, killing Kyoto, killing the global criminal court, snookering John Kerry with yellow-cake, booting out Saddam and other serious abominations.
With the Nancy Pelosi set in charge in the House, no more suggestive IMs to underage adult ex-pages. It'll be back to business as usual -- raping teenage pages and running gay call-boy prostitution rings from their Washington pads. When Democrats ran the show, then Congressman Gerry Studds (DEMOCRAT-Mass.), who died over the weekend, did a teen page. Democrats praised him for not crossing the line into sending the page "overly friendly" notes. He got a wrist slap. Studds, who wrote a new page in history as the first openly pederast Congressman, turned his back on the House when his "censure" motion was being read. All across America, gay child molesters -- those not castrated -- gave Studds a standing ovation.
(Democrats refer to Studds as a "martyr" -- which means they probably think he's in paradise meeting his 72 virgin teens.)
Democrats couldn't bring themselves even to 'censure' Rep. Barney Frank -- whose boyfriend was running a prostitution ring from Frank's pad. A motion to "censure" Frank failed, even after Harry Reid "amended" the charges from 'sick, sick, sick behavior' to 'mildly ill behavior.'
If you look at the big picture, every prediction that 'Democrats are poised to win back Congress' is based on polls. Nothing new there. Based on polls, Colorado GOP Senator Wayne Allard was declared 'dead' in 2002. He won decisively.
Polls showed Saxby Chambliss could never beat Vietnam war hero Sen. Max Cleland. Chambliss beat him.
Georgia Gov. Ray Barnes was 'coasting' to reelection in the polls. He lost. Georgia got its first GOP governor since 1872 -- despite very "reliable" polls. Republican Mitt Romney was "too conservative" for one of the most liberal bastions in America. No chance of winning there, according to polls. He won.
DNC honcho Terry McAuliffe said "Jeb Bush is gone!" Payback for 2000. Polls. Jeb Bush won, 56% to 43%. Texas Democrat Senate candidate Ron Kirk won handily in the polls. He lost to John Cornyn at the ballot box. Polls showed Katherine Harris couldn't win in Florida's District 13. Payback for 2000. She won. Polls showed Walter Mondale was a shoo-in for the Senate in Minnesota. Former presidential candidate. Can't lose. He lost. Republican Linda Lingle couldn't win the race for governor of Hawaii, polls showed. She did.
Elizabeth Dole? Polls showed her opponent Erskine Bowles couldn't lose. Former Clinton chief of staff. Businessman. He lost. In Maryland, Democrat candidate for governor Kathleen Kennedy . . . WAIT -- STOP RIGHT THERE. A Kennedy -- lose? Against Robert what's-his-face? She lost.
Shockingly, polls weren't much better at predicting anything in 2004. Howard Dean's "unstoppable" -- polls. "Electable" Kerry -- polls. Unpopular war. David Kay's "We were all wrong" Senate testimony. Abu-Ghraib. Fallujah. Bush sinking -- polls. Bombings, kidnappings and ambushes in Iraq. Bush sinks further -- polls. TANG documents. Richard Clarke. Report by 9/11 Commission. Al-Qaqaa "missing" explosives. Bush totally sunk -- polls. Bush "loses" 3 debates -- polls. Kerry calls Mary Cheney a "lesbian." Christians vow to stay home, according to polls. Bush and the lesbian's father go on to win the election. Most polls were only wildly off.
Pollsters couldn't even do exit polls of ACTUAL VOTERS right. John Zogby had horseface trouncing Bush in his last projection -- late in the afternoon, Election Day. So, yeah, we can really trust these guys.
Now polls are showing Democrats are revved up and ready to go vote. But even if true, it wouldn't matter since Democrats are still too stupid to know where to vote.
"There is a huge potential for some sort of October surprise," Zogby tells Reuters. There's a huge potential for some sort of November "surprise," too. It's called Republicans winning the elections. The good money is still on the GOP.
Anyway, that's...
My Two Cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Yeah, there's going to be one hell of a civil war between the MoveOn moonbats and the more-'moderate' 'Rats.
ping for a good rant
This is so encouraging .. and right in line with what I believed before I even read it.
The "silent majority" will strike again and the dems will not know what hit them.
However, I do believe that after the dems lose this election they will visit endless hell upon America for being so stupid for not voting for them.
Another keeper, John!!!
bump for later reading
Charged with pumping up the 'Rat turnout, Moonbat election workers are hogging down Viagra and coffee in hopes of a last-minute spurt.
A good day for a little historical reflection. Thanks, John.
bttt
For what it's worth, though, Zogby - now polling as a partner of The Wall Street Journal - came out with a summary of his recent Senate polling only Thursday, which largely contradicts what we've been hearing from other MSM polling entities. If all current leaders were to hold onto their leads, according to Zogby himself, the GOP will wind up with 54 Senate seats in the next Congress - a net loss of only one.
JohnHuang2, your old friend, Defender2 here.
Go to the link below, once there, go to reply #28, once there click the link it contains.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1723311/posts
Proof Positive why the DemocRATS Cannot be trusted with the Defense of the Country!!!!
D2
From your keyboard to God's ears! Keep praying make sure to vote, FReepers!
Thanks!
And the Democrats will lose one, to Leiberman. That'll make it 54-44-2. Bad new for Democrats, 10 seats behind in the Senate.
Funniest thing I've read in weeks. Absolutely first rate. This deserves a much wider audience.
However, Lieberman would be expected to vote as a conservative Democrat on the WOT and Iraq. On the other hand, there would still be a few RINOS there whose votes are iffy in quite a number of areas.
Still, the bottom line is that the GOP will most likely maintain organizational control of the Senate.
Yes..you are corect, sir! LOL...but he can't beat macaca, can he?
"Republicans are divided and unmotivated. That is why we are volunteering staggering amounts of time and money. Clearly the Democrat message of cowardice and anti-Americanism is resonating with disaffected conservatives. We are doomed."
No...don't believe the libnutmedia rotgut they are spewing. Here's why: for six years I've begged/pleaded and posted all over the place trying to find out HOW DIMS feel about any issue. Answer: they won't say. My point is, if the DIMS can't tell US how they FEEL on any issue, why are you allowing THEM to tell US how we feel?
Think about that. They have ZIP, nada, nothing. All they have is a pack of lies and BS. Stop buying into it. VOTE GOP and shut them down.
And drop the negativity...no need to panic. No one in their right mind is going to allow the dims to wrest Congressional control away from the GOP.
Yes they would retain organizational control. But with the Democratic Party having lost 2 seats because they ate their own favorite sons via the primary system, it is no assurance that the Democrats - even if they got 49 seats - could assure that the 2 independents would hand them control. The party failed these 2 Senators, letting the fringes take control of the primaries, only to lose the general election to the people the party should have supported.
What I am saying is not only is that party a mess, there is no assurance that the two independents wouldn't want to deliver some payback.
I don't see Lieberman as being anything other than he has been in the Senate up until now; he will vote with the 'Rats the large majority of the time, but might support the Bush administration occasionally on foreign policy matters. In other words, no discernable revenge factor. He'll count his blessings to be reelected and move on as if almost nothing happened.
I didn't think my sarcasm was so subtle as to require a sarcasm taq.
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.