Posted on 11/08/2006 3:58:41 PM PST by pissant
History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.
So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
GWBush was giddy with anticipation of putting forth the Amnesty for illegals.
I posted an article here on Greece's amnesty fiasco. The conservative party there is suffereing because they have an amnesty program which has to have an extension. The children of illegals in schools created cries of unfairness.
The "Dream act" in the US congress which was floundering for years is an effort to return the anchor babies. If a child is in school ALL the family can be made illegal.
Each illegal alien brings 30 (THIRTY) family members into the USA legally. THIRTY!
12 million illegals (which used to be 8 million in the MSM then became 10 million then became 11 million then became 12 million and I fully expect the MSMto make it 15 million)
needs to be multiplied by 30.
I do belive that is the most hysterical and outlandish post I've read on FR in the past 12 hours.
Pictures don't do much for me.
You have made your idiotic points and highjacked the thread so why don't you go away now? I don't think you even read the article.
Sorry, Rb, we have, as a nation, decided to give victory to the enemy--for the second time in a generation. We will pay a dreadful price for this, far worse than we paid in Vietnam, because this time, we're going to suffer attacks AGAIN here in our country.
And Ann Coulter worked her (extremely) little butt off to make it happen--just to engage in some famewhoring.
You obviously haven't yet gotten the real message from this year's election debacle.
It is NOT about party. It IS about principles. The Republicans did not do what they were sent to do, what they promised to do: balance the budget, reduce the size and scope of the federal government, secure our borders, etc.
People are looking for leaders, not politicians. We have an overabundant supply of politicians and an absolute dearth of leaders. Leaders do the right thing, not the expedient thing.
Until the GOP leadership learns these lessons, the GOP will be doomed to defeat. You can take out your frustration on Ann Coulter if you want (she's had tougher people than you try to attack her), but she is NOT the reason the Rats will be in charge. She did NOT "hand power" to the Rats. GOP leadership failures handed power to the Rats. Thinking anything different is ignoring the true meaning behind Tuesday's elections.
I agree with Rush--conservatism didn't lose on Tuesday. Republicanism lost. Conservatism works every time it's tried. Republicans in Congress forgot where they came from and why they were sent to Washington.
People need to quit whining, learn what they can from this whole thing and return to the principles that made the party great. If the GOP returns to its conservative roots, the Rats' fairly tenuous grip on Congress will be done away with in 08.
Your attitude perfectly illustrates the reason why the GOP will be handing control of both houses of Congress to the Rats in January.
Throwing around spurious charges of "treason" and calling people "idiots" betrays your ignorance and the complete weakness of your position.
I think being dependent on Chaffee in a 50-50 Senate would have meant being in the minority in a 49-51 Senate. I just have a gut feeling he had a deal with Schumer to switch in that case. No inside knowledge or anything like that, just Schumer's comments on one of the Sunday shows that this was the must-win seat for the Dems. Being naturally suspicious, I assumed he wanted the Republicans to pour money into that seat that would have been better spent elsewhere, because he knew he'd have that seat if it was decisive anyway. So call me a cynic! ;-)
Please, Ann. Don't you know when to stop, at least for a while?
Some people are off their meds. And some have yet to find the correct prescription.
Trying to be logical with someone of this hindrance is a waste of effort.
You'd be better off pulling some weeds out back.
Ann has nothing to do with the election results. She didn't encourage the behavior by the annointed elected officials that created the political atmosphere that contributed to their defeat.
She merely predicted the outcome as she travels the country and hears from the people.
Now tell me when a law is written making that a crime.
Your comment is interesting...
Yesterday, we all had to read the carping about how "Ruch Lied to us!" as he sadly stated in his words that he was tired of carrying water for the republican party.
Now, today, we have to read your comment, accusing AC of causing the election problems.
The GOP lost because the GOP has floundered in its consrvatism. It isn't AC's fault for calling people what they are, in an effort to hold them accountable for their actions, nor is it RL's fault for trying to make a silk purse out of a RINO's ear in an effort to salvage what can be salvaged out of the 109th-GOP-in-a-skirt weaklings.
We cannot tear into the folks who motivate and educate the conservative movement whilst trying to prop up limp GOP candidates. AC and RL are essential media counter-weights to the MSM propaganda and have served conservativism well...very well indeed.
If you're going rip someone a new a$$ for failure, start with the candidates put forth by the GOP, then move to the RINOS who got caught up in scandals, then swoop down upon those who sat on their hands for the last two years.
But don't kill the messengers simply because they either tell the truth plainly, or color the truth to favor the conservative agenda, both are only done because the elected officials are the ones screwing up.
"Ann, you helped bring this about--and you did so solely to get people to read your columns. Treason is bad enough. Treason solely for personal monetary gain is worse"
LOL....are you a retard or do you just play one on FR?
If you literally believe that, implying that Democrats are literally terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, then it is your moral obligation to kill as many Democrats as you can. Otherwise, you're just speaking hyperbole.
Yes, now that dems have "embraced" diebold, they can't really complain next time.
But I certainly have not embraced diebold!
"Ann, you helped bring this about--and you did so solely to get people to read your columns. Treason is bad enough. Treason solely for personal monetary gain is worse."
Oh come on now, GWBush, Hastert, Frist, et. al. surley had something to do with this debacle, dontcha think?
Where did this happen?
I said she helped, and that she did so just to get a few more dollars.
It isn't AC's fault for calling people what they are, in an effort to hold them accountable for their actions
No, she was not attempting to hold Republicans accountable. She was working on spreading the mainstream media's meme that Republicans were irreconcilably split and disorganized. She gave them the pull quotes they wanted.
She handed ammunition to our enemies. She gave them aid and comfort.
Like Santorum was a Cassandra in PA. The more he told the truth about the future that the jihadists have planned for us, the worse his polling numbers got.
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.