Newt is the ULTIMATE hypocrite . . .
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
NEWT GINGRICH AND THE GOP DEBACLE OF 1996
In 1996, Clinton's '6th year', Congressional Republicans under the leadership of Newt 'Conservative Contract With America' Gingrich were expected to crush the Democrats in the mid-term elections.
Here's what actually happened:
Before the election -- 230R 204D (+26R)
After the election -- 226R 207D (+19D)
Yep, the Democrats actually gained seats and Newt resigned in political disgrace.
RONALD REAGAN AND HIS '6th YEAR' DEFEAT IN 1986
In 1986, Ronald Reagan and the GOP suffered HORRIBLE electoral losses:
8 Senate seats . . .
Moving the GOP from the majority (53-47 +6) to the minority (55-45 -10) . . . [At worst, GWB will face a 49-51 (-2) minority -- and that -2 will include a very GWB-leaning Independent!!]
5 Congressional seats . . .
Giving the Democrats an even wider margin in the House
from a 253-182 (+71) majority to a 258-177 (+81) majority! . . . [It appears that GWB/the GOP will endure a much smaller 229-196 (+33) majority!]
Why did Reagan suffer such devastating losses in 1986?
Like President Bush, he just wasn't able to avoid the '6th' year hex! First there was Bork, then Reykjavik, then the election losses, then Iran-Contra, and then an historic 23-point drop in his JA rating in just one month -- AND GUESS WHAT: THE UBER CONSERVATIVES DESERTED HIM IN DROVES [FYI: These are the same conservatives who today use a bastardized version of the Reagan legacy as a weapon with which to bash President Bush -- what a bunch of soul-less losers!] . . .
FAST FORWARD TO 2006: If the NewtGingrichRushHannityIngrahamNROelitistsRightwingpunditsFreeper ubercons were to be "intellectually honest", they would use the same convoluted logic to explain the 1986 and 1996 GOP mid-term losses as they are currently using to explain the 2006 loss:
"Conservatives didn't lose in 1986 or 1996; Republicans lost. If only Reagan and Gingrich had been authentic movement conservatives with the uncanny ability to circumvent the leftist media and communicate directly to 'the American people', the 'purist' conservatives would have stormed the polls in record numbers and carried these two RINOs, and their Republicrat Party, to victory!"
Oops, I forgot, our rightwing intelligentsia isn't interested in either HONEST ANALYSIS or HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE; it's only interested in bashing President Bush in a transparent attempt to position themselves as KING MAKERS for the 2008 Republican nominee for President! [They also want to obscure their own culpability for the loss! . . . What a bunch of pathetic poseurs!!]
It's also important to remember that 1998 was not the "sixth year" of Clinton's presidency. Rather, it was actually the second year of "Part II" of the administration of that disordered freak. By 1998, Bill Clinton was basically functioning as a Republican president entering the second half of his term -- having already signed most of the Contract with America into law.
.
I invite you to read my comments at post #200.
Thank you for pointing out American History as it REALLY happened.
LLS
I remember playing for a really good football team. We beat every team that came up against us. Then one game, we lost by 2 points.
For the next two days, there was a lot of griping, complaining, blaming, hysteria, etc.
The team that beat us thought they had achieved the pinnacle of success. They were jazzed. They were so happy and excited.
We thought we were doomed.
Somewhere during the week, after a few days of whining, the coach pulled us together and said... "HEY GUYS!!!! Lets' knock off the whining and start winning!"
We shook it off and went to the next game and won 42-6 against the toughest team in our league (other than us).
I am really looking forward to the third day....
Clinton's 6th year election was 1998, Dems gained 5 house seats no change in the Senate. Real History using Real Numbers Kinda blows your theory away.
Well said, Deb.