Posted on 05/13/2008 6:00:23 AM PDT by TheEaglehasLanded
“The only hope for the GOP I fear is if Obama wins the presidency he is such a disaster that it can rebuild the party. But right now, we are pretty much scewed thanks to Bush and his inability to fight back, lead, and play the game.”
This the truth that alot of people on our side need to hear now. The GOP leadership in the House should resign, tomorrow. Boehenr and Blunt are pathetic PR people and can anybody name the Chair of the RNC? Where is this clown?
The only problem I fear is the Rats will get the credit for the oil bubble burst that will have nothing to do with their policies and just the timing of the market. When the Sheeple are back to paying $2 a gallon or less for gas again, the Drive Bys and will give the Rats and Obama all the credit in the world.
Unless the GOP grows some tescicles in the next two years, 2012 will be just as ugly and we may not get another GOP majority till 2014 or later . The whole playbook needs to be thrown out and redrawn!
Everyone calm down. These are Emmanual Democrats. They are far, far to the right of the Pelosi wing and it’s tough to beat another person running with the same positions you have.
The GOP will be just fine. McCain is going to beat Obama with Independent Moderates and very little is going to happen, not so much because a left wing Congress can’t get past a GOP President — but because the Democrat factions in Congress won’t be able to agree on enough to assert any agenda that doesn’t wind up passing with a minority of Democrat votes.
Just relax and keep working to help the rightmost candidate who is viable at any point in time.
My guess is the counties left have high minority population, in southern politics they are the last to usually come in.
Actually, it’s 435 House members (+5 non-voting members).
Frankly I’m glad I went to bed early last night. And, yup, this is panic time. That 30 seat House loss and 8 seat Senate loss may be definitely possible in November. Sadly for MS, this is a black eye for Haley Barbour, too. A 3D-1R House delegation from MS. Absolutely inexcusable.
I would give the same advice on Davis as I would for the lost Hastert and Baker seats... he needs to stand aside for the Nov general. It’s readily apparent now we put up the weakest candidates in all 3 of our lost special election contests. I supported Lauzen for the IL race, and he would’ve won handily. I did support Woody Jenkins (but I allowed sentimentality and respect for the man to overlook he had too many weak spots). I also supported McCullough over Davis because I had considerable worries the sticks would not a Memphis ‘burbs rep. Well, apparently that was the case. Davis isn’t a bad man or necessarily a bad candidate, he just wasn’t the right candidate.
Ultimately in MS the blame should be laid where it belongs... right at Trent Lott’s feet (and that goes same for Hastert and Baker not having the common courtesy to wait until the end of the terms to retire). I’m similarly worried now that Wicker may be imperiled. Musgrove is a first tier Dem candidate. I think Chip Pickering was the better choice to fill the seat, and his seat is likely to stay “R.” Even ex-Lt Gov. Amy Tuck might’ve been better, and her appointment wouldn’t have created any vacancies.
Playbook, hell. You need another team. The GOP keeps running the ball into enemy territory and claiming they are gaining ground.
If yesterday’s loss is a black eye for Haley Barbour, it’s two black eyes for Roger Wicker. Barbour should have never named that scumbag to the Senate, and now we lost the House seat as well. I hope Wicker doesn’t similarly blow a seemingly safe GOP Senate seat this November.
If yesterday’s loss is a black eye for Haley Barbour, it’s two black eyes for Roger Wicker. Barbour should have never named that scumbag to the Senate, and now we lost the House seat as well. I hope Wicker doesn’t similarly blow a seemingly safe GOP Senate seat this November.
Speaking of Roger Wicker, did he ever come up with an excuse about why he endorsed the screwy liberal Governor of Puetro Rico? Barbour made a major mistake in promoting this guy from the House to the Senate. Of course the same can be said when Hastert decided to "retire" halfway through his term (poor Denny, can't stand the burden of having to vote on bills for another nine monthes), thus forcing the GOP to compete in a "special election" a mere month after the primary). There really ought to be a law penalizing Congressman who cut and run from their jobs for reasons other than illness or being under criminal investigation.
This Republican bloodbath in Congress makes me very wary of November. We did far better in the "special elections" of 2006 (Bilbray, etc.) than in 2008 and yet the Dems kicked the GOP's butt in 2006. I'm afraid that if Hillary did run as a third party candidate in November, all the turnout of Hillary and Obama supporters voting Dem in downticket races would result in a veto-proof RAT majority in Congress, though fieldmarshaldj is probably correct that the result at the top of the ticket that McCain would win over 40 states (Dems would only carry states they regularly get over 60% of the vote statewide, like NJ & NJ going to Hillary and D.C. and Hawaii going to Obama)
Our best hope is for a Dem implosion at the Denver convention where they massacre each other to a stalemate.
Speaking of Roger Wicker, did he ever come up with an excuse about why he endorsed the screwy liberal Governor of Puetro Rico? Barbour made a major mistake in promoting this guy from the House to the Senate. Of course the same can be said when Hastert decided to "retire" halfway through his term (poor Denny, can't stand the burden of having to vote on bills for another nine monthes), thus forcing the GOP to compete in a "special election" a mere month after the primary). There really ought to be a law penalizing Congressman who cut and run from their jobs for reasons other than illness or being under criminal investigation.
This Republican bloodbath in Congress makes me very wary of November. We did far better in the "special elections" of 2006 (Bilbray, etc.) than in 2008 and yet the Dems kicked the GOP's butt in 2006. I'm afraid that if Hillary did run as a third party candidate in November, all the turnout of Hillary and Obama supporters voting Dem in downticket races would result in a veto-proof RAT majority in Congress, though fieldmarshaldj is probably correct that the result at the top of the ticket that McCain would win over 40 states (Dems would only carry states they regularly get over 60% of the vote statewide, like NJ & NJ going to Hillary and D.C. and Hawaii going to Obama)
Our best hope is for a Dem implosion at the Denver convention where they massacre each other to a stalemate.
Who would be the best possible candidate for the Dems this November? I've in mind somebody who would scorch John McCain on the Republican ticket, perhaps sweeping to victory in over forty states.
Plus, it would be somebody whose own program seems pretty much the same as the Democrat agenda.
If the Democrats nominated John McCain to head their ticket, he would sweep all before him -- submerging the Republican John McCain in a landslide of huge proportions.
And, policy-wise, the liberals would appear to get just about everything they want from a McCain presidency.
McCain would have to renounce both those positions on unconditional terms to even be considered for the RAT nomination.
In 1962, there were no Republicans from MS. The first elected to the House in the modern era won in 1964. He served one term. The next 2 elected were Lott and Cochran in 1972. We actually dropped to zero again when Gene Taylor won the special election in 1989 for the late Larkin Smith's seat. We remained at zero from late 1989 until 1995. When Wicker was elected to Jamie Whitten's open seat in '94, he was the only House Republican in MS. Mike Parker in the then-4th switched parties in '95 prior to his running for Governor. In '96, we won a 3rd seat when Pickering won Sonny Montgomery's seat (Montgomery had succeeded the first Republican in the modern era in '66). In '98, we lost Parker's open seat, and when MS dropped to 4 seats, Pickering beat the Dem who won Parker's seat in 2002. It's been a tied delegation... until yesterday. But the 1st is Republican enough that no Dem should've really received more than the low 40s% range. Davis had the misfortune of residing in the suburban end of the district and rural types wanted one of theirs. Had we nominated McCullough, he would've neutralized Childers' rural advantage and handily carried suburban Memphis as well for an overall win.
"I hope it's not as bad as Oberweis losing to a unknown in a district that hadn't elected a Dem Congressman since the 30's."
The Hastert seat last went Dem in 1974 when Leslie Arends retired and we put up an apparently weak retread ex-Congressman from a previous overlapping Congressional district. Although ironically, that Republican, Cliff Carlson, had beaten the Dem, Tim Lee Hall, when they had run earlier in a 1972 special election, so the presumption he could win was not misplaced. Hall had also run against Arends later on in 1972 (when the district lines were changed), but the aged Arends blasted Hall by 15%. When Tom Corcoran ran against Hall in 1976, he retook it for the GOP and beat him by 8%. Hall became somewhat of an embarrassing perennial candidate and kept on trying to reclaim the seat. In the bad GOP year of 1982, he still lost in a massive landslide against future Gingrich GOP Whip opponent Ed Madigan (and Bush, Sr. US Agriculture Sec), losing 66-34%. Hall's final foray was an attempt to run for the seat again when Madigan quit Congress after losing that Whip race, but in a low-turnout special primary, he failed to win the Dem nomination.
How openly "pro-life" is McCain? He wants the party to drop its abortion plank.
Republican nominee John McCain receive a great boost in his effort to win over more social conservatives towards his campaign. The National Right to Life, an organization strongly known for its opposition to abortion, endorsed McCain for president this week.
A resolution passed by the board of directors described McCain as one who, of all candidates running for office, the most consistent congressional record against abortion.
McCain, the resolution says, had a “strong pro-life voting record against abortion and opposes Roe v. Wade." Obama and Clinton, however, the resolution concluded had strong positions and voting records “in favor of abortion” and strongly support the appointment of only U.S. Supreme Court Justices who favor Roe v. Wade.
"National Right to Life supports Senator John McCain…and urges all pro-life citizens to do likewise,” the resolution stated. The endorsement of National Right to Life comes at a crucial time when McCain, who has been at odds with pro-family leaders on issues, was believed to have created a divide among the social conservative community.
Pro-life constitutional scholar and professor at Princeton University, Robert P. George, wrote in a column recently that McCain now "offers pro-life voters by far the more appealing prospect" when compared to Obama and Clinton. George also wrote that on the issue of abortion, “there is no comparison between McCain's history of support for the right to life and Clinton's and Obama's implacable opposition to it."
George concluded by saying, "Few elections in our lifetime have been as consequential for the pro-life cause as this year's is likely to be."
Senator McCain says he will as president stand up for "rights of the unborn" and nominate pro-life advocates like Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
George, along with The National Right to Life believe the pro-life movement can have a solid future with McCain as president. "The next president,” George says, “will make the difference between continuing the progress made by the pro-life movement in the past three decades, or reversing course and reinforcing a culture of abortion and embryo destruction that rejects fundamental human equality.”
And here is McCain's ratings from single-issue abortion groups over the past decade:
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2007.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 2005-2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 75 percent in 2005-2006.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2005.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2004.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 82 percent in 2003- 2004.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2003.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2001.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 2001.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 2000. Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association 0 percent in 1999-2002.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the NARAL Pro-Choice America 0 percent in 1999.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the Planned Parenthood 0 percent in 1999.
Senator McCain supported the interests of the National Right to Life Committee 80 percent in 1997-1999
Am I saying McCain is a reliable, consistant conservative? Certainly not. But on the pro-life issue, he's certainly miles ahead of Hillobama and has a solid record of supporting the pro-life cause and ZERO record on supporting pro-abortion bills to prove it. He's also stated his public opposition to abortion many times. There may be some issues where McCain agrees with Hillary & Obama, but abortion is not one of them. Now, if it were, say, Arlen Specter vs. Hillary Clinton for President, I would agree that there is "no difference" between them on abortion. McCain will sign pro-life legislation and pro-life judges for office. Hillobama won't be caught dead doing so, and it's a fact that the Democrats WILL NEVER RUN a pro-life candidate for President. Please view a list of their nominees for Pres and VP since 1972 and see those candidates stand on abortion.
McCain's pro-life record is even miles ahead of Zig Zag Zell Miller, who who spent years supporting Roe v. Wade but somehow got freepres to slobber all over with him praise about what a "true conservative" he was when Zell suddenly decided he was "against" abortion when his "great-grandchildren" were born and AFTER he retired from office and wouldn't actually have to vote on any bills that would make a difference on public policy. How "courageous" of "pro-life" Zell Miller.
I'm not arguing whether McCain is "miles ahead of" any Democrat. He is. I'm simply observing that he seems to be concerned with dumping the pro-life plank in the Republican platform.
Given the demonstrations of his previous 'commitments' to conservative principles, it's plausible to suspect that McCain's commitment to the pro-life platform might be less than...ah, concrete.
2 black yes and a broken jaw for Tom Cole and the NRCC. Cole strikes me as a tool.
Bush took 62% in the MS seat to 55% in the IL-14th and 59% in the LA seat.
Rahm Emmanual is a scummy wannabee speaker. He’s worse than queen nancy in my book.
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.