[fschmieg]

Doesn’t the latest Supreme Court decision show you the importance of winning elections? Do you really want the awful results of Obama as president with large congressional majorities for his party? It will be an absolute nightmare. And don’t be so sure that once entrenched, the Dems would be so easy to defeat later on. Losing to win is a naive idea.

[fieldmarshaldj]

Nope, but here’s the problem...

If McCain wins, we have 40-41 Senators come January (down from 49) and 165-170 Congressman (down from about 200) and if he causes the usual disastrous split by embracing rodent initiatives and causes, come 2010, we could be down to 35 Senators and 140 Congressman.

By 2012 and McCain is defeated (or dead) and replaced with, you guessed it, the false Messiah (merely delayed by 4 years), we may only have 30 Senators and 125 House members (not unprecedented, as under FDR in 1937, we dropped to 17 Senators and 89 House members). It took 10 years to recover and when we suffered our single greatest defeat for Senate members in 1958, it took us 22 years to recover (nevermind the 40 it took to reclaim the majority in the House).

Ultimately here, McCain might merely be a Pyrhhic victory, just a brief speedbump on the way to obscene Democrat supermajorities of 70 Senators and 310 in the House with Obama at the helm in 4 years.

If Obama were to win this year and he embarks on his predictable moonbat course, it might only take us 2 cycles to win back the Congressional majority and install a President to boot in only 4 years. That might be preferable to waiting 40 years after McCain for a sane Congress. Either way, not good for the short term.

[cripplecreek]

Doesn’t the latest Supreme Court decision show you the importance of winning elections?

Gang of 14.

[EternalVigilance]

Doesn’t the latest Supreme Court decision show you the importance of winning elections?

Hard to take this seriously, considering the fact that three of the five judges in the majority were put there by Republican presidents.

[DoughtyOne]

If McCain didn’t vote to affirm the nomination of each judge who took the majority opinion yesterday, he voted to affirm all but one or two of them. And once again, I find another person who is convinced he is solid on judges. Why? What possible basis do you have for thinking he is?

The disconnect with reality that I am seeing this year is greater than it has ever been. People talk of the ozone hole expanding, but I think the fuzzy logic expansion this year is what needs to be addressed.

Zombie on party members, convince yourselves that John is the savior of the ages if you will. I’m not buying it.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

Doesn’t the latest Supreme Court decision show you the importance of winning elections?

Tell me, how does Juan Mcloon push these mythical conservatives you and so many of his supporters seem to think he's going to appoint through a congress that is in the hands of the opposition?

What in his background indicates he will fight hard for a conservative against his Good Friends Kennedy, Reid, Pelosi, etc.?

He might throw out a few marginally conservative names up for consideration, but when the democrats slap them down, he'll compromise, because that's what he does, and send up souters and o'connors because he won't want to stand against his Good Friends.

Mcloon is not going to change the Supreme Court, he may have said he will appoint conseravtive judges, but he also said he had heard us on the border and then he kneels to felate the la raza mexican supremacist with a smile.

He can not be believed on ANYTHING he says.