Posted on 04/28/2006 7:59:39 AM PDT by Fruit of the Spirit
If Democrats win back the Congress in the 2006 midterm elections, they could make President Bush's last two years in office so miserable it would be impossible for any Republican to win the 2008 presidential election - thus ensuring that Hillary Clinton becomes president.
So says Dick Morris, the only political strategist to engineer a successful presidential reelection campaign for Democrats since the days of FDR.
If the GOP doesn't reconnect with the American people on key issues like border enforcement, "they will lose the House and they will lose the Senate," Morris told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Thursday.
He warns: "The Democrats will use that control to so harass Bush, with investigations, censures, subpoenas and maybe even impeachment, you may find that in 2008 the Republican Party doesn't have a chance."
With Mrs. Clinton using her fundraising juggernaut to sew up the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Morris' prediction means that the former first lady would become president by default. The former Clinton strategist says Capitol Hill Republicans have one last chance to save themselves and rescue the nation from a 2008 presidential debacle.
"The next hundred days when those guys are in session is their last opportunity to control the elections of '06 and '08," said Morris
Have lived most of my 66 years with Dems in control of Congress. Would sure be appreciative if I could live out the rest of my life with them not being control. Say, another 40 years or so.
Bite your tongue. We can't let them win!
The Rat party will Not win back the House or the Senate. You can remind me of my statement come Nov., 2006 if I am wrong. I'm convident enough to make the statement.
"The Rat party..."
Something on the news tonight made me consider how liberal Democrats are perceived: As deceitful, hypocritical, immoral, and evil, they really do make quite a statement. And I guess it could be said of those who support them that, they're in bed together...or as the Bible puts it, "lie down with dogs...get up with fleas..."
When was the last time this fat little toad was right about anything?
NOTHING would EVER "assure" that Hillary Clinton would become President. Unless a Dem Majority congress constitutes over 50% of the voting electorate, which of course it doesn't, and the advent of a Dem majority wouldn't even NECESSARILY imply that she would win in the entirely SEPARATE operation that is the Presidential Election. It is MORE than possible, it is LIKELY that a foolhardy move like Hillary being the official nominee would in fact DOOM the Dem majority to another four-year rouund of High Rhetoric, similar to the one they've been entrenched in for over 5 years now. A brazenly ratcheted-up series of non-stop full-court attacks on Bush would only HURT the Dem effort. That should be obvious to anyone who is awake.
"...Whores are grunting out their little bastards in record numbers and the bills are coming in , and who is held accountable, the Fathers, who have no equal "Freedom of Choice" whether they wish to be a father or not..."
You seem to forget that the fathers had a part in making the "little bastards" in the first place. They had a choice to abstain from sex, use protection, or take the consequences.
There are hordes of people in this country who will not accept responsibility for their actions, including mothers and fathers of aborted babies.
Recognizing that liberals have no morals is, I believe, what prompted Ann Coulter to write her new book...I think it's called Liberals are Godless or Godless Liberals, meaning that they have no moral values and want to preach their dogma to the entire American society.
You/re right---only a fraudulent election would do it.
And I don't put it past them to try it AGAIN. They haven't let go of that mantra for five years now---it became the essential cornerstone of their ultimate all-purpose project of discrediting Bush in every way possible.\ I can't help but think the constant bellyaching has hurt them rather than helped them. If they tried to pull off "a theft of their own"? (which is actually what they were doing in 2000, and calling it the other guy's theft) the entire COUNTRY would laugh at them. THey would NEVER get away with it.
You may be the only person who signed up in 2004 who isn't a troll.
Yeah, I'm getting that feeling...LOTS of 'em about. DU must have had a thread on that or something.
Actually, I've been on FR since 2001, but after several moves I literally forgot my handle and had dumped AOL, so I had to start from scratch.
But it's disturbing how many Bush bashers there are here. The President is not above criticism, that's not what I'm talking about--I mean the calling of names like "traitor" and the calls for impeachment. It's suspicious to say the least.
" If they tried to pull off "a theft of their own"? (which is actually what they were doing in 2000, and calling it the other guy's theft) the entire COUNTRY would laugh at them. THey would NEVER get away with it."
I don't think the "entire country" would laugh at them. There are some Dumbocrats that actually believe Bush stole the election and will never be convinced otherwise.
I am well aware that there are some Dumbocrats who believe Bush stole the electin---that was part of the point I was making, that that much-repeated BIG LIE served as the cornerstone for all that followed in the partisan "doesn't matter WHAT he does, we hate him" assault on Bush.........
My point was that if they tried it again, with the same "rigged voting machine/ hanging chad/ intimidated-excluded black voters mantras they pulled out last time, it would NOT go over well at all---even some of their own would jump ship, as they did, say, when all the Lib SCOTUS Judges came out for Eminent Domain. I have had MANY extremely frustrating arguments with RELATIVES who are "convinced" that the election was stolen in 2000, but how much of that clamor do you remember them reviving in 2004? The answer is : VERY LITTLE, because all they HAD to revive was the contention that it happened in 2000 , in order to de-legitimize Bush's winning of the election over Kerry.
"I have had MANY extremely frustrating arguments with RELATIVES who are "convinced" that the election was stolen in 2000, but how much of that clamor do you remember them reviving in 2004? "
And I have some that have said that if Bush hadn't stolen the election in 2000, there never would've been a re-election in 2004.
(I can't imagine anyone thinking that Kerry would make a good president. Ugh!)
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.