wtf!?! who writes this garbage?!? the republicans shocked the crap out of EVERYONE by picking up seats in the senate.
as long as i'm on the subject ... the republicans PICKED UP 5 SEATS in the house. to characterize that as 'retaining its majority' is b.s.
has worldnet changed its editorial policies a la readers digest?
this is utterly, fantastically false, and the kind of slanted, biased, misleading reporting we've come to expect from the media we loathe and despise.
farrel (sp?) should be made aware he has a quisling on his staff.
Well, if Dummy Underground is a bellwether, I'd say this is true, they just don't get it.
They sent Bill Clinton, and did you notice, my friends, that everywhere Bill Clinton was sent, the Republicans triumphed in almost double-digit fashion? Everywhere except for Hawaii." And while he suggested fresher faces to lead the party, he expects to see plenty of former President Clinton, since his wife Hillary is a senator from New York. "Hillary is now his meal ticket," Limbaugh said. "[The Democrats] can't get rid of him. The single thing they need to do is get rid of him but they can't because she's there. ...
Haven't seen them, haven't heard a peep out of either one of them for two days. Showing their true colors, crawling under their rocks when the headlines are negative. Try remembering that, Dummycrats. Do you have any attention span at all?
I hope they continue on this path and think the Clinton's and Streisand are their saviors as they are now exposed.
Didn't Lingle win in Hawaii? What was her margin, by the way?
Where? In the Senate? I don't see why the fact that Hillary has a seat in the Senate means that the Dems can't freeze the Clintons out of any leadership role.
"They can hand out peace prizes to Jimmy Carter all they want. They can slobber all over Bill Clinton when he comes calling. But the American people stand not with Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton but with George W. Bush, their commander in chief, and the world knows it now. This is power."
Excellence in broadcasting article bump! The Dems lose because their Party has been taken over by hateful ideologues, and ideologues by definition do not see Reality.
Did you notice that Clinton was nowhere to be found on Wednesday? Not ONE interview on the TV airwaves. I was shocked, I tell ya, shocked!
Then, step two, is the Democrats will be left only with moderate Dems.
Third, conservative, Southern Democrats, Zell Miller, these types, should be co-opted into the Republican party and given rewards and power ('incentives').
And finally, all state GOP party apparati at the local level should AT ONCE be seized by CONSERVATIVE GOP and the RINOs sent to watch in the galleries with minor positions.
Scrap the IRS in favor of a national sales tax, pass a strong pro-life Constitutional Ammendment, lock down the borders and being massive deporting of illegal aliens, lock up the Supreme Court and federal courts and the federal bureaucracy, and then this country will be safe from liberal tyranny and political correctness and Hildabeast for at least another 30-40 years.
If we don't do it now, we will not have another chance until each of us is old and grey or in the ground.
I think it is almost certain that Morris gets copies of the DNC sponsored polls. I have no doubt that those polls said that the way to win was to oppose Bush at every step. It was an interesting commentary. It seemed to say the Democrats did what they did based on polling data that was wrong.
How do they get polls that are so wrong. Every republcan poll I saw said "Work together and co-operate". Some of us keep saying... "As soon as they secure the base this will stop." But it never stopped.
Pre-election polls of this type are ususaly contracted and paid for by either national or state party organizations. The results are shared with all campaigns. Efforts are made to coordinate common themes everywhere. Republicans have been doing this to some extent since 1994. There are many individual polls that are studied by the state and national party. The object is to find common ground with the swing voters and to put those appeals in campaign spots.
What I drew from that brief Morris statement was that the pre-election Democrat polls were wrong. They had to be wrong a year ago. They were likely wrong a week before the election. That defies belief. Republican polls were saying just after 911 that swing voters would be looking for cooperation. The Bush people were telling Republican house and senate members to respond to nasty Democrat attacks with appeals to work together. The key phrase were "This is not about who is to blame. It is about getting things done." Bush and Lott said that a lot. Hastert just kept his mouth shut.
RNC staffers were joking that for the appeal to unity to work Republicans would have to hold classes for Democrat voters. The classes were on how to vote on touch pad ballots using an elbow. In order to vote for a Republican Democrats would have learn how to vote for a Republican while holding their nose with both hands. We think some of them did.
I think that Terry McAuliffe is in many respects the quentessential "Don't confuse me with facts. I know what works" kind of person. McAuliffe obviously felt that attacks and obstructionism would work. His speech yesterday proves he still thinks that way. Perhaps he was so certain of his own beliefs that he shopped for pollsters that would tell him what he wanted to hear. In any event Morris seemed to be saying the internal polls he saw were wrong. The question is were all the Democrat pollsters wrong or did they just shop for pollsters that told them what they wanted to hear.
There is one factor that may have put a crimp in Democrat hands as the days roll on. The exit polls for both parties showed that the number 2 issue was the economy. But voters were split 50-50. Half wanted Bush to fix the economy and half wanted the Democrats to fix the economy. In other words Bush has nearly all the issues on his side. His worst case on issues is a 50-50 split... That is not nice for Democrats.
The problem for Democrats is very much like the Republicans in 1964. Many Republicans then and Democrats now are in denial, denial and more denial. Back then many Repubicans felt it was not the Goldwater message that cost so many votes. They felt it was the death of JFK. Others felt the Goldwater pitch was a disaster and the party had to move more to the center.
Nixon spent 65, 66, and 67 trying to help centrist candidates get elected. LBJ spent 4 years getting evrything he wanted through the house and Senate. The Republicans in Congress in 1965/67 were so divided that LBJ played them like a violin.
The Republican main stream goal after 64 was to take the party control away from the Goldwater supporters. That was completed in 68 by Nixon. The Nixon excesses put the party machinery in the hands of Jerry Ford and the left side of the Republican party. Reagan bridged the gap by appealing to the right while governing toward the center. LBJ blew the oportunity of a century. I don't think Dubya will.
The Democrats are at a major turning point as were the Repubicans in 1964.. Will they go down the far left lane as with Pelosi? The Gerrymandering in the house has fixed it so most Democrats with safe seats are far to the left of the nation. The new Democrat house leader will be an extreme lelfist. At least 180 of the Democrat house members are way to the left.
The Republican house members are not nearly so far right as the house democrats are to the left. The house is in the hands of the Republican majority. There are not enough RINO's that will go with the left to cause Hastert any problems. The house will do what Bush wants.
The Senate is another matter for Democrats. The Democrats are deeply divided. There areleftists who will say, "Damn the polls full left rudder." There are centrist who will understand that to fail to cooperate in this time, will mean a worse disaster in 2004. And there will be a couple who will think... "Man I wish I could get out of this mad house". No matter what the Democratic Senate leader does, he will not be able to to hold a unified body on much of anything. I don't think fillibusters have a prayer of working.
The new repubicans are elected becuase Dubya selected and elected them. They will do what he says when he says to do it. Bush is an 800 lb Gorrilla. It has been 100 years since a president has done what Bush just did. Our best case was to be in a situation where Chaffee could rule the roost. Jeffords thought to change parties and be in the Majority for at least 6 years. he thought he was trading 2 years for 6. What he did was trade 6 years for 2.
No one thinks that Bush will fail to gain seats for the Republicans in 2004. In the on year it is normal for a president to pick up 8 or 10 seats. That means 60 votes for Bush and a fillibuster attemtp is worthless. A Republican getting out of line can be punished. McCain wants to be president. He is thinking 2008. His performance during the next 2 years at least will be to make Laura Bush lool disloyal to Bush by comparison to McCain. McCain will be the loyal serving right hand to Dubya. The media will be puzzled as to why.
Think about the next Democratic Senate caucus, There will be people screaming at Leahy... What the hell do you think you accomplished. You held up Bush's judges for a year or so... But every one of them will now be confirmed. What you accomplished was to put us in the minority. Our best case is 48.. Do you want to try for 36 in 2004? I am not going down with your death wish... count me out you blankety blanktey blank. Others will scream if whe had been Leahy times 10 we would have a landslide it your defeatism that cost us... YOu can go blankely blankeyt blank.
Some leftist will try to persuade them that what they need is a coherent policy for governing.. an alternative view. They will find they can't agree on much of anything. Their contract with Chicago will come down to take the senate and house back and defeat Bush. After that they will not have much to agree on not even who should lead them.
< I do think that many will blame the Democratic power structure for buying that attacks on Bush and divided government appeals would work. The post mortums will convince many that their own party leaders were lying to them about the appeals that would work.I think that says most of the Democratic party leadership will be replaced. There will be some blood letting selecting their leaders.
I think all the media talk is biased by their hope that Dubya is an LBJ. That Dubya will reach too far and try too much. They refer to Gingrich...but they mean LBJ. And they hope that dubya is as grasping a Texan as LBJ.
But what the smarter ones in the media understand is that Bush is not an LBJ. LBJ wanted and did change the world in 6 years. Last night there were Republicans saying the goal was not 8 years but 40 years. They were talking not about short term but long term. They were saying that Clinton was about now and Bill Clinton. They said Dubya was far less about today and far more about 40 years from now.
I think that is true. It is highly unlikely that Bush is trying to make huge changes. They don't work and they don't stick. The media if full of Dubya's problems. They have it all wrong. It is the democrats who are up the creek with out a paddle.
Many liberal Democrats still view themselves romantically as Selma marchers, but the reality is they have been reduced to defining their core reality as one that defends sticking scissors in the brains of late-term unborn innocent children, that champions the "right" of men to marry men, that preaches that traditional marriage is vile slavery and that the state makes an adequate parent, and believes that the only unforgiveable crime is the crime of making moral judgments.
Liberal democrats are a joke, a slapstick parody of what they imagine themselves to be.