Ann Coulter: Party of Adultery and Abortion Takes A Hit

It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first President in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.

Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seats—and no Senate seats—that was Clinton’s second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clinton’s first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.

Thanks to Clinton, the ’94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton Administration—another being "First President accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That sweep meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.

To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton’s average was 46.

The media billed the Democrats’ paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)

By contrast, in Bush’s first midterm election last week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blowout that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenberg’s victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)

All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bête noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.

Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."

That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don’t want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.

Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Way—representing Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront—are already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bush’s judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.

This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats’ motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the party’s character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldn’t avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.

If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" doesn’t like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. I’m proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.

The end result of a Democratic President’s being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.

What a miserable party. I’m glad to see their power end, and I’m sure they’ll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.

Unless you look at it through religious lenses, which I think is the case here.

Nonsense. I am presenting easily verifiable scientific fact. Fact which you choose to ignore. Here are some more scientific facts for you to ignore.

Question: Is this a living creature, or is it an inanimate object:

You choose to divert the argument into a philosophical discussion of "what is life" and "how can we know when it begins." I choose to stay in the empirical--which is devastating to the pro-abort position.

The problem is that you can't prove that fetuses are human beings...

Can you prove that you are a human being? What makes you a human being? Lifeforce? A zygote has that. Unique DNA? A zygote has that. Ability to replicate? A zygote has that. A complete pattern of its fully matured form? A zygote has that.

Why anti-abortion zealots cannot understand the ridiculousness of their implication that no one can maintain a position of neutrality on the issue of abortion is beyond me.

Apparently you miss the point. I didn't. Can you maintain a position of neutrality on the issue of murder?

...because murder is provably wrong...

Prove it then. Prove to me in clearly stated objective terms that murder is wrong. What is wrong with it?

Not to mention Senators. Isn't Barbara Boxer from New York?

And isn't Nancy Pelosi from Maryland?
67 posted on 11/08/2002 7:22 PM EST by HIDEK6

Aren't they BOTH from Hell?

I don't know when the moment is where something becomes human. It's not conception.

You say you don't know then you say you know.

What has really taken place? Unless you look at it through religious lenses, which I think is the case here.

Or you could take a look through a scientific lens and see this:

A human sperm with half of the DNA code of human life combines with a human egg with half the DNA code of human life. The two half strings of DNA combine to create a whole string of DNA. This new and complete string of DNA is unique. None has ever existed before exactly like it and none exactly like it will ever exist again. It has every detail of the matured lifeform at the moment it combines. One characteristic of that is the impetus to live. As long as it has nourishment and protection (the same requirements any adult lifeform has) it will grow. All lifeforms, including one celled organisms, naturally seek to sustain life and reproduce. At the moment of conception a human zygote is the product of a human sperm and a human egg, how can it be other than human?

I don't know when the moment is where something becomes human. It's not conception. What has really taken place?

At conception there is a being with 46 chromosomes that would test as human DNA and it begins to take in nutrients and grow which indicates it's alive. At conception there is a unique live being with human DNA. Science would not deny that. Why would we have to imagine that a soul enters the growing body at some other point and even if you don't believe in souls, it still leaves a growing, live, human body that began at conception.

Could you please clarify your statement by using the term "some" people in California spit in God's face.

I have not given up - and after seeing what happened in Maryland - we all know it's not impossible to have repubs win in a dem state; they also have a 2:1 margin of dems.

I do believe the new "minority leader" Pelosi will only continue to drag the dems even further into the hole; in fact, I'm counting on it. Since she's from California - that's even better - perhaps, because of her hardline vileness, we can get something going by 2004 which will set up the state for a repub Gov in 2006.

And ... I am hoping it will be Simon ... but he will need to answer some important questions about his past more effectively, and he will need to pay BIG BUCKS to hire the best campaign people available. You just cannot depend on your "friends" to do the best job, especially when they are fighting with each other instead of the real enemy.

God's mercy is new every morning. God will not desert His remnant here in CA. The new chapter in San Diego will have it's work cut out for it - even though we are still a repub majority in this county, we do have a large gay community to contend with.

You cannot kill me because I have rights because I am a human being.

I can kill you if I want to. By my definition you are not a human being. Therefore you do not have the rights of a human being. I believe that is the logic of slavemasters. You have your arbitrary definition of 'human being', I have mine. Since lifeforce, unique DNA and an ability to replicate your own cells according to the human pattern aren't good enough to satisfy your definition of 'human' I am on solid ground in defining you as not human. What else have you got to prove it?

"So by you're brilliant logic every sperm or egg that is not used in creating a baby is a murder..."

Sperm and eggs do not have a unique DNA. They don't even have a complete copy of the parent DNA. They cannot replicate. A sperm cell cannot divide into two sperm cells or into a two celled sperm. Neither can an egg.

A zygote, the fertilized egg, does have a complete DNA and it is unique. It has the ability to replicate cells which will all also have that same unique DNA. It will never stop replicating cells for even a moment until it is dead whether it lives an hour or ninety years.

I could say the same about pro-lifers who think that there is a magical moment at conception.

Think? This is the 21st Century, we don't have to imagine what happens at conception anymore we can watch it under a microscope. Two incomplete strings of DNA with no other relation than that they both came from human beings, one male one female, come together, and with no coercion, combine to make a complete and viable string of HUMAN DNA that is impelled by its own design and force to live and grow. If that isn't magical what is?

Einstein once said; "Either everything is a miracle or nothing is." I tend to agree. Either that living, growing zygote is a human being with sacred rights of its own or no one is and there is no such thing.

"On the other hand, the "pro-life" label anti-abortion zealots use is false advertising (unless the "pro-lifers" are in favor of women having as many babies as possible even if that means they have to be raped and held in bondage throughout their fertile years)."

Thats absurd, 'pro-life' means that you are 'anti-death'.
If you argue anyway on this point, say you bet we are for the death penalty, which if anyone who is truly pro-life would be against. I am truely pro-life, but believe in a capital punishment of LIFE in prison. (Note: the dems are traditionally pro-choice, where as the they are also anti-death penalty.)

Now 'pro-choice'is the oposite of 'anti-choice'.
Valid point on your view. Now in the same vain, wouldn't it be ok then for me to CHOOSE to kill someone who cuts me off in traffic, because it makes my life inconvenient?

It is understood today that anyone who feels that abortion is wrong, is labels themselves as 'PRO-LIFE', conversely, anyone who feels abortion as being OK, labels themselves as 'PRO-CHOICE'. There counterpoints would say they are 'ANTI-ABORTION' and 'PRO-ABORTION' respectively.

I'm assuming that you label your self as 'pro-choice'.
Do you feel that ALL things should be left to the individual to choose? Or more correctly, just abortion?

Its all a matter of semantics.

Can you define evil for me?

I was allways taught it was breaking of the ten commanments, and the variations on those.

If a humanist=atheist were to tell me that I was just trying to shove my morality down there throat, where do they base there moral code from?

Humanism assumes we are just animals like the mouse or the lion. On that line of thinking, whats wrong with canabilism?
Both lions and mice commit it.

You seem intent on forcing people to prove their innocence of wrongdoing rather than requiring prosecutors to prove their guilt. For obvious reasons, your approach is very popular with totalitarian governments. ravinson

You're a twist individual, ravinson, thus you use the typical socialist mindset to try and twist that which you doi not even marginally comprehend. [Get help. Get help professionsal help; your current meds are obviously not working.]

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.