Skip to comments.Why the GOP will pick up seats installment seven
Posted on 10/16/2006 5:11:01 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
This is the final installment of this series. My reasons for optimism have been presented clearly. I believe that current bleak polls are the final lingering results of last months scandal attack from the Democrats in and out of the media.
First a word on generic polls. Yes they look bad. There is no question about that. Nevertheless, here a possible answer to how they appear.
The Washington Times
April 21, 2006 Friday
'Generic' polling found tilting to Democrats; Most respondents fail to actually vote
Pollsters are churning out a stream of voter surveys that show Republicans trailing by 10 percent or more in congressional elections, although they acknowledge these "generic" polls overstate the Democratic vote.
The Gallup Poll has been issuing similar survey results over several months that are drawn from what the pollsters call "generic ballots" that do not name the specific congressional candidates, but ask only which party voters will support when they go into the voting booth.
The latest USA Today/Gallup poll, conducted from April 7 to April 9, [ about the same as most generic polls are showing today], found that the Democrats lead Republicans by 52 percent to 42 percent among all registered voters surveyed. "The Democratic lead on this measure has been in the double digits in each of the last three Gallup Polls, starting in late February/early March," wrote Gallup analyst Jeffrey M. Jones.
NOW FOR THE BUT
But Gallup and other election pollsters who conduct generic polls acknowledge that the turnout rate for registered voters is much less than it is for Americans who say they are "regular voters." When Gallup polled a subgroup of people who say they vote on a regular basis, the Democratic lead fell to seven points, 51 percent to 44 percent.
This is the reason why Republican pollsters often complain that the results of generic surveys are tilted in favor of the Democrats and do not accurately reflect the partisan division among people who actually vote in their states and districts. It is a complaint that the Gallup Poll itself acknowledges in an analysis of its latest polling results.
"A review of historical generic ballot data shows that Democrats almost always lead on the generic ballot among registered voters, even in elections in which Republicans eventually win a majority of the overall vote for the House of Representatives," Mr. Jones wrote.
The reason has to do with a different turnout for various groups of voters: registered voters, regular voters and, the most accurate of all, "likely voters."
Notably, "In midterm elections, fewer than half of eligible voters usually turn out to vote and Republicans are more likely to turn out than Democrats," Mr. Jones said.
N. B. The actual average turn out for the last four mid term elections was 34.2%. In case you think that the heat in politics hit the roof with the 2000 election and interest in voting has remained high, think again. The turn out in 2002 was 34.3%. .fewer than half of eligible voters usually turn out to vote [ in mid term elections] and Republicans are more likely to turn out than Democrats
Such generic polling results, which are given broad distribution in newspapers throughout the country, have fed a growing public perception that Democrats are poised to make major gains in the House races this fall and could possibly win control of the House.
But election watchers who monitor the relatively small number of competitive House races that are up for grabs say that major gains will be an uphill climb for Democrats and a takeover is very unlikely.
"In the House, where Democrats need a net gain of 15 seats, only about three dozen are truly in play today. So far, 17 Republicans and 10 Democrats have announced their retirements. Ten of those Republicans serve in safe GOP districts, where Democrats stand little chance of winning," writes veteran elections analyst Charlie Cook in the National Journal.
The Washington Times April 21, 2006
Why would this discrepancy exist?
The advent of the ever increasing use of cell phones, caller ID and telemarketer blocking technology, may very well be having an effect on the numbers of respondents and the falling number of likely voters among those who do respond to polls.
In the past, we have not seen as many polls citing adults. We must be suspicious of adults responding to these surveys and polls.
The economy is the strongest it has ever been in our lifetimes. When a poll shows that 55% or so are unhappy with the economy, that is a certain tip off that the pollsters are talking to the truly disengaged and unlikely to vote among us.
Do these points explain away the generic poll numbers? I dont think so. Nevertheless, can we over come these polls with increased turn out? Absolutely.
Using a nascent version of its get out the vote apparatus in 2002, the GOP increased Republican turn out by 1.71%. If that does not sound like must, consider that we picked up 4 seats that year.
Can Republican turn out be increased this year? Again the answer is a no brainer Absolutely! The turn out in 2004 was about sixty percent. That means that there is a pool of more than 20 million voters that voted in 2004 and thus can be convinced to vote in 2006.
The fundamentals of satisfaction among voters are very strong.
The economy is the best it has been in our lifetime. The country is safe and voters know that Republicans are the reason. This is shown in the now rebounding numbers of approval for President Bush.
Cheaper gasoline lifts consumer enthusiasm
Falling energy costs spurred U.S. shoppers last month and consumers' enthusiasm continued to build in October as the drop in gasoline prices left them free to spend elsewhere, reports showed on Friday.
The University of Michigan said its consumer sentiment index for October rose to 92.3, higher than expectations for 86.5 and up from September.
Meanwhile, retail sales fell 0.4 percent overall in September, the Commerce Department said. But when a record 9.3 percent drop in gasoline sales was stripped out, they rose 0.6 percent on strong clothing and department store purchases.
"Happy days are here again," Patrick Fearon, senior economist at A.G. Edwards and Sons in St. Louis, Missouri.
"Consumers' improved mood was largely tied to falling gasoline prices."
Analysts polled by Reuters were expecting a 0.2 percent rise in overall retail sales.
The strength of Friday's figures was consistent with earlier reports from the retail sector showing growth in consumer spending after a difficult summer when gasoline prices were hovering near record highs.
Average gasoline prices slid from a peak of $2.92 a gallon in mid-August to $2.38 a gallon in late September, according to the Energy Department. SpendingPulse, a retail data service of MasterCard Advisors, an arm of MasterCard Worldwide, said on Monday that Americans felt freer to splurge with the help of lower gasoline prices and a soaring stock market.
In dollar terms, it said September seasonally adjusted sales, excluding autos, reached $287.7 billion, up 5.3 percent from a year ago.
This followed reports last week from U.S. department stores and clothing retailers, who posted surprisingly strong September sales.
" If September's sales are any indication, shoppers appear confident heading into the holiday season," the National Retail Federation said in a statement after the retail sales report. "As gas prices dipped last month, consumers had more disposable income to spend on other items, especially back-to-school necessities like clothing and sporting goods." The University of Michigan data also showed inflation expectations for the next year fell, though they were slightly higher for the next five years. A report from the Labor Department showed U.S. import prices dropped by a more-than-expected 2.1 percent in September, the largest decline in almost 3-1/2 years, due largely to the big fall in petroleum prices. It was the first fall in overall import prices since March and was led by a 10.3 percent fall in petroleum prices while the cost of non-petroleum imports inched up 0.1 percent.
Reuters October 13, 2006
Todays voters are sophisticated enough to understand that blaming the whole GOP for some problems with some members will only give the control of the country to the far left.
The mechanics of winning elections strongly favors Republicans. The GOP GOTV is a powerful engine and Democrats have a history of not turning out in mid-term elections. The only thing that moves Democrat rank and file voters is emotion. Right now there is no emotional issue on the national stage. The Democrats will try to keep voters focused on the Foley matter, but doing so for a month from start to finish. In the absence of emotion where is the drive for Democrat voters.
In 2002, fresh off what the Democrats insist to this day was the theft of the presidential election, the turn out increased just .1%. And they lost seats. By way of contrast, in 1994 the mid term turn out jumped 3.5% and we picked up 54 seats. Further, in 2004 in Florida the GOP increased its turn out of Republican voters by 5.5 % washing away the Democrats increase of 4.4% in the Sunshine State.
Again, as so many experts have said and will say right up to Election Day, This election will come down to turnout.. I agree and I hope it does. If this election ultimately is reduced to turn out, I like our chances very much.
Final note: If you are intent on being covered with doom and gloom, if you think that this election is all over and we are doomed, dont read any further. But if you are looking for reasons to be optimistic that we can win and pick up seats, heres my final arguments on the subject.
43) Republican grass roots GOTV power
The skillful effectiveness of Republican get-out-the-vote efforts has all but cancelled out the old idea that higher turnout means more Democrat votes. I have personal knowledge of a GOTV operation that is so sophisticated that the door to door workers only go to the homes of those voters that research shows have voted in the last four consecutive election cycles. Now, THATS getting it done.
Ready to rumble
Young Republicans are looking out for their party. The College Republican National Committee (CRNC) announced yesterday that 275 membership chapters were established on campuses nationwide last year joining 1,000 existing chapters.
"The success of college Republicans this spring is a reflection of the organization and initiative that distinguishes the Republican Party," said the group's chairman, Paul Gourley. "We are determined to remain the well-organized grass-roots force that wins elections for the GOP in November.
"We've witnessed a lot of legislative victories thus far: the confirmation of many sound federal judges, and tax cuts at a variety of levels. But there's still a lot of work to do," Mr. Gourley added. "We need to lock Republican majorities in the fall to carry out our full agenda."
Young GOPers are already "on the ground," he said. One noteworthy former member applauds their vigor. "Grass-roots initiatives have surged and marked the College Republican National Committee as a compelling force in the current political fight," observed Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform who was a field director for the organization in the early 1980s.
Washington Times May 26, 2006
The G.O.P.'s Secret Weapon You think the Republicans are sure to lose big in November? They aren't. Here's why things don't look so bad to them
The polls keep suggesting that Republicans could be in for a historic drubbing. And their usual advantage--competence on national security--is constantly being challenged by new revelations about bungling in Iraq. But top Republican officials maintain an eerie, Zen-like calm. They insist that the prospects for their congressional candidates in November's midterms have never been as bad as advertised and are getting better by the day. Those are party operatives and political savants whose job it is to anticipate trouble. But much of the time they seem so placid, you wonder whether they know something.
They do. What they know is that just six days after George W. Bush won re-election in 2004, his political machine launched a sophisticated, expensive and largely unnoticed campaign aimed at maintaining G.O.P. majorities in the House and Senate. If that campaign succeeds, it would defy history and political gravity, both of which ordain that midterm elections are bad news for a lame-duck President's party, especially when the lame duck has low approval ratings.
As always, a key part of the campaign involves money--the national Republican Party is dumping at least three times as much into key states as its Democratic counterpart is--but money is only the start. "Panic results when you're surprised," says Republican National Committee (R.N.C.) chairman Ken Mehlman. "We've been preparing for the toughest election in at least a decade."
N.B. largely unnoticed campaign? It could not be put any better. I Lexis/Nexis search showed that while over 1100 stories pop up, when the words Republican get out the vote are used, only a handful actually dealt with the actual program.
N. B. More than this, the Evangelical Christians will not turn away from the GOP because of the Foley matter. My source explained their position as follows: As Christians we [ Evangelicals] expect things like this to happen because we are all sinners who need to constantly strive to get up from falls into sin. Evangelicals will separate Mr. Foleys conduct from their decision on how to vote. There are 30 million of us and we expect to elect this congress as well as the next president in 2008.
Thanks to aggressive redistricting in the 1990s and early 2000s, fewer than three dozen House seats are seriously in contention this election cycle, compared with more than 100 in 1994, the year Republicans swept to power with a 54-seat pickup in the House. Then there's what political pros call the ground game. For most of the 20th century, turning out voters on Election Day was the Democrats' strength. They had labor unions to supply workers for campaigns, make sure their voters had time off from their jobs to go to the polls and provide rides to get them there.
Republicans hope to close the deal in tight races with a get-out-the-vote strategy that was developed in the wreckage of the 2000 presidential campaign. Bush's team was led then, as it is now, by Rove, Bush's political architect and now White House deputy chief of staff, and Mehlman, then White House political-affairs director. Their theory was that Bush lost 3% or 4% of his expected vote in 2000 because those people just stayed home.
What Rove and Mehlman wanted to figure out was the code for increasing the number of Republican voters who could be reliably summoned to the polls--a code that, once cracked, could be used to win election after election. "We want to turn 75%-Republican areas into 78%- or 79%-Republican areas while at the same time turning 15% areas into 18% or 19% areas," says Mike DuHaime, political director of the R.N.C.
[HOW ITS DONE]
In the off year of 2001, the creators of the 72-Hour program tested it in odd, lower-profile contests, including court races in Pennsylvania, [ Think Santorum.] The Bushies picked clusters of precincts where they quietly tried their new methods, then compared those with similar precincts where the campaigns did things the more traditional way. Those experiments helped Republicans develop a handful of precepts that constitute the party's playbook for this fall:
Learning from victories as well as defeats
1. Learn from the past Fifteen G.O.P. data experts spent months after the '04 election comparing turnout records from the swing states with the Bush-Cheney campaign's databases to figure out the optimal amount of mail, phone calls and door knocks that would persuade a probable G.O.P. voter to go to the polls.
2. Draw in new voters The Bush-Cheney campaign used state records to locate potential Republicans with Florida State University license plates, then had fellow Seminoles call them to sound out their views. Whereas parties used to go after certain precincts or ZIP codes, Republicans now know even which individual households they want through microtargeting--the use of computerized consumer data, from magazine subscriptions to charitable contributions, to help locate voters who are likely to vote Republican if they turn out. Other telltale signs of potential latent Republicanism are snowmobile ownership and enrollment in private schools.
Low tech can be better
3. Caller ID, TiVo, cable channels and satellite radio all make it harder to reach voters than it was just a few years ago, increasing the importance of person-to-person appeals, the hallmark of old-fashioned, grassroots campaigns that used to connote an amateur or a low budget. "You clearly have to have TV ads," says White House political-affairs director Sara Taylor, "but for a little less TV, you can buy a whole lot of pizzas and phone lines and salaries for young men and women right out of college" to make phone calls, knock on doors and recruit and manage volunteers.
Logistics make the difference
4. Details, details The shopping list includes everything from chairs to cell phones for hundreds of workers for Republican Party victory committees, whose staffs are charged with creating state turnout machines. The G.O.P. says their volunteer forces in '04 proved to be more effective than the paid workers contracted by Democrats, unions and Democrat- oriented fund-raising groups.( I know this for sure having worked in the Northern Pennsylvania area for Bush in 2004) Even Election Day comes sooner for Republicans, who have begun putting a huge effort into locking down absentee voters and vote-by-mail ballots in states that use them.
5. Republican officials estimate that at the end of August, their committees and campaigns had $235 million to spend in the two-month home stretch, a $58 million advantage over Democrats. The R.N.C. plans to lay out more than $60 million on turnout efforts and advertising vs. the more than $14 million set aside by Democratic National Committee (D.N.C.) chairman Howard Dean. House Republican officials contend that many of their Democratic challengers are so little known that they could be buried in an ad blitz. "You hit them, and they fold like a house of cards," a strategist said.
Time Magazine Oct. 1, 2006
44) The 10 th Amendment effect
All over America, voters who have been frustrated by the lack of leadership from Washington on the illegal alien problem, have pressured their local elected officials to do something. Some states have now rediscovered their powers under the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.
What follows are a few instances of states using the 10th Amendment to fight back. The point here is that in the states that are most disadvantaged by the flood of illegals Republicans have stepped up to offer answers. This should be of help on Election Day.
Bill advances to punish illegal aliens' employers [Louisiana]
A Senate panel Thursday advanced legislation aimed at punishing Louisiana businesses that hire illegal aliens.
With the immigration debate roiling at the federal level, Sen. Don Cravins said clamping down with a state law would reduce the job opportunities that bring illegal aliens to the U.S.
. Under a rewritten Senate Bill 650, the attorney general and parish district attorneys would gain power to issue cease-and-desist orders on businesses violating the law. The businesses would get 10 days to clean up their act or face sanctions.
If violations continue, the case would end up in court with violators facing a penalty of up to $10,000. Offenders could also face loss of their business license from the granting boards.
2theadvocate.com May 26, 2006
The governor of Texas wants to turn all the world into a virtual posse, the Associated Press reports.
Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, has announced a $5 million plan to install hundreds of night-vision cameras on private land along the Mexican border and to put the live video on the Internet, so that anyone with a computer who spots illegal aliens trying to slip across the border can report it on a toll-free hot line.
"I look at this as not different from the neighborhood watches we have had in our communities for years and years," Mr. Perry said last week.
This week, he said cuts in federal homeland-security funding, a rise in reports of border violence and the crossing of Mexican soldiers into Texas about two years ago have demonstrated that "Texas cannot wait for Washington, D.C., to act."
Washington Times June 9, 2006
Georgia Law Chills Latino Home Buying Market
A measure meant to deny jobs and services to illegal immigrants has even legal residents rethinking their future in the state.
ATLANTA Two months ago, all Alina Arguello had to do to find . But ever since Georgia passed one of the most stringent and far-reaching immigration laws in the nation, the number of Latino buyers who call the Re/Max agent's home office in suburban Atlanta has dwindled from about 10 to two a day.
Although Georgia's new legislation does not prohibit illegal immigrants from owning property, many wonder whether they will want to live in Georgia when it begins to come into effect in July 2007.
The law will require companies with state contracts to verify employees' immigration status, penalize employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, curtail many government benefits to illegal immigrants and require that jailers check the immigration status of anyone who is charged with a felony or driving under the influence.
LA Times June 19, 2006
OH Sheriff to seize illegal aliens' vehicles
While federal immigration officials dispute claims that they ordered the release of 20 illegal aliens apprehended Tuesday in Belmont County, Sheriff Fred Thompson has a plan for dealing with similar situations in the future.
What were going to do is start seizing their vehicles and send them on their merry way, Thompson said of future contacts with suspected illegal aliens. . The Intelligencer Wheeling W.V. 22 June 2006
City's sanctuary status mocked
Signs send illegals to Cambridge When Cambridge recently renewed its status as a sanctuary city for all immigrants, including undocumented ones, the news barely caused a stir around here.
But the move has made the city a target for an immigration control group based in Washington , which is starting a national campaign urging undocumented immigrants to flood into the Massachusetts city. ProjectUSA is raising money to pay for a billboard in northern New Jersey that it hopes will be the first of many across the country.
The proposed billboard would read: ``Attention: Illegal Aliens. Cambridge, Mass. is a sanctuary city. For help getting there, contact projectusa.org/NJ-mass transit."
Boston Globe July 5, 2006
States take on illegal immigration (Doing the job the Feds refuse to do)
Dismay over Washington gridlock on immigration has inspired cities and states to pass their own measures, most of which make life harder for undocumented workers and demand that employers, law enforcement officers and even landlords act as the front line.
The city of Hazleton, Pa., last week passed one of the harsher laws, approving $1,000 fines for landlords who provide housing to illegal immigrants and denying business permits to employers who give them jobs. Local governments from California to Idaho to Florida are weighing similar steps. States approved nearly 60 new laws in the last few months, overwhelmingly restrictive or punitive.
"It's the blunt failure of any true leadership in Washington, D.C. Everything runs downhill," said Andy Anderson, a city councilor in Palm Bay, Fla., who is pushing for an ordinance to punish employers who hire illegal immigrants.
One question is whether the local and state laws would stand if Congress overcame the split between the Senate and the House and approved a new federal law. Many would be superseded, officials acknowledge but they say it's better to pass a local measure that won't last than nothing at all, and right now it's unclear whether Congress will make a deal.
"We have to do something, and it has to be done, like, yesterday," Anderson said.
Colorado and Georgia led the way with sweeping laws that aim to require proof of citizenship for services and also target employers who hire illegal immigrants.
Overall, 27 states passed laws toughening rules on education, employment, legal services and identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. The 59 new laws that went on the books in this year's legislative sessions were a big increase from the 37 immigration-related laws from the year before.
This year's batch tilted sharply toward cracking down on immigrants, in contrast to earlier years when there was a mix of legislation, some of it loosening rules for obtaining services or education.
"Lawmakers and mayors, they want to make their area as inhospitable to illegal aliens as possible," said Susan Wysoki at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports tougher border security and an end to illegal immigration.
Colorado's measure, for instance, could remove as many as 50,000 illegal immigrants now living in the state from programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, energy assistance and aging and adult services, according to GOP Gov. Bill Owens.
Other Republicans, however, said the law went too easy on illegal immigrants, complaining that minors still get benefits.
But even states aren't moving fast enough for communities that feel overwhelmed:
Hazleton, Pa., also is considering whether to require all tenants to register and prove their legal residency. "Illegal immigrants are destroying the city," said Lou Barletta, the city's Republican mayor. "I don't want them here, period."
In Idaho, commissioners in Canyon County filed a racketeering lawsuit against agricultural companies accused of hiring illegal immigrants. A judge struck down the lawsuit but an appeal is being pursued.
In Florida's Palm Bay, the council is weighing whether to adopt an ordinance that would slap employers who hire illegal immigrants with a civil fine of $200 or with a criminal misdemeanor, which would carry penalties up to a $500 fine or 60 days in jail.
The city near the Atlantic Coast in southern Brevard County has undergone a housing boom, and with it an influx of crews of illegal immigrants that win the low bids on projects, Anderson said. Contractors have had to decide whether to hire illegals or lose out on jobs.
In 10 states, the majority of the new laws targeted employers as the lure that draws illegal immigrants to their communities. Other legislatures made benefits harder to get, or cracked down on human trafficking, toughened regulations or fines against fake IDs, or made education more expensive for illegals.
Nebraska stood out this year because it went in the opposite direction, when lawmakers overrode Gov. Dave Heineman's veto and provided in-state college tuition for the children of illegal immigrants who went to high school in the state.
In earlier years, one of the arguments for leaving immigration issues alone is that they were a federal matter, not a state or local one. But now the political landscape has changed.
"States certainly have the right to determine how to regulate identification, they can regulate instate tuition, and use of their own employment law, said Sherri Steisel, a lawyer with the National Council of State Legislatures. Advocates for immigrants aren't waiting either for an answer from Washington, either. They are threatening to sue to stop some of the new laws from taking effect.
AP on Yahoo 7/19/06 |
45) Voter vault
A March 8 Washington Post story reported that well-connected Democrats led by Clinton's former deputy chief of staff, Harold Ickes, were raising millions of dollars to start Data Warehouse, a private firm that would compile data on Americans to identify possible Democrat voters. Despite Howard Dean's much-touted use of the Internet to raise money, the story quoted former DNC Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe as saying the Republicans were much more sophisticated than the Democrats at using the Web in the 2004 election.
"They were smart," he said. "They came into our neighborhoods. They came into Democratic areas with very specific targeted messages to take voters away from us."
In fact, when Dean was boasting about the 600,000 email addresses he had amassed, the Republicans had 10 times that number. Writing in the National Journal, Michael Barone observed that few reporters at the time "took note of the number of e-mail addresses the Bush campaign had collected: 6 million." Today, the RNC has 15 million such addresses collected by enticing visitors to the GOP Web site by offering useful information like how to register to vote. A more recent feature allows the faithful to create their own Web sites.
In the seventh paragraph of its story about Ickes' efforts to create a data bank, the Post reported that the Democratic National Committee hadn't begun building a national voter file until the 2004 election. According to the story, the list of e-mail addresses proved highly effective in raising money. "Because of many technical problems, however, it was not useful to state and local organizations to get out the vote."
That disclosure provoked expressions of disbelief within the RNC. The highly sophisticated Republican data bank, "Voter Vault," not only is tailored to each county - so that it can be used to get out the vote and target likely Republican voters within Democratic precincts - it can be downloaded into a PDA, allowing precinct workers to add information picked up in door-to-door visits.
Mehlman's role in developing Voter Vault and just what it can do for Republicans this November and in 2008 will be spelled out in an upcoming issue of NewsMax Magazine.
"We had surmised that the DNC database was not useable by state and local parties," said Collister "Coddy" Johnson, who was national field director of the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign. "But to see it written in plain ink was unreal. Think about the loss of economies of scale and efficiency that this causes, not to mention the inability to have a coherent national field strategy. It was amazing."
For the coming elections, Mehlman has infused Voter Vault with newer, more powerful technology, which should help with vote-getting strategies that are still under wraps. At the same time, under Bush's direction, he has changed the message of the party to be more positive and more inclusive.
Newsmax June 11, 2006
46) Democrats take orders from the far left and it shows
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid made a pitch Saturday to enlist bloggers as a Democratic force in upcoming elections. "I know fighters when I see them. You're fighters," Mr. Reid said as he began a warmly received keynote speech to the YearlyKos Convention of Web loggers at a Las Vegas Strip resort.
In a story in today's paper about the Kos convention, the Washington Times reports that when Warner addressed the group, and mentioned Zarqawi's demise, there was NO applause. .not one clap..
June 12, 2006 (citation lost in editing)
Why GOP is winning the war - of words (Democrats are afraid of their base,..lack courage)
Here's the 2006 Republican message on Iraq: "Stay the course." And here's the 2006 Democratic message on Iraq: "?" No wonder the Bush White House seems eager to campaign on Iraq this year - despite 2,500 American deaths, persistent sectarian violence, and the documented administration failures of planning and execution. The Bush team is clearly betting that a party with a resolute, decisive stance on Iraq will still be more attractive to voters than a party that seems irresolute and indecisive.
The Democrats' failure thus far to forge a consensus policy on Iraq is a big reason why, in polls, they have been unable to capitalize on public disenchantment with Bush and the GOP. Democratic strategists are concerned that unless the party finds its voice on America's No. 1 issue, voters might decide that Democrats are too feckless to be trusted with the nation's security - thus complicating the Democratic efforts to capture the House and Senate in November.
A warning shot was fired the other day by Democracy Corps, the party polling firm founded by James Carville and Stan Greenberg. Its latest report concludes that "Democrats are underperforming," that "the current measures of Democratic turnout and enthusiasm are not impressive," and that unless candidates "show voters something more," they could face "a stay-at-home protest." The problem is, Democrats are profoundly divided about what to do in Iraq, and Bush's political team - backed by GOP congressional unity on the war - is mapping plans to exploit that.
Salt Lake Tribune June 20, 2006
Washington Democrats think their core voters are barking mad.
They feel an increasing intellectual estrangement from and impatience with the activists who people their base of support.
And this is something new. On the Democratic side, it is not just as bad but worse. They don't only think they're more sophisticated than their base, more informed and aware of the complexities.
I believe they think their base is mad.
You can see their problem in their inability to get a slogan. Which, believe me, is how they think of it: a slogan. "Together for a Better Future." "A Future With Better Togetherness." Today for a better tomorrow, tomorrow for a better today.
A party has a hard time saying what it stands for only when it doesn't know what it stands for. It has trouble getting a compelling slogan only when it has no idea what compels its base. Or when it fears what compels it.
I saw Howard Dean say something intemperate on TV. I actually can't remember what it was, one intemperate Dean statement blending into another as they do.
"Why does he say things like that?"
A middle-aged woman--intelligent, professional--answered, "Because he thinks they're stupid." ...
"His party," she said. We both laughed because it sounded true.
But today I'm thinking that's not quite it. Howard Dean is actually the most in touch with his base of all D.C. Democrats because he speaks to them the secret language of Madman Boogabooga.
This is actually not ineffective.
It's a language that quells the base and would scare the center if they followed it more closely, but they can't because it's not heavily reported because "Dean Says Something Crazy" is no longer news.
Opinion Journal June 22, 2006 | PEGGY NOONAN
'Under his skin'
Left-wing blogger Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (DailyKos.com) is now an important adviser to Senate Democrats, Jonathan Darman reports in the latest issue of Newsweek.
"Moulitsas ... chats with Senate leadership aides several times a week and has brainstormed with Democratic operatives about the fall campaign," Mr. Darman said.
That influence was reflected in last week's Senate votes on Democratic proposals to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, according to Newsweek, because "the Democrats' failed Iraq strategy -- stand together, talk tough and make plans to leave -- lined up exactly with the prescriptions found on Daily Kos."
Washington Times June 26, 2006
Can Lieberman Survive Iraq? (Streisand Supports Lieberman Opponent...)
Lieberman is facing the toughest challenge he's had since wining his Senate seat in 1988, a Greenwich millionaire cable company executive named Ned Lamont who is tapping into an anger from both local and national Democrats at Lieberman for taking positions at odds with the Democrat orthodoxy.
The liberal blogosphere has made defeating Lieberman one of its chief causes of 2006, poring in thousands of dollars to Lamont's campaign and constantly bashing Lieberman, especially for his fervent support of the Iraq War and standing as the strongest Democratic supporter of President Bush's policies there. Even celebrity Democratic supporters, like George Soros and Barbra Streisand, have donated to Lamont's campaign.
Drudge Report Jun 25, 2006 |
47 IRS orders Churches and other non profits out of politics
There were over 2300 stories about the IRS cracking down on churches for violating their tax exempt status by getting involved to politics. Simple observation tells us that the vast majority of these violating churches are Democrat supporting institutions. Now that some attention is being paid to the flagrant violations of campaigning rules involving churches and Democrats, a curtailment of these activities will likely follow. It is hard to imagine Democrats passing the plate for their candidates in these churches as time goes by.
Persecuting the pulpit
Oct. 8--Somebody should give the Internal Revenue Service a copy of the First Amendment, which reads, in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The IRS is harassing All Souls Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., which allegedly violated IRS edicts against mixing religion and politics. Two days before the 2004 election, the Rev. George F. Regas gave a sermon criticizing Bush administration policy, attacking the Iraq war and calling for higher taxes.
In June 2005, the IRS sent Rector Ed Bacon a letter claiming that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be a tax-exempt church." In November 2005, Rector Bacon explained to The Associated Press that the Rev. Regas specifically did not ask parishioners to vote against President Bush or for his opponent, Sen. John Kerry. The sermon talked only about policies. Thus, the church did not violate the tax code by trying to influence politics, such as by organizing a political movement against the president.
But the IRS wasn't satisfied. "The IRS is requesting that a number of documents be produced ... and that the church's rector, the Rev. Ed Bacon, testify before an IRS agent on Oct. 11," reported AP.
The church's clergy and laity have been weighing their options.
Northwest Florida Daily News
October 8, 2006
48) Making hate for Walmart a litmus test
The Democrats have tied themselves to hate for Walmart in order to satisfy the Unions and Far Left. This is evident in the Lieberman primary and John Edwards is already campaigning on this issue. This will be a serious mistake for them. America loves Walmart and will not join in on attacks on Walmart.
The Church of Anti-Walmart
Jackson Smith hadn't blogged in 247 days. I had his blog in my Bloglines and was shocked when I saw an entry and it was eye catching. He ran into a fellow liberal at Walmart and melodrama resulted:
I can't tell you who it was...we made an oath in the store to never reveal our identities, though in telling this story I realize I am revealing the fact that I was in fact in Wal-Mart ..
This person I ran into happens to be one of the most die-hard Democrats I know. So, as I was pulling out of the parking lot, which if possible, I hate more than the store itself, I was thinking -- what if all the Democrats in the United States stopped shopping at Wal-Mart? Couldn't we put them out of business?
If all the Democrats stopped shopping at Walmart, you guys would have less money, which would then be blamed on George W. Bush. You know this sounds like a weird religious cult. Like one of those ultra-fundamentalists churches you read about where you try and hide things from the pastor.
I'm imaging Mr. Smith and his friend inside the story promising to make sure Julie Fanselow or the Chairman of the Democratic Party doesn't find out.
Not going to Walmart is in fact a sacred ceremony for the left in which they assert their superiority over the Wal-mart shopping, bargain-seeking masses and apparently, woe be to the backslider.
Newstex LLC October 9, 2006
This one story explains the differences between the far left masters of the Democrat Party and the average American. If the Democrats insist upon attacking Walmart they will put themselves on the wrong side of rural America.
Wrap up So, there you have it. Over the past seven weeks I have presented almost four dozen reasons for thinking the GOP can pick up seats. With the upside possibilities to add additional voters, based on comparisons of mid term to presidential voter turn out, and the fear a liberal congress, the stage is set. It really is all in our hands. I know Ill be working in a 72 hour push somewhere. What will you be doing?
I will be posting a research report on Senator Robert Menedez today as well. It will give you all the talking points you need to work the water cooler at your office. Dont look back on this election cycle and realize that there was something you could have done.
1)make a donation. Give what you can.
2)Go to a local headquarters and volunteer
3)Talk to people, register them if there is still time.
4) Get ready to pack your bags and go where you are needed in the 72 hour push. Bring a friend as well.
We need to be thinking about 2008 and beyond at this point.
And how exactly do you define the leading democrats you hope will take over the House and Senate?
It is ironic that the complete absence of logic and factual support in your post speaks volumes.
Get real....There won't be a long run in 2008 if we don't atleast maintain the conservative Republican House and conservatives in the Senate. There will be no border fence if the House is lost and there will be massive voter fraud in 2008 involving all the border jumpers. The reign of Nancy Pelosi will be a nightmare,
Our Soldiers in harms way don't deserve to have the kind of support you are wishing on them by having the Democrats in power.
Way to pick the greater evil. The problems the GOP have are correctible by the base.
There are ZERO physical signs that ANY of the Dems are ahead. I'm talking bumperstickers, yard signs, voter registration #s.
There is ZERO Dem ground game. Get it? NONE. (I can't speak for PA or other places, but it's pretty much the same if it's like it was in 2004). There are NO----NO---Dem walkers, lit droppers, and, apparently no volunteers. It's not just me noticing this---it's all the GOP ground game.
So you dream on. You'll be stunned on election day, just as most gloomsters were in 2004 on election day when I correctly called EVERY close race except Colorado.
Down with the independent voter
By Burt Prelutsky
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Mainly because President Bush and his Republican cohorts are so wishy-washy when it comes to the plague of illegal aliens, I am hearing from a lot of disgruntled conservatives who are threatening to vote for Democrats in November.
I suspect that not too many of them will actually carry out their threat to cut off their nose to spite their face. .... come November, conservative voters will stay home in droves.
As foolish and as gutless as I consider the Republicans to be on this hot button issue, I will not throw away my vote by pretending that there isnt a scintilla of difference between the two parties. That is why I have never understood people who proudly announced they were "Independents", just as I cant imagine why anyone elects to go through life voting for Libertarians or Green Party candidates. Why not just hang a sign around your neck declaring yourself to be totally inconsequential?
These folks claim theyre sending a message, but when, in election after election, your candidates are lucky if they garner one percent of the vote, what message do you imagine youre sending?
The one thats coming through is that whereas the symbols of the two major parties are the donkey and the elephant, yours might as well be the flea.
I realize that those who wish to identify with a third party regard themselves as extremely sophisticated, unwilling to align themselves with parties they regard as the political equivalents of Tweedledum and Tweedledee. In my opinion, theyre not sophisticated, merely frustrated. They dislike the compromises, the lobbying, and the trade-offs, that go with politics in America.
While I dont entirely blame them, I do regard them as hopelessly naïve.
The fact of the matter is that although every Republican is not a true blue conservative, and every Democrat isnt a knee-jerk liberal, there remains a world of difference between the two groups.
Republicans believe in lower taxes because they have enough sense to recognize that the economy flourishes and jobs are created when businesses dont see their profits sucked off by the bureaucrats in Washington.
Democrats want taxes increased because its mothers milk to them. By controlling the money supply, they are able to conduct social engineering on a massive scale.
Republicans believe in a strong military, whereas
Democrats place their faith in the United Nations.
Republicans believe in legal gun ownership, capital punishment, the three-strikes law, mandatory life sentences for child molesters, English as an official language, and a wall between us and Mexico.
Democrats believe theres no difference between you owning a gun and a gang member owning one. They oppose capital punishment, but are in favor of bilingual education, open borders, and ballots printed in a hundred different languages.
Republicans believe in private property, while
Democrats believe municipalities have every right to take away your home and business, and handing them over to some other guy so long as he promises to increase the tax base by building a mini-mall on your property.
Republicans believe we are at war with Islamic fascists.
Democrats believe theres a lot to be said for the other side.
Republicans think this is the greatest country on the face of the earth.
Democrats think that honor belongs to France.
Republicans think Ronald Reagan was a great president.
Democrats think Carter and Clinton were great presidents. They also have good things to say about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. There just seems to be something about the letter "C" that strikes a chord with them. [ All Communists or Communist-sympathizers]
Having said all that, I must admit that I dislike Independents more than I do Democrats because at least I know where liberals stand.
But when people tell me they don't vote for the party, they vote for the man, I experience the same queasy sensation as when I used to suffer from acid-reflux.
To me, its the height of arrogance for any of us to claim to know the man or woman based on what we get from TV. If you actually think you know George W. Bush or John McCain or Hillary Clinton, youre fooling yourself.
Every high-profile politician has been manufactured and sold through pretty much the same process that Madison Avenue employs to peddle a bar of soap or a bottle of beer.
Back in the days when Hollywood moguls ran the studios, they used to create stars in the same manner. If women looked and sounded a certain way, they would be typecast as wives and mothers, while others would enjoy careers as hookers and home-wreckers.
What they were like in real life never entered into the equation.
The same, of course, held true for the male leads. Sissies were often cast as tough guys, while heels were cast as heroes.
I vote the straight Republican ticket, not because I think the GOP is filled with great statesmen, but because, when all is said and done, I never want Democrats in a position to appoint federal judges.
Thats the legacy that lingers long after the scoundrels have retired or gone on to that big pork barrel in the sky.
The way I see it, one Ruth Bader Ginsberg in a lifetime is one too many!
W. Burt Prelutsky is an accomplished, well-rounded writer and author of Conservatives Are from Mars (Liberals Are from San Francisco): A Hollywood Rightwinger Comes Out of the Closet.
Are you serious?
Frivolous or serious? Vote for serious (Thomas Sowell)
Daily Press ^ | 10-12-06 | Thomas Sowell
Posted on 10/13/2006 3:04:29 PM EDT by STARWISE
With a war going on in Iraq and with Iran next door moving steadily toward a nuclear bomb that could change the course of world history in the hands of international terrorists, the question for this year's elections is not whether you or your candidate is a Democrat or a Republican but whether you are serious or frivolous.
That question also needs to be asked about the media.
In these grim and foreboding times, our media have this year spent incredible amounts of time on a hunting accident involving Vice President Cheney, a bogus claim that the administration revealed Valerie Plame's identity as a C.I.A. "agent" actually a desk job in Virginia and is now going ballistic over a Congressman who sent raunchy e-mails to Congressional pages.
This is the frivolous media and the biased media.
Republican Congressman Foley was wrong and is out on his ear.
But Democrats in both Congress and the White House have gone far beyond words with a page and an intern. Yet the Democrats did not resign and Bill Clinton's perjury, obstruction of justice, and suborning of perjury by others were treated as if these were irrelevant private matters.Even when serious issues are addressed, they can be addressed either seriously or frivolously.
If you are content to see life and death issues of war and peace addressed with catch phrases like "chicken hawk" or to see a coalition of nations around the world fighting terrorism referred to as "unilateral" U.S. action because France does not go along, then you are content with frivolity.
You may deserve whatever you get if you vote frivolously in this year's election. But surely the next generation, which has no vote, deserves better.
Weak-kneed members of both parties have been calling for a timetable to be announced for withdrawal from Iraq.
No other war in thousands of years of history has ever had such a timetable announced to their enemies. Even if we intended to get out by a given date, there is not the slightest reason to tell the terrorists that. It is frivolous politics at its worst.
There has never been any reason to doubt that American troops will be removed from Iraq. They were removed after the first Gulf War. Before that, they were removed from Grenada and from other Western Hemisphere countries throughout the 20th century. Millions of American troops were removed from Europe after World War II.
Why should there be the slightest doubt that they will be removed from Iraq? The only question is whether you can run a war on a timetable like a railroad and whether you need to announce your plans to your enemies.
All this rhetoric about a withdrawal timetable is based on trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Iraq war is unpopular. But all wars have been unpopular with Americans, as they should be.
Even World War II, won by "the greatest generation," was never popular, though the home front was united behind the troops a lot better than today. The last shot of that war had barely been sounded before the cry arose to bring our boys back home.
The exuberant celebrations across this country when World War II ended showed that we weren't looking for more war or more conquests. We weren't even trying to hold on to all the territory we had conquered. There has probably never been a time in history when a military force in the millions was disbanded so quickly.
Even after the first Gulf War, with its quick success and low casualties, the biggest ovation that the first President Bush got when he addressed Congress afterwards was when he announced that our troops would start coming back home.
Those who discuss the current war in terms of frivolous talking points make a big deal out of the fact we have been in this war longer than in World War II.
But, if we are serious, we would know that it is not the duration of a war that is crucial. It is how many lives it costs.
More than twice as many Marines were killed taking one island in the Pacific during World War II than all the Americans killed in the four years of the Iraq war. More Americans were killed in one day during the Civil War.
If we are going to discuss war, the least we can do is be serious.
You're the one that needs to get real.
Mark Steyn: An election Foley-equipped with frivolity
Chicago Sun-Times ^ | 10/15/06 | Mark Steyn
Posted on 10/15/2006 7:30:54 AM EDT by Pokey78
Who is James Vicini? Well, he works for Reuters, the storied news agency. By "storied," I don't mean in the Hans Christian Andersen sense, though these days it's hard to tell. But they have an illustrious history and they're globally respected and whatnot. And last week newshound Vicini got assigned quite an interesting story:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A California-born convert to Islam, accused of making a series of al-Qaida propaganda videos, became on Wednesday the first American charged with treason since the World War II era, U.S. Justice Department officials said.
"Fugitive Adam Gadahn, 28, who is believed to be in Pakistan, was accused of treason, which carries a maximum punishment of death . . ."
Wow! Treason! First time in half-a-century, since the Tokyo Rose days. Since then, of course, the very word "treason" has come to seem arcane, if not obsolescent, like something some fellow in doublet-and-hose might accuse somebody of on "Masterpiece Theatre" but otherwise not terribly relevant and frankly no big deal: Indeed, the campus left usually gives the impression that "treason" is little more than an alternative lifestyle, like transvestism.
Yet the Justice Department wants this fellow over in Pakistan for treason. Now why would they do such a thing? After chugging through the various charges, Vicini got to the meat of his story: "Justice Department officials denied the case was timed to deflect attention from the fallout over lewd computer messages sent by a former Republican congressman to young male aides, a scandal that may help Democrats seize control of Congress in the Nov. 7 elections."
Cut out that paragraph and have it framed. Or now that the nights are drawing in, if you're at a loose end of an evening, sew it into an attractive sampler and hang it in your parlor. In years to come, you'll spend many precious moments treasuring it as the perfect summation of the 2006 U.S. election.
"Justice Department officials denied . . . " What Reuters means by those words is that a reporter -- possibly the great Vicini himself or his colleague ("Additional reporting by Rick Cowan") -- gets the press release about this once-in-a-half-century treason thing and says to the relevant feds, "C'mon, you guys are just nailing this dude in Pakistan to distract from Mark Foley, right?"
And the Justice Department fellow no doubt replies, "Mark who?"
And Cowan (or Vicini) goes, "The ex-congressman. Teenage pages. Horny gay Republican predators. Hastert's notorious pedophile ring. You must have read about it. It's been in all the papers." And the Justice guy says, "Sorry, I've been been working the fax machine to Pakistan all week, typing up the relevant indictments in triplicate, and so forth."
Originally, only the Republican Congress was covering for Foley. But, as Vicini and Cowan see it, the conspiracy now extends to the Justice Department. We should be grateful Reuters imputed merely the "timing" of the treason indictment to the "lewd computer message" scandal, not the indictment itself. After all, why would the Bush administration have earmarked some nobody in Pakistan for a cockamamie charge of "treason" if it weren't for just such an eventuality as this? Also, notice the way the most damaging "lewd computer messages" and the toppling of Saddam Hussein both occurred in 2003: Did the neocons stage the entire Iraq war in order to set Foley up with an endless supply of fetching young Arab houseboys? As Al Jolson liked to sing, climb upon my knee, Sunni boy.
And what about that North Korean nuke? That timing's pretty suspicious, too. And in that goofy outfit of his Kim Jong Il looks a bit like a teenage congressional page at a slumber party. Well, from a distance and in a poor light, and if you've had a couple drinks.
And how about this for convenient timing? From the BBC on Thursday:
"A man has pleaded guilty to conspiring to murder people in a series of bombings on British and U.S. targets. Dhiren Barot, of north London, planned to use a radioactive 'dirty bomb' in one of a series of attacks in the UK, Woolwich Crown Court heard . . ."
In my new book (out this week, folks: you'll find it at the back of the store past the 9/11 Conspiracy section and the Christianist Theocrat Takeover of America section and the ceiling-high display of the new Dixie Chicks six-CD box set of songs about how they're being silenced), I say that some of us looked at Sept. 11 as the sudden revelation of the tip of a vast iceberg, and I try to address the seven-eighths of that iceberg below the surface -- the globalization of radical Islam, the free-lancing of nuclear technology, the demographic weakness of Western democracies. Other folks, however, see the iceberg upside down. The huge weight of history -- the big geopolitical forces coursing through society -- the vast burden all balancing on the pinhead of the week: in this instance, Mark Foley.
Thomas Sowell says the question for this election is not whether you or your candidate is Republican or Democrat but whether you're "serious" or "frivolous." A lot of Americans, and not just their sorry excuse for a professional press corps, are in the mood for frivolity. It's like going to the theater. Do you really want to sit through that searing historical drama from the Royal Shakespeare Company? Or would you rather be at the sex comedy next door?
In the 1990s, Americans opted for the sex comedy -- or so they thought. But in reality the searing historical drama carried on; it was always there, way off in the background, behind the yuk-it-up narcissist trouser-dropper staggering around downstage. The mood of the times was to kick the serious stuff down the road so we could get back to President Lounge Act offering to feel our pain. With North Korea, the people delegated to kick the can a few years ahead -- Madeleine Albright, Jimmy Carter -- are now back, writing self-congratulatory op-eds about their genius and foresight. Not at all. Albright's much-touted "agreement" was a deal whereby Washington agreed to prop up a flailing basket-case state in order to enable it to buy enough time to become a serious destabilizing threat to its neighbors and beyond. Many of our present woes -- not least Iran -- derive explicitly from the years when Carter embodied the American "superpower" as a smiling eunuch.
Thanks in part to last decade's holiday from history, North Korea and Iran don't have to buy any more time. They've got all they need. Life isn't a night on Broadway where you can decide you're not in the mood for "Henry V" and everyone seems to be having a much better time at "La Cage Aux Foley." Forget the Republicans for a moment. In Connecticut, the contest is between a frivolous liberal running on myopic parochial platitudes and a serious liberal who has the measure of the times and has thus been cast out by the Democratic Party. His state's voters seem disinclined to endorse the official Dems' full-scale embrace of trivia and myopia. The broader electorate should do the same.
It's not even worth my time in responding to this "I sure my team loses" Grut.
The GOP has a great "ground-game" and I have to hand it to everyone out there in those so-called battleground states of OH and PA for knocking on doors, etc. We are going to shock everybody including a lot of our Conservative websites out there. I can't wait for election night and the day after!
I smell a troll, a Buchannanite, or a Weinerite. Which one are you actually? I think you need to post on Clown Posse. That bunch of whiners is probably more your speed.
So sorry Grut, I meant these comments for jmaroneps37. I am sick of these doomsaying trolls. These people take their que from Weiner Savage and other Republican haters, all the while claiming to be more conservative than everyone else. They have any number of political parties they can work for: the Deformed Party, the Loonytarians, or the Constipation Party. They ought to do that and stop trying to spread their hateful bile here.
A note for all the screamers: we got from LBJ to Reagan and we can do it again. It's not the end of the World.
"Likely voters" are probably goal-oriented people who do not have time to waste on junk phone calls, so they're not going to be called (no-call list) and will probably hang up on pollsters that do get through.
In the past, we have not seen as many polls citing adults. We must be suspicious of adults responding to these surveys and polls.
I've noticed that, too.