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.
Get real.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BurtPrelutsky/2006/05/16/down_with_the_independent_voter
Down with the independent voter
By Burt Prelutsky
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
[Excerpted]:
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 isn’t 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 can’t 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 they’re 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 you’re sending?
The one that’s 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, they’re not sophisticated, merely frustrated. They dislike the compromises, the lobbying, and the trade-offs, that go with politics in America.
While I don’t 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 isn’t 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 don’t see their profits sucked off by the bureaucrats in Washington.
Democrats want taxes increased because it’s mother’s 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 there’s 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 there’s 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, it’s 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, you’re 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.
That’s 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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1718944/posts
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
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1719680/posts
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.
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.