Ol' Sharp Cheeks..... one too many times on the operating table. Look closely for the unhealded scars
Posted on 10/29/2006 4:36:20 AM PST by bennyjakobowski
THE call went out to a select band of conservative commentators last week: come to a briefing with the president in the Oval Office. Designed to flatter and create a buzz, the idea was to convey firmness of purpose about Iraq and optimism about the November congressional elections.
“I’m campaigning like mad and I’m looking at people in the eye and saying, you better have a government that does everything in its power to protect you from attack. You’re right here in the office where I get briefed every morning and I’m telling you, it’s on my mind,” President George W Bush told his guests. “I was affected deeply by the attacks of September 11 . . . I know we’re at war.”
Bush revealed that he had been reading A History of the English-Speaking Peoples since 1900 by Andrew Roberts, the British historian who has written a stirring narrative about the doughty nations that took on the Nazis, the Soviet Union and now the Islamo-fascists.
At the end of the briefing Karl Rove, architect of Bush’s 2004 election victory, popped in to exude confidence about Republican prospects at elections on November 7. No matter how sombre the news from Iraq, he has faith in his game plan: trash your opponents’ national security credentials, challenge their fitness to govern and turn out your vote.
Bush may not be as confident as the aide known as his “brain”. “It’s understood that you are allowed to lie about elections,” said one of those present. “I don’t think he is convinced he is going to win.” But the signs point to a tightening race rather than a decisive victory for the Democrats in the Senate and House of Representatives.
Tom Edmonds, a Republican consultant, has gone from gloomy to upbeat in the past week. “The Democrats have peaked too soon,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to be on the other side with all this pressure to win the big game.”
The Republicans are shifting their election strategy from the general to the particular in the closing stretch. The issue is not does their side deserve re-election, as even ardent supporters acknowledge they do not. But do voters want to hand power to the Democrats? The election hinges on that question.
Nancy Pelosi, destined to be speaker of the House should the Democrats win, is top of the Republican hit list for being a wealthy out-of-touch San Francisco left-winger who they claim is soft on terror, and for gay marriage and higher taxes. Despite recent efforts to present herself as a homely grandmother and mother of five, Pelosi, 66, is to the left of Hillary Clinton. Her permanently startled expression prompted the blog site Wonkette to run a poll on whether she had had plastic surgery.
Right-wing television chat shows are dripping with vitriol. Pat Buchanan, no admirer of Bush and a former Republican presidential contender, laid into Pelosi for marching in “gay pride parades with the North American Man/Boy Love Association”. A while back she had a hamburger with “strange things” she eventually realised were french fries. She has been mocked for not knowing they can be curly.
Pelosi, a consistent opponent of the Iraq war, sought to shoot down excitable talk that she would seek to impeach Bush if elected. “It is off the table,” she said, describing it as a “waste of time” (as opposed to undesirable in principle).
The idea that the Democrats will seek revenge on the president has taken root with the public. A Gallup poll on Friday revealed that 70% of respondents believe the Democrats will “conduct major investigations” of the Bush administration if they win control of Congress.
Republicans are highlighting the likelihood that key leadership posts in the Senate and House of Representatives are likely to fall to left-wingers. John Conyers, who is in line to chair the House judiciary committee, has drawn up a charge sheet against Bush over Iraq, heavily influenced by the contents of the Downing Street memo, leaked to The Sunday Times, about the “fixing” of pre-war intelligence.
Conyers has been silenced during the election campaign — even on his website, references to Iraq have been deleted on the grounds that the section is being “updated” — but will be back on the war path once the election is over. Other likely committee chairmen to watch are Charlie Rangel on taxes and John Dingell on energy policy (see below).
Gallup established that 45% of voters believe the Democrats will take steps to make same-sex marriage legal, a figure that could be boosted after a court in New Jersey ruled last week that the state has six months either to legalise gay marriage or guarantee marriage rights under another name.
James Dobson, the influential founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical Christian organisation, said he hoped that the ruling would drive social conservatives to the poll. “Nothing less than the future of the American family hangs in the balance if we allow one-man, one-woman marriage to be redefined out of existence,” he warned.
It is grist to Rove’s mill that “wedge” issues, such as the war on terror and gay marriage, will galvanise the Rebublican base. But what Democrats are calling the “politics of fear and smear” are at their most vicious in a few hotly contested races where ultra-moderate Democrats are seeking election.
Republicans believe they have a good chance of retaining the Senate, where the Democrats need to win six seats to take control. “The election has got really nasty,” said Edmonds, a seasoned campaigner. “I don’t know who will be offended the most, Republicans or Democrats.”
In Pennsylvania, Senator Rick Santorum, a conservative supporter of Bush trailing in the polls, has sponsored a television advertisement depicting his moderate opponent, a pro-life Catholic, next to a mushroom cloud.
Harold Ford, a black candidate running in a tied race for the Senate in Tennessee, is pro-the Iraq war, pro-guns and a Christian who filmed one of his television commercials in a church. His Republican opponent hit back with an allegedly race-baiting advert highlighting Ford’s presence at a Playboy party at the SuperBowl. “Harold, call me,” winks a sexy blonde.
The campaign has been at its dirtiest in Virginia where George Allen, the Republican senator, was once a hot contender for the 2008 presidential nomination. His seat was not supposed to be in play. But after relentless criticism over the “macaca” scandal in which he was rude to a young Democrat of Indian descent, surprise revelations about his Jewish ancestry and criticism for being over-fond of the Confederate flag, Allen last week turned the table on his rival, a writer, for including sleazy sex scenes involving children and prostitutes in his novels.
It was a “Karl Rove campaign tactic”, James Webb, the Democrat candidate and author in question, fumed. “It’s smear after smear.” Although some Republicans were appalled by the attack, they privately conceded that it would be effective.
Webb is no ordinary Democrat. He served as secretary to the navy under President Reagan and voted for Allen in the 2000 election, but turned against the Republicans over the Iraq war, where his son is serving in the military.
If the Democrats stand a chance of taking the Senate, it will be largely due to the efforts of moderate candidates in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Missouri, Virginia, Tennessee and Montana. If they win the House, where they need 15 seats, it will be because Pelosi and colleagues have tacked to the centre.
“The battle is for the ideological centre. If you’re not appealing to moderates, you’re gone,” said Jim Kessler of the Third Way, a moderate Democrat organisation. Republicans are betting that they will still have the edge.
Bush bashers
The Democrats need to pick up 15 seats to take control of the House of Representatives. If they do, key posts are likely to go to these figures opposed to Bush:
Nancy Pelosi, speaker Republican hate-figure in line to be first woman speaker. Pro-choice on abortion and voted against Iraq war
John Conyers, judiciary committee Author of report on the road to war that could serve as the basis for impeaching Bush
Henry Waxman, government reform Attacked abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Has already subpoenaed Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary
John Dingell, energy and commerce Wants to investigate Vice-President Dick Cheney’s secret links to the oil lobby
Charles Rangel, ways and means Critical of Bush’s tax cuts and hostile to Iraq war Bush bashers
We can either fight Democrsts at our polling places or end up fighting the terorists in our streets.
I expect paid commercials within the next few days with the Democrats own words and deeds, being put out by our Party and talk radio, the MSM is not relevant anymore.
I can draw a bit, but don't have time.
This jump start the economy line is to big to let get away.
Imagine a cartoon of GWV in a top fuel dragster (running) and Pelosi standing their with jumper cables. GWB in true Texas fashion says something like "If it ain't broke don't fix it".......
Ol' Sharp Cheeks..... one too many times on the operating table. Look closely for the unhealded scars
Pimp!!
My hubby says the loafers at the coffee shops are getting very hateful. About equally Pubs and Rats so it is very interesting. He said to one guy "I think I need to call Rush and ask him how to respond to you guys".....answer: "I don't listen to that jerk and never will." He also mentioned Hillary as President and the Rat said "well, she'd do a better job than Bush." He comes home every morning razzed up. Of course, since this is Illinois there is little we can do about an election since Chicago runs the show.
I think alot of them would qualify to be kingpins in the porn industry. The true believers; Leaky Leahy, Connors, Ted the Swimmer, etc. could emerge from the closet and form a one stop global dictators' reparations lobbying group. Sydney Blumenthal...he'd be a suicide bomber in the Bible Belt.
I agree completely. The system we have right now, with the press at bat for the Democrats, who hate America, men, white people, capitalism, straight people, you name it, will not work with a third party. Yes, the Republicans leave a lot to be desired. But the alternative is a gaggle of miscreants who will ruin the economy, ruin the military, allow the middle east to become worse than it already is, allow all kinds of despots to get nuclear weapons, allow a 9-11 happen without appropriate action (can you say WTC-1993?), tax us to death, obstruct a real national energy policy, force us all to bow at the altar of the environment (tell us the real threat is global warming), etc. etc.
This chaos will destroy this country.
The 3 party system will not work in this situation since the third party acts as the spoiler allowing these dregs to get power. We see what happened when Clinton and the D's took control. We really can not afford another round of this.
As painful as it might be, until the Democrats get the crap swept out of their party and start defending America like they used to, the Republicans are the only responsible choice.
This does not mean that the Republicans not be taken to task to curb some of their Rinos ways. But a collapse of the Democratic Party with a replacement party that competes with the Republicans on issues of substance and National Security is what we need, not a third party. The best way to have this happen is to keep voting R until the D's implode completely and are replaced.
Professional Sht-slingers? Honey-dipping, of course.
Absolutely true. However, I think a lot of the Dems believed their own press reports. Now that it's looking like they're not going to get the early solstice present they were hoping for, I find it revealing that they think it's the GOP GOTV machine that's going to do them in. It couldn't possibly be that average Americans find Dems increasingly unpalateable, could it? Nope, can't be that; it must be that evil genius ROOOOOVE instead.
If the fate of Western Civilization weren't at stake, I would laugh.
" Despite recent efforts to present herself as a homely grandmother ..."
Freudian slip, perhaps ???
Funny how all of the volumes on my bookshelf bearing that title credit Winston Churchill as being the author.
Why are "our" guys so bloody stupid?
I have that same response from time to time. It's not so much stupid as it is that they are not aggressive like the Dems.
On the other hand, in this case, I don't think it hurt that there was no response. Most of the audience for this show is conservative. Gabler is just red meat for conservatives like me. He's the stereotypical liberal nutcase. His rants need no response. He is Exhibit A all by himself.
There.
That explains it.
We may end up fighting both factions in our streets!
Funny how all of the volumes on my bookshelf bearing that title credit Winston Churchill as being the author.
It would seem that Andrew Roberts has indeed written, and recently published, a book of that title.
An out-of-date comment on his website says this:
"Roberts is currently writing a book entitled 'A History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900', bringing up the story from the point that Sir Winston Churchill ended his great four-volume work to the present day. It will be published in the spring of 2006."
According to the front page of the website, the actual publication date was September 14th.
Thank you, I missed the "Since 1900" part of the title.
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.