Hey, Behole, is Annie a dirty, dirty Girl?
Posted on 11/08/2006 3:58:41 PM PST by pissant
History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.
So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.
Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.
Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.
Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.
In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.
In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.
In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.
Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.
But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.
During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.
Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)
So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.
In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.
The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
LOL! Somebody comes out fightin'--
The rats have despised Bush from the day he "stole" the election from Sore-Loserman. There was nothing anyone could have said or done to change that. Dems have become so vitriolic that one can't even hold a rational political discussion with them any more without them holding a hissy fit.
I'm sure there are exceptions. Just like there are RINOs that won't vote for Christian conservatives.
This treason stuff is too silly...just like the awful "magnificent bastard" stuff the past few days.
Yes, yes, Ann, of course. That's why Nancy Pelosi is going to be the new Speaker and Harry Reid is going to be running the Senate.
That's just inspired analysis, fweetie.
Hey, Behole, is Annie a dirty, dirty Girl?
LOL!!!!
Yup, someone shoulda kept that girl barefoot and pregnant!!!!
And while I really wish we had Santorum and Allen back in the Senate, Casey and Webb are likely to turn out to be a significant improvement over Wofford and Robb.
And a whole lot of conservative inititives got passed (anti-affirmative action in Mich., a pile of gay marriage ones, English language in AZ)
And as Rush noted today, a lot of voters thought not unfoundedly that the Republicans were the party of "big government"
Anne's fault? Pffft...
At least they made a historic stand against gay pedofiles in congress.
Of all the posts tonight I think yours is the most accurate.
Conservative Republicans lost because they were no longer conservative. They became “them” and hence more worried about being accepted and invited to the right parties than doing what they were elected to do. So, as a direct result, they were unelected. BTW that is the correct term - unelected -because entirely too many conservative referendums passed and too many dimocrats ran as conservatives for this election to mark a significant change in national direction.
I have news for those living in that artificial world “inside the beltway” there are no “right parties” anymore.
The best thing that could happen when we win again, and we will, is to prohibit the elder leaders in both the House and Senate from assuming leadership posts. These men and women learned how to operate as a minority party. When they became the majority party they had no clue how to behave. Look at what they considered important verses what we consider important and how they attempted to run the government.
In my dream world, all leadership posts in both houses would be filled by the newest members - they made the biggest jump (from unwashed civilian to blessed politician) most recently and therefore have the best idea, based on their victories, of what the nation want. No someone who made the jump 12 - 20 years ago.
But, that would create too much upheaval and prevent the “smooth” functioning of government. Isn’t it a great idea?
I laughed too. Finally. I think it helps to get a perspective on the situation. I do believe we have to fight. I will write letters to the editor which I have not done in years. I will engage others with facts. I will pray. I would like to believe that we are not the same country that let Vietnam happen. As parents, we are not the same parents of the 70's, news sources are different. So much more opportunities to be truthfully informed. This article topped off a down day but I am beginning to see the light. Much to give thanks for and to trust God for.
Then there was that plan, floated the week before the election, to spend $50 million to convince adults not to have sex. I think it's possible that the Republicans threw this election, so that they can campaign in '08 as the 'out' party.
You cited a specific instance to support your view, and now you are running away from a simple request to put that specific instance in context.
Additional inflammatory accusations might be effective rhetoric to some audiences, but I like to think that those on FR are not so impressed.
I think not. I doubt one out of 100 Dem voters could tell you who Ann Coulter even is.
Now how did she do that? Certainly not by writing the book Treason, which reminds me by the way, I have this book entitled Behold a Pale Horse.
I'm afraid you wasted that one, Poincare. There aren't many folks left around here who would get the reference.
If you want to properly understand Coulter's role, just revisit the "Iliad" and refresh yourself with the story of how Cassandra desperately tried to warn the Trojans of the impending threat, but was ignored and demonized.
Well, dude, you really have to troll all the post-election threads here to finally figger out and focus on whose fault last night's defeat was! As it turns out, it was Ann Coulter's. Makes sense?
I just heard on the radio here in Phoenix tonight that the Secretary of State's office says Hayworth is wrong. They do not have 100,000 ballots that haven't been counted. They have 230,500 ballots that haven't been counted. Guess they stopped after the 'RATS had enough to win.
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.