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.
I'd guess so in the absence of other information. I'm sure that the group had been discussed internally at the WH multiple times prior to Bush saying that and if not directly suggested by Rove. I'll bet that the term was used during internal discussions and no one pointed out that it might prove to be quite offensive to some of the "base" and a net negative.
How long do your hysterics attacks last?
Damn. She's good.
ping
What would be nice would be if we could show the "Republicans that we were willing to withhold support if they go too far left, without our actually having do so. Unfortunately, that isn't possible. Our apparent unwillingness in the past to act against left-leaning Republicans has made them oblivious to any such threats.
IMHO, the major goal of many people stirring up conservative discontent was to try to convince Republicans in Congress that they needed to acknowledge their base. Had the Republicans done so, conservatives would have rewarded them with support and everyone on the right would have benefited."
That all may be true. But what you're telling me is that some conservatives put their personal pet issues ahead of national security. Nice! What a way to claim the mantle of patriotism.
If I recall correctly Clinton's 6th year midterms gains were tiny compared to how much he lost on his 2nd year midterm election. By the time it rolled around it seemed that Newt and his gang were a sort of incumbency in its 4th year.
Thus the idea that incumbant parties tend to suffer losses in mid term election, with a tendency to be more pronounced in the 6th year seems consistant with even the Clinton yeras.
As you pointed out, it is not as easy to explain, thus I find it fairly reasonable to gloss over the point for brevity since digging into it still supports her conclusion.
HISTORIC VICTORY FOR DIEBOLD! (ANN COULTER explains..)
Posted by xmission
On News/Activism 11/12/2006 5:00:55 PM PST · 34 replies · 1,346+ views
Ann Coulter ^ | 11/8/2006 | Ann Coulter
Historic Victory for Diebold! [Ann Coulter]
Posted by pissant
On News/Activism 11/08/2006 3:58:41 PM PST · 205 replies · 4,226+ views
Human Events ^ | 11/8/06 | Ann Coulter
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.