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.
Actually, this is a very good point. A Republican loss sometime was inevitable. It certainly would have been nicer, now, if it hadn't happened now but if it hadn't happened now 2008 could have been an even worse disaster.
You seem to have an extremist view. Predicting that the Democrats would win, and writing nonfiction is not treasonous, and depending on what was in the nonfiction, it doesn't even have to be anti-conservative, either.
LOL!!
BUMP!!
Nancee
That's a really lame answer. Ann is obviously not a member of YOUR house, so why don't you work on going after the most egregious Dem traitors? Seems that would be a heck of a lot more proactive and if you snag a few it will definitely help the GOP in '08.
Smacking around and dragging down fellow conservatives will only serve to keep us divided.... plays right into the hands of Hitlery and Company.
I'm having a real problem determining who it is, in particular, you are angry with.
For example, I hate the MSM & leftist dog squeeze, love our military & vets, our constitution and apple pie, yet in thread after thread, no matter what the subject, it seems as though you are p*ssed at guys just like me.
Where are you coming from? No problem if you don't feel like answering, just had to ask.
There were a few DUers who were pretending to still be worried about vote fraud. They were really worried about their appearance as hypocrites. The rest were the classic DUmmie, it's only vote fraud when they don't win.
I heard her predict this.
Because I learned in Vietnam that one does NOT trust someone like Ann Coulter to watch my back while I go after the bad guys.
Seems that would be a heck of a lot more proactive and if you snag a few it will definitely help the GOP in '08.
Sorry, antceecee. This country--inspired, in part, by Ann Coulter's deliberate efforts to encourage factional feuding within the GOP during the post-primary phase of the 2006 campaign--has decided to vote for Democrats and to stab the troops in the back. I honestly don't think we're going to have elections in 2008, because "Jericho" will have made the leap from "television drama" to "reality show" thanks to America putting the Dems in power. My primary goal is for my children, grandchildren, and extended family to survive the coming Dark Ages, not to win some pointless election that's not going to be happening, anyway.
"...it's only vote fraud when they don't win."
AMEN!!
Nancee
The whole spiteful, ungrateful, feckless, disloyal POS country.
She was on Drudge's radio show and predicted this two-three weeks ago.
Quite frankly I wish that people would have taken her prediction seriously instead of the arrogance of people thinking we were going to gain seats. This election was completely ours to lose. This did not have to be as bad as it was if people would have been humble and actually think perhaps we could lose instead of saying well we won the last four elections we will NEVER lose again (believe me people seriously thought this). Arrogance is not a good thing to have and bashing polls the last two months prior to election was cool to do but the results were it made us unprepared for the reality to come.
The Congresscritters, W & Rove are ultimately responsible. Hastert never had any vision, not much strategic skill, no real firm principles. That the American public has little patience and not many have a strong nationalist will is not Ann's fault. If anything she may have actually increased the number of those understanding that the US is in a long term struggle.
Like I said, you're awfully glib about betrayal. Where were you during Vietnam?
Having a dork like Webb in the Senate is worse than losing the House.
You seem to have a personally specific definition of betrayal and an unreasonable focus on Coulter as a major factor in yesterday's election. Beating up on Coulter is not an efficient use of your energy to effect change for the better.
No. I'll write slow this time.
The GOP has only itself to blame. Not Ann Coulter. Many, many of those incumbents were arrogant, out-of-touch and just generally dislikeable. And there were also a lot of character issues in a lot of national and non-national races.
For the record, I held my nose and pushed the party light button.
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.