Posted on 11/08/2002 3:06:20 PM PST by Jean S
It was a stunning, record-breaking night. George Bush is the first President in 68 years to gain seats in his first midterm election. Historically, the party in the White House loses seats in the midterm election. This is true even in wartime: Franklin D. Roosevelt lost 50 House seats and eight Senate seats 10 months after Pearl Harbor.
Though Democrats gleefully cite the midterm election of 1998 when the Democrats picked up six House seats—and no Senate seats—that was Clinton’s second midterm election. Republicans had already realized all their midterm gains in Clinton’s first midterm election. In the very first election after people got a look at Clinton in 1994, Republicans picked up 52 seats in the House, eight seats in the Senate, 11 governorships and 12 state legislative chambers. Not a single Republican incumbent lost.
Thanks to Clinton, the ’94 Republican sweep marked the first time in half a century that Republicans had a majority in the House. (It was one of many historic moments in the Clinton Administration—another being "First President accused of rape within weeks of being impeached.") That sweep meant voters in about 50 congressional districts had done something they had never done before in their entire lives: Vote Republican in a congressional election. There was no reason to expect lifelong Democrats in those districts to keep voting Republican in every successive election.
To the contrary, Democrats should have won back a lot of the seats they lost in 1994. By the standard of historical averages, in the 1998 midterm election, the Democrats should have won back 22 House seats. Instead they won only six seats. The average midterm loss this past century is 30 seats in the House. Clinton’s average was 46.
The media billed the Democrats’ paltry gain in 1998 as a victory for Clinton and revulsion with impeachment for the same reason they say Bush "stole" the presidential election. Liberals love to lie. (Someone should write a book about that.)
By contrast, in Bush’s first midterm election last week, Republicans made spectacular gains all over the country. It was such a blowout that over on CBS, Dan Rather had to keep retelling viewers about Sen. Lautenberg’s victory in New Jersey. (Good thing Election Day finally came without another Democrat realizing the voters were on to him, or the Democrats might have had to unwrap Tutankhamen.)
All night, victories rolled in for Republicans, even shocking victories no one had expected. They picked up seats in the House and Senate. Republicans won a double whammy with Democrat-target Jeb Bush winning in Florida and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend losing in Maryland. Democratic bête noire Katherine Harris won her congressional election. In stunning upsets, Republicans won the governorships in Hawaii and Georgia. The Republican juggernaut could not be stopped.
Democrats may be forced to shut down operations as a party and re-enter politics under a different name. The party formerly known as "the Democratic Party" will henceforth be doing business under the name "the Abortion Party."
That would have the virtue of honesty. Love of abortion is the one irreducible minimum of the Democratic Party. Liberals don’t want to go to war with Saddam Hussein, but they do want to go to war to protect Roe v. Wade.
Inasmuch as George Bush rather than Barbra Streisand will be picking our federal judges, even now liberals are sharpening their character assassination techniques. People for the American Way—representing Americans up and down the Malibu beachfront—are already lining up lying Anita Hills to accuse Bush’s judicial nominees of lynching blacks and burning crosses.
This is precisely the sort of Clintonian viciousness that Americans indicated they were sick of on election night. The Democrats’ motorcycle rally-cum-funeral in Minnesota for Paul Wellstone exposed the party’s character in a pellucid, dramatic way. It was so revolting, people couldn’t avert their eyes from the spectacle. The only moral compass liberals have is their own will to power. Even the deaths of three members of a family could not slow them down.
If the party formerly known as "the Democrats" doesn’t like the factually correct "Abortion Party," how about "the Adultery Party"? Noticeably, the only incumbent Republican senator to lose was Tim Hutchinson of Arkansas, who left his wife for a staffer a few years ago. I’m proud to be a member of a party that still frowns on that sort of thing.
The end result of a Democratic President’s being caught in an adulterous affair with an intern was: Two Republicans resigned from Congress. Meanwhile, the felon in the White House was revered as a latter-day George Washington by the Adultery Party. And consider that Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were mere congressmen. Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, Jesse Jackson and Gary Hart are deemed presidential material by the Adultery Party.
What a miserable party. I’m glad to see their power end, and I’m sure they’ll all be perfectly comfortable in their cells in Guantanamo. As Jesse Helms said on Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980: God has given America one more chance.
The CA GOP is just plain desparate. We need another Ronald Reagan!
That would be more Islamic than Christian.
You failed to mention that Abraham had slaves. Ironically, both David and Abraham committed adultery and where spared death, though both cases had extreme consequences attached. Ishmael was born with a curse on his head in Abraham's case.
None of the mentioned sins were condoned by God though, nor do they bring God's blessing.
Leviticus 20:10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
The Old Testament law called for the stoning of adulterers. I don't know of anywere that prostitutes where put to death per say though, but I could be wrong.
NT (Matt 5:28) says that any man who looks after a woman to lust after her is committing adultery. It looks like any relationship outside of marriage is adultury.
Maybe adultery in the OT was limited to when a married person was involved, but Jesus changed some things when He came. His law now deals more with the internal workings of a man's mind and soul, not with religious sanctions by government.
But I don't believe that just because a law's moral basis is related to the Bible, that the law should be done away with. I believe the Bible, God's law, to be the highest law available to man, so it does man best to obey it. God's way brings God's blessings and sin brings God's curse.
I would not advocate the death pentalty for a drug user. But if the people of a state do not want drugs in their state, nothing in the Constitution stops them from disallowing drugs.
http://logosresourcepages.org/w-define.html
The Greek word "pharmakos" for sorcerer is a word having to do with drug use which is connected with sorcery and occult in the OT. Sorcerers where to be put to death.
I would be very interested to see any sources you could give me on the pervasive drug use accepted by Israel in Bible times you mentioned.
Hah! Next time a (D) accuses an (R) of being "against a woman's right to choose", the (R) should maybe say, "Of course not. Women can choose to vote for whoever they want, just like men can!"Play word games until the (D) is forced into saying the "a-word."
True if you are speaking about the laws concerning abortion on the one hand and of one's own personal opinion concerning the act of abortion on the other.
There is a problem however, If you try to enumerate personal moral reasons for opposing abortion, and at the same time try to leave the door open for other people to have a so-called choice. You may in effect be saying that you believe in an objective moral code for yourself while also trying to say that there is no such thing as an objective moral code.
I've also been noticing that the Progressive Caucus has been on one heck of a losing streak lately... including retirements, the primaries, and Tuesday, they lost about 10% of their membership.
Now there's the Georgia state representatives who are switching parties, and giving the GOP a majority (plurality? I'm not sure how many have switched yet). SO MUCH good news to share!!
(My local victory story was a Judge named Z. Mae Jimison who is radically liberal, and was given the entire front page of the liberal weekly newsrag, and a page B-1 story the day before the election... she also got the lowest possible rating from the Indiana Bar Assn. With 17 candidates fighting for 15 positions, the lone Independent came in 17th... and she came in 16th, with the other 15 positions getting almost identical numbers from those voting straight party-line for all the rest. She got about 15,000 votes less than the rest. Life is good!)
On the other hand, there is the view, which I share, that abortion is immoral, wrong, and irresponsible; however, government restriction in this matter, much like with drugs, is a worse evil because it does little to halt the practice while criminalizing a large segment of the populace for what is, after all, within their bodies. Forcing someone to bear children is a greater evil, irrespective of circumstance, than allowing them the choice.
Is forcing someone from killing another person a violation of that great civil right you just mentioned? I would ask you this. Why can't a people be free from drug users if they so please? Why should I have to put up with the cocaine addict next door when he could just move to a state where cocaine was legal and I could live in a state where it was illegal?
If drugs are legalized, should I the taxpayer take up the bill for the rehabilitation of a drug addict who figures out that what he is doing is destroying him? Should the state let people destroy themselves without intervening? I'm not saying that you shouldn't be able to live in a state where drugs are legal, I'm just saying that I should also have the right to live in a state where they are illegal.
And I suppose that would invalidate any countering argument?
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.