America desperately needs a new generation of defense Democrats, liberals with clear heads and sharp swords. America needs them now. Sam Nunn is retired. Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson is dead. Gary Hart, now billing himself as a defense guru, helped kill Scoop politically in 1972 and 1976. Richard Perle, still a registered Democrat, is anathematized by liberals as a prince of darkness, instead of the defense whiz he is.
But no major Democrats have publicly condemned Murray's outrage. Silence doesn't cut it, folks. Perhaps a stonewall prevents "political damage" to her, but it continues to seed deep doubts about Democrats on national security. Sure, in a well wrought counter-terror strategy, daycare centers can complement destroyers, but that wasn't Murray's message.
A U.S. senator's (Patty Murray) office so out of touch that it doesn't know Al Qaeda's and Jemaah Islamiya's game is inexcusable. The general lack of critique from the national media also suggests a national media culture still not aware of 9-11's historic challenge.
Hey Liberalhawk, they're calling on you to run for President!
#3
I think Rantburg's own liberalhawk would certainly do nicely. Congratulations on your sudden fame, liberalhawk dear. May you soon get your party back from the outer wastes where currently it's wandering.
#9
Lieberman may very well be the key here. Hannity had him on this afternoon and he was VERY friendly to Hannity. Sean asked him about those Donks who threw him under the bus against Lamont (Hillary, Schumer, etc.) and he said basically that it was hard not to take it personally, that he'd caucus with the Dems, BUT (look out) he intends to do a LOT of things to be independent of the Party. He even specifically said his relationship with a lot of those people has CHANGED A LOT, so I'll be watching to see if'n he's telling the truth.
Posted by: BA ||
11/08/2006 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Since I find myself arguing with lh whenever I am motivated to actually respond, I'm with Frank: a promotion is not in order, lol.
#11
.com, I feel your pain. I don't usually argue with him, just sit back and roll my eyes. While I don't want the 'burg to be a complete echo chamber (it is good to hear the other side of the argument, especially to rip it to shreds), LH comes across as condescending to me, even if I may agree with some of his arguments. Anyways, I'm more hopeful with Lieberman, rather than our own LH.
Posted by: BA ||
11/08/2006 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Well gents, in the party of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and fatty Murray - LH would be a welcomed relief. I don't always agree w/him, but damn, at least he takes the time to read up on what's going on. Heckuva lot better than the current crop of gomers the dems got going.
#13
(non-PC. If you don't like it, call someone) that's like celebrating the dim among the total retards....
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/08/2006 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I agree with you both - and it's why I sometimes do respond. The one thing that makes me crazy isn't when someone disagrees with my conclusion, it's when they hang onto a worldview that is so obviously obsolete that it causes pain to see someone trot it out.
But it's not fair for me to criticize him now - he never posts after about 5:30-6:00 PM Eastern, which tells you he only posts from his work PC.
Sorry, lh - mebbe I'll bushwhack you tomorrow, lol.
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/08/2006 21:46 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Did someone say Sparkle Farkle? Meet your new NAMBLA overlords, pawns!
Posted by: San Fran Nan ||
11/08/2006 22:03 Comments ||
Top||
#20
If anyone can truly be called a winner of the 06 elections it Lieberman.
He won hands down, and doesnt owe anything to anybody for his position. And he controls hwo the vots go - if he decides he likes the Repubs on a given item, he can vote with them 50-50 and they get the VP for the tiebreaker and win it. If he stays with the Dems, they win 51-49.
And every single vote, Joe gets to name his price.
Nothing either party can do to threaten him becuase his base is strong and he showed he can even defeat a well heeled challenger backed byt he major party in CT.
Congrats Joe. You are THE winner of 06.
And folks, please note: Joe is Pro-VICTORY and he kicked "cut and run"'s ass.
#21
"*A* Liberal Hawk?
The need 20 or 30 of them who can vote against the LLL bloc.
They also need the think tanks, the publications, in short- a DEBATE on what the liberal national-security philosophy should be.
Joe Lieberman can't do it himself. He's in the wilderness.
In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn't been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.
Interesting about the Libertarian vote and the Margin of Victory in those key states. Similar things in VA as well with third party candidates?
#1
Congrats Liberetarians, you just ensured control of the Senate would go to even bigger statists and your liberties will be curtailed by the people you helped put in office, especially Tester. Hope you're happy Bill Quick when Gun Ban Shumer rams thru gun control laws.
#2
I don't think it bothers them -- they wanted to send a message that they, in particular, weren't happy with what the Republicans had become. Given that so many of us had held our noses while pulling the 'R' lever, I'm not surprised.
Question is whether the Republican leadership gets the message, but electoral defeats tend to do that in the Republican party.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm sure we can change our platform to make the libertarians happy... more euthanasia, more abortion... we'll get a couple percentage points more from the libertarians, and about thirty percentage points less from the people who actually believe in right and wrong.
I remember when I did take libertarianism semi-seriously, if they weren't there, I probably wouldn't have voted at all.
#5
Don't do that. It reminds me of when the Democrats were blaming the Nader voters for Gore's defeat in 2000. As if Gore was owed their vote or something.
#7
Hmm, when I was a registered Libertarian I always voted for the Republican congressional and Senatorial picks. So that margin may not be an indication of anything. Just saying don't believe everything you read.
#9
Some Libertarians are big on pro-drug and other domestic issues that they feel closer to the Dems about. Some are very much against border control and any kind of foreign policy which also puts them closer to the Dems.
Low taxes, Spending discipline, and the belief in small government were the things that kept the Libertarians voting Republican and the Republicans tossed two of the three away.
#10
"Low taxes, Spending discipline, and the belief in small government were the things that kept the Libertarians voting Republican and the Republicans tossed two of the three away."
BINGO!
You hit the nail on the head. Well and succinctly put.
#11
One of the worst things I can see happening along with the Dem win of control of the House and possibly the Senate is a change in the electoral college system.
There's already a challenge/suggestion by several (many?) states to alter the system in such a way that it would profoundly effect future elections IMO.
That is a real and present danger to our country at this time.
#12
I don't worry about the electoral college. If the Dem controlled states want to split their electoral college votes, all they accomplish is to negate nearly all their influence in selecting the Prez and VP.
The state elections in 2008 and 2010 will set electoral district boundaries and will determine for 10 years whether elections tend toward Dems or Repubs.
Posted by: ed ||
11/08/2006 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
These people voted for Libertarian candidates. My question is are these candidates actually of a caliper needed to take a senate seat, or is it just some warm bag of potatoes used to save a place on the ballot ? There is more than one way to waste a vote.
#14
The electoral college system is safe forever, for better or worse. The number of states needed to block the required Constitutional amendment is far smaller than the number of lower populations states it makes disproportionately influential in the Presidential process. Their self interest will keep it in place.
#16
wxjames: I thought the same thing. I got a Voter Guide here in Georgia with how the candidates would vote on different issues (mostly abortion, eminent domain, etc.). I was amazed at how many (supposed) Libertarian candidates not only agreed with abortion (no shock there), but wanted Federal Funding for them too! Methinks that a lot of these candidates just have nothing better to do with their time and don't want to work at Wal-Mart, lol! Not saying that Repubs deserved those votes either, but those of us who are conservative on "moral" issues (like euthanasia, cloning, abortion, etc.) don't agree at all with the Libertarians. Heck, even though I'm a moral Christian, I'd even give their ideas on legalizing certain drugs a swing based upon the decrease in Fed Funds spent on "the war on drugs" if it would decrease my taxes. But some things (like abortion and cloning) I won't agree to at all. Just my $.02.
Posted by: BA ||
11/08/2006 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#17
#2 & #5 have it.
I'm pretty much a libertarian (though I disagree w/them on the border & abortion on demand). Me and the wife both voted Repub at the national level. The Repub loss falls squarely on the Repub party, period. Burns loss has prolly more to do w/the party's screw ups at large than the libertarian voters. Blaming libertarians for voting their conscience by casting ballots for libertarian candidates is like blaming any other indy voters for the Repub loss because they voted for indy candidates. Might as well blame the socialists and the constitutionalists as well. You guys are smarter/better than that. Only Dems whine after a loss. We regroup, reorganize, and re-load.
When any party stays in power too long, they become complacent, and more concerned about retaining power than doing the right thing. The right thing that got them there in the first place. The Republicans forgot to do the right thing, and got thumped. The problem is that Hastert, and company have done this at a time of great peril to the nation.
Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house? A member of congress that represents the most left-wing large city in the US? May God help us. The Dems have to put her in. But I suspect that they will grow wise to her nuttiness in six months and want to find another way. She has neither the charisma and quick mind of a Newt or the aura of a coach which the outgoing speaker has from his years at Chicago area High Schools. She is shrill and angry. This won't work for long. Sure, the MSM will prop her up, but after awhile her image will bring disdain to everyone involved. It was inevitable that there would one day be a woman as speaker of the house. But San Fran Nan shouldn't be it. But alas, she is. So the best thing we can do is grit our teeth and make the best of it. With "new media" she won't be able to get away with much. So, we have to be vigilant, and as soon as she makes that inevitable step to a smellier part of the swamp, we must be ready to pounce, and send her back to the back benches of congress, which is where she belongs.
#1
From Boortz, who voted straight non-Dem anti-R Libertarian as a protest (which was stupid but it explains where the base left the rails).
I don't agree with his voting, but I sure as hell agree with his analysis - and I'm glad to not have to defend that pork barrel lobby infested immoral idiots that were our last bulwark. Now I get to go after leftists that would tax and spend, grow government, and abandon our defense, in their witch hunts and political payback that is harmful to the nation. All while pushing for Reagan style republicans that we can run with in 2008 and "Clean House". It will be fun to be on the Offensive instead of Defensive, the hunter not the hunted (but only for the next 2 years, maybe we can finally get the kill shot in on liberalism now that it flushed itself out int the open)
One thing is certain. The Republicans worked very hard for this defeat. They've earned every lost seat. The Republican majority that was sent packing yesterday bore little resemblance to the Republican majority that rode to power 12 years ago. In 1994 we were promised less government. Over the next 12 years the Republicans more than doubled the size of the government. We were promised control over runaway spending. In the last six years discretionary spending has doubled. We were promised fiscal responsibility. We got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We were promised the elimination of the Department of Education. After all, educational achievement had been on a steady decline since education was federalized under this Department. In no time at all the Republicans doubled funding for the Department of Education. In the meanwhile America continues to slip on the international scorecard of educational achievement.
The Republicans, in full control of the government, couldn't even manage to stop the Mexican invasion. How many Hispanics invaded our country across the Mexican / American border in the last 12 years? Twelve million? Twenty? Funny, but I don't remember pressing 1 for English in 1994.
#9
Leadership is about setting the agenda. The freshmen Dems will have zero weight in deciding which bills are discussed in committee, get to the floor and the time allotted for debate. The power belongs to Pelosi, Kennedy, Rangel, etc. True, to a lesser degree, for the Senate.
Posted by: ed ||
11/08/2006 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Committee chairmen will be replaced. Power will shift in these committees as a result of this election. People have been sniping at each other in Washington. The MSM has been the cheering section for the sniping. All the while the jihadists have been enjoying our foolishness. We had better get our shit together to fight this war on jihadists or we will lose our way of life. The threat is as great as it was from Nazi Germany and Japan in WW II.
Churchill and Roosevelt didn't repeatedly assert that Nazism and Bushido militarism were "religions of peace". They also didn't prevent their military from utterly destroying the enemy. They also didn't allow organized pro-Germany or pro-Japan groups openly recruit and spread their propaganda within our borders.
#12
Agreed the threat is much greater than in WW II. The Allies waged "total war" on Germany, Japan, and Italy. Total war meant that every effort went to "winning" the war. There was a kind of national discipline at that time that seems to be lacking today. Any thought of defeat of the West was just not acceptable. The notion of total war has been lost to history I'm afraid.
#13
Until it hits your town, the school where your kids go, the mall where you shop...
I do love the Peacenik Moonbats most of all. They say No War! - yet it takes no effort at all to create the situation in which either that opinion would go *poof* - or they would.
#15
That is the one thing where he is hung up. Using "Islamofascists" was the first thing out of the box.
As lotp has said, do you try to keep things limited to the existing skirmishing outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, or do you go ahead and call a spade what it is - and see if they come crawling out of the woodwork to play jihadi. A billion people is, no matter how you slice it, a buncha people. She's more eloquent, but I think that's the gist of the argument and why Bush has tried to keep a lid on the rhetoric.
What's the right move? Well, personally, I favor the spade route to set the stage for what we have to do - isolate / quarantine them and, if that doesn't work, get very very nasty.
#16
Isolation/quarantine of the islamics has got to be easier if the U.S. is energy independent. We need to quit shipping dollars to the mideast which end up indirectly supporting the likes of Hamas, Hezballah, etc. We need to quit propping up people that hate and try to destroy the U.S. Screw them and let them eat sand.
#17
Agree to energy independence, but the rest doesn't fly. If we buy less, the slack will be taken up by others. No serious loss of rev to the assholes.
If you REALLY want to cut off the funding of Islamofascism, you're gonna hafta take their fucking oil away from them. Period. Nothing, short of glassing the oil fields over, will do it... and that would be a waste, so...
#18
do love the Peacenik Moonbats most of all. They say No War! - yet it takes no effort at all to create the situation in which either that opinion would go *poof* -
So true. They will be first in line to viciously turn on groups of "other youths" once they fear for their own saftey. While we talk about doing things now that are difficult but measured now- they will be the ones who snap and demand magical solutions that just make the bad men all go away - but they won't care how it happens - just like they don't care about the people in Iraq.
#19
That description brings to mind the scene in 3 Days of the Condor between Redford and Robertson outside the NYT office. Redford's being a condescending asshole, like so many, and...
Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?
Joe Turner: Ask them?
Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
#2
Many of those races are close today because of what you and other members of the johnkerry.com community have done up to this point.
Yeah, well they wouldn't have been nearly as close if you hadn't run your big dumb mouth last week.
Thanks for the try, shithead. I'm sure your fellow Dems will remember your efforts...
I hope this assessment is too pessimistic.
Elections have global consequences.
By James S. Robbins
The outcome of the 2006 midterm elections will have serious consequences for the war on terrorism and U.S. national security generally. If you liked the foreign-policy impotence of the 1970s, get ready for more.
There will be strong sentiment among some Democrats to cut funding for the Iraq war completely. They probably wont do that right away, since the president would surely veto the bill if it is too extreme. It would also appear reckless to the large portion of the electorate that was not motivated by antiwar fervor. Yet, they will not allow funding to continue to grow, and will probably seek a major reduction. This will undoubtedly be couched in terms of reorienting priorities in the war on terrorism shifting funds from Iraq to what will be called homeland security expenditures, actually rewards to their urban base. They will also push through largely symbolic funding measures for the hunt for Osama bin Laden so that if he turns up any time in the next two years they can claim credit. (Note to Dems: Increase the reward. We spend $10 million an hour in Iraq. Even an Iraq-war supporter of my solid credentials can see trading a day of that effort for a quarter-million dollar reward for Osama, a level that might get the attention of the warlords giving him safe haven.)
The war effort will also be hampered since Pentagon is about to be hit by a rash of investigations as Democrats pay back the Angry Left part of their base with ritual humiliation of the architects of the war. One would guess that Secretary Rumsfeld would be a prime target, though others who have been in the Building since 2003 will also be on the list. Someone will have to go down. In a piece last May (anticipating this unfortunate development sad to be right) I compared this election to 1874, when the Democrats took the House for the first time since the Civil War, in the middle of President Grants second term. Among others, they went after the secretary of War, William W. Belknap, who was impeached on bribery charges in 1876. Note that Belknap had already resigned before he was impeached, which set an interesting constitutional precedent. He was saved from conviction by the Republican controlled Senate, but the damage had been done. Of course, Belknap probably had committed crimes, unlike Secretary Rumsfeld, with whom the Democrats only have policy differences. It will be a measure of their radicalism if they seek to trump up some charges about deceiving the American people in the lead-up to war, a belief that has already been investigated several times and found to be baseless.
But reality will take a back seat to political expediency; hearings and investigations will commence primarily because the Democrats will have the subpoena power.
One fears for the covert aspects of the war on terror, which are both necessary and beneficial. The opposition by leak technique that has hitherto been the m.o. will be replaced with formal hearings, the dominant motif being grandstanding with extreme umbrage. The model will be the Church/Pike hearings of the 1970s that discredited the intelligence community and rendered the United States helpless in the face of the threats we faced back then from international communism and rising radicalism in for example Iran. This too cant be overplayed, since Democrats would be blamed for the inevitable reverses we would face overseas and perhaps at home (if a domestic attack followed their all out assault on our covert warriors it would not look good). But the 1970s hearings got out of control to the point where even the Democrat managers had to warn against the proliferation of leaks and the damage being done to the intelligence community. Too late by then, of course, the damage was done. It will be again.
Guantanamo and the other places in which terrorist detainees are held will come under serious scrutiny with the intent of closing them down. The administration might consider preempting this move by releasing more information on the detainees, who by and large are violent radicals who would just as soon kill Americans as look at them. The Democrats might overplay their hand on this one, moving boldly to cater to their hard-Left base and finding that as Americans learn more about Guantanamo they will approve of what is going on there. But the approach to the issue will still fit within the framework of time wasting distractions undertaken chiefly for political motives, and distracting energy from the war effort.
My greatest fear is that this Republican loss will be seen by our adversaries as a great victory. In the past year, U.S. resolve has been tested, and sadly we have not always risen to the occasion. We could be facing a replay of the end game in Vietnam, when insurgent leftists in the Democratic party brought about the defunding of military assistance for South Vietnam, and the North Vietnamese invaded and defeated our trusting ally. This has already been predicted by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nazrallah, and noted as a model for success by al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The rest of the decade saw the nadir of American power in the Cold War, a period when the Soviet Union could justly be said to be winning. As we focus inward on recriminations and political maneuvers, other rogue countries, such as North Korea and Iran, will sense that now is the time to press their various foreign policy and security agendas. The United States faces the possibility of becoming again what President Nixon called a pitiful, helpless giant in face of the forces arrayed against us. Maybe the Democratic party will surprise us by showing a rare degree of bipartisan statesmanship in time of war, but I would not bet on it.
James S. Robbins is author of Last in Their Class: Custer, Pickett and the Goats of West Point , and is currently writing a book on the Tet Offensive.
#1
It's September 10 all over again. We're going back to treating terrorism as a criminal matter, a minor annoyance so long as nobody really important dies. If the jihadis are clever, they'll restrain themselves a bit, be satisfied with a cruise ship here and a jetliner there, a few hundred infedels at a time, and no attacks on US soil. Nothing the scale of 9/11, which might enrage the American street.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/08/2006 6:39 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's NOT Sep-10. We ALL know what happened on 9/11.
When Democrats choose to give up Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamofascists, and to abandon Israel against Hizbullah, and to let Iran develop nukes and use them, they will be doing it in FULL CONTEXT.
One cannot go back to 9/10. One can however refuse to fight back or one can surrender to the enemy.
The Man who will likely hold the balance in the US Senate is Sen Joe Lieberman.
The new chair of the House Foreign Relations comm will be Rep Tom Lantos.
The new Senator from Penn, is Casey, no leftie ideologue he.
This isnt 1974. Not at all. Its a tack to the center, and what happens when a party has controlled the House of Reps for too long.
Next up round 1 of battle for control of the Democratic soul. John Murtha vs Steny Hoyer for majority leader. Hoyer is an old DLC type - Murtha you know. If Hoyer loses to Murtha, then it will be time to panic.
#6
OK, libhoky...Tell me how casey could possibly do better than Rick Santorum either in PA or on the national stage. Realize that casey had his spine removed years ago to please his dad, and, that just for this political season, opted to have his tongue removed as well. You losers now have your chance to excel. Fat chance.
Posted by: AT ||
11/08/2006 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Folks when the Dems stand on the sidelines and throw darts, that all they are doing. Now they will be accountable for their decisions, they will slide to the right. Now they have to actually come up with a plan, not just be critical. The house and senate are so closely split they will never have the vote to overthrow a pres veto.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/08/2006 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#8
What a load of panicky eyewash - it sounds like a dKos diarist moaning about the Bushitler fascist state.
Yes, the GOP lost. Yes, a Dem-controlled House will ask a few (OK, a lot) more questions about what's going on than the GOP House has over the last six years. It's called oversight, and it's part of the original Constitutional plan. That rubber stamp performance is part of what got them tossed out.
(And don't believe the Senate is going Dem until Lieberman actually casts his leadership vote - if Webb and Tester finally win, that will be a bidding war for the ages)
We won WWII with the Truman Committee in full force. It's how Harry got prominent enough to be named VP and every GOP President for the last 25 years has held him up as some kind of paragon. Some oversight won't kill this war effort either.
There are some moonbats out there rooting for the US and the West to lose, but damn few of them are in the US Congress or Senate. There are some different ideas at the table. Some of them won't work, but some of them might be an improvement. It won't be the end of the world. W is still in the White House and if the Dems are half this stupid in Congress they can be tossed out in 08 as easily as they were tossed in.
You & your allies in the press generated a wave of discontent with 2 years of negative drumbeats and ignoring the good things (low unemployemnt low inflation, robust economy, winning in Iraq) - and rode it in for a win. Historically, 6th years are a good year to do that. Congrats - smart play using all the tools at your disposal.
But don't take it for granted. Don't count on the Mainstream media much longer - the net is out here and has already started to eat aaway at the press's ability to shape and contain the news. Rathergate was just the beginning.
And remember how you won those formerly Republican seats (especially in Red areas, like Florida): not with Liberals like Pelosi, nor with loons like Rangel, but with moderate candidates, like Pro-Life Pro-Gun Casey in PA in the Senate, and others like that in the house. And remember some of your gains were against disgraced corrupt Republican (Foley, etc) in a red district. That's not going to be the case in 08, so you'd best stay in away from the hard left or those seats will disappear in a hurry as qualified Republicans run in a race where their name is actually on the ballot instead of a write-in.
Also observe that although your candidates won, the polls you cite and the votes reflect that it was mainly anger against Republicans, not endorsement of your policies; This was more of a vote agaisnt Republicans and thier sloth and corruption that it was for your liberal positions.
Indeed most of the campaigning I saw in my CD was against Bush and trying to link the Republican challenger to him, not *for* any particular policy point of view. For proof of the fact that the voters are philosophically different from the liberal policies the Dem Leadership has, simply look at the large margins in the anti-Gay marriage ballot initiatives that won in areas where you picked up seats, and the defeat of things like Marijuana legalization in Colorado, and so on.
And remember how the Republicans lost the House: they pissed the people off by not securing the borders and by waffling on all kinds of things and not doing much other than that. I suggest you not bet your control on doing nothing, or simply nay-saying while in power - that's the fastest way out. Or go back to what you were doing in 92, we conservatives would love you to over-regulate, tax & spend and cut the military while doing that (it would ensure a 94 style Republican landslide in 08).
And most of all, remember your Oath to Uphold and Defend the Constitution. The safety of the nation must come before all politics. And that means secure the borders so terrorists cannot smuggle weapons in here, and that you need to grow a realistic policy for defeating Islamic Fundamentalism and its terrorist components around the world. Bribing with foreign aid does not work - they are not driven by money. Running and hiding does not work, we tried that in the 90's and it got us 9/11. So maybe, now that you are in charge, you might see that we sometimes have to fight and fighting is the right thing to do.
You wanted back in, you're in. Lets see what you can do for the country. ALL of it.
Congrats - we'll be holding your feet to the fire on security, the war on Terror, and responsible politics. All we ahve to do now is point out how bad you do things (and the coming recession will get pinned on you, deserving or not) and gather a Throw the Bastards Out wave. Sound familiar?
We'll get ya next time because you can't hide behind being in the minority anymore.
I can hardly wait for 2008. We're already laying plans.
So enjoy it and we'll see ya in 2 years to tally up again.
Cut and run from Iraq.
Cut and run from Afghanistan.
Let Iran develop nukes and destroy Israel.
Let North Korea blackmail South Korea and Japan.
Let illegal immigrants vote for Democrats.
Tax this country into depression.
Destroy our military power.
Impeach Bush when Islamofascists nuke American cities.
Elect Hillary Clinton thief-in-chief.
#5
From an AP article:
In Pennsylvania, about half of those who said in exit polls that they voted for Casey characterized their votes being primarily against Santorum rather than a vote for Casey. Casey also got a boost from one-third of voters who said they were angry with Bush. One-fourth of them said they were mad at GOP leaders in Congress.
Ohio voters expressed similar views. About six in 10 Brown voters said their vote was intended to register opposition to Bush. Two-thirds of Brown voters said they disapproved of the way Congress was handling its job.
Not so much for as it was against.
The voters were clearly punishing the Republicans for getting fat and sloppy, and leaving their principles and integrity for pork and power.
I just hope we as a nation do not pay too high a price for this voting in anger instead of rationally.
#6
As I've pointed out in another thread...this is all window dressing. The Dem-Fascists will hold all the important committee chairmanships. They are going to unleash a political bloodbath the likes of which we have not seen since the founding fathers. Of course it makes no political sense to do so but such is the effect of terminal BDS and we all know who's infected.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 2:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They do the impeachment thing, or the cut and run thing, then 08 will be far worse than 94 for them.
Especially if we have a recession as many are predicting next year. Their policies will not allow a recession to climb out gently like Bush's did. They will try to spend thier way out - that will balloon the debt and trigger inflation, then the Fed will hike rates. Unemployment will jump and so will taxes. This will kill business growth.
If the Dems fail to respond properly (tax cuts, non-inflationary economic stimuli) they will be standing there with egg on their face in 08 trying to defend their record.
#8
The democrats deserve no congratulations. The GOP did all their heavy lifting for them. If they have any dreams of the Oval Office, they had better take this nation's security and foreign policy as serious as a heart attack. Anything less will see them go down in flames like they should have this time around.
Nancy Pelosi (D) is viewed favorably by 24% and unfavorably by 44%. Those figures include 8% with a very favorable opinion of the Democratic leader and 26% with a very unfavorable view. (latest Rasmussen poll)
If we are going to lose, its nice to have such a good setup to win in 2 years. Pelosi will be the Katherine Harris of the Democratic Party - the ugly sneering face that nobody wants to be associated with. Unlike Harris, Pelosi will be front and center every day.
She has her numerical majority, she will not enjoy an ideological one. Many of the newly elected Democrats in the house espouse the timeless principles of limited government, low taxes, a judicial branch that respects and abides by the Constitution, and a strong and vigorous national defense. How else do you think they were able to get elected in Red areas?
A new Democratic-controlled Congress will not precipitously pull the troops out of Iraq. There will be too many newly-elected Democrats from Red districts who will have to conform to the conservatism of their constituents. It is going to be interesting to see the extreme liberals at the top try to contain the moderates at the bottom.
It is not all roses. The influx of moderate Democrats will soften the edges of a new Democratic House majority, but not enough to avoid some real and lasting harm being done, like a hike in the minimum wage, and an amnesty program for illegal aliens that Bush will eagerly sign and the Democrats are salivating to pass. Free trade will also dry up as Democrats kowtow to the unions that pull their strings, and the damage that does may even be sufficient to kick off a world wide depression, like the Smoot-Hawley tariff acts.
None? You're supposed to abandon the system and yell STOLEN when you lose!
Whats the matter with you conservatives? You are acting like you are going to fight back.
Get angry and let your feelings out! Threaten to move away! Cry about cheating and disenfranchisement!
Your plans to clean up your party and come back to power aren't fair! You're supposed to be angry and crying so I can gloat and feel superior! You;re not supposed to congratulate us and them start working on beating us!
Stupid Conservatives, you won't even let me and Babs Streisand enjoy a victory by properly being bad losers.
#11
In short, my reading of this article is that in reality the Dems won/prevailed by appealing to the very same Conservative-Rightist base their ideo and Party proclaims to rant or be against.
#12
Joeseph go look at the red seats taken by Democrats. Few of them are truly liberal, and few of them can afford to be liberal. Many of them are accidents of circumstance and they know it. They will not be able to retain that seat in 2 years if they do not respect the philosophy of the voters in their districts. They know gun grabbing, being soft on defense, and expanding taxes and government is what put those seats into Republican hands before.
#13
Well, it appears that enraged moonbats will not be taking to the streets after all.
They will not gather in their thousands on the Washington Mall to chant and gyrate and listen to mummified 60s icons and screeching communists. They won't whip themselves into a frenzy of hatred over Diebold and Halliburton and the Dixie Chicks. The loathesome horde will not take up clubs and molotov cocktails, and seek release in a final, Wagnerian suicide charge toward the Pentagon.
#15
To restate the obvious - the Dhims did not win, the Trunks LOST. The Pub Senate and Congressional 'leadership' sucked. McCain and the Gang of 14 drove a nail. Immigration drove another one. The base was lost. We will now all pay the price.
#16
For proof of the fact that the voters are philosophically different from the liberal policies the Dem Leadership has, simply look at the large margins in the anti-Gay marriage ballot initiatives that won in areas where you picked up seats, and the defeat of things like Marijuana legalization in Colorado, and so on.
Sweetest of those victories: the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative. What a pity we had no such thing on the Ohio ballot.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/08/2006 7:05 Comments ||
Top||
#17
A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
#18
We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again. General Nathanael Greene
Pelosi will be herding cats for two years. To get power they had to put some DINOs on the ticket. When a big one comes up for a vote and she threatens a couple, it only takes a minute to walk across the aisle like Senator Jeffords and she's not the majority leader anymore. Real leadership is a 'bitch'.
#19
Hey, what happened to all that voter fraud and all the rigged Diebold machines I was reading about for the last week?
Are you losing your fastball, Karl?
#22
The post makes a good point, but it also misses the point. The Republicans had the bully-pulpit of the Presidency and Control of the House and Senate and still couldn't get their message out about low unemployment, low inflation, robust economy, winning in Iraq.
You can't really expect the Dems to promote things that will hurt them if the Republicans are shy about promoting those same things themselves.
#23
They didnt get the message out becuase there was no Bully in the Pulpit.
Bush has been the most spineless POS when it comes to defending his policies against the slurs and lies of the opposition. He didn't cracl down on haster's intransigence. he didnt bust chops in the senate of the Gang of 14 Mutiny. He ceded the authority and power of the office of President by letting it atrophy.
Bush deserves a large measure of this by being such an inarticulate son of a bitch and not doing anything to overcome it.
As far as appointing Rudy if Cheney were to develop "health issues" - that would be a thumb in the eye to McCain, so its not out of the question.
The US couldn't watch what was happening and not speak
Why was the fool on the hill ever elected to begin with ?
Posted by: Frank ||
11/08/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#26
nice try idiot
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/08/2006 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#27
sock puppets!
Just like the Paleo's electing Hamas - the little people dance in the streets with joy over the idea that they can ratchet up their game of blame - without ever grasping the long term realistic consequences of their adolescent actions.
The march of Islamic fascism isn't a game. Now you have the people in charge that you wanted. Your future is in their hands. Good luck to us all.
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
To 'Frrank': we don't put up with this sort of nonsense at Rantburg. Name-calling and childish behavior is the province of left-progressive moonbats, not reasonable people. This is your only warning; further displays like this will lead to you being banned. AoS (moderator).
Posted by: kelly ||
11/08/2006 15:34 Comments ||
Top||
#30
They didnt get the message out becuase there was no Bully in the Pulpit.
Bush has been the most spineless POS when it comes to defending his policies against the slurs and lies of the opposition. He didn't cracl down on haster's intransigence. he didnt bust chops in the senate of the Gang of 14 Mutiny. He ceded the authority and power of the office of President by letting it atrophy.
Bush deserves a large measure of this by being such an inarticulate son of a bitch and not doing anything to overcome it.
Since I appreciate, in some measure, what has been done to fight terrorism I might not have chosen such harsh words, but there you have it.
With everything going in his favor, Bush neglected one of the foremost responsibilities he had to the American people. Educating the masses about the threat we face should have been near job number one. Our military's publicity machines should have been running full throttle to inform and instruct the public as to what was really happening.
Relying upon the mass media to do this job was like counting upon Putin to do the right thing or hoping that Islam would realize its shortcomings. Looks good on paper, but it'll never work in reality.
#31
In the near term the only contest of consequence is the bloody clash of Islamofascists with actual civilized humans.
Current domestic US politics is about par for the course: sixth year doldrums, party-in-power fatigue, partisan press, pendulum swings. In the aftermath of the 2006 elections, some grieve for their party's short-lived losses, while others revel in the fleeting victories. Life goes on (no matter how much bile rises from living with the likes of Pelosi, Kennedy, Kerry, etc).
It wont matter which party is in power because the Mohammedans are committed to bringing the jihad to us; we are all infidels. Soon enough Dhimmi-crats and Republi-tudes will be manning the line together against the creeping, bloody borders of Islam.
Solid Analysis how Hastert's gutless plays onthe border issues, pork barrel politics, and Bush's abandonment of Regan-type policies killed the Republican party nation wide
Republicans have made matters worse by abandoning the reform agenda that animated their capture of Congress in 1994 and helped George W. Bush win the White House in 2000 and keep it in 2004. With scarcely a fight, Republicans gave up on Social Security reform in 2005, immigration reform in 2006, and never really got started on tax reform. Bush also cast aside the overarching theme for his domestic policy--the Ownership Society--without an explanation.
The consequences have been dire. Republicans have little to boast about in Bush's second term except the strong economy--and it's largely the result of tax cuts enacted three years ago.
Instead, they balked at Bush's modest reform proposals. House Speaker Dennis Hastert thought it too risky.
For Republicans, 2006 was going to be the year they bravely took on America's immigration problem.
For lack of leadership, the ... never materialized. Bush balked at taking charge of the issue. Hastert, cautious to a fault, declined to take a firm position.
In the end, Republicans raised the immigration issue, touted it as a national crisis, stirred the nation's interest, then failed to come to grips with it.
Republicans as reformers a thing of the past. The party unity that would have come from settling differences on immigration is absent. As a result, Republicans have bickered throughout the 2006 campaign. If they have an agenda for the next two years, they haven't told voters. Democrats don't have an agenda either, they're the "out" party. They can get away with it. Republicans can't.
Reform is appealing to voters because they sense, quite correctly, there's much in need of reform. Besides Social Security and immigration and taxes, there's Congress itself. By skimping on congressional reform, too, Republicans made themselves all the more vulnerable to exaggerated charges of corruption. Reform, of course, is the opposite of corruption.
It's unknowable how many Senate and House seats might have been saved had Republicans championed reform. But surely Republicans would have been better off with a program of reform to flaunt. I agree about how the Republicans need to go about recovery; Republican party must go back to what got them there. Not pork barrel spending and insider dealing and dancing around issues. Go back to what got them there: smaller government, control spending, strong stands on security that actually have ACTION behind it, and stop acting like the tax and spend Democrats. Step One: Fire Hastert, and put Shadegg in the Minority leaderhip post. Haster's policies were at fault he should pay the price. Do It Now. Second is force Bush to Lead or get the hell out of the way. No more half steps, no more bullshit compromises, thats what already cost him the House. Challenge the Democrats loudly on policy - and present your own and show how superior it is. Worked for Reagan.
#3
Also means Hiliary's campaign is in trouble. Why? Because the crazy House Dems are going to force all sorts of issues that Hiliary would rather let lie. They're going to force her to react and take a position, and little Ms. Triangulation doesn't like doing that.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 0:52 Comments ||
Top||
#4
One things for sure: If Pelosi and them want to run things pre-9/11, start investigations, impeachment, etc, They do that we will have another "9/11"
I'm already measuring the rope for Pelosi and Murtha's gang for '08 (althoguh I think Murtha is going to croak from a heart attack if there is any justice in this world after all the idiocy and crap he as spouted about our military.)
#5
My views on the House (these and $3 get you a coffee at a Starbucks):
1) Hastert was terrible; this is what happens when your fire dies and your base turns to mush. You get a leader who can't lead. He's done and he knows it.
2) Corruption hurt the Reps -- in a way, the Dems played this to a win despite their own problems. Foley, DeLay, Ney, Sherwood, all brought themselves down. Moral of the story: parties have to get rid of people with ethical problems early. If you wait til after the primary you're hosed.
3. The gaffs on Harriet Miers, the ports deal, and the Schiavo affair put a spike into any momentum the Reps might have had to get things done. They spent way too much time on these. Blame Bush but also blame Hastert and the House leadership.
4. We don't know if immigration reform, the fence, and tax reform would have worked because they weren't tried. The majority party whiffed and that's why they're no longer the majority in the House.
Just my thoughts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 0:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yep - pretty much my sentiments Steve. The Republicans deserved to lose this one, because they didnt do jack squat with their majority - instead the porked up, and let the corruption spread. Hastert screwing the ethics ciomimtte was another symptom of that - threw out that guy from Colorado and packed it with go-along get-along cronies.
And instead of passing lots of reform legislation, they passed fewer bills and did damned little until way too late (see immigration and the fence).
The country is still far more conservative than it is liberal, but if the Republicans act like RINOs and dont act like a majority, then the American people are not going to give them a majority.
Peopel hate Kerry because he's a damned fake.
Well so is Hastert, and the rest of the RINO leadership.
Time to clean house.
Time to see if Bush has any balls to act domestically as he did overseas. He shoudl ahve been pushign the agenda and cracking congressional heads liek Hasters. Instead he drifted and basically let the congressionsal pork-boys kill any momentuum and coherent policy he might have had. He shoudl have summend Stevens for the secret hold bullshit he pulled. he shoudl ahve summoed Specter and busted his chops for the foot dragging in the judiciary comittee. He shoudl ahve called for hastert's resignation from leadership long (his defense of Jefferson, etc) and urged Shadegg for house leadership and dmenade reform. Given Bush's pantywaist performance on immigration, and his utter inability and unwillingness to defend and define his policies (instead leaving it to the hostile press which inevitably results in disaster), I don't hold out much hope for Bush except for vetoing a bill here and there. He's done. He was never really a conservative to begin with and now I question his domestic courage.
I'm betting Guliani starts his campaign motor, and you can bet McCain is going to jump into the spotlight.
If Bush continues sitting with his thumb up his ass until to late (like he did this election, and on domestic tax policy and border security), then we as a nation are really screwed.
#7
The national GOP can kiss my ass. We matche the Dems locally, dollar for dollar, and we out did them in volunteers and GOTV. But the National GOP let our guy get outspent by over a million dollars formthe Dems National funds, and poured their money into porker candidates to give them a wider margine instead of giving us a winning margin. helping their buddies out at the expense of a loss in our CD. We the people still made the race damn close, not the 12+ the polls had it, but not enough to overcome over an extra million dollars of slash and burn ads early on and down the stretch - more than we could match, given the hostiel press and the headwind from the national party in the house (and a poor gov race). We had a genuine reformer and thats probably why. So now they have a lawyer/lobbiest liberal Democrat in that seat and he'll do his best to get dug in tighter than a tick with the K-street gang and thier cash bankroll, so he'll be hard to remove.
One thing's for sure:
If the Repubs do not come home to their Reagan style conservativsm and values, then they can kiss me and a lot of people goodbye.
Lets see them do GOTV without volunteers doing the legwork.
I'm willing to work for conservative candidates, but if the national party screws them over, then why bother.
I swear I read that Denny was going to step down in 07 anyway.
Markets are going to be fun tomorrow, and what's even more entertaining, some talking heads think this Congress will be more conservative. I don't think so.
Odds on Reid stepping down and putting Evita in his place?
#12
We might see a Republican elected to POTUS but it will be another 10 to 16 years before we see a Republican majority in the house....that's how bad this betrayal of '94 is. It goes too deep. Too much blame to spread around. What a sorry state.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Republican party must go back to what got them there. Not pork barrel spending and insider dealing and dancing around issues. Go back to what got them there: smaller government, control spending, strong stands on security that actually have ACTION behind it, and stop acting like the tax and spend Democrats.
Spot on, Oldspook. The republicans have strayed so far from their conservative roots that the two major parties are hard to tell apart anymore. No way could I vote for the republicans after all the conflicts of interest that have gone down. ANY candidate that can return America to the bearings you stated above would probably get my vote, regardless of party.
As a one time lifelong deomcrat, I did my best to help our nation. I DID NOT vote democrat. Their betrayal of American national security is absolutely intolerable, period.
It was beyond painful to watch the Bush administration valiantly risk so much political and moral capital on the years of war in Iraq (and on terrorism in general), only to go badly off the rails message regarding security with the ports deal. Their constant proclamations of greater moral authority were drowned in a sea of cronyism, special interests and insider dealing.
Saddest of all is how this loss was not due to any superior platform on the part of the democrats. Quite the opposite, the democratic platform simply stunk, as it has for many years now, and this was what made it the worst sort of self-defeat for the GOP.
Republican Rantburgers have my sympathies. In no way did the Democrats deserve this victory. It was a case of the GOP snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Steve's observations in post # 5 sum things up pretty well about this self-inflicted wound.
The next two years are going to be a grim spectacle of Democratic malfeasance regarding national security. You may be able to take solace in them probably screwing the pooch sufficiently whereby the GOP has a good shot at the oval office in 2008. I just dread the notion of us backing our way into another 9-11 through democratic cowardice and retreat.
#14
Also, there has been no good explaination of Katrina to the people of this country.
However unpopular this observation is going to be, I've got to agree with you 3dc. Bush never stood up and took it on the chin for appointing a horse judge to direct FEMA. Americans died because of this cronyism and Bush really should have taken responsibility for it. Lack of prompt federal response to Katrina, properly or not, threw an eliteist cast on the White House and all republicans by default.
Those who are old enough to vote and exercised their right are, IMO, adults. They made their choices.
Are they stupid while those who lost are brilliant?
Is it about people not "getting" the message - that the message wasn't sent, or wasn't sent often enough, or forcefully enough, or in the right combination of words?
Is it about money, buying BS ads that anyone who wants to can see through?
Is it about getting people off their asses to act like adults?
Some say yes. I disagree. It's a democracy and the tally is in. No one here is extra hot shit or infallible or too cool - almost everyone's just doing their best under the circumstances, working with what they have. Some are working out their problems using Fred's masterwork as proxy Therapist.
I'm just another guy. I seek out the information and meld that with personal experience - same as everyone else, I guess. I arrive at my conclusions through my own processes, same as everyone else. I made my choices in the booth, same as everyone else. I'll have to live with the results, same as everyone else.
What I believed in lost. Blame means zip, zilch, nada, except as a relief valve. I just got a good look at my fellow Americans and, since I disagree with the result, I have figure that one of us is nuts - me or them - at least regards those who actually believe they did the right thing in the booth. Some were simply petty and vindictive - nasty puerile little fuckers - and chose to shoot everyone, including themselves, in the foot to prove just how infantile they could be. Regardless, the deal is done.
I'm convinced we're in for some serious shit because of this election cycle. The majority chose this shit - and had every opportunity, same as I had, same as everyone here had, to choose otherwise.
I feel most aggrieved on behalf of our Military - the troopers who've proven so valiant and courageous. They deserve better than what is coming. Far better. The best we can do, in fact. But that will not be the official program. They are now pawns of the power-freaks... those guys I, and a minority of others, tried to defeat. I hope they can keep the faith - and their heads down - until times change.
I'm thinking we should cover our asses - and our sane neighbor's ass. Let the rest fry. Their choice.
#19
Kalle - You don't know - or are you being snarky? What were you doing enroute to this moment in time? Educating others about the threat of Islam, correct? Keep it up.
As for our military, I suspect it will suffer dramatically. This path was chosen by the moonbats, ankle-biters, triangulators, and fools. I expect there will be some serious thought given to getting out by many. We, the security of this nation, will be set back a decade, not two years.
If we are a nation that lives by the rule of law, then the law is our limit.
The guys I knwo are watchign to see if they Dems are seriosu about fighting this thign right - they way most of thier new candidates claimed to be.
If we get the budget and support we need, they'll stay in.
If not, they are going to have a hell of a hard time fielding enough troops to staff a garbage detail within 2 years of turning tail and running from Iraq (enlistments ending is the only reason it would take that long).
Nobody wants to be the next bunch of Vietnam Vets; victims not soldiers, won the battles, held the battlefield and got screwed by the politicians before we could finish the work, leaving our allies to be butchered.
Nobody will EVER strust the US again. First Vietnam, then Somolia, now this.
#22
As per Lebanon + Syria this summer vv Radical Iran, just becuz the Israelis allegedly "lost" doesn't mean Lebanon + Syria won. Ditto for the RINO CINO DEMS > just becuz of 2006 does NOT mean traditional ALTERNATISM + LEFTLIBERALISM/
LIBERTARIANISM, etal. WON. US-LEFT + GLOBAL/INTERNAT LEFTS > WOT> WAR FOR FORM/TYPE/KIND OF [ULTRA?] NATIONAL-GLOBAL CONSERVATIVE AGENDA. IOW, one can ascribe it as the Failed-Angry Left, or many within the Left anyhoo, wanting to become = stay "the Right" without getting any blame for anything, espec come elex times. US Treason-crats + Mafia/CrimiCrats + Waffle-crats need and want their $$$ Pensions + Social Security stipends + Wall ST. Stock Options, etc. like every other ordinary Patriot = Warlordist. KEEP BUYING THAT POPCORN + FTLG STAY ARMED.
#23
Also, there has been no good explaination of Katrina to the people of this country.
It was a hurricane.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/08/2006 7:08 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Re: Katrina: I guess Bush and the Republicans lost the mandate of heaven and allowed storms to hit the country.
My God in Blessed Heaven, we have let the lying sack-of-shit media turn half the country into raving medieval Chinese peasants. (Although without the work ethic).
#25
Numerous good posts as always. My wife and I held our noses and voted Repub for all the national and governor races. I will never vote Dem, ever. At least up in Michigan all the dems are p*ssies. No self respecting, patriotic, heterosexual white male could ever be a dem. I'll vote libertarian for the local stuff.
I believe as many already said, the GOP got away from it's core issues. There was no social security reform (everybody's afraid of alienating grandma), no real firm stand against eminent domain, little said about tax reform (HR 25??), spending, the immigration issue and wall is a joke. Bush was never serious about building a wall. I actually feel bad on the last one because the house did try and fix the wall position and then the wimps in the senate wouldn't truly close the deal. I thought the Repubs actually deserved to lose the senate more than the house despite Hastert.
Vice tossing blame we need to take a look at the lessons learned. We all dislike the MSM but the GOP somehow needs to find a way to work them & more than just Fox News. I personally hate the MSM but they are a part of the environment in which we operate. We need to crack that nut - especially wrt to Iraq - someone in political office needs to start calling them on every ounce of treasonous b.s. they utter. If one congress critter even followed the 'Burg loosely they'd have all the ammo they'd ever need. The election was the GOP's to lose and they did a good job of doing just that. Our Founders are rolling in their graves.
#26
I believe as many already said, the GOP got away from it's core issues. There was no social security reform (everybody's afraid of alienating grandma), no real firm stand against eminent domain, little said about tax reform (HR 25??), spending, the immigration issue and wall is a joke. Bush was never serious about building a wall. I actually feel bad on the last one because the house did try and fix the wall position and then the wimps in the senate wouldn't truly close the deal. I thought the Repubs actually deserved to lose the senate more than the house despite Hastert.
Well, you're going to get action in immigration _now_. I hope it's something you're happy with, because we're all gonna get it whether _we_ want it or not.
Re: social security reform, tax reform... they aren't going to do the former. They'll be glad to raise the latter, strangle some more geese to solve the egg shortage. I don't know if you'll like that tax reform either though.
#28
AS - I won't like any of it. Which is why I never vote dem. Too touchy feely, no grit. (Not that the Repubs have shown any self discipline lately.)
#29
Further comment: OldSpook points out the the unwillingness to stand for their principles and ideology made Repubs vulnerable, and I agree completely with that.
We should also note the competence angle. Our military has it in spades, but a big chunk of the rest of the government doesn't and hasn't. That's a big reason why the Hurricane Katrina disaster resonated with people, and why it continues to stick despite the idiotic Democratic and MSM blabbering. People understand that the response was flawed and flawed in part because we had the wrong people in charge. Notice how no one complains about the military's response to Katrina. Why? Because it worked. FEMA didn't (don't worry, Blanco gets hers in the next election).
Repubs might have survived this despite abandoning their principles had they been able to point to a solid record of competence and achievement. Yes, the two should go hand-in-hand, but being able to point to getting things done would have handled the anger in the base to some extent.
But when you dump your principles and also screw up your job, you don't get re-elected.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#30
One more comment: OldSpook, you should really e-mail Hugh Hewitt with your comments. I bet he'd listen, and he's the kind of person who could get these thoughts out into circulation.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 10:39 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Observation: There were a periods following the 2000/04 elections when the Democrat muckti-mucks, liberal pundits, and rank in file wallowed in a disgusting orgy of self-loathing and second guessing. Shock gave way to anger, followed by foot stomping and spoon banging. Some rightfully questioned the quality of their candidates and the effectiveness of their campaigns but there was a deafening chorus of shrill bellars about everything from voter disenfranchisement to a Rovian plot to bribe the US Supreme Court. The Republicans have legitimate questions regarding its current leadership, policies, and course of action that need to be resolved but for Gods sake, please refrain from the finger pointing and tantrums that were previously displayed by the left.
#36
One other thing, regarding social security reform:
Would the baby boomers hurry up and f**king DIE! They ruing the nation in the 60's and are doing it again, and have yet to solve a damn thing - they only make it worse. And its their worries about Social Security that kept tax reform, etc from having anything done. Those narcissistic bastards will syphon the generation behind them dry with taxes to keep what they demand.
We are now in the grip of the most self-righteous selfish bastards the US has seen, the lefty boomers in power.
#39
I agree that no one will ever trust the US again in terms of facilitating change toward freedom and pro-democracy politics in dictator/toltalitarian/terrorist-run states. We will be seen as having left the general population to the wolves--when we should have been the wolves tearing the throats out of the dictator/toltalitarian/terrorist leadership in those places.
My other point is that it's hard for people to get "the message" when the media has ceased to be a reporter of information and has turned into a political player on the side of the left. No one knows what the hell is going on anymore.
#40
"Those narcissistic bastards will syphon the generation behind them dry with taxes to keep what they demand . . . We are now in the grip of the most self-righteous selfish bastards the US has seen, the lefty boomers in power."
Well said. And the lefty boomers are in love with fantasy instead of reality. They want to make the world their playground but don't realize the world is full of bullies carrying really big guns and really big attitudes.
#41
Vice tossing blame we need to take a look at the lessons learned. We all dislike the MSM but the GOP somehow needs to find a way to work them & more than just Fox News. I personally hate the MSM but they are a part of the environment in which we operate. We need to crack that nut - especially wrt to Iraq - someone in political office needs to start calling them on every ounce of treasonous b.s. they utter. If one congress critter even followed the 'Burg loosely they'd have all the ammo they'd ever need. The election was the GOP's to lose and they did a good job of doing just that. Our Founders are rolling in their graves.
Good GOP survival plan, Broadhead6. They'd better listen if they have any hopes for 2008.
#47
Hibjobol Abjub, have you ever considered how a democratic American government might prove so ineffectual against radical Islam that the terorists finally get an opportunity to commit an atrocity which is so heinous that we have no choice but to incineratetheentireMME (Muslim Middle East)?
Ironic as it sounds, Muslims around the world may one day find themselves thankful that Bush intervened in an attempt to nip things in the bud; Before Islam could really spiral out of control and condemn itself to death. Others here have also pointed out, quite appropriately, that the way democrats refuse to commit soldiers to battle may actually lead to an even quicker tendency to use nuclear weapons in retaliation.
Have you ever considered that?
Your world is teetering on the precipice of complete and total annihilation while you sit and smirk. I'd advise you best get off of your smug little ass and begin figuring out a way to reform Islam before America takes it apart at the seams for once and all.
It doesn't matter much what religion you are or are not if you're sitting at ground zero.
Make fun of the situation all you want. We'll be sure to laugh and point when you are nothing but glowing vapor. This situation is black and white. The MME will live or die depending upon Islam's ability to reform itself.
#50
re: earlier posts regardign what will happen to the military (before the chew toys came in): it will carry on according to the lawful orders handed down. But how they are executed is going to be a challenge: especially if the DoD budget is used as a whipping boy and has more earmarks than an old library book. I also expect there is going to be a mass exodus of retirement-eligible vets. I have several active duty friends that are clamoring for another opportunity to go back to the Middle East to finish the job, but now I would not be surprised to see if they re-think that. But then again, if the recession does materialize, they may stay in, if only to be able to keep their families fed.
#1
And start learning Spanish. Your politicians will be speaking it after Pelosi and the left give amnesty and citizenship to 15-20 million illegal Mexicans so they can get the votes.
#2
I look at it a bit more pragmatically. If they screw up, it guarantees a landslide in 2008 including the presidency...and they only have a 2 year window. If per chance they actually do something right, the country wins.
As a very long time conservative, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Those we elected lost focus and forgot "who, and what brung 'em to the dance."
#3
My computer crashed when I was finishing my rant so this is going to be much shorter and darker. Sorry.
This is 9/13 not 9/10. The copperheads know the difference between 9/10 and 9/12, when we went to war against the Taliban and Iraqi Baathists.
Unfortunately the Republicans thought they could wage a World War without putting the whole country on war footing, and without executing traitors. And leaving Iran, Syria, Pakistan, as well as Saudi Arabia free to wage war against the West.
Tomorrow Kerry and his friends will enact their goals, to enable Islamofascists in the Middle East and destroy America. So 9/14 will be when the country reels from Islamofascist WMD attacks.
God help us all. The ultimate result will be massive WMD campaigns with tens of millions of dead. I despair for Western civilization, and for mankind.
#5
I never thought we'd vote to surender. Surely most Americans have no idea that's just what happened, but he jihadis know the score. Gird yoursleves for what's to come.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 2:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
9/14 won't claim only 3,000 lives. It breaks my heart.
#7
Spook...I agree with your comments on another thread. Conservative leadership is just piss-poor.
However, I honestly don't think the donks are capable of governing. Their entire platform from the Kool-aid drinking moonbats to kerrypelosikennedymurthareid is "I hate Bush". Now it's time to produce. I hope that as the opposition party they spend this time wisely to consolidate the base, change leadership, kick out the corrupt and hold the donks accountable for what will likely be a litany of errors.
#8
Dang...I meant to say "I hope that as the opposition party WE spend this time wisely to consolidate the base, change leadership, kick out the corrupt and hold the donks accountable for what will likely be a litany of errors.
#9
Relax just a little bit everyone. I know it's bitter - and I know it's dangerous - but it's not the end of the world, of America, nor western civilization.
Yes, we very likely will get hit again - we're overdue, in fact - but this will go a long way towards showing just what traitors many of the Dhimmi's are.
The jihadi's cannot destroy the heart of America and they cannot destroy the soul of this nation. Take heart! Look to the future. Stand up against the wave to come and tell folks like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and all the others that they cannot and will not make us bend to their will.
Take heart and take wisdom from the words of Ronald Reagan and look towards making America that "light on a hill". Without the will of the people the Democrats have no power, the government has no power, the jihadi's have no power.
No one can break the soul of America. It is too much a part of what and who we are.
Take heart, take wisdom, and take courage. There are still lots of good people in this country and we are still strong and shall remain strong no matter what is done to us or inflicted upon us.
#10
Pulling out of Iraq is not an option. I can't see less than 95% of ANY Congress being prepared to leave the Persian Gulf in the hands of al-Qaeda in Iraq or the al-Sadrites, cum Iran.
War strategy needs revamping - even the President admitted that - and it will be. I am not as pessimistic as most, re. impeachment scuffles and lack of consensus on Iraq. Americans have little use for divisiveness for its own sake.
#11
Sneaze and FOTS...I agree. The American voter has spoken. No sour grapes, crying, threatening rebellion or blood in the streets like the idioic donks of 2000-2004.
The donks won...largely because of poor conservative leadership.
#12
DO NOT underestimate the degree of viscerable hatred that the LLL holds for this (now moribund0 administration. Conservative Dems may have held the day, but the moonbats hold the reigns. We are about to witness our version of the Night of the Longknives. I've no idea if they'll succeed but it is coming. BANK ON IT.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 2:41 Comments ||
Top||
#13
On the bright side, a lot of their pickups are in "Red" areas, as demonstrated by the ballot initiative votes in those areas. Two years of Pelosi, gun grabs, taxes, and liberal abortion laws will make those easy to retake - especially when we can actually get the candidate's name on the ballot (Foley, DeLay's seats). There are plenty of reasons to be angry at the Repub lparty since its leaderhsip failed: no real fence, weasling on Mexico, dicking around with judges, half-steps in Iraq. But once Red State voters realize they've just slashed their own throats in their efforts to punish the Republican leadership for trashign the base, they'll whack these new liberals with a vengance.
Other than that, this was simply a historically normal 6th year - the worst for Republicans since 86, another 6th year.
One things is for sure - if Hastert is Minority Leader for the next Congress, they can kiss 2008 goodbye.
The D candidate won, and so did the Anti-Gay Marriage initiative.
Whats that tell ya?
Voting the issues, peopel are conservative.
So voting thier emotions and party, they wanted to give the Republicans a beating for letting them down by failing to lead, failing to act like hte majority they were, failing to govern, and failing to hold to the principles that got them elected originally:
HERE is the report card that cost the Republicans the election, especially in Red areas where Dem candidates got in.
Smaller government: F
-- Prescrioption Program. DHS. Etc. Miserable failure.
Stronger Defense: F
-- Failed due to a complete lack of border security, and the inability tio articualte and publicise the WIN we have in the War in Iraq. The only place we lost it is in the press - and unfortunately that makes it look like the Dems will lose it for us int he real world.
Control Spending: F
-- were out of control with earmarks, porlk and all kinds of crap. Miserable, and hardly distinguishable from the Dems back in 92.
Non-Activist Judges: D
-- Failed to approve them in a timely manner (now opportunity completely gone - thanks Spector you asshole). Only saving grace here was Alito and Roberts.
Low Taxes : D
-- didnt make the cuts permanent while they had the chance, didnt fix capital gains or death tax.
Corruption: F
-- Hastert packed the ethics comittee whenit looked like they were going to smack around some of his cronies. Turns out that dishonesty and wheeling-dealing is what set the image of Republicans everywhere, even ones who hadn't been in Congress and were running for an open seat.
Now looking back, its damned obvious how they failed.
The question now is: Will the Republicans wake up and get Coburn in the Senate tapped for his leadership of reform, and Shadegg for his principled leadership in the house? Or are we simply going to see more of the same stupid shit that got them to this point?
a given: 90% of the Dems fall into 3 categories: delusional flakes, pork swilling pols, or out and out traitors. The D combo is not anything new but still remains nonetheless a dangerous threat to OUR Republic.
~~
Given the fact that we have now lost at least the House of Reps, lets begin to take inventory of the last 6 years.
Did the Trunks make a serious effort to conduct themselves in the last 6 years as if OUR Republic was both threatened by dangerous enemies from within and without our Nation's borders?
In the post 9/11 years the Repubs didn't even lay as much as a glove on the traitorous crew called DemoCraps, or inspire the Base by even taking the time for a few symbolic demonstrations at our Nation's borders.
While the Trunks had Power, command and control of the House of Reps, the Senate and the Presidency Did the Trunk leadership even try to run counter-ops on our internal enemies? Did the Repubs use their power wisely and finally trap, get the goods on America's perminate enemy class; Ted Kennendy, Turban Durban, Murtha, Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Maxine Waters, etc etc etc? ..so we might finally be rid of, once and for all, the likes of these traitorous Bastards?
Media:
This current war in Iraq even surpasses Vietnam for Tidal Waves of Poison and Lies produced by the foreign and domestic media.
I don't think our President, his able political staff or even our Pentagon were able to counter effectively all the Liars and Lies who willfully sought and succeeded to erode the the National will to win and the administration's policies by relentlessly attacking it every day for the last 6 years.
~~~
IMO, Rantburgers with their excellent resources did a more effective job of Fisking and staying focused on our enemies than the entire Republican establishment did for the last 6 years.
#17
Thats one of the things that continues to anger me about President Bush. He doesnt fight back. Dammit man grow a pair and take some swings on your opponents. Defend those ideals and principles - and the people that got you there! He is is father's son iin this repect. After his response to 9.11 I was giving him credit for more than he had. I was wrong - unless he manages to show up now against a Dem congress full of loonies.
What good is the Bully Pulpit if you get up there and mumble?
What good is the majority if jsut about all you use it to do is parcle out the pork via earmarked omnibus highway bills?
what good is it to have a majority in the senate whne you cannot even get your judges a straight up and down vote? (Shame Santorum is gone and that asshole Spector is still here).
Why the hell can you not find a good senate candidate opposite a vulnerable Dem in Florida? Katherine Harris? KATHERINE HARRIS?? WTF kind of crap is that? Thats a seat that could have saved the Senate and they were so damn lazy they didnt get out there and put any number of solid candidates up for it, leaving it to fall.
The questions go on and on. I refrained from askign them earlier becasue I thought the powers that be inth Trunk leadership might actually have a clue. But after looking at this mess, one thats threating the ultimate historical survivalk of the naiton - and of the only antidote for Ismaic Fascism in the Middle east, FREEDOM - I'm thinking they are damned fools to do the things they did.
Quiet no longer - me an a lot of others inside the party are going to go kicking people in the nuts (figuratively) unless they start answering questions - and DOING the right things, not just talking the game.
Gipper, where are ya? We need another one like you.
#18
"We shall have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst, and we will do our best....We do not expect to hit without being hit back, and we intend with every week that passes to hit harder. Prepare yourselves then, my friends and comrades, for this renewal of your exertions. We shall never turn from our purpose, however sombre the road, however grievous the cost, because we know that out of this time of trial and tribulation will be born a new freedom and glory for all mankind." - Winston Churchill, 1941
"Hero and statesman for the ages"
I actually met Sir Winston when I was 6 years old. He came to our school at Lakenheath and shook my hand, along with many others. He remarked on my red hair, and mentioned that his had been the same color when he was younger.
When I get discouraged about this current struggle, I think of what it was like for him after Dunkerque. The Battle of France had been a debacle of unimagined proportions. Pessimism, shock, and dread were endemic. Churchill's response is legendary: He roared defiance and rallied his people against the Nazis.
Compared to that, or to the fall of Singapore, our troubles are minor. We still have many untapped reserves of strength. We don't have a leader in the mold of Churchill or FDR but there could well be one waiting in the wings.
The media-industrial complex is not invincible. Little Green Footballs, with a budget that would not pay an alphabet network's wine bill, brought down the mighty Dan Rather and humbled the global propaganda engine of Reuters.
This is a setback but it is not a disaster. The Democrats do not have a large enough majority in the Senate to convict Bush even if their thin House majority can impeach him. He will finish his term.
I do not believe they will have the votes to shut down the Iraq war. Enough loyalist Democrats will vote with the Republicans to keep that from happening. This thwarts the left's cherished dream of repeating their 1975 triumph, when they cut off aid to South Vietnam and gave that country to the communists.
We can fight it out against a hostile Congress.
On the positive side, the GOP has received a resounding rebuke for its immigration non-policy. This could well lead to some much-needed change in the party's leadership and general orientation in 2008.
History is on our side and every passing day will see the enemy weakened. When we have the proper leadership, we will consign the forces of barbarism and their sycophants to the dustbin of history, we will smash them flat.
#20
I see little to nothing to indic that the RINO CINO BlameLess Demoleft is going = willing to change their spots back towards LEFTISM-ALTERNATISM. While the Dems as a Party may be in charge for the next two years, as per DIALECTICISM = WAFFLE-ISM = UNIVERSAL BLAME-LESSNES FOREVER many of their number may prove to be individ unwilling to be held responsible for any US defeat in the WOT - as said or implied times before, while GOP pols may lose elex, the reality remains is that mainstream America = majority of Amerians favor/prefer the GOP-RIGHT-CONSERVATIVE AGENDA, NOT THE ALTERNATIST OR LEFIST-SOCIALIST ONE. IOW, TO KEEP THEIR JOBS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS THE DEMS HAVE TO DE FACTO PROVE THEY DE FACTO SUPPOR THE GOP-RIGHTIST-CONSERVATIVE, ETAL RIGHTIST AGENDAS, TO INCLUDE DUBYA'S POLICY OF PRE-EMPTION i.e. FIGHTING AMER'S ENEMIES "OVER THERE" NOT AT HOME, PC = NATIONAL POTEMKINISM NOTWITHTANDING. POL
"CENTRISM" IS NOT GOING TO BE ENUFF. Traditional DemoLefty supporters from ANYSTREET, ANYTOWN,
ANYSTATE USA whom believe that the "good old days" are back have got another thing coming.
The WOT > besides being a WAR FOR CONTROL OF THE WORLD etal., is also a WAR FOR FORM/TYPE/KIND OF NATIONAL-GLOBAL [ULTRA]CONSERVATIVISM + CONSERVATIVE OWG, EVEN FOR ALLEGED ALTERNATISM-CENTRIC LEFTIES + FASCIST-FOR-COMMUNISM CLINTONIANS. As HILLARY herself said [paraphrased], the Govt will give it to you before it is taken away in the name of the common /public good - remember, the Cold War ultra-Left Commie Bloc liked to talk about women's rights = "choice", + libertarianism, BUT IN REALITY DENIED THE SAME. At best, the Ultra-Left Commie Bloc govts. ignored or gave "lip service". minimum of Minimum suppor to Alternatist agendas, at worst were silently or publicly suppressed = Gulagged. EVENTUALLY THE TRUTH WILL COME OUT - I still says/hold that the Left is looking for a PC, feel-good, warm-and-fuzzy gradualist way to become a full-fledged SOCIALIST/GOVERNMENTIST + CENTRALIST + TOTALITARIAN PARTY AND MOVEMENT. The contempor Left no longer stands for social improvement, fairness or justice, but GOVT + HYPER-GOVT, POLITIX + HYPER-POLISCHTICK, PC + MORE PC, come asteroid or Jesus Christ or Super-Nova, etc.
#21
Many thanks .com.
I like to believe that I am at my best when I think of Churchill. He had his flaws; he was ruthless, arrogant, manipulative, and stubborn at times; but there has never been a better example of the right man at the right time.
He saved the world in his own time, and his example could save it again in ours.
#22
I think, in retrospect, that the greatest driver of this election defeat will turn out to have been the bursting of the housing bubble, just as the greatest driver of GWB's victory in 2000 was the bursting of the dot com bubble. Iraq was probably a contributing factor, thanks to the MSM's relentlessly negative focus. Immigration is kind of iffy - I don't really know if it trumps pocketbook issues and the relentlessly negative drumbeat of news. Interestingly enough - some of the GOP'ers ejected were also among the most vehement proponents and opponents of amnesty. So on balance, I think immigration was a wash.
In the next few years, I think we can expect to see two things - impeachment proceedings against GWB and more congressional hearings over Iraq. The Democrats will probably try to imprison some Bush administration officials. We should also expect to see more spending and tax hike proposals from the Democrats. If GWB is truly serious about being a conservative, I expect him to have his veto pen out. If not, it'll become clear that he is a national security and social conservative, but only partly an economic conservative.
Is this a nightmare? No. The republic will endure. With any luck, we'll get through the next couple of years without a major terrorist strike at home, no major increases in spending or taxes, and no impeachment proceedings. If fortune deserts us, then there's always the next election. That's the miracle of our political system.
#23
The Republicans tried to act just like Demos on domestic issues. I have NO sympathy for the Repubs only for our military.
I imagine the first "constructive" act on the Democrats list will be to start impeachment proceedings against Bush. That is the wet dream of a couple of the socialists here at work.
I predict 2 years of infighting, no progress either domestically or international and because of this the war against Islam will ebb.
#24
B: I predict 2 years of infighting, no progress either domestically or international and because of this the war against Islam will ebb.
I don't think a withdrawal from Iraq is a given. Bush is no Jerry Ford, who rolled over for the Dems over Vietnam. And the Democratic majority will be nowhere near what it was during the Vietnam War. My feeling is that the Dems will overreach initially, but bow to the reality that their reach exceeds their grasp - slender majorities cobbled together with the help of conservative Democratic candidates do not make for successful ultra-liberal legislation.
#25
Well, I guess I called it wrong. The silver lining that is see is that the Dems will have to take responsibility for governing, instead of acting like spoiled adolescents. Sadly, they will just continue to act like the Palestinians and blame the Jews neo-conservative cabal for everything that goes wrong from the weather to the terror - because their game is not action but blame. But just like the Palestinians, at some point the people get a clue that maybe they want more action from their leaders than just the hollow rhetoric of blaming a group of others. In the mean time, they will ratchet up the hate against conservatives, white males, Jews, Christians (especially evangelical)and anything and everything that once made us strong. Let's hope our population will figure it out sooner rather than later.
But I'm resigned to it. This is like 1938. They control the media and many of the institutions and our attempts to stop the danger is now on hold.
The way I feel about it is this. I've done my part, and will continue to do my part to fight the war against Islamofacism. If the democrats are weak for four years and continue to allow the Keith Ellisons and Georgetown Universities types to accept the Saudi cash and mosques etc - then it will be the now 17-30 year olds who will have to fight this war and they will probably have to fight it on our own turf. The war won't go away. The Islamic fanatics are united in their purpose. They are funded, organized and willing to die for their cause. We are a nation divided and a house divided can not stand. Like Chamberlain, we missed the opportunity to stop the the nightmare before it got out of control. What we don't fight today will be left for that age group to deal with for a very long and difficult time. Yes, it will touch all of us. But this election was a mandate from a soft and spoiled generation to pass on the trials of today to youth of tomorrow.
#26
As did we all, anon. I'm not sure many among those who voted for them will notice whether they accomplish anything, or not. "Spoiled adolescents" describes both sides of that equation rather well, IMO.
#27
AC wrote: We don't have a leader in the mold of Churchill or FDR but there could well be one waiting in the wings.
Yes we do.
We just don't know who that person is yet.
In times of adversity it is up to good people, people with belief in the concept of right and wrong, good and evil, darkness and light, to step forward and act on that belief.
As Edmund Burke said "In order for evil to triumph good men have to do nothing." (paraphrased, certainly)
Good men (and women) often have to be stubborn, obstinate, arrogant, and almost pathologically sure of themselves and the rightness of their beliefs and causes. But all too often those people are unsure of themselves and need to be coaxed out of hiding.
It is up to us to find those people, and if necessary, force them to accept their destiny.
I know of one such person - and it's time he stepped out of the shadows and started acting. Do you know somebody like this?
Probably.
"Light the fires and kick the tires!"
It's time for action (and past time), not crying in our beer.
#29
a given: 90% of the Dems fall into 3 categories: delusional flakes, pork swilling pols, or out and out traitors.
That should be "and/or", not just "or". Remember Kerry and Kennedy -- they're delusional flakes, pork swillers, *AND* traitors.
Let's be honest. The absolute horrible handling of Katrina set the stage for it all to crumble.
BS. The press *lies* about Katrina "set the stage". The conditions and response in Mississippi and Alabama were ignored while the failures of the local and state officials in Louisiana were papered over. The speed of the Coast Guard and DHS response was ignored and the bureaucratic idiocy overplayed and blamed on *everything but* bureaucracy.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/08/2006 7:13 Comments ||
Top||
#30
We don't have a leader in the mold of Churchill or FDR but there could well be one waiting in the wings.
Yes we do.
We just don't know who that person is yet.
My nominee is a guy who impressed me very little at the start of the election but did so more and more as it went on. Rick Santorum gets it. He should get into the administration and run for Governor of PA in '10. Then for Pres in '12 or '16.
And there's more Reagan trunks out there ready to grow. The leadership had gotten too entrenched to be displaced and too comfortable to change things. Let's make some lemonade.
#31
I put the republican loss down to a few things.
First and foremost is the utter lack of discipline by the republican congressional leadership. They were totally unwilling to enforce controls over their people in any way. This made them as obnoxious as parents who let their children run wild in restaurants.
No legislative discipline, no personal discipline, no internal punishments when they were involved in wrongdoing--before it got out of hand. For every member of the House whose seat was lost, there was an equal and opposite scandal.
The "kids in a candy store" approach to pork and fiscal discipline, the "we can be as perverted as we want, we're in power" morality, and the "we have to back them up, they're on our side" attitude.
It all played into a universal constant for groups: People judge you not by your best and brightest, but by your worst and stupidest; and unless you punish your own miscreants, your group will be punished as a whole for their misdeeds.
#33
The kids who were in elementary school and junior high on 9/11/01 will be voting in the next election in droves. The school was in full lockdown that day. They know what the key issue is, and they think the Democrats are dangerously, blindly reactionary. Oh, and lots of them are currently in delayed entry or ROTC programs, headed for the military as soon as they get that college degree.
McCain is on Fox right now saying that the reason the GOP got waxed was pork/earmarks and a "failure to reform immigration." If he means what I think he does - and he's on record as backing Bush's amnesty plans - then he's saying that the GOP lost because they didn't throw open the borders and give amnesty to 12 million illegals.
But
Via Lucianne:
McCain is on Fox right now saying that the reason the GOP got waxed was pork/earmarks and a "failure to reform immigration." If he means what I think he does - and he's on record as backing Bush's amnesty plans - then he's saying that the GOP lost because they didn't throw open the borders and give amnesty to 12 million illegals.
---
Trunks are happy in the minority and there they'll stay.
English only-yes
Ban on abortions except for mother's life-No
Parental notification-No
Same-sex marriage-No
Legalize marijuana-No
Using race and gender for college entrance-No
Increase minimum wage-Yes
The Republicans didn't lose because they weren't conservative enough. Moderation should be the word in their new homework. It is what Americans are when they are their best.
I dread what Dems will do to foreign policy, immigration and security. OTOH, I wish them well and hope that what they do domestically is good for America.
#37
My greatest fear is they will de-fund the Iraq war. Remember they did this twice before - not just Vietnam but also Nicaragua. They have never been held to account for their betrayal of Southeast Asia, where millions were consigned to death. The country has suffered for that betrayal for 30 years now, and the Jihadis still use that event as their predictor of American behavior in war.
#38
The only hope we have with respect to defunding the war is that they don't have the numbers to override a veto. If W will just grow a pair and veto any budget that doesn't include sufficient funds for operations, we can keep going.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/08/2006 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#39
I have opined during the recent races that most (if not all) of the freshman Dems ran a mostly conservative campaign. They dont seem to be the Kool Aid drinking type (but I could be wrong). Also they have the thinnest of majorities, just like the Republicans did for the past six years. If they want to accomplish anything it will have to be with some Republican support. Also if they pass something really stupid, Bush will veto it or the Senate will let it die. Yes the fever swamp will rant about how we need to investigate, indict, and impeach but I bet some of the adults in the Democratic party are thinking that maybe they need tone that talk down unless they really have something (which they dont). I will lose some sleep with Pelosi in charge but I have lots of Alchohol and pills to help me. P.S. I would add that NOW is the time to start staking out the ground for the next battle. Either way the next two years turn out to be we need to elect a President in 2008. Start thinking about who you want to support and VOLUNTEER.
#40
Cyber Sarge, the choices aren't good. Giuliani? The Republican base won't nominate him because of his stance on abortion. McCain? He stabbed W in the back constantly, and the only reason he is front and center is because he had Strange New Respect. Allen? He shot himself in the foot with this campaign. Maybe Romney, but I'm not sure we're ready for a Mormon president. We need to see how things shake out.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
11/08/2006 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Expect the US House to display an end zone dance in the form of social sure bets like a minimum wage hike, Right to Work legislation, and immigration reform/amnesty. There will also be those in the Senate who are unable to resist flexing their new found muscle and try to distinguish their parties with things like blocking the nomination of Bolten to the UN, etcetera. Some will be more bellicose and call for hearings on Iraq pre-war intelligence manipulation and the like but as per usual it will be nothing more the political posturing knowing that 2008 is but two short years away. Real issues of importance such as the war, energy independence, and budget discipline will not change because, in reality, the differences between the two parties on matters of substance are more rhetorical then ideological.
Get a grip people. This isn't the end of the world. The Dems have the thinnest of majorities. What we are looking at is 2 years of deadlock at worst. Nothing will get done. They won't have the votes to start impeachment hearings and even if they scrounge up the votes to start the hearings, they certainly couldn't get the votes to actually impeach Bush. There is no way in hell they can defund Iraq for two reasons: Bush can still VETO and the American people would see that as an insult to our troops. Ditto on raising taxes, Bush has the veto and the dems don't have the votes to overturn a veto. Hell, raising taxes would probably be good for the Right come '08. No, we'll have 2 years of Dhimmocratic blustering with nothing coming of it. Now, what happens in '08 is another story. Will there be another terrorist attack between now and then? That depends on how much the terrorists understand us and our government, even with a democratic government, Bush will still be the one who responds to any attack. It's that freaking simple.
#46
Americans voted to get the troops out of Iraq.
It will be defunded.
IMHO, there won't be as much gridlock as everyone thinks, the voters have spoken, they want Congress to get along, and the pubbies, to keep what they have, will get along.
They should fight on national health care, but medicare?
#47
The bright side is that the donks will go into a feeding frenzy. The new House leadership has already said they are going to hold hearings on Haliburton, pre-war intel (maybe they should open the archives on FDR), corruption, big tobacco, blah, blah, blah...and eventually they will go after GW. They will become so intoxicated with power they will never get off the dime.
The real onus is on we conservatives: we have to kick out the old worthless cronies like Hastert, etc and bring in new, fearless, bold leadership...and get ordnance on target for 2008.
The American people need to be reminded every couple of years why the Dems can't be trusted with any responsibility.
This could actually turn out to be good. The Dems will either grow up and become their Mother, or they will act like teenagers away from home for the first time.
Either way the adults will be back in charge by 2008.
Posted by: frozen Al ||
11/08/2006 11:12 Comments ||
Top||
#49
"I actually met Sir Winston" There is a man I would liked to have met.
Hey Betty, did we lay in a two year supply of Goody's Headache Powder? We are going to need it.
The Republic will survive. It has survived worse. I see the electorate getting tired quickly of Dhemmi shennanigans. I don't see the Dhemmis doing much in the next two years. Most of them are well (at least the leadership), too moonbat. The Republicans squandered opportunity with the help of the MSM. I worry that the WOT will be on hold in the West but not with the jihadists. We need a leader such as a Ronald Reagan but I don't see any on the horizon.
Murtha is going to have control of purse strings for the military. That is scary. Bush while not ducking will have to exercise his veto power.
The Republicans are going to have to get back on track. The voters slapped them to wake them up. They got away from their principles. The Republicans are going to have to get focused such as they were in the 1994 revolution let by Gingrich.
Pretty glum, too. Not entirely able to put my thoughts in order.
No amount of rationalizing or blame will help what happened, and the knowledge that the American people will get the incompetent sophists they asked for is cold comfort at best. There is no question that this will do damage to the country in the long run - the only question is how badly our ability to react to threats, our freedoms, and our autonomy will be damaged before sensible adults manage to recover the wheel from the kids.
Still, we are adults here, and we must act like them. No whining, no crying, no stamping our feet. We'll need to take a deep breath, narrow our eyes, roll up our sleeves, participate in about ten more cliches, and then start looking for genuinely good people.
Oh, and we should probably do what we can in the meantime to find those without honor in both parties and do what we can to call them to account for their misdeeds. I think the first and best thing we could do right now is make it clear that, Republican or Democrat, if you have betrayed this country or acted dishonorably in any way, shape, or form without coming clean, repenting, and acting differently, you don't deserve to hold public office. Everyone has their gray areas, and almost everyone deserves a second chance, but corruption and dishonesty should not be tolerated. (/Idealism!)
Oh, and we may want to clean our guns. With the Democrats in charge, self-defense - indeed, self-reliance in general - is going to become that much more important. The men who hijacked the planes on 9/11 were nothing but evil, but their evil was eclipsed by America's heroes - and the qualities of those heroes don't go away because the House is blue.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
11/08/2006 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Amen if we can survive Carter and Clinton then we will survive this. Imagine the fun we will have over the next two years just quoting Pelosi verbatim!
#53
What we are looking at is 2 years of deadlock at worst.
We don't have two years to allow the terrorists inroads in areas of security. None of this would matter if we weren't in a war for our own survival and I would think it was a good thing that the Republicans were ousted if we were not. The problem was that the media downplayed the serious nature of the war. I too hope that logic will prevail and they won't defund Iraq. That would be a good thing. But don't count on it. This election result stems from the baby boomers belief that they can just wish and make the war go away. The war won't go away.
Radical Islam won't be taking a two year vacation. If the younger generation wants the freedoms we've enjoyed, they will have to fight hard for it or lose them.
#54
The War on Terror will not change. The Dems don't see Iraq as a theater in the war but part of that is because Bush did not frame the conflict very well.
The Dems have used the war in Iraq as a campaign issue but when push comes to shove they know withdrawal will make things worse and they'll get the blame (Even if you don't think they love the US or the troops you have to admit they love themselves). Withdrawal to bases is in the cards already and the time-frame with Iraqi government taking over will coincide close enough for them to declare victory.
The Iranian issue is a mystery though. It'll probably be a campaign issue in 2008 across the board. Until then Iran will go as fast as they can hoping to beat the deadline, Europe will push for everything short of war hoping to avoid the inevitable, Russia and China will profit by selling nasty stuff to nasty people. IN other words business as usual.
#55
The radical jihadists will not be taking a two year vacation. They will reload and continue to relentlessly try to figure out ways to push radical islam across the world. Although the jihadists prefer the Dhemmis, they don't care who is in power. Their agenda is world domination. The Dhemmis may have to figure this out also although I'm not optimistic judging from their crap-for-brains rhetoric.
#56
rjschwartz: The War on Terror will not change. The Dems don't see Iraq as a theater in the war but part of that is because Bush did not frame the conflict very well.
You can't sell out a set of allies and then tell your other allies (and the enemies waiting to eat _their_ families) that it was really because that theater wasn't important.
7:00 P.M. Opening flag burning.
7:15 P.M. Pledge of allegiance to U.N.
7:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
7:30 till 8:00 P.M. Non religious prayer and worship. Jessie Jackson
and Al Sharpton.
8:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:05 P.M. Ceremonial tree hugging.
8:15- 8:30 P.M. Gay Wedding-- Barney Frank Presiding.
8:30 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
8:35 P.M. Free Saddam Rally. Cindy Sheehan-- Susan Sarandon.
9:00 P.M. Keynote speech. The proper etiquette for surrender-- French
President Jacques Chirac
9:15 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
9:20 P.M. Collection to benefit Osama Bin Laden kidney transplant fund
9:30 P.M. Unveiling of plan to free freedom fighters from Guantanamo
Bay. Sean Penn
9:40 P.M. Why I hate the Military, A short talk by William Jefferson
Clinton
9:45 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
9:50 P.M. Dan Rather presented Truth in Broadcasting award, presented
by Michael Moore
9:55 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
10:00 P.M. How George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld brought down the World
Trade Center Towers-- Howard Dean
10:30 P.M. Nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Mahmud Ahnadinejad
11:00 P.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
11:05 P.M. Al Gore reinvents Internet
11:15 P.M. Our Troops are War criminals-- John Kerry
11:30 P.M. Coronation Of Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton
12:00 A.M. Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
12:05 A.M. Bill asks Ted to drive Hillary home!!!!
#59
As the "Greatest Generation" quickly leaves us to slip the surly bonds we usher in leadership form a new era, their replacement: "The Worst Generation". The people that once sacrificed EVERYTHING for us have given way to the most selfish crowd in history. It's so similar to many other boom-bust cycles in life. The new crew is good at nearly nothing. Their biggest accomplishments are destroying the things that make America great. As kids they found power in protesting the Vietnam war. Dividing the country and undermining our efforts started early for this bunch. Not much has changed with them. "Divide and Undermine" should be their motto. As adults they've expanded their horizons to undermine our basic freedoms, sovereignty, culture and the family.
A day of reckoning will come tho. As the children of the "Worst Generation" will have to step up and pay homage to their Grandparents, fixing the destruction caused by the "Worsts".
My fear is like most of yours. It will probably take 9/11 #2 to unite the nation in such a way that forces the "Worsts" to retreat to their rat holes for the final time.
#61
TO ALL NEOCONS CONS AND GEORGE SHITTKICKERS ALIKE ,TO ALL JESUS FANATICAL PSICOS BIBLE BELT RESIDENTS,
TO AL REPUBLICAN IN THE CLOSET FAGS, I REPEAT FAGS, AFTER TONIGTH I HAVE JUST TWO WORDS. UP YOURS!
PS. FUCK YOU RUMMMMMMY!!!
#64
And to our lefty idiot trolls - try looking at the policies endorsed by your newest part of your new majority. For Example Sen Casey of PA - PRO LIFE and PRO GUN and ANTI_GAY_MARRIAGE and in favor of Justices who judge law, not make it.
You got Dems in, but to win, you had to find moderates and conservatives. Your lefty stuff is either coign to get shitcanned, or else wil cause you to lose all your gains in '08
#65
"fags"? Such language! Although, yes, some of us are. But not in the closet -- they're out here in the conversation with the rest of us, where they belong.
#67
That would be grace in victory, I suppose. Where does one get a liberal education that teaches that "Caps Lock" is articulate? Probably a place full of "PSICOS". Priceless.
I'm glad to not have to defend that pork barrel lobby infested immoral idiots that dominated the feckless leadership of the Republican Congress. the alternative is far worse, but at least they are now out there for all to see.
Now I get to go after leftists that would tax and spend, grow government, and abandon our defense, in their witch hunts and political payback that is harmful to the nation. All while pushing for Reagan style republicans that we can run with in 2008 and "Clean House". It will be fun to be on the Offensive instead of Defensive, the hunter not the hunted (but only for the next 2 years, maybe we can finally get the kill shot in on liberalism now that it flushed itself out int the open)
Yo Liberals, look out. Reagan Republicans are on the Hunt, and this time you can't hide your vacuous lack of integrity and common sense any more!
Hand that microphone to Charlie "son of a bitch" Rangel, Waxman the Weasel, Pelosi (highest negatives of any nationally known politicians - higher negatives than Bush!), and over in the senate Teddy K rolls his fat arse back in from of the camera to stutter and slur his way thru a diatribe between drinks. And of course we get a GIANT megaphone for ...
#70
TO AL REPUBLICAN IN THE CLOSET FAGS, I REPEAT FAGS, AFTER TONIGTH I HAVE JUST TWO WORDS. UP YOURS!
PS. FUCK YOU RUMMMMMMY!!!
Posted by FUCKYOUASSOLES
That just reeks of latent homosexuality there, Fuckyouassoles.
No, I will not tell you what it means. Go ask your mother.
Could we here at RB please, please make a concerted effort to stop referring to the war as the "War on Terror"?
Could we call it the "War on Jihad"?
We know words have meaning. Part of the election defeat we suffered yesterday has so much to do with an inability to communicate with the man on the street.
I understand why the CIC can't call it a War on Islam or a War Against Islam. I don't understand why we can't call it a War on Jihad.
Yes, I know what is being referred to when we speak of the WOT, but I want our leaders to be more articulate.
Does anyone here recall a time when Churchill referred to the "War on Blitzkrieg"? No, I didn't think so.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/08/2006 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#75
Schwarz is a German word. You would think you'd get it right. It means black. As in black forest. Schwarzkopf (Black head), Schwarzenegger (Black plowman).
Yeah Dems in charge sucks. Yeah Republicans had it coming. That doesn't mean we should start converting to Islam just yet. It doesn't even mean the bad guys get a breather. It means gridlock and Bush may learn to use his veto for a change.
A difficult Democratic Congress will be an asset to the Repubs in 2008. Pelosi knows 2008 is the prize so I'm guessing she'll reign in the psychos in her party so it'll probably be a quiet gridlock as far as these things go.
Might be a nice change of pace assuming the Republicans learned their lesson and are preparing for 2008.
#81
Anon, please, he said he wants it spelled "rjschwarz," so please do so. I did it by mistake, and may again, but that's no reason to do it on purpose.
#82
I just can't get my mind around the moonbat from berkey leading the house! This will be the most disturbing two years of our lives. I just thank god they do not have the 2/3rds required to overthrow a veto.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
11/08/2006 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#83
RJ - just for the record, I didn't post #79. Was another anon.
As Climate Changes, Can We?
By Kofi Annan If there were any remaining doubt about the urgent need to combat climate change, two reports issued last week should make the world sit up and take notice. First, according to the latest data submitted to the United Nations, the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrialized countries continue to increase. Second, a study by a former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called climate change "the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen," with the potential to shrink the global economy by 20 percent and to cause economic and social disruption on par with the two world wars and the Great Depression.
The scientific consensus, already clear and incontrovertible, is moving toward the more alarmed end of the spectrum. Many scientists long known for their caution are now saying that warming has reached dire levels, generating feedback loops that will take us perilously close to a point of no return. A similar shift may be taking place among economists, with some formerly circumspect analysts saying it would cost far less to cut emissions now than to adapt to the consequences later. Insurers, meanwhile, have been paying out more and more each year to compensate for extreme weather events. And growing numbers of corporate and industry leaders have been voicing concern about climate change as a business risk. The few skeptics who continue to try to sow doubt should be seen for what they are: out of step, out of arguments and just about out of time.
A major U.N. climate change conference opened Monday in Nairobi. The stakes are high. Climate change has profound implications for virtually all aspects of human well-being, from jobs and health to food security and peace within and among nations. Yet too often climate change is seen as an environmental problem when it should be part of the broader development and economic agenda. Until we acknowledge the all-encompassing nature of the threat, our response will fall short.
Environment ministers have been striving valiantly to mobilize international action. But too many of their counterparts -- energy, finance, transport and industry ministers, and even defense and foreign secretaries -- have been missing from the debate. Climate change should be their concern as well. The barriers that have kept them apart must be broken down so that they can, in an integrated way, think about how to "green" the massive investments in energy supply that will be needed to meet burgeoning global demand over the next 30 years.
Doom-and-gloom scenarios meant to shock people into action often end up having the opposite effect, and so it has been at times with climate change. We must focus not only on the perils but also on the associated opportunities. Carbon markets have reached a volume of $30 billion this year, but their potential remains largely unexploited. The Kyoto Protocol is fully operational, including a Clean Development Mechanism that could generate $100 billion for developing countries.
The Stern report suggests that markets for low-carbon energy products are likely to be worth at least $500 billion per year by 2050. Even today, it is baffling that readily available, energy-efficient technologies and know-how are not used more often -- a win-win approach that produces less pollution, less warming, more electricity and more output. Low emissions need not mean low growth or stifling a country's development aspirations. And the savings can buy time for solar, wind and other alternative energy sources to be developed and made more cost-effective.
Efforts to prevent future emissions must not be allowed to obscure the need to adapt to climate change, which will be an enormous undertaking because of the massive carbon accumulations to date. The world's poorest countries, many of them in Africa, are least able to cope with this burden -- which they had little role in creating -- and will need international help if they are not to be further thwarted in their efforts to reach the Millennium Development Goals.
There is still time for all our societies to change course. We must not fear the voters or underestimate their willingness to make large investments and long-term changes. People are yearning to do what it takes to address this threat and move to a safer and sounder model of development. Growing numbers of businesses are eager to do more and await only the right incentives.
The Nairobi conference can and must be part of this gathering critical mass. It must send a clear, credible signal that the world's political echelon takes climate change seriously. The question is not whether climate change is happening but whether, in the face of this emergency, we ourselves can change fast enough.
#1
according to the latest data submitted to the United Nations, the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrialized countries continue to increase.
Under the UN's Kyoto Protocol, CO2 emissions have accelerated to the fastest rate ever.
Oak Leaf at Polipundit with thoughts on what should follow this election:
I am writing this on Monday evening at 1700 GMT for publication long after the polls have closed on Tuesday but with the results probably still unknown. I wanted to write this while my thoughts were still fresh and prior to the election itself.
Many know that I am a reservist and recently went on a short tour in SW Asia. My duties have been varied largely along the lines of special projects. Currently I have been assisting in a Civil Affairs Function in Afghanistan because of a prior tour in that capacity.
This morning, I met with community leaders in a typical Afghanistan village. After our business was conducted, I was surprised by their interest in our election. While their knowledge of the mechanics of our election was on par with Americans understanding elections in Canada, they were keenly interested.
The first point that they made was this election was between President Bushs party and those that want to abandon Iraq. That caught me off guard and I had to verify with my translator that abandon was the correct translation.
They next expressed that the Taliban would be emboldened by an Iraq pullout and that co-operation between the Afghani People and American/NATO forces would come to a halt. You have to realize that the Afghani People have little choice here. The moment they sense the mere possibility/suggestion of American Forces leaving, they will realign themselves with the Taliban. Further, the Taliban will effectively exploit American redeployment from Iraq. I left that exchange shaken, something that I have never felt before.
So where does all this leave America, our friends in SW Asia, my friends in Afghanistan, my uniformed comrades and myself?
Lets assume that as this blog is published, Democrats have gained control of the House. They have already stated their position on Iraq. The best case is that they will force our hand ans simply push a complete withdrawal from Iraq. The worse case is that they will slowly force our hand to withdrawal by cutting funding piece by piece.
What is my position at that point? If Democrats have gained control of the House, I will do everything in my soul so that we simply and immediately withdrawal completely from Iraq and not redeploy to Okinawa, but to redeploy to the United States since it will make no difference if we have troops in Okinawa or the United States. The Okinawa Plan is old timer thinking by Murtha and alike. Also, at that point the withdrawal needs to be complete and prompt as American Forces will be constantly targeted once the Democrats have played their hand.
Further, because every action we take in Iraq has consequences in Afghanistan, a prompt redeployment from that area will also need to take place. Our only tool in that region is the trust of the Afghan People and that trust will falter due to the fear of the Taliban.
If the Democrats are in power and want a pullout fine, lets do it and do it right and that is a complete withdrawal from SW Asia. My friends, there is no other choice, a deal can not be made where we do anything part way. It is all or nothing and that is the sad reality. The final failure of Vietnam was the long withdrawal after Congress became intent on the idea of pulling out. That mistake must not be made again. I ask my fellow conservatives to help make sure the troops are brought home and they are brought home now. He may be right. Maybe GWB should call the Democrats on their bluff. Withdraw immediately and wait to see what happens next. Maybe this will help improve relations with America's "allies". Maybe terrorists will stop attacking us on our own soil. There's only one way to find out if the Democratic prescription works. And that's to try it out.
#1
I have to agree. This is a battle of minds and wills. Be seen to falter and you lose.
I supported the Iraq war, not because I thought it would succeed, but because I thought we needed to see if it could succeed.
Maybe now is the time to step back and see what happens without US support. Remember, the barbarians go after the weakest first. Perhaps without Belgium, France, Sweden, Thailand, ?? the equation might be simpler.
#2
I think we will see signs of this re-alignment of allegiance in Afghanistan even before the Dems do anything. The mere fact of their election win will cause major loss of confidence in both A. and Iraq.
#3
When I was in Iraq during the '04 Presidential election, Iraqis talked about the US election more than most Marines. The Iraqis would sum it up by saying, "Bush GOOD, Kerry NO GOOD!"
I think this election will be played in the arab world as a win for them.
The best was on the way to work this morning, I hear on NPR "after the results of the election were in, it was clear that there wasn't as much election fraud as thought..." Had the Republicans won, I'm sure it would be a different story this morning...just wait though, in one of these close Senate races, if the Dems lose, they will fall back on the ol' election tampering theme.
#5
I think that, for several months now, we have already been seeing this realignment of potential allies among the Muslims of SW Asia. The Afghan Taliban are resurgent, hell, they even get paid better than the Afghan national forces. While evading one assassination attempt after another, Musharraf of Pakistan signs a peace treaty with the terrorist supporters of his frontier provinces. Saudi Arabia and several other Muslim countries are now moving toward obtaining their own nuclear capabilities, I believe, because they sense that the US will not defend them against the likes of Iran. Our lot of our Muslim allies and would-have-been supporters will go over to the other side.
The first place to withdraw from would be South Korea, our troops serve no purpose there, that country is more than capable of defending itself on the ground, and their population doesn't want us there anyway. Okinawa doesn't want us there either, but I suspect the Japanese as a nation do.
#8
Just to let you know, from a perspective on the "special" side of things, the guys are talking that we have been betrayed and that those who are trusting us to help them mold their nations are getting "b*ttf**ked" by the Dems.
The bloodbath will be immediate for anyone that doesn't change side. And it will be Fort Apache until we turn and run.
Furthermore, this will preclude us from EVER acting again as liberators. Nobody will ever trust us, because we will be seen as hard warriors who will never stand by and fight if you can manage to manipualte the US press. And doding that is pitifully easy. Terrorist have been dpedning on Psyops via the western press since the first hijackings bakc in the 1970's by Al Fatah.
Either we get a commitment to stay, or we screw the future of America in the world - wiht the concommitent lack of trust that will come from anyone allied to us.
Think any rebels in Venezuela or Cuba will trust us after such stupid cowardly tail-turning?
Think any country woudl respect our diplomacy without the big stick behind it?
Think trade will continue when we have shown we can and will be bullied?
Think we are safe after we bail and leave Iraq and Afghnistan to the Islamists?
WAKE THE F*CK UP AMERICA!
YOU ARE DESTROYING YOUR FUTURE!
God DAMN you who are allowing this shit to happen.
#9
As reassurance, the US military has been killing itself for just an eventuality as this: they want to guarantee by ten times or even one hundred times that Iraq cannot become another Vietnam, no matter what the democrats do.
That means, that the *worst* that could happen if the US pulls out soon is the sectarian problems that may be inevitable anyway. The outcome of which is that the Sunnis lose.
The only other possibility is that Iran invades Iraq. And we have done our damndest to insure that if Iran tries it, the Iraqi military is good enough to at least stop them, if not defeat them, with no US support at all.
#11
OS: Think we are safe after we bail and leave Iraq and Afghnistan to the Islamists?
Depends on what you mean by "we". Red staters are probably fine - after all, the densely populated cities aren't in the red states. Blue staters may have to watch their step. Of course, we may be overstating the capabilities of these Islamic holy warriors. Maybe 9/11 was just a fluke - a one-off they can't repeat no matter how hard they try. It should give red staters some comfort to know that if these attempts are made they will be in densely populated areas - in other words, areas where GOP voters don't generally live.
#12
This signals the end of the era of (somewhat) stability we had. The Pull out and leaving the world high and dry is coming. You think France is bad now? Wait until they truly need us and we aren't there. Bosnia X100. The middle east will erupt in violence and gas prices will soar. Taxes will rise and special government intrusion programs will dominate our lives.
I'm battening down the hatches for the next two years, maybe more if the dems win the white house too.
Running in Iraq flips the tribes in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
The Stan goes over to the Taliban. And that in itself causes ripple all over SW Asia and the middle east.
Pakistan, with its nukes, becomes hella unstable because the tribes there see the US bineg chased out by a few military casualties and gutless politicians elected by people who believe the one-sided stories the US Press feeds them.
There's your formula for defeating the US.
Terror, press manipulation, and appeal to the anti-military liberals about how things will be just fine if the US will just pack up and go home and let the Islamists rule.
Lather rinse repeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, and eventually Turkey, Saudi Arabia and North Africa. Iran and Syria will be bankrolling it with absolutely NO FEAR of a US military response because we have proven there are enough cowards in our political population that we will not stand and fight.
Where do you draw the line?
And how do you get ANY credibility after turning tail and running from Iraq with its historically very low casualty rate?
READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE. Once its gone, its GONE. There is no gradual erosion anymore - its snaps like a tree branch.
Wake the f**k up. Use your brain. I know these tribes. Ive seen them. I know the ones in Iraq. And the outcome he describes above is dead on. Its the old proclivity to fall in line with the "strong horse". Your tacit assumptions that they will react like we do are DEAD wrong. You and those who think like you are culturally ignorant. That's what the article above was trying to dispel - to educate you on the consequences of backing off even on bit in Iraq.
These folks don't have generations of individualism and rights behind them - they only know to obey means you get to live, and you go where the tribe goes. And whichever side is winning is the one they run to.
So WAK UP and realize that there is NO way other than victory or defeat. And defeat means a generation of losses until we send a lot more of our sons and daughters to die at a far higher rate because we didn't finish the job this time.
Think it through - actions have consequences, not everyone is western; stupidity and ignorance have a price. When you deal in ignornace with Islamic fundamentalists, that price will be paid in blood.
#14
Will have to watch how this all swings. Silver lining is that that many of the Dems voted in are conservative - heck at least as much if not more so than some of those sorry repubs. However, the moonbats hold the power positions for Dhimmicrats. Will they hold their fire until '08? I doubt it but they may find themselves frustrated when the new class of Dem starts to buck the party line. I hope they do...but if they don't, I'm crapping you negative when I say I have a 3 year plan that sees me relocating to more "defensible ground" ; ].
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Zhang thats the problem for me - I do care about them even if they dont care about (or even hate) me.
#16
My prayer is that the Blue Dog type dems that are strong on defense and are from Red States will force the plan and force the Victory option, not the retreat one.
Agree to a timetable, fine thats inevitable. But make it sufficiently long and leave sufficent ofrces that that no matter how BAD the Iraqi police are, their Army is fully stood up and ready to crack head. Even a coup if neccesary, along the lines of Thailand.
Either that or we better start partitioning Iraq now and prepping our permanent bases in Kurdistan.
#17
Rummy Resigns! So it begins...the long slide. The Rumsfeld model has been flushed. Most likely find a fall guy to oversee our withdrawal. God help us!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Isolating ourselves hasn't been possible since the 1930s. A lot of the problems we are havin gnow is because while we were fighting the Cold War (aka WWIII) with troops over there, the other side was fighting by seducing academics, journalists and the well-meaning ignoramuses over here. Now there are tens of millions of illegal non-citizens resident here, with no stake in, or surplus energy to fight for, our civilization. And we have possibly several hundred thousand active or passive enemy agents already living here, working toward establishing dhimmitude and then the Caliphate. Walking away is surrendering without saying the words.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/08/2006 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Rumsfeld's resignation plays right to what the article was talking about. The man who was the architect of the liberation of Afghanistan is gone...in disgrace. This will not be lost on the Afghans.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
11/08/2006 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Old Spook speaks for me on this. He is 100 percent correct.
TW, please don't refer to the Cold War as WW3. That is a leftist attempt to equate World Wars with lack of shooting, and establish our victory in the Cold War as a victory without violence.
i.e. we won WW3 without all this bombing, but with negotiation....why not use negotiations to win WW4 ? Like I said, leftist attempt, let's avoid that mistake.
1) GWB won't cut and run. I really don't see it. We were planning to draw down some in 2007 as the Iraqis stood up, and I see no reason why that changes right away. Now if the Iraqis, because of our election, decide not to stand up and defend their country, that's different, but in that case we'll draw the appropriate conclusion -- that the Arabs really AREN'T ready for democracy and civilization, and that the next thing we're attacked we go full throat after the attackers. Ditto with Afghanistan -- if the people there decide to flip we may back off but we won't abandon Karzai, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc, all in the north. THEY are not likely to flip, if only because they don't like taking orders from crazed Pashtuns.
2. Most Americans, while unhappy with Iraq (a fair bit because they're not getting all the story, and that because GWB hasn't been effective in telling them) understand that withdraw is a disaster. And that in turn restrains the Dhimmidonks. Pelosi would like to be speaker for more than 2 years. She has the nutroots on her left (well, she's on the left too), and the Blue Dogs in sufficient number to restrain her. And she has Hiliary playing her games. Cut and run is a prescription for a Dhimmi defeat to McCain in 2008. She's not that dumb.
3. Assume for a moment that the Taliban can indeed stage a resurgence and take control of southeast Afghanistan. What then? They can't get to Kabul (we've pulled back but we've equipped the Afghan Army, and Karzai is a decent warlord), they can't retake the country. They can destabilize Pak-land and that's a worry, but Afghanistan will likely survive.
So the real issue in any such scenario is whether you can ensure that 1) Pak nukes remain under lock and key and 2) Pak-land doesn't become a sponsor for international terrorism.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#24
I do not believe that the Blue Dog Dems will affect the Dhimmiecrat agenda at all. They were fielded simply to win the election and will be kicked to the curb by Pelosi and the moonbats.
If we retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan as I expect, would I ever support another foreign war? Would anyone rely on us for their defense?
Japan and Taiwan will seek their seek their own nuclear deterrents. Europe is lost. Hyper-proliferation is beginning in the ME. Israel?
We had better look to our own defense. Re-institute the draft and start the build-up because the wider war is coming.
#25
Re the Blue Dogs: one thing politicans in general don't like is being used, or being taken for granted. They tend to have rather large egos that need constant stroking. If Pelosi doesn't have time for them I'm sure Karl will. I'm not saying that the BD's will have a full place at the table, but the Dhimmis don't have a large enough majority to ignore them.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/08/2006 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Hope that you are right, Steve. However, this crew has shown its arrogance over and over. They believe that they are right. Time will tell.
#27
On the other side of things, its difficult to get folks to defend themselves and risk their lives when they know Uncle Sam will do everything for them. A little fear that they've got to step up now could be a good thing.
#28
I have always had one feeling about our engagement in Iraq;
In for a penny, in for a pound.
Period, no options. We owe squat to the Iraqi people. They have been the most thankless bunch of bastards since the Afghanis (boy, that was fast). We are doing this for our own sake and must approach it on that level. I see Bush as having two or three options:
1.) Go Medieval: Declare it a Clear and Present Danger and drop the hammer on Iran. Maybe crush Syria too. Or, perhaps, a dallience in North Korea. Tidy up all of these loose ends before exiting office in 2009. Ignore any hoots or squawking from the Congress or Senate, knowing that these rogue nations were America's dire enemies and they dearly needed an asskicking for it.
2.) Full Cynical Mode: Perform a nearly complete withdrawal on democrat demand (per Zhang Fei). Let the American public and world in general see just how fast things spiral out of control. Make it crystal clear that a huge price tag awaits in the form of sectarian strife and unrestrained terrorist activity as a result of cut and run. Leave a skeleton crew behind just so we can jumpstart the Iraqi (or Iranian) campaign again, but make no bones about having the Iraqis shoulder the entire burden for a change.
3.) The Death of a Thousand Retreats: Endure a slow but inexorable withdrawal from Iraq that is a total no-win for anyone and forever ruins our global prestige per Oldspook.
Barring a steady-as-she-goes course in Iraq, only options 1 & 2 make any sense. Option 3 is not an option, it is national suicide.
As Oldspook has been hollering from the treetops; Bush had damn well better ramp up a significant publicity campaign to counter the democratic majority's constant drip torture of cut and run. The American public must be educated about the threat of Islam. Waiting three years to finally utter "Islamofascism" was about two and a half years too long to wait.
Start quoting these jihadist imams in White House press conferences. Give significant air time to the constant stream of threats and sabre rattling coming out of the MME (Muslim Middle East). Cast a glaring spotlight on the implications of a nuclear armed Iran. If only to erode public support for any cut and run democratic maneuvers.
The GOP is at a crossroads. Their complacency and business-as-usual good-old-boy political machine just ate them alive, and deservingly so. If they cannot return to true conservative values, they can forget about 2008.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
If there were any remaining doubt about the urgent need to combat climate change, two reports issued last week should make the world sit up and take notice. First, according to the latest data submitted to the United Nations, the greenhouse gas emissions of the major industrialized countries continue to increase. Second, a study by a former chief economist of the World Bank, Sir Nicholas Stern of Britain, called climate change "the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen," with the potential to shrink the global economy by 20 percent and to cause economic and social disruption on par with the two world wars and the Great Depression.
