http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/)
Dems landslide?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html)
QuoteYou Read It Here First!
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, November 7, 2006; 7:36 AM
Why wait for the tedious task of counting the votes? I'll tell you right now what will be in tomorrow's papers:
"Ushering in a new political alignment that could render President Bush impotent in his final two years, Democrats swept to victory in the congressional elections yesterday as voters vented their frustration with the war in Iraq, Republicans scandals in particular and GOP incumbents in general.
About This Column
* xml Sign Up for RSS Feed
* Media Notes Archive
* How RSS Works
Media Notes Extra
* The Democrats Are Coming! (Right?)
* Nattering Negativity
* Kerry's Sorry Moment
* There He Goes Again
* Boy Genius or Turd Blossom?
More Stories
Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google
del.icio.us
Yahoo!
Reddit
Facebook
"The results set the stage for the first real power-sharing in Washington in a half-dozen years as incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi drew up plans to push progressive legislation, and broke the stranglehold that Republicans have had on Capitol Hill since the 1994 revolution that carried Newt Gingrich to power.
"White House officials said the president would remain just as aggressive in pursuing his agenda and expressed confidence that the Democrats will be forced to compromise rather than be painted as obstructionist. 'It could have been far worse,' said a senior administration official who insisted anonymity to deliver the official spin without having his name attached. 'We feel like we dodged a bullet.
"Tuesday's results amounted to a political earthquake whose aftershocks will be felt from Bangor to Baghdad, and throughout western civilization."
How's that? What happens if the Dems don't win? I've got that covered, too:
" In a stunning surprise that defied expectations, the Republicans held onto their Capitol Hill power base yesterday, bolstering President Bush in the final two years of his term and dashing the hopes of Democrats who thought that they were about to emerge from the political wilderness.
"In turning back a stiff challenge from the Democrats despite the accumulated setbacks of war and scandal, the GOP rendered inoperative a spate of preelection polls, mindlessly parroted by the media, which seemed to assure that their party's 12-year hold on power would be undone by an unpopular president and an equally unpopular war.
"It was a crushing defeat for House Minority Leader Nancy Peolsi and her fellow Democrats, who had already ordered drapes for their new offices, and left party strategists wondering whether they would be shut out of power for the remainder of the century. 'It's all Karl Rove's fault,' said a senior party strategist who insisted on anonymity so he could deflect blame for the debacle. 'We made the campaign about bashing Bush and the war, but once Rove got rid of "stay the course" we lost our main talking point.' "
See how easy it is?
Meanwhile, no shortage of prognostication out there. Weekly Standard predictions : Bill Kristol says the Dems will take the House (winning 40 seats) and Senate. Fred Barnes says the Dems will seize only the House. In fact, only one of the Standard's pundits, Andrew Ferguson, sees the Republicans holding the House.
In the WashPost's biennial contest, Mort Kondracke, Tucker Carlson and even conservative activist Paul Weyrich predict a Democratic House, but a Republican Senate. Only two GOP strategists, Mary Matalin and Kellyanne Conway, forecast the Republicans holding the House (albeit by one seat).
Kos sees the Dems taking both houses, including Ned Lamont (in whose ads Markos has appeared) pulling out a squeaker in Connecticut.
But conservative blogger Dean Barnett remains confident:
"The Republican Party is going to pull off the greatest feat of political sleight of hand in history on Tuesday as it gets its partisans to the polls in numbers more befitting a presidential year than a midterm. This will affect every close race in the country."
Josh Marshall broke the story of the harassing robo-calls, and the MSM has been trying to catch up:
"We checked out the stories of false flag GOP robocalls pretty closely before we were comfortable that we understood what was happening, could confirm it and start reporting on it yesterday. Now, over the course of the day, we've been getting other reports of Democrats getting calls informing them their voting location has been changed to what turns about to be a fake voting location.
"TPMmuckraker reported on this earlier today about reports in New Mexico. But it wasn't clear whether or not it was an isolated incident.
"Over the course of the day, though, we've been getting more reports of this from across the country -- NM, MN, WI, NY and other states. Enough that I'm starting to suspect that this is some sort of coordinated effort. (If this is a coordinated effort, I suspect it'll be much more carefully hidden than the false-flag robocalls, since I suspect this would tip the scales into prosecutable election tampering.)
"Let me be crystal clear: in the case of the false flag robocalls, we've heard the calls; we know the company placing them; we know the GOP committee paying for them; we know the complaints surfacing around the country. This is different. These reports are still too sketchy to say whether this coordinated or being directed nationally. In some cases, it may not even be intentional. With two mammoth GOTV operations ramping up nationwide, some confusion is probably inevitable. But we're hearing a sufficient number of reports from different parts of the country, to send up a flare, a virtual alert, if you will. So don't treat this is a fact but rather as an advisory, to be on the lookout."
Salon's Walter Shapiro wonders if the media haven't gotten just a little carried away:
"If you turned on the talking-head shows on Sunday morning television, you would have heard more talk about tsunamis than at a convention of Asian weather forecasters. This has been a year when aquatic metaphors about Democratic tidal waves and flood tides have replaced the usual horse-race analogies that dominate political discourse. But could the widely forecast Democratic sea surge amount to just a few gentle waves lapping on the shores of the Republican majority?
"That is the puzzle 48 hours before the actual votes begin rolling in. State and local polls -- especially for those House races in which reliable survey data is available -- still point to a dramatic Democratic sweep. Interviews about individual House districts with campaign operatives, political science professors and other experts from around the country point toward the same win-back-the-House conclusion. But in covering politics, there is always a danger that comes from sticking with the conventional wisdom a beat too long if the public mood suddenly begins to shift."
John Podhoretz isn't predicting a GOP victory--but he doesn't believe the polls either:
"So three major polls released this weekend show Republicans cutting the Democratic advantage on the so-called 'generic' question to single digits -- with Dems leading by 4, 6 or 7 points rather than the double digits they've been running consistently in recent months. I think what this tells you is almost nothing. Here's why . . .
"If Republicans hang on to the House and Senate, it won't mean that these new polls measured any real change. It will mean, instead, that all the polling in this midterm election was garbage -- that, indeed, polling is in a crisis because it can no longer measure anything specific owing to the increasing sophistication and annoyance of Americans dealing with telephone solicitors.
"What's more, pollsters know most of their polls this year were garbage, as did those who sponsored them, and yet they went ahead and did them and reported on them anyway. They were garbage because pollsters are getting response rates on their calls maybe two out of ten tries -- which means that simply for them to get enough respondents to poll, they have had to dig for every last voice they could."
Hmm...When was the last time you agreed to talk to a pollster?
Betsy's Page is suspicious of the widely varying results:
"Whatever you think of the generic ballot question - and I have little use for it - it's clear that something fishy is going on. The Washington Post comes out with a poll today that shows that the generic ballot among likely voters shows that, in the past two weeks, the Republicans went from being down 14 to being down 6. Just the trend you'd expect as the race tightens up at the finish line. Perhaps, Republicans are coming home. But not if you read the Newsweek poll. Their generic poll of likely voters show a 16 point difference in favor of the Democrats. Something has got to give. They can't both be right."
A big uproar is brewing over this released-in-advance Vanity Fair piece on neocons expressing varying degrees of regret over Iraq. A number of them are crying foul, as National Review reports:
" David Frum : Vanity Fair then set my words in its own context in its press release. They added words outside the quote marks to change the plain meaning of quotations.When I talk in the third quotation above about failures 'at the center,' for example, I did not mean the president. If I had, I would have said so. At that point in the conversation, I was discussing the National Security Council, whose counter-productive interactions produced bad results.
" Richard Perle : Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election, I had been promised that my remarks would not be published before the election.I should have known better than to trust the editors at Vanity Fair who lied to me and to others who spoke with Mr. Rose. Moreover, in condensing and characterizing my views for their own partisan political purposes, they have distorted my opinion about the situation in Iraq and what I believe to be in the best interest of our country."
Andrew Sullivan can barely believe Perle's comments:
"He says he now believes that the Great Leader is essential to the next Glorious Five Year Plan for Iraq. He sounds like that dude shot in the face by Cheney, who subsequently apologized for getting in the way.
"There's one thing to say here. Perle says he is concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday's election.
"Say what again? Perle is supposed to be a thinker, and a patriot. Why on earth would an intellectually honest person not make sure that their real views are aired on a critical matter before an election? Isn't that the point? . . .
"An intellectual movement that has become this intellectually dishonest deserves to die."
Huffposter Steve Clemons is equally appalled:
"In other words, Perle is putting his duplicitousness into the public square for all to see.
"He has one truth he's willing to market before the election -- and another after."
But blogger Jenny Hatch blames Graydon Carter and his crowd:
"They just don't get it.
"The delusional, dinkeldorf editors at Vanity Fair just don't get it . . .
"In this post about Vice President Dick Cheney's interview with ABC news, I said two days ago regarding the Vanity Fair article by David Rose:
" I'm disapointed in my fellow Neo-Cons that they have seemingly chosen to abandon the President and his policies.
"But knowing the press and Vanity Fair in particular as I do, I don't doubt that this hit piece on the president twisted the words of the Neo-Cons and they are using this article (which will no doubt be trumped up as loudly as possible over the next three days) as an attempt to sway the voters right before the election .
"The Vanity Fair editors and their cohorts who are guilty of Media crimes just do NOT get it.
"The world has changed. No more will they be able to sway elections with an October surprise, November surprise, or last minute saturday night live sketches intended to sway people in that last minute vote."
I would have thought it'd be a stretch to tie the Rev. Ted (I only bought meth and got a back rub) Haggard to the administration, but that doesn't deter Arianna :
"Let's face it: the Bush administration is sick. The fall of Ted Haggard is just the latest manifestation of the central disease of President Bush and his cohorts: the pathological refusal to accept reality, and the delusion that reality can be changed by rhetoric . . .
"Was Ted Haggard's absurd claim this week that, yes, he saw Mike Jones, but only for massages and that, yes, he bought meth from Jones but never used it, really that different from Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld continuing to claim we're winning in Iraq?
"That both the Reverend's and the administration's claims were made with the expectation that the public would buy them shows what the chronic refusal to acknowledge reality does to one's judgment."
Peter Beinart argues in the New Republic that the administration is winking at bigotry:
"George W. Bush never promised that his brand of Republicanism wouldn't be nasty. What he did promise, from virtually the moment he entered the national stage, was that it wouldn't be bigoted . . .
"On race, the RNC recently ran an ad showing a scantily clad white woman winking seductively at black Tennessee Democrat Harold Ford -- a blatant appeal to white fears of interracial sex. Asked about the ad's racial subtext, Mehlman responded, 'I will tell you that when I looked at the ad, that was not my reaction,' thus exhibiting the same willful blindness toward racism for which he apologized several months ago.
"And, on gays, it has been even worse. In campaign speeches, Vice President Dick Cheney routinely warns that, if Democrats take the House, the openly gay Barney Frank will become a committee chairman, 'and I don't need to tell you what kind of legislation would come.' When The Boston Globe slyly asked Cheney's office what sinister legislation Frank might produce as head of the Financial Services Committee, the veep's staff had no answer. And the real answer is obvious: Cheney was gay-baiting, pure and simple.
"Is Cheney, the father of a lesbian, a homophobe? Of course not. Cheney, Mehlman, and Bush are not bigots -- they genuinely want an inclusive Republican Party, just not as genuinely as they want to hold Congress. And that's what makes it all so pathetic."
Finally, Drudge always manages to find the weirdest news item of the day, often from the Daily Mail :
"A mother of six was jailed for seven years today for turning her sister-in-law into a domestic slave.
"Antonia Pearson-Gaballonie, 35, kept Veronica Sandeman, now 26, as a slave, assaulted her, forced her to work naked and made her beg for food over a number of years, York Crown Court heard."
And that's the naked truth.
I'm just glad that I get to vote against Conrad Burns here in Montana. There is also a local initiative to make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement. It probably won't make a bit of difference in terms of police attitude towards pot around here, but I will probably vote for it because of the social message it sends to the feds (i.e. stop wasting our time and money on a war against pot).
i voted a few hours ago. I split b/w libertarian(state congress) and Democrat(Congresspersons for DC seats)
I hate the CT Senate race, there simply is no good choice.
sorry to hear that.
I would write in Aug
I'm going to vote now. In Michigan, we have a Democratic governor and US senator trying to retain their seats against tough opponents. What's more interesting here are the local political races. There are some scary Republicans on county boards and running for judge.
I voted, and I have the sticker to prove it! :-D Hope everyone voted today! It's our right! :beers:
+1 Karma for all the voters. :-D
Quote from: cleech74 on November 07, 2006, 04:47:10 PM
I voted, and I have the sticker to prove it! :-D Hope everyone voted today! It's our right! :beers:
Yup, me too, voted this morning.
Leech, on a local note, what do you think about the race for governor? I think its gonna be a barn burner, way too close to call right now. Both Candidates make good arguments, although I have not enjoyed all of the dirty ads that completely trash one another, but thats the way it goes. Did you catch any of the debates?
I voted two days ago, here in Oregon we don't even have any polls anymore it's all by mail (or drop off), which I think is the best way to protect against fraud.
I even voted to increase my property taxes so someone else's brats can get educated, man being a selfless liberal is tough sometimes! :wink:
I voted by absentee.
VERY confident in picking the winners.
Have the Republicans lost yet?
Quote from: ikki on November 07, 2006, 05:09:55 PM
I voted two days ago, here in Oregon we don't even have any polls anymore it's all by mail (or drop off), which I think is the best way to protect against fraud.
I even voted to increase my property taxes so someone else's brats can get educated, man being a selfless liberal is tough sometimes! :wink:
I would of done the same, education is a big issue to me.
i think i'd vote for higher taxes in return for specific programs just about every time.
Quote from: phan003 on November 07, 2006, 06:17:09 PM
Quote from: ikki on November 07, 2006, 05:09:55 PM
I voted two days ago, here in Oregon we don't even have any polls anymore it's all by mail (or drop off), which I think is the best way to protect against fraud.
I even voted to increase my property taxes so someone else's brats can get educated, man being a selfless liberal is tough sometimes! :wink:
I would of done the same, education is a big issue to me.
Karma to you both of you.
Always invest in the next generation, the alternative is unthinkable. :beers: :clap:
Quote from: cleech74 on November 07, 2006, 04:47:54 PM
+1 Karma for all the voters. :-D
Right back at you. Probably the most important thing I did today.
I votated.
I voted against George Allen because he's a tool.
I voted against Joanne Davis because she's evil too.
And I votated against the marriage amendment because I hate god and his holy sacred bond between one man and one woman :roll:
Quote from: antelope19 on November 07, 2006, 04:51:45 PM
Quote from: cleech74 on November 07, 2006, 04:47:10 PM
I voted, and I have the sticker to prove it! :-D Hope everyone voted today! It's our right! :beers:
Yup, me too, voted this morning. Leech, on a local note, what do you think about the race for governor? I think its gonna be a barn burner, way too close to call right now. Both Candidates make good arguments, although I have not enjoyed all of the dirty ads that completely trash one another, but thats the way it goes. Did you catch any of the debates?
We will not know tomorrow. I see lawsuits. It has been a dirty road. Tell me what you stand for! Don't air the laundry of the other candidate. Let's not make this the State that everyone loves to move away from. It's really nice here. :-P
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 07, 2006, 06:51:56 PM
And I votated against the marriage amendment because I hate god and his holy sacred bond between one man and one woman :roll:
unfortunately it looks like it passed... i'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!) but i really hate whatever impulse exists within people to want to see people that aren't like themselves deprived of basic rights. it happens way too often in this world. it comes in many forms.. race, gender, religion, political affiliation, wardrobe, accent, sexual preference, etc. and it's always an ugly thing.
Quote from: bacchist on November 07, 2006, 07:49:06 PM
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 07, 2006, 06:51:56 PM
And I votated against the marriage amendment because I hate god and his holy sacred bond between one man and one woman :roll:
unfortunately it looks like it passed... i'm not gay (not that there's anything wrong with that!) but i really hate whatever impulse exists within people to want to see people that aren't like themselves deprived of basic rights. it happens way too often in this world. it comes in many forms.. race, gender, religion, political affiliation, wardrobe, accent, sexual preference, etc. and it's always an ugly thing.
Word. I was upset when I saw it passed. I really dont understand the support for the admendment.
It's establishment of religion in my book; therefore unconstitutional.
Athiests don't give a fuck about who marries who.
i voted...
Yeah, like Ikki we got to vote from home here in Oregon....SO much better than waiting in line in NYC to go behind a curtain and be pressured with a big line and stuff. It's great, because you can take your time with the ballot, and read about what measures you're voting on, or the people you're voting for. Than you just drop it off at the library or a ton of other places....If they did that in more places I think more people would vote....
so we're looking at 5 states that are tossups.
the dems need 3 of them to take the senate...
Quote from: caravan2001 on November 07, 2006, 09:58:12 PM
Yeah, like Ikki we got to vote from home here in Oregon....SO much better than waiting in line in NYC to go behind a curtain and be pressured with a big line and stuff. It's great, because you can take your time with the ballot, and read about what measures you're voting on, or the people you're voting for. Than you just drop it off at the library or a ton of other places....If they did that in more places I think more people would vote....
Yeah and not to mention that you can't discriminate against voters based on what district they come from (at least not as easily as some other states), since all the votes end up going to the same place.
Edit: And by district, I mean
precinct
I didn't vote... These people are all losers. The pubs take it for a while, people don't like how it goes, the dems take it for a while, people don't like how it goes, it's like a big back and forth. They're all idiots.
I want another dude with some similarities to Reagan. Just a guy with no need for money that you can be confident that he/she's doing what they believe is best for the people and not their own re-election or gain. Sure, I want to be aligned with their beliefs, but it's much easier to back someone that you can trust.
Maybe it's the beer.
J
hell ya...the demo's control the house...
obama fer pres? ('08) :-o
man, the crowds at the polls were unreal. We waited on line 30 minutes. Last time I had to wait almost that long was a presidential, but I think this was longer. I must say, I was kinda psyched it was that crowded.
Psyched about the Dems taking the house. :-)
Man, I was hoping that George Allen would get his ass kicked. :-(
Quotehell ya...the demo's control the house...
And that matters? Earlier in this thread there was talk of no gay marriage and shit. The dems aren't going to change that. How can anyone be happy about a political party gaining momentum/power. I'd like to see a bigger list of (ind) out there. I'm not really a green party type guy, but I'm definitely not a dem and I hate the social policies of the repubs. I hate every aspect of this crap. If they televised more debates instead of survivor guantanamera or the girl next door, I think people would have a basis for voting with some intelligence over voting for a party possibly based on the absolutely horrible ads that the candidates and their fanboys put out. it's ludicrous. I watch a little TV and I'm amazed that I wasn't fed a bit of reasonable data to make decisions on. You actually have to try to search data out on a candidate, it's not right there for you.
I'm not happy that more people voted, I'm dissapointed. Based on what I saw on TV, I'd bet that most voters were voting for a party, and were misinformed in doing so.
Oh well. I'll bet you all that I don't feel one bit of difference...
J
first: 'the dude abides'....i absolutly love that movie 8-)
second; of course one should vote on the the issues rather than the party. that seems to be a moot point. however, would i prefer to vote indie, or green, or liber = yes
alas, do i want my vote to actually count, um ya...thus i vote more along the lines of dems...
QuoteAnd that matters? Earlier in this thread there was talk of no gay marriage and shit. The dems aren't going to change that. How can anyone be happy about a political party gaining momentum/power. I'd like to see a bigger list of (ind) out there. I'm not really a green party type guy, but I'm definitely not a dem and I hate the social policies of the repubs. I hate every aspect of this crap. If they televised more debates instead of survivor guantanamera or the girl next door, I think people would have a basis for voting with some intelligence over voting for a party possibly based on the absolutely horrible ads that the candidates and their fanboys put out. it's ludicrous. I watch a little TV and I'm amazed that I wasn't fed a bit of reasonable data to make decisions on. You actually have to try to search data out on a candidate, it's not right there for you.
I'm not happy that more people voted, I'm dissapointed. Based on what I saw on TV, I'd bet that most voters were voting for a party, and were misinformed in doing so.
Oh well. I'll bet you all that I don't feel one bit of difference...
J
change happens slowly. it will probably be years before gays are better accepted, but gay marriage wouldn't even have been thought of 10 years ago. welfare reform, prescription drug assistance, etc are all imperfect as they are, but they all took time. IMO having the dems run the House won't result in any major changes overnight, but will change the direction of many things.
It would be great if more indies would get in. Just them being there helps change the tenor of a race-they are the ones who commit to issues and force the big boys to actually comment and commit to anything.
the media covers elections more like a sporting event than the true issues. that said, we had about 5 debates sponsored by local media for governor. they were real debates too, with shouting, arguing, etc. you're right jephrey, you do have to search info out, but it's there.
bottom line is that us voters are all there is (with the possible exception of the press) to keep these guys fairly honest. it's not perfect, but it beats whatever else is out there.
Quote from: rowjimmy on November 07, 2006, 10:01:53 PM
so we're looking at 5 states that are tossups.
the dems need 3 of them to take the senate...
So far, John Tester is beating Conrad Burns here in Montana. I work at the Union Club in Missoula. This is the democratic meeting place for every election in Missoula. Spirits were very high (and I got my ass kicked behind the grill). Earlier today my wife and I waited in line for almost two hours only to have my wife be turned away after finding out that the DMV didn't change her voter registration to reflect her married name. They did allow her to the front of the line after she returned with an old ID.
Funny...No one asked me for any ID when I voted. Nor any of those around me. I could cleary read names and addresses on the voter sheet while I was approaching the table. With all the talk of stopping fraud and vote tampering, this was not an encouraging sight. I went early so there were no crowds, there is no reason they couldnt have made an effort.
I look forward to watching our new governor, Deval Patrick, lead Massachusetts towards a brighter future. My kids are in classes with 30+ kids at this point, the state of our education system is pathetic. Ive got my fingers crossed....
Quote from: birdman on November 08, 2006, 06:48:22 AM
Funny...No one asked me for any ID when I voted. Nor any of those around me. I could cleary read names and addresses on the voter sheet while I was approaching the table. With all the talk of stopping fraud and vote tampering, this was not an encouraging sight. I went early so there were no crowds, there is no reason they couldnt have made an effort.
I look forward to watching our new governor, Deval Patrick, lead Massachusetts towards a brighter future. My kids are in classes with 30+ kids at this point, the state of our education system is pathetic. Ive got my fingers crossed....
I was listening to the Ed Norris Show yesterday, and heard this. Apparantly, the election officials can't ask for ID. Not sure why, maybe it's some weird law. I've never even been asked to show my voter registration card. They did ask me my age, but that was the only verification. It does seem that this could easily lead to voter fraud, almost to the point that it probably already happens that way. :|
Anyone else(not in MD) get asked for ID when voting?
i got asked for both my license and voter card (I live in GA)
I guess my point is that the dems won't get a chance to make a change because we'll go back to the republicans before anything takes much root. It might be good that we keep going back and forth.
Here's my idea. Each network offers each candidate 1 commercial per hour... Any debate between candidates is run a couple times a day for a few days (as if there is actually importance in spreading the information).
In any case.
J
Debates are pointless now, pubs and dems avoid anwsering the questions asked, but rather focus on shit that occured 30 years ago. Politicans suck and are all spineless. I'll cite examples on both sides, first we'll start with the dems, the campaign slogan which I noticed last night was "a new dircetion for America."
however the DNC home page mentions nothing about a new direction or what that direction should be for Americans.
http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html (http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html)
The dems have been pushing Iraq for quite a while, but make no mention of their solution (we know they want to pull out but no specifics exist as to how they would do this).
As for the pubs, we have been hearing "stay the course" for quite some time, but what the fuck is the course? does this mean Iraq? the fight against Islamic Jihadits? Are we going to keep looking for Bin Laden? Is Iran part of the course? This is dangerous to me, to leave the definition of course undefined and open for manipulation.
http://www.gop.com/Issues/SafetyAndSecurity/ (http://www.gop.com/Issues/SafetyAndSecurity/)
I woke up this morning not knowing what to think, I know this much, we needed change, but is this the right change?
Checks and balances are essential part of our government and anyway you look at it, their restoration is a good thing.
Do I think that the country is guaranteed to pull out of the shit creek we are going down, hell no. I am more hopeful today than I was yesterday, hell yes!
Really the dems need to grow spines and impeach the war criminals sitting in the White House, but I won't hold my breath, and instead I'll settle for some oversight.
Anyway, at least gridlock is good for the economy! (80's, 94-2000)
The next two years are going to decide who becomes president in '08, and if the Democrats have any hope to take the White House, they need to have a few hearings and make examples of some of the wrong doings of the Bush White House, but not spend the next 24 months slinging mud. The party is not strong enough to pull off a bitchy stance, yet promise good things should we hand them the White House.
I see Obama as being the kind of candidate the democrats can look to, to unite the parties, much like Reagan did. Not a Reagan fan, but it can't be denied, he united a lot of non-unitables.
transcript from Limbaugh Talk Show
QuoteNow, I mentioned to you at the conclusion of the previous hour that people have been asking me how I feel all night long. I got, "Boy, Rush, I wouldn't want to be you tomorrow! Boy, I wouldn't want to have to do your show! Oh-ho. I'm so glad I'm not you." Well, folks, I love being me. (I can't be anybody else, so I'm stuck with it.) The way I feel is this: I feel liberated, and I'm going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, "Well, why have you been doing it?" Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country's than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.
I believe my side is worthy of victory, and I believe it's much easier to reform things that are going wrong on my side from a position of strength. Now I'm liberated from having to constantly come in here every day and try to buck up a bunch of people who don't deserve it, to try to carry the water and make excuses for people who don't deserve it. I did not want to sit here and participate, willingly, in the victory of the libs, in the victory of the Democrat Party by sabotaging my own. But now with what has happened yesterday and today, it is an entirely liberating thing. If those in our party who are going to carry the day in the future -- both in Congress and the administration -- are going to choose a different path than what most of us believe, then that's liberating. I don't say this with any animosity about anybody, and I don't mean to make this too personal.
thoughts on this?
It's limbaugh. He's freed from having to defend some of the idiot republicans, now he can get to ripping up democrats for everything.
J
yep
also, it's easier to be the opposition than the leaders.
Now, the Dems have to actually come up with good ideas that work. Saying the other guys suck won't hold water for them anymore.
Rush had his popularity at it's highest during Clinton's first 2 years, and helped sweep in the Newt clones in '94, is it no wonder his popularity has declined since then. It's easy for the minority to bitch, than the majority to get things done. I'm sure he'll have a TV show again, just in time for '08. His ratings would do better if he "helped" usher in a Democrat into the White House, THEN piss and moan about what's wrong with government and America today.
i just thought it was weird that he turned on the pubs so quickly. Th lines I highlighted don't sound like him to me.
Burns just conceded to Tester. Now both of Montana's senators are Dems. Hopefully all this change will bring about a positive turn in events. It still remains to be seen. At least Bush might have to answer to someone now, if the Dems don't just roll over again.
Edit: Montana is usually a red state. The fact that we now have two dem senators and a dem gov. says something to me.
Allen is going to concede to Webb today :-D
Way to go America! :clap:
Wow, Limbaugh admits he's a schill for Repubs, I have so much more respect for him now. :roll:
:lol:
Rick Santorum's family looks CRAZY!
(http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/santorum.jpg)
Rick Santorum is a louse and good riddance to him.
http://www.dumpsantorum.com/
The real question is: what do you do with Santorum*, once you decide to get rid of it?
k_b
* Definition: http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ (http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/)
Santorum is among the top scumbags to get dumped, glad my friends in PA helped vote that dickbag out... as for the sweep, way to go USA!! i voted absentee so i was glad to see this election produce such turnout. in the UK, the midterms were THE top story the last 3 days... amazing!! the rest of the world is apparently pretty happy about this, but now they want to see results, which won't come with the "bipartisan" Bush in office.
Quote from: mattstick on November 09, 2006, 04:57:16 PM
Rick Santorum's family looks CRAZY!
(http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/Image/santorum.jpg)
anywhere i stand that kid keeps on staring at me...