November 08, 2006
What It Means

12:40 am Update: Based on the tone taken in a number of comments from liberal (aka Republican hater) readers in various recent posts, they have not grasped the point that Democrats captured Congress because people are disgruntled about Iraq. They did not capture Congress because voters writ large share the venom the far left holds for Republicans and all things conservative. Learn that lesson or your own party's stay in power will be exceedingly brief. I suspect we'll be revisiting this theme quite a bit in the coming months as both parties, including the President, will have to reach across the aisle to get legislation passed.

****

[Original post 10:54 pm]

Much more will be said in coming days about the Election and its meaning. In a short snapshot, however, let me capture quickly the challenge facing Democrats. They just won an election, largely without an agenda other than saying they didn't like President Bush and they weren't Republicans.

They will be sadly mistaken if they interpret that as some sort of sweeping endorsement of the policy solutions many Democrats espouse (at least domestically, don't ask me what they believe specifically on foreign policy - other than Bush's policies are bad - because no one seems to know). They also will face the contrasting challenge of a majority created by victories from conservative Democrats, but lead by old-school liberal chairmen, at the same time that the netroots and other components of the base will be demanding fealty to the liberal extremes they hold dear. That's a tough challenge, with a Presidential veto pen and the hurdle of a closely divided, idelogically diverse Senate to maneuver legislation through.

Pull up a chair. That all might be very interesting. To boot, conservatives are always able find solace in a government not able to act in activist fashion. Problem solved there. Gridlock has arrived.

Posted by Eric Earling at November 08, 2006 12:40 AM | Email This
Comments
1. Just as the Bestest President EVER, Bill )and Hillary) Clinton declared a mandate from the people after winning less than half the popular vote in '92, so to will the new Democratic majority declare a mandate to play kissy face with terrorists and other lowlifes trying to kill us, tax everyone whose primary income doesn't involve standing on an offramp with a sign and a paper cup, and compete with various and sundry European nations to see who can cave in to Islamic terror first and most abjectly. And this time it is all George Bush's fault. Christian charity doesn't work with atheists, G. You needed to be putting the smack down early and often. Now I hope you dust off that veto pen.

Posted by: JW on November 7, 2006 11:22 PM
2. eric:

nice 72 hour GOTV. "you did a hellua job ken!"

are you going to sift through your previous posts to determine the relevancy (accuracy?) of what you write.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 12:08 AM
3. really, i think soundpolitics really wants to know what alpha and amused think...please tell us how it is....

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 12:11 AM
4. Eric:

Thanks for "capture{ing} quickly the challenge facing Democrats". Or, as you are want to call them, the "Democrat Party". I think that the Democrats may be able to soldier on without your incredibly sage analysis. You didn't exactly manage to read the tea leaves with much accuracy in this election did you?

The problem is that you don't live in a reality based world. You live in an echo chamber populated by great intellects like your friend "JW" (#1, above).

What you have failed to grasp regarding politics in western Washington (i.e. Sound Politics) is that all the liberal democrats you so despise make up a majority of the electorate. Even scarier, they are well educated and have a lot of money. They own most of the property. They don't mind paying taxes. They don't hate America. They don't hate gay people. They don't love terrorists. They believe in social justice. They aren't afraid of the government (because they control the government). They are not influenced by the politics of fear (fear of terrorists, fear of illegals, fear of taxes).

Here is your main problem: The vast majority of wealth in this state is generated by these people,and the vast majority of taxes is paid by them. Without the taxes generated on the west side of the state and redistributed statewide, all of those tax-hating counties east of the mountains would resemble something like the Republican Utopia of Mississippi.

You can't win a state wide election without winning Seattle and King County (actually it is hypothetically possible, but barely). So instead of wasting all of your time bashing Seattle and King County residents (collectively refered to as Seattle liberals), perhaps you should figure out some way to appeal to them. You might try reason and rational discourse.

There is actually a lot of appeal to old line Republican conservatism (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) among well educated upper middle class Seattle Democrats. Remember: we are the ones paying all of the taxes. But, estate taxes? McGavick? Reichert? Is that really the best you can do?

Posted by: Common Tater on November 8, 2006 01:20 AM
5. Eric:

Thanks for "capture{ing} quickly the challenge facing Democrats". Or, as you are want to call them, the "Democrat Party". I think that the Democrats may be able to soldier on without your incredibly sage analysis. You didn't exactly manage to read the tea leaves with much accuracy in this election did you?

The problem is that you don't live in a reality based world. You live in an echo chamber populated by great intellects like your friend "JW" (#1, above).

What you have failed to grasp regarding politics in western Washington (i.e. Sound Politics) is that all the liberal democrats you so despise make up a majority of the electorate. Even scarier, they are well educated and have a lot of money. They own most of the property. They don't mind paying taxes. They don't hate America. They don't hate gay people. They don't love terrorists. They believe in social justice. They aren't afraid of the government (because they control the government). They are not influenced by the politics of fear (fear of terrorists, fear of illegals, fear of taxes).

Here is your main problem: The vast majority of wealth in this state is generated by these people,and the vast majority of taxes is paid by them. Without the taxes generated on the west side of the state and redistributed statewide, all of those tax-hating counties east of the mountains would resemble something like the Republican Utopia of Mississippi.

You can't win a state wide election without winning Seattle and King County (actually it is hypothetically possible, but barely). So instead of wasting all of your time bashing Seattle and King County residents (collectively refered to as Seattle liberals), perhaps you should figure out some way to appeal to them. You might try reason and rational discourse.

There is actually a lot of appeal to old line Republican conservatism (socially liberal, fiscally conservative) among well educated upper middle class Seattle Democrats. Remember: we are the ones paying all of the taxes. But, estate taxes? McGavick? Reichert? Is that really the best you can do?

Posted by: Common Tater on November 8, 2006 01:21 AM
6. Common Tater, McGavick would have been a very capable senator and certainly almost guaranteed to be rated much higher than 99th in effectiveness like Maria Cantwell. Is 99th the kind of clout you were hoping for? I guarantee you that slade Gorton even in a minority party in the Senate had more clout than that.
And Reichert is classy compared to Burner--who was dinged by papers for running a mean-spirited campaign. I'm proud to have him as my congresperson; Burner didn't have much to recommend her except that she let us all know that she hated President Bush. That's NOT a qualification. It would have been nice to hear her express even half that disdain for actual terrorists. But she never did.
Maybe if she had cared to vote more often in the recent past. maybe if she hadn't padded her resume and had any actual public service people could take her more seriously. Her supporters were so mean-spirited that they laughed about the green River killer. this girl was bad news. Reichert outclasses her by a mile.

Posted by: Michele on November 8, 2006 01:43 AM
7. hello taxes, goodbye property rights, hello prayer rug & welcome illegal aliens. i guess the head-in-sand political strategy is effective.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 8, 2006 02:03 AM
8. Michelle Malkin reports that a polling place in Philadelphia: ..."individuals have poured white-out into the polling books and the pollworkers are allowing voters to go into the polls without first registering. Several individuals are on hand demanding that voters vote straight democrat."

C'mon , people. that is disgraceful and ought not be allowed to stand. Where is the democrat condemnation of this? It's said that dem-heavy Philly has huge vote fraud that is always a tough one to overcome for republicans.

Posted by: Michele on November 8, 2006 02:15 AM
9. libs & Dems will no doubt say 'sour grapes' same as if elections conditions were reversed. understandable.

but 'change for its own sake' or 'anybody but X' will be a disaster if libs think that's the way to fight terror. you can bet the terrorists are watching this closely. after all, they want more rights here. or at least, more sympathetic elected officials here.

i wonder if conservatives will now launch perpetual investigations and hearings as libs do after elections. watch closely, folks!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 8, 2006 02:40 AM
10. Oh, good! Sound Politics is back for Mozilla users.
Even with Tater, who is too stupid to fear Mohammedan murders and can't seem to stand to see people in this country have individual rights. Civil rights are what the leftists will allow and prison or death to dissenters.

Posted by: JB on November 8, 2006 02:44 AM
11. I agree, Dems need to get additional planks in their platform, beyond simply hating Bush. If Bush-hatred is all the Dems have to offer, and all the grand talk about Real Change that's best for America turns out to be hot air, the public will be kicking Dems out the door in 2008 and 2012. Gloat all you want, this isn't a basketball game or football game. The work doesn't end when the final score is in. The work begins!

Posted by: Sub-Odeon on November 8, 2006 03:53 AM
12. The Republican Party did not lose because of Iraq. Nor did it lose because of voter opposition to ocnservative ideas. It lost because the party is in the hands of incompetents and extremists:

1. Iraq .. the worst mishandling of a war in American history
2. stem cells ... domination of a simle issue by a fringe
3. global warming ... should NEVER be a politcal issue
4. taxes ... our tax system is penalizing the middle class
5. health care ... an open decret is the system verges on collapse, calling this system "capitalism" does nothing to hide the problems
6. fences ... about as relevant to solving the border issues as new uniforms for the border guards.
7. gay marriage ... a stupid issue. Gays don't need marriage they need what the public overwhelmingly agrees to .. contractual rights to select one person as a legal mate. No big deal.
8. education ... SHOULD be Republican high ground, isn't because most of the issues require money and you can't oppose evolution and support education.

Posted by: SeattleJew on November 8, 2006 05:17 AM
13. This has been a very interesting election evening. The Dems ran on a platform of the Iraq war and that we need to hand over the controls to the Iraq people and get our troops home. Now I am hearing them say that we cannot just leave we need to have dialog with those factions in Iraq. We need to bring them together to solve the problems. We need to hold the Dems to this promise and continue to ask when when are you going to live up to this promise of getting out of Iraq and bring our troops home. We as a nation need to make sure that they live up to that promise or they are no better then the Republicans and just a party of Bush haters and want to make life as miserable as they can for him. We have 730 days to the next election. We need to continue to asking them how they are doing on thier Iraq position.

Posted by: s bouma on November 8, 2006 05:24 AM
14. Synopsis:

Yesterdays Big Winners:

Islam. The House leadership is already checking with France and Spain to see if there's room under the bed.

Illegals: Swarming to an emergency room, university and voting booth near you!

Sodomites: You may kiss the groom!

The Indolent: Yes....and it's all free!

North Korea, Iran, etc.: "Peace" treaty, anyone? Jimmy Carter's on the way!

Residents of Club Gitmo: You'll be back at the old bomb factory in 30 days or my name's not Johnny Cochran!


Yesterdays Big Losers:

Defenders of America: How about Florida, Osama? And we'll even throw in Texas... New York? No, Hillary would have a hissy fit.

Peace Loving Citizens of Iraq: Check with France....I heard they had an army.

The Unborn: A national disgrace...30+ million and counting

Taxpayers: Honey! Nancy Pelosi's here for you! Something about your wallet.......?

Property Rights Advocates: Don't be silly...I'm sure we sent that letter explaining why we need your living room for an off-ramp!

And don't forget, America.....YOU voted for it!

Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2006 06:05 AM
15. Does this mean our troops are coming home at Christmas?

Wasn't this election all about the War?

I think alot of voters are expecting them home SOON. This is just one of the promises the Democrats better act on or 2008 might be tuff.

Posted by: chris on November 8, 2006 06:32 AM
16. Posted by: Common Tater on November 8, 2006 01:20 AM...

Eric, did you post that? It really reinforces your point...

Posted by: South County on November 8, 2006 06:48 AM
17. Duh! The Republicans lost because of Bush's Vietnam. Every poll for the last year has indicated very few were happy with Iraq. Yesterday's victory by the Democrats was a forgone conclusion.
Republicans deserved to lose because of their head in the sand reaction to the public's unhappiness with the war.

Oh by the way Jimmie-howya-doin, Bush was at the forefront of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

Posted by: M&M on November 8, 2006 07:06 AM
18. It's a relief that at least we won't have to listen for the next two years to the Dems whine about how this election was stolen from them. Too bad they're already showing themselves to be lousy winners.

Posted by: Raoul Ortrega on November 8, 2006 07:07 AM
19. The funny thing is, a lot of the new Dems that were elected are pretty conservative. Do the Dem masses even realize this yet?

But yes, lets watch the Dems act like idiots for the next two years instead of getting anything done; its what they were born to do.

And Nancy Pelosi is their ring leader... God, help us all.

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 07:30 AM
20. Big winner is binLaden. He has proven that Americans are weak.

Pelosi is saying they are going to govern by getting along rather than partisanship. She has sent memos to whackjobs like McDermott to tone down the rhetoric.

I give the love fest to last till Thanksgiving at the latest. Then back to politics as usual.

I am scared of Bush. He is reaching out to the other side. I hope it is nicey talk, because when the Bushs' get along with the other party- i.e. spending for the last six years bad things happen for his own party. I hope the gloves never get put on, much less get taken off in the near future.

Posted by: swatter on November 8, 2006 07:31 AM
21. Well, not as bad as I expected (assuming the senate stays with the R's), but it still hurts.

In some ways, I am happy - it had to happen. Maybe we'll see the right get back to responsible spending and maybe getting serious about illegal immigration.

I think the religious extreme side of the party was what led to the eventual downfall. Hopefully, we'll focus on things that all americans believe in rather than sideshows like Terri Shaivo.

The only solace I can take is that the dems will do absolutely nothing positive, so I think their lead in the house will be short lived. Disagree? Take a look at the state of our state - it's been run by the D's forever and it is a mess. The only thing they ran on was they were the anti-Bush. That's fine, and probably why they won. Now they actually need to do something. Not likely.

Posted by: Eric on November 8, 2006 07:36 AM
22. I think Republicans have spent too much time listening to their own rhetoric about Democrats and not enough listening to what Democrats have actually been saying, particularly regarding the war in Iraq. That's why Democrats have scored this overwhelming victory in the House, and stand poised to take over the Senate.

So, the real question isn't whether or not Democrats are going to live up to the Republican caricature. Rather, the real question is whether or not Republicans are going to actually start listening to voices outside their own echo chamber.

Posted by: Don Joe on November 8, 2006 07:45 AM
23. If anyone still doubts the power of the old media, you've just been slapped, and slapped hard.

Democrats didn't win because of any plan or agenda yesterday. They won because the MSM convinced a majority that everything is bad and Republicans had to go. Whether their polls or their direct assaults, such as CNN's "Broken Government" series, how can people who don't spend their days sorting through all this really be expected to know what is going on?

When my taxes go up, our security is weakened, necessary reforms to Social Security and Medicare are tabled, and our focus turns to wrongheaded social matters like gay rights and affirmative action, I will not blame the Democrats, because that is their nature. I will blame the MSM.

If the old media is broken, the Democrats hold on power will follow. Until then, Republicans will simply have to accept that with power will come distortion of the truth that will turn voters against them.

Posted by: MJC on November 8, 2006 07:49 AM
24. Did we kick a little butt or what?

Posted by: Mike Barer on November 8, 2006 07:51 AM
25. Among other things, I fear this election nightmare will make it more difficult to rid WA of the illegitimate Queen.


Among other things, my hope is that Pelosi, et al will continue to BE Pelosi. et al.

America is about to get a very painful, 2 year long slap in the face.


Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 8, 2006 08:01 AM
26. All I can say to my dear friends at SP after watching the election results in WA, which I spent a lot of my time and money to make happen, is this:

If any of you think this was not a "vote against conservatism," well, that's what I want you to go on thinking.

Posted by: ivan on November 8, 2006 08:04 AM
28. Ivan: It wasn't a "vote against conservatism". It was a vote against RHINOs. Big difference. Perhaps you should try "thinking" some time.

Posted by: Burdabee on November 8, 2006 08:22 AM
29. My question would be not what the vote was against but what it was a vote for. Time will tell.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 08:25 AM
30. Well, Ivan, down here in Clark County, only 42% of eligible voters voted. Doesn't sound like much of a vote against anything, except maybe a vote for apathy. Do you expect the same to be true in the 2008 a presidential election, especially when Clark County broadly voted conservative (Bush and Rossi) in 2004?

I actually consider a MSM-ocrat controlled House to be a win-win for Republicans, and I'm not talking about "moral victories" here. Consider with me, if you will:

The MSM-ocrats, now in control of the House, make good on their threats of withdrawing from Iraq (forced by cutting funding or however they wish to accomplish this). The American troops come home in disgrace and the American military is taunted and ridiculed by the American media, global media, Islamic terrorists, and the moonbats here and aborad. That's a win for Republicans in 2008 when the American electorate wakes up to that reality.

Or how about the (unthinkable) opposite? The MSM-ocrats actually reveal that they are now for American success in Iraq and the Middle East, and enough Democrats support the war that the troops are not withdrawn and funding is not cut? Well, the media and moonbats will go wild with rage at their betrayal! The moonbats will realize that they were duped and used by the MSM-ocrats for the sole purpose of acquiring power and then kicked to the curb. That's a win for Republicans in 2008 as the moonbat "masses" defect from the MSM-ocrats and either become disillusioned and note vote or flock en masse to third party candidates, sucking votes away from the MSM-ocrats.

Also, this election could've happened to a first-term Republican president, which could have stalemated much of his presidency, making him less effective and making re-election more difficult. As it is, it is in the last two years of an eight year presidency, in which the Republicans have enjoyed a majority for the majority of those eight years. Come 2008, if the Democrats are still running against President Bush, the voters will yawn and move toward the Republican candidate. This means a win for the Republicans in 2008.

I certainly don't hope for the disgrace of our military men and women. I hope they are able to eventually return with the honor they deserve. But I don't think the scenarios I've laid out above are all that bad for Republicans, and I think it portends a successful 2008 election year as the electorate gets a two-year dose of a Democrat-controlled House and governmental gridlock. I think we're likely to start seeing a lot of vetos from President Bush and that doesn't indicate a lame duck at all.

This next two years will be fun.

Posted by: clarkcountyconservative on November 8, 2006 08:27 AM
31. Out of all the defeats, 933 is going to screw the little guy the most. This is a license for government to take whatever they want- nothing is stopping them.

Watch- a lot of land owners are going to start logging big time- because those are the next rights to be taken.

Posted by: Andy on November 8, 2006 08:31 AM
32. Relax Ragnar. The market just had 2 nice up days. Sure the market doesn't like the dems but they haven't done anything yet and probably won't be able to do any real damage. The market will be fine.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 08:33 AM
33. Yes, the best thing to do now is to lose the war (In Iraq?) No, the war.

Eric you are a dolt!

Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 08:44 AM
34. Bill Cruchon: Bingo! Moderates who bought into the leftist MSM message and cast their votes AGAINST the war and against the president will soon realize who and what they voted FOR. These are not your father's democrats. Their leadership adores the system created by their European socialist cousins and will not stop until they take your money, guns, liberty and soul. This is all about POWER and CONTROL and democrats want to break you down and force you to depend, as Europeans do, on the socialist system to meet your needs

I believe they will restrain themselves for the next two years in the hope they capture the senate and the big prize, the presidency, in 2008. If that happens, America may never regain the freedoms we now enjoy.

Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2006 08:53 AM
35. Guys, here is my overall fear: the islamic fascists overseas have watched this election closely and have gotten their wish. The party they endorsed has won. Attacks will step up in Iraq and other places, putting more pressure on the dem controlled House to withdraw troops. While that debate rages on (I am sure a few lily livered Republocrats in the House will do the right thing and try to maintain troop funding) Al Qaida or any splinter group associated with them will hit us. It will eclipse 9-11. If you don't think that the southern border isn't a sieve, and that "OTMs" (Other Than Mexicans- as classified by the US Border Patrol) aren't coming across the border (who speak Arabic??), then you are sadly mistaken. Bin Laden is a bastard, but when he says that he wants to kill American men, women and children, we ought to listen. He has told us something worse than 9-11 is coming down the pike. Its been a lucky 5 years, but I think last night's election tolls are a harbinger for what is to come. I believe that the terrorists will be confident that Americans are weak and have no stomach for a fight, hence the election results. They will think now that we have given the dems a mandate to bring the troops home. And the prize? A carbon copy of the Taliban run Afghanistan; Iraq.

As far as the Repubs are concerned, I am disgusted with them as well. They acted like their balls were chopped off by nancy and placed in a mason jar for the last two years. No fire in their bellies. Get back to the core values: low taxes, a tough offense and defense, and CUT the size of the govt!!

Posted by: Secret Squirrel on November 8, 2006 08:53 AM
36. To the tune of The Coasters "Yakity Yak"

Break out the Burkas and the Beards
You freakin Christians are so weird
Kill that Jew under the rock over there
God's strappin America in the chair

Clackity, clack
An AK shoots back

Marxist-Leninism is all through
Public-Private partnership on the move
21st Century Fascism in disquise
Planning board development on the rise

Clackity clack
An AK shoots back

Gotta finish stockin' food
Potassium Iodine in the room
The sky rolls back just like a scroll
The pale horse gonna take his toll

Clackity clack
An AK shoots back

Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 08:57 AM
37. Actually, our tax system is penalizing everybody that makes more than $30K/year. When are people going to realize that the progressive tax schedule is immoral and unfair? It is little more than New Deal communism.

Posted by: H Moul on November 8, 2006 08:57 AM
38. Watch as the MSM now slowly starts to talk about how good the economy is doing after the Democrats pass some legislation like increasing the minimum wage. The news will get better and better as 2008 approaches, and the cause will not be Bush's tax cuts but whatever the Democrats manage to get through in the next two years.

Posted by: Palouse on November 8, 2006 09:03 AM
39. Now that the Republicans are out of power shouldn't this blog and its posters be flinging the F word helter skelter? Isn't that what one should do when one is in the minority?

Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 09:03 AM
40. Well the terrorists are celebrating today. I predict another terrorist attack on our soil that makes 911 look like a scratch.

Posted by: pbj on November 8, 2006 09:04 AM
41. bill @ 32: facts belie your assertion. the market has done better under dem administrations.

http://finance.yahoo.com/columnist/article/futureinvest/3022

the islamic terrorists got their wish when bush invaded iraq. perhaps now the u.s. govt will implement the 9-11 commission recommendations and otherwise get on with the business of govt. and security instead of lining their pockets, the pockets of their friends.

the republicans failed. voters recognized that. bush may actually have to pay attention to reality.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 09:07 AM
42. I am at this moment listening to speaker nancy pelosi talking about bringing a return of civility and partisanship to the House. WHAT? What have we been listening to for the last few years? I have never experienced anything like the foul, insulting, mud-slinging democrat attack against the President, Conservatives, and Republicans as they have accomplished since 2000. Now they're going to play nice?

Posted by: katomar on November 8, 2006 09:07 AM
43. Likely an attempt on the Prez and Veep's lives. Decapitation tactic with a combo nuke attack via our southern border to break the people's will.

Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 09:08 AM
44. Is this the same Pelosi who just recently said that 'keeping Bush in a lame duck position for the next two years' is her ideal situation?

SHE IS A HYPOCRIT .. but what's new?

She gave millions of dollars to people in the party to buy her Speaker seat.

Get ready for more gridlock.

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 09:09 AM
45. Katomar - I guess this means that DU, KOS, and Horse's Behind will stop using and allowing the F word, right?

Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 09:10 AM
46. You're kidding me, right?
A plea for mercy from Eric Earwig?

This is priceless. I'm saving this one.

Posted by: Had Enough Yet? on November 8, 2006 09:19 AM
47. katomar,

thats a sound bite for the evening news.

if you read the transcript of the 60 Minutes interview of Pelosi a few weeks ago, she isnt the nicey-nicey motherly type. even her kids say so.

she's a socialist thru and thru.

and while Bush is having lunch with Nancy, I hope he lets her know that they wont be getting anymore No Child Left Behind type legislation thru - he will veto it all.

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 09:20 AM
48. dinesh at #41 - "bill @ 32: facts belie your assertion. the market has done better under dem administrations."

dinesh, my point was that investors dislike having the democrats in power but that there was nothing to panic about. I made no mention of the market's historic performance. It might help you to read posts more carefully before responding.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 09:24 AM
49. I have donated money to them and voted for them over the years based upon promises they made. They continually failed to deliver on most of what they ran on, but I continued to support them over the alternative. However they have lost power and my feelings regarding their departure from the halls of power are "Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish," perhaps the next time there is a coalition of Republicans that runs on a conservative platform and wins they will deliver what they promised. I was skeptical, to say the least, that they would actually deliver. Looking back to say I am disappointed isn't exactly what my thoughts are, actually I never have trusted politicians to deliver on promises so I would say that this 12 year run they have had has done little more than galvanize my contempt for all politicians. This applies to the State Party as well as the National Party.

Posted by: JDH on November 8, 2006 09:28 AM
50. Apparently the market is not too happy about the outcome of the election. It is down already.

Posted by: obj on November 8, 2006 09:29 AM
51. bill: if the markets do better under dem administrations, what facts do you have to support your assertion that "investors dislike having the democrats in power."

it might be helpful if your assertions were supported by facts. you can't make stuff up and pass it off as true.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 09:35 AM
52. Taken from the Volokh Conspiracy blog: Good Reading for thoughtful Republicans--

"The duty of the losing party": There are better and worse ways to lose elections. This statement by Mike Pence (via Glenn & the Corner) seems to be among the better.

WASHINGTON, DC - U.S. Congressman Mike Pence released the following statement today on the GOP's midterm election loss:

Election day 2006 will be remembered as a turning point in American political history. Twenty-five years after the Reagan Administration came to Washington with a conservative agenda of limited government, the American people chose a different course.

It is the duty of the losing party in a free election to humbly accept defeat and to acknowledge that the people are sovereign in the People's House.

As we examine the results of this election, it is imperative that we listen to the American people and learn the right lessons.

Some will argue that we lost our majority because of scandals at home and challenges abroad. I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way.

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the greatest scandal in Washington, D.C. is runaway federal spending.

After 1994, we were a majority committed to balanced federal budgets, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of limited government. In recent years, our majority voted to expand the federal government's role in education, entitlements and pursued spending policies that created record deficits and national debt.

This was not in the Contract with America and Republican voters said, "enough is enough."

Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people didn't quit on the Contract with America, we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our party and millions of our most ardent supporters.

As the 110th Congress convenes next year, Republicans must cordially accept defeat and dedicate ourselves to advancing our cause as the loyal opposition knowing that the only way to retake our natural, governing majority, is to renew our commitment to limited government, national defense, traditional values and reform.

Posted by: John425 on November 8, 2006 09:36 AM
53. I heard yesterday that in a huge study of markets and the division of government that when ONE party holds presidency and congress, the market advances upwards of 27%. Under any division of government it only advanced 6%. I'm probably not stating the minutiae of it all correctly but the gist and the percentages are accurate.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 8, 2006 09:39 AM
54. rumsfeld is resigning. accountability for the iraq fiasco begins.

take note: your republican talking points on iraq and war on terror are going to change. big time.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 09:51 AM
55. rumsfeld is resigning. accountability for the iraq fiasco begins.

take note: your republican talking points on iraq and war on terror are going to change. big time.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 09:51 AM
56. Dinesh

Good, now for the Dem's first order of business is to bring the troops home NOW.

Or is it just investing/impeaching is what you plan to do.

The Dem's played a pretty good tune, now you better be able to sing it as well. All your supporters (cindy sheehan's) EXPECT IT.

Posted by: Chris on November 8, 2006 10:01 AM
57. chris: the republicans have pandered to fear and instilled paranoia in many of its supporters.

i don't know how many times pelosi needs to say it--impeachment is not the course required.

your call for democrat responsibility is quaint. had you demanded such accountability and responsibility from the republican leaders, perhaps 1) we wouldn't have the mess in iraq; 2) govt spending would not have been the worse ever; and 3) govt wouldn't be bloated.

but, yeah, i would like some investigations into where all of that money for iraq went. i'm sure some patriotic american businessmen made quite a pretty penny on some very friendly contracts. unfortunately, some of those profits may be illegally obtained, and if so, the guilty should pay.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 10:08 AM
58. The GOP lost because they had so much power they got punch drunk with it. They're not the 'Contract With America' GOP anymore, they're the borrow and spend GOP. There the party trying to pander to the 'Righteous Right' who must like any extreme group can't tolerate anyone else but themselves. The GOP became the party of corruption and fraud.

America appears to be a centrist country at this point in history (judging by the many close elections recently), the GOP swung to far right and now they have to sit back and wait for the Dem's to swing too far left.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 10:12 AM
59. dinesh at #51 - "bill: if the markets do better under dem administrations, what facts do you have to support your assertion that "investors dislike having the democrats in power."

it might be helpful if your assertions were supported by facts. you can't make stuff up and pass it off as true."

One more time, dinesh. I made no assertion that markets do better under either Republican or Democratic administrations. The current incarnation of the Democratic party is openly anti-corporate and investors are worried that they will over-regulate and over-tax and stifle economic growth. As a result the market is down today as investors digest the election results. These aren't your father's Democrats.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 10:13 AM
60. Rummy is stepping down, that's a start. You want to know why we're loosing in Iraq look no further than the man in charge.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 10:17 AM
61. so bill, it is your opinion that investors don't like dems in power and you do not have any facts to support that opinion.

as for raising taxes, remember that the president has to sign legislation in order to make it law.

unfortunately for the country, the republicans have spend trillions of dollars on the federal credit card, and someone is going to have to pay for that. hopefully economic growth will chip it away, but all that pork those fiscally irresponsible (and now unemployed) republicans gave away was expensive and their is a bill due.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 10:18 AM
62. I'm a little curious here. Whatever the wagon you are riding in - pulled by elephant or donkey and whatever chicken little fears of big bad government whether run by reds or blues is rampant - I assume the majority of the folks here are from the west coast, and the far west coast. That being said, if bias can be divorced momentarily from the partisanship engineered by K Street: what do you think on the fact that for the first time in history the House leadership is coming from a city on the Pacific? Not the east, south, or midwest who are generally clueless about the needs of the west.

Posted by: ben on November 8, 2006 10:19 AM
63. Note to "Steve" who keeps getting deleted in the comments. Your comments are not being junked because of their content today, a couple of them were actually somewhat thoughtful. Your comments are being junked as part of a permanent ban based on your past behavior at this site (including creating conversations with multiple aliases in the same thread to try and advance your point, as you've already tried once today). Both Stefan and I now delete your comments whenever we find them, regardless of their individual content.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 8, 2006 10:22 AM
64. OK denish & Co - now that the dems have the house are we finally going to hear their plan for Iraq - other than cut and run... sorry, redeploy our troops out of the war, handing the winners of this election (meaning Al Queda) a victory. We didn't hear this as part of the 'change' the dems were touting. In a matter of fact we didn't hear anything about how things are going to change. I guess we'll find out now. No, NO, 1,000 times NO is no longer a choice for their policy.

Posted by: Right said Fred on November 8, 2006 10:23 AM
65. Since your post was deleted there...I'll respond here..

In 1994 there was widespread dissatisfaction with Democrats who passed the largest tax increase in American history after campaigning that the middle class would get a tax cut. They lied and that was the backlash.

The only way conservatives will win here in WA is for a similar level of widespread dissatisfaction to happen again. In any regular year, running someone further to the right won't matter, they will lose just as McGavick, Esser and Nixon did.

The Democrats have plenty of rope in Olympia now. If they pass gay marriage and an income tax, that will be their one way ticket out the door in '08.

Posted by: Palouse on November 8, 2006 10:24 AM
66. dinesh at #62 "so bill, it is your opinion that investors don't like dems in power and you do not have any facts to support that opinion."

I concede the point dinesh, it is my opinion.

Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 10:25 AM
67. Is "Steve" also "Conservative Not Republican"? Sounds like alot of the same arguments.

Posted by: Palouse on November 8, 2006 10:29 AM
68. Palouse - Yes, same person.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 8, 2006 10:31 AM
69. We shouldn't be so depressed about the outcome. We now know how the libertarians must feel after EVERY election. Well, except for the part about being stoned until at least noon the day after.

Posted by: Schmeckle on November 8, 2006 10:40 AM
70. Re #64: the dems pursued an election strategy that tapped into the widespread dissatisfaction with bush and congressional republicans who 1) have consistently put their own interests in maintaining power over the interests of the people and 2) failed to speak honestly about the situation in iraq.

having won the election, the dems will be able to exercise their oversight power and hopefully force and honest, intelligent discussion between both parties about how to achieve success.

it appears that some republicans adhere to talking points that are woefully out of date. we are in trouble in iraq and a new direction is required. our troops may not be adequately equipped or properly positioned to maximize their likelihood of success. a new defense secretary is a good first step. the baker-hamilton commission will produce a bipartisan report assessing the situation and outlining approaches.

look, it is a basic concept: a competition of ideas is better than a single, unchallenged voice. congressional republicans demonstrated that they could not effectively exercise the needed oversight of the president. instead they were correctly labeled as a "rubber stamp."

hopefully the marketplace of ideas will produce a way to fix our govt's propensity to spend money and fix the mess that is iraq.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 10:41 AM
71. Dinesh,
Why are you here making all these petty little arguments about whether the market does better under Democrats or Republicans? Your assertion that "the market has done better under dem administrations." is irrelevant since we don't have a dem administration--what we have is a newly minted dem congress. If you are making your argument based on the Cinton "administration", you need to realize that the good things that happened economically in the 1990's did not start until after the Republican takeover of congress in 1994. Not the Clinton "administration".

The concern that most people I know have is the effect of this election on the war against the radical islamists. That is the important impact of this election. Whether we have a tiny little $300B deficit is like worrying that you might have stubbed your toe as you go over the cliff. The Dems don't seem to be serious about the overall war, and the terrorists were obviously rooting for the Dems to win. The Dems, especially those that are led by people like John Kerry, have a history of leaving our allies and advocating running away, ala the mess they made by forcing withdrawal from Viet Nam. This is NOT a fight we can just run away from.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 10:44 AM
72. Dinesh

You mean the Dem's dont have a plan yet? They are JUST NOW gonna TALK about it?

I thought the troops would be coming home now?

Are you saying they may not? That there is a chance that we will STAY in the WAR?

Posted by: Chris on November 8, 2006 10:44 AM
73. Iraq - yes. Corruption - definitely.

AND - the religious right and their agenda to reshape the country into a theocracy.

The abortion ban in SD failed. Embryonic stem cell research passed in Mo. Parental notification failed in CA and OR. Gay marriage ban failed in Arizona.

Be warned - Brian Schweitzer of Montana (sp?) is the new model of Western voter.

Posted by: shrike on November 8, 2006 10:45 AM
74. """ Hopefully, we'll focus on things that all americans believe in rather than sideshows like Terri Shaivo.""""
Sideshow---A decent person, who had parents,
and others willing to care for her, destroyed by
days of starvation, for no other reason than an
adulterous husband wanted to prove he could.
Democrats cheer for the husband.
Tookie Williams, (same basic time frame) convicted of murders, and sentenced to death.
Liberals protest death sentence to the very last.

Just one more reason why I will never vote
Democrat. I believe Terri Schiavo was a human being-Not a Sideshow.

Posted by: pagar on November 8, 2006 10:53 AM
75. I don't have time to play this game with "Steve" today of deleting his comments every 10 or 15 minutes, so let me just deal with this one.

Steve is delusional. Any reader of Sound Politics knows I supported Luke Esser, and disliked the campaign (and party choice) of Rodney Tom. Because, however, I did not immediately see and delete a smear against Luke written by one commenter in a thread about Esser's race (I don't have time to read all the comments when they come in), Steve jumps to conspiracy theories that I hate Esser, think bad things about him, and wished him poorly in the Election.

I know Luke personally, and have communicated with him recently actually. I, not crazy Steve, can vouch for what Esser does or does not think of me. Moreover, any reader of Sound Politics, regardless of personal idealogy, knows how likely I am to be plotting against Republicans as Steve, and the voices inside his head, would like to believe.

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 8, 2006 11:06 AM
76. Steve, who is CnR, go back to the hold you crawled out of. I know Eric and I know he is not a RINO or opposed to Esser.

Now, on to my main point: The Dems are the poorest winners I've ever seen. As I was driving home last night at 1am I switched over to AirAmerica to see what Randy Rhodes had to gloat about. Sure enough, she wasn't happy to be content with their victory. She had to bitch about vote fraud in "Khalifornia". (Gimme a break, Randy. Ahnold won by a landslide. Even if there had been vote fraud, which there probably was but on the D side, it wouldn't have affected the outcome).

Posted by: FullContactPolitics on November 8, 2006 11:08 AM
77. #71: if you read the series of posts, i challenged an assertion that "investors don't like dems in power" which was unsupported by any facts, and, actually is controverted by facts. investors, apparently, do like dems (at least when they have the presidency). obviously this is a superficial gloss over the many factors, but again, i was challenging what appears to be a false and unsubstatiated assertion of fact.

as for fighting terrorism, bush's approach thus far has failed and made the situation worse. your belief that dems are not willing to take on this fight is an out of date republican talking point. consider retiring it and instead recognize that congressional oversight by dems will require the president to be honest regarding the iraq situation and justify his actions.

rumsfeld is gone. he failed and he is out. none of his major predictions/assessments/assertions regarding iraq were accurate. he tried to win the war on the cheap, using private contractors and other oursourced functions. he lost the confidence of the military leadership, the people, and finally the president.

re#72. the dems have a plan, you just chose not to read those websites. re taxes, the dems will unlink the estate tax (which affects only the top 2% of the country) from the sales tax and tuition deduction.

see
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2006-11-08-house-tax-usat_x.htm

the dems have articulated a plan to reduce the deficit, achieve a balanced budget in 5 years and generally pay as you go approach to spending.

your partisan blinders prevent you from recognizing that the era of bitter, partisan ideology of the last 6 years is over. no more stupid discussions about the federal marriage amendment or gay marriage--those were just b.s. social wedge issues designed by rove to galvanize the base.

it turns out that most people are more concerned about iraq and the economy. in order to win, the dems (like clinton earlier) had to move to the center. ironically, the dems now represent the voice of fiscal moderation and restraint and accountability.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 11:09 AM
78. anyone asking about Pelosi's comfy connections with lobbyist family members who are also feeding from the govt trough? guess that's not fair game, eh? culture of corruption flows only one way? so called "Halliburtons" have no "D" cousins?

let's watch the D's police themselves NOW...and what was that quote again from Kerry's late Mom? "Integrity...integrity...integrity..."

and--M&M 17--i doubt Dems will do better on illegal immigration--it's one of many target voting bases. YOU sponsor the cost overruns in the counties caused by illegals--I'm tired of footing their bills.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 8, 2006 11:15 AM
79. what do you think on the fact that for the first time in history the House leadership is coming from a city on the Pacific? Not the east, south, or midwest who are generally clueless about the needs of the west. Posted by ben at November 8, 2006 10:19 AM

So you truly believe Pelosi and more importantly, San Francisco represent the needs of the west?

God help us all.

Posted by: Ragnar Danneskold on November 8, 2006 11:17 AM
80. Ragnar, Ive been saying that all day.

I think if the GOP doesnt get fired up to vote, we'll lose this country in 08.

They said the Dems just flat got out more voters than we did - and thats probably true. The Dems have been pissed off for six years, and they got fired up.

No matter that their ideas are all wrong for this country, they still got fired up and voted.

I still want to know what the outcome of Darcy and Dave is - and why its taking so damn long. The roads have been open and clear since early this morning.

What is the hold up?

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 11:26 AM
81. Dinesh,
I wish You would say something new rather than keep saying something you don't agree with is "an out of date republican talking point." Try something new for a change. I am not now, nor have I ever been a Republican. However, I am afraid the Dems are putting the country in grave danger and I blame them for a good part of the problems we have had in Iraq--having disagreements on policy is one thing, but constantly undermining the CinC during a time of war is unforgivable. Open your eyes--the issue is not just Iraq, it is IRAN. The Dems don't have a plan, they have a wish--leave Iraq and hope the terrorists will play nice. It's not going to work. One day when we are attacked again, maybe they will understand the threat we are under, but they will probably just try to blame Bush again--that is what they do best.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 11:26 AM
82. Ok King County, let's get busy taking land from all those rich King Co. Liberals with all that money and land they aren't afraid to lose. That's what they voted for. Let's see, I believe the figure the I-933 opposition put forward was $8 billion worth of land grabs that are planned (actually stated as $8B in losses if I-933 were to pass). So, get on with it! It should make the ducks very happy.

Posted by: Scott C on November 8, 2006 11:30 AM
83. "s for fighting terrorism, bush's approach thus far has failed and made the situation worse"

Dinesh you are delusional. There have been NO terrorist attacks on our homesoil since 911 BECAUSE George W Bush was running the show. That is a fact. The more and more Democrats interfere, the more chance that a terror attack like 911 WILL occur.

Ask Israel what happens when you show weakness to the terrorists. Unless you convert to Islam, they want you dead. When the Democrat circus investigations get started and divert national attention, that is most likely when it will occur.

Posted by: pbj on November 8, 2006 11:31 AM
84. what do you think on the fact that for the first time in history the House leadership is coming from a city on the Pacific? Not the east, south, or midwest who are generally clueless about the needs of the west. Posted by ben at November 8, 2006 10:19 AM

Ummm....What about Jim Wright? Wasn't he in the House leadership in the early 90's? And he was from Washington State? Or is this revisionist history coming into play ;)

Posted by: dad4 on November 8, 2006 11:37 AM
85. Dad4, you make a good point, but I think you meant Tom Foley rather than Jim Wright. Tom Foley was from Eastern Washington, I believe Jim Wright was from Texas.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 11:40 AM
86. Bill, and when that happens they will say that theyve earned the right to critisize Bush for years after he's out of office. Because they have endured relentless Clinton bashing for six years.

I agree that they just dont get the threat we are under. They dont understand that Islam is on the march, and we have Europe to thank for that.

America better wake up to this or the Muslims will be voting themselves into office, left and right .. right under our noses. Just like in Europe.

I hope and pray that I'm wrong... but I dont think I am.

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 11:43 AM
87. Scott C??

Do you have a link for that figure? I havent read that anywhere. Not saying youre wrong, but that's a pretty big news story, isnt it?

Posted by: Lauri on November 8, 2006 11:46 AM
88. Man...what a bunch of partisan hacks repeating FOX News talking points.

The people of this country gave the GOP a chance to reform the country back in 1994. The GOP had a plan, a contract even. Not only did they abandon their principles but they really brought the country to a new low with their partisanship and corruption.

Dinesh was right when he said that the GOP "put their own interests in maintaining power over the interests of the people".

If the GOP really wants the control they have to clean house, get back on message, and stop pandering to a bunch of religious nutjobs.

Bring back the Contract With America, then the GOP will actually have a message to talk about.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 11:47 AM
89. Lauri, unfortunately, I don't think you are wrong either. It is rather ironic that those on the left are the first that the islamists would want to behead, yet they are the ones giving them the most help--Stalin correctly referred to such people as useful idiots.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 11:49 AM
90. bill h: your blaming the dems for the mess in iraq is pathetic. the president and both houses of congress were controlled by republicans, and on their watch this situation has escalated to its current state. the bush administration has failed--its prognosis was wrong, its execution was flawed.

for all of your rhetoric about the dems, there are actual facts that demonstrate bush and the rubber stamp republicans' culpability for the current situation.

pbj: you have issues with understanding cause and effect. you are correct that since 9-11 there have been no attacks on u.s. soil. but your logic is poor--for example, 9-11 occured while bush was president, so did he fail to protect us then? please, that is just simpleton thinking.

i rather have investigations about what we are doing in iraq instead of grandstanding on the senate floor re terry schiavo and covering for abramhoff payola.

accountability is a mother....

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 11:52 AM
91. Steve - see the post in question for yourself:

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006677.html

The comment your complaining about is #42. It was edited by me to drop the offensive comment once the slur was brought to my attention, right around the time your ban went into affect. Speaking of which, back to deleting...

Posted by: Eric Earling on November 8, 2006 11:54 AM
92. You are correct, Lauri. The left does not understand the level of the threat because they are ignorant of history. Europe should have learned when Neville Chamberlain attempted to appease Hitler by feeding much of central Europe to him. You cannot negotiate with evil, and Islam constitutes evil. It is the greatest threat civilization will ever face, and make no mistake, the democrats (at some point) will attempt to negotiate peace with the Islamic world, probably by offering Israel to them.

Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2006 11:55 AM
93. Re: Posted by Ragnar Danneskold at November 8, 2006 11:17 AM & Posted by Lauri at November 8, 2006 11:26 AM

So by extension you must think that a suburban Illinois influence is more attuned to the western mindset and issues than a San Franciscan's is. Hmm.

Posted by: ben on November 8, 2006 11:55 AM
94. Cato, I don't disagree with much of what you have said about the GOP losing their way--I agree that they need to get back to the days of 1994. However, to say "they really brought the country to a new low with their partisanship and corruption." is ignoring the rank partisanship and corruption of the Dems.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 11:56 AM
95. dad4: Jim Wright is a former U.S. Congressman from Texas who served 34 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and was the Speaker of the House from 1987 to 1989. Care to take a shot at thoughtfully answering a question or are you just playing through with right wing whac-a-mole?

Posted by: ben on November 8, 2006 12:02 PM
96. Dinesh: "your blaming the dems for the mess in iraq is pathetic. the president and both houses of congress were controlled by republicans, and on their watch this situation has escalated to its current state. the bush administration has failed--its prognosis was wrong, its execution was flawed."

Sorry, Dinesh, but it is you who are pathetically wrong. Words have consequenses, especially when you are dealing with the type of enemy we are dealing with. Partisans like you want to look for someone else to blame when a large portion of the blame is looking at them in the mirror. The continual non-stop bashing of the president has given more to our enemy than anything else we could have done. It is the most despicable thing I have seen in politics in my life. The Dems have done whatever it took to regain power--trashing the president at every turn--without a thought as to what that did to our war effort and without a thought as to the bolstering they were giving to our enemy. Did the administration do things completely right in Iraq, of course not. Yes they certainly deserve a good share of blame for it. But their mistakes were mistakes, not intentional. The Dems share of the blame was completely intentional.

Look in the mirror, admit that the Dems have been wrong for undermining the CinC in a time of war. Admit that they did it for rank partisan power reasons. Look at things objectively. You sound like some some hopeless ivory tower PolySci professor or something.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 12:12 PM
97. wow saltherring: your open bigotry about one type of religion is disturbingly honest. interestingly, if you substitute "jews" or "christians" for "islam," your sentence could be coming from the enemy we are fighting.

so, should we kill every muslim or just force the non-terrorists ones to convert to another religion?

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 12:13 PM
98. Bill: Mea Culpa, I read Foley and thought Wright.

Ben: Since Tom Foley WAS speaker, and from Washington state, your question seems moot, doesn't it? Since we've already had congressional leadership from this part of the country. I was simply trying to point out an inaccuracy, you don't want to acknowledge it, fine. I acknowledged my slip. How 'bout you acknowledge yours?

Posted by: dad4 on November 8, 2006 12:15 PM
99. Ben, see my post #85. Dad4 obviously meant Tom Foley, from Eastern Washington, Speaker of the House until the Republican revolution of 1994 knocked him out.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 12:16 PM
100. Bill, yes, the Dem's are partisan...but compared to the GOP they we're horribly disorganized in their partisanship. I'd say the level of corruption that's been exposed on the Democrat side is trivial compared to what we've seen on the GOP side.

Dem: One house member from Louisiana caught taking bribes.

GOP: At least two Senators, the House Majority Leader, and several GOP members of the house all broke the law and wrote laws that gave kickbacks to Abramoff's clients. Let's not even get started of the Mark Foley page scandal and No-Bid contracts.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 12:20 PM
101. Cato, you can stop arguing--I agree with you. Now that the Dems are in power in congress they will be the ones tempted by corruption, let's see how they handle it.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 12:23 PM
102. Bill H&dad4. Thx. Read again pls. Spokane is not on the Pacific, it's on the Spokane River in the inland northwest. No error, but I take your points nonetheless. Partisanship and detail quibbling aside, I still want to know what you think about the west being at the wheel in general?

Posted by: ben on November 8, 2006 12:23 PM
103. bill: yes, words have consequences. actions do as well. and while congressional republicans did virtually nothing to challenge the president's conduct of the war in iraq (thereby allowing 'unintentional mistakes' to be made), democrats have been challenging the otherwise unquestioned authority of the president to screw up. bush & his adminstration have displayed incompetency on every level. so blame the dems all you want, but the buck stops at the president's desk.

bush was unchecked in his prosecution of this war. republicans effectively beat down dems complaints as "whining", "cut and run," and all sorts of other blowback. but the incompetence of the administration eventually caught up with them and millions of people said enough. i guess you prefer everybody to sit quietly, wave flags and express admiration for bush while he continually screws up and doesn't have the integrity to admit it.

bush blew it. he's had to ditch the neocons (remember them?). here's what one of them says about the bush administration:

"I just presumed that what I considered to be the most competent national-security team since Truman was indeed going to be competent. They turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era. Not only did each of them, individually, have enormous flaws, but together they were deadly, dysfunctional. The policy can be absolutely right, and noble, beneficial, but if you can't execute it, it's useless,

"The most dispiriting and awful moment of the whole administration was the day that Bush gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to [former C.I.A. director] George Tenet, General Tommy Franks, and [Coalition Provisional Authority chief] Jerry [Paul] Bremer--three of the most incompetent people who've ever served in such key spots. And they get the highest civilian honor a president can bestow on anyone! That was the day I checked out of this administration. It was then I thought, There's no seriousness here, these are not serious people."

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 12:24 PM
104. dinesh,

Gee, we haven't had many followers of Christianity or Judism declare Jihad against us lately, have we? Or attack our embassies, ships or cities....?

Also, your accusations of "bigotry" are as unfounded as are your comparisons of religions.

The Koran refers to those who do not convert to Islam as infidels. It instructs its followers to kill infidels.

The Bible welcomes ALL (Muslims too) to receive the free gift of eternal life through Jesus Christ. Unlike Islam, Christianity forces no one.

Be thankful you live in America, dinesh, where you have the choice what to believe.

Posted by: dinesh on November 8, 2006 12:36 PM
105. Dinesh, I am not attacking the Dems for "challenging the otherwise unquestioned authority of the president to screw up". I am attacking them for intentionally trying to undermine, belittle and destroy the president during a time of war.

Your timeline is a bit out of whack. People have not been criticizing the Dems for "Cut and Run" until very recently. I am talking about speeches made by people like Al Gore ranting "He betrayed this country! He played on our fears. He took America on an ill-conceived foreign adventure dangerous to our troops, an adventure preordained and planned before 9/11 ever took place."

Or Ted Kennedy saying "There was no imminent threat. This was made up in Texas, announced in January to the Republican leadership that war was going to take place and was going to be good politically. This whole thing was a fraud,"

Or a whole host of people saying "Bush lied", redefining the word "lie". Or the chanting of the idiot left of "Bush lied, people died".

As I said, this:
1. is despicable, especially in a time of war when we have soldiers on the field; and
2. has a big impact in bolstering the morale of our enemy.

Again, you address everything of blame to those you don't agree with but refuse to accept the blame for those you do.

Posted by: Bill H on November 8, 2006 12:38 PM
106. dinesh and all,

I must be having some problems with the link. Post 104 is mine. Sorry for the confusion.

Saltherring

Posted by: Saltherring on November 8, 2006 12:48 PM
107. 1. is despicable, especially in a time of war when we have soldiers on the field;

You think we should suspend the 1st Amendment because we're at war? Give me a break...what if the reason we went to war war was a lie to begin with? Then would it be ok to criticize the President?

2. has a big impact in bolstering the morale of our enemy.

I think it gives them propaganda, but they think they're going to win anyway. Most American's don't think we're winning in Iraq, I'd say yesterdays elections were a testament to that. Politicians are just give lip service to those voices. It worked, Ted Kennedy is still there.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 12:59 PM
108. What it means, is perhaps a good 2008 for the Republicans.

Clearly, "Election 2006" was bad on paper for the GOP - however, I think it is perhaps good for the Republicans in general, and good in particular, when looking toward 2008. In that light, I don't think it is a particularly good night for the Democrats. Here's why:

For one, with control of the House and likely control of the Senate, I think it makes life much tougher for Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama and the Ds in general as we roll toward the 2008 general election. They will be walking into an open primary and a national election in which they'll be defending their two year record of congressional control. They've been saying throughout this cycle that they can bring positive change to Washington. Actually, they've been saying "Bush is bad. Bush is bad," but I think they were trying to imply they could do better. Well, we'll see. My suspicion is that there will be heavy, heavy pressure on the Democrat leaders from the Angry Left to stick it to the administraton via a torrent of subpeonas, investigations, prosecutors, etc. If that is how they end up defining their majority tenure, 2008 may not look so bad for the GOP.

The Democrats will also have a very difficult time dealing with the Iraq war issue. Regardless of their majority status in the congress, the President is still commander-in-chief, and controls war policy. The Democrats can only stop the President by cutting off the funding. Or impeaching both him AND the Vice President. And I don't think the new congress will have the stomach for either. Even the very loosely hinged John Murtha said that they can't cut off funding for the troops. Unless the President completely rolls over (which is not a defining characteristic of the man) the Democrats will simply be a continuation of the current congressional interaction regarding the war.

It also makes it a tougher case for the Democrats if, as the party leadership has been contending, "One party rule is not good for the country." The "of course, unless it's our party" tag line might not sound so appealing in 2008.

It is also interesting to note that many of the Democrats that swept into the house are far to the right of the party leadership. That keeps those seats in play for 2008 - particularly since they are still heavily gerrymandered Republican districts. Add to the fact that in the Foley and DeLay districts, the law required voters to vote a ballot that was false - the name on the ballot was not the name of the candidate. Those two districts are likely back to the GOP in 2008.

I think the GOP needs to step back, realign the leadership, and take advantage of two years where the pressure is wholly on the Democrats.

Of course, instead of enjoying an Atlas Shrugged moment, they'll probably try to overreach.

But it will be interesting to watch...

Posted by: Brian White on November 8, 2006 01:13 PM
109. M&M 17--the (D) party of trial lawyers, givers of rights to terrorists and terror appeasers will not do better at illigal immigration.

as for Pelosi, let's now watch the self-policing for any "culture of corruption"--

how about starting with HER family & relatives and their connections and consulting with/for the government local issues? or is that off limits, only to 'Haliburtons' and 'R's'?

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on November 8, 2006 01:19 PM
110. ""2. has a big impact in bolstering the morale of our enemy.

I think it gives them propaganda, but they think they're going to win anyway. Most American's don't think we're winning in Iraq, I'd say yesterdays elections were a testament to that. Politicians are just give lip service to those voices. It worked, Ted Kennedy is still there.
Posted by Cato at November 8, 2006 12:59 PM"""

From Col Bui Tin, North Vietnam Army we have the
information on just how important the American left was to them, in their efforts to defeat America in Vietnam. I have no doubt that someday
we will have the complete story on just how important the American left was in defeating America in Iraq and Afganistan. Aid and Comfort..

http://www.viet-myths.net/BuiTin.htm

Posted by: Pagar on November 8, 2006 02:52 PM
111. Pagar, looks like it was a poor military decision that lost the war. Not the Anti-War movement.

Q: How could the Americans have won the war?
A: Cut the Ho Chi Minh trail inside Laos. If Johnson had granted [Gen. William] Westmoreland's requests to enter Laos and block the Ho Chi Minh trail, Hanoi could not have won the war.

Posted by: Cato on November 8, 2006 05:24 PM
112. Now "Nuestro Presidente Jorge" can collaborate with Crypt Keeper Nancy Pelosi to amnesty 12,000,000 plus illegal aliens. Then, after Bush has been used by her and he's succesfully alienated the people who would have supported him, she'll eat him like a black widow spider.

If there's any silver lining to this, it's that the Republicans will excise the Rockefeller/Bush/Country Club wing from the conservative movement like a suppurating pustule.

And for Christ sake, why in the hell does he continue talking like a drooling, half-wit cracker after six years in The Oval Office? Aren't remedial speech lessons included in his presidential benefits package.

Posted by: Cartman on November 8, 2006 07:40 PM
113. Cartman: I guess he still has his accent because he's proud of the genteel, gracious state he comes from. Lucky him.

Posted by: katomar on November 8, 2006 10:30 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?