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 Thisnice 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 AMThanks 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
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
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 AMbut '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
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.
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 AMWasn'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 AMEric, did you post that? It really reinforces your point...
Posted by: South County on November 8, 2006 06:48 AMOh by the way Jimmie-howya-doin, Bush was at the forefront of giving amnesty to illegal aliens.
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 AMPelosi 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 AMIn 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 AMSo, 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.
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.
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.
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 AMI 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 AMWatch- 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 AMEric you are a dolt!
Posted by: Jericho on November 8, 2006 08:44 AMI 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 AMBreak 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
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 AMSHE 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 AMThis is priceless. I'm saving this one.
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 AMdinesh, 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 AMit 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"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 AMtake 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 AMtake 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 AMGood, 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 AMi 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 AMAmerica 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 AMit 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.
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 AMIn 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.
I concede the point dinesh, it is my opinion.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on November 8, 2006 10:25 AMhaving 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.
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 AMYou 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 AMAND - 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 Just one more reason why I will never vote
Democrat. I believe Terri Schiavo was a human being-Not a Sideshow.
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 AMNow, 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 AMas 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 AMlet'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 AMSo 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 AMI 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 AMDinesh 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 AMUmmm....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 AMI 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 AMDo 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 AMThe 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 AMfor 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 AMhttp://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 AMSo 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 AMSorry, 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 PMso, 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 PMBen: 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 PMDem: 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 PMbush 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 PMGee, 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.
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 PMI 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 PMYou 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 PMClearly, "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...
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 PMI 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 PMQ: 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.
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