All right, I admit it. For the first time since his first run for office, Dubs lost to the Donks. Of course, I have been clear that this was largely due to the snubbing of Dubs by his own party. Somebody want to explain to me again, why it was so smart to reject the man who got 62 million votes plus not so very long ago? I called that move stupid just a couple days ago, but really, 'stupid' just doesn't do justice to how profoundly foolhardy the GOP acted in its rejection of its core constituency. Others have pointed out just how stale the "Contract With America" got by this year. Others have warned that acting just like Democrats was a sure way to get Democrats elected. Others have observed that the issues voters cared about the most; winning in Iraq, securing our borders, cleaning the government of trash from either party - these were ignored by Republican politicos who thought they could slide by with a wink and a smile. But it needs to be said again, that it was incalculably poor strategy to turn away from Dubya. All that did was let the Donks play 'divide and conquer', all that did was force Republican voters to decide whether they supported their country's President or their Congressman/Senator, all that did was confuse and anger the base, so that for the first time in memory. Republicans, especially Conservatives, simply gave up and put the electoral gun to their own head in hopes it would "send a message". Well it did, only the message sent was to the Democrats, and that message was as white a flag as anything Paris could have issued.
So there we are. The party of William "Freezer" Jefferson and Harry "Land Deal" Reid, of Ted "Swim Team" Kennedy and Chucky "Statesman" Schumer, or Nancy "Paxil" Pelosi and Alcee "The Impeached" Hastings, is now in charge of how much you will be taxed, how (if!) we establish a self-sufficient state in Iraq, and even what the Constitution says. But even now, there is hope. Don't forget that in 2001, the Congress was not in all that much better shape than it is now. Remember how Jim Jeffords gave the Senate to the Democrats? Remember how hard it was for Dubya to get Congress to remember its duty in the first part of 2001? Frankly, Dubya did a pretty good job during the pre-9/11 days, when the Donks played a lot of cards to sway popular sentiment their way. And he will persevere through these coming dark days, to keep his sworn duty to the nation. He's done it before without the fair-weather support, and he will do his job to the best of his ability, which is considerable.
I heard today that John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi together announced that impeachment proceedings of President Bush are "off the table". Think about that, and ask yourself why they would say that now. It's because they understood what those pink-fluff poodles in the GOP who deserted Dubya forgot; Job Approval for President Bush is one thing, but the man himself remains well-respected and liked. Dubya may be down now, but he remains a winner, and only a very great fool would bet against him. Even now.
Permalink | Send To A Friend | Linking Blogs | Digg this!
Filed under:
Commentary
Comments (7)
Impeachment is off the tabl... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Scrapiron | November 9, 2006 7:10 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Impeachment is off the table because successful impeachment is impossible but a long prison sentence for those that try is entirely possible. Like it or not there is a war on. Interfering with the president ability to protect the country in wartime wouldn't go over to good in the bendover hotel.
Any lawyer would jump at defending impeachment charges. Simply gather all of the Donk's quotes about WMD, and paperwork on the phony missile attacks on Usama and Saddam of the 90's and it's thrown out.
1. Posted by Scrapiron | November 9, 2006 7:10 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 9, 2006 19:10
2. Posted by beancounter | November 9, 2006 7:58 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Give this a little time. The DEMS are already starting to to insert foot in mouth--i.e. Rangel's comment about Mississippi.
What we are not considering is that this is a war on terror and you can expect another 9/11--maybe during the next two years; hopefully not, but certainly possible. Everything then changes.
DEMS are great with the B.S.--say one thing in public and basically do just the opposite when legislating. As an example of their form over substance, just consider the minimum wage. Yes, I am sure they will increase it, but who does that really help? WalMart and other large corporations--it just drives out the sole proprietors because they can no longer compete on wages. As I understand it, WalMart supports an increase in the minimum wage. When the DEMS say WalMart does not offer healthcare and drive the small employers out of business, are they saying small employers offer health care?
Let's face it, the DEMS will do little more than just wallpapering a few problems, make it sound like something substantial and will keep getting re-elected until the economy goes back in the toilet.
2. Posted by beancounter | November 9, 2006 7:58 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 9, 2006 19:58
3. Posted by rob | November 9, 2006 10:41 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I disagree beancounter, the part about the libtardians remaining in power anyway. We saw them take the senate via jeffords in 2000 and we saw them lose it again in 2002. The problem they have in my opinion is that they are the true opposition party. When they had control of the senate all they did was whine about republicans stopping there legislation and they lost 2 years later. I predict the same.
3. Posted by rob | November 9, 2006 10:41 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 9, 2006 22:41
4. Posted by Jeff C. | November 10, 2006 12:11 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
DJ,
We lost because the Independents flipped to the Dems over Iraq and the corrupt habits of the Congress (bribes, pork, Foley, etc.). Don't blame the base for this one. Based on exit polls (a questionable source I admit), I would estimate 80% of the switch in the Congressional vote was from Independents flipping. Yeah if the base had turned out at 2004 levels we may have saved a few seats, but it was unreasonable to expect that with out of control spending, pork and amnesty.
Being taken to the woodshed is a humbling experience, but we need to learn from it. The base will not continue to support, and Independents won't respect, a party that quotes Ronald Reagan then acts like LBJ.
4. Posted by Jeff C. | November 10, 2006 12:11 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2006 00:11
5. Posted by Brian Billings | November 10, 2006 1:25 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
In Kansas we had two reps in similar situations and similar voting records. Tiahrt ran against Bush and ran adds about how he stood up to the white house. Ryan didn't run against Bush. Tiahrt won. Ryan lost. At the time I was upset with Tiahrt, not so much now.
5. Posted by Brian Billings | November 10, 2006 1:25 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2006 13:25
6. Posted by kirktoe | November 10, 2006 7:24 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
"WalMart and other large corporations--it just drives out the sole proprietors because they can no longer compete on wages. As I understand it, WalMart supports an increase in the minimum wage. When the DEMS say WalMart does not offer healthcare and drive the small employers out of business, are they saying small employers offer health care?"
Excellent point and one I had not thought of. How ironic: the Dem's attack Walmart for driving small businesss out of town and then they help them do it!!! LOL.
6. Posted by kirktoe | November 10, 2006 7:24 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 10, 2006 19:24
7. Posted by ba | November 25, 2006 4:23 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree with this article...don't count out GWB ... and let's not say Democrats 'won' the house and Senate... first, to 'win' they had to MOVE OVER a tad TO THE RIGHT with their candidate picks in some states. (if that's not an indication to me, they are trying to say hmmm, ya know, we might be out of the mainstream--mmm, yes, and I guess 'dems' the words "I'm sorry" is a hard thing to say, isn't it?)
As for Iraq, anyone who says that getting Saddam Hussein out of power was a bad thing - is not seeing THE TRUTH. Anyone who says getting women out to vote in Afghanistan, and Afghanistan setting up a democratIC form of government was bad is not seeing truth, anyone that says al queda is not seriously seriously hurting is not seeing right, or don't tell me getting al zawquari of Iraq was not a good thing. It surely was.
In truth, IRAQ might have violence; but I notice that it's less suicide bombers and now more
shootings and kidnappings (that means the guy with the 'expertise' for car bombs has been stopped or they ran out of car bomb material)
It might seem like more violence...but that's
because, in my opinion, it's now COMBAT...as in a war...not suicide bombers striking sporadically....
That means the enemy in Iraq is getting more desperate and coming out into THE LIGHT OF DAY
instead of planting bombs in cars and running.
and it's very easy to fight an enemy in the light.
WE WILL WIN IN IRAQ and DEMOCRACY will come to the middle east...(it will be tenuous for a number of years...but let me see; how long did we keep troops in Germany after World War II?)
We lost 2,500 American soldiers to date, yes every loss is a loss...but there's 135,000 there.
World War II (with a draft) saw 60 million civilian and military losses...and FDR was called a 'great President' for a war he NEVER had an exit strategy for; and even Truman after him had none.
IRAQ will be successful. So will the middle east.
but NOT if we as AMERICA, the strongest nation and richest; cowers and limps and wimps away...
IT WILL send the wrong message to ALL in the MIDDLE EAST.
WE MUST STAY THE COURSE!!! IT'S WAR...toughen up and grow up America...
7. Posted by ba | November 25, 2006 4:23 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on November 25, 2006 16:23