JIHAD IS FUN! VOTE DEMOCRAT!

[Otherguy Overby]

John Kerry is the "botched joke" of American politics. For those of you keeping score at home, John Kerry has now called members of the U.S. military (a) stupid, (b) crazy, (c) murderers, (d) rapists, (e) terrorizers of Iraqi women and children. I wonder what he'll call them tomorrow. Whatever Karl Rove is paying John Kerry to say stupid things, it's worth every penny.

Now, back to the midterm elections ...

Analysts place the average midterm loss for the party in the White House at around 15 to 44 seats, depending on which elections are counted  only elected presidents, midterm elections since the Civil War, midterm elections since World War II, comparable-sized congresses, first and second midterm elections and so on.

The average first midterm election loss for every elected president since 1914 is 27 House seats and three Senate seats. The average sixth-year midterm election, like this year, is much worse for the president's party, which typically loses 34 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate.

This makes the average loss in two midterm elections for the party in the White House: 30 House seats and four or five Senate seats in each midterm election.

In his first midterm election, George W. Bush picked up six House seats and two Senate seats  making him, according to The New York Times, "the first Republican president to gain House seats in an off-year election" and only the third president of either party to pick up House seats in a midterm election since the Civil War.

This means that for Democrats simply to match the historical average gain for the party out of the White House during the first and second midterm, they would have to pick up 67 seats in the House and 11 seats in the Senate. They're about 30 Mark Foleys short of having that happen.

It at least seems clear that Democrat gains this year are going to fall far short of the historical average. No poll has the Democrats winning even half of their rightful midterm gains.

Despite the precedent of big wins in midterm elections for the party out of power  especially in a sixth-year midterm election  something is depressing the Democrats' popularity with Americans this year. I suspect it's the perception that many of them are Democrats.

But instead of recognizing that the Democratic Party is a dying party, falling far short of its due historical gains, any gain by the Democrats will be hailed as a crowning mandate for the party that wants to lose the Iraq war, shut down Guantanamo and stop spying on Islamic terrorists on U.S. soil.

Even a dying party has death throes. If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war.

Democrats can't not be crazy. They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters. The only way to get Democrats to focus on terrorists would be to convince them that the terrorists are interfering with a woman's right to choose or that commercial jetliners exploding in midair are a threat to America's wetlands.

The probable new House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, is in a catfight with Rep. Jane Harman for not being insane enough. Pelosi has indicated she will deny Harman the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, instead giving it to Rep. Alcee Hastings, whom Pelosi voted to impeach from his federal judgeship in 1988 for conspiring to extract a $150,000 bribe from convicted criminals in return for lowering their sentences.

An O.J. jury had acquitted Hastings on the bribery charge in a criminal proceeding, though his alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, was convicted.

But the evidence of Hastings' bribery plot was so overwhelming that a Democratic House voted to impeach Hastings 413-3 on 17 separate counts  including falsifying evidence to win his acquittal in the criminal case, and a majority Democratic Senate voted to convict Hastings on the very first count by 69-26, enough to remove him from office.

Rep. John Conyers Jr.  another finalist for the coveted "craziest Democrat in congress" title  led the charge for Hastings' impeachment, saying the judge had "betrayed his office."

In addition to having a history of soliciting bribes from criminals before his court, Hastings wants to shut down Guantanamo, and he adamantly opposes the U.S. government listening to phone calls from al-Qaida phones to anyone in America (especially federal judges negotiating bribery deals by telephone).

As millions of lunatic Muslims plot to murder Americans, some Americans  we call them "Soccer Moms"  will cast a vote to save Michael J. Fox this year. In the process, they will put all Americans at risk by voting for a frivolous, dying party.

Someone recently requested I withhold the identy of an author until after the post.


Hence:

Ann Coulter http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=155

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

There's no question who the author is. 

The rhetoric is a bit over the top, but she (oops, I mean "that unnamed individual") makes some good points.  Business as usual...

[Perd Hapley]

For those of you keeping score at home, John Kerry has now called members of the U.S. military (a) stupid, (b) crazy, (c) murderers, (d) rapists, (e) terrorizers of Iraqi women and children.

  He or she forgot, "Genghis Khan."

[Dannyboy]

I read a quote this morning from Comrade Kerry's 1972 Congressional run where he said, "a volunteer military would be a military of the poor and of the black and brown."  There was another bit in there about how much he hated the draft but thought that a volunteer military would be even worse.

[cosine]

I read a quote this morning from Comrade Kerry's 1972 Congressional run where he said, "a volunteer military would be a military of the poor and of the black and brown."  There was another bit in there about how much he hated the draft but thought that a volunteer military would be even worse.

Here it is:

http://www.comcast.net/news/politics/index.jsp?cat=POLITICS&fn=/2006/11/02/512197.html

WASHINGTON - During a Vietnam-era run for Congress three decades ago, John Kerry said he opposed a volunteer Army because it would be dominated by the underprivileged, be less accountable and be more prone to "the perpetuation of war crimes."

...
In 1972, as he ran for the House, he was less apologetic in his comments about the merits of a volunteer army. He declared in the questionnaire that he opposed the draft but considered a volunteer army "a greater anathema."

"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'

"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities," he wrote.

All right. I'm convinced! No need for a military, let's just sit around and sing kum-ba-ya!

[Dannyboy]

Yup, that was it.  I just had to go back and look for it again.

[Gun Runner]

For those of you keeping score at home, John Kerry has now called members of the U.S. military (a) stupid, (b) crazy, (c) murderers, (d) rapists, (e) terrorizers of Iraqi women and children.

OMG!  He did?!?! 

I wish I could sit on the Presidente's lap too!

I'm sure he also called them retarded darky incest mofo handicrapped A-RAB lovin' homo-sex-ural flunkies too or the like.   

Ann (The Man) C***ter. 

Helping you weirdos get A-roused since his/her latest genital surgery.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

So, uh, which part of her article do you think is inaccurate G Runner? 

Or is it just the rhetoric you find fault with (to which you respond with your own lesser grade of rhetoric)?

[lumpy]

Even a dying party has death throes. If Democrats win a slight majority in the House or Senate, Americans will get shrill, insane leadership of the nation in time of war.

Interestingly a majority of Americans actually believe that we have that now. When they vote on Tuesday the vote will likely be more against the leadership than for the dems.

They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters.

rhetorical bs. Kinda like the argument that if Bush loses the terrorists win.

they have actually laid out their strategy for what they "instantly want to change"

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

ac says: An O.J. jury had acquitted Hastings on the bribery charge in a criminal proceeding, though his alleged co-conspirator, attorney William Borders, was convicted.

really... is that a fact sounds more like a label or say more rhetorical bs?

This is the same woman that is charged with voting outside the county she lived in (felony). apparently there is a problem with illegal immigrant voter fraud... but you're ok with just regular voter fraud?

That said... Coulter is a loon. if she was a dem you'd be calling her a lunatic dyke. Instead she's the rail thin, chain-smoking, adams apple of the far right. She makes up crap to inflame fools. it appears to be working for her.

[Perd Hapley]

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

They will instantly set to work enacting a national gay marriage law, impeachment hearings, slavery reparations and a series of new federal felonies for abortion clinic protesters.

I'm not sure which plan is worse.

[lumpy]

I'm not sure which plan is worse.

Why that would bother Bush supporters... does planning bother them?

[Ron]

Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

This is how the Fed Gov negotiates,"We will pay this much and if you don't like it tough".

Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step

Workers of the world unite!!

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

And rebuild the Jamie Gorelick wall also!
And why they are at it they can announce Jimmy Carter as a special envoy to the middle east.

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

The will of the majority be damned.

[Perd Hapley]

Day One: Put new rules in place to "break the link between lobbyists and legislation."

Will they shred the First Amendment to do so, just as with McCain-Feingold?
 

Day Two: Enact all the recommendations made by the commission that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

1.  Will the Congress rubber-stamp the provisions of a politically-motivated committee just to give us all warm fuzzies that something is being done, (as with the Patriot Act?) or will they debate these issues on the floor before voting for them on the merits?
 
2.  Should I expect better national security planning from the party that believes war should be a last resort?  That rejects certain strategies just because they are "pre-emptive" or "unilateral"?  That fears to take certain steps for fear of making terrorists angry?  That, as sitting Congressmen, publicly impugn and ridicule the President and the Secretary of Defense, knowing that they are making propaganda for jihadists?  That failed to respond effectively to terrorism for eight years, while defunding and down-sizing the military?  That's some good planning, there.     

Time remaining until 100 hours: Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step. Cut the interest rate on student loans in half. Allow the government to negotiate directly with the pharmaceutical companies for lower drug prices for Medicare patients.

Why should government be doing any of these things?  They may or may not be good ideas for private groups to do, but they are beyond the perview of government in a free society.  Such government intervention usually leads to a slow economy, higher unemployment and stunted medical innovation. 
 

Broaden the types of stem cell research allowed with federal funds _ "I hope with a veto-proof majority," she added in an Associated Press interview Thursday.

  Shall we publicly fund abortions while we're at it, or shall we acknowledge that children deserve legal protection before and after birth? 
 

All the days after that: "Pay as you go," meaning no increasing the deficit, whether the issue is middle class tax relief, health care or some other priority.

  Does anyone expect that to happen?  And with the more statist of the two parties? 
 

[lumpy]

wow... I guess that means that you agree that Coulter did not print fact. Your arguments seem to assume that I support all of these measures. When my arguement is that those that take Coulter for her word are idiots... no need to prove my point for me. what she printed was factually incorrect.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Pay as you go" means raising taxes to fund yet more failed social welfare programs.

Reagan was right.  The best way to shrink government is to starve it of its lifeblood:  tax revenue.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

wow... I guess that means that you agree that Coulter did not print fact. Your arguments seem to assume that I support all of these measures. When my arguement is that those that take Coulter for her word are idiots... no need to prove my point for me. what she printed was factually incorrect.

Which part of Coulter's article is factually incorrect?  Most of her text is persuasion, opinion, and rhetoric.  As such it is neither factual nor "unfactual".

You may not like many of the points she makes, but that doesn't mean she's lying.

[lumpy]

I was responding to...

So, uh, which part of her article do you think is inaccurate G Runner?

Which part of Coulter's article is factually incorrect?  Most of her text is persuasion, opinion, and rhetoric.  As such it is neither factual nor "unfactual".

You are correct. but remember you did ask for what was inaccurate.

You may not like many of the points she makes, but that doesn't mean she's lying.

You're right... I have a low tolerance for BS. That said if she is knowingly presenting information as true that she knows is not factually correct, I believe that might be the definition of a lie. But that's just my opinion. 

[Perd Hapley]

wow... I guess that means that you agree that Coulter did not print fact. Your arguments seem to assume that I support all of these measures. When my arguement is that those that take Coulter for her word are idiots... no need to prove my point for me. what she printed was factually incorrect.

Slow down, now.  I certainly did not assume that you supported any of these measures.  If I did, please demonstrate.  I have made no implication that Coulter was factual or not.  I'm not going to waste my time fact-checking every article someone posts on APS, or waiting for every word that drips from the lips of Ann Coulter.  Nancy Pelosi's plan might make Coulter factually incorrect if she indeed becomes majority leader and does indeed stick with her plan, without also pushing for the legislation that Coulter predicted.  You seem to assume that Pelosi's plan for the first hundred hours precludes any other bills.  In any case, I'm not sure if a prediction can be factually correct or incorrect, especially prior to the fullness of time.  What do you think?  

If your point is that Coulter's prediction is on shaky ground given Pelosi's stated plan, go ahead.  But I can't blame Coulter for not trusting a politician's promise.

[lumpy]

fistful... I did not suggest that you did. I was simply presenting the left's 100 hour agenda as evidence that Coutler is not correct. Btw: I'm not a Pelosi fan... and I guessing from your posts we have that in common. 

[Perd Hapley]

Oh.  I thought you were talking to me when you said the following.

Your arguments seem to assume that I support all of these measures.

By the way, thank you for spelling my name without capitals or extra l's.  Get those a lot. 

[lumpy]

you're welcome.

this civilized stuff is starting to grow on me.

[Otherguy Overby]

As far as I can see Coulter sticks pretty close to actual facts.  If she didn't there'd be lots of left wing fisks of her columns. 

She may be spinning, but she's spinning with a factual basis.  Left wing spin seems mostly based on "big lies" which would make Goebbels proud...

[LandShark]

I said it on a post on THR. I find fault with all of the overly sensationalized mouthpieces that are only there seemingly to polarize people and make any sort of compromise in politics a whole lot harder.

[Perd Hapley]

make any sort of compromise in politics a whole lot harder.

That's a good thing in most cases.  Americans have compromised far too much freedom already, and further compromise will not be good.

[LandShark]

I find myself with many beliefs taken from all sides of the political spectrum. I would like to see a far more moderate, conservative leaning govt. Let the yahoos compromise. Seems to be the only way to achieve some sort of balance.