Post by: Otherguy Overby on November 02, 2006, 05:50:22 AM
Quote
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.
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
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:08:03 AM
The rhetoric is a bit over the top, but she (oops, I mean "that unnamed individual") makes some good points. Business as usual...
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 02, 2006, 08:18:33 AM
Quote
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."
Post by: Dannyboy on November 02, 2006, 09:58:54 AM
Post by: cosine on November 02, 2006, 10:03:51 AM
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
Quote
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.
...
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!
Post by: Dannyboy on November 02, 2006, 10:12:00 AM
Post by: Gun Runner on November 02, 2006, 04:52:38 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 02, 2006, 06:04:46 PM
Or is it just the rhetoric you find fault with (to which you respond with your own lesser grade of rhetoric)?
Post by: lumpy on November 05, 2006, 05:46:24 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
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"
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 05, 2006, 05:52:29 PM
Quote
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.
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: lumpy on November 05, 2006, 05:58:24 PM
Quote
I'm not sure which plan is worse.
Why that would bother Bush supporters... does planning bother them?
Post by: Ron on November 06, 2006, 02:55:45 AM
Quote
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". Quote
Raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour, maybe in one step
Workers of the world unite!!Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 05:50:16 AM
Quote
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?Quote
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.
Quote
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. Quote
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? Quote
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? Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 06:46:11 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 06:47:24 AM
Reagan was right. The best way to shrink government is to starve it of its lifeblood: tax revenue.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 06, 2006, 06:50:06 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 07:11:14 AM
Quote
So, uh, which part of her article do you think is inaccurate G Runner?
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 07:25:22 AM
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.
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 01:50:03 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 06, 2006, 01:53:45 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: lumpy on November 06, 2006, 01:55:52 PM
this civilized stuff is starting to grow on me.
Post by: Otherguy Overby on November 20, 2006, 01:22:46 PM
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...
Post by: LandShark on November 22, 2006, 10:04:48 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 22, 2006, 10:25:32 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: LandShark on November 22, 2006, 11:04:17 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 22, 2006, 11:19:18 AM
Post by: Ron on November 22, 2006, 11:30:39 AM
It has just about reached the point where I want the leftists to succeed so I can chuckle at the stupidity of the masses.
How much more compromise can there be? Our modern Republicans are to the left of the Democrats of the 50's and 60's.
Compromise is a one way street turning left. The socialists in our midst never compromise, they make tactical retreats and attack again later. The left is winning and the Republican strategy to impose leftist legislation with a Republican spin leaves us conservatives unmotivated.
What is the point of "winning" if all we are doing is at worse contributing to the decline of our country and at best prolonging the inevitable?
Post by: Lee on November 22, 2006, 02:15:08 PM
50's and 60's? Hell...they're left of many current ones. Thow in corruption, perversion and plain ol stupidity and it's easy to see why they just won majorities.
Post by: LandShark on November 22, 2006, 04:31:19 PM
Can you name any such compromises in the recent past? Can you name a compromise that you are looking to see?
Its not that I can name any exact instances, but I think that the personally disagreeable extremes on both sides can only be mellowed by compromise. Jut to put my views into perspective, I'm anti nanny state, pro union, pro small govt., pro choice kind of a moderate.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 27, 2006, 07:25:06 AM
If you can perceive of the pro-abortion point of view as moderate, then we will never see things the same way. In my view, allowing abortion even in cases of rape or incest is quite extreme. That's just the difference between our ways of thinking, I suppose.
Post by: LandShark on November 27, 2006, 02:58:55 PM
I find a certain amount of sensible ideas on the extremes of both sides, I also see a lot of dogmatic crap. To me, neither side has enough good policy to make up for the bad.
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 28, 2006, 04:19:12 AM
life doesn't start until the child take it's first unassisted breath.
I have to admit that's not extreme. It just has no basis in science, law or anything else, unless it's your religious beliefs, perhaps. But if one uses this as a rationale for killing a live human individual, just to save a woman from nine difficult months, that would be extreme, indeed. Especially considering that most pregnancies result from consensual sex.
Post by: Otherguy Overby on November 28, 2006, 04:37:45 AM
Hey, this was my thread. Wanna talk about abortion? Start your own thread, Okay?
Besides it should be easy to realize a lot of women might resent a third party telling them what to do or not to do inside their very own bodies. I thought this was supposed to be America...
Post by: Perd Hapley on November 28, 2006, 05:46:37 AM
Edit: Bumper sticker slogan removed by El Silencio.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on November 28, 2006, 07:25:38 AM
Hey, this was my thread. Wanna talk about abortion? Start your own thread, Okay?
Besides it should be easy to realize a lot of women might resent a third party telling them what to do or not to do inside their very own bodies. I thought this was supposed to be America...
I thought this was supposed to be America...