Democrats didn't Win, Republicans simply Lost! by Skywalken

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Democrats didn't Win, Republicans simply Lost!

POSTED BY: SKYWALKEN
UPDATED: Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:04
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1570
PAGE 1 of 1

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 8:52 PM

As simple as that. Out of their own stupidity the Republicans lost while the Democrats simply sat back and let the the GOP screw itself over by betraying their ideals and constituents. Pat Buchanan was right, they betrayed the Reagan Revolution. And even on a level, the Republicans in the House betrayed the Gingrich Revolution.

Even with troubles in Iraq, Republicans still could have prevented the Democrats from taking more than 14 seats in the House. But unfortunately, for the past several years they've acted too Nixonian. That is, they claim to be conservative capitalists, while they acted and legislated like populist socialists.

The Republican Party is suppose to be the party of smaller government, not expanded entitlements and scandals.

The one silver lining in this for the GOP, the President, and for America is that many of the new Democrats coming in are rather conservative Democrats (one of the reasons they won). So they won't go along with every crazy idea that Pelosi or Conyers has.

God I hope the Reps get their act together by 2008. Of course if the Republican Party can screw themselves over in just two years, I'm sure the Democratic Party is certainly capable of enough stupidity to bring the GOP back in two years.

America, lets hope!

PS: Adios, Lincoln Chafee. And don't let the door hit you on the way out!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 7, 2006 11:13 PM

SOUPCATCHER

I've heard that if you say these two words they cause wingnuts heads to explode...

Speaker Pelosi.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 12:51 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

SOUP! I just heard screams and loud wet thuds from next door! For the love of God, DON'T SAY those words!

Altho actually, I agree with Skywalken. (The Earth trembles and stars fall from the heavens.) So far, the Dems have sounded pretty wishy-washy. Our nation needs inspired leadership, not politicians. This reminds me of when Daschle became majority leader in the Senate. At a time when the Dems COULD have achieve much they settled for uninspired, insipid leadership. Greatness writ small.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:40 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

I'm still wondering how this will be spun. Both Bush 'elections' were frauds that he called - and acted as if they were - mandates. What will this be? A victory?

As to 'why' the republicons lost, for one thing I suspect vote scrutiny was so high they couldn't switch a 4% loss into a 4% lead. So even though they got close in some races, they just couldn't steal the necessary percentages.

And, well, generally mid-term elections are referedums on the incumbent administration. Despite the 'October surprise', a compliant media and the power to drive the news cycle, the administration was saddled with too much baggage, both old and new. They couldn't take public attention from their failures.

Anyway - yeah DEMS - get you friggin' act together !!!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 3:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Agreed, they're pansies of the worst order, especially Pelosi.

That being said, Conyers and Dingell are rather the best of the lot, although admittedly it's a piss-poor lot to begin with.

I emphatically disagree with John about quite a few issues, but he's had his boot in the ass of this administration fairly hard since the patriot act and we can work out those issues once we have extricated ourselves from the quagmire and chaos that our inept intervention in the middle east has caused - sure, other issues are important, but right now I'd make pact with the devil himself if it stopped the body bags from piling up at Dover AFB.

I guess one might call it political triage, handle the most dire issues immediately, and once such things have been settled, if they will not act in the manner that their constituents demand, throw them out in favor of someone who will - much like what's just happened.

I do, however, think that the Dems are a bunch of pansies unworthy of representing the american people, but the lesser of two evils is surely better than the greater, and were it me, I would RICO the GOP, because their actions in the past few years have fallen under those provisions, and I defy Zero to try and tell me different.

I don't wanna hear about bridging rifts and peacemaking with them, from the socialist/communist paranioa of the 20's, to the red scare of the 50's and our current fear frenzy over terrorism, every time these cretins slink away from the halls of government, they fester like a rancid, puss-filled wound, and wait for we-the-the-people to forget their misdeeds against us... and so we inflict the same upon our children, and our childrens children by our inaction and failure to finish the job.

It's not the time to roll over and go back to sleep, nor is it sufficient to run this cabal out of offices they will surely return to once the populace has forgotten the misery they caused, it's time to put the boot in and finish the job for good and proper, and that would begin with impeachment, and end with prison if not a short drop and a sudden stop.. good enough for Saddam, good enough for OUR war criminals too, I think.

And while we're at it, don't be trusting these Democrat weasels we've just elected, like any attack dog, once they get a taste of blood and power they will be hungry for more.. you think they'll repeal the patriot act and give back those stolen freedoms ? like hell.
They don't wanna cut the leash, they just wanna be the ones holding it, that's all.

So, their time will come, but it isn't now, the smart thing to do would be to hand out a crushing defeat in detail to the SOB's who have done the very best they could to destroy all of what america every was or was supposed to be, to crush them utterly and thus prevent the cycle of resurgance and destruction they visit upon us every thirty years or so.

And once THAT is done, then skin these Dem weasels for our coup-coats.

And one addendum - beware vacuums of power, before throwing out an established order, be VERY fekkin careful to know what will replace it, or you could find yourselves in worse straights - take desposing Saddam for example, and what resulted from that.

To replace them with no one, which'd be my ideal is not realistic nor does it account for human nature or our social and economic system as established, and would result in chaos and disorder which would lead to more unpleasant consequences, so if you do plan to run ALL of these bastards out on a rail, you'd damned well better have a plan and something worth the bother to replace them with.

That's my two cents, and my free advice is worth all you paid for it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:45 AM

RAZZA

Quote:
Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I've heard that if you say these two words they cause wingnuts heads to explode...

Speaker Pelosi.

Now that is hilarious! Thanks for my first serious chuckle this morning Soup!

-----------------
"History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon."

---Napoleon Bonaparte

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:55 AM

CARTOON

The good news in all this is that the President has the power of veto, and will likely have to use it often over the next two years (much like Ford had to do during his brief tenure).

The worse news is that sane judges (who actually know how to read and comprehend the Constitution -- and not make it up as they go along) will not even get hearings (if the Dem's get the Senate), or get votes on the floor (if the Dem's don't get the Senate). Best case scenario here is that the conservative Democrats elected yesterday will vote with their idiology and not their party on appointments to the bench.

On a related note, I'm wondering how many people here heard the statement released by Sadam Hussein early yesterday morning? I heard it at 6:50AM EST on a Christian radio station as I drove into work. Other than that, (and two other mentions on radio later in the day), I saw no coverage of it at all on the national news.

(As a rule, I won't watch ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS or CNN because of their bias -- but yesterday I was switching back and forth between all of their 6:30PM broadcasts, and I saw not a single mention of Sadam's statement. Granted, switching back and forth, I could've missed it, but at the rate I was switching, I would've only likely missed it if it had been a brief, 30-second "Oh, by the way..." bit.)

Why does this bother me? Well, Saddam essentially called for peace between the warring Sunni's and Shiites and Kurds. He called for them to forget their past differences, forgive, and get along for the better of Iraq.

I nearly died when I heard that. It's so unlike Saddam, that I thought I was dreaming the whole thing. The absense of my hearing it on any of the major networks helped to further the notion that it had all been a dream (if not for the fact that I also found it on the internet later in the day).

I am not in the least surprised, however, that ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS & CNN did not cover it (at least to my knowledge), as it was "great news" coming out of Iraq. Any bit of "great news" from Iraq on election day just wouldn't go along with their consistently biased, liberal coverage of doom and gloom.

If you doubt this, ask yourselves if the situation had been the opposite? What if Saddam issued a statement early yesterday morning saying something to the effect of, "I call on my Sunni brothers to annhilate the Shiite and Kurd dogs. I call on all the people of Iraq to drive the American infidels from our land!" How would the major media outlets have covered that?

My guess is it would've lead every major news broadcast throughout the day.

However, as Saddam called for forgiveness and reconciliation, and an end to the bloodshed in Iraq, liberal forbid that gets reported on Election Day.

Score another one for the liberal propaganda machine.

I wonder what the people of this country would do (and how they would vote) if they weren't constantly lied to by a one-sided major media. I guess, we'll never know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 4:58 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Saddam essentially called for peace between the warring Sunni's and Shiites and Kurds. He called for them to forget their past differences, forgive, and get along for the better of Iraq."
I heard the same thing about Hussein roughly 10 days or so ago on the (regular) news media.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:02 AM

CARTOON

Hi, Rue. The report I heard was that the statement was issued after his sentencing (Sunday) -- either late on the 6th, or early on the 7th.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:11 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hey there,

Yes. He essentially repeated himself. I did hear about the second statement on the regular news, but it was a VERY short mention, easy to miss. Literally two sentences that took less than 5 or 10 seconds. "And in other news today ...." So even though, technically, it was reported, it wasn't made as big a deal of as the first time and was seriously underplayed.

BTW, I follow all sorts of media, including the BBC, AsiaTimes (online), Townhall (right of center) etc. It's easy on the internet. I find it useful to come at the same information from several points of view. That way you not only have a fuller picture of the world, but you have a better idea of the news sources.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:16 AM

CARTOON

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
BTW, I follow all sorts of media, including the BBC, AsiaTimes (online), Townhall (right of center) etc. It's easy on the internet. I find it useful to come at the same information from several points of view. That way you not only have a fuller picture of the world, but you have a better idea of the news sources.

Yes, I agree. More sources are better. Unfortunately, most major media is liberal (well, it's not unfortunate if one happens to be liberal, too. I'm not. But then, I suppose you already knew that.

)

BTW, I just looked to see if I could confirm when the statement was made, and I found it here: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=92527. (It wasn't as easy to find today, as it is "yesterday's" news, and most of these sites move the "old" news off their pages in deference to more-current news -- and rightly so.)

EDIT: Here's another, lengthier report: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/20061107-1039-saddamtria
l.html. And this one alludes to your mention of having heard something similiar previously...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 5:19 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah. And I've found there is a period (long in some, as short as a week in others) after which the news corporation moves the article into 'archives'. At that point you have to pay AND it disappears from the google cache.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 9:00 AM

CITIZEN

Did Clinton make the Republicans lose?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 8, 2006 10:04 AM

SOUPCATCHER

Lots of good stuff in this thread. I agree that we need to keep a close eye on the Democratic Party Congresspeople over the next two years. The battle right now will be between the corporate loving branch of the party (Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emmanuel are probably the two most powerful in that respect) and the more economic populist branch of the party. If Hoyer manages to win the House Majority Leader role that will be a sign that the corporatists are on the ascendent.

The Rahm Emmanuel faction (and groups like the Ellen Tauscher led NDC) don't want to reform lobbying. Their only problem with K Street was that lobbyists weren't giving as much money to Democrats. They will try as hard as they can (so far successfully) to paint this realignment as a win for conservative Democrats. And, if they manage to control the House agenda for the next two years, there will be a lot of business as usual stuff going on inside the beltway. It was Rahm Emmanuel that was publicly pissed off just a few months ago at Howard Dean for building party infrastructure in places like Nebraska and Idaho and other long neglected states. They don't like people powered politics. If you want a good primer on how these inside-the-beltway Democrats are damaging to the party overall, you should pick up "Crashing the Gates" by Jerome Armstrong and Kos.

So every time you see Rahm Emmanuel talking on one of the networks, or being interviewed in a paper, remember that he is a voice for the status quo.

Nancy Pelosi seems to be respected by her fellow legislators across the aisle. It will be interesting to see if this changes as she gets the villification in the right-wing echo chamber that was formerly reserved only for Ted Kennedy and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Whatever the outcome, Bush is not used to working with anyone.

The big positive, for me, about this election is that we now have a chance for some congressional oversight. John Conyers in charge of a committee. Henry Waxman in charge of a committee. The list goes on and on. Congress has grossly neglected its oversight functions over the past many years. Hopefully, that will now change.

All the talk after the 2004 elections was about Bush's mandate. And he took that "mandate" and attempted to drive us hard in one direction. What the American people said yesterday was, "Wait a second. Not so fast." When you are in a hole, the first step is to stop digging. What this election does is change the rate of digging from fast to slow. It doesn't allow us to stop digging, not yet. The Republicans were able to build up a good bit of inertia moving this country further to the right. And Bush will be fighting as hard as he can to keep the unitary executive provisions in place.

There will be Democrats and Republicans who work as hard as they can to thwart the will of the people. They think that their incumbency is lifelong and that, once they get to Washington, they should never be questioned. Joe Lieberman is exhibit A. It is up to the people in the states and districts to hold their Senators and Representatives accountable whether that is through challenging incumbents in primaries or through general elections.

There's a huge backlash coming from the corporate whores in Washington, DC.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE