pudge's Journal: DYKR!!!

What the Democrats don't yet realize is that a big Democratic House victory is just what Karl Rove wanted, to ensure victory for the GOP in 2008.

Only half-kidding. If that much.

Moo

[ncc74656]

An LGFer dug up a quote from Ed Koch, from after he lost his last reelection bid (whenever that was). It seems appropriate for the circumstance we're now likely to face:

"The people have chosen, and now they must be punished."

Hopefully, that punishment won't involve a mushroom cloud over one of our cities.

Re:

[NeMon'ess]

Who'd be responsible for this mushroom cloud? A number of groups could bring in a device over the Mexican border to cause that cloud. The fact that no devices have gone off implies some combination of competence from our intelligence agencies, and the likely reality that there aren't any terrorist cells capable of such a device. They've all become too decentralized, in hiding, and lack resources.

it was expected

[eglamkowski]

Presidents in their 6th year have often seen a large loss of seats in Congress for their party. This year was no exception.

moderation in all things

[John M W 321]

If the government governs best that governs least, we certainly would not want a President, Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court all controlled by one party, sometimes by the slimmest of majorities. Why, a party with tons of money could even buy its way into power and who knows what havoc they might wreck? Rubber stamping Supreme Court appointments, unconstitutional legislation, abrogating legislative power to the executive, warrantless spying, arrest without charges or speedy trial, I mean

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[jdavidb]

If the government governs best that governs least, we certainly would not want a President, Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court all controlled by one party, sometimes by the slimmest of majorities.

Right. So the clearest solution is to fill the government with a bunch of people whose basic stated platform is to govern more??? That'll really put the reigns in on that rotten ol' Bush.

Re:

[John M W 321]

If you read my post, you will see that I argue against ANY one party being able to "fill the government". Where do I propose your "clear solution"? - I say rather the opposite.

Re:

[jdavidb]

I wasn't using "fill" to mean "100% fill," but "increase the number of."

Re:

[John M W 321]

Even if you mean "increase the number", that is not what I say either. I say don't let any group have too much power, and let everyone work together or get nothing done. It really does not matter to me who has too much power- the problem is they got too much. That is what checks and balances are all about, but that falls apart if a slim majority everywhere is not interested in checking or balancing anywhere. Then the minority gets unjustly screwed. I only favor just screwing.

Re:

[pudge]

If the government governs best that governs least, we certainly would not want a President, Senate, House of Representatives, and Supreme Court all controlled by one party

Unless one of those parties was actually committed to small government. My hope -- and it is quite possible -- is that the GOP will have learned its lesson for next time 'round.

Rubber stamping Supreme Court appointments

Are you implying either Roberts or Alito was "rubber-stamped"? Because the facts don't show this at all. Sure, only one

Re:

[John M W 321]

Are you implying these things might have already happened? I had no idea. I am shocked, shocked I tell you! Who is responsible?

----------
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Re:

[pudge]

Are you implying these things might have already happened?

No, you were.

And I repeat my request for you to back up your claim. And do not lie and say you were not making the claim.

Re:

[John M W 321]

Actually, I was not "making the claim", as a careful reading will show. I pointed out a risk. That is a technique I learned on the Internet. Can you say "bait"? So, now you can call me a liar, and be a liar. Maybe someday we will get back to the topic, but I have my doubts. And with you making it impossible for me to answer your assertion that I was implying something without you calling me a liar, I am offended. I will have to consider whether to honor your request that I back up a claim I did not make.

Re:

[pudge]

Actually, I was not "making the claim", as a careful reading will show. I pointed out a risk.

False. What you did was make the claim while trying to make it look like you weren't. You're transparent in your lie.

Relax

[RailGunner]

#1: In the final count, George Allen was leading, and I highly doubt the recount overturns that. So the Senate will remain GOP.
#2: 2 years of Nancy Pelosi, a far left San Francisco liberal, as the most prominent national Democrat, bodes extremely well for the GOP in 2008. Pelosi is shrill, unlikeable, and an extremist.
#3: The Dems are going to run Hillary in 2008. You haven't seen negative turnout until Hillary runs - outside of hard left Dems, the woman is reviled, and will lose to the GOP candidate. Som

Re:

[(trb001)]

#1: In the final count, George Allen was leading, and I highly doubt the recount overturns that. So the Senate will remain GOP.

As of last night around midnight, that wasn't the case...Webb had the lead by a few thousand votes and the remaining precincts that haven't finished reporting, in theory, lean Democratic. As of today, Montana has been "called" by CNN to have gone Democratic.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/sta tes/VA/S/01/index.html [cnn.com]

The rest of your points I agree with.

--trb

Re:

[RailGunner]

Whoops. When I went to bed last night Allen still had the lead.

Fine - the face of the Democrats is now Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton.

This election is just the final twitch of a dying Democrat party.

Re:

[ces]

This election is just the final twitch of a dying Democrat party.

You wish.

Re:

[pudge]

I do.

And I think there's a good chance of it. The Dems have an agenda, but it's not something the country wants, except "get out of the war," which they cannot do.

They will either do nothing and get crucified for it, or they will push their agenda and get crucified for it.

Re:

[ces]

The Dems have an agenda, but it's not something the country wants

Well the people have certainly shown they aren't too happy with the GOP agenda ether.

For that matter those minimum wage ballot measures seemed to do pretty well last night.

Oh and by the way ... I do believe last night was a complete shut out in the House, Senate, and Governor's races. IOW the GOP didn't defeat a single incumbent. Something that hasn't happened in over 80 years.

Re:

[John M W 321]

Actually, in two more years I expect the Republicans to do badly for the same reason they did badly now, the tragic war in Iraq. Tens of thousands have died, terrorists have their training ground, and no American, Republican or Democrat, has a viable realistic plan for dealing with it. Because basically, the Iraqis have to deal with it, and you can see how well that is going. So the war will go on and on, and Bush will take it on the chin for starting the whole thing, and the Republican party will get pu

Re:

[pudge]

Actually, in two more years I expect the Republicans to do badly for the same reason they did badly now, the tragic war in Iraq.

Maybe, but it is doubtful. Dissatisfaction with Iraq was not much higher in 2004 than it is now. The biggest differences between then and now are twofold. First, that the Republicans are so pissed off that they stayed home. Second, that other things in addition to the Iraq war have caused more independents (and some Republicans) to vote Democrat, just to get "change." And not

Re:

[John M W 321]

Dissatisfaction with Iraq was not much higher in 2004 than it is now.

False.

Just like the Democrats did in Vietnam? Oh wait, Nixon still had a Democrat Congress.

You obviously do not know the differences between Iraq and Vietnam. A minor one is that Johnson did not even stand for re-election in 1968- he took his medicine, and it was not a mid-term election setting the stage, which blows holes in your analogy. Anyway, time will tell, won't it? The ultimate test of my theory. Not some analogy. Past pe

Re:

[pudge]

False.

False. It is just over 60 percent now, and it was well over 50 percent in 2004.

You obviously do not know the differences between Iraq and Vietnam

False, and false.

A minor one is that Johnson did not even stand for re-election in 1968- he took his medicine, and it was not a mid-term election setting the stage, which blows holes in your analogy.

The relevant mid-term was in 1970, where the Dewmocrats actually gained in the House (and lost in the Senate), but still held on to power in both by a wide marg

Re:

[John M W 321]

Hook, line, and sinker.

Re:

[pudge]

LOL. You really think you proved something by having me prove your statements to be retarded? What planet are you on?

You have a point really...

[mackil]

I'm not sure if this is what Rove wanted, but it does feel a bit like 1994. The Republicans swept into power big time and started to make big changes, only to be defeated soundly by Clinton in the budget battle. The Democrats better keep in mind that while this might be like 1994, 1996 is right around the corner.

Just seemed like people were voting democrat...

[FortKnox]

... just to vote democrat. The two rep seats near Cincy were for incumbents Jean Schmidt (who I really don't like), and Steve Chabot (who I really do). I would have even voted a good democrat vs Jean Schmidt, but her opponent, Victoria Wulsin didn't even understand how the voting system worked. I am not against non-lifer politicians, but I don't want someone who doesn't understand the voting system in a federal office!
And the guy that went up against Steve Chabot? John Cranley... young, inexperienced,

Re:

[pudge]

Totally. Same thing happening with Dave Reichert here in WA. The guy is a well-respected freshman, and chairman of a House HomeSec subcommittee. A very important voice for our state. And the people are trying to replace him with Darcy Burner, some dimwitted chick with absolutely no experience, no evidence of original or interesting thought, just because she is against the war and has a D after her name. Total nonsense. Even with a D majority, Reichert (former King County Sheriff) would continue to be

Re:

[pudge]

Well the people have certainly shown they aren't too happy with the GOP agenda ether.

Well, yes and no. They are not pleased with how the GOP has been functioning, but that is not a dismissal of the agenda itself, except as expressed. By far, most Republicans will say the GOP agenda is small government, but that certainly is not what the GOP actually did. The GOP in DC has, for six years, not well-represented its own platform or membership very well, in some significant ways.

For that matter those minimum

Re:

[ncc74656]

Who'd be responsible for this mushroom cloud? A number of groups could bring in a device over the Mexican border to cause that cloud.

Thanks to the open-borders crowd that has infected both parties to some extent, that is a possibility. They could also just come in from one of the oceans and hit a coastal city.

The fact that no devices have gone off implies some combination of competence from our intelligence agencies

They've been better than the Donks would admit, but they have to be right 100% of