Charlie Cook Report: "the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats;" Predicts Even Money Likelihood of Dems Losing 20+ Seats

Actually, he seems to be modeling a 6-12 seat loss, but then tosses out those models based on gut on other factors and figures it's just as likely the Dems will lose more than twenty seats as they'll lose less than twenty seats.

20+ seats is a bit of small beer after lefty blogger Nate Silver predicted 20-50 was a likely range. But still.

"Many veteran Congressional election watchers, including Democratic ones, report an eerie sense of déjà vu, with a consensus forming that the chances of Democratic losses going higher than 20 seats is just as good as the chances of Democratic losses going lower than 20 seats."

Cook scrupulously avoided any mention that Democratic control of the House is in jeopardy but, noting a new Gallup poll showing Congress’ job disapproval at 70 percent among independents, concluded that the post-recess environment could feel considerably different than when Congress left in August.

"We believe it would be a mistake to underestimate the impact that this mood will have on Members of Congress of both parties when they return to Washington in September, if it persists through the end of the Congressional recess."

It's not all sunshine, though. The dribs and drabs of the poll the Washington Post is releasing on the installment plan makes it clear how high a hill we have yet to climb.

Question 901 (yeah, 901, but it's not that far down): On partisan affiliation, 35% say Democrat, and another 15% lean Democratic. 50% is the grim number there.

Only 25% of the country self-identifies as Republican, with another 14% leaning our way.

Absent continuing bad news for Obama & Co., then, we need to hold all of our own and pick up all the true unaffiliateds just break even with the Democrats.

This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract moderates. You might call it selling out. I tend to call it acknowledging reality. We do need to pick up the support of people not inclined to vote for us. And not just a few of those; most of those, at least as the situation now stands.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff for the WaPo tip.

Posted by: Ace at 05:50 PM



Comments

1 Couldn't happen to a nicer group

Posted by: Hotspur at August 20, 2009 05:52 PM (c158/)

2 Fail = good

Posted by: sTevo at August 20, 2009 05:54 PM (eA3tl)

3 Can't happen. With Mr. "Partners with God" in the WH, those seats could be a life and death decision.

Posted by: Pascal Fervor at August 20, 2009 05:55 PM (mE7Cl)

4 This isn't stopping the mad 150mph dash for the cliff but it is tapping the brakes and fighting with the driver for the steeringwheel.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 05:56 PM (0q2P7)

5 Although there are a couple political lifetimes until voting time, the Democrat brand has been so damaged by their overreaching and nutso spending that their backing off on the health-care fiasco and being reasonable will not save them. The tea parties started before it and will continue through 2012 and beyond. If they can be converted into a get out the vote effort on a par with ACORN, this country may be saved yet.

Posted by: Date and time stamped at August 20, 2009 05:57 PM (dRIab)

6 If the Republicans run some decent candidates(for once), and have a coherent message they will win big time. I'm betting they mess it up somehow.

Posted by: kefka at August 20, 2009 05:57 PM (udoJ3)

7 Hey Dems. Nice seats you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them (pitchfork and torches bearing conservatives).

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at August 20, 2009 05:58 PM (UOM48)

8 I guess 11% of those questioned on their party affiliation are Larouche supporters.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:01 PM (b/a/H)

9 So the relevant question is. What will these vulnerable Reps do? Go down in flames throwing in one desperate gasp to create a Socialist America, or desperately try to maintain their seat by suddenly developing "serious concerns about unintended consequences" over Obamacare.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:03 PM (0q2P7)

10 Most ethical Congress ever.Thanks Nancy!!

Posted by: Tom at August 20, 2009 06:04 PM (1l7Fx)

11 more likely... 20 seats in the minority...

Posted by: phreshone at August 20, 2009 06:04 PM (wQx2m)

12 Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:03 PM (0q2P7)
It is hard to imagine a politician, regardless of party, to knowingly do a kamikaze for the sake of Chicago Jesus. However, I have been amazed that the stupid shit I thought they would never do, they just did with lightening speed.

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at August 20, 2009 06:06 PM (l08G4)

13 Major Garrett just said the SEIU issued a statement today that if the health care plan doesn't go through this year, the Dems will lose seats next year. I'd say the Dems are toast no matter what they do or don't accomplish.


Posted by: Jane D'oh! at August 20, 2009 06:07 PM (UOM48)

14 the Democrat brand has been so damaged by their overreaching and nutso
spending that their backing off on the health-care fiasco and being
reasonable will not save them.

Have to disagree. If the economy picks up in early 2010 before the clusterfark spending really kicks into high gear, the Dem-Dem's could hang on.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it is the economy and it will always be the economy.

Posted by: Chimney Sweep #8 at August 20, 2009 06:07 PM (kIjlp)

15 The sad thing is that the ones most likely to be picked up are the nominally conservative blue dogs seats. (yeah yeah). The ultralibs are safe, as usual.

Posted by: toby928 at August 20, 2009 06:09 PM (PD1tk)

16 Even Money Likelihood of Dems Losing 20+ Seats
Bummer.
Republicans are, like, so icky.

Posted by: Meghan McCain at August 20, 2009 06:10 PM (VRZ7Z)

17 Hate to be the one to bring this up, but have we all forgotten national security? This administration has shown its belly to those who'd gleefully destroy us.

If something truly dreadful were to happen, health care be damned.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at August 20, 2009 06:11 PM (UOM48)

18
If the Republicans run some decent candidates(for once), and have a
coherent message they will win big time. I'm betting they mess it up
somehow.

Posted by: kefka at August 20, 2009 05:57 PM (udoJ3)
At some point Steele is gonna have to do something other than keep his simple yap shut, although if he's done that thus far knowing the MSM will pounce and deconstruct whatever he says to benefit the donks then good for him. But to win seats you have to make a compelling case for the party and if he fucks that up he should be sent so goddamn far away that even the Sunday chat shows forget about him.

Posted by: Captain Hate at August 20, 2009 06:12 PM (U1nHn)

19 This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract moderates

I'd like to see a 3-point scale for the "true unaffiliateds" -
0 = to left of Democrats,
1 = in between Democrats and Republicans,
2 = to right of Republicans

I wonder how many are 1s and how many 2s. It would be one thing if this were only me blowing smoke, but Barone just said this week "There are more conservatives than Republicans and more Democrats than liberals". So I'm not sure that going after 1s is a smart play if it leaves 2s sitting home.

Posted by: bgates at August 20, 2009 06:13 PM (Tf7Dr)

20 If we could pull the media in this country out by its roots, the Democrat Party wouldn't win as much as a church raffle for the next 600 years.

Posted by: nickless at August 20, 2009 06:13 PM (MMC8r)

21 What some of you are missing about the Republican vs Democrat battle is that a lot of Americans are saying "May a pox be on both of your houses!"

They don't trust the Republicans and now they won't trust the Democrats...

What to do, what to do...

The Republicans need to look for A Great Leader of their own, I suppose. You know...just to perpetuate the madness.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 20, 2009 06:13 PM (pmLjD)

22 But this is how the country looks to those watching only the MSM (i.e., most of our fellow citizens):

1. All these mean, loudmouth rednecks who don't care if people die are disrupting the nice congressmen's town hall meetings.

2. Many of these angry rednecks/country club Republicans are packing heat.

3. All of them are really racists, hating on the President.

4. Who is the most reasonable, soft-spoken guy we've ever had in the White House, and he only wants to take care of us all.

6. Bush tanked the economy; Obama's stimulus plan has pulled us out of the ditch. And besides, it's Free Money!

7. The Democrats are giving away Free Money! and we're gonna get our share, you betchya. Besides, they're only soaking the rich.

8. The Republicans only represent big corporations, the insurance companies, and white supremacist organizations.

9. They hate women, too.

10. And they pick on poor, defenseless undocumented workers who onlywanttomakealifeforthemselvesandtheirfamilies!

11. Cash for Clunkers = Recycling! and besides, it's Free Money!

12. And did I mention they're giving away Free Money?? to, like, everyone I know?

Y'all can think of more Memes the Left have put out through their lickspittle toadies, the "fourth estate." And they're devastating. Because most folks pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Ever.

Posted by: Beverly at August 20, 2009 06:15 PM (tV5re)

23 "If we could pull the media in this country out by its roots, the
Democrat Party wouldn't win as much as a church raffle for the next 600
years."

YES.

Posted by: Beverly at August 20, 2009 06:17 PM (tV5re)

24 Beverly
The image war you describe is pretty much only how Pelosi believes the people feel. Look at the ratings on FNC, and polls regarding all of these items. Public opinion is not how you portray it.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:19 PM (0q2P7)

25 This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract moderates. You might call it selling out. I tend to call it acknowledging reality. We do need to pick up the support of people not inclined to vote for us. And not just a few of those; most of those, at least as the situation now stands.
But that's just it, Ace. We can attract fence sitters and the otherwise apathetic by providing a *real choice*. As Bev pointed out in #22 above, the Commiecrat propaganda machine will brainwash many. What we have to do is attract those people who really didn't think about it before but are turned off by the blatant propaganda and the slipping mask.
What went wrong in 2006 was NOT Republicans being too extreme, so much as it was Republicans all too often being the same bloated, tone-deaf toads they had claimed to purge back in 1994.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:19 PM (ujg0T)

26 If the Republicans don’t get their heads out of their ass and get off of this “big tent” bull shit they will lose again and cease to exist as a Party.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:20 PM (CDUiN)

27 Hey, hopefully it will happen in Pennsyvania where Toomey has a new devestating add about Arlen Spector: how he went to the mat against nationalized health care in 2004 (as a Republican) and how he now supports a public option (his friend, Schumer's plan). I stole from Hotair, here's the link:
http://tinyurl.com/nb7maa

Posted by: runningrn at August 20, 2009 06:21 PM (D2il9)

28 I'd like to see a 3-point scale for the "true unaffiliateds" - 0 = to left of Democrats,1 = in between Democrats and Republicans,2 = to right of Republicans
Bingo! the dirty little secret is, there are a lot of 2s out there who are just disgusted and sitting it out (or worse, going Tim McVeigh). I think a Republican has to attract them with a real choice. Even the 1s will be motivated by a *real choice*.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:22 PM (ujg0T)

29 (Yeah, I know Spector's in the Senate not in the House, but this has got to leave a mark).

Posted by: runningrn at August 20, 2009 06:22 PM (D2il9)

30 @17 Hate to be the one to bring this up, but have we all forgotten national
security? This administration has shown its belly to those who'd
gleefully destroy us.

In some instances, they have -- but they've also kept in place many of the Bush administrations policies RE: Iraq/Iran etc. (merely implementing euphemisms as a "remedy"), pishing of a helluva lott the lefty nutroots. (See Cindy Sheehan).

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at August 20, 2009 06:22 PM (voIlD)

31 #30

What about the administration's (Pelosi's) attacks on the C.I.A.? Wonder how our intelligence is functioning? With all of The Won's apologizing to the world, I just feel we're more vulnerable than at any time since 9/11.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at August 20, 2009 06:26 PM (UOM48)

32 Lets see we had a Dem party that successfully portrayed the moderate Bush as a right wing nut.

They blamed everything wrong with the country on him.

Then equated McCain to Bush.

Bing! Election in bag.
I am tired of my party doing things like expanding medicare, and then having their had bit off by suddenly fiscally responsible Democrats. How about we run conservatives in the next election?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:26 PM (0q2P7)

33 If the Republicans run some decent candidates(for once), and have a coherent message they will win big time. I'm betting they mess it up somehow.
That's just it. Not having a coherent message is messing it up. And pseudo-Republican tarts like Meghan McCainor thoselike Colin Bowell will just muddle the message unless they are kicked out.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:29 PM (ujg0T)

34 Who would've thought that "Attempted Socialist/Fascist/Communist Takeover=Epic Electoral Fail"?

Fuckin' lying pollsters.......

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:30 PM (bBkG9)

35 Considering the President's radical agenda, if the Dems get spanked in 2010, they're going to pull into their shells, because . . . well, the job market's still going to be shite.

Posted by: Dan Collins at August 20, 2009 06:30 PM (5H4O2)

36 If we could pull the media in this country out by its roots, the
Democrat Party wouldn't win as much as a church raffle for the next 600
years it would grow back in about five years.

Fixed.

Posted by: OregonMuse at August 20, 2009 06:31 PM (TnUnj)

37 So is it OK to say, I want him to fail now?

Posted by: bill-tb at August 20, 2009 06:31 PM (iiiMw)

38 >>>We can attract fence sitters and the otherwise apathetic by providing a *real choice*.

That's not usually how it works. If Side One provides a clear, compelling, principled stance on Divisive Issue X,
then Side Two provides a vague, mushy stance.

Result? On that issue Side One gets passionate supporters on their side, but only a minority. Side Two picks up less enthusiastic supporters, but a majority. Side Two, by fudging and being all things to all people, scoops up most of those meh or conficted on the issue.

Also, there is the tone thing, which i get chewed out on. Giving up a bit on mere tone helps. Give up a little on mere tone, fight harder (but with a sweet and gentle tone) on substance.

Obama didn't get elected by being angry, or appearing to be what he was (a doctrinaire left-liberal). His tone was moderate.

He hid the leftist substance beneath a veneer of "moderate" tone.

This is why the Rush Limbaugh type arguments exasperate me. We are arguing and fighting for the proposition that it's great to be angry and uncompromising when addressing the public.

I don't believe that -- not if you're a politician. Thinkers and theorists, sure. But not politicians.

A lot of times conservatives make the mistake the netroots ALMOST did before their Democratic masters talked sense into them.

A lot of conservatives feel good venting outrage, and because it feels good, they convince themselves it must also be politically prudent.

Not true. What feels good and what is in your own prudent self-interest are rarely aligned.

So we seem to have a lot of fights about tone, when we should be agreeing that we can sacrifice a bit of tone to gain power, and retain the substance of the agenda.

Again, this is what Obama did. And Nancy and Rahm in 2006; they did not sell themselves as ideological warriors. Oh, they did that for the nutroots, but in addressing the country they swore up and down they could be trusted, they were nice and even-tempered and would just make things better.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 06:32 PM (jKmpd)

39 The Washington Post poll is totally bogus. It was throughout the election and it has been the outlier to Obama's side since the election. The reason they are releasing it on the installment plan is that they have Odumbass at between 57% and 59% and they want to get far enough away from NBC's 51% that they can claim Obama has turned it around.
Don't believe me? Watch.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2009 06:33 PM (H60q6)

40 @6 If
the Republicans don’t get their heads out of their ass and get off of
this “big tent” bull shit they will lose again and cease to exist as a
Party.

Bullshit. The Republican Party will not cease to exist. Name me a viable alternative, and tell me how many electoral votes that party accrued last election. Third party offshoots have no chance, even though every year there's a hoard of purists who huff and puff about joining some straggling third party.

Like it or not, we have essentially a two-party electorate system. You can either get in the game and pick the one most aligned (but obviously not perfectly) with your ideals, or sit it out as a matter of principle and take your chances. "Perfect" parties do not exist because people are far too diverse in their ideological agendas, even when they align themselves with either a basic "left" or "right" party, thus the need for the two major parties to be as inclusive as possible to gain a majority of voters. Some people may not like what that inclusion brings to the table, but if you want to win elections, it's necessary.

Posted by: Capt. Numbstick at August 20, 2009 06:34 PM (voIlD)

41 Charlie Cook: Dem situation has 'slipped completely out of control'
Duh.

Posted by: Explodie at August 20, 2009 06:36 PM (lAOwF)

42 I've recently re-registered as a Democrat, strictly to fuck with Specter during the next Primaries. I wanna see that lousy sack of shit go down, HARD.

Posted by: Xoxotl at August 20, 2009 06:36 PM (j88uA)

43 Why do you guys continue to behave like the DNC is the enemy? It is the whole fucking system.

Win seats and we get more elite enrichment. Lose seats and we have more socialism. But either way, I guarantee working stiff-you lose.

The machine is broke. It is a Commodore 64. A buggy whip. Get it? Maybe 45 years worth of self serving politicians isn't enough of a clue. Maybe we need another 45 years of this shit. Wake up!

The enemy is government, pure and simple. They cater to monopolies in the banking and financial system, the health and drug system, the insurance system. The auto industry, the mortgage bankers. They send in huge bucks so that these lapdogs will do their bidding. That bidding is stealing your work product, enriching themselves, and making you poor.

But I suppose if it makes you feel better, beat up those libs. Then when you "win" the libs can pound on the conservatives in a never ending war of we win and you lose, sucka!

Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 06:36 PM (C6U+o)

44 by the way Kos and other spokesmen of the nutroots didn't like Obama, because they hated his tone. they hated how he "accepted Republican framing of an issue," thereby conceding points to the GOP.

That was always nonsense. What Obama was doing was just making nice chit-chat about how he "respected the other side' and that "These are difficult questions." He did that to appear reasonable and himself genuinely torn between the poles of ideological thought, which people like.

It was all a lie. He was never "torn" and he never "respected the other side." He just claimed he did.

He gave up what the nutroots wrongly wanted -- tonal stridency -- in order to seize what they should have wanted -- actual power and the ability to push through his true extremist agenda.

Kos and the nutrootos were always wrong about that crap and I am proud to say I always knew they were wrong. I always knew Obama was making the right moves. I always knew he was twice as dangerous as Hillary-- who we could have probably beaten, even with McCain.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 06:36 PM (jKmpd)

45 This is why the Rush Limbaugh type arguments exasperate me. We are arguing and fighting for the proposition that it's great to be angry and uncompromising when addressing the public.
Then how did 1994 happen? Rush didn't change then and he hasn't changed now.
Obama didn't get elected by being angry, or appearing to be what he was (a doctrinaire left-liberal). His tone was moderate. He hid the leftist substance beneath a veneer of "moderate" tone.
Shades of Clinton. But when the radical gloves came off in 1993-4, the Great Upchuck followed. I can't help but think another Great Upchuck is in the works.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:38 PM (ujg0T)

46 Oh OH OH!
I have been waiting for Ace to drop the "don't argue with the readership" stance and get sucked in again.

So how exactly so we make a message that appeals to the squishy, without sounding confused, unmotivating, and unprincipled (e.g. the McCain approach)?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:39 PM (0q2P7)

47 Ace, the Republican Party has been trying the “moderate” route since they allowed the media to blame the government shutdown on the Republicans during the Clinton years. They have been steadily losing ever since.

They went even further with the advent of Bush I and Bush II and the squishie Republicans. They lost even bigger. When we got the actual liberal RINO McLame they lost by the largest margin in decades.

The Republican Party MUST take back the small government conservative brand and they MUST fix the stupid primary rules.

So yeah, we need a more moderate campaign. They work so damn well.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:40 PM (CDUiN)

48 >>>Then how did 1994 happen? Rush didn't change then and he hasn't changed now.

You act as if Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America wasn't involved.

In case you're missing my point, I'm not saying Rush shouldn't be Rush. I'm saying that CANDIDATES should't be Rush, and conservatives should stop picking on those candidates when they refuse to match Rush's level of tonal stridency.

Rush is a great asset. He is not, however, a candidate, and you don't elect great assets. . You elect candidates.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 06:40 PM (jKmpd)

49
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 06:32 PM (jKmpd)
Agreed. Ideology gets you 30% of the vote, whether that ideology is "Kumbaya" or "Get the hell off my lawn".The left's answer to that conundrum has been to try to move, through the education system, the dumbing down of our courts, and the fait accompli unconstitutional stuff they pawn off, the 30% natural share they have to a 35-40% share. Makes their job a lot easier at that point.
Our answer is to respond with appeals to an attack on, and reform of, the leftist educational system, real activism to hold courts accountable, and making sure the Constitution is adhered to.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:40 PM (bBkG9)

50 You act as if Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America wasn't involved.
Did we live through the same history?Newt was a fighter too. And that's why the Commiecrats went all out to smear him.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:42 PM (ujg0T)

51 Bullshit. The Republican Party will not cease to exist.

You can yell bullshit all you want but that last election should have been a wakeup call.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:42 PM (CDUiN)

52 Damn. That lost post was abso-fucking-lutely Byzantine in its syntax. Sorry.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:43 PM (bBkG9)

53 Ace will be called a RINO in 5 4 3....

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (b/a/H)

54 Mike the Moose,

I'll give you an example.

I hate global warming nonsense. I hate it. I am not a single-issue voter but this is among the top five for me.

Now, what do I do with a candidate who admits that "global warming is at least partly man-made" and we should "take some steps to mitigate that?"

What if that candidate, while tossing a bone to the environmental nuts, is, we know, pretty much opposed to all of this gas and oil restriction, and is kind of being cynical and pandering here?

Do we castigate that candidate for lacking principle? For not proudly declaring our (or at least my) beliefs?

or do we undertand that sometimes you have to fudge a bit to make a sale?

BTW: The candidate I'm thinking about here is Sarah Palin, who, after prodding from the media, said that she thought global warming was at least partly man-made but we didn't know how much.

I tend to think she is... um... fudging. I don't think she really believes that. I think it's something she has to say.

So, am I supposed to beat up on her for selling me out?

Or do I roll with it and understand how the game has to be played?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (jKmpd)

55 Vic: sorry, but no. 3rd parties are a joke. If the fate of the Perot-nistas didn't teach you that, what will? Yes, the GOP needs another Uncle Newt (or, since the leftist smear machine never proved anything and he has been vindicated, his return). But 3rd parties are a joke, repeat.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (ujg0T)

56 and conservatives should stop picking on those candidates when they refuse to match Rush's level of tonal stridency.

I was so hoping someone would dig up this zombie again! (Gets popcorn) Okay everyone got your gun? Good now stand in a circle...

My 4 halfpennies.

I never said Politicians should talk like Rush. Only that they could not throw him under the bus when he says something controversial. Maybe do some politiking and translate outlandish Rush statements into real, popularly consumable, political points.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (0q2P7)

57 I think a new name for this place should be "Ka-pow!"

Posted by: Explodie at August 20, 2009 06:45 PM (lAOwF)

58 Like it or not, we have essentially a two-party electorate system. You can either get in the game and pick the one most aligned ... with your ideals, or sit it out as a matter of principle and take your chances.

Which brings up an interesting idea for a poll: how many of those that believe a third party is necessary know their local GOP HQ manager by first name?

Posted by: Chimney Sweep #8 at August 20, 2009 06:45 PM (kIjlp)

59 Ace will be called a RINO in 5 4 3....

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (b/a/H)
...2...RINO!!!!Damn. Premature again.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:45 PM (bBkG9)

60 "This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract moderates."

Those folks dont make up their minds until the week of the election. Stay focused.

Posted by: wHodat at August 20, 2009 06:46 PM (+sBB4)

61 I always knew Obama was making the right moves. I always knew he was twice as dangerous as Hillary-- who we could have probably beaten, even with McCain.

There is ONE reason, and only one reason why Obama beet Hillary – lack of media vetting of Obama and the media being in the tank for him. That showed up in the surge that Hillary got when all of the stuff started leaking out despite the media.

There is ONE reason and only one reason why Obama won the election. John shitstick RINO McLame.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:46 PM (CDUiN)

62 After McCain, I'm unafiliated. I'll vote a straight R ticket next time. If republicans get in power one more time and step on their dicks again, I'll go fishing on election day from then on. Unless a Conservative Party arises. No, I don't mind if that kills the republican party. The real republicans can stay and give the win to the dems, or they can come with me. Up to them.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 06:47 PM (dQdrY)

63 OK, in #55 I get an idea of what Ace is saying. But I really do fear and loathe the "give them an inch" approach, because the Demunists do wind up taking a mile. Palin, in his example can be trusted, but those eight who voted for that craptastic climate fraud legislation in the House? There are more of them than one of Palin.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:47 PM (ujg0T)

64 60
Ace will be called a RINO in 5 4 3....

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:44 PM (b/a/H)
...2...RINO!!!!Damn. Premature again.

Think about baseball. Works every time.

Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (b/a/H)

65 55
Mike the Moose,



I'll give you an example.


OK I'll buy that. Buy McSquish, was just doing that way way way too much. You couldn't find a conservative beneath the vernier.


Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (0q2P7)

66 Charlie Cook is just about the last guy to call a trend, so if he sees one now, it is big news in the political world. He refused to call the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 until about halfway through Election Day when the exit polls started coming in. In May of 2006, he didn't think Republicans would lose control of Congress either. He's a very good race-by-race analyst, but he is too afraid of making a mistake to get out in front of big trends.

Posted by: rockmom at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (xOEA9)

67 Obama lied and he had the media to cover for him, we didn't know he was posting on Kos, or Reverend Wright, and when they did the impact of it was weakened, or plain washed out. Kucinich was probably the base's preference or Howard Dean (yearg) but they weren't going anywhere. If there is this big a slide, now it'll be an avalanche by next year.

Posted by: ian cormac at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (tFKIo)

68 Vic: sorry, but no. 3rd parties are a joke.

That’s what they said in 1860 and the country is once again back at a situation similar to 1860.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (CDUiN)

69 BTW, Ross Perot was just another liberal running under false colors and most people saw that.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:49 PM (CDUiN)

70 Also,being BF insane didn't help him any.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:50 PM (CDUiN)

71 After McCain, I'm unafiliated.
So you won't help make a difference in the primaries. Well, in some states you will, but so will Demunist sabateurs and you will be nullified. We need to redo the whole primary process.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:50 PM (ujg0T)

72 What Obama was doing was just making nice chit-chat ....It was all a lie.

How much good would it do to emulate that tone, given (a) our base is opposed to lying, and (b) the media wouldn't cover for us like it does for them?

Sure, a platform of "FSCK the Commiecrats" would be unwise. But what tonal missteps did they make in 2008, running Mr Bipartisanship and the nice lady from the PTA?

Posted by: bgates at August 20, 2009 06:50 PM (Tf7Dr)

73 Listen. I understand a Republican in the Rino district of NY doing something stupid to toss a bone as a moderate. The problem is guys like my rep, Mike Turner in the 3rd Ohio who voted for SCHIP, the Farm Reacharound bill, and other shit like that. Absolutely no reason for a Rino in the cornfields out here, and yet there he is. What can we do to get the non-natural RINOs from being douchebags?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:50 PM (bBkG9)

74 Obama beet Hillary

Stay away from my farm.

Posted by: Dwight Shrute at August 20, 2009 06:51 PM (qdTAl)

75 Think about baseball. Works every time.


Posted by: Dr. Spank at August 20, 2009 06:48 PM (b/a/H)
Your moniker makes me doubt your advice, friend.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:51 PM (bBkG9)

76 I think Obama is doomed.

Why? He last lost my elderly parents.

My parents have been typical FDR Democrats for decades. They trusted Obama, they fell for the rhetoric, etc.

And over the last several weeks they've become terribly disillusioned, they feel they have been lied to. And I've shown them the clips that have been circulating where Obama says one thing to America, and then we have a video tape of him saying what he REALLY believes to his friends-- SIEU, etc.

The abortion issue has pushed them over the edge. They fell for the rhetoric that he was really secretly pro-life. Now they have watched the clip where he says one thing to America and another thing when he doesn't think the cameras are on.

WHEN a Democratic has lost the support of my parents, who have voted straight Democrat for decades... they are doomed.

My Dad now thinks Obama is a monster "He lied to us, for months. Where was the media? They knew these clips were out there, and they covered for him while he lied to us. They cover for him now. He is a monster. He lies about abortion, and then secretly promises to pay for every abortion."

Obama is done.

Posted by: Sir Elliot at August 20, 2009 06:52 PM (DUNS7)

77 Yeah, I hate beets too.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:52 PM (CDUiN)

78
That’s what they said in 1860 and the country is once again back at a situation similar to 1860.

Let's get real, shall we? As bad as things are, they are not pre-Civil War. Moreover, 1860 only goes to show how dangerousmultiparty elections truly are. As bad as things are, they are less divisive than 1968, when the last seriously strong 3rd party erupted.

BTW, Ross Perot was just another liberal running under false colors and most people saw that.

Oh really? Then why did Bush lose? Perot, like it or not, took more votes from Bush.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:53 PM (ujg0T)

79 Have you guys seen this???
http://tinyurl.com/ntcfw4

Posted by: lowfibass at August 20, 2009 06:56 PM (QkDpw)

80 As I see it, the best things going for the republicans is two things: 1) Bush has not said one word since he left office. Silence is golden. 2) The RNC has been real quiet. Again, silence is golden. The Dem's as turning on themselves since there are no outside targets to attack daily. They need to feed ya know.

Posted by: Mystry at August 20, 2009 06:56 PM (dIHlE)

81 I think the Republican Party is dead money, pure and simple.

I don't think the Dems will lose shit for seats as each one of those self serving buffoons disavow any link to the "government plan." A bunch of sheep will march to the polls, unconsciously claiming they are "good citizens" and they will pull a lever for the same old idiots.

This is class warfare. After they take your money, they'll offer you a few scraps. Healthcare, food stamps, loans and grants. They'll tell you they are doing you a favor. That's how it works, that's how its been working.

Please any one of you, convince me that with 50 trillion coming due, it can go any other way. Please...

Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 06:57 PM (C6U+o)

82 I'm holding out for the first "Ace is an anti-white elitist who shouldslither back to LGF" post, myself.
Any of the above slurs will do. :^)

Posted by: David Ross at August 20, 2009 06:57 PM (rtzHA)

83 Let's get real, shall we? As bad as things are, they are not pre-Civil War.

Yes, they are.

What has the people pissed is a sense of losing control of their own government, which is what I've been saying for weeks. This is not about policy, particular pieces of legislation, etc. There is a "general sense" that the train is off the rails. That a powderkeg makes. I don't advise it, support it, or prescribe it. But it is the real situation. You're wrong, Curmudgeon.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:57 PM (bBkG9)

84 so we should run someone that has conservative values , fiscal responsibilty , not "growing gvt,",that are Proven and hope he/she/it knows how to play this campaigning better than This one has, btw how un heck can we come up with the kind of funds it took to buy this last campaign.
did we ever find out where the donations came from?

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 06:58 PM (1kwr2)

85 I'm holding out for the first "Ace is an anti-white elitist who shouldslither back to LGF" post, myself.

I know he's anti-semitic, at least as it applies to Jewish armored vehicles. Can't say as I blame him on that one though.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 06:59 PM (bBkG9)

86 my parents, who have voted straight Democrat for decades

And they fell out of love with Obama because it turns out he's not pro-life?

What do they think about the rumors that a Democratic Congress might withdraw all military support from South Vietnam?

Posted by: bgates at August 20, 2009 07:00 PM (Tf7Dr)

87 Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 06:50 PM (ujg0T)
By the time the primaries got to Texas, it didn't mean much.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:00 PM (dQdrY)

88 What has the people pissed is a sense of losing control of their own government, which is what I've been saying for weeks. This is not about policy, particular pieces of legislation, etc. There is a "general sense" that the train is off the rails. That a powderkeg makes. I don't advise it, support it, or prescribe it. But it is the real situation. You're wrong, Curmudgeon.
I am happy to be wrong. Because if you are right, the Great Upchuck of 1994 will be a little burp in comparison. I would love to see the most disgusting of Demunists like Boxer in my Senate vomited out of the body politic like a bad stomach flu. I would love to see all but the most gerrymandered Commiecrat or maybe the most bluedoggy of good old boy Democrats removed in a Great Electoral Purge.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 07:01 PM (ujg0T)

89 And who can change the media spin?

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:01 PM (1kwr2)

90 >>>What has the people pissed is a sense of losing control of their own government, which is what I've been saying for weeks. This is not about policy, particular pieces of legislation, etc.

Which people? Bear in mind Obama is at 50% approval and 49% of the public has a positive feeling about the democratic party.

You can't cry revolution when majorities or near-majorities still support most of their program.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:01 PM (jKmpd)

91 Republicans will win big if they pound the shit put of fiscal matters. It's the economy, stupid. Tax cuts, reduced government spending, balanced budget. Pocket book appeals will kill the Dems.

Posted by: DelD at August 20, 2009 07:01 PM (/PvVu)

92 I would be happy to be wrong that is.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 07:02 PM (ujg0T)

93 Are they factoring in the Tea Party Mob walking precincts, making phone calls, donating and working for conservative candidates?

Posted by: ExZonie at August 20, 2009 07:03 PM (as47X)

94 Republicans will win big if they pound the shit put of fiscal matters. It's the economy, stupid. Tax cuts, reduced government spending, balanced budget. Pocket book appeals will kill the Dems.
News flash--the so-called social issues are starting to havedeep economic impacts. My home state will bea textbook example of this in some future course at a college like Hillsdale or any other school not infected.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (ujg0T)

95 Ace said, "What has the people pissed is a sense of losing control of their own government, which is what I've been saying for weeks. This is not about policy, particular pieces of legislation, etc"
I agree with most of that but it's also about policy And legislation. It's like breakneck speed since Sept!

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (1kwr2)

96 "I tend to call it acknowledging reality."
Reality being that many Republicans want to push moderates right out of the tent (or this blog) if they don't walk lock step in line with the social conservatives. I don't give a shit about gay marriage or overturning Roe v Wade. Limiting the growth and power ofthe Government is my number one concern. Maybe fighting socialism is the common ground that will forge a winning coalition of moderates, fiscal cons, and social cons. Can't we all just get along?


Posted by: California Red at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (7uWb8)

97 >We do need to pick up the support of people not inclined to vote for us.

then we need to drop some of the social issues
Republicans need to stop telling people how to live their private lives

Posted by: Lex Luthor at August 20, 2009 07:08 PM (KOkrW)

98 Let's see...conservatives think Social Security and Medicare are good things...but that socialism and government controlled health care are bad things?

er...uh...That doesn't much match what the Founding Fathers hadda say about government.

Let's see...Paying your taxes is capital "P" Patriotism...but the Founding Fathers had some things to say about that...things that don't match conservative doctrines and teachings.

Conservatives are all about freedom andliberty, they say...but they are proud to pay for government permission to live in a house, buy a car, drive that car, open a business and hire employees and pay fees and licenses and government certifications and what have you to the government for permission to do those things and more.

When in power, conservatives come up with laws that limit what other people can do with their own lives and scream bloody murder when their ideological opponents do the same when they are in power, yet neither side can understand why their are 200,000 pages of laws in the Federal Codes alone..or why the "Free-est nation on earth!" has the highest incarceration rate in the world.

The entire list of such cognitive dissonance on both sides is pretty long, folks.

It's not a matter of freedom in America or of Great Leaders among you. It's a matter of which flavor of fascism you prefer. Left or right? All of your fighting and arguing isn't about freedomand liberty. It's over which form of slavery you prefer...and over who gets to put the collar around your necks and the chains on your legs.

Ayup. The inmates are in charge of the asylum.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 20, 2009 07:08 PM (pmLjD)

99 Which people? Bear in mind Obama is at 50% approval and 49% of the public has a positive feeling about the democratic party.



You can't cry revolution when majorities or near-majorities still support most of their program.





Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:01 PM (jKmpd)
I'm not crying revolution.
When, in your experience, have you seen congressmen booed out of their own meetings? Police stand by while armed men await the President? When has the sense of this whole experiment going in the shitter been this tingly? Never.Peggy Noonan, before the Obatomy that she's apparently recovered from, wrote a column that really struck a nerve with a lot of people. She likened the country to a trolley slowly losing contact with its rails, or something like that. Well, we've now derailed.As for those majorities or near-majorities? We're 7 months in today. His polls are going down like poon on Dum-Dum. We're politics geeks. Most people aren't. But they ARE paying attention, and they're paying attention in a way I've not seen in my vast vast vast experience of 40 years drinking beer.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:08 PM (bBkG9)

100 I see a disturbing trend in the President's invocation of God in his advocacy of the Democrats' health care reform bill. I think he is pandering to the religious fundamentalists inthe party.

Posted by: Tom Ridge of Bone Over The Eyes at August 20, 2009 07:08 PM (w41GQ)

101 #74 Herr Morgenholz I am from the Ohio 1st. Acorn did their job and just barely got Driehaus (D) in. The only thing that these Ohio idiot politicians know is knock them between the legs with a baseball bat. This way you get to hit two balls with one swing. You just might get their attention this way. Dumb asses.

Posted by: Mystry at August 20, 2009 07:09 PM (dIHlE)

102 84
Let's get real, shall we? As bad as things are, they are not pre-Civil War.

Yes, they are.

My day job requires talking to a lot of folks. They are pissed. A common denominator in all of those folks is that government has absolutely lost its fucking mind.

That ain't limited to just Dems and Libs. The absolute greatest transfer of wealth in the history of this country occurred under Bush. A bunch of slave labor brought in and farmed out to the Pac Rim. Enriched monopolies and elitists.

FIVE PERCENT OF THIS COUNTRY PAY 96 percent of the taxes.

So you Cons want to make that even worse, do you? When the whole country can't pay their own freight, you turn them into sniveling kids begging for handouts. Socialism-Obama style.

It's here. Anger is bi-partisan.


Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 07:09 PM (C6U+o)

103 As bad as things are, they are less divisive than 1968, when the last seriously strong 3rd party erupted.

I was around in 1968 and I disagree. I think they are just as divisive now as they were then. We haven’t reached the level of divisiveness of 1860 but we are getting there. The issue of 1860 was the elimination of the economy of half the country. If crap and tax passes we will have roughly the same thing and we will be there.

Oh really? Then why did Bush lose? Perot, like it or not, took more votes from Bush.

Even with Ross Perot Bush didn’t lose by that much. Perot got 19% of the vote and Bush lost by just under 6%. I actually think more conservatives stayed at home in that election as well. More than the number that voted for Perot.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:09 PM (CDUiN)

104 Ace said, "What has the people pissed is a sense
of losing control of their own government, which is what I've been
saying for weeks. This is not about policy, particular pieces of
legislation, etc"
I agree with most of that but it's also about policy And legislation. It's like breakneck speed since Sept!

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (1kwr2)
No. That was me. Ace did not say that.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:09 PM (bBkG9)

105 Can't we all just get along?
Posted by: California Red at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (7uWb
Sure. Why does that always mean I have to be the one giving ground?

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:10 PM (dQdrY)

106 Which people? Bear in mind Obama is at 50% approval and 49% of the public has a positive feeling about the democratic party.



You can't cry revolution when majorities or near-majorities still support most of their program.

We are not trying to supplant Obama....Yet, only congressional seats, which polling shows to be viewed in a far dimmer light.

While Repubs are winning in the generic Congressional poll, Obama's approval index is at -6. The reneging on the whole "Net budget cut" while foisting big government bloated solutions at every turn is the genesis of his steep slide in the polls.

Thinking 3 years down the road, after that hyperinflation hits. We might have what it takes then. Until then we can make a strong pull get the seats necessary to hit the breaks on this socialism operation.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 07:11 PM (0q2P7)

107 We're 8 months in and it's starting to get nasty. I'm amazed on how many people on "both sides of the aisle" think this is just run of the mill politics.

The SWHTF very soon. The economy is going to tank and hard. We still don't know what those damn Islamists got up their sleeves.

I got a feeling some dreadful things are over the horizon. This is beyond Jackass and Elephant.
This about our Constitution and Progressive hell.

If people are this angry now imagine next year. If the Dems don't lose heavily next year then we'll be on a verge of a civil war.

It will be obvious the "election" was rigged. Obama will not recover from this. Sorry folks but the days of Dem. and Repub. are over. This is it.

2011-2012 is going to be like nothing we've ever seen.

Posted by: USMC at August 20, 2009 07:13 PM (wDAko)

108 If you want to make a comparison on a smaller scale take a look at Massachusetts. Deval Patrick's "Together We Can" campaign of platitudes was run by David Axelrod. He had zero experience, but the Kool-Aid drinkers bought his soaring rhetoric and were able to assuage some of their white guilt and voted him in.

He has turned out to be an utter failure.

His current approval rating? 19%.


Posted by: loppyd at August 20, 2009 07:13 PM (UJIeT)

109 Though the alleged threats came after his FBI service ended, Orozco
said Turner’s relationship with the FBI is relevant to his defense.

Guess it takes a few links to get the real scoop...

Posted by: JavaJoe at August 20, 2009 07:13 PM (Am6n/)

110 Herr Morgenholz , i apologise sir.

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (1kwr2)

111 Cooperate with us. We know what we are doing. Look at SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Crap and Trade, the Bank Bailout, Government Motors and Government Health, the Post Office.

We have an outstanding record. Now just give us more of your money and everything will be fine.


Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (C6U+o)

112 Given the tendency of the current Democrat leadership to be arrogant, blind, and stupid, and then to double down on arrogant, blind, and stupidafter it starts tocost them, I just don't see them changing their basic approach to save themselves. Their minds just don;t work that way.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (w41GQ)

113 and also to Ace.

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (1kwr2)

114 Well, keep talking revolution.

Bear in mind that when there is no plausible constitutional pretext to claim that government authority was corruptly or illegally obtained, 80-90% of the military and national guard will remain loyal to the elected government.

So in the end you're talking about killng soldiers and national guardsmen. WONDERFUL.*

* More likely, of course, you're talking about being easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy killed BY them, but if it somehow demonstrates how ANGRY you are to discuss killing soldiers and guardsmen, have at it.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (jKmpd)

115 94
Are they factoring in the Tea Party Mob walking precincts, making phone calls, donating and working for conservative candidates?

Posted by: ExZonie at August 20, 2009 07:03 PM (as47X)

My hopes. The anti-ACORN.

Posted by: Date and time stamped at August 20, 2009 07:15 PM (dRIab)

116 DONT THEY HACVE LIKE A 77 SEAT MARGIN? SO WHAT GOOD IS 20 SEATS?

Posted by: Ben at August 20, 2009 07:15 PM (f0I0I)

117 Herr Morgenholz , i apologise sir.

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (1kwr2)
No no no/ No apology necessary. Just keeping the record straight.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:15 PM (bBkG9)

118 Reality being that many Republicans want to push moderates right out of the tent (or this blog) if they don't walk lock step in line with the social conservatives.

Bullshit, that is the media line on conservatives. The media calls people like the Maine twins moderates when they vote for big government socialism. The call people like Huckabee a “conservative” when he votes for big government tax and spend. The facts are BOTH of them are liberals and should be in the party.

You can be a religious person who doesn’t like abortion and gay marriage and STILL be a conservative but you can’t be a big government tax and spend person and be a conservative. Those are the ones that need to be purged.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:16 PM (CDUiN)

119 Here's a thought: let's just put sacks of shit in those seats. They'd do a better job.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at August 20, 2009 07:16 PM (P33XN)

120
Well, keep talking revolution.



Bear in mind that when there is no plausible constitutional pretext to
claim that government authority was corruptly or illegally obtained,
80-90% of the military and national guard will remain loyal to the
elected government.



So in the end you're talking about killng soldiers and national guardsmen. WONDERFUL.*


* More likely, of course, you're talking about being
easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy killed BY them, but if it somehow demonstrates
how ANGRY you are to discuss killing soldiers and guardsmen, have at
it.





Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:14 PM (jKmpd)
Mmmmm. I have the uneasy feeling you are talking to me from around that bend you just travelled.....

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:17 PM (bBkG9)

121 Mike the Moose,

I am not disputing it is critical to put the dems out of office.

I am ridiculing this notion that some here are going to take out their guns and dispose them by force of arms.

Really. Really. Really.

We will displace these guys as we always do and always have and always will, through political exeertion, not through "revolution." Except if it is of the metaphoric kind, such as Reagan Revolution or Gingrich Revolution.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:18 PM (jKmpd)

122
Here's a thought: let's just put sacks of shit in those seats. They'd do a better job.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at August 20, 2009 07:16 PM (P33XN)
It hasn't worked so far.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:18 PM (bBkG9)

123 California Red at August 20, 2009 07:05 PM (7uWb
You better care, slim. Keep letting this country rot from the inside out and small government vs. big government will be the least of your worries.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at August 20, 2009 07:18 PM (P33XN)

124 117
DONT THEY HACVE LIKE A 77 SEAT MARGIN? SO WHAT GOOD IS 20 SEATS?

For one thing, it makes for a 37 seat margin. The closer you get to even, the harder it is for them to do anything. Look at how hard healthcare is for them to get with a 77 seat margin.

Posted by: AmishDude at August 20, 2009 07:20 PM (T0NGe)

125 Herr, I am. You're on and on about "powderkegs" and a situation about to burst into "revolution."

And this seems to be your preferred solution to everything.

Health care? Revolution.

Taxes? Revolution.

Stamps going up? Revolution.

If you really want to talk about revolution than you should consider what it is you are really talking about. And that means killing soldiers, who usually do not side with the revolutionaries.

Can we stop talking about guns and militia shit and focus on, well, more realistic plans?



Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:20 PM (jKmpd)

126 Really, Ace. If I've called for revolution, quote me. And if you can do that, report me to the nearest US Attorney for violations of the Smith Act. At least I think it's the Smith Act. Fuck. There's gotta be a law against that shit. You're the lawyer.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:21 PM (bBkG9)

127 The facts are BOTH of them are liberals and should beOUT ofthe party.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:21 PM (CDUiN)

128 Can we stop talking about guns and militia shit and focus on, well, more realistic plans?









Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:20 PM (jKmpd)
I haven't. Fucking quote me.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (bBkG9)

129 Party Purity !!

Posted by: John ryan at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (1ZaAe)

130
Can we talk about longbows?

Posted by: Tweet Orlando & Dawn at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (ZyYZ0)

131 Congressional elections? I'll be back.

Posted by: Mark Foley at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (YCVBL)

132 I hate that Beatles song anyway...

Posted by: loppyd at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (UJIeT)

133 Stamps going up? Revolution.
Now THAT was fucking ironic.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:22 PM (bBkG9)

134 What this post needs is more cowbell

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 07:23 PM (taJZA)

135 Why would any moderates join a party filled with lunatic right wingers, even if they are dissatisfied? The Dems may lose a few Blue Dogs, but that would be a good thing.

Posted by: Killer at August 20, 2009 07:23 PM (LLSUt)

136 Can we stop talking about guns and militia shit and focus on, well, more realistic plans?

I haven’t either. I was talking about cleaning up the Republican Party before they cease to exist.

Personally I would prefer another convention to another war between the liberals and conservatives.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:23 PM (CDUiN)

137 >>>If I've called for revolution, quote me. And if you can do that,

Have I misunderstood you? Do you not keep saying that revolution is in the air, as in real revolution?

Am I wrong in thinking you are approving of that?

If you're not I'm sorry. But if you're not, I'm telling you it kind of sounds like that.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:24 PM (jKmpd)

138 Kittehs!

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at August 20, 2009 07:24 PM (UOM48)

139 The politically uninvolved voter is not persuadable, mostly. When its time to pull the lever, he goes with the crowd. Consolidate the base, make conservatives excited to vote for Republicans, and the PUV will catch the spirit.

Posted by: toby928 at August 20, 2009 07:24 PM (PD1tk)

140 Get the word out to the seniors. It's like they live in a liberal fog. They also read the local paper, and we all know what they are. Very few that I talk to, know that their Medicare/caid will go away and be folded into Obama care. Every time they hear this, they all say "NO SHIT." The seniors hold the key to this whole health question.

Posted by: Mystry at August 20, 2009 07:24 PM (dIHlE)

141 The entire list of such cognitive dissonance on both sides is pretty long, folks.It's not a matter of freedom in America or of Great Leaders among you.
It's a matter of which flavor of fascism you prefer. Left or right? All
of your fighting and arguing isn't about freedomand liberty.

Ah, the delegation from A Pox Upon Both Your Houses has arrived. How's the view from that marble column?

Posted by: Chimney Sweep #8 at August 20, 2009 07:24 PM (kIjlp)

142 108
meh. i don't think revolution. it would take something unthinkable for that to happen. Off the top of my head scenarios would include: a president/congress delaying elections for any reason, the attempted repeal of the 22nd amendment by EITHER party, the outright repeal of the 1st or 2nd amendment(i know they are being incrimentally taken away), a president sending soldiers into a state without the permission of the governor, the succession of a state and subsequent actions taken by the government, a unification with mexico/canada which made out constitution subserviant to a newer constitution...things that would cause people within the military to not follow the orders of the commander in cheif, i know our politicians don't take the constitution seriously, but soldiers do and it would take a major breach .
i could go on, but i don't think what is going on right now would cause what you are talking about. I mean we haven't even had a collapse of one of the major parties, which preceded the civil war. I think this country will follow both parties into bankruptcy.

Posted by: Ben at August 20, 2009 07:25 PM (f0I0I)

143 135
What this post needs is more cowbell
And chaos!


Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at August 20, 2009 07:25 PM (otlXg)

144 Have I misunderstood you? Do you not keep saying that revolution is in the air, as in real revolution?


I think that people are fucking nuts. They're fucking nuts because this is like being on the other side of the looking glass in Lewis Carroll's Barack Obama's laudunum fueled fantasy.



Am I wrong in thinking you are approving of that?


Yes yes yes a thousand fucking times yes. You have an incredibly annoying habit of putting words in people's mouths when your heartbeat goes above 70.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:27 PM (bBkG9)

145
1) there already has been a revolution...and the Left won it while we sitting on our thumbs worrying about political correctness.

2) please give one example of Republicans telling people how to live their lives

Social conservatives didn't start the homo marriage shit -- the leftwing started it. Marriage was doing just fine until they decided it needed to be redefined. What were supposed to do, sit there and let it happen? Fuck no.

a) because it's wrong
b) you know they won't stop with same-sex marriage. Just like everything else, the left keeps pushing and pushing on their radical social agenda.

Posted by: Tweet Orlando & Dawn at August 20, 2009 07:27 PM (ZyYZ0)

146 If you're not I'm sorry. But if you're not, I'm telling you it kind of sounds like that.

I have commented on the general mood I sense. It is probably different here than it is in Manhattan.


Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:28 PM (bBkG9)

147 Tom Jefferson was a polymath. He studied democracy and knew it failed when too much power was concentrated in the hands of one oppressor. That is why he was so adamant about equal and sovereign rights among states and an equal distribution of power to both states and the Fed Government.

That fantasy caved in about 1913 when that unaudited piece of shit Federal Reserve Bank found it's way into existence. In 1933 we got off the gold standard. The federal Government has now usurped the authority of states by turning us all into a nanny state. They control the wealth and debt in this country. States begging for loans and bailouts, people begging for social programs.

Witness the unalterable beginning of the end. A 50 trillion debt. Fucking Merlin couldn't get us out of this mess. I am loving it. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 07:28 PM (C6U+o)

148 Regarding the political prognostication bidness, do any Morons or Moronettes remember way, way back when Ogabe was just coming on the scene that Rush mentioned some political guru that predicted Ogabe would be the next prez? I recall Rush saying, "Don't laugh. I've NEVER known this man to be wrong." Seeing this Charlie Cook guy mentioned reminded me of that, but I don't know if it would've been him.

Posted by: Rush Babe at August 20, 2009 07:28 PM (LKkE8)

149 No more talk of feeding Congress into chippers feet first? Damn.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:28 PM (dQdrY)

150 #143 i could go on, but i don't think what is going on right now would cause
what you are talking about. I mean we haven't even had a collapse of
one of the major parties, which preceded the civil war. I think this
country will follow both parties into bankruptcy.

Meh, agreed about the bankruptcy part.

Unless stuff like this does us in first - London in Iranian Missile Range Within 3-4 Years.

I've heard for a while about this EMP/Offshore missile stuff for a while and if even half of it is true..oh boy. Perhaps the more educated morons here can say if the EMP/Offshore missile stuff is true or not...

Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at August 20, 2009 07:29 PM (otlXg)

151 No more talk of feeding Congress into chippers feet first? Damn.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:28 PM (dQdrY)
Can't afford the replacement blades.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:29 PM (bBkG9)

152 I think we can make solid arguments in a tone that is not off putting. Liz Cheney comes to mind.

Posted by: Mark at August 20, 2009 07:31 PM (n2R3V)

153 Sorry, Ace, but I don't see the democrats losing that many seats, if any. Here's why: A LOT of the stimulus money is timed to hit and create jobs (and votes) before the 2010 election. The census will be stage managed by ACORN. The polling places will be staffed and monitored by the NBP and SEIU thugs. All democrat candidates who swear loyalty to Obama can count on unlimited, unmonitored campaign contributions. Finally, don't underestimate the ability of the dems to buy votes, if necessary one at a time with $200 cash gifts. "We have to take care of Obamas people so they will give us more free stuff".
Corrupt as anything in Roman times, but it will work.

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at August 20, 2009 07:31 PM (SR0As)

154 Tom Jefferson was a polymath polynomial

Posted by: Ben at August 20, 2009 07:32 PM (f0I0I)

155 #154

Didn't we see what was nearly a trial run of buying votes with a cash giveaway in NY or around there?

Posted by: Mark at August 20, 2009 07:33 PM (n2R3V)

156 Egads. I think I found the prognosticator that said Zero would win. Check out the date this was written. Is this guy psychic or what?
http://tinyurl.com/mrdx9c

Posted by: Rush Babe at August 20, 2009 07:34 PM (LKkE8)

157 There is a revolution going on now. It's a non-violent one similiar to the Gengrich revolution only with more locals taking part long before it's time to go to the ballot box. The revolutionaries have a lot of congressmen, senators and the President scared. Not scared of violence but scared they will lose their job.
We need to keep up the pressure and have the lawmakers on our side come up with an alternative to the current health care system and an alternative to the currant Stimulus Package that is failing.

Posted by: robtr at August 20, 2009 07:35 PM (H60q6)

158 Do I think their is some danger of violence? Yes

Do I condone it Nope. If a revolution occurs, it is VERY likely we will end up with a MUCH worse deal than we currently have.

Do I fear it could get worse. The scenarios Ben described are what keeps me buying MREs and canned goods.

I will, until I have to shag ass for (unspecified location), continue to promote the virtues of the republic we were bequeathed and support taking back freedom using peaceful legislative means. But I do think armed violence is a real, real threat, especially if the Dems continue to just ignore the Constitution.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at August 20, 2009 07:35 PM (0q2P7)

159 Pollynanny Americanny

Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 07:35 PM (C6U+o)

160 That is why he was so adamant about equal and sovereign rights among states and an equal distribution of power to both states and the Fed Government.
Actually under the true 1789 model of government the State’s powers were “many and undefined while the fed was limited and defined”.

Currently it has got to be so bad that the States and the people have NO power; that is ZERO-NONE. The federal government controls, regulates, and taxes EVERYTHING with no thought of Constitutional authority.

That is another contributor to the general discontent.

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:35 PM (CDUiN)

161 Revolution? The only ones who have a clue in anything resembling the mainstream is Gerald Celente, and he's a starry-eyed optimist.

Well... Joseph M. Miller retired as a board member of
the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. He has a clue. One of his associates is a physicist who worked for Control Data Corporation. He has a clue. The other, Marion
Butler, has a background as a CFO. He has a clue. Niall Ferguson holds a Chair in the history department at Harvard. he has something resembling a clue.

 There's an article by Israeli historian Martin van Creveld. He has a clue. Dr. Krassimir Petrov is from Prince Sultan University, Saudi Arabia. Pranab Bardhan is a professor of economics at Berkley. David Rosenberg is Merril Lynch's North American Economist. Carmen M. Reinhart is a professor of economics at the University of Maryland. Phil Howison is from Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand. Professor Michael T. Klare is from Hampshire College.

Individually or as a whole, they all have a better clue than most conservatives or Republicans or liberals or Democrats.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 20, 2009 07:36 PM (pmLjD)

162
(Tom Jefferson2 + James Madison3)-(John Marshall's bullshit) was a polymath polynomial

Posted by: Ben at August 20, 2009 07:32 PM (f0I0I)
FIFY

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:36 PM (bBkG9)

163 20 seats? come one, we can do better than that. We have to.
I call on Republicans in the House to get creative, grow a spine and issue a new version of the Contract With America.Phase 1 is for the 2010 election. they should pledge the following in exchange for obtaining control of the house again.1) An immediate end to Obama's socialization plans for America.2) A pledge to stop cold in it's tracks whatever programs Obama is able to ram rod through congress. example health care reform. If possible they should pledge to stall, defund, and otherwise block implentation of this debacle. Same goes for cap and trade or whatever other scheme they should pass.Phase 2 is for 2012, they should pledge, all candidates, that if elected to the presidency to roll back, and rescind any public option or government takeover of health care that passes, and in it's place leave a sensible freemarket reform.People need to hear this NOW. they will be receptive to it. They need something to hold on to in order to have hope for the future.
Republicans need to tell america that its only one more year to before there is a chance to halt this nonsense, and three short years before we can actually begin the task of undoing the damge before it has fully destroyed the country.Let's ROLL!

Posted by: exceller at August 20, 2009 07:37 PM (6beBT)

164 Now, what do I do with a candidate who admits that "global warming is at least partly man-made" and we should "take some steps to mitigate that?"
So what did you think about Jindal and Romney proposing moderate "reforms" for health care?
Because I didn't like it. I think it's not time to talk about a compromise.

Posted by: Mama AJ at August 20, 2009 07:37 PM (X6Zdh)

165 Gee, I take one extra long nap and when I come back everybody wants a revolution.
Yes, there does seem to be a general sense of despair, but cooler heads will prevail, as they always do. The proper place for revolution is in the ballot booth, with informed voters making informed votes. Thanks to the current political climate, we have a much better chance of that happening in this next election than we've had in quite a while.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 20, 2009 07:37 PM (ZGhSv)

166 Question 901 (yeah, 901, but it's not that far down): On partisan
affiliation, 35% say Democrat, and another 15% lean Democratic. 50% is
the grim number there.

The same can be said for Congress Ace.....where's the health care bill?

Party Affiliation don't mean automatic votes.

Posted by: Rocks at August 20, 2009 07:38 PM (3RHzM)

167 Not time for proposing compromises or sounding moderate, I meant to say.

Posted by: Mama AJ at August 20, 2009 07:38 PM (X6Zdh)

168 Can't afford the replacement blades.
Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:29 PM (bBkG9)
Shit. I hadn't thought about all the replacement hips, pacemakers, botox and crowned teeth. Those would do a number on blades. At least the silicon would help lube things.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (dQdrY)

169 Time to call it a night

Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (CDUiN)

170 Still waiting for a quote where I have called for revolution. Maybe Pixy can build a less sucky search function.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (bBkG9)

171 But I do think armed violence is a real, real threat, especially if the Dems continue to just ignore the Constitution.

Where do I sign up?

Posted by: Big Victory, Yea Whatever... at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (C6U+o)

172 >The proper place for revolution is in the ballot booth, with informed voters making informed votes.

so we're screwed, then

Posted by: Lex Luthor at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (KOkrW)

173 Shit. I hadn't thought about all
the replacement hips, pacemakers, botox and crowned teeth. Those would
do a number on blades. At least the silicon would help lube things.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:39 PM (dQdrY)
Naw. Blades can handle that. It's that they're so full of shit. That stuff will fuck a blade up right now, man.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:41 PM (bBkG9)

174 i do think the democrats will lose seats, but how many?
they have a ten seat margin in the senate, and a a 58 seat margin in the house.
do any of you think they will lose it in 2010? it took the democrats two elections and four years to undo the republicans large majorities won in 2004.
Also think of some of the consequences, politically. right now obama and the democrats can try as hard as they want, but they can't blame republicans for their inability to get bills passed or things that go wrong(like republicans 2002-2006). Also, the democrats that will lose seats in 2010 are democrats that are pretty conservative already. So we won't be losing mortal enemies in congress in the election. It will just allow the remaining dems to get more done because the "blue dog" moderate mccain-like democrats will be gone and nothing will hold them back from pushing through ever crazier shit than we are seeing right now.
While i do want republicans to win back the house and senate, they need to make massive gains, minor gains will only strengthen the far left of the democratic party. The first priority should be the senate. People like Arlen Specter, Harry Reid, Roland Burris, Chris Dodd and other need to be beaten. They can be and by all means should be. The republicans also need to focus on replacing retiring senators, like Voinabitch in Ohio, or Bunning, Bond, Gregg, Brownback and Martinez.

Posted by: Ben at August 20, 2009 07:42 PM (f0I0I)

175 I One.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, King of Transparency at August 20, 2009 07:43 PM (C6U+o)

176 Ben. The Repubs are dead money. Accept that. I hear a fat lady singing behind me.

Posted by: Barack Hussein Obama, King of Transparency at August 20, 2009 07:45 PM (C6U+o)

177 This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract
moderates. You might call it selling out. I tend to call it
acknowledging reality.

I guess it depends on your definition of "moderate", ace.

Your comments indicate the moderates we want are the ones who don't like a strident tone when we slap down the nonsense from the left, be it cap and trade, immigration, or AGW.

I can get on board with that, and agree that our politicians should strive to be moderate in their appeals.

What I can't get on board with are moderates like McCain Graham to whom moderation means taking a strident tone against their own constituency in opposition to some fundamentally Conservative platforms.

I've never voted for them, and I never will. I hope to hell McCain loses his job, and I'll work like hell to be sure Graham does. Those types are not in it for me or for us, but for an agenda that you can never be sure of.

Ideally we replace them in primary challenges with better Conservatives. But if the vote is between an Democrat, and one who would only take us left more slowly, I choose to abstain.

Obama's poll numbers are an object lesson for committed Conservatives as a strategy for rededicating our platform in stark contrast to the rabid leftism prevalent in Elitist circles.

Obama's policies and condescension are object lessons for the average voter on the consequences of unbridled Liberalism.

The unmasking of the aspirations of the hard left, and the effect their policies would have on all of us, is where the real political opportunity lies for those with the will to vigorously and intelligently challenge both the policies and the ideology of the left.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 20, 2009 07:46 PM (P+oMN)

178 Lex, have some faith in your fellow citizens. Believe me, I'd love to get in more than a few congresscritters faces myself, but there is something that they want more than anything else in the world; power. If we can take that one simple thing away from them, especially in a peaceful way, then we win on several levels, not the least of which would be to deflate some seriously oversized egos.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at August 20, 2009 07:46 PM (ZGhSv)

179 I shouldn't get into this but...

Revolutions trend Leftwards. There have been very few successful Restorations throughout history. Talk of this kind is writing checks your body cannot cash. The only path I see towards any meaningful protection of our Liberties (if it comes to that) is through Secession - but that counts on our politicians having spines and morals. Good luck with that.

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 07:47 PM (taJZA)

180 Here's what I predict: the Democrats lose a bunch of seats, but not enough to lose a majority in either house, and go absolutely berserk in the next 2 years.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 20, 2009 07:47 PM (PQY7w)

181 What was the republican's proudest moment from last time they were in power?

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:47 PM (dQdrY)

182 Mark: Yes. Did you see anyone object, or even notice that much outside of us moron bloggers? I didn't. Expect a LOT more of that between now and November 2010. Obama will bring Chicago corruption to Washington and he will get away with it again and again because a significant amount of the poulation is getting as corrupt as he is.

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at August 20, 2009 07:47 PM (SR0As)

183 (Death panels here I come.) Kill me now. Look who McCullough is predicting to win in '12.
http://tinyurl.com/mqu7bj

Posted by: Rush Babe at August 20, 2009 07:49 PM (LKkE8)

184 Waitin' for that quote. Or an apology that isn't backhanded and half-assed. Just a waitin.....

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 07:50 PM (bBkG9)

185
There’s a reasonably good chance that Obama will destroy the far Left in this country. He only needs a little help.
Who, besides the sufficiently rich Left, the hard Left (of any economic level, and Socialists, Marxists, Communists, etc.) academics and trade unionists, like the SEIU? Many people paid attention when Chrysler, then GM failed, and how they failed, and weren’t real busted up about the UAW looting the remnants.
But now, middle-class America is seeing the SEIU, up close and personal, and wondering why they can’t get in speak to their Congressmen the way they used to. Who likes being called un-American just for asking tough questions of one’s Congressman?
Who likes ACORN bussing in extra people to help out with voting? The elected politicians seem to have little problem.
Come to think about it, why is Congress spending a titanic amount of time trying to overhaul health care, when most people have no complaint? What about a plan to fix SS/Medicare? The current bill does nothing.
Why is there talk about TRILLION dollar deficits? What is the money being spent on?
Did the Palestinians ever receive $900million for non-existent damage? How well did Cash-for-Clunkers work? Are there more new Ford Focuses on the road now, or Chevy Blazers?
Why is Petrobras (Brazilian oil) receiving $2billion to drill for oil, about 3 days after George Soros bought a position in Petrobras?
Too many wrong questions. It’s beginning to be a real problem
Yesterday, we found out, via a BBC video, that the outgoing Greenpeace commissar has been lying about the Greenland and polar icecaps melting, and was lying to get attention for Greenpeace’s causes. Why is Congress fooling with CT?
These sorts of revelations are particularly tough of Leftists; They Were Wrong. They were not beaten, Their Values Are Simply Wrong. Their Ideas Do Not Work. Their Promises Will Not Be Kept Because Their Theories Do Not Work.
The best tactic is to sit back, keep track of all facts (who said what and when), crack open the beverage of your choice, and watch. Occasionally remind everyone of certain facts, and get the Left spinning and thrashing again.
Now is the time to get the far right (Larouche supporters, Birchers, Ronulans, etc.) to behave and stop talking. At least some small part of their political philosophies has merit, but most of it scares off a lot of people. A LOT of people. My guess is that with a good economic upturn, and good manufacturing jobs, most of the people who support for the far Right will slide back to the mainstream Right where they once were.
Again, the best tactic is to sit back, crack open the beverage of your choice, and watch. Occasionally remind everyone of certain facts, and get the Left spinning and thrashing again. Force candidates to take a stand. Vote.
The fools that openly carry or just bring firearms to political events are just like fools who kick dogshit off the sidewalk; yeah, you kicked it real hard, and it went flying, but you lose because dogshit is invincible and the smell sticks to you. As soon as something involving firearms or violence happens at a political event, you will be under suspicion, at least as an accessory of some sort.
Bottom line: you didn’t help your claim or my claim to 2nd Amendment rights / protections.

Posted by: Arbalest at August 20, 2009 07:54 PM (2MyOw)

186 >>>What I can't get on board with are moderates like McCain & Graham to whom moderation means taking a strident tone against their own constituency in opposition to some fundamentally Conservative platforms.

Agreed. McCain is a prick. Specter too. Snowe and Collins are just liberals.

>>>I've never voted for them, and I never will. I hope to hell McCain loses his job, and I'll work like hell to be sure Graham does.

The only thing I'd say is that i'd prefer a moderate Republican held those seats if the alternative is a democrat.

and not a conservative democrat, either. A real conservative would be a republican. A conservative democrat is really a soft liberal, just from the suburban side of the party rather than the urban side.

the so-called "conservative democrats' are still thinking over whether or not to vote to socialize 1/6th of the American economy. They're still weighing it. So how conservative are they?

In the end 90-95% will vote for it.

Norm Coleman was a moderate. He didn't run down other republicans and he was with us 90% of the time. Obviously he's better than Franken.

We are not going to have solid conservatives in every office because politics is by coalition not ideology, and it's by individual, not a party roster (as in parliamentary systems).

If a guy is with you 90% he's with you plenty. Sure, you want more. Sure, if it could be done, you'd like to replace him with a 95% er. But 90% is good enough.



Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:55 PM (jKmpd)

187 Revolutions trend Leftwards.
But the Committee For Public Safety led to what? Yes, dictatorship. Corrupt senate led to what? Caeser = dictatorship. Weimar led to what? Dictatorship.
Did the revolution in Iran really go left?
When the USSR fell, it fell which way?
Revolution will give us a dictatorship. That is why we've avoided one. If one is going to happen anyway.....

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:55 PM (dQdrY)

188 Herr,

You didn't call for it. You specifically said you did not.

you did say it was imminent, though.

You can say, correctly, that that is merely a factual assessment. Fine. that is your sense of things.

I'm just really getting exasperated by so much revolution talk. I have a short fuse on it, I guess.

i was wrong to say "You did speak of it approvingly, didn't you?" You specifically did not.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:57 PM (jKmpd)

189 BWWWWaaaahhh -hahhhahhahhaahhahhahaaaaa!
All is working according to plan!

Posted by: Karl Rove at August 20, 2009 07:58 PM (57zYA)

190
This is a reason not to be all dismissive of attempting to attract moderates. You might call it selling out. I tend to call it acknowledging reality. We do need to pick up the support of people not inclined to vote for us.
The argument is not over whether we need fence-sitters. The argument is over how to get them. The moderates want us to believe that fence-sitters are people who carefully consider both sides and pick the one that seems less "extreme" (meaning the side that has the most populist belief system). The truth is that the fence-sitters are ignorant and uninformed, yet worldly wise. They're looking for those who stand up for liberty. The answer is not moderation. The answer is a bold defense of liberty.

Posted by: The Band at August 20, 2009 07:59 PM (QtRBc)

191 >>>Obama's poll numbers are an object lesson for committed Conservatives as a strategy for rededicating our platform in stark contrast to the rabid leftism prevalent in Elitist circles.

Not really. Obama's at 50%, which isn't great, but it's hardly an object lesson for what you say it is.

Would you agree that Obama overplayed his hand and miscalculated the country's eagerness for major changes?

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 08:00 PM (jKmpd)

192 @187


Norm Coleman was a moderate. He didn't run down other republicans and
he was with us 90% of the time. Obviously he's better than Franken.


1: So you are saying moderates are the winning ticket except they loose to
insane clown liberals?
2: ????????
3: victory?

Posted by: somejoe at August 20, 2009 08:01 PM (yP5sH)

193 @#180.

Expect the left to initiate the violence and then blame it all on the right. The narrative is already in place. (SEIU thugs at townhalls for one example. It was the other guy's fault that he got beat up.)

We've already walked on the wild side with a couple of near misses wrt a 'Boston Massacre" moment. In three now well-known instances, all it would have taken is an inexperienced cop, a left-wing counter-protester doing something unutterably stupid ...or else a few second of chaos imposed by an 'agent provocateur.' ala the original Boston Massacre, someone gets the crowd all wound up, someone else 'accidentally' pops a cap ...and let the games begin...


(Oh, I almost forgot:. Igor Panarin, George Ure, Cliff High and even Thomas Chittum have a better clue than most Republicans or Democrats. For that matter, so does Ron Paul.

Roubini, Schiff, Rogers, et al? Starry-eyed optimists, the lot of 'em.)

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 20, 2009 08:02 PM (pmLjD)

194 Has party id historically been close? I remember it being even in the few years following 9-11, but other than that it seems like dems always have a pretty good advantage on it.

Posted by: koopy at August 20, 2009 08:03 PM (GpFDF)

195 >>Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 07:55 PM (dQdrY)

You haven't argued against what I wrote, more amplified the point.

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 08:05 PM (taJZA)

196
Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 07:57 PM (jKmpd)
Pissing match over. For the record, I don't think I said it was imminent. If I did, dollars to donuts says it was in the later part of the evening. Ahem.I can understand your exasperation. Here you're trying to have a "smart military blog" and it occasionally goes all fucking "Alex Jones" on you. Fair enough.Fact is, even with my giant Johnson and stuff, I'm scared. I've got a cool head, but this situation is so outside of normal experience that it's tough to rely on your own judgment, because it's worthless. That is the sense in my neck of the woods. I sincerely apologize about the Manhattan crack, but it was just irresistable.
Apologies if I pissed you off. And I'm sure I did.



Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at August 20, 2009 08:05 PM (bBkG9)

197 http://tinyurl.com/pexf7x
thats celente, btw fwliw

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 08:08 PM (taJZA)

198 @#142.

The real cognitive dissonance comes in when the right complains about the use of Alinsky Rules by the left...but the right does the exact same thing while either justifying their own actions or calling it something else. (Start with the term, 'nutroots,' and go from there.)

Both sides call for rational and civil discourse, but neither side engages in it. In the lexicon of both sides, 'rational and civil discourse' means 'Agree with me and submit to my views and beliefs, or else!' Both sides point to the Constitution, but neither side follows or lives the ideals contained therein.

Both sides have chosen the ground they are willing to die on. Compromise is no longer an option. Neither side is willing to allow other Americans the freedom or the liberty to choose the course of their own lives.

Posted by: Warren Bonesteel at August 20, 2009 08:13 PM (pmLjD)

199 herr, you didn't piss me off, but the thing is, this is where one guy says one thing and then someone else has to top that and now someone else has to go even further and now I've got a bunch of guys in underwear sharing their plans for the violent takeover of the US Government on the internet.

It's more absurd than creepy. But it is also creepy.

I know people get angry and want to vent but I don't understand why the venting must be done in THIS particular fashion.

If there really is a revolution on the horizon, we'll all pretty much know that that possibility is real and imminent. these things announce themselves. There will be scattered fighting and political martyrs and the rest of it.

Posted by: ace at August 20, 2009 08:14 PM (jKmpd)

200 Heh, i was just looking around to see what party id has been historically and ran across the political cartoon that Republicans got their elephant mascot from. What's funny is that it's a cartoon from 1874 and if you look close, there's a unicorn with a N.Y. Times collar around it's neck. Probably the most prescient cartoon in history.

Posted by: koopy at August 20, 2009 08:15 PM (GpFDF)

201
Remeber RED DAWn?

Wolverines!

Posted by: Tweetwing Plover at August 20, 2009 08:16 PM (Qqb4B)

202 The Trends Research Institute forecasts that if the threat of government-forced Swine Flu vaccinations is realized, it will be the fourth shot.
Do you think they have the sack to try that?

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 08:19 PM (dQdrY)

203
I know people get angry and want to vent but I don't understand why the venting must be done in THIS particular fashion.
Because people don't know what else to say that will get their frustration across.
If there really is a revolution on the horizon, we'll all pretty much know that that possibility is real and imminent. these things announce themselves. There will be scattered fighting and political martyrs and the rest of it.
If there really is a revolution, we're all screwed; in the current environment it will be much more like Paris in 1789 than Philadelphia in 1776.

Posted by: The Band at August 20, 2009 08:20 PM (QtRBc)

204 What is all this talk about revolution?

Posted by: Explodie at August 20, 2009 08:20 PM (lAOwF)

205 165
Now, what do I do with a candidate who admits that "global warming is at least partly man-made" and we should "take some steps to mitigate that?"
So what did you think about Jindal and Romney proposing moderate "reforms" for health care?
Because I didn't like it. I think it's not time to talk about a compromise.
Posted by: Mama AJ at August 20, 2009 07:37 PM (X6Zdh)

Well, since it got quiet, I'll talk to myself a bit.
While I see Ace's point, I don't really agree. I do not think anyone should be talking about other compassionate conservative ways to increase gov't spending on health care right now.
I'd like to see someone standing up saying this is the wrong way for gov't to work. Obama hasn't appointed anyone to head Medicare and Medicaid?? He cannot be taken seriously about "reform".
First we need to improve the gov't health care that already is out there, including the VA. We need to get tax cuts to people forhealth care spending. And so on, you know the list.
I don't want moderate talk about gov't spending and control of health care. I want the Republicans to be about a different way of looking at the problem. So when Ace talks about sounding moderate, I picture Republicans saying "yes, we need to do something about health care now" and then thinking they can make gov't do it well.

Posted by: Mama AJ at August 20, 2009 08:22 PM (X6Zdh)

206 i really do not know how to take this current discussion, i do not see any ofour leaders threatening dems. but i do see alot of dems threatening our spokes people, and us regular citizens...
so wouldn't it be a natural reaction for men and women on the team being malignedbecome frustrated and want to fight back..-one is considering a revolution . well at least i doubt it. but damn it have we ever seen the media, the gvt, threaten and try to intimidate half its citizens as now? as we haven't really beeninvolved in "dissent" before it's really hard to know how to start, we really haven't spent our lives rebeling bt going to work keeping our heads down obeying laws with a mudder here and there..

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 08:22 PM (1kwr2)

207 .NO .-one is considering a revolution . trying to fix previous stupid comment above

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 08:24 PM (1kwr2)

208 now I've got a bunch of guys in underwear sharing their plans

Can I come?

Posted by: Dum-Dum at August 20, 2009 08:29 PM (bBkG9)

209 o-sure when i try to find a thought to try to string together discussion is already over.

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 08:30 PM (1kwr2)

210 203 - the sack?
All I know is we're stocking up at our Dept of Health and laying out plans, tho I'm not privy to those.

By CDC estimates, we're looking at 2-3% mortality from it, which - if you consider 40-60% of folks get the flu seasonally, may get up to a million or so.

If that happens (I don't believe it will, btw) then maybe that sack will appear...

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 08:30 PM (taJZA)

211 Both sides call for rational and civil discourse, but neither side engages in it......Both sides have chosen the ground they are willing to die on. Compromise is no longer an option.
Democrats wouldn't know rational debate if it bit them on the ass. Global warming? Algore: debate over. Socialized govt 3rd rate healthcare? Hussein: the protesters/conservatives/republicans need to shut up and get out of the way. Discussion on race? Liberal says: Conservatives and R's are racists by definition. Then you have the swine in the media that lie, propagandize and crop a picture/video of a black man with a gun to hide his skin color then go on to pretend the guy was white. We're dealing with conniving wretched criminals of the highest order. They cannot be negotiated in good faith with nor are they interested in it. Now it's time to rage against the machine and start an adcampaign to throw out every leftist socialist sack of shit up for reelectionin 2010. Putting a mut in their place would be an improvement.

Posted by: The Great Satan™ at August 20, 2009 08:31 PM (GK2JS)

212 Are all the vials the same color? There are lists now, you know. Not that I'm paranoid or anything?

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 08:34 PM (dQdrY)

213 NO .-one is considering a revolution . trying to fix previous stupid comment above
Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 08:24 PM (1kwr2)
Well, I'm on the lookout for some revolutionary chipper blades. Things that don't dull as easy as steel.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 08:35 PM (dQdrY)

214 Johnathon E.
I can possibly scrounge in my cosmetic drawer and find scissors and a file, I hope it will help

Posted by: willow at August 20, 2009 08:38 PM (1kwr2)

215 213 - no worries, dude

Posted by: evil midnight bomber what bombs at midnight at August 20, 2009 08:40 PM (taJZA)

216
Not really. Obama's at 50%, which isn't great, but it's hardly an object lesson for what you say it is.


I'm speaking of his spiraling approval trend as more people become aware of
his actual ideology. I think we both agree that he hasn't found bottom
yet.



Would you agree that Obama overplayed his hand and miscalculated the country's eagerness for major changes?

Not exactly. I think Obama knows his win was handed to him by the Media and a lousy campaign by McCain, and miscalculated his ability to convince the public where the rubber actually meets the road: making policy for the nation.

If he truly believed the country was eager for his health care policies, he wouldn't have tried to cram them down our throats without a debate.

Looking back at the 08 election polling on Health Care, I am frankly surprised at the apparent support for Single-Payer, government run health care. Considering the numbers today, I have to assume that either the poll questions were unclear then, or that the people being asked were ignorant of the associated costs and consequences. Hell, probably a big dollop of both.

Just another debate that was not pursued by the MSM when it could significantly affect their candidate's chances at the White House.

It's one thing the ride a vague Hopey/Changey MSMicorn into the WH. It is altogether another to sell an extreme left policy to an electorate that largely didn't know they were voting for anything more than a nice moderate black man.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 20, 2009 08:41 PM (P+oMN)

217 I wanted to get swine flu the first time around. The second wave is the sucky one, I've heard.

Posted by: Johnathon E. at August 20, 2009 08:42 PM (dQdrY)

218 If there really is a revolution on the horizon, we'll all pretty much
know that that possibility is real and imminent. these things announce
themselves. There will be scattered fighting and political martyrs and
the rest of it.

I think secession movements become likely if the 2010 '12 elections are rife with vote fraud resulting in the Dems improbably seeing no significant losses.

Right now there is a lot of steam to be blown off, but revolutions aren't easy to start when a majority of people, despite the macro-economy, is relatively fat and happy.

Yes, the American Revolution was fought and won by a "determined minority". That sort of phenomena is mitigated by contemporary communications, where the influence of the minority firebrand is tempered by the complacence of the majority.

I'd say a civil-war type revolution could evolve from determined secessionist movements, depending on the circumstances.

And I'd say the end-game for this country is almost certainly civil-war if we continue on our leftward trajectory of class warfare and other forms of ideological balkanization. At some point down that road, the 1st and 2nd must be amended or repealed to enforce the will of the ruling class.

That is the point when the center will cease to hold.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 20, 2009 09:03 PM (P+oMN)

219 amending the last, I meant to say ideological and racial balkanization.

Posted by: krakatoa at August 20, 2009 09:05 PM (P+oMN)

220 Conservatives don't need to win over moderates. We just need to point out what a bunch of repugnant pr*cks the Democratic opposition is and win by default.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 20, 2009 09:38 PM (PQY7w)

221 I'm sorry, but if you havn't made up your mind about democrats by now, you will probably just push whatever button blinks the fastest come the next election.

Posted by: Mord at August 20, 2009 09:52 PM (2CSLO)

222 #200 ...and now I've got a bunch of guys in underwear sharing their plans for the violent takeover of the US Government on the internet.
That early in the evening?

Posted by: Lily at August 20, 2009 10:59 PM (OR75s)

223 The lunatics, excuse me, the Democrats, are looking at a 70-80+ House seat loss next year not 20. How anybody couldpredictonly a6-12 Democratic losswiththis statist healthcare debacle combined with an unemployment rate likely to be at or near double digits is beyond me! It's almost as laughable as Stu Rothenberg's April prediction that the Republicans may be able to "cherry pick" their way to a six seat gain etc. Charlie (and Stu)will need to find a new line of work next year!

Posted by: Frank Smith at August 20, 2009 11:13 PM (ASY+P)

224 The issue of 1860 was the elimination of the economy of half the country.
Not quite. The issue of 1860 was slavery, which is different. Lincoln knew it was impossible to end slavery without a war and he didn't want war. Also he didn't think the federal government had the right to force the South to end slavery. Ending slavery was not his intention. What he and the Republicans and the North wanted was to end the expansion of slavery. He believed, along with many other political theorists, that the South would eventually abandon slavery of its own accord, when it became abundantly clear to Southerners, as it already should have been, that the economics of slavery were hopelessly limiting and would cause the South to fall behind the industrializing North and Europe. In fact many Southerners, especially in Virginia, understood that slavery was an economic albatross and doomed as institution; and were therefore hopeful, as Lincoln was, that slavery would eventually wither on the vine. Unfortunately hard-line Southerners could not and would not compromise. They demanded that slavery be allowed to expand--which, if the North had caved in to them, meant that a minority, as represented by the South, would have the ability to force the majority, the North, which viewed slavery as a moral abomination in addition to being economically infeasible, to do the South's bidding. The Dredd Scott decision confirmed the Northerner's worst fears in this regard.

Bottom line: the North would not have destroyed the South's economy by ending extant slavery in the South, and Southerns knew it. But the South got greedy. The South wanted to have its cake and to eat it.

Posted by: Steve (aka Ed Snate) at August 21, 2009 12:43 AM (kx+6l)

225
Bottom line: the North would not have destroyed the South's economy by ending extant slavery in the South, and Southerners knew it. But the South got greedy. The South wanted to have its cake and to eat it.
No. The elite plantation owners wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The regular soldiers, many of whom were not much better than slaves themselves, fought against an invading army that threatened their personal safety and property rights. There's a big difference between the machinations of the elites and the self-defense of the private citizen.

Posted by: The Band at August 21, 2009 12:57 AM (QtRBc)

226 Listen, we tried "moderate" in the last election and it lost huge. And now we're looking a lot more viable because "independents" are moving away from Democrats. What that tells me is that "independents" aren't wooed by moving to the left or to the right, but by limited government. Name one Libertarian-friendly thing the Republicans did last year? (Except for not lynching Ron Paul.)

The Gipper said, "Government is the problem." And promised less government. Bush gave us me-too-Liberal Fascism. Same statist impulse, just less abrupt than the Obamessiah.

And who pumped what ever life there was into the Republicans? Did she do so by promising more welfare cheese? We lost because we accepted the false premise that American citizens would prefer to be subjects of Ivy League elitists. The "independents" that are bailing out of the Democrat camp aren't leaving because they want to drive down the road to serfdom at Bush's stately pace instead of Obama's breakneck clip.

Now is a teachable moment where we can meaningfully suggest that more liberty is better than more government. A government that can give you womb to the tomb healthcare will have the power to take everything you care about. If you can man up to the demands of being a responsible adult, you'll be better off making do for yourself than being kept like some pet.

Posted by: Steve Poling at August 21, 2009 02:14 AM (nBrFn)

227 There
is ONE reason, and only one reason why Obama beat Hillary – lack of
media vetting of Obama and the media being in the tank for him. That
showed up in the surge that Hillary got when all of the stuff started
leaking out despite the media.


Posted by: Vic at August 20, 2009 06:46 PM (CDUiN)
The Dem primary was rigged. Obama was always supposed to win. Hillary thought through half the race that Obama would be her VP, and they would win the GE as The Dream Ticket. Florida and Michigan were thrown out. Hillary only started to realize something was up after Iowa. That's why she cried in New Hampshire. Her friends betrayed her. Every last one of them.The media knew Obama was a radical leftist. It wasn't just the historic nature of his candidacy that made them loathe to report damaging tidbits like Wright, Ayers... even the alleged Whitey Tape and the LA Times tape. Remember Patti Blagojevich screaming on Fitzgerald's tape about that "cocksucking Cubs deal"? Newspaper reporters were supposed to be fired.Obama is a made man. He not only came up through the machine, but he was passed through it like some Dalai Lama of the underworld. I don't know who he is, or where he came from, but he was groomed for his role. He was handed this election.I pray to God these people who put him in power turn on him. It happened to Carter when he let the Shah twist in the wind. I hope it happens to Obama, who is more dangerous than Clinton and Carter combined.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at August 21, 2009 06:02 AM (rrxDo)

228 That's not usually how it works. If Side One provides a clear, compelling, principled stance on Divisive Issue X, then Side Two provides a vague, mushy stance. Result? On that issue Side One gets passionate supporters on their side, but only a minority. Side Two picks up less enthusiastic supporters, but a majority. Side Two, by fudging and being all things to all people, scoops up most of those meh or conficted on the issue. I would say in 94, the Contract with America was certainly Side One, and it worked. I think this thing works in tides. In 2008, the vague mushy worked, but in 2010, and 2012, people are going to want specifics. Those are the years the Rush approach will work. A few years down the road, who knows, a few years of prosperity and a drumbeat of how "bad" things are will again have people like the mushy vague stuff again.

Posted by: Realtiy Man at August 21, 2009 11:24 AM (l0WG5)

229 The lunatics, excuse me, the Democrats, are looking at a 70-80+ House seat loss next year not 20.


I'm not sure there are 80 seats even up for election in 2010, let alone 80 reasonably uncertain ones.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at August 21, 2009 04:30 PM (PQY7w)

230 I'm not sure there are 80 seats even up for election in 2010, let alone 80 reasonably uncertain ones.

435 every 2 years.

Posted by: toby928 at August 21, 2009 07:38 PM (PD1tk)

231 打工 台北酒店經紀 酒店經紀 酒店打工 酒店兼差 酒店兼職 酒店工作 酒店上班 暑假打工 酒店PT 禮服酒店 兼差喝花酒 交際應酬 粉味 酒店喝酒 酒店 酒店經紀 酒店經紀 寒假打工

Posted by: sdfdf at August 23, 2009 12:50 AM (MJ+31)

232 ScanNaruto 539
Manga Stream
Narutoshippuden Vostfr
arab tv endirect
Alwadifa maroc
Naruto Shippuden 212 Vostfr
Scan Naruto 540
OnePiece 499 vostfr

Posted by: manga stream at May 16, 2011 01:00 PM (zvRCc)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0537 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0253 seconds, 241 records returned.
Page size 162 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat