I started hearing the dismissal of huge Democratic pick-up a couple of days ago. And the latest one over on the DNC site by the resident troll over there is that the Democrats that will pick up those seats are not really Democrats, they are DINO's, they are closer to moderate publicans, blah blah blah blah blah.

Yes, but you're missing something important. Bush signed an executive order stating unless a swing of 50 or more seats is achieved committee chairmanships don't change hands. He'd let you see it but then he'd have to kill you.

Two things. First, I hope I am not screwing our team here, but even though I have been nervous all along, this sort of early concession is really encouraging. I hope it's true for not just the House but for the Senate as well. Second, yes, some of the Democrats running are certainly more moderate or even conservative than the typical representative at the base. But that's the difference between our party and their party: we may not always get agree with each other, but unless you appear to be screwing us right to our faces, like Zell Miller or Joe Lieberman, we don't try to use or screw you.

Say what?

You were expecting Ann Coulter to be historically accurate?

ROFLMLiberalAO.

Even more striking, the 5 seats in 1998 were a gain for the president's party, not a loss. So that's actually a -5.

Dems can have their powerless Congress. Our C-in-C and the VP have already declared that they will do what's right for the country, irrespective of the whether or not the weak-kneed congressmen carp about it.

The congress has already given the President all the power he needs to counduct the war.

Dems can have their powerless Congress. Our C-in-C and the VP have already declared that they will do what's right for the country, irrespective of the whether or not the weak-kneed congressmen carp about it.

Yes, that's nice, dear.

Regardless, if the Dems DON'T win both chambers, it will be a big defeat, quite frankly. That's not a popular opinion amongst my fellow progs, but you can't spin it away. I just hope we fucking destroy the goddamned bastards so all the Hannities and Coulters and American Hawks have is their little pathetic justifications.

You linked to Ann Coulter, and I tried it. I do read the other side. What's with her Veronica Lake look in her picture? She, of course, is hoping beyond hope, that the Kerry story will save the day for the Repubs.

Globe:

Heh. That's what Norman has been bloviating at us for the past week. We're losing the expectation game, blah blah blah.

For my part, I remain convinced that we'll pull 20-25. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised than the other way around.

And my prediction for the Senate's still at 4 (the functional equivalent of 6 with two Dem-caucusing Indies).

I'm beginning to worry a tad bit more about the Senate -- about Teeter, especially. Less so Cardin, but still ... that race shouldn't even be in play. And I don't underestimate Linc, because Whitehouse seems to have bungled an investigation as AG, and Linc has very impressive liberal creds -- thus making Whitehouse's only viable argument changing the chamber ...

Menendez is hair-close, too, but for some reason I'm not so worried about my home state. Maybe because Junior is such a dawg of a candidate ...

I'm beginning to feel *slightly* confident for Claire, only because of stem cells and the lingering effect of beating up on Michael J. But truthfully that one really *is* a tossup.

As close as it's been, I'm becoming ever-more-confident that Webb's going to pull the biggest upset in the race. Allen is just a POS all the way around, and Webb -- though not a natural campaigner -- is a class act and a true Southern Gentleman. And he's been getting better in the last week. When he tore Allen a new bunghole over his "pornography" attack, it truly was a beautiful thing to see ...

Bob

Yes, the Democrats will-- at best-- boldly control one half of one branch of the government.

And that's their 'historic' victory, bound to be undone in two years after they propose endless baby killing, graverobbing, and troop-hating.

NTood:

Well, no. That in itself is spin. Nobody expected the Dems to take the Senate since about two day ago. If we lose it (and I doubt by only two or three) and take the House, that will still be a fabulous victory, not any kind of late expectation-driven "defeat."

I don't desire to scourge my enemies (heh, not much) -- only disempower them. And truthfully, with Pelosi in charge of both committees and the gavel, at the very least we can stop Bush's agenda dead it its tracks. Social Security piratization? Heh, kiss *that* one goodbye ...

Although an immigration package that gives illegals a path to citizenship as per the Senate bill probably would be the right thing for the Dems to pass ...

The resurgence of oversight -- even without the threat of chimpeachment -- is also something to be fervently welcomed.

Bob

You'd also have to look what the party that picked up seats before the big pick up - the few seats you start off with, the easier it is to pick up new ones. The Dems start off only 15 under a majority - it would be better to compare what the equivalent starting point was.

Also, both parties when in charge with reapportionment have worked towards creating districts that favor one party over the other (obviously in some cases to their own advantage) meaning that historically we have fewer seemingly competitive districts than has beentrue at least since the South stopped being one party.

On the Senate - the states where the Dems might pick up Republican seats - are Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Montana, Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri and Arizona. Of those eight, six were won by Bush in both 00 and 04. So it isn't exactly hospitable territory to pick up the six needed, which is also on the high side of Senate turnovers.

End of the day - if either House ends up Dem, the world changes, irrespective of the margin. And this is a bunch who called a two point popular margin in 2004 a clear mandate.

Tennessee is lost, I'm pretty sure ...

Out of all of our candidates, I can't think of a better one to go down. Ford has always been too much of a triangulating slickster for my tastes. And it's really not ideological -- Teeter's way too socially conservative for my blood, but I have no problem with him at all; he appears completely uncalculated.

Bob

>>The congress has already given the President all the power he needs to counduct the war. American Hawk

Ah but... Money can be appropriated only for two years. This was done by the Founders to prevent the republic from having a standing army(hah!)

Apporopriations also must originate in the House.

Now Bush just might have the power to wage the war but those that control the House can fail to budget it. This makes it sort of veto proof in my mind you can't veto what ain't there.

....then he could use the Bush family money to pay for the war, but even the Bush fortune isn't that big, and I think he'd lose interest pretty fast if that was the case.

Richard Sullivan:

That's pretty much how the Vietnam war ended, as I understand it ...

Bob

An my pesonal favorite prepost election whine
the democrats didn't deserve to win
because they have no plan and they didn't do anything

Yes, the Democrats will-- at best-- boldly control one half of one branch of the government.

and the Republicans will continue to fuck our country up the ass, with crushed glass for lube, for the next two years. and then they'll blame the Dems for all the bleeding and infection.

Republican refrain

Democrats the accidental victors

Get used to the next spin line:

Democratic control of Congress will mean that the Republicans are in a GREAT position for 2008!

American Hawk - choose the cyanide instead of the gun. That way your mommy can have an open casket.

Kevin, how dare you use things like "facts" and "numbers" and "history" to confuse us?

If the Dems don't win back the House and Senate it will pretty much signal the end of the Republic. It's time for a change of direction in government. If election cheating seems to be responsible, there will be serious repercussions in the streets.

P.S. It's time to make that silly institution called the Electoral College fall into the dustbin of history. If the country can allow, without protest, the kinds of changes that the Bush administration is enacting, it can certainly allow for this. Constitutional amendment anyone?

Hey! HEY! This is a BIG deal to me! The Demoncrats could impeach me if they control the House!

Hey Ann! Charles! Where is everybody?!? I was your Dear Leader a few months ago.

I guess it's just you and me, Barney.

Um, Kevin - that's not improved gerrymandering; that's more effective gerrymandering. I'm just sayin'.

ARTHUR:
Victory is mine!
[kneeling]
We thank Thee Lord, that in Thy mer--
BLACK KNIGHT:
Hah!
[kick]
Come on, then.
ARTHUR:
What?
BLACK KNIGHT:
Have at you!
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Eh. You are indeed brave, Sir Knight, but the fight is mine.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Oh, had enough, eh?
ARTHUR:
Look, you stupid bastard. You've got no arms left.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Yes, I have.
ARTHUR:
Look!
BLACK KNIGHT:
Just a flesh wound.
[kick]
ARTHUR:
Look, stop that.
BLACK KNIGHT:
Chicken!
[kick]
Chickennn!

Meanwhile

Ann Coulter May Be Charged For Voter Fraud

http://www.shortnews.com/start.cfm?id=58080&rubrik1=Politics&rubrik2=US%20Politics&rubrik3=Election&sort=1&start=1

Over the next 24 hours the Republicans will try to define failure as Democrats taking fewer than 25-30 house seats and 6 seats in the Senate. Then if we only take 22 or 23 house seats and 5 in the Senate, Democratic talking heads will be expected to explain our "defeat."

Remember people until the last week or two only the most optimistic expected Democrats to pick up more than 4 Senate seats and it only takes a pick up of 15 for Nancy Pelosi to become Speaker of the House. Don't let the Republican clowns define anything. Remind your mainstream media people not to be fooled.

More on psycho Ann Coulter

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/coulter.voting.ap/

Also keep in mind that Rove's strategy has been to build a permanent Republican majority with total domination of elected positions, including control of Congress similar to the nearly uninterrupted Democratic control of both houses from 1933-1981 (only two years of 48 did the GOP gain control). And with this myth came all the flowing of power and money to the GOP. Destroying that myth is much more important than gaining 20 or 40 or whatever the number is.

"The national political environment currently is worse than it was in 1994, when the Democrats lost 52 House seats, eight Senate seats and 10 governorships, and when Republicans won GOP control of the House for the first time in decades."

http://stevegilliard.blogspot.com/2006/10/destruction-of-army-group-centre.html

"Bottom line: Thirty years ago a pickup of 25 seats wouldn't have been that big a deal...." - Kevin Drum

Kevin, can you be more dishonest?

Don't forget something else. Democrats are on track to dominate governorships across the country. That is huge.

Ah, Kevin.

Already counting your chickens before they hatched, huh. Just like 2004, when Frankenstien was supposed to crush Bush. Control of Congress is the Republican's to lose, the burden is on you!

Anyway, Coulter is right. You guys have to win over 40 seats just to reach the usual opposition level of seats this far into a two term incumbent president's term. You guys will never win that many seats.

Dems lose again! I love it!

"...and the Republicans will continue to fuck our country up the ass,..." - cleek

I thought you were for same-sex marriage?

I am sure all of you will join me in supporting Steele for the Senate furthering the minorities struggle against the white power structure. Right?

Jay & egbert:

Redistricting has made it an entirely new ballgame. In '94, there were over 100 seats in play.

Kevin is saying that structural changes (engineered by Republicans in the unprecedented way of computer-drawn redistricting in between censuses) has rendered that comparison meaningless.

Bob

Jay:

I think I'll support Ford, instead.

You have anything better than crude race-baiting, btw?

Bob

Well of course, anything is irrelevant when it doesn't support your conclusions.

People can still be influenced by platforms and policies and the majority still don't vote straight party tickets.

Of course you would actually have to have a platform to run on and a meesage to deliver. And it would also preclude the assumption of the vote as the Democrats do with minorities.

"You have anything better than crude race-baiting, btw?" - rmck1

Isn't that what is going on with Obama?

btw, he's a sharp man for a Democrat. And Steele is head and shoulders the better candidate than Cardin.

Jay:

The Democrats do have a message to deliver: Six in '06. Let's see if I can't rattle it off ...

1) Increase the minimum wage.
2) Let the government negotiate bulk-purchase drug discounts for Medicare Part D.
3) Implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations.
4) Make college loans tax-free.
5) Rescind tax breaks on the oil industry to use to develop alternate energy.
6) Expand Medicare to cover children.

But this isn't the point. Midterms are always referenda on the party in power. And when the party in power is hugely unpopular -- that means midterms are driven by negative energy rather than a positive agenda.

The idea that the '94 landslide was driven by the Contract With America is entirely mythical. Voters were pissed off at Congress. Ove 70% of voters didn't know what it was prior to the election.

Bob

Jay:

Steele is a charismatic and personable candidate to be sure -- but he's also very empty. His standard-issue solution to everything seems to be "we'll get all the parties in a room together." He really has a weak record of accomplishment -- and he was entirely a GOP tool prior to this election.

Now he's trying to dial to the left and signal his independence from Bush and the GOP -- but nobody's really buying it.

Cardin isn't terribly charismatic -- but he's been a solid legislator and has a much stronger command of the issues than does Steele.

Now Ken Blackwell -- there's a candidate who just completely *sucks* :)

Bob

So you want to ruin the economy, bloat the government and ignore National Security.

Hell of plan.

btw, congressional elections are local.

"but he's been a solid legislator and has a much stronger command of the issues than does Steele." - rmck1

Did you see the debates? Does Cardin even know of Metro's transit plans?

Command of the issues? Give me a break.

Jay

Are you paid by post or has the Scaife group put you on a salary like some of the others? I guess I want to know if you are going to be one of the lucky ones who gets unemployment.

Please try to keep up with the level of this site. If you want you might ask your supervisor what some of the bigger words mean.

Jay:

Whether you agree with the agenda or not -- my only purpose was to rebut your contention that the Democrats don't have one.

Why would I expect *you* to agree, anyway? :)

Election are local? So says Tom Reynolds (fiercely echoing Tip O'Neil).

It depends on the climate. The elections were nationalized in '94 because of the climate.

They are nationalized in '06 because of the climate as well.

Primarily it has to do with the Iraq war, which is sucking the oxygen out of everything else -- including the decent economy. The Iraq war has also made it pretty much impossible to demagogue on terrorism like last election.

Bob

One other thing, Jay, don't try to debate Bob, he will crush your soul.

人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 美女裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女日记全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 写真集 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛网站 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 性爱电影 免费小电影 性电影 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 韩国电影 性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性教育电影 同志电影 舒淇写真 写真集 性虐待电影 淫书 人体写真 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性爱论坛 变态日本女生 淫女 女大学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼操比操屄 激情论坛 三级片 性爱电影 联通铃声下载 联通炫铃 联通彩铃下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通炫铃 联通彩铃 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 戴尔笔记本报价 戴尔笔记本电脑价格 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔电脑网站 戴尔家用电脑 戴尔电脑官方网站 戴尔台式机 戴尔网上订购 戴尔笔记本电脑网上订购 戴尔双核笔记本 戴尔服务器 戴尔电脑公司 戴尔电脑价格 戴尔台式电脑 戴尔手提电脑 戴尔中国 戴尔网站 戴尔笔记本官方网站 戴尔笔记本 戴尔笔记本电脑 dell笔记本电脑 双核笔记本电脑 戴尔笔记本电脑报价 戴尔电脑网上订购

Jay:

Hahah, that's pretty funny, actually.

Do you know that after the debate, Steele called a press conference at what he thought was one of the new station stops?

When he got there, a reporter told him that it, uhh, wasn't one. When somebody asked him why he chose that site, you know what he said?

"They told me to come here."

Real command of the issues, alright. That appearing on the nightly news blew whatever advantage Steele thought he gained by playing "gotcha!" with Cardin completely out of the water.

Cardin may have not known the names of the stop when Steele played his little gotcha game during the debate -- but he still has a far better command of the issues -- including the new proposed rail line.

Bob

I'd certainly like to see the resident twit, known as rmck1, debate me and try to crush my soul.

If I recall correctly, I have humiliated his worthless carcass at every turn. If memory serves me, I have used his soul as my own personal asswipe rag and left him quivering like a confused douche in the middle of a village full of idiots.

He is, after all, the dweeb who believes that we need to return to class warfare in this country--all the while giving his idol Jon Corzine slavish praise.

You Dumbocrats aren't going to win anything on Tuesday, except a one way ticket to oblivion and back.

Norman, rmck1 is a confused Jimmy Carter liberal believing that Government is the solution to all problems and more hugs and kisses are needed to those who hate us.

Ron Byers is simply a mentally deficient idiot.

NORMAN !

*chuckling hysterically*

Still in top form I see, you old used snotrag you :)

How was the shopping? Did you singlehandly keep our economy defaulting to the Chinese, or what?

Bob

economy defaulting = economy from defaulting

See Norman -- even *I* make the occasional egregious typo now and again :)

Bob

Haha! You guys have to pick up at least 500 seats, or the Dems have to leave the country! In fact, you've already lost! Even if you win, you've lost! Even if you win big, you've really lost big! HAHAHAHA!!!

I smell desperation in the residing trolls, they're now trying to get everything upset with lame insults... I hope bob and ron will stop feeding them, trolls are cute, in their ugly kind of way, but feeding them won't help them grow...

Italian:

I disagree with you there, my international friend.

Feeding the trolls -- expecially such silly boys as Jay and Norman -- is *exceedingly* entertaining, and plus keeps the ol' rebuttal skills sharpened, besides. Politics is the art of forensic combat. En garde! :)

Jay:

So ... you were, uhh, saying about Michael Steele? :)

Bob

"You Dumbocrats aren't going to win anything on Tuesday"

So, Norman, how many seats are the Republicans going to pick up over there in Never-Never Land? Are you and Peter Pan and Ted and Foley having a good time with the boys?

Primarily it has to do with the Iraq war, which is sucking the oxygen out of everything else -- including the decent economy.

This little admission is the thing that will unravel you, you twit.

First of all, thank you for noticing! Those of us who actually have a stake in the economic health of this country and choose to live like human beings have nothing but praise for George W Bush and his skillful handling of economic matters. Unemployment is low right now--how many of you libs actually have a job that don't involve the wearing of hairnet and a name tag? Hmm?

Anyway, yes. This economy is doing quite well, thank you. The housing market--it's not great, but thanks to low taxes, those who have planned properly can definitely make money off real estate. I have always been more fond of the bond market--my old stomping grounds and the source of much of my own portfolio--but there it is.

So, tell us libs--do you agree with rmck1's statement? If so, how can you expect the American people to vote against the economic self-interest? Methinks few libs are going to agree with you rmck1, and we might soon have three or four of them tearing into you, as usual. Where is your little friend cleek to start trouble with you? Have you run off everyone who has an honest disagreement with you? You're a regular heavy hitter around here, aren't you? A self appointed traffic cop, eh?

Do you really think they're going to do that? Of course not! Don't be absurd. Oh, that's right--we're dealing with the height of absurdity--liberals!

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

It's the Republicans who believe Government is the solution to all problems, the only difference is they don't want the public to control the Government.

Norman, rmck1 is a confused Jimmy Carter liberal believing that Government is the solution to all problems and more hugs and kisses are needed to those who hate us.

Well, I wouldn't curse the name of James Carter too quickly. Yes, not a great President. A good man in a party full of religion haters, a man who knows the world is better with religion in it. I wonder if the libs know that the decent, God-fearing Jimmy is the real deal, as opposed to the piously pornographic Bill Clinton.

"A coalition of black Democratic political leaders from Prince George's County led by former county executive Wayne K. Curry endorsed Republican Michael S. Steele's bid for the U.S. Senate yesterday"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001057.html

"U.S. Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin last night skipped an NAACP-sponsored debate in Charles County, Md., a day after the Democratic Senate nominee stammered and stumbled during a faceoff with the Republican nominee, Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele."

http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20061026-114636-1765r.htm

Your reference of a bad choice for a photo op in a feeble attempt to discredit Steele just doesn't hold water.

Archie:

Nicely stated :)

Norman:

Three words:

The Iraq war.

Remember when GHWB tried to claim that the economy was beginning to rebound after a recession in '92, because two quarters in a row showed growth? He was technically right (because a lot of downsizing had occured in the 80s which set the stage for it, plus the tech sector was poised to explode) -- but nobody gave him credit for it? Just like nobody gave the poor man credit for his stewardship (very good, in retrospect) of the Gulf War.

Politics is funny that way. Many middle class and working class people feel highly economically insecure, over health insurance, job security and underemployment.

All the positive numbers in the world won't make a person feel more secure, if he feels s/he has reason to feel insecure. It's really that simple.

And the Iraq war has swept away any residual positive feelings people might've had about the econonmy. We're in hock up to our eyeballs to the Chinese, old man. Better hope they still have a healthy appetite for our T-bills for a long time to come, eh?

Bob

I smell desperation in the residing trolls, they're now trying to get everything upset with lame insults... I hope bob and ron will stop feeding them, trolls are cute, in their ugly kind of way, but feeding them won't help them grow...

Posted by: italian on November 4, 2006 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

This would be a plea from one of your liberal friends, rmck1, to stop humiliating yourself and ignore the likes of me.

Will you hear the plea? Of course not! You are the best liberal poster of all! You are the one who commands a legion of followers! You are the master of the English language and the one who has the truth on his side.

Well, fire away, twit. It's not like you can actually help yourself.

Jay:

You don't know jack about *either* of their voting records or positions on the issues, so I'd hardly be one to talk about what does or does not "hold water" here, my friend :)

Nice to see you endorsing the very same identity politics game you started to accuse the Democrats of upthread, eh?

So a few local black pols are endorsing Steele because he's the right skin color.

That's supposed to actually *matter* to a thinking person?

Bob

Norman, take a look at any poll done in the last few years - the majority of the American people don't think the economy is in good shape. Of course, you'll blame the media, but ordinary folks know when there wages and benefits really match the cost of living, when job security is there or not, when the essentials of life are within reach or not.

Norman:

Why would I ignore you and break your heart so cruelly? :)

Bob

"We're in hock up to our eyeballs to the Chinese, old man" - rmck1

"China now holds more than $700 billion in foreign exchange reserves -- the second-largest reserves after Japan -- with roughly one-third parked in U.S. Treasuries...."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902025.html

So $250 billion is being in "hock up to our eyeballs"??????

Japan holds more. And, btw, they hold that much because they enjoy investing in a strong economy.

"Many middle class and working class people feel highly economically insecure, over health insurance, job security and underemployment." - rmck1

So now you know how people "FEEL". Is their no end to your arrogance.

Hey GOPedophile Norman, you didn't answer my question. How many seats do you expect the Republicans to pick up Tuesday? Hmmmm?

The Twit:

Norman:

Three words:

The Iraq war.

Remember when GHWB tried to claim that the economy was beginning to rebound after a recession in '92, because two quarters in a row showed growth? He was technically right (because a lot of downsizing had occured in the 80s which set the stage for it, plus the tech sector was poised to explode) -- but nobody gave him credit for it? Just like nobody gave the poor man credit for his stewardship (very good, in retrospect) of the Gulf War.

Bwah hah hah hah hah!

Did you actually live through those times or were you in a diabetic coma?

Two words for you: Ross Perot.

Were it not for that little worm, Bush senior would have been reelected and all of you libs know that for an indisputable fact.

The most hilarious aspect of your paltry attempt at analysis is this--you claim the current war in Iraq is an issue, and then you praise the handling of the First Gulf War! Hello, childlike fool--there would not currently be an Iraq War in 2006 were it not for the fact that Bush 41 botched the job to begin with, primarily because he listened to Colin Powell. Well, Bush 43 figured out that Colin Powell knows nothing useful and ignored him because all Colin Powell has accomplished in his life is missing the opportunity in 1991 to PREVENT the costly war we are now fighting.

And you wonder why people can't stop laughing at you.

Jay:

What's the Japanese mix? Maybe the hold less American securities than the Chinese, if they don't hold as high a percentage of them.

Jay, it's not what *I* know. It's been in the polling data all year.

Bottom line, economic news is all about subjective feelings. What do you think "irrational exuberance" is during a market or a commodity bubble?

Bob

Norman

Two thoughts about the economy. First, there are all kinds of $10.00 per hour jobs out there. If you and your wife work hard you can earn up to $40,000 combined. Not enough to raise a family, but since you and your wife are on social security what do you care. What our economy is missing are all the $20-$30 per hour jobs with benefits that have moved overseas. Those jobs could let a family live a pretty good life. Kids could go to college and everything. The American dream. To think our current economy is great you have to redefine that American dream.

Second thought. There is a war on. We have spent $350 billion dollars on that war effort. Guess what. Most of that money has been spent right here in the good old U S of A. Those war time appropriations are bouncing around our economy.

Like all wars, this one is on the national credit card. I don't know about you, but I have enough credit to live pretty high off the hog for several years. I don't because someday I'll have to pay that money back.

The good numbers we are currently enjoying, such as they are, are artifical. When the war is over we will have to pay back that debt.

We could make the war permanent, appropriate endlessly, spending money we don't have for decades. If we work it right we could even deal with the first problem I outlined above. A little tax adjustment here, a little minimum wage hike there and suddenly we could all be living the war profiteer high life. In the process we would sacrifice the lives of our children and the lives of millions of our neighbors on the alter of keeping our war machine humming along. That sounds sort of Orwellian. It sure doesn't sound very moral. You in favor of permanent war, Norman? Do you believe the book 1984 was an owners manual, or do you believe it was a cautionary tale? Hummm?

Why did Cardin unexpectedly skip the NAACP debate?

rmck1, stop wasting your time arguing with people whose brains consist of a hamster running on a wheel. You can argue with them forever, and you'll never change how they think.

Bush could rape his daughters on live TV and these jokers would still support him. Norman brags about his bond portfolio, but he probably couldn't manage a home aquarium without killing the fish. These dorks are like the Amway zombies who are making $900 a year while telling you how they live like kings.

Norman:

Score one with Perot. It's true that he spoiled the election for Bush; I can't argue with you there.

Norman ... we listened to our allies during Gulf War 1. We had a genuine international coalition, some of whom were Muslim and Arab troops. We even got Japan to pay for nearly all of it.

There was nothing inevitable about the Iraq war. The principles we upheld in GW1 -- the main one being protecting the territorial sovereignty of an ally -- are precisely what we violated by this current misadventure.

Now Norman, Republicans left and right have been falling off the wagon on the Iraq war. The Army Times just called for Rummy's head. Even Richard Perle said the invasion of Iraq could've been avoided -- and should have been, if he had any inking of how badly Bush would prang it up.

Why are you continuing to defend this dog with fleas, old boy?

Republicans in all but the most Genghis Khan-like of suburban dark red enclaves seem to be running away from it as fast as their little legs will carry them ...

Bob

TR:

I don't disagree with you.

I simply find it entertaining regardless :)

By all means scroll to taste.

Bob

So a few local black pols are endorsing Steele because he's the right skin color.

That's supposed to actually *matter* to a thinking person?

Oh ho ho! Nothing racist here, eh?

Well, let's parse what poor rmck1 is saying about the Dumbocratic Party in 2006: he seems to be saying that a thinking person would never endorse Michael Steele. I disagree--the endorsement of a politician is a personal decision and one should not automatically conclude that race has anything to do with it.

What you seem to be saying is that the black Michael Steele, who happens to be a Republican, is thereby a traitor to his race and should not be endorsed by anyone. And if someone does endorse him, well, they must be mentally deficient in some way. Yes, I think that sums it up.

How anyone could conclude that you are not making a blatantly racist and patronizing statement is beyond me--any decent liberal who posts here should rightly dress you down--but, no, you do rule the roost here and you do command a legion of followers--I doubt whether any liberal will stand up to you for what you are intimating.

Too many cowards and wanna-be traffic cops around here.

Well, no. That in itself is spin. Nobody expected the Dems to take the Senate since about two day ago. If we lose it (and I doubt by only two or three) and take the House, that will still be a fabulous victory, not any kind of late expectation-driven "defeat."

Uh...many people predicted a Dem takeover more than two days ago. Regardless, given the current political climate, spin aside, if the Dems cannot take advantage then it is a win for the GOP. They'll have prevented split government and the Dems, who have been thus far ineffective as an oppo party, will still have nothing to show for it.

A loss is a loss, no matter what the expectations are.

Norman Rogers has convinced me to not vote against Steele on Tuesday...

Two sock puppets attack rmck1 and yet he insists on making racist statements and debating with a mere troll, which is what the liberalitariat thinks I am.

Do you libs want some whine to go with your cheese tonight? Hmm?

Typical Norman Rogers. He is made to look the fool, so he declares victory.

Time to turn off the light Norman.

Jay:

Because it's a standard frontrunner's strategy to avoid debates.

Norman:

Oh posh. If you're a GOP supporter, by all means vote for Michael Steele. All I'm in favor of is not believing the hype that the guy's "independent-minded" -- because his record clearly doesn't show that.

Michael Steele is the one attempting to play the race card by taking liberal positions he doesn't believe in for the sake of getting Maryland blacks (over 90% of whom are Democrats) to vote for him because he's "one of them."

Hey, they can vote for him if they'd like, for whatever reason they'd like. It's a free country.

I just don't want anyone thinking that they're voting for something other than another GOP tool, is all ...

Bob

we listened to our allies during Gulf War 1. We had a genuine international coalition, some of whom were Muslim and Arab troops.

No, we followed the Powell doctrine, and look where it got us--a second war, thousands dead, and the job left unfinished.

Sure sounds like something to be proud of, eh?

Well, perhaps if the job had been done properly in 1991, we would have peace and prosperity aplenty right now. But we don't. We have people who want to destroy us and we have a world full of dangerous people. Do you really think you'd have the common decency to admit that doing nothing after 9/11 would have left you liberals screaming for the head of George W Bush?

So either he does nothing and you hate him or he makes an effort to change the Middle East for the better and you still hate him. No matter what--you just have hate. And the American people tend not to vote out of hate. Sorry, but the Reagan years taught us that optimism sells, and George W Bush is nothing if not an optimist.

Under what scenario would you actually credit our President? None? One where he surrendered to al Qaeda and handed over all of America's virgins?

Be honest for a change and your answer might reveal something useful for debate.

NTodd:

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

Bob

Thanks for the obvious and correct response, Kevin.

Interesting that in the old days, events like Iraq would have given the Dems 50 seats ('58, recession, '66, Vietnam, '74 Watergate), but due to redistricting that protects incumbents, now the mid-term disaster is only worth 25 or so.

Oh, and I'll make your point for you--yes, the reprehensible Bill Clinton was an optimist as well, and that's why people voted for him.

There, you got me to admit something painful. But I can't help but notice that Bill Clinton probably didn't win because he made people hate George Herbert Walker Bush, and this hatred you liberals are fomenting for George W Bush has always been your undoing.

And you know it!

Oh, and the trolls are going to sound just like the Kraut on Wednesday -- flipping from the Dems can't win 'cause they're wildly unpopular to, "Heck, everyone knew the out party would get that many seats, no big deal, yada yada."

Norman:

Good gracious, look at all those pretty straw men ...

Norman -- NOBODY (save maybe for a few Quaker pacifists) believed we should've done nothing after 9/11.

Had Bush decided to focus on Afghanistan and -- especially -- had he called the Special Forces into Tora Bora when he had the chance to catch that tall dude on a donkey instead of ferrying them off to Iraq -- I think all of America would've supported him and his poll ratings (not all of them from rabid partisan Democrats, btw) would reflect that, as Bush pere's did when he successfully prosecuted the first Gulf war.

But -- once again, as even the neocons are admitting -- Iraq was simply a fool's errand. There's a piece up on the AP that said that the military wargamed this out in '99, and even with *400,000* troops (the minimum number they concluded could do the job), the odds were still good that the country would spiral into chaos ...

Bob

Typical Norman Rogers. He is made to look the fool, so he declares victory.

Cite, please.

And I'll have curly fries with that, my good man.

Norman:

George Bush is full of *optimism*? Really?

Then why is he running around the country trying to terrify everybody that voting for Democrats will provoke Armageddon?

He can't even talk about the good economic news like it's just, you know, good for everybody and a great success -- without using it as a fulcrum to wedge primal fear into people that those evil Democrats are going to make it all go away ...

Bush originally ran as a uniter, not a divider -- but, thanks to the evil genius of Karl Rove -- he's been the most divisive president I think this nation has ever had.

Bob

I agree with your assessment--I think the pickup
will be 20-25 seats. Having said that, the Democrats picked up 26 seats in 1982 and GOP picked up 52 in 1994, both first term midterms.

So the second midterms (1986 and 1998) were due to show smaller gains.

But it's harder to make reaaly big gains nowadays, so +25 is more like +45 twenty years ago.

GOTV

From here on all candidates and public speakers should drop ever last ounce of negative attacks or issues except for one…
Everybody Should Get Out and Vote!

Tomorrow we're going to hear the Saddam verdict and the Repubs will try to make a big whoop about it.

The Dem response should be, "Well then, VOTE!"

Dems shouldn't fear this situation. We're winning in all geographic areas, on all issues, in the House and Senate, on domestic and foreign affairs, on wedge issues and on real issues. We're winning everywhere people are voting.

Vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote vote!

as Bush pere's did when he successfully prosecuted the first Gulf war.

Once more, again, and slowly this time:

Had the first Gulf War been "successfully prosecuted" to the extent that the threat of Saddam Hussein was eliminated, do you really think we'd be at war right now?

Thanks again, Colin Powell.

And you wonder why you'll fall short of taking the House and Senate on Tuesday--the American people have you sussed.

Norman writes: Were it not for that little worm, Bush senior would have been reelected and all of you libs know that for an indisputable fact.

Except that it's false...

In 1992, the states that were close enough for votes for Perot to make a difference had electoral votes that added up to less than Clinton's margin of victory. The states where Perot plausibly made a difference were: Colorado (8 electoral votes), Georgia (13 ev), Kentucky (8 ev), Montana (3 ev), New Hampshire (4 ev), Nevada (4 ev), Louisiana (9 ev), Maine (4 ev), New Jersey (15 ev), Ohio (21 ev). If all these states had gone for Bush, he would have won an extra 89 electoral votes. That would have put the totals at Clinton 281 versus Bush 257. Bush still would have lost.

I know that, as a conservative, you really don't care what the facts are, but just for the record, you're wrong.

Norman:

Once more, slowly, so *you* can get it:

Saddam was *successfully contained* after Gulf War 1.

A war to depose Saddam is *fundamentally unwinnable*. Colin Powell and Brent Scowcroft (and a host of other military analysts) were proven entirely *correct*.

Which part of either of these statements don't you understand?

Bob

Norman

I cite Daryl McCullough on November 4, 2006. It is too late for french fries. They would only make you sick.

Daryl McCollough:

Interesting breakdown. Never seen that argument before.

Thanks.

Bob

Saddam was *successfully contained* after Gulf War 1.

Bwah hah hah hah hah!

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat pose