Don't forget scandals. Think that they were also on the list

Shall we send flowers to Mark Foley? I think we should acknowledge the helping hand he extended.

"On the other hand, the Republican Party did lose a bunch of its moderates, and it didn't have many to lose. It looks even more extreme today than it did yesterday, which doesn't bode well for its future."

Can I get a heh-indeedy on that?

Sleazy campaigning.

When exit polls show people concerned about corruption I think this is what they may have had operationally in mind, because with so many issues before us now that need to be addressed the Republicans tried hard to avoid addressing any of them and stuck to their tarring and feathering, almost none of which hit the mark.

You also have to give the Democrats credit for running campaigns that focused more on issues than sleazy character slanders, and refusing to sink to the Republican levels.

Let me be the first to quote Nelson Muntz:

HAA-HAA!

George Bush's national security crew "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."

among????

What about corruption, Abramoff, etc.?

Bush is not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.
He's a fascist.
Let's not make this simple error again, hey?

I went to bed at 11 thinking we'd lost Virginia, and were going to lose MO. I got woken up in the middle of the night, logged on, and...wow!

For the record, my prediction was +32 in house, +7 in senate...not too bad.

Shall we send flowers to Mark Foley? I think we should acknowledge the helping hand he extended.

Haggard was the final blow.

Wink.

Hello? ChickenHawk? Al? Chucky? You there, guys? Hello?

ChickenHawk and Al won't be anywhere to be found for a few weeks.

Shall we send flowers to Mark Foley? I think we should acknowledge the helping hand he extended.

Haggard was the final blow.

Anyone seen the voter makeup this election? My guess is that the wingnuts came out in droves. They just weren't enough to overcome the increased moderate and youth vote.

Nothing fires up republicans like the exposure of their own failures.

One word for the next two years: investigations.

Investigation, oversight, prosecution. Round them up, expose them, ship them off to jail.

Corruption.
Hypocracy.
Incompetence.

And Sully endorses for the Dems because they are more conservative than the Repubs.
On the Left / Right balance, the current Repub party is near Venus.

George Bush's national security crew "turned out to be among the most incompetent teams in the post-war era."

Among the most? Who else is even in the running? At least we got out of Vietnam with seriously damaging our overall national security posture. Southeast Asia was never critical to our national security to begin with. We can't say the same for the Middle East.

We're so screwed.

aa

You forgot Clinton. It was all Clinton's fault.

I long ago got out of the business of figuring out the electorate.

1-3 I heartily agree with. I disagree with 4 - it only seems plausible if it is bellied by 1-3; in which case 1-3 are still the real reasons. The radical animosity directed at Democrats throughout 2003 was, if nothing else, a source of strength for Republicans.

I only watched a few minutes of tv tonight. In those few minutes somebody said something about John Kerry ruining his presidential chances with a dumb joke that 84% of the electorate had heard about (wonder how?). The nice thing about your picks is that none of them reek of "issue de jour" syndrome.

(On the other hand, the Republican Party did lose a bunch of its moderates, and it didn't have many to lose. It looks even more extreme today than it did yesterday, which doesn't bode well for its future.)

Yep. This is all part of a partisan realignment in which the Republican Party will lose any remaining presence in the Northeast and the West Coast for the next twenty years, and in which it will become, ultimately, only a regional, far-right, out of the mainstream and Southern party.

I'd say the biggest reason is general lack of vision and principles. In the end, the GOP was simply pursuing power for it's own sake. It finally caught up to them.

They have no solutions for any of the major issues this country faces. Energy alternatives. Health Care. And most importantly, the war in Iraq. Those are the things that killed the GOP in this election.

But truth be told, I have to be completely honest. I know there are a lot of happy liberals tonight (and rightfully so) but I wouldn't yet call this a victory for liberalism so much as it is a vote against Bush. There is a difference. People were voting against the screw ups of Bush and the GOP and Dems won by not being either one.

The Democrats have a serious responsibility in the next two years. If they play their cards right, and focus on the bread and butter issues (such as health care, energy independence, etc) and stay away from the social liberal nonsense that hurt Clinton in 1993, then they have a chance at a lasting majority.

Gross, stubborn incompetance

This is all part of a partisan realignment in which the Republican Party will lose any remaining presence in the Northeast and the West Coast for the next twenty years, and in which it will become, ultimately, only a regional, far-right, out of the mainstream and Southern party.

Fin.

I think a combination of the Iraq debacle and scandal fatigue finally pulled away enough independents to rob the GOP of the slim majorities that they had gotten by with the past couple of election cycles. These were the people that used to hold their nose and vote Republican because they seemed stronger on national security and the budget. Reality has finally sunk in. The independents have come back to the middle and voted blue -- that leaves the GOP with that 30% wingnut faction that would vote for Bush even if Jesus himself descended from the sky and declared Bush the antichrist (which would be cool). It may be a base that turns out in the clutch, but does not make for an electoral majority.

Wow. +32 and +5/6.

I'd say the jinx is broken.

Probably the best explanation is that the ponzi scheme of deferring reality just collapsed for the republicans.

The American people clearly want oversight. Time to get these crooks under oath and start asking about everything from September the 11th to the Iraq war and wiretapping. And this time the president must speak for himself. That should be fun.

It is so difficult to resist being a sore winner, but it feels so good to see sanity return to America!! And really no one could ever be worse sore winners than the GOP have been for the last 6 years.

I'm not one to gloat, and speaking as a former Republican, all I can say is thank God. Say hello to oversight and say hello to accountability. Once more the wisdom of the founding fathers is made clear. The American people wants government that works the middle of the road. They don't want extremism and they do want checks & balances.
Most impressive point of the evening was Harold Ford's concession speech. If that is what he sounds like in defeat, I can only imagine what he will say in victory.

A little gloating is acceptable. It's well deserved.

Don't forget scandals. Think that they were also on the list

wait......wait a sec....where's Al? where's American Hawk? where's Norman? what do I think now? tell me! I'm so lost!

oh wait, were you just paid shills?

it all makes sense now.

Really there is only one reason the gop went down hard tonite. R.O.V.E - he was/is the only one who thought Iraq was winning issue and he was/is the only one who thought Iraq can be tied to the WOT. Wrong.

Dems get smart and turned the table on Mr Genius by using Iraq as weapon against the gop. Rove thought Dems would run away from Iraq thus ceding ground as they did on previous elections. Wrong.

where's Al? where's American Hawk? where's Norman?

They went to cash their final troll checks before Unka Karl stops payment.

Yes, when things turn out the way I wanted, it proves the wisdom of the framers, and when they don't, then it doesn't. Or something.

Might it be a little bit more simple to say that wars that drag on for more than a year or two tend to be unpopular, and having Congressmen convicted, or resigning after hitting on the pages, tends to cost a political party a non-trivial number of votes?

You're right about extremism, wrong about conservatism. Bush is the opposite of conservative, as are the vast majority of current Republicans. They are not conservative. It will take them years to come to grips with that.

The Republicans may have actually lost because they were not conservative enough. On issues like taxes, defense, and judges, where Republicans upheld conservative principle, the country stood behind them. Where the Republicans abandoned conservatism, by wasting $30 billion a year on pork barrel spending, by throwing more money into the broken education system without fixing it, by running massive budget deficits, by overseeing the greatest expansion of the federal government since L.B.J., Americans turned against them and small-government conservatives stayed home. If the Republicans bring conservatism back to Washington when they are in the minority, they have a chance of taking back Congress in 2008. If the Democrats work to the right of the Republicans and take on the pro-Big Government interest groups that run the Democratic Party instead of obeying them, then they may have a permanent majority. But the weakness of the Republicans was the lack of conservatism, not the presence of it, and the strength of the next party that will hold a majority will be the vindication of conservatism.

Hooray! Ding dong the witch is dead, the wicked witch...

"I know there are a lot of happy liberals tonight (and rightfully so) but I wouldn't yet call this a victory for liberalism so much as it is a vote against Bush. There is a difference."

Here's a happy liberal who remembers that few voted for Reagan; they voted against Carter. At the end of the day it doesn't matter.

I said at the time on this blog that the GOP actions regarding Schiavo were the first major crack in their grip on the American voting public, that they had made a major mistake. I see KD tends to agree with me on that, and the contrast of it to the response to Katrina and NO in particular made both events amplify the reverberations of the other. The Iraq war was also a steady drip drip drip over the past two years, as well as the absolute idiocy of the social security reforms Bushco tried for last year. Then the corruption scandals of Abramoff and the Plame investigation and Libby's perjury and obstruction charges and then the sex scandals of the GOP in the last months just made this near perfect storm against the GOP.

Aside from Jefferson the scandals of corruption were all on the GOP side and the American public appears to have noticed this despite the attempts of the GOP to spin it as mutually bad more or less. This when you combine it (corruption) with the exit polls showing it to be the most extremely important issue demonstrates this was not an anti-incumbent mood but an anti-GOP government mood in the voting public. While it is true this was more a protest vote than a support vote for the Dems it is also true they have a major opportunity here and one of the things the American people clearly want back is proper oversight of the Executive branch and its actions by the Congress. If Bushco tries to actively resist such oversight I don't think he is going to be given much slack by the wider public on it and his own party will either have to attack him for it or share in their anger at their will tonight being thwarted by a President too stubborn not listen to the American people when they speak with their votes.

I am pleasantly surprised by these results, they are in close accord with what I thought should be seen if the election was not rigged significantly. This is something I take some small comfort in and hope in the next two years transparency and accountability is one of the things restored by Dems where the vote counting is concerned. This is something necessary for governments to be seen as legitimate by those that did not support them in the election, which is something the Bush GOP have been lacking with many, a sad development that was clearly provoked by the decisions/thinking/planning of one Karl Rove and his candidate's willingness to place absolute trust in his "architect". I think Rovism may have finally taken the long overdue hit it has deserved, we shall see. I put nothing past Rove and those of his way of thinking; they have demonstrated a very ruthless and ugly form of politics throughout their career history.

The thing about Katrina is that people see it as the moment when the media started leaving room for discussions of emporer Bush his wardrobe... I dont.

Before Katrina Cindy Sheehan got many more *days* (as in 24 hours or rather +/- one newscycle) of airtime than the many city squares worldwide filled with protestors pre-war. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/08/12/bush.friday.ap/index.html

If you watched 24/day of "everything okay" before the Sheahan/Katrina timed media flip than you would fall many times deeper into the questions than if you had been used to questions all allong.

Okay, that sounds bitter about the protest coverage, but I just don`t have anything else to compare the Sheehan airtime to.

The point is Sheehan was the first to ask where the WMD`s were. That is, if you heaponed to miss the BBC calling them "sexed up" and the experts on the opinion pages tearing away the front page Cheney/Chalabi/Judith Miller piece.

As bitter as this may sound of the media, its not that bad. They just used bush his 9/11 approval ratings as market research showing potential profits on the FOX side of the political reality spectrum. And they made great money after 9/11, so good for them. They (CNN, NYT) didn`t have their profits skyrocketing like FOX, but still. (One tip: for future business decisions please compensate for the slight spikes in presidential approval ratings, like say after 9/11. Someone somewhere should have wondered if this 90% rating really was 100% confidence in bush being the leader with the ideas needed, instead of the guy who failed in business even with his fathers help and who wasn`t known for his high grades. Such market inteligence would be what we in the business call a slam dunk ;-) )

And yes, when you sit on the domestic warrantless spying story for an election and cant come clean about why Judith Miller could write one critisised story after another... then you are on your way to becoming FOX.

So while the minimum wage thing gets fought over in front of the camera`s will the democrats spend a few minutes on media consolidation, inexperianced but loyal/silent political appointments and politically motivated abuse of the goverment secrecy systems...?

They had to balls to call for an open investigation into the WMD thing when they called for a closed session. Lets screw working together with the Republicans now they try to get elected as democrats ((D) Foley, (D)Ehrlich). Lets just show the Rumsfeld/Cheney lies first, and then work with the republicans, its not asif they have a majority if most huddle as far away from the white house as possible, oh wait, they don`t have a majority anyway ;-) And the only way I hear Rove about winning 08 is with massive slime... well lets see how that works out in this election ;-)

I'm reposting this, with an update:

Looks like Dems have won the House. Now it's just a matter of how big the margin is.

It doesn't matter how big the margin is. Pelosi has already broadcast capitulation, moderation, and the spirit of bi-partisanship. As if Republicans are reasonable.

Republican pundits are all, ALL, on the cable channels saying "Americans aren't against the war, they are against losing the war."

I heard John Dean on CSpan a couple of days ago saying, "If Republicans lose the midterms, they won't see the light, the error of their ways - they'll redouble their efforts, to beat the crap out of Democrats in '08" (Ok, that was me paraphrasing, but that's the gist of what he said.)

Paul Begala and Carville, on CNN, both just expressed, "Let's hope that Democrats don't get from this (win) that they should get in the President's/Republicans' face."

And then there's the Senate. What if it's split with Lieberman as the swing seat? If it should get as far as Lieberman actually following through to caucus with Democrats, then Lieberman and the DLC will have increased their power over the whole of the Democratic party 100-fold.

The Republicans might as well have remained in power, for all the change in policies we're not going to see. Because the liberal Democrats, chairing House committees (Charlie Rangel, Howard Berman, Lynn Woolsey, et al) will be pushed by Pelosi to lay off challenging the conservative-centrist positions, for fear of losing a broader Democratic victory (White House) in '08 by "turning off the moderate American voters."

There are 200 million Americans who are eligible to vote, and only 100 million actually exercise that right. Most Americans agree with liberals on the issues. Instead of being direct and straight with people and motivaing those 100 million who don't vote to get off their asses and participate, Democrats have been pandering to a sliver of voters in the middle. That sliver, the mindless middle, changes their vote depending on who got to them last before they actually cast their ballots. This is a ludicrous way to conduct a modern democracy.

Being in power carries the responsibility of informing and educating ignorant and superstitious voters. The American people are famished for honest and articulate discussion, which includes explanations of the positions from the left.

Instead, we have a Democratic party that runs from the tag of "liberal," preferring instead the slogan, "We'll only be different from the Republicans, just enough to carve enough votes from them to put us into power."

If I was a Republican, I'd be drooling over this, and how to position themselves for '08. Because this is the scheming and conniving that Republicans do. It's not what real Democrats do, and Americans want what real Democrats used to be and used to stand for. That's what the message was of today's election. And the Democrats controlling the party just don't get it. They don't get it because they're not real Democrats. They're the moderates that those controlling the Republican party wouldn't have in the Republican party of today.

(I can't fucking believe that we're going to be mired in Iraq, even if Democrats manage to redeploy nearby in the region, through 2008 and beyond. And yet, that's what the DLC is about - They wouldn't have initiated the war in Iraq themselves, but as long as we're there, let's try to take advantage of Bush's quest for 'American Empire,' and hopscotch our way to owning an oil rich country. And that's why so many say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans.)

My favorite post of recent days:

The GOP is going to do much better in the Senate than expected and will have a very strong turnout across the board.

We may keep 53 or 54 Senate seats and lose less than a dozen house seats. If Rove and Mehlman get the base out, and that seems likely, the networks will be in mourning on Wednesday. Nancy and Harry will certainly lose their positions and Charlie Rangel among others will resign.

It's not impossible Chaffee will keep his seat and that 53 or 54 will be 54 or 55.

Posted by: rdw on November 5, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and brian:

The Republicans may have actually lost because they were not conservative enough.

No, the Repubs lost because they're lousy and running government, and enough people are starting to realize that now.

Al and ChickenHawk sitting in a tree, c-r-y-ing.

Oh the trolls, who will feed the trolls now when they ran away to hide?

On issues like taxes, [...] where Republicans upheld conservative principle [...] by running massive budget deficits,

One of these days, brian, you're going to get out a calculator, and realize that holding to "conservative principles" on taxes is exactly what led to massive budget deficits. It's not hard math, and it's not debatable.

There would not be massive deficits were it not for massive tax cuts. The "massive" spending increases were a drop in the bucket, with the exception of Iraq. (Again, do the math: this is not subject to debate).

When you do that, you'll realize that there never has been a "conservative principle" regarding taxes. Since 1980, when this current Republican nightmare began, there has not been a single, solitary effort by Republicans to achieve any balance between their tax cuts and their spending.

There never will be. Because massive spending cuts, of the kind needed to pay for massive tax cuts, lose elections. The tax cut is a bribe. The corresponding spending cut does not exist. That's not conservatism. It's hucksterism.

If Republicans become an actual conservative party, which they are not now, and have not been since I've been alive, they will bear almost no resemblance to what they are now. But it will not be a "return" to conservatism. That was always a sham. It's always been about power, for the current crop of Republicans. Whatever they have to tell you to get it.

It finally caught up to them. It really was a giant Ponzi scheme that has finally collapsed.

Bush really has been Nixonian in his approach to government, and the results have been similar, absent the extra punishment doled out by Watergate. He ran against the Democrats on foreign policy, except with the disadvantage of having started a war, and domestically he has tried to spend just as much as many a Democrat would as President, while thoroughly embracing central planning and increased regulation, such as with NCLB or his signing McCain-Feingold. Nothing as obnoxious as Nixon's wage and price controls, but bad enough.

Anyone know MT politics and what's the story with Yellowstone Cty, which has not reported a single vote? In what now is shaping up to be a 1K-2K vote differentia, Mr Crewcut is watching an ever-eroding lead, and this is an all-nighter.

george bush could save his legacy by using these last two years to work towards gay equality.

Started during 2004 election, but accelerated when Bush declared he'd won a mandate (hmmmm. "mandate"...). Even some who'd voted for him knew he'd barely won.

Iraq.

January to Summer 05 - Social Security
August 05 - Bush's month-long vacation - a dozen Ohio Guardsmen killed - Cindy Sheehan
September 05 - Katrina

When did Murtha start speaking out?

Accelerating in a weave through everything - Iraq - torture/NSA eavesdropping/signing statements/"Executive Privilege"; Republican corruption; the economy; delusional Bush Bubble-Talk.

Summer/Fall 06 - Republicans increasingly panicked; Dems emboldened.

Oct 06 - Horrible news from Iraq & Afghanistan; war supporters & neocons publicly jumping ship; military against Rumsfeld; Iran & North Korea; national security & GWOT; Foley; Kuo's book; Haggard.

I'd like to think this was a vote against torture.
Or a vote against war without end.
Or against profligate spending or indefinite detention.

It seems to have been against this war, and against corruption,
and it may have been against gays in Congress
(given that several initiatives against gay marriage also passed).

However, initiatives to raise the minimum wage passed as well. The people seem to have heard the boast that America is the wealthiest nation on the planet and are starting to ask for their share.

You moonbats are delusional. President Bush is the people, he is our father we are his children. Bush is America if you vote against Republicans you hate America. Bush is still president who cares that treasonous liberals control Congress

South Dakota also threw out its odious new anti-abortion law. Our republic is gradually growing friendlier toward women.

Michael Buchanan is right. Gay equality and a nationwide initiative to replace fossil fuel consumption with renewable resources. Unfortunately, monkeys will be flying out of my butt (monkey-on-man) should that happen.

george bush could save his legacy by using these last two years to work towards gay equality.

Wait.

Why isn't Charlie congratulating us?

Inquiring minds want to know.

As a moderate Democrat, my joy at the victory is redoubled by strong evidence that moderates provided the margin. Our parties are open containers into which people pour themselves at will, and a lot of moderates -- politicians and voters -- have just put themselves in the Democratic Party container. This can easily become a self-reinforcing movement: the more moderates come in, the more hospitable the party looks to others of the same views.

30% of the fundies voted Democratic. I've always wondered why it wasn't 100%. Didn't Jesus say to feed the hungry and take care of the sick? And aren't Democrats the ones who support food stamps and Medicare?

I think your gut is right about Schiavo and Katrina.

Up until then Americans were hearing the complaints about Bush but were writing it off to bitter Democrats and extremist crazies. Certainly at a time of such intense national crisis, the President of the United States is going to think of America first and not milk it for his own personal political gain?

It took Social Security/Schiavo/Katrina to make the scales fall. Once they did, the public saw that the Democrats and "liberal crazies" had had a more accurate read of this President all along.

Will anyone ever acknowledge that it was the gay community being kicked around for the last 6 years by people who have proven themselves to be the biggest hypoctrites in recent memory is what won this election??????? Helllooo!!! Not Iraq, not terror, and not just Foley, but the constant beating up of a minority group by the bully majority turned the stomachs of most people with feelings and last night they said enough!

New slogan: Leave gays alone!!!

"On a similar note, this idea that the Democratic Party is getting "more conservative" because it backed several center-rightish candidates in red states is just weird. Both parties compromise where they have to, and Dems have run plenty of moderates before."

It's the difference between a Democratic Big Tent and a Republican Big Closet. Democrats are free to speak their differences, Republicans can do so only behind closed doors.

Uh, besides being the most corrupt, incompetent Congress in American history, here are a few things that may have contributed:

- Several trillion new dollars added to the national debt;
- Massive tax breaks to the wealthy during wartime (see above);
- Duke Cunningham and the largest bribery case in Congressional history;
- No accountability over the war in Iraq, where mercenary contractors are the second largest fighting force, costing billions and committing war crimes;
- $8 billion missing in Iraq thanks to the incompetent Young Republicans in the CPA;
- Bob Ney and his illegal, taxpayer-funded coin collection in Ohio;
- Mark Foley and the GOP's blase reaction to a drunken, sexual predator in their midst;
- The ramming of the Japanese tourist boat by the submarine and the half-hearted apology;
- The downing of the plane in Korea and the utter incompetence shown in dealing with that crisis;
- The outing of Valerie Plame with no consequences to anyone in the Bush Administration yet;
- Iran and North Korea go nuclear and we send a man like John Bolton, who thinks you solve problems by yelling at them, to handle them;
- Hurricanes Katrina, Rita et al and the utter incompetence in the response to those disasters;
- A drunken VP who shoots a friend in the face while hunting drunk and no Congressional inquiry;
- Jack Abramoff and the entire K Street web of corruption, where Congress was basically put up for sale to the highest bidder.

Do I need to go on??? I can.

Yeah, ok, CD. Closet gays in their midst had no impact? It was the impact. These conservative base type people are told, in no uncertain terms, that gays are the devil. Some believe gays should be killed and that the Bible justifies it. Now these losers find out that their party is crawling with them. That did it.

...actually, Bush hasn't supported conservative ideals. At least not fiscally. His spending has been unbelievable and just because the bill will come due later is in no way a conservative outlook.

Agree with Kevin and the comments about scandals (esp. Foley) impacting the races. But what about the Dems? Many ran very good races - and some who didn't (Phil Kellam in VA Beach/Norfolk) lost. And what about Dean's role in re-building the party machinery? I've not read anything yet this morning giving him any praise for his role.

I think this election was mostly an anti-Bush/anti-Republican backlash, But the Dems didn't do too badly for a Party that the MSM consistently portrays as incompetent. No?

免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 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 美少女图片 日本av电影 情色电影 同志电影下载 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 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 免费电影网站 韩国电影 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 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 美女写真 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 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 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 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

Negative campaigning is something politicians do when they are losing. The GOP was more negative because they were losing. Typically negative ads do not cause a loss. Look at TN Senate with the racist ads. If any campaign negativity was cause for disgust, it was TN.

Four big items you miss kevin:

1) Corruption: early exit polls had republican corruption at the top of the list of issues for voters. The war profiteers, Katrina reconstruction no-bid contracts, and lobbiest scandals galore painted a pretty clear picture of a republican party ripping off the American tax payer to the tune of billions, in order to enrich their fat-cat friends. The picture is one of overwhelming greed and plutocracy. And while Americans lean that way, the republican wanton grabbag became too much.

2) incompetent cronyism: it became undeniably evident that bush seeded the government with political hacks incapable of providing the services Americans want and expect from their government, while giving away national treasures to corporations and undermining important health and safety functions based on ideology. The election was a resounding refutiation of the a) that republicans can govern at all, and b) norquists drown government in the bathtub mantra.

3) bush's anti-science approach: global warming denial, bush's idiodic singular veto of sensible embryonic stem cell research, and the bush regime's overseeing of scientific work by incompetent ideologues is unnerving for Americans who although frightened by technologoical and scientific advances, also marvel at them and at the core most value science highly and understand the necessity of integrity.

4) Integrity. Add up all the failings of bush and the republicans controlling all branches of government and you get a clear picture of collectively a complete lack of integrity. But there is no sense talking aabout it because republicans have NO IDEA what that means.

corruption

Oh yeah? Well your mom wears combat boots!

"Negative campaigning is something politicians do when they are losing. The GOP was more negative because they were losing."

what nonsense - pure wishful thinking without any supporting evidence. republicans run negatively, with character assasination their key ingredient because for the most part they can't run on issues. Most Americans simply do not support their issues. Hence they have to make bogeymen and manifest fear in the voters - its the only attraction of their authoritarianism - the role of big daddy protector, while making democrats out to be sissies.

If the Republicans bring conservatism back to Washington when they are in the minority, they have a chance of taking back Congress in 2008.

I think this is purely conservative wishful thinking. From what I've read, there was a strong Repubican turnout who voted for Republicans—disaffected conservatives would never vote Democratic just because the Repubs aren't conservative enough. What the GOP lost were independents, without whom they simply can't win anything, and nothing in the exit polls in the least indicates that this bloc objected to a "lack of conservatism."

I'd also argue that the Republicans never really brought "conservatism" to Washington in the first place so they can't bring it back, and, as their one-party raid-on-the-Treasury, shred-the-Constitution Republican rule has shown, they never intended to.

Lots of good comments here, especially Scotian, tango, jonas, pluege, Stefan and Brian in Atlanta. Maeven is, I'm afraid, absolutely right. Wendy and Old Hat made me laugh. So did brian, unintentionally as usual.

I'm not particularly interested in seeing our trolls with the exception of rdw, who I expect will either skulk under his bed for a while (booting the scary Muslim men first) or come back with a patented rdw alternative-reality statement like, "The American people don't care about Congress. They don't care about Hollywood movies either. Only two people saw Good Night and Good Luck and I'm laughing my head off about that."

Agree with others that corruption is huge on the list, possibly at the top of it. Case after case after case of GOP crooks cascading into the public eye had a very strong effect. As pointed out, the voters do not equate one Democratic thug, Jefferson, with the never-ending stream of Republican indictments.

Based on a solid Democratic record of lying down and capitulating, I am not as hopeful as Stefan that meaningful Congressional investigations of Bushco will ensue. I eagerly look forward to being proven wrong. It would be so nice to see the bastards get what they have coming before the big "bipartisan" love-in fully commences.

Just you wait, liberals.

You'll find a way to screw it up--you always do.

Besides, I have always been a Libertarian.

Curse you, liberals!!!

Chuck,

You're actually one of the most rational and well-spoken conservatives that visit here, but come one. The ONLY possible party switch out there is Lieberman, and you know it as well as we do. And if Lieberman switches parties, after all of his "loyal to my party" talk, he will be so reviled both in the senate and at home in very blue connecticut, that he won't win his next re-election, he'll get slaughtered. Sorry, but congress is ours for awhile. Now, we just have to govern well.

I think this:

On a similar note, this idea that the Democratic Party is getting "more conservative" because it backed several center-rightish candidates in red states is just weird. Both parties compromise where they have to, and Dems have run plenty of moderates before. They just haven't won. This year some of them did, but their actual numbers were pretty small and I doubt they're going to have much of a concrete effect on anything.

is very well taken. We should remember that this year is a special case, where the party label was a liability to the Republicans. I think most of the time Truman's observation will hold--when the people have the choice between a real Republican and a fake Republican, they'll choose the real thing.

手机图片 is absolutely right - don't you think?

Chuck,

You're actually one of the most rational and well-spoken conservatives that visit here, but come one.

I hope Speaker Pelosi will lead the effort against cheap street drugs.

It boils down to two things: Bush's mismanagement of Iraq, and Bush's and Congress's failure to govern as conservatives. The bottom line is that Bush is responsible for what happened yesterday. He failed to communicate and he failed to execute in Iraq and elsewhere.

It would help you understand the profligate spending of Bush to think of him as an authoritarian, not a conservative. Authoritarians obviously don't give a damn about fiscal responsibility.

Most of you know I'm a fairly right-leaning conservative, and I don't agree with much of the political ideology I read on this site.

However, congratulations. I know how much most of you have been dreaming of achieving these election results.

Enjoy your big day.

Wait a minute! Sleaze works very well. Just ask Chris Shays (R-CT) who just defeated challenger Diane Farrell with a blizzard of slanderous assault brochures mailed to every voter in Fairfield County. Two examples:

1.) Farrell is pro-Taliban

2.) Farrell committed the unpardonable crime of approving the purchase of $40,000 worth of astro turf for the high school athletic field while she was Westport selectwoman.

Then the standard GOP lies about "soft on crime", "soft on defense", "tax and spend liberal".

Oddly enough, such scurrility did not work for defeated Nancy Johnson (R-CT) against challenger Chris Murphy (D-CT).

Terri Schiavo and Katrina. This is sort of a gut feeling on my part, but I think it was the combination of these two things within a couple of months of each other that really hurt Republicans last year, not either one alone.

Not just your gut feeling. Lots was written about both of those episodes, and lots was on tv and the other media.

The democrats just had a decisive election win. It is delusional to think that any elected Democrat will switch to the GOP. Any party switches that we see over the next 2 years - with the possible exception of Lieberman - will be from the Repubs to the Dems.

Once the oversight hearings get under way I expect that things will get much worse, not better, for the Republicans. Spin all you want, Charlie - YOU LOST.
Deal.

"The Republicans may have actually lost because they were not conservative enough. On issues like taxes, defense, and judges, where Republicans upheld conservative principle, the country stood behind them."

There's a problem with your theory, Brian. South Dakota (!) just resoundingly defeated the absolutist ban on abortion.

he media is so focused on GDP and gasoline prices as economic bellwethers that I think they've badly missed the real story of the past six years: the deteriorating fortunes of the working and middle classes. This is more than just Democratic spin, and in this dismal atmosphere Democrats won a lot of support by holding the line against Social Security privatization, supporting increases in the minimum wage, and fighting for lower prescription drug prices. These aren't explicitly economic issues as much as they are values issues, and Republicans were on the wrong side.

They are "values issues" in the sense that every political issue is a "values issue", since they all depend on priorities and value judgements. But they are certainly economic issues. Sure, they address distributional rather than aggregate economic performance, but that's as much economic as policies that seek to improve the GDP or Dow with no overt concern for distribution (or overt favor for those already doing best.) So, really, I'd say they are more economic than values issues, they are "values issues" in the sense that "values" is really a nullity, as it applies to all political issues.

This might be wishful thinking on my part, but I wonder if this year's campaign finally got a little too negative? Is it possible that the Lee Atwater-ization of the Republican Party has reached its limit, turning off more voters than it attracts?

Definitely wishful thinking. Its not the Republicans negative campaigning that cost them elections, for the most part, its the public's negative response to the fruits of their policies (and, in cases where personal scandals were involved, their personal behavior.) They were unable to trump that by scaring voters about the Democrats, but that doesn't mean that negative campaigning, even of the sleazy sort, will be any less useful for them than it has been in the past when they aren't up against the same kind of inherent negatives of their own.

The American public has shown over and over that it's operationally moderate

Insofar as this is true, its tautological; that is, its true in the sense that "moderate" is defined by the current center of the American electorate and the overall view of the "American public" is likewise defined by the current center of the American electorate.

If you define right-moderate-left in terms of any consistent set of policy positions, the "American public", at least the midpoint of the electorate, moves left and right all the time.

While I think the Republican Party is momentarily "too conservative" for the electorate, I don't think that's just that the Republicans moved right but also that the American public has moved left on a lot of salient issues. But that's not really a fundamental shift of ideology in the latter case, I don't think, so much as that the American public is disappointed with the results of the particular right-wing policies pursued by the Republicans, and are neither in the mood to continue them, nor interested in turning them up a notch. Which, also, is where I think your first two points (Iraq and Katrina/Schiavo) play in.

A little gloating is acceptable. It's well deserved.
No, a lot of gloating is acceptable. And well-deserved.

It doesn't matter how big the margin is. Pelosi has already broadcast capitulation, moderation, and the spirit of bi-partisanship. As if Republicans are reasonable.
You make the mistake of taking a politician literally when she's making a gracious victory speech. She didn't climb to the speakership by being a wimp.

Completely agree with all of your guesses except the economy rationale. Wages are being pulled down due to an influx of cheap labor from the rampant illegal immigration and the unfair trade practices we continue to allow from China and Asia. Argue all you want with that but it's the truth. Ask any union guy.

I am conservative Republican in a red state who voted for the Democrats because I am sick of being lectured on moral values and sick and tired of hearing excuses from Donald Rumsfeld on Iraq. I know right from wrong, thank you very much. I don't need James Dobson and crew to tell me how to live my life. Even more, I disagree completely with nation building. We have NEVER been successful at it in our history so why the hell would we try it in the most volatile place in the world. When Bush said he was keeping Rumsfeld after the election, that sealed the deal for me. Any hesitation I had voting for the Dems went by the way side.

Thank you, sportsfan. That's very gracious of you.

Kevin does not mention corruption, which according to the news reports I've heard about exit polls, was among the top reasons given by voters for voting as they did.

Liberal and conservative voters alike rejected the blatant corruption and criminality of the Bush administration and the Republican Party, which under the leadership of career white collar crook and war profiteer Dick Cheney has become nothing more than a crime cartel masquerading as a political party.

An Anonymous Patriot: Chuck, You're actually one of the most rational and well-spoken conservatives that visit here, but come one.

"Chuck" (aka Charlie/Cheney/Thomas/Thomas1/Doug M./Paul etc.) yesterday:

At least that's better than [Jim] Webb hanging his 6-year old son upside down and putting the boy's penis in his mouth.
Posted by: Chuck on November 7, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

Rational and well-spoken? Come on....

In answer to skeptics who ask, if Diebold was really so crooked and capable, why didn't they do more...(well, disgraceful robocallls *were* made by Repuglies...) - ? I think some folks made it clear that that cabal had to either sweep in a total, blatant fraud to keep oversight away from Dems, or else the cabal would be called to account for even trying to scam the election. I think it scared them away, seriously. Keep an eye on those recounts, too.

...George Bush has actually pushed conservatism about as far as it can go

Uh, more like the King of Spenders pushed liberalism as far as it could go:

1. On education, establishing another layer of bureaucracy,

2. On immigration, darkening and corrupting the country,

3. On political correctness, the most destructive affirmative action appointment in history--Dr.
Rice--in charge of reconstructing Iraq, the greatest corrupting in human history, not to mention her great "efforts" in preventing 9/11. "Oh, this warning?"

Oh, did I say something taboo?

In addition, the Iraq war was the first politically correct war, Bush having been brainwashed that everybody is "just like us" and craves "democracy" and feminism.

4. Etc.

I am pleasantly surprised by these results, they are in close accord with what I thought should be seen if the election was not rigged significantly. This is something I take some small comfort in and hope in the next two years transparency and accountability is one of the things restored by Dems where the vote