I'm not even sorry to disappoint :-)
Check the archives--do you find any posts in which I myself advocate for total Republican power? No, but you do find posts in which I said that it might not be a bad thing for the Republicans if they lost the House of Representatives, because this Congress and President have been "spending money like a drunken sailor in a Southeast Asian port." Yes, I'm disappointed in the loss of the Senate, but I'm not going to mope about it. If I want to cry over the results of an election, I think back to 1992--I don't recall anyone I voted for then being elected! Just as the world didn't end in 1992, and it didn't end when the Republicans ran the show, it won't end now that the Democrats run the Congress.
I'm very much the realist about this.
This doesn't mean that I'll downplay my right-of-center beliefs--far from it! In fact, right now I'm going to attack the liberals. Oh come on, you knew I would!
First I'll point out one of the differences between this election and the last three (going back to 2000). When Republicans lose, even close races (Montana and Virginia Senate seats come to mind), you don't hear any cries about disenfranchisement, stealing elections, etc. Unlike King County (Seattle), we don't "find" boxes of ballots for our candidate on the 2nd recount (3rd count total) and keep pulling shenanigans until we win. We don't have thugs running around saying that we'll win elections "by any means necessary". We don't have a "party machine" a la Chicago.
Next I want to comment on "the American people". You remember those people, the NASCAR-loving conservatives in the South and in Flyover Country that the libs always denigrate? Those Jesus-freaks who are too stupid to know what's best for them, and always vote against their own economic interests? (Charlie Rangel example here) The ones that the libs have been calling names and mocking for the past 12 years or so? Well, I wonder if the libs are going to have a new-found respect for "the American people" now that those same people who were simpletons last week have put the Democrats in charge in Congress.
And all this Bush=Hitler talk. Did Hitler let his enemies win elections? I don't think so! For an entertaining look at some of the crazy leftie ideas that went down in this election, I refer you to this post. The comments are pretty funny, too. Like this one:
I am pretty surprised myself. I thought we were supposed to be running a highly efficient fascist regime here. And now, we can't even win an election? I mean, I've read all the research. What happened with suspending the electoral process? Why is constitution still in effect? What about our plans to declare martial law? Suspend Congress? We are doing none of it. And I was looking forward to coronation, too. :( Bummer.
Oh yeah, where's that draft I've been hearing about? =)
And on a more serious note, here's a great post about a few corruption problems the Democrats should clean up on their own side of the aisle--Nancy and Searchlight Harry could fix these before they ever take over the leadership positions, if they truly wanted to carry through on their anti-corruption plank.
In all honesty, I think we went from bad to worse. It would be nice to be proven wrong, but I've learned that no matter who runs the Congress, you can't underestimate them enough.
Update, 3:51 pm: Now that the party that has advocated cut-and-run is now in power, and now that Rumsfeld has resigned, it will be interesting to watch what happens to reenlistment rates for soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been setting record high numbers the last couple years.
18 comments:
I think that Rush had the best comment, people did not vote against conservatives, they voted against Republicans.
Democrats defeated Republicans by running conservatives against them. Sheriff Brad Ellsworth who defeated John Hostettler in Indiana's 8th district is a solid, Blue Dog Democrat. He signed a campaign pledge not to support gun control or raise taxes. He's as pro-life as any Republican. He's (obviously) tough on crime and pro law and order, he ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform, and he's very pro-military (you know, like really pro-military, not military-hating pretend pro-military, like the liberal Democrats and the Clintons). And he's just one of quite a few like him who were elected Tuesday. The Blue Dogs have always been around, but they have more members than they've ever had.
Granted, the Blue Dogs are more like Pat Buchanan Republicans, in that they are usually protectionists, and they are anti-free trade. But they're not liberals. They're not even centrists.
Conservatism didn't lose the election. Republicans did.
I never dreamed I'd say this, but we sure could use a few old-fashioned Democrats. This "New Democrat" thing is toxic.
Here's a future political ad for the next campaign
http://kauaimark.blogspot.com/2006/11/pre-sschool-political-ad.html
I took that poll you had a link to earlier today, Darren, and came up more Dem than you did Rep (83% Dem, if I remember right), and what I'm thinking is that 51% is no more a mandate now that it was 2 years ago. Or four years ago. Or six years ago.
We gotta get over this "wedge issue" crap and talk about real issues. Then we can get back to being Democrats and Republicans instead of wingnuts and lefties.
Both previous commenters had it absolutely right: conservatives didn't lose - Republicans did.
And you're almost right as well: we sure could use a few old-fashioned representatives of both parties.
Amerloc, can't say as I'd mind a few fiscal conservatives floating around....
Well, Darren, it appears, in this post, anyway, that your political mind has become more tolerant, and for that, I, an anonymous commenter, applaud you. LOOK AT ALL THOSE COMMAS!
Anonymous, I've *always* been tolerant. Some just refuse to see it.
Um, not really, you're like never tolerant.
I've heard some talk that the Democrats elected in parts of the South are more conservative than their incumbent counterparts. This may make for some backing down from such things as gay marriage and partial birth abortions in order to pass such things as an immigration bill and moderation in taxes. There's no question that some of the Republicans rode in on the coattails of the Anti-Clinton years and were not fiscally or socially conservative. But I think we can say that about many of the Democrats as well. Do we really think that Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd are icons of virtue? If we judge the parties by their leaders and not by their accomplishments then we are dealing with the cult of personality, which is what the media did first with Kennedy and then with Clinton. I would much rather have some bland, but honest bureaucrats making some accurate decisions based on facts over media hype. If this comes from the Dems, fine, if not, we will see the backlash in 2008. Furthermore, with all the pressure to perform miracles, and little power to do it, I think the Democrats may find themselves sinking in popularity before too long. Higher minimum wages will sink the low unemployment and force some companies to hire illegally off the books or close completely. That would fall right into a situation where the Democrats end up infighting and self-destructing through a crippling and biased platform and a lame candidate just as they did with Gore.
Ok, billj, you're like, totally right.
I tolerate your stupidity, billj. Doesn't that speak mounds for me?
EllenK: like I said, from bad to worse, if your ending scenario holds true.
Not just, or even primarily, the south. See Sherrif Brad Ellsworth, from the Indiana eighth, on the issues. He won by moving to the right of the very conservative John Hostettler.
Then, Indiana Democrats are primarily conservatives. For one thing, it's a conservative state. For another, if they weren't, they wouldn't get elected unless they run in one of the only two liberal districts in the state.
As for the draft, ask Rangel, who's been itching to reinstate it (though he may have so much fun raising taxes and destroying the economy he'll forget -- he's not the brightest bulb in the chandelier).
Then, this isn't 1974, and now that the Democrats won, they have to do something (other than howl about Bush, that is). I'm not sure that they'll cut and run -- there is enough collective intelligence there to realize what a disaster for them that would be. It depends on how much power they give Pelosi, Boxer, Kos and the idiot wing of the party.
If new democrats are toxic, then neocons are throat-slitting.
Actually, the throat-slitters in the middle east are all cheering the results of this election. That speaks volumes--and it isn't good for us.
I agree with what you said about the "Jesus freaks" down South. I make fun of them all the time, and I do think that they're pretty much wackos, but Dems should feel DAMN lucky to have gotten their votes, and should definitely appreciate them.
And BillJ, Mr. Miller is tolerant. Just cause you don't agree with some of his, well, outspoken comments, doesn't mean he's a bigot.
Post a Comment