« Bad Republicans | Main | A Quarter of my Life Under Bush »

November 08, 2006

Comments

Bev

John, I actually thought of you the minute I heard them officially call it. I'm happy to say, you were right and I was wrong.
Best to you on the tests.

Bev

Breaking news --
We just won the Senate too.

Mike

Careful of what you wish for...you may get it! In this case hopefully the Democrats are organized enough to pull off a reasonable plan to bring America together... the buracrats already have a plan...that the dominant party has to deal with, much less the electorate. The Republicans have imbeded their faithful throughout the buracracy to carry on their work.. for the next few years the Democrats will have to deal with the agencies, the administration and the legislators still apart of the Bush administration. If they make progress it will be a miracle.

BAWDYSCOT

One more reason to chop away at the federal government - bureaucrats.

Gene

"We just won the Senate too."

Bev,

You have finally realized what all of us have been telling you.

The Democrats have a lot to live up to. The DJ at record highs as oppose to where Clinton left it, unemployment at record lows and an excellent economy. The Democrats once told me "Its the economy stupid" so I always like to keep these measuring sticks in mind, because they were right.

Now if we can keep the tax happy DNC out of our pockets and have them concentrate on immigration and finishing off the the terrorist in Iraq, they will make me happy. But I agree with Mike, I don't have a lot of hope much will get done and who do you think the great Red and Blue will blame for that?

VJ

What really made me happy about this is the shock that was on Mr. Bush's face while he stuttered through his un-answers during his press conference. *sighs...yep, that's euphoric.

BAWDYSCOT

Gene,

They will blame Libertarians. LOL

John

"
Now if we can keep the tax happy DNC out of our pockets and have them concentrate on immigration and finishing off the the terrorist in Iraq, they will make me happy. But I agree with Mike, I don't have a lot of hope much will get done and who do you think the great Red and Blue will blame for that?"

Yeah, Gene. Your first thought are your god-damned taxes. That right there is why the Republicans lost. Because they don't actually give a damn about anyone but themselves (it comes out in their actions).

Bev

gene, you have fallen for the bs: "The Democrats have a lot to live up to. The DJ at record highs as oppose to where Clinton left it, unemployment at record lows and an excellent economy."

The "records" you spout are Bush's "records."
We have the lowest employment "since 2001."

The lowest employment RECORDS were before Bush took office. Before Bush took office, this same GOP Congress had a Democratic President and we had surpluses, a ss lock box, pay-go, reduced spending, and tax cuts for the middle class.
Under Bush, we have record deficits, record spending, ss again in shambles because we've raided the kitty, and record tax cuts to the wealthy during a war that is still OFF BUDGET.
So, contrary to the liar-in-chief, Democrats do know how to balance budgets, cut taxes, reduce spending, and run a good ecnomy. His treasury sec was one of the best ever.

I promise to give Bush credit for the economy -- I promise -- when the economy actually IMPROVES over the economy he was handed.

Do you think gas prices are low, like Bush keeps telling you? Do you know what they were the day Bush took office?
99 cents!
Seems unbelievable now, doesn't it?
Look it up.

In addition, when a family looks rich but all their credit cards are maxed out, that's not good ecomomics, in my book.
Again, when Bush gives us back the economy he was handed, I PROMISE I will give Bush some credit.

p.s. The high dj helps me, but it is no indicator of a good economy, if the profits don't trickle down. So far, wages are stagnant or below, so it hasn't trickled down.

Gene

I guess I'm just not the martyr that you are John. You feel free to pay your share and then some if you wish.

Bev,

A high DJ may not help you but all of us must look for ourselves how the government has impacted our business and our personal economic situation. I don't need to listen to GWB to analyze the situation. I don't hold the government responsible for gas prices because they have no real control over that part of our economy outside of windfall taxes which may be coming.

I do know the economy was in the crapper at the end of the Clinton years, that's a fact and I felt it when the DJ went in the crapper as well 6 months out. The record low unemployment comes from economic analyist (trade publications), not Bush and they use the same guidelines they used under Clinton. All presidents present these numbers as well as possible, not just GWB. Personal credit cards is the fault of the consumer not GWB. I know we have record defecits which is another reason I detest both parties, but that doesn't make the good situations bad and wars are costly. Government has been over spending most of my life, including democrats during their Vietnam war. BTW, the Blue does not cut spending, they raise taxes and have quite an impressive record to support that.

I don't think you would give GWB a fair shake on anything seriously. The man has made a lot of mistakes like every president but I don't consider him the enemy anymore than I considered Clinton the enemy. The economy IS good in spite of gas prices and the DJ IS healthy. Credit who you may...

Have a good w/e

Mike

The "truth" is that we are having difficulty paying off our interest on the national debt we racked up under the Bush, Inc administration. The only way we can now get out of debt, fix potholes, build bridges, clean water, and all the other required governmental activities is to "raise" taxes...

And from what I am reading here you will blame it on the D's.... just because they are there cleaning up the mess made by this meglomaniac. We have to go back to the Clinton economic cycle of balancing debt and income just like any household in the U.S. or any nation around the world or any business.

Expect higher taxes...excpect more taxes on large corporations, the upper income tax bracket, and lower taxes for the middle class and small business. That is what I am gleaning out of this early mix of messages.

BAWDYSCOT

Remember Clinton had a Republican Congress he was dealing with. This helped get the country's finances back in order. Clinton was all for national healthcare and a bunch of other things he wanted to shovel down the hungry throat of big government. Once the Republicans were elected into Congress in '94 Clinton realized the game had changed(just like Bush today) and bingo the thought of fiscal reponsiblilty filled his head. This points out one of my pet peeves, giving the President credit for the economy, good or bad. If it wasn't for the personal computer the time period of Clinton's Presidency could have been financially different.

Bev

gene, this is propaganda: "I do know the economy was in the crapper at the end of the Clinton years, that's a fact..."
That is what Bush has told you. That is not "a fact." "A fact": The economy was getting ready to go through a minor recession, EASILY FIXABLE. And it was basically only in the tech market, not the full market

The economy absolutely was NOT "in the crapper." Sorry, that's just bullcrap.
Unless by "in the crapper" you mean that the Bush economic team was unable to fix a minor recession?

(Also, btw, I've made a TON on the stockmarket under Bush. However, that doesn't make it right.)

How can something be RECORD low unemployment, when it's not the RECORD?
As far as your economist, let's get one we both agree is non-partisan. I'd like to hear them say that a record debt with record spending and a major war NOT on budget is "a good economy."

There really is no economist who will write that this economy is better than the one Bush was handed. Bush has improved his own economy, which is what it means when he brags that there has been "record job growth since 2001."
Or perhaps you have a link?

I think you missed my analogy about the credit card ("Personal credit cards is the fault of the consumer not GWB.") Bush has "charged" his "good" economy.

Charging into the future for the present doesn't make for a good economy. I'm not saying it can't be done to boost a bad economy; I'm saying until the "credit card" bill is actually paid off, no one can say the "family" is on budget.

You also missed the point about the gas prices.
Bush brags that they are down (whether he is the cause or not -- that'a another completely different topic). My point is, again, it's Bush's relativity. Gas prices were 99 cents when he came in office. Why does he brag that they are "down" if they are $2.10 instead of 99 cents?

"Government has been over spending most of my life, including democrats during their Vietnam war."
gene, we have the same Congress, under Bill clinton and now under George Bush. Why are we going back to Viet Nam?
I once was more than willing to give the GOP credit under Clinton. Now we see them with a GOP Prez.
Why can't we just compare apples to apples?

"BTW, the Blue does not cut spending, they raise taxes and have quite an impressive record to support that."
This is untrue. Clinton cut middle class taxes (w/ the help of the GOP Congress). In addition, Al Gore cut zillions with his waste, fraud and abuse panel. Again, w/ the help of the GOP Congress.

And, I don't get this: "I know we have record defecits which is another reason I detest both parties..."
Clinton left Bush a record SURPLUS. We now have record DEFICITS. And HIGHER spending.

And clinton didn't wage his wars off budget. Why doesn't Bush put the war ON budget, instead of putting it under "emergency spending" if the economy is so good?
And why are you blaming "both parties" for record deficits?

Clinton had some truly brilliant economists. Actually, Bush did too -- a man named Paul O'Neill, a very loyal Bush 41 Republican.
Remember what Bush did? He FIRED him, because Paul O'Neill told Bush not to invade Iraq.

fcc

"The only way we can now get out of debt, fix potholes, build bridges, clean water, and all the other required governmental activities is to "raise" taxes..."

That is bullshit. Reduce the size of government, reduce salaries (it is service, right?) and reduce all the damn wasteful spending by these big spending congressmen. Why would I want to give more revenues to a bunch of free spenders who do not have a clue what it means to have a limited income? The majority come from a entitled background.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Clinton left Bush a record SURPLUS. We now have record DEFICITS. And HIGHER spending."

Actually, that was only because the Republican congress forced him to do so. In the process, as gene stated, the economy DID hit the "crapper". The Market did not recover until about two years ago and I know that to be the case. Many Srs lost there retirement during the Market crash of 99. Many as well, had to delay their retirement. My FIL for one.
_____________________________________________________________________

"And why are you blaming "both parties" for record deficits?"

Our record defecit has been building for over 30 years. A short term surplus does not mean the defecit is gone. A defecit for over 30 years is the failure of our entire government. Time to stop being partisan and start be Americans.

_______________________________________________________________________

I do like hearing the Dems realize there is no short-term solution to Iraq. Responsible and refreshing but hardly what they led voters to believe, huh?

Da Troot

History was made this week! For the first time in four election cycles, Democrats are not attacking the Diebold Corp. the day after the election, accusing it of rigging its voting machines. I guess Diebold has finally been vindicated.

So the left won the House and also Nicaragua. They've had a good week. At least they don't have their finger on the atom bomb yet.

Democrats support surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and the impeachment of President Bush. They just won an election by pretending to be against all three.

Jon Tester, Bob Casey Jr., Heath Shuler, possibly Jim Webb -- I've never seen so much raw testosterone in my life. The smell of sweaty jockstraps from the "new Democrats" is overwhelming.

Having predicted this paltry Democrat win, my next prediction is how long it will take all these new "gun totin' Democrats" to be fitted for leotards.

Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!

But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).

In fact, if the Democrats' pathetic gains in a sixth-year election are a statement about the war in Iraq, Americans must love the war! As Roll Call put it back when Clinton was president: "Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year.

In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a "tsunami" -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

In a choice between Republicans' "Stay until we win" Iraq policy or the Democrats' "Stay, leave ... stay for a while then leave ... redeploy and then come back ... leave and stay ... cut and run ... win, lose or draw policy," I guess Americans prefer the Republican policy.

The Democrats say we need a "new direction" in Iraq. Yeah, it's called "reverse." Democrats keep talking about a new military strategy in Iraq. How exactly is cut-and-run a new strategy? The French have been doing it for years. The Democrats are calling their new plan for Iraq "Operation Somalia."

The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about -- and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.

Bev

"Simply put, the party controlling the White House nearly always loses House seats in midterm elections" -- especially in the sixth year."

I wonder why the caveat "nearly" always?

Oh, because Clinton actually GAINED seats his sixth year!
But ya left him right off the list!!!
How convenient.

csm, is this someone spewing Ann's vomit again?

Bob

I wondered how long it would take for Frooti to pitch in with the inevitable predictions of doom. Who's being cut and pasted this time? Coulter again?

Mike

Da Troot is ever present... Cool! RElease everyone in every prison and arrest every that is a Republican... problem solved!

Bev

White House Briefing Reader Brent Zenobia of Portland, Ore., writes: "I found his most telling admission to be that all those nasty comments he made about the Democrats during the campaign were suddenly inoperable -- not that he regretted them, of course, but that he thought it was ridiculous anyone would take them seriously and of course he would say anything he had to to obtain the outcome he wanted. So much for Mr. Straightforward-Plain-Speaker, the public personality that was once the foundation of his approval rating ('someone we trust'). My religion teaches that lying is a particularly insidious sin, because the more you do it the more difficult it becomes to tell what's real and what's not. Bush evidently has lied so often that he no longer is able to see any ethical problem with it, and probably thinks everyone does it. Thus, if we're dumb enough to take him at his word, then that's our problem for being so gullible.

"How can people expect him to be a good faith partner for bipartisan cooperation when he himself admits that he will say anything to get his way, and never expects to be held accountable even if he's caught in the act of lying as he was yesterday with the pre-election Rumsfeld comment?"

~ Da Truth

Mike

On this blog it sounds like an understandable failing...

Bev

OK, the spin -- now that the truth is settling in -- is starting to just crack me up.

We were told in 2004 that Bush had a mandate with 51%/49% of the vote, Rove the Boy Genius had masterminded a GOP majority for the rest of our lives, the GOP GOTV was far superior, the money was far superior, Tom Delay's gerrymandering had created a firewall that would never be breached, and blah-blah. No worries.

Now, as in da troot's post, we suddenly have President Kennedy-Johnson and President Nixon-Ford, and these two gentlemen had sixth years in office with which to make comparisons!
lmfao!
Oh, and "Did I accidently forget that President Clinton also had a sixth year? Oh, and he WON seats? Shit, I didn't know that!"
Unbelievable.

So it's 51-49 in the Senate and it looks like the House will flip to a mirror image, with Dems having what Repub's had pre-election night and vice versa.

Suddenly all the GOP pundits have some reason to believe that this was very predictable and the "slimmest of majorities" is no mandate.

These people amaze me, at how they just create their own little world, never the least bit humiliated that they constantly get caught talking out of all sides of their asses.

Gotta give some credit to Dan Bartlett for the best line so far. Asked what Nancy Pelosi and George Bush had for lunch, Dan smiled and said that Bush had crow.

Paine

Some more venoumous hatred by Ann (Da Troot) Coulter!

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/AnnCoulter/2006/11/08/historic_victory_for_diebold!

Her diatribe drips of fear, desperation, and denial of her own worth as a pundit. Her self-importance is incomprehensible. Doesn't she realize yet, that no one gives a shit about her opinions anymore!?

The way she brushes off "the Democrats' pathetic gains" as unexceptional (when compared to past elections,) is a transparent attempt to belittle the Dem's victories on Tuesday. She totally disregards the undeniable fact that those meager wins shifted the entire political lanscape.

Nor does she mention that the first time in modern political history, a party retained EVERY incumbent seat that was up for reelection!

Fuck Ann Coulter!! She can squirm with disdain for the next two years, and hopefully fade into the background of obnoxious sycophants no longer in power!!

Bev

well, she perhaps committed a felony in FL for fraudulant voting so...

BAWDYSCOT

I believe I mentioned some time back her fifteen minutes should have been up long ago.

fcc

I think Ann is delightful! The Democrats take her so seriously and that in itself is what is so refeshing. O'Reilly, Coulter and Rush just piss the Dems off to no end.

One good point in that rant which the democrat faithful did not want to address. What is the dems plan? So far it is the same as the reps, stay the course. Murtha wants to ship everyone to Japan or maybe a cruise, not sure. Has anyone checked the guys meds lately?

BTW, no anthrax attacks, no cheating allegations and classy behavior by the uh "scummy" reps. Props to them for not turing this into a Law and Order episode. Lose with dignity, I hope our demoocratic pundits keep that in mind next time they flame.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Syndicate This Site


  • Add to My Yahoo!