You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Politix
Parting Shots - Election 2006
2006-11-08
ELECTION 2006 - DEAD ELEPHANT BLUES


When any party stays in power too long, they become complacent, and more concerned about retaining power than doing the right thing. The right thing that got them there in the first place. The Republicans forgot to do the right thing, and got thumped. The problem is that Hastert, and company have done this at a time of great peril to the nation.

Nancy Pelosi as the speaker of the house? A member of congress that represents the most left-wing large city in the US? May God help us. The Dems have to put her in. But I suspect that they will grow wise to her nuttiness in six months and want to find another way. She has neither the charisma and quick mind of a Newt or the aura of a coach which the outgoing speaker has from his years at Chicago area High Schools. She is shrill and angry. This won't work for long. Sure, the MSM will prop her up, but after awhile her image will bring disdain to everyone involved. It was inevitable that there would one day be a woman as speaker of the house. But San Fran Nan shouldn't be it. But alas, she is. So the best thing we can do is grit our teeth and make the best of it. With "new media" she won't be able to get away with much. So, we have to be vigilant, and as soon as she makes that inevitable step to a smellier part of the swamp, we must be ready to pounce, and send her back to the back benches of congress, which is where she belongs.
Posted by:BigEd

#19  That description brings to mind the scene in 3 Days of the Condor between Redford and Robertson outside the NYT office. Redford's being a condescending asshole, like so many, and...

Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then?

Joe Turner: Ask them?

Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!

Truth.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-08 23:52  

#18   do love the Peacenik Moonbats most of all. They say No War! - yet it takes no effort at all to create the situation in which either that opinion would go *poof* -

So true. They will be first in line to viciously turn on groups of "other youths" once they fear for their own saftey. While we talk about doing things now that are difficult but measured now- they will be the ones who snap and demand magical solutions that just make the bad men all go away - but they won't care how it happens - just like they don't care about the people in Iraq.
Posted by: anon   2006-11-08 23:44  

#17  Agree to energy independence, but the rest doesn't fly. If we buy less, the slack will be taken up by others. No serious loss of rev to the assholes.

If you REALLY want to cut off the funding of Islamofascism, you're gonna hafta take their fucking oil away from them. Period. Nothing, short of glassing the oil fields over, will do it... and that would be a waste, so...
Posted by: .com   2006-11-08 23:37  

#16  Isolation/quarantine of the islamics has got to be easier if the U.S. is energy independent. We need to quit shipping dollars to the mideast which end up indirectly supporting the likes of Hamas, Hezballah, etc. We need to quit propping up people that hate and try to destroy the U.S. Screw them and let them eat sand.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-08 23:34  

#15  That is the one thing where he is hung up. Using "Islamofascists" was the first thing out of the box.

As lotp has said, do you try to keep things limited to the existing skirmishing outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, or do you go ahead and call a spade what it is - and see if they come crawling out of the woodwork to play jihadi. A billion people is, no matter how you slice it, a buncha people. She's more eloquent, but I think that's the gist of the argument and why Bush has tried to keep a lid on the rhetoric.

What's the right move? Well, personally, I favor the spade route to set the stage for what we have to do - isolate / quarantine them and, if that doesn't work, get very very nasty.
Posted by: .com   2006-11-08 23:15  

#14  Dead on.

If the Dems really wanted to score poitns they'd bitchslap Bush every time he dragged out the Religion of Peace line.

But thats not where their paychecks come from.
Posted by: OldSpook   2006-11-08 22:51  

#13  Until it hits your town, the school where your kids go, the mall where you shop...

I do love the Peacenik Moonbats most of all. They say No War! - yet it takes no effort at all to create the situation in which either that opinion would go *poof* - or they would.

Just gotta get up all personal like, y'know?
Posted by: .com   2006-11-08 22:49  

#12  Agreed the threat is much greater than in WW II. The Allies waged "total war" on Germany, Japan, and Italy. Total war meant that every effort went to "winning" the war. There was a kind of national discipline at that time that seems to be lacking today. Any thought of defeat of the West was just not acceptable. The notion of total war has been lost to history I'm afraid.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-08 22:45  

#11  The threat is much greater than during WW II.

Churchill and Roosevelt didn't repeatedly assert that Nazism and Bushido militarism were "religions of peace". They also didn't prevent their military from utterly destroying the enemy. They also didn't allow organized pro-Germany or pro-Japan groups openly recruit and spread their propaganda within our borders.
Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever)   2006-11-08 22:12  

#10  Committee chairmen will be replaced. Power will shift in these committees as a result of this election. People have been sniping at each other in Washington. The MSM has been the cheering section for the sniping. All the while the jihadists have been enjoying our foolishness. We had better get our shit together to fight this war on jihadists or we will lose our way of life. The threat is as great as it was from Nazi Germany and Japan in WW II.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-08 18:24  

#9  Leadership is about setting the agenda. The freshmen Dems will have zero weight in deciding which bills are discussed in committee, get to the floor and the time allotted for debate. The power belongs to Pelosi, Kennedy, Rangel, etc. True, to a lesser degree, for the Senate.
Posted by: ed   2006-11-08 18:08  

#8  Pelosi will get it. She has been a soldier in the moonbat army. She has raised a lot of money for Dhimmi candidates. People owe her.
Posted by: JohnQC   2006-11-08 18:00  

#7  She contributed to every campaign, it's a done deal.
Posted by: anonymous2u   2006-11-08 17:54  

#6  Won't the Dems have an election to determine who is speaker of the House. I don't think Pelosi gets it automatically.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2006-11-08 17:23  

#5  "All while pushing for Reagan style republicans that we can run with in 2008 and 'Clean House'."

Is Boortz going to going around like Diogenes trying to find one?
Posted by: eLarson   2006-11-08 16:09  

#4  LH - When the Jihad's take advantage of this for another mass attack on the US... We will remember Nancy. Don't forget it.
Posted by: 3dc   2006-11-08 14:33  

#3  Way to miss the point, LH. Try to argue honestly, okay?
Posted by: Jonathan   2006-11-08 14:13  

#2  "Funny, but I don't remember pressing 1 for Funny, but I don't remember pressing 1 for English in 1994. "

Yeah, technology just keeps marching ahead, doesnt it? I dont remember pressing 0 to speak to a live operator in 1994 either.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2006-11-08 14:05  

#1  From Boortz, who voted straight non-Dem anti-R Libertarian as a protest (which was stupid but it explains where the base left the rails).

I don't agree with his voting, but I sure as hell agree with his analysis - and I'm glad to not have to defend that pork barrel lobby infested immoral idiots that were our last bulwark. Now I get to go after leftists that would tax and spend, grow government, and abandon our defense, in their witch hunts and political payback that is harmful to the nation. All while pushing for Reagan style republicans that we can run with in 2008 and "Clean House". It will be fun to be on the Offensive instead of Defensive, the hunter not the hunted (but only for the next 2 years, maybe we can finally get the kill shot in on liberalism now that it flushed itself out int the open)

One thing is certain. The Republicans worked very hard for this defeat. They've earned every lost seat. The Republican majority that was sent packing yesterday bore little resemblance to the Republican majority that rode to power 12 years ago. In 1994 we were promised less government. Over the next 12 years the Republicans more than doubled the size of the government. We were promised control over runaway spending. In the last six years discretionary spending has doubled. We were promised fiscal responsibility. We got a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. We were promised the elimination of the Department of Education. After all, educational achievement had been on a steady decline since education was federalized under this Department. In no time at all the Republicans doubled funding for the Department of Education. In the meanwhile America continues to slip on the international scorecard of educational achievement.

The Republicans, in full control of the government, couldn't even manage to stop the Mexican invasion. How many Hispanics invaded our country across the Mexican / American border in the last 12 years? Twelve million? Twenty? Funny, but I don't remember pressing 1 for English in 1994.

Posted by: OldSpook   2006-11-08 13:51  

00:00