Mark, there were two other interesting points brought up on Rush's show the other day, one by Rush and one by a caller. Rush noted that all the various regional polls that show races in which a Democrat challenger is currently leading, totally ignore the possibility that the Dems are going to lose ANY seats that they currently hold. The caller made the comment that he had seen at least one poll showing that, nationwide, 60% of voters of both parties are satisfied with their current representatives and senators. That is at total odds with the polls that show a significantly higher number of people will vote for Dems than Republicans.
Regardless of who wins in 26 days, the result is predictable. If Republicans win, the Donks will declare that they just didn't get their message out to enough people and the GOP cheated. If the Dems win, life for Republicans will go on. Personally, I think the GOP will hold both houses, if for no other reason than the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people that the Democrat Party has no constructive ideas and is attempting to regain power through orchestrated scandals and easily disprovable lies. We'll see soon enough.
Posted by: Retired Spook at October 12, 2006 08:48 AM
spook - you're speaking nonsense again.
meanwhile, the governator is trying his best to distance himself from bush:
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN11314093.html/?src=092906_MARKETING_CMS_ElecMidArt
Posted by: orangealert at October 12, 2006 09:11 AM
spook - you're speaking nonsense again.
Ya know, that's funny, OA. I have the exact same reaction to most of your posts. We'll see who's right in 3-1/2 weeks.
Posted by: Retired Spook at October 12, 2006 02:33 PM
Well as a Californian helping out in the Republican re-election campaign I can tell you that we're working hard across the board. There's several major props to shoot down as well as several canidates we're backing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens come election day, and nothing is certain. I for one still don't believe in polls since they're wrong so often.
Posted by:
Gozer at October 12, 2006 08:40 PM
The real news in CA this year is that the Republicans have better candidates than the Democrats across the board. I mean...Jerry Brown and Cruz Bustamante? Those two ought to get jobs in the private sector for once in their lives to see how the rest of us live. I have a weird feeling that while the CA legistlature will remain hopelessly Socials (Democrat), the major offices will at long last be in the hands of the GOP. AHnold will carry the day, and drag others with him.
Posted by: John at October 12, 2006 11:04 PM
On a HAPPY note, if the Republicans lose control of Congress in 2006, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT BUSH WILL REGAIN POPULARITY!
Recently, the Federal Government has worked best when one party controls the Presidency and the other controls Congress. Partly because of forced negotiation, partly because each can blame the other for unpopular legislation they reluctantly agree to, and PARTLY BECAUSE FEWER LAWS ARE PASSED!
Clinton's approval rating was sagging UNTIL the 1994 Revolution. Government became more streamlined, there were ACTUALLY SURPLUSES, the job and housing markets BOOMED, and welfare reform was passed! His approval ratings skyrocketed- even when receiving oral sex! It could similarly be seen during Reagan's Presidency (well, except for the oral sex thing, fortunately). Bi-partisanship is necessary for EVERYTHING during such times, so FEW laws are passed and only moderate ones prevail.
Likewise, when the Republicans LOSE, it will not be a bad thing. It will be a chance for smaller, more efficient government and Bush can ride out of office with HIGH RATINGS!
Leaving you guys just enough time to kick out the CROOKS OUT OF YOUR PARTY and get in shape for 2008, and Bush's higher ratings wouldn't hurt your chances at that time. . .
Posted by: coulterfan at October 13, 2006 12:36 AM
" ...UNTIL the 1994 Revolution. Government became more streamlined, there were ACTUALLY SURPLUSES, the job and housing markets BOOMED, and welfare reform was passed!"
So, you're saying that once the Republicans took control of the House wonderful things happened? And you solution to stop these wonderful things is elect democrats? Can we put that on a bumper sticker.
Republicans; streamlined Government, SURPLUSSES, booming job market, booming housing market!
STOP the MADNESS! VOTE DEMOCRAT!
And you wonder why I don't trust liberals with my money!
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at October 13, 2006 01:40 PM
"So, you're saying that once the Republicans took control of the House wonderful things happened?"
I'm saying that historically our Federal Government works BEST when it isn't "One Party Rule".
Obviously, when Republicans are IN COMPLETE CONTROL (like NOW), they are the BIGGEST SPENDERS OF ALL!!! We're talking non-military expenditures which make LBJ LOOK CONSERVATIVE! Not only that, but their arrogance has led to MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in our PERSONAL LIVES, CORRUPTION which FAR EXCEEDS the Democratic Congress of the early 90s, and NO OVERSIGHT!
Do you REALLY trust the Republicans with YOUR MONEY?!?!? Did you know that WE ARE PAYING 1 BILLION PER YEAR FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IRAQIS? DID YOU KNOW THAT ALMOST 9 BILLION WAS "LOST" IN IRAQ? DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANYTHING "CONSERVATIVE" ABOUT THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? WHAT ABOUT THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM (the BIGGEST Federal entitlement program EVER!)?
BTW, Clinton gets A GREAT DEAL of credit for the 90's economy- Bush NEVER VETOED ONE BILL until the Stem Cell Bi-Partisan Bill! You trust HIM with your money? In 1987, Reagan vetoed the Highway Bill because it had 157 "earmarks", BUSH SIGNED A HIGHWAY BILL LAST YEAR WITH OVER 6,000 EARMARKS!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html
In comparison to Bush, Clinton was a "small government conservative"!!!
Posted by: coulterfan at October 13, 2006 02:10 PM
Right, I know I want to elect a President then send him to office with a Congress that will oppose him so that neither he nor Congress accomplishes anything they want.
Are you terminally stupid, or just amusingly so?
The “five Greatest Presidents” of the last Century;
1 Theodore Roosevelt; Republican Congress
2 Franklin Roosevelt; democrat Congress
3 Woodrow Wilson, democrat Congress
4 Harry Truman, democrat Congress
5 Ronald Reagan, Republican Congress
"Clinton gets A GREAT DEAL of credit for the 90's economy.
Hahahahahahaha! That's hysterical! He got credit? For doing what? Hahahahahaha!
You really are a simple creature aren’t you?
Posted by: Bane of Liberals' Existence at October 13, 2006 04:52 PM
"You really are a simple creature aren’t you? "
If he doesn't get credit, just why are Clinton's approval rating twice what Bush's are?
Posted by: coulterfan at October 13, 2006 09:51 PM
"Are you terminally stupid, or just amusingly so?"
I don't know. . . are these financial researchers and Money Magazine terminally stupid, or just amusingly stupid?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/02/commentary/sivy/sivy.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2006100306
"5 Ronald Reagan, Republican Congress"
Was Tip O'Neil a Republican (House Majority Leader for Reagan's entire term)? What about Robert Byrd (Senate Majority Leader in 1981, and then again 1987-88)?
Are YOU terminally stupid, or just amusingly stupid?
Posted by: coulterfan at October 14, 2006 05:38 PM
Further errors in your list:
"3 Woodrow Wilson, democrat Congress"
Frank W. Mondell (R) House Leader 1919-1921; Senate controlled by Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge
"4 Harry Truman, democrat Congress"
From 1947-1949 House Leader Charles Halleck (R); Senate Leader Wallace H. White Jr (R)
I think that, judging from the fact that only TWO of your top five were correct, I would have to conclude "Terminally Stupid" in your case.
Posted by: coulterfan at October 14, 2006 06:53 PM
BTW, Terminaly Stupid Bane of Existence, your list seems sort of arbitrary anyway. Historians, for instance, rank JFK above Reagan - you might want to, as well, since it provides SOME credence to your arguement (JFK, Democratic Congress). You DO KNOW that "Democrat Congress" is grammatically incorrect, right? It's the DEMOCRATIC party, but individual members are DEMOCRAT.
My ONLY point was that Bush's two terms have been, well, dismal failures. Since gridlock would mean a DECREASE in Federal spending (something I presume you are FOR), I assume that the economy and stocks would see GREAT increases (they are currently poised for growth, but we could see a Clinton-like economic boom!). This would bolster Bush's populariity quite a bit. Bush wouldn't want to spend on the Democratic party's initiatives, and they wouldn't want to spend on HIS initiatives- a DREAM for a 'small-government conservative' (if they still exist).
You can disagree, but there's NO DENYING that Bush is VERY unpopular right now! Hey, at the least, he could BLAME everything gone wrong on the Democratic Congress!
Posted by: coulterfan at October 14, 2006 07:30 PM
Mark, there were two other interesting points brought up on Rush's show the other day, one by Rush and one by a caller. Rush noted that all the various regional polls that show races in which a Democrat challenger is currently leading, totally ignore the possibility that the Dems are going to lose ANY seats that they currently hold. The caller made the comment that he had seen at least one poll showing that, nationwide, 60% of voters of both parties are satisfied with their current representatives and senators. That is at total odds with the polls that show a significantly higher number of people will vote for Dems than Republicans.
Regardless of who wins in 26 days, the result is predictable. If Republicans win, the Donks will declare that they just didn't get their message out to enough people and the GOP cheated. If the Dems win, life for Republicans will go on. Personally, I think the GOP will hold both houses, if for no other reason than the fact that it is becoming more and more obvious to more and more people that the Democrat Party has no constructive ideas and is attempting to regain power through orchestrated scandals and easily disprovable lies. We'll see soon enough.
spook - you're speaking nonsense again.
meanwhile, the governator is trying his best to distance himself from bush:
http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN11314093.html/?src=092906_MARKETING_CMS_ElecMidArt
spook - you're speaking nonsense again.
Ya know, that's funny, OA. I have the exact same reaction to most of your posts. We'll see who's right in 3-1/2 weeks.
Well as a Californian helping out in the Republican re-election campaign I can tell you that we're working hard across the board. There's several major props to shoot down as well as several canidates we're backing.
It'll be interesting to see what happens come election day, and nothing is certain. I for one still don't believe in polls since they're wrong so often.
The real news in CA this year is that the Republicans have better candidates than the Democrats across the board. I mean...Jerry Brown and Cruz Bustamante? Those two ought to get jobs in the private sector for once in their lives to see how the rest of us live. I have a weird feeling that while the CA legistlature will remain hopelessly Socials (Democrat), the major offices will at long last be in the hands of the GOP. AHnold will carry the day, and drag others with him.
On a HAPPY note, if the Republicans lose control of Congress in 2006, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT BUSH WILL REGAIN POPULARITY!
Recently, the Federal Government has worked best when one party controls the Presidency and the other controls Congress. Partly because of forced negotiation, partly because each can blame the other for unpopular legislation they reluctantly agree to, and PARTLY BECAUSE FEWER LAWS ARE PASSED!
Clinton's approval rating was sagging UNTIL the 1994 Revolution. Government became more streamlined, there were ACTUALLY SURPLUSES, the job and housing markets BOOMED, and welfare reform was passed! His approval ratings skyrocketed- even when receiving oral sex! It could similarly be seen during Reagan's Presidency (well, except for the oral sex thing, fortunately). Bi-partisanship is necessary for EVERYTHING during such times, so FEW laws are passed and only moderate ones prevail.
Likewise, when the Republicans LOSE, it will not be a bad thing. It will be a chance for smaller, more efficient government and Bush can ride out of office with HIGH RATINGS!
Leaving you guys just enough time to kick out the CROOKS OUT OF YOUR PARTY and get in shape for 2008, and Bush's higher ratings wouldn't hurt your chances at that time. . .
" ...UNTIL the 1994 Revolution. Government became more streamlined, there were ACTUALLY SURPLUSES, the job and housing markets BOOMED, and welfare reform was passed!"
So, you're saying that once the Republicans took control of the House wonderful things happened? And you solution to stop these wonderful things is elect democrats? Can we put that on a bumper sticker.
And you wonder why I don't trust liberals with my money!
"So, you're saying that once the Republicans took control of the House wonderful things happened?"
I'm saying that historically our Federal Government works BEST when it isn't "One Party Rule".
Obviously, when Republicans are IN COMPLETE CONTROL (like NOW), they are the BIGGEST SPENDERS OF ALL!!! We're talking non-military expenditures which make LBJ LOOK CONSERVATIVE! Not only that, but their arrogance has led to MORE GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in our PERSONAL LIVES, CORRUPTION which FAR EXCEEDS the Democratic Congress of the early 90s, and NO OVERSIGHT!
Do you REALLY trust the Republicans with YOUR MONEY?!?!? Did you know that WE ARE PAYING 1 BILLION PER YEAR FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL IRAQIS? DID YOU KNOW THAT ALMOST 9 BILLION WAS "LOST" IN IRAQ? DO YOU THINK THERE'S ANYTHING "CONSERVATIVE" ABOUT THIS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? WHAT ABOUT THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG PROGRAM (the BIGGEST Federal entitlement program EVER!)?
BTW, Clinton gets A GREAT DEAL of credit for the 90's economy- Bush NEVER VETOED ONE BILL until the Stem Cell Bi-Partisan Bill! You trust HIM with your money? In 1987, Reagan vetoed the Highway Bill because it had 157 "earmarks", BUSH SIGNED A HIGHWAY BILL LAST YEAR WITH OVER 6,000 EARMARKS!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/10/AR2005081000223.html
In comparison to Bush, Clinton was a "small government conservative"!!!
Right, I know I want to elect a President then send him to office with a Congress that will oppose him so that neither he nor Congress accomplishes anything they want.
Are you terminally stupid, or just amusingly so?
The “five Greatest Presidents” of the last Century;
1 Theodore Roosevelt; Republican Congress
2 Franklin Roosevelt; democrat Congress
3 Woodrow Wilson, democrat Congress
4 Harry Truman, democrat Congress
5 Ronald Reagan, Republican Congress
"Clinton gets A GREAT DEAL of credit for the 90's economy.
Hahahahahahaha! That's hysterical! He got credit? For doing what? Hahahahahaha!
You really are a simple creature aren’t you?
"You really are a simple creature aren’t you? "
If he doesn't get credit, just why are Clinton's approval rating twice what Bush's are?
"Are you terminally stupid, or just amusingly so?"
I don't know. . . are these financial researchers and Money Magazine terminally stupid, or just amusingly stupid?
http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/02/commentary/sivy/sivy.moneymag/index.htm?postversion=2006100306
"5 Ronald Reagan, Republican Congress"
Was Tip O'Neil a Republican (House Majority Leader for Reagan's entire term)? What about Robert Byrd (Senate Majority Leader in 1981, and then again 1987-88)?
Are YOU terminally stupid, or just amusingly stupid?
Further errors in your list:
"3 Woodrow Wilson, democrat Congress"
Frank W. Mondell (R) House Leader 1919-1921; Senate controlled by Republicans under Henry Cabot Lodge
"4 Harry Truman, democrat Congress"
From 1947-1949 House Leader Charles Halleck (R); Senate Leader Wallace H. White Jr (R)
I think that, judging from the fact that only TWO of your top five were correct, I would have to conclude "Terminally Stupid" in your case.
BTW, Terminaly Stupid Bane of Existence, your list seems sort of arbitrary anyway. Historians, for instance, rank JFK above Reagan - you might want to, as well, since it provides SOME credence to your arguement (JFK, Democratic Congress). You DO KNOW that "Democrat Congress" is grammatically incorrect, right? It's the DEMOCRATIC party, but individual members are DEMOCRAT.
My ONLY point was that Bush's two terms have been, well, dismal failures. Since gridlock would mean a DECREASE in Federal spending (something I presume you are FOR), I assume that the economy and stocks would see GREAT increases (they are currently poised for growth, but we could see a Clinton-like economic boom!). This would bolster Bush's populariity quite a bit. Bush wouldn't want to spend on the Democratic party's initiatives, and they wouldn't want to spend on HIS initiatives- a DREAM for a 'small-government conservative' (if they still exist).
You can disagree, but there's NO DENYING that Bush is VERY unpopular right now! Hey, at the least, he could BLAME everything gone wrong on the Democratic Congress!