Republicans will have no one to blame but themselves

Kelly - posted on 05/23/2010 ( 22 moms have responded )

700

16

37

Republicans on Track to Snatch Defeat From Jaws of Victory
by Ann Coulter
05/19/2010


Republican consultants are doing a wonderful job raising expectations sky-high for the November elections, so that now, even if Republicans do smashingly well, it will look like a defeat (and an across-the-board endorsement of Obama's agenda). Thanks, Republicans!

That's what happened in the 1998 congressional elections, nearly foiling Clinton's impeachment. It's what happened to the Conservative Party in Britain a week ago.

And that's what happened this week in the 12th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, formerly represented by Rep. John Murtha.

Note to Republicans: Whenever possible, victory parties should be held after the election, not before it.

The result of the election in Murtha's old district on Tuesday was that the rabidly anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate won! Yippee!

But the news on Wednesday morning was that the election "dealt a blow to Republicans," as The New York Times reported.

The reason the Times' description was not utter madness (in violation of New York Times' official policy) is because the anti-ObamaCare, pro-life, pro-gun candidate was a Democrat and, for the past two months, every Republican on TV has been predicting a Republican victory in Murtha's district.

Thanks to all the happy talk, if the Republican actually had won, it would have been Page 16 news. But when the Democrat won, it seemed like an against-all-odds, come-from-behind Hoosiers victory!

Why were Republicans predicting victory in a district where Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-1? Given a choice between two candidates who both hate ObamaCare, why would lifelong Democrats not vote for the Democrat?

Republicans are playing the same raised-expectations game with the November elections. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner is ludicrously predicting Republicans will pick up 100 seats in the House in November. Newt Gingrich puts the figure at an equally insane (and weirdly precise) 78. He also predicts the Cubs will win 132 games this season and six games will be rained out.

Keep it up, Republicans, and I'm going to keep naming names. I have Nexis.

For more than half a century, the average midterm pickup for the party out of power has been 24 seats.

Your job, Republicans, is not to go on Fox News and whisper sweet nothings in conservatives' ears. Your job is to repeal the Obama agenda. Raising expectations so high that a 30-seat Republican pickup will seem like a loss is not helping.

Moreover, we're not going to pick up any seats this November if Republicans keep chumming around with the Democrats' pals on Wall Street.

Roughly since the Harding administration, Wall Street has overwhelmingly favored Democrats. According to a recent report from ABC News, for example, the five largest hedge funds gave "almost all their donations to Democrats."

For the past year, the Democrats' Wall Street BFFs have had lower public approval ratings than Hitler. (When I say "Hitler," I don't mean Dick Cheney or George W. Bush; I actually mean Adolf Hitler.) While Hitler continues to enjoy great personal popularity, there is a growing dissatisfaction with his policies.

How could Republicans possibly screw that up? We try harder.

No sooner had the news come out that Goldman Sachs (Joseph Goebbels in this metaphor) had given Obama an astronomical $1 million in campaign donations, than Republican John Boehner decided that this was the time to suck up to Wall Street! So Boehner flew to New York to meet with Wall Street bankers and ask them to be Republicans' friends.

Boehner is like the guy who just got raped in prison and doesn't know what happened to him. Hey -- what was that? Should I have thanked the guy?

As Pat Caddell says, Democrats are whores, but they expect to be paid; Republicans' names are scrawled on the bathroom wall: "For a good time, call the GOP!"

As depressing as it is to watch the Republican Party dive headlong off a cliff, at least we have Dick Blumenthal.

Connecticut's attorney general, pompous, freakishly ambitious, self-righteous, hold-a-press-conference-every-day Blumenthal, was a shoo-in to take Chris Dodd's Senate seat this fall.

After all, he was a Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, Silver Star and Purple Heart winner from his days as a four-star general in Vietnam. (And captain of the Harvard swim team to boot!)

But now we find out from a front-page article in The New York Times that, despite Blumenthal's repeated references to serving "in Vietnam" -- he was never in Vietnam. He got five draft deferments and then joined an elite unit of the Marine Reserves to avoid going to war, serving in their heroic "Toys for Tots" brigade.

He also wasn't on the Harvard swim team. (Oddly enough, though, the story Blumenthal likes to tell about owning a necklace of human ears? That one's actually true.)

Blumenthal may as well have shown up for a press conference in a dress. Suddenly, Connecticut is in play!

Naturally, therefore, Republicans are planning on running a World Wrestling Entertainment "impresario" against Blumenthal. Yes, in Connecticut ... a state that is among the wealthiest and most highly educated in the nation ... a state that isn't Minnesota. The average Nutmegger doesn't even know what a turnbuckle is, and that includes me.

Republicans could run Rob Simmons, a Connecticut legislator with a distinguished record of service in the House of Representatives, the CIA, and as a Yale political science professor -- who actually did serve in Vietnam, winning two Bronze Stars and retiring as a colonel.

But defeat is so close! Republicans can almost taste the bitterness of yet another crushing loss!

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

842

Well, if you're going to be that dismissive of things like the anthrax attack, I could also say that the three attacks that have taken place during Obama's tenure consisted of nothing more than a crappily made car bomb, some idiot with flames and popping noises coming out of his undershorts (otherwise known as the result of a visit to Taco Bell), and I don't even know what the third one is that you're talking about.

Either way, it's a silly game that we're playing. You somehow believe that Obama has made the world less safe, due to his perceived "weakness", and I believe that Bush made the world less safe due to his complete lack of diplomatic skills and his tendency to shoot first and ask questions later.

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

842

You honestly, genuinely believe that there are American citizens, including your own President, who want America to LOSE in Iraq?



Wow. I don't even know what to say to that, Kelly.



First of all, how do you even DEFINE winning that particular war? The rationale for it changed so often. First it was all about Saddam and WMDs, and then when it was proven that Saddam didn't HAVE WMDs, it became about "spreading democracy", and those are just two that I can think of off the top of my head .



So how do you define "winning" the war in Iraq? Quelling the insurgency and having a functional, democratic government in place? If so, that sounds pretty good to me. And if that actually happened, you HONESTLY think that some liberals would be unhappy with that result? I think they'd be thrilled. Surprised, yes. But they'd be really happy that things turned out so well despite how badly it all started.



I think you're a bit confused. I think that a lot of liberals, including Obama, believe that the war in Iraq was a bad idea right from the start. Wanting to withdraw, wanting to stop throwing away American lives, wanting to get the hell out of that situation -- that is NOT the same thing as cheering for America's defeat.



If you were in a fight and you were getting your butt kicked, and I was telling you to get the heck out of there and save your own butt, that doesn't mean I'm cheering for you to LOSE, Kelly. There is a difference, and it seems that few conservatives can see it, sadly.



That mess that Bush left? Um yeah...that'd be two badly managed wars and an economy that looked like something that had been dragged behind a car for 100 miles. Oh, and the mismanaging of a major natural disaster. And the fact that Osama Bin Laden (remember him?) is still at large, and recruiting new people all the time. Oh, and if you want to talk about terrorist attacks while in office, we can count 9/11, Richard Reid, the anthrax attacks, Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, the attack at the Mexican consulate in NYC in 2007, and the D.C. sniper. That's not counting several other cases of domestic terrorism. I guess Bush must have been seen as pretty weak too.



Glad I could help.

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

842

Kelly, I was speaking specifically of liberals who I know, not all liberals in general.

Yes, there were some who wished harm to him, and I think that was abhorrent, just as I think it is abhorrent for anybody to wish harm to Obama. We may disagree with them as politicians, but the fact remains that they are human beings with families who love them.

As far as the songs, protests, etc, the biggest issue appears to have been the war in Iraq, no? And what a lot of people seemed incapable of understanding is that being against a war does NOT equal wanting your country to lose that war.

And did Bush create that mess on his own? Maybe not, but he sure as heck didn't make it any better, did he? The fact of the matter is that by the time his presidency was over, America was MUCH worse off than it had been when he started his presidency.

Either way, we're digressing. I just was really unimpressed to see Diane say that she prays every night for her president to fail. As Jenny said, we have a conservative government, and while I disagree with many of their decisions, I support others. And overall, Stephen Harper's goal is the same as Obama's: they want to make their country a better place for us to live. Do I agree with Harper's methodologies? Not always, no. But do I want him to fail? Of course not! If he fails, that HURTS my country.

Krista - posted on 05/26/2010

12,562

16

842

Wow, Diane -- you really are a piece of work.

When Bush was in office, not one liberal I know was hoping for him to fail. We all thought he would fail, due to his obvious incompetence, and we greatly disagreed with his policies, but we hoped that we were wrong and that somehow he would be right about Iraq, win that war, improve the economy and prove us all wrong.

It says quite a bit about you that you pray every night for him to fail, when he is trying his best to repair the damage that Bush caused. Even if you don't agree with his methods or philosophies, I would have thought you would have loved your country enough to want him to do well and to be successful at running the country's affairs.

Krista - posted on 05/27/2010

12,562

16

842

Many dems and repubs wanted him to act faster regarding WMD and Sadaam after 9/11.

The politicians, perhaps.

My recollection of it is this: the U.S. got attacked. Pretty much the entire world sympathized with you and they wanted to help. Bush decided to go into Afghanistan because they were harboring Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden. He had very strong support for this, both domestically and internationally.

Then, he started talking about Saddam, and kept implying a link between Saddam and 9/11. People started saying, "Um, WTF are you talking about?" Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld kept pressing a case for war in Iraq. Your allies in the fight in Afghanistan started thinking, "Oh great -- NOW where are they going?" Bush pressed his case for war even harder, and chastised allies who did not want to buy in to his extremely shaky rationale, stating "you're with us or you're against us", which served only to alienate even more allies and basically piss away all of the international goodwill that had been present after 9/11. Protests were held, with many people saying that they did not want the U.S. to go to war with Iraq, and these people were summarily dismissed as un-American.

And now here we are, so many years later. Soldiers from my country are coming home in coffins. I cannot help but think that if the U.S. had not taken out so many troops and diverted them to Iraq, that we would have had Afghanistan stabilized and functional by this point, and maybe we would have all been out of there before now.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

22 Comments

View replies by

Becki - posted on 05/27/2010

45

8

0

Btw on my iPhone I sometime hit rating when I was not rating so please excuse me for that. I will try harder to plant my thumbs better : )

Jenny - posted on 05/27/2010

4,426

16

126

Just so we are clear, definition of "terrorist attack"
*A surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims*

So would the drone attacks in Pakistan be considered a terrorist act?

Becki - posted on 05/27/2010

45

8

0

Krista I respectfully disagree. Many dems and repubs wanted him to act faster regarding WMD and Sadaam after 9/11. You can go to YouTube to verify. Specifically Hillary and others who now demonize Bush. They are on record. Bush relied on the intelligence sources and Congress prior to action in many instances that some have conveniently forgotten. No president does everything right but how many had to face the challenges 9/11 and other things President Bush faced? I just love how he gets the blame yet the whole picture is not remembered.

Kelly - posted on 05/27/2010

700

16

37

It's not a stretch to say that the dictators in the Middle East are insane. Now that Saddam is gone, all you have to do is look to Ahmadinejad to see that. Saddam did have weapons that caused mass destruction, which he proved against his own people and the Kurds. Should we really have waited until he had "the bomb"? Do you honestly think we need more psychos with nukes in this world? Someone who so flippantly uses chemical warfare wouldn't be hesitant to use nukes in my opinion. And what happens if we leave? You don't think that Iran will just swoop in and take over? They are salivating over Obama's little timeline.

As far as getting our butts kicked, I don't think that is happening at all. I do feel that we would be able to accomplish more, and accomplish it faster if the military leaders weren't having to take step by step direction from people in Washington that have never even served......

I gave you Richard Reid. As far as the rest of your examples, a hit and run by a socially inept loser, novelty hand grenades that broke a window or two, and a depressed psychotic that wished he was Osama Bin Laden wouldn't be considered terrorist attacks. (Unless you are implying that the Nation of Islam is a terrorist organization, which I don't think is fair) As far as the Anthrax attacks, are you one of those people who think the Mossad were responsible? I think the more probable culprit was the anthrax researcher who committed suicide.

Just so we are clear, definition of "terrorist attack"
*A surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims*

So lets try to stay on track. I am certainly not about to blame Columbine on Clinton. The three examples I referenced are attacks by people with DIRECT ties to Al Qaeda. If you really want to put it in perspective, take a look at the Islamic terrorist attacks under Clinton, Bush and now Obama. You cannot argue with the fact that Bush brought attacks on US soil (here and abroad) to a halt. My post is getting long, but if you want I will be happy to compile a list of examples for you........

Kelly - posted on 05/27/2010

700

16

37

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree there. I think there are many people that want us to lose the war in Iraq. American citizens, people from other countries, and our own President.

We will also have to disagree about the Bush presidency. I don't feel that we were MUCH worse off after him at all. There are a couple big failures in my opinion, no child left behind, not securing the border, and of course spending too much money....... But overall I don't see the last 8 years as a failure, and I think it's funny that all people can say is a general "that mess Bush left" when they complain. Specifics would be good, and much easier to debate. I will point out that after 9/11, and I guess Richard Reid to be fair, there wasn't another attack on our country. In Obama's first year, there have been 3 so far now. Obviously SOMEONE thinks we have a weaker man in office......

I do not condone wishing death on any political figure, regardless of how much I may disagree with them. I don't pray for harm to come to Obama at all. I am smart enough to know that if something happens to him, we end up with Biden. And God forbid something happen to him and we end up with Pelosi......*shivers*

But seriously, I don't wish him harm, and I certainly don't wish him failure. Only Diane can explain what she meant by that, but there is a big difference in hoping someone isn't successful pushing their agenda, and hoping they fail at everything they get through. I do find myself praying some of the blue dogs will wake up and vote against the party lines on some of the crap they are trying to jam through.........

Jenny - posted on 05/26/2010

4,426

16

126

Wow, you hope for bad things to happen to your country because of a democratically elected leader? That's messed up. I have a conservative government in my country and I support many of their decisions and policies. That is SO unpatriotic of you.

Kelly - posted on 05/26/2010

700

16

37

OMG Krista, you are too much! People not only wanted Bush to fail, they wanted him dead. T-shirts, songs, bumper stickers, protests, celebrity standoffs, etc..........

As far as the tired, played out "blame Bush" comments, you guys really need to come up with something else. Shouldn't we still be blaming Clinton? Or maybe Johnson? How about FDR? That whole New Deal debacle....... Bush didn't cause the mess we are in on his own, and he certainly wasn't the worst president to date. Not even close. And believe me, no one in their right mind is expecting Obama to fix anything. I think the majority of people are just praying that he doesn't do something that can't be undone when his term is over.

Becki - posted on 05/26/2010

45

8

0

Boy Krista that was nothing short of an inflammatory comment and then to follow it up with the old blame Bush for damage caused blah blah blah statement but I am too tired and therefore don't have the patience to even try to educate you

Becki - posted on 05/26/2010

45

8

0

Mary I kinda understand you taking another point of understanding but have you ever prayed for a different result if you dislike the present actions or agendas? I think that is what she meant not anything more. I pray that many of the current philosophies and actions such as massive spending and growing government of the present administration don't become a practice of all presidents. I pray about many things. I have had some prayers like this with every President on certain issues/policies since I was old enough to care...

ME - posted on 05/26/2010

2,978

18

190

You pray nightly that our country fails? Is that true? I think I'm done talking to you...I've had enough...

Diane - posted on 05/26/2010

694

18

30

“OH...and Ann Coulter is, without a doubt, the anti-christ...she makes my skin crawl and my stomach turn...I really don't hate anyone, but she comes close... ‘

I feel the same way about Barack. He makes my skin crawl and I can’t stand to hear his voice let alone watch in trying to communicate with or without teleprompter. I turn him off when he comes on television. Like you I do not hate him….I do not respect anything about him, I respect the office that he is trying to hold. I pray nightly that his administration and agenda fails and that America will wake up before it is to late.

On Anne Coulter…I think most of what she says is on target as far as the information she provides, but I think she is crude and I don’t like how she belittles those she talks too. Her drama is over the top. Message right on…presentation terrible.

Becki - posted on 05/26/2010

45

8

0

Ann Coulter's main problem is her delivery most times. I agree both parties need a shake up. I love tea : )

ME - posted on 05/23/2010

2,978

18

190

I've been thinking along similar lines lately Kelly...Of course, I'm looking for someone who represents progress, intelligence, fairness, thoughtfulness, REAL personal freedom for individuals, and regulation on the huge corps that are repeatedly bending us over and screwing us hard, as well as funding for science, medicine, arts, education, jobs, and green energy, while cutting spending on our outrageously expensive military and weapons development programs...The left in this country needs to organize and create a movement that is based on real progressive ideals and STOP relying on the establishment dems to get things done...they are not doing it for us anymore, and I'm sick of having no representation in this country! IF the T-party stood for a single platform and wasn't so disorganized, they would become a threat to the country I love, and I cannot imagine staying here if they turn this into a Christian Theocratic fright fest! I totally understand that they don't feel represented, tho...It's equally horrifying for me...just at the other end of the spectrum...OH...and Ann Coulter is, without a doubt, the anti-christ...she makes my skin crawl and my stomach turn...I really don't hate anyone, but she comes close...

Kelly - posted on 05/23/2010

700

16

37

These are the times I love Ann Coulter.......... She is spot on with this one unfortunately. Goes to show until we revamp both parties, we really have no choice when we go to the polls. IMO, this is why the Tea Party is becoming more and more popular.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms