The OAO 2006 US Elections Thread

[NoCalMike 0]

Conservative Pundits crack me up, the way they try to come up with all this bullshit to try and say Bill Clinton wasn't a popular President.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

National Review's Election Predictions

 

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWZkZ...jQyZDMzZDU4M2Y=

 

This is like porno for progressives.

 

"Rick Santorum will win reelection."

[SuperJerk 0]

You have to wonder how much of that was conservative spin to boost morale, and how much was blind ignorance.

 

Didnt Rush Limbaugh once make up some graphs to show how Ronald Reagan didnt really spend all that money?

Rush's line has always been that the Democrats in Congress spent far more money than Reagan wanted. I don't think Mr. I-Dropped-Out-of-College realizes that one House of Congress can't make deficits appear magically out of thin air.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Waitaminute, I thought Ronnie killed communism and defeated the Soviet Union by outspending them. Which is it? I guess whichever's more convenient for making the Dems look like limpwristed terrorist lovers.

[SuperJerk 0]

Rush thinks the defense spending was paid for with Reagan's tax cut, because cutting taxes always increases revenue (Rush also no-sells the 1983 tax hike).

 

There were plenty of National Review quotes funnier than the one bigolsmitty posted. How the hell do these pundits keep their jobs when they're wrong all of the time? My Senate predition of 49-49-2 was dead-on, and my House prediction will come true if the Republicans win 9/10 undecided elections. These so-called professional didn't even come close.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

[SuperJerk 0]

Bush to U.S. enemies: Don't look at vote as lack of will

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush, in his Saturday radio address, said the Democrats' takeover of Congress on Tuesday showed the world the strength of America's democracy.

 

He said enemies of the United States should not confuse the election results as a sign of "a lack of American will."

 

"Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war," Bush said.

 

"Our democratic institutions are a source of strength, and our trust in these institutions has made America the most powerful, prosperous, and stable nation in the world. (Watch Bush talk about elections and his pick for defense secretary -- 3:42)

 

Message comes after al Qaeda taunt

Bush's message comes a day after an Islamist Web site posted an audio recording purported to be from the latest leader of al Qaeda in Iraq addressing the outcome of the midterm elections, calling Bush a "lame duck" and labeling outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a "coward."

 

"The elections will bring changes to Washington," Bush said. "But one thing has not changed: America faces brutal enemies who have attacked us before and want to attack us again. I have a message for these enemies: Do not confuse the workings of American democracy with a lack of American will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice, and we will prevail."

 

Bush said Iraq "is the central front in this war on terror."

 

The president said he will be "listening to ideas from the new leaders of Congress on the best way to support our troops on the front lines -- and win the war on terror."

 

Bush also said Robert Gates, his choice to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, "will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq, and what we need to do to prevail."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/11/bush.radio/index.html

 

Bush has completely shifted back into "I'm a uniter, not a divider" mode.

[snuffbox 0]

Have the Deomcrats surrendered to Al Qaeda yet?

[2GOLD 0]

Have the Deomcrats surrendered to Al Qaeda yet?

 

They are going to do it on Thanksgiving. That way they can at least have a good meal first before discussing the terms during halftime of the football game.

[snuffbox 0]

In all seriousness, I wonder how big a hole the GOP and its toadies could be shooting in their collective foot by accusing a politcal party (and its voters), fellow Americans, of being in cahoots with the terrorists.

[2GOLD 0]

Could be shooting off an entire foot as long as the Dems prove them horribly wrong. I mean, thats the key. If things get worse, then it makes their insane ramblings (and they are insane) remotely considerable to the really stupid Americans out there.

 

Either way, they are really stupid and petty to be constantly using that card.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I think they've learned their lesson, or are at least starting to. I mean, have you heard anyone say "cut and run" since the election?

[2GOLD 0]

I think they've learned their lesson, or are at least starting to. I mean, have you heard anyone say "cut and run" since the election?

 

Both sides usually pretend like they are going to work together for a few weeks then proceed to drift back into their bull. So I'll see what they say around December 1st.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Good point. Well, we'll probably really have to wait 'til the end of January, since the new Congress doesn't start until then.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I think that the amount of stuff that is being rushed through before the new Congress comes in gives you an idea of how much the GOP will be cooperating at first.

[SuperJerk 0]

Votes still being counted in close House races

 

(AP) -- A week and a half after Election Day, the outcome is still in dispute in a handful of close contests for the House as election officials count and recount ballots from absentee voters and those who were challenged at the polls.

 

A North Carolina recount was expected to wrap up Wednesday, and a dispute in Ohio over a new voter identification law will delay results in one race until past Thanksgiving weekend.

 

Elections in Louisiana and Texas will go to runoffs in December.

 

And in Florida, a judge is holding hearings over ballots used by electronic voting machines that recorded a much higher number of undervotes in the close contest to replace GOP Rep. Katherine Harris. The Associated Press called that race for Republican Vern Buchanan.

 

The outcome of these races won't give Republicans a new chance to take back the majority in Congress that Democrats won Election Day, since Democrats have too big a margin of control. And most of the races are in seats already held by the GOP.

 

Right now, Democrats hold 232 seats and Republicans hold 199 seats -- excluding four House seats where the outcome is not called (and not the Louisiana runoff, since it will remain Democrat regardless of who wins).

 

Late Friday, elections officials in New Mexico's 1st District released an unofficial tally showing that Republican Rep. Heather Wilson won her race against Democrat Patricia Madrid by a margin of 879 votes out of more than 210,000 cast.

 

Still to be called are:

 

-- North Carolina, 8th District: Rep. Robin Hayes, a Republican, led Democrat Larry Kissell by 339 votes after results were certified by county election boards Friday night. Kissell asked for a recount, which officials said would begin next week and conclude by Wednesday.

 

-- Ohio, 2nd District: Rep. Jean Schmidt, a Republican who called decorated Vietnam veteran Rep. John Murtha a coward, was ahead of Democrat Victoria Wulsin by about 2,800 votes. Workers were to begin counting as many as 10,000 provisional and absentee ballots next week.

 

-- Ohio, 15th District: Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the House Republican leadership, leads Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy by 3,536 votes. Thousands of provisional ballots need to be recounted, but results won't be announced until November 27 because of a dispute over a new voter identification law.

 

In addition, runoffs will pick the officeholder in Louisiana, where Democratic Rep. William Jefferson, the subject of an FBI bribery investigation, will face fellow Democrat Karen Carter in a December 9 runoff; and in Texas, where GOP Rep. Henry Bonilla will face Democratic former Rep. Ciro Rodriguez in a yet-unscheduled runoff to happen no sooner than December 12.

 

In North Carolina, attorneys for Hayes -- a four-term congressman who found himself in a much closer race than expected with Kissell, a schoolteacher -- had petitioned to have most provisional ballots thrown out because of missing signatures, Social Security numbers or other mistakes.

 

Provisional ballots are filled out by voters whose names do not show up on precinct rolls on Election Day, and Democrats are counting on those votes to erase Hayes' margin.

 

In the Florida contest to replace Harris, the state has yet to certify Buchanan was the winner, with unofficial votes showing him ahead of Democrat Christine Jennings by less than 400 votes after a manual recount.

 

A judge is holding hearings in Sarasota County, where touch-screen voting machines recorded that 13 percent of voters did not choose either Buchanan or Jennings, despite casting ballots in other races on the ballot. That rate was much higher than other counties in the district.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/18/unr...s.ap/index.html

[Dr. Zaius 0]

Ann Coulter reacts in her typical intellectually honest way...

 

HISTORIC VICTORY FOR DIEBOLD!

by Ann Coulter

November 8, 2006

 

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.

 

http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/printe...cgi?article=156

 

Notice she had to COMBINE the 1994 and 1998 election gains for Republicans to find a way to make Clinton look bad, because the Democrats actually GAINED seats in Clinton's 6th year. She RIGGED THE NUMBERS so she could cite an example that actually disproves her entire point!

 

HOW FUCKING DISHONEST CAN ONE PERSON BE?????

 

Dumb bitch.

 

Measuring change is a pretty ridicules way to gage popularity, since there's no mention of how many seats each president began and ended with, only the number that changed hands. Bush's party has 199 House seats after the 2006 election (to date). Clinton's party had 211 House seats after the 1998 election. So the Iraq War is more popular than Clinton?????

[Art Sandusky 0]

There are a lot of people talking about it. Look at the groups that have been holding signs, all yelling about Iraq! Kids just can't get enough of that Mideast flavor.

[devo 0]

-- Ohio, 15th District: Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the House Republican leadership, leads Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy by 3,536 votes. Thousands of provisional ballots need to be recounted, but results won't be announced until November 27 because of a dispute over a new voter identification law.

 

This race is only as close as it is because of Kilroy's poor campaigning skills and her disastrous reign as head of the Columbus School Board. I still think the provisional ballots will put her over the top, but the margin's going to be razor-thin.

[SuperJerk 0]

This article from "The New Republic" hits the nail on the head...

 

The GOP's unshakable explanation for electoral defeat.

Rigor Mortis

by Jonathan Chait

Only at TNR Online

Post date: 11.20.06

When Democrats lose elections, they inevitably hold great orgies of ideological recriminations--hawks versus doves, fiscal conservatives versus populists, and so on. After the losses of the 1980s, Democrats cast aside their traditional free-spending ways and embraced deficit reduction. After 2000, 2002, and 2004, they've embraced guns and God.

 

Republicans, on the other hand, pretty much never change. They're like a Terminator machine (and unlike the governor who played the Terminator and who has dramatically recast his ideology). Crush them in a machine press, or freeze them and blow them into tiny pieces, and they'll just regroup and keep lurching forward, cutting taxes for the rich and jacking up defense spending.

 

Ever wonder why that is? It's because conservatives have an apparatus in place to interpret every election. If Republicans win, it's because they were conservative. If they lose, it's because they weren't. No matter what the facts may be, they will always conclude that the answer is to run further to the right.

 

No sooner had this year's election ended than nearly every conservative emerged to declare that Republicans had been defeated for betraying the One True Faith. Republicans, George Will wrote, "were punished not for pursuing but for forgetting conservatism." John McCain, who a few years ago was castigating his fellow Republicans for veering too far right, was now accusing them of the opposite, saying they "lost their way" by supporting big government.

 

Well, let's go to the exit polls. If Republicans lost because they abandoned conservatism, you'd see a big drop-off among conservative or Republican voters. Didn't happen. In 2004, 93 percent of self-identified Republicans voted for President Bush. This year, 91 percent voted for their GOP House candidate. The percentage of voters who identified themselves as conservatives barely budged, falling by just two points, from 34 percent to 32 percent, according to exit polls.

 

All the GOP losses occurred in the center. In 2004, Bush lost among independents by just a single point. In 2006, independents voted Democratic by a massive 19-point margin.

 

When conservatives try to get more specific about why voters turned against them, their explanations make even less sense. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a leader among conservatives in the House, suggested that his party apologize to voters like this: "We've overspent, badly, and it was offensive to you as well as our conservative principles."

 

But exactly how have Republicans overspent?

 

The largest spending increases under Bush, by far, have come in defense and homeland security, which conservatives support. The next biggest item is the Medicare bill. Horribly designed though it was, you can't say it was unpopular. Poll results indicate that about 90 percent of the public support adding prescription drug coverage to Medicare.

 

McCain blamed the GOP loss on "the massive programs such as Medicare prescription drug program ... our failure to address their priorities as opposed to our own, and there was obviously a reaction to it." But the Medicare bill was the public's priority.

 

If Republicans really want to recommit to smaller government, they can run on a simple platform of rolling back the Bush spending hikes. Go ahead, Republicans, I dare you: Promise to slash the Pentagon, eliminate homeland security, and take away everybody's Medicare drug coverage.

 

Of course, they won't really do that. What they'll do is promise unspecified spending cuts that they'll never carry out, along with lots of specified tax cuts that they will carry out. Conservatives are in a perpetual vice, squeezed between their vision for the country and the voters' vision for the country. They'll never reduce government to the size they'd like, but they're too fanatical to admit that they can't.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w061120&s=chait112006

[SuperJerk 0]

I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this...

 

Senator-elect, Bush have unfriendly chat on Iraq

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- Democratic Sen.-elect Jim Webb avoided the receiving line during a recent White House reception for new members of Congress and had a chilly exchange with President Bush over the Iraq war and his Marine son.

 

"How's your boy?" Webb, in an interview Wednesday, recalled Bush asking during the reception two weeks ago.

 

"I told him I'd like to get them out of Iraq," Webb said. (Watch how Webb describes the exchange)

 

"That's not what I asked. How's your boy?" the president replied, according to Webb.

 

At that point, Webb said, Bush got a response similar to what reporters and others who had asked Webb about Lance Cpl. Jimmy Webb, 24, have received since the young man left for Iraq around Labor Day: "I told him that was between my boy and me."

 

Webb, a leading critic of the Iraq war, said that he had avoided the receiving line and photo op with Bush, but that the president found him.

 

The White House had no comment on the reception. But it did not dispute an account of the exchange in Wednesday's Washington Post.

 

Webb, a Marine veteran of the Vietnam War and Navy secretary under President Reagan, defeated Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen by 9,329 votes out of 2.37 million cast, giving the Democrats control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1994.

 

Webb left the GOP, in part over the Iraq war. He warned against the invasion, and criticized Bush over Iraq during the Senate campaign.

 

He said he meant no disrespect to the presidency during the reception, but "I've always made a distinction about not speaking personally about my son."

 

In interviews during the campaign, Webb said it was wrong to elevate the role of one Marine over others. Webb also expressed concern that a high profile could subject a Marine to greater peril.

 

He wore his son's buff-colored desert boots throughout the campaign, but refused to speak extensively about his son's service or allow it to be used in campaign ads.

There's a more sorid version of the story floating about teh internets where Webb later said he'd wanted to slug Bush.

 

Jim Webb looks a little like Chris Benoit in that picture.

 

 

In a side note, George Will wrote a pretty sad column attacking Webb over this incident, but for some reason spent the bulk of the article attacking Webb because of his poor semantics. And, ironically, uses a synonym for "peasant" to attack someone he is essentially accusing of class warfare.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6112901267.html

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Someone actually did put a link to that story somewhere around here...but yeah, it's interesting. Glad to see people aren't kow-towing to Bush when he doesn't deserve it.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I like this Webb guy already.

[snuffbox 0]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...2801582_pf.html

 

Jim Webb brings some more spine to the Senate.

 

I mentioned it several days ago. Finally, some more of the Barry Goldwater vibe returns to DC.

[Vampiro69 0]

Someone actually did put a link to that story somewhere around here...but yeah, it's interesting. Glad to see people aren't kow-towing to Bush when he doesn't deserve it.

 

In this situation I think that Webb overreacted. Bush knew that Webb had a son in Iraq, and was curious as to how he was doing. Webb gets over defensive in his response. Bush simply said that was not what he asked because he didn't want to get into that subject at the time. He just asked Webb how his boy was doing.

 

To me Webb was the one that overreacted. Bush was trying to simply start a conversation with a newly elected senator and Webb decided to make a big deal out of the simpe question.

[SuperJerk 0]

Webb said, "That's between me and my boy."

 

LET'S FUCKING EXPEL HIM FROM CONGRESS RIGHT NOW!!!!!

 

I don't think either man was being really rude. Bush was trying to make nice (albeit to the point that he was almost being pushy), and Webb didn't want to talk about his son. The only person I can't honestly say was being a total dick about it was George Will and some other media operative that want to spin this into a big deal, who weren't even there. I'm not sure who started the version of the story that Webb said he wanted to "slug" Bush.

[Guest Felonies!]

It seems like Bush was just trying to make idle chit-chat with Webb, which Webb kind of bungled, which Bush then really bungled. For some reason, when I get to "That's not what I asked. How's your boy?" it sounds like Senator Geary from The Godfather Part II, which is strange.

 

I don't see what would be so wrong or compromising about Webb just giving him a straight answer instead of "DON'T ASK ME ABOUT MUH BOY!" and whipping up this stupid non-issue.

[snuffbox 0]

Many people with family in Iraq don't feel very 'warm' about the military credentials of Bush/Cheney. The often total lack of understanding from people like them can really rub some the wrong way.

[Guest Felonies!]

This may be true, but was it really worth it? I mean, honesty is a valued quality in politicians too, but I'd hope this guy has enough respect for the opposition that he can actually do more than just fold his arms and scowl. He could've just said "doing well, thanks for asking," or something like that, and I don't think that would've made him some sort of pushover or liar or anything bad. It's just necessary bullshitting.

[snuffbox 0]

I prefer the Goldwater-esque no-bullshit style. It leads to less mindless decisions on big issues like War.