Powered by TypePad

« Scoring Mike Isikoff | Main | Defending Judy Miller »

October 13, 2005



2006 is simple-it's just like any other congressional election. If you vote for an incumbent-you're an idiot.


Maybe the party should follow the AP lead and write two different platforms.;)

Geek, Esq.

On Iraq, they'll most likely follow Wes Clark's lead and call for benchmarks, and not timelines, for withdrawal.

Fiscal responsibility is also a Dem issue. We walked the walk in 1992-94. It wasn't popular then, but it will be now.


Hey Al, I havint rote for a wile. I hope you wernt lissenin the other nite. Ida had the Win if those peepel off the bench hadint interfeared. And lassed time those Clevlan boys, they got me good. Wen I see how dum some of the bosses are hear and ever whare, I jus wanna run for congriss. So yak me up a litul arown home. Promis em guud times al arown. You know me, Al.


Reid's a Patsy, Boxer's a Busher, Dean's demonic, Kerry ain't playin' cricket, Edward's been outsourced, Kucinich's a closet neo-con, Hillary's hilarious, you could do worse than Gephart.


The dems are obsessed with 94. Their feature attack is going to be how corrupt a guy who has been stripped of his leadership role, by his own parties rules, and an out-going majority leader are. They are missing a major ingredient.

94 was all about big government v. small government, period. 92 featured an independent wanting smaller government, getting 19% of the vote. An encumbent losing for raising taxes. The Clintons come out zealously for a National Health Care Plan, and Gingrich has the perfect enemy. The GOP wasn't afraid to go for smaller government then, but seem to have lost their way.

It was never the scandal in the house that made it happen, the mood at the time was small government.

If Pelosi/Reid/Dean think that they are going to emulate 94, they're going to have to come up with a plan-something that would appeal to moderates. Never going to happen.

If you want to get elected, you need to be small government and appearing as part of a movement, will augment your crediblity, exponentially.

GOP in 2006? +2-3 Senate, +5 reps.



1. Miers will get confirmed.

2. Miers will show herself to be in the O'Connor mold, but even more liberal.

3. Conservatives will go absolutely f-ing nuts over the 30 years struggle to replace the Supreme Court with ... itself as of 2 years ago, but younger.

Rehnquist -> Roberts
O'Connor -> Miers

4. Most, but not all, conservatives will stay home in 2006.

5. GOP gets an ass spanking of Biblical proportions.

6. Frist retires.

7. Tom DeLay announces his run for the Presidency in 2007. Which re-energises the conservative base.

8. President Tom DeLay is sworn in as the 44th President of these United States of America.


Or not. *shrug* It would be funny as hell to watch IMHO. Frankly I think 1-5 are possible, even probable. After that I start speculating.



I doubt it Ed.

As bad as the Pubs are at times the Dems seem to be simply unable to take a pro-American strong on national defense posture. Until they can look and act like they love this country and have a serious set of principles - and until they can aviod doing stupid things like standing around with Whoopi talking about how she and Michael Moore represent the true heart of America - they are destined to continue to wander in the wasteland.

And we'll be forced to continue to live in a one party state where the executive branch is so filled with ennui that we get SCOTUS nominees like Miers.


The first GOP ad for 2006?



When the Republicans in congress sought to expand our refinery capacity, the democrats all voted no.

"Eager to beat the Republicans they believe are wounded by Mr. DeLay's indictment, Democrats did some persuading of their own, getting three of their lawmakers backing the bill - Gene Green and Henry Cuellar of Texas and Alan B. Mollohan of West Virginia - to oppose it, forcing Republicans to pass it by themselves."

Are democrats prepared to answer our energy needs, now, and for the future?

Vote 'NO' on democrats.

(The debate for 2006, will easily be framed around energy policy, if oil remains high. Dems will be hard pressed to point to one bill they voted for to address the problem, and look ill-prepared to deal with it. Oil prices ARE a negative for Bush, but the dems will look even worse without a plan, other than voting 'no'.) God bless Pelosi.


I forgot to add the opening of the commercial could have a family driving up to a gas station, and the price is 14 dollars a gallon.

Dems will try and tie the GOP to oil money, but the bottom line will be:

What's your plan? You don't want to produce domestic oil by drilling in ANWR, you don't want refineries built(there hasn't been one built in 30 years), and you don't have an answer for our needs.

Yep...oil prices are killing Bush's numbers, but how is that going to help the dems?

Let the slaughter begin.


The Republican criminals have brought this country right to the edge of a very dangerous cliff.

When the Democratic morons take over, this country will take a bold step forward.

Open up your heart and let the hate in.

Gary Maxwell

When the Democratic morons take over, this country will take a bold step forward.

That is going to be a very long wait for you Jerkweed.

At least we agree on something. The words Democratic and moron belong together.

Thanks for helping us heal the rift BTW. It helps to see who the real enemy is.


I can't believe the Dems are back into the same blind alley as in 2004; the country is desperate to fire Bush and will hire anyone else who is warm. We don't need no stinking ideas!

It will work about as well in 2006 as it did in 2004.


There are plenty of Democrats who are either now ex-Democrats or at least independent who voted for Gore in 2000 but Bush in 2004.

Not because of gay marriage, the supreme court, or stem cell research, but because of national security.

May any Republicans who sit out 2006 because of Miers have a pox put upon them. These Republicans cry 'victim' and that they sacrificed for Bush.

Well, I've got news for you. The formerly Democratic voters who supported Bush sacrificed even more. Like losing family and friends.

So lay off and quit your stupid threats and whining.


Anybody but whoever.


I'm a Democrat and I must admit that I am quite pessimistic about the midterm elections. Yes, The Republicans have had a bad few months- but we're still thirteen months away from voting. A lot can happen between now and then, so I suspect we'll be having an entirely different conversation by this time next year.

That being said, I've been quite disappointed in both Pelosi and Reid, and I just don't think they'll get their act together in time.

Those of you writing about "one party state" are way off base. Remember, Democratic Senatorial candidates received more votes than Republican ones in 06. The 04 election was not a landslide. Kerry got quite a few votes for being a flawed candidate running against a war-time President. The Democrats are the minority party, sure, but it surely isn't etched in stone.

Democrats need to ask themselves- what themes unify our party? What are our principles? What are our solutions for Iraq? Someone will eventually figure these out. Probably not Reid and Pelosi, though.

Die-hard Republicans needen't worry much about 06, I suspect.


And your suggestions for a unifying theme for the Donks in ought-six would be what, Matt? As we've all heard, "If the people lead, then the leaders will follow." What's your view of the electroial "killer ap" that will swing the moderates to the Democrats without alienating their hard-left fundraising base?


May God bless the two or more party system.

That said I am worried. History is replete(with cliches) of movements that have perished after 'rescue' by extremists.


Plame is the only person who fits the requirements for indictments under the Intelligence (informant) Identities Protection Act. She forced herself on Powell and other US government leaders (memos)because the operation 'yellowcake' was flawed and she knew this. After all this failed, she idetitifed herself at 'Vanity Fair' to get some results. No matter how hard they try, you'll really just see Plame and 'Vainty Fair' and the results expected.



@ kim

1. "History is replete(with cliches) of movements that have perished after 'rescue' by extremists."

Really? Name them.

2. "extremists"?

Conservatives are extremists now? Would you like to explain why?



"And your suggestions for a unifying theme for the Donks in ought-six would be what, Matt?"

Well I'm not Matt and I'm not thinking of 2006, but rather 2008.

I think gov Bill Richardson has a good shot at the White House. He's centrist, not Hillary and could push dealing with illegal immigration. He's got a hispanic background, plenty of "face" time on tv interviews and isn't a part of any loony group.

He's a govenor, has a history as a successful legislator in Congress and as an executive while as Gov. As a Democrat and as a hispanic, Richardson could really be effective in dealing with the issue of illegal immigration and in immigration reform.

If Richardson promoted fiscal sanity, tax cuts, elimination of the Medicare Prescription drug plan and dealing with illegal immigration and the incipient ghettoization of the predominantly hispanic ares of America, he'd get well over 50% of the conservative vote and money.

Heck he might get 75% considering the massive distrust and unhappiness conservatives have with the GOP.

Would the Democrats win the House or Senate? No idea. But they could win the White House, and go from there.


Naw, Ed, the ones from history that you can think of will be more convincing to you.


Actually, the shirt says "I support two teams - the Red Sox, and whoever beats the Yankees."

I have one, proudly folded in my drawer. Of course, this year that put me in the awkward position of rooting for the Angels. I don't like rooting for the Angels.


Well, who's going to be first?

Seven Machos

I'll be first. Syl. My view of this strange case is that any case for prosecuting anyone keeps getting weaker and weaker. Most of the time spent has been battling the press over non-existent issues related to freedom of the press (e.g., being a journalist does not exempt you from subpoenas). Rather than accept this, the goofy left keeps upping the ante. Now, I am told to expect over 20 indictments, including one of a sitting vice president.

Every piece of news seems to show the story ebbing lower and lower, which only causes the left to yell more hysterically and apoplectically about TREASON!!! and "burning a patriot" and more and more indictments.

People: this is the exact OPPOSITE of Watergate. Accept it.

Oh, and Plame was not covert. ;]

Seven Machos

Okay, Jonny Intellectual:

1. If there is a *paragraph about secret CIA employee Valerie Plame* marked SECRET, THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE PARAGRAPH? ISN'T IT A CRIME TO PASS ALONG SECRET INFORMATION?

2. Assume you are right, that Plame is covert: that secret document will expire and become public. When? Maybe five, ten years tops. Would Valerie Plame still have been "NOC" after that? What about documents mentioning her from, say, 1995, that have expired and become public? How can she still be secret?



I accept that Valery was officially NOC. The CIA was also in the process of moving her off NOC.

I do not accept that Rove or Libby or Fleischer or whomever knew she was undercover.

(In fact, I don't even think Novak knew that.)

And I firmly believe Wilson is prevaricator of the first order. And a rank partisan.

Therefore I do not believe, and nobody has yet to show me any proof, that Plame was 'outed in revenge'.

Seven Machos

Syl -- I don't disagree with you that perhaps the CIA still had this woman as under non-official cover. But here we get into a situation of procedure vs. substance. This is not the time or forum for it, but I think many people of all political stripes including a huge multitude on the left get caught up in procedural issues and ignore substance.

If because of a bunch of red tape nobody bothered to take Plame off some list, well, that doesn't matter. Substantively, factually, in the world, she was no more undercover than Jonny Intellectual. Any competent court would look to the facts on the ground, and agree.


"caught up in procedural issues and ignore substance"


I've always been a bit disappointed that Roger L Simon wasn't interested in this whole thing. I mean what a story a mystery writer could make out of it!

There are some absurd but interesting possibilities. What if it turns out Wilson works for the CIA, and his cover is that he works for State? Some plot could be made from that.

Or the plot concerning the forged documents.

Or a plot concerning the shipment of uranium to Iraq through two other countries, one of which still has it.

And everybody involved in OFF! There's still stuff we learning about that!

Val and Joe's ties to France!

Libby's secret life as a cowboy!



I don't think Iraq will be a big an issue as some think for Republicans in 2006, but out of control spending will. A Highway bill that is highway robbery, and open wallet Katrina relief that not only spends before needs are known but sets dangerous precidents for future disasters.

Republicans stand a good chance of loosing Senate and House seats in 2006, and I say good riddance. The Democrats over 40 years of control had proved no better, but it seems to me we are better off with the Republicans out of power where they were at least holding the Democrats feet to the fire in fiscal responsibility. Having them in power they suddenly become just as addicted to, and join Democrats in unrestrained spending.


What an irony. Vote Democratic to keep from enslaving your grandchildren.

penis enlargement

Three phrases should be among the most common in our daily usage. They are: Thank you, I am grateful and I appreciate.

The comments to this entry are closed.