November 23, 2005
Many of us who are Conservatives and/or Republicans and live in "Blue States" will be going to visit relatives tomorrow. And many of us will come into contact with relatives who are Liberals and/or Democrats openly hostile to President Bush, the war or the GOP in general.
November 18, 2005
The GOP leadership decided to act little more than 24 hours after Rep. Jack Murtha, a hawkish Democrat with close ties to the military, said the time had come to pull out the troops. By forcing the issue to a vote, Republicans placed many Democrats in a politically unappealing position - whether to side with Murtha and expose themselves to attacks from the White House and congressional Republicans, or whether to oppose him and risk angering the voters that polls show want an end to the conflict.Of course, what the A/P story doesn't tell you is that the "voters" that they would anger are the moonbat Lefties. Now let's get these Dems on the record! Ha!
From the Hotline: GOP Tries To Call Murtha's Bluff
UPDATE: Drudge is reporting that the vote is scheduled for tonight between 5:45 and 7:45pm.
November 09, 2005
Now Virginia. A lot of spin will be made this morning about how this bodes badly for the GOP in 2006. I'm not buying it. This was basically Gov. Mark Warner's reelection by proxy. Kaine is his Lt. Gov. and Warner's approval ratings are in the 70's. From what I understand, Kilgore ran a negative campaign that probably turned off a lot of independents (both parties can learn a valuable lesson here).
1) After last night, the Democrats have a net increase in Governorships in the amount of...zero.
2) A Democrat Governor in a "Red" state doesn't mean a whole heckuva lot. Connecticut has a Republican Governor, Jodi Rell. She is currently finishing out the term of John Rowland who resigned because he was both corrupt and stupid. Despite the fact the CT is as "Blue" a state as your granny's wig (stole that one from Pam Meister), she is favored to be elected in her own right in 2006).
3) Steve the Llamabutcher points out an interesting trend in Virginia:
Nationally, it just really doesn't mean that much: since 1989, the Virginians have elected a governor of the opposite party of the president elected the year before. 1988-Bush (R) 41, 1989-Wilder (D); 1992 Clinton (D), 1993-Allen (R); 1996 Clinton (D), 1997 Gilmore (R); 2000 Bush (R) 43, 2001 Warner (D); 2004 Bush (R), 2005 apparently Kaine (D).Let the Dems crow today, they need a little sunshine. They'll go back to being bitter and angry by the end of the week. Can't wait for the money quotes from Howard Dean.
One other thing, though. This result is a major boost for Mark Warner in his expected bid for the Presidency in 2008. Hillary was hoping to avoid a nasty primary battle, but with Warner hitting her on the right, she'll need to rally the moonbats, which should make for a lot of fist-pounding and high-pitched shrieking in here speeches. Good enough for archiving and playing back during the general election.
John Podhoretz in the NY Post puts Virginia in perspective:
Now, it's true that George W. Bush won Virginia by 8 percentage points in 2004, while Republican candidate Jerry Kilgore appears to have lost by 5 points. But if you think Kilgore's loss reflects Bush's weakness and a nightmare for the GOP in 2006, consider this:Something to chew on.
Bush won Virginia by eight points in 2000, too Â— and the following year Democrat Mark Warner became governor with a 5-point margin of victory. The next year, in 2002, Republicans won a stunning midterm victory, taking four Senate seats and expanding their majority in the House of Representatives.
Those results suggest that the outcome of the Virginia governor's race will have nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in November 2006.
November 08, 2005
But chances are in your town or city there are municipal elections. Turnout for these races is always low. It's ironic that the people who never vote, complain that they don't feel like their vote makes a difference and most of the people who do vote, only cast their ballots in elections where they actually have the least amount of influence.
You vote counts, even if you are in the political minority where you live. It is a right that brave men and women are fighting for every day. It is also a responsibility. And to take the right and responsibility lightly or to ignore it altogether is an insult to the armed forces past and present who gave all to defend it. And keep in mind the Iraqi citizens who risked their very lives to cast their vote (many for the very first time) a couple of weeks ago.
I'm not one to lecture, so I'll back off the pedantic tone. But consider how much time it takes to stop and gas up your car before work, run over to Wal-Mart on your lunch hour to pick up diapers or go out of your way to the grocery store on you way home because you're running low on milk or orange juice. That's about how much time it takes to vote. A lot of times it takes less time than those tedious errands.
Don't you think casting a vote is worthy of the same amount of your time that it would take you to stop by the post office to mail some bills that have to go out that day?
Now stop being a whiny, bitching pussy and go do it. ;-)
November 02, 2005
Prior to 2000, your typical Presidential election was decided by no later than 11pm EST on election day. In fact, if you looked at the right polls you could pretty much put money down on who was going to win. Guessing the popular vote margin and the number of Electoral Votes was the real challenge.
But in 2000, all that went out the window.
(More below the fold...) more...
115 queries taking 0.0568 seconds, 240 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.