Monday, April 11, 2005
Answering Mr. Fantasy Man
how true. it is fortunate for us democrats that the republicans have taken their "moral stance", rolled it up, and smoked it. even figures like dobson are starting to get concerned. have you read what newt geignrich is saying? he's pretty embarrased about the whole re-writing the ethics rules to accomodate delay's lifestyle thing. not to mention the lack of WMD, the economy, social security, international relations, and education...you won't see a republican house, senate, and president for another 100 years. and it's all their own doing. that's the beauty of it...the democrats (as you have pointed out)couldn't find their ass with both hands and a flashlight, but they'll still win the next one after these embarrasments.Can someone please explain (Ceci, perhaps, if he sees this) which of the "issues" he lists that weren't around before the last election? It seemed all John Kerry did was hector us about "the worst economy since Herbert Hoover" and how "Bush's arrogance in leading the unilateral war in Iraq has alienated us from our allies." MoveOn.org reminded us in commercial after commercial how "Bush Lied, People Died" (a WMD reference). If those issues didn't matter last November, why will they next year?
Here's another great Michael Barone analysis of "The Hardest Numbers." Sorry, Ceci, but I trust that man's analysis of numbers and facts over yours of emotion and wishful thinking. Here's a key quote from Barone's piece, I'll leave it up to everyone to read the whole thing for more detail:
The implications? In the long run, Republicans are well positioned to increase their numbers in both the Senate and the House. Some Democrats hold seats because of personal popularity or moderate voting records. But when they retire, Republicans may well succeed them. In the short run, very few Republicans run great political risks by supporting Bush. Significantly more Democrats run great political risks by opposing him. Obstruction doesn't work well for Democrats in Bush seats: Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. And at the moment, on Social Security, as Democrats Stan Greenberg and James Carville wrote last month, "Voters are looking for reform, change and new ideas, but Democrats seem stuck in concrete."
I agree with Michael Barone, the next election, in some ways, is eons away. A lot can happen between now and November 2006. But the Democrats, currently lacking any message beyond their opposition to Bush's proposals, and with far more seats at risk in red-states as compared to Republican seats at risk in blue states, have their work cut out for them. I'm not saying the Republicans will have an easy time of it, but predicting sweeping Democrat victories is simply not realistic.
To make a statement that we won't see "another Republican House, Senate, or President for another 100 years" is nothing more than the most foolish of left-wing fantasies. If there's anyone alive today still voting on issues that are 100 years old, then I might be inclined to agree with Ceci. And if I thought I'd be around in 100 years to collect on the debt, then I'd wager house mortgages that his prediction won't come true.
UPDATE: 4/11/2005 9:36pm: Here's another excerpt from Byron York's Book, "The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy."
i must admit that my degree is in biology and chemistry, so my spelling and grammar may leave something to be desired.
i must also admit that a lot of my comments are wishful thinking. i think that most political speculation, on both sides, involves a lot of wishful thinking...that's what makes it so much fun.
the biggest point i'm trying to make here, aside from my wishful thinking, is not that what i'm saying is a suprise to you, or that it wasn't known before the election, but that it doesn't bother you. you see, what i'm saying is that your beloved GOP can only run on morals for so long before the american people will expect moral action. i am simply stunned that these issues don't bother the republicans, and that they don't think they will have any impact on the next election. c'est la vie.
On 4/10/2005 at 7:06am you said (and I quote): "it is fortunate for us democrats that the republicans have taken..."
On 4/12/2005 at 11:25am you said (and I quote): "i don't think you understand the fact that i am not a democrat."
I'm starting to wonder just who it is exactly that can't find their flashlight....
i apologize for my previous statement aligining myself with a party of which i am not a member...
now, can we talk about the issue at hand. does it bother you that the republicans say one thing and do another?
Are you asking me if I'm bothered by the "H" word--hypocrite? Or are you saying that I should be bothered by some people like Newt Gingrich and James Dobson (neither of who hold political office, by the way) making statements (which you never specified what they said exactly) that other people (Tom DeLay?) don't adhere to (supposedly)?
Be specific: what are you asserting that the Republicans have said versus that which they've done? I'm not trying to dodge an honest debate, I just think you've framed it like the old "Do you still beat your wife?" question, where any answer gets you into trouble.
I will say this: I am definitely bothered by the Democrats' consistent pattern or strategy of tearing down opponents that cannot be beat at the ballot box. This fits hand in hand with judicial activism, by the way, where unelected judges overturn laws (or invent their own), thereby ignoring the electorate on their way to a liberal utopia. But I guess that's what you have to do if you're completely bankrupt when it comes to new ideas for improving the country, or at the very least, staying in power.