Comments on: 1994 all over again? Wasn’t it 1980 all over again in 2004?

By: wedding speeches

wedding speeches — Thu, 18 May 2006 10:24:04 +0000

A relevant and productive website.

By: Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest)

Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest) — Sun, 14 May 2006 22:05:13 +0000

Well said, Karen — and I once interned for Newt!

By: rightwingprof

rightwingprof — Sun, 14 May 2006 18:38:56 +0000

Newt is unelectable, but so is Hillary.

By: Karen

Karen — Thu, 11 May 2006 11:52:40 +0000

I am a diehard republican, one of the 31%. But I would not vote for Newt Gingrich. You can’t spend a decade talking about low morals, Bill Clinton and dignity in the White House, and support a thing like Newt who abandoned two wives with serious illnesses and cheated with a staffer. The Female vote will not go that way. The news media is rehabilitating Newt so he will be the republicans choice and Hillary wins in a landslide. Stop the madness, Newt is not our future. Remember he resigned in disgrace in 1998.

By: Stephen M. St. Onge

Stephen M. St. Onge — Thu, 11 May 2006 06:01:34 +0000

Two more similarities between 1994 and today: before the election, the Democrats were sure they’d win. And Michael Barone saw them losing both times.

By: RMS

RMS — Thu, 11 May 2006 03:50:38 +0000

I find it interesting that the Dems have to use Republican victories as virtual proof that they will be taking over in November. Doesn’t that seem to be a bit self-defeating?

By: ic

ic — Thu, 11 May 2006 00:19:46 +0000

“the press will be beating the drums for the Dems until the cold light of dawn that day, skewing every poll, slanting every report” Only if our election were determined by exit polls, then Kerry would be in the White House.

By: California Conservative

California Conservative — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:50:16 +0000

Some of us are still partying like it’s 19-99…

The real question is: Will Newt Gingrich run for President?

By: Ian S

Ian S — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:27:07 +0000

#14: Kyl should be vulnerable as a Rubber Stamp Republican but I doubt Pederson can beat him. Pederson doesn’t even seem to be running as a Democrat – his ads imply he’s an independent and there’s little evidence of his Dem roots on his homepage and none on his signs.

By: Ian S

Ian S — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:19:04 +0000

#13: You think Kyl is a RINO??? Wow!

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Wed, 10 May 2006 23:13:12 +0000

Michael A in #13, I heard that Kyl leads in polls by comfortable margins.

By: Ian S

Ian S — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:27:59 +0000

#11: Goodness. Such anger! Talk about unhinged! BTW, you forgot Alphonso Jackson in your list.

By: Michael Andreyakovich

Michael Andreyakovich — Wed, 10 May 2006 22:27:59 +0000

The guy who talked about RINOs losing seats in Congress is on the money. I suggest you watch for it to happen, big time, out here in Arizona. Jim Pederson (d) and Jon Kyl (r) are going to have a slugfest over Kyl’s seat…

Meanwhile, I can only hope that we finally replace John McFuckinCain, who has REALLY begun to grate on my nerves the past year or so.

By: Michigan-Matt

Michigan-Matt — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:53:38 +0000

Sen Harry Reid is a racist and a bigot –just look at the number of key staffers in his DC and Reno offices –the number zero comes to mind.

Bush is a veritable progressive by the count of Powell, Rice, Gonzales, Martinez, Minetta, etc.

By: Ian S

Ian S — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:26:54 +0000

#8 “the leadership of both are so dominated by the extreme sides of each”

Just so I have a point of reference, would you confirm that you believe Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to be “extreme.”

By: Calarato

Calarato — Wed, 10 May 2006 21:14:32 +0000

#7 – The MSM haven’t caught on how self-defeating their constant drumbeat against Bush is.

Between elections, MSM negativity is the only news input that most people have. The polls – in addition to frequent over-sampling of Democrats – reflect that exclusive input.

Once the election approaches and the Republicans can FINALLY get their side of the story out – e.g., just how good the economy is, how bad Kerry is on defense, how Iraq really was necessary and is progressing, etc. – people go “Whoa! They have a point. I can’t believe I almost bought all that other media crap.” And lo and behold, the Republicans get a peak of support around, oh, Election Day.

If the media permitted real debate all along and were less negative, then Bush / Republicans would be a little higher in the polls all along – but, on the other hand, would NOT get wonderful “peaking” effects in the final weeks of a campaign – since people would be used to their arguments.

To Democrats, this “peaking” effect I’m describing (that happened in 2002 and 2004, and will probably happen somewhat in 2006) is because the evil Darth Rove plays dirty tricks and writes hypnotic ads. Bosh. It happens because, in the final weeks of a campaign, many people are hearing the Republican side of the story for the first time.

By: Patrick (Gryph)

Patrick (Gryph) — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:47:48 +0000

There does not seem to be very much incentive for moderates of either Party to run when the leadership of both are so dominated by the extreme sides of each.

By: submandave

submandave — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:31:58 +0000

moptop hits on my biggest thing about the media cheerleading for the Democrats. The main reason I’ve never worried about Bush’s “historic low” poll ratings is that they have consistently erred on the side of the Democrats time after time. Every election cycle they predict great wins for their chosen candidates and usually get it wrong. I have no more confidence in them than I do in any other PR organization, and that is the sad truth.

By: GayPatriotWest

GayPatriotWest — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:24:13 +0000

Bjbarron, you nailed it.

By: Rob Mandel

Rob Mandel — Wed, 10 May 2006 20:09:02 +0000

I wrote about this some time ago (link somewhere, arghh!!) but through redistricting there’s little hope for dems. most seats are safe. also, the democrats have no agenda other than “get Bush” (come to think of it, um, nevermind…). the Republicans had the Contract. Democrats STILL stand for tax increases, spending increases, and weak on defense. they have a better shot oddly enough in ’08 at the white house than in ’06 and congress. As much as I am furious at the republicans, the dems offer only a worse alternative. until the dems act responsibly, or prove they can, they won’t govern. revenge, and that’s all they’re about right now, is not platform.