Gay Patriot Header Image

GOP’s Failure to Hold True to Conservative Principles Cost Party Its Majorities

As I consider the election returns, I’m beginning to wonder if certain things which we Republicans saw to be beneficial to our prospects turning out to be detrimental. Many thought that John Kerry’s gaffe would remind voters of the contempt some on the Left feel for the military. In the end, I don’t think it really helped our candidates.

Indeed, it may even have hurt Republicans who tired to make an issue of it as it may have caused wavering voters to wonder why a candidate in 2006 would focus on a silly statement by the defeated presidential candidate from the previous election. And may have caused such voters to wonder about that Republican’s failure to run on his own record.

Perhaps, it was that Republicans thought they could win this election merely by running against the Democrats’ extremism. The only problem was that the Democrats nominated some pretty centrist & conservative candidates in a number of races.

Perusing the conservative blogs today, I find a pretty clear consensus that the GOP lost not because, in the words of Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, “voters have abandoned their belief in limited government,” but because “the Republican Party has abandoned them.

When people saw Republicans running against Democrats, it reminded them that they weren’t running on any issues of their own. No wonder some polls showed a number of self-identified conservatives pulled the lever for Democratic candidates in some House and Senate races. One poll showed that more people thought the Democrats could better reduce the deficit and “keep government spending under control” (Via Best of the Web.)

I had thought the Democrats’ absence of an agenda might have prevented them from gaining a majority. But, it turns out that it was the GOP’s failure to hold true to its own principles that was of greater consequence to voters.

It is thus of some comfort that the candidates for GOP leadership in the 110th Congress have made clear their support of those conservative principles which helped our party win significant victories in the 1980s and 1990s.

UPDATE: A reader e-mailed this excellent piece on the Republicans defeat from Eject! Eject! Eject!. Here he gets at the essence of the GOP loss:

We have to accept the fact that the conservatives we sent to Congress in 1994 became the bloated, earmarking, tone-deaf toads of 2006. They thought they could do whatever they wanted, regardless of what their constituents think, and now they have been reminded of just who is working for whom. Remedying that sense of isolation and disconnect and unchecked power is why we have elections in the first place, and as to the consequences of it, we have no one to blame but ourselves. That imperial attitude is not unique to Republicans or Democrats. That is human nature, and correcting the excesses of human nature only becomes more costly and painful the longer it is allowed to go on. Democracy is error-correcting. Ask John Kerry.

He says something to his critics which I share with ours: “To those who have written me in anger over the years, I say sincere congratulations to you on a big win, and I genuinely hope it will remove some of the bitterness in your hearts and restore some belief in a system that was never broken.” Now that I’ve whet your appetite, read the whole thing!

Share

93 Comments

  1. A post on what cost you the majorities and not ONE mention of Iraq?

    How out of touch are you?

    Comment by God of Biscuits — November 8, 2006 @ 5:54 pm - November 8, 2006

  2. The country and the Democrats were both talking about Iraq, the GOP kept talking about John Kerry and gay marriage. I think the majority of the electorate was asking very seriously why we were in Iraq and the GOP wasn’t listening. They instead jumped down upon anyone who brought the topic up as a “cut and run” traitor. I don’t think BTW, that the Democrats are listening so great either, but the GOP was the Party in power, and it was the one seen as being “out of touch”.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 8, 2006 @ 6:35 pm - November 8, 2006

  3. Democracy prevailed. The Dems won, the GOP lost. Now it is time for the Dems to govern. Will they be statesmen or muckrakers, that is up to them.

    Another interesting blog reminded me that we on the right are turning over the gavel in Congress to the Dems. We aren’t whining. We aren’t threatening to leave the country. We aren’t demanding hordes of lawyers to inspect every election for disenfranchisement. Just a recount for some very close races.

    Comment by Rick — November 8, 2006 @ 6:55 pm - November 8, 2006

  4. GOB and Patrick: Keep telling yourself it was all about Iraq. Some may never really understand what Lieberman has been trying to teach all of you, and which you’d have otherwise understood, if you were actually concerned about success there.

    …amazing that even in defeat, some of our best help is still coming from our adversaries.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 8, 2006 @ 6:56 pm - November 8, 2006

  5. colorado patriot : could it be that people DO want success there but that they don’t believe Bush has the will to achieve it? IF so then we are faced with the choice between a party that wants to keep losing our boys there without any clear reason why? Or a party that will take them out. Cutting and running is a horrible choice, but we haven’t been given the choce of victory, just some stale “stay the course” rhetoric. The American know tht this president is too compromised by liberalism to pacify this country the way we did germany. Hell’s BellS! After world war two in Germany we didn’t drag suspected wherewolves(insurgents) into a court for questioning, we didn’t get court orders to search or question, we took them by the side of the road and executed them, right there, no questions asked. Today we have American fighting men in prison, facing EXECUTION, because they killed suspected insurgents after a firefight! Do you understand? This president put’s our men in harms way and if they don’t follow cumbersome, bureaucratic rules of engagement guaranteed to get them killed then they charge them with a crime and execute them! So forgive the American voter if they just don’t see much virtue in continuing to “stay the course”. We don’t like Bush’s “course”

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 7:29 pm - November 8, 2006

  6. I don’t recall American soldiers conducting summary executions, and if so they were not sanctioned. We also conducted the Nuremberg Trials.

    Comment by Rick — November 8, 2006 @ 7:37 pm - November 8, 2006

  7. Ahksel:

    Have you any idea how offensive it is for you to say “without any clear reason why?” I encourage you to visit Iraq and explain to the citizens of that country that there is no “clear reason why” we should be there.

    I’ve just about become sick of those who clearly have no concept of proportion whatsoever constantly berating our mission in Iraq. Bush lied, no WMD, whatever. We can discuss that if you’d like, but it doesn’t win the war nor make us safer nor kill any terrorists. We’re there now, working to bring stability to a country we liberated very successfully only 3 years ago. To say we don’t have “any clear reason” for being there not only shows your complete lack of seriousness about the war, but also devalues any position you may take regarding how to win it.

    For you to have the gall to even contemplate what “winning” in Iraq might look like is an insult to me and anybody else currently working to do just that.

    I regret having to be harsh here, but after so long trying to win on behalf of freedom and liberty, only to be sniped at at every possible turn (and so often only for political gain) is a face-slap more insluting than you, Sir, could possibly imagine, and that’s because you have to have had the experience of something in your life being more important to you than yourself in the first place to understand what it means.

    And don’t give me the bullshit about how badly “our” rights and liberties are “under attack” here either. That pablum rings pretty hollow to the hundreds of thousands of people murdered in Iraq before Bush “lied his way” into war there.

    And “Bush’s ‘course’” as you so ignorantly call it, is not his at all. Have you just emerged from your own cave? Or have you seen at every turn his opponents in YOUR PARTY depriving him of every tool in fighting in Iraq he should have. That part of your post most absolutely must have been a joke, right?

    /rant off

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 8, 2006 @ 7:43 pm - November 8, 2006

  8. I just dropped by to say, LOL!

    Comment by Andy — November 8, 2006 @ 7:45 pm - November 8, 2006

  9. Finally… a huge woooooooooooooooooshing sound …

    as America, suffering a 12 year long bout of severe constipation, finally defecated and a huge “log”jam of Republican detritus was flushed down the toilet into the septic tank of history. Thank gawd for a major dose of Ex-lax.

    Comment by Michael — November 8, 2006 @ 8:03 pm - November 8, 2006

  10. Colorado Patriot,I am very serious about the war. My problem is that this administration doesn’t seem to be. If we aren’t willing to wipe out the insurgents and do whatever it takes to accomplish this then we are not willing to win the war. Carpet bombing the sunni triangle could have and should have been done years ago. If we are not willing to win the war then there is no reason for us to be there. I understand the reasons bush gives for the mission but if he doesn’t have the will to accomplish the task then it’s all meaningless.My problem is not with the mission, rather it is that he won’t use all that we have, he’s holding back, for fear of how he may look. I personally believe he has it all wrong, that total brutality is the only thing these people u nderstand or respect. As it is his weakness only encourages them to fight on.
    As for the way we hunted down the wherewolves in world war two, they were treated as if they were spy’s, when they were discovedered they were executed, there were no trials, no court proceedings and no one second guessed the guys actually doing the fighting.
    Do not confuse me with someone who was against this war from the beginning. I was totally behind the mission, I believe Saddam was a threat and was trying to aquire WMD’s if he didn’t already have them. Most Americans felt the same way. and like me most Americans now feel taht we are getting stuck in a losing situation. My point was that Iraq is a big issue, but not as the dems portray it. We don’t want to cut and run, we want to win it. we are frustrated because we are beginning to think that regardless of what Bush says he doesn’t want to win it. It seems like he thinks it is just going to happen if we keep soldiers there for who knows how long.
    I think you are assuming I am a democrat. I’m not. And I’m not concerned with losing any civil liberties in the fight against terrorism. In fact, red flags get raised in my head whenever i hear the words ‘Civil liberties”. I am well aware the the more “civil liberties” people seem to want to protect, the less actual freedom we have. If it was up to me the Moslems in this country would all be expelled, alien or citizen. But bush has been allowing in huge numbers of this vermin in the past few years. What’s up with that?
    Bush’s course is his, because he didn’t have the will to take controll the way Lincoln did during the civil war. It is an outrage that the NYT is still in operation. It is an outrage that arab countries own large shares of our media outlets,which is against the law but his justice department does nothing. Bush has been a weak leader from the start. His only saving grace was that his opposition was even weaker.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 8:13 pm - November 8, 2006

  11. Vera’s still hung over from last night – but she was thinking….

    When the state of Virginia is the deciding factor in how the nation is governed, you know the apocalypse can’t be that far off.

    Nancy Pelosi looks like she fell off a drag queen’s charm bracelet.

    Rummy may be out, but he’s still more interesting to listen to in a press conference than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer put together.

    Markos, from Daily Kos had his belt and shoelaces taken away yesterday and they still haven’t been returned. He’s to politics what Kevin Federline is to music: an untalented opportunist who believes his own press clippings.

    No doubt the public tossed out the republicans for acting too much like democrats: will the public eventually toss out the democrats for acting too much like democrats, too?

    Someone should run Lynne Cheney for something in ’08 – she’s better than Condi in telling it like it is – and dresses better, too.

    Ned Lamont is the new John Kerry; arrogant, rich, humorless – and not able to take the hint the voters gave him. No doubt, like Mr. Kerry, he’ll be back.

    Religious conservative leaders, gay hustlers and meth don’t mix: in fact – they’re deadly. Same goes for middle-aged congressmen sending saucy im’s to teenage male pages – See election results for details.

    Boys, nice job with the posts covering the election.
    Where should Vera send her contribution / tip?

    Cheers darlings…

    Comment by Vera Charles — November 8, 2006 @ 8:21 pm - November 8, 2006

  12. vera darling
    I hope whoever accepts your tip is wearing rubber gloves

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 8:24 pm - November 8, 2006

  13. Colorado Patriot;
    Let me put it this way. The libs are saying the election results mean that the people don’t want Hawks in the government, that they want nice, cute, fuzzy little bunny rabits. I’m saying they do want Hawks but what they see is a little chickadee pretending to be a hawk. The emotion wasn’t that they think a bunny rabbit is good, but rather that a chickadee, even one tht went to yale, isn’t going to get this job done. Let’s just say they don’t think this chickadee is anything to get fired up and inspired about.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 8:32 pm - November 8, 2006

  14. They didn’t hold true to conservative principals? Hmmm, then why the hell have you been unable to criticize George Bush for the last 6 years. Yesterday you talked about how the GOP had the “Big Mo”.

    Tons of real conservatives have been calling this administration to task for years now. People like Andrew Sullivan. And all you could do was criticize him. Well guess what? He was right and you were wrong. If you had actually listened to conservatives that were abandoning you, maybe you wouldn’t have been wiped out yesterday.

    Comment by Downtown lad — November 8, 2006 @ 8:45 pm - November 8, 2006

  15. “A post on what cost you the majorities and not ONE mention of Iraq?
    How out of touch are you?”

    I thought the same thing. But even more out-of-touch, or herd-like, is the claim that voters were choosing conservative Democrats. Not a single Democrat incumbent in the House was unseated, so that tends to argue that explanation, unless you think all current Dems in the House are conservative. In fact, though, most of the Democrats elected simply are not conservative. Google and ye shall find actual analyses of the newly elected Democrats.

    Of course, it’s from an evil Kos writer, so it will be instantly discounted, but here’s here’s an analysis of the actual orientation of the new Dems, all of whom were called too liberal by their Republican opponents.

    The Republicans lost because of the scandals and lying that have come to characterize them. The worst example of this is Iraq but many, many voters cited corruuption as the reason for their switch.

    GayPW’s own post, not even acknowledging the electorate’s stated reasons for the shift, is a good example of how out willingly Republicans distort fact to accommodate belief.

    Comment by JonathanG — November 8, 2006 @ 8:47 pm - November 8, 2006

  16. the gop could have saved itself with a few changes: 1) hastert and boehner should have stepped down in the foley scandal wake. not doing so just reinforced the hypocrisy of the gop. the general population, which woke up during katrina, made its decision with the poor response to foley from the gop leadership. 2) rumsfeld should have resigned before the election. naturally, the conclusion would have been the war and the way it is/was conducted was a grave error, but americans love it when someone admits making a mistake and makes changes. bush, by saying that rummy was in it for the next 2 years just last week, and cheney, who said last week that things were going well in iraq, both nailed the coffin for the gop in this election.

    karl rove is no longer a genius. he’s now an also-ran loser who bet incorrectly this year. the line between genius and loser is oh-so thin and history will not be kind to bush, cheney, rummy or rove.

    sorry to say, “i told you so,” but hey, i predicted the house and senate would turn immediately after hastert’s moronic press conference denying any knowledge and accepting no blame.

    so, peter h. “I TOLD YOU SO!”

    Comment by rightiswrong — November 8, 2006 @ 8:51 pm - November 8, 2006

  17. GOB and Patrick: Keep telling yourself it was all about Iraq. Some may never really understand what Lieberman has been trying to teach all of you, and which you’d have otherwise understood, if you were actually concerned about success there.

    Actually, you are the one saying its “all about Iraq”. I didn’t. But if you think it didn’t have anything at all to do with the election results you are seriously delusional. And its a good example of why the GOP lost. You are out of touch.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 8, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - November 8, 2006

  18. The Associated Press is projecting Jim Webb the winner in Virginia and thus the Democrats take control of the United Senate

    YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I got my tri-state trifecta!!

    Rick Santorum: DEFEATED
    Bob Ehrlich: DEFEATED
    George Allen: DEFEATED

    We got all three!!!

    Comment by Chase — November 8, 2006 @ 8:59 pm - November 8, 2006

  19. chase darling,
    do you trust the democrats to protect this country from the islamo fascists? How are they going to do this? Perhaps when they institute the guestworker plan? Hmmm..? You see, mexicans might work for little money but the islamic world has hundreds of millions of people who will work for much less than mexicans. Darling, guest worker does not mean mexican. Now when companies spring up to import these milllions of moslems here what will stop them? The mexicans? The US government? I doubt tthe US government will stop them as whoever will profit from shipping them over here will be paying someone off to keep the door open and the mexicans won’t leave their homes for what the moslems will work for. So a few years from now, when your head is on the chopping block and america is dead, you can be glad that you won the tri-fecta. You see, the moslems don’t like Americans, nor Christians, but they really hate gays.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 9:13 pm - November 8, 2006

  20. Ahksel,

    That sort of fear mongering is as irrelevant today as it was yesterday. That dog no longer hunts.

    Comment by Chase — November 8, 2006 @ 9:19 pm - November 8, 2006

  21. I see, so what will prevent this from coming to pass? Do you know something I don’t?

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 9:22 pm - November 8, 2006

  22. Ahk:
    That has got to be probably the least sound reasoning I’ve ever heard. Are you drunk? Just asking because I sometimes wonder on here…
    As I see it (correct me where I’m wrong), your logic goes like this:
    Bush isn’t aggressivly enough pursuing this war. Therefore, we should put in power those who have been working against every move he’s made to aggressively pursue this war since it began. That’ll get the job done!
    WTF?
    That makes about as much sense as saying, Republicans are irresponsible fiscally so we should elect Democrats instead.
    Oh wait, nevermind…

    Patrick: You should put down the bottle too…24 hours of celebrating is bad for the liver: I never said it was about Iraq. You did, in Post #2 above:

    “The country and the Democrats were both talking about Iraq, the GOP kept talking about John Kerry and gay marriage.”

    Sheesh. But if you (or anybody) believe this is a repudiation of being in (and winning) Iraq, please explain the Connecticut Senate race.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — November 8, 2006 @ 9:30 pm - November 8, 2006

  23. No wait, you’re right, The Dems are sure to block a guestworker plan…no wait, they’re sure to pass it. Ok then, they will put quotas on guestworkers from individual countries… oh wait, that’s not part of the guestworker plan and even if it was they probably wouldn’t be enforced, hell we don’t enforce our borders now as it is. K..No I got it!…The moslem’s won’t want to come here!. Naw. wait.. there are hundreds of millions of young islamic men who live for nothing else but to see this country taken down. O.K. then, the democrats will save us? Naw… wait, not likely, they would never even admit that islam is a problem, hell they want to let the guys in gitmo out, can’t be judgemental or predjudiced you know, even against people who want tto kill you. I got it! That just couldn’t happen because…. because…. because…..because it would be too horrible. Tell that to six million Jews, five million poles and several million gypsies tht died in the holocaust. Or tell it to the few million Armenians who were slaughtered because they were christians. Or the Christian refugees from Lebanon. Or the Christians that have had to leave Iraq. Or the buddhists that are being slaughtered in thailand. or the christians that are being slaughtered in the Sudan..I could go on all day.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 9:35 pm - November 8, 2006

  24. Too many conservatives think they understand liberals and Democrats and the overwhelming amount of people that put them back in charge of BOTH chambers of Congress, but really they just imagine them as they please and don’t see them as they are.

    Spin, spin, spin all you want. For people that just got done expelling wind for weeks, saying that the Democrats don’t have any plans, you people now seem to pretend to know what those plans are and criticize them left and right. BUT, you don’t know what those plans are and you keep talking about them in some outdated rhetorical terms that, apparently, obviously, overwhelmingly, the American people don’t recognize or care about.

    Listen to your boy Hannity or one of those other guys: stop whining.

    Comment by sean — November 8, 2006 @ 9:37 pm - November 8, 2006

  25. #23. “The moslem’s won’t want to come here!. Naw. wait..” I hope the Democrats start with education.

    Comment by sean — November 8, 2006 @ 9:38 pm - November 8, 2006

  26. The Conneticut Senate race is easy to explain. Joe Lieberman was the Democratic nominee for Vice-President 6 years ago and is a 3 term United States senator. As such, not all Democrats were prepared to throw him out. With that good will, he still got a quarter of Democrats to vote for him.

    And least any Republicans think Joe Lieberman might stray to the other side, remember this: If not for the Republicans, Joe Lieberman would be Vice-President right now.

    Don’t forgot that. I gurantee you, Senator Lieberman hasn’t.

    Yesterdays vote was a vote against the war.

    Comment by Chase — November 8, 2006 @ 9:41 pm - November 8, 2006

  27. re patrick
    yes, that is what I’m saying. I didn’t say it makes any sense. Im saying that America would have supported a strong leader. he isn’t one, he’s mil-toast, he’s Mr. Rogers. People have had it with him and his stale rhetoric. Too much time has gone by and people have become complacent about the danger. His mistake was not to take falujah out when our contractors were gruesomely murdered. Believe it or not Americans want to see the enemy hurt, destroyed, slaughtered. This would make them feel good, this would make them feel secure. We have a blood lust and we are tired of the school marm approach telling us it is a bad thing.If people had something to feel good about, something to feel proud about, more people would have been motivated to vote for his party. He couldn’t give us this, all he could give us was a scolding for wanting to keep the ports out of the Arabs hands. All he could give us was an Oprah winfrey moment with an Iraqi woman and a purple finger and the parents who lost their boy over there hugging her. I’m not an oprah fan, I didn’t cry, I felt disgusted. NOBODY feels good about the war right now and it his fault for the way he has been executing it. Yes, we have people in power now who are even worse, but that’s because people were just too fed up and many didn’t vote. Voters need to be fired up not fed up.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - November 8, 2006

  28. my question to everyone on here, how come when i meet a guy in person he just wants to get down to sex and then scram but on here people actually have thoughts they want to share? Thhis is nice for a change, didn’t think any other gay guys had it in them. One thing that is always a dissapointment is when I meet(make eye contact with) a guy somewhere, we smile at each other, I try to say hello, he walks alittle further, I ketch up, he takes off again, looks back, I think “O.K” he does the same thing again, then I notice he’s trying to lead me to a public restroom for sex and I get pisssed. Guess, they must be the ones who are “married”. Can we be real guys about the whole “gay marraige” thing? Huh? It’s not a marraige and none of you want a real marraige.

    Comment by Ahksel — November 8, 2006 @ 9:59 pm - November 8, 2006

  29. The breakdown of how the voters split will be interesting. I myself couldn’t vote for Mike DeWhine, and we are -this- close to losing one of the champions of adoption in the house as well (Deb Pryce).

    The next two years will be… Interesting.

    Comment by The_Livewire — November 8, 2006 @ 10:28 pm - November 8, 2006

  30. “Tons of real conservatives have been calling this administration to task for years now. People like Andrew Sullivan. And all you could do was criticize him. Well guess what? He was right and you were wrong. If you had actually listened to conservatives that were abandoning you, maybe you wouldn’t have been wiped out yesterday.”

    Please! Don’t go ruining the very thing that makes this site so entertaining — it’s complete detachment from reality. Only here — and I do mean only here — can you find people still claiming Kerry intended to insult the troops when a printed copy of his speech made it obvious he botched his own script.

    Only here can you find a moderator completely obsessed with Andrew Sullivan and oblivious to what might be motivating his obsession — a refusal to acknowledge, as Sullivan has (with the annoying habits of a drama queen playing Beckett), the extent of the loss of MORAL integrity in his own party.

    The fun never ends here. I can’t wait to hear the channelling of the Goddess Peggy Noonan and the ongoing declarations that the majority of Americans are idiots for not buying LameDuck George’s pathetic rationale for the Iraq War. And then there’s Matti’s constant ad hominem attacks with his Baby Jane rationale for the invective he criticizes in others (“butcha are, Blanche”) and V the K’s 24/7 monitoring of posts and ultimate argument, always, that “you don’t get it because you are thinking like a moonbat.” And my favorite: Any time you dispute Danny Boy, you haven’t read his post accurately.

    Please, keep the fun going. This site is the Nero to America’s Rome.

    Sen House Gov
    Dems: 51 234 28
    Reps: 49 201 22
    D+/-: +6 +29 +6

    Comment by JonathanG — November 8, 2006 @ 10:39 pm - November 8, 2006

  31. Wannabe confederate Allen is out.

    — Doing my best Snoopy dance! —

    Comment by Sydney Talon — November 8, 2006 @ 10:52 pm - November 8, 2006

  32. Dan, GPW, have you given any thought to the possibility that (except for spending) President Bush and the Republican Congress were considered too conservative.

    I think Iraq was an issue but not the paramount issue. In fact, by a few points, exit polls showed the economy was the top issue.

    Comment by Ashley Hunter — November 8, 2006 @ 10:54 pm - November 8, 2006

  33. #0
    One poll showed that more people thought the Democrats could better reduce the deficit and “keep government spending under control

    Regarding government spending. What I worry about is that we will get more of same (or more of more of the same) from a Democrat controlled congress

    Being somewhat of an outlier on the politcal spectrum however, I don’t think financing government expenditures with borrowing is necessarily bad. PAYGO is a politcal stunt (now being used by the dems instead of the reps, thanks Ross Perot) that totally misses the point. You can spend to accomplish important goals without stifling the economy through large tax increases or cutting important government spending (one example, cuts in defense and intellegence spending pre 9/11). Paying for war with debt is exactly what FDR and RWR did. Both were proven right by history and the generations since have benefitted greatly. This is also true with many domestic spending programs ( scientific research, education).

    I will be very disappointed if the new congress doesn’t enact some kind of meaninful earmark reform. While pork spending is a very small portion of total government spending and the deficit (as opposed to what you hear from the media), it corrupts the entire system with political paybacks and backroom deals.

    My greatest disappointment with the GOP was not enacting meaningful tax reform. I’m not talking tax cuts, but reform. I’m afraid that the Democrats will follow with more of the same here too (if you believe their “New Direction” ). Like earmarks, these tinkerings with the tax code (that Republicans were so fond of) will further hide the cost of government from the average taxpayer.

    Comment by John in IL — November 8, 2006 @ 10:55 pm - November 8, 2006

  34. Now, I don’t have to be ashamed of my country, since people like Ahksel and Patriot-ish have lost control over it.
    The democratic victory will have a tremendous impact on our stature in the world as they work towards a more harmonious and just globe!

    And Nancy Pelosi is a leader you can be proud of. She’s smart, motherly, chic, and so slim!
    Hastert looks like a bald ape on steroids.
    It was so embarrassing to have him represent us to the world! Quite the Ugly American he is!

    Comment by ryan — November 8, 2006 @ 11:36 pm - November 8, 2006

  35. #34: So the truth comes out. Leftists are ashamed of their country unless Democrats are in charge.

    Comment by Attmay — November 8, 2006 @ 11:38 pm - November 8, 2006

  36. #35: Ashamed of their leaders if their leaders are anything like Bush. There’s a difference. It’s an old republican canard that the government isn’t the country and now your’e using it against Dems?

    I knew you guys wer hypocrites, but I never knew you were this obvious about it.

    Comment by God of Biscuits — November 8, 2006 @ 11:48 pm - November 8, 2006

  37. if you watched charlie rose tonight. then you would know, that you are duck soup. get real stupid fag conservatives, change your silly ass mind set and leap into the twentieth-first century. your georgie porgie has gone back to sucking his daddy’s nip.

    Comment by markie — November 8, 2006 @ 11:52 pm - November 8, 2006

  38. “#34: So the truth comes out. Leftists are ashamed of their country unless Democrats are in charge.”

    Oh yes, that’s exactly what he meant.

    And of course he also said this:

    “And Nancy Pelosi is a leader you can be proud of. She’s smart, motherly, chic, and so slim!
    Hastert looks like a bald ape on steroids.
    It was so embarrassing to have him represent us to the world! Quite the Ugly American he is!”

    What he means by that is, “It’s not how Communist your politics are that counts. It’s how purty you look that counts.”

    The truth comes out!

    Comment by JonathanG — November 8, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - November 8, 2006

  39. i will be the first to admit that the absence of positions did not seem to bode well for my friends on the left, and I was more than convinced that every one would be drinking the kool-aid, but the continued scandals and hypocrisy of the right was like manna from heaven.

    the one irony, i am so glad that the gov of the great state of caleefornia is Arnuld – like it was ever in doubt. that apology for last year’s SE goes a long way to making me a convert

    Comment by ralph — November 8, 2006 @ 11:58 pm - November 8, 2006

  40. #36: He said specifically

    Now, I don’t have to be ashamed of my country, since people like Ahksel and Patriot-ish have lost control over it.

    Not his leaders, mind you, his COUNTRY.

    Abe Lincoln was right. You CAN fool some of the people all of the time. Why else would they continue to vote Democrat?

    Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2006 @ 12:09 am - November 9, 2006

  41. #37: Another “tolerant” leftie using an anti-gay slur. Nobody plays Smear the Queer like a leftie.

    Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2006 @ 12:10 am - November 9, 2006

  42. “#37: Another “tolerant” leftie using an anti-gay slur. Nobody plays Smear the Queer like a leftie.”

    Another gay Republican in need of a sense of irony. I thought lefties were ‘posed to be the language police!

    Comment by JonathanG — November 9, 2006 @ 12:28 am - November 9, 2006

  43. You know, when you compare what the Democrats did this year in the Senate to what the Republicans did in 1994, the Democrats feat is much more impressive.

    In 1994, the Republicans did pick up 8 seats, but 6 of them were open seats and only 2 were held by Democrat incumbents seeking re-election.

    The year, the Democrats didn’t have a wave of retirements to grab onto, but rather knocked off 6 Republican incumbents.

    SIX INCUMBENT SENATORS… that’s amazing.

    Schumer did a hell of a job at the DSCC.

    Comment by Chase — November 9, 2006 @ 12:59 am - November 9, 2006

  44. Congress lost because they weren’t tru to conservative beliefs? OK! Sure. Or,you can listen to what people said, and there were plenty of reasons, but none of the Undecideds (none) ever said it was because the Republican weren’t conservative enough. Reasons included:
    Iraq, sick of corruption, didn’t like tone, failure to balance budget (there’s one),didn’t represent people like me, Iraq, Iraq and, oh yeah, Iraq.

    Democrats will come in and raise the minimum wage. Halve the interest on student loans. Exercise some oversight over this hopeless President. Institute lobbyist reform. And you will see that their majority will A) Expand B) Be around for a very very long time.

    And, I have to ask, how did you feel about all those anti-gat-marriage amendments passing and why do you even bother defending or worrying about these clowns? You should be spending your considerable efforts working to see them defeated. They’re nasty.

    Comment by Peter in Hastings — November 9, 2006 @ 8:41 am - November 9, 2006

  45. Burns and Allen and yes also Steele should not concede yet. They should demand recounts.

    The Schumer Gang does not play fair and we know this from the credit information stolen about Steele.

    We should not forget that the Dems were the ones that orchestrated the Foley Follies. This helped them win the election and we still do not know who was involved.

    The State of Washington’s Governors race in 2004 was decided by around 400 votes as I rememeber. There were charges that in King County which is Washington State’s most populated county (Seattle) of convicted felons(1000+?) voting. We should take a page out of the Dems Play Book and demand recalls as was done in Washington State. In fact, they should have had a second recount because it was such a mess and maybe we would have prevailed.

    Comment by Brit — November 9, 2006 @ 9:02 am - November 9, 2006

  46. “Congress lost because they weren’t tru to conservative beliefs? OK! Sure. Or,you can listen to what people said, and there were plenty of reasons, but none of the Undecideds (none) ever said it was because the Republican weren’t conservative enough.”

    You must be part of the reality-based community.

    Comment by JonathanG — November 9, 2006 @ 9:29 am - November 9, 2006

  47. This is silly. The reason GOP lost wasn’t because the American public were tricked, or it was a plot by John Kerry or whatever. The reasons the GOP lost is simple.

    A majority opinion of Americans believe that the GOP has not been competent on domestic policy, foreign policy or in the conduct of the War on Terror, including Iraq.

    Want someone to blame? Try a mirror.

    The GOP screwed the pooch. Fucked Up. Period.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 9, 2006 @ 10:28 am - November 9, 2006

  48. - Corruption (I’ll see your Dollar Bill and raise you Duke, Ney, DeLay, Burns and Weldon)
    - Foley and Denny Hastert’s Sgt Schultz “I know nothing/I see nothing” response to that
    - excessive Christianist mumbo jumbo
    - Terri Schiavo
    - Katrina cluster
    - out of control spending
    - tax policy that felt millionaires needed more money, but a minimum wage increase was out of the question

    You need more?

    Comment by JimSaco — November 9, 2006 @ 11:33 am - November 9, 2006

  49. “Being true to conservative beliefs” is different than “not being conservative enough”.

    For instance, on Iraq, the Republicans failed to make the point clear of how awful Iraq was under Saddam; instead, they allowed people like Pelosi and Kennedy to paint prewar Iraq as a paradise, instead of the reality. Same with the corruption issue, given that “Madame Speaker” herself is a hypocrite who willfully and deliberately committed campaign finance fraud.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 1:09 pm - November 9, 2006

  50. I was going to ask where the usual posters were, but then North Dallas 30 posted with the deflection hyperlinks.

    The others are unusually quiet. I wonder why?

    Comment by fnln — November 9, 2006 @ 1:15 pm - November 9, 2006

  51. I love that…..the Democrat immediately dismisses clear evidence of their Speaker’s corruption as “deflection”.

    It took the Republicans twelve years to get to that level of denial, which was what cost them immensely.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 1:19 pm - November 9, 2006

  52. More hollow astroturf from the perpetually ignorant to reality ND30. Pelosi certainly did circumvent PAC guidelines…she also paid her fine and shut down the PAC in question. This is OLD NEWS, pal…and not relevent to this thread either. My favorite part of ND30′s ridiculous post is that he actually includes a link to his OWN vacant blog, as if that is proof of anything other than his ability to type. Nice attempt at hyperbole though with the “paint prewar Iraq as a paradise” bit…care to back that statement up with some facts? I know it is hard for you to get a grip on reality but you should at least attempt it sometimes.

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 9, 2006 @ 1:25 pm - November 9, 2006

  53. The Dems plan for Iraq.

    Who cares? I thought you were a Republican.
    What are the republican’s plan for Iraq.

    And don’t say “stay until we win”.
    That’s not a plan, its a goal.

    So, after 3+ years of republican rule: What are the Republicans plan for Iraq?

    Comment by Robert — November 9, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - November 9, 2006

  54. Dan, it’s nice to see the GayLeftBorg gloating and bloating it up.

    Before any GOPers agree to the GayLeftBorg mantra that they should slit their proverbial wrists and just get over it… I have to remind the particularly virulent and caustic GayLeftBorggies here that this midterm election of a 2nd term was better for the incumbent party than most… normallly, the President’s party should lose about 31 seats in House and about 7 in the Senate.

    No surprise except for the continuing mean-spirited spin-mysters here who saw their party gain a slight bumb in the political path that leads to 2008 and the People “Taking Back” both chambers of Congress with the WH.

    Turnout wasn’t really that unique. The results are decidedly NOT unique but conventional within the context of other similar elections. I like the notion that corruption, fat govt, pandering to the social conservatives cost the GOP the election. I also like the notion that most people in America stayed home –happy with their govt and, when coupled with all those GOP voters demonstrated in the narrow election margins, the majority of Americans think the GOP-Bush is not worth getting off the couch to vote to change.

    Reality has always been elusive for the GayLeftBorg commenters here; it’s not a wonder given that, despite Lieberman’s victory over an anti-war candidate and his elevation to Presidential contender status, they still think it was “all about Iraq”. For them, it will always be “all about Iraq” because the anti-war, anti-troops strategy worked for them.

    Let’s take our cue from our TWICE-elected President and leaders of the Free World, shall we: Get up, get to work, find compromise and lead.

    I think the bigger issue for the GOP isn’t the elections returns of this week… it’s how we divorce the social conservatives from the party and encourage fiscal conservatives to stand tall again. If either the social conservatives or libertarians stayed “home” and sat on their hands this election and helped enable the Democrats, it should be time to examine their contribution to the party and even their place at the table. But we won’t know all that until the break-outs are complete.

    Politics is a rough and tumble game. It isn’t for the timid or weak. Losing an election is acceptable as long as you weren’t the incumbent –that’s a truism in either party. The social conservatives may prove to be a weight we no longer can tolerate.

    Til then, we can chuckle at the gloatingly bloated GayLeftBorg spinning off in the commentland… they remain true to their form.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 9, 2006 @ 1:54 pm - November 9, 2006

  55. One good thing about the election is that there is a much stronger conservative element in the Democrats now. Webb. The three Blue Dog, solidly pro-military, pro-law and order, pro-death penalty, and pro-gun Democrats elected in Indiana. That’s a good thing.

    Comment by rightwingprof — November 9, 2006 @ 2:04 pm - November 9, 2006

  56. Pelosi certainly did circumvent PAC guidelines…she also paid her fine and shut down the PAC in question. This is OLD NEWS, pal…and not relevent to this thread either.

    Actually, it is completely relevant.

    Pelosi demanded the resignation and public excoriation of any Congressperson who was acting in a corrupt fashion, under which one would certainly think that deliberately evading campaign finance law falls.

    But what Pelosi depends on is the typical Democrat like you, RCC; you’ll believe, support, and make excuses for anything, as long as it’s anti-Republican. And that’s how she intends to govern; she can say and do whatever she wants, and she thinks her electorate will not hold her accountable.

    Nice attempt at hyperbole though with the “paint prewar Iraq as a paradise” bit…care to back that statement up with some facts?

    Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11, for one.

    And I particularly like this quote in which Democratic shill Scott Ritter admits that they are covering up Saddam Hussein’s abuses in the name of “waging peace”.

    Meanwhile, to this:

    My favorite part of ND30’s ridiculous post is that he actually includes a link to his OWN vacant blog, as if that is proof of anything other than his ability to type.

    RCC, I’ve noticed a common tactic with you; namely, when confronted with facts, you launch personal attacks. You did it before when confronted with examples of Democratic homophobia and your enablement of it, and you’re doing it now when confronted with examples of horrible abuses that Democrats refused to stop and indeed, tried to cover up.

    I simply take it as your inability to own up to the opinions of the party and people you support.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 2:12 pm - November 9, 2006

  57. So, after 3+ years of republican rule: What are the Republicans plan for Iraq?

    Simple: to stay until we win.

    That means:

    1) Removing the dictatorship that murdered millions of Iraqis while systematically draining the country dry for the pleasure of its overlord, and whose defiance of UN regulations and international law, especially regarding support of terrorism and construction/stockpiling of unconventional weapons, was a threat to both his neighbors and other nations

    2) Establishing a new government based on the principles of democracy and representation

    3) Assisting the Iraqis in re-establishing and rebuilding their cultural, physical, and governmental infrastructure

    4) Providing support and assistance towards those Iraqis working toward that goal while providing protection against those who wish to torpedo it

    5) Carrying out a war of systematic attrition against fanatical jihadists bent on harming Americans on a battlefield of our choosing — that is, easy and tempting for them to venture into, in the teeth of our military strength, and where their fanatical disregard for civilian life will be killing fellow Muslims and Arabs, not American citizens.

    In contrast, the Democratic plan was to leave Saddam in power indefinitely; now that they can no longer do that, all they want to do is leave. Like the Vietnamese and Cambodian people before, the Iraqis are of no use to them; all they care about is pandering to the portion of the US electorate that keeps them in money, and that group demands immediate withdrawal. After all, no one held them accountable for the million-plus people that Pol Pot and the Vietnamese Communists systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered after they used misrepresentation and slander to get our troops pulled out of Vietnam.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 2:25 pm - November 9, 2006

  58. Ahksel is an interesting person, I think. Lots of worrying and hand-wring about who will protect us from the terrorists.
    Has a nice ring to it:
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    And because the terrorists are coming to get you we need real leaders, manly men, men who were…
    cheerleaders in college! Yeah, men like that.
    We need butch guys who…didn´t volunteer for combat during the last major war. Of course, they had good reasons for getting a rich boy escape. And some of them just had “other priorities.”

    Of course, men like Kerry or Cleland, you know, sissies who´ve actually been to war, well, we can´t trust them.

    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.

    And because they´re coming for you, we need a president who will…
    ignore the advice of the four-star Army Chief of Staff.
    We need a president who will…
    ignore the advice of the people we pay to be experts, like the people at the state department who had a thousand page report on what to do to make sure the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a success.

    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.

    And because they´re coming to get you we need a president who will…
    violate his oath of office by ignoring the bill of rights.
    We need a president who will…
    put people in prison for indefinite periods without giving them a trial. If he´s so sure they´re guilty, then charge, try them, let the jury decide. If the jury decides guilty, then hang them. Otherwise you´re just doing what they used to do in…communist dictatorships.
    But hey!, wait, I thought we were better than the commies?

    But, but, but, you can´t treat these people like actual human beings because…
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!”.

    And when the terrorists are done with you…
    “The homos are coming to get you!”
    “The homos are coming to get you!”
    “The homos are coming to get you!”

    Well, Ahksel, you ignorant, stupid twit, the country just heard the current Republican party´s platform:
    “The terrosists are coming to get you!” and
    “The homos are coming to get you!”
    and the country decided you´re nuts, or worse.

    Comment by dan stern — November 9, 2006 @ 2:28 pm - November 9, 2006

  59. Ahksel: Guess, they must be the ones who are “married”. Can we be real guys about the whole “gay marraige” thing? Huh? It’s not a marraige and none of you want a real marraige.

    You cannot possibly claim to know what is in my heart or my mind, or anyone else’s for that matter. Don’t judge all of us based on the choices of people who are not us. I answered this accusation at length here (comment #47).

    I get the feeling that you hang out at the wrong places. Even at some gay bars I have visited occasionally — JR’s and Halo in DC, Grand Central in Baltimore — you can find people to have decent conversations with. I’ll grant that it’s the exception rather than the rule, but I never have a problem meeting friends/acquaintances rather than quick hookups, which I have never been interested in.

    Comment by kdogg36 — November 9, 2006 @ 3:09 pm - November 9, 2006

  60. Ouch, my “personal attack” on you really stung…waaa, go cry to mama you whiner. I didn’t know that pointing out your astroturfing and blatant lies was a personal attack, I thought it was just intellectual honesty (something you obviously know nothing about). I do, however, consider your constant attempts to lump me in with Democrats to be a personal attack. Especially since I am not a Democrat and have voted for a Democrat only once in over 18 years of voting. Going back to YOUR original post, ” they allowed people like Pelosi and Kennedy to paint prewar Iraq as a paradise…” I asked you for proof to back up that ridiculous statement and you come back with Michael Moore (?) and Scott Ritter…nice one ND30, you ignorant twit. If there was ever a person who NEVER painted pre-war Iraq as a paradise it would be Mr. Ritter. Mr. Ritter actually called pre-war Iraq a horrible place, but your blinders are on so that fact means nothing to your insipid brain. Idiot ND30, so sad…

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 9, 2006 @ 3:14 pm - November 9, 2006

  61. Ouch, my “personal attack” on you really stung…waaa, go cry to mama you whiner.

    LOL….oh please, I’ve been called a lot worse by a lot better. I’m merely pointing out how, when confronted with facts, you start throwing insults.

    Go ahead, I can take it — and in the process of you doing so, you make more and more obvious that you cannot answer.

    If there was ever a person who NEVER painted pre-war Iraq as a paradise it would be Mr. Ritter.

    Obviously you haven’t seen his “documentary”, funded by the Iraqi government, specifically arguing that there was no need for sanctions, that Saddam was behaving, that the Iraqis were happy, etc.

    I’m really interested in what you will come up with next. How about going back to the original post and explaining why Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t follow her own demands that anyone caught in “corrupt” behavior should resign?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 4:08 pm - November 9, 2006

  62. “I’m merely pointing out how, when confronted with facts, you start throwing insults.”
    You offered NO FACTS, merely a link to your own blog. I pointed out your lack of facts and asked for clarification…this is not a personal attack. You failed to back up your claims, I then called you a liar and a twit, these are also facts and not a personal attack.

    “How about going back to the original post and explaining why Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t follow her own demands that anyone caught in “corrupt” behavior should resign?”

    She paid her fine and disbanded the PAC…case closed circa 2002. Care to date your “quote” from her calling for resignations? Please move on from this ridiculous “point” your trying to make.

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 9, 2006 @ 5:17 pm - November 9, 2006

  63. I think in the end, the GOP’s attacks on Kerry’s botched joke hurt the Republicans. After all, by the second day, it was quite clear that Kerry wasn’t criticizing the troops, he just dropped a word. So the GOP’s efforts to mislead the country about what Kerry meant was just another reminder of the deception (much of it self-deception) that has pervaded this Administration’s approach on Iraq. After all, this is a President who ran on a promise to keep us out of nation-building entanglements, then got us into one–and even worse, failed to realize it until too late, and completely botched it. Rumsfeld leaves office still apparently mystified that the Iraqi’s didn’t “step up” and relieve us of all of that messy business of rebuilding the nation that we destroyed, as his calculations predicted that they would do.

    Comment by trrll — November 9, 2006 @ 5:56 pm - November 9, 2006

  64. #62:

    I then called you a liar and a twit, these are also facts and not a personal attack.

    Comment by Attmay — November 9, 2006 @ 6:14 pm - November 9, 2006

  65. NDXXX writes: “RCC, I’ve noticed a common tactic with you; namely, when confronted with facts, you launch personal attacks. You did it before when confronted with examples of Democratic homophobia and your enablement of it, and you’re doing it now when confronted with examples of horrible abuses that Democrats refused to stop and indeed, tried to cover up.”

    Yeah, you can see that pattern fairly clearly but it’s immaterial to RCC. He gets that tactic from the Left, NDXXX. Just look at NancyP and HarryR and ScreaminHowie over the last two years on negative drumbeats.

    Hey RealColoradoConservative… just a question: who were you before you began using the RCC label? Commenters from the Left around here change their handle like the Clintons changed bed linens in the Lincoln Bedroom.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 9, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - November 9, 2006

  66. You offered NO FACTS, merely a link to your own blog.

    Which, if you actually looked at the linked post, provided a veritable cornucopia of information demonstrating that the reality in pre-war Iraq was not what Pelosi, Kennedy, Michael Moore, or Scott Ritter wished it to be — and for Ritter alone, I have provided you two links, none of which are to my own blog, to sources that demonstrate that fact.

    And as for your continued desperate attempts to protect the corrupt Nancy Pelosi, the link I already provided you gives her sanctimonious statements — and, given even more recent behavior, she continues to practice hypocrisy which she demands others resign for doing.

    I really don’t see why a “conservative” such as yourself would want to keep such a demonstrably-corrupt individual in office. Why do you oppose her being held accountable and resigning, as she demands others do?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 6:49 pm - November 9, 2006

  67. Who was I before I started posting here? The same person I’ve always been. A gay man born and raised in Kansas, lived in Denver for the last decade. I am a conservative who despises the idiocy of the GOP and the empty-headed sycophants who support them. I have only posted here under this name. I am not a liberal or a democrat. I do NOT wish to keep corrupt politicians of any stripe in the government. I am not so blinded by hate as to call for Pelosi’s removal based on the fact that SHE PAID HER FINE AND DISBANDED THE PAC IN QUESTION. And, ND30, I’m still waiting for some proof to the LIES you’ve posted in this thread and numerous others. I do NOT need to be redirected to YOUR OWN BLOG or to NRO as they are both as trustworthy as yourself. So please, it is time to put up (in regards to ANYONE who claimed that “pre-war Iraq was a paradise,” your words not mine) or shut up.

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 9, 2006 @ 7:02 pm - November 9, 2006

  68. And, ND30, I’m still waiting for some proof to the LIES you’ve posted in this thread and numerous others. I do NOT need to be redirected to YOUR OWN BLOG or to NRO as they are both as trustworthy as yourself.

    Let’s see, I have sent you to the following places:

    1. My blog, which links to several examples of the horrors that existed in pre-war Iraq, both directly and indirectly

    2. The NLPC website, which outlines Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finance fraud

    3. NRO, which outlines Pelosi’s current and continuing corrupt behavior

    4. Wikipedia, which outlines Democratic Party shill Scott Ritter’s documentary, paid for by Saddam’s government, showing prewar Iraq as a paradise

    5. Fahrenheit 9/11, by Democrat Michael Moore, which portrays pre-war Iraq as a kite-flying paradise of happiness

    6. Instapundit, which, with its link, demonstrates that Democrats like Scott Ritter were deliberately covering up Saddam Hussein’s abuses.

    I think the pattern is clear to everyone; you demand sources, then claim that the sources aren’t good enough when they prove you wrong.

    I am not so blinded by hate as to call for Pelosi’s removal based on the fact that SHE PAID HER FINE AND DISBANDED THE PAC IN QUESTION.

    Well, you see, Pelosi herself is the one who said that Congresspersons who committed campaign finance fraud and other forms of corruption, as she did, should resign. Your asking her to do so is just holding her to her demands; it has nothing to do with hating her.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 9, 2006 @ 7:14 pm - November 9, 2006

  69. Reader hadriantopsantinous who had trouble commenting asked that I post this comment

    #6 Rick-The United states did indeed summarily execute all spys and sabateurs during the second world war.Not only that,but even today the geneva conventions provide for this.If you are captured carrying out offensive actions or spying on the uniformed soldiers of a nation state and you yourself are not uniformed and clearly recognisable as a representative of your own state,the Geneva conventions does not apply to you and you may be summarily executed as a spy or sabateur.
    #s 8&9-Don’t celebrate your victory in this battle because it is the seed of your demise.Once the American people get a good look at the democrats plan for victory in Iraq,I firmly believe that 2008 and 2010 will be their death knell.This is not the 1960s and we young Americans are not hippies.Sometimes their is something worth fighting for and if you refuse to believe that,than play out your hand in the legislative branch and engineer your own doom.
    #10-I agree with you almost completly.However I also feel that to pull out now will embolden All of our enemies…and we have many.In six years of fighting we have managed to carry on a war with the fewest casualties in the history of war comparitively.If we tuck tail and run now we will essentialy be declaring open season on American interests.Worst of all it will be a foul blemish on our sacred honor,much like the cowardly retreat from vietnam…a war that we were winning.The liberals in this country have a long history of having no intestinal fortitude for the realities of war.If democrats wish to grant constitutional rights to men who would like to saw their heads off with dull hunting knives,than we should conscript them to fight such individuals and maybe they will have a change of heart.An all volunteer Army is the best.The problem is that those who have not the courage or the will to fight will not enlist,ut they will still get to vote.This puts us in a situation where individuals who have no clue as to nature of war,weild enormous power in the course of war.For this reason,Bush had no choice but to wage this war with one hand tied behind his back.If he had subscribed to total war(See William Techumsa Sherman),as is always advisable,he would have been draged from office by the majority of Americans who no nothing of war and its absolute nature.Case in point…Democrats scream that we should observe the geneva conventions when dealing with terrorist prisoners.These fools are so ignorant of the rules of war that they don’t realise,hat had we observed the geneva conventions,these men would never have been taken prisoner at all but summarily executed.I was intrigued by the movie starship troopers.In this movie no man or woman who did not serve was entitled to full citezenship or the right to vote.I believe this is the solution to the liberal lack of intestinal fortitude.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 9, 2006 @ 7:49 pm - November 9, 2006

  70. Meanwhile, 48 hours after polls closed, Sullivan STILL has no mention whatsoever of the anti-same-sex marriage initiatives in Idaho, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 9, 2006 @ 9:58 pm - November 9, 2006

  71. A post on what cost you the majorities and not ONE mention of Iraq?

    How out of touch are you?

    Lieberman, the Democrat who was FOR the Iraq War, was ousted by his party but went on to win the general election.

    On the other hand, three of the five Republicans who were AGAINST the Iraq War were defeated.

    Comment by Frank IBC — November 9, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - November 9, 2006

  72. #54. Did you ever think that people voted Democrat because people like you make up silly terms like GayLeftBorg and can’t take you seriously? And here’s chuckling at you and your loss: cheers!

    #49. “Pelosi and Kennedy [painted] prewar Iraq as a paradise”? When? Where? Have you been banging meth with Haggard? Then in #56 it changes to…Michael Moore. Are you still talking about him? Can we get a comment on Bill Clinton, too?

    I miss Santorum. He was saving me and my freedoms from the terrorists and the gays…

    Comment by jimmy — November 9, 2006 @ 10:00 pm - November 9, 2006

  73. #71. LOL!! Logic is a tough one for you. The Republicans that were ‘against the war’, these Republicans that were defeated…were they defeated by Democrats that are FOR the war? Because only then does your bringing it up even matter. See, it works like this: if both candidates were against the war, it must be some other issue that made people vote for them, in these particular cases. Furthermore, people could very well have it mind, even if they know that their Republican Senator is tepid on the idea of leaving troops in Iraq without a plan, that it might be better to hand the Senate over to Democrats, which means they took into consideration the total number of Democrats and the total number of Republicans when they voted. Furthermore, they could have voted for the Democrat because they didn’t think their Republican Senator that was ‘against the war’ was doing enough about the war. That you have no idea what is going in these elections is made evident by two small points: you think a sentence for each election, on its own, means something and captures the meaning of these elections; and you have no evidence or hard data to make any of these claims.

    If you look all around the country, even where Republicans won, more people were voting for Democrats. There was, in fact, a shift in the strength of support for Republicans and Democrats throughout the country–even among Catholics and evangelicals. (The Catholic flirtation with the GOP is coming to an end now.)

    #70. Try reading:
    http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/11/the_initiative_.html
    which brings you to:
    http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/ballot.measures/
    which deals with the ballot measures.

    What do you want him to do? Praise the outcomes, defend the outcomes, fellate the evangelicals that voted against equality for gays and lesbians? Why should he do that when you and this blog own this shtick already?

    A full 48 hours after the election, the guy has quite a few posts up. Sorry he doesn’t write at length about what you are thinking about…lol.

    Anyway, I look forward to the alternate universe depictions of Pelosi and Reid (or Clinton?) that you people come up with in the months and years ahead.

    Comment by jimmy — November 9, 2006 @ 10:20 pm - November 9, 2006

  74. 1. My blog, which links to several examples of the horrors that existed in pre-war Iraq, both directly and indirectly

    It was never a question that attrocities were committed in Iraq. You were the one who said people called it a “paradise.” I’m still awaiting proof that ANYONE other then the liberals that live in your deluded brain said such a thinkg.

    2. The NLPC website, which outlines Nancy Pelosi’s campaign finance fraud

    The NLPC also says that she PAID HER FIND AND DISBANDED THE PAC IN QUESTION.

    3. NRO, which outlines Pelosi’s current and continuing corrupt behavior
    Please, those arguments are specious and not rising to the level of anything illegal let alone unethical…further derangment from your fevered brain.

    4. Wikipedia, which outlines Democratic Party shill Scott Ritter’s documentary, paid for by Saddam’s government, showing prewar Iraq as a paradise.
    Really? I don’t see anything of the sort on the wikipedia page…maybe you were thinking about something else? Please let me know what I’m supposed to see on Ritter’s Wiki entry that paints Iraq as a paradise because all I can find is a question about financing, nothing of substance there (just like your pointless arguments here).

    5. Fahrenheit 9/11, by Democrat Michael Moore, which portrays pre-war Iraq as a kite-flying paradise of happiness.

    Care to point to any specifics? No? I didn’t think so…but I am really impressed that you brought up Moore again, congratulations you idiot.

    6. Instapundit, which, with its link, demonstrates that Democrats like Scott Ritter were deliberately covering up Saddam Hussein’s abuses.

    He was covering up nothing. In fact he was stating that Iraq under Saddam was a horrible place. Again, I implore you, please give me some proof of the charges that you have levied here. So far you have given us nothing, just like the GOP for the last ten years.

    So ND30, you’ve proven yourself again to be a duplicitous LIAR who has NOTHING of substance save your own deluded conspiracy theories. So, please, learn how to lodge complaints backed up by FACTS before you post more astroturf.

    Comment by RealColoradoConservatice — November 9, 2006 @ 10:31 pm - November 9, 2006

  75. 72:

    Did you ever think that people voted Democrat because people like you make up silly terms like GayLeftBorg and can’t take you seriously? And here’s chuckling at you and your loss: cheers!

    *cough*Christianist*cough*

    Democrats not only gloat, but they spout ad hominem attacks and make spurious accusations against anyone who calls them out on their caca del toro.

    The gay left is indeed a borg, or rather a sub-borg of the “straight” left. Submit or we will troll your blogs.

    Comment by Attmay — November 10, 2006 @ 12:34 am - November 10, 2006

  76. I really don’t think you can lump “christianist” in with something as ridiculous as “gayleftborg.” Democrats didn’t coin the term “christianist” anyway, the patron saint gay Conservatism Andrew Sullivan (may peace be upon him) did. A christianist is a term used to describe a radical Christian (like Ted Haggard or Stephen Baldwin), gayleftborg is a term used by people with severe mental retardation to describe the liberals that live inside their heads. You really can’t compare the two.

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 10, 2006 @ 1:18 am - November 10, 2006

  77. LOL….no, laughing uncontrollably outloud at Matti the Pot’s description of the lefty kettles as “mean spirited.”

    Comment by JonathanG — November 10, 2006 @ 1:21 am - November 10, 2006

  78. So ND30, you’ve proven yourself again to be a duplicitous LIAR who has NOTHING of substance save your own deluded conspiracy theories.

    I think you must have missed this statement from my previous post:

    I think the pattern is clear to everyone; you demand sources, then claim that the sources aren’t good enough when they prove you wrong.

    And you just did exactly that.

    You claimed that I offered no facts, only a link to my own blog.

    I outlined the numerous other factual links I had already provided.

    When confronted with the clear fact that I had provided additional sources, you wildly tried to spin your way out of that by claiming that my sources were somehow false.

    Since I grew up in the Midwest and Texas, I was mystified by your claim that everyone there hates and vilifies gays.

    However, after seeing your behavior, I understand why — especially if you were the only gay they had ever met.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2006 @ 2:02 am - November 10, 2006

  79. jimmy-of-the-lower-case-clan writes: “54. Did you ever think that people voted Democrat because people like you make up silly terms like GayLeftBorg and can’t take you seriously? And here’s chuckling at you and your loss: cheers!”

    OK, now you’re all alone on that fantasy trip jimmy –taken by so many on the anti-war Left to attribute all sorts of things to the results of the election. You just can’t help yourself… but this is a no wire, no nets leap even for you —and you’ve had some dooseys.

    First, jimmy voters at the polls on election day probably haven’t heard used or are aware of a term like “GayLeftBorg”… that’s the shorthand we use within our gay community to describe the guys like you and RCC and Gryph and others here who march lockstep with the GayLeft and drink from the radical Democrat koolaid trough. Example would be seeing Pride Flags (ugh) at a World Bank Protest or at a rally in favor of PETA or at a GOTV effort at an abortion clinic.

    No one here –or anywhere else except in your fantasy land jimmy– can argue that most gay activists aren’t willingly in bed with most of the radical Democrat groups. It’s a fact as real as the election results on Tuesday.

    I think you probably appreciate now how silly your comment was/is –I doubt if more than a few gays voting on Tuesday (and my guess is you didn’t even get out and vote) were voting against the GOP because some here use “GayLeftBorg” to aptly and precisely describe the political alliance and manipulation of radical Left gays by the Democrats and our community’s more outspoken “leaders”.

    Sorry jimmy, but like a lot of things written about the election day results, your opinion is just plain ol’ wrong.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 10, 2006 @ 8:48 am - November 10, 2006

  80. You still lost.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 10, 2006 @ 10:48 am - November 10, 2006

  81. ” I was mystified by your claim that everyone there [the midwest] hates and vilifies gays.”

    More blatant lies from ND30…Don’t you see how spreading lies hurts your credibility? Care to point out when and where I said such a thing (or any of the other claims you’ve made against me)? I’ve been out since I was in High School in a small town in southern Kansas and the only abuse I’ve had personally directed at me was from Mr. Fred Phelps (who is positively reasaonable compared to you ND30). Seriously ND30, get some credible sources and then we can talk. There was no “wild spinning” on my part, that’s your job (and you are not very good at it).

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 10, 2006 @ 10:55 am - November 10, 2006

  82. Again, referring to my comment above, citing a source is relatively pointless when RCC is involved, but here goes:

    I grew up in Kansas and have lived in Denver for the last 10 years. I don’t think I need to really break the news to you that here in the MidWest gays are villified and mocked openly by our Republican cohorts.

    Of course, then we contrast:

    I’ve been out since I was in High School in a small town in southern Kansas and the only abuse I’ve had personally directed at me was from Mr. Fred Phelps (who is positively reasaonable compared to you ND30).

    So first he whines about how everyone abuses him, then he tries to argue that only one person abused him.

    Right-o.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2006 @ 11:37 am - November 10, 2006

  83. #75. “Borg”-talk continutes. I think I got it: this is a sci-fi blog, right?

    “Christianist” mirrors “Islamist”. “Borg” mirrors what?

    #79. More “borg”-talk. And some pseudo-anthropology: lower-case-clan. What are you talking about? What is a “lower-case-clan”? The insularity of your language speaks, but I have no idea what the words mean.

    The point of my comment was that you people aren’t taken seriously by anyone. Your party hates you–they GOTV on your backs. The gay community that you despise disowns you. And yet you soldier on, even making up your own language since you are disconnected from substantial anchors of reality.

    And, by the way, I did get out my vote. What gay person couldn’t vote when Rick Santorum was on the ballot?

    Now, please, for my enjoyment, tell me all about Little Ricky and how he isn’t anti-gay. But, please, put it in language that I can understand. This blog ran ads for the man for months. If that isn’t the definition of “unhinged” (from reality), I don’t know what is.

    But, hey, you guys DO have something to be happy about: all the anti-gay marriage initiatives that passed!! YAYYYY!!!! (Right?) I mean, all those stupid gay people demanding equality really sets you homosexuals off, no? And aren’t you happy at what they brought upon themselves? In fact, aren’t you of the mind that gay people themselves wrote those anti-gay marriage initiatives?

    #81. There are really two RealColoradoConservatives: RealColoradoConservative and “RealColoragoConservative.” The former is you, RCC. The latter is a figment of his imagination, how he imagines you to be, projected onto you. He has no use for facts. There is only his ideology. He is truly a postmodern in practice, whatever his political ideology is.

    #80. True, true, true.

    #92. I’m guessing this will be NDT’s next slot. Could be wrong on the number though. Anyway, I agree with you NDT: Clinton and Kerry and Gore hate gay people and the new Democrats have a plan to not only push an anti-gay amendment to the federal constitution, but to advocate for the return of sodomy laws in the US. We need the GOP to save homosexuals from the gay people, or borg(?). (Did I use “borg” correctly in that sentence?)

    Comment by jimmy — November 10, 2006 @ 11:45 am - November 10, 2006

  84. #82. No, he was talking about “gays” in the first quote and his personal experience in the second. Put down your pencil. The SAT is over.

    Comment by jimmy — November 10, 2006 @ 11:46 am - November 10, 2006

  85. Christianist is an empty word of false moral equivalence made up by Turncoat Andy. Anyone who tries to equivocate Christian opponents of gay marriage to Muslim opponents of gay EXISTENCE by using that word is morally and intellectually bankrupt.

    I’d like to see you get upset about groups like “Queers for Palestine”. You want to see some real Uncle Toms? How about a gay group that supports a viciously anti-gay (and anti-Jewish) Muslim make-believe country against a relatively pro-gay, real country. “Palestinian” gays try to escape into Israel regularly for their very lives. You think there’ll ever be a pride parade in the Gaza Strip?

    No, I do not support the anti-gay marriage initiatives. But if those who did thought all gay people were like “jimmy” I can understand why they voted for them.

    People like the trolls here are part of the reason I will never, ever vote Democrat again. If I don’t like the Republican on the ballot, I’ll vote libertarian. If there isn’t one, I’ll write-in a candidate.

    Comment by Attmay — November 10, 2006 @ 12:30 pm - November 10, 2006

  86. By the way, since you are naive about popular cultural references amongst other things, the Borg is from “Star Trek.” Here’s the summary from wikipedia:

    The Borg are a fictional race of cyborgs in the Star Trek universe. They are known within and beyond Star Trek fandom for their relentless pursuit of what they want to assimilate, their rapid adaptability to almost any defense, and their ability to continue functioning after what may seem a devastating or even fatal blow seemingly unaffected. As such, the Borg have become a powerful symbol in popular culture for any juggernaut against which “resistance is futile”.

    More on The Borg

    Comment by Attmay — November 10, 2006 @ 12:34 pm - November 10, 2006

  87. Um…ND30, YOU are the one who made up a quote and attributed it to me in regards to, “I was mystified by your claim that everyone there [the midwest] hates and vilifies gays.” I never said any such thing and your attempts to prove otherwise only expose how cognitive dissonance has affected your reasoning skills. In the first quote I was referencing the GOP’s continued reliance on demonizing homosexuals…a far cry from “everyone” in the midwest doing the same. In the second quote I was asking for ANY veracity to your claim with an honest account of how gays are treated in the midwest (because you have shown absolutely no ability at even basic reading comprehension I’ll restate it here, MIDWESTERNERS ARE GOOD PEOPLE WITH NO INHERENT HOMOPHOBIA). Honestly, try a little harder from now on because your attempts at astroturf are tired and sad (not to mention slanderous and intellectually vacant). So, how about you offer up some proof to your claim that pre-war Iraq was painted as a “paradise” (again, your words not mine) by leftists? I’m still waiting (although I know you have no proof so I’ll be waiting for a long, long time)…

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 10, 2006 @ 12:58 pm - November 10, 2006

  88. No, he was talking about “gays” in the first quote and his personal experience in the second.

    So, in other words, even though he insists gays are hated and vilified constantly, he himself, who is gay, never was.

    The second rather contradicts the first.

    Now, to you, RCC:

    In the second quote I was asking for ANY veracity to your claim with an honest account of how gays are treated in the midwest (because you have shown absolutely no ability at even basic reading comprehension I’ll restate it here, MIDWESTERNERS ARE GOOD PEOPLE WITH NO INHERENT HOMOPHOBIA).

    Which was why I was mystified by your claims that they were all evil homophobes who vilified and mocked gays — because that certainly wasn’t my experience.

    Really, RCC, you make this too easy. All I have to do is say the opposite of what you do, and you’ll turn around and contradict yourself. You’ll rant about how Midwesterners mock and vilify gays, but then, when I question that based on my own experience, you’ll try to claim they don’t — which is exactly what I was saying.

    Now, since I said that, I have no doubt that you’ll reverse and say that they’re all vicious homophobes, because you can’t stand to agree with me. Or your head will explode. Either way, it will be amusing. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2006 @ 2:24 pm - November 10, 2006

  89. “…he insists gays are hated and vilified constantly, he himself, who is gay, never was.” – This is nothing more then another of your egregious lies, I’ve never said anything of the sort. I did say that the GOP villifies homosexuals (a statement of fact). Are you really that stupid or do you just gloss over the finer points of every argument?

    “You’ll rant about how Midwesterners mock and vilify gays…”

    Further proof of your own inability to have an honest conversation without resorting to LIES and DISTORTION. I have NEVER said anything of the sort (in fact, I’ve said the exact opposite…I even put it in bold letters since I know you have problems with reading comprehension) and your constant drumbeat otherwise only further exposes your feeble logic and desperate attempts to evade the question of your repeated LIES. Please, Please, Please try to not resort to SLANDER and LIES in the future. Again, please come forward with proof of your claim that people claimed pre-war Iraq was a “paradise” (your words, not mine).

    Comment by RealColoradoConservative — November 10, 2006 @ 3:10 pm - November 10, 2006

  90. Right on cue. LOL. :)

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 10, 2006 @ 7:05 pm - November 10, 2006

  91. NDXXX, he’ll never assent or admit… you’ve have better luck getting a Thos Jefferson apologist from the liberal Left historians community to admit Jefferson was a low life or Burr was a traitor.

    Colorado & jimmy –you gys are a certifiable crack-up’ed team. Like the well-intentioned but hopelessly clueless and single-issue Gryph, you guys are going to have to find something else now to focus your deep seated anger toward and my hunch is the last place for that anger will be when the House and Sen Dem leadership backpedal from your extremist, anti-troop, anti-American focus… cut & run will never be soon enough for your peculiar “taste”, taxes will never be high enough for your bitter anti-capitalism “sentiments” and finding reproach with Bush will never be enough until it results in a 100-0 Senate “conviction” on impeachment charges.

    You’ll be the bane of the Party… God Bless ‘Em, cause they deserve you. Not us.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — November 12, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - November 12, 2006

  92. [...] acknowledge how frequently we’ve criticized Bush and Republicans for their spendthrift ways, contending the GOP lost its congressional majorities in 2006 in large part because its leaders failed to [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Our Critics Silent about Democrats’ Proposed Profligacy — November 25, 2008 @ 5:17 am - November 25, 2008

  93. [...] GOP’s Failure to Hold True to Conservative Principles Cost Party Its Majorities (November 8, 2006) [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Posts* Where We Criticized GOP on Spending in Bush Era — April 17, 2009 @ 12:45 pm - April 17, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.