Thank you Nancy Pelosi.  I mean you haven’t even taken the gavel as presumed House Speaker and already you have created a furor within your Democratic Caucus and handed the Republicans the best political gift they’ve had all year. 

Thanks Nancy, for giving your support to John “ABSCAM” Murtha — the former Marine and now lying and slanderous Congressman from Pennsylvania.

This is what Nancy Pelosi said last week after the Democrats won control of the US House.

Democrats “intend to lead the most honest, the most open and the most ethical Congress in history”.

Words are bunk, Nancy.  Your first decision as House Speaker was to side with a crook and a defamer of the US Marines.  What a stick in the eye of your pledge and the stick in the eye of our military men and women in combat.

Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post agrees.  Murtha is unfit to be House Majority Leader.

For years Murtha has relied on the Abscam bottom line to argue that the case is not a problem for him: He wasn’t indicted. But he was named a co-conspirator in the bribery scheme. The feckless House ethics committee didn’t take action against him, though the outside investigator it hired quit in disgust after the panel rejected his recommendation to file misconduct charges.

“I am the guy that didn’t take the money,” Murtha said this summer when his opponent raised the issue.

Yes, but: He’s the guy who, brought into the deal by two other House members — Frank Thompson (D-N.J.) and John Murphy (D-N.Y.) — agreed to meet with men offering money in return for official action. He’s the guy who knew these two colleagues expected a payoff and even vouched for them with the would-be bribers (“Both of them are solid.”).

I wrote a few weeks back that Pelosi’s first test as speaker would be whether she picks Florida’s Alcee Hastings — who was removed from his federal judgeship for agreeing to take a bribe — to head the intelligence committee. As it turns out, I was wrong. Pelosi’s first test was how to handle Murtha. Whatever happens [Thursday], she flunked. Whether she’ll get another failing grade on Hastings remains to be seen.

Way to go, Nancy.  There’s another reason that you are Not My House Speaker.  Add that one to your 2006 campaign of “bait and switch” on the American people (Campaigning as Moderates only to Govern as Liberals).

Nancy Pelosi – Not My House Speaker

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Since becoming President of Iran, there have been many stories circulating as to whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the Iranian students who seized the American Embassy in 1979.  This is the latest one.

Five former American hostages confirmed that Ahmadinejad as one of their captors. William J. Daugherty, a former intelligence officer, said he saw Ahmadinejad 8 to 10 times at the start of his captivity: “I recognized him right off. … I remember so much his hatred of Americans. It just emanated from every pore of his body.”
BBC correspondent John Simpson recalled seeing Ahmadinejad on the embassy grounds. Abholhassan Bani-Sadr, a former president of Iran long living in exile, asserted that Ahmadinejad “wasn’t among the decision-makers but he was among those inside the Embassy.”

That episode lasted for 444 days, involved the taking of 52 American hostages, and wound up bringing down one of our most ineffective Presidents (and most traitorous ex-Presidents) Jimmy Carter.   I would argue that the Iranian Hostage Crisis was a warning sign about the threat to America by Islamic radicals way before September 11, 2001.

Texas Rainmaker highlights this new photographic evidence to suggest that indeed, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was one of the Iranian students who declared War on America by seizing our embassy.

The majority of the pictures were an original report on a street demonstration in honor of the seizure of the “den of the enemy.” But among the many photographs filled with crowds of people, one stood out. Taken from a respectable distance and from behind a barrier, it shows a young man with an automatic submachine gun – presumably one of the participants in the storming of the embassy. Not just anyone from the crowd, however: his submachine gun has a factory casing, as opposed to the more common wood-paneled submachine guns brandished by the students in the other pictures. The young man is standing, leaning tiredly against the wall of the embassy. And when the picture is enlarged, his face comes to closely resemble that of current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

There should be an outcry from all reasonable people if the Iraq Study Group, being spearheaded by former Secretary of State James Baker, calls for negotiations with Iran as a solution. 

We shouldn’t be kowtowing to the Iranian madman who threatens to annihilate the United States and our allies.  Instead, we should send in the Special Forces and capture this man and bring him to justice for his role in the American Hostage Crisis from 27 years ago.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

When I read two years ago that outgoing Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum had compared homosexuality to bestiality, I knew that he would not win reelection. It’s not that I thought the people of Pennsylvania were particularly pro-gay, but figured than they, like most Americans, are anti-anti-gay.

Most Americans would rather that their politicians didn’t talk too much about gay issues, well, that it, outside certain urban areas where citizens want their elected officials to promote pro-gay policies and outside certain rural areas, where they want them to stand up against gays. But, by and large, I don’t think a politician’s stand on gay issues influenced many voters in the general election. To be sure, the pro-gay stands of some Republicans may have helped sway a few urban voters otherwise not inclined to vote for the GOP but, on the whole, people were concerned with other issues.

That said, when a politician makes statements as extreme as Santorum’s, people began to wonder about his quality of character, why he would so seek to demonize a large number of his fellow citizens.

Many on the left assume that when a politician supports defining marriage as it has long been defined, he is taking an anti-gay stand. To be sure, some who support such stands are anti-gay, but most, some of whom favor civil unions for same-sex couple, believe that marriage is an institution which brings together two individuals of different genders.

Outside the radical fringes of the gay movement, most Americans recognize that opposition to gay marriage does not necessarily mean animus against gays. But, statements like Santorum’s do rub them the wrong way.

The lesson for Republicans in Santorum’s defeat is that expression of anti-gay sentiments will not help advance a candidate’s cause. Most Americans, while opposing gay marriage, don’t harbor much, if any, animosity against gay people. But, on the whole, they do seem to seem to have an antipathy to politicians who readily express anti-gay bias.

No wonder Rick Santorum never polled higher than the low 40s. And secured a far smaller percentage of the vote last week than he had in his two previous statewide elections, elections held before he had compared homosexuality to bestiality.

If there was one event which would serve as a harbinger of the Republican Congress’ retreat from its Reaganite principles and defeat in last week’s election, it was the 1994 election for majority whip. After the Republicans won the a majority in the House for the first time in forty years, Pennsylvania’s Robert S. Walker, then-incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s best friend, “was initially favored to win the contest.” But, Tom DeLay, having raised money for many of the newly elected Republicans that year, won 52 votes out of the 73 GOP freshmen in the 104th Congress.

And while DeLay was an effective whip, he was less interested in advancing conservative ideas than was Walker. Five years before his election as Whip, he “managed the campaign” of then-Minority Leader Robert Michel’s choice for party whip, Edward Madigan against Newt Gingrich. That is, he supported the status quo against “the forces of change.”

By contrast, Walker was, with Gingrich, one of the founding members of the Conservative Opportunity Society (COS), a group of House Republicans committed to building on the ideas of Ronald Reagan to build a Republican majority. While committed to the principles which animated the party, the COS was often at odds with the House GOP leadership.

Perhaps had Walker won that election, he might have helped the GOP stand true to the principles he had long promoted. Instead, Tom DeLay sought to retain Republican power by the means the Democrats has used when they were in the majority, building alliances with lobbyists and using earmarks to set-aside pork for the districts of the various representatives. So brazen had DeLay been in pursuit of this agenda that he even set up a web site for his K Street Project, a program which demanded that “lobbying firms seeking access hire loyal Republicans.“

Whereas Gingrich and Walker built a Republican majority by appealing to the conservative ideas which had been — and still are* — gaining increasing favor with the American people, DeLay sought to maintain that majority by traditional political means. But, losing sight of principle and relying on “traditional political means” made corruption all the easier. And corruption had a significant impact in last week’s GOP loss. As Karl Rove put it in an interview with Time‘s Mike Allen:

The profile of corruption in the exit polls was bigger than I’d expected. . . . Abramoff, lobbying, Foley and Haggard [the disgraced evangelical leader] added to the general distaste that people have for all things Washington, and it just reached critical mass.

(Via OpinionJournal Political Diary (available by subscription).) Too focused on maintaining their power, House Republicans became cozy with the establishment they had been elected to confront.

And Democrats won this year largely by running against that establishment.

(more…)

Since an election is only fair and valid when the Democrats win, I’m going to now urge all Americans to help support our new liberal leaders in Washington.  Let’s all join hands and support (not my) Speaker Pelosi in her efforts to “catch the terrorists.”

I’m doing my part by adopting a terrorist.  It is actually easier than you think…. after all, the American Civil Liberities Union is representing and defending many of these cold-blooded killers right now.  So just pick up your phone and call to request your own terrorist by calling the local ACLU offices right now.  (ACLU link here.)

My Adopted Terrorist is named Ali.  I’m not sure if this is his real name or not, but it is the one I was told to use or else I’d be beheaded.  Ali is a radical Muslim who was born in the oppressed and destitute land of Saudi Arabia.  That really surprised me since most people stopped at the airports here are old women, babies with formula, and gay guys with hair gel.  As a matter of fact, I think I do recall hearing that 19 breast-feeding infants flew planes into buildings on September 11, 2001.  Ah, but I digress.

Unfortunately, I cannot show you Ali’s photo.  The Terrorist Civil Rights Union…er…. ACLU… says that showing his photo may jeopardize Ali’s prescence in the United States.  We wouldn’t want that would we?

Anyway, I spoke to Ali for the first time over the weekend.  He was very nice.  But I have learned that Terrorists have their own kind of language; almost like slang.   Instead of referring to me as “friend” or “buddy” like I did, Ali repeatedly called me an “infidel pig.”  Instead of talking about sports and the weather, Ali tells me that I’m going to hell and his knife will be my instrument of death.  I don’t know about you, but that is kind of cute isn’t it?

So in order to keep my Adopted Terrorist (I was sent a certificate of adoption by the ACLU and signed by Michael Moore!), I have to send Ali copies of the New York Times each day (apparently it is used as some type of instruction manual by al-Qaeda), send him half of my paycheck each week, and chop off one of my toes and/or fingers once a month.  Oh yeah, and I had to convert to Islam over the phone or he was going to murder my entire family.  At least I didn’t have to be held hostage with a gun to my head like those FOX News guys who recently converted.

I’m kind of excited though because this week, I’m meeting Ali to show him the new Spirit of America under (not my) Speaker Pelosi.  We are going to hold hands and sing kum-bah-yah while burning American flag.  He promised me if I did that, he wouldn’t drive a truckbomb into the shopping mall near where I live.

You see, folks, this new Democrat Strategy on the War on Terror will work just fine!  All we have to do is join the Adopt-A-Terrorist program and do exactly what they say.  What’s the big deal?

I’ll be keeping you updated on Ali’s story over the next several weeks…

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Now that the pageantry of Veterans’ Day is passed (and thanks, by the way, for all those who emailed their well-wishes), I’d like to reflect on something I saw at the parade this morning in Denver. There was a group of anti-war folks marching, carrying signs we’ve all seen before, most notably, “I support the troops, not the war.” This got me to thinking: How in particular, does the person with this t-shirt or bumper-sticker “support” the troops?

Does minimizing and criticizing the effort for which they’re risking (and in so many cases, losing) their lives show “support”? Does infantilizing and patronizing them by pitying them for being there, when they’ve volunteered to serve show “support”?

Here’s an example: If your son came to you and said he was going to move to Hollywood and become a moviestar, would you say “Well, son, I support you. Of course, you know, that’s a completely foolish idea and it’ll never work. You would be putting yourself in danger, and I think you shouldn’t do it. I encourage you to give up your mission of becoming a moviestar, move back here, and live the life I think you should. Oh, but yes, I support you, of course.”

Now, I can understand wanting your loved ones (or even non-personified ideas of “troops” in general) to be safe, and therefore not in a war half-way around the world. And I can appreciate (although I don’t agree) that the people who have this perspective feel it’d better serve our troops if they weren’t in combat. No-brainer, sure. But how does advocacy for tucking tail and abandoning their mission show support for the troops? Moreover, how do you think they interpret the “Support Troops/Oppose Their Mission” crowd’s actions? Do they feel like they’re being supported?

Let’s have an open discussion here: For those of you who “Support the Troops, Not Their Mission”, I ask you: Give me a concrete example of what you’ve done, say, this month, to “support” them. And if you could, also please explain how this counterbalances your lack of concern for (or more properly, your disdain for) what’s most important to them: Their Mission.

GayPatriot has joined the “Marines” team for Project Valour-IT.

Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at home or in military hospitals. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the ‘Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse.

Please remember all of our Veterans this weekend and their families who have given so much to our nation.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

In the spirit of “every vote must be counted” that was Al Gore’s mantra, I completely agree with Liz at GOP Progress that the NM-1 and WA-8 House elections must be investigated.

On Tuesday, 7 November 2006, in New Mexico’s First Congressional District, only 150 ballots were supplied to Republican-leaning Precinct 603 in New Mexico’s Bernalillo County by Democrat County Clerk (and Secretary of State-elect) Mary Herrera–despite the fact that there are 2,400 registered voters in Precinct 603.  Similar actions were taken in another Republican-leaning precinct in Bernalillo county by Ms. Herrera.  These actions, in their totality, led to Representative Heather Wilson requesting via a petition to the House of Representatives’ Administration Committee that election observers be deployed in New Mexico, due to concerns regarding voter suppression based on party affiliation.  These actions also constituted a violation of the Voting Rights Act, which the Department of Justice would be remiss not to investigate as a matter of urgency.

On Tuesday, 7 November 2006, in Washington’s Eighth Congressional District, reports abounded that King County Executive Ron Sims had supplied ballots for only 60% of registered voters to certain Republican-leaning precincts in the county, forming part of the Eighth District.  Due to torrential rains and flooding, a number of voters, of a demographic that trends Republican, were unable to reach the polls until late in the day, which due to the shortage of ballots prejudiced their ability to vote in the standard fashion.  While measures to allow these voters to cast a ballot were put in place, they were not ideal and entailed people voting in a way that did differ from regular procedure (e.g., using ballots printed in Chinese).

Since the election, King County has been inordinately slow in counting its ballots.  By some estimates, King County had, as of the end of business yesterday, failed to count as many as 130,000 ballots.  This is of concern, given allegations of election fraud committed by partisan Democrats involved in counting ballots in 2004, in the context of the Washington State Governor’s race.  There was much evidence to suggest that those who are now responsible for overseeing the counting of ballots in the WA-8 Congressional race did in fact engage in tactics amounting to election fraud in 2004, in order to deliver a win for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Christine Gregoire.  The concern is now that they are involved again in this election, and that as days pass following the election, public scrutiny is easing off, meaning that there is a much increased possibility of certain votes being disregarded for partisan motivations, or other ballot counting irregularities benefiting a particular candidate occurring at the hands of those involved in the alleged 2004 fraud.

And there’s this from CT-2…

The recount began yesterday in CT-2, a 64 town district. The first town resulted in a net pick up of one vote for Simmons.

Republicans are licking their chops over one town where they believe the number of votes cast exceeds the number of voters checked in by nearly the number of votes Courtney is leading by.

So where is Al Gore himself demanding that every vote be counted?  It seems there was election fraud, but it happened to the wrong people.

Maybe only Democrat votes count in Al Gore/Howard Dean/John Kerry’s America?  

Nancy Pelosi – NOT MY HOUSE SPEAKER. 

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

It is with great sadness that I learned just a few hours ago of the passing of one of the truly great screen presences of the last sixty years — Jack Palance. While he is well known for his Oscar-winning role in 1991′s City Slickers, movie buffs recall his taciturn turn as villain Jack Wilson in Shane. While he was not fond of such roles, he was truly one of the great villains of Westerns.

I may have more to say about the passing of this classy man later, but am off to the one of the few places where I can be an openly conservative film buff — the Liberty Film Festival. And I’m sure we’ll all remember this great actor and the contributions he made to a past time we all so enjoy. While we mourn his passing, we are ever grateful that through the magic of movies, his great performances will last long after he is gone.

I don’t think Shane would have succeeded as it did, easily becoming one of my favorite Westerns, without Palance’s brilliant performance as the level-headed heavy. Jack Palance, thank you for your contributions to motion pictures — and for the spirit which animated your life.

Two years ago, after the reelection of President Bush with increased Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress, I enjoyed this nice feeling which lasted for some time after the election. (I wasn’t alone; Peggy couldn’t “stop being happy about the election result.”) With it became apparent Tuesday night that the GOP would lose in the Senate as well as the House, it seemed I might become as despondent in the aftermath as I had been joyful in 2004.

I did not sleep well the night after the election, but fewer than twenty-four hours after realizing how complete had been the GOP defeat, I was returning to my natural good cheer and boundless optimism. (In contrast to the previous night, I slept very, very well Wednesday night.) While I wished the GOP had done more to save the three Senate seats which could have been saved (Missouri, Montana, Virginia), I realized that sometimes defeats are necessary in politics. It seemed almost the the very closeness of the 2004 presidential election meant that the winner that year would see his party lose two years thence.

And if I had to pick between winning in 2004 and in 2006, well, I’d rather we had won in the presidential year. And while I can detect a sense of sadness on certain conservative blogs, only on one have I found any bitterness. Instead, I see a sense of recognition, conservatives acknowledging the Democrats’ winning strategy and the quality of their candidates while our party failed to hold true to its principles.

I also see a sense of resolve. Instead of blaming others for our failures — or suggesting the elections might have been stolen — conservatives as well as some Republican congressional leaders are looking forward, putting forward ideas on how our party can be an effective force in opposition and considering what we need do to win back our majority.

Apparently this attitude has upset some of the left. After visiting a few sites and receiving a few e-mails, the Anchoress finds:

the weirdest fallout I’ve seen from the election is that the far left folks seem to be annoyed…angry, even at the right for not being more pissed-off, for being mostly philosophical instead of enraged about the results. I think they were hoping to enjoy watching us flip out, and they’re not seeing it. Instead of ranting and carrying on about “leftards” and spewing venom and hate and charging “stolen, stolen,” the righty blogs are thinking things over and talking and even – fer heaven’s sake – daring to laugh in real amusement as they watch the strangely positive headlines which have surfaced in the press since Tuesday.

No, we conservatives haven’t flipped out as did the left two years ago. And the initial sadness that some on the right have experienced seems, as mine, to have quickly been replaced by a resolve to find a means to move forward despite our party’s loss.

I agree with the Anchoress that the “weirdest fallout” has been the attitude of the left. Despite their party’s victory, they are as angry as they have ever been. They still dwell on their negative attitudes toward conservatives.

Anger does not well suit the party in the majority. They need show that they are prepared to govern. We conservatives have, on the whole, have shown that we intend to press forward despite Tuesday’s results.

Perhaps, I’m not as sad as I was Tuesday night because I’m old enough to realize that setbacks are only temporary. (And not only in politics.) Just two years after losing the White House in 1992, our party won majorities in both Houses of Congress for the first time in forty years. When one faces adversity with the right attitude, not only can one work on in despair, but can only find that that attitude — and the continued effort — can turn adversity into opportunity.

I see opportunity for my party — and my principles — in this defeat. And perhaps we should build on that attitude, realizing that whenever we sufffer setbacks in life, that they are only temporary and that even our missteps and misfortune contain seeds of opportunity.

Back in 1992, when George H.W. Bush was running for reelection, I became so frustrated with his Adminsitration’s betrayal of the Reaganite record on which the current president’s father has won election in 1988 and the emptiness of his reelection campaign that I had framed an old poster-size picture I had of the Gipper to hang above my mantelpiece to remind me why I was a Republican, indeed, why I was involved in politics.

A few weeks later, at a “victory” party for the local GOP, a reporter for Charlottesville’s Daily Progress interviewed me, wanting to know my thoughts on the election. I commented that the incumbent “had betrayed the Reagan legacy and that’s why he’s losing tonight.” And as I have noted in previous posts on this election, the outgoing Republican Congress similarly betrayed the Reagan legacy and that’s why they lost earlier this week.

Twelve years ago, House Republicans put together a conservative platform, the Contract with America based on principles the Gipper had been articulating for the preceding three decades. They won an impressive victory. But, once in power for several years, they lost sight of those principles, as had the president’s father.

Twelve years after Ronald Reagan’s election, the American people voted his successor out because he had forgotten the reason the Gipper had won so handily, electing a centrist Democrat promising “change.” Twelve years after the Contract with America election, the American people voted out a Republican Congress that had broken that Contract and elected many centrist Democrats whose party leadership promised a “New Direction.”

Among those centrist Democrats was a former member of the Reagan Administration who, while leaving his old boss’s party, never distanced himself form the man himself and, as I noted in a prior post, used that great man’s image in campaign ads. The use of Ronald Reagan certainly helped him sway a few votes, certainly enough to tip such a close election.

Eighteen years, after he left office, Ronald Reagan’s ideas still resonate with the American people. Polls show the American people, by comfortable margins, want smaller government and lower taxes and favor judicial restraint. In their spendthrift ways, particularly with earmarks, House Republicans ran away from many of the ideas which accounted for their rise.

But, there’s still hope. All the candidates for House GOP leadership have made clear that the party needs to return to those ideas. Two years after the American people voted out the man who betrayed the legacy which helped him win the White House, they elected the first Republican Congress in forty years. So, perhaps, two years after the American people voted out that Congress, they will elect a new Republican Congress and President, committed to the ideas and vision of the man who helped our party return from the wilderness in which it had wallowed for the first few decades after World War II.

As congressional Republicans return to that wilderness, they should also return to those ideas and that vision, the only way show them the way back into the good graces of the American people and back into power. As we Republicans look forward, we could do no better than to remember Ronald Wilson Reagan whose ideas were vindicated this week even as his party went down to defeat.

-B. Daniel Blatt (AKA GayPatriotWest)

**UPDATED BELOW**  Al-Qaeda Endorses Democrat’s “Cut & Run” Plan…..

Just as I said it would happen, our enemies around the world are celebrating Speaker Pelosi.

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Hails Democrat Victory…

A statement purportedly from the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq hails the defeat of Republicans in the US mid-term polls.

The audio message, whose authenticity has not been verified, was published on Islamist websites and was said to be the voice of Abu Hamza al-Muhajir.

The Democrats’ victory in Tuesday’s Congressional elections was a move in the right direction, the speaker said. “The American people have taken a step in the right path to come out of their predicament… they voted for a level of reason,” the voice said. Muhajir, also known as Ayyub al-Masri, has been identified by US forces as the successor to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, killed in a raid in June 2006.

Iran Calls Democrat Victory a Win For Iran….

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush’s defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran. …”This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush’s hawkish policies in the world,” Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran’s student news agency ISNA on Friday.

“Since Washington’s hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation. … The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration,” the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

Khamenei said military maneuvers in the Gulf this week in which Iranian forces tested new missile systems showed Iran was ready to face any threat.

But, he said: “With the scandalous defeat of America’s policies in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, America’s threats are empty threats on an international scale.”

It really tells you something when a terrorist group and an Islamist-run nation — both bent on the destruction of the United States — praise the Democrats’ election win.

**UPDATE** – Here’s even more from al-Qaeda on their celebration of the Democrats’ win….. reminding the world of the synergy of AQ’s talking points and the Democrats’ talking points. 

“We will not rest from our Jihad until we are under the olive trees of Rumieh and we have destroyed the dirty black house — which is called the White House,” al-Muhajir said.

Describing George W. Bush as “the most stupid president” in U.S. history, the Al Qaeda leader reached out to the Muslim world and said his group was winning faster than expected in Iraq.

The U.S. president’s policy had enabled the militant group to achieve their goal of fighting more Americans, said the Al Qaeda leader.

“We call the lame duck (Bush) not to hurry up in escaping the same way the defense minister did,” he said, referring to the removal of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary following the Democrats’ victory in Midterm elections.

“They are getting ready to leave, because they are no longer capable of staying,” the Al Qaeda leader said.

“Remain steadfast in the battlefield you coward,” he called on the U.S president.

Were these statements uttered by al-Qaeda or Howard Dean, Cindy Sheehan and Michael Moore?  It is simply astounding that it is hard to tell the difference!

[Related Story - Still Think A Democrat Win Wasn't Cheered By Terrorists? - IowaVoice]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

One of the greatest losses as a result of Tuesday’s Republican debacle is that of the last sane voice in the United Nations, recess-apointed John Bolton. Ambassador Bolton has been a voice of reason and sense, speaking truth to a corrupt organization while still holding true to the original precepts of that once-great insitution.

Alas, loser Lincoln Chafee (one Republican I’ll say who actually did desrve to lose this year) has put the kibash on the re-nomination announced by the White House the other day.

The great shame and embarrassment for Captiol Hill Republicans (okay, well, one of them) is that it was in deference to Chafee himself that the renomination was earlier tabled. The reasoning was that, to better endear himself to voters in far-left Rhode Island, the leadership should not put him on record as having supported this sage man, which he did last year, but for some reason (perhaps not having the sniveling George Voinovich’s dress behind which to hide this time?) flip-flopped on support.

It’s anybody’s guess what drove this pathetic man to change his opinion on a man for whom even leftists Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton had shown support. Was it sour grapes for Chafee that he decided, as one of his last official actions as a Senator was to stab America in the back by denying us this most qualified UN Ambassador we’ve had in my lifetime? Was this a parting blow to a President or conservative establishment who Chafee might have thought didn’t support him fervently enough against an actual conservative, Steve Laffey, in his state’s primary?

Whatever the reasoning, on behalf of the Nation and Freedom-loving people everywhere, thanks, Senator Chafee, for the slap in the face. Enjoy your retirement, and choke on it.

You know, it just dawned on me (thanks, Jim Treacher). I’m not sure why it took me two whole days to realize this: Now that the Democrats have won, and (as any of them will tell you) sent a strong message about the war, the World will now be on our side again. So I guess that’s the end of terrorism, then? I imagine now the Iranians and Syrians who are in Iraq killing Americans and Iraqis will lay down their arms because we once again have responsible folks at the helm on Capitol Hill?

When I was law studentl at George Allen’s alma mater, the University of Virginia School of Law, the Commonwealth’s currently outgoing Senator was beginning his rise to power. He won a special election to Congress in 1991. When the Democrats who then controlled Virginia’s government eliminated his district, he announced his bid for Governor.

Many of my professors, including two right-of-center ones, were skeptical of his candidacy, recalling how mediocre a student he had been. But, during his 1993 gubernatorial campaign, they became impressed with his political skills, with one noting that he had shown qualities reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. He ran a great campaign that year, coming from behind to win a convincing victory. He put together a solid record as Governor, so good that at the conclusion of his term in 1997, GOP candidates swept all three top offices in Virginia.

That year, I met the then-Governor at a rally in Annandale at the close of the campaign to elect his successor. I showed him my cowboy boots which I said I was wearing in his honor. He examined them, asking if they were deerskin (which they were) and asking how they felt. He was quite personable and showed a similar ability to talk to the other Virginians who approached him.

It wasn’t just his campaign style which impressed me, it was also how his strategy. In 1993, social conservative leaders were upset that he didn’t seek their blessing before running. Yet, they refrained from criticizing him because he had appealed directly to social conservative voters.

But, as his aspirations for national office increased in recent years, he seemed increasingly eager to please those social conservative activists whom he had once bypassed. A man who reached out to Log Cabin in 2000, he has becoming increasingly eager to placate the anti-gay forces in the party.

I think that hurt him this year. But, that alone did not account for his defeat. He simply went into this election overconfident and was not easily able to overcome his blunders, as a more deft politician would. Given all his missteps in this campaign, it’s amazing that he came so close to winning. Indeed, he may well have pulled it off had he not brought up the racier passages in Jim Webb’s novel. That appears to have backfired as polls taken immediately after that should a bump in Webb’s poll numbers.

As Allen appears likely to concede, he seems to be accepting his defeat with dignity. With a graceful concession speech, he puts himself in a strong position to run for the seat his senior colleague John Warner is expected to vacate in two years. So, instead of running for President in 2008 as he had hoped, he may well be making a bid to get back into the Senate.

And let us hope that when he does, he recalls that he can attribute his initial success in Virginia politics to more mainstream conservative policies, closer to those of Ronald Reagan than to those of Pat Robertson. George Allen lost this time by fewer than 8,000 votes to a man who “used a video in ads that showed Reagan praising him.“

A Republican may have lost in Virginia, but the image of the Gipper still sways voters. And it’s to that legacy which George Allen must turn if he wishes to rise again in that state’s politics.

UPDATE: In an excellent piece on concession speeches, Peggy noted Allen’s grace in concession: “Sen. George Allen, gentleman of Virginia, said, ‘We are placed here on earth to do something well.’ He vowed to do all he could to help Jim Webb come in and serve in the U.S. Capitol.”

… Having a horrible sinus infection and head cold and flying in a prop plane.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

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!

It appears that the ban on same-sex marriage may fall short in one of the states where it was on the ballot yesterday. The latest returns show the ban in Arizona is trailing, with 48.6 voting in favor and “51.4 percent . . . voting against” Proposition 107, the “Protect Marriage Initiative.”

Referenda defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman passed across the country, including Wisconsin, a state where, I thought, it could be defeated. The proposal in Arizona was particularly pernicious, not only so defining marriage, but also barring “state and local governments from giving legal status to unmarried couples.” So extreme was this provision that it even would have barred universities and school districts from recognizing domestic partnerships. It’s my sense that it was that aspect of the initiative which sunk the proposal in the Grand Canyon State.

Simply put, the authors of the referendum overreached. As a result, Arizona beccame the first state to reject a ban on gay marriage in a popular referendum.

I don’t think this apparent victory means that opinion has shifted in favor of gay marriage. Instead, it suggests that there is a growing consensus in favor of civil unions, some kind of recognition of same-sex couples.

No wonder Jodi Rell, the Republican governor of Connecticut, who signed such a provision into law last year, handily won reelection last night.

(H/t: Instapundit.)

I’m writing this Tuesday night. I’m headed to bed soon, but not out of disgust or anything. I have an early morning tomorrow and will post it then after the excitement has died off and so I don’t interrupt Dan’s live blogging any more than I already have.

As of now, it’s about 10pm Mountain Time and the Dems have just taken over (as we’d expected they would) the House. We still have 4 seats to defend in the Senate. Senate Update: Whoey…glad I didn’t stay up…

There are two ways the next two years could go:

1) The Democrats will do what we warned they’d do: Raise taxes, expand the size/scope of the Federal Government, redistribute wealth, yadda yadda (all the things that convinced America to take the keys from them in 1994). This will kill their chances of making any sort of showing in ’08. And oh, so easy to run nationally against Nancy Pelosi. Or, more likely:

2) Knowing the disaster it would be to follow 1) above, the Democrats will govern the same way they have campaigned over this election: Stealth. This would be easy for them as they’ll not really be “in charge” and won’t have to really take responsibility for anything. Sure, they’ll do some obstructing, and possibly a few things to hurt. But most likely they’ll be more of a pain-in-the-ass than a real impediment to accomplishment.

(more…)

As I prepare to head to bed, I do so with a certain sadness.* I had thought the GOP would hold onto the Senate, but it looks like the Democrats ran the table on the close races. I think in the end, you had a standard 6th year election, yet had Republicans held onto their principles, they could have minimized the damage and limited their losses.

One thing which had not entered into my somewhat optimistic forecast on Monday was something that one of the panelists on Fox pointed out — that in the past year, four Republican Congressmen resigned, two of them (Foley and Ney) within the past six weeks. (Interestingly, Ney’s seat was the only House seat Republicans lost in Ohio, so the “Taft curse” only extended to statewide races.) People felt that congressional Republicans had become too smug in their power.

I think perhaps the Foley scandal slowed any Republican momentum. Had he been the only Republican Congressman to resign, it might not have registered on people’s minds, but his resignation followed that of Duke Cunningham and the former Majority Leader, Tom DeLay.

And the Democrats did a great job of recruiting candidates, many of whom ran on conservative platforms. So, it’s not all bleak for our ideas. While the House leadership will be left-of-counter, the House Democratic caucus will be more conservative than its current makeup, something which may put a check on the excesses we might otherwise expect.

It’s a good night for the Democrats. They did a great job in tapping voter discontent with a complacent GOP majority which has lost its moorings. Now that they have won an impressive victory, they have before them the more difficult task of governing. And they may well succeed.

The silver lining in this all is that at least it proves wrong some Democrats’ claims that President Bush is a fascist. For a fascist leader would have prevented the opposition from winning such a victory.

And another silver lining is remembering that the tension in 1995-99 between a Republican Congress and a Democratic president produced a consensus domestic policy with a number of notable reforms. Perhaps now with a Democratic Congress and a Republican president, we may see similar progress.

One can only hope.

* I guess I have some sense how Democrats felt two years ago.