Think of it. The Dems will lose seats in a year that had everything going for the party.
Why? In part because the progs insisted on launching disgusting and indefensible sexual smears at Sarah Palin and her daughter. Level-headed liberals warned against that course of action, but the Kos Krazies insisted that they knew better. They said that the appearance of Palin's family at the GOP convention justified even the most revolting forms of attack.
(Obama's daughters appeared at the Democratic convention. Does that fact give Republicans a right to say that Obama molests his children?)
Result: An unending series of repellent lies helped to make Sarah Palin an even more sympathetic figure. Her popularity increases with each new prog attack.
Now that the Republicans lead in the presidential race, the unpopularity of this do-nothing Congress will almost certainly translate into lost seats. Heeeerrrrrre's Gallup:
Did Dean, Reid and Pelosi think that the electorate would put up with their horseshit forever? Impeachment hearings would have shifted the perception of inaction and would have further tarnished the Republican brand, but the Democratic leadership would have none of it.
The following comes from the Financial Times. Registration is required for the full article (Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout) so I'll quote the pertinent section:
A Democratic fundraiser for Congressional candidates said some planned to distance themselves from Mr Obama and not attack Mr McCain.Keep in mind that Joe Lieberman is likely to caucus with the Republicans next year. A one-seat gain means that the Rs have the Senate. They'll take the House, too, if they win 16 seats. That outcome may seem unlikely -- but so did the party switch in 2006.
“If people are voting for McCain it could help Republicans all the way down the ticket, even in a year when the Democrats should be sweeping all before us,” said the fundraiser, a former Hillary Clinton supporter.
“There is a growing sense of doom among Democrats I have spoken to . . . People are going crazy, telling the campaign ‘you’ve got to do something’.”
Concern was greatest among first-term representatives who won seats in traditionally Republican districts in the landslide of 2006. “Several of them face a real fight to hold on to those seats,” the fundraiser said.
Over on Kos, the bots keep repeating the mantra: Polls don't matter. The sharks attack anyone who suggests that polls do matter.
Keep it up! Keep it up! The PUMAs find you very amusing. There's no Freude like Schadenfreude.
10 comments:
When Obama loses, when the democrats lose seats and when the Democratic Party implodes, it will all be the fault of those racist white women and few self-hating Negroes thrown in for good measure. /rolling my eyes.
It amazes me that people could not see Obama for who he is from the very beginning. It absolutely amazes me. He was as transparent as bottled water.
Now , now, Obama could not talk me out of a burning house.
Joseph
My prior criticism of your skepticism of the BHO COLB forensic postulations now seems petty and derisive in view of your compelling resarch and opinons on the present issues. Frankly I am astounded that your assertions are not routinely referenced in the mainstream blogosphere. The avoidence of these disturbing theories and revalations may well become the mother of all hindsight forhead slaps should voters fail to recognize them.
But don't get cocky, I can still kick your ass on the foosball table softboy!
<>_<>
You forgot the ever unpopular Donna Brazile...or as she is known on Liberal Rapture, Donna the Brazilian!
Why do progressives always screw up?
One reason is that progressives hate Democrats more than anyone else in the world.
You can verify this with a quick visit to Democratic Underground, where nary a kind word is said about Democrats. Ever.
All I did during my time at DU was defend Democrats against dyspeptic Democrats who did nothing but attack other Democrats. (Sounds like the Obama campaign in a nutshell, doesn't it?)
Progressives spend their entire lives attacking Democrats, protesting against Democrats, plotting against Democrats, and in general screwing things up for Democrats--while the Republicans go completely unscathed.
With Obama, the progs have indulged their hatred bigtime, essentially nuking the party. It's good to see Republicans happy again.
I agree about DU, Perry. You know, one theme I have sounded -- and that others have sounded -- is that the "progressive" movement is actually Libertarian.
Arianna? Libertarian.
Kos? Libertarian.
Aravosis? Libertarian.
Andrew Sullivan (I guess he's a prog now) is Libertarian.
I just now ran across an article titled "Bill Maher, friend to Libertarianism." That's probably due to is pot-head ways, but still, the pattern holds.
Obama is basically Libertarian on economic issues. He doesn't advertise it, but he is. FDR he AIN'T.
I don't know enough about Keith Olbermann to gauge his economic ideology.
The really disappointing one has been Josh Marshall. Unlike everyone mentioned heretofore, he has given every indication of being an old line Dem. What HAPPENED to that guy? He used to be so smart!
What happened to Josh? Money. Lots of it. Josh has been planning to build a media empire for sometime and he needs big money. It appears that he has traded his dignity for money.
Another reason progressives mess up: they are misogynists down to their toenails.
"It amazes me that people could not see Obama for who he is from the very beginning. It absolutely amazes me. He was as transparent as bottled water. "
The credit goes to the GOP-leaning media and its 24/7 fawning over Obama to the detriment of better, more experienced candidates. Oprah's shilling for him had much to do with this as well.
"Obama is basically Libertarian on economic issues. He doesn't advertise it, but he is. FDR he AIN'T."
In other words, he's a Republican and no different than McCain in this regard. At least people KNOW where the Republicans stand on economic issues; Democrats are NOT supposed to support the same ideas as the Republicans.
Reality check time.
According to Gallup's writer, the generic Dem/GOP Congressional preference has now sunk to the levels typified by the period '94 through '05 during which the GOP took and maintained majority control of the Congress.
Wait a minute. There's a little bit of trickery involved with that language. For one can more accurately state that such levels were in place when the Democrats steadily ate into the GOP majorities, which eroded fairly consistently from '96 on. So much so that the Democrats got close enough in the Senate that a single GOP defector (Jim Jeffries) gave the Democrats majority control, not at the end of this period, but in '01.
So, there is nothing about these numbers that is inconsistent with the Democrats keeping its seats and gaining more seats, because that is what actually happened in more election cycles in this '94 to '05 period than not, despite these kinds of closer generic number polls.
And I must observe that the notion that D-Kos' DIARISTS or progressive blogs in general have a meaningful effect on national opinion is absurd. What is the claimed mechanism by which some tenths of a percent of the electorate reading such materials translates into a 5-10% move in the polls? Frankly, even the far more watched political talk shows on cable reach only a tiny percentage of the electorate.
Claims like this are a kind of onanism, seems to me.
XIslander
Post a Comment