(2006-11-09) — At a post-luncheon news conference outside the White House today, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said talk of pardoning President George Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney was “premature.”
“Let’s not get ahead of ourselves,” said Rep. Pelosi, who as House Speaker would stand third in the presidential succession line. “There are no specific charges or articles of impeachment at this point, and so it’s silly to speak of pardoning them.”
“Let’s not be too hasty for emotional closure,” the California Democrat added. “Our long national nightmare has only just begun.”
63 responses so far ↓
1 Anonymous // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:26 pm
We all know only HILLARY can pardon them
2 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:27 pm
Hmmmm, I see Madam President has spoken again.
Foist!
3 Scott Ott // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Pelosi Calls Talk of Bush, Cheney Pardons Premature…
by Scott Ott(2006-11-09) — At a post-luncheon news conference outside the White House today, Speaker-elect Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, said talk of pardoning President George Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney was “premature.”“Let’s not get ahead of….
4 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:32 pm
This is great. Now that the Donks have won the Congress, all the pressure is on them to deliver the goods. Of course if their meddling loses the war in Iraq, the moonbats on the left will say its all Bush’s fault.
Come to think of it the left has already prepared that ground by saying we’ve already lost! Imagine that, we’ve lost a war where we haven’t lost a battle and we still occupy the ground. It’s amazing the kind of fantasy world media negativism, left-wing bumperstickerisms and utter ignorance can produce.
5 JamesonLewis3rd // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:32 pm
“Only just begun.”
Indeed.
6 diamond jim // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:37 pm
I can’t even read parody info about Pelnosi without gaggin.
What a pathetic diplay of human incompetence she is.
7 da Bunny // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:38 pm
This “national nightmare” has been brought to you by the LSM. [paid for by George Soros]
OT, Godfrey, please see my response to your post on the “Rumsfeld Quits” thread.
8 gentlemanscholar // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Wow! That “long national nightmare” harkens back to President Ford’s remarks upon the resignation of President Nixon. Very clever. The House of Pelosi will no doubt do their best to Watergate President Bush with investigation after investigation. Not that they are in favor of torture.
9 Bill's Bites // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Pelosi Calls Talk of Bush, Cheney Pardons Premature…
The impeachment drumbeat begins Michelle Malkin I know what Nancy Pelosi’s lips say. She says she thinks impeachment is off the table. She says she thinks it would be a waste of time. But the groundwork is being laid. Former…
10 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Nancy Pelousi: Read my lips, no new impeachment.
However, talk of impeachment has already begun. among the moonbats. We’ll see how long Pelousy’s “civility” assurances last. Of course, seeing how Democrats love to nuance everything, Pelousi does have an out by saying the Dems will bypass impeachment and go straight to a war crimes trial!
Lamestream media: Of course when dealing with a bona fide war criminal like President Bush, Ms. Pelosi can be forgiven for her original overexuberance regarding civility and no Bush impeachment.
11 wildhowd // Nov 9, 2006 at 3:18 pm
So which will come first, impeachment or a full scale attack of Israel from Hamas with Iranian backing
12 Effeminem // Nov 9, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Funny.
13 Roguet55 // Nov 9, 2006 at 3:59 pm
Scott you are prolific today!
Phew, keep us laughing I think we’re all going to need it!
14 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 4:20 pm
As close as the elections were nationwide, can you imagine what it would be like at DailyKos, Demoncrapunderground.com, and moveon.orgy? It would be sheer mayhem , the weeping and gnashing of teeth and people slitting their wrists … okay, moving to Canada.
Also, there would have been probably fifty different election races tied up in court with another twenty or so recounts. EVERY VOTE MUST COUNT! DIEBOLD STOLE THIS ELECTION! KARL ROVE IS AN EVIL GENIUS!
Yet what do you see just two days after this election? Calm, one recount due to it being well under a 1% differential, conservatives in relatively good humor and liberal Democrats still more likely to be on Prozac™ than conservative Republicans. But the LLL moonbats continue to blind themselves to the fact about who the real adults are in an imperfect world.
15 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Sheesh! I meant to say: Can you imagine what it would be like if the Democrats had lost the close races this election? My brain got ahead of my keyboard.
16 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 4:36 pm
Real news:
AP - Ottawa, Canada
Bill Clinton told the dinner crowd that Americans, while more “culturally conservative” than Canadians, are at the core “a practical people,” adding, “It would be a big mistake to read the results as some big move to the left in America.”
Confessing that he flew to Canada after staying up until 5 in the morning celebrating his wife Hillary’s re-election to the U.S. Senate, the former president concluded that U.S. voters clearly want a government that doesn’t stray too far to the right or too far to the left.
“They thought that the government has gone too far to the right, is too unaccountable,” Clinton said. “So what they voted for was not necessarily to legitimize the whole Democratic agenda but to give us a chance to build the vital centre of America and to get things done and come together.”
I agree with the first paragraph, will concede the second paragraph on the basis of it being honest opinion, reject the claim of America going too far right as little more than partisan sniping, and will adopt a wait-and-see posture regarding the last part of the paragraph. I’m all for building a “vital centre of America and to get things done and come together” if it isn’t in the form of a well-disguised leftist agenda and socialist programs.
17 Anonymous // Nov 9, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Just think - Supreme Court Justice William Jefferson Clinton. I know I can’t wait.
On a lighter note, I’ve been pissed at the “spineless ones” since they dumped Newt and the Contract with America. However, I did go to the polls and pulled the lever for Connie Mack, who’s not even sure where his district is and for Katherine Harris who didn’t even have the support of the SW Fla. Republican leadership (the second reddest part of the state). The leadership has close ties to Bill Nelson, who from what I’ve heard was declared the dumbest man in the Senate.
Does anyone know a good “third party”?????
18 Pedro // Nov 9, 2006 at 5:02 pm
Ooops, the Bolton renomination process is dead. First Rumsfled, now this?
Sounds like the nation is getting on the right track in a hurry. Lead on, Ms. Pelosi!
Love you all,
Liger
19 The Great Santini // Nov 9, 2006 at 5:05 pm
♪ ♪ ♪ NAN WON’T TALK PARDONS ♪ ♪ ♪
[Tune: “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden”, music and lyrics by Joe South, performed by Lynn Anderson; © 2006, Santini Serenades]
[Chorus]
Nan won’t talk pardons
She hankers after White House Rose Garden
Emotional closure
And then fire up impeachment bulldozer
[Verse]
For now Nan mugs, gives bipartisan hugs
But her cheatin’ heart longs to jail Bush, Cheney, and Rover
Before this term is over
Nutroots chatter shrieks impeachment patter
They want Bush’s head right now on a silver platter
Gotta placate those Mad Hatters
[Bridge]
The smiling mamba sure looks jolly
Dreamin’ ‘bout Impeachment Follies
For DemDonks, happy days are here again
[Chorus]
Nan won’t talk pardons
She wants to put Re-thugs on milk cartons
Sucker-punch and hit mo’
Frog-march Bush/Cheney/Rove to Club Gitmo
[Verse]
Nan’ll serve Purina™ with waves of subpoenas
To obstruct the White House soon as she’s the
Dem whore-House queen-a…she’ll be ventin’ her spleen-a
She’ll use Dem storm troopers, lib Betty-Boopers
She and Ted the Grouper will be Congress’s Alice Coopers
Super-duper pooper-scooper!
[Bridge]
So take your swords, beat them to plowshares
Welcome to our national nightmare
Come and enjoy the good times on C-Span™
[Chorus]
Nan won’t talk pardons
She’s had more facelifts than Dolly Parton
At least Dolly looks good
San Fran Nan looks like a Demo street hood
[Tag, to fade]
Nan won’t talk pardons
She’s got the gavel, the cartoons’re startin’
Main features are “Fright Night”
With “Texas Chainsaw Massacre”, a delight!
Nan won’t talk pardons….
20 Godfrey // Nov 9, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Hank: George Bush, Dick Cheney, and possibly Condoleeza Rice will be the sacrificial lambs of a nation gone insane. I hope I’m wrong.
I think you are. Your points are well-taken but I think you’re assuming that the Far Left was elected Tuesday night when in fact America merely rebelled against the status quo.
The Democrats, by moving to the center in order to win the election, implicitly disowned the Far Left. The leadership, including Pelosi, may be left of center but the majority of Congress is still centrist.
The leaders may want to impeach Bush, but they know they don’t have a mandate to do so. I’m not a Republican but I can offer all Republicans this, something which you may not have considered: if the Democrats do try to impeach Bush they will turn the electorate against them. Impeachment proceedings will hurt them more than the Republicans.
They aren’t stupid people. They know this, and that’s why you’re hearing the conciliatory, bipartisan tone. They will certainly open up some minor hearings on faulty intelligence and they will certainly continue to pretend they were misled into the war, but they will absolutely, positively not initiate impeachment proceedings.
On these issues, a Republican president, with a Republican House and a Republican Senate, went 0-for-5. How disgraceful.
It’s difficult to get things done in Congress…but that’s how the framers wanted it. Ever notice some of the wild policy shifts that happen in other countries but don’t really happen in the US? That’s the real genius of our system, that even when one party appears to have total control they cannot turn the system on its ear on a whim.
That is partially why the Republicans couldn’t affect good changes like tax-code reform but the same will hold true during the Democrats’ reign. Sure, the Angry Left may want to declare America a socialist state, but thanks to the architecture of our government they won’t be able to.
I’m optimistic indeed; not from empty naiveté but because I understand (and truly revere) the system put in place so long ago, a system that will protect us from radical change just as it always has.
Any change that does come will be very gradual. It will take years…and the next elections are not too far away.
21 Godfrey // Nov 9, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Anonymous: Does anyone know a good “third party”?????
Why, it just so happens that I do.
Low taxes. Minimal regulation. Free markets. Restrained gov’t spending. Complete freedom of religion. No gun control, affirmative action or eminent domain.
In other words, pretty much what the Republicans used to be.
22 conserve-a-tips // Nov 9, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Godfrey, I took a test awhile back, that my daughter gave me. She had gotten it in one of her classes. She tested conservative. I tested Libertarian. I never would have considered myself in that vein, but evidently I am moreso then I thought. Perhaps it is time to start helping them to have more voice. A big issue for me is abortion, euthenasia, and embryonic stem cell research. Do you know where they stand on those issues?
23 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 9, 2006 at 6:16 pm
My pupils are dilated from the drops my neuro-opthamologist gave me. Now I look rather funny (not LSD funny), but not near as much as Nancy the Government Nanny does. like the deer standing in the road as a semi approaches.
Hey, The Nanny, I like it, I will use and I beat Rush Limbaugh to it.
24 da Bunny // Nov 9, 2006 at 7:00 pm
MRW, Roger Hedgecock [a popular Rush guest-host] called Nancy “the woman who hasn’t blinked in 5 years.”
I like your “Nancy the Government Nanny” moniker…”Nanny” for short. Good one!!
25 Pros and Cons » The Democrat Dilemma … // Nov 9, 2006 at 7:13 pm
[…] As a corollary, I’m uncertain over all the tact and perhaps excessive good-loser behavior exhibited by our guys (those would be my fellow registered Republicans). All this brotherly love and refusals to file suits over close elections may be reminiscent of Bush’s glory days in Texas when he won over and then eclipsed the then-dominant Democrats, but I don’t know. Is pre-emptive (and perhaps unrequited) reconciliation wise or just or dumb or just plain necessary? I sure prefer it to the paranoia of 2000 and 2004, but I honestly hate that we aren’t fighting close challenges, especially in Montana. […]
26 camojack // Nov 9, 2006 at 7:56 pm
“Pelosi, who as House Speaker would stand third in the presidential succession line.”
Why do people keep saying third? She would be second:
1. Cheney
2. Pelosi
Scary…
27 bystander // Nov 9, 2006 at 7:56 pm
“A Come-to-Daddy Moment
By MAUREEN DOWD
Poppy Bush and James Baker gave Sonny the presidency to play with and he broke it. So now they’re taking it back.
They are dragging W. away from those reckless older guys who have been such a bad influence and getting him some new minders who are a lot more practical.
In a scene that might be called “Murder on the Oval Express,” Rummy turned up dead with so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man billed as Washington’s most skilled infighter. (Poppy? Scowcroft? Baker? Laura? Condi? The Silver Fox? Retired generals? Serving generals? Future generals? Troops returning to Iraq for the umpteenth time without a decent strategy? Democrats? Republicans? Joe Lieberman?) ….”
28 JamesonLewis3rd // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Dowd is, like, credible, yo.
29 myword // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:31 pm
I heard JD Hayworth of AZ today on the radio. He said he is not conceding his loss. There is going to be a recount. Has anyone seen any of this in print? I tried Google and Yahoo, but the only thing I found were negative articles about JD. Hmmmm. I like JD and think he’s been a good Congressman. Looks like conservatives have lost the search engine wars.
I had an experience today with libraries. I have cards at 2 of them. I was looking for some of the conservative books on Islamists that are out now. I found one. Londonistan. As I was browsing the Political Science sections it was obvious there is a preponderance of liberal material, very little conservative.
As I was checking out I perused the list of top
20 books. Mark Steyn’s “America Alone” was on the top 20 list, but not stocked it even though they stocked all the others. I asked why not. The guy just shrugged.
Is this an anomaly? Am I paranoid or is it the same ole, same ole hijacking of my tax dollars to support liberal institutions.
30 bystander // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:32 pm
This whole thought about Dad trying to save Jr from himself is certainly not new !
31 JamesonLewis3rd // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:34 pm
That doesn’t make the premise any less ridiculous.
32 GnuCarSmell // Nov 9, 2006 at 8:56 pm
I’m not buying Pelosi’s ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ act. The Nanny (good one, MsRight) has been bashing Bush with the most hateful rhetoric for so long it’s impossible to believe her good-will transplant is for real. Keep in mind that most of the Democrat House leadership are also hard-left, so they will pressure Nanny to destroy the President without regard to the damage it may cause the country.
A few weeks at most and the Wicked Witch of the West will be back with a vengeance.
33 egospeak // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Random thoughts,
re: 16
Darthmeister,
I have two questions,
1. Was Hillary at the same celebration Bill was at?
2. Who was on Bill’s arm until 5am?
re:17
What should the President’s strategery be regarding potential nominees to the Supreme Court the next two years? It seems highly likely that there will be at least one, (Stevens) possibly two (Ginsburg) vacancies on the court in the near future.
If I were President (you can all, especially you trolls, get down on your knees and thank God that I’m not) I would nominate a strong originalist, like Janice Rogers Brown with the expectation that they would be rejected. I would continue to nominate similar originalists and at the same time take to the bully pulpit to decry the Dhimms abuse of constitutional privilege, again expecting my nominees to be rejected.
I would continue to blame the libs for obstructing the elevation of qualified jurists, with the ultimate goal of keeping the seat(s) empty until the next election when hopefully my party would regain control. It would certainly be risky, but also a heck of a lot of fun. I’m not a constitutional expert but I don’t think there is a time limit for filling the empty seat(s).
re: 20
Godfrey,
As usual your posts are reasonable, logical and well written. I hope you are right, however, regardless of the fact the Democrats took control by moving to the center their leadership is far, far left, considerably further left than 20 or 25 years ago and they control the purse strings. Even Howard Dean, (who conservatives thought was the best thing that could happen to the Republican party) has a new lease on life and his successor when he steps down will probably be in his likeness. The party leadership controls the purse strings and will use that to enforce party discipline.
I would be amazed if two years from now Heath Shuler or any of the other moderate to conservative Democrats so recently elected were still holding on to the beliefs that got them elected. Call me cynical… or a realist.
Still, I hope you are right.
As for the fact that “it’s difficult to get things done in Congress… but that’s how the framers wanted it” when has that ever stopped the left? What they can’t do through the people’s representatives they try and often succeed in accomplishing through the courts. That is why it is doubly dangerous for them to be in power. I’m not suggesting they be denied their rightful place of power, (even if that could be done and I wouldn’t want to live in a country where it could be done) I’m just saying that they need to be watched very very carefully.
It should be very interesting the next two years.
Regards,
34 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:14 pm
#20. Godfrey, just throwing some things out there to see what sticks.
It would be great to see the Dems moving closer to the middle, but I’m not holding my breath. The pathology they simmered in for the last five years may have left a lasting impression on their political psyche. Also, it may be the case President Bush is in a mood to be even more accomodating to the liberal agenda, which will further embolden Democrats. If this is the case it can only end up being bad for America. Or it could be POTUS is doing a rope-a-dope to draw Democrats into overplaying their hand and then having them getting blamed for the fallout, but then if it’s legislation his name will be on the dotted line, too.
…I hate politics. It’s not in my nature to be a political animal. I find nothing heady or attractive about it.
35 egospeak // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:16 pm
re: 23, 24, 32
A nanny for the new nanny state.
Regards
36 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:23 pm
The Constitution Party is probably the party I could be a card carrying member of if it were viable at the national level.
I’m and independent and have tested as a just right of libertarian. As to the big “L” Libetarian Party, I definitely don’t buy into their agenda about legalizing “victimless” recreational drugs.
37 everthink // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:26 pm
Scrapplers,
It’s just amazing, aint it? Who would have thunk the un-American dimdonks could have don’t so well?
Does anyone here think Dick Cheney will last a year? Remember Spiro Agnew? What happens if Cheney, and Bush go down for the same crime, does Pelosi become president? I wasn’t sure, and so I thought I’d axe the experts.
Your main “water carrier” is doin’ drugs again. I bet Bush is drinking again, too.
Is Ken Mehlman really gay? Is there a page connection?
Inquiring minds want to know?
ET
38 everthink // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:27 pm
er done
39 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Godfry-
If the Libertarians could win an election, I could support that but the last time I supported a third party candidate, we got Clinton.
40 everthink // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:34 pm
bystander,
… so many knives in him that it’s impossible to say who actually finished off the man …. Now that’s good writen!
MAUREEN DOWD’s family is (was) Republican, you know?
ET
41 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Hey everthink, if Melham is gay, it would matter more to you and your kind than anyone here.
Just remembering that we aren’t the party of compassion and diversity. We’re just mean ole small minded people.
Did that really, really old Grand Wizard guy get invited back to DC?
42 Godfrey // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:40 pm
CAT: A big issue for me is abortion, euthenasia, and embryonic stem cell research. Do you know where [Libertarians] stand on those issues?
Libertarians have a wide variety of views: their core principle is that government should be allowed into our lives only when necessary and that personal liberty should be at the core of every policy decision.
What this often boils down to on the issues you cited is: abortions are a matter of personal choice, so they should be legal but the government (taxpayers) should neither condone nor be forced to pay for them: likewise for euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
But I know a lot of Libertarians who favor a ban on abortion (I do). I know others who are creeped out by the idea of euthanasia (my view varies on that). I don’t know many Libertarians who think funding stem cell research is the government’s job, but I’m sure they exist. Most of them are dead-set against it.
In short, there’s some overlap but the LP generally doesn’t line up with the Republicans on your key issues. They don’t line up with me on two key issues of mine: immigration and the war. But for the most part I click with their overarching ideal, which is more than I can say for the two majors. The real divergence between Republicans and Libertarians is on social issues. Republicans (like Libertarians) believe citizens rather than government know how best to spend their money. The LP extends that philosophy to social issues as well.
The Libertarian Party is mostly good for influencing the general direction of politics, especially Republican politics. They have the ability to siphon off just enough votes to threaten the Republican, but they never get enough votes to win anything above, say, a mayoral race. An estimated 13% of the populace considers itself “libertarian” but they usually only garner 2-3% of the vote. Their real power is in forcing the Republicans to field candidates with a libertarian streak in order to avoid losing that 2-3%.
If you’re interested in affecting the greatest change in a libertarian direction but the above items are overriding concerns for you I’d say stay in the Republican Party and vote for libertarian-minded Republicans (i.e. “Goldwater Republicans”), of which there are many
Especially in the primaries, where your vote counts the most.
43 everthink // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Dorkmeister,
You ask: could be POTUS is doing a rope-a-dope?
I don’t know about his Texas cowboy rope skills, but he’s sure got the dope part down pat!
ET
44 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:44 pm
More headlines from Drudge:
DNC Chair Dean: We Won’t Impeach Bush…
… we’re going straight to a war crimes trial.
Pelosi’s Hometown Disputes Liberal Image…
San Francisco? Buwhahahahahahaha … Does she mean … buwhahahaha! I can’t take it any more …hahahahahaha!
CBS JOURNALIST ED BRADLEY DEAD AT 65…
Another victim of Bush’s death squads.
Army exceeds most recruiting, retention goals…
I’m sure this has something to do with the Dems winning back the Congress.
Iraqi president says Democrats told him they will not pull out quickly…
I thought that’s what all Democrats did.
45 Darthmeister // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:45 pm
I don’t know about his Texas cowboy rope skills, but he’s sure got the dope part down pat!
Speaking from experience, neverthink?
46 Godfrey // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:45 pm
mig: If the Libertarians could win an election, I could support that but the last time I supported a third party candidate, we got Clinton.
Wrong. The last time you supported a third-party candidate, you woke up a whole bunch of Republicans and forced them to think outside the box. As it turns out you (and all Perot voters) are the ones who were really responsible for the Contract with America and the Republican Revolution of ‘94. If Papa Bush had won a second term that probably would never have happened.
Votes work in unforseeable ways.
47 egospeak // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:55 pm
everthink,
I never cease to be amazed how tolerant, and respectful of other views you liberals are. You lecture us constantly about how narrowminded and bigoted we are, yet you are the ones who demand that blacks stay on the plantation, lest they become “house slaves” as Harrry Belafonte lectured us. Now all gays have to march in lockstep or they are hypocrites or pedophiles?
You are some of the most bitter, meanspirited people
on earth and you disgust me.
48 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Suddenly I feeeeeelllllll really smart.
Thanks
49 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:00 pm
I know I am not the first to say it but maybe now we’ll win the war in Iraq, the press coverage for the next few years should be glowing. Our military will be heros, not thugs in the night; superstars not stupidos; and Iraq will be the next great place to raise your kids.
50 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:10 pm
AND if you really want great health care, Iraq will be the place to get it…
http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/accomplishments/health.html
Vaccinated 3.2 million children under age 5 and 700,000 pregnant women with vaccination campaigns …
Immunized 98 percent of children 1-3 years (3.62 million children) against measles, mumps, and rubella during 2005…
Immunized 97 percent of children under five (4.56 million) against polio during the 2004-05 national polio immunization campaign, keeping Iraq polio-free.
Those dems, one day in charge and the face of the news is already changing!
51 Beerme // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:12 pm
Godfrey,
I agree with much of your analysis of the elction, so far, but am skeptical of one of the points you make. You seem to think the Dems won partially because of their move to the center. I believe their move to the center was simply window dressing for partisan purposes. In other words, I believe…wait for it…they lied to the voters. As exhibit number one, I will offer Harold Ford, who never tired of mentioning his faith and his conservative values during his failed election bid, but would certainly have reverted to his liberal Democrat ways once elected.
So, in essence, the move to the left was a faux move. Instead of conservatives, they were conswervatives, having swerved out of their liberal lane for a time in order to win election but ready at this moment to swerve back now that they’ve won.
Oh and I hereby patent that term, “conswervatives”®.
52 mig // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:17 pm
I love the term : Chimpeachment.
Hillaryous!
53 da Bunny // Nov 9, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Godfrey, I don’t know if you read my response to you on the Rumsfeld Quits thread, but I basically said the same thing that Beerme just said in post #51. I don’t trust that very many of those “centrist” dems that were elected on Tuesday will remain “centrist.” Their true colors will show up soon.
Beerme…”conswervatives…” Muwahahahahaha!! Excellent! Same goes for “chimpeachment,” mig.
54 onlineanalyst // Nov 9, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Murtha, who plans to run for majority leader, claims that the president has no power. What part of the Constitution does this man not understand?
Pennsylvanians re-elected this clown… and threw Santorum under the bus for Casey? I thought that the bars were closed on election day in that state.
55 onlineanalyst // Nov 9, 2006 at 11:33 pm
It’s time-out for the trolls to read a thoughtful essay that demonstrates adult critical thinking. Now this piece is a little long, but with an extra-large latte, you might be able be able to handle the challenge of thinking beyond bumper-sticker slogans.
56 Godfrey // Nov 9, 2006 at 11:36 pm
Beerme and Da bunny: …their move to the center was simply window dressing for partisan purposes. In other words, I believe…wait for it…they lied to the voters.
I think it’s a bit simplistic to talk about politicians “lying” to the voters. In reality, lying to voters is their job. Politicians promise this or that, omit the other thing and spew grand, sweeping rhetoric they know they won’t be able to live up to. It’s all in a day’s work.
But the Democrats didn’t “pretend” to move to the right for this election: they really did move to the right. It was a conscious thing: they literally sought out “conservative” or centrist Democrats whom they knew would appeal to the swing vote, thereby changing the makeup of the Democratic Party (or at least the part of it that is in power). The party leadership may have donned some window dressing (Hillary and Pelosi seem awful centrist lately!) but there was also a very real shift.
I don’t trust that very many of those “centrist” dems that were elected on Tuesday will remain “centrist.” Their true colors will show up soon.
Some of the new guys are pretty centrist on certain issues and always have been. They’re not faking it.
Bob Casey, whom OLA just mentioned, has long opposed abortion. Plus he voted for John Roberts and Sam Alito. Jon Tester is pro-gun and anti-gay marriage and wants to get tough on illegals. There are many others.
Granted, they’re Democrats and they agree with much of the Democratic agenda. But these are not your classic left-wing elitists. I think the Democratic Party realized the “crazy leftie” thing was losing them elections, so they shifted gears.
I’m not so sure they’ll be able to shift back.
57 onlineanalyst // Nov 9, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Correction, Godfrey: Bob Casey, Jr. has never served in the US Senate, the position for which he was elected only two days ago. Casey had nothing to do with the confirmation of Roberts and Alito. Casey was a Lt. Gov. in PA, serving with Gov. Ed Rendell, who incidentally thought that Sen. Santorum was a much better choice as a leader serving the interests of the country and the state.
58 Ms RightWing, Ink // Nov 10, 2006 at 1:19 am
Has Nancy the Government Nanny tucked you all in?
Nighty night, and please no nightmares
sigh
59 R.A.M. // Nov 10, 2006 at 2:20 am
Someone needs to ask Charles (SOB) Rangle if he is still going to bring back the draft?
I can call him SOB, it, (as he said, after calling the Vice President that), is an endearing term or some such nonsense.
I know Charlie wants us to intervene in Darfur, so all you little young libs out there better get ready to kiss mommy and daddy good-bye.
I remember hearing the guys I was drafted with, during their first night away from home, crying like babies.
They were the ones who acted so tough when the lights were on, kind of like the trolls here.
[deleted]
60 JTD // Nov 10, 2006 at 7:25 am
And it looks like the new name for the United States is
Santa Francheska.
61 egospeak // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:01 am
Godfrey,
When I first read your comments about politicians lying to get elected I was shocked, shocked! Shocked!!!!!!!! What a cynical thing to say. Then I thought about it for, oh, five seconds and realized that you are 100% correct. Well done.
I also realized (I’ve probably known this for a long time but it’s been in the back of my subconscious) that not all elected representatives are politicians… some are actually public servants, and there is a big difference.
It is my hope and, I think, your confidence that the Democrat leadership thought they were recruiting politicians when in fact they may have been too clever by a half and actually recruited public servants. Only time will tell.
Either way it may bode well or at least not too bad for the country. If the newly elected stay true to their beliefs it will moderate or perhaps even stop the leftwing desires of the leadership and if it turns out that they are politicians it may lead to a conservative Republican Congress in two years.
Regards,
62 Darthmeister // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:14 am
#47, well spoken egospeak.
Liberals never let hypocrisy get in the way of their political agenda and their politics of personal destruction.
63 Darthmeister // Nov 10, 2006 at 8:21 am
mig, I bet you’d like “Chimperor”, too. Bu$Hitler, Shrubya, BusHalliburton ad nauseam are the products of our “compassionate, open-minded, respectful, progressive” antagonists on the other side of the aisle.
Like I’ve said before, since by the left’s own calculation KKKonservatives are such knuckledragging, mean-spirited neanderthals anyway you’d expect that kind of behavior from us. But what is the liberal/progressive’s excuse except for their complete and utter hypocrisy? In fact, these liberal hypocrites have raised name-calling to an artform.
You must log in to post a comment.