"What else can go wrong for the Democrats?
* They lost the biggest special Congressional election of the year in San Diego;
* The USA Today/Gallup poll release yesterday has the President's approval numbers up to 38% (from a low of 31% just a month earlier);
* That same poll has the 'generic Congressional vote' at 49% for Democrats to 44% Republicans which sounds bad, but earlier this month it was 55-40;
* Zarqawi is dead;
* The Iraqis have a fully functioning government in place;
* The President made a surprise visit to Baghdad;
* The Republican National Committee has a 5-to-1 cash-on-hand advantage over the DNC, and;
* Karl Rove is off the hook.
"And, all that occurred just in the past eight days. Tell me, again, how likely it is that the Democrats will pick up 15 seats in the House and six in the Senate?"
- Rich Galen, Mullings, 6/14/06
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I would hardly call the Iraqi government "fully functioning."
It takes more than people holding office to have a functioning government.
The death of Al Qaeda's top man in Iraq is bad news for Democrats, is the claim.
and the GOP accuses the dems of "politicizing the war"!!!
go figure.
Southpaw...how is Iraq's government not fully functioning?
Notice how none of the points were really challenged...must be tough being a Dem right now with no plan and losing momentum...it is a long time until Nov and anything can happen, but with a few more weeks like this week and it could be another long two years for libs.
the president at 38%, up from 31, is hardly reason to gloat. Kind of like your fever going down from 105 degrees to 103- you're still pretty sick!
And what happened to taking public opinion polls with a grain of salt???
Some of those points are a bit of a stretch...after all, Bush visiting Baghdad isn't a sign that the Democrats failed to stop him from going or something. Anyway, it doesn't speak much of success in the Middle East that you're bragging that Bush went there without being shot.
Same thing with the 38 percent approval rating and the generic percentages; they're better news for Republicans, perhaps, but nothing to introduce as evidence that you're winning something somehow.
But what really bothers me is the tendency for conservatives to gloat about how positive developments benefit THEM, as opposed to the good of the country. At least progressive causes set out to help people other than themselves.
Southpaw...we absolutely do take polls with a grain of salt, which is why it isn't the only factor.
Ian...right after Zarqawi's death gave the President momentum that was completely captured with his trip.
I agree that the poll numbers are still horrible, but a tick up tied with the rest of the week's events, is a positive.
When something benefits Repubs it does benefit the country, so that's why we are glad.
Excellent points and great post. When I have a chance I'm going to do a similar post pointing out all the good things too :-)!!! The dems picking up 15 seats my a**.
I love how liberals are so ashamed of being called liberals that they are trying to invent a new word to call themselves...progressive...sorry...isn't working...try again...you know the deal...walk like a duck...sounds...yada yada yada
Liberal and proud of it. Never called myself a progressive once!
I also come from an era when I remember that "liberal" was not a dirty word in politics, not an insult for the GOP to use.
Thank you so much to Lee Atwater for changing that.
Southpaw, you are definitely in the minority then if you are not afraid to tell everyone you are a liberal.
Kerry also fought like crazy to not be labeled a liberal even after the National Journal ranked him as the #1 liberal in the Senate.
I'm not ashamed of the word "liberal." I once was, but after tracing its roots and how Reagan-Bush demonized the word in the 1980s, it made me all the more determined to use and reclaim it. I hope more people are doing so.
Some say that the word is being hijacked by the more fringe elements of the left. I don't think that's happening, at least not any more than the term "conservative" is being stolen by those who spend the government into oblivion, entangle us in every country in the world and who can't put their noses far enough into our personal lives. What's "conservative" about that?
Nick...you nailed it...while the huge majority of liberals are trying to run and hide from that label, true conservatives are always proud of the label. It is even more telling how non-conservatives try to wrap themselves in a conservative flag, but clearly aren't conservatives. Like you said, true conservatives call them out quickly unlike liberals who rarely denounce the ones who are supposedly highjacking true liberal causes.
Ian...nice view of history but unfortunately had the stuff Atwater said not been true it wouldn't have worked. He just finally found a way around the MSM to tell the truth about liberal policies.
CT, that is an incredibly naive statement. You know as well as I do that just because something "works" does not mean it is true.
But if this is indicative of your logic...
Clinton's campaign in 1992 based on the the need for change from a GOP administration worked. So we must have needed change. Must have been true, because it WORKED.
right?
(BTW, I'm working on my guest post. I can guarantee you that it will not be offensive or insulting to anyone who reads your blog)
The only reason Clinton was elected in '92 was b/c of Ross Perot...despite Bush's "read my lips" mess up, had Perot not been in the race, he would have won by a major landslide. It had very little to do with Clinton's campaign being he only won one state (Arkansas) and DC by more than 50%.
Post a Comment