[QUOTE=E-Sabbath] www.electoral-vote.com says…
Projected New House*: 226 Democrats 205 Republicans 4 Ties
Senate: 50 Democrats 49 Republicans 1 tie
I… think there’s not much chance that the House is not going to go to the Dems.
The momentum does seem to be going democratic, based on the polls over time, too.
Senate’s still a tricky one. Not sure if they’ll get all 50.
[/QUOTE]
And if they Do Lieberman may switch to the GOP or go 'neutral" and be a royal pain in the ass to everyone.
[QUOTE=DanBlather]
And if they Do Lieberman may switch to the GOP or go 'neutral" and be a royal pain in the ass to everyone.
[/QUOTE]
this is different from his current status quo, how?
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
He’s already said twice that he won’t.
[/QUOTE]
He’s said a lot of things that have ended up having no bearing on what he says or does later. I think it’s a lock that he will not caucus with the Democrats.
[QUOTE=Frank]
Huh. That’s both surprising and counter-intuitive. Not to mention against the way the system is designed. Only 1/3 of the Senate is even up for flipping.
[/QUOTE]
I saw that too and was surprised for the same reason. A reversal this year would be particularly stunning, seeing how this third of the Senate has relatively few Republicans compared to the other thirds.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
I saw that too and was surprised for the same reason. A reversal this year would be particularly stunning, seeing how this third of the Senate has relatively few Republicans compared to the other thirds.
[/QUOTE]
Bodes well for 2008, if the swing away from conservatives holds. If we don’t take the Senate this year, certainly in 2008. Just think what Hillary can do with both house of Congress behind her.
If you follow Rule 1 you will rarely be disheartened. Things will nearly alsways be at least as good as you expected and often will be better.
Who would have thought that the electorate would have been gullible enough to fall for the hokey line of Newt Gingrich? Or, for that matter, George W. Bush.
[QUOTE=Frank] John Mace is, as far as I can tell, a utilitarian libertarian with the odd sharp edge of conservatism sticking out here and there. His political philosophy may be unique to the U.S.
[/QUOTE]
It may be unique, period.
Mace is OK by me, and not just because he’s bashing a Republican Party action in this thread. He’s OK by me because he speaks up for what he seems to genuinely believe is best for the country.
He’s not all that unique, there’s a lot of them. It’s just that they (we?) have tended to be either marginalized, or ignored, by either party. My ‘paleo-conservativism’ is a lot like his utilitarian libertarianism. Ignoring the usual racism of the breed, the point is that the New Deal really is where the tipping point between government of the people and government over the people began. Course, some of it’s all a myth.
Hell, you want a Democratic version? Will Rogers. Republican? Robert Heinlein. It’s a pretty all-american type.
[QUOTE=elelle]
A note on the photo linked in the OP: The podium President Bush is sitting at has the Presidential Seal, with a card attached, big letters: “Protecting America”. I don’t recall this sort of blatant reduction of terms on other photo op events. Did I miss something, is this a new trend?
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding? Just about every domestic photo op from this Administration will have a backdrop, sign, or other prop that repeats the main talking point of the event, usually a short phrase that’s repeated. If a wall or backdrop is not available, there’s always an American flag within camera range.
My theory is that he has to keep things simple for his core audience of low-IQ Fox News viewers.
[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
My ‘paleo-conservativism’ is a lot like his utilitarian libertarianism.
[/QUOTE]
I understand what it actually stands for, but I need to interject here that the term “paleo-conservative” makes me think of cavemen demonstrating outside an abortion clinic.
It got worse. No, really. Worse. Two words oughta do it: Mehlman and Rove. Maggots snub them in public. If one of them were to tumble into the Mississippi at St. Paul, it would be nothing but dead catfish all the way to St. Louis. They are twin weeping pustules on a leper’s chancre.
Rove, AKA the Pillsbury DeathBoy
Melman (in an e-mail to RNC members):
What is more personally distressing is the certainty that both of these men are justly damned, and are going to straight to Hell. I may have to make other arrangements.
[QUOTE=elucidator]
What is more personally distressing is the certainty that both of these men are justly damned, and are going to straight to Hell. I may have to make other arrangements.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, they will give hell, as popularly conceived, a bad name.
