Fuck you Bush you LOST muthafucka!

[Clothahump]

@Bob55

Since Bush wasn’t running for anything, I don’t see how he lost anymore than Clinton did in ‘94. It wasn’t a “we hate Bush lets vote Democrat” election (well it probably was for some), I think the Republicans beat themselves by not being strong on the issues, by spending more than Democrats would if they were in power (I really have NO clue who’s the party of big or small governement anymore), and several other things. I don’t think the war in Iraq was #1 on voters’ minds though, I believe it was the Republicans being weak. I personally like the shifting of power, the Republicans had become complacent and didn’t give a crap about what their voting core wanted. Maybe this will force them to wake up.

And there it is. Pretty well stated.

The election was not a referendum on Bush, on Iraq, on Republicanism, on anything. It was just as Bob stated: the Republicans got complacent on top of the hill, they got kicked off and now there’s a new king of the hill. Same as what happened in 1994.

[E-Sabbath]

No, it pretty much seems to have been a referendum on the Republican Party’s corruption and Bush’s policies.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-11-13-voa60.cfm

@Voice of America

Public opinion polls show that this month’s election was in large part a referendum on the Bush administration and its policy toward Iraq.

Course, who are you going to believe? The Voice of America? They’re all liberal traitor commies.

[lissener]

@Clothahump

And there it is. Pretty well stated.

The election was not a referendum on Bush, on Iraq, on Republicanism, on anything. It was just as Bob stated: the Republicans got complacent on top of the hill, they got kicked off and now there’s a new king of the hill. Same as what happened in 1994.

Cept in 1994, you were probably calling it a “revolution,” and crying big soft tears about the “contract with America,” and all that bullshit, Now, though, it’s just SOP.

[elucidator]

Piffle. If you’ve seen Nixon elected twice, your capacity to feel de

[elucidator]

to feel despair vanishes.

Sheeesh.

[Starving_Artist]

@elucidator

to feel despair vanishes.

Sheeesh.

Only to see it arise again once he’s successfully driven from office by the endless, day-after-day, two-year-long pounding of the liberal media cabal which had been out to get him for three decades . . . and which is made even more egregious only by the fact that it ultimately led to the disastrous presidency of Jimmy Carter.

[Baffle]

Why would a Libertarian vote Republican, ever? I can’t understand how any self-respecting Libertarian would vote for any party that enacted legislation to limit freedom. Drug laws, abortion laws, phone taps and indefinite imprisonment go fully against the ideals any card-carrying Libertarian should hold.

[kaylasdad99]

Tax cuts.

Faced with a choice between fewer Mrs. Grundys (which they’re not likely to believe the Dems are going to produce anyway), and lower taxes, coming down on the side of lower taxes is a fairly predictable outcome.

[Baffle]

Surely repealing drug laws would eliminate a large amount of prisoners and therefore lower taxes, something which to me seems a lot more effective than tax cuts for the ultra rich.

[kaylasdad99]

Well, yeah, you did say self-respecting Libertarians, didn’t you? Some significant percentage of self-identified Libertarians are probably also pragmatists who can see that for the foreseeable future, policy is going to be made by Dems and Pubbies.

[Sevastopol]

@Clothahump

And there it is. Pretty well stated.

The election was not a referendum on Bush, on Iraq, on Republicanism, on anything. It was just as Bob stated: the Republicans got complacent on top of the hill, they got kicked off and now there’s a new king of the hill. Same as what happened in 1994.

By the way, how’s your index going regarding Bush at the moment? Still a good President, a B-minus?

Thought I’d pop by and ask, while you’re posting.

[Boyo_Jim]

@elucidator

Piffle. If you’ve seen Nixon elected twice, your capacity to feel de

I know exactly what you mean, and I never EVER thought I would have a good thing to say about Nixon. But he was a fuckin’ Solomon compared to Bush. I would trade Bush for him in a second.

I’d probably regret it later…

[jali]

@Clothahump

And there it is. Pretty well stated.

The election was not a referendum on Bush, on Iraq, on Republicanism, on anything. It was just as Bob stated: the Republicans got complacent on top of the hill, they got kicked off and now there’s a new king of the hill. Same as what happened in 1994.

It wasn’t a vote for Daddy either but it seems that H’s administration will be taking over.

[kaylasdad99]

@Boyo Jim

I know exactly what you mean, and I never EVER thought I would have a good thing to say about Nixon. But he was a fuckin’ Solomon compared to Bush. I would trade Bush for him in a second.

I’d probably regret it later…

Me, too. The being-dead-and-not-moving-around advantage alone would make the smell of the putrefied remains easier to bear.

I might regret the cleaning charges in the Oval Office come 2009, though.

[Frank]

@Starving Artist

Only to see it arise again once he’s successfully driven from office by the endless, day-after-day, two-year-long pounding of the liberal media cabal which had been out to get him for three decades . . .

It’s nice to see that in this day and age historical revisionism still exists.

[wring]

@Frank

It’s nice to see that in this day and age historical revisionism still exists.

where you been the last 6 years? this is the administration that brought us “nobody could have predicted…” then spells out something that they’d been briefed on a few months before.

[Der_Trihs]

@Starving Artist

Only to see it arise again once he’s successfully driven from office by the endless, day-after-day, two-year-long pounding of the liberal media cabal which had been out to get him for three decades

There is not and never has been a liberal media; it’s a right wing lie. The ( American ) media is so far right it’s ridiculous; much of it is just a subsidiary of the Republican Party, no better than Pravda.

[Frank]

@wring

where you been the last 6 years? this is the administration that brought us “nobody could have predicted…” then spells out something that they’d been briefed on a few months before.

Yeah, but that’s lying about current events. SA’s comment is more akin to cutting Beria out of the encyclopedia and pasting in a long article on the Bering Sea.

[wring]

@Frank

Yeah, but that’s lying about current events. SA’s comment is more akin to cutting Beria out of the encyclopedia and pasting in a long article on the Bering Sea.

I don’t see a qualitative difference - recent events are easily verified as well, and the montage of adlministrative quotes “I never sad…” followed by the guy saying exactly that is impressive.

[lissener]

@Der Trihs

There is not and never has been a liberal media . . . .

I’m a hard left liberal, and I say you’re overstating here. It’s true that there is no such thing as a liberal media, nowadays, in the way that it’s meant: a monolithic lefty power structure that controls and manipulates information. That power structure, today, is decidedly more right than left, as you say. There are, of course, liberal media outlets, but there is no Liberal Media.

However, I don’t think you could say as much in the late 60s, early 70s. The media brought down the Nixon administration, after all. That’s the boogieman that is invoked by present-day conservative panic-mongers.