Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

I say, we did not just lose our majority, we lost our way. [..]

Bush Gives Top Ten Positive Outcomes of Election
by Scott Ott

I saw that interview, but I don't agree that an earlier resignation by Rumsfield would have had the effect he suggests. But I do agree the leftists will not be satisfied with Rumsfield's head. This will only give them a blood-lust for more.

Ticomaya wrote:

I saw that interview, but I don't agree that an earlier resignation by Rumsfield would have had the effect he suggests. But I do agree the leftists will not be satisfied with Rumsfield's head. This will only give them a blood-lust for more.

You may be right, but an ear to the ground heard a lot of groans and moans from the conservative base when the President announced before the election that he was sticking with Rummy. Rumsfield was not unpopular only with the libs.

But yes, there is now blood in the water and the sharks are circling. The next casualty will be Cheney's office (as President of the Senate) in the Capital building. Rangel has his eye on that I believe. And once the dust settles over the Murtha/Hoyer dogfight over who will be House majority leader, we can expect the attempt at a legal massacre to commence.

8. We may finally get to see the Democrat plan for victory in Iraq.

The next casualty will be Cheney's office (as President of the Senate) in the Capital building.

The first thing I want to do is enumerate a few things that did not cost us this election. It wasn't the media. We faced the same media in 2002 and 2004 and prevailed. And it wasn't the savvy campaigning orchestrated by a suddenly gifted group of Machiavellian Democrats. That one doesn't fly either. The Democratic Party remains the organization that allowed John Kerry access to a microphone a week before the election.

Most importantly, we didn't lose because our countrymen suddenly misplaced the virtues that make America great. It is a distinctly liberal trait to blame "the people" when they don't vote as one would dictate. I'll brook none of that from our side. The fact is, we thought our country would be better off with a Republican Congress. We made a case to the American people. They didn't buy it because they thought it was a weak case.

Going Quietly?
Cultural degeneration has paralyzed the West in the face of its enemies.Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

I doubt many will take the time to read that Tico. But Dr. Sowell is right on target as he most usually is.

Foxfyre wrote:

I doubt many will take the time to read that Tico. But Dr. Sowell is right on target as he most usually is.

To bad he doesn't ever get the credit he deserves.

Breaking news from another planet: A headline at the National Review Online describes John Kerry as a "media darling" and complains that the press has "circled the wagons around the junior senator from Massachusetts."

That bit of handiwork tops a column by Thomas Sowell that's chock full of stuff you might charitably call "truthiness." Sowell quotes Kerry saying that he would "apologize to no one" for what he said about Iraq, but he neglects to mention that Kerry subsequently apologized to anyone who was offended. [..] Sowell says that Kerry "to this day ... has never signed the simple form" required to release his military records. In fact, as the Boston Globe reported at the time, Kerry signed Standard Form 180, which "waived privacy restrictions and authorized the release of his full military and medical records," in May 2005.

What about this notion that the media has "circled the wagons" around Kerry? Maybe we missed all the wagon circling amid the 24/7 coverage of Kerry's blunder. Every time we turned on CNN or MSNBC Wednesday, we saw somebody beating up Kerry for his comments; at one point Wednesday, Fox's John Gibson went so far as to refer to Kerry's words as "off-color remarks."

What did Sowell see this week that we didn't? He focuses almost entirely on a San Francisco Chronicle headline that said, "Bush, GOP seize on Kerry's gibe to turn focus from war in Iraq." Sowell asks: "Has any Democrat ever been accused by the mainstream media of 'seizing on' some statement by a Republican, much less have bad motives imputed?"

Well, let's see. From the New York Times, June 24, 2005: "Democrats seized on Mr. Rove's comments, clearly hoping to put Republicans on the defensive." From the Washington Post, July 12, 2005: "Democrats seized on" Bush's vow to fire anyone involved in leaking Valerie Plame's identity [..]. From the Associated Press, Aug. 12, 2004: "Kerry seized on Bush's comments" about a national sale tax in an effort to "reverse partisan stereotypes by portraying the Republican president as the tax raiser and himself as a tax cutter." From Knight Ridder. Oct. 27, 2006: "[..] some Democrats seized on Cheney's comments" about "dunking" detainees in water [..].

Sowell should try "the Google" sometime. There's no telling what you can find out there.