Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread III

Lola: Stop hammering on the opposition. You know you love us. Where would you be without us?

Cloud nine?

Lola wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Could the liberals on A2K please not pollute this thread into an anti-Bush thread? I'd prefer not having to weed through the garbage to read a post in a thread topic I am interested in.

This is a BUSH SUPPORTER thread. If you do not support Bush, please feel free not to read or post here.

If the non-Bush supporters stopped posting on this thread you guys wouldn't have anything to write about.

Why don't we try it and see?

Because it is not within your power, you silly man. I just thought I'd come along and do my little part.

Voters did not reject core Republican principles of lower taxes, smaller government and family values when they put the Democrats in charge of Congress, Republican officials across the country said last week in their post-mortems on the midterm elections.

Bush's approval now down to 31... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100689.html

Bush's approval now down to 31... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/11/AR2006111100689.html

the Republican leadership in the House [has] failed the people of this country [..] This election was also a referendum on the so-called `neoconservatives' -- the big-government Republicans who took us into a nation-building war while they busted the budget and enriched big business and its K Street lobbyists.

We have watched Republicans elected by promising the highest standards in terms of integrity come to Washington to do good and stay to do well for themselves, their families and their friends, and demean the offices to which they were elected in the process [..]

We have stood by as Republicans have flaunted, twisted and ignored rules to achieve their own partisan, rather than principled, ends; leaders who have used earmarks to seduce reluctant members to vote for legislation they knew was wrong and kept votes open for hours while they and their White House allies bludgeoned their colleagues into line in support of such legislation.

Nonetheless, the difference between taking one house versus both -- and thus between normal six-year incumbent party losses and a major earthquake that shakes the presidency -- was razor thin in this election. A switch of just 1,424 votes in Montana would have kept the Senate Republican. [..]

[T]he great Democratic wave of 2006 is nothing remotely like the great structural change some are trumpeting.

Moreover, ballot initiatives make the claim of a major anti-conservative swing quite problematic. In Michigan, liberal Democrats swept the gubernatorial and senatorial races, yet a ballot initiative to abolish affirmative action passed 58-42. Seven out of eight anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions passed. And nine states passed referendums asserting individual property rights against the government's power of eminent domain.

The fact that the Democrats crossed midfield does not make this election a great anti-conservative swing. Republican losses included a massacre of moderate Republicans in the Northeast and Midwest. And Democratic gains included the addition of many conservative Democrats, brilliantly recruited by Rep. Rahm Emanuel with classic Clintonian triangulation. Hence Heath Shuler of North Carolina, anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-tax -- and now a Democratic congressman.

On Thursday, the New York Times' David Brooks wrote [..] that in Tuesday's elections "voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the left. For the most part they exchanged moderate Republicans for conservative Democrats."

He's not the only one to make a similar argument -- indeed, the meme that by delivering the Democrats the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 12 years voters somehow were trying to elect conservatives has been bouncing all over the media [..].

The National Review's Lawrence Kudlow was already [..] arguing before the final results were even in that "the changeover in the House may well be a conservative victory, not a liberal one."

And today a reporter for England's Guardian newspaper wrote, "The conservative Democrats, or new Democrats as they are sometimes called, were disproportionately represented in the most highly contested races against Republicans [..]."

There's just one problem with all this: It's not true. [W]hen actually broken down quantitatively, the number of liberal and conservative freshmen Democrats elected on Tuesday puts the lie to this running theme.

Media Matters for America, the liberal press watchdog, has already documented the political proclivities of 27 of the new Democrats in Congress; MMA restricted its analysis to those who defeated incumbent Republicans or took over open seats previously held by Republicans. It found: "All 27 candidates support raising the minimum wage. All 27 candidates advocate changing course in Iraq. All 27 candidates oppose efforts to privatize Social Security. Only two of the 27 candidates do not support embryonic stem cell research. Only five of the 27 candidates describe themselves as 'pro-life.'" [..]

In the Senate, Ohio's Sherrod Brown is a devoted liberal, as is Maryland's Ben Cardin [..].

In all of these arguments one name pops up continuously: Heath Shuler, the former NFL quarterback who ran, and won, as a social conservative. That's because, other than Shuler, there are very few others to whom the proponents of this theory can point. And yet this meme shows no signs of dying: It continues to be pushed by reporters and pundits who, like Brooks, have a vested interest in proving to their readers and employers that their views are shared by America at large. [..]

Moderates Say GOP's Conservative Agenda Doomed Party

Postmortems from some (erstwhile) Bush supporters:

"Veteran conservative strategist Richard A. Viguerie":

Quote:

the Republican leadership in the House [has] failed the people of this country [..] This election was also a referendum on the so-called `neoconservatives' -- the big-government Republicans who took us into a nation-building war while they busted the budget and enriched big business and its K Street lobbyists.

From The Miami Herald

If any of us would have used these above words just a week ago, you Bush supporters here would have insulted us or laughed in our faces. And yet here we are.

I only wish that these above-quoted conservatives and others like them, here or 'outside', would have had the gumption to actually speak up when it still mattered, when they still had something to lose. I'm glad they see the light now, but what cowardice.

And if they back away from the rationale for the war, said William Kristol, editor of the neoconservative magazine Weekly Standard, conservatives may give up their status as the forceful party on national defense, jeopardizing their long-term prospects for a governing majority. "As a political matter, conservatives should try to help Bush succeed because they are not going to get very far distancing themselves from him," Mr. Kristol said....

Amid new mayhem and political turmoil in Iraq, President Bush meets a key panel of advisers today to find a way out of the crisis, with his aides saying everything is on the table - including an overture to Iran.

Marine Corps Rules for Gun Fighting

The Marine Corps Birthday makes me nostalgic for the good ol'…well, maybe good is too strong a word. In fact, I can't say that I miss being on active duty; but I do miss being with my fellow Marines.

Thinking about my friends who are getting shot at by ungrateful Iraqis reminded me of this list, an old Corps favorite, on how to act in a gun fight:

1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.

2. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.

3. Only hits count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss.

4. If your shooting stance is good, you're probably not moving fast enough nor using cover correctly.

5. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)

6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.

7. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.

8. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating, reloading, and running.

9. Accuracy is relative: most combat shooting standards will be more dependent on "pucker factor" than the inherent accuracy of the gun.

10. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

12. Have a plan.

13. Have a back-up plan, because the first one won't work.

14. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.

15. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.

16. Don't drop your guard.

17. Always tactical load and threat scan 360 degrees.

18. Watch their hands. Hands kill. In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them.

19. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.

20. The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get.

21. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

22. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.

23. Your number one option for personal security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."


Navy Rules for Gun fighting:

1. Go to Sea

2. Send the Marines

3. Drink Coffee