So what do you think?
Is this even true?
If it is, what do Republicans have to do to keep control of the house?
The Senate?
I think the Senate is safe, but the control will drop to 53 or 52.
Republicans have to send the message that just because you might not be happy about things, change is not always better.
If you vote for Dem's you get:
lose in Iraq and maybe a war against radical islam
higher taxes
no border security
no voter ID
no protection against terrorist because Dem's have to call the ACLU and lawyers everytime a terrorist talks on the phone...
They have to hit home with this stuff...or the House will fall....
Sunday, September 03, 2006
More GOP Districts Counted as Vulnerable
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
12 comments:
The Dems are holding all of the cards this election. Howard Dean can still seize defeat from the jaws of victory with his 50-state strategy by pouring money into hopeless elections in Mississippi and Utah, therefore spending in less in the close, critical elections.
Briefly looking at the numbers for the Senate:
Tossups:
----------------
Connecticut-- (provided we keep Chafee)
NJ-- Possible R pickup, to close too call (tctc)
MO-- Leaning Talent's (R) way, but still tctc
MT-- Burns's reelection is a tossup, slightly leaning D
---------------------
Leaning Dem:
MN-- Klobuchar holding seat for Dems
OH-- Brown leads DeWine (D pickup)
PN-- Casey leads Santorum (D pickup)
WA-- Cantwell leads McGavick
----------------
Leaning R--
TN-- Corker leads Ford
VA-- Allen leads Webb
--------------------------
So, what this means: if the elections were held today, the Dems would get 2-5 pickups in the Senate. That we hold all our seats AND defeat Menendez and Cantwell simply isn't probable this time around. I'd try a national strategy reminding voters everywhere that Democrats are wusses to depress all of their numbers, but we'll see what the leadership chooses to do.
If you vote for Reps you get:
civil war in Iraq and maybe a war we can't afford against Iran
lower taxes only for the richest people
no port security or air cargo screening or explosives detection equipment in airports
no Voting Rights Act
no protection against terrorists because Reps believe unrelated state-to-state war is the best way to stop terror instead of good policework and human intelligence gathering
I could go on . . .
and you would continue to look like a fool if you did...
Jay's first points:
civil war comment is the "this war is too hard" mentality, lets give up and run away...Just remember, if there were enough of you around in our past, we probably would not even be the United States of America.
We can't afford a war against Iran...your right...but not because we need to save the money for the socialism you love...we can't afford to LET Iran turn the world into a sand box
Keep trying to spin that the Left will be better for our security...I'm not laughing now, and I will reflect on you being in bed with the ACLU, and against every messure that has kept us safe from terror attacks....
tax cuts for the rich has always been a silly comment, but I can see now you don't have the mental ability to understand math or statistics...but I'll leave a few AGAIN...
The Top 50% pay 96.54% of All Income Taxes
The Top 1% Pay More Than a Third: 34.27%
so of course, when there are tax cuts they get more of the cuts....you love to give all breaks to the people who don't pay any taxes..keep the mentality of socialism and free hand-outs...its why the inner city is the way it is...
Game said:
Republicans have to send the message that just because you might not be happy about things, change is not always better.
Oh yeah! Republics should run on THIS!
If you vote for Dem's you get:
lose in Iraq and maybe a war against radical islam
The military WON the war. The administration LOST the peace due to their amazing ignorance, hubris, and incompetence. The Democrats will do better and you have no evidence to claim otherwise.
higher taxes No, a return to a sane tax policy which brought budget surpluses AND prosperity.
no border security Like we have now?
no voter ID This is a local and state matter, not federal. Voter registration and ID work just fine in my state. FIX IT IN YOURS. Find a solution that all sides can work with. Maybe a voter registration with a signature that can be compared at the polls. Works in my state. Quit whining and fix it in your state.
no protection against terrorist because Dem's have to call the ACLU and lawyers everytime a terrorist talks on the phone...
No, the ACLU and all other Americans want their government to follow the laws which are quite capabable of providing all the tools needed to effectively fight terrorism. Any suggestion otherwise is simply a thinly-veiled attempt to increase executive power at the expense of the Constitution and the rule of law.
They have to hit home with this stuff...or the House will fall.... Good luck.
And once again Game, you miss the entire point on tax cuts.
Liberals aren't asking for more money to be given to those who pay less taxes. Liberals are asking that our children's and grandchildren's futures not be jeopardized by mounting national debt caused by tax cuts that primarily benefit the very wealthy.
Do you see the difference? Do you get the difference?
Jay & Jim
One, given Kerry changed his position on staying the course in Iraq, I currently trust the Democrats as far as I can throw them. I feel like a dupe for voting for them in the past.
I encourage you guys to switch parties and vote Republican, like I have. They have a proven record of keeping us safe. They also have a proven record of keeping the economy growing, and the GOP will make sure the future of human civilization belongs to freedom and not sharia law.
You guys want to replace free enterprise with a command economy, and want to disengage from world affairs and let terrorists get nukes. We may disagree over Bush's legal wiretapping, but to openly advocate letting a suicidal theocratic regime have nukes for their promised apocalypse, like Jay has, is lunacy.
Democrats simply don't understand the world we live in today.
Sure, you can borrow and spend the economy to the moon. Where does that leave your children and grandchildren, Jason?
Like Kerry,Bush has changed positions. He said that the US should never be engaged in nation building. Then conditions changed and he made a conscious (so to speak) decision to change his mind and direction. I suppose you would never change your mind if you realized that doing something was a mistake and things would not get better unless you tried it a different way. If not, then you are doomed to fail.
I don't care if you can convince me that the Bush policy is the most brilliant policy in the history of mankind. I would be as delusional as you are if I were to think that the people who have screwed up in every thing they have done would somehow be able, let alone willing, to actually try and execute a policy which would be different from what they've been doing and actually have a chance of success.
I would be as delusional as you are if I were to think that the people who have screwed up in every thing they have done would somehow be able, let alone willing, to actually try and execute a policy which would be different from what they've been doing and actually have a chance of success.
Yet you would vote for socialist Democrats? When has socialism ever succeeded?
Gianni,
I know of no "socialist" Democrats in this country. Just because they are left of Pat Buchanan doesn't mean they are socialists.
I guess Buchanan is a moderate to your, huh?
If you can find ANY WAY to justify the use of the term "socialist" against any leading Democrats, then I can use the same justification in calling the Republic leaders "fascists."
No you can't. That Dems wish to spread money around that doesn't belong to them is a very socialist way of thinking. "Fair" tax policy is what, exactly? To me, it means everyone pays the same percentage at worst. Escalating percentages penalize those who are producing. It is socialist to look at the producers and insist that they have the dough so they should pay more. It is also socialist to support legislation that puts the feds up as providers for the people. Not their job. Big government handling everything is a socialist principle. On just those points, it would be hard to find a Dem that doesn't in some way mirror those sentiments.
Tax cuts, on the other hand, have always stimulated the economy and resulted in more revenue to the state. You may be confusing what happens with that revenue after it has been collected with whether or not the tax philosophy has met it's goals. Very common on the left.
Mounting debt is caused by spending, not tax cuts. Reduce spending, illiminate unnecessary programs and those the feds should never have begun, and the debt can be more effectively dealt with. Forcing those who have made the most of being an American to carry the burden is unAmerican.
Yes, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants to spread money around that doesn't belong to him, to build bridges to nowhere. The Republics want to spread money around to subsidize the oil companies (Which one was it that netted $10 BILLION in Q1?) or to the mega-farm companies. Don't give me any more crap about spreading money around that doesn't belong to them. I've never heard a Democrat say that the government should be providers for the people. Assistance to get them educated, working and paying taxes, yes. Provider, no.
Marshall, you know that the wealthy pay a smaller percent of their income than the less wealthy. They have write-offs and tax breaks and loopholes and tax accountants and offshore accounts and shell corporations that the less wealthy don't have.
Tax cuts up to a point may stimulate the economy IF they haven't reached the point where they become counter productive. It has been shown that the current round of tax cuts HAVE NOT paid for themselves. You can read this and don't don't disregard it because it's from the Washington Post. The sources are respected conservative economists including N. Gregory Mankiw of Harvard, a proponent of tax cuts who chaired the Council of Economic Advisers in the Bush White House. Mankiw is a top-notch economist hired by Bush and Cheney to advise them. He says that at best, tax cuts pay for half of the lost revenue.
You no doubt tout the Laffer curve, but you cannot point to where on the Laffer curve the US economy is, can you? Hence, you are simply drinking the Kool-Aid while this administration takes you and your future and children's future for a ride.
I encourage you guys to switch parties and vote Republican, like I have. They have a proven record of keeping us safe. They also have a proven record of keeping the economy growing, and the GOP will make sure the future of human civilization belongs to freedom and not sharia law.
"I'm jason h. bowden, and I approved this message."
Spoken by a true politician on t.v. & radio, a commercial for the radical right, even if untrue. Perfect commercial, jason. I applaud you. *smirk*
marshall art said..
That Dems wish to spread money around that doesn't belong to them is a very socialist way of thinking.
Y'know, I could very easily turn that around and say, "That Repugs wish to spread money around that doesn't belong to them is a very socialist way of thinking." The people's money is being spread everywhere but to the U.S. I seem to remember some $89 bil of the people of the U.S.' money going to a country called Iraq, and several bil at least to Afghanistan, let's see... another hundreds of bils to Iraq, I could go on & on. Now who's the real socialists? I don't recall any Dem ever spending this much of the people's money on anything & everything but the people. This is the true socialism. Collect taxes to spend taxes on yourselves & everyone but your own people. This is called the traditional masses against the classes, and why it started.
Mounting debt is caused by spending, not tax cuts. Reduce spending, illiminate unnecessary programs and those the feds should never have begun, and the debt can be more effectively dealt with.
Speak for your own on spending, when your own administration has and is spending your people's tax $s into oblivion (and oh, btw, you do need an income when you spend money -- it's how it works. You cut taxes, and you cut the gov't's income, so it doesn't have $s to spend). Have you ever tried to balance your own personal budget when you had no income, & paid out thousands upon thousands of $s? It doesn't work.
And, to think this country can do it on loans, grants, business, etc. with other countries is ludicrous -- then those other countries end up owning the U.S. until they are paid off -- which they never have been except in the Clinton administration (and even then, he did it through some loans, if I remember correctly -- one of the reasons people weren't so happy with him doing it).
You may be happy with spending and selling our country into oblivion so there's no country left by the next election (much less left for our kids & grandkids), but I sure in the hell am not. Again, what the current administration is doing is socialism to the max, so for you to call Dems or anyone else socialists is extremely hypocritical. I can't believe you have the nerve. The current administration has spent more than any other, ignored what the people need, and raked in corporate $s more than any other administration.
Post a Comment