That sucking sound you hear is probably Murtha going under in a quagmire of his own excrement, like some mastadon-sized donkey’s last struggling in a tar pit. That other sound you hear (“Soylent Green is . . . !”) is Abramoff being hauled off to prison, even as he promises to give up the goods on a variety of legislators, among whom are probably 6 to 8 Democratic (happy now?) Senators, including Filthy Harry.
As we know, control of the Senate is a rather close thing. Atrios, apparently (just saw it on Tailrank) says hang ‘em all, which I (yikes!) agree with, but if our Sampson of corruption takes down the Senate with him, what will the balance look like, and whither Joe Liebermann?
Intarweb Preview: Lott’s transgressions vs. Murtha’s (BOTH=Because of the Hypocrisy)
– Old Joe is being coy – waiting for the offer from the Rep side to roll in, and watching the initial Dem clown car act before he pops a nuggie….. *snort*
…and it’s an acronym!
Talk about your hazardous duty…
In 2008, the Republicans will be defending 22 Senate seats, the Democrats only 12…somehow I think Joe will stay a Democrat.
Given the Democrats’ record on defense, pooflingerboy—not to mention your own track record on much of anything, I’d advise you not to bet the cave on that.
Am I the only one that is put off with the idea of Abramoff in control of the fate of the Senate? All of the sudden that cartoonish trench coat and fedora combo seems appropriate.
On what, McGehee?
Considering the Democrats just picked up 5 Senate seats in an election where they were defending two more seats than the Republicans, it’s a fair bet they’ll pick up at least a couple seats in an election where the Republicans are defending 10 more seats than they are…and lock in a majority for quite a while.
– Dem Congressional Appointments – “Culture of Corruption – Redux”
TW: almost38 ….Yes turing twit, You’re right….In many ways it does seem like 1938.
– monkey – Lieberman is a real Democrat, not a NeoLiberal dickhead. As long as his party is being led around by the ring in it’s nose by the hard left, you have no idea what he might do. An appointment to the Administration, is just one of many possibilities, although I aggree the chances of a winning bet on Joe to remain Dem is orders of magnitude better than betting Kerry will somehow produce that form 180.
Yea probably. Feal better?
And also the dreaded sixth-year election after the Dems have been out of power for twelve years so everyone’s forgotten why they voted the Dems out in the first place.
But keep right on with your “faith-based” thinking.
I don’t know about “faith-based” McGehee.
Even if the Democrats only get a 50-50 split of the 34 Senate seats up in 2008, it will be mean a 5 seat pickup for them…and a solid majority in the Senate.
– monkey, you’re pounding smoke up your own ass now. Good things will need to happen for the Dems to even stay in place, much less gain more strength. With the in-fighting between the hard ass’s and the moderates we.ve seen, in just this short a time, it’s not at all clear that the Dem leadership got the true message from the electorate, or for that matter knows which side her political bread is buttered on. For now it might be better just to concentrate on that for the next few weeks.
– For starters, the lack of any real plan in Iraq is really starting to stick out like a sore thumb, only exascerbated if Murtha actually gets the nod. An all out failure in Iraq would be the nail in the Dems coffin for ‘08. First things first, and Pelosi isn’t showing she understands anything. If she really believes the Dems got in on some imaginary mandate, instead of voter frustration with the Reps, the Dems are toast. I don’t think she’s quite that dumb, but they’ve proved people’s expectations wrong before.
The plan is to just pull out of Iraq now, BBh.
Simple and easy to accomplish.
It’s the Republican plan for Iraq that’s…hard to see.
The Democrats controlled the House for 40 years.
Then the Republicans controlled it for 12 years.
Are you counting on the Democrats to lose control this time after just 2 years?
Right, and if that happened three or more times in a row, the Senate would be … split 50-50.
Funny how that never happens.
– If the Dems manage to railroad an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and it becomes a Jihadist/al Qaeda playground all over again, with some tinpot ruller on the order of Hussein, or worse, the Dems will be lucky if they aren’t minority to the Independents the next time around.
I’m assuming you’ve been dilligently ignoring those footsteps behind you. Latest polls show the electorat at Reps – 37%, Dems 34%, Ind. 29%. A new group is knocking on the door, and they’re anything but happy with the big two. Better wake up monkey. The good old days of being able to take Independent support for granted are over.
Counting on them to lose would be a fool’s way to go (and it was the Democrats’ way in 1996 and 1998 and 2000 and 2002 and 2004…)
that picking up seats in an election where you’re defending more seats is not as hard as you think it is.
An odd thing to say when the Senate currently has 49 Democrats and 49 Republicans, McGehee.
Think of the Senate like a tennis game…
The Democrats just broke the Republican’s serve…and in 2008, they will be serving.
– IF they manage to serve anything. In a grid locked Congress, even as they’re on probation, and it’s not going to be easy, even if they actually get smart and go bi-partisan, which so far we see no real signs of, short of Rangle’s suddenly new found spoken aversion to taxes. Whole lot of very big big if’s there monkey.
– One of the most interesting things coming out of the Iraq/Commanding Generals hearings: the most, and only visable “real” recommendation from the Dems, is an increase in troop strength. Not at all what I think the Left had in mind.
Well reasoned heads say it doesn’t look like we’re pulling out of Iraq anytime soon.
I got a yard down in Vegas that this is a short ride for the dems.Smart money favors the bet.
– Face it monkey. The Dems got dragged across the finish line by the Left-wing Press. They’re going to have to do an awful lot of correct things in the next two years. They’re hanging by their finger nails, with a few potential trainwrecks starring at them. The outcome for the Dems in ‘08, could not be more up in the air.
Hehe, BBh,
Iraq’s a victory and the Democrats are holdin’ on to power by their fingertips…keep the faith!
Shorter monkyboy: “The most bemused person wins the debate, right?”
Sadly, pooflingerboy almost makes me miss the acthole. OK, not really, but sorta, well… nah.
The same smug dissembling. The same off-point non-sequiters. It’s almost as if they went to a seminar on how to be irritatingly vapid & devoid of common sense. Both aced the course.
The single most common mistake most people make when predicting the future is to assume the current dynamic continues. With the possibility of a US recession, new terror attacks around the world, increasing Iranian vs. Israeli tensions,
the instability of the Saudi regime and the potential of wild swings in oil prices between now and the next Congressional elections, extrapolating the most recent results is a fool errand.
So statistically speaking it is a safe bet monkyboy sucked pretty hard at both history and math.
“The most bemused person wins the debate, right?â€Â
– Or, as one must always keep in mind with the NeoLiberal cranial thought patterns, an intense case of whistling past the cemetery, which the Left has raised to an art form.
The twelve rules of faux-debate for the SecProgg:
1. Assume absolute authority, regardless of the subject.
2. Accept factual data, only as long as it supports your position. Learn all the tactics of historical revisionism, out of context quotes, and using opinins as facts.
3. Test the waters with a few “possibilities”, with lots of caviats, in case someone is around who knows the topic. Immediately switch to step 12 if that proves to be the case.
4. Always eschew any sources that kill your point. If that is call into question switch to moral equivalency. This approach has the added benefit that you can site obscure sources, and no one will probably know what you’re talking about, and you can mock them for their stupidity.
5. If no links exist, even Left biased links, or other Left bloggers whose opinion just aggrees with your’s, revert to Wikipedia.
6. If anyone points out the total uselessness of a readily “altered” reference, point out its generally acredited by leading (leftwing) sources. Leave out the Leftwing part.
7. Use unrelated examples. Ignore posts that point that out.
8. Veer off topic if you feel you aren’t cutting it. If you can connect your deflection in any tenuous way, thats good, but veer regardless.
9. Resort to snark, and humorous mocking.
10. Resort to full up ad hominems.
11. Say something really rotten, fowl mouthed, or nasty, about a person you know the other side likes. this usually cause a spat of confused anger, and will always work to take the heat off the actual topic.
12. Retract everything you’ve said so far with a throw away comment, mentioning that this topic is not really your forte’. this can be followed with a snark to the effect that the other side is delusional, and wishful thinking. If the blog site host objects, post a faux apology, and then do it all again. Repeat and rinse.
– A prime example of this total kit of steps being brilliantly employed, was the recent efforts of an honored moonbat, by the handle of monkeyboy, who argued for the truthiness of J.F.Kerry’s exemplory service record against all comers for the span of two days, and when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and a money challange to put up or shutup, he effectively used the “not my forte’” rule by announcing he didn’t know what a form 180 was/is. Expertly done, and a good example for all
trollsLeft bloggers.– As a fundemental position, always remember you’re the “elite”, and therfore always right because you’re left, which stakes out the amoral high ground, some form of unreprochable exclusivity, and you simply cannot be wrong. Ever.
I agree, pvrwc.
But even though we have imperfect knowledge of the future, people still have to make decisions now based on their best guess of how the future will unfold.
Even if Joe jumped to the Republicans, not a single law is going to be passed by Congress without Nancy Pelosi’s approval for the next two years…what would Joe gain by jumping?
And in two years (or less), Joe might find himself right back in the minority…probably for good this time.
Problem with my math, B Moe?
Care to point it out?
“Even if Joe jumped to the Republicans, not a single law is going to be passed by Congress without Nancy Pelosi’s approval for the next two years…” which sounds really good for the Dems, until you complete the paragraph with the equally true fact that “, but then not a single law will be passed by Congress without the support of the Republicans, and the President.”
– See how more complete that is monkey-head.
Why did abramoff wait till after the election to say this? or is this the same thing he’s been pitching since January?
Shorter actass – “This sucks. I question the timing.”
(which of course follows rule 8, because there are Democratic names involved.)
– With this approach, anyone of us can simply cite the rule being employed in troll posts, and save everyone a lot of typing and time. Bmoe can also utilize the numbered rules in his whistled penalty calls.
Right. Because nobody who voted for Sanders and Lieberman had any inkling that Harry Reid would let them caucus with the Democrats. And when they caucus with the Democrats, they are de facto Democrats.
I prefer to think of it like day care. The not-yet-toilet-trained babies are now in the majority, and in short order the room is going to smell bad.
I don’t know, actus. The interesting question is whether he really does have something on them, or whether he’s playing for time and leniency, or whether he really does have something on major players, and who they might be.
Any idea whether Fitzgerald’s going to fold up his tent officially now that the election’s over?
– I’m sure everyone is also wondering how the Wilson’s suit is coming along. It’s been deafeningly quite ever since the truthiness came to light. Maybe Jason has some inside dirt on those “imminent” Rove indictments?
It’s true that the Republicans can stop any law from passing in the next 2 years, but that’s quite a step down from the power they’ve had for the past 4 years, isn’t it, BBh?
Here’s a tip on how to become an honorary member of the reality-based community:
Lines like this:
So statistically speaking it is a safe bet monkyboy sucked pretty hard at both history and math.
Need to be followed with what you think is the correct numbers…pretty simple.
First of all, why select only 52 years out of over 200 from which to make a projection? Why not factor in who held what for the entire 200+ years? But it doesn’t really matter, because who held what for how long in the past has jack shit to do with how things will go in the future. Those periods were guided by entirely different realities, including the fact the core demographics for both parties has changed dramatically during that time.
In a way, yes. Why is abramoff talking AFTER the election? Is it the same thing he said back in January?
I have no idea. Maybe he’s got some Starr envy, so we may have a ways to go.
Fair enough, B Moe.
If you leave out the Whigs, the Federalists and other assorted extinct parties…
Since 1867, The Republicans and Democrats have traded control of the House 16 times.
Average length of House control before losing it – 9.25 years
Only 5 out of the 16 times did the party that (re)took control of the House only conrol it for 2 years…
– Thats nice monkeyboy….But who the hell wants to live in mississippi…(you really don’t want me to start playing your game, or your head might explode)
– Practically speaking, the only thing that’s happened in the Conress is that the gridlock has simply switched sides, which should concern you, since you’re spinning around trying to find the reason for all the Yeehaws….
– To put it more directly, if, as your side claimed Iraq was primo issue number uno, and I have no reason to dispute that, the Reps got bounced for a pair of do nothing sessions, the electorate is in an mondo ugly mood, and the Dems don’t have that luxury for the next two years.
– But hey. As they say, we’ll see.
– As I said earlier, what’s interesting about the hearings is the points that everyone aggrees on at this point, The Dems, the Reps, The Pres., and the Generals:
– The stalemate is unacceptable. We’re getting picked off like flies, even if it’s at a 30, or 50, or even 100 to 1 ratio, because even if it’s only for some ultimately limited length of time, nothing is changing.
– Removing troops, imprudently just opens the floodgates for the worst possible senario.
– Staying there emboldens the enemies. Leaving the wrong way emboldens, and worse, empowers the enemies even more.
– It’s looking like increased troop deployment, albeit mainly in troop training of the Iraqi’s, is the concensous, at least as of now.
– Imagine that, Increasing troop levels. I cant help wondering how the Left is taking that news. You do realize if that’s what happens, Bush will have gotten his way, and it will be on the Left’s dime and approval.
– Rove – you brilliant bastard.
And then in 2 years, the campaign will be “I told you so”