It’s going to be two years of interesting blogging! Like La Shawn Barber, lots of us throughout the blogosphere will be watching for missteps from the Democraps. We will have pleny to write about, for instance this;

Tiffany: I respect your 70/30 voting. Seems you’re open to making up your own mind, not swallowing talking points. Republicans can be just as ethically-challenged as Democrats; however, the difference appears to be that when Republicans become “Republicrats” their base is at least willing to make them pay a price for it. The Democrats base appears to be genetically-wired to vote for their candidates, even if they don’t particularly agree with their views, or even like them very much.

WRT the difference between the parties the day after election, I submit that the ability to concede a lost election without court action may be one difference. Also, perhaps the confidence that the US, in 2004, could monitor and police its own national elections, as opposed to strident Democrat calls for “assistance” from bastions of democracy such as Bulgaria, Albania, etc., may be another.

Personal opinions aside, we need to pray for and support our elected representatives as they try to get past 2-years’ accumulated venom and work together (for a change). Frankly, I think the person needing the most prayer will be Nancy Pelosi. Her party cultivated the strident devils on the far left at the same time it was opting for rather conservative Dems to run in the targeted races…victory may have been easier to win than hold. The loud voices on the far left will not go quietly into the political night when the party moves to the center. And the unions won’t throw confetti when immigration/amnesty raises its head. I suspect Ms. Pelosi will find her biggest problem will be maintaining party discipline and subduing the recalcitrant elements in her own party…dealing with the Republicans will be a comparative cakewalk.

And here’s a freebie. Everyone wonders why the President fired Don Rumsfeld the day after the election, rather than earlier, when it would have “helped” Republicans. Do any of you really think that would’ve been interpreted as anything other than the President caving to Democrat pressure, and that it would’ve been seen as a further sign of Republican disarray? Party politics is a rough game…you have to deal from strength, not weakness. Rumsfeld’s head was the price Pelosi and Reid demanded for their cooperation–it was a negotiation, where each party had to get something it wanted. Democrat leadership can now show a victory to their partisans, and the President will be able to show something to his partisans when Congress reconvenes. What it may be remains to be seen, but I suspect immigration/amnesty may be it. That’s the way it was done in the remote past (i.e., LBJ, Ronald Reagan). Does anyone think that negotiated settlements of thorny issues isn’t a better way to go than the partisan madness that’s produced two decades of gridlock? If you’ll read the Federalist Papers you’ll see that this was exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

Nice to share with you folks again after a protracted absence…Have a great day, everyone!

Cheers//Hektor

I’ve never seen Bush as anyone trying to keep the other side happy, he’s definitely not a man who cares about his approval rating, and sometimes not even how many people even of his own party disagrees with him. Even though I don’t agree with him about a lot of stuff, I admire his stick-to-your-belief approach,(even though admittedly, he does have a hard time admitting his own mistakes). I’m an African American single mother raised in the ghetto to “ALWAYS VOTE A STRAIGHT DEMOCRATIC TICKET!!”, who voted Republican in the last 3 presidential elections,(I know the dirt in my daddys grave is probably smooth from all the spinning) with no regrets about that decision. However I will only do that as long as I believe that party to most align itself with Biblical principles. Of coarse they have scandal too, but we must deal with the scandal, meaning taking disciplinary action, including firing people when necessary, (one of the things Bush doesnt seem to be willing to do) but not get distracted from the issues at hand. I live in Missouri and it breaks my heart that Amendment 2 passed, allowing cloning in the name of medicine and so-called healing to pass, which if Our Lord doesn’t return soon will only add to the millions of unborn HUMAN BEINGS already being SLAUGHTERED LEGALLY in the Greatest Nation in the World. But this is why I vote Republican(this and many other issues), but only as long as their conservative stance continues on the issues, will I continue to do so.

Evon, with respect, what’s the difference between a Democrat citing voter fraud, and a Republican citing voter fraud? Do two ’sides’ of America really deeply distrust the ‘other half’ or is it just reading these blogs that gives a strong partisan whiff of distrust and generalizing?

What I find troubling about this turnover as opposed to the one in 1994 is that the Democrats did not have to offer any specifics as the “Contract with America” did. They blamed Republicans for not raising the minimum wage but did not say how much they want to raise it to or who would be covered by it. They did not offer a plan for Iraq. Perhaps like Nixon they have a “secret” plan. They talk of “ethics reform” but unless all relatives of an elected official are banned from serving as lobbyists, I will consider the plan a sham. For the good of America, I pray they accomplish worthwhile goals.

It’s ironic that this election seems to prove that President Bush was right in trying to establish a democracy in Iraq. Democracies are very impatient with war and disinclined to go to war. I can’t agree with my friends who believe that Muslims are incapable of establishing and maintaining a democracy. Also, it is possible our government is being punished for it’s own success. No attacks have occurred on our homeland since 9/11 and our collective memory seems short.

It will be especially interesting to watch the supposed Conservatives who ran as Democrats. How will they be treated by the Liberal leadership of their party? How will they be treated by the media? Every media person seems to have a list of Republicans that can be counted on to criticize President Bush and the Republican Party. Will these newcomers be as popular with the media? I can’t help but wonder.

Meanwhile, the Islamofascists lick their chops in anticipation……

Check the NY Times – I guess the economy is now good (no mention of hitting $12,000 before the election, of course), and Afghanistan has good news (only bad before the election, of course). So everything is once again rosy according to the leftist MSM.

I’ve been reading lots of excellent commentary today, but one of them really stood out. The writer says that the only thing that can win against a “religious” opponent is another “religion.” And he says Christianity in the West is too weak and dedicated Christians to few to do anything about Islamofascists. He’s basically saying we’re finished as a culture. And I couldn’t think of any powerful arguments to rebut his reasoning.

Which goes back to our selection of the Democrat party to run things. We will leave Iraq soon and without any decisive win – but there are no boats to carry the poor Iraqis who trusted us out of the country to another place (even though they might die in the try). I just hope we don’t have to watch news reports showing people desperately climbing fences around our embassy while we leave them to the terrorists. That seems to be the only thing we’re good at these days.

Watch and pray.

Or am I just deluding myself?

I honestly don’t know what to think about this election – I used to be a Democrat, but after getting married, having kids and becoming financially stable, plus Bill and Hill’s doing nothing against Islamofascism, I switched sides. I like a lot of what the Reps stand for, but the increase in government spending and the fact that the Taliban are gaining again in Afghanistan trouble me; but the Dem’s have moved so far to the left that I can’t go back to them, especially when former Dem presidents like Carter just can’t seem to keep their noses out of the current president’s business, or they embrace the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of this world.

So what to do? I don’t trust Pelosi, and the rest of the 60’s radical holdovers that now control the Dems. I feel totally lost politically.

LaShawn, thanks for hearing me out.

I’m thinking of something more dynamic. To wit, the recent website for Fed transparency in earmarks etc came about only from external pressure, mainly the bloggers. How about doing the same for this CWA Manifesto? Set up a repository ‘blog’ scaled to cover the national Presidential race all the way down to the tiniest local race for Podunk Council. Where as far as conservative/independent/libertarian blogsphere is concerned, we’re collaborating & shaping the document and holds everyone’s feet to the fire (name the race and willing bloggers can track that field)?

This isn’t a expansive, kumbaya type of platform, rather a distillation of 10 – 25 ‘articles of faith’ at the macro level.

For instance 3 key ingredients of an immigration policy: 1) secure border, 2) streamlined path to permanent resident/naturalization & 3) streamlined path to guest worker. In that order. The details are a matter of politics (from Bush’s comprehensiveness to Buchanon’s “keep ‘em all out” or Pelosi’s “let ‘em all in and vote”), but the 3 pillars are indisputeable. If a politican was only intresested in #1 or #3, he doesn’t sccore as well as one who will deal with all 3 in order.

The blogoshere’s role would be to birddog the elected and contenders to see if their record and/or talking points jive with what they claim to stand for. If they don’t, they’ll be called on it.

Nancy Pelosi, the she-wolf left-winger who has never shown President Bush any respect throughout his presidency, and has made a career of spewing mud-splattering diatribes and criticism towards him is now poised to work with our president?

I think you’re referring to Bizarro-world…

In Bizarro-world, we have more than 2 parties, we have term limits, politicians who actually keep their promises. Oh and a scandal-free Capitol Hill.

Oh how I wish for a Bizarro world….

We didn’t lose our way, those knuckleheads in DC did- and I agree, Bush is not a conservative and never truly has been one. His comment that he now has a better chance of passing “amnesty reform” because San Fran Nan is going to be Speaker speaks volumes. The last time we got No Child Left Behind when he wanted to make nice.

Spare me, Mr. President. I’m tired of you and the Boy Genius.

The people have spoken loud and clear but the Democrats have their fingers in their ears.