> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>You mean, someone like Joe Biden?
>>
>> He means Sarah Palin. Â
>
>I don't know, but I think that if you look up "odious" on wikipedia,
>Greasy Joe's picture is there.
That's not Biden, it's Palin without makeup.
>> She's under investigation by her own government
>
>Yes, she has been for a while. I am assuming the McCain
>campaign was aware of the investigation and decided she
>would win. And just getting the news to talk about McCain
>instead of Obama is a victory for them.
Translation: "So what? She's a conservative and I like her."
>> and a 17 year old daughter who's six months pregnant.
>
>Who's allegedly engaged to the father.
Allegedly. Was she engaged to the 17 year old father when she
conceived?
>> It's hard to tell which side is trying harder to lose than the other.
>> That frightens me. Â Either they think we're really stupid, or that the
>> next four years are going to be a nightmare nobody wants to be
>> responsible for.
>
>Inflationary pressures are on the rise, to be sure. Bernanke
>will likely have to tighten monetary policy. Such an action
>would surely cause a real recession.
There are darker places than your wallet.
>>>> And, it's not hard to see why. Â As it is, the Congress, both the House
>>>> and the Senate, will be 60%% Democrat in 2009.
>>
>> Gain seats, probably. Â Achieve 60%% in both Houses, unlikely.
>
>It is usually the case that whichever party is in the whitehouse
>loses seats in the Congress.
That applies to midterms. In Presidential races, the President's
party usually rides in on his coattails.
>>> Â What would the Congress
>>>> be after another 4 years of Republican control in the White House?
>>
>> A moot point. Â Moving on . . .
>
>I don't know. After all, Obama has given us Biden. It's not
>as if Obama was going to get the Jewish vote anyway, though.
Yes, he will. They vote Dem.
>>>> Â It would be 75%% Democratic. Â Democrats would outnumber Republicans three
>>>> to one.
>>
>> The GOP would probably still hold Congress but for Bush and Iraq.
>
>Or, rather, but for Bush and Katrina.
Bush and Iraq and Katrina and massive deficits and inflation and . . .
I think you get the point. Notice how the White House and McCain were
hovering over NOLA waiting to see if their presence was needed. While
Obama was staying out of the way, the GOP was working up lists of
talking points to be made from flooded streets.
> It was assuredly Katrina
>that torpedoed the credibility of the Administration irreparably.
>Sure, the Administration fucked up Iraq, seeming to do nothing
>about impending civil war for years prior to the surge, but if it
>hadn't been for Katrina, McCain might have been able to select
>Condoleeza as VP.
Rice had nothing to do with Katrina. That was Bush's baby.
Unfortunately it got dumped on him by an incompetent governor and an
ever more incompetent mayor.
>>>> Â Republicans could never recover from this great a deficit in
>>>> Congress, they would cease to exist as a Party when the Democrats
>>>> finally retook the White House in 2012.
>>
>> Assuming the worst economically or another bad run in the field.
>
>Or even assuming Hillary runs a better campaign next time
>around. 2012 is probably her last chance. She won't even
>get that chance unless either 1.) Obama loses in '08, or
>2.) he's so unpopular in 2012 that she wins the primary
>against him. Another LBJ sort of thing. It's probably a
>given that he'll be a one term president, in any case.
It's probably a given that anybody elected in 2008 will be a one term
President. McCain has already stated that he doesn't plan a second
term and the economy could very easily bring down whoever is in the
way.
>> On the flip side, the Dems may be pessimistic about the immediate
>> future. Â Or they may simply be counting on controlling the Congress so
>> aren't worried that much about the WH this time. Â It's the perfect
>> time to elect a black guy or a woman even if she is Hillary Clinton.
>> For the Party, it's a win-win even if they lose. Â
>
>There are those who claim otherwise. Defeat from the jaws
>of such allegedly inevitable victory could be disastrous. It
>surely means that the Left will lose face in the Democratic
>party, paving the way for Hillary again.
Like I said, it's a win-win either way.
>> They get to at least
>> approve the next two justices, control the Congress and if the
>> opportunity arises, put somebody, possibly Hillary up against Romney
>> in 2012.
>
>If the Republicans lose this time, the party will have to regroup,
>and if Allah is merciful, Romney will be forgotten.
But even if they win, it's unlikely the RR will get the appointees
they want. The Dems would have to lose the Senate and that's not
likely unless it's so tight that a Lieberman defection to caucus with
the GOP could make the difference.
>>>I really doubt this. Â It seems that McCain selected a woman
>>>to help suck away disgruntled Oprah-watching Hillary voters.
>>
>> That may be why, but it won't work. Â Hillary voters aren't church
>> going or soap watching. Â
>
>Actually, they are Oprah-watching. A huge chunk of them, anyway.
>In fact, Oprah's audience was rather nonplussed that she endorsed
>Obama (they naturally assumed it was only because he was black,
>after all). Anyway, all the pro-Hillary types I know said they
>were voting for McThuselah even before Palin came into the picture.
And many of them will now be swallowing hard and wondering about
Palin. She could turn out to be an embarrassment. On second thought,
she already is.
>> Most of them are very independent and many
>> are outright feminists. Â Palin offends this last group and isn't going
>> to cut much ice with the independents.
>
>Well, the big problem is that McCain picked a pro-lifer. Sad
>to say. Of course, all independents know that pro-life is just
>a carrot and that nothing can be done about it. But the more
>doctrinaire, purist feminists will no doubt be offended.
I don't have a problem with that at all. I admire her greatly for her
moral and maternal qualities but I do not see in her what it takes to
run a country.
>> Be that as it may, Bristol Palin's pregnancy is going to put off a lot
>> of social conservatives who consider that trashy behavior.
>
>I doubt it. At least she's marrying the father.
> Who says that's trashy?
Getting knocked up at sixteen is trashy. Wasn't it Britney's sister
who was being laughed at so heartily recently for having gotten
pregnant? So she's marrying the father. Well that's just great. A
17 year old and a 16 year old getting married. It's a good thing
Palin is a card carrying member of the NRA becaus . . . Oh, wait, I
told that joke already.
> It's about time Americans grew up and realized that
>nobody should marry anybody they haven't had sex with. Yeah,
>that's when you find out she's frigid.
Geez, is that what they're teaching in Sunday School these days?
>> I'd like to have seen her make it this year. Â But Obama will do. Â It's
>> spankin' time!
>
>See, that's where a defeat for the Dems is a bigger deal than
>a defeat for the Pugs.
I don't see the Dems losing anything except maybe the White House. The
right is trying desperately to pack the SCOTUS but with a Dem Senate,
it isn't going to happen. This time when the GOP demands "an up or
down vote" in the Senate on McCain's choices, the majority Dems will
be more than happy to oblige them.
Swill
--
It's a good thing Palin's a member of the NRA
'cause she's got a shotgun wedding coming up.
Picture ofthe day:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/
