Text 5014, 65 rader
Skriven 2004-11-15 23:16:00 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
   Kommentar till text 4993 av RICHARD HELM (1:123/140)
Ärende: Re: Pundits
===================
Hey, RICHARD.

 FS>> Have you noticed, after the election, every "pundit" who could get
 FS>> his face in front of a TV camera was explaining exactly why the
 FS>> Democratic candidate for president lost the election?  Yet, prior
 FS>> to the election, I don't recall seeing *any* of those wisemen
 FS>> telling us:  "Here's why John Kerry will lose ..."  The best they
 FS>> could come up with is, "It's going to be a very tight race!"

 RH> Kerry was the wrong "anybody but Bush."

 FS>> The old 20/20 hindsight thing strikes again!

 RH> It's too bad that 20/20 hindsite *isn't* being used even now.

 RH> One of the latest arguments being offered by the left is that while
 RH> Bush received the largest number of votes ever for a presidential
 RH> candidate he also had the largest number of votes against him.  While a
 RH> play on words, not all the votes that were not cast for Bush were
 RH> *against* him.  Believe it or not some of those votes were *for* other
 RH> candidates.  I imagine that a few were even *for* Kerry.

 RH> Contrary to what the losers what to think, some votes were cast in a
 RH> positive mindset even if not cast for Bush.  That, I believe, is what
 RH> must be recognized for any "healing" to take place.

 RH> After Clinton won in 1992 the nation and the Republicans recovered.  In
 RH> two years the Republicans took control of the US House of
 RH> Representatives for the first time in nearly 40 years.  Two years
 RH> later, increased their hold on the house.  In 2000 when Bush won the
 RH> presidency he also picked up seats in both the House and Senate and
 RH> continued to increase control of seats in both houses of Congress in
 RH> every election since.

 RH> The pundits and the Democrats have developed a severe case of tunnel
 RH> vision. The see only the White House as a target and ignore not only
 RH> losses but significant, reoccurring and significant losses in Congress.
 RH> What is more damaging is that the significant gains in 2002 and 2004
 RH> are one that occured AFTER reapportionment resulting from the 2000
 RH> census.  Those changes will be very difficut to overcome for at least
 RH> the next 10 years.

The Democrats are beside themselves.  Note that it is all about them.  They
feel they need a different approach in order to win.  There's no thought
that they have a bad product.  Actually, they don't have a product.  They
are the proud producers of vaporware.  But they think their box doesn't look
right on the shelf.  Of course there are lots of suckers willing to buy the
box just to see what is or isn't inside.

 RH> Since there is no reason to believe that the current crop of Democratic
 RH> congresscritters will change their attitudes it is likely that one by
 RH> one they will become endangered species.  The Democrats won't even be
 RH> able to deliver token legislation to their "base."

 RH> Look to see New York City to get cut off in the next two years.  The
 RH> "powerful" Hillary Clinton could rapidly become history in the Senate.

Hmmm.  I hadn't considered that possibility.  Sounds good to me.

If you get net mail from me it was an error.  I don't realize that I've sent 
something netmail until McAfee pops up a dialog box announcing that it is 
scanning the outgoing mail for viruses.  <g> 

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)