Here are some key excerpts:
Most people saw the handwriting on the wall for a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives. As for the Senate, it is almost impossible to tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans, so who controls the gavel is of little consequence.
Hear, hear! Why bother with two parties when they both look so much alike these days, let's have one party called the Repubrocrats and save some confusion.
George Bush's neocons have all but decimated whatever genuine conservatism remained in the GOP, and they did it on the backs of the faithful conservatives still in the party.
God Bless those true conservatives who actually make decisions based on principles that "pseudo-conservatives" only talk about.
That President Bush has fired Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld signals a significant policy reversal for Bush. As late as the day before the election, Bush said emphatically that Rumsfeld would stay until the end of his term. But the day after Democrats seized the House, Rumsfeld was fired.
It does not take the gift of prophecy to predict that Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates, will almost certainly assent to some form of an American troop withdrawal from Iraq. The Republican Party now understands that if the war in Iraq continues as it is into 2008, the GOP will be murdered at the polls, and the Democratic nominee (whoever he or she is) would most certainly win the White House. In other words, President Bush and Republicans are about to engage in the biggest "cut and run" strategy you have ever seen.
I hate the idea of leaving the people of Iraq in the lurch, but could Chuck be right that Republicans will cut and run to because it is politically expedient? Will the Democrats comparison of Iraq to Vietname turn out to be painfully accurate?
I, here and now, predict that the GOP nominee for president in 2008 will most definitely be a pro-choice "moderate" who will enthusiastically embrace the Bush/Pelosi doctrine of open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens, as well as Bush's goal of establishing a North American Union. I also predict that he will most certainly endorse civil unions for same-sex couples.
Sounds incredible, but plausible doesn't it? Again, I hate the thought of this happening, but we as citizens need to face facts and use the power of our vote to change the course of this country. It sounds rather idealistic, but if Americans truly had the courage to vote in a candidate from a viable third party, I believe it would do wonders for our political system. At the very least it would rattle Democrats and Republicans out of complacency!
This pathetic loyalty to the GOP for some "lesser of two evils" mantra is so utterly bankrupt that only the most apathetic lackey could continue to embrace it.
Harsh but true. Voting against the candidate you dislike instead of for one you know can do the job is exactly what conservatives criticized the Democrats for when they voted for Kerry is it not?
It is time for the end of politics as usual and only you and I can make a real difference.
Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani has taken the first steps in a possible bid for the 2008 Presidential nomination by forming an exploratory committee. The purpose of such a committee is to gauge the appeal of a potential candidate without officially putting your name in the hat and being subject to campaign rules.
The odds are against him getting nominated because of his stance on abortion rights, same-sex marriage and gun control, issues that are important to conservatives who he would have to win over to get the Republican ticket.
He definitely fits the bill of a moderate conservative nicely though. He became enormously popular in 2001 as Mayor of New York for his handling of the 911 attacks and for the drop in crime rates in that city during his two terms there. I don't believe this is enough to overcome his liberal leanings, however.
Let's hope he doesn't get too far.