October 22, 2006
Don't Be a Dummy (or a Dim-0-Crat) GET OUT AND VOTE
I'm not happy with the Republicans in Congress. Not happy at all, in fact, I'm downright pissed at them. But the control of the House or the Senate passing to the Democrats because Republicans and Conservatives sat home would be a disaster for this country that is unprecidented given the Democrat's tendency to cut and run. In fact, there is some evidence that Her Nancyship of Pelosiville plans to appoint an impeached and convicted and removed former federal judge as head of the House Intelligence Committee. OH MY GOSH!!!!
Jonah Goldberg, editor at large of the conservative National Review OnlineSo, even thought I'm ticked off at Bushco and the Republicans, I'm not voting for a single Democrat this time and that will be only the second time in my life that I can say that."Well, you have a number of things building here. You have this report that Nancy Pelosi's indicated she'd appoint Alcee Hastings to be the head of the Intelligence Committee, which will be a stunningly irresponsible act, since he is only the ninth person in history to be impeached and removed as a federal judge, and the idea of him chairing the Intelligence Committee basically means that the system will just break down totally."
There are other voices out there however that say this is entirely in the hands of America. Scott Elliott of Election Projection has a terrific essay up saying "The Outcome is in OUR Hands". Folks, this is a terrific essay and I hope you will go read it. Democrats, you ought to read it too because you need to know that the vast majority of Republicans, conservatives etc., have no intention of staying home, not voting and giving you Democrats any slack. You may in fact win the Senate, or the House, but not both, and probably not either. You read it here!!!
UPDATE: What would Her Nancyship of Pelosiville do if she were the Speaker of the House? Read it here:
Once she'd gotten their attention, Pelosi met privately with several senior House members and told them they would get their committees. But she wanted it understood that she was running the place. Pelosi was especially firm with Conyers. She told him she didn't want any "out-of-control investigations," a senior House aide says; not another word about impeachment, she warned. "The impeachment talk gave the other side exactly what they wanted, which was an opening to talk about 'those liberal Democrats'," says the senior House aide. "It couldn't keep happening. We were writing their campaign ads for them."Not to be paranoid or anything, but I think this is called "Plausable Deniability." Her Nancyship of Pelosiville would be a disaster for the Republic. Go, vote, deny her the opportunity to screw things up worse than they already are. All change is change, but not all change is good and this definately would not be good!So far, Pelosi's strategy appears to be working. The closest Conyers now gets to slamming Bush is his promise to conduct "robust oversight" of the administration. But Pelosi's authority wouldn't be put to a meaningful test until after the election, once chairmen assume control of their new committees and are less susceptible to threats and pressure from the top. If an errant chairman disobeys Pelosi and goes off message—or if preapproved hearings just so happen to take a detour and end up as bitter Bush-flogging sessions—it won't be easy to pry him from his chair, if it were possible at all.
Another UPDATE: This one from the organ of the Democratic Party, the New York Times:
Representative Nancy Pelosi [subscription required], Democrat of California, who is in line to become speaker if her party wins the House, has put out the word that no one should be talking with too much certainty or detail about the days after Nov. 7. But even Ms. Pelosi has slipped on occasion. In a recent interview with The Associated Press, when asked which suite of offices she would use as speaker, she said with a laugh, “I’ll have any suite I want.”Can there be any doubt? Posted by GM Roper at October 22, 2006 06:06 PM | TrackBack
Ditto.
Early voting in Texas starts Monday, October 23, 2006. I plan to cast my vote then.
Posted by DRJ at October 22, 2006 06:30 PM
When I'm tempted to not vote, I remember that not voting represents acquiescence to the worse candidate on the ballot.
So if you're a conservative and don't plan to vote for your Representative, say to yourself twenty times "Speaker Pelosi". (And if you have a Senate election and don't plan to vote, say twenty times to yourself "Majority Leader Reid".) Then make your choice.
(The same argument goes for those of a more liberal persuasion: just change the names accordingly.)
Posted by civil truth at October 22, 2006 06:41 PM
When was this mythical time when we had great Republican candidates to vote for? I've been voting against Democrats for years. I am going to guess that most votes throughout the history of the Republic have had a strong lesser-of-two-evils component.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 22, 2006 09:52 PM
Voting GOP here too.
Posted by Jo at October 23, 2006 04:29 AM
My latest post is along the same line.. Scary!
First Speaker Pelosi
Second libs desire to impeach Bush and Cheney
That accomplished, then:
Think "President San Fran Nan Pelosi."
Vote as if your life depends on it... It does!!
ExP (Jack)
Posted by ExPreacherMan at October 23, 2006 09:37 AM
GM,
Thanks for visiting my Blog..
I vote absentee -- and I found a great tip from a blogger whose name, unfortunately, I cannot recall so I can't give them credit..
We vote Absentee and if there is a race for whom there is no Republican or conservative choice, we should write in our own name.. When the election is over, the election office records should reflect my name with at least two votes, mine and Sweet Wife.
If my name is not there, I know my vote was never counted.. which is a distinct possibility here in Dade County Florida where the libs have lined up lib-lawyers by the thousands to protest any victory by conservatives.
Just a thought...
ExP (Jack)
Posted by ExPreacherMan at October 23, 2006 03:55 PM
Question: Are all republicans as paranoid as these that have commented? Oh and your post was also paranoid . I thought that as a rule, you, Guy, were a voice of rightie reason, or what passes for that, while your button man Woody was the destroyer of lefties, commies and pinkos.
Posted by James S Melbert at October 23, 2006 05:32 PM
James, I don't think Pelosi could pull it off. But there are clearly elected Democrats who would like to attempt impeachment, because they have said so, loudly and often. What is paranoid about speculating that Nancy Pelosi would at least consider that option? Or perhaps there was something else in the post that you found paranoid, whcih I have overlooked.
If it were just the firebreathers over at Moveon.org who were suggesting impeachment I might agree that being worried about it is paranoid. But Conyers has already put HB 635 into play.
Posted by Assistant Village Idiot at October 23, 2006 05:46 PM
James: "I thought that as a rule, you, Guy, were a voice of rightie reason..."
James, I can't think of a single comment you have ever made about one of my posts that indicated that you thought I might be the "voice of righty reason." Not one, if you can find one in the archives, please point that out. I love having my favorite uncle comment here, and I respect the fact that you are a liberal (wrong headed though that may be) but the "splitting" you attempt between Woody and me is ludicrous. (look up "splitting" in the psychiatric literature as a tactic-it's also called playing both ends against the middle.)
Cheers and glad to see you make two comments in a single day.
Posted by GM at October 23, 2006 06:36 PM
James, my ravings about politics can be found at the new post above about the Alabama governor's race. Polosi could never win a contest on that issue.
Posted by Woody at October 23, 2006 06:40 PM
