The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Will the GOP keep the Congress???

I have a good feeling about keeping the Senate in the GOP

The House is another ball game. Let's just hope the polls are wrong!!!. And we know how wrong polls can be sometimes.

The GOP will lose the house and the Senate, however if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton the GOP will retain the presidency.

Sad fact is the Republican party today is not the Republican party I registered with 15 years ago. They have lost their way just as much as the Dems have.

This political system is still an experiment, and it is failing.

Anyone's ballgame for either. Things can change quickly to one side or another in just a few days so its difficult to tell at this point (hell it will be difficult to tell on election Day too due to the unreliability of "Exit Polls" - see 2004 for a prime example)

I'm pretty pissed off at a number of things the GOP has done but I'd rather not let Pelosi, Rangel, et al into the committee chairmanships. Still I'm but one guy talking here and the American public might disagree with me

I'm typically a pessimist when it comes to elections (I like to always assume my side is behind so we don't get complacent) so I don't think the GOP is going to hold the House. I see the Dems picking up 15-20 seats (giving them the barest of majorities in the House).

The Senate I think might be held by the GOP with either 50 or 51 seats (another razor thin majority). At most I think the GOP loses 6 seats (in which case they lose the Senate due to Lieberman caucasing with the Dems).

But... that being said. Generic polls have consistently oversampled Dems and the GOP has a good GOTV (Get out the vote) which has allowed them to do better by about 3-6% in the past few elections than the polls predicted. So it could be that the GOP retains both chambers of Congress based upon superior organization.

Its too close to call at this point though.

Will be an interesting Election night (and there'll be some races too close to call for days afterward).

The silver lining I see for either party is that whichever party "loses" in 2006 (Dems failing to take control or GOP losing control) is better positioned for 2008.

nuskins wrote:The GOP will lose the house and the Senate, however if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton the GOP will retain the presidency.

Sad fact is the Republican party today is not the Republican party I registered with 15 years ago. They have lost their way just as much as the Dems have.

This political system is still an experiment, and it is failing.

I won't disagree that the parties are not our fathers parties! There seems to be a shrinking core of moderates and a growing number of people on the margins. However I think that the Republicans will quietly keep control of both houses. Like Thaiphoon stated there is a gross oversampling of Dems, and the Republicans have been gearing up for this election and spending much more money than the Dems. The Reps. will vote in droves. The disgruntled liberals will barely turn out. Its a shame....but thats the way it will be.

I could be wrong, but this is my take.....lets see if I'm even remotely correct?

thaiphoon wrote:I'm pretty pissed off at a number of things the GOP has done but I'd rather not let Pelosi, Rangel, et al into the committee chairmanships. Still I'm but one guy talking here and the American public might disagree with me

Well put thaiphoon !!!!!!!!!!

I have heard alot of people say that they are going to teach the GOP a lesson and not vote. To them I say if you dont vote don't bitch!!!!!!!

chaddukes wrote:

nuskins wrote:The GOP will lose the house and the Senate, however if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton the GOP will retain the presidency.

Sad fact is the Republican party today is not the Republican party I registered with 15 years ago. They have lost their way just as much as the Dems have.

This political system is still an experiment, and it is failing.

I won't disagree that the parties are not our fathers parties! There seems to be a shrinking core of moderates and a growing number of people on the margins. However I think that the Republicans will quietly keep control of both houses. Like Thaiphoon stated there is a gross oversampling of Dems, and the Republicans have been gearing up for this election and spending much more money than the Dems. The Reps. will vote in droves. The disgruntled liberals will barely turn out. Its a shame....but thats the way it will be.

I could be wrong, but this is my take.....lets see if I'm even remotely correct?

You are wrong. The Dems will win at least the house and are now contesting forty or so seats with a campaign chest that now is swelling to a point that it approaching the Repupublicans. Bush's declaring himself dictator of America by abolishing the right of Americans to a fair trail is pretty much the last straw. You do know that he can arrest you and hold you indefinately without even informing you of why, don't you?
I assume you don't. If you did, I'd like to think that you know he and the Republican congress now permit torture and have absolutely abolished all but one article of the Bill of Rights, as well as the most fundament principles of the Constitution.
We have a criminal government, guilty of war crimes and the abolition of American freedom. We are no longer free. If you think we are, you are kidding yourself. The best hope for our nation now is that his power can be checked in November before it takes hold. There is nothing Bush won't do, including destroy your life. He is incredibly dishonest, and insane.

thaiphoon wrote:

Still I'm but one guy talking here and the American public might disagree with me

Help, somebody's kidnapped thaiphoon and is posting in his name!

crazyhorse1 wrote:You do know that he can arrest you and hold you indefinately without even informing you of why, don't you?.... There is nothing Bush won't do, including destroy your life. He is incredibly dishonest, and insane.

And yet you live?

Bush's declaring himself dictator of America by abolishing the right of Americans to a fair trail is pretty much the last straw. You do know that he can arrest you and hold you indefinately without even informing you of why, don't you?

Yet ANOTHER falsehood that CH1 spews. Chaddukes is an American citizen. None of the recent acts by Congress allow for this. Check all of them out and check the definitions in the laws. It doesn't apply to American citizens

thaiphoon wrote:Quote:
Still I'm but one guy talking here and the American public might disagree with me

Help, somebody's kidnapped thaiphoon and is posting in his name!

Hehe...

You'd be surprised at how even-handed I am in real life.

thaiphoon wrote:

Bush's declaring himself dictator of America by abolishing the right of Americans to a fair trail is pretty much the last straw. You do know that he can arrest you and hold you indefinately without even informing you of why, don't you?

Yet ANOTHER falsehood that CH1 spews. Chaddukes is an American citizen. None of the recent acts by Congress allow for this. Check all of them out and check the definitions in the laws. It doesn't apply to American citizens

So, is that justice? Only the US voters don't get to be locked up or held indefinitely without trial? I don't know all the facts, but that doesn't sound like justice to me.

You misunderstand. From the recent news reports - trials are now being held for all. Americans are not denied fair trials (witness the trial of John Walker Lindh - an American- who was captured on the battlefield) contrary to CH1's assertion. People aren't being indiscriminately rounded up my friend. Those who are being detained are pretty bad people and detained for a reason. In fact there are many countries that while publicly bashing us for keeping terrorists in Gitmo, are refusing our efforts to repatriate them to their own countries and be held there.

thaiphoon wrote:You misunderstand. From the recent news reports - trials are now being held for all. Americans are not denied fair trials (witness the trial of John Walker Lindh - an American- who was captured on the battlefield) contrary to CH1's assertion. People aren't being indiscriminately rounded up my friend. Those who are being detained are pretty bad people and detained for a reason. In fact there are many countries that while publicly bashing us for keeping terrorists in Gitmo, are refusing our efforts to repatriate them to their own countries and be held there.

I was just reacting to what I read - which seemed to be that US citizens had a different level of protection under US law than foreign nationals.

While my natural inclination is to believe that these are all bad people, I only have the word of US security forces to go by.

thaiphoon wrote:

Bush's declaring himself dictator of America by abolishing the right of Americans to a fair trail is pretty much the last straw. You do know that he can arrest you and hold you indefinately without even informing you of why, don't you?

Yet ANOTHER falsehood that CH1 spews. Chaddukes is an American citizen. None of the recent acts by Congress allow for this. Check all of them out and check the definitions in the laws. It doesn't apply to American citizens

They absolutely do apply to American citizens. You are 100% wrong. If Bush suspects American citizens or says he does, he can incarcerate American citizens indefinitely without trial and interrogate American citizens according to standards he has set. Further, in relation to his appointed triburnals and the new laws on terrorism passed by the Republican Congress, American citizens have lost the right to be informed of the charges against them.

I have occasionally thought that Bush supporters were actually evil. I am glad to see, in your case, that you aren't evil, but rather badly misinformed. While we have slept, the greatest attack in history on American freedom has been launched. Time for you to read up on the matter. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Deal with the reality of it.

thaiphoon wrote:You misunderstand. From the recent news reports - trials are now being held for all. Americans are not denied fair trials (witness the trial of John Walker Lindh - an American- who was captured on the battlefield) contrary to CH1's assertion. People aren't being indiscriminately rounded up my friend. Those who are being detained are pretty bad people and detained for a reason. In fact there are many countries that while publicly bashing us for keeping terrorists in Gitmo, are refusing our efforts to repatriate them to their own countries and be held there.

The John Walker Lindh case was put in motion before the new laws were passed (a few days ago), which you presumably know. Not only were Gitmo detainees rounded up by suspect means, some were actually sold to us for profit by Afghan warlords. There is no way to tell if they detainees are bad people or not, unless evidence is released, which our government refuses to do, or legit trials are held, which our government refuses to hold. We have not offered other countries the opportunity to repatriate the detainees, nor offtered other countries evidence of the guilt of the detainees. If we have even spoken to the Afghans about repatriating detainees, it would have been a pointless exercise in absurdity since the Afghans sold us many of the detainees in the first place and helped us gather up the rest.

Bush is desperately trying to keep detainees facts, trials, rights, etc, suppressed to protect himself and others of charges of war crimes (unlawful detention and torture) and political backlash.

The effect of the new laws passed by congress, which you seem to think apply only to terrorist, actually apply to any persons, Americans or otherwise, who the administration chooses to suspect of being enemy combatants. This includes you, my friend. You'll do fine when Bush rules, but how will you do when a tyrant, like Bush, rises from the Democratic party and decides to suspect Republicans of being enemy combatants.

In the meantime, try to acquaint yourself with the facts, so that you can at least try to defend a law of which you understand the language and ramifications.

They absolutely do apply to American citizens. You are 100% wrong. If Bush suspects American citizens or says he does, he can incarcerate American citizens indefinitely without trial and interrogate American citizens according to standards he has set. Further, in relation to his appointed triburnals and the new laws on terrorism passed by the Republican Congress, American citizens have lost the right to be informed of the charges against them.

I have occasionally thought that Bush supporters were actually evil. I am glad to see, in your case, that you aren't evil, but rather badly misinformed. While we have slept, the greatest attack in history on American freedom has been launched. Time for you to read up on the matter. This is not a liberal/conservative issue. Deal with the reality of it.

CH1- please point to the relevant parts of the statute that allow this.

nuskins wrote:The GOP will lose the house and the Senate, however if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton the GOP will retain the presidency.

Sad fact is the Republican party today is not the Republican party I registered with 15 years ago. They have lost their way just as much as the Dems have.

This political system is still an experiment, and it is failing.

Sounds like you came into the party shortly before I left. In 1994 they came in with the Contract with America and pledged to reform DC. We had 100 days of reform and then now 12 years of complete evolution into the corrupt Democrats they campaigned against. They so totally deserved to lose. Ironically now the Democrats are coming in with the same campaign, and it's obviously already just as big a lie as the Republicans of 1994.

I vote 3rd party, I have no interest in Tweedle Dee OR Tweedle Dum who look and sound alike. Sounds like we agree.

already just as big a lie

I must have missed that.

If I believed for a second you were as impartial as you suggest (I've noticed that there are a lot of would-be facists, Fox News zombies and Limbaugh blowhards out there claiming to be impartial or middle-of-the-road - HAH) then I would suggest you should at least give them a chance. If I didn't, then I would simply write the above to help illustrate how ridiculous, unfounded, and unfair your comment was.

I must have missed that.

Look at some of the campaign promises by the Dems this past cycle. Now look at what they now already say they aren't going to do.

Oh hell... I'll just link it for you instead.

From the Washington Post;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html

I guess the Post is just another part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and we can't believe what they write ... huh ?

Add to that the constant complaint by Dems that Bush didn't listen to his Generals and send in enough troops and now Dems don't want to send in the additional troops they previously claimed are needed. Looks like "we need additional troops" mantra was merely for show and to bash Bush on the campaign trail.

Also, the legislative agenda for the Dems first "100 hours" is designed to exclude the Republicans. While this is clearly payback for the recent years it is in stark contrast to when the 1995 Republicans came to office. Most of the Contract with America that the 1994 Republicans campaigned on was debated on, on the floor, openly by both parties and amendments by the newly minority party (the Dems in 1995) were not limited or disallowed.

So much for the promised "return to bi-partisanship".

Jefferson from La. and Mahoney (sp?) from WVa. are still being seated by the Dems, proving that corruption is only bad if the person has an (R) after their name.

If this keeps up, expect more of the same from this Congress as the most recent ones.

Still, I'm holding out hope for this Congress. Just not much to give me hope yet other than some rule changes that have little chance of being enforced correctly IMHO.

thaiphoon wrote:

I must have missed that.

Look at some of the campaign promises by the Dems this past cycle. Now look at what they now already say they aren't going to do.

Oh hell... I'll just link it for you instead.

From the Washington Post;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html

I guess the Post is just another part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and we can't believe what they write ... huh ?

Add to that the constant complaint by Dems that Bush didn't listen to his Generals and send in enough troops and now Dems don't want to send in the additional troops they previously claimed are needed. Looks like "we need additional troops" mantra was merely for show and to bash Bush on the campaign trail.

Also, the legislative agenda for the Dems first "100 hours" is designed to exclude the Republicans. While this is clearly payback for the recent years it is in stark contrast to when the 1995 Republicans came to office. Most of the Contract with America that the 1994 Republicans campaigned on was debated on, on the floor, openly by both parties and amendments by the newly minority party (the Dems in 1995) were not limited or disallowed.

So much for the promised "return to bi-partisanship".

Jefferson from La. and Mahoney (sp?) from WVa. are still being seated by the Dems, proving that corruption is only bad if the person has an (R) after their name.

If this keeps up, expect more of the same from this Congress as the most recent ones.

Still, I'm holding out hope for this Congress. Just not much to give me hope yet other than some rule changes that have little chance of being enforced correctly IMHO.

Anyone who can't see the Washington Post is left is truly looney.

KazooSkinsFan wrote:

thaiphoon wrote:

I must have missed that.

Look at some of the campaign promises by the Dems this past cycle. Now look at what they now already say they aren't going to do.

Oh hell... I'll just link it for you instead.

From the Washington Post;

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 17_pf.html

I guess the Post is just another part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and we can't believe what they write ... huh ?

Add to that the constant complaint by Dems that Bush didn't listen to his Generals and send in enough troops and now Dems don't want to send in the additional troops they previously claimed are needed. Looks like "we need additional troops" mantra was merely for show and to bash Bush on the campaign trail.

Also, the legislative agenda for the Dems first "100 hours" is designed to exclude the Republicans. While this is clearly payback for the recent years it is in stark contrast to when the 1995 Republicans came to office. Most of the Contract with America that the 1994 Republicans campaigned on was debated on, on the floor, openly by both parties and amendments by the newly minority party (the Dems in 1995) were not limited or disallowed.

So much for the promised "return to bi-partisanship".

Jefferson from La. and Mahoney (sp?) from WVa. are still being seated by the Dems, proving that corruption is only bad if the person has an (R) after their name.

If this keeps up, expect more of the same from this Congress as the most recent ones.

Still, I'm holding out hope for this Congress. Just not much to give me hope yet other than some rule changes that have little chance of being enforced correctly IMHO.

Anyone who can't see the Washington Post is left is truly looney.

I'm somewhat liberal (I call myself a pragmatic liberal) and I consider the Post to be more moderate than left-leaning. I've read the Post for almost a decade. We should make a point of noting we're discussing the editorial page, but I find myself agreeing with them some of the time and disagreeing with them some of the time. To suggest that they are unquestionably left-leaning isn't a supportable assertion.

Fios wrote:To suggest that they are unquestionably left-leaning isn't a supportable assertion.

How about the assertion that the Post -- left, right, center, whatever -- is a supporter of government, period?

That used to be a common right-wing criticism of the left, but nowadays the Republicans aren't any closer than the Dems to being a small government party.

I think most of the "leftist" reputation that the media has acquired came because it generally is state-supportive, not because it is decidely 'liberal' in the sense that it's not Republican.

Fios wrote:I'm somewhat liberal (I call myself a pragmatic liberal) and I consider the Post to be more moderate than left-leaning. I've read the Post for almost a decade. We should make a point of noting we're discussing the editorial page, but I find myself agreeing with them some of the time and disagreeing with them some of the time. To suggest that they are unquestionably left-leaning isn't a supportable assertion.

You are hard left my friend if you think the post is moderate. There is nothing wrong with that, you are entitled to your views, except you are not being honest with yourself about it.

So you're omniscient then when it comes to my beliefs? Helpful trait Going to be rather difficult to have a reasonable discussion when only you can define what it is that I think.

Irn-Bru wrote:

Fios wrote:To suggest that they are unquestionably left-leaning isn't a supportable assertion.

How about the assertion that the Post -- left, right, center, whatever -- is a supporter of government, period?

That used to be a common right-wing criticism of the left, but nowadays the Republicans aren't any closer than the Dems to being a small government party.

I think most of the "leftist" reputation that the media has acquired came because it generally is state-supportive, not because it is decidely 'liberal' in the sense that it's not Republican.

I agree with this assessment of the Post