Pelosi Says The Democrats Won Last Night
Nov 4, 2009 Political
Last night was a bad night for Democrats. After storming in and taking Virginia last November, they lost the state by a huge margin. In New Jersey, where being a Democrat is a birthright, Corzine lost pretty big to Chris Christie.
In New York’s 23rd District, the Democrat beat the Conservative party candidate and this has Pelosi happy. She even used a little revisionist history to express her glee:
“From our perspective, we won last night,” the California Democrat told reporters during a Wednesday photo op. “We had one race that we were engaged in, it was in northern New York, it was a race where a Republican has held the seat since the Civil War. And we won that seat. So, from our standpoint, no, a candidate was victorious who supports health care reform, and his remarks last night said this was a victory for health care reform and other initiatives for the American people.” Politico [emphasis mine]
Maybe I am not that familiar with US History but I am sure that the Civil War took place from 1861-1865. So, according to the Facelift Queen, no Democrat has held the seat Democrats just won since then. The problem with that is that a number of Democrats have held the seat there since 1945 or 80 years after the Civil War ended.
- Walther Lynch 1945-1951
- Sidney Fine 1951–1953
- Peter Peyser 1973-1977
- Samuel Stratton 1983-1989
- Michael McNulty 1989-1993
There were other Democrats who held the seat during this time.
It was a good win for the Democrats but it is not relevant. They already have more than enough votes to pass what they want and the guy who won is reportedly a fiscal conservative (or Blue Dog) so he might not vote the way she wants. In addition, he has to run for reelection in a year so he can’t afford to tick off his new bosses (his constituents for you liberals). I am not worried about him winning. If a liberal is going to win then I would prefer it be a real Democrat and not a RINO like Scozzafava who was more liberal than the Democrat. Ideology over party.
Pelosi can be happy but the bigger picture is the loss if Independents in Virgina and New Jersey. If this trend continues then Democrats in red states are going to have a tough time next year.
They have to be nervous right now so will they be willing to walk the plank for Pelosi and risk their jobs?
We will know in the next few weeks and in less than a year we will know how their decisions affected them.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: blue dog, civil war, election, Pelosi, revisionist history, worry
Obama Sidesteps Confederate Controversy
May 26, 2009 Military, Political
Obama was out doing his Memorial Day duties and he laid the wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns. He also had a wreath laid at the Confederate Monument. This is something that he was urged not to do as some groups of people want the tradition stopped. As a compromise Obama had a wreath placed at the monument for blacks who fought in the Civil War.
Why is it that some people cannot get it through their heads that the men who fought and died as members of the Confederate Army were as patriotic as those who fought for the Union. The men of the Confederate States left the Union because of state’s rights. The issue of slavery was NOT the reason for the war. Slavery was but one issue in a host of them dealing with state’s rights.
The Southern States seceded from the Union based upon the agreement that all states entered the Union willingly and could leave it if they wanted. The South was getting the short end of the stick and they did not like it so they went left the Union.
The flag they used was based upon the Union Jack and though it has been associated with racism and slavery it is nothing of the sort. Only small minded, uneducated people believe that flag is a symbol of racism. It is a symbol of people who were tired of an abusive government and who wanted the states to have the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The war of Northern aggression was a war designed to force states to comply with what the government wanted regardless of what the people from the states wanted. The federal government attacked former states and former citizens of the US in order to force them to comply with the wishes of big government.
Slavery was a terrible and inhumane thing to do. It was legal at the time but that does not make it any less inhuman or wrong just as it is no less a murder (inhuman and wrong) to abort a baby just because the law does not define a fetus as a person. However, slavery as an institution was on the way out in the more developed nations. The others ended it without bloodshed and it would not have lasted much longer here even without a war.
The war was waged over state’s rights and slavery was a part of that. To get upset because we honor great people who fought for what they believed in and, I might add, were defending themselves against unprovoked aggression is to ignore the history of this country. Lincoln started the war. The South would have been very happy to secede and be done with it. They were compelled to respond with force because they were attacked.
It is right and just to honor those men just as we honor any others who have died in the service here. After all, they are buried in a national cemetery or does some group want to dig them up and move them as well?
The monument and the wreath are appropriate.
Any group that does not think so dishonors the memories of those who are laid to rest in that most solemn place and dishonors what they truly fought and died for.
Source:
ABC Political Punch
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: arlington, civil war, confederacy, slaves, union
Democrats Cannot Embrace Victory
Nov 25, 2007 Military, Political
The problem with the Democrats, besides their weakness on national security, is that they want to win so badly they will say of do anything to get elected. This includes slandering our troops and changing their points of view in order to refocus the attention of the electorate. For the longest time the Democrats claimed that George Bush was not listening to his commanders on the ground (though commanders say he was) but when commanders asked for more troops and Bush listened (the surge) the Democrats criticized the President for actually listening to his commanders. They said the surge would not work and that we are in the middle of a civil war.
The surge is giving us great results so the Democrats have to change tactics. The first one was to slander an American hero named General Petraeus. MoveOn.org and other leftist groups like Code Pinko slandered the man and his message because his assessment did not say what they wanted, as if they understand the military or its tactics. This did not pan out well so they changed gears and started telling everyone that these indications of success were not really success because there are still Americans dying. Now that the success of the surge is undeniable the Democrats have taken a new course and that is to say that the military has made progress on the ground but the Iraqis have not done anything to sure up their political situation so the effort is really a failure. Hillary Clinton, who opposed the surge, is saying that since there are still troops dying and since the Iraqis have not done what they need to then we need to leave because we are being a referee in a civil war.
It is important to note that Hillary has no military experience and her only contact with military subjects is when she defended her husband for dodging the draft and sitting on the Senate Armed Services Committee, a post she asked for to give the impression she cares for the military. We veterans know she does not support the troops and that she will get very little of the military vote. She is the one who basically called General Petraeus a liar. We are expected to believe that Hillary, who sits on her ample derrière in DC knows more than the guy leading troops in Iraq. The guy getting shot at is the liar while the question planting, flip-flopping, triangulating, poll watcher is telling us the truth. Right… Likewise, Obama and Edwards have no military experience.
It is obvious that the Democrats cannot embrace victory and they take every chance to slander our troops. Jack Murtha convicted a bunch of Marines before they were ever charged and thus applied undue influence on the case. Harry Reid has stated that we have lost the war, Clinton, Obama and Edwards all have differing plans that involve pulling our troops out of Iraq, and the other members of the Democratic Party keep telling us how either we are losing or the surge is not working. When even the New York Times (the mouthpiece for the left in America) reports that our troops are doing well then something must be going on.
These Democrats, especially the ones running for president, want to lead this country and want to be the leader of our military. How can they possibly lead the military when they do not support the military. They continually fail to provide money for the troops and they insist on pulling our troops out in defeat and disgrace. They cannot grasp the idea of victory and they do not understand the consequences of their actions. They change the rules, or move the goal posts back, in order to keep pressure on their plan for defeat. They cannot allow us to win and they cannot allow our troops to be successful or it will be bad for their ambitions.
We need a president who will lead us to victory and we need a majority in Congress who defines success as winning more than just the next election (say no to incumbents).
Source:
New York Times
Others with similar items:
Perri Nelson’s Website, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, 123beta, Stix Blog, The Uncooperative Radio Show!, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Phastidio.net, Chuck Adkins, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, Stageleft, Right Voices, and Adeline and Hazel, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: american hero, civil war, Democrats, dodging the draft, general petraeus, george bush, Hillary Clinton, leftist groups, military experience, military subjects, moveon org, pinko, senate armed services committee, support the troops