Why the election was a good thing

Danny Carlton blogged First of all the margins are too thin to accomplish much.. Yes the Dims control the House, but if Webb is declared the winner in Virginia, then they control the Senate by one, and the one independent is Joe Leiberman, arguably one of the most conservative Democrats that was in the Senate, trashed by his own party, and now free to ignore any party loyalties he might have once held.

Also a LOT of the newly elected Democrats, in both houses, are conservative Democrats, and if the left wing of their party tries to push them to do too many liberal things, they may revolt.

I don't think they can count on him too much. So the Senate, while technically in the Dims hands, is really more or less a dead heat. And the White House is still Republican. So there's not a lot the Dims will be able to do, other that continuing to prevent Republicans from getting anything really successful done, then blame them for it. Meanwhile, on paper, they control both houses of Congress. So here we are, heading toward the 2008 election with the Dims controlling Congress, and a Republican in the White House.

And Bush can veto any actual tax increases, so all they can do is allow the tax cuts to expire, and most of them expire in the 2008 to 2010 period.

Americans have always had a soft spot for the underdog, and had we faced the 2008 election with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress we would have not had the benefit of that. As it is we can claim "underdog" status, while still maintaining enough power to prevent the Dims from really screwing things up, in the man time.

I assume you mean in the meantime.

We can emphasize the idiocy the Dims will inevitably display, and easily project it onto whatever moron they toss onto the ticket (Sometimes they make our jobs so easy, don't they. Please send Kerry in again, he's so fun to watch, but then again, he's hardly a challenge.)

Not likely, and if Hillary is smart she will accept the Senate Majority Leader position they offerred her, instead of running in 2008.

Even the most die-hard Dims know full well that pulling out of Iraq would be disastrous and that disaster can easily be blamed on Congress. President says stay; Congress says leave; we leave; Iraq melts into a free for all...we could run Yogi Berra after that fiasco and get him elected in a land slide. So it's unlikely, even after all their rhetorical posturing that the Democrats actually will pull us out of Iraq.

Then again, sometimes they are stupid enough to actually believe their own lies. So you never know.

If we stay we need to insist that they allow us to close down all of the militias, both Sunni and Shia, including Al Sader's, and if they refuse, we need to pack up and pull out, at least to Kuwait and nto the north to protect the Kurds.

They want to raise the minimum wage. A meaningless act, and everyone that has more than a Freshman economics understanding knows that. Very few minimum wage employees have a Freshman economic understanding, and that's the key. It's like the old trick of making your dog think you've thrown something up in the air, then watch him get all excited waiting for it to come down. "Here you go minimum wage workers. A raise! Oh and [mumbled under breath] prices will all go up, too." Personally I find it sick that the Democrats use a tactic like that, but then for the most part, their willingness to ignore basic morality is why they're Democrats.

So in the end we'll have two years of a lame duck Congress, unable to escape blame for the mess they do cause, leading up to an election which could easily toss control of the Presidency and Congress back to the Republicans. If only the GOP learned their lesson about abandoning the Conservative values that always win.

We need to find a lot of true conservatives (both fiscal and moral) and be ready for the 2008 primary season.