Now that the dust has settled and liberal democrats won control of both houses of Congress there are a few points that are worthy of note. As previously noted votes win elections, not polls. The polls had liberals winning a slim majority in the House and Republicans retaining control of the Senate. I would rather accept the findings of the polls.
Another point worth mentioning is that even with rampant liberal voter fraud in several urban areas and overwhelming liberal media distortions of truth, the public is not subjected to whining about the election being stolen or litigation in nearly every court in the land. Conservatives tend to be introspective and analytical about what they did wrong. Rampant liberal voter fraud and liberal media bias is common in every election. Yet, in previous years republicans convinced enough voters to overcome the fraud and media bias.
Also, the Republican loss seems to abide by historical trends for midterm elections. In1826, John Q. Adams lost control of the House to Democrats. In 1858, James Buchanan lost control of the House to the new Republican Party. In midterm elections during Republican presidencies since 1914 the GOP lost House seats in all ten elections. The average loss was 29 seats and the worst was 75 seats suffered by Harding in 1922. In 1974 the GOP lost 48 House seats after the resignation of Nixon. During Democrat presidencies the democrats lost seats in ten out of eleven midterm elections. The average loss was 39 seats and the worst was 71 seats in 1938, during FDR’s presidency. In 1994 Clinton and democrats lost 54 seats and control of the House.
The Senate has faired no better. During Republican presidencies the GOP lost seats in eight of eleven midterm elections. The average loss was 6 seats and the worst loss was13 seats in 1958, during Eisenhower’s second term. During Democrat presidencies the democrats lost seats in eight of eleven elections. The average loss was 6 seats and the worst loss was 12 seats in 1946 during Truman’s presidency.
History indicates that liberal democrats are not “Entitled” to power and the control of Congress is an ebb and flow process decided by the American voter. While historical trends are amusing, the enemy rejoicing at the outcome of the election is not.
Aaron Klein of WorldNetDaily interviewed terrorist leaders and their rhetoric should give Americans pause. Our enemy said they “hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party’s position on withdrawing from Iraq” ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance… an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are “tired.”
Jihad Jaara, of Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, said, “Of course Americans should vote Democrat.” It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud.” Muhammad Saadi, of Islamic Jihad, said, “Democrats” talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel “proud” from the great successes that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal.”
During the interviews WND read comments Nancy Pelosi made in a recent interview with 60 Minutes. “The jihadists are in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean we stay there. They”ll stay there as long as we”re there.” Terrorist leaders rejected her contention.
Abu Abdullah, of Hamas, said the policy of withdrawal “proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy.” Abu Ayman, of Islamic Jihad, said he “is emboldened” by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam. Saadi said, “There is no chance that the resistance will stop and withdraw will prove the resistance is the most important tool.” Jaara said an American withdrawal “would embolden them” and mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire. Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam.
Even our economic competitors are rejoicing. The liberally biased Guardian reported Europeans are sighing in relief that Americans put Democrats back in charge and refer to democrats as “the Canadians of American politics”. Interesting they are referred to as “Canadians”?
Abu Abdullah also cautioned that once Democrats are in power the U.S. still will not leave Iraq immediately because of such a “courageous leadership” (President Bush). This observation by the enemy is on point. It has been easy for liberals to sit on the sidelines and just criticize and obstruct. They won the election and now they must lead. Will liberal democrats put the interest of the nation first, or their hatred for President Bush? Will they use their power to implement petty investigations and perceived revenge? Or will the liberal leadership realize we must first vanquish the terrorist in Iraq and win the war on terror then we can participate in petty political squabbling?
Leave a Reply