MichFan

Campy - the link you provided does not contain the word bible or scripture. Nice try, thanks for playing. VABledsoe - A quote does not a link make. Funny how you libs keep trying to pin your talking points on Bush. Before the election it was that he flip-flopped on civil unions, and I proved to the kool-aiders that Bush has consistently supported states rights to allow civil unions. Now you attempt to imply through jest that Bush selectively uses biblical references when it supports his policies yet flatly rejects them when they get in the way. Again, not true. He is a man of faith and prays to his Lord. Why hold this against him and claim that he governs from the Bible? Gay marriage and questions of when life begins are issues in main stream society, they are not purely religious issues. Bush has done an excellent job keeping these as social issues from a governmental perspective. Quit trying to produce something that isn't there for your own convenience. Just because evangelicals align with conservative social policies does not mean that conservative social policies originate from scripture. This morals thing is just eating you libs up -- first that morals are even important, second that you've got no clue what voters mean when they say morals. Here's a hint -- the talking heads on T.V. who claim to have spent time in flyover country to get in touch with middle America must have spent their time in the wrong places because they still don't have a clue. Start thinking for yourselves because they are no help. (Campy and VABledsoe -- you guys actually seem to be a little more thoughtful and moderate so this paragraph isn't so much targeted at you as it is the bleeding hearts).

Could one of you libs please provide just one link to an article in which Bush is cited opposing gay marriage on the basis of scripture? Heck, I'll even take a link where Bush uses the words bible and gay marriage in the same paragraph. Thanks.

Says a lot about the state of the Dems that they have higher hopes of getting some Repubs to bail from the party than actually winning seats in an election.

Those words are taken straight from the pens of liberal writers in the MSM. I'm not making it up. I agree that the liberal MSM has gone from laughing-my-arse-off funny to just plain boring in their (now) tired and repetitive attacks on anyone who didn't buy into their brainwashing and voted for Bush.

Here we are one week removed from the election day, and the assault by libs on flyover country and those with religion has all but assured that the Repubs will continue to increase power if they move forward with a socially conservative agenda over the next 2 years. In 2006 there are 15 Repubs and 18 Dems up for re-election in the Senate. 20 out of 33 Repub wins will not be unachievable, which would give the Repubs a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate. What was potentially a once-in-a-generation turnout for Republicans will surely become a steadfast, reliable base of voters as long as the assault on their values continues. The Dems should have rebounded by now by making Evan Bayh and Joe Lieberman highly visible on talking head shows. Instead I see the uber-liberal media elites pontificating about the American Christian jihad that has returned Bush to power and the bigotry of the 70%+ who oppose gay marriage. The scary thing for Dems is that an economic recovery by 2006 minimizes the will of their base to vote in a midterm, while the Repub base already can't wait for the midterms to finish the revolution against the liberal counterculture.

Suddenly had a flashback to the late '90s when ICE couldn't seem to make up his mind re: Flutie and Johnson. Now I understand why he likes Kerry so much .

Your side was saying the same thing in the 1980's when it came to the USSR, which makes me even more confident that we will succeed. I'd actually be concerned if you agreed with me.

You stop terrorism by successfully reforming the Middle East. Bush's policy in doing this is brilliant because he is using our military to remove tyrants and help secure the countries, while at the same time leaving it up to the nations to establish their own form of democracy. When it's all said and done in Afghanistan and Iraq, people won't be able to say they have puppet governments. This template can then be used in other countries, even beyond the region (e.g., SE Asia). Option A is you guys do it yourself without needing the U.S. involved. Option B is we come in and take care of your government and then leave you to do your own freewill. At the end, any islamofacist terrorists remaining who still despise freedom and democracy will have plenty of targets to go after without bothering us.

Simply clueless Again, Thank God your man lost.

You call running John Kerry and John Edwards on the ticket intellectually superior? Add to that the fact that Kerry was your backup plan and Howard Dean was the guy most libs wanted. 60 in the Senate is looking more and more likely

The U.S. has always had a fascination with promoting freedom and democracy across the world.

Thank God your man lost. This is exactly the kind of thinking that empowered terrorists in the Middle East throughout the 90's.

Imagine that, Germans upset about war and liberation. Guess they see a little of themselves in those jihadists...

Clinton - no way. But don't be surprised to see a more moderate Dem get something (e.g., Breaux from Louisiana, if willing).

Please keep this attitude up, libs!!!! Mid-terms are only 2 years away and 60 seats in the Senate could be do-able.

Look at the House, look at the Senate, look at the margin of victory for Bush. If that isn't a mandate then I don't know that there ever has been one. Take your medicine and work to reform your party. Keep up with the obstructionist attitude and it'll only prolong the suffering.

It will happen under Bush, how far it goes is up to the Dems. If the Dems are willing to make some tough decisions in a bipartisan effort, a lot can be done with the grudging understanding of Americans. If the Dems try to make it a wedge issue, something will still get done but not enough.

Just one official gloat... Hey RCow, Tennyboy, blzrul/nozzlenut, and all you other MIA Kool-Aid libs -- BUSH WINS!!!! BUSH WINS!!!! BUSH WINS!!!! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 4 MORE YEARS! 3-4 SUPREME COURT APPOINTMENTS! INCREASED CONTROL OF HOUSE! INCREASED CONTROL OF SENATE! HALIBURTON STOCK UP! ANWAR BEING PREPPED! UN TO BE EVICTED FROM NY! NO MORE SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS FOR SENIORS! THE HANDICAPPED TO REMAIN STUCK IN THEIR WHEELCHAIRS! MORE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! MORE CORPORATE CONTROL OF DC! MORE SAUDI CONTROL! MORE LOSS OF JOBS! FREEDOM FRIES LIVE ON! PROBABLY 10 MILLION DISENFRANCHISED BLACK VOTERS THIS TIME AROUND! MORE BUSH LIES!!!!!!!!! BUSH WINS!!!! BUSH WINS!!!! BUSH WINS!!!!

Bush has the longest coat tails in recent memory. Too bad he's off the bottle or else he may have eked out another Senate seat in Colorado (Pete Coors). When I saw the Coors/Salazar debate over the weekend I really liked Coors' position on forcing financial accountability and disclosure for the federal government.

Edwards was just painful to listen to. I felt bad for Kerry having to wait through Edwards' 2008 primary speech to get to his concession speech. I felt it was particularly inappropriate that Edwards talked divisively about the two parties when Kerry was waiting to talk about uniting and working together (of course, don't they always say that when they lose the Presidency, Senate, and House?) Kerry did a great job early on explaining his decision to concede and that the votes he would need just aren't there. As I said earlier, this was a classy move. Terayyyza must be on some serious sedatives. I can't wait to hear what she has to say when the perscription runs out.

Think maybe Lockhart (Clinton confidant) told Edwards to go out there and say that? That pretty much ended any aspirations for Edwards in 2008. Especially the silly grins and Clintonesque thumbs ups.

Classy move by John Kerry. In the end, I feel a little sorry for him. The John Kerry I saw in the late 1990's always impressed me as a man who might be the Dem candidate. When it came to fruition he was a mere shadow of that man I saw. Howard Dean and the Deaniacs forced Kerry into taking positions that were inconsistent with his past and some that I don't even think he believed in -- then they didn't show up and vote for him in large enough numbers (based on youth vote returns). The Micheal Moore wing of the Dem party forced him to take criticisms of Bush too far in the minds of the middle and helped energize Repubs. The Clinton holdovers forced him to pull foolish stunts to be a man of the people (e.g., hunting, windsurfing, Bon Jovi, Bruce). The Shrum wing led him into the "reporting for duty" speech and opened him up to the attacks from the Swifties. The Gore-was-robbed crew demanded anger at and disrespect for Bush. Terayyza couldn't keep her mouth shut. Edwards was AWOL. If the Dems want to point blame at anyone, each one of them needs simply to look in the mirror. Every criticism that can be launched at Kerry is a reflection from within a bitter and fragmented party. Kerry's failure is that in the end he did not have the leadership to unite the fragments behind him rather than against Bush. As such it is a good thing he is not President at this point in history. By conceding in such a classy way, Kerry has finally provided leadership in setting a new tone for the Dem party going forward.

Thanks, Mick.

This point was well communicated in Ohio. I think the collective attitude was it was better to go too far but act quickly then to wait another 2-4 years. Don't be surprised to see a follow-up ballot initiative that relaxes the language on civil unions.